I was amazed and pleased to learn that the Congress had refused to sign off on amnesty for the telecommunications companies and the extension of the “Protect America Act of 2007”. Here’s a little blurb on it from the OMB Watcher Vol. 9 No. 4:
***********************************************************************
House Forces Expiration of Protect America Act
During the week of Feb. 11, the White House and Democrats in Congress exchanged blows over whether and how to extend the surveillance powers of the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA). The Senate's approach, the FISA Amendments Act (S. 2248), included a provision granting immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the government monitor citizens through its warrantless wiretapping program. The House leadership, opposed to immunity for telecommunications companies, refused to consider the bill. Instead, House leaders wanted to pass a three-week extension of PAA powers to give themselves time to resolve differences with the Senate, but House Republicans blocked the move. As a result, the PAA expired at midnight Eastern time on Feb. 16. Despite the expiration, the government still has numerous surveillance tools available as debate continues.
Concurrently, I received the article below from Democrats.com. If you agree that the House and Senate are on the right track here, please take a minute to place the calls their bulletin requests. I am not a registered Democrat at the moment, but for this election I certainly can’t see any other way to go. I voted Democrat last year hoping to give them a majority in the Congress and have been disappointed in their inability to take advantage of that position since, but at this point it looks like they might be starting to hold their ground. Pelosi has always been a big part of the problem from my viewpoint (check my archives for “Impeach the Democrats”), so calling her to tell her to get some backbone seems like a good idea to me.
The right is screaming that this weakens our national security, but FISA remains in force. While it was initially passed about 30 years ago, it is not true (as BushCo argues) that it is outdated. It has been updated about 50 times and even allows wiretapping prior to court approval. Approval just has to be sought within a couple of days and does not have to go through a regular court. Approvals are very nearly automatic and the decision is always swift. BushCo just wants the right to tap anybody anytime without the possibility of court interference. The stakes are too high to allow that.
**********************************************************************
THURSDAY Feb. 21: "You are Not a Lap Dog!" Call-In Day
Call Speaker Pelosi at 202-225-0100 and Majority Leader Hoyer at 202-225-4131. Tell them to stay strong against warrantless wiretapping and $102 billion more for Iraq.
In a surprising and long-overdue display of courage, the House Democratic leadership last week stood up to Bush and refused to bring to the floor a bill that would allow Bush to continue to spy on the people of this country without a warrant. Also every Democrat but one voted to hold Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton in contempt of Congress. Can this newfound Democratic courage last?
We need Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to continue to stand strong against domestic spying and telecom immunity. And we need them to learn that they do have power if they choose to use it, and apply this lesson to ending the occupation of Iraq. Pelosi and Hoyer can start by simply refusing to allow Bush's $102 billion Iraq war funding request to come up for a vote.
Thursday Feb. 21: Join United for Peace and Justice, Democrats.com, AfterDowningStreet.org, Progressive Democrats of America, and other groups in a Massive National "You are NOT a Lap Dog*" Call-In Day!
Call Speaker Pelosi at 202-225-0100 and Majority Leader Hoyer at 202-225-4131. If you don't get through to a person, leave a voicemail.
Talking points:
1. Thank you for standing up against Bush's warrantless wiretapping, and keep standing up.
2. Stand up against Bush's new $102 billion Iraq war funding request by refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote.
In addition to your call, please sign our petition to your own Representative and Senators: No More Funds for Iraq http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/124
This Democratic Congress was elected to end the war, but they have given Bush one blank check after another, most recently for $70 billion on January 16. But 42 Democrats and 4 Republicans finally said no in January, so our calls and emails are making a difference, and we need to keep up the pressure.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll011.xml
And we must do more than call and email - we must take to the streets and put pressure directly on our Representatives. Here's a flyer you can hand out in front of your Representative's office today:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/outofiraq-wanted-flyer
Connect with other Democrats.com members in your Congressional District (login required):
http://democrats.com/local
Look down to your Congressional District, read past posts and add your comments, or create a new post with your ideas and plans.
In mid-March, UFPJ member groups and allies around the country will mobilize for a wide range of powerful actions marking the 5th anniversary of the war and occupation in Iraq. Join us in March to say, 5 YEARS TOO MANY! http://resistinmarch.org
Background
* "We're not the lap dog of the president or the United States Senate."
-Rep Hoyer on Feb. 13, when the House leadership refused to bow to political pressure on warrantless wiretapping.
Early last week, the Senate passed an extension of the Orwellian "Protect America Act" that allows Bush to wiretap all of us without a warrant and offered immunity to telecoms that facilitated illegal wiretaps in the past. Bush and the Senate wanted the House to quickly pass the Senate bill, because the act expires on Feb. 15. The House stood up to Bush and the Senate and allowed the "Protect America Act" to expire. The fear-mongering has not stopped, with Bush claiming that terrorists are planning an attack that will far surpass 9/11, and he will be helpless to stop them without the ability to spy on us without a warrant.
Unfortunately, the battle over domestic spying and telecom immunity is not over. The House will return to the subject next week. The leadership must be assured that they did the right thing by refusing to bow to pressure and fear mongering, and that they must continue to defend the Constitution.
The battle over FISA teaches an important lesson about Congressional power - the Democrats have it, if they care to use it. Pelosi and Hoyer have demonstrated that they are willing to go to the mat over domestic spying and telecom immunity - now we want to see them go to the mat to end the occupation of Iraq.
Bush has requested another $102 billion for Iraq - which would push total spending on the war so far above $624 billion. Rep. John Murtha, Chair of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, is preparing a bill to fund that request. He says the bill will be ready by the end of February. The peace movement will have to wage a strong campaign to defeat the war supplemental, or to turn it into a bill that only funds the withdrawal of all troops and contractors. It won't be easy - the presidential elections are capturing the attention of activists and the general public. We must keep the pressure on!
To subscribe, create a free Democrats.com account here:
http://www.democrats.com/user/register
*******************************************************************
A SPECIAL NOTE TO THOSE WHO ARE LOSING HEART: If there is any way to thwart the efforts of the neo-cons to exert inappropriate control over the citizenry, it is active resistance on the part of the people. Throughout history that force has unseated kings and freed entire populations from tyranny. Each step seems ineffective, the cost is high, and the process takes too much time and effort, but the results can be worth it.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
On The Supreme Court and Cuba
A couple of headlines caught my eye this morning. The one that rang my bell the loudest was that the Supreme court had decided not to hear a lawsuit against the BushCo domestic surveillance program. In spite recent history, I’m still ready to accept the court as a valid weight in the balance of powers although there is no question that it is not a politically balanced body at this point and so cannot be expected to be cutting edge in moving the country forward as some on both sides of the aisle wish it to be.
But, in my view, leadership is not its reason for existence anyway. The courts purpose is to review legislative and administrative actions to determine whether or not they comply with the requirements of the Constitution. That’s exactly why this ruling rubbed me the wrong way. It wasn’t the headline that grabbed me. It was the explanation for the rejection that was buried in the story that earned my attention.
The issue came to the attention of the Supreme Court because the ACLU appealed when the 6th U.S. Circuit Court dismissed a Detroit federal judge’s ruling in favor of the ACLU on the grounds that, “. . .the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.”
The next line in the story was, “The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.”
It seems to me that the country is in trouble when the Supreme Court won’t hear a case because the injured parties can’t prove the damage because the government won’t release records that could prove the injury. What a circular argument! Shouldn’t the first step be to force the government to release such records? Instead, the refusal to pursue the case offers tacit shelter to the government with the silent message that they can do anything as long as they aren’t caught.
I don’t know any more than you do whether or not the government has inappropriately wiretapped American citizens as this case purports, but I do believe in openness in government and the right to privacy guaranteed by our Constitution.
Probably the main difference between me and my friends on the right who will say the government is only acting to keep us safe in the face of terroristic threat is that I believe that the biggest threat to our freedom comes from within the country not from some bearded cave dwelling terrorists halfway around the globe. That threat is real, too, but when our own government refuses to explain its processes and motivations to its own citizens through its own court system, then I become very suspicious of that government.
The second story that caught my eye was about the resignation of Fidel Castro. I vaguely remember Castro’s triumph in driving Batista out of Cuba. It was celebrated in Cuba at the time by a citizenry that had grown tired of being beaten down by an elitist government that enriched itself and its friends by catering to the hedonistic desires of the rich who came there to party and the corporations who came to take advantage of cheap labor in the production of exportable agricultural products.
Castro’s promise was to destroy the elites and lift up the impoverished. It was a promise he fulfilled, but it was a promise that did not fit well with the economic desires of the United States. In shopping for the support the limited resources of his country needed in order to survive, he chose alignment with the Soviet Union over alignment with the United States. Why? I think it was because the spoken ideology (as opposed to the actual reality) of the Communist Party was to share the wealth of the nation among the people of the nation. On the other hand, the western world had already established a very negative history in South America and the Caribbean region as plunderers who had never hesitated to topple governments that did not comply with their strategy of production, which always included cheap labor and ownership by corporations based outside the host country.
To a large degree, Fidel lived the philosophy he espoused. Certainly he lived at a higher standard than the average Cuban, but he did not become a grossly wealthy man and he did not install the corporate and governmental means by which to keep his people downtrodden. He did improve schools and emplace a health care system that enhanced the quality of life for his citizenry.
His brother, Raul, now president, may or may not be capable of running the country. Hopefully, he will reduce the restrictions on the personal freedoms of his people, but if so he will have to deal with a potentially large number of émigrés. Certainly he will be faced with the same problems his brother faced in terms of the lack of resources capable of making his a rich, competitive nation. For that reason, he will be forced to forge alliances with other nations in order to achieve any level of economic well-being for his people.
Will the United States offer itself as an ally and thus perhaps move away from the adversarial position that has kept our two nations at more than arms length for the past 50 years, or will we continue our stance of isolation and so force Cuba to continue and perhaps expand its ties to the old guard Soviets who seem to be gaining ascendancy in Russia and other eastern nations today?
What do you think?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
But, in my view, leadership is not its reason for existence anyway. The courts purpose is to review legislative and administrative actions to determine whether or not they comply with the requirements of the Constitution. That’s exactly why this ruling rubbed me the wrong way. It wasn’t the headline that grabbed me. It was the explanation for the rejection that was buried in the story that earned my attention.
The issue came to the attention of the Supreme Court because the ACLU appealed when the 6th U.S. Circuit Court dismissed a Detroit federal judge’s ruling in favor of the ACLU on the grounds that, “. . .the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.”
The next line in the story was, “The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.”
It seems to me that the country is in trouble when the Supreme Court won’t hear a case because the injured parties can’t prove the damage because the government won’t release records that could prove the injury. What a circular argument! Shouldn’t the first step be to force the government to release such records? Instead, the refusal to pursue the case offers tacit shelter to the government with the silent message that they can do anything as long as they aren’t caught.
I don’t know any more than you do whether or not the government has inappropriately wiretapped American citizens as this case purports, but I do believe in openness in government and the right to privacy guaranteed by our Constitution.
Probably the main difference between me and my friends on the right who will say the government is only acting to keep us safe in the face of terroristic threat is that I believe that the biggest threat to our freedom comes from within the country not from some bearded cave dwelling terrorists halfway around the globe. That threat is real, too, but when our own government refuses to explain its processes and motivations to its own citizens through its own court system, then I become very suspicious of that government.
The second story that caught my eye was about the resignation of Fidel Castro. I vaguely remember Castro’s triumph in driving Batista out of Cuba. It was celebrated in Cuba at the time by a citizenry that had grown tired of being beaten down by an elitist government that enriched itself and its friends by catering to the hedonistic desires of the rich who came there to party and the corporations who came to take advantage of cheap labor in the production of exportable agricultural products.
Castro’s promise was to destroy the elites and lift up the impoverished. It was a promise he fulfilled, but it was a promise that did not fit well with the economic desires of the United States. In shopping for the support the limited resources of his country needed in order to survive, he chose alignment with the Soviet Union over alignment with the United States. Why? I think it was because the spoken ideology (as opposed to the actual reality) of the Communist Party was to share the wealth of the nation among the people of the nation. On the other hand, the western world had already established a very negative history in South America and the Caribbean region as plunderers who had never hesitated to topple governments that did not comply with their strategy of production, which always included cheap labor and ownership by corporations based outside the host country.
To a large degree, Fidel lived the philosophy he espoused. Certainly he lived at a higher standard than the average Cuban, but he did not become a grossly wealthy man and he did not install the corporate and governmental means by which to keep his people downtrodden. He did improve schools and emplace a health care system that enhanced the quality of life for his citizenry.
His brother, Raul, now president, may or may not be capable of running the country. Hopefully, he will reduce the restrictions on the personal freedoms of his people, but if so he will have to deal with a potentially large number of émigrés. Certainly he will be faced with the same problems his brother faced in terms of the lack of resources capable of making his a rich, competitive nation. For that reason, he will be forced to forge alliances with other nations in order to achieve any level of economic well-being for his people.
Will the United States offer itself as an ally and thus perhaps move away from the adversarial position that has kept our two nations at more than arms length for the past 50 years, or will we continue our stance of isolation and so force Cuba to continue and perhaps expand its ties to the old guard Soviets who seem to be gaining ascendancy in Russia and other eastern nations today?
What do you think?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
They Still Don't Get It
I got quite a phone call this morning in response to my letter published in the News-Leader yesterday. It was a blocked call, so the caller was unwilling to let me know who he was, but he wasn’t reticent about sharing his opinion, opening and closing his call with, “Before you write another letter, you’d better get your facts straight.”
In the course of the call, he contended that Jimmy Carter was responsible for the 18% interest rates that cropped up during his administration, that the war in Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein refused to let WMD inspectors into his country, and that “This country is not ready for a black Muslim or a woman to be president”.
He did ultimately agree with me that no president was capable of single-handedly affecting interest rates. His position there ultimately became that this was true because Congress and the Courts tied a president’s hands. He had no response, though, when I replied that it was this president’s attempts to remove the balance of powers that most strongly led me to fault him.
When I said that it was Bill Clinton who pulled the inspectors out of Iraq, he denied that saying I still had my facts wrong and went off onto a tangent about how Clinton bombed the wrong targets then anyway. I didn’t get a chance to follow up with the FACT that, in the face of many requests by the inspection teams to do so, W refused to consider sending inspectors back in.
As to his assertion that the country just isn’t ready for a black man or white woman to be president, my response was that the same thing was said about civil rights in 1964 and that the country had better get ready because one or the other was about to be president.
My new friend’s final assertion was that Clinton has said that she believed the Saddam had WMD’s too, proving that Bush had only acted on the best intelligence available at the time. To this, I said that Bush had picked through and twisted the intelligence available at the time in order to mislead the Congress into supporting his push for war.
This continues to be a bone of contention though it doesn’t take much fact sifting to find the truth. For any far-rights who might be reading this blog, I include the following which comes from an article written by one of America’s leading historians. (See: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_president_in_history)
“All the while, Bush and the most powerful figures in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were planting the seeds for the crises to come by diverting the struggle against Al Qaeda toward an all-out effort to topple their pre-existing target, Saddam Hussein. In a deliberate political decision, the administration stampeded the Congress and a traumatized citizenry into the Iraq invasion on the basis of what has now been demonstrated to be tendentious and perhaps fabricated evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat to American security, one that the White House suggested included nuclear weapons. Instead of emphasizing any political, diplomatic or humanitarian aspects of a war on Iraq -- an appeal that would have sounded too "sensitive," as Cheney once sneered -- the administration built a "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked, preventive warfare, based on speculative threats and embracing principles previously abjured by every previous generation of U.S. foreign policy-makers, even at the height of the Cold War. The president did so with premises founded, in the case of Iraq, on wishful thinking. He did so while proclaiming an expansive Wilsonian rhetoric of making the world safe for democracy -- yet discarding the multilateralism and systems of international law (including the Geneva Conventions) that emanated from Wilson's idealism. He did so while dismissing intelligence that an American invasion could spark a long and bloody civil war among Iraq's fierce religious and ethnic rivals, reports that have since proved true. And he did so after repeated warnings by military officials such as Gen. Eric Shinseki that pacifying postwar Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of American troops -- accurate estimates that Paul Wolfowitz and other Bush policy gurus ridiculed as "wildly off the mark."
When William F. Buckley, the man whom many credit as the founder of the modern conservative movement, writes categorically, as he did in February, that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed," then something terrible has happened.”
A majority of historians, by the way, are on record as considering George W. Bush the worst president in the history of this nation. Here, taken from the same article, is a one paragraph explanation of why they feel that way:
“Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.”
Sadly, I have long thought noticed that “unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy” is far too common a valid description of people like my caller. At the bottom line, their biggest objection to those of us who take positions in opposition to this administration is that we refuse to honor the office and follow the president in everywhere he wants to take us.
That’s just a little too much like goose-stepping for me.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
In the course of the call, he contended that Jimmy Carter was responsible for the 18% interest rates that cropped up during his administration, that the war in Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein refused to let WMD inspectors into his country, and that “This country is not ready for a black Muslim or a woman to be president”.
He did ultimately agree with me that no president was capable of single-handedly affecting interest rates. His position there ultimately became that this was true because Congress and the Courts tied a president’s hands. He had no response, though, when I replied that it was this president’s attempts to remove the balance of powers that most strongly led me to fault him.
When I said that it was Bill Clinton who pulled the inspectors out of Iraq, he denied that saying I still had my facts wrong and went off onto a tangent about how Clinton bombed the wrong targets then anyway. I didn’t get a chance to follow up with the FACT that, in the face of many requests by the inspection teams to do so, W refused to consider sending inspectors back in.
As to his assertion that the country just isn’t ready for a black man or white woman to be president, my response was that the same thing was said about civil rights in 1964 and that the country had better get ready because one or the other was about to be president.
My new friend’s final assertion was that Clinton has said that she believed the Saddam had WMD’s too, proving that Bush had only acted on the best intelligence available at the time. To this, I said that Bush had picked through and twisted the intelligence available at the time in order to mislead the Congress into supporting his push for war.
This continues to be a bone of contention though it doesn’t take much fact sifting to find the truth. For any far-rights who might be reading this blog, I include the following which comes from an article written by one of America’s leading historians. (See: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_president_in_history)
“All the while, Bush and the most powerful figures in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were planting the seeds for the crises to come by diverting the struggle against Al Qaeda toward an all-out effort to topple their pre-existing target, Saddam Hussein. In a deliberate political decision, the administration stampeded the Congress and a traumatized citizenry into the Iraq invasion on the basis of what has now been demonstrated to be tendentious and perhaps fabricated evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat to American security, one that the White House suggested included nuclear weapons. Instead of emphasizing any political, diplomatic or humanitarian aspects of a war on Iraq -- an appeal that would have sounded too "sensitive," as Cheney once sneered -- the administration built a "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked, preventive warfare, based on speculative threats and embracing principles previously abjured by every previous generation of U.S. foreign policy-makers, even at the height of the Cold War. The president did so with premises founded, in the case of Iraq, on wishful thinking. He did so while proclaiming an expansive Wilsonian rhetoric of making the world safe for democracy -- yet discarding the multilateralism and systems of international law (including the Geneva Conventions) that emanated from Wilson's idealism. He did so while dismissing intelligence that an American invasion could spark a long and bloody civil war among Iraq's fierce religious and ethnic rivals, reports that have since proved true. And he did so after repeated warnings by military officials such as Gen. Eric Shinseki that pacifying postwar Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of American troops -- accurate estimates that Paul Wolfowitz and other Bush policy gurus ridiculed as "wildly off the mark."
When William F. Buckley, the man whom many credit as the founder of the modern conservative movement, writes categorically, as he did in February, that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed," then something terrible has happened.”
A majority of historians, by the way, are on record as considering George W. Bush the worst president in the history of this nation. Here, taken from the same article, is a one paragraph explanation of why they feel that way:
“Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.”
Sadly, I have long thought noticed that “unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy” is far too common a valid description of people like my caller. At the bottom line, their biggest objection to those of us who take positions in opposition to this administration is that we refuse to honor the office and follow the president in everywhere he wants to take us.
That’s just a little too much like goose-stepping for me.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Monday, February 18, 2008
Our Tangled Webs
On January 17 I wrote a blog about having to eat crow because my opposition to the surge may have turned out to be wrong. I thought the surge would accomplish nothing, but it turned out to have quelled some of the violence between insurgent factions by channeling their energies toward fighting Al Qaida instead of each other.
On further reflection, though, I think my crow lunch may have been a bit premature. At this point, the violence remains reduced, but a picture is emerging of a nation that remains terribly divided and a relative peace that was purchased rather than gained. It is quite possible that we purchased a temporary truce and noone’s loyalty to the cause of a stable Iraq. (See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2937104.ece)
I still prefer the tactics General Patraeus employed in the surge to those Paul Bremmer initially used, but the overall impact of the surge will take some time to emerge.
One hugely unexplored and underreported aspect is the effect all of this is having on our own troops. They are stretched dangerously thin. They have been giving their all and then some for too long now and there is no sign that the surge is going to generate any change that will offer them relief. In fact, the opposite is more likely the case since the Pentagon is now talking about having to retain the surge troops in position beyond the time initially scheduled. That means there is no relief in sight for those troops that were already in-country before the surge.
The horror stories being faced by our military personnel continue to surface, too. A good friend reports a family member transferred from the Air Force to the Marines and told to accept an assignment in Iraq that is twice the length required by the agreement between the two branches or face immediate transfer upon his return to the states. As that would translate into a forced move for his entire family involving the sale of their home in a down market and a high school senior who would be faced with the loss of the college scholarships she has been working toward, this amounts to blackmail. Add that kind of thing to reports that the PTSD level for any troops that have served in Iraq is running at about 1/3, plus tales of families whose children have been taken from them because a parent has been out of the country in Iraq too long, and you have a picture of a military whose moral must be nearly ripped to shreds by a government forced into an inescapable corner by this country’s horrendously bad decision to go to Iraq in the first place.
“Oh, what tangled webs we weave . . .”
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
On further reflection, though, I think my crow lunch may have been a bit premature. At this point, the violence remains reduced, but a picture is emerging of a nation that remains terribly divided and a relative peace that was purchased rather than gained. It is quite possible that we purchased a temporary truce and noone’s loyalty to the cause of a stable Iraq. (See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2937104.ece)
I still prefer the tactics General Patraeus employed in the surge to those Paul Bremmer initially used, but the overall impact of the surge will take some time to emerge.
One hugely unexplored and underreported aspect is the effect all of this is having on our own troops. They are stretched dangerously thin. They have been giving their all and then some for too long now and there is no sign that the surge is going to generate any change that will offer them relief. In fact, the opposite is more likely the case since the Pentagon is now talking about having to retain the surge troops in position beyond the time initially scheduled. That means there is no relief in sight for those troops that were already in-country before the surge.
The horror stories being faced by our military personnel continue to surface, too. A good friend reports a family member transferred from the Air Force to the Marines and told to accept an assignment in Iraq that is twice the length required by the agreement between the two branches or face immediate transfer upon his return to the states. As that would translate into a forced move for his entire family involving the sale of their home in a down market and a high school senior who would be faced with the loss of the college scholarships she has been working toward, this amounts to blackmail. Add that kind of thing to reports that the PTSD level for any troops that have served in Iraq is running at about 1/3, plus tales of families whose children have been taken from them because a parent has been out of the country in Iraq too long, and you have a picture of a military whose moral must be nearly ripped to shreds by a government forced into an inescapable corner by this country’s horrendously bad decision to go to Iraq in the first place.
“Oh, what tangled webs we weave . . .”
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday, February 15, 2008
WHO’S GUILTY OF WHAT?
Here’s a great quote for you: “Those who murder the innocent for political reasons are evil.”
Now who do you suppose said that? None other than our own ill-lustrious commander-in-thief. That’s right – George W. Bush.
Just yesterday he said that. Said it with a straight face, too. Heckuva job, Shrub.
Does this guy ever look inside himself? Could he really be so wrapped up in his “virtuous American” persona that he can’t see that he is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Does he really not understand that he misled us into this war for purely political reasons?
You know -- hard as it is to believe -- I think it really could be that he doesn’t understand what he’s done. He is, after all, undoubtedly the stupidest president we have ever had the misfortune of bringing into that office. He is also a man capable of convincing himself of the wildest mistruths; things like believing that he is a spiritual person and convincing himself that he stands on high moral ground. I’m sure he even believes that someday history will recognize him for the correctness of his positions and will place him on a pedestal among the great world leaders.
We never fool anyone as well as we fool ourselves.
Most of us, though, never wield enough power to hurt many folks beyond ourselves. A president can severely damage the entire world. Is there any way to ensure that the country will be much more careful about trustingly handing power to people, or that those entrusted with that power will more carefully safeguard the balance of powers in order to protect the citizenry that has given them their power?
(Hint: One thing we might consider is somehow limiting presidential signing statements designed to absolve the president of the responsibility to comply with federal law.)
We are very fortunate, given the general direction of this administration, that it has not taken the remaining few steps necessary to turn this society from a republican democracy to a totalitarian state. Hopefully, the next administration will take steps to remove the excessive powers that BushCo has taken s its right and so return us to the original balance created by the Constitution.
Any politician who says s/he wants to do that has a good shot at my vote, and so far, only Obama has said it.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Now who do you suppose said that? None other than our own ill-lustrious commander-in-thief. That’s right – George W. Bush.
Just yesterday he said that. Said it with a straight face, too. Heckuva job, Shrub.
Does this guy ever look inside himself? Could he really be so wrapped up in his “virtuous American” persona that he can’t see that he is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Does he really not understand that he misled us into this war for purely political reasons?
You know -- hard as it is to believe -- I think it really could be that he doesn’t understand what he’s done. He is, after all, undoubtedly the stupidest president we have ever had the misfortune of bringing into that office. He is also a man capable of convincing himself of the wildest mistruths; things like believing that he is a spiritual person and convincing himself that he stands on high moral ground. I’m sure he even believes that someday history will recognize him for the correctness of his positions and will place him on a pedestal among the great world leaders.
We never fool anyone as well as we fool ourselves.
Most of us, though, never wield enough power to hurt many folks beyond ourselves. A president can severely damage the entire world. Is there any way to ensure that the country will be much more careful about trustingly handing power to people, or that those entrusted with that power will more carefully safeguard the balance of powers in order to protect the citizenry that has given them their power?
(Hint: One thing we might consider is somehow limiting presidential signing statements designed to absolve the president of the responsibility to comply with federal law.)
We are very fortunate, given the general direction of this administration, that it has not taken the remaining few steps necessary to turn this society from a republican democracy to a totalitarian state. Hopefully, the next administration will take steps to remove the excessive powers that BushCo has taken s its right and so return us to the original balance created by the Constitution.
Any politician who says s/he wants to do that has a good shot at my vote, and so far, only Obama has said it.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Thursday, February 14, 2008
OUTING THE PRESIDENT
The following is a piece that I stuck into my emailed blog subjects file a couple of weeks ago for just such a writer's block emergency as today has been!! It gave me great joy to see this in the mainstream press. I hope it brightens your day, too. Not that we can expect much to come of it except the rising sentiment that the kind of "leadership" BushCo has provided is something to be avoided like the plague in the future.
The manufacturing of the "need" for this war combined with the accompanying slip into the immoral mire of approving and supporting the use of torture on prisoners, many of whom are not guilty of anything, has led to the United States version of the dark ages. I'd like to see Torquemada Bush and Richelieu Cheney brought to justice for it, but at least their vile ways are being brought to light, however minimally, by articles like this.
It doesn't make my day to see an American president outed like this, but it does my heart good to see that the nation is catching on -- however belatedly.
[USAToday, 23 Jan.'08; Study: Bush made false statements on Iraq]
WASHINGTON (AP) — A study by two non-profit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the website of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaeda or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaeda," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
-
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaeda, the study found. That was second to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaeda.
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.
"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.
"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
The manufacturing of the "need" for this war combined with the accompanying slip into the immoral mire of approving and supporting the use of torture on prisoners, many of whom are not guilty of anything, has led to the United States version of the dark ages. I'd like to see Torquemada Bush and Richelieu Cheney brought to justice for it, but at least their vile ways are being brought to light, however minimally, by articles like this.
It doesn't make my day to see an American president outed like this, but it does my heart good to see that the nation is catching on -- however belatedly.
[USAToday, 23 Jan.'08; Study: Bush made false statements on Iraq]
WASHINGTON (AP) — A study by two non-profit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the website of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaeda or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaeda," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
-
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaeda, the study found. That was second to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaeda.
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.
"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.
"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
ADVICE FOR OBAMA
Barack Obama swept the “Chesapeake Primaries” yesterday in a most impressive fashion. Any time a candidate collects votes at the 60 to 75% level, he is on a significant roll.
Tennis players are well aware of the vagaries of momentum that can cause a match to swing wildly from one player’s great advantage to the opponent’s jotting up one in the win column. I’m sure politicians learn the same lesson from their races and so avoid early celebration, but from here it looks as if Obama has definitely gained the upper hand.
One sign the savvy tennis player watches for is negative body language from his opponent. Just like a poker player knows to watch for his opponent to flinch, the tennis player watches for signs of disgust, anger, or discouragement on the part of the opponent.
Yesterday, Hillary flinched when she announced that she is now the underdog candidate. Not long ago she was riding the exultant wave of leadership in the race for the Democratic nomination. She had the most money. She had the most experience. She was the toughest. Now, suddenly, she declares herself the underdog. If nothing else has given Obama heart, that should.
John McCain, too, has shifted his rhetoric to recognize that his real opponent now is not the other Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee. Nor is it Hillary Clinton. McCain spoke yesterday to the Obama campaign of hope. He tried to belittle it by saying that a campaign of hope without solidly laid out policies is only a platitude, but if the idea of hope didn’t resonate, he wouldn’t have had to address it at all.
So here’s a little advice for Obama straight from the hinterlands. Maybe a bit more from the hip than the heart, but a straight shot nonetheless.
Keep hammering home your campaign of hope. Hope is what we need. Your platform is solid enough in the face of the McCain promise to keep us at war for another hundred years and to keep the common man impoverished by following the tax cut policies of the failed administration he seeks to emulate.
The hope you speak of is a hopeful America willing to put its shoulder to the wheel to make this country and this world a better place. That’s the hope JFK brought us, and it is most welcome as a returning beacon. But there is a greater hope embodied in our votes for you. That is the hope that you will bring our nation back to respectability; that you will stand move us from the false moral ground of blind, unfeeling patriotism to the true moral high ground of putting more of our energies into developing peace than into generating war; investing more of our future in the healing of our planet than in pillaging its resources during its final death throes; putting more of our taxes into caring for the people of America than into sheltering the economic position of its biggest corporations, and more of our patriotism into making a better niche for ourselves in the world community than that of the greediest consumer of its resources.
On the wings of that kind of hope, Obama, you just might lead this country back toward its finest hours as a morally upstanding super-power while still leading it forward into the potential the whole world shares as conservators of the planet.
That is our hope, and that is why you are garnering so many of our votes along with the fondest wishes in our hearts – that the country we love; the country we have served and fought for; the country that the whole world once imaginatively idealized as the shining beacon of freedom and the innate goodness of man might return again to the glow of international goodwill.
The war against terror will never be won with guns and bombs. If it is won, it will be won because the people of the world will not tolerate their neighbors’ attacks on a country they perceive to be a friend; a country that gives of itself rather than taking unto itself; a country that comes to the rescue instead of causing the destruction; and a country that demonstrates its strength not through bombing raids, but through diplomacy and through caring for its own citizens so that they might all thrive in the wealth their collective industry can provide.
So please keep us hoping. Please keep us believing that the future can be better. Don’t falter in the face of facetious criticism, but continue to lead us toward a better future. At this point, the nation believes in you. All you have to do is continue to believe in yourself. If you do that we will begin, once again, to believe in ourselves.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Tennis players are well aware of the vagaries of momentum that can cause a match to swing wildly from one player’s great advantage to the opponent’s jotting up one in the win column. I’m sure politicians learn the same lesson from their races and so avoid early celebration, but from here it looks as if Obama has definitely gained the upper hand.
One sign the savvy tennis player watches for is negative body language from his opponent. Just like a poker player knows to watch for his opponent to flinch, the tennis player watches for signs of disgust, anger, or discouragement on the part of the opponent.
Yesterday, Hillary flinched when she announced that she is now the underdog candidate. Not long ago she was riding the exultant wave of leadership in the race for the Democratic nomination. She had the most money. She had the most experience. She was the toughest. Now, suddenly, she declares herself the underdog. If nothing else has given Obama heart, that should.
John McCain, too, has shifted his rhetoric to recognize that his real opponent now is not the other Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee. Nor is it Hillary Clinton. McCain spoke yesterday to the Obama campaign of hope. He tried to belittle it by saying that a campaign of hope without solidly laid out policies is only a platitude, but if the idea of hope didn’t resonate, he wouldn’t have had to address it at all.
So here’s a little advice for Obama straight from the hinterlands. Maybe a bit more from the hip than the heart, but a straight shot nonetheless.
Keep hammering home your campaign of hope. Hope is what we need. Your platform is solid enough in the face of the McCain promise to keep us at war for another hundred years and to keep the common man impoverished by following the tax cut policies of the failed administration he seeks to emulate.
The hope you speak of is a hopeful America willing to put its shoulder to the wheel to make this country and this world a better place. That’s the hope JFK brought us, and it is most welcome as a returning beacon. But there is a greater hope embodied in our votes for you. That is the hope that you will bring our nation back to respectability; that you will stand move us from the false moral ground of blind, unfeeling patriotism to the true moral high ground of putting more of our energies into developing peace than into generating war; investing more of our future in the healing of our planet than in pillaging its resources during its final death throes; putting more of our taxes into caring for the people of America than into sheltering the economic position of its biggest corporations, and more of our patriotism into making a better niche for ourselves in the world community than that of the greediest consumer of its resources.
On the wings of that kind of hope, Obama, you just might lead this country back toward its finest hours as a morally upstanding super-power while still leading it forward into the potential the whole world shares as conservators of the planet.
That is our hope, and that is why you are garnering so many of our votes along with the fondest wishes in our hearts – that the country we love; the country we have served and fought for; the country that the whole world once imaginatively idealized as the shining beacon of freedom and the innate goodness of man might return again to the glow of international goodwill.
The war against terror will never be won with guns and bombs. If it is won, it will be won because the people of the world will not tolerate their neighbors’ attacks on a country they perceive to be a friend; a country that gives of itself rather than taking unto itself; a country that comes to the rescue instead of causing the destruction; and a country that demonstrates its strength not through bombing raids, but through diplomacy and through caring for its own citizens so that they might all thrive in the wealth their collective industry can provide.
So please keep us hoping. Please keep us believing that the future can be better. Don’t falter in the face of facetious criticism, but continue to lead us toward a better future. At this point, the nation believes in you. All you have to do is continue to believe in yourself. If you do that we will begin, once again, to believe in ourselves.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
