Labels: George W. Bush, Keith Olbermann

Big brass ones.

Yesterday, while speaking at the Israeli Knesset in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, President Bush criticized those in the American government who would speak to our international adversaries as “appeasers,” a reference to the fatally flawed Munich negotiations of British statesman Neville Chamberlain in 1938. The reaction was instantaneous in Washington, and throughout the entire American mediascape – to include the Blogosphere – and it was almost universally accepted that Bush was indirectly poking Democratic Presidential contender, Barack Obama.

While Godwining the 2008 presidential race is ballsy enough, Bush took the Heisman of arrogant dumb-assery a day later when he traveled to meet with America’s staunchest friend and ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. There he begged the king to increase oil production to ease the strain on the U.S. economy as we enter the annual, Summer-time months of peak consumption. The king, like any good friend and ally, served President Bush a nice steaming hot cup of STFU, and then negotiated U.S. aid and cooperation in Saudi Arabia’s fledgling nuclear program.

Appeaser? It takes one to know one.

Labels: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, George W. Bush

This is the standard story going out on the wire.

"To be useful, a fiscal stimulus package should be implemented quickly and structured so that its effects on aggregate spending are felt as much as possible within the next 12 months or so," Bernanke said. But he said any package should be "explicitly temporary" to avoid running up the government's long-term debt.

He said extending the Bush tax cuts -- which are set to expire in 2010 -- could have a positive impact on the stock market today. But Bernanke stopped short of suggesting that the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, telling lawmakers he supports "the law of arithmetic."

"What comes in at least has to equal what goes out at some point," he said.

That's all you need to understand America, now move along. What's that? You want to know the facts? Bah! You don't need facts! If you did, CNN would have given them to you.



Here are statistics from the Federal Reserve through 2006. You can clearly see the progression of consumer debt. It's far worse than the White House let's on.

Labels: Ben Bernanke, economy, George W. Bush

Labels: fisa, George W. Bush, Keith Olbermann, media

Over 460,000 acres have been burned by wild fires in southern California over the past few days. Wild fires that, at least in part, may have been the work of arsonists. The reward for information leading to a conviction now stands at $250,000 while damages from the inferno are estimated at over $1 Billion.

The fires, which have thus far resulted in at least 7 deaths and almost 2,000 lost homes, are dominating the 24-hour news cycle while Congress works in vain toward once again sending SCHIP legislation to the President's desk, a nominee for the seat of Attorney General stands before a confirmation committee, and unprecedented, unilateral sanctions have been placed on Iran in the lead-up to now inevitable military strikes. Also in the news is the bleakest environmental report ever issued by anyone coming from the U.N., and the White House-redacted testimony of the head of the Centers for Disease Control to the U.S. Senate on the effects of global climate change on public health (don't worry about West Nile though, the White House says that people die from the cold too). But I digress.

I'm taking even odds that these fires, if they were indeed ignited by arsonists, will serve as the latest milestone in the Bush Administration's quest to consolidate power in the unitary executive. Forget talk of global warming, or climate change, or peak oil, or even collapsing credit markets. The only word we'll need to know for the foreseeable future is ecoterrorism. I fear we'll come to know it all too well.

Labels: environmentalism, George W. Bush, UN

Senators Biden and Feingold will join Chris Dodd in opposing legislation which grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations for their role in illegally collecting data on American citizens. Meanwhile President Bush, devoted his Saturday morning radio address to the important topic of fishing(mp3). I shit you not.

Now I'm not going to knock federal protections for stripped bass and red drum populations. I mean, I for one can think of no better sphere in which to exert the power and authority of the Oval Office in a time of war. It's not as if your Administration illegally conspired with telecommunications companies to acquire telephone, email, and web traffic data pertaining to every American citizen to include members of Congress, the judiciary, and officials of state and local governments. And hell, even if you did authorize such activity, I'm sure that that information isn't being abused, lost, or sold to the highest bidder or anything. That'd just be silly.

Please, sir. Please tell me you're not really going fishing.

Labels: fisa, George W. Bush, patriot act, tia, warrantless wiretaps

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 the US intelligence community acted with broad support from the Bush Administration to collect data on virtually every email, phone call, and web visit originating or terminating within the borders of the United States of America.

To this end, clandestine intelligence gathering operations are conducted against the citizens of the United States. Facilities and equipment were permanently placed to collect this data without warrants from a secret intelligence court as mandated by the 1978 Foreign Service Intelligence Act. However, in most cases, telecom companies voluntarily aided data collection on their own clients without proof or accusation of wrong-doing. Qwest Communications was the only company to deny these requests. (The CEO of Qwest is currently on trial for insider trading, and maintains that his dealings were influenced by intelligence community meddling.)

As news of these operations were leaked to the media by telecom whistle blowers, calls to revise FISA grew. The argument was that the 1978 law was out of date, and incapable of providing the intelligence community with the tools necessary to protect national security in the Internet age.

A bill sponsored by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) seeks to reform FISA, but has an added provision supported by the Bush Administration which would grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the government illegally spy on Americans. President Bush has stated that he will veto any national surveillance bill that does not contain such provisions.

However, “because bills are supposed to have unanimous consent in the Senate before going forward...One Senator can make it very difficult to bring a bill to the floor by objecting...” That one Senator is Chris Dodd (D-Conn, Presidential Candidate 2008).

Please support Senator Dodd with a kind word, a message of support, or even a campaign donation to help show the Democratic Party in this country that Americans will not stand for indiscriminate attacks on our Bill of Rights.

One final word on the bill currently before the Senate, the one sponsored by Jay Rockefeller...Here's a glimpse of Senator Rockefeller's campaign contributors.Maybe it's time for the gentleman from West Virgina to go home.

Labels: 9/11, Chris Dodd, fisa, George W. Bush, Jay Rockefeller, technology, tia, warrantless wiretaps

Click image for complete graphic.

Read the New York Times investigative piece on enhanced interrogation techniques.

"Never in history had the United States authorized such tactics. While President Bush and C.I.A. officials would later insist that the harsh measures produced crucial intelligence, many veteran interrogators, psychologists and other experts say that less coercive methods are equally or more effective.

With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A. had constructed its program in a few harried months by consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training American servicemen to withstand capture. The agency officers questioning prisoners constantly sought advice from lawyers thousands of miles away."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan calls it like it is: "We have war criminals in the White House."

From CNN: "It appears that under Attorney General Gonzales they reversed themselves and reinstated a secret regime by, in essence, reinterpreting the law in secret," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

Reinterpreted. The law. In secret.

Labels: Andrew Sullivan, cia, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, George W. Bush, Patrick Leahy, Torture

Labels: 2008 Election, Al Gore, George W. Bush, operation lockbox

Yesterday, President Bush used the veto for only the second time since he took office to send the Iraq war spending bill back to Congress. His rational was that the bill - laden with domestic pork - fundamentally infringed upon his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief by legislating war strategy. I agree completely.

Congress has no constitutional authority to tell the President how a war should be prosecuted. Congress chooses whether or not to declare a war, and Congress pays for that war thereafter, but that's all the Constitution provides for.

If the Democrats want this war to end, then the operation needs to be de-funded. It's political suicide of course, but what's more important, putting an end to the most expensive American foreign policy boondoggle in history or covering your own ass? We're talking about Washington here so I think we can expect some world-class half-assery over the next couple of weeks after which legislation sporting some shiny new compromise language will emerge with both sides claiming victory and absolutely nothing changing for the troops in the field. Shit, they're not real people anyway.

I want this war to end. Hell, I wanted not to start. But over the past few weeks I've watched the Democrats formulate their strategy, and found it severely lacking. For years I've criticized this Administration's inability to be truthful with the American people while it played our emotions for its own political gain, now the Democrats are doing the same damn thing. There is no "immediate withdrawal." That kind of talk needs to stop. Now. The best we can hope for militarily is a phased redeployment to an area from which our forces can respond to the Middle East should a truly state-threatening crisis arise. Africa, I'm looking at you. Talk of benchmarks and surrender dates and all the rest is bullshit. There's no other word for it. Please stop. You're hurting America.

It's time for the Democrats in Congress to shut up and do their job: Oversight, oversight, oversight. If they don't like the job the President is doing, then bring the hammer down. Impeach the SOB and let it be over with.

Labels: Congress, George W. Bush, iraq

Our nation is replete with monuments to the vision and sacrifice of our forefathers, but we Americans are richly undeserving of their legacy. To paraphrase, never before have so many with so much done so little for so few.

On President's Day 2007, America finds herself mistrusted and reviled by our friends and hated by every wacko in the world with an ax to grind. Our enemies don't hate freedom. Al Qaida and terrorist states don't give a shit about the democratic vision of an egalitarian society of self-governing citizens our founders hoped we'd one day become. They hate us because our government and our corporations have been wrapping themselves in that vision like a cloak for over a century as they've exerted their will on peoples having the misfortune to live in resource-rich environments. Oh yeah, plus we support Israel's right to exist.

We won't stop supporting Israel; that's nonnegotiable, but we might be able to do something about the vision thing. Not to appease the wackos, mind you. They're assholes. But our friends need to be on board with us if we're going to keep this grand experiment of ours going. They need to know that we still respect the vision, and that we will sacrifice whatever it takes to keep that vision alive.

Reckless bravado, brinkmanship, and shear incompetence got us into this situation, and I think they can get us out. We need a leader today like no other. Someone to stand for America, and take one for the team. Who can single handedly repair America's image abroad as a brash, arrogant, bully driven only by avarice and bent on world domination? President George W. Bush.

With a single, radical act the President can finish his second term in office by leading our nation into this new millennium not as a pariah state, but as a shining example for all the world to follow by exhibiting – with spectacular fashion – the single quality the world believes no American can possess: Humility.

I propose a national monument to folly. The monument would at once commemorate those who have served their nation with honor and distinction believing in a duty to something larger than the misguided will of a single Commander-in-Chief, while also serving as a testament to future generations of Americans and their leaders that ours is a nation too great to ever again allow the sin of hubris to enter our halls of power. The American National Monument to Folly should stand in no less august a location as the site of the singular monument to American pride and vision: Mount Rushmore. Shoulder-to-shoulder with the majesty of our greatest leaders, the visage of George W. Bush could be added by 2046, the 100th anniverssary of his birth.




President Bush, declare your willingness to do all that you can for our nation. Volunteer yourself to symbolize, forever more, American Folly. Our nation needs you. Do it for the Gipper. Do it for America.

Labels: George W. Bush, Israel, warrantless wiretaps

What a way to end the week. Bush wants a troop increase; a “surge.” One last thrust to quell the violence once and for all. You know, like Belfast. That he's had to reshuffle his military, intelligence and state department personnel to get this idea to float above outright ridicule is telling. Everyone knows a radically new strategy is necessary. And almost everyone knows a redeployment is an integral part of any such strategy, but not our Commander-In-Chief. I swear the man must think he's been chosen by God Himself to run this war. Oh wait...he does.

Our fledgling Democratic Congress has chimed in, and so has the military. It seems that while most of the plans for Operation Soup Fork call for 20 to 40 thousand additional U.S. troops, the Pentagon has reported that there's only a fraction of that number in any position to answer the call. Even a draft couldn't help with this plan. It would take months to train and deploy that many conscripts. And then there's Iran.

After a hopeful showing by moderates and reformers in the election recently, Iran has once again rattled its nuclear saber prompting Israel to intentionally leak its own military plans for a preemptive strategic nuclear strike against them. Madness just doesn't quite sum it up.

It's 2007. Any nation with the will to develop nuclear weapons shall have them. We need to accept this, and work with the facts. We didn't invade or bomb China when they went nuclear. We engaged them. The same can happen with Iran and every other nation that chooses to seek the bomb. There is always common ground, and there is always leverage. In this case we must accept that every nation has the right to self-determination (even the wacky ones). On these terms we can end our 27 year silence with Iran and re-establish diplomatic ties as co-equal, sovereign powers. Then, together with the other nuclear powers of the world we can begin what the wonks call a meaningful dialog.

Meanwhile, at the U.N., we can do something really nutty and stop behaving like hypocritical neo-nationalists and start acting like the world leader we claim to be. First step: an international nuclear open door policy. The nuclear powers of the world will police one another with a regime of inspections and standards formulated to discourage proliferation while maintaining the security of the most destructive weapons on Earth. That doesn't sound so bad now does it? For the sovereignty nuts out there I say: "Suck it." The American people have been not asked, but told that we will relinquish more civil rights and liberties for this global war on terror then I care to list here. What's the matter with letting the other kids in the club see our goods if it means we can subject them to the same mandatory inspections? It'll keep us safer in the long run while allowing us to keep an eye on our adversaries.

But that'll never happen. There will be troop increases in Iraq, and they will remain there long enough for the fat 30 year contracts to drop, so Bush & Co. can ride off into the sunset in style. Iran and Israel will forget about each other until CNN has another slow news day, and everyone will live happily ever after except the poor bastards in combat boots.

Labels: George W. Bush, iran, iraq, Israel, Surge

It's a new strategy for the GOP: everyone loves the underdog. The party that currently holds sway over all three branches of our government will spend the next few weeks blaming the diminished returns of the American economy, the failed Road Map process in the Middle East, and the woeful state of American national security on their critics in a bid to fashion themselves as underdogs in the upcoming election. The President and his top advisers this past week framed critics of the administration - morally and intellectually confused adherents to the "blame America first" school of thought - as the chief cause of domestic and foreign policy failures.

In a stunning invocation of Godwin's Law, President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld equated those who oppose the administration's handling of the War on Terror with Nazi appeasers and Communists sympathizers. It was an attempt to portray to the public a well-meaning administration hamstrung in its efforts to fight the good fight not by sheer incompetence and hubris, but by feckless naysayers who just don't "get it."

For the first time in six years the GOP is approaching the American voter like a ne'er-do-well spouse asking for just one more chance to make things right. Without a single successful venture to point to in six years of power the GOP is blaming everyone but themselves for failures under their watch.

Will it work? Can the election spin machine turn a brash-talking cowboy president into a sympathetic Joe just trying to do right by his heart? It's already started. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough - a former GOP member of Congress - led off the first salvo with his "Is Bush an Idiot?"(video) piece a couple of weeks ago. The normally hawkish Scarborough caught some flack for the piece but it served its purpose. Those inclined to defend the President did, and the undecided in the crowd stopped thinking of President Bush as world's only nuclear armed six-gun slinger and started to wonder if maybe folks were being too hard on the guy. Phase one was complete.

Phase two came with the announcement that more GOP Congressional seats than previously believed are up for grabs in this year's midterm election. These members of Congress don't need to associate themselves with the president or his administration - that's a losing proposition - they only need to follow the President's lead and attack their morally and intellectually confused opponents who either don't get it, or simply don't take threats to American national security seriously.

Which leads me to phase three: seriously. Expect to see this buzzword, or at least the concept, in more frequent use. The electioneers know they have a major problem with satirists like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Stephen Colbert(video). These commentators reach an audience of tens of millions of people showcasing the failures and ineptitude of the administration weekly. In the GOP underdog strategy, their impact will be marginalized by the notion that their dissent is a stumbling block to what might otherwise be successful GOP policies. Furthermore their criticisms will be wholly discounted not because they are without merit, but because they come from comedians out only for laughs. In short, these critics of the administration do not take the threats America faces seriously. The goal of this phase of the underdog strategy is to diminish, if not neutralize, the impact of any observations contrary to the GOP party line: stay the course, no matter what.

If you see the underdog strategy at work in your own state races post relevant links and your observations in the comments section below.

When criminals in this world appear,
And break the laws that they should fear,
And frighten all who see or hear,
The cry goes up both far and near for
Underdog,
Underdog,
Underdog,
Underdog!

Labels: Donald Rumsfeld, economy, FUD, George W. Bush, war on terror

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the great state of California, and commander-in-chief of her formidable army, has denied a request by the Bush Administration for troops to be sent to the U.S.-Mexican border.

Money was an early concern, but Gov. Schwarzenegger took care of that. His people inked a deal with the Pentagon's people ensuring that funding for this immigrant jihad - an estimated $1.4 billion - will come from the national war chest not California's. Thanks Arnold, now my tax dollars are going towards this boondoggle too.

So if it wasn't money, why did the Governor balk? Simply put, he doesn't want to become the next Ray Nagin. Disaster looms large for California, and it's not a threat from the border-crossers who fuel the state's economic engine. It's much more serious than geography and paperwork. The Earth herself wants to drive Californians into the sea. Any combination of earthquakes, fires, drought, and rolling power outages could turn L.A. into Baghdad overnight, without warning. The Governor knows this, and he's not going to allow the Bush Administration to set the stage for the fall of California on his watch.

Schwarzenegger wants his troops trained to deal with Hollywood proportion catastrophe, not walking a fence.

That's all well and good for California, but was it worth snubbing our petulant, lame-duck, billionaire-boys-club president? Will the Governor choose anything else to publicly disagree with the president on? Will there be retribution? Why do I suddenly crave popcorn?

Labels: Arnold Schwarzenegger, George W. Bush, iraq, Ray Nagin

Feels more like Tuesday. But what do I know? Fortunately there are many wiser than myself to think ahead for the dark times to come. One such man is Jim Towey, Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives. Jim has served in this controversial position since 2002 shortly after President Bush announced his faith-based initiatives to fill in the widening gaps between philanthropy and the remains of the New Deal.

But on April 18th, 2006 Towey, former chief U.S. counsel to Mother Teresa (and hey, who didn't want to sue her boney ass?), resigned from his post as WHOFBCI Director. Two of his former colleagues - his predecessor in the office, John DiIulio, and a former aid, David Kuo, criticized the White House's handling of faith-based programs following their own departures. They've suggested the administration has been using the issue to whip-up support among religious voters while under-funding social services. He is expected to leave the office any day now.

Towey however resigned with a clear conscience, on March 7, 2006 President Bush signed Executive Oder 13397. Also known as Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, the order creates a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within DHS.

Section 1. (b) The Center shall be supervised by a Director appointed by Secretary. The Secretary shall consult with the Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI Director) prior to making such appointment.

This designation places the new center on the same footing within the DHS hierarchy as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service.

So who will lead this newly created directorate? That will be up to Homeland Security Secretary Michael "the most hated man in New York" Chertoff, the president, and whomever they anoint the new Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Oh...and God.

Labels: dhs, Executive Oder 13397, George W. Bush, Jim Towey, John DiIulio, Michael Chertoff, Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

It's Presidents' Day Weekend. A time of reflection and relaxation for most. I know that I'll be doing some of each myself. Today, I'm reminded of Nixon's trip to China. It was a legendary diplomatic achievement, one of our nation's finest. Despite the transgressions of Watergate and the ensuing scandal, no one can take China away from Nixon. So how will scholars and historians view the current administration? I have a theory.

Based on everything we've seen so far, the incompetence, the bold faced lies to congress and to the American people, the political manhandling of our nation's scientists, the blatant violations of international law and treaties to include the Geneva Convention, and the current struggle to consolidate more power in the executive branch than has ever been allowed, I think that they'll view the current administration as the greatest our country has ever known.

George W. Bush, will be celebrated as a visionary leader who laid the foundations for a peaceful, democratic middle east. His administration, though dogged by an overly critical class of digitally enabled navel gazers and fringe elements of the mainstream media, will be universally recognized for its efficiency, competency, and fiscal acumen. By the end of the century, George W. Bush will be immortalized on Mount Rushmore.

Let's face it. The GOP currently controls both houses of congress, the white house, and the supreme court. They have successfully managed the media portrayal of every political topic from abortion to the environment to the economy to the extent that the average American thinks things are OK right now. This is bad.

How bad is it? Let's put it this way, last weekend, the vice president shot a man in the face, and this was enough to set the news media into enough of a frenzy that that the unwarranted wiretapping of perhaps millions - and at least thousands - of Americans will escape a congressional investigation. Not only that, but Congress is now drafting a bill which will exempt NSA wiretapping from the 1978 FISA laws.

As a former service member specializing in communications intercept and translation I was subject to these laws. I know very well the guidance and restrictions they provide to protect American civil liberties. And to those who consider the current circumstances of the so called War on Terror to be grounds to waive strict adherence to these laws, I say this:

These laws were designed during the Cold War. The United States waged this war against an enemy who threatened not the destruction of one of our cities, but a war of such profound proportion as to promise the swift and sure eradication of human existence as we know it. And yet during this war the FISA laws were proposed, enacted and adhered to by the NSA and every other intelligence gathering agency in the United States of America because that's who we are.

The world DID NOT change on September 11, 2001. We have ALWAYS been under threat, and yet have maintained the faith that every individual in this nation is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If we turn a blind eye to FISA now, we might as well start chipping away at Rushmore today.

Labels: 9/11, fisa, George W. Bush, war on terror, warrantless wiretaps

The National Archivist is the custodian of American history. The head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is tasked with preserving “precious and irreplaceable national treasures.” (Things like presidential documents, State Department e-mails, and the 9/11 Commission's research and findings.) Naturally - given the potential that should the archivist be appointed “arbitrarily, or motivated by political considerations, the historical records could be impoverished [or] even distorted” - it is vitally important that the right person be selected for the post.

To that end, since NARA became an independent agency in 1985, the process of nominating a National Archivist has been open for "public discussion and input." Meaning that other archivists, researchers, and historians have done their best to lobby against the selection of archivists who might - for whatever reason - impede access to politically sensitive national records. Fortunately, the American people will no longer needlessly suffer this scourge of transparency in government.

"On April 8 the Bush Administration quietly pushed the current archivist, John Carlin, a Clinton appointee, to step down. To replace him, Bush will nominate Allen Weinstein, a historian who has been criticized for failing to abide by accepted scholarly standards of openness".

People have put forward several theories as to why the Administration has taken this unusual step. One is that the White House is out to protect dad's "legacy" by having their man on the scene to manage access to Bush 41's documents set to be released to the Archive in January 2005. Another theory concerns the Administration's desire to limit access to the records collected and produced by the 9/11 Commission later this year. And then there's my theory.

In addition to being the gatekeeper of the whats, wheres, whens, whys, and whos of our government, the National Archivist has another responsibility. I'll explain.

While you and I are busy making hanging chads in November the REAL voters - those elite few known as the Electoral College - will be...well, they'll probably be sitting on their asses enjoying their inherited lives of wealth and privilege however they damn well please. They won't get together to decide who the 44th President of the United States of America will be until December 13th. We're all taught in civics class that the electors are supposed to vote according to the outcome of the popular vote in their respective states, but "there is no Constitutional provision or Federal law" requiring this.

After the 538 electors vote, the governors of the 50 states (and the mayor of DC) send the Certificates of Ascertainment to NARA...by registered mail. Yup. Registered mail. I won't even bother with that one.

And that’s where Bush's hand-picked National Archivist comes in.

Now if one were to say - oh I don't know - attempt to rig a presidential election, which would be easier: Tampering with the popular vote in thousands of precincts nationwide, or just waiting until 51 Certificates of Ascertainment are in one envelope, on the desk of one man?

Delusional fantasy? Yeah, in a sane world.

Labels: 2004 election, 9/11, bill clinton, George W. Bush, NARA

A few months ago, during a White House visit by President Fox of Mexico, President Bush let slip a curious code name: Operation Desert Badger. The reference was part the President's reply when he was asked "...is it true, as your former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says, that you started planning for the invasion of Iraq within days of your inauguration? Do you feel betrayed? And should he have released those documents?"

In response, President Bush said "the stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear. Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with Desert Badger, or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines. And then, all of a sudden, September the 11th hit. And as the President of the United States, my most solemn obligation is to protect the security of the American people. That's my -- to me that's the most solemn thing an American President -- or any president -- must do. And I took that duty very seriously."

So here we have one of the President's famous instances of equating the September 11th attacks with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. But there's something else. Tonight CNN reports "the secret plan Operation Desert Badger called for escalating air strikes within four to eight hours of a shootdown [of a US/UK fly-over]. Pentagon sources say a long list of targets across the country would be hit, crippling Iraqi air defenses and command and control. The plan went far beyond the Clinton administration's 1998 Operation Desert Fox, which hit 100 targets in four days...And so we were fashioning policy along those lines...One defense official familiar with the plan says, "If a plane got shot down, that was the trigger, we were going in." Over time, the source said, Operation Desert Badger evolved into a more robust plan for attacking the regime...The president would have quickly decided whether to take the next step, approving a small number of ground troops to secure key areas. At the time, only a few thousand troops were in nearby Kuwait. Sources tell CNN Operation Desert Badger was not a plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power...Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says the new options were justified by the threat..."We packaged them, we pre-cleared them with the president, and we were cocked and ready to do a variety of different things in the event something occurred that fit one of those possible unfortunate possibilities.""

Desert Badger was a planned retaliation against the Iraqi regime. One that went far beyond Desert Fox. A decapitation strike perhaps? Was Saddam one of the command and control targets? If so, with all this planning and emphasis on Saddam and Iraq ready to be "triggered" by something "that fit one of those possible unfortunate possibilities", can the Administration still say with a straight face that it didn't push Dick Clarke to fabricate a connection between the September 11th attacks and Iraq?

Labels: 9/11, Desert Badger, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, iraq, Mexico, saddam hussein, Vincente Fox

Richard A. Clarke, former counterterrorism coordinator to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush has hit the administration where it hurts. He claims the White House - prior to September 11, 2001 - couldn't be bothered with talk of terrorism. Furthermore, Clarke comments on the administration's obsession with Iraq, not Osama since day one of the administration despite overwhelming intelligence that something big was about to go down.

Before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the White House was hell bent on going to war with Saddam Hussein. So much so that Clarke was pressured to concoct a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. When he refused to do so, he was shuffled off to head a new cyber-terrorism initiative.

As expected the administration has come out with guns blazing. Fortunately for Clarke, he isn't married to a covert CIA agent whose life can be threatened by exposing her identity to the world with a few well placed phone calls. Nevertheless, it's character assassination a-go-go inside the beltway today as the White House fights to keep this story out of American diner conversation. Ain't election years a bitch, George?

Labels: 9/11, al-Qa'eda, bill clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, iraq, Richard A. Clarke, Ronald Reagan, saddam hussein

A senior Bush administration official has declared victory on the latest front of the Global War on Terra. "Intelligence sources have long suspected marine mammals of colluding with Al Qa'ida," the official stated on condition of anonymity. "I mean come on," he said, "'cells'...'pods'? We're really talking about the same global organizational structure here."

The official went on to describe coalition operations -- planned and executed unilaterally by the United States -- to deal with the "imminent" threat to national security marine mammals represent. "First off, they're way smarter than us. That's enough reason to kill them right there, really. But mostly we're doing it because it's so damned easy. We just flip on the sonar, and ZAP!!! It's like a goldfish in a microwave! Of course, most times they run -- like the Al Qa'ida cowards they are -- and end-up dead on a beach. It's a win-win situation for the 'good-guys' in the War on Terra."

Labels: environmentalism, George W. Bush, military technology, Navy, technology

Via The Agonist:

The “Department of Defense authorization bill that President Bush is scheduled to sign Monday eases the military's responsibility under two important environmental laws.”

Environmental laws. Bah! Who needs ‘em? Isn’t it far more important that the U.S. Navy be able to develop more advanced sonar to protect us from all of those Al Qa'ida submarines skirting our coastlines? Who cares if the low frequency noise causes marine mammals to suffer massive internal hemorrhaging? Those subs are out there!

It makes me sick. Although not as sick as some will be because of this legislative circle jerk. Let me tell you a story about Fort Ord. Ah…foggy California, I miss it so.

Fort Ord, part of which now comprises the lovely UC Monterey Bay campus is one of the most polluted areas in central California. You can still see the earthen mounds that enclosed the firing ranges along the highway. Nothing quite like generations of young soldiers shooting lead into the earth to permanently taint the ground water. Can you say Superfund? Well, it looks like the DoD won’t have to worry about cleaning up their messes any more.

Thanks George. Stupid fuck-stick.

Labels: dod, environmentalism, George W. Bush, military technology, Navy, technology

Don’t know about you, but I came for the atmosphere.

The Bush Administration’s record on the environment is abysmal; now we’re gonna start paying for it.

What the fuck are they doing? Are they TRYING to screw-up our planet on purpose? Or is there something they’re not telling us?

This winter is going to be harsh on a lot of folks, but don’t you worry, the President will be warm and cozy at home in the Oval Office.

Stay safe, keep warm, and vote for your lives.

Labels: environmentalism, George W. Bush

I’ve heard some interesting analysis of late concerning the Howard Dean campaign. A common theme permeates the recent media coverage of my favorite candidate: The opinion that anti-Bush voters in America won’t be enough to guarantee the general election for the former Governor of Vermont. Both liberals and conservatives alike have seized upon this idea in an attempt to stop the Dean “Tidal Wave.”

Some seem to believe Dean’s anti-war position is more a liability than an asset. (We’ll see what they think of this platform next November when – averaging a death-a-day between now and then – over 500 American lives will have been lost in Iraq.) They’re doing they’re damnedest to spin anti-war into anti-security. This is where I can see Dean’s opportunity to come in swinging.

Are Americans safer now than they were on September 11th, 2001? Do Americans have more or less confidence in the intelligence being used to protect our national security? Are Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney trusted by the American people as competent policy makers?

We’ve seen what a flap was caused by the recent revelation that Colin Powell wouldn’t stay on for another Bush term. When taken with the rest of the Bush cast - to include Ashcroft, Ridge, Wolfowitz, etc. – Powell is generally viewed as the most “likeable” character of the bunch; The rest of them either send chills down people’s spines, or make their skin crawl.

George W. Bush doesn’t secure our nation alone. His group of highly visible, highly recognizable, and highly fallible cronies “help” him. Bush’s approval rating might be holding strength now, but if those same poll respondents were asked to consider Bush Administration as a whole we’d see a very different picture. The personalities of this Administration have polarized the American public far more than any President alone has done in over 100-years. This is a significant factor to consider.

As the Dean is “soft-on-security because he is anti-war” cries grow in number and strength, his campaign may want to consider the following argument: Are George W. Bush and his Administration any better? National security is not only the President’s job. The Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security – and all their respective deputies – also have a large hand to play. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Meyers, Ridge and Ashcroft are well-known and rightfully mistrusted by the American people. This Administration is not soft-on-security, it’s incompetent-on-security. Dean would do well to emphasize this in his criticisms of the Administration.

While Bush remains “charming” and “well-liked” amongst a significant number of American voters, that popularity will diminish rapidly as those same voters are forced to consider their feelings for the President’s staff, and their advice to the President regarding policy. Can America afford another four years of Cheney? Rumsfeld? Ashcroft?

Howard Dean can beat Bush, but he needs to expand his argument to encompass the entire Bush Administration if he wants to take command of the security issue. Security and the economy are the two largest issues in America. They will make or break the winning campaign in 2004. This so-called anti-security spin is exactly the opportunity Dean needs to neutralize his opponents, and take the Oval Office.

Labels: 2004 election, activism, anti-war, Colin Powell, George W. Bush, howard dean

Howard Dean. Former Governor of Vermont. Medical Doctor. You might have heard of him.

This week marks a historic moment in American history. It's a moment when a candidate for the highest office in the land has risen – against the will of Democratic Party “leadership” – from a grassroots campaign to the national media stage.

Time, Newsweek, MSNBC, CNN and others are all abuzz with Howard Dean, once termed “a second-tier candidate destined to be an ‘also-ran.’” This mainstream media attention – while lagging FAR behind independent, internet news and opinion sources – is right on the mark. Dean is, and will continue to be, the candidate to beat in the 2004 Presidential Election.

This goes not only for his fellow “Democrats” (widely considered “Bush-lites”), but also for the President himself. Bush’s approval ratings a sinking lower with each passing week of dismal news both on the “War on Terrorism” front, and on the “It’s the economy, stupid” front. What’s a “rank and file” non-Republican to do?

Well that depends on your news sources. If you read this piece from the New York Times (reg. req.), “Democrats Seeking Labor's Backing Call for More Health Benefits and Less Free Trade,” then you might not have even noticed that Gov. Dean was present at “a 90-minute forum sponsored by the A.F.L.-C.I.O” in Chicago. Howard Dean is barely mentioned until the last paragraph which states:

“For his part, Dr. Dean warned about efforts by the administration to restrict the ability of union workers to organize. "What we have to do is let the American people understand that if you want a strong economy, the right to organize is important because you have to make sure middle-class people have enough money in their pockets," he said.”

Other articles discussed Dean’s views as they were expressed at the forum in more detail. For instance an AP piece run on CNN.com, titled “AFL-CIO forum exposes divisions in Democratic field Cheers for Gephardt, boos for Lieberman,” stated:

“Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, cited the case of Larry Allen, a
Wal-Mart worker in the audience who was fired after he returned from a
United Food and Commercial Workers union convention.
"If you want to protect pensions, the way to do that is to organize," Dean said.
Other candidates weren't so blatant in their effort to court the politically powerful AFL-CIO.”

The divisions within the party mentioned in the title have been discussed a lot lately. Mainly, they come down to this: The Democratic Leadership Council (a.k.a. “Bush-lite”) vs. The-rest-of-us-who-hate-Bush. The point of contention? Does a contender for the Oval Office need to be so moderate and bland that they appeal to everyone, or can a “flinty,” critical candidate inspire a constituency into action vs. an increasingly unpopular president.

The powers that be – and here I’m referring to the 10 unions who've hastily signed-on to the Gephardt campaign – believed that an insider with name recognition had the best chance of unseating the current President. Of course, that was back when that president’s approval ratings were much, much higher. Today, as one recent headline puts it: “Bush's drop in polls forces Democrats to reassess crop of candidates.”

Given Howard Dean’s broad internet appeal, and fundraising momentum, the endorsement of a major labor organization such as the AFL-CIO would all but clinch the Democratic Party nomination for him. Fortunately, his people are quite aware of this fact, as is MSNBC's Tom Curry who offer’s this veiled assessment of Dean’s need for labor:

“The 13 million-member AFL-CIO labor confederation is not likely to
endorse a Democratic contender until October. And due to splits among the
member unions, the labor confederation may not issue an endorsement at all
until after the Democrats select their nominee next summer.
In an age of Internet fund-raising and the Meetup.com Web site that
allows a candidate’s supporters — principally Dean’s — to spontaneously
organize at the grass roots, who needs labor unions?
The answer: any Democrat who hopes to defeat George Bush.”

So who are the 13 million members of the AFL-CIO, what do they want, and who might they support in October?

First-off, we now know they don’t like Lieberman, who – as mentioned above – was booed at the AFL-CIO event in Chicago that drew a crowd of 2,000. Apparently that audience didn’t like the Senator’s school voucher program which is strongly opposed by several unions. Go figure.

Gephardt has a strong lead against his follow candidates in the union-courting race, but that momentum may now be shifting. There’s a strong indication that the so called rank-and-file of the AFL-CIO, and particularly the largest union in that organization, the 1.5 million member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), are not so sure about Mr. Gephardt.

Dr. Dean on the other hand is another story. Health insurance and the right to organize are two issues he discussed with the group in Chicago. They loved it. There’s also some sentiment within the organization that the spending of billions of U.S. tax dollars abroad while our economy is hemorrhaging jobs at home might not be the best course of action at present. Dean agrees.

I said this was a historic moment in our nation. I meant it. I honestly believe that Howard Dean can win the support of the AFL-CIO, and with it have a very serious chance at taking the White House in 2004. The question is will the Democratic Leadership Council come to terms with this fact, or will they attempt to thwart the will of the people?

Labels: 2004 election, George W. Bush, howard dean, media

The economy is doing great! If you’re one of the 338,000 documented unemployed Americans out there – don’t worry. Good times are just around the corner.

Despite the fact that the US Treasury will be borrowing an unprecedented amount of scratch this year to keep our nation running, the powers-that-be assure us that our economy is on the mend. Pay no mind to the squandered surplus, the tick-like swelling of the trade deficit, or the record unemployment. This is America, damn it. The land of opportunity. A place where people can get rich(er) every day.

The Bush Administration’s economic strategy has Reagan-era financial pundits salivating. Trickle-down is back, and it’s stronger than ever. The catch is this time around the average slob knows damn well that while the rich may spend their money here in the states, they stash it in off-shore tax shelters in the meantime. The result? Less tax revenue collected for those pesky government services the “Liberals” are always whining about. Bah. Who needs welfare, Medicaid, or a decent public education anyway? Isn’t it high time the US shrugged of the poor, the sick, the huddled masses of world? Who needs them?

According to our government’s most recent assessment, things are just dandy. So much so the President – after declaring homosexuals second-class citizens – has removed himself from the burdensome task of running the most powerful nation on Earth for a month.

There was once a time that the President of the United States believed it would be inappropriate to campaign for re-election while US citizens were held hostage in Iran. Times have changed. This President had no such trial of conscience when considering whether or not he should vacation while the US economy spirals out of control for “the rest of us” not in the millionaire club, and while US troops continue to wage a war entirely of his own making.

It is a disgrace that the Commander-in-Chief should choose to “relax” while our fellow citizens fight and die. I’m sure the news of Mr. Bush’s vacation will be a real hoot to those troops counting the days they have to live through before they can finally come home to their families.

Enjoy your summer Mr. President. Your fall is fast approaching.

Labels: economy, George W. Bush

From the Washington Post, via Drudge:

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Democrat Gray Davis will have to fight to keep his job this fall in the nation's first gubernatorial recall election in 82 years, state officials announced Wednesday after tallying the results of a Republican-led petition drive that seemed farfetched just months ago."

So why should the rest of us care about California? Why indeed...

Via GOPUSA.com:

"Republicans have set their sights on the Democrat stronghold of California for 2004, as Democrat Gov. Gray Davis comes one step closer to facing a recall vote.

The Golden State has been solidly Democrat in recent years, but with a popular President and a well-funded campaign, Republicans hope to put the state back into play. With its 55 electoral votes, a Republican victory in California would all but guarantee Bush re-election."

So, get a petition signed and steal the election before a single vote is even cast. Now THAT takes balls.

Labels: 2004 election, George W. Bush, Gray Davis

It may seem cold, even vicious, but there’s a country at stake damn it. This is an opportunity; maybe the best one we’re going to get. We need to take it.

A few months ago I signed up at Meetup.com for the Howard Dean campaign. I signed up to see what was going on. I wanted to know if the Democrats were going to put up an actual candidate against Bush in 2004. I went to one meeting.

Don’t get me wrong, I wanted to go to more than just one, but life interfered. There was an implied conflict of interest with the campaign and my wife’s profession for one, and my father fell critically ill. Otherwise, I would have been out there in the trenches with Dean’s loyal band of supporters. And I might yet be.

Dick Gephardt, one of “The Party’s” hopefuls, has a chink in his armor. I’ve seen a lot of news the past week or so about the Dean campaign – not to mention a lot of groping by the Democratic Party leadership as to whom they should throw their considerable weight behind – and I’ve been impressed.

Here’s this governor, from Vermont of all places, actually making the folks inside the beltway squirm. Nice.

Sure most of the press was about cash (It felt a bit like a donate to the Dean campaign info-mercial after a while), but even besides that it was almost all positive. And on top of it all, “conservative” taking heads were willing to concede a few points to Dean. Ya just can’t beat good old New England “Get-off-my-land-ism. But now there’s something more tangible than war-chest dollars behind Dean: Actual supporters.

To those of you who sent Dean a check, or authorized a debit to your account in past few weeks, good on ya, but in the immortal words of Han Solo: “Don’t get cocky, kid.” There’s still an election to be won. That’s why I’m writing tonight.

Dick Gephardt is currently ahead of Howard Dean in both “viewer polls” (for all the shit they’re worth” and in campaign contributions, but we have an opportunity to upset that standing.

Gephardt can’t get it up; attendance that is. Contributions aside, Meetup.com meeting attendance has actually become an issue in this primary season. The mainstream press is watching the grassroots for a change.

That is why I will make every effort to be at the next Meetup.com meeting in support of Howard Dean. I believe that there is someone better than George W. Bush capable of running this country without running it into the ground. Of the choices available to me, I believe that Howard Dean is the best candidate for the job of President of the United States of America.

Speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Labels: 2004 election, George W. Bush, howard dean

An appeals court recently upheld a decision allowing the U.S. government to hold individuals as detainees in the so-called War on Terror without making their identities public. The ruling has many human rights organizations up in arms.

Those who support the government’s new secret arrest and detention powers claim these are necessary measures to effectively fight the global war on terrorism. Releasing the names and status of those held would give terrorist sleeper cells too much access to information vital to ongoing investigations. That information could possibly be used to thwart efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Sounds fair enough, right?

Why then has the U.S. media been flooded with reports of the capture of the so-called Ace of Spades, General Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti. This gentleman - Saddam Hussein’s top advisor, body guard and secretary – is believed to have knowledge of the location of Iraqi’s weapons of mass destruction and Saddam himself. If this man has yet to be interrogated, wouldn’t it have been wise to keep news of his capture secret as the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are so determined to do with their prisoners?

Instead Saddam Hussein, his sons, and their supporters now know that the former General is in U.S. custody. They also now know exactly where not to go if they wish to avoid capture. In the words of one correspondent this morning, “If Saddam has 100 hiding places, Mahmud knows about 90 of them.” Well you might as well cross those off the list of places to look for Saddam, because he won’t be there.

This type of incompetence is unacceptable. Is disclosure of the identities of prisoners who may have knowledge integral to the security of our nation permissible or not? Either the Administration is bungling its efforts to keep Americans safe, or they are riding rough-shod over the Constitution of the United States.

Our President has committed our nation to an unprecedented, first-strike military policy. It’s more important now than ever before that we have the trust of the international community. That trust – not our motives or intent – will be the deciding factor in whether history remembers the United States as a global leader or a global tyrant. Furthermore, we need to be able to trust our government. But how can we with such blatant contradictions in policy? Contradictions which may – in the long run – endanger American lives.

Mr. Bush, please pull your head out of your ass. Soon.

Labels: General Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, George W. Bush, patriot act, saddam hussein, war on terror, wmd

The Bush Administration has come under increasing fire – both at home and abroad – for its inability to locate Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. So far this has been primarily considered a political problem for the President as the possible legal implications of the situation are debated. World opinion of the President and the nation has also been a growing concern. However, while these issues are valid, they are not what should be foremost in our minds.

Consider for a moment that the Administration is innocent before it has been proven guilty (a novel concept I know, but work with me here), and let’s assume some sizable amount of banned weapons do exist in somewhere in Iraq. Given that there are some people in Iraq, and elsewhere, who might use them against the U.S., shouldn’t locating those weapons be our top priority?

We should be using the full weight of our nation’s considerable military and diplomatic capabilities to find any and all suspected weapons of mass destruction today - not eventually - today. If U.S. troops are spread so thinly throughout Iraq maintaining security that they can’t stop Saddam’s loyalists, or some other group, from finding and using those weapons, then it’s the responsibility of our President to go to the United Nations immediately to request the aid of the international community in this task.

Because of our unilateral action in Iraq – and by the assertions of the Bush Administration itself – chemical and biological weapons may now be accessible to any force or faction in Iraq who finds them. Our President has a sworn duty to us all to ensure that – if they exist – those weapons are found and destroyed by our forces before they can be used to harm a single human being.

If President Bush fails us in this, then impeachment will be the least of his worries.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, occupation, wmd

"People want, they actually demand, more security," he said at the Baghdad palace where the American civil administration is billeted. "And quite frankly, we don't have the forces at our disposal to do it."

There’s a problem in Iraq. Someone forgot to tell the Iraqi’s loyal to Saddam Hussein and the Baath party the war is over. Have you seen how many U.S. troops have died since the “end” of the war? In the past two weeks we’ve been averaging about one American life a day – not to mention the non-Americans killed in assaults in Israel, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. How long will it be before the number of occupation casualties eclipses U.S. war casualties? A month, maybe two? Given our experiences in Vietnam, how can the present administration honestly tell the citizens of the United States that the war is over with a straight face? G.I.s Joe and Jane won’t be coming home for Christmas.

And yet, they continue to tell us everything is fine. Administration officials claim there’s no central coordination behind the increasingly frequent attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Of course we have no idea where Saddam Hussein or his sons are at present, but that doesn’t seem to be bothering anyone too much. Remember the final strike? The one that supposedly killed Saddam himself? It took until last week before the Military got around to excavating that site to search for Saddam’s DNA. WTF? They have time to dig up mass graves from 12 years ago when George the Elder promised military support to anti-Saddam “freedom fighters” who were then subsequently slaughtered and buried en masse by Iraqi forces when that support failed to materialize, but they haven’t found the axis of evil himself yet? I can’t say I’m surprised of course. After all, where’s Osama Bin Laden?

But wait, it gets worse. Our little war – the one that most definitely is not over yet – is costing us upwards of 100 Billion dollars. That cost was to be defrayed – so said the neo-cons – by revenue generated from the production, sale, and export of Iraqi oil. Apparently those who support Saddam – or at least those who would like to see the U.S. entrenched in a Vietnam like quagmire – have other plans. Besides killing our fellow citizens at check points and attacking their convoys, these people are specifically targeting U.S. efforts to get the Iraqi oil industry back in working order. No oil – no money.

In the meantime, official – and I use that word loosely - U.S. unemployment grew to 6.1 percent last week. Add to that the number of states having trouble meeting Homeland Security standards due to lack of funds, and you have the sorry state of the union. But don’t panic! George W. Bush has got it all figured out. W., affectionately known as “Bumble-fuck” in some circles, believes that he can solve the Middle East Problem TM and bring peace and prosperity to the world. This I gotta see.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, Osama bin Laden, saddam hussein

LIMA, Ohio, April 24 -- President Bush today raised the possibility that Saddam Hussein's government destroyed the prohibited chemical and biological weapons that were the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Well I’m glad that’s over and done with. No more petty debate about whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a just cause. Now we know it wasn’t. Will it matter? Nope, not a damn bit.

Most Americans have already been brainwashed into blindly supporting this administration by the continuous, 24-hour a day information offensive ever since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some Americans have been so stupefied by the onslaught of propaganda and misinformation that they believe Saddam Hussein, and not Osama Bin Laden (whom we haven’t heard much about lately, but don’t worry I’m sure O.J. is on the case), was responsible for those attacks.

Are Americans morons? No, we’re not. We are however addicted to information, and the more entertaining the better. The average pre-packaged news burst in this microwave-loving, instant gratification crazed country is about 30 seconds long. Slam a few graphics on a few lines from an official (read: carefully tailored) news release, and BAM! you’ve got yourself half a million viewers glued to your channel for the next half an hour. Everybody wins. The government gets its propaganda out, the network gets its advertising dollars, and the advertisers get their captive audience. The current administration knows this – thanks to many years of careful research - and has been carefully manipulating public opinion through the mainstream media for its own profit.

This is just the latest, blatant example of that manipulation. By raising the possibility that the Iraqis destroyed any existing WMDs just before we invaded, President Bush echoes a dubious story that was quietly seeded into the news cycle a couple of days ago that conveyed the same message. That article gave everyone who read it some background so this scripted statement by the President didn't come straight out of left field. More stories about this will be written, although none beyond the editorial pages (who reads those?) will be critical. After a week or two, the possibility that Saddam Hussein’s government destroyed WMDs days before the US invasion will suddenly appear to be historical fact - even though no facts have ever been presented. Within a month – enough time for other gripping stories to capture our collected attentions - many Americans will believe this absurd scenario is actually true. The debate of whether or not the United States was justified in re-writing international doctrine by initiating a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation based on a perceived threat – one which has never been proven to exist – will be over. It might as well have never occurred.

I’m afraid for America. Our actions have consequences. We can’t afford to remain a nation of citizens crippled with goldfish memories. If we don’t pay attention, read, watch, listen, learn, and form opinions on our own, then someone else will do it for us.

Sheep have no choice but to be slaughtered.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, saddam hussein, wmd

The year is 2003. By all accounts, the Cold War is over. For those just joining us here in the 21st century: We won.

The former Soviet Union was the United States’ largest naval adversary with the cornerstone of their seafaring arsenal being a large number of nuclear submarines, each of which could easily destroy the entire east coast with a volley of sea-launched ballistic nuclear weapons. Naturally this was cause for some concern...in the 1990’s.

Yet, like the Russian space program, much of what was once a technologically advanced military force is now a footnote in the history of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

No other nation on Earth has such a fleet of killing machines - except of course for the USA. Most countries find it challenging enough to fund and support fleets of old, loud, slow, diesel-powered boats. So why does the US continue to research and deploy super powered sonar systems at a cost of billions of dollars to US taxpayers?

Whales.

What most Americans don’t realize is whales - and their dolphin cousins - are vastly more intelligent than human beings. Not only that, but the beasties are fucking huge! Just think what would happen if these gigantic, genius creatures decided that they should rule the world. We wouldn’t stand a chance. As it is, the bastards are already threatening our already depleted supply of tuna - the chicken of the sea. In a few short years we could be dealing with a worldwide tuna shortage! The thought gives me chills.

Fortunately, the Bush Administration has seen this danger on the horizon, and has vowed to protect us from these behemoths. However, because of the creature’s devious intellect, we’ve had to prepare for inevitable war with the whales in secret.

Sonar is the key. Ultra-low frequency sonar doesn’t just detect non-existent submarines deployed by non-existent geo-political adversaries; it also kills whales by the dozens! Our Navy is “testing” this new super weapon on daily basis in areas heavily populated by our mortal enemies. As a result, whales suffer crippling brain hemorrhages as their super-sensitive internal navigation systems painfully explode under the pressure of the sonic onslaught.

I for one will sleep easily tonight knowing that I won't be subjected to the brutal life of toiling in the undersea kelp farms of our would-be overlords.

Death to the whales! And god bless George W. Bush!

Labels: environmentalism, George W. Bush, military technology, Navy, Russia, technology

USA TODAY via Drudge

White House seeks to expand DNA database

WASHINGTON DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested but not convicted would be added to the FBI's national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal.

Sure. Why not, right? This is a good thing. Isn't it? Just think, now EVERYONE can have their very own file at the FBI.

J. Edgar Hoover + Joe McCarthy x G. W. Bush = ?

Labels: fbi, George W. Bush, patriot act, tia

Yep, this sure is one fine hand basket we have here. Enjoy the ride while you can!

Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.

The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.

Labels: Charles Schumer, Congress, fisa, George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch, patriot act, Tom Daschle

House Narrowly Passes $2.2 Trillion Budget

WASHINGTON, March 21 — Voting largely along party lines, the House early today narrowly approved a 10-year budget plan that would allow the deep tax cuts President Bush has proposed.

The Republican-controlled House approved its plan by a vote of 215 to 212. The legislation calls for a $2.2 trillion budget for the 2004 fiscal year that includes $726 billion in tax cuts that the White House has proposed.

This is a record high budget that some believe could seriously damage the economic outlook of the US for the foreseeable future. The budget DOES NOT yet include any funding for the ongoing war in Iraq. The Bush administration has told the American people and the US Congress that it would request even more money to pay for the present operations and any occupation afterwards.

Labels: budget, Congress, George W. Bush, iraq

Two US pilots accused of killing four, and wounding eight Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan last year in a friendly-fire bombing received a slap-on-the-wrist at the conclusion of trial which was closely followed by an angry Canada.

Canadians were outraged from the beginning of this ordeal when it took President Bush two days to publicly apologize for the incident.

Why is this administration so intent on burning bridges?

Labels: Canada, George W. Bush

Fuel Economy Regulations Could be Revised

DETROIT, March 20 — The Bush administration is considering changes to fuel economy regulations that would encourage manufacturers to offer more large cars, station wagons and smaller sport utility vehicles that are built more like cars...

But the idea is opposed by environmentalists and has already drawn a sharply worded protest from the United Automobile Workers union. Both are concerned, for different reasons, that the Big Three will stop making small cars because they lose money making them and will no longer be compelled to.

Labels: environmentalism, George W. Bush, oil

The Bush administration has been busy tweaking various policies concerning the operation of our government while world media and attention are focused on the war in Iraq. I find this troubling to say the least.

Having spent the last 24-hours nearly absorbed in the coverage of the war I have come close to ignoring these seemingly minor events myself. I have however made note of them, and I plan to watch for consequences of these tweaks in the future.

I will continue to comment on major occurrences in Iraq.

I will not continue to keep a precise - moment-to-moment - log of these tragic events.

We can no longer hope to prevent the death of innocents. We can not stop this war. Now it is up to us to ensure that it is fought justly, and that our troops are brought home as soon as possible. Equally important is that we ensure that the America they come home to is not a nation under siege by its own government. We must pay attention - it's that simple.

Beyond the bread and circus:

U.S. Ready to Rescind Clinton Order on Government Secrets

WASHINGTON, March 20 — Making it easier for government agencies to keep documents secret, the Bush administration plans to revoke an order issued by President Bill Clinton that among other provisions said information should not be classified if there was "significant doubt" as to whether its release would damage national security.

The new policy is outlined in a draft executive order being circulated among federal agencies. A final version is expected to be adopted before April 17, when the last elements of the Clinton order would take effect, requiring automatic declassification of most documents 25 or more years old. Under the draft, such automatic declassification would be postponed until Dec. 31, 2006.

Labels: bill clinton, George W. Bush, national security, secrecy

President's "press conference" was a quick broadcast from inside the Cabinet meeting room (Have to love The Last Super imagery).

The president thanked US troops and asserted that the Cabinet members were "confident about the future of our country."

Was this a pre-emptive strike to prevent resignations of protest?

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, Shock and Awe

Via The Agonist:

U.S. President George W. Bush will convene a press conference at 2:45 p.m. EST.

Labels: George W. Bush, Shock and Awe

A “last minute” gambit has failed (Are we all getting used to this yet?). The US strikes against Baghdad – intended to kill Saddam Hussein himself – were a major failure.

Not only is Saddam Hussein still alive, but the carefully laid war plan of Shock and Awe – a plan which took months to conceive and implement – is now virtually useless.

Shock and Awe was supposed to draw Iraqi forces into surrender through surprise and psychological intimidation. President George W. Bush threw that plan aside yesterday afternoon in an Oval Office meeting. Shock and Awe was replaced by a shoot-from-the-hip strategy to kill Saddam Hussein and his top military leaders in one fell swoop – a surgical strike employing the very best of America’s intelligence and technology (Think of the headlines!). The “Decapitation” plan had many advantages.

Shock and Awe called for 3,000 bombs and missiles to be dropped in the first forty-eight hours of conflict. Decapitation utilized only 24 cruise missiles and a hand full of bombs. Politically, economically, and militarily Decapitation was superior, if it worked.

It didn’t, and we will now witness the consequences of our administration’s folly.

Shock and Awe is on the garbage heap, this is now a conventional urban war: The Pentagon’s worst case scenario.

US troops must now overcome an emboldened Iraqi Army entrenched in Baghdad. They have trained to face a cowering one. The Iraqi troops will not surrender easily – their leader has taken the first hit of the war and has lived to tell the tale. The administration has made Saddam Hussein a hero: Worst case scenario.

US military planners - after months of intelligence collection, analysis, battle planning, training and deployment – must now go back to the drawing board as US troops march through the desert. Again, this is the worst case scenario.

Saddam Hussein now knows that the eyes and ears of the US intelligence community are on him – he will use that knowledge to his advantage. Need I say it again?

President Bush made the decision, he will be personally responsible for every American life lost in Iraq. Military leaders in the field will not forget this.

Can it be any worse?

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, saddam hussein, Shock and Awe

During an unprecedented speech to the entire world last night President Bush assured the Iraqi people that “If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.”

He went on to declare “In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.”

In the short term – after the death and destruction that will accompany the war – an interim government will be established in Iraq. That government will be comprised of three administrative regions, which on paper will look very much like the current map of Iraq. Former US Generals will administer two of the regions – essentially the same areas that are the northern and southern no-fly zones today. Barbara Bodine, former U.S. ambassador to Yemen, will administer the third, central region including Baghdad. Over all of them will be the head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, former US Army Lieutenant General Jay Garner.

Mr. Garner has significant baggage. He was responsible for the deployment and evaluation of the experimental Patriot Antimissile Missile System during Gulf War I. He worked closely with the Israeli Defense Force to assess the success of the system. Some might say a little too closely. Following the war, having retired from military service, Mr. Garner served as president of SY Coleman, a division of defense contractor L-3 Communications. The company specializes in missile defense systems – the same systems that have been fast-tracked for deployment around the US without testing by October of next year.

Is this the man we really want calling the shots in Iraq during an occupation? Can he be trusted to protect Iraqi oil from scheming corporations and governments and uphold President Bush’s assertion that they are “a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people”?

Mr. Garner will lead Iraq’s interim government, but someone much more disturbing will likely lead Iraq after the US occupation: Nizar al-Khazraji.

Nizar al-Khazraji, the former Iraqi Army Chief of Staff, is suspected of war crimes against Iraqi Kurds in the 1980’s. Up until Monday, March 17 2003 he was under house arrest in Denmark. That country had dared to prosecute Nizar al-Khazraji for war crimes despite strong US diplomatic efforts to spare him the burden of having to face trial for his alleged crimes against humanity. He has since disappeared.

In short, Iraq will be ruled by an unscrupulous agent of the US Department of Defense for the foreseeable future, and then the reigns of power will be handed over to one of the chief architects of Saddam Hussein’s regime of terror.

This is what liberation means to our administration.

Labels: dod, George W. Bush, gulf war, iraq, Jay Garner, missile defense

An un-scheduled press conference (and in the Rose Garden no less)? This is odd in and of itself in the weird world that is the White House press corps, but I don't think anyone knew how strange it would actually turn out.

The President held the conference accompanied by Secretary of State Colin Powell. The reporters present assumed the conference perhaps had something to do with the equally odd surprise announcement of an "emergency summit" which will occur Sunday in the Azores. Yeah, this is when I start calling people to make sure I haven't finally lost touch with reality. Well, it seems I'm still sane - I wish I could say the same for our government.

So about this press conference: I was listening to Maine Public Radio and the host of the program breaks in to inform listeners that they would be switching over to National Public Radio momentarily to cover a press conference during which the President and the Secretary of State were expected to make some remarks.

NPR takes over. The conference begins. The President makes a short 2 or 3 minute speech about Israel and Palestine living in peace with one another, and then he turns and leaves! Colin Powell turned on his heel to follow the President as the press corps began shouting questions about the summit. The reaction from the NPR host in the studio and reporters on the scene was more or less similar to mine: WTF?

Yeah, this whole thing is getting a little out of hand at this point. Something has gone terribly, terribly wrong for the administration's plan to wage indiscriminant war in the Middle East. I'm laughing at their superior intellect.

Here's the break down: Bush had planned to visit Blair - those plans were scrubbed this week as it appeared increasingly unlikely that the UN Security Council would bend to US pressure on the Second Resolution. Blair of course is suffering continued attacks at home over his pro-war stance, and is being condemned by his own party as Bush's lap dog. Naturally something had to give eventually. Remember, this was a strange pairing to begin with; Blair is essentially Briton's Bill Clinton.

So what happens? A press conference in which Bush tries to turn down the heat he's taking from ignoring the war going on right now between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and also to introduce an interesting turn of phrase to the current geo-political lexicon: "step-by-step." Could it be that the US is ready to pursue the British compromise plan for dealing with Iraq? Will it float in the Security Council?

It's a hell of a gamble. This is after all a pissing contest in the end, and Bush has suffered some major set-backs already. First he wanted to act without UN support, but was convinced by Powell and Blair to form a real international coalition before unilaterally deposing the government of one of the wealthiest sovereign nations on Earth. Then there was the tussle over the first resolution, 1441. Bush took it in stride and waited. He was sure that by the time he had his troops in place the UN would be ready to play ball. What he didn't count on was Russia. Sure, France had given the US a hard time with the first resolution, but the administration had figured Russia would play along. They figured wrong. With Russia on its side, France was able to form a voting block. Hell, even China started to toy with the idea of opposing the US. So the Second Resolution is dead in the water. What's next?

Meeting in the Azores is interesting symbolically. Neither Bush nor Blair is visiting the other's nation and twisting arms. No, they're both traveling half-way to meet one another. They are committed to war as a final option, and to make every diplomatic attempt to solve this situation in the meantime. That's the message they're trying to send anyway. The result will either be a new push for the British step-by-step plan (which France has already balked at), or a claim that everything that could be done was, and that unilateral action is now permissible by international law. (There's also the wild outside chance that Saddam will touch off a conflict himself before either the UN or the US makes a move. I believe the world would be highly suspicious of US covert action in this case however given the number of special forces troops already on the ground in Iraq).

Either way, war in Iraq will happen. But it's still nice to see Bush have to jump through these hoops. I only wish there were some way to convince him to just bring the troops home, and re-think his global strategy. Clearly, Bush has been a gambling man throughout these several months of diplomacy, and he hasn't won a single hand yet. Can there be any more indication that his administration's policies are simply unsound?

What happens when the President bets the farm?

Labels: Colin Powell, George W. Bush, iraq, maine, resolution 1441, tony blair, UN

In managing any addiction, the very first step is to accept that you have a problem. My name is Ernest, and I’m a Political Science junkie.

My computer is on before my coffee pot – it's the last thing I turn off before going to bed (typically right after scanning several news sites just one last time for the night).

Clearly I have a problem.

Quitting is not an option. Political Science has been so much of my life for so long, I don’t know that I can survive without it now. It’s not a love, it’s a necessity. I need it more than food, water, or money.

I struggled for a long time with my addiction; I suppressed it, I denied it. But that time is over. From now on I will control my needs, and I will direct them.

This is no longer a reactive blog. I will not sit here and allow my country to be high jacked and steered into oblivion by neoconservative fanatics. I am an American: A free citizen with a voice and a vote, and I will use them both to hinder, to delay, and to stop the current administration from doing any more irreparable harm to our nation.

I dedicate this blog to change. The first step on the path back to America will be the 2004 Presidential Election. George W. Bush must not “win” that election.

No real alternative to the Bush administration will emerge from the Republican party. Their members have long since been beaten into submission. Not even John McCain can break the administration’s strangle hold on American conservatives – of which I am one.

Third party candidates will have their day, but this is not it. The 2004 election is too important for the long term future of our country to experiment with alternatives. Vote Green, or Reform, or Cool Moose at home – but reserve your presidential vote for someone who can win.

I’ve examined the Democratic field of contenders – it’s not pretty. Even worse, by the time next November rolls around, America is going to be ass deep in shit. Our troops will be engaged in Iraq, the North Korean problem will still persist, and at home our economy will probably be about as vibrant as it is today.

We need change like we’ve never needed it before. The election in November is our last best chance to get it. Governor Howard Dean of Vermont is the candidate who can give us what we need. Expect to see his name more on this blog in the future.

Have no fear, I’ll still be devoting plenty of time and energy to foreign policy and current events (I said I was taking the first step in overcoming this addiction), but I’ll also be paying very close attention to Dr. Dean. I hope you will do the same.

Labels: 2004 election, bloggers, blogging, George W. Bush, howard dean, neocon

What are WMD? How effective must a weapon be to earn this classification? Or is it rather an issue of weapon “type” – are chemical and biological weapons automatically WMD?

These are not foolish questions; their answers are not as obvious as they might seem. Realizing this, the leaders of our world wanted to be sure that everyone on Earth was crystal clear on these definitions. That's why they enacted The Chemical Weapons Convention.

Chemical and biological weapons are illegal under international law. They are bad – one might even say evil.

Is it surprising then to learn that the “US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention…”

In case that's not enough, the U.S. has also reserved the right to flout international law with impunity by employing "Calmative" gases, "similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year."

I read a story tonight about the possible U.S. and U.K. troop assignments for Gulf War II. The story stated that U.K. troops will not participate in an assault on Baghdad. At the time, I found that odd. This will be the most difficult – and very probably the bloodiest – battle of the war, why relegate all of the U.K. troops to securing the Southern no-fly zone, and perhaps Basra? It seemed a strange waste of resources to me then, but no longer.

The following analysis puts the U.K.’s scheduled absence from the Battle of Baghdad into perspective:

“Professor Julian Perry Robinson, one of the world's foremost authorities on the [chemical weapons] convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing chemical weapons over the UK if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.”

It’s apparent to me now that the U.S. is ready to legitimize the use of chemical weapons during conflict, and the U.K. wants no part of it. I applaud the U.K. for having the strength and the foresight to protect its citizens and its international standing as a rational, peace-loving nation by refusing to take part in this crime against humanity.

What was it George said the other day? “This is the first war of the 21st century.” I’m so glad that we’re getting off to a good start! This will come back to haunt us.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, wmd

After a flurry of diplomatic activity last week, things were oddly quiet in the news this past weekend. A captured al-Qa'ida “mastermind,” and the Iraqi destruction of several Al Samoud missiles dominated the newscape. Monday had little more to offer, but it appears that a few of the more obscure developments from last week - having fermented and stewed - are now being served up for general consumption. Something else is on the horizon.

The resignation of U.S. diplomat John Brady Kiesling has finally made the mainstream news here in the states. The New York Times has decided to cover the story without actually covering it by printing his letter of resignation without editorial comment. A well-respected diplomat has terminated his 20 career in matters of state as a form of protest to his government. He’s not a star athlete, or a Hollywood stud. Is anyone else ashamed for never having heard of him? What work has he done for our nation? Was he a good man? Did he represent the United States as the land of the free, or did he use his place of power for personal gain? I’ll likely never know, and that disturbs me. If he was the man he presents himself to be in his letter of resignation, then I mourn our nation’s loss. The Times is practically an institution here in the U.S. – I expected better of them as journalists. Instead, they’re silent on this issue.

Today, there is also talk of war. Not talk of others talking about war, but talk of actual war. It seems that the U.S. has finally rounded the bend on this situation. The debate – regardless of its relevance - is over. With or without the support of its citizens, our nation is resigned to war; all that’s left is the screaming. Gulf War II is set to start sometime around the weekend of March 15th.

Karl Rove’s canceled fundraising trip to New Hampshire is one indicator that points to the start of hostilities. Rove was expected to collect as much as 250,000,000 for President Bush’s re-election campaign on that trip. It seems the administration is sensitive to the image of passing the hat while people are dying for its diplomatic failures.

That week is also significant because of the administration's push for the final U.N. Security Council to issue its final decision on “The Second Resolution.” President Bush has repeatedly voiced his willingness to go to war – whatever the outcome of that vote - in recent weeks. Despite this, the administration will wait until after the ballots are counted, and the voices of the world’s free nations have been heard. After that, the U.S. will be diplomatically free to ignore those voices, and pursue any course of action it deems fit.

To ensure the U.S. people are as resigned to war as is possible, I expect the administration to seed the media with banal al-Qa'ida news, threat warnings, and propaganda. The rest of the news cycle between now and the start of the initial assault will be filled in with local fluff pieces. Thoughtful analysis regarding the administration’s foreign policy – if it ever existed in the first place – will trickle to a stop as the media shifts into its own war footing. Substantial coverage of any war preparations will be replaced by up to the minute updates detailing how many pizzas were delivered the Pentagon and the Whitehouse.

Those of us who had hoped for peace are held hostage – forced to watch our nation’s descent into war on CNN. The regime in power continues to ignore our needs and our will. The Leviathan is beyond our control. Despite my education in the fields of political science, international relations, history, and military science I have failed to construct a justifiable case for war. I have tried to see their logic, and have found that there is none which can absolve us from the blame of the murder of innocents.

I was once proud of my country, but that’s changed. I still have hope that the U.S. can be a great and wonderful place again, but my hopes of living to see that day are continuously diminished. Madison believed that no nation can endure continuous war while protecting the rights of its citizens. I fear the worst for us. Our freedoms are being stripped away in name of security; our rights will follow. Will we still have the gall to call ourselves Americans even then?

My nation is dying, and I am powerless to stop it.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, Karl Rove, media, UN

George W. Bush is not dumb. Nor is he a slack-jawed buffoon. He is, in fact, an excellent orator. This is not observed by the vast majority of us because we are plebeians not privy to the real George W. Bush. His true persona is reserved for the share holders of America Inc.

Case in point: His recent address to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI). Bush used the opportunity of a dinner sponsored by that most prestigious of “right-wing think tanks” to outline his administration’s long term foreign policy goals (28 min. RealMedia or transcript).

As a long time foreign affairs and international relations junkie, my final analysis of those goals is this: Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Pax Americana is no fantasy. The Bush administration is doing everything in its considerable power to ensure a global hegemony the likes of which have never been known. Following the war in Iraq, the U.S. will maintain instantaneous force projection capability throughout the world. Put simply, we will be able to deploy a significant number troops to any nation on Earth within 24 hours, and their support units will already be in place. Never before has a single nation had such power.

On its surface, this doesn’t seem a bad thing. With this type of reach, our country will be safe from any who oppose it. It becomes troubling, however, when one considers the converse: None who oppose our nation shall be safe.

If American domestic policy was a model for the world - if it did in fact represent the greatest freedoms of the world – I think most Americans would go along with the Pax Americana plan. But this is not the case. Let’s face it, America has some problems.

I could make a laundry list here of cases in which the U.S. government has over-stepped its bounds - either intentionally or otherwise - to the detriment of law abiding citizens like you and I, but I won’t. We all know how badly our government can screw-up sometimes. I’m also not going to say that any other government does everything better than ours. No such government exists. The question is, if every government is flawed, which one is best deserving of the title “ruler the world”?

The answer is none of them. No one nation should ever rule this world. Not even America.

Despite this, the goal of Pax Americana is nothing short of world domination by a single super power. It is a vision of sustainable global stability, if not global peace, under the watchful eye of the United States. The Bush administration, and those who support them, believe that the United States can be a benevolent dictator to the world. But they need Iraq first.

To this end, the administration has been struggling to convince both the international community, and the citizens of the United States, that America can be trusted to act as custodian of one of the largest oil fields ever discovered, and then walk away once a democratic government is in place in Iraq. The administration points to Germany and Japan, and our occupation of those nations after the Second World War as proof of our abilities of self-restraint. It’s an argument not without merit, but it does not apply here.

Iraq is not Germany, and it is not Japan. Neither of those nations had the ethnic and religious diversity of Iraq. Neither of them presented the long term challenges of security and factional conflict that Iraq will. The United States occupied Germany and Japan not only to protect the world from their militaristic aspirations, but also to protect those nations from being consumed by an expanding Soviet Union. We will have no such role in Iraq. Instead, the task of the occupation forces will be to keep Iraq from exploding into a million pieces before a stable government can be established. This is not World War II, this is Bosnia in the desert.

President Bush and his top generals, namely Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Shinseki, have assured us that the U.S. will “stay in Iraq as long as we have to, and not a day more.” But who will decide when it is safe to leave Iraq on its own? America will. When we have decided that Iraq is safe for democracy, we will withdraw most - but not all - of our troops just as we did from Japan and Germany. From that point on, we will pay Iraq for the privilege of hosting whatever U.S. troops remain, just as we do with Germany and Japan to this day. In short, the American military will have a permanent home in the Middle East.

Pax Americana is a brilliant plan. This whole world domination thing really has potential. And yet, it just doesn’t smell right.

Something’s rotten in the state of domestic policy. If we’re going to be benevolent dictators to the world, then that means we’ll be able to protect American freedoms here at home from all manner of threat. All manner of exterior threat that is. That’s the problem with the neat and tidy Pax worldview. It allows the most powerful government in the world to become that much more powerful. And all the while that government is chipping away at the basic freedoms of its own citizens.

This blog is filled with examples of how our rights as individual citizens are being stripped away. These instances are not separate from the role the U.S. is seeking to play on the global stage. At this point, our foreign and domestic policies are more intertwined than ever before.

Make no mistake, our government is still reacting to September 11, 2001. As a matter of fact, I think they're just getting started. Day by day the administration is moving to curtail more of our freedoms and enforce newly minted laws. It’s like a well oiled machine; Humming and spinning, its power grows with each press conference and with every news broadcast.

Be careful, world. A sleeping giant has just awoken, and the administration of George W. Bush is at the helm.

Labels: 9/11, aei, Gen. Shinseki, George W. Bush, iraq, neocon, new american century

For those of you on the West Coast:

Soon you will be safe and secure in your homes, your schools, and your shopping malls thanks to the Bush administration’s plan to bypass the testing and approval process for America’s missile defense shield. If you’re worried about having untested missile defense systems stationed throughout your cities – don’t. After all, Donald Rumsfeld says we don’t need no stinking tests!

This system is comprised of many, many little “friendly missiles,” which seek and destroy big “bad guy missiles.” Of course, without testing, we’ll never know how likely it would be for one of our “friendly missiles” to malfunction, and then seek and destroy the nearest “bad guy home,” “bad guy school,” or “bad guy shopping mall” in the area. Or will we?

This whole thing stinks. The Pentagon doesn’t even want this system, and our peers on the Pacific Rim (China and Russia) believe that the introduction of a missile shield can only serve to destabilize the delicate geopolitical balance in the area.

Since these systems are designed to take out missiles and not fuel laden passenger planes flown by terrorists, we know the missile defense shield is not meant to protect us from al-Qa’ida.

So that leaves North Korea. The starving, frigged, Stalinist wasteland who just happens to be capable of producing a nuclear weapon. Despite all the media fanfare, we’ve known about that capability since 1997.

North Korea has yet to field test an operational ballistic missile that could reach the U.S. (Much like we have yet to field test a missile shield that could protect the U.S.). Are they really a threat? You bet your ass. But that’s why we have diplomacy$.

We offered them an aid package as a bribe a few months ago. They rejected it. It might be worth noting that we offered them 90 Million in aid (notice the M there). That wouldn’t be enough to buy heating oil for one of their cities through the harsh winter.

We walked away from the table after that. In turn, they re-started their nuclear power plants. North Korea is about as cold as Maine, I can easily imagine attempting to live through the winter without heating oil or electricity. I’d last about week. Take away food and clean water…Well, you can see North Korea’s predicament.

Meanwhile, a hungry, freezing, armed North Korea watches the administration begin shoveling Billions of U.S. tax dollars onto ships bound for Turkey, Africa, and Eastern Europe – buying their support for our war in Iraq. North Korea is still in the cold after all these months. Yet instead of engaging them we shut them out with our missile defense shield. If we’re not willing to deal$ with North Korea now, then we will have to deal with them later.

Labels: Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, missile defense, national security, North Korea

Via the New York Times:

“President Bush has begun one of the most ambitious efforts to reinvent Medicare and Medicaid since the programs were created 38 years ago. Combined with his earlier plan for Social Security, the proposals offer a fundamentally different vision of social welfare policy, many experts say.”

Isn’t that wonderful? After proposing 15 Billion in aid to Africa, and reportedly caving to Turkey’s demands for 52 Billion for the privilege of fighting a war from their soil, the Bush administration is finally ready to start spending US tax dollars on US taxpayers. Or are they?

Apparently not. The new plan calls for our nation’s elderly to “rely more on private health plans, and less on the government, for their health benefits.” Yes, you read that right. The BIG plan to save Medicare and Medicaid is to force Grandma and Grandpa America to join an HMO instead of sponging off of us hard working younger Americans. Bravo George, what an excellent fucking idea.

Fortunately, I’m not the only one who thinks that this plan is asinine. This week the governors of the 50 states are in Washington D.C. to meet with the President. Many of them represent states that are facing their worst fiscal crisis in a generation. They were planning on asking the federal government for emergency funding to help see them through these uncertain times. That plan was scuttled by partisan politics. As an authority on these matters, Florida Governor Jeb “I am not the mouth piece of my brother’s administration” Bush had this to say: "You can't just keep printing money… That policy position was partisan. It was the position of big government.” Thanks Jeb, while your state’s senior citizens are eating cat food so they can afford their prescriptions, I hope you make damn sure they know how partisan the 52 Billion dollar bribe to Turkey was.

Normally, this would all be troubling enough on its own, but it gets even better. From the Buffalo News we hear that at the meeting of governors in D.C., the president's aides have restricted the governors “collectively to “just two scripted questions" at today's meeting at the White House.” Two scripted questions…Collectively! Now that’s leadership at its finest. Oh and just in case there is some dissent in the ranks, “In addition to limiting questions from the visiting governors, the White House barred the usual media coverage of Sunday night's dinner party.” Well that’s just great. The highest elected officials of our land are now treated like Sheryl Crow at the Grammys.

Of course, its not all doom and gloom in D.C. Not everyone hates the administration’s brave new health care initiative. “Gov. John G. Rowland of Connecticut, a Republican, was enthusiastic about the plan. "It's a great deal," Mr. Rowland said. "I'm very pleased with the prospect of greater state flexibility."” The Governor of Connecticut is enthusiastic? Not the same Connecticut that’s home to nearly every insurance company in the United States? Why would that state possibly support a plan that forces the elderly to enroll in HMOs? I’m disgusted.

If you have anyone in your family pushing 60, be sure to tell them to start saving now, because all those thousands of dollars they’ve been paying into “the system” over the years isn’t going to be worth so much as a bottle of aspirin once this plan gets passed.

Enjoy!

Labels: George W. Bush, HMO, medicaid, medicare