Reading First Is Last

The news concerning the “No Child Left Behind” program just keeps getting worse and worse. What originally had the potential of revamping the education system in America for the better is now becoming another in the long list of failures of the Bush administration. When it was trumpeted in 2001 by the Bush administration as the answer to the failing education system, it was met with cautious optimism. On the surface it appeared to offer some much needed direction to the lack of standardized measurements of student progress, teacher skill levels, or school accountability. Other components of the bill offered school choice to public school students and parents, federally mandated testing and ratings of schools, and a reading program targeted at low income children.

Children who participate in the $1-billion-a-year reading initiative at the heart of the No Child Left Behind law have not become better readers than their peers, according to a study released today by the Education Department's research arm.

Reading First, aimed at improving reading skills among students from low-income families, has been plagued by allegations of mismanagement and financial conflicts of interest. But the Bush administration has strenuously backed the effort, saying it helps disadvantaged children learn to read. About 1.5 million children in about 5,200 schools nationwide, including more than 140 schools in Maryland, Virginia and the District, participate in Reading First.[1]

I don’t understand how we can spend over 5 billion dollars and have little if anything to show for it. How is it that after all of these years of public education and studies of public education techniques we still don’t know how to educate children from low income families? I don’t believe that the answer is we don’t know how to educate these children, unfortunately I think it is something more insidious than that. I think we do know how to educate these children, but that we don’t want to. A capitalist system needs to have a pool of cheap low skill workers to fuel the astronomical profits of America’s corporations. Keeping low income children uneducated or undereducated provides such a pool. Between the unskilled low income kids and the low skill immigrants flooding across our borders, Wal-Mart will have a pool of workers well into the future.

Reading is the building block of education, if you can’t read you will not be able to learn. So are we to assume that we can not teach our children to at least read? How is it that our best educational minds with a billion dollars a year for the last 6 years still have no clue how to teach our children to read? Every major university in this country has education departments that study and train our teachers and educators. I can not believe that with all the research grants and empirical studies that we are no closer to closing the education gap than we are right now. I understand the complexity of the issue, but I also understand the amount of resources and personnel that we have expended on the problem. Not only have we not been able to close the wealthy versus the low income gap here in America, but we have not been able to close the gap between America and the rest of the world.

Education Department officials said the study will help them better implement Reading First and said the program has the support of many educators across the country. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings recently likened the effort, aimed at improving instruction in schools with children from low-income families, to "the cure for cancer."

During a speech to educators in March, Spellings said that Reading First was one of most effective education programs she had encountered. "If ever a program was rooted in research and science and fact, this is it," she said.[2]

Well, if they are likening this program to the cure for cancer then anyone diagnosed with cancer is in deep trouble. If this program is rooted in science and these are the results it is no wonder we are losing the technology wars. This program despite what the secretary is saying has been riddled with rumors of mismanagement and kickbacks. The No Child Left Behind program has been criticized for emphasizing scores over teaching and for being under funded for the herculean task involved. The results of this study will do little to quiet the controversy.

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050101399.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050101399.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Read more!

The Cow Is Already Out Of The Barn

It is good to see that our elected officials are once again using their impeccable timing to save us poor working class folks from being ravaged by the wealthy. There is only one small problem the ravaging has already taken place. These same idiots who supported less or no regulation of business and the markets particularly think that now there maybe a problem with letting corporations and lobbyist write their own legislation and regulations? I’m shocked. Ok folks let’s have a quick recap, the reason we have Medicare, Social Security, and child labor laws is because if given a chance the greedy bastards that are the captains of industry will run this ship aground every time for short term profits.

Mr. Paulson said the government was going to demand greater “transparency” from banks and Wall Street firms, stronger risk management and capital management and a better trading system for complex financial derivatives, such as collateralized debt obligations, that managed to transform risky subprime mortgages into securities with Triple-A ratings.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who is a member of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and Finance committees, was both positive and critical about the proposals, saying in a statement: “The administration is finally moving towards where Congress was last year. The good news is, they’re beginning to put their toe in the water when it comes to government involvement to help the economy.

The bad news is, they’re going to have to do a lot more than that to address the problem. We need government action not only to solve the current crisis, but also to prevent a future one.”[1]

So now that all the robberies have taken place the Keystone Cops in the Bush administration want to come in and close the barn door. But like as been stated many times by wiser folks than me, the cow is already out of the barn. The pillaging has been done and not only have they allowed it to happen, they are now in the process of rewarding the same people who drove our economy to the brink. This is similar to the CEO’s of the nations banks and mortgage firms getting raises for orchestrating the biggest economic meltdown according to ex-Fed Chairman Greenspan since WWII. So what is it going to take to wake up the American public to the lies being perpetrated by the wealthy and their political minions.

I once read that capitalism is expecting the greediest among us to do the right thing. Well guess what folks, they are not going to do the right thing. What makes it so bad is that the Bushies can orchestrate a “bail-out” for Wall Street overnight, but do you think they have any help in store for Main Street? Not a chance. So reward the very economic excesses that caused this debacle by bailing out the architects of it and leave those victimized by it to fend for themselves. Is this a great country or what? And rather than us taking to the streets to protest the inequality of these economic policies we sit cowering in our homes hoping that the next wave of lay-offs and foreclosures don’t have our name on them. In the mean time the people who not only have created this mess, but also have the most assets to weather this storm are treated to government intervention while this same government is pissing down our legs and saying not to worry we are on top of this.

I feel better already. The same clowns who removed the regulations and regulators now say they have a handle on this thing. I know according to Senator McCain how we end up stepping into crap is not important, but I beg to differ. If I don’t understand how I keep stepping into crap, guess what I ‘d better invest in a pair of hip-waders because I am going to find myself in heaps of it. The problem is simply this, we have been fed a bunch of BS by the robber-barons of today that more regulation will lead to more costs and lay-offs. Newsflash – How many lay-offs do you think are in the works now that the economy has been trashed by these clowns? The problem is not regulation. The problem is greed. It is the Government’s job to protect those who are weaker from those who are stronger. How many “Gilded Ages” do we have to go through to understand this?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/business/13cnd-paulson.html?hp

Read more!

Where’s My Rebate Check?

For the second time in his presidency George Bush has had to provide an “economic stimulus” to the failing economy. When will these clowns get it? These short-term band-aids will not fix a broken economy. These rebate checks are just a way for the politicians in Washington to be able to accept their checks from the lobbyists without guilt. The truth is just like the last rebates they will do little to rescue an economy that has inherent flaws. Rather than do the hard work needed to create a working economy, the Washingtonians have opted for a symbolic gesture designed to appease the masses in time for the fall elections. It is a win/win for both parties and a loss for the American public.

The economic research on effective stimulus is quite clear on this point: there is a greater bang-for-the-buck from rebates targeted at lower-income households than higher-income ones. As the Congressional Budget Office put it in a recent report:[PDF] "Lower-income households are more likely to be credit constrained and more likely to be among those with the highest propensity to spend. Therefore, policies aimed at lower-income households tend to have greater stimulative effects." Given the well-documented increase in income inequality in recent years, excluding low-income households from the rebate also fails on the criterion of fairness.[1]

Rather than deal with the rampant corporate greed that has fed this recession, it is easier to hand out a few hundred dollars in hush money to the electorate while the fleecing continues. Let’s compare the “stimulus package” being offered up by Washington with the profit package that the corporations have been enjoying the last 8 years.

Since 2001, he noted, overall corporate profits have doubled, to more than $1 trillion. Contributors to that gain include a cumulative $440 billion increase in investment, a $375 billion expansion of budget deficits and a $140 billion decline in household savings. The only negative during the period was a $405 billion widening of the trade deficit.[2]

The proposed stimulus package totals 150 billion dollars while the corporate profits are over a trillion dollars, is it just me or is there a small discrepancy here? Are we to believe that a $600 check is going to off-set the unprecedented growth of wealth and profiteering that is taking place in America today? The increase in the price of gasoline alone amounts to more than what is being offered the American public. Many economists believe that one of the main problems with our economy is the lack of savings, so what are we suppose to do with our rebate checks? Go out and spend them to generate more profits for the corporations. Why not just continue to give the money directly to the corporations and avoid the middle-man? So remember when those checks start to arrive in May or June you will be counted on to be a good little American and go out spend that money. Go buy yourself something nice, you really deserve it. Maybe it will help you to forget how truly bad the recession is and how worse it is going to get. Maybe it will help you to forget all your fellow Americans who are being evicted from their homes or who are still patrolling the streets of Iraq. Maybe it will help you forget all those millions of Americans who were forgotten in the negotiations; the unemployed, the food stamp recipients, and the seniors.

Yeah $600 is a pretty small price to pay for silence. I know it’s hard to say no to free money, but this money isn’t free. It will be directly added to the budget deficit which is currently hovering around 9 trillion dollars, so what’s another 100 billion? Our economy needs help, but not these onetime symbolic gestures. The time has come to make some much needed changes that will require making some difficult decisions. I just don’t see the political will or the populist surge to make it happen. So we will take our checks and continue to ignore the giant elephant in the room until there is a total collapse and then everyone will wonder what happened? What happened was that our infinitely expanding economy finally reached the limits of greed and corruption and rammed into the glass wall.

[1] http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20080123
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/business/yourmoney/01profit.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Read more!

When Is A Treaty Not A Treaty?

When is a treaty not a treaty? When the Bush administration says it isn’t. In an effort to once again prevent debate on Iraq and our ultimate objectives there the Bush administration has begun negotiations with the “Iraqi government” on replacing the soon to expire UN mandate with another agreement setting the terms for US involvement in Iraq. This agreement being negotiated is referred to as a military to military relationship agreement. This agreement will set the ground-rules and the parameters by which the US military can operate in Iraq. While there are many reasons that this agreement should be brought before the American people for debate I would like to discuss three.

This emerging American negotiating position faces a potential buzz saw of opposition from Iraq, with its fragmented Parliament, weak central government and deep sensitivities about being seen as a dependent state, according to these officials.

American officials are keenly aware that any agreement must be approved by Iraq’s fractured Council of Representatives, where Sunni and Shiite factions feud and even Shiite blocs loyal to competing leaders cannot agree.[1]

The first reason is the state of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government is in disarray which makes any negotiations tricky at best. How can we expect a government that is unable to resolve its own internal struggles through compromise to be able to negotiate in good faith? The current government does not have the standing or the mandate to negotiate with anyone concerning anything. Hoping to seize on this vulnerable state the Bush administration is trying to lock not only the US, but also the Iraqis into an agreement that is one-sided and heavily tilted towards the US. The administration says they don’t want a permanent presence in Iraq, but based on the spending for the new embassy and bases which is over 1.5 billion dollars, it is hard to accept that line. It is precisely this type of heavy-handed negotiations that have endeared the US presence around the world. How many embassies must be attacked and countries overthrown before we get a clue? These negotiations only underscore the lack of sovereignty of the Iraqi government and further humiliate the Iraqi people.

However, the American quest for protections for civilian contractors is expected to be particularly vexing, because in no other country are contractors working with the American military granted protection from local laws. Some American officials want contractors to have full immunity from Iraqi law, while others envision less sweeping protections. These officials said the negotiations with the Iraqis, expected to begin next month, would also determine whether the American authority to conduct combat operations in the future would be unilateral, as it is now, or whether it would require consultation with the Iraqis or even Iraqi approval.[2]

The second reason is the immunity clause being forced upon the Iraqis. The US is trying to include in the agreement full immunity for civilian contractors in Iraq, which would be unprecedented in these types of agreements. This immunity would give the private security forces a license to kill in the literal sense, not only would they be shielded from Iraqi justice but as we are learning with the Blackwater case US justice as well. This would give the US government a private army that could be used for missions that would not be desirable for the regular military to undertake, all the while providing cover for US officials for any mission that went badly. It was a rouge band of private contractors that committed those atrocities. Sound familiar?

Representative Bill Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts, said that what the administration was negotiating amounted to a treaty and should be subjected to Congressional oversight and ultimately ratification.

“Where have we ever had an agreement to defend a foreign country from external attack and internal attack that was not a treaty?” he said Wednesday at a hearing of a foreign affairs subcommittee held to review the matter. “This could very well implicate our military forces in a full-blown civil war in Iraq. If a commitment of this magnitude does not rise to the level of a treaty, then it is difficult to imagine what could.”[3]

Finally, there is the small matter of oversight and debate. George Bush has succeeded in preventing any real debate on Iraq for almost 5 years. By using fear, hate, and false patriotism he has quashed any meaningful debate concerning not only the run-up to the war, but his policies since the invasion. Because we first had a Republican controlled and now a weak-kneed Democratic controlled Congress, the American public has been left out of the debate concerning Iraq. At one point the mid-term elections were supposed to have registered the American people’s concern and disenchantment with the war. Those concerns and that disenchantment have been brushed aside not only by the Bush administration, the MSM, but also the Democratic Congress. Many of those Congresspersons campaigned and won on ending the war platforms.

The Bush administration should not be allowed to commit this country to an open ended security agreement with Iraq. It is bad enough he got us there with lies and secrecy and now he wants to use the same tactics to keep us there for who knows how long. If it quacks like a duck?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?pagewanted=2&hp
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?pagewanted=2&hp

Read more!

A Riddle Wrapped in Mystery, Inside an Enigma

This line always comes to mind when I think about the American economy. The designers of this “economy” have wrapped so many layers on top of layers that I don’t think anyone truly understands it. Oh sure we have these “leading economists” and scholars who pontificate on the inner workings of capitalism, but I have come to believe they are no more reliable than the local weatherman. The problem with an economy as complex as ours is that no one can truly predict how one component will truly affect another. They have their theories and their models, but the reality is they don’t have a clue. The sad part about it is they don’t have to. Most average folks don’t understand it and have no desire to learn about it. For them if they go to work, get paid, and can pay their bills the economy is working.

The truth however is that it isn’t that simple. There are economic hurdles strategically placed to ensure that those with capital are able to increase it at the expense of those who don’t. While we claim a free-market enterprise, we really don’t practice it. We have created so many layers on top of each other without any insulation or safety nets that collapse is inevitable. The reason there is no insulation or safety nets is because Americans do not save money. If the American consumer saved money not only would they provide insulation and a safety net for themselves, but also it would force the financial markets to do likewise. Instead of promoting savings our markets have promoted spending, but not only spending but debt spending.

Think of it as getting the sacrifice of U.S. soldiers and the obliviousness of U.S. shoppers a little more in sync. The non-relation between expensive wars and exempt non-warriors, a mirage Bush has fostered, has become unsustainable.

Roach estimated U.S. net national savings at a tiny 1.4 percent of national income and household debt at 133 percent of personal disposable income. That last figure means middle class families are tapping into home equity - borrowing against their homes - to buy their kids socks. And if they can't pay the resulting never-sleeping debt, they lose not a room or two, but the house.[1]

So we have many people who have spent more than they could ever hope to repay based on market assumptions that could never have been met. The whole Bush recovery was based on lies, it was predicated on the continued debt spending of not only the American public, but also the American business community and government. In an economy that is built on false assumptions on top of other false assumptions when one of those false assumptions finally is proven false it takes the others with it. The false assumption that was exposed by the sub-prime crisis is not the only one and as we are seeing the whole economy is at risk. We are in the beginning of a recession; the only question now is how deep and for how long.

I read a piece in the NY Times about how we were not suppose to have any more deep and long-lasting recessions. The very problems our economy is dealing with today are the ones we were supposed to be able to avoid through business efficiency and lessons from past mistakes. The current crisis is based on market speculation. You remember the same thing that has caused previous recessions and the creator of the depression, so I guess the learning the lessons of the past is not reliable. According to the article, because of our economic moderation principles we were not going to experience the type of collapse we are seeing today, so much for moderation.

America does not know moderation. From a President that believes you can wage war without concerns for the economic repercussions to the homeowners and credit card holders who believe that consumption is the answer to all of life’s problems, we don’t do moderation very well. Now greed and conspicuous consumption we do those really well. And that is why the answer to our economic crisis in Washington is to promote more spending. I got it, let’s give out rebate checks for more spending to stimulate a broken economy. The answer to our current situation is not more spending it is more saving. We cannot continue to spend money like drunken sailors, it is time to bite the bullet and make the difficult choices that Bush and company have managed to stave-off for eight years.

For some odd reason saving money in America has gotten a bad name, the corporate profiteers have convinced Americans that we have an infinitely expanding economy, just like the universe and if we just keep feeding the engine of consumption it will continue to expand. I am not an economics professor or a Nobel Prize winner, but I can see the fallacy in that, I wish more of my fellow citizens could see it as well. The lessons learned by the survivors of the Great Depression have been lost on the “boomers”, we must as a nation begin to save money and provide better insulation of our markets. We must stop our addiction to debt spending both institutionally and individually. The problems of our economy may be complicated but the solution isn’t. Save money!

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21cohen.html

Read more!

More Compassionate Conservatism

As if the S-CHIPS fiasco wasn’t enough the Bush administration has decided to prevent states from extending Medicare coverage to moderate income families. In what is sure to lower his job approval ratings even more, Mr. Bush has authorized the government to deny the increase the states have sought to cover families that are 250% over the poverty limits set by the government. The increase being sought by the states would affect a family of four who earn approximately 51,600 a year. The President seems to believe that by allowing the states to increase the poverty limit percentages that families already with health insurance will drop it and come running to join Medicare. Obviously, Mr. Bush has not gotten the memo that there are currently at least 47 million people in America who are without health insurance and if he has his way there will be lots more.

Until now, states had generally been free to set their own Medicaid eligibility criteria, and the Bush administration had not openly declared that it would apply the August directive to Medicaid. State officials in Louisiana, Ohio and Oklahoma said they had discovered the administration’s intent in negotiations with the federal government over the last few weeks.

The new federal policy reflects a significant shift. In the first four years of the Bush administration, Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, often boasted that he had approved record numbers of waivers, allowing states to decide who got what benefits under Medicaid and the child health program.

“Our goal is to give governors the flexibility they need to expand insurance coverage to more Americans,” Mr. Thompson said in 2001.[1]

So let me see if I understand this, after promising the nation to be a “compassionate conservative” Mr. Bush allowed the states to determine who needed healthcare coverage and who didn’t, but now as he is leaving office after having spent untold billions in Iraq and Afghanistan he has lost his compassion for the American people. The solution to the healthcare crisis in America is not Medicare, but it will act as a safety net until a solution is found and enacted. Why is it that those who are covered by government sponsored healthcare are always willing to stand on their principles so long as it doesn’t cost them anything? How can we as a nation be able to afford the costs of two wars; not to mention untold billions in military aid to other countries but can’t afford to provide decent affordable healthcare to our own citizens.

If the answer was flexibility in 2001, what has occurred in 7 years to make that no longer applicable today? Are there fewer people in need of health insurance? No, on the contrary there are more and as the costs continue to rise the numbers will increase. Should middle-income families become indigent due to trying to provide healthcare for their families? I don’t think so; instead of trying to shrink the number of people being helped we should be increasing them. The numbers of uninsured are only going to continue to increase; Mr. Bush has done nothing in his terms as President to stem the tide of the uninsured. Money that could have been used to provide healthcare has instead been used to give tax-cuts to the wealthy and instability in the world.

Why is the answer to every economic question the same for Mr. Bush? As we prepare for a serious recession, we continue to hear the same tired refrain of tax-cuts. Mr. Bush, if tax-cuts were the answer why are we in the position we are in? Just as he has refused to do anything meaningful about the healthcare crisis, he has no new plans for the economic crisis. What the haves will call a recession, the have-nots will call a depression. Mr. Bush is leaving the country at the right time, he has squandered the budget deficits, he has squandered the good-will of the world, and he has squandered the good-will of the American people. It seems like the only thing he is trying to do now is to keep promoting the failed policies he authored from day one. His final goal seems to be to ensure that his pro-rich policies remain in effect Ad infinitum and why not he won’t have anything else to hang his hat on.

There appears to be wholesale gouging which is fueling a rise in inflation by the oil and gas, retail, and the food industries. The rats know the ship is sinking and they are trying to get as much profit as they can before the Bush administration breathes its last breath. Their answer to the economic crisis is to raise prices and squeeze every last dime out of the American consumer. It is going to be a long hot summer for the American public as the market tanks and the gas prices rise. Thank you Mr. Bush, you have done a bang up job.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/washington/04health.html?hp

Read more!

Democracy – Pakistani Style

It has always amazed me how the media, politicians, and pundits will elevate someone in death to a place they wouldn’t give them in life. I am often reminded of the eulogy given by Ted Kennedy (probably his greatest moment in public life) for his brother Robert where he said, “My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life.” The recent tragic death of Benazir Bhutto and its subsequent media frenzy reminds me of those words. Many of those who are idealizing her today were aware of the lit fuse that followed her arrival in Pakistan and refused to respond to it. They were aware of the constant threat of death that all of the opposition candidates in Pakistan were under and yet this government continued to fund Mr. Musharraf and play the terrorist card while he created the atmosphere for political assassination and crushed the seeds of democracy.

Ms. Bhutto will be chalked up as another casualty of extremists or al Qaeda, another casualty of the war on terror. The truth of course is anything but, Ms. Bhutto was a casualty of democracy in Pakistan. You see democracy in Pakistan has its own rules and procedures for campaigning. There are no candidate debates, instead there is candidate assassinations and attempted assassinations. There are no Party platforms to discuss, there is intimidation and suicide bombings. To those who are advocating the war on terror, democracy is part of the collateral damage. They create these copious photo-ops espousing the need for democracy, while continuing to funnel money to the tyrants and dictators. Ms Bhutto was no more a casualty of the war on terror as she was a casualty to business as usual, the US does not want democracy, they want stability.

The truth of the matter was that Ms. Bhutto was sacrificed by the US, her return to Pakistan was orchestrated by the US. Despite the MSM, she was brought to Pakistan not to win, but to lose. Her presence was to give legitimacy to a corrupt system that we didn’t want fixed, we just wanted it legitimized. The goal of the State Department was to parade her and the other opposition candidates around before the elections to give the appearance of free and fair elections, when in truth they were never going to be allowed to assume power. The problem was that Mr. Musharraf became nervous, he knew his stock in the US was falling and he was not willing to take the US at its word. Maybe he remembered Saddam or the Shah who knows, but one thing is certain he wanted to ensure that there would be no Election Day coup. There was not going to be any Orange Revolution in Pakistan.

"The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability, but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact," said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

But the diplomacy that ended abruptly with Bhutto's assassination yesterday was always an enormous gamble, according to current and former U.S. policymakers, intelligence officials and outside analysts. By entering into the legendary "Great Game" of South Asia, the United States also made its goals and allies more vulnerable -- in a country in which more than 70 percent of the population already looked unfavorably upon Washington.[1]

For those who need convincing consider this, if al Qaeda killed Bhutto why is the only one with something to gain from it is Musharraf? If Musharraf is so hated by al Qaeda and the Taliban why would they do something to benefit him just two weeks before an election? Also, consider how the Bush administration is not calling for postponement of the election, they are calling for it to continue. The country is in a state turmoil with violence breaking out in every major city. Both opposition party leaders were targeted for assassination and their Parties are in disarray. I wonder who is going to prevail in this election. The real trick will be how fast the Neo-cons spin this into a mandate to continue the heavy-handed policies of Musharraf. This thing was a powder keg and all of our years of support for this man, the military, and his tactics came to fruition in the death of Ms. Bhutto.

Do I believe the US was complicit in the death of Ms. Bhutto? No, but do I believe they set the ball in motion that created an atmosphere for her to be murdered? Yes, I do. I believe they underestimated Musharraf and his desire to cling to power by any means necessary. I believe they thought they could play both sides against each other and the plan backfired horribly. The problem is when you are dealing with dictators and megalomaniacs it is kind of hard to know what they are capable of. Once again the arrogance of the Neo-con intelligence prevented them from seeing the very real possibility of this assassination taking place. There was a deep hatred between the two and to not foresee this is inexcusable. Especially after the “state of emergency” recently enacted and only through international pressure finally removed by Musharraf.

The turning point to get Musharraf on board was a September trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte to Islamabad. "He basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by him, but he needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

"Musharraf still detested her, and he came around reluctantly as he began to recognize this fall that his position was untenable," Riedel said. The Pakistani leader had two choices: Bhutto or former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf had overthrown in a 1999 military coup. "Musharraf took what he thought was the lesser of two evils," Riedel said.[2]

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701481.html?hpid=topnews
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701481.html?hpid=topnews

Read more!

War On Terror; Fought By Foreign Mercenaries

I find it interesting that with General/President Musharraf’s government in trouble we are now getting reports that our billions of dollars in military aid to Pakistan is being misappropriated. It seems that for five years we have been contributing about a billion dollars a year to a program known as Coalition Support Funds. This of course is just a fancy name being used for a program that pays the Pakistanis to continue fighting a war they don’t want to fight and the results prove that out. The Coalition Support Funds are designed to reimburse the Pakistani military for conducting missions against the Taliban and al Qaeda in the mountainous border regions of Pakistan. My question is this, if the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the other terrorists are a threat to Pakistan as well as the US as the Bush administration and President Musharraf have stated why do we have to pay them to fight?

Early last week, six years after President Bush first began pouring billions of dollars into Pakistan’s military after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon completed a review that produced a classified plan to help the Pakistani military build an effective counterinsurgency force.[1]

Once again it seems like the only way we can get people to fight alongside of us in this “War on Terror” is to pay them. While this is not surprising it does raise some other interesting issues, such as why is it that now when Mr. Musharraf’s political position seems precarious these allegations are beginning to surface? Are we to believe that for all these years no one noticed that Pakistan was not using the money to buy the military hardware they were supposed to, but instead purchasing advanced systems to compete with India? Where were they purchasing this advanced hardware from with our tax payer dollars?

The Bush administration has kept a blind eye to the human rights abuses, the loss of democracy, and the misappropriation of funds that has been occurring in Pakistan. Why would they be concerned about those small details when they have done likewise here in America? Tyranny knows tyranny. Rather than complete the mission in Afghanistan and actually make the world safer as they claim, they instead choose to expand their war into Iraq. Now as they exit the world stage; we have a war on at least two fronts and we are not “winning” either and we are no safer. But Forgiven, there have been no more attacks in the US while Bush has been in office; we are fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here. Understand one thing, the 9/11 attack was a one-time deal. It was not part of some global plot by al Qaeda to take over the United States or the world, it was designed to scare the hell out of us and it did that. The question now becomes where do we go from here?

Do we continue to pour boatloads of money into a black pit not only in America, but to every little tin-horn dictator who promises results? Unfortunately for Mr. Bush and his Neo-Con clowns, the world is more complex than their rhetoric allows. Just as our system is based on the intra-workings of many parties and agendas, so it is in any country. Every leader has to answer to someone and regardless of what they promise they still have to sell at home. In too many cases this requires cold hard cash to grease the wheels of government, so we expect results but only based on our schema. Other countries of course have their own procedures and they often times to do not emulate ours.

For their part, Pakistani officials angrily accused the United States of refusing to sell Pakistan the advanced helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft, radios and night-vision equipment it needs.

“There have been many aspects of equipment that we’ve been keen on getting,” said Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad, the Pakistani military’s chief spokesman. “There have been many delays which have hampered this war against extremists.”

But by mid-2007, the $1 billion-a-year figure became public, largely because of the objections of some military officials and defense experts who said that during an ill-fated peace treaty between the military and militants in the tribal areas in 2005 and 2006, the money kept flowing. Pakistan continued to submit receipts for reimbursement, even though Pakistani troops had stopped fighting.[2]

Anytime our “allies” want more money they complain about how we are hampering their efforts to prosecute a war that we in fact started. Money often times used to enrich the dictators and their cronies, while the ones designed to benefit from the aid continue to go without. Do we really believe that the troops in Pakistan see Osama bin Laden as an enemy to their lives in the sense that we do? And it’s not just the “war on terror”, it is also used in the war on drugs. We expect other country’s troops to wage war on our behalf against their countrymen and crops that have been growing for centuries, all in an attempt to keep the drugs from our streets and the world’s biggest market.

We have replaced diplomacy and mutual benefit with bribery and intimidation. Is there any wonder our foreign policy is in shambles? The sad part is that the upcoming election only promises more of the same. It is time we reexamined our priorities as well as our allies and develop a foreign policy that matches the reality of the world and not the false history that we continue to try and hold on to. The world has changed, unfortunately we have not.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Read more!

Oh My Goodness, Hamas Won?

In case anyone needs to know why the Annapolis talks are DOA, the previous statement uttered by Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice should clear up any doubt. This statement was uttered by Ms. Rice in response to the news that after the Palestinian elections she helped to usher in the Hamas faction had won the majority of seats. I remember from my pre-law days the admonition of one of my professors, “Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”. You would never schedule a democratic election, if you can’t guarantee the democratic results. Neither should you setup a final peace conference, if you don’t have any final peace agreement.

Nearly seven tumultuous years later, Ms. Rice, as secretary of state, has led the Bush administration to a startling turnaround and is now thrusting the United States as forcefully as Mr. Clinton once did into the role of mediator between the Israelis and Palestinians. The culmination of her efforts occurs this week in Annapolis, Md., as Mr. Bush, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, meet to set the outlines of a final peace agreement before the end of Mr. Bush’s term.[1]

These talks have a snowballs chance in hell of creating any long-term peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Prior to a conference on this scale there has been behind the scenes negotiations that have ironed out the language and details of the agreement, to my knowledge there have been no such meetings. Without the proper groundwork what could she possibly hope to accomplish? The answer of course is nothing this is just another one of this administrations dog and pony shows where there is all sizzle and no substance.

There has been no movement on either side on the major issues that divide both sides, namely the borders and the refugee questions. There has been no movement on the roadmap. You have the majority of Palestinians supporting Hamas who was not invited to the conference, so what can you hope to accomplish without one of the major parties being present? If this weren’t so important and tragic, it would be almost hilarious. Ms. Rice has never been willing to push Israel enough to get a comprehensive agreement with enough concessions to make it palatable to the Palestinians. Just the fact that they are negotiating with a wounded Prime Minister from Palestine shows the desperation of Ms. Rice and this administration to be known for more than the Iraq war debacle.

Many other Middle East experts remain unconvinced as well, particularly since the failure so far of the Israelis and Palestinians to agree on a joint statement to come out of the 40-nation conference has forced Ms. Rice to recast Annapolis as the start rather than the end of negotiations. Critics say she is organizing little more than an elaborate photo opportunity.[2]

So it seems rather than produce any meaningful agreement, this administration in the person of Ms. Rice is content to present a charade for the cameras and the US media. It will give everyone cover for continuing the status quo. We will have plenty of pictures of serious looking diplomats discussing the seriousness of peace in the Middle East, followed by a joint statement of nothingness by all parties, vowing to continue seeking peace. Once the cameras have been turned off, there will be a continuation of business as usual. There is too much invested for all concerned in maintaining the status quo, Abbas has no mandate outside of what Israel and the US gives him, Olmert does not have the political muscle to secure major concessions especially with the Palestinians being fractured, and the US has its hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran on the horizon, the other Arab states just need to look like they are seeking peace and justice for the Palestinians to keep their populations stable. The only ones seeking peace have no power to bring it about.

For Ms. Rice, Annapolis reflects her evolution from passive participant to activist diplomat who has been willing to break with Mr. Cheney and other conservatives skeptical of an American diplomatic role in the Middle East. Mr. Cheney argued with Ms. Rice against a pivotal Middle East speech that Mr. Bush gave in 2002 in the Rose Garden, fought her on a host of other issues, including Iran and North Korea, and today surrounds himself with senior advisers dubious about the Annapolis meeting.[3]

Condoleezza Rice has no serious backing in the administration for this effort. The President is vague and not invested and the Vice-President is totally not onboard. It appears that this is just Mr. Bush offering a token concession to Ms. Rice for her loyalty and their friendship. His position does not appear to have changed from early in his first term, where he did not feel obliged to become entangled in the whole Middle East peace process. Peace and negotiations are messy and tiresome, it’s not the cowboy way. Cowboys kick butt, cowboys do regime change and invasion. Negotiations are for weaklings and sissies, not tough guys like Bush and Cheney.

So let’s give a toast to Condi Rice and all the other dignitaries who will be getting face time on television and the cable news talking heads, but in the end, “oh my goodness, Hamas still won…”

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26rice.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1196111064-1JAQdjqOZo2fhh95B2WPLA
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26rice.html?hp

Read more!

Going Above And Beyond

In a stunning defeat for the US Government’s war on the financing of terrorism, a federal judge declared a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict in the case. The case began in 2001 when President Bush froze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation of Relief and Development for what he described as fundraising for Hamas. According to the government, the organization was a front for Hamas and that it was secretly controlled by Hamas which the US has declared a terrorist organization.

DALLAS, Oct. 22 — A federal judge declared a mistrial on Monday in what was widely seen as the government’s flagship terrorism-financing case after prosecutors failed to persuade a jury to convict five leaders of a Muslim charity on any charges, or even to reach a verdict on many of the 197 counts.

The case, involving the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five of its backers, is the government’s largest and most complex legal effort to shut down what it contends is American financing for terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

The case involved 197 counts, including providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. It also involved years of investigation and preparation, almost two months of testimony and more than 1,000 exhibits, including documents, wiretaps, transcripts and videotapes dug up in a backyard in Virginia.[1]

The government’s case was primarily smoke and mirrors provided by the Israelis who had wanted the organization shut down for political reasons. After all, they were building hospitals and taking care of orphan Palestinian children for God’s sake. The government had accused the group of providing material support to Hamas and funding terrorism. As one juror stated the case was weak on facts and strong on innuendo. The government has gotten to the point where if they mention the word terrorists or terrorism they expect the US people to cower and assent to whatever the government wants.

While this is a victory for the defendants in this case, it is also a victory for the American public. It seems that we as a nation are starting to finally come out of the haze of 9/11 with its fear and unquestioned loyalty and are now saying enough is enough. The politics of fear and divisiveness has run its course. Anyone foolish enough to try to run on those terms in this election cycle is going to be sadly mistaken and I predict soundly defeated. It is time we as a nation moved past 9/11 and the era of Bush and his Neo-Con cronies and begin to rebuild our faith and trust in each other and in the world.

Despite popular belief everyone in the world does not hate America, they hate what we allowed America to become under these wing-nuts. I guarantee that if we are willing to move beyond 9/11, the world will once again embrace us with open arms. Does that mean that the terrorists will stop targeting America? Of course not, but we will begin to enlist the support of the world again which is important because we cannot win this fight alone. All people seeking true freedom must rely on each other to overcome the forces of tyranny that have hijacked the country after 9/11.

David D. Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, said the jury’s verdict called into question the government’s tactics in freezing the assets of charities using secret evidence that the charities cannot see, much less rebut. When, at trial, prosecutors “have to put their evidence on the table, they can’t convict anyone of anything,” he said. “It suggests the government is really pushing beyond where the law justifies them going.”

And Jimmy Gurulé, who was an under secretary of the Treasury when that agency froze Holy Land’s assets, described the outcome as “the continuation of what I now see as a trend of disappointing legal defeats” in terror-financing cases. Two previous cases, in Illinois and in Florida, ended with hung juries and relatively minor plea deals, he said.[2]

The time has come for the American courts to begin curtailing the overreach in authority by the government that has occurred post 9/11. I would never want to see another terrorist attack anywhere and especially in America, but the thing I admire about other countries who live with the threat daily is they continue to function in spite of the threat. They accept the threat for what it is, but they continue to go about their business despite it. The threat to America is real; the response to the threat is not. Allowing the government to over step its boundaries under the pretext of national security is wrong, it was wrong in the past and it is wrong today.

I would expect the government to try and push beyond their scope, but what I didn’t expect was for so many Americans to give in without a fight. I guess the truth be told, we really don’t have a clue how democracy works. This is sad, that after 300 years one day, one event could cause so many to give up their freedoms so quickly. How could the voices of freedom go silent in the face of tyranny? I applaud the juries that are not allowing the government to railroad innocents and ruin lives. It’s funny that whenever a government case goes before a jury, the results are never what they expect. The average American has more courage and more common sense than those clowns on Capitol Hill, who are suppose to be protecting us and yet continue to kowtow to the bullies in the White House.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/us/23charity.html
[2] Ibid.

Read more!

Blackwater Highlights Bigger Issue In Iraq

The incident with the Blackwater Security Corporation in Iraq has been well documented. I certainly would not want to retrace the many stories detailing the charges and counter-charges. The Iraqis have completed their investigation and have concluded the attack against the civilians was unprovoked. The government of Iraq has asked the State Department to remove Blackwater from Iraq. It seems that the government of Iraq is tired of having its citizens being used for target practice for trigger happy mercs. This case and the findings of the Iraqi investigation brings up what I believe is the crux of the problem in Iraq. I think it is why the Iraqis have not worked harder at resolving their differences and trying to meet the benchmarks set up by the US.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi investigation into last month's Blackwater USA shooting is complete, and it proves that the private contractors committed unprovoked and random killings in the incident, an adviser to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Tuesday.

Adviser Sami al-Askari told CNN al-Maliki has asked the U.S. State Department to "pull Blackwater out of Iraq."

Al-Askari said the United States is still waiting for the findings of the American investigation, but the Iraqi leader and most Iraqi officials are "completely satisfied" with the findings of their probe and are "insisting" that Blackwater leave the country.[1]

The fly in the ointment is sovereignty. The Bush Administration is big on talking about Iraqi sovereignty, but the truth of the matter is they don’t have any. This administration talks about how they are the guest of the Iraqi government and that government can request the US to leave at anytime, but this is false. Here is a government under occupation; they can’t even prosecute the random murders of 17 of their citizens. The government can’t kick the perpetrators out of the country and so they appear impotent and unable to protect their citizenry.

The government on the other hand refuses to honor any timetable placed upon them by the US. Their only form of protest is to delay reconciliation and prolong the conflict. So you have the government we put in place fighting against the aims of our government. What is rarely reported on by the US media is the pride of the Iraqi people, that pride has been repeatedly ravaged by our insensitivity to their culture, their women, and their religion.

The government of Prime Minister al-Maliki is caught between a rock and a hard place, on the one hand they have the Americans dictating that they must meet this goal or that and then they have their people who want and expect them to show independence from the occupiers. The next election, if we get that far will be a real eye opener for Washington whoever is President. I have a feeling the Iraqi people are going to send a clear message to Washington by electing a nationalistic candidate, a candidate who will distance himself from the US and demand the removal of US troops. By our refusal to allow the al-Maliki government the semblance of sovereignty we are setting the stage for the next radical leader to ascend to the throne. You cannot continue to stick your thumb into the eye of your host and not expect there to be a backlash.

The blowback of the Iraqi people will take the form of a conservative Islamic militant leader, who will play to the Iraqis desire to remove the US occupying army. The one thing most Iraqis agree upon, whether they are Sunnis or Shia is the desire to have the US troops gone. The next leader will campaign on the weakness of this government and its inability to rein in not only US troops, but US civilians as well. The rage of the Iraqi people is seething just below the surface and is never reported by the US press, so to most Americans the results will come as a surprise and they will view the Iraqis as ungrateful and uncivilized. Because of the lack of security the US press doesn’t have a real sense of the mood of the Iraqi people; it is pretty difficult to gauge the mood of the average Iraqi from behind the Green Zone barricades.

The problem with Iraq is even if we accomplish our goals, we still lose. Eventually the “warm welcome” we have received will turn sour and no matter how big or secure our embassy will be it won’t be able to withstand the will of the Iraqi people. Once again we will overplay our hand and overstay our welcome and the end will be worse than the beginning. Instead of having a secular government open to relations we will have a fanatical Islamist in power who will overturn all of our “progressive” agenda and return Iraq to another Middle Eastern theocracy. How’s that for a legacy Mr. Bush and your Neo-Con friends?

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.blackwater/index.html

Read more!

The New Chalabi?

Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, hinted in a television interview last weekend at one of the war's least understood turning points: America's decision not to challenge Iranian intervention in Iraq's January 2005 elections.

"Our adversaries in Iraq are heavily supported financially by other quarters. We are not," Allawi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We fought the elections with virtually no support whatsoever, except for Iraqis and the Iraqis who support us."[1]

An attempt is being made to develop a campaign to replace the current Iraqi PM, al Maliki with the former Iraqi PM, Allawi. The above quote came from an op-ed piece written by David Ignatius for two purposes. The first is to lay the groundwork for Mr. Allawi’s return and the second is to put some positive spin on Mr. Bush’s floundering record as Commander in Chief. This subtle change is probably orchestrated by the CIA and Neo-Cons who are tired of waiting for the current government to get itself together by Washington standards. I can see a no-confidence challenge being made against Mr. Maliki’s already weak position. Hoping to defy the reality of internal secularism that defines current Iraqi politics there are those who believe we can still control the outcome of this fiasco.

Why would they want to bring back Mr. Allawi? There are many very good reasons for his return to lead the Iraqi government. But first let’s look at his claim about being deserted by the US government during the election in Iraq that brought the current government to power and caused Mr. Allawi’s departure. According to my research this claim is false. The US government spent over 800 million dollars on the elections in Iraq and out of that Mr. Allawi’s government received 41 million.[2] This is from the State departments figures and does not include moneys supplied by the CIA and other “so-called” pro democracy groups. Two of these shadowy groups provided another 80 million dollars for pro-democratic and moderate politicians. The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) are two organizations that sought to provide support to “further America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of citizens in the developing world.”

So, on the surface for Mr. Allawi to claim that his government received no support during the election process seems disingenuous. The real issue is whether the CIA and the US government should have rigged the election to prevent the Shiites with historical ties to Iran from seizing power. Fortunately at the time the answer was no, today I am not so sure it would be the same result. Mr. Allawi’s main complaint is that we did not subvert the democracy we had just fought a war to secure, how very American of him. Where do they get these guys from? Is there a central casting office for these clowns created in Langley?

It wasn’t enough that Mr. Allawi was handpicked by Paul Bremer, who at the time was the Emperor of Iraq, and given the reins of government to create popular support for his party and his policies. Because he had no popular support and was seen by many Iraqis as the puppet of the occupiers, he had no chance of victory in the election no matter how much was spent on his behalf. Then of course there were the two invasions of Iraqi cities (Najaf and Falluja) which alienated him from both the Sunnis and the Shiites.

And of course there was his history of spying, first for the British and then for the CIA. Mr. Allawi was just another attempt to impose an American strongman with no local support on the Iraqi people. The fact that he is making these claims is merely an attempt by him or his handlers to try and rehabilitate himself, an attempt to distance himself from those handlers, atleast publicly. The end result of course will be an attempt to return to power, but how can this be after his government was repudiated by the Iraqi people in the elections; winning only 14% of the vote? Here is where we get creative, the current government of Mr. Maliki is on life support and without the support of the Kurds and the few Sunnis he was able to marshal support from he cannot continue to govern. If through some backroom deal we were able to get the Kurds to pullout, then the government would collapse and plunge the country into chaos. At that point we could insert Mr. Allawi to once again restore order.

Allawi said he is trying to gather support for a new coalition of Kurds, Sunnis and secular Shiites as an alternative to the Shiite religious coalition that installed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in power. Some commentators see Allawi's recent decision to hire a Washington public relations firm as a sign of the Bush administration's support, but the opposite is probably the case. If Allawi had U.S. government backing, he wouldn't need the lobbyists.

Future historians should record that the Bush administration actually lived by its pro-democracy rhetoric about a new Iraq -- to the point that it scuttled a covert action program aimed at countering Iranian influence. Now the administration says it wants to counter Iranian meddling in Iraq, but it is probably too late.[3]

The PR firm of course is not for the Iraqis, it is for the domestic politics here. Mr. Allawi is about to be repackaged and resold, just like old Coke and new Coke

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901930.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
[2] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/37319.htm
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901930.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Read more!

Bush Offers Little More Than GasX For Gas Woes

With price of crude oil hitting the $90 a barrel mark, one would think that the President of the country that uses the most petroleum would be a little concerned. However, true to his natural lack of concern for anything not related to the wealthy, Mr. Bush came out with the following forceful statement in defense of the middle-class. The stock market tanked on the news, so it appears that investors considered it a bit more significant than the White House. There are millions of Americans who are suffering under the stress of high energy costs and with winter around the corner there will be millions more. The rise in crude oil prices will fuel the rise in many other products forcing many families to have to make some tough choices this winter.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With crude oil prices crossing $90 a barrel, the White House said Friday that President Bush would like to see prices lower.

At the same time, the White House played down the $90 mark. ''There's no magic to any particular number like $90 a barrel, but obviously we would prefer oil prices lower,'' said deputy press secretary Tony Fratto.

''The president certainly would like to see the price of oil lower and would like to see us rely less on foreign sources of oil and reduce our dependence on all forms of oil,'' Fratto said. He called on Congress to enact Bush's program to expand the use of alternative fuels and cut gasoline use by 20 percent in 10 years.[1]

The problem I have with this White House, Republicans, and George Bush in particular is their dismissive attitude towards the general public. It’s as if they are saying, “We know what is going on and you don’t, so don’t ask us any questions or question any of our policies”. They continue to live in their own false reality to where crude oil prices reaching new highs means nothing, because they say it means nothing. Who are you going to believe this administration or your freezing kids? This of course is in keeping with his forceful remarks on the mortgage crisis.

We need a President who is willing to lead in times of crisis, a President who is willing to do more than lead us into war. We need a President who will provide direction and leadership and not just the same old rhetoric. Mr. Bush is showing every day that he is in fact irrelevant despite his calls to the opposite. Rather than using his remaining time in office to provide leadership in a worsening economic crisis, he chooses to desert the average American and continue to stand firm with his wealthy friends.

Ninety dollars a barrel may not be a magic number for this administration, but it is a magic number for the majority of Americans who have to buy gas and fuel oil this winter. We need more than a President who wants to placate us, we need one who will do more than say he would like to see lower prices. Hell, I would like to see a bigger paycheck, but saying it won’t make it so. This President needs to do more to help the average American during these economic times. The economy currently is only benefiting those wealthy few who have already received the tax-cut give-away that was suppose to stimulate the economy. It turns out it was just another transfer of wealth from the middle income Americans to the wealthiest. When will Americans realize that giving money to the wealthy will never result in economic success for them, all it does is give more wealth to the wealthy at tax payer expense.

The income to the government must be paid and if the wealthiest are getting tax-cuts, who do you think is paying for it. So rather than being able to provide health care for our poor children, or mortgage relief to average Americans, or fuel relief, we have a public treasury that has been bankrupted by the wealthy looters. It is going to be a long cold winter for Middle America. After struggling through the high fuel prices of summer, it will be more of the same for winter.

Have these guys gotten anything right on Iraq? Where is the lower fuel prices we were suppose to see in exchange for our securing their freedom? Along with all the other Iraqi scenarios, this one proves to be just as false. So let’s break out the GasX, because I have a feeling we are going to need it.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Oil.html

Read more!

Diplomacy Works?

North Korea has endorsed an agreement to dismantle all of its nuclear facilities by the end of the year, according to a joint six-nation statement released by China in Beijing today, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported.[1]

In what will surely be hailed as a coup by all wing-nuts and their pundits, the North Koreans have agreed to dismantle their nuclear facilities in exchange for aid and a non-aggression pact with the US. While only the dismantling of the nuclear facilities is being touted, make no mistake there will be more concessions forthcoming as this deal goes forward.

So let’s work backwards from this momentous occasion to see if there are lessons to be learned. This will be difficult for an administration that has shown repeatedly that it shares the lack of intellectual curiosity of its leader. This is after all an administration that is led by a man who said if given the chance to change anything in the past, he would change nothing, because he has made no mistakes. I hardly think the “Pope Defense” works well for the leader of the free world, but here we go. I think it is important to trace the steps for this resolution, because with this administration hot on the tail of a confrontation with Iran maybe this will fuel cooler heads in the government and help to defuse the Iranian buildup to war.

After years of ignoring the regime in Korea, it was decided to begin to hold talks with North Korea and 5 other nations. While North Korea had demanded separate talks with just the US the multi-nation talks allowed more behind the scene negotiations and created a more objective playing field since pressure from the other nations could be exerted not only on North Korea, but also on an intransigent US.

The principle broker for the talks was China for various reasons. The Chinese held sway with the North Koreans and are the chief power in the region. Although the talks had stalled and both sides played cat and mouse, it was the steady and consistent negotiations that finally carried the day. Cynics might suggest that with the war in Iraq going poorly and with the end of the “Bush Era” rapidly approaching, the President was desperate for some sort of diplomatic victory to hang on his mantle. Regardless to me of what the motivations were, it is a victory for all of us who pursue peaceful resolutions to international crises.

Hopefully this will add some momentum to the negotiations currently being held by the EU and Iran. The thing we must not allow to happen is the wing-nuts suggesting that it was their cowboy get tough rhetoric or their militaristic threats that was instrumental in the deal. Therefore their suggestion will be we need to keep the pressure on Iran with the same tactics, tactics that were ineffective in the case of North Korea; in fact if anything they had an adverse effect. Also, ignoring the fact that the reason the reactor was restarted in the first place was because when he came into office, Bush reneged on the deal that Clinton had brokered. This deal involved energy subsidies and an effort to work on bilateral differences. But because this would have interfered with the “Axis of Evil” speech, Mr. Bush chose to placate the Neo-Cons and ignore the previously agreed to deal. Negotiated settlements had no place in the new President’s worldview; America must project its military power across the world.

There are two ways to lead; one is by respect and the other is through fear and intimidation. This administration chose the latter and we will soon be left with its aftermath. Diplomacy is difficult and time consuming; it does not bring headlines and medals. There is no “shock and awe” to negotiations, no mission accomplished banners to fly under. However, what it does do is save lives and national treasure. It builds respect and projects a positive image to the world. Of course, after 9/11, we weren’t interested in any of those trivial things. Our nose had been bloodied and someone had to answer for it, regardless if they had any involvement.

The thing that history has taught us is that there are rarely unqualified victories or defeats, most conflicts are ended by diplomacy. The problem is that most people have the stomach for war, but not the stomach for diplomacy and peaceful resolution to differences. I don’t know why that is, but I do know that given the chance; diplomacy works.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/world/asia/04diplo.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1191424563-T0CsmPsNZUZqKv3lXLTm5A

Read more!

The Terrorists Have Won

Since 9/11, America has lost not only the war on terror, but America itself. Before a shot was fired in Afghanistan or Iraq, the terrorists had won. The terrorists won when we allowed this administration and the Neo-Cons to hijack America and turn us into a tyrannical monster. I don’t know if it was by design or by happenstance, but when those planes hit with GW Bush in office it set forth a chain of events that caused our defeat. I know that we have the greatest military power in the world and in conventional tactics we could crush anyone, but we are a defeated nation when this happens.

The debate over how terrorism suspects should be held and questioned began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration adopted secret detention and coercive interrogation, both practices the United States had previously denounced when used by other countries. It adopted the new measures without public debate or Congressional vote, choosing to rely instead on the confidential legal advice of a handful of appointees.

The Bush administration had entered uncharted legal territory beginning in 2002, holding prisoners outside the scrutiny of the International Red Cross and subjecting them to harrowing pressure tactics. They included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.[1]

There will be those hawks, wing-nuts, and pundits that will claim the opposite that we are winning the war but once we crossed this line we lost. When we began spying on each other, disallowing habeas corpus, and torturing we lost. Many like Mr. Bush will claim that the ends justify the means; there have been no new attacks so it must be working. This is a false conclusion based on a false premise, the reason we defeated communism was not because of our military power, it was because of what we provided to the world.

What we provided to the world was a dream, a dream that no matter what your circumstances, your religion, or your status you could have a say in your life. Granted that dream was never fully realized and was tarnished for many, but it still existed as a light to walk towards. That light has been darkened by the Bush Administration. There are many things that this President has done that I have found personally reprehensible, but what he has done here is unforgivable. He has taken us across a line that no matter what the world was doing we would not cross, not because we couldn’t but because it was wrong. It was wrong in previous wars and it is wrong in this one.

The thing that troubles me the most is not that Mr. Bush did what he did; it was that we allowed him to. There were not enough principled and honorable people to stop this from happening, that good people went silent when we needed their voices the most. I have a hard time supporting any candidate for President, because they were all culpable in this transformation, to some degree. Worst yet are the Progressives, was there no one to articulate the dangerous waters we were swimming headlong into? Was there no sane voice of reason that could have turned the tsunami of 9/11 into an opportunity to demonstrate to the world what super power really means? I’m not sure it would have even mattered, but we owed it to our children to try.

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.[2]

The terrorists have won not because they were smarter, stronger, or even right in their beliefs; they won because we defeated ourselves. We used the tragedy to unleash our paranoia and righteous indignation against a world that was becoming less and less compliant to our demands. The world had to be taught a lesson, noses had to be bloodied as Mr. Friedman has said and it came at a cost not only that was prohibitive to the world but also to our freedom.

We are not safer today than we were on 9/10; we are only more closed up. Travel to the US is way down, the world does not like what we have allowed ourselves to become. We may think we’re safer, but so is the guy on a deserted island. If isolation is what it takes to be safer, is it worth it? If being cut-off from the world is the answer, then we are asking the wrong questions. The opinion of the US in the world has never been lower, not only in the Middle East but even amongst our allies. We have imprisoned ourselves and shut out the world, because of this the terrorists have won.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Read more!

If Someone Dies In Iraq Are They Really Dead?

There seems to be some discussion as to what the meaning of death is in Iraq. It seems that the military has one definition and the media and the intelligence community has another. Because of these differing opinions progress in Iraq will be hard to gauge and for good reason, it provides cover for those Republicans and chickens**t Democrats who want to continue to feed the beast that is Iraq. According to many “experts” (I use the term loosely) the drop in violence in Iraq is not accurate, it reflects the military’s use of only positive data to create their trends. The military and the Bush administration fudging figures to build support for the Iraq war, I don’t believe it. I’m shocked! Just because they lied leading up to this war doesn’t mean they’ll continue to lie does it?

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.[1]

Whatever happened to the good ole body count figures? You know you drop some napalm in the jungle and then guesstimate how many enemy soldiers were there and claim progress. Life was so much simpler then, we knew the military was lying and responded appropriately. Today things aren’t quite as simple, we have a White House that has politicized every government department designed to watch it, a military command structure that will only tell the truth after they retire, and we have a Democratic Congress that is content to allow this war to continue to gain political hay in 2008. If there are never any accurate figures concerning the war, then there can be no honest debate concerning progress. This is the mission of those who want to keep us confused and bewildered, knowing that because of our empire mentality there are enough Americans who will “stay the course” with the slightest report of progress, so it doesn’t appear as a defeat. The more confusing the picture, the better the status quo appears to be.

It is important to remember that whoever develops the question frames the debate. Depending on the questions you ask, you determine the answers. Our government and media are experts at asking the wrong questions. Do you support America or terrorists? The question should be do you support equality and fairness. However, by limiting the question to such a specific response you are able to filter out all responsible dissent.

Finally, it’s bad enough that they hide the dead bodies of American service personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Depriving our nation of the opportunity to witness the real cost of war, the flag draped coffins are unloaded under the cover of secrecy. Now because the American people “can’t handle” the truth, the military has stopped releasing the number of civilian casualties. I feel so secure with such a benevolent government looking out for my well-being. The thought of seeing all those dead soldiers is enough to change me from a chickenhawk to a peacenik.

The military stopped releasing statistics on civilian deaths in late 2005, saying the news media were taking them out of context. In an e-mailed response to questions last weekend, an MNF-I spokesman said that while trends were favorable, "exact monthly figures cannot be provided" for attacks against civilians or other categories of violence in 2006 or 2007, either in Baghdad or for the country overall. "MNF-I makes every attempt to ensure it captures the most comprehensive, accurate, and valid data on civilian and sectarian deaths," the spokesman wrote. "However, there is not one central place for data or information. . . . This means there can be variations when different organizations examine this information."[2]

Of course this makes it hard to track the number and level of civilian attacks, but using the military’s accounting system they aren’t counted anyway. Why let something as insignificant as facts stand in the way of a perfectly good strategy. The surge is working because we say it’s working. Who are you going to trust the Bush administration and the military or some Iraqis and your lying eyes? There has been significant progress to continue this policy.

The sad part is that the Dems will continue to behave as jellyfish believing that Bush is handing them the White House and a Congressional majority in 2008. They harbor the false belief that these things are theirs to lose and if they don’t do anything stupid they will win. The only problem with doing nothing in the presence of wrongdoing is that you did nothing. We stand up to tyranny not because it is popular or safe, but because it is the right thing to do.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html?hpid=topnews
[2] Ibid.

Read more!