Last week, I wrote of a University of Massachusetts student who claimed to have been visited by federal agents for borrowing Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung (better known as Mao's "Little Red Book") from the library. After being confronted with inconsistencies in his story, he has now confessed to making the whole thing up, saying he liked getting all the attention.
It's people like this who make trying to get to the truth harder. I apologize for highlighting a false story here and will do my best to make sure it doesn't happen again.
12/29/2005
You Mean the Law Applies to Us Too?
"No man is above the law and no man is below the law. That is the principle that we all hold dear in this country. The President has many responsibilities and many privileges. His chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of this land. He does not have the privilege to break the law."
Then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay - who has been conspicuously silent on lawbreaking by the Bush Administration - urging the House of Representatives on 10/8/98 to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky
I Know What I Said, But I Didn't Really Mean It
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
President Bush in a 4/20/04 speech, at the same time he was approving wholesale spying on American citizens without any court orders whatsoever
Deeper and Deeper
Despite heroic efforts on the part of the Bush Administration and its allies in the conservative media to get past the warrantless-spying scandal, it's not going anywhere. On the contrary, every new revelation only deepens the sense of public outrage at the President's Big Brother act.
To recap: it was revealed two weeks ago that after 9/11, President Bush unilaterally ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the international communications of hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans, ignoring the constitutional and statutory requirements that all wiretap requests must be approved by a court. As the White House responded by claiming Bush has "inherent power" to do whatever he wants and blamed the media for breaking the story, more revelations came out.
Purely domestic calls were tapped as well as international ones. A FISA judge quit in protest of the secret spying operation. The nation's telecommunications companies acquiesced in allowing the NSA to tap wide swathes of domestic communications in what amounted to a massive data-mining operation, searching huge amounts of data for buzzwords to prompt more active listening and intervention.
Bush's defenders claim that the spying stopped terrorist plots and besides, only people with something to hide would object to this indiscriminate warrantless searching. As for the first claim, we have only the Administration's word that plots were exposed and, to put it mildly, their word is worthless. They have abused the public trust so many times that their credibility is completely shot.
And as for the second claim - well, with that attitude, how long will it take before all our telephone calls, E-mails and other communications are subject to permanent tap by an Administration whose motives might not be pure? Will such defenders of an unfettered right to spy on anyone at any time be comfortable with the knowledge that someone is always listening?
Indeed, the White House's motives might not be pure already. There are disturbing rumors that the secret FISA court, which almost always approves wiretap requests, expressed misgivings at Bush's first list of targets for surveillance. This supposedly prompted Bush to make his end run around the law and order the secret spying. If that is the case, who was on the list? And since the spying continues to this day, who is on the list now?
No matter how much the White House and the right wing try to fudge the issue, the controversy is not about wiretapping in and of itself. Wiretapping has long been an accepted and valued part of law enforcement, and tapping criminal suspects with a court order is perfectly legitimate. The issue is that the President ordered the wholesale surveillance of possibly millions of people in willful defiance of the Constitution and federal statute law.
With even some Congressional Republicans aghast at the White House's arrogant power grab, both parties are demanding an investigation and some serious reining-in. Even the once-dreaded word "impeachment" is starting to be whispered in the halls of Congress.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney believe themselves to be above the law, once again exploiting 9/11 to give them an excuse. This cannot be allowed to continue.
To recap: it was revealed two weeks ago that after 9/11, President Bush unilaterally ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the international communications of hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans, ignoring the constitutional and statutory requirements that all wiretap requests must be approved by a court. As the White House responded by claiming Bush has "inherent power" to do whatever he wants and blamed the media for breaking the story, more revelations came out.
Purely domestic calls were tapped as well as international ones. A FISA judge quit in protest of the secret spying operation. The nation's telecommunications companies acquiesced in allowing the NSA to tap wide swathes of domestic communications in what amounted to a massive data-mining operation, searching huge amounts of data for buzzwords to prompt more active listening and intervention.
Bush's defenders claim that the spying stopped terrorist plots and besides, only people with something to hide would object to this indiscriminate warrantless searching. As for the first claim, we have only the Administration's word that plots were exposed and, to put it mildly, their word is worthless. They have abused the public trust so many times that their credibility is completely shot.
And as for the second claim - well, with that attitude, how long will it take before all our telephone calls, E-mails and other communications are subject to permanent tap by an Administration whose motives might not be pure? Will such defenders of an unfettered right to spy on anyone at any time be comfortable with the knowledge that someone is always listening?
Indeed, the White House's motives might not be pure already. There are disturbing rumors that the secret FISA court, which almost always approves wiretap requests, expressed misgivings at Bush's first list of targets for surveillance. This supposedly prompted Bush to make his end run around the law and order the secret spying. If that is the case, who was on the list? And since the spying continues to this day, who is on the list now?
No matter how much the White House and the right wing try to fudge the issue, the controversy is not about wiretapping in and of itself. Wiretapping has long been an accepted and valued part of law enforcement, and tapping criminal suspects with a court order is perfectly legitimate. The issue is that the President ordered the wholesale surveillance of possibly millions of people in willful defiance of the Constitution and federal statute law.
With even some Congressional Republicans aghast at the White House's arrogant power grab, both parties are demanding an investigation and some serious reining-in. Even the once-dreaded word "impeachment" is starting to be whispered in the halls of Congress.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney believe themselves to be above the law, once again exploiting 9/11 to give them an excuse. This cannot be allowed to continue.
12/21/2005
Less Preaching, More Teaching
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause... The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones, rejecting the Dover, Pennsylvania school board's attempts to include "intelligent design" (reallly just warmed-over creationism with a word change here and there) in public school biology classes
12/20/2005
L'Etat, C'est Moi
During his press conference yesterday, President Bush angrily claimed that he has absolute power to spy on anyone at any time, warrants and the Constitution be damned. He asked rhetorically, "Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely." He said he will continue the spying program "so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens."
In other words, forever.
As Bush spoke, I swear I could hear Richard Nixon speaking from beyond the grave. During a 1977 interview, Nixon said that "when the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." The White House should remember that his downfall was triggered by illegal surveillance not unlike what we're now seeing.
The Bush Administration has closed ranks behind its leader, but it hasn't been easy. After all, the notion that the President has the power to disregard federal law and the Constitution to eavesdrop on anyone he feels like is kind of hard to defend.
Not that they didn't try. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, ostensibly the nation's chief law enforcement officer, said that the FISA law governing national-security searches "involves looping paperwork around, even in the case of emergency authorizations from the Attorney General." But FISA allows for wiretapping on an emergency basis, with retroactive warrants allowed up to 72 hours after the tap is conducted. Even if that isn't sufficient, why not work with Congress to change the law instead of just ignoring it? Gonzales said an amendment "was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore killing the program."
Yeah, those pesky laws do tend to get in the way of doing anything you like just for the heck of it.
Gonzales also said that when Congress voted post-9/11 to let Bush attack al Qaeda, by using the words "all necessary and appropriate force" they also implicitly gave him the authority to spy on anyone the Administration believes to be connected with al Qaeda - a rationale heatedly rejected by many in Congress.
It is, to put it mildly, highly doubtful that in giving Bush the green light to retaliate against al Qaeda, Congress also gave him the authority to overturn statute law and indeed the Constitution. What else does the President think he can simply do away with at the stroke of a pen?
Having already dispensed with the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against warrantless searches, Bush is now targeting the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, telling everyone, "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy." So pointing out that the President is acting like a dictator is not protecting democracy, but helping Osama bin Laden? Someone should point out to Bush that hiding behind bluster and accusing people who question him of borderline treason doesn't help his case.
The Bush Administration is out of control. Its previous abuses - indefinite imprisonment, secret jails, torture, et cetera - may not have felt like they applied to us, to American citizens. Instead, they always happen to other people, to bad people, to terrorists, and anything that happens to terrorists can't be bad enough.
But now the monster we unleashed to destroy the enemy is turning on us. When we pick up the phone to call family or friends, how can we be certain that no one is listening in? If we talk politics via E-mail, can we be sure that someone somewhere is not combing over our messages and looking for buzzwords to trigger further investigation? If we write a letter to the editor, or attend a political meeting, or subscribe to a certain publication, or borrow a particular library book, or post to a political-opinion blog, will our names go down on a list of people deemed worthy of increased surveillance?
Laws exist for a reason. The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution with a framework of checks and balances precisely to prevent just this sort of power trip by any one branch of government. The United States is a nation of laws and not of men, and no matter what Bush thinks, he cannot do anything he wants just because he's the President. He has to follow the same laws as everyone else. No exceptions.
President Bush says that everything he does in his Global War on Terror is to defeat the terrorists who want to destroy our way of life. But his reckless abuses in pursuit of this goal threaten to do the job for them by destroying the very freedoms we cherish. Congress and the public must act immediately to put an end to this power grab, by impeachment if needed.
In other words, forever.
As Bush spoke, I swear I could hear Richard Nixon speaking from beyond the grave. During a 1977 interview, Nixon said that "when the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." The White House should remember that his downfall was triggered by illegal surveillance not unlike what we're now seeing.
The Bush Administration has closed ranks behind its leader, but it hasn't been easy. After all, the notion that the President has the power to disregard federal law and the Constitution to eavesdrop on anyone he feels like is kind of hard to defend.
Not that they didn't try. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, ostensibly the nation's chief law enforcement officer, said that the FISA law governing national-security searches "involves looping paperwork around, even in the case of emergency authorizations from the Attorney General." But FISA allows for wiretapping on an emergency basis, with retroactive warrants allowed up to 72 hours after the tap is conducted. Even if that isn't sufficient, why not work with Congress to change the law instead of just ignoring it? Gonzales said an amendment "was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore killing the program."
Yeah, those pesky laws do tend to get in the way of doing anything you like just for the heck of it.
Gonzales also said that when Congress voted post-9/11 to let Bush attack al Qaeda, by using the words "all necessary and appropriate force" they also implicitly gave him the authority to spy on anyone the Administration believes to be connected with al Qaeda - a rationale heatedly rejected by many in Congress.
It is, to put it mildly, highly doubtful that in giving Bush the green light to retaliate against al Qaeda, Congress also gave him the authority to overturn statute law and indeed the Constitution. What else does the President think he can simply do away with at the stroke of a pen?
Having already dispensed with the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against warrantless searches, Bush is now targeting the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, telling everyone, "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy." So pointing out that the President is acting like a dictator is not protecting democracy, but helping Osama bin Laden? Someone should point out to Bush that hiding behind bluster and accusing people who question him of borderline treason doesn't help his case.
The Bush Administration is out of control. Its previous abuses - indefinite imprisonment, secret jails, torture, et cetera - may not have felt like they applied to us, to American citizens. Instead, they always happen to other people, to bad people, to terrorists, and anything that happens to terrorists can't be bad enough.
But now the monster we unleashed to destroy the enemy is turning on us. When we pick up the phone to call family or friends, how can we be certain that no one is listening in? If we talk politics via E-mail, can we be sure that someone somewhere is not combing over our messages and looking for buzzwords to trigger further investigation? If we write a letter to the editor, or attend a political meeting, or subscribe to a certain publication, or borrow a particular library book, or post to a political-opinion blog, will our names go down on a list of people deemed worthy of increased surveillance?
Laws exist for a reason. The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution with a framework of checks and balances precisely to prevent just this sort of power trip by any one branch of government. The United States is a nation of laws and not of men, and no matter what Bush thinks, he cannot do anything he wants just because he's the President. He has to follow the same laws as everyone else. No exceptions.
President Bush says that everything he does in his Global War on Terror is to defeat the terrorists who want to destroy our way of life. But his reckless abuses in pursuit of this goal threaten to do the job for them by destroying the very freedoms we cherish. Congress and the public must act immediately to put an end to this power grab, by impeachment if needed.
12/19/2005
Step Away from the Book
"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think."
University of Massachusetts professor Brian Williams on the government investigating a student for borrowing Mao Zedong's "Little Red Book" from the library for a class on fascism and totalitarianism
Big Brother Is Listening
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's basic knowledge to anyone who took history class in school: if the government wants to search your house or listen in on your phone calls or read your E-mail, they have to explain to a judge why it should be allowed and to get a warrant. It's what separates America from a police state in which the government can search anyone and wiretap anything just because they feel like it.
The revelation that the Bush Administration routinely taps the private communications of hundreds and possibly thousands of American citizens without bothering to get warrants as required by the very bedrock of our civil society should scare the pants off anyone who cares about democracy.
After a bit of hemming and hawing, President Bush admitted to ordering the secret spying and rolled out his usual litany of excuses:
Bush insisted that all this snooping was done on (unnamed) terrorist suspects in line with (secret) legal opinions, so it's all right. But why should we believe him? After all, he said he has the authority to do whatever he wants in this regard, including:
Bush has shown us over and over again what contempt he has for the basic rule of law in America. If the law prevents him from doing whatever he wants, he doesn't try to amend the law, he just breaks it.
The really frightening part of this latest exposure stems from the fact that the Administration already has a process in place for approving security-related wiretaps. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court exists for examining government requests for tapping suspects in national-security cases; indeed, it is a virtual rubber stamp for such requests. But Bush ignored the FISA court entirely, instead ordering the spying unilaterally and giving the job to the National Security Agency - which, by the way, is legally barred from doing such things domestically. So why didn't Bush go to FISA? The unsettling suspicion is that the wiretaps have nothing at all to do with terrorism or al Qaeda or national security.
If that is indeed the case, who is he spying on? Antiwar groups? Political dissenters? Prominent Democrats? The Kerry campaign? Does anyone in the White House remember that this is how Watergate started?
Bush and his minions claim they are protecting American freedom by their actions. In addition to spitting on the Constitution, they appear to have forgotten the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of our most prominent Founding Fathers: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Amendment IV, United States Constitution
It's basic knowledge to anyone who took history class in school: if the government wants to search your house or listen in on your phone calls or read your E-mail, they have to explain to a judge why it should be allowed and to get a warrant. It's what separates America from a police state in which the government can search anyone and wiretap anything just because they feel like it.
The revelation that the Bush Administration routinely taps the private communications of hundreds and possibly thousands of American citizens without bothering to get warrants as required by the very bedrock of our civil society should scare the pants off anyone who cares about democracy.
After a bit of hemming and hawing, President Bush admitted to ordering the secret spying and rolled out his usual litany of excuses:
- It was because of 9/11.
- It was done to protect American lives.
- It's all the media's fault for blowing the whistle on the scheme.
Bush insisted that all this snooping was done on (unnamed) terrorist suspects in line with (secret) legal opinions, so it's all right. But why should we believe him? After all, he said he has the authority to do whatever he wants in this regard, including:
- Jailing suspects indefinitely without bothering to prove their guilt
- Shredding the Geneva Conventions and simple humanity to sanction the torture and even murder of prisoners
- Exporting suspects to other countries to have confessions tortured out of them
- Setting up secret prisons in other countries to make suspects "disappear"
- Compiling intelligence files from spying on antiwar groups, then maintaining such files in violation of laws requiring their destruction 90 days after determination that the subject is not a threat
Bush has shown us over and over again what contempt he has for the basic rule of law in America. If the law prevents him from doing whatever he wants, he doesn't try to amend the law, he just breaks it.
The really frightening part of this latest exposure stems from the fact that the Administration already has a process in place for approving security-related wiretaps. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court exists for examining government requests for tapping suspects in national-security cases; indeed, it is a virtual rubber stamp for such requests. But Bush ignored the FISA court entirely, instead ordering the spying unilaterally and giving the job to the National Security Agency - which, by the way, is legally barred from doing such things domestically. So why didn't Bush go to FISA? The unsettling suspicion is that the wiretaps have nothing at all to do with terrorism or al Qaeda or national security.
If that is indeed the case, who is he spying on? Antiwar groups? Political dissenters? Prominent Democrats? The Kerry campaign? Does anyone in the White House remember that this is how Watergate started?
Bush and his minions claim they are protecting American freedom by their actions. In addition to spitting on the Constitution, they appear to have forgotten the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of our most prominent Founding Fathers: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
12/16/2005
Secret Spying, Just All in a Day's Work
"It's not the main story of the day... The main story of the day is the Iraqi election."
Defending Christmas in Congress
The United States has many problems. A dying city in Louisiana that the federal government shows no interest in saving. A seemingly endless war in Iraq. Skyrocketing energy prices. Housing, health care and college education increasingly unaffordable. A ruinous fiscal policy drowning us in debt. An ever-shrinking middle class. But never fear, Congress is taking action! Granted, it's not about any of these pressing issues, but Congress has taken a firm stand on - defending Christmas.
Yes, the "War on Christmas" campaign is now being fought on Capitol Hill. Throwing her support behind jolly old Saint Nick, Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) introduced H. Res. 579 "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected."
"Christmas has been declared politically incorrect," Davis declared on the House floor on Wednesday, faithfully parroting the official Fox News talking points. "Any sign or even mention of Christmas in public can lead to complaints, litigation, protest, and threats. America's favorite holiday is being twisted beyond recognition. The push towards a neutered 'holiday' season is stronger than ever so that no one can be even the slightest bit offended."
Not surprisingly, she raised a few eyebrows. "Did something happen when I was not looking?" asked Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY). "Did somebody mug Santa Claus? Is somebody engaging in elf tossing? Did somebody shoot Bambi? If you eat venison, are you a suspect? What silliness we engage in, protecting symbols."
What Ackerman knows is that there is no "attack on Christmas," no matter what Davis and Fox News think. Christmas is in no danger; one can go pretty much anywhere in the country and encounter gobs of Christmas decorations, Santa statues, candy canes, and so on. We have freedom of religion in this country to worship as we please, which is exactly as it should be. But that doesn't matter, for there are points to be scored with people who can't function without something to hate and fear.
And scored they were. One would think that the Democrats would reject such nonsense, but they unfortunately showed their usual spine, falling in with Republicans to approve the resolution on a 401-22 vote.
"There are people around who need an enemy at all times to try to separate us one from the other as Americans in order to advance their own agenda," Ackerman said. "I do not think we should be playing into their hands."
Couldn't have put it better myself. Perhaps we can now get back to real business.
Yes, the "War on Christmas" campaign is now being fought on Capitol Hill. Throwing her support behind jolly old Saint Nick, Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) introduced H. Res. 579 "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected."
"Christmas has been declared politically incorrect," Davis declared on the House floor on Wednesday, faithfully parroting the official Fox News talking points. "Any sign or even mention of Christmas in public can lead to complaints, litigation, protest, and threats. America's favorite holiday is being twisted beyond recognition. The push towards a neutered 'holiday' season is stronger than ever so that no one can be even the slightest bit offended."
Not surprisingly, she raised a few eyebrows. "Did something happen when I was not looking?" asked Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY). "Did somebody mug Santa Claus? Is somebody engaging in elf tossing? Did somebody shoot Bambi? If you eat venison, are you a suspect? What silliness we engage in, protecting symbols."
What Ackerman knows is that there is no "attack on Christmas," no matter what Davis and Fox News think. Christmas is in no danger; one can go pretty much anywhere in the country and encounter gobs of Christmas decorations, Santa statues, candy canes, and so on. We have freedom of religion in this country to worship as we please, which is exactly as it should be. But that doesn't matter, for there are points to be scored with people who can't function without something to hate and fear.
And scored they were. One would think that the Democrats would reject such nonsense, but they unfortunately showed their usual spine, falling in with Republicans to approve the resolution on a 401-22 vote.
"There are people around who need an enemy at all times to try to separate us one from the other as Americans in order to advance their own agenda," Ackerman said. "I do not think we should be playing into their hands."
Couldn't have put it better myself. Perhaps we can now get back to real business.
12/15/2005
On to Victory...Somehow
President Bush has painted himself into quite a corner. His talking-point speeches on Iraq aren't boosting his popularity. Every poll shows a considerable majority of Americans remaining convinced that he has no clue what to do about Iraq. His much-vaunted "strategy for victory" released with a splash a couple of weeks ago has instead sunk like a stone. He has lost all credibility, and the percentage of Americans who consider him honest and trustworthy is rapidly sinking to below the freezing point.
And yet he can't stop spouting the same macho slogans, the same empty rhetoric, the same stock phrases. "We will not leave until victory has been achieved," he still thunders righteously, unable to define "victory" beyond the fuzziest of catchphrases. "We can debate these issues openly," he still says, all the while accusing anyone who actually questions him of "hurt[ing] the morale of our troops."
His latest PR campaign, consisting of a series of speeches before properly dutiful audiences, is basically more of the same. Watching Bush's Iraq speech (let's face it, it's really just the same speech delivered over and over as if sheer repetition can make us believe that black is white) is an exercise in sheer frustration, making one itch to reach through the TV screen and shake him until he faces reality.
There is no strategy, no policy. There is only wishful thinking that the current parliamentary elections, merely the latest in a long string of "milestones," will magically make everything better. Nobody in the White House wants to hear what the Iraq experts in the State Department and CIA are saying - that Iraq is coming apart along ethnic lines, and a bloody civil war is a matter of when, not if. And anyone who dares admit the truth is promptly set upon by GOP attack dogs.
As more and more Americans (and even some in Congress) are realizing, it's time to face facts: the Iraq War simply cannot be won militarily. What began as an ostensible war of liberation has morphed into an indefinite occupation, and the Iraqi people want us out. They'd rather handle their own affairs without American interference, regardless of the consequences.
It doesn't help that the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq has also been a disaster, with billions of dollars simply stolen by contractors and billions more disappearing into a swamp of waste. It is telling that the Bush Administration, having made a big deal over the Oil For Food "scandal," doesn't have a single auditor in Iraq to watch the money. In many Iraqi cities, basic infrastructure is in worse shape than before the invasion almost three years ago.
The death toll has been horrendous. Briefly forced from his blissful bubble to acknowledge Iraqi deaths for the first time, Bush reluctantly said that approximately 30,000 Iraqis have been killed in his obsessive war, but his figure included military and insurgent deaths as will as civilian and is widely seen as far too low. Estimates of civilian deaths alone vary wildly from 31,000 to 100,000, and the actual figure will very likely never be known.
The fledgling Shiite-controlled Iraqi government seems determined to follow in Saddam Hussein's footsteps, from maintaining torture chambers in prisons to using death squads to knock off prominent Sunnis. Of course, Washington displays the appropriate horror at each new example of depravity, but never actually does anything about it. Because, after all, it's not Saddam doing these things, so they can't be that bad.
Meanwhile, one cannot blame the Iraqi people for suspecting that the whole point of the invasion and occupation was to seize control of Iraq's oil supplies. It's not for nothing that the original name for Operation Iraqi Freedom was "Operation Iraqi Liberation," which was rather hastily changed once someone realized what it spelled.
Bush is in deep denial. Having committed himself to invading Iraq since long before 9/11, he cannot bring himself to admit that he just might have made a mistake. It doesn't matter how many people are killed for the sake of his self-righteous ego, he can never, ever, admit error. And as much lip service as he pays to the notion of "supporting the troops," every American soldier who comes home in a flag-draped coffin, and every grieving family member who mourns him or her, is paying the price for his vendetta.
And yet he can't stop spouting the same macho slogans, the same empty rhetoric, the same stock phrases. "We will not leave until victory has been achieved," he still thunders righteously, unable to define "victory" beyond the fuzziest of catchphrases. "We can debate these issues openly," he still says, all the while accusing anyone who actually questions him of "hurt[ing] the morale of our troops."
His latest PR campaign, consisting of a series of speeches before properly dutiful audiences, is basically more of the same. Watching Bush's Iraq speech (let's face it, it's really just the same speech delivered over and over as if sheer repetition can make us believe that black is white) is an exercise in sheer frustration, making one itch to reach through the TV screen and shake him until he faces reality.
There is no strategy, no policy. There is only wishful thinking that the current parliamentary elections, merely the latest in a long string of "milestones," will magically make everything better. Nobody in the White House wants to hear what the Iraq experts in the State Department and CIA are saying - that Iraq is coming apart along ethnic lines, and a bloody civil war is a matter of when, not if. And anyone who dares admit the truth is promptly set upon by GOP attack dogs.
As more and more Americans (and even some in Congress) are realizing, it's time to face facts: the Iraq War simply cannot be won militarily. What began as an ostensible war of liberation has morphed into an indefinite occupation, and the Iraqi people want us out. They'd rather handle their own affairs without American interference, regardless of the consequences.
It doesn't help that the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq has also been a disaster, with billions of dollars simply stolen by contractors and billions more disappearing into a swamp of waste. It is telling that the Bush Administration, having made a big deal over the Oil For Food "scandal," doesn't have a single auditor in Iraq to watch the money. In many Iraqi cities, basic infrastructure is in worse shape than before the invasion almost three years ago.
The death toll has been horrendous. Briefly forced from his blissful bubble to acknowledge Iraqi deaths for the first time, Bush reluctantly said that approximately 30,000 Iraqis have been killed in his obsessive war, but his figure included military and insurgent deaths as will as civilian and is widely seen as far too low. Estimates of civilian deaths alone vary wildly from 31,000 to 100,000, and the actual figure will very likely never be known.
The fledgling Shiite-controlled Iraqi government seems determined to follow in Saddam Hussein's footsteps, from maintaining torture chambers in prisons to using death squads to knock off prominent Sunnis. Of course, Washington displays the appropriate horror at each new example of depravity, but never actually does anything about it. Because, after all, it's not Saddam doing these things, so they can't be that bad.
Meanwhile, one cannot blame the Iraqi people for suspecting that the whole point of the invasion and occupation was to seize control of Iraq's oil supplies. It's not for nothing that the original name for Operation Iraqi Freedom was "Operation Iraqi Liberation," which was rather hastily changed once someone realized what it spelled.
Bush is in deep denial. Having committed himself to invading Iraq since long before 9/11, he cannot bring himself to admit that he just might have made a mistake. It doesn't matter how many people are killed for the sake of his self-righteous ego, he can never, ever, admit error. And as much lip service as he pays to the notion of "supporting the troops," every American soldier who comes home in a flag-draped coffin, and every grieving family member who mourns him or her, is paying the price for his vendetta.
You Can't Trust Those Quakers
"This is the J. Edgar Hoover Memorial Vacuum Cleaner. They‘re collecting everything."
Comment on a leaked Defense Department document showing that the Pentagon routinely spies on nonviolent citizen antiwar groups - in complete violation of American law
12/14/2005
Scaring Your Friends
It is said that on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington inspected his troops and remarked, "I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me." The incessant and increasingly unhinged "War on Christmas" campaign is finally starting to scare the non-wingnut conservative movement.
Cal Thomas, a columnist who says that secretly buying favorable Iraqi press coverage is just dandy, is now wondering whether this whole "War on Christmas" nonsense is, well, nonsense. While not mentioning the culprits of this fear campaign by name, he opines that "the effort by some cable TV hosts and ministers to force commercial establishments into wishing everyone a 'Merry Christmas' might be more objectionable to the One who is the reason for the season than the 'Happy Holidays' mantra required by some store managers."
In other words, "cool it."
While I normally agree with Thomas on virtually nothing, I have to applaud his comments. It is gratifying to note that the campaign to push one particular version of Christmas on everyone else is rankling mainstream conservatives. Fox News (on which Thomas is a regular commentator) shamelessly incorporates "War on Christmas" rhetoric into more and more of its shows. Jerry Falwell unveiled a "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign" to drag into court anyone who dares disagree with them on any matter Christmas-y.
Even the Bush Administration is set upon by these self-anointed holy warriors. Some of the wiggier denizens of the right wing attacked the White House for sending out 1.4 million "Happy Holiday" cards instead of "Merry Christmas" cards. (Note to these holier-than-thou types: There are many millions of non-Christian Americans, even non-Christian Republicans. It's our country too, you know.)
It's about time that other American conservatives tell their ever more rabid compatriots to knock it off.
One can't help wondering if God really cares whether the cashier at Home Depot says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." One would think He cares more about keeping people fed, clothed and housed rather than wasting time and energy on this non-issue. I'm also fairly sure there's nothing in the Bible, Jewish or Christian, that says "thou shalt shove thy religious values down everyone else's throats and loudly threaten everyone who worships in their own way."
WWJD, indeed.
Cal Thomas, a columnist who says that secretly buying favorable Iraqi press coverage is just dandy, is now wondering whether this whole "War on Christmas" nonsense is, well, nonsense. While not mentioning the culprits of this fear campaign by name, he opines that "the effort by some cable TV hosts and ministers to force commercial establishments into wishing everyone a 'Merry Christmas' might be more objectionable to the One who is the reason for the season than the 'Happy Holidays' mantra required by some store managers."
In other words, "cool it."
While I normally agree with Thomas on virtually nothing, I have to applaud his comments. It is gratifying to note that the campaign to push one particular version of Christmas on everyone else is rankling mainstream conservatives. Fox News (on which Thomas is a regular commentator) shamelessly incorporates "War on Christmas" rhetoric into more and more of its shows. Jerry Falwell unveiled a "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign" to drag into court anyone who dares disagree with them on any matter Christmas-y.
Even the Bush Administration is set upon by these self-anointed holy warriors. Some of the wiggier denizens of the right wing attacked the White House for sending out 1.4 million "Happy Holiday" cards instead of "Merry Christmas" cards. (Note to these holier-than-thou types: There are many millions of non-Christian Americans, even non-Christian Republicans. It's our country too, you know.)
It's about time that other American conservatives tell their ever more rabid compatriots to knock it off.
One can't help wondering if God really cares whether the cashier at Home Depot says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." One would think He cares more about keeping people fed, clothed and housed rather than wasting time and energy on this non-issue. I'm also fairly sure there's nothing in the Bible, Jewish or Christian, that says "thou shalt shove thy religious values down everyone else's throats and loudly threaten everyone who worships in their own way."
WWJD, indeed.
12/13/2005
Secret Laws?
The Bush Administration has given us a mania for secrecy at any cost unrivaled since the time of Richard Nixon. Everything is classified, whether or not it actually needs to be, and every Freedom of Information Act request is fought tooth and nail.
The White House's paranoia has now inflated to truly Orwellian proportions. John Gilmore, the libertarian co-founder of the Electronic Freedom Foundation sued the Administration challenging the rule that everyone has to show ID when boarding a commercial airline flight. In the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week, Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman argued that the rule is backed up by federal law - but refused to explain which law actually requires it.
In court last week, Judge Thomas Nelson incredulously asked Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman, "How do we know there's an order? Because you said there was?"
"We couldn't confirm or deny the existence of an order," Waldman replied.
Amazingly, the Justice Department has refused to identify the law in question to Gilmore's lawyers or to the public. Only the court judges would be allowed to know which law supports the rule, and they would be barred from communicating this.
In George Orwell's seminal novel 1984, Winston Smith ruminates that keeping a diary is not illegal "since there were no longer any laws," but the price would be high anyway. The very notion of secret laws, hidden from the public and unleashed only when someone unknowingly runs afoul of them, is odious and offensive to our democracy. The court should order the government to come clean on this issue.
The White House's paranoia has now inflated to truly Orwellian proportions. John Gilmore, the libertarian co-founder of the Electronic Freedom Foundation sued the Administration challenging the rule that everyone has to show ID when boarding a commercial airline flight. In the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week, Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman argued that the rule is backed up by federal law - but refused to explain which law actually requires it.
In court last week, Judge Thomas Nelson incredulously asked Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman, "How do we know there's an order? Because you said there was?"
"We couldn't confirm or deny the existence of an order," Waldman replied.
Amazingly, the Justice Department has refused to identify the law in question to Gilmore's lawyers or to the public. Only the court judges would be allowed to know which law supports the rule, and they would be barred from communicating this.
In George Orwell's seminal novel 1984, Winston Smith ruminates that keeping a diary is not illegal "since there were no longer any laws," but the price would be high anyway. The very notion of secret laws, hidden from the public and unleashed only when someone unknowingly runs afoul of them, is odious and offensive to our democracy. The court should order the government to come clean on this issue.
12/08/2005
I Knew It!
"If Bill O'Reilly needs to have an enemy, needs to feel persecuted, you know what? Here's my Kwanzaa gift to him. Are you ready? All right. I'm your enemy. Make me your enemy. I, Jon Stewart, hate Christmas, Christians, Jews, morality, and I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium."
Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," after exposing Bill O'Reilly's attempt at passing off a year-old film clip as current and generally making his whole "war on Christmas" propaganda campaign look ridiculous
12/07/2005
The Enemy Is Everywhere
"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush Administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture."
-- Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights president William A. Donohue commenting on the official White House Christmas card wishing recipients a happy "holiday season"
"[Bush] claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one. I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it."
-- WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah responding to the same, er, outrage
-- Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights president William A. Donohue commenting on the official White House Christmas card wishing recipients a happy "holiday season"
"[Bush] claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one. I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it."
-- WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah responding to the same, er, outrage
Torture? Us?
You almost had to feel sorry for her.
Almost.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, touring European capitals in an attempt to shore up support for the Global War on Terror (GWOT), is in the impossible position of denying what everyone knows all too well. She insisted that the US does not torture prisoners, does not maintain secret prisons for GWOT detainees, and does not export prisoners to less-squeamish countries such as Egypt and Syria for the really heavy stuff.
Of course, with more and more evidence piling up every day of exactly that, no one believed a word she said. It certainly doesn't help that the Bush Administration put a lot of intellectual effort into redefining torture to exclude everything short of death or "permanent organ failure," just so we can deny that torture is taking place. Nor does it help that Vice President Cheney is aggressively lobbying Congress to exempt the CIA from American anti-torture laws.
In Germany, newly elected Prime Minister Angela Merkel raked Rice over the coals about a German citizen named Khalid el-Masri. Seized off a bus in Macedonia because his name was similar to a wanted al Qaeda suspect, el-Masri was secretly shipped to a American prison in Afghanistan and tortured for five months before the CIA realized they had the wrong man. Without so much as an "oops, sorry about that," the CIA dumped him in Albania and tried to hush it up. With the help of the ACLU, el-Masri is now suing former CIA director George Tenet in federal court, but the government refuses to let him into the country. Merkel reported that Rice admitted American wrongdoing and apologized. Rice, of course, denied this.
In Italy, the government in Rome is furious over the clumsy CIA abduction of a Islamic cleric from the streets of Milan - a cleric that Italy had under surveillance. The CIA did not coordinate their action with the Italian government, choosing instead to shred local law and just go get him, destroying an Italian intelligence investigation at the same time.
Rice's stock response to European anger is that while occasional mistakes are made, everything we do in pursuit of the GWOT is to protect not just American but European lives, so the proper response from the Continent is to sit down and shut up. The targets of her little lecture are understandably irked at being spoken to in this manner.
All in all, it was not one of the finer moments in American foreign relations. By phrasing her statements with almost Clintonian exactitude to leave a whole lot unsaid, Rice came across not as a level-headed diplomat eager to recruit international help in combating terrorism, but as a blank-faced defender of a tormenting bully.
The Bush Administration seems determined to prove their own government-can't-do-anything-right rhetoric by screwing up everything they touch. Nevertheless, when we're facing an enemy as determined to destroy us as al Qaeda is, alienating your few remaining allies is not the way to go.
Almost.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, touring European capitals in an attempt to shore up support for the Global War on Terror (GWOT), is in the impossible position of denying what everyone knows all too well. She insisted that the US does not torture prisoners, does not maintain secret prisons for GWOT detainees, and does not export prisoners to less-squeamish countries such as Egypt and Syria for the really heavy stuff.
Of course, with more and more evidence piling up every day of exactly that, no one believed a word she said. It certainly doesn't help that the Bush Administration put a lot of intellectual effort into redefining torture to exclude everything short of death or "permanent organ failure," just so we can deny that torture is taking place. Nor does it help that Vice President Cheney is aggressively lobbying Congress to exempt the CIA from American anti-torture laws.
In Germany, newly elected Prime Minister Angela Merkel raked Rice over the coals about a German citizen named Khalid el-Masri. Seized off a bus in Macedonia because his name was similar to a wanted al Qaeda suspect, el-Masri was secretly shipped to a American prison in Afghanistan and tortured for five months before the CIA realized they had the wrong man. Without so much as an "oops, sorry about that," the CIA dumped him in Albania and tried to hush it up. With the help of the ACLU, el-Masri is now suing former CIA director George Tenet in federal court, but the government refuses to let him into the country. Merkel reported that Rice admitted American wrongdoing and apologized. Rice, of course, denied this.
In Italy, the government in Rome is furious over the clumsy CIA abduction of a Islamic cleric from the streets of Milan - a cleric that Italy had under surveillance. The CIA did not coordinate their action with the Italian government, choosing instead to shred local law and just go get him, destroying an Italian intelligence investigation at the same time.
Rice's stock response to European anger is that while occasional mistakes are made, everything we do in pursuit of the GWOT is to protect not just American but European lives, so the proper response from the Continent is to sit down and shut up. The targets of her little lecture are understandably irked at being spoken to in this manner.
All in all, it was not one of the finer moments in American foreign relations. By phrasing her statements with almost Clintonian exactitude to leave a whole lot unsaid, Rice came across not as a level-headed diplomat eager to recruit international help in combating terrorism, but as a blank-faced defender of a tormenting bully.
The Bush Administration seems determined to prove their own government-can't-do-anything-right rhetoric by screwing up everything they touch. Nevertheless, when we're facing an enemy as determined to destroy us as al Qaeda is, alienating your few remaining allies is not the way to go.
12/06/2005
Telling It Like It Is
"I want to talk about the media angle, because we've avoided it, it's the elephant in the room -- it's Fox News. Come on. It's [Bill] O'Reilly, it's [Sean] Hannity, it's [John] Gibson. They're demagogues who realize that at Christmastime, you can rally the masses on this issue. They'll do it every Christmas. They did it last Christmas, they'll do it next Christmas."
-- Neal Gabler, on the 12/3/05 "Fox News Watch," on how Fox News has largely manufactured the "war on Christmas" non-issue
-- Neal Gabler, on the 12/3/05 "Fox News Watch," on how Fox News has largely manufactured the "war on Christmas" non-issue
12/05/2005
Merry Christmas, Dammit! Part II
Once upon a time on an episode of The Simpsons, Bart watched a Christmas special hosted by the Jewish Krusty the Clown and commented, "Christmas is a time when people of all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ."
Fox News seems not to have realized that this was a joke. This screenshot, courtesy of Crooks & Liars, is from the 12/3/05 edition of the Fox show "Bulls & Bears."
It appears that Fox, long recognized as the all-but-official propaganda arm of the Republican Party, is not content with merely letting John Gibson hawk his book The War on Christmas on his pundit show ad nauseam, nor with letting Bill O'Reilly endlessly bloviate on his own show about this manufactured issue.
Nope, Fox is now weaving "war on Christmas" rhetoric into their other shows as well, creating what certainly looks like an officially imposed "big issue." Opening up his own show "Your World" to the campaign, Neil Cavuto sat back as O'Reilly sneered that while non-Christian Americans are "entitled to their opinion," it's "insulting to Christian America" for companies to say "Happy Holidays" and such instead of "Merry Christmas."
And if that wasn't enough, O'Reilly also attacked people who just might feel a tad uncomfortable at the "celebrate Christmas or else" campaign, saying, "they don't want any message of spirituality or Judeo-Christian tradition because that stands in the way of gay marriage, legalized drugs, euthanasia, all of the greatest hits on the secular progressive play card."
What's next? Perhaps the "Fox & Friends" anchors will crusade against credit counselors who caution against fiscally reckless Christmas shopping, accusing them of wanting to destroy the American economy. The possibilities are endless.
Fox News seems not to have realized that this was a joke. This screenshot, courtesy of Crooks & Liars, is from the 12/3/05 edition of the Fox show "Bulls & Bears."
It appears that Fox, long recognized as the all-but-official propaganda arm of the Republican Party, is not content with merely letting John Gibson hawk his book The War on Christmas on his pundit show ad nauseam, nor with letting Bill O'Reilly endlessly bloviate on his own show about this manufactured issue.
Nope, Fox is now weaving "war on Christmas" rhetoric into their other shows as well, creating what certainly looks like an officially imposed "big issue." Opening up his own show "Your World" to the campaign, Neil Cavuto sat back as O'Reilly sneered that while non-Christian Americans are "entitled to their opinion," it's "insulting to Christian America" for companies to say "Happy Holidays" and such instead of "Merry Christmas."
And if that wasn't enough, O'Reilly also attacked people who just might feel a tad uncomfortable at the "celebrate Christmas or else" campaign, saying, "they don't want any message of spirituality or Judeo-Christian tradition because that stands in the way of gay marriage, legalized drugs, euthanasia, all of the greatest hits on the secular progressive play card."
What's next? Perhaps the "Fox & Friends" anchors will crusade against credit counselors who caution against fiscally reckless Christmas shopping, accusing them of wanting to destroy the American economy. The possibilities are endless.
12/02/2005
The Best Coverage Money Can Buy
What part of "free press" does the Bush Administration not understand?
It apparently was not enough that they were embarrassed earlier this year for secretly feeding favorable stories into the American news media. Slick "video news releases" were produced for unattributed broadcast on local TV stations. Pundit Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 to shill for the No Child Left Behind Act, a move that the Government Accountability Office decried as "covert propaganda." Conservative blogger and gay escort Jeff Gannon received credentials to attend White House press briefings for the sole purpose of asking softball questions at difficult times.
Proving that some people just never learn, the Administration has now been caught doing the exact same thing, this time in the Iraqi press.
In articles published this week by the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and other sources, it was revealed that the US military has been surreptitiously placing stories in Iraqi newspapers, TV and radio. Pentagon "psychological operations" staffers write more or less truthful but heavily slanted stories with such feel-good headlines as "More Money Goes to Iraq's Development." The articles are then handed to a private PR firm called the Lincoln Group for editing and translation into Arabic, which then pays Iraqi publications as much as $1500 to run the stories under their own reporters' bylines. The US government also used our taxpayer dollars to buy a newspaper and radio station in Iraq for more direct propagandizing. And if all that weren't enough, the Army created an organization called the Baghdad Press Club, whose members were paid as much as $200 a month depending on how many favorable stories they churned out.
None of the planted stories carried any indication that they were provided by the US government.
The story was leaked by Army officers rightly appalled by the practice, saying that trying to secretly control the Iraqi press could only destroy American credibility and bolster the insurgency. "Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq," a Pentagon official told the Los Angeles Times. "Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it."
Sadly, all this chicanery and secret propaganda is not really surprising. The White House has always loathed the very existence of an independent press and has done everything in its power to turn the American media into dutiful stenographers. Not to mention that the Administration has always treated the soaring unpopularity of the war, both in Iraq and here at home, as more of a sales problem than an actual policy issue. After all, why should we go to the time and trouble of actually thinking up a new strategy when we can just change public perception of the existing one?
Indeed, the Administration basically admitted as such in its much-hyped National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, in which one of the methods of "strengthen[ing] public understanding of coalition efforts" is "a free, independent, and responsible Iraqi media" (emphasis added). In this context, "responsible" apparently means "subservient."
The problem with this, of course, is that an uncensored press free of government control is absolutely essential to the functioning of a democratic society, and the Administration's manipulation of the fledgling Iraqi media has - once again - destroyed our trustworthiness in that shattered nation. The fiasco has given the Iraqi insurgency and everyone else in the world yet another reason to dislike and distrust the United States. Heckuva job, guys.
President Bush once joked that "if this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just as long as I'm the dictator." With his open contempt for the very principle of a free press, it sounds like he's operating true to form.
It apparently was not enough that they were embarrassed earlier this year for secretly feeding favorable stories into the American news media. Slick "video news releases" were produced for unattributed broadcast on local TV stations. Pundit Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 to shill for the No Child Left Behind Act, a move that the Government Accountability Office decried as "covert propaganda." Conservative blogger and gay escort Jeff Gannon received credentials to attend White House press briefings for the sole purpose of asking softball questions at difficult times.
Proving that some people just never learn, the Administration has now been caught doing the exact same thing, this time in the Iraqi press.
In articles published this week by the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and other sources, it was revealed that the US military has been surreptitiously placing stories in Iraqi newspapers, TV and radio. Pentagon "psychological operations" staffers write more or less truthful but heavily slanted stories with such feel-good headlines as "More Money Goes to Iraq's Development." The articles are then handed to a private PR firm called the Lincoln Group for editing and translation into Arabic, which then pays Iraqi publications as much as $1500 to run the stories under their own reporters' bylines. The US government also used our taxpayer dollars to buy a newspaper and radio station in Iraq for more direct propagandizing. And if all that weren't enough, the Army created an organization called the Baghdad Press Club, whose members were paid as much as $200 a month depending on how many favorable stories they churned out.
None of the planted stories carried any indication that they were provided by the US government.
The story was leaked by Army officers rightly appalled by the practice, saying that trying to secretly control the Iraqi press could only destroy American credibility and bolster the insurgency. "Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq," a Pentagon official told the Los Angeles Times. "Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it."
Sadly, all this chicanery and secret propaganda is not really surprising. The White House has always loathed the very existence of an independent press and has done everything in its power to turn the American media into dutiful stenographers. Not to mention that the Administration has always treated the soaring unpopularity of the war, both in Iraq and here at home, as more of a sales problem than an actual policy issue. After all, why should we go to the time and trouble of actually thinking up a new strategy when we can just change public perception of the existing one?
Indeed, the Administration basically admitted as such in its much-hyped National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, in which one of the methods of "strengthen[ing] public understanding of coalition efforts" is "a free, independent, and responsible Iraqi media" (emphasis added). In this context, "responsible" apparently means "subservient."
The problem with this, of course, is that an uncensored press free of government control is absolutely essential to the functioning of a democratic society, and the Administration's manipulation of the fledgling Iraqi media has - once again - destroyed our trustworthiness in that shattered nation. The fiasco has given the Iraqi insurgency and everyone else in the world yet another reason to dislike and distrust the United States. Heckuva job, guys.
President Bush once joked that "if this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just as long as I'm the dictator." With his open contempt for the very principle of a free press, it sounds like he's operating true to form.
12/01/2005
Stay in Line and Nobody Gets Hurt
"I would think if somebody is going to have to answer for following the wrong religion, they're not going to have to answer to me. We know who they're going to have to answer to... But in the meantime, as long as they're civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble."
Fox News pundit and The War on Christmas author John Gibson on the 11/19/05 "Janet Parshall's America" radio show, displaying his version of Christian love
Stay the Course, Again
President Bush ventured out of his bubble yesterday to speak to the midshipmen at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis to deliver what was billed as a "major address" on Iraq. Anyone expecting actual developments, such as a plan for a phased withdrawal, a change in strategy or anything else would have been sorely disappointed. What we instead got was yet another robotic recitation of our "goals" in Iraq, while glossing over the pesky details of just how we are supposed to get there. It was really just more of the same - more macho slogans ("I will settle for nothing less than complete victory"), more false comparisons to World War II ("free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed") and more dishonest links to 9/11 ("the terrorists in Iraq share the same ideology as the terrorists who struck the United States on September the 11th"). As to why American men and women are still fighting and dying in Iraq two and a half years after we supposedly liberated the place - that one went unanswered.
There was no mention of the increasing sectarian violence, no mention of the insurgent penetration of the fledgling Iraqi army, no mention of the tiny fraction of supposedly trained troops who can actually carry out operations by themselves, no mention of the brewing civil war. Nor was there any mention of former US-installed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's comment that "people are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse," that all Iraqi factions issued a joint call for an American withdrawal, nor their statement that it's permissible to attack occupation forces.
In short, it was a blatant rehash of the same "stay the course" speech Bush keeps delivering. Indeed, he didn't even have to show up to deliver this one; all he really had to do was send a cardboard cutout and a tape player.
Along with this exercise in repetition, the White House also released its "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," inviting questions on why it took so long to come up with a strategy which really should have been done in the first place. In his speech, Bush called it "an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing in Iraq," but there's one problem: it's not a strategy, it's just a hodgepodge of the same old talking points. Among the rhetoric can be found such gems as "failure is not an option," "the terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists...can win only if we surrender," and, just to be sure people get it, "our strategy for victory is clear."
(Almost lost in the hoopla over the President's latest playback, the Los Angeles Times revealed that the Pentagon, working with a PR firm called the Lincoln Group, regularly pays Iraqi newspapers to run American-written propaganda stories under their own reporters' bylines. Among such articles are ones titled "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism" and "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq." In a particularly delicious bit of irony, the scheme was unmasked just as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in journalism and media ethics.)
The Bush Administration apparently thinks that their poll numbers are in the toilet not because the American people disapprove of what they're doing, but because they haven't made a good enough sales pitch. The detachment from reality this displays is disturbing. How can you convince people to change course when they're so confident in what they're doing they have no idea that it's causing nothing but disaster?
Fortunately, Republicans in Congress are starting to listen even if the White House won't. Even Democrats are starting to timidly show a tiny amount of spine. Contact your Senators and Representative and tell them we won't stand for more of the same. We need to get out of Iraq, and the sooner the better.
There was no mention of the increasing sectarian violence, no mention of the insurgent penetration of the fledgling Iraqi army, no mention of the tiny fraction of supposedly trained troops who can actually carry out operations by themselves, no mention of the brewing civil war. Nor was there any mention of former US-installed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's comment that "people are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse," that all Iraqi factions issued a joint call for an American withdrawal, nor their statement that it's permissible to attack occupation forces.
In short, it was a blatant rehash of the same "stay the course" speech Bush keeps delivering. Indeed, he didn't even have to show up to deliver this one; all he really had to do was send a cardboard cutout and a tape player.
Along with this exercise in repetition, the White House also released its "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," inviting questions on why it took so long to come up with a strategy which really should have been done in the first place. In his speech, Bush called it "an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing in Iraq," but there's one problem: it's not a strategy, it's just a hodgepodge of the same old talking points. Among the rhetoric can be found such gems as "failure is not an option," "the terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists...can win only if we surrender," and, just to be sure people get it, "our strategy for victory is clear."
(Almost lost in the hoopla over the President's latest playback, the Los Angeles Times revealed that the Pentagon, working with a PR firm called the Lincoln Group, regularly pays Iraqi newspapers to run American-written propaganda stories under their own reporters' bylines. Among such articles are ones titled "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism" and "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq." In a particularly delicious bit of irony, the scheme was unmasked just as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in journalism and media ethics.)
The Bush Administration apparently thinks that their poll numbers are in the toilet not because the American people disapprove of what they're doing, but because they haven't made a good enough sales pitch. The detachment from reality this displays is disturbing. How can you convince people to change course when they're so confident in what they're doing they have no idea that it's causing nothing but disaster?
Fortunately, Republicans in Congress are starting to listen even if the White House won't. Even Democrats are starting to timidly show a tiny amount of spine. Contact your Senators and Representative and tell them we won't stand for more of the same. We need to get out of Iraq, and the sooner the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)