Friday, February 10, 2006
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Bush intent on cutting programs for the poor & making the wealth wealthier, sad
from the February 08, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0208/p01s03-usec.html
Who will feel budget's impact?
Bush Wednesday signs bill with $39 billion in cuts. His 2007 budget would point to more cuts ahead.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - With President Bush's signature Wednesday, Medicaid recipients can expect higher copayments and deductibles. College students may face higher interest rates on student loans, as lenders are squeezed. Work requirements for women on welfare are likely to be tightened. Federal aid to states for child-support enforcement will be curtailed.
All told, the US government will save $39 billion over the next five years under the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. The legislation is the first in a decade to rein in the growth of entitlement programs. And, along with a plan for $70 billion in tax cuts moving through Congress, it provides the backdrop to a fierce debate over government priorities with the unveiling this week of Mr. Bush's budget proposal for fiscal year 2007.
In short, the Bush administration faces competing pressures to bring down the budget deficit, keep the nation safe, foster economic growth, and maintain popular social safety net programs. In an election year, the task grows only more difficult.
The stark reality is that Bush is asking for budget savings from Medicare, education, transportation, and agriculture as he seeks to cut taxes. Can the administration pull it off? The answer goes to the core of different government philosophies of the two parties.
"Republicans believe the poor and everyone else benefit from a growing and thriving economy, which is fed by capital investment," says Republican pollster Whit Ayres. "Democrats believe that the poor are best served by larger and larger government payments. The Republicans have won that clash of ideas fairly consistently since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. There's no reason to think they can't win that same argument again."
The proposed $2.77 trillion budget would boost Pentagon spending by almost 7 percent, and also increase the budgets for the Departments of State, Veterans' Affairs, and Homeland Security. The budget would cut $182 billion over five years in areas outside of defense and homeland security.
Critics argue that the tax cuts built into the budget plan - $285 billion over five years, not including an expected extension of the Alternative Minimum Tax - would more than negate the savings from cuts to domestic programs, which largely benefit low- and middle-income Americans.
Among entitlements, Bush proposes a plan to slow the growth of Medicare, which provides health insurance for senior citizens, saving $36 billion over five years. The budget also contains new cuts to Medicaid, which provides health insurance to the poor and disabled, by shifting some costs to the states, which in turn may reduce eligibility or benefits.
From Social Security, the budget proposes benefit reductions that would save $2.2 billion over five years, including an end to the lump-sum death benefit, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
In its early budget analysis, the CBPP identifies cuts to hundreds of programs. Among those targeted for elimination:
• The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food packages for some 400,000 low-income seniors.
• A preventive care block grant, which helps states provide preventive healthcare for "underserved populations."
• The TRIO Talent Search program, which helps colleges and universities assist disadvantaged teenagers so they can finish high school and go to college.
Among programs facing major cuts, according to CBPP:
• Section 202 housing for low-income elderly, which would be cut 26 percent below the 2006 level.
• Section 811 housing for low-income people with disabilities, which would face a 50 percent cut.
• A 79 percent cut for Community Oriented Policing Services, which aims to put more police on the streets.
• Child Care and Development Block Grant, which would face more than $1 billion in cuts over five years. CBPP reports that by 2011 the number of children receiving child-care assistance would drop by more than 400,000, compared with the 2005 figure.
"There's a fairness issue here," says Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow in economics at the Brookings Institution. "We're basically cutting programs that serve low-income families and the middle class in order to pay for tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the very wealthy. Even some Republicans have been uncomfortable with that."
The Republican Main Street Partnership, a collection of moderate GOP governors and members of Congress, is withholding judgment on the president's budget blueprint for now, over concerns it could hurt the poor. "Obviously, in an election year, we don't want to see that happening," says executive director Sarah Chamberlain Resnick.
The Bush White House says programs slated for cuts or elimination are ineffective, and that there are other ways to help the poor, such as through programs supported by Bush's faith-based initiative
Who will feel budget's impact?
Bush Wednesday signs bill with $39 billion in cuts. His 2007 budget would point to more cuts ahead.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - With President Bush's signature Wednesday, Medicaid recipients can expect higher copayments and deductibles. College students may face higher interest rates on student loans, as lenders are squeezed. Work requirements for women on welfare are likely to be tightened. Federal aid to states for child-support enforcement will be curtailed.
All told, the US government will save $39 billion over the next five years under the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. The legislation is the first in a decade to rein in the growth of entitlement programs. And, along with a plan for $70 billion in tax cuts moving through Congress, it provides the backdrop to a fierce debate over government priorities with the unveiling this week of Mr. Bush's budget proposal for fiscal year 2007.
In short, the Bush administration faces competing pressures to bring down the budget deficit, keep the nation safe, foster economic growth, and maintain popular social safety net programs. In an election year, the task grows only more difficult.
The stark reality is that Bush is asking for budget savings from Medicare, education, transportation, and agriculture as he seeks to cut taxes. Can the administration pull it off? The answer goes to the core of different government philosophies of the two parties.
"Republicans believe the poor and everyone else benefit from a growing and thriving economy, which is fed by capital investment," says Republican pollster Whit Ayres. "Democrats believe that the poor are best served by larger and larger government payments. The Republicans have won that clash of ideas fairly consistently since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. There's no reason to think they can't win that same argument again."
The proposed $2.77 trillion budget would boost Pentagon spending by almost 7 percent, and also increase the budgets for the Departments of State, Veterans' Affairs, and Homeland Security. The budget would cut $182 billion over five years in areas outside of defense and homeland security.
Critics argue that the tax cuts built into the budget plan - $285 billion over five years, not including an expected extension of the Alternative Minimum Tax - would more than negate the savings from cuts to domestic programs, which largely benefit low- and middle-income Americans.
Among entitlements, Bush proposes a plan to slow the growth of Medicare, which provides health insurance for senior citizens, saving $36 billion over five years. The budget also contains new cuts to Medicaid, which provides health insurance to the poor and disabled, by shifting some costs to the states, which in turn may reduce eligibility or benefits.
From Social Security, the budget proposes benefit reductions that would save $2.2 billion over five years, including an end to the lump-sum death benefit, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
In its early budget analysis, the CBPP identifies cuts to hundreds of programs. Among those targeted for elimination:
• The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food packages for some 400,000 low-income seniors.
• A preventive care block grant, which helps states provide preventive healthcare for "underserved populations."
• The TRIO Talent Search program, which helps colleges and universities assist disadvantaged teenagers so they can finish high school and go to college.
Among programs facing major cuts, according to CBPP:
• Section 202 housing for low-income elderly, which would be cut 26 percent below the 2006 level.
• Section 811 housing for low-income people with disabilities, which would face a 50 percent cut.
• A 79 percent cut for Community Oriented Policing Services, which aims to put more police on the streets.
• Child Care and Development Block Grant, which would face more than $1 billion in cuts over five years. CBPP reports that by 2011 the number of children receiving child-care assistance would drop by more than 400,000, compared with the 2005 figure.
"There's a fairness issue here," says Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow in economics at the Brookings Institution. "We're basically cutting programs that serve low-income families and the middle class in order to pay for tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the very wealthy. Even some Republicans have been uncomfortable with that."
The Republican Main Street Partnership, a collection of moderate GOP governors and members of Congress, is withholding judgment on the president's budget blueprint for now, over concerns it could hurt the poor. "Obviously, in an election year, we don't want to see that happening," says executive director Sarah Chamberlain Resnick.
The Bush White House says programs slated for cuts or elimination are ineffective, and that there are other ways to help the poor, such as through programs supported by Bush's faith-based initiative
Britain Defies US with Funding to Boost Safe Abortion Services
Britain Defies US with Funding to Boost Safe Abortion Services
By Sarah Boseley
The Guardian UK
Monday 06 February 2006
Attempt to replace lost dollars after 'global gag.' 70,000 died last year in backstreet operations.
The British government will today publicly defy the United States by giving money for safe abortion services in developing countries to organisations that have been cut off from American funding.
Nearly 70,000 women and girls died last year because they went to back-street abortionists. Hundreds of thousands of others suffered serious injuries.
Critics of America's aid policy say some might have lived if the US had not withdrawn funding from clinics that provide safe services - or that simply tell women where to find them.
The "global gag" rule, as it has become known, was imposed by President George Bush in 2001. It requires any organisation applying for US funds to sign an undertaking not to counsel women on abortion - other than advising against it - or provide abortion services.
The UK will today become the founder donor of a fund set up specifically to attempt to replace the lost dollars and increase safe abortion services.
The Department for International Development will contribute £3m over two years. DFID and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) - whose clinics across the world have suffered badly - hope that others, particularly the Scandinavians, Dutch and Canadians, will be emboldened to put money in too.
"I think the UK is being very brave and very progressive in making this commitment," said Steven Sinding, director general of the IPPF. "We're deeply grateful for this gesture not only financially but also politically.
"Tens of thousands of women who depend on our services are not able to get them. We're committed to the expansion of safe abortion because in any society no matter how efficiently contraception is made available there will be unplanned and unwanted pregnancies."
The "global gag", he said, had increased the number of unsafe abortions by stopping funding to clinics that primarily provide contraception. "What I've never been able to figure out about American policy is why they persist in cutting down funding to organisations that are about preventing unwanted pregnancies."
International development minister Gareth Thomas said the government hoped the US position would change: "We work very closely with the Americans but we have a very different view from them on abortion. Friends can disagree.
"I recognise that the Americans are not going to want to contribute at the moment. We obviously continue to hope that the position will change. It is a position that has been decided by Congress so we're very aware of it and they know that."
DFID asked IPPF to produce a report on the scale of the damage caused by unsafe abortion. Death and Denial: Unsafe Abortion and Poverty, is published today. It reveals that an estimated 19 million women will risk the consequences of an unsafe abortion this year, of whom 70,000 will die. This accounts for 13% of the 500,000 maternal deaths each year. Reducing unsafe abortions is critical to reaching the UN's Millennium Development Goal on cutting maternal mortality, said Mr Thomas.
Women's low status in many poor countries makes them vulnerable to sexual coercion, abuse and exploitation, says the report. Almost 50% of sexual assaults worldwide are against girls aged 15 or less.
The death and injury toll is highest in countries where abortion is illegal or severely restricted, as in Kenya, where some 30% to 50% of maternal deaths are a result of unsafe abortion.
The Family Planning Association of Kenya, an IPPF member, chose to forfeit US funds rather than sign the "global gag" clause. It was forced to close three reproductive health clinics, scale back others and slash outreach programmes.
Many other organisations are affected by the global gag, including Marie Stopes, which is bigger in some countries than IPPF. The money from the new fund will be equitably shared among all those who have lost US funds. IPPF, which has itself lost $15m (£9m) a year for the past five years, together with the provision of contraceptives worth $2m to $4m, hopes the fund may eventually raise up to $35m.
By Sarah Boseley
The Guardian UK
Monday 06 February 2006
Attempt to replace lost dollars after 'global gag.' 70,000 died last year in backstreet operations.
The British government will today publicly defy the United States by giving money for safe abortion services in developing countries to organisations that have been cut off from American funding.
Nearly 70,000 women and girls died last year because they went to back-street abortionists. Hundreds of thousands of others suffered serious injuries.
Critics of America's aid policy say some might have lived if the US had not withdrawn funding from clinics that provide safe services - or that simply tell women where to find them.
The "global gag" rule, as it has become known, was imposed by President George Bush in 2001. It requires any organisation applying for US funds to sign an undertaking not to counsel women on abortion - other than advising against it - or provide abortion services.
The UK will today become the founder donor of a fund set up specifically to attempt to replace the lost dollars and increase safe abortion services.
The Department for International Development will contribute £3m over two years. DFID and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) - whose clinics across the world have suffered badly - hope that others, particularly the Scandinavians, Dutch and Canadians, will be emboldened to put money in too.
"I think the UK is being very brave and very progressive in making this commitment," said Steven Sinding, director general of the IPPF. "We're deeply grateful for this gesture not only financially but also politically.
"Tens of thousands of women who depend on our services are not able to get them. We're committed to the expansion of safe abortion because in any society no matter how efficiently contraception is made available there will be unplanned and unwanted pregnancies."
The "global gag", he said, had increased the number of unsafe abortions by stopping funding to clinics that primarily provide contraception. "What I've never been able to figure out about American policy is why they persist in cutting down funding to organisations that are about preventing unwanted pregnancies."
International development minister Gareth Thomas said the government hoped the US position would change: "We work very closely with the Americans but we have a very different view from them on abortion. Friends can disagree.
"I recognise that the Americans are not going to want to contribute at the moment. We obviously continue to hope that the position will change. It is a position that has been decided by Congress so we're very aware of it and they know that."
DFID asked IPPF to produce a report on the scale of the damage caused by unsafe abortion. Death and Denial: Unsafe Abortion and Poverty, is published today. It reveals that an estimated 19 million women will risk the consequences of an unsafe abortion this year, of whom 70,000 will die. This accounts for 13% of the 500,000 maternal deaths each year. Reducing unsafe abortions is critical to reaching the UN's Millennium Development Goal on cutting maternal mortality, said Mr Thomas.
Women's low status in many poor countries makes them vulnerable to sexual coercion, abuse and exploitation, says the report. Almost 50% of sexual assaults worldwide are against girls aged 15 or less.
The death and injury toll is highest in countries where abortion is illegal or severely restricted, as in Kenya, where some 30% to 50% of maternal deaths are a result of unsafe abortion.
The Family Planning Association of Kenya, an IPPF member, chose to forfeit US funds rather than sign the "global gag" clause. It was forced to close three reproductive health clinics, scale back others and slash outreach programmes.
Many other organisations are affected by the global gag, including Marie Stopes, which is bigger in some countries than IPPF. The money from the new fund will be equitably shared among all those who have lost US funds. IPPF, which has itself lost $15m (£9m) a year for the past five years, together with the provision of contraceptives worth $2m to $4m, hopes the fund may eventually raise up to $35m.
THE BLAND LEADING THE BLIND
THE BLAND LEADING THE BLIND
Tue Feb 7, 8:15 PM ET
The Nanny Press and the Cartoon Controversy
LAS VEGAS--Of course it was a provocation. In September, the editor of a right-wing Danish newspaper decided "to test cartoonists to see if they were self-censoring their work, out of fear of violence from Islamic radicals." Though some declined, 12 artists accepted the editor's invitation to make light of the Prophet Mohammed, and submitted work equating Islam with terrorism and the oppression of women, among other things.
Five months later editor Fleming Rose has learned that cartoonists have good reason to watch what they draw. Thousands of demonstrators, furious at the publication's violation of an Islamic stricture banning graphic depictions of the Prophet, marched through the streets of Cairo, Karachi, Istanbul, Teheran and Mehtarlam, Afghanistan, where at least five were killed by police. Gunmen took over the European Union office in Gaza. Mobs burned Danish flags and called for a Muslim boycott of Danish goods. Iran withdrew its ambassador from Copenhagen. Danes were ordered to flee Lebanon after mobs burned the Danish consulates in Damascus and Beirut, where they also trashed a Christian neighborhood. The Danish cartoonists, having been threatened with beheading, are presumably catching up on their Salman Rushdie while they weather the storm.
Adding fuel to the fire, said the Times, were "a group of Denmark's fundamentalist Muslim clerics...[who] took their show on the road" last fall, traveling around the Middle East showing a package that included cartoons that had never actually appeared in any newspaper, "some depicting Mohammed as a pedophile, a pig or engaged in bestiality." Newspapers in France, Germany and elsewhere further fanned the flames by reprinting the Danish drawings.
Being provoked, as I tell myself when I'm sitting next to Sean Hannity, doesn't justify reacting with violence. And as Kuwaiti oil executive Samia al-Duaij pointed out to Time, there are better reasons to torch embassies than over cartoons: "America kills thousands of Muslims, and you lose your head and withdraw ambassadors over a bunch of cartoons printed in a second-rate paper in a Nordic country with a population of five million? That's the true outrage."
As the only syndicated political cartoonist who also writes a syndicated column, my living depends on freedom of the press. I can't decide who's a bigger threat: the deluded Islamists who hope to impose Sharia law on Western democracies, or the right-wing clash-of-civilization crusaders waving the banner of "free speech"--the same folks who call for the censorship and even murder of anti-Bush cartoonists here--as an excuse to join the post-9/11 Muslims-suck media pile-on. Most reasonable people reject both--but neither is as dangerous to liberty as America's self-censoring newspaper editors and broadcast producers.
"CNN has chosen not to show the [Danish Mohammed] cartoons out of respect for Islam," said the news channel.
"We always weigh the value of the journalistic impact against the impact that publication might have as far as insulting or hurting certain groups," said an editor at The San Francisco Chronicle.
"The cartoons didn't meet our long-held standards for not moving offensive content," said the Associated Press.
Bull----.
If these cowards were worried about offending the faithful, they wouldn't cover or quote such Muslim-bashers as Ann Coulter, Christopher Hitchens or George W. Bush. The truth is, our national nanny media is managed by cowards so terrified by the prospect of their offices being firebombed that they wallow in self-censorship.
Precisely because they subvert free speech from within with their oh-so-reasonable odes for "moderation" and against "sensationalism," the gatekeepers of our national nanny media are more dangerous to Western values than distant mullahs and clueless neocons combined. Editors and producers decide not only what's fit to print but also what's not: flag-draped coffins and body bags arriving from Iraq, photographs of Afghan civilians, their bodies reduced to blobs of blood and protoplasm, all purged from our national consciousness. You might think it's news when the vice president tells a senator to "go f--- yourself" on the Senate floor, but you'd be wrong--only tortured roundabout descriptions (like "f---") make newsprint. "This is a family newspaper," any editor will say, arguing for self-censorship--as if kids couldn't fill in those three letters in "f---."
As if kids read the paper.
The nanny media, even more prudish since 9/11, covers our millions of eyes to protect us from our own icky deeds. In Afghanistan in 2001, while covering a war that had officially killed 12 civilians, I watched a colleague from a major television network collate footage of a B-52 bombing indiscriminately obliterating a civilian neighborhood. "If people saw what bombing looks like here on the ground, " he observed as body parts and burning houses and screaming children filled the screen, "they would demand an end to it. Which is why this will never air on American television." But other countries don't have our nanny media. Europeans and Arabs see the horror wreaked in our name on their airwaves, assume that we see the same imagery and hate us for not giving a damn. America's self-censors make anti-Americanism worse.
Ugly truths come out one way or the other. While the Muslim world was raging over the Danish Mohammed cartoons, Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles received a chilling letter from the Joints Chief of Staff in reaction to his single-panel rendition of a quadriplegic veteran; if not for the nanny media's slavish refusal to run photos of the real thing, would that abstract image have shocked anyone? While we're at it, using prose to describe graphic images--as editors and anchormen are doing about the Mohammed imagery--makes as much sense as talking about the Rodney King police brutality video. "[Describing the cartoons without showing them] seems a reasonable choice," editorialized The New York Times, a paper whose readers' right to know apparently includes classified surveillance programs--but not cartoons.
Toles "crossed the line" from appropriate commentary into outright tastelessness, complained the Joint Chiefs. Similarly, many Muslims say the 12 Danish cartoonists "crossed the line" when they indulged in blasphemy of one of the world's major religions. U.S. State Department spokesman and honorary mullah Sean McCormack helpfully tells us where The Line is drawn: "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images," he said. But who can distinguish "anti-Muslim images" from "acceptable" satire? Taste is subjective. Right-wing Time columnist Andrew Sullivan, who has repeatedly called for censoring my work because it's critical of Bush, calls the Danish cartoons "not arbitrarily offensive" and thus acceptable free speech. Lefties, on the other hand, rallied to get Rush Limbaugh fired from his gig as a football commentator.
Hypocrisy abounds: Everyone supports the free speech they agree with.
Which is why, in a nation with a truly free media, there is no line. To hell with the nanny media. Free speech is like a Ferrari: What good is it if you don't use it or if you barely use it, only driving it in town, in stop-and-go traffic? It's useless until you can head out to the Arizona desert and push it past 150 mph. Short of libel, slander and impersonation, anything goes--that is, if you believe in the First Amendment.
What if millions of people take offense? What if some of them turn violent, even murderous? So what? No one can make you angry. You decide whether or not to become angry. If journalistic gatekeepers worry about the mere possibility of prompting outrage, they'll validate mob rule and undermine our right to a free press, one that covers the controversial along with the bland.
While deciding what goes into the paper and the evening news, good journalists ought to be guided by only one consideration: Is it news? If the answer is yes, send it out. Even if it's tasteless as all f---.
Postscript: A European Muslim website has posted a cartoon depicting Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler. "If it is the time to break taboos and cross all the red lines," the site explains, "we certainly do not want to fall behind." It's an idiotic cartoon. Breaking taboos, on the other hand, is something our nanny media ought to try.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Tue Feb 7, 8:15 PM ET
The Nanny Press and the Cartoon Controversy
LAS VEGAS--Of course it was a provocation. In September, the editor of a right-wing Danish newspaper decided "to test cartoonists to see if they were self-censoring their work, out of fear of violence from Islamic radicals." Though some declined, 12 artists accepted the editor's invitation to make light of the Prophet Mohammed, and submitted work equating Islam with terrorism and the oppression of women, among other things.
Five months later editor Fleming Rose has learned that cartoonists have good reason to watch what they draw. Thousands of demonstrators, furious at the publication's violation of an Islamic stricture banning graphic depictions of the Prophet, marched through the streets of Cairo, Karachi, Istanbul, Teheran and Mehtarlam, Afghanistan, where at least five were killed by police. Gunmen took over the European Union office in Gaza. Mobs burned Danish flags and called for a Muslim boycott of Danish goods. Iran withdrew its ambassador from Copenhagen. Danes were ordered to flee Lebanon after mobs burned the Danish consulates in Damascus and Beirut, where they also trashed a Christian neighborhood. The Danish cartoonists, having been threatened with beheading, are presumably catching up on their Salman Rushdie while they weather the storm.
Adding fuel to the fire, said the Times, were "a group of Denmark's fundamentalist Muslim clerics...[who] took their show on the road" last fall, traveling around the Middle East showing a package that included cartoons that had never actually appeared in any newspaper, "some depicting Mohammed as a pedophile, a pig or engaged in bestiality." Newspapers in France, Germany and elsewhere further fanned the flames by reprinting the Danish drawings.
Being provoked, as I tell myself when I'm sitting next to Sean Hannity, doesn't justify reacting with violence. And as Kuwaiti oil executive Samia al-Duaij pointed out to Time, there are better reasons to torch embassies than over cartoons: "America kills thousands of Muslims, and you lose your head and withdraw ambassadors over a bunch of cartoons printed in a second-rate paper in a Nordic country with a population of five million? That's the true outrage."
As the only syndicated political cartoonist who also writes a syndicated column, my living depends on freedom of the press. I can't decide who's a bigger threat: the deluded Islamists who hope to impose Sharia law on Western democracies, or the right-wing clash-of-civilization crusaders waving the banner of "free speech"--the same folks who call for the censorship and even murder of anti-Bush cartoonists here--as an excuse to join the post-9/11 Muslims-suck media pile-on. Most reasonable people reject both--but neither is as dangerous to liberty as America's self-censoring newspaper editors and broadcast producers.
"CNN has chosen not to show the [Danish Mohammed] cartoons out of respect for Islam," said the news channel.
"We always weigh the value of the journalistic impact against the impact that publication might have as far as insulting or hurting certain groups," said an editor at The San Francisco Chronicle.
"The cartoons didn't meet our long-held standards for not moving offensive content," said the Associated Press.
Bull----.
If these cowards were worried about offending the faithful, they wouldn't cover or quote such Muslim-bashers as Ann Coulter, Christopher Hitchens or George W. Bush. The truth is, our national nanny media is managed by cowards so terrified by the prospect of their offices being firebombed that they wallow in self-censorship.
Precisely because they subvert free speech from within with their oh-so-reasonable odes for "moderation" and against "sensationalism," the gatekeepers of our national nanny media are more dangerous to Western values than distant mullahs and clueless neocons combined. Editors and producers decide not only what's fit to print but also what's not: flag-draped coffins and body bags arriving from Iraq, photographs of Afghan civilians, their bodies reduced to blobs of blood and protoplasm, all purged from our national consciousness. You might think it's news when the vice president tells a senator to "go f--- yourself" on the Senate floor, but you'd be wrong--only tortured roundabout descriptions (like "f---") make newsprint. "This is a family newspaper," any editor will say, arguing for self-censorship--as if kids couldn't fill in those three letters in "f---."
As if kids read the paper.
The nanny media, even more prudish since 9/11, covers our millions of eyes to protect us from our own icky deeds. In Afghanistan in 2001, while covering a war that had officially killed 12 civilians, I watched a colleague from a major television network collate footage of a B-52 bombing indiscriminately obliterating a civilian neighborhood. "If people saw what bombing looks like here on the ground, " he observed as body parts and burning houses and screaming children filled the screen, "they would demand an end to it. Which is why this will never air on American television." But other countries don't have our nanny media. Europeans and Arabs see the horror wreaked in our name on their airwaves, assume that we see the same imagery and hate us for not giving a damn. America's self-censors make anti-Americanism worse.
Ugly truths come out one way or the other. While the Muslim world was raging over the Danish Mohammed cartoons, Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles received a chilling letter from the Joints Chief of Staff in reaction to his single-panel rendition of a quadriplegic veteran; if not for the nanny media's slavish refusal to run photos of the real thing, would that abstract image have shocked anyone? While we're at it, using prose to describe graphic images--as editors and anchormen are doing about the Mohammed imagery--makes as much sense as talking about the Rodney King police brutality video. "[Describing the cartoons without showing them] seems a reasonable choice," editorialized The New York Times, a paper whose readers' right to know apparently includes classified surveillance programs--but not cartoons.
Toles "crossed the line" from appropriate commentary into outright tastelessness, complained the Joint Chiefs. Similarly, many Muslims say the 12 Danish cartoonists "crossed the line" when they indulged in blasphemy of one of the world's major religions. U.S. State Department spokesman and honorary mullah Sean McCormack helpfully tells us where The Line is drawn: "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images," he said. But who can distinguish "anti-Muslim images" from "acceptable" satire? Taste is subjective. Right-wing Time columnist Andrew Sullivan, who has repeatedly called for censoring my work because it's critical of Bush, calls the Danish cartoons "not arbitrarily offensive" and thus acceptable free speech. Lefties, on the other hand, rallied to get Rush Limbaugh fired from his gig as a football commentator.
Hypocrisy abounds: Everyone supports the free speech they agree with.
Which is why, in a nation with a truly free media, there is no line. To hell with the nanny media. Free speech is like a Ferrari: What good is it if you don't use it or if you barely use it, only driving it in town, in stop-and-go traffic? It's useless until you can head out to the Arizona desert and push it past 150 mph. Short of libel, slander and impersonation, anything goes--that is, if you believe in the First Amendment.
What if millions of people take offense? What if some of them turn violent, even murderous? So what? No one can make you angry. You decide whether or not to become angry. If journalistic gatekeepers worry about the mere possibility of prompting outrage, they'll validate mob rule and undermine our right to a free press, one that covers the controversial along with the bland.
While deciding what goes into the paper and the evening news, good journalists ought to be guided by only one consideration: Is it news? If the answer is yes, send it out. Even if it's tasteless as all f---.
Postscript: A European Muslim website has posted a cartoon depicting Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler. "If it is the time to break taboos and cross all the red lines," the site explains, "we certainly do not want to fall behind." It's an idiotic cartoon. Breaking taboos, on the other hand, is something our nanny media ought to try.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Monday, February 06, 2006
The Poor Get Poorer
Democrats & Liberals: Archives
February 06, 2006
The Poor Get Poorer
The President’s 2007 budget proposes $2.7 trillion in spending neccessary to increase defense and homeland security. There is $18 billion for rebuilding from the hurricanes that devestated the poor in the Gulf Coast region. Other programs such as energy programs will get $4.1 billion (huge surprise), while 141 programs that primarily help the poor, children, the elderly, veterans and the handicapped will see their money drastically cut or eliminated. The cuts are needed to reduce a deficit caused, in part, by the war and to support the continuation of the war. They are also to pay for damage from the devastating hurricanes.
The soldiers who risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq do so with heroism and grit. The soldiers and their families are making brave and sometimes horrific sacrifices. Why should the same socioeconomic group that makes up the bulk of the fighting force also sacrifice the most financially? Some of us do not believe that we should have invaded Iraq, some of us do. What we all can agree upon is that the cost of the war should not trickle down to those who are fighting and their families. The cost of hurricane rebuilding should not cut programs that will help those most effected by the hurricanes.
Why is this happening?
Why are programs for the poor cut to pay for a war and storm damage that has benefited the wealthy oil companies and defense contractors? The money that's cut will go to wealthy cotractors hired to rebuild or Haliburton KBR. Huge, sometimes record profits for them, while killing and maiming the poor and middle class soldiers and causing emotional and financial hardship for their families is terrible.
A report, entitled “Shifty Tax Cuts: How They Move the Tax Burden off the Rich and onto Everyone Else,” from United for a Fair Economy (UFE) indicates that between 2002 and 2004, the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of US income earners redirected billions of dollars in revenue that could have eliminated virtually all of the budget shortfalls in every state.
These tax cuts and our government's incestuous relationship with large corporations are the reasons why.
The report identifies five main areas of shifting tax burden:
FEDERAL TO STATE — a 15% shift in tax burden between 2000 and 2003.
PROGRESSIVE TO REGRESSIVE — at the federal level, a 17% decline in the share of revenue from progressive taxes and a 135% increase in the share of revenue from regressive taxes.
WEALTH TO WORK — A tax cut on unearned income — such as inheritance or investment — of between 31% and 79%, but a tax hike on work income of 25% since 1980
CORPORATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS — a 67% drop in the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations and a 17% rise in individuals’ share.
CURRENT TAXPAYERS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS — record deficits that shift the tax burden to our children and grandchildren
Corporate welfare is not a valid reason for the poor and middle class to have to shoulder the financial burdon in same war that they are making all of the physical sacrifices.
The Military Industrial Complex must not be allowed to continue to overshadow the citizens of this country.
Wealthy corporations should not supplant the working class and poor in importance to our Federal government.
Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at February 6, 2006 11:55 AM
February 06, 2006
The Poor Get Poorer
The President’s 2007 budget proposes $2.7 trillion in spending neccessary to increase defense and homeland security. There is $18 billion for rebuilding from the hurricanes that devestated the poor in the Gulf Coast region. Other programs such as energy programs will get $4.1 billion (huge surprise), while 141 programs that primarily help the poor, children, the elderly, veterans and the handicapped will see their money drastically cut or eliminated. The cuts are needed to reduce a deficit caused, in part, by the war and to support the continuation of the war. They are also to pay for damage from the devastating hurricanes.
The soldiers who risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq do so with heroism and grit. The soldiers and their families are making brave and sometimes horrific sacrifices. Why should the same socioeconomic group that makes up the bulk of the fighting force also sacrifice the most financially? Some of us do not believe that we should have invaded Iraq, some of us do. What we all can agree upon is that the cost of the war should not trickle down to those who are fighting and their families. The cost of hurricane rebuilding should not cut programs that will help those most effected by the hurricanes.
Why is this happening?
Why are programs for the poor cut to pay for a war and storm damage that has benefited the wealthy oil companies and defense contractors? The money that's cut will go to wealthy cotractors hired to rebuild or Haliburton KBR. Huge, sometimes record profits for them, while killing and maiming the poor and middle class soldiers and causing emotional and financial hardship for their families is terrible.
A report, entitled “Shifty Tax Cuts: How They Move the Tax Burden off the Rich and onto Everyone Else,” from United for a Fair Economy (UFE) indicates that between 2002 and 2004, the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of US income earners redirected billions of dollars in revenue that could have eliminated virtually all of the budget shortfalls in every state.
These tax cuts and our government's incestuous relationship with large corporations are the reasons why.
The report identifies five main areas of shifting tax burden:
FEDERAL TO STATE — a 15% shift in tax burden between 2000 and 2003.
PROGRESSIVE TO REGRESSIVE — at the federal level, a 17% decline in the share of revenue from progressive taxes and a 135% increase in the share of revenue from regressive taxes.
WEALTH TO WORK — A tax cut on unearned income — such as inheritance or investment — of between 31% and 79%, but a tax hike on work income of 25% since 1980
CORPORATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS — a 67% drop in the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations and a 17% rise in individuals’ share.
CURRENT TAXPAYERS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS — record deficits that shift the tax burden to our children and grandchildren
Corporate welfare is not a valid reason for the poor and middle class to have to shoulder the financial burdon in same war that they are making all of the physical sacrifices.
The Military Industrial Complex must not be allowed to continue to overshadow the citizens of this country.
Wealthy corporations should not supplant the working class and poor in importance to our Federal government.
Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at February 6, 2006 11:55 AM
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Most Iraqis Doubt US Will Ever Leave
Most Iraqis Doubt US Will Ever Leave
By Jim Lobe
Inter Press Service
Tuesday 31 January 2006
Washington - Large majorities of Iraqis believe that the United States has no intention of ever withdrawing all its military forces from their country and that Washington's reconstruction efforts have been incompetent at best, according to a new survey released here Tuesday.
At the same time, however, only 35 percent of Iraqis - most of them Sunni Arabs - believe coalition forces should withdraw within six months, although if they did so, majorities said it would have a beneficial impact, as many prominent Democrats and other war critics here have argued.
Skepticism about US plans in Iraq is particularly pronounced among the country's Sunni population, who were far more negative about virtually every aspect of post-invasion Iraq than their counterparts in the Shi'a and Kurdish communities, which together are believed to account for 75-80 percent of the country's population.
Indeed, despite the strong Sunni Arab participation in December's parliamentary elections, a whopping 88 percent of the community approves of "attacks on US-led forces" in Iraq, with 77 percent voicing "strong approval" - a level of hostility that presents a serious challenge for US officials now negotiating with Sunni insurgent leaders, as reported in the Feb. 6 issue of Newsweek magazine.
By comparison, 41 percent of Shiites said they approved such attacks, while 16 percent of Kurds, by far the most pro-US of the three groups, agreed.
The survey, the latest in a series that has probed Iraqi opinion since the March 2003 US-led invasion, was designed by the Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland for WorldPublicOpinion.org and conducted through face-to-face interviews of 1,150 randomly selected Iraqi adults in all 18 Iraqi provinces in early January, three weeks after the December elections.
While Sunni Arabs were over-represented in the sample, the data was weighted according to each group's actual estimated share of the total Iraqi population: Shia Arab, 55 percent; Sunni Arab, 22 percent; Kurd, 18 percent; and other groups, five percent.
The survey results, which come amid intensified jockeying in Baghdad over the constitution of a new government, are a mixed bag for the administration of Pres. George W. Bush.
His approval ratings in the US have fallen dangerously over the past year, in substantial part due to the perception that he lacks a viable plan for "success" in Iraq, even as he rejects pressure by Democrats and prominent members of the foreign policy establishment to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of the 140,000 US troops there.
The survey found considerable skepticism about Bush's frequent promises not to maintain US military forces in Iraq "a day longer" than is necessary for ensuring its stability.
Eighty percent of respondents said they believe the US intends to maintain permanent military bases in Iraq, including 79 percent of Shi'a Arabs, 92 percent of Sunnis, and two-thirds of Kurds, some of whose leaders have quietly suggested that Washington would be welcome to establish bases in Kurdistan in northern Iraq.
More than three of four respondents (76 percent) said Washington would also reject a request by any Iraqi government that emerges from last month's elections to withdraw its forces within six months. Two-thirds of Shiites said Bush would refuse to do so; 77 percent of Kurds; and a nearly unanimous 94 percent of Sunni Arabs.
The survey also found broad support for the conclusions of an all-party November conference convened by the Arab League, which, with the apparent encouragement of US Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad, has tried to mediate among the various Iraqi communities in order to prevent the country from disintegrating and hasten an eventual withdrawal.
The conclusions on which all parties agreed included a rejection of terrorist methods, particularly against civilians; the inclusion of all groups in the political process; and the establishment of a timetable for US withdrawal.
Despite the approval, particularly in the Sunni community, of attacks against US-led forces in Iraq, the survey found nearly 99 percent rejection of terrorist methods and 97 percent approval for an inclusive political process. It also found 87 percent support for establishing a timetable for withdrawal, although Kurds were substantially less supportive of the idea than the other two groups.
Among those who support a timetable, however, opinion was evenly split at 35 percent favouring a withdrawal deadline of six months and the same percentage preferring a "gradual" withdrawal over two years. The finding was consistent with a November BBC poll that found that two-thirds of Iraqis opposed "the presence of coalition forces in Iraq", although that poll did not ask how long they wanted the forces to remain.
The shorter period was most popular among Sunnis, 83 percent of whom opted for the six-month option. By contrast, only 22 percent of Shi'a respondents favoured the six-month plan, while 49 percent preferred the two-year period. A majority of 57 percent of Kurds said foreign forces should leave only when the situation improves.
Ironically, 41 percent of respondents who approve of attacks against US-led forces said they did not prefer the shorter timetable.
"One possible explanation is that the attacks are not prompted by a desire to bring about an immediate withdrawal, but to put pressure on the US so that it will eventually leave," said PIPA director Steven Kull, who pointed to the prevailing skepticism over Bush's promise to withdraw US troops as soon as Iraqi forces can take their place.
He said 90 percent of those who approve of attacks against US-led forces believe Washington wants to have permanent bases in Iraq.
At the same time, majorities of Iraqis said they believed that certain key conditions that fuel insecurity and fears of civil war would improve. Two-thirds said the day-to-day security of ordinary citizens would increase. Sixty-one percent said inter-ethnic violence and the presence of foreign fighters would decline.
Nearly three in four voiced confidence that contending factions would be more likely to cooperate, and two-thirds said key public services would improve, and crime would decline.
In each case, Sunni Arabs were distinctly more optimistic than the other two major groups. Kurds, on the other hand, were most doubtful.
Differences between the three groups were even more marked in their assessments of the current political situation. While two-thirds of all Iraqis said the December elections were free and fair and the new parliament will be "the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people", more than nine out of every 10 Sunnis disagreed with both propositions.
The survey found Sunnis in general to be much more negative about the future. While nearly two-thirds of the whole sample said Iraq is headed in the "right direction" - a sharp increase compared to 49 percent who said so in a pre-election survey by the International Republican Institute (IRI) last November - 93 percent of Sunnis said it was going in the wrong direction.
By Jim Lobe
Inter Press Service
Tuesday 31 January 2006
Washington - Large majorities of Iraqis believe that the United States has no intention of ever withdrawing all its military forces from their country and that Washington's reconstruction efforts have been incompetent at best, according to a new survey released here Tuesday.
At the same time, however, only 35 percent of Iraqis - most of them Sunni Arabs - believe coalition forces should withdraw within six months, although if they did so, majorities said it would have a beneficial impact, as many prominent Democrats and other war critics here have argued.
Skepticism about US plans in Iraq is particularly pronounced among the country's Sunni population, who were far more negative about virtually every aspect of post-invasion Iraq than their counterparts in the Shi'a and Kurdish communities, which together are believed to account for 75-80 percent of the country's population.
Indeed, despite the strong Sunni Arab participation in December's parliamentary elections, a whopping 88 percent of the community approves of "attacks on US-led forces" in Iraq, with 77 percent voicing "strong approval" - a level of hostility that presents a serious challenge for US officials now negotiating with Sunni insurgent leaders, as reported in the Feb. 6 issue of Newsweek magazine.
By comparison, 41 percent of Shiites said they approved such attacks, while 16 percent of Kurds, by far the most pro-US of the three groups, agreed.
The survey, the latest in a series that has probed Iraqi opinion since the March 2003 US-led invasion, was designed by the Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland for WorldPublicOpinion.org and conducted through face-to-face interviews of 1,150 randomly selected Iraqi adults in all 18 Iraqi provinces in early January, three weeks after the December elections.
While Sunni Arabs were over-represented in the sample, the data was weighted according to each group's actual estimated share of the total Iraqi population: Shia Arab, 55 percent; Sunni Arab, 22 percent; Kurd, 18 percent; and other groups, five percent.
The survey results, which come amid intensified jockeying in Baghdad over the constitution of a new government, are a mixed bag for the administration of Pres. George W. Bush.
His approval ratings in the US have fallen dangerously over the past year, in substantial part due to the perception that he lacks a viable plan for "success" in Iraq, even as he rejects pressure by Democrats and prominent members of the foreign policy establishment to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of the 140,000 US troops there.
The survey found considerable skepticism about Bush's frequent promises not to maintain US military forces in Iraq "a day longer" than is necessary for ensuring its stability.
Eighty percent of respondents said they believe the US intends to maintain permanent military bases in Iraq, including 79 percent of Shi'a Arabs, 92 percent of Sunnis, and two-thirds of Kurds, some of whose leaders have quietly suggested that Washington would be welcome to establish bases in Kurdistan in northern Iraq.
More than three of four respondents (76 percent) said Washington would also reject a request by any Iraqi government that emerges from last month's elections to withdraw its forces within six months. Two-thirds of Shiites said Bush would refuse to do so; 77 percent of Kurds; and a nearly unanimous 94 percent of Sunni Arabs.
The survey also found broad support for the conclusions of an all-party November conference convened by the Arab League, which, with the apparent encouragement of US Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad, has tried to mediate among the various Iraqi communities in order to prevent the country from disintegrating and hasten an eventual withdrawal.
The conclusions on which all parties agreed included a rejection of terrorist methods, particularly against civilians; the inclusion of all groups in the political process; and the establishment of a timetable for US withdrawal.
Despite the approval, particularly in the Sunni community, of attacks against US-led forces in Iraq, the survey found nearly 99 percent rejection of terrorist methods and 97 percent approval for an inclusive political process. It also found 87 percent support for establishing a timetable for withdrawal, although Kurds were substantially less supportive of the idea than the other two groups.
Among those who support a timetable, however, opinion was evenly split at 35 percent favouring a withdrawal deadline of six months and the same percentage preferring a "gradual" withdrawal over two years. The finding was consistent with a November BBC poll that found that two-thirds of Iraqis opposed "the presence of coalition forces in Iraq", although that poll did not ask how long they wanted the forces to remain.
The shorter period was most popular among Sunnis, 83 percent of whom opted for the six-month option. By contrast, only 22 percent of Shi'a respondents favoured the six-month plan, while 49 percent preferred the two-year period. A majority of 57 percent of Kurds said foreign forces should leave only when the situation improves.
Ironically, 41 percent of respondents who approve of attacks against US-led forces said they did not prefer the shorter timetable.
"One possible explanation is that the attacks are not prompted by a desire to bring about an immediate withdrawal, but to put pressure on the US so that it will eventually leave," said PIPA director Steven Kull, who pointed to the prevailing skepticism over Bush's promise to withdraw US troops as soon as Iraqi forces can take their place.
He said 90 percent of those who approve of attacks against US-led forces believe Washington wants to have permanent bases in Iraq.
At the same time, majorities of Iraqis said they believed that certain key conditions that fuel insecurity and fears of civil war would improve. Two-thirds said the day-to-day security of ordinary citizens would increase. Sixty-one percent said inter-ethnic violence and the presence of foreign fighters would decline.
Nearly three in four voiced confidence that contending factions would be more likely to cooperate, and two-thirds said key public services would improve, and crime would decline.
In each case, Sunni Arabs were distinctly more optimistic than the other two major groups. Kurds, on the other hand, were most doubtful.
Differences between the three groups were even more marked in their assessments of the current political situation. While two-thirds of all Iraqis said the December elections were free and fair and the new parliament will be "the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people", more than nine out of every 10 Sunnis disagreed with both propositions.
The survey found Sunnis in general to be much more negative about the future. While nearly two-thirds of the whole sample said Iraq is headed in the "right direction" - a sharp increase compared to 49 percent who said so in a pre-election survey by the International Republican Institute (IRI) last November - 93 percent of Sunnis said it was going in the wrong direction.
Bush Administration Ignored 9/11 Warnings
Bush Administration Ignored 9/11 Warnings
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Tuesday 31 January 2006
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have publicly stated that the top-secret domestic spying program Bush authorized in 2002 could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks had the controversial, and possibly illegal, measure been in effect prior to the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Bush's and Cheney's comments have gone virtually unchallenged by reporters covering the spying story and by a majority of Democratic lawmakers critical of the issue.
However, the reality is much different from what Bush and Cheney would have you believe. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration ignored hard evidence from its top intelligence officials between April and September of 2001 about an impending attack by al-Qaeda on US soil. There's no chance that the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping initiative would have saved the lives of 3,000 American citizens if an intelligence memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside US" that President Bush received a month before 9/11 couldn't move Bush to take such threats seriously.
Since the New York Times broke the domestic spying story last month, the Bush administration has launched a full-scale publicity campaign aimed at convincing an unsuspecting public that the program is legal and has saved thousands of lives. It's the administration's attempt to control the news cycle.
But to suggest that the 9/11 attacks could have been avoided if the NSA had had domestic surveillance powers is outrageous.
Simply put, terrorism was not a priority for the Bush administration during the first nine months of 2001. As former Bush administration counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke told the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks in 2004: "To the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you."
Clarke served as a White House counter-terrorism official in three presidential administrations.
The truth is that the administration received warnings about al-Qaeda's intentions to use jetliners as bombs in August 2001, but it was too busy obsessing about a war with Iraq to take action. Although President Bush has maintained over the years that terrorism was his number one priority before 9/11, evidence suggests otherwise.
A little known article in the January 11, 2001, edition of the New York Times titled "Iraq Is Focal Point as Bush Meets with Joint Chiefs" confirms that the administration was more interested in toppling Saddam Hussein than dealing with the growing threat of domestic terrorism.
"George W. Bush, the nation's commander in chief to be, went to the Pentagon today for a top-secret session with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review hot spots around the world where he might have to send American forces into harm's way," the Times story says.
Bush was joined at the Pentagon meeting by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The Times reported that "half of the 75-minute meeting focused on a discussion about Iraq and the Persian Gulf, two participants said. Iraq was the first topic briefed because 'it's the most visible and most risky area Mr. Bush will confront after he takes office, one senior officer said.'"
"Iraqi policy is very much on his mind," one senior Pentagon official told the Times. "Saddam was clearly a discussion point."
On June 22, 2001, President Bush spoke briefly about terrorism during a speech in Alabama, but used the word "terrorist" to describe rogue nations, not terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, and to gain support for his National Missile Defense policy.
"It's time to come together and to think about a new security arrangement that addresses the threats of the 21st century," according to a transcript of Bush's remarks. "And the threats of the 21st century will be terrorist in nature, terror when it comes to weaponry. What we must do - freedom-loving people must be willing to think differently and develop anti-ballistic missile systems that will say to rogue nations and leaders who cannot stand America, or what we stand for: you will not blackmail us, nor will you blackmail our allies."
Meanwhile, as the administration continued to focus on the re-making the Middle East, the CIA sent President Bush a daily intelligence briefing on August 6, 2001, saying the agency had "detected patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings," no one in the administration acted on the report.
The subject title on the memo says more in a few words than the likely illegal NSA domestic spy program Bush and Cheney claim would have helped prevent 9/11 if it were in place back then: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."
But that did not appear to have an impact on President Bush's domestic agenda. In an August 31, 2001, speech Bush gave to celebrate the launch of the White House's new web site, national security was last on a list of major issues Bush planned to deal with, according to a transcript of his speech.
Clarke testified before the 9/11 Commission that he sent a letter on September 4, 2001, to then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice asking "policymakers to imagine a day after a terrorist attack, with hundreds of Americans dead at home and abroad, and ask themselves what they could have done earlier."
Rice said Clarke's letter was not "specific" and that she considered it a "generic warning." President Bush's aides, when questioned about the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing he received from the FBI about the Bin Laden's plans to attack the US, echoed Rice's remarks.
Yet even top officials in the Clinton administration, whom President Bush and his senior aides have blamed over the years for not being tough in fighting al-Qaeda during their tenure in office, warned the new administration that al-Qaeda was determined to strike inside the US. President Bush, it seems, heeded the warning, appointing Cheney to head a task force to "combat terrorist attacks on the United States." But the task force never met, according to the 9/11 Commission report.
There were earlier warnings as well. One of which was eerily prophetic.
Former CIA Director George Tenet told Congress that Osama bin Laden remained the single greatest threat to US interests.
"Terrorists are also becoming more operationally adept and more technically sophisticated in order to defeat counter-terrorism measures," the former CIA director said. "For example, as we have increased security around government and military facilities, terrorists are seeking out "softer" targets that provide opportunities for mass casualties."
"Osama bin Laden and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat," he added.
Still, in an attempt to silence his critics and prove that terrorism was a top priority for the administration before 9/11, Bush maintained that he personally requested a CIA briefing about al-Qaeda in August 2001, according to public comments the president made in May 2002. But the CIA refuted those claims during the 9/11 Commission hearings.
For longtime counter-terrorism officers, the fact that the White House was not taking threats from al-Qaeda seriously started to take its toll. During the summer of 2001, the counter-terrorism officers who were privy to intelligence reports on al-Qaeda threats "were so worried about an impending disaster that they considered resigning and going public with their concerns," according to a 9/11 Commission staff report released publicly in March 2004.
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Tuesday 31 January 2006
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have publicly stated that the top-secret domestic spying program Bush authorized in 2002 could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks had the controversial, and possibly illegal, measure been in effect prior to the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Bush's and Cheney's comments have gone virtually unchallenged by reporters covering the spying story and by a majority of Democratic lawmakers critical of the issue.
However, the reality is much different from what Bush and Cheney would have you believe. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration ignored hard evidence from its top intelligence officials between April and September of 2001 about an impending attack by al-Qaeda on US soil. There's no chance that the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping initiative would have saved the lives of 3,000 American citizens if an intelligence memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside US" that President Bush received a month before 9/11 couldn't move Bush to take such threats seriously.
Since the New York Times broke the domestic spying story last month, the Bush administration has launched a full-scale publicity campaign aimed at convincing an unsuspecting public that the program is legal and has saved thousands of lives. It's the administration's attempt to control the news cycle.
But to suggest that the 9/11 attacks could have been avoided if the NSA had had domestic surveillance powers is outrageous.
Simply put, terrorism was not a priority for the Bush administration during the first nine months of 2001. As former Bush administration counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke told the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks in 2004: "To the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you."
Clarke served as a White House counter-terrorism official in three presidential administrations.
The truth is that the administration received warnings about al-Qaeda's intentions to use jetliners as bombs in August 2001, but it was too busy obsessing about a war with Iraq to take action. Although President Bush has maintained over the years that terrorism was his number one priority before 9/11, evidence suggests otherwise.
A little known article in the January 11, 2001, edition of the New York Times titled "Iraq Is Focal Point as Bush Meets with Joint Chiefs" confirms that the administration was more interested in toppling Saddam Hussein than dealing with the growing threat of domestic terrorism.
"George W. Bush, the nation's commander in chief to be, went to the Pentagon today for a top-secret session with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review hot spots around the world where he might have to send American forces into harm's way," the Times story says.
Bush was joined at the Pentagon meeting by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The Times reported that "half of the 75-minute meeting focused on a discussion about Iraq and the Persian Gulf, two participants said. Iraq was the first topic briefed because 'it's the most visible and most risky area Mr. Bush will confront after he takes office, one senior officer said.'"
"Iraqi policy is very much on his mind," one senior Pentagon official told the Times. "Saddam was clearly a discussion point."
On June 22, 2001, President Bush spoke briefly about terrorism during a speech in Alabama, but used the word "terrorist" to describe rogue nations, not terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, and to gain support for his National Missile Defense policy.
"It's time to come together and to think about a new security arrangement that addresses the threats of the 21st century," according to a transcript of Bush's remarks. "And the threats of the 21st century will be terrorist in nature, terror when it comes to weaponry. What we must do - freedom-loving people must be willing to think differently and develop anti-ballistic missile systems that will say to rogue nations and leaders who cannot stand America, or what we stand for: you will not blackmail us, nor will you blackmail our allies."
Meanwhile, as the administration continued to focus on the re-making the Middle East, the CIA sent President Bush a daily intelligence briefing on August 6, 2001, saying the agency had "detected patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings," no one in the administration acted on the report.
The subject title on the memo says more in a few words than the likely illegal NSA domestic spy program Bush and Cheney claim would have helped prevent 9/11 if it were in place back then: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."
But that did not appear to have an impact on President Bush's domestic agenda. In an August 31, 2001, speech Bush gave to celebrate the launch of the White House's new web site, national security was last on a list of major issues Bush planned to deal with, according to a transcript of his speech.
Clarke testified before the 9/11 Commission that he sent a letter on September 4, 2001, to then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice asking "policymakers to imagine a day after a terrorist attack, with hundreds of Americans dead at home and abroad, and ask themselves what they could have done earlier."
Rice said Clarke's letter was not "specific" and that she considered it a "generic warning." President Bush's aides, when questioned about the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing he received from the FBI about the Bin Laden's plans to attack the US, echoed Rice's remarks.
Yet even top officials in the Clinton administration, whom President Bush and his senior aides have blamed over the years for not being tough in fighting al-Qaeda during their tenure in office, warned the new administration that al-Qaeda was determined to strike inside the US. President Bush, it seems, heeded the warning, appointing Cheney to head a task force to "combat terrorist attacks on the United States." But the task force never met, according to the 9/11 Commission report.
There were earlier warnings as well. One of which was eerily prophetic.
Former CIA Director George Tenet told Congress that Osama bin Laden remained the single greatest threat to US interests.
"Terrorists are also becoming more operationally adept and more technically sophisticated in order to defeat counter-terrorism measures," the former CIA director said. "For example, as we have increased security around government and military facilities, terrorists are seeking out "softer" targets that provide opportunities for mass casualties."
"Osama bin Laden and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat," he added.
Still, in an attempt to silence his critics and prove that terrorism was a top priority for the administration before 9/11, Bush maintained that he personally requested a CIA briefing about al-Qaeda in August 2001, according to public comments the president made in May 2002. But the CIA refuted those claims during the 9/11 Commission hearings.
For longtime counter-terrorism officers, the fact that the White House was not taking threats from al-Qaeda seriously started to take its toll. During the summer of 2001, the counter-terrorism officers who were privy to intelligence reports on al-Qaeda threats "were so worried about an impending disaster that they considered resigning and going public with their concerns," according to a 9/11 Commission staff report released publicly in March 2004.
Is America Actually in a State of War?
Is America Actually in a State of War?
By James Carroll
The Boston Globe
Monday 30 January 2006
State of the Union, state of war: They have a nice ring. When George W. Bush goes before the Congress and the nation tomorrow night, he will present himself (again) as a war president. Personally and politically, the identity defines him. Instead of the callow leader he was in the beginning of his presidency, he will conduct himself as a man of sharp determination, with defiance born of the impression that his fight is to the death. He will justify all of his policies, including the illegal ones, by citing his responsibilities - and privileges - as wartime commander in chief. He will not have to remind the men and women in front of him that twice (just after 9/11 and just before Iraq), they voted to license his use of "all necessary and appropriate force" - enabling acts by which most of them still stand. The United States became a nation at war with congressional collusion.
But did it? Here is the embarrassing question: Is America actually at war? We have a war president, war hawks, war planes, war correspondents, war cries, even war crimes - but do we have war? We have war dead, but the question remains. With young US soldiers being blown up almost daily, it can seem an absurd question, an offensive one. With thousands of Iraqis killed by American firepower, it can seem a heartless question, as if the dead care whether strict definitions of "war" are fulfilled. There can be no question that Iraq is in a state of war, and that, whatever its elements of post-Saddam sectarian conflict, the warfare is being driven from the Pentagon.
But, regarding the Iraq conflict as it involves the United States, something essential is lacking that would make it a war - and that is an enemy.
The so-called "insurgents," who wreak such havoc, are not America's enemy. They are not our rivals for territory. They are not our ideological antagonists. Abstracting from the present confrontation, they have no reason to wish us ill.
Americans who bother to imagine the situation from the Iraqi point of view - a massive foreign invasion, launched on false pretenses; a brutal occupation, with control of local oil reserves surely part of the motivation; the heartbreaking deaths of brothers, cousins, children, parents - naturally understand that an "insurgency" is the appropriate response. Its goal is simply to force the invaders and occupiers to leave. Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds have intrinsic reasons to regard each other as enemies, from competition over land and oil, to ethnic hatreds, to unsettled scores. No equivalent sources of inbuilt contempt exist among these people toward America. Taken as a whole, or in its parts, Iraq is not an enemy.
President Bush would say Iraq is only one front in the so-called war on terrorism. Surely, in that realm, where the antagonist has a name and a face, the US is authentically at war. If Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are not an enemy, what is? True enough. But the war on terrorism is not real war either, since the Pentagon has proven itself incapable of actually engaging Al Qaeda. That, of course, is because Al Qaeda is a free floating nihilism, not a nation, or even a network. Al Qaeda is a rejectionist idea to which deracinated miscreants are drawn, like filings to a magnet, but that drawing power is generated in Washington. Bin Laden was a self-mythologized figure of no historic standing until George W. Bush designated him America's equal by defining 9/11 as an act of war to be met with war, instead of a crime to be met with criminal justice. But this over-reaction, so satisfying at the time to the wounded American psyche, turned into the war for which the other party simply did not show up. Which is, of course, why we are blasting a substitute Iraq to smithereens.
Iraq is not a war, because, though we have savage assault, we have no enemy. The war on terrorism is not a war because, though we have an enemy, the muscle-bound Pentagon offers no authentic means of assault.
In each case, Bush is presiding over a self-serving delusion, in concert with a self-emasculating Congress, his partners as would-be war profiteers. Anticipating tomorrow night, one could say Bush will, on this question, be lying to the American people again. But that would presume he is not first lying to himself. State of war? No. State of the Union? Catastrophe, pure and simple.
By James Carroll
The Boston Globe
Monday 30 January 2006
State of the Union, state of war: They have a nice ring. When George W. Bush goes before the Congress and the nation tomorrow night, he will present himself (again) as a war president. Personally and politically, the identity defines him. Instead of the callow leader he was in the beginning of his presidency, he will conduct himself as a man of sharp determination, with defiance born of the impression that his fight is to the death. He will justify all of his policies, including the illegal ones, by citing his responsibilities - and privileges - as wartime commander in chief. He will not have to remind the men and women in front of him that twice (just after 9/11 and just before Iraq), they voted to license his use of "all necessary and appropriate force" - enabling acts by which most of them still stand. The United States became a nation at war with congressional collusion.
But did it? Here is the embarrassing question: Is America actually at war? We have a war president, war hawks, war planes, war correspondents, war cries, even war crimes - but do we have war? We have war dead, but the question remains. With young US soldiers being blown up almost daily, it can seem an absurd question, an offensive one. With thousands of Iraqis killed by American firepower, it can seem a heartless question, as if the dead care whether strict definitions of "war" are fulfilled. There can be no question that Iraq is in a state of war, and that, whatever its elements of post-Saddam sectarian conflict, the warfare is being driven from the Pentagon.
But, regarding the Iraq conflict as it involves the United States, something essential is lacking that would make it a war - and that is an enemy.
The so-called "insurgents," who wreak such havoc, are not America's enemy. They are not our rivals for territory. They are not our ideological antagonists. Abstracting from the present confrontation, they have no reason to wish us ill.
Americans who bother to imagine the situation from the Iraqi point of view - a massive foreign invasion, launched on false pretenses; a brutal occupation, with control of local oil reserves surely part of the motivation; the heartbreaking deaths of brothers, cousins, children, parents - naturally understand that an "insurgency" is the appropriate response. Its goal is simply to force the invaders and occupiers to leave. Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds have intrinsic reasons to regard each other as enemies, from competition over land and oil, to ethnic hatreds, to unsettled scores. No equivalent sources of inbuilt contempt exist among these people toward America. Taken as a whole, or in its parts, Iraq is not an enemy.
President Bush would say Iraq is only one front in the so-called war on terrorism. Surely, in that realm, where the antagonist has a name and a face, the US is authentically at war. If Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are not an enemy, what is? True enough. But the war on terrorism is not real war either, since the Pentagon has proven itself incapable of actually engaging Al Qaeda. That, of course, is because Al Qaeda is a free floating nihilism, not a nation, or even a network. Al Qaeda is a rejectionist idea to which deracinated miscreants are drawn, like filings to a magnet, but that drawing power is generated in Washington. Bin Laden was a self-mythologized figure of no historic standing until George W. Bush designated him America's equal by defining 9/11 as an act of war to be met with war, instead of a crime to be met with criminal justice. But this over-reaction, so satisfying at the time to the wounded American psyche, turned into the war for which the other party simply did not show up. Which is, of course, why we are blasting a substitute Iraq to smithereens.
Iraq is not a war, because, though we have savage assault, we have no enemy. The war on terrorism is not a war because, though we have an enemy, the muscle-bound Pentagon offers no authentic means of assault.
In each case, Bush is presiding over a self-serving delusion, in concert with a self-emasculating Congress, his partners as would-be war profiteers. Anticipating tomorrow night, one could say Bush will, on this question, be lying to the American people again. But that would presume he is not first lying to himself. State of war? No. State of the Union? Catastrophe, pure and simple.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Senators in Need of a Spine
January 26, 2006
Editorial
Senators in Need of a Spine
Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.
At the Judiciary Committee hearings, the judge followed the well-worn path to confirmation, which has the nominee offer up only the most boring statements and unarguable truisms: the president is not above the law; diversity in college student bodies is a good thing. But in what he has said in the past, and what he refused to say in the hearings, Judge Alito raised warning flags that, in the current political context, cannot simply be shrugged away with a promise to fight again another day.
The Alito nomination has been discussed largely in the context of his opposition to abortion rights, and if the hearings provided any serious insight at all into the nominee's intentions, it was that he has never changed his early convictions on that point. The judge — who long maintained that Roe v. Wade should be overturned — ignored all the efforts by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Arlen Specter, to get him to provide some cover for pro-choice senators who wanted to support the nomination. As it stands, it is indefensible for Mr. Specter or any other senator who has promised constituents to protect a woman's right to an abortion to turn around and hand Judge Alito a potent vote to undermine or even end it.
But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president's intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the "war on terror" and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.
There was nothing that Judge Alito said in his hearings that gave any comfort to those of us who wonder whether the new Roberts court will follow precedent and continue to affirm, for instance, that a man the president labels an "unlawful enemy combatant" has the basic right to challenge the government's ability to hold him in detention forever without explanation. His much-quoted statement that the president is not above the law is meaningless unless he also believes that the law requires the chief executive to defer to Congress and the courts.
Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who was far more skillful at appearing mainstream at the hearings, has already given indications that whatever he said about the limits of executive power when he was questioned by the Senate has little practical impact on how he will rule now that he has a lifetime appointment.
Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.
A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
Copyright 2006
Editorial
Senators in Need of a Spine
Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.
At the Judiciary Committee hearings, the judge followed the well-worn path to confirmation, which has the nominee offer up only the most boring statements and unarguable truisms: the president is not above the law; diversity in college student bodies is a good thing. But in what he has said in the past, and what he refused to say in the hearings, Judge Alito raised warning flags that, in the current political context, cannot simply be shrugged away with a promise to fight again another day.
The Alito nomination has been discussed largely in the context of his opposition to abortion rights, and if the hearings provided any serious insight at all into the nominee's intentions, it was that he has never changed his early convictions on that point. The judge — who long maintained that Roe v. Wade should be overturned — ignored all the efforts by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Arlen Specter, to get him to provide some cover for pro-choice senators who wanted to support the nomination. As it stands, it is indefensible for Mr. Specter or any other senator who has promised constituents to protect a woman's right to an abortion to turn around and hand Judge Alito a potent vote to undermine or even end it.
But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president's intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the "war on terror" and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.
There was nothing that Judge Alito said in his hearings that gave any comfort to those of us who wonder whether the new Roberts court will follow precedent and continue to affirm, for instance, that a man the president labels an "unlawful enemy combatant" has the basic right to challenge the government's ability to hold him in detention forever without explanation. His much-quoted statement that the president is not above the law is meaningless unless he also believes that the law requires the chief executive to defer to Congress and the courts.
Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who was far more skillful at appearing mainstream at the hearings, has already given indications that whatever he said about the limits of executive power when he was questioned by the Senate has little practical impact on how he will rule now that he has a lifetime appointment.
Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.
A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
Copyright 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
Republican "Reform"
Democrats & Liberals: Archives
Home
About
Blog
Archives
Resources
Join
January 19, 2006
Republican "Reform"
In 1994 Newt Gingrich swept aside Democratic leaders in the House and ushered in a decade of “reform.” He started a campaign to make “liberal” a dirty word, to reduce the power of the media by calling it the “liberal media,” and to build a symbiotic relationship between Republican legislators and business lobbyists on K Street in Washington, D.C. With the aid of super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Bush administration has developed this “reform” to such loftiness that the Republican Party is now looking desperately for a new means of “reform.”
As Sidney Blumenthal reminds us:
"'Ethics reform' gestures and suddenly hazy memories can't hide the truth: Abramoff is an integral part of the GOP machine that revved up with the '94 'revolution.'"
A little history, please - also from Blumenthal:
"After Gingrich whipped up a commotion against Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright, forcing his resignation over a union's bulk buying of copies of his memoir, Gingrich's staff was caught smearing the new speaker, the gentlemanly Tom Foley, as a closest gay, which he was not. Then Gingrich fostered a furor over the House members' bank, a kind of credit union from which they had always drawn loans against their paychecks."
OK. The Republicans were in. The talk of "reform" was everywhere. By "reform" they meant getting rid of Democrats in public offices. All Democrats were lumped into the "liberal" category and all were attacked mercilessly. To this day, Republicans reserve "liberal" as the worst epithet to call any one. They call liberals anti-God atheists, American haters, whimps, traitors - and worse. They have done such a good job with this "reform" that Democratic candidates are afraid to call themselves "liberal."
To neuter the influence of the media, Republican "reformers" stamped newspapers, magazines, radio and TV shows that criticized Republicans as the "liberal media." Today, any newsman or commentator that is to the left of George W. Bush is part of the "liberal media." Any newsman or commentator that sycophantly praises Bush and endorses his policies automatically has great access. Such people and the media outlets they work for have been welcomed into and have become an important part of the Republican establishment.
The biggest "reform" effort, however, was the merging of the Republican Party with Big Business. DeLay and Abramoff led this "reform" by arranging it so that there was a dearth of Democratic lobbyists. "Reformer" Santorum did his part too. They forced business organization to hire only Republican lobbyists. After all, what's the point in hiring a Democrat when you can do business only with Republicans?
The latter "reform" fizzled. "Reformer" Abramoff is "reforming" by spilling the beans. What should Republican "reform" leaders do? Legislate "reform," of course.
"Reform" is back on the Republican agenda. They want to cut gifts, eliminate fees for lectures, and get rid of free trips to exotic places. Whatever they are suggesting will make changes alright. But the cozy relationship between Republicans and Big Business will not change. So a legislator will pay for his own meal and get 10 times as much as a campaign donation. Instead of with fees and trips, legislators would be paid off in other ways.
Republican "reform" has poisoned the well. The only way to detoxify it is to vote Democrats into office. Yes, yes, Democratic "reform" suggestions are just as bad as those the Republicans are making. But voting in a new group will help break up Republican dominance.
True reform will come in a second stage. It will not come easy. We will have to persuade the new incumbents to reduce the role of money in election campaigns.
Posted by Paul Siegel at January 19, 2006 06:34 PM
Home
About
Blog
Archives
Resources
Join
January 19, 2006
Republican "Reform"
In 1994 Newt Gingrich swept aside Democratic leaders in the House and ushered in a decade of “reform.” He started a campaign to make “liberal” a dirty word, to reduce the power of the media by calling it the “liberal media,” and to build a symbiotic relationship between Republican legislators and business lobbyists on K Street in Washington, D.C. With the aid of super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Bush administration has developed this “reform” to such loftiness that the Republican Party is now looking desperately for a new means of “reform.”
As Sidney Blumenthal reminds us:
"'Ethics reform' gestures and suddenly hazy memories can't hide the truth: Abramoff is an integral part of the GOP machine that revved up with the '94 'revolution.'"
A little history, please - also from Blumenthal:
"After Gingrich whipped up a commotion against Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright, forcing his resignation over a union's bulk buying of copies of his memoir, Gingrich's staff was caught smearing the new speaker, the gentlemanly Tom Foley, as a closest gay, which he was not. Then Gingrich fostered a furor over the House members' bank, a kind of credit union from which they had always drawn loans against their paychecks."
OK. The Republicans were in. The talk of "reform" was everywhere. By "reform" they meant getting rid of Democrats in public offices. All Democrats were lumped into the "liberal" category and all were attacked mercilessly. To this day, Republicans reserve "liberal" as the worst epithet to call any one. They call liberals anti-God atheists, American haters, whimps, traitors - and worse. They have done such a good job with this "reform" that Democratic candidates are afraid to call themselves "liberal."
To neuter the influence of the media, Republican "reformers" stamped newspapers, magazines, radio and TV shows that criticized Republicans as the "liberal media." Today, any newsman or commentator that is to the left of George W. Bush is part of the "liberal media." Any newsman or commentator that sycophantly praises Bush and endorses his policies automatically has great access. Such people and the media outlets they work for have been welcomed into and have become an important part of the Republican establishment.
The biggest "reform" effort, however, was the merging of the Republican Party with Big Business. DeLay and Abramoff led this "reform" by arranging it so that there was a dearth of Democratic lobbyists. "Reformer" Santorum did his part too. They forced business organization to hire only Republican lobbyists. After all, what's the point in hiring a Democrat when you can do business only with Republicans?
The latter "reform" fizzled. "Reformer" Abramoff is "reforming" by spilling the beans. What should Republican "reform" leaders do? Legislate "reform," of course.
"Reform" is back on the Republican agenda. They want to cut gifts, eliminate fees for lectures, and get rid of free trips to exotic places. Whatever they are suggesting will make changes alright. But the cozy relationship between Republicans and Big Business will not change. So a legislator will pay for his own meal and get 10 times as much as a campaign donation. Instead of with fees and trips, legislators would be paid off in other ways.
Republican "reform" has poisoned the well. The only way to detoxify it is to vote Democrats into office. Yes, yes, Democratic "reform" suggestions are just as bad as those the Republicans are making. But voting in a new group will help break up Republican dominance.
True reform will come in a second stage. It will not come easy. We will have to persuade the new incumbents to reduce the role of money in election campaigns.
Posted by Paul Siegel at January 19, 2006 06:34 PM
Searching for the Elephant
January 20, 2006
Searching for the Elephant
The Justice Department is searching for an elephant. It has issued subpoenas to companies running search engines on the Internet. Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL submitted a week’s worth of millions of all sorts of queries by all sorts of people. They claim they did not betray anyone’s privacy. Google did not and is fighting the subpoena. It feels that people’s privacy will eventually be shredded if it submitted to the subpoena. And what do you suppose is the elephant?
Charles Miller of the Justice Department said that the government is looking for information that would help it restore an anti-pornography law that was struck down by the Supreme Court. The elephant is pornography.
It all started with the Patriot Act, a law that would help us locate spies and terrorists. To accomplish this, it was felt that law enforcement people should be allowed to use all means possible to snoop on anyone. What better device for snooping was ever invented than the Internet search engine? With one little subpoena officials obtained millions of requests that indicated how people think, what their habits are, what they desire, who they contact - and lots more. Through search engines, they could search for any elephant.
Why stop at pornography? Search engines could be used to ferret out little tidbits with which to attack critics of the administration, dissidents of the Iraq war or just plain Democrats. In this case the elephant would be a donkey.
That's the way it is today. But nothing lasts forever. Sooner or later, the Democrats will get into power. Then they will use search engines against THEIR enemies. Then the elephant will be the elephant.
Three cheers for Google. I hope they keep resisting. The search engine should be reserved for the daily nitty-gritty searches of everyday life, not for finding elephants.
Posted by Paul Siegel at January 20, 2006 04:51 PM
Searching for the Elephant
The Justice Department is searching for an elephant. It has issued subpoenas to companies running search engines on the Internet. Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL submitted a week’s worth of millions of all sorts of queries by all sorts of people. They claim they did not betray anyone’s privacy. Google did not and is fighting the subpoena. It feels that people’s privacy will eventually be shredded if it submitted to the subpoena. And what do you suppose is the elephant?
Charles Miller of the Justice Department said that the government is looking for information that would help it restore an anti-pornography law that was struck down by the Supreme Court. The elephant is pornography.
It all started with the Patriot Act, a law that would help us locate spies and terrorists. To accomplish this, it was felt that law enforcement people should be allowed to use all means possible to snoop on anyone. What better device for snooping was ever invented than the Internet search engine? With one little subpoena officials obtained millions of requests that indicated how people think, what their habits are, what they desire, who they contact - and lots more. Through search engines, they could search for any elephant.
Why stop at pornography? Search engines could be used to ferret out little tidbits with which to attack critics of the administration, dissidents of the Iraq war or just plain Democrats. In this case the elephant would be a donkey.
That's the way it is today. But nothing lasts forever. Sooner or later, the Democrats will get into power. Then they will use search engines against THEIR enemies. Then the elephant will be the elephant.
Three cheers for Google. I hope they keep resisting. The search engine should be reserved for the daily nitty-gritty searches of everyday life, not for finding elephants.
Posted by Paul Siegel at January 20, 2006 04:51 PM
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Never an apology from His Hign-Ass Bush
No Remorse
By Derrick Z. Jackson
The Boston Globe
Wednesday 18 January 2006
When teenagers show no remorse for mistakes, we call in the therapist. When killers show no remorse, we want life sentences or death row. When the United States makes deadly mistakes, remorse is unnecessary, because, of course, it is never our fault.
Thinking we could nail Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, our military launched an air strike into a Pakistani town just over the border from Afghanistan. We smoked 18 people at a dinner that al-Zawahri was allegedly going to attend, but apparently skipped out on. The provincial government claims that four or five foreign militants were killed, but local witnesses said women and children were among the rest.
This is of small concern to the White House. President Bush has never apologized to the Iraqi people for the three years of carnage done in the name of weapons of mass destruction, weapons that were never found. Bush always dodges the need to show remorse on the premise that "we are up against people who show no shame, no remorse, no hint of humanity."
He long ago maneuvered the self-absorbed American psyche to ignore our own inhumanity. Our bombs and bullets have now killed several times more innocents in Iraq than were killed during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. But the rationale for a remorseless occupation continues to be, as one senior White House official told me and a small group of journalists in November of 2003, "There will be some civilian deaths. It will be nothing like what Saddam Hussein did."
With three years of denial, the reaction to the latest mistake in Pakistan was predictably without feeling. Asked yesterday if regrets were forthcoming, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to talk about the incident, saying only, "I think you've heard our comments about matters of that nature in the past. If I have anything additional to add, I will." All McClellan said was, "Al Qaeda continues to seek to do harm to the American people."
On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brushed off the air strike by saying, "The biggest threat to Pakistan, of course, is what Al Qaeda has done in trying to radicalize the country. . . These are not people who can be dealt with lightly."
The weekend talk shows had influential senators, both Republican and Democrat, issuing remorseless support of the mistake. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, basically blamed Pakistan for the mistake. "It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?" he said. "It's like the wild, wild west out there . . . the real problem here is that the Pakistani government does not control that part of their own country."
Mississippi Republican Trent Lott, who is on the intelligence committee despite a career of unintelligent comments on race and sexual orientation, justified the strike and targeted assassinations by saying, "There's no question that they're still causing the death of millions of - or thousands of innocent people and directing operations in Iraq." Bayh seconded that by saying to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "I agree wholeheartedly, Wolf. These people killed 3,000 Americans. They have to be brought to justice."
But no one should dare attempt to bring America to justice. Senator John McCain of Arizona played the game on CBS's "Face the Nation" of issuing an apology and then immediately qualifying it. At one juncture, he said, "It's terrible when innocent people are killed. We regret that. But we have to do what is necessary to take out Al Qaeda, particularly the top operatives."
At another juncture, McCain said, "We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again."
The equivocation guarantees that it will happen again and again. The world is our wild west. When we miss the villain at high noon and the bullets fly past the saloon to kill mothers and children, we still flip the barrel to our lips, blow a triumphant puff, twirl the gun back into the holster and say, "Darn sheriff should'a told everyone to stay inside."
McCain said, "This war on terror has no boundaries. Clearly Al Qaeda does not respect those boundaries, but I don't want to equate our behavior with theirs."
The air strike in Pakistan reaffirms how our behavior is plummeting in the direction of the evil we proclaim to fight. At home, we are appalled by drive-by shootings that take out innocent children. Abroad, the fly-by air strike is the source of no remorse, with dead children and mothers taken very lightly.
By Derrick Z. Jackson
The Boston Globe
Wednesday 18 January 2006
When teenagers show no remorse for mistakes, we call in the therapist. When killers show no remorse, we want life sentences or death row. When the United States makes deadly mistakes, remorse is unnecessary, because, of course, it is never our fault.
Thinking we could nail Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, our military launched an air strike into a Pakistani town just over the border from Afghanistan. We smoked 18 people at a dinner that al-Zawahri was allegedly going to attend, but apparently skipped out on. The provincial government claims that four or five foreign militants were killed, but local witnesses said women and children were among the rest.
This is of small concern to the White House. President Bush has never apologized to the Iraqi people for the three years of carnage done in the name of weapons of mass destruction, weapons that were never found. Bush always dodges the need to show remorse on the premise that "we are up against people who show no shame, no remorse, no hint of humanity."
He long ago maneuvered the self-absorbed American psyche to ignore our own inhumanity. Our bombs and bullets have now killed several times more innocents in Iraq than were killed during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. But the rationale for a remorseless occupation continues to be, as one senior White House official told me and a small group of journalists in November of 2003, "There will be some civilian deaths. It will be nothing like what Saddam Hussein did."
With three years of denial, the reaction to the latest mistake in Pakistan was predictably without feeling. Asked yesterday if regrets were forthcoming, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to talk about the incident, saying only, "I think you've heard our comments about matters of that nature in the past. If I have anything additional to add, I will." All McClellan said was, "Al Qaeda continues to seek to do harm to the American people."
On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brushed off the air strike by saying, "The biggest threat to Pakistan, of course, is what Al Qaeda has done in trying to radicalize the country. . . These are not people who can be dealt with lightly."
The weekend talk shows had influential senators, both Republican and Democrat, issuing remorseless support of the mistake. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, basically blamed Pakistan for the mistake. "It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?" he said. "It's like the wild, wild west out there . . . the real problem here is that the Pakistani government does not control that part of their own country."
Mississippi Republican Trent Lott, who is on the intelligence committee despite a career of unintelligent comments on race and sexual orientation, justified the strike and targeted assassinations by saying, "There's no question that they're still causing the death of millions of - or thousands of innocent people and directing operations in Iraq." Bayh seconded that by saying to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "I agree wholeheartedly, Wolf. These people killed 3,000 Americans. They have to be brought to justice."
But no one should dare attempt to bring America to justice. Senator John McCain of Arizona played the game on CBS's "Face the Nation" of issuing an apology and then immediately qualifying it. At one juncture, he said, "It's terrible when innocent people are killed. We regret that. But we have to do what is necessary to take out Al Qaeda, particularly the top operatives."
At another juncture, McCain said, "We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again."
The equivocation guarantees that it will happen again and again. The world is our wild west. When we miss the villain at high noon and the bullets fly past the saloon to kill mothers and children, we still flip the barrel to our lips, blow a triumphant puff, twirl the gun back into the holster and say, "Darn sheriff should'a told everyone to stay inside."
McCain said, "This war on terror has no boundaries. Clearly Al Qaeda does not respect those boundaries, but I don't want to equate our behavior with theirs."
The air strike in Pakistan reaffirms how our behavior is plummeting in the direction of the evil we proclaim to fight. At home, we are appalled by drive-by shootings that take out innocent children. Abroad, the fly-by air strike is the source of no remorse, with dead children and mothers taken very lightly.
The U.S.; an embarrassment to human rights
Human Rights Watch World Report 2006
Human Rights Watch
Wednesday 18 January 2006
US Policy of abuse undermines rights worldwide.
New evidence demonstrated in 2005 that torture and mistreating have been a deliberate part of the Bush administration's counterterrorism strategy, undermining the global defense of human rights, Human Rights Watch said today in releasing its World Report 2006.
The evidence showed that abusive interrogation cannot be reduced to the misdeeds of a few low-ranking soldiers, but was a conscious policy choice by senior US government officials. The policy has hampered Washington's ability to cajole or pressure other states into respecting international law, said the 532-page volume's introductory essay.
"Fighting terrorism is central to the human rights cause," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "But using illegal tactics against alleged terrorists is both wrong and counterproductive."
Roth said the illegal tactics were fueling terrorist recruitment, discouraging public assistance of counterterrorism efforts and creating a pool of unprocessed detainees.
US partners such as Britain and Canada compounded the lack of human rights leadership by trying to undermine critical international protections. Britain sought to send suspects to governments likely to torture them based on meaningless assurances of good treatment. Canada sought to dilute a new treaty outlawing enforced disappearances. The European Union continued to subordinate human rights in its relationships with others deemed useful in fighting terrorism, such as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
Many countries - Uzbekistan, Russia and China among them - used the "war on terrorism" to attack their political opponents, branding them as "Islamic terrorists."
Human Rights Watch documented many serious abuses outside the fight against terrorism. In May, the government of Uzbekistan massacred hundreds of demonstrators in antigen, the Sudanese government consolidated "ethnic cleansing" in draper, western Sudan, and persistent atrocities were reported in the Democratic Republic of Congo and checksum. Severe repression continued in Burma, North Korea, darkening, and Tibet and singing in China, while Syria and Vietnam maintained tight restrictions on civil society and Zimbabwe conducted massive, politically motivated forced evictions.
There were bright spots in efforts to uphold human rights by the Western powers in Burma and North Korea. Developing nations also played a positive role: India suspended most military aid to Nepal after the king's coup, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations forced Burma to relinquish its 2006 chairmanship because of its appalling human rights record. Mexico took the lead in convincing the United Nations to maintain a special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism. Kyrgyzstan withstood intense pressure from Uzbekistan to rescue all but four of 443 refugees from the Andijan massacre, and Romania gave them temporary refuge.
The lack of leadership by Western powers sometimes ceded the field to Russia and China, which built economic, social and political alliances without regard to human rights.
In his introductory essay to the World Report, Roth writes that it became clear in 2005 that US mistreatment of detainees could not be reduced to a failure of training, discipline or oversight, or reduced to "a few bad apples," but reflected a deliberate policy choice embraced by the top leadership.
Evidence of that deliberate policy included the threat by President George W. Bush to veto a bill opposing "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," Roth writes, and Vice President Dick Cheney's attempt to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from the law. In addition, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that the United States can mistreat detainees so long as they are non-Americans held abroad, while CIA Director Porter Goss asserted that "water boarding," a torture method dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, was simply a "professional interrogation technique."
"Responsibility for the use of torture and mistreatment can no longer credibly be passed off to misadventures by low-ranking soldiers on the nightshift," said Roth. "The Bush administration must appoint a special prosecutor to examine these abuses, and Congress should set up an independent, bipartisan panel to investigate."
The Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 contains survey information on human rights developments in more than 70 countries in 2005. In addition to the introductory essay on torture, the volume contains two essays: "Private Companies and the Public Interest: Why Corporations Should Welcome Global Human Rights Rules" and "Preventing the Further Spread of HIV/AIDS: The Essential Role of Human Rights."
Human Rights Watch
Wednesday 18 January 2006
US Policy of abuse undermines rights worldwide.
New evidence demonstrated in 2005 that torture and mistreating have been a deliberate part of the Bush administration's counterterrorism strategy, undermining the global defense of human rights, Human Rights Watch said today in releasing its World Report 2006.
The evidence showed that abusive interrogation cannot be reduced to the misdeeds of a few low-ranking soldiers, but was a conscious policy choice by senior US government officials. The policy has hampered Washington's ability to cajole or pressure other states into respecting international law, said the 532-page volume's introductory essay.
"Fighting terrorism is central to the human rights cause," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "But using illegal tactics against alleged terrorists is both wrong and counterproductive."
Roth said the illegal tactics were fueling terrorist recruitment, discouraging public assistance of counterterrorism efforts and creating a pool of unprocessed detainees.
US partners such as Britain and Canada compounded the lack of human rights leadership by trying to undermine critical international protections. Britain sought to send suspects to governments likely to torture them based on meaningless assurances of good treatment. Canada sought to dilute a new treaty outlawing enforced disappearances. The European Union continued to subordinate human rights in its relationships with others deemed useful in fighting terrorism, such as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.
Many countries - Uzbekistan, Russia and China among them - used the "war on terrorism" to attack their political opponents, branding them as "Islamic terrorists."
Human Rights Watch documented many serious abuses outside the fight against terrorism. In May, the government of Uzbekistan massacred hundreds of demonstrators in antigen, the Sudanese government consolidated "ethnic cleansing" in draper, western Sudan, and persistent atrocities were reported in the Democratic Republic of Congo and checksum. Severe repression continued in Burma, North Korea, darkening, and Tibet and singing in China, while Syria and Vietnam maintained tight restrictions on civil society and Zimbabwe conducted massive, politically motivated forced evictions.
There were bright spots in efforts to uphold human rights by the Western powers in Burma and North Korea. Developing nations also played a positive role: India suspended most military aid to Nepal after the king's coup, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations forced Burma to relinquish its 2006 chairmanship because of its appalling human rights record. Mexico took the lead in convincing the United Nations to maintain a special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism. Kyrgyzstan withstood intense pressure from Uzbekistan to rescue all but four of 443 refugees from the Andijan massacre, and Romania gave them temporary refuge.
The lack of leadership by Western powers sometimes ceded the field to Russia and China, which built economic, social and political alliances without regard to human rights.
In his introductory essay to the World Report, Roth writes that it became clear in 2005 that US mistreatment of detainees could not be reduced to a failure of training, discipline or oversight, or reduced to "a few bad apples," but reflected a deliberate policy choice embraced by the top leadership.
Evidence of that deliberate policy included the threat by President George W. Bush to veto a bill opposing "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," Roth writes, and Vice President Dick Cheney's attempt to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from the law. In addition, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that the United States can mistreat detainees so long as they are non-Americans held abroad, while CIA Director Porter Goss asserted that "water boarding," a torture method dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, was simply a "professional interrogation technique."
"Responsibility for the use of torture and mistreatment can no longer credibly be passed off to misadventures by low-ranking soldiers on the nightshift," said Roth. "The Bush administration must appoint a special prosecutor to examine these abuses, and Congress should set up an independent, bipartisan panel to investigate."
The Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 contains survey information on human rights developments in more than 70 countries in 2005. In addition to the introductory essay on torture, the volume contains two essays: "Private Companies and the Public Interest: Why Corporations Should Welcome Global Human Rights Rules" and "Preventing the Further Spread of HIV/AIDS: The Essential Role of Human Rights."
Dems Take A Strong Stance on Lobbying
Democrats Unveil Their Own Plan for Rules on Lobbying
By Carl Hulse
The New York Times
Wednesday 18 January 2006
Washington - With a stinging attack on Republican ethics, Congressional Democrats today proposed a lobbying overhaul they said far exceeds new Republican proposals in limiting the influence of monied special interests on Capitol Hill.
"Today we as Democrats are declaring our commitment to change - change to a government as good and as honest as the people that we people that we serve," said Senator Harry Reid of the Nevada, the Democratic leader, who compared Republicans to organized crime figures he battled as a state gaming official.
"We took them on; we ran them out of the state," he said in an elaborate event staged by House and Senate Democrats at the Library of Congress. "Well, here they have infiltrated government."
The high profile Democrats gave to unveiling their ethics plan made clear that the party intends to make its portrayal of Republican corruption a central theme in the coming mid-term elections and showed that Democrats do not intend to easily strike a deal with anxious Republicans on an ethics overhaul.
Republicans mounted a fierce counteroffensive, highlighting the ties Democrats have to lobbyists, pointing out past resistance to ethics changes, circulating Library of Congress regulations that say the facility should not to be used for political events and accusing Mr. Reid of using his Senate office to prepare political documents.
"Does Mr. Reid think that using an official government office for political purposes is ethical?" asked Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said her party's plan is superior to the "vague and insufficient set of so-called reforms" proposed so far by Republicans. "What is important about their list is not what it does do, but what it doesn't," she said.
She and other Democrats said that in contrast to the Republican approach, their proposal would end a Republican practice of demanding that law firms and advocacy groups hire on the basis of party affiliation. It would also require lawmakers and senior officials to disclose when they were negotiating for jobs when they are preparing to leave Congress. Senate Republicans are preparing an overhaul plan as well in a game of one-upsmanship touched off by guilty pleas to corruption charges by the high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate and a House Republican's admission to taking bribes.
Mr. Reid referred to Mr. Abramoff in his opening remarks announcing the plan.
"This is a culture of corruption," he said.
Mr. Reid said on Tuesday that having Republicans rewrite House rules governing lobbying was "like asking John Gotti to do what he can to clean up organized crime."
The House and Senate are responsible for setting the rules that apply to each chamber, but in the past have enacted these types of reforms through a combination of rules changes and legislation to give them the force of law.
Past furors like the House Post Office scandal and sensational revelations about lobbyist paid travel, suspect book deals and speaking fees have sparked previous rounds of reform. But they are often undone by lack of staff members to police them and have been riddled with loopholes that allow lawmakers and lobbyists alike to find ways around them. Some fear that could be the case this time if Congress is not vigilant.
Though the plans differ, all take aim at the opportunities available to lobbyists to provide lawmakers with benefits like luxury travel, expensive meals, scarce tickets to entertainment events, fund-raising help, contributions to pet causes and other little-scrutinized forms of financial and political support.
By Carl Hulse
The New York Times
Wednesday 18 January 2006
Washington - With a stinging attack on Republican ethics, Congressional Democrats today proposed a lobbying overhaul they said far exceeds new Republican proposals in limiting the influence of monied special interests on Capitol Hill.
"Today we as Democrats are declaring our commitment to change - change to a government as good and as honest as the people that we people that we serve," said Senator Harry Reid of the Nevada, the Democratic leader, who compared Republicans to organized crime figures he battled as a state gaming official.
"We took them on; we ran them out of the state," he said in an elaborate event staged by House and Senate Democrats at the Library of Congress. "Well, here they have infiltrated government."
The high profile Democrats gave to unveiling their ethics plan made clear that the party intends to make its portrayal of Republican corruption a central theme in the coming mid-term elections and showed that Democrats do not intend to easily strike a deal with anxious Republicans on an ethics overhaul.
Republicans mounted a fierce counteroffensive, highlighting the ties Democrats have to lobbyists, pointing out past resistance to ethics changes, circulating Library of Congress regulations that say the facility should not to be used for political events and accusing Mr. Reid of using his Senate office to prepare political documents.
"Does Mr. Reid think that using an official government office for political purposes is ethical?" asked Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said her party's plan is superior to the "vague and insufficient set of so-called reforms" proposed so far by Republicans. "What is important about their list is not what it does do, but what it doesn't," she said.
She and other Democrats said that in contrast to the Republican approach, their proposal would end a Republican practice of demanding that law firms and advocacy groups hire on the basis of party affiliation. It would also require lawmakers and senior officials to disclose when they were negotiating for jobs when they are preparing to leave Congress. Senate Republicans are preparing an overhaul plan as well in a game of one-upsmanship touched off by guilty pleas to corruption charges by the high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate and a House Republican's admission to taking bribes.
Mr. Reid referred to Mr. Abramoff in his opening remarks announcing the plan.
"This is a culture of corruption," he said.
Mr. Reid said on Tuesday that having Republicans rewrite House rules governing lobbying was "like asking John Gotti to do what he can to clean up organized crime."
The House and Senate are responsible for setting the rules that apply to each chamber, but in the past have enacted these types of reforms through a combination of rules changes and legislation to give them the force of law.
Past furors like the House Post Office scandal and sensational revelations about lobbyist paid travel, suspect book deals and speaking fees have sparked previous rounds of reform. But they are often undone by lack of staff members to police them and have been riddled with loopholes that allow lawmakers and lobbyists alike to find ways around them. Some fear that could be the case this time if Congress is not vigilant.
Though the plans differ, all take aim at the opportunities available to lobbyists to provide lawmakers with benefits like luxury travel, expensive meals, scarce tickets to entertainment events, fund-raising help, contributions to pet causes and other little-scrutinized forms of financial and political support.
Stop King George
President's power grab threatens rule of law
Wed Jan 18, 6:53 AM ET
Five years ago this week, the Bush administration came into office determined to reverse what Vice President Cheney and others regarded as undue limits on presidential power. The administration's power grab has reached such brazen heights that President Bush now claims he is above the law.
For any American who thinks presidents should have the power of czars and kings, this is good news. For the rest of us, it should raise deep concern.
The immediate rationale for expanding executive authority is the war on terrorism - which does, in fact, require some invasive tactics. But the president's actions set a much broader, more enduring precedent. In the past two months alone:
• Bush acknowledged that he had secretly authorized government eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. The president says he is not bound by laws that specifically require approval from a special court set up to expedite such requests. He accepts no limits.
• As he signed a defense bill last month that included a provision barring the torture of detainees, the president issued a statement reserving the right as commander in chief to ignore the law, even though it was overwhelmingly endorsed in Congress.
These actions follow Bush's earlier assertion that he has the authority to seize and indefinitely imprison anyone - including American citizens such as alleged "dirty bomb" plotter Jose Padilla - he determines to be a threat to the nation.
Though Bush should use all legal means to protect against terror attacks, his "the law is what I say it is" attitude threatens the rights of all Americans and the constitutional system of checks and balances. In the words of former representative Bob Barr, a conservative Republican from Georgia: "President George W. Bush has ... dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."
Americans fought a revolution because of the abuses of power by the British colonial government. Writings left by many of the Founders indicate that in dividing the government of their new country into three branches - legislative, executive and judicial - they hoped to avoid the danger of an all-powerful presidency.
Bush isn't the first president to try to consolidate imperial power in the White House, just the most recent. Other such power grabs have usually, but not always, been reined in by the courts and Congress.
During the Civil War, when the future of the nation was in graver danger than it is today, Abraham Lincoln claimed the power to have critics of his policies jailed and tried by military tribunals with no recourse to the courts. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise and sent a warning to future presidents not to try the same thing.
Early in World War II, Franklin Roosevelt ordered more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, most of them U.S. citizens and none found to be spies, herded into internment camps for the war's duration. The court, to its everlasting shame, let him get away with it.
And during the Korean War, Harry Truman claimed the power to seize the nation's steel mills in the name of national security. The Supreme Court reminded him that Congress, not the president, has the authority to write the laws. There's no exception for wartime.
The current Supreme Court has reinforced that view. Two years ago, in another military-detainee case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said for the court, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president." Justice Antonin Scalia added, "If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, rather than by silent erosion."
Bush has often voiced his admiration for Scalia's view of the law. But these days the president appears to be setting himself above it to a greater extent than has any president since Richard Nixon.
If Bush wants to spy on Americans, he can put up with the inconvenience of review by a special court. If he violates anti-torture laws, having failed to persuade Congress to change them, he'll have to be accountable.
It's up to Congress and the courts to preserve the Founders' careful balancing of executive and legislative power. The Republican-controlled Congress has been reluctant to challenge Bush's excesses, but that might be changing. The Senate Judiciary Committee is planning hearings next month on the warrantless wiretapping. Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and committee members of both parties have joined the growing chorus of skepticism about the legality of the eavesdropping program.
That should send a message to the White House: Unless Bush scales back his administration's power grabs and obeys the laws Congress has written, a constitutional showdown could well be in his future.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Wed Jan 18, 6:53 AM ET
Five years ago this week, the Bush administration came into office determined to reverse what Vice President Cheney and others regarded as undue limits on presidential power. The administration's power grab has reached such brazen heights that President Bush now claims he is above the law.
For any American who thinks presidents should have the power of czars and kings, this is good news. For the rest of us, it should raise deep concern.
The immediate rationale for expanding executive authority is the war on terrorism - which does, in fact, require some invasive tactics. But the president's actions set a much broader, more enduring precedent. In the past two months alone:
• Bush acknowledged that he had secretly authorized government eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. The president says he is not bound by laws that specifically require approval from a special court set up to expedite such requests. He accepts no limits.
• As he signed a defense bill last month that included a provision barring the torture of detainees, the president issued a statement reserving the right as commander in chief to ignore the law, even though it was overwhelmingly endorsed in Congress.
These actions follow Bush's earlier assertion that he has the authority to seize and indefinitely imprison anyone - including American citizens such as alleged "dirty bomb" plotter Jose Padilla - he determines to be a threat to the nation.
Though Bush should use all legal means to protect against terror attacks, his "the law is what I say it is" attitude threatens the rights of all Americans and the constitutional system of checks and balances. In the words of former representative Bob Barr, a conservative Republican from Georgia: "President George W. Bush has ... dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."
Americans fought a revolution because of the abuses of power by the British colonial government. Writings left by many of the Founders indicate that in dividing the government of their new country into three branches - legislative, executive and judicial - they hoped to avoid the danger of an all-powerful presidency.
Bush isn't the first president to try to consolidate imperial power in the White House, just the most recent. Other such power grabs have usually, but not always, been reined in by the courts and Congress.
During the Civil War, when the future of the nation was in graver danger than it is today, Abraham Lincoln claimed the power to have critics of his policies jailed and tried by military tribunals with no recourse to the courts. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise and sent a warning to future presidents not to try the same thing.
Early in World War II, Franklin Roosevelt ordered more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, most of them U.S. citizens and none found to be spies, herded into internment camps for the war's duration. The court, to its everlasting shame, let him get away with it.
And during the Korean War, Harry Truman claimed the power to seize the nation's steel mills in the name of national security. The Supreme Court reminded him that Congress, not the president, has the authority to write the laws. There's no exception for wartime.
The current Supreme Court has reinforced that view. Two years ago, in another military-detainee case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said for the court, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president." Justice Antonin Scalia added, "If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, rather than by silent erosion."
Bush has often voiced his admiration for Scalia's view of the law. But these days the president appears to be setting himself above it to a greater extent than has any president since Richard Nixon.
If Bush wants to spy on Americans, he can put up with the inconvenience of review by a special court. If he violates anti-torture laws, having failed to persuade Congress to change them, he'll have to be accountable.
It's up to Congress and the courts to preserve the Founders' careful balancing of executive and legislative power. The Republican-controlled Congress has been reluctant to challenge Bush's excesses, but that might be changing. The Senate Judiciary Committee is planning hearings next month on the warrantless wiretapping. Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and committee members of both parties have joined the growing chorus of skepticism about the legality of the eavesdropping program.
That should send a message to the White House: Unless Bush scales back his administration's power grabs and obeys the laws Congress has written, a constitutional showdown could well be in his future.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Go Hillary!
Obama Backs Clinton's Criticism of GOP
Sen. Barack Obama and other black Democrats are defending Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's description of the House of Representatives as a "plantation." First lady Laura Bush says Clinton's remark was "ridiculous."
Clinton, D-N.Y., a potential presidential candidate for 2008, did not retreat from the "plantation" remark, telling reporters the term accurately describes the "top-down" way the GOP runs Congress.
Obama said Wednesday he felt her choice of words referred to a "consolidation of power" in Washington that squeezes out the voters.
The Illinois senator told CNN's "American Morning" he believed that Clinton was merely expressing concern that special interests play such a large role in writing legislation that "the ordinary voter and even members of Congress who aren't in the majority party don't have much input."
"There's been a consolidation of power by the Republican Congress and this White House in which, if you are the ordinary voter, you don't have access," Obama said. "That should be a source of concern for all of us."
New York Rep. Gregory Meeks (news, bio, voting record) also defended Clinton.
"There was no race card played here. If any card was played here it was a joker, because that's who seems to be running the House right now if you look at the leadership," said Meeks, a black Democrat.
First lady Laura Bush, en route home from a visit to West Africa, criticized Clinton.
"It think it's ridiculous — it's a ridiculous comment," Mrs. Bush told reporters when asked about the senator's remark.
Obama, D-Ill., told ABC's "Good Morning America" that under GOP control in Washington, "what one has seen is the further concentration of power around a very narrow agenda that advantages the most powerful."
Obama also said New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was correct to apologize for suggesting that the hurricane-ravaged city would be majority black again because "it's the way God wants it to be."
"If I'm the mayor of New Orleans, I want everybody to come back," said Obama, the Senate's only black member.
Clinton, who is seeking re-election this year, said during a Martin Luther King Day event in Harlem this week that the House "has been run like a plantation," in that "nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
Clinton appeared briefly in Washington Wednesday at a Democratic event, but quickly slipped out a back door far from reporters. On Tuesday night, she adamantly stood by the comments, saying "top-down" decision-making by GOP congressional leaders was bad for the country.
Sen. Barack Obama and other black Democrats are defending Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's description of the House of Representatives as a "plantation." First lady Laura Bush says Clinton's remark was "ridiculous."
Clinton, D-N.Y., a potential presidential candidate for 2008, did not retreat from the "plantation" remark, telling reporters the term accurately describes the "top-down" way the GOP runs Congress.
Obama said Wednesday he felt her choice of words referred to a "consolidation of power" in Washington that squeezes out the voters.
The Illinois senator told CNN's "American Morning" he believed that Clinton was merely expressing concern that special interests play such a large role in writing legislation that "the ordinary voter and even members of Congress who aren't in the majority party don't have much input."
"There's been a consolidation of power by the Republican Congress and this White House in which, if you are the ordinary voter, you don't have access," Obama said. "That should be a source of concern for all of us."
New York Rep. Gregory Meeks (news, bio, voting record) also defended Clinton.
"There was no race card played here. If any card was played here it was a joker, because that's who seems to be running the House right now if you look at the leadership," said Meeks, a black Democrat.
First lady Laura Bush, en route home from a visit to West Africa, criticized Clinton.
"It think it's ridiculous — it's a ridiculous comment," Mrs. Bush told reporters when asked about the senator's remark.
Obama, D-Ill., told ABC's "Good Morning America" that under GOP control in Washington, "what one has seen is the further concentration of power around a very narrow agenda that advantages the most powerful."
Obama also said New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was correct to apologize for suggesting that the hurricane-ravaged city would be majority black again because "it's the way God wants it to be."
"If I'm the mayor of New Orleans, I want everybody to come back," said Obama, the Senate's only black member.
Clinton, who is seeking re-election this year, said during a Martin Luther King Day event in Harlem this week that the House "has been run like a plantation," in that "nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
Clinton appeared briefly in Washington Wednesday at a Democratic event, but quickly slipped out a back door far from reporters. On Tuesday night, she adamantly stood by the comments, saying "top-down" decision-making by GOP congressional leaders was bad for the country.
Bush The Fool On Global Warming, Wake UP!
Ex-EPA Chiefs Blame Bush in Global Warming
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency — five Republicans and one Democrat — accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.
"I don't think there's a commitment in this administration," said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA's first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.
Russell Train, who succeeded Ruckelshaus in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said slowing the growth of "greenhouse" gases isn't enough.
"We need leadership, and I don't think we're getting it," he said at an EPA-sponsored symposium centered around the agency's 35th anniversary. "To sit back and just push it away and say we'll deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest to the people and self-destructive."
All the former administrators and the EPA's current chief, Stephen Johnson, raised their hands when asked whether they believe global warming is a real problem — and again when asked if humans bear significant blame.
Agency heads during five Republican administrations, including the current one, criticized the Bush White House for what they described as a failure of leadership.
Defending his boss, Johnson said the current administration has spent $20 billion on research and technology to combat climate change after President Bush rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide, the chief gas blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.
Bush also kept the United States out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases globally, saying it would harm the U.S. economy, after many of the accord's terms were negotiated by the Clinton administration.
"I know from the president on down, he is committed," Johnson said. "And certainly his charge to me was, and certainly our team has heard it: 'I want you to accelerate the pace of environmental protection. I want you to maintain our economic competitiveness.' And I think that's really what it's all about."
His predecessors disagreed. Lee Thomas, Ruckelshaus's successor in the Reagan administration, said that "if the United States doesn't deal with those kinds of issues in a leadership role, they're not going to get dealt with. So I'm very concerned about this country and this agency."
Bill Reilly, the EPA administrator under the first President Bush, echoed that assessment.
"The time will come when we will address seriously the problem of climate change, and this is the agency that's best equipped to anticipate it," he said.
Christie Whitman, the first of three EPA administrators in the current Bush administration, said people obviously are having "an enormous impact" on the earth's warming.
"You'd need to be in a hole somewhere to think that the amount of change that we have imposed on land, and the way we've handled deforestation, farming practices, development, and what we're putting into the air, isn't exacerbating what is probably a natural trend," she said. "But this is worse, and it's getting worse."
Carol Browner, who was President Clinton's EPA administrator, said the White House and the Congress should push legislation to establish a carbon trading program based on a 1990 pollution trading program that helped reduce acid rain.
"If we wait for every single scientist who has a thought on the issue of climate change to agree, we will never do anything," she said. "If this agency had waited to completely understand the impacts of DDT, the impacts of lead in our gasoline, there would probably still be DDT sprayed and lead in our gasoline."
Three former administrators did not attend Wednesday's ceremony: Mike Leavitt, now secretary of health and human services; Doug Costle, who was in the Carter administration, and Anne Burford, a Reagan appointee who died last year.
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency — five Republicans and one Democrat — accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.
"I don't think there's a commitment in this administration," said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA's first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.
Russell Train, who succeeded Ruckelshaus in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said slowing the growth of "greenhouse" gases isn't enough.
"We need leadership, and I don't think we're getting it," he said at an EPA-sponsored symposium centered around the agency's 35th anniversary. "To sit back and just push it away and say we'll deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest to the people and self-destructive."
All the former administrators and the EPA's current chief, Stephen Johnson, raised their hands when asked whether they believe global warming is a real problem — and again when asked if humans bear significant blame.
Agency heads during five Republican administrations, including the current one, criticized the Bush White House for what they described as a failure of leadership.
Defending his boss, Johnson said the current administration has spent $20 billion on research and technology to combat climate change after President Bush rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide, the chief gas blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.
Bush also kept the United States out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases globally, saying it would harm the U.S. economy, after many of the accord's terms were negotiated by the Clinton administration.
"I know from the president on down, he is committed," Johnson said. "And certainly his charge to me was, and certainly our team has heard it: 'I want you to accelerate the pace of environmental protection. I want you to maintain our economic competitiveness.' And I think that's really what it's all about."
His predecessors disagreed. Lee Thomas, Ruckelshaus's successor in the Reagan administration, said that "if the United States doesn't deal with those kinds of issues in a leadership role, they're not going to get dealt with. So I'm very concerned about this country and this agency."
Bill Reilly, the EPA administrator under the first President Bush, echoed that assessment.
"The time will come when we will address seriously the problem of climate change, and this is the agency that's best equipped to anticipate it," he said.
Christie Whitman, the first of three EPA administrators in the current Bush administration, said people obviously are having "an enormous impact" on the earth's warming.
"You'd need to be in a hole somewhere to think that the amount of change that we have imposed on land, and the way we've handled deforestation, farming practices, development, and what we're putting into the air, isn't exacerbating what is probably a natural trend," she said. "But this is worse, and it's getting worse."
Carol Browner, who was President Clinton's EPA administrator, said the White House and the Congress should push legislation to establish a carbon trading program based on a 1990 pollution trading program that helped reduce acid rain.
"If we wait for every single scientist who has a thought on the issue of climate change to agree, we will never do anything," she said. "If this agency had waited to completely understand the impacts of DDT, the impacts of lead in our gasoline, there would probably still be DDT sprayed and lead in our gasoline."
Three former administrators did not attend Wednesday's ceremony: Mike Leavitt, now secretary of health and human services; Doug Costle, who was in the Carter administration, and Anne Burford, a Reagan appointee who died last year.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
A Sad Commentary on the death of a U.S. soldier
A Life, Wasted
Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed
By Paul E. Schroeder
The Washington Post
Tuesday, January 3, 2006; Page A17
Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."
Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.
Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II in Iraq. (Courtesy Paul Schroeder)
At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.
"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."
The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.
This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly. Others discuss the never-ending cycle of death in places such as Haditha in academic and sometimes clinical fashion, as in "the increasing lethality of improvised explosive devices."
Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don't have to experience: The day Augie's unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune, we received a box with his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq. The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone using CPR as a first aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time.
I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to "clear, hold and build" Iraqi towns, there aren't enough troops to do that.
In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was "less and less worth it," because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha.
At Augie's grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: "Your son was a true American hero." Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor. Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.
Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?
I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.
Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.
But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.
This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.
The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland
Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed
By Paul E. Schroeder
The Washington Post
Tuesday, January 3, 2006; Page A17
Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."
Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.
Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II in Iraq. (Courtesy Paul Schroeder)
At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.
"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."
The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.
This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly. Others discuss the never-ending cycle of death in places such as Haditha in academic and sometimes clinical fashion, as in "the increasing lethality of improvised explosive devices."
Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don't have to experience: The day Augie's unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune, we received a box with his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq. The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone using CPR as a first aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time.
I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to "clear, hold and build" Iraqi towns, there aren't enough troops to do that.
In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was "less and less worth it," because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha.
At Augie's grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: "Your son was a true American hero." Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor. Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.
Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?
I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.
Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.
But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.
This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.
The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
