Everyone Feel Safe and Secure With Bush at the Helm?


What a perfect example of Bushco's cultural and national security savvy - 38 tons of super explosives left unguarded while the oil depots are kept well protected in a war touted as one of liberation and "self-defense" - this all pretty much reads like the work of an author with a great and truly ironic imagination. Every war has unintended consequences - the hunch I shared with many other opponents of this war before it started was that we were unnecessarily opening up a Pandora's box that would lead to greater risks to our security than then existed. Arms inspectors and the IAEA were on site at the time and planning to stay, and the arms problem was under surveillance in a manner that was, as is now clearly apparent, more effective than what was to follow.

The "Al Qa Qaa" affair, however, goes well beyond what I had conceived of as possible even for this administration. OK, it really shouldn't have required an advanced rocket science degree to realize that invading Iraq would be a recruiting bonanza for terrorists across the Middle East, and put us in an untenable position as Western occupiers of an Arab land where religious, cultural and economic dissimilarities would grate and very likely ignite. Anyone who has looked at historical cases of terrorism would have some idea that even in cases where outsiders have gone in for "good" and supposedly "humanitarian" reasons, the situation often backfires. In Northern Ireland, for example, the British troops were originally sent to protect Catholics from the Pro British Unionists, but it didn't take long before they became targets for the IRA. And in the French attempts to preserve their imperial aspirations in Algeria, the elimination of terror was never accomplished despite the elimination of the leaders of the underground. New leaders emerged like mushrooms in response to their occupation.

Still, I have to admit I never expected the degree of arrogance and recklessness that led our government, in the face of warnings of the IAEA that dangerous dual use explosive detonators were under seal at Al QaQaa, to simply ignore the warnings, disregard the information, and in fact, to prevent the UN people from continuing their task of keeping track of Iraqi weapons. And then, just leave these materials unguarded? Bush never ceases to surprise. Or to pass blame. The attempt to spin criticism of a policy that led to losing track of materials used by terrorists and pass it all off as some sort of an attack on the armed forces is simple demagoguery. The buck stops where the policy was made, not with the guys who were following their orders.

Unfortunately, this is a level of arrogance that could come back to haunt. Have American service people have been killed or wounded with the help of these explosives? Will they be used in future terrorist attacks? These are questions we as Americans should ask, and deserve to have answered.

---

Fortunate Son and the Swift Boaters

In honor of the Swift Boaties, check out Kautilyon
and his link to the J. H. Hatfield book "Fortunate Son" available from Amazon. This book was successfully taken off the shelves during the last Presidential campaign.

Hatfield alleged, among other things, that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972 but got off because of his Daddy. The info allegedly came by way of K. Rove. Whether or not the charges are true, they were dismissed by the mainstream press in much the same way the charges of Bush's going AWOL have been dismissed, e.g., they were treated in a quite different manner from the charges made by the Swift Boaties.
Kautilyon also links to an introduction to the book by Greg Palast and a pretty comprehensive set of criticisms of Hatfield by Media Matters.

---

Of Swift Boaties, Politics and Veracity

Bush and his brain are now mouthing that 527 organizations are the real issue when it comes to the Swift Boaties' ads. However, I'd suggest it's important not to buy into that - the more important issue is the veracity of the claims made by the various 527 organizations. Unfortunately Kerry played right into the GOP game by condemning the Moveon response to the Swift boatie ads (despite the fact that ads by moveon and their ilk are a good part of the reason he's still in the race). If he's thinking he's going to be above all this crap, my hunch is we're going to be treated to a rerun of the Dukakis - Horton campaign, with similar results.

I'd like to see him use this to take the offensive already - say outright: (a) these are provable lies (I assume he can cogently explain why); (b) they are completely typical of Bush/GOP campaigns (give examples), and; (c) they exemplify the sort of degradation that is harmful to American self-government and which deserve to be rejected in a society that supports democratic, as opposed to demagogic, values. At some point he might also casually inquire if any Alabama NG people from our current commander in chief's unit have yet been found who can recall the prez being present at all during his period of service there.

(Actually, the Kerry campaign has made a start toward (b) with the new ads featuring tapes of McCain admonishing Bush about his smears during the 2000 primary. But this could undoubtedly be strengthened by bringing in other Bush family examples, Willie Horton for example, and maybe even Lee Atwater's deathbed renunciation of such tactics. And it would probably benefit from being tied to points (a) and (c)).

Its unfortunate that Viet Nam is now the becoming the center of the 2004 campaign, and even more unfortunate that Kerry will probably try to find some way to wimp out of the attacks on his record rather than take the offensive. His truest patriotism was,imho, shown in his cogent opposition to a war that ran against the true interests and principles of this country, and that was ultimately shown to be based on a consistent policy of duplicity and deception.

Nevertheless, in the wake of all the confusion engendered by the new found memories and ads of the the Swift Boaties, I would like to propose that, for the benefit of truth and the information of the American public, a 527 organization be formed which will be dedicated solely to a detailed and honest comparison of the military histories and records of George Bush and John Kerry.

And may the best man win.

UPDATE: Kerry withdrew his ads in response to a request by McCain. What a joke!

Convention Time Campaign Fun

Read  "Weakness Invites Terror, Cheney Tells Democrats." Then enjoy the Chickenhawk Database  at its New Location: 

"Chickenhawk  n.  A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth."

Also check out the AWOL project for a rather less fun, but fairly extensive and,  shall we say, "fair and balanced" look at Bush's service .

“Go Fuck Yourself, Cheney” Campaign

Given events of the last week, I thought people might be up for a “Go Fuck Yourself, Cheney” campaign (day, week) - sending faxes, emails, letters or calls to our esteemed veep with exactly that message. I envisioned something like the campaign Moveon had against the war with everyone calling (or faxing or emailing) on a particular day or week. I don’t have experience in setting this sort of thing up, but I know some progressive organizations like democrats.com, moveon, and true majority, have or had web/fax systems for sending and keeping track of such faxes. However, they might be a bit squeamish about get into a pissing contest with a skunk, about the “f” word. So I checked petition-online, thinking this could be done as an e-petition sent to Cheney saying something to the order of
“We the undersigned citizens strongly urge you to Go Fuck Yourself, Cheney, both as penance and as a service to our country”.

Unfortunately (though, understandably) they don’t permit “foul” language in their petitions, and it seems like it would lack the punch to just change fuck to “f...” If anyone has any interest, info or thoughts as to pulling this off, send 'em on.

Whats Different about This Recovery?


The Economic Policy Institute shows the real problem with the so called recovery the U.S. is experiencing.
When do workers get their share? points out that in comparison with the last 8 recoveries,


Corporate profits have risen 62.2% since the peak, compared to average growth of 13.9% at the same point in the last eight recoveries that have lasted as long as the current one. This is the fastest rate of profit growth in a recovery since World War II.


But


Growth in total wage and salary income, the primary source of take-home pay for workers, has actually been negative for private-sector workers: -0.6%, versus the 7.2% gain that is the average increase in private wage and salary income at this point in a recovery.

In terms of real wages and income there is no there there.

Enron and on and on


Now on tape!! Utility: Enron Gouged Customers for $1.1B.


"Enron Corp. manipulated the energy market practically every day during the 2000-01 power crunch and gouged Western customers for at least $1.1 billion, according to audiotapes and documents released Monday."

Wonder if Ken Lay will be W's biggest campaign contributor again this year. He's the only big honcho on the Enron crew who doesn't seem to be in trouble with the law. Funny, when the economy's good and the company's making money hand over foot, exorbitant CEO salaries are justified by how critical the skills and knowledge of these wonder workers are to their company's success. When the whole thing turns out to be scam, it's
How could I know, I'm just the CEO.

Race to the Bottom


I haven’t posted much over the past few weeks. One reason is that we increased the size of our garden, and spring planting occupied most our spare time. This year we are growing tomatoes, zucchini, cucumbers, squash, corn, eggplant, peppers, grapes and herbs in addition to the lettuce and chard from winter, and our fruit trees. Another reason, however, is that sometimes words just can not do justice, one must stand in awe at the capacity for cruelty and (self-) deception which can often characterize human behavior.

Much of the recent news from the Middle-East has filled that bill, and has taken the concept of a “race to the bottom” to a new and more gruesome dimension. Many environmentalists are concerned that increasing economic globalization will lead to a “race to the bottom” in environmental standards because states that maintain high standards suffer competitive disadavantage as a consequence. In fact, conservative trade advocates like the Bushes, Cheney, and even ol’ Dan Quayle, have often supported lowering environmental standards precisely on this these grounds. They argue that environmental protection policies put America at an economic disadvantage, and thus they seemingly bolster the environmentalists’ contention that increasing global trade can lead to an environmental race to the bottom.

The Falloujah mutilations and the subsequent razing of the town, the depraved prison antics and the beheading, suggest a different kind of race to the bottom. They exemplify the Pandora’s box and morbid chains of events all too often unleashed when reckless and unnecessary resort to violence and force of arms occur. And it is ever more obvious that the Iraqi War, as opponents charged from the beginning, was not thrust upon us by any state or global necessity nor as a consequence of any serious threat to security, but represents instead an ill-conceived diversion from the so-called “War on Terrorism.” Today’s report “Al Quaeda Ranks Swelling Worldwide”
notes that according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies “Far from being crippled by the U.S.-led war on terror, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.”

Whether the principle driving force for the invasion was oil, personal petulance or ideological commitment, it was neither initiated nor followed through with the moral and logistical thought and scruples one would hopefully expect in a situation where untold thousands of human beings are put in harms way. The moral limitations of leaders on both sides in this war, the Baathists and jihadists as well as the Bushists are surely evident, with one side reveling in terror, and the other side engaged in sublimation and repression of its own heinous acts - until that path is no longer feasible because of an honest whistleblower and loose pictures and videos. As former Vice-President Gore noted "reservists photographed abusing prisoners 'were clearly forced to wade into a moral cesspool designed by the Bush White House," which, he said, had abandoned the Geneva Conventions."

This may, however, ignore some of the systemic aspects of what occurred, since investigations have shown that the many of the practices engaged in at abu Ghraib prison "echoed" those in some American prisons. In fact, one of the Abu Ghraib defendants, Spc. Charles Graner, "is a former guard at a maximum-security prison in Pennsylvania that has a history of prisoner abuse. Although accused, he was never found guilty. And Lane McCotter, a senior contractor brought in to reopen Abu Ghraib and train guards, was forced to resign as the head of corrections in Utah: A mentally ill inmate died there after being strapped naked to a restraining chair for more than 16 hours."

Nonetheless, this affair, in addition to the WMD and the many deceptions, does seem to point to the breathtaking absence of statespersonship. As one engaged in the study of international relations and political science, I am often surprised at how seldom the concepts of the statesperson and statespersonship make their way into the disciplinary jargon. It is not surprising, therefore, that so little of that quality is apparent among current world leaders. Bush and Blair clearly, if somewhat dishonestly, want to appear as strong leaders. Yet they seem incapable of distinguishing, on the one hand, between egoistic manipulation and leadership, and on the other, between leadership and statesmanship (of which neither has shown even the slightest hint) in the whole sordid affair. They clearly view leadership as getting others to do what they want, whether by persuasion, force or deception. But good leadership, as discussed by well know theorist Irving Janik, involves more - it involves open minded consideration of all possible alternatives, and a rational evaluation of the most appropriate course to take in the face of the existent situation. Most important it involves transcending the intellectual and moral “groupthink” that constrains consideration of alternative plans and ideas.

In fact, all things being equal, the world may well be better off without Sadaam as the Bushists contend. Unfortunately however, all things are not equal - the thousands of dead and maimed Americans and Iraqis may represent a bigger casualty count than Sadaam was responsible for in the previous several years. And to much of the world, Bush's militarism and arrogance presents just as much a threat and problem as did Hussein. George Montbiot
presents well the dilemma posed by the world's potential need to get rid of pathological leaders (such as Hussein), and the appropriation of the task by self-rightous, self-appointed, wannabe empire builders(e.g., Bush) as a means to further their own ambitions. His suggestion is a clear set of rules and procedures which establish a path to international legitimacy in any such case. It is clear that UN can not at present meet such a task.

There is another need, however. In our era of increasing globalization and planetary vulnerability to war and environmental destruction, it is statespersonship, not simply leadership that is truly needed. Leadership is certainly a necessary but insufficient component - statespersonship involves not only skill and knowledge, but the use of “wisdom” in the choice and pursuit of policies and interests. In this case the absence of genuine leadership is evidenced by the fact that skill and knowledge were devalued in favor of enforced groupthink, as is shown by the jettisoning of military and civilian personnel who pointed to the potential problems likely to arise after military action. The decision for a policy of war appears incredibly unwise since, as the IISS study points out, it has been detrimental to the security of the world and our nation. And as the lies, deceptions and brutalities continue to unfold, my guess is that our reputation and our security (both national and global), will also become more and more shaky. And subsequently, we may have a way to go before we see the end of this race to the bottom.

WTO Decides in Favor of Brazil on US Cotton Subsidies

OK, this is on the arcane side - a WTO panel decided yesterday that U.S. cotton subsidies are trade distorting, and therefore subject to countervailing tariffs. Many progressives, as well as a fair cross-section of non-progressive others, rap the WTO for its detrimental effects for U.S. workers and producers. And in general I agree, Lord knows I’m no fan of the WTO. I almost want to be knocking the trade organization for its ruling against the U.S. just like Kucinich is doing (anyone heard from Kerry and Bush on this).

Nevertheless, this seems like one of the times when the WTO may actually have gotten it right, at least from the political (as opposed to the legal) perspective. Its hard to say anything about the legal aspects of the decision because, true to its tendency toward opaqueness, the decision and its reasoning were not actually released to the public by the organization - the only reason we know about the outcome is because Brazil broke with its confidentiality commitment. From my perspective, however, U.S. (and EU) agricultural subsidies typify the built-in inequities of the current "liberal" trade “system.”

Some good backgrounding on the new decision can be found at the trade observatory. Quite briefly, U.S. cotton subsidies go to a very few large multi-national corporations. These subidies contribute to the impoverishment of developing world cotton farmers by: decreasing cotton prices; increasing third world imports from the U.S.; and reducing exports to the U.S. At the same time they do little to help American family farmers. The subsidies in essence lead to a sort of “dumping” of agricultural products, not unlike the dumping to which we Americans are sensitive in industrial and manufacturing products . Ultimately, goods are sold for less than their cost of production. It was in fact, the U.S. and EU agriculture subsidies that were at the heart of the failure of the last WTO ministerial at Cancun last year.

Now I’m all for fair trade, but too often what we see in this trade system is a privileging of the interests of multi-national corporations. This is exemplified by the agricultural sector, where large scale agri-industry, benefiting from financial and unaccounted social and environmental subsidization, is displacing family farmers who are bonded to the market and told that if they don’t make it, well its because they’re inefficient.

The privileging of multi-national corporations in manufacturing or agriculture (or services for that matter), does not necessarily benefit working people in the U.S., nor does it benefit those in less developed countries.While classical economics predicts that liberalized trade leads to the generation of greater wealth (given certain assumptions that aren't always met), some studies have shown that this wealth does not necessarily trickle down. Robert Scott at the Economic Policy Institute, for example, shows that he number of jobs in the U.S. is very likely lower because of our trade deficit than it otherwise would be. And the U.N. estimates that poor countries lose about $2 billion per day because of unjust trade rules—14 times the amount they receive in aid. (UNCTAD, Conference on Least Developed Countries 2001). In 59 countries, average income is lower today than 20 years ago, while in only 33 is it higher. (United Nations Human Development Report, 1999).

If the cotton subsidy decision reduces the odds faced by smaller farmers, then I’ll say hurrah. Of course, the WTO being what it is, we won’t know their reasoning for several months. Ultimately however, where process and discourse are characterized by lack of transparency, inclusiveness, and equality, as often is the case in the international trade regime, the result is an “uneven” and ultimately unfair sort of globalization - one in which power is vested primarily in small groups of unrepresentative actors who can dominate over the less privileged. The two potential resolutions to this problem are either greater openness in trade fora to the participation and perspectives of less powerful parties and non-commercial sectors, or else, increasing the power and capacities of organizations which counterbalance corporate oriented institutions, particularly those created for the purpose of protecting labor and the environment. A broader more inclusive "globalization" would increase the likelihood that any benefits created through trade would be distributed more equitably, and in a manner less conducive to environmental degradation. It is a goal on which labor, environmentalists, and developing countries should be able to find some common ground.

Earth Day Happenings

This is becoming more of an occasional blog due to time constraints, but in honor of Earth Day I couldn't resist posting these tidbits.

The National Council of Churches is sending a scathing letter to President Bush to coincide with Earth Day, accusing his administration of chipping away at the Clean Air Act. It took out a full-page ad in The New York Times, scheduled to run in Thursday's editions, calling on Bush to leave the Clean Air Act's new source review rules in place. Their spokesperson noted:

"In December a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the new rules from taking effect, agreeing with more than a dozen states and cities that contended the changes could cause irreparable harm to their environments and public health.

"The people we talk to, both inside and outside the administration, say ... that these changes will in fact weaken, not strengthen the Clean Air Act," said the Rev. Bob Edgar, a United Methodist minister and the church council's general secretary."

---

The Sierra Club released a new book - "Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress," - timed to coincide with Earth Day. It slammed President George W. Bush for pursuing "the worst environmental policy" in almost a century, and called it a "sad day" for the United States.

"Bush ... is the first president since Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 to close out his term with the country worse off ecologically than it was when he arrived in office". ... in three and a half years, (he) has stripped from protected status 135 million acres, the size of Texas and Oklahoma," according to SC leader Carl Pope, who also lists in the book top administration officials with strong links to the private sector, including the oil industry.

---

Kerry criticizes Bush on environment

"Kerry's campaign said the president's air quality proposals will send 21 tons more pollution into the atmosphere, contribute to up to 100,000 premature deaths from respiratory troubles and induce millions of asthma attacks. It also reports "... one in 12 women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her system to pose a potential threat to fetal health." and that
"Bush also has opposed efforts to ban the gasoline additive MTBE, a petroleum-based product that critics argued has fouled water supplies in 28 states. The campaign critique argues that Bush has supported protections that would prohibit the petroleum industry from being forced to clean up such pollution. As a result, the report says, taxpayers will foot the bill for the cleanup that could approach $30 billion.
Former Energy Secretary Browner noted that "one of the Bush administration's worst environmental decisions was to allow older, dirtier power plants to largely avoid converting to cleaner technology. She said up to 30,000 premature deaths a year are blamed on pollution from power plants."
Kerry argues that pitting economic interests against environmental protections is a "false choice," and that millions of jobs can be created through development of alternative energy sources.

A Bush spokesperson responded that "Kerry was continuing his own 'campaign of pessimism with this latest round of false attacks.'"

---

The Bush administration was meanwhile reported to be celebrating Earth Day by inviting oil-industry officials to the Environmental Protection Agency "to discuss a plan to relax pollution standards for gasoline. The plan would allow higher sulfur content gasoline to be sold during the summer months. According to Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Trust "because sulfur is a prime contributor to both urban smog and soot, it could also result in an increase in health problems." He suggested that there will be a large price to pay for a plan that would only temporarily "trim oil prices by as much as a nickel a gallon" – and not necessarily in all markets.

The Price of Gas (Literally and Figuratively)

The price of gasoline in our neck of the woods has been over 2 bucks a gallon for weeks now, $2.16 for ordinary unleaded today. This probably does not bode any better for our nation’s economy than for our pocketbooks. The fact that OPEC is cutting down production makes it likely that these prices will not be going down soon, and the so-called “recovery” (anemic as it has been) of our fossil fuel based economy, has another hurdle to overcome. And if our national security and well-being were not reason enough to spur action towards conservation and renewable energy, the rapidly melting glaciers of the arctic raise again the specter of global warming as a planetary consideration.

Well, yesterday I caught the last twenty or so minutes of Bush’s press conference, the first one that I’ve watched, and I can’t say that he (or the press) were very impressive. The only real question I heard asked was why he had wanted to testify together with Cheney before the 9/11 commission, rather than on his own. He danced all around that without coming anywhere near answering it. And he had no real trouble dancing around the other softball questions in a way that seemed to turn any substance into some ethereal, meaningless gas that appropriated democratic and religious imagery in a manner to which they seemed ill-suited.

And then today, in a meeting with Israeli P.M. Sharon, Bush essentially gave in to Sharon’s wish to keep Israeli settlements in the West Bank, contrary to long standing American policy, and international law. My hunch that this direction will not be a good one for either the U.S. or Israel (not to mention the rest of the world). In terms of the War on Terrorism, I'd have to bet that this increases the number of recruits for Al Quaeda, Hamas, and their ilk. It effectively ends the farce that was called the “Roadmap to Peace.” And, at a time when we're up to our a**es in Iraq trying to keep the situation from exploding (and where their oil, like their celebratory reception of the coalition, did not materialize in the way our gifted planners figured), this is likely to be an additional burden to bear for those who are out in the front lines facing an increasingly hostile and disgruntled populace.
Entirely the wrong kind of gas.

Yeap, gas is sure getting expensive

Economic Notes


The idea that only by giving tax breaks to the richest can we grow the economy is not only wrong (check out graphs at daily brew), but also disingenious.
From Dollars and Sense :

"Since the recession began 33 months ago, 2.4 million U.S. jobs have disappeared. Following every other post-World War II recession, jobs had fully recovered to their pre-recession levels within 31 months of the start of the recession. Worse yet, as a recent study by economists at the New York Federal Reserve Bank shows, a far larger share of recent layoffs have been permanent, rather than the temporary cyclical layoffs dominant in most previous recessions."

"Public investment, which has fallen to about one-half its levels during the 1960s and 1970s relative to the size of the economy, must be restored to maintain the nation’s economic competitiveness. That means increased public investments in education, job training, and child care as well as in basic infrastructure, the environment, energy, and research and development. Many of these programs, especially spending on the environment and natural resources and on job training and employment services, have suffered deep cuts since 2000."

"In the end," as economist Anwar Shaikh points out, "government expenditures need to provide not only demand stimulus but also social stimulus." Otherwise, while GDP growth may be momentarily high(er), the well of sustained expansion and broad-based economic gains will stay dry."

Rice at the 9/11 Commission

Condi Rice finally testified before the commission under oath. This came after months of administration opposition to such testimony under the guise of constitutional separation of powers and executive privilege. (The opposition ended after the political costs of this stance began increasing). Her testimony raised as many questions as it answered. For example, the title of the August 6th presidential daily briefing (PDB), an intelligence report which raised the issue of hijackings and the use of explosive devices in the U.S. by al Quaeda (and which remains partially classified by the Bush administration) was finally released yesterday.
The report was entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE U.S."

One has to ask: Why was this classified information? Was this really done for national security purposes? If so, which? Or was it rather classified for political purposes? Was it simply one more example of what appears to be an ongoing attempt to classify and keep out of the public domain in any way possible, any information that might shed a less than shining light on the administration, strictly for the purposes of partisan benefit?

Rice also focused on the "structural" failures implicit in the 9/11 tragedy, and disclaimed (on behalf of the administration) any responsibility. When she was asked at various times why no action was taken after the Aug. 6 PDB, she repeatedly emphasized the "structural" failures - the lack of coordinatition between our foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement agencies, a separation which stems from a legal and cultural concerns about the potential for abuse of civil rights. However, nothing, absolutely nothing, prevented the National Security Chief from alerting and calling together a meeting of the "principals," something in the order of what counter terrorism expert Richard Clarke had suggested, to bring about the sort of intensive focus to this threat that took place under Clinton in 1999 , and to which many attribute the breakup of the millenium terrorist plans that year.

Instead, what happened at this time, after this warning, was that Bush went on a month long vacation in Texas. Rice according to her testimony seems like passivity personified - she did not push any action because she didn't get any specifics as to time, place and plans (what was her job again - was she totally lacking any curiousity as to what might be behind such warnings). Subsequently, she continued her speeches and efforts on behalf of what the administration considered as its primary security concerns, the missile defence system and Iraq.

It's undoubtedly true that there was no silver bullet on this. And Rice may be correct that more focus on previous warnings would not have guaranteed deterrence of the 9/11 tragedy. It might, however, have lowered the probability its success. No one can guarantee that measures which might have been taken to highten the alert of the FBI would not have been useful.

It is at this point where the question of accountability must be raised. While there is clearly some need for "structural changes," in times of immediate threat it is not necessarily wise to focus on other things while awaiting such changes, as the administration did. And it is even more clear that there were ample means for spreading an alert had the available information been taken with greater seriousness and focus, and had meetings of principals been conducted. Now, however, the administration is asking the American people to pay the costs in traditonal rights (as evidenced by its support of the so called Patriot Act), for the negligence which it has worked so hard to conceal. Seems like the wrong folks are getting held accountable.

BTW: Part of the deal the admin made for Condi to appear under oath was that bush himself would not have to testify alone - he'll go in without being under oath, and with veep Cheney at his side. Are they worried about something he might say? This deal has been subject to some humor by cartoonists (see Toles and Luckovich.)

Harold Meyerson suggested that:
The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone.

Meanwhile W is again back at the ranch.

Inglewood Defeats Wal-Mart


Chalk up a major defeat for Wal-Mart in the largely minority L.A. suburb of Inglewood. The Wal-Marteers, after having some qualms about going through the city's standard planning procedures, decided to try a referendum on a 73 page long proposal that would have exempted them from, among other things, the environmental impact statement required of all major developments. They then spent over a million dollars in an all out effort to pass it. Folks in Inglewood, nevertheless, knocked the proposal down easily with over 60% of the voters in opposition.

Blix: Iraq Worse Off Now Than With Saddam


So Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector (who was much closer to the truth on WMD than the Bush administration), told the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands Posten. "What's positive is that Saddam and his bloody regime is gone, but when figuring out the score, the negatives weigh more."

With fighting breaking out across Iraq again, and 18 Americans and 66 Iraqis confirmed dead at this time, one fears he is right again.

Proud to be a Californian Today

According to the California Consumer Confidence Survey Bush's sinking job approval numbers among Californians are largely tied to a growing perception that his statements to the public are "not believable". Asked if "generally speaking, do you believe that what President Bush tells the American people is true,' 48 percent of respondents said no, while about 42 percent said yes.

"The credibility gap is really a significant finding,' said Phil Trounstine, director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University that conducted the poll. "The president has a real problem in California, with many people saying they don't believe what he tells them.'

Just 38 percent of adults in the state said they approve of Bush's job performance, while 50 percent said they disapprove.

Cheney's Oil Tax

Daily Kos reports:
In October 1986, when Dick Cheney was the lone congressman from energy-rich Wyoming, he introduced legislation to create a new import tax that would have caused the price of oil, and ultimately the price of gasoline paid by drivers, to soar by billions of dollars per year.
"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States," Mr. Cheney, who is now vice president, said shortly after introducing the legislation.

This from the team that loves to take shots at even the slightest hint of a gas tax increase in the interests of conserving energy. As Dick Durbin, U.S. Senator from Illinois, points out:
"It is hard to explain, how they could attack John Kerry for even considering a 50-cent gas tax, which he didn't introduce or vote for, and ignore Cheney's own legislation in 1986 which would have dramatically raised the cost of gasoline. If every vote and every statement made by John Kerry is fair game, the same thing is true of President Bush and the vice president."

A spokesman for Mr. Cheney declined to comment.

Another "Mistake"

Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake

"There is still no sign of WMD in Iraq
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been wrong."

Giving Powell, Bush etc. the benefit of the doubt (which is probably undeserved), one has to wonder how all those people who marched in opposition to the invasion knew this was a bogus case, while the leaders of the U.S. and its allies didn't. My favorite sign at our local march, before the war, was one that said "This Isn't A War - It's A Con Job".

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence which has failed to bear out the veracity of that claim. Powell's admission is only the latest unravelling which lends credence - coming quickly on the heels of: 1) the L.A. Times report that according to current and former intelligence officials, the Bush administration's claims that Saddam Hussein had a fleet of trucks and railroad cars to produce anthrax and other deadly germs were based chiefly on information from a discredited Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball", and had been labelled by intelligence officials as "fabricated"; 2) renewed charges by a former FBI translator now under gag order that administration statements that there was no specific information on the possibility of using airplanes as terrorist weapons are "outrageous" and "inaccurate"; and 3) former Counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke's now well publicized admonition that the Iraq invasion actually undermined the war on terrorism.

One would think this should be a wake up call for America. Unless "We the people," as our founders liked to say, seriously examine what has happened and hold our leaders accountable, we essentially provide license for their cynical use of the vast power that we have built up. And we will very likely see both a concomitant decrease in our ability to affect the course of its use, and a deterioration of our nation's security to boot. Seldom in our history (or at least since Viet Nam) has it been more apparent that our country was manipulated into war on the basis of such an unbroken stream of mistakes, deception and prevarication. (The term "war", of course, is applicable here solely in the descriptive sense, since legally only Congress has the right to declare war, and it didn't)

There is now clearly no other country in the world that stands in the way of American power. Terrorists, of course, have the capacity to cause harm and fear, but whether the reaction to them leads to the sort of militarism and authoritarianism which characterized the "anti-terrorist" campaigns in places like Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, etc., during the 1980s, and whether it becomes the rationalization for a logic of aggression (as was the case for example the Austro-Hungarian response to Serbian terrorists which led to World War I) remain open questions. It is becoming more and more apparent, however, that the responses to these questions will define America to the world for years to come in a manner similar to that in which the Post World War II Marshall plan defined us - and that "checks" and "balances" which constrain the power of the American government must come from within, and must be re-energized, for our good and for that of the world.

Tit-for-Tat

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose political career has been based on a hard line stance in favor of Israeli settlements on the occupied territories, announced plans to remove Israeli settlements and settlers from Gaza. Sharon, now under indictment for corruption (and previously forced from office in 1983 after an Israeli tribunal found him "indirectly responsible" for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians by Israeli-allied right-wing Lebanese militiamen) told the Maariv daily "We need to get out of Gaza, not to be responsible anymore for what happens there ... I hope that by next Passover we will be in the midst of disengagement, because disengagement is good for Israel."

It is ironic that the Peace movements in Israel and Palestine, and their supporters worldwide, have long recognized that the removal of Israeli settlements is one of the necessary prerequisites for any possibility of a lasting peace. One has to wonder how many lives might have been saved had efforts toward achieve a negotiated settlement along lines most recently put forward in the Geneva Accord, e.g., mutual recognition and a two state solution based on the pre-1967 green line with appropriate security mechanisms and action against terrorism, had been followed through with conviction by all sides.

The irony in this case, however, is likely to be bitter. In order to “show” that Israel is leaving on its own terms, Sharon ordered the assassination of Shiekh Ahmed Yassin, the political head of Hamas, which took place on March 22. Yassin, a blind, parapalegic cleric who headed Hamas was considered a spiritual leader by many Palestinians. (For a report of a staunch Israeli peace advocate's view of Hamas see Uri Avneri’s Gush Shalom). While Yassin was a firm opponent of Israel, he had indicated more willingness than many in the organization to consider possibilities of long term truce and ceasefire agreements. Few believe that Yassin’s assassination will have any positive effects on curbing terrorism, and his successor Abdel Aziz Rantissi is considered to be far more of a hardliner than Yassin. One does not need to be a rocket scientist or a soothsayer to predict that the response to this act will be more suicide bombings. And then more assassinations. And more suicide bombings. And more assassinations. ....

There are studies in the area of international relations (most notably those of Robert Axelrod), which suggest that the most effective strategy for encouraging cooperation settings characterized by fear and distrust, is the so called “tit-for-tat” game, where if one player does not cooperate the other will not, but each side does cooperate in response to cooperation by the other. The Israeli-Palestinian interaction has, of course, long been stuck in the vicious negative cycle of this game - the “eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth” pattern - to the point that the well of their common humanity is likely to get increasingly poisoned for both sides, and for future generations.

However, there are some brave souls and groups on both sides that remain committed to working to change this game to something more positive. Over 60 prominent Palestinian officials and intellectuals urged Palestinians
to refrain from retaliation for Israel's assassination. Six left-wing Israeli activists were arrested trying to prevent the demolition of two homes in the village of Palestinian village of Harbata. It is increasingly clear that the U.S. government is tied to policies that encourage the tragedy that is the status quo. Some of the organizations which are engaged in attempting to surmount the cycle of mutual hatred and terror include Support Sanity, Gush-Shalom, Lawrence of Cyberia, and Bitter Lemons.

Global Warming, Gas, and Information

According to the Independent/UK a government study has found new evidence that global warming may be spiraling upwards at a rate far exceeding that which climate scientists had been expecting. The study, according to Geoffrey Lean, the environment editor, found:

"Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have jumped abruptly, raising fears that global warming may be accelerating out of control. Measurements by US government scientists show that concentrations of the gas, the main cause of the climate exchange, rose by a record amount over the past 12 months. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply, marking an unprecedented triennial surge.
Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear that it could show the first signs that global warming is feeding on itself, with rising temperatures causing increases in carbon dioxide, which then go on to drive the thermometer even higher. That would be a deeply alarming development, suggesting that this self-reinforcing heating could spiral upwards beyond the reach of any attempts to combat it."

The study was conducted by scientists working for the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the measurements have not been completely analyzed yet. There remains a possibility that they might represent a remarkable “blip”. Nevertheless, at this time, Professor Ralph Keeling - whose father Charles Keeling first set up the measurements, felt confident enough to say "We are moving into a warmer world".

In googling up this info, I discovered that no other newspaper (including zip in the U.S.) carried the story, which seemed rather odd. Here is another study from a reputable source, at a time when gasoline prices have reached record highs, BP is in trouble for reporting they over-estimated their reserves, and the Saudi’s have suggested their oil production is peaking, which points to the veracity of the mainstream scientific claims regarding the phenomenon of global warming and the potential seriousness its consequences, and its basically nowhere in the press. There is a powder keg of evidence that supports the need to focus on alternative renewable energy sources for reasons of planetary well-being and national security, yet the topic is largely off limits in the popular press.

When matters of great import to our country and planet are continuously left out of public information sources, it seems to me that this represents a slap to the founders of this country, to whom the press was considered such an important part of the preservation of freedom. True freedom is contingent on good information. Otherwise it is a mirage, and with increasing media concentration the growth of "info-tainment," the mirage seems to be getting more and more real. A neighbor of ours who is conservative in politics and convinced that the press has a liberal bias, points to our local rag, the L.A. Times (the N.Y. Times, Washington Post or others would serve as well) which often endorses more Dems than Repubs, as evidence of such bias. Personally, I end up responding, I have never known anyone to vote for a candidate just because a newspaper endorsed him/her. But, I have often run across people who have indicated that they might have voted or acted differently had they had other info and been presented with the full story.

The Wishy Washy 9/11 Commission

I spent much of the day listening with one ear to the 9/11 Commission hearings. Some things that really struck me:

1) The focus by commission member Roemer on the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing (the PDB, a daily intelligence briefing given the President) which warned of impending Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda activity in the U.S. Roemer read from some unclassified sections of the report, but interestingly, the Bush administration has kept this key document mostly under wraps as classified, unavailable even to the commission. (This brings back memories of the attempted Nixon coverup. )

2) The extent of the personal attacks on Richard Clarke by Bush appointees to the commission. They are charged with investigating 9/11, but seemed much more intent on cutting down Clarke. Former Navy undersecretary Lehman's diatribe went to the point of clearly charging Clarke with a credibility gap and attacking his integrity, because of the charges that Clarke made in his book, e.g., that the Bush administration blew it on terrorism. Lehman of course, is one of those who backed Ollie North in his admitted prevarications to the committee which investigated the Iran-Contra scandal. Clearly Lehman's gist was to focus attention away from 9/11, if necessary by smearing those who have not toed the line. But that is not exactly what an "independent" commission is supposed to be doing. Clarke did come through as someone with competence and integrity. Key testimony - the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq has undermined the War on Terror.
Bob Kerrey also pointed out the that the use of a confidential background briefing given by Clarke while he was an employee of the bush administration seemed rather sleazy. The briefing was used by former Gov. Thompson (a Bush appointee who has attended only three sessions) in an attempt to impeach Clarke's testimony. Kerrey pointed out that all of the members have given such briefings off the record, and Clarke noted that as an employee he had been asked to give the briefing to emphasize the positive aspects of what the administration was doing. The release of such info by the Fox folks (after approval by the White House) is considered unusual and unethical since such briefings are given to journalists on the agreement of anonymity. It is precisely this sort of "background briefing" info that the administration does not want released in the investigation of Novak's "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

3) Another major focus has been "CONDI RICE, WHERE ARE YOU." Roemer and Ben-Veniste in particular have pointed out the absence of this key player who has been all over the air waves, but has a problem testifying in public under oath (not unlike bush). I believe it was Roemer who pointed out the fallacy of the argument that she could not testify because of separation of powers issues, by bringing evidence of a number of times persons in her position have appeared before such commissions - in cases of signicantly less import. Buenevisti referred to Assistant Sec of State Armitage scathingly, as Rice's stand in.


For questions that the families of 9/11 victims would like to have answered (which often seem a lot more pertinent than those being asked by the commission) see 911 independentcommission. KPFK reported that some of the relatives plan to ask for a new investigation if a new administration gets elected, because this commisson has left such big gaps, and because the current administration has exerted so much influence on it, and kept so much so much relevant information, evidence and testimony off the table.

Of ”Steady Leadership,” Political Ads, and Credibility

The Bush campaign has two new ads, "Forward" and "100 Days," which are playing in certain sections of the country in an effort to roll up early gains in key states. Their purpose - to build up the bush image and tear down Kerry's. But their usefulness may be getting undermined by continued disclosures of the administration’s ineptness and deception, characteristics which these ads seem to illustrate. (click here to see ads on bush campaign web site, or here for text)

“Forward” is the ad which Salon/NPR critics William Saletan and Jacob Weisberg consider to be the “positive half of the message." Though they note that it "lies" about Kerry's Iraq stance, this ad primarily hearkens to the myth of Bush’s “steady leadership,” the theme pushed a couple weeks ago in the controversial “9/11" ad that was considered to be inappropriate by most Americans. "Forward" focuses on “confidence, resolve, and hope.” According to Saletan and Weissberg, these are precisely "what a president has to ask you for when he has nothing tangible to show you.”

Nevertheless, the “steady leadership” myth just received a couple of new and significant blows, first on Sunday from Richard A. Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism director, who said on Meet the Press that the Bush White House failed to take the al Qaeda threat seriously before Sept. 11, 2001, and by Sept. 12 was trying to pin the attack on Iraq. And then with word (see Dana Milbank in Washington Post) that in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House "cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI," according to internal administration budget documents.

Clarke, whose book 'Against All Enemies' is soon to be released, served more than two years in the Bush White House after having held senior posts under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He also noted that 9/11 marked the transition from neglect to folly for Bush administration's stewardship of war with Islamic extremists.“ "The president failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks.'

Some of this is not particularly new news - everyone agrees that during the Bush transition Sandy Berger, the National Security Chair, had tried to emphasize the danger of Al Queda, but there was little in the way of follow-up by the new administration. The Hart-Rudman Anti-terrorism commission also made recommendations which were not followed up on until after 9/11. Bush’s former Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, has recounted the Bushit(e) obsession with Iraq even before 9/11. But when the guy who headed the nation’s counter terrorist effort, says “"frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for reelection on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism." this is heavy, and there’s no doubt that every effort will be made to subjected to a lot of GOP attacks now.

In an attempt to break through the fog, here are some things to remember about which there is little dispute:

---

❏ In December 2000 and January 2001, the Bush administration was warned, by the outgoing National Security Assistant, the nation’s Counterterrorism Chief, and the Hart-Rudman, bi-partisan Anti-terrorism commission, of the serious risk of terrorism from Al Queda. Bush did not follow though on important recommendations which these officials made - until after 9/11.

❏ On 8/6/2001, the Presidential Daily (intelligence) Briefing warned of increasing activity among terrorists which could include the hijacking of airplanes and explosions. Little was done to warn Americans or take counteractive measures.

❏ On 9/11, after being informed of the first strike at the World Trade Center, Bush continued to stay in a photo op school visit, rather than give orders for the use of counter measures.

❏ On 9/12, at a time when virtually all Americans were prohibited from travelling anywhere by air, a number of Saudi Arabians, including members of the Bin Laden Family, were permitted to fly out of the country without even being questioned.

❏ In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI.

---

This is hardly a record of competence or leadership in the War on Terror.

---

BTW: The other ad, “100 Days,” is the "negative" one which seeks to “define” Democratic candidate Kerry before he becomes better known to the public, essentially by claiming that he's going to take billions from taxpayers. The analysts note "it's not merely misleading, but an outright lie for the president to assert that Kerry wants to 'raise taxes by at least $900 billion,'" for the simple reason that Kerry hasn't made that proposal."

The irony of the utilization of blatant lies in a campaign by a candidate who essentially claims that character and values are his strong suite, is undoubtedly lost on the bushit(e)s. It does, however, raise two possible election and post-election scenarios. One is that the prez shows himself so clearly inept, amoral and meritless, that the public gets it, and joins the defection of increasing numbers of his former associates. The other, darker scenario, is the possibility of a new bout with a new McCarthyism in a new age characterized by much greater concentration and embeddness of the press, greater class stratification, and far more powerful data gathering and analysis techniques than might have have been envisioned in the 1950s.

This sort of campaign was, of course, not unexpected. However, as I mentioned in my March 12 post, the democratic response at this point is a bit worrying. One would hope that Kerry starts getting some surrogates to throw a few jabs in there, or at least run some blocking. It is again rather ironical that the only one who's really gone to the plate yet is GOP Senator McCain, who knocked down the Bushit(e) mantra that Kerry is soft on defense.

A First: AFL-CIO Brings Unfair Trade Petition

Harold Meyerson, the unflappable labor journalist points out in a recent Washington Post column that trade litigation has always been the province of corporations - and while shareholders' interests receive much consideration when disadvantaged by other states' trade practices, workers' interests never quite get to the table.
However, the labor movement appears to be getting wise to this game:

For the first time ever, the AFL-CIO filed the kind of unfair-trade petition that corporations commonly file, alleging that China's repression of workers' rights has displaced at minimum 727,000 U.S. jobs, and calling on the president to threaten China with tariffs until it stops artificially lowering its workers' wages.
....
The 103-page AFL-CIO petition runs through an array of statistical analyses to come up with its figure of 727,000 displaced American manufacturing jobs. But its foremost achievement may be to encapsulate the vast literature that describes the part-feudal, part-communist labor system in which Chinese peasants must labor when they go to work in China's export-sector factories. Under China's hukou system of household registration, citizens must live and work in the place where they are permanently registered, normally their place of birth. Every household is designated as rural or urban, a distinction on which a caste system has been erected.

Urban workers are free to apply for and leave jobs; they are entitled to state housing and pensions. Rural workers, however, need state permission to seek work in towns and factories. Once employed, they enter a bonded-labor arrangement in which they cannot quit unless they can pay their employer an amount plainly beyond their means. The hukou system forbids them to compete with urban workers for higher-paying jobs, and migrant workers without jobs are subject to arrest by the state's public security bureau.

Meyerson goes on to note:

Critics will doubtless call the AFL-CIO "protectionist" for filing this petition. And if it's protectionist to demand that millions of Chinese women have the right to leave their jobs and apply for better ones, or to unionize their workplace or be allowed at least one day off a year, if it's protectionist to demand that U.S. workers not lose their jobs because they cannot work as cheaply as these repressed Chinese workers, then the AFL-CIO should absolutely plead guilty. What I'd like to hear from the critics -- and from George W. Bush -- is why they're protecting the deal between U.S. corporations and China's neo-Stalinist state to extract profits for them both at the expense of tens of millions of desperate young women.

Imagine! The temerity of this guy for asking such questions! - I gotta figure the Bush's response will be that he's trying to foment class war.

China's Workers -- and Ours
(registration required)

Hurray, Comments R' Us

Last night I got the comments/trackback features working (thank you Halo Scan). Don't reckon there will be a whole lot of traffic in the immediate future. Nevertheless, I genuinely like the idea of two way communication, and have great respect for the net and bloggerdom as potential counterpart to increasing political/media concentration and trivialization.

A tad bit about my intro to the blog: Its of fairly recent vintage. About a month ago when the furor was rising about Bush's valiant (or lack of) service in the National Guard, it seemed that much of the impetus was being generated by bloggers, and that the press went beyond stenography only when sufficient energy and info was available from folks who really did investigate things sometimes. I was interested in this because I think it really epitomizes the con job to which Americans are being subjected. And some of the best sources of info were sites like Kevin Drum's "Calpundit" and Billmon's "Whiskey Bar."

Beyond that, however, I've always believed in an empowered citizenry as the best check against the emergence of tyranny, and "blogs" seem to provide one such opportunity. While much political blogging takes place within a limited echo chamber, sometimes that chamber gets to rattling so, that the powers that be and their little courtiers have to take notice. So I'll just throw my two cents in occasionally and hope it contributes to the making of some waves.

Most of the stuff here will be oriented to politics, economy and the environment but I'm also a music fan (classical, bluegrass, Folk, Blues, ...), organic gardener and believer in sustainability. I definitely have progressive proclivities, and strongly support efforts toward social justice; physical, mental and spiritual health; and planetary well-being. And I think that these goals are often complementary, but that they are also being dangerously undermined in the current corporatist and even militarist political milieu. Nevertheless, I call things as I see them regardless of political correctness. Well that's enough bio for now.
Best,

The Spanish Vote

The tragedy in Spain, like that of 9/11, is one which imparts the feeling that words must inevitably fall short in expressing grief and sorrow for the victims, and outrage at the use of violence and terror as political tools.


The elections there, however, I believe, point the way to a better and more hopeful way of dealing with the problem of terrorism. Many spin it as a cut and run sort of thing. Folks were scared of Al Queda, and voted against the Popular Party which supported Bush's Iraq venture, because of fear. They thus made it likely that AQ will learn a lesson and try it again. I don't think that's really the case here, though. AQ will certainly exploit any opportunities they can find - but that would be their direction regardless of the outcome.

Personally I'd have been a lot more concerned if the Spaniards had chosen the PP after those guys so blatantly attempted to turn the bombings to their own purposes. By now its clear that the War on Iraq didn't have anything to do with the war on terror, and the Spaniards knew that from the begining - millions of them demonstrated against their country's partipation. This war seems more and more to have been something of a cross between a bush family obsession and a formative exercise in creating the New World Order as envisioned by the guys at Program for a New American Century (PNAC), e.g. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz. Their goal, at its best, seems something likea 21st century global version of the Holy Alliance (after the Napoleonic wars), when the major emperors decided to have their countries work together for the purpose of upholding the creed and prerogatives of autocracy. Only this time, we have "holy" George playing the Czar in defense of the corporatist creed. Democracy, as Haiti shows, is clearly a trivial concern to the new "alliance".

Now, however, the guts of the "coalition" is down largely to the three Bs, Bush, Blair and Berlusconi, all pretty nasty characters (even if not at the level of Sadaam). If the Spanish election makes these guys a little more leery about splendid little wars that are clearly unrelated to fighting terrorism, then it might actually be a good thing. No one's saying, don't fight terrorism. There are terrorists out there that will try to exploit any weak link they can find, and they must and will be opposed. But I can think of few things worse for a War on Terrorism (or for our country) than if the WOT just becomes a political campaign event which is used to further other ambitions. Folks in many parts of the world, including Argentina, Chile and Guatemala, have lots of experience with that, none of it very pretty. Ultimately, it will be a ignomious day when citizens let their minds become hostage to terrorists. Because terrorists, just like Bush, envision perpetual war.

For a rude, but funny, and on-target view of Spanish election see Rudepundit

" ...maybe, just maybe, we can spin it this way: Madrid showed what a farce the war on terror is at this point. The well-worn question is what would have happened if we used those billions of dollars to actually go after, well, terrorists. And the Spanish people know this. They opposed us. They opposed the war. And when it came home, they decided, after a stunning show of national unity in the 2 million Spaniard march, to show that democracy means that leaders have to answer for their actions. And if you behave like a crazed megalomaniac with no concern for the will of the people, then the people have a right to dump said megalomaniac on the street.

Watchout, the Mud's Aflyin' Already
(And its not even Spring!)

Actually, I think a bit more of Kerry after his "most crooked ...lying group I've ever seen" blurb, referring to the GOP (though it might be a bit of an understatement). Even more after his refusal to apologize. Looks like he'll come out fighting. And what the heck is wrong with a little bit of truth in campaigning - Bushwatch has a fine compendium of Bush lies here if there's any need for confirmation.

What the GOP seems to be doing is test marketing different kinds of ads to see what will work best in the further down the road, e.g., throw everything out there and see what sticks. But with jobs, economy and education probably somewhat off limits as positive GOP themes (for not unobvious reasons), and even 9/11 rather iffy (see 9/11 Images Said Inappropriate by Voters and Bush Might Be Questioned Longer by 9/11 Commission ), their options may be limited to the "security" blanket. This may or may not backfire on them. But it would sure seem that Kerry could increase their vulnerability by using ads with anti-bush security people, such as Generals Clark, Zinni, or former Sen. Sam Nunn, and asking Americans if they really believe that the man on whose watch the greatest breach of American security ever took place is really the best person to count on to protect American security..

Another Example of bush's Steady 9/11 Leadership

NYC Residents Sue EPA For Lying After 9/11
New York City workers and residents are suing the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to protect people from the poor air quality in the days and weeks following the World Trade Center attacks, accusing then-EPA head Christine Todd Whitman of "a shockingly deliberate indifference to human health."

The claim is that White House pressures were exerted to spread misinformation. Unfortunately, I can't say I am surprised. Nevertheless, what this reminds me of is how close these Bushit(e)s really are to the Soviet style approach to crisis management. Remember Chernobyl before it couldn't be hid? I very much regret that news like this so often doesn't make it to NPR.

Now It's Official - Even GAO Finds Bush Misleading America

GAO Finds Bush Medicare Ads Misleading
"Campaign for America's Future Co-director Roger Hickey today demanded that television networks pull President Bush's Medicare ads off the air because the General Accounting Office found them misleading. The General Accounting Office Wednesday said that the Bush Administration's $22 million taxpayer-funded campaign to sell its new prescription drug law to the public misrepresents benefits millions of people will receive.

GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa said President Bush's Medicare advertisements are flawed by “omissions and other weaknesses,” use a “political tone,” and can be considered “an attempt to persuade the public to the administration's point of view."

Study: Obesity Epidemic Killing Americans
(reported here).

Seems to me that the paradox of an increasingly obesogenic society, (hitting kids the hardest), in tandem with rising poverty and unemployment (and productivity), points out with dead-eyed irony the ultimate fallacy of supply side economics. However, don't count on classical economists to get it until the next major business/political cycle.

"A separate report by the Rand think tank, meanwhile, found that increases in obesity threaten to erase improvements in health among middle-age and older Americans. At current rates, health care spending on obesity among people 50 to 69 years old is expected to increase by 50 percent by 2020, the study said.

Americans' fast-food lifestyle, increased use of computers and a decline in school physical education programs all were cited by Thompson and other officials as factors contributing to the nation's fat problem. Two out of three adults and 9 million children are overweight or obese, they said."
And yet,
"Bush administration is seeking to cut funding for the VERB campaign, a CDC project to promote physical activity among 9-to-13-year-olds, from $36 million this year to $5 million in 2005. ...the program has resulted in a 30 percent increase in exercise among those children. "

Lets all celebrate with some more GMOs.

Of Polls and Press
The newest polls look good for Kerry. Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that bushco will run a Nixon-type attack campaign, and it remains to be seen how well those numbers hold up. I doubt the press will get too undomesticated unless the polls show anti-bush landslide
and it is way too early to count on this (or the polls at this stage). I hope Dems follow a strategy of instant response - any time any charge smelling of GOP is made, there should be virtually automatic response - one that shows why the charge is (wrong, politics, a lie, hypocritical, whatever), and then counterattack. Slam, Bam, thank you Sir. Not pretty, but it has to be out there because there's undoubtedly gonna be alot coming in fast, and whatever sticks, true or not, gets in the picture.
Kerry folks seem to realize this and are making good efforts, but currently they are not yet quick nor comprehensive enough. Hopefully, they'll catch their stride.
There's interesting article by Fairness and Accuracy In Media (FAIR)
GOP Rhetoric on Kerry's Voting Record Goes Unchallenged

I'd not be surprised if this sets the pattern.

Come home Baby Doc

Bushco has helped to rid Haiti of that nasty dictator Aristide (Haiti's first democratically elected President). Seems like true believers in democracy are relieved. ''I'm shocked ! Shocked! by the situation my country is in,'' quoth the son of the reknowned Papa Doc Duvalier, as he expressed his hope to return to the land he and his father led with such democratic benevolence. (emphasis added)

Thanks alot George

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, stepping into the politically charged debate over Social Security, said Wednesday the country can't afford the retirement benefits promised to baby boomers and urged Congress to trim them.

He said that unless Congress acts, soaring budget deficits from out-of-control entitlement programs could lead to a "very debilitating" rise in interest rates in coming years Reuters

Environment and Security

First the pentagon finds Global Warming may be as great a threat as terrorism
"Guardian version"

Then the GAO discovers the vulnerability of industrialized agriculture.

"U.S. officials worry al Qaeda may be plotting an attack against U.S. agriculture or food supplies, from importing a killer livestock disease to poisoning food products or supermarket produce.
The food supply is at risk. This is not an idle threat," said Lawrence Dyckman, head of the natural resources and environment section of the U.S. General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
"planet ark"

I have to wonder if this kind of news affects how the cons feel about environmental issues. Seems they're kind of caught between their own hammer and anvil - the Pentagon and national security concerns they exploit undermine the ideology they uphold.

Just starting folks, will be set in a week or two hopefully