An Analogy
Magic Eight Balls are a lot like Politicians. You have to take several shakes at them to get a definite answer and every time you shake them you get a different answer.
Recently President Bush outlined his tactical plan for Iraq,
I would like to let Indian Nucks rear their head one more time.
You see India is a reasonably stable democratic country with proper English common law and a proper English judiciary, so its very tempting to just quietly ignore the Bush administration's efforts to reduce international oil consumption by providing India with nuclear power. But a leading, not so lefty, bastion of conservative thought, The Economist magazine recently ran an editorial regarding India's nuclear expansion.
Of grave concern, to The Economist, is not the fact that India will have new nuclear power, they already have limited power generating potential, nor that India will have new nuclear know-how, rather the main concern is that the Bush administration is lowering the bar, the Non Proliferation Treaty had severed the World reasonably well because the signers of the treaty had all abided by its terms and conditions. However that treaty is now at its breaking point, weakened by a short-sighted President. To paraphrase Thomas Moore in the movie A Man For All Seasons when you cut down the trees that make up the forest of laws what will protect you when the wind blows?
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
I have a confession to make, I think that there is one major foreign policy issue that the Bush administration is handling properly. Do I speak of the forth coming civil war in Iraq? Of course not. Trade with China? Not a chance. Trade with Canada? Don't make me laugh. In fact I speak of Iran. At first glance it appears that the Bush administration has done an iffy to satisfactory job of using diplomacy in the Iran portfolio.
This is not a full throated defense of The President, far from it, The Clinton administration did an outstanding job of keeping a lid on Iran's nuclear ambition. By comparison the Bush administration, through Powel and Rice has been an amateur attempt at repeating the success of an earlier master, Albright under Clinton.
Boy do I miss the 90s.
At least Bush, or Rice, or whoever is calling the shots, has had the brains to try to keep the World powers united on this issue. Working with Russia, England, France and Germany to say to Iran, 'stop this craziness' is a lot better than the stupid "you are either with us, or against us [as we a lead a collation of the Poodles - willing... right... willing - into a repeat of Vietnam.]"
The Iranian nuclear program must be put to an end and with great haste. Sadly I fear that diplomacy alone is not enough and the use of arms may have horrifying repercussions that may change the World we all live in long after Bush and the Ayatollahs. are all dead and gone.
Other news on the Nuclear front is India. What kind of idiotic program is this? We give a Nuclear power (India) who is sharing a flashpoint border (Kashmir) with another Nuclear power (Pakistan), nuclear technology, in return India gives us, wait for it... Mangos!
I don't know where to begin! On Lou Dobbs on Tuesday night, March 7, a viewer wrote in to say something to the effect of: "I am a computer engineer with a Masters degree. My job was outsourced to India. Maybe now I can get a job pealing Mangos."
Here is another thought. Lets suppose the United States sells the Pressurized Water Reactor design to India, further lets suppose India pays General Electric (the designers of the PWR reactor) to build a bunch of reactors. Now the PWR needs enriched Uranium, so the United States sells enriched Uranium to India. Well Indian bomb makers can give the Americans a big juicy kiss, the Uranium is now closer to weapons grade than the stuff the Indian bomb makers get when they go crawling around in mines. (Uranium in the ground is less than 1% U235, PWR grade Uranium is about 3-4% U235, Nuclear weapons use something near 80-90% U235.) Certainly going from 3% enriched to 90% is hard, but going from 1% to 90% is an awful lot harder!
Okay maybe India decides to use a heavy water reactor like we have in Canada, after all our CANDU design does not need enriched Uranium. Oh whoops, the waste can still be chemically separated to extract the weapons grade plutonium. So much for nuclear proliferation.
India has promised to keep their nuclear power program separated from their nuclear weapons program. The thing is that a nuclear reactor worker knows the nuts and bolts of a nuclear power plant, what happens when your $50,000 a year power plant worker is offered a job at a weapons plant for $60,000 a year? More to the point, when the National Security is at stake, countries have a way of lying about their intentions.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
- Albert Einstein
It seems to me that events transpire so fast that before I even get to transcribe them new events take place that make the old ones seem small by comparison.
First I would like to propose a new commercial which I think the DNC should air later this year when the election craziness starts to really spin up.
| AUDIO | VIDEO |
|---|---|
| Professional Voice: "Compassionate?" | Black screen with large white letters centered: "Compassionate?" |
| Silence | Then show pictures (maybe just one really awful picture?) of the dead and dying outside of New Orleans Superdome just after Hurricane Katrina. |
| Professional Voice: "Conservative?" | Show a headline, preferably from the Wall Street Journal, that reads something like: 'Budget deficit to exceed $500 billion for FY 2004.' Or something along those lines. |
| Start of POTUS saying line in speech ideally something along the lines of: "This is the end of..." | Show the big 'Mission Accomplished' sign the White House operatives put up on the Abraham Lincoln when Bush gave his end to major combat operations in Iraq. |
| Continuation of above: "...major combat operations in Iraq." | Recent footage of the bombing and insurgency in Iraq. |
| Speech of POTUS ground zero shortly after 9/11: "We heard from you, now..." | POTUS at Ground Zero making speech. |
| Continuation of above: "...you will hear from us." | Picture of a large port |
| Voice over of Lou Dobbs, or Rep. Peter King going on about the horrors of the Dubai Port deal. | Unchanged picture of a large port. |
| POTUS: "They misunderestimated me." | Bush at Bentonville Ark. (if they have video of it, otherwise just the black screen with white letters, large print, "They misunderestimated me." |
| Professional Voice: "No he mis-over-estimated you!" | Picture or video of Osama Bin Laden. |
On a related aside, what the *&#@! Is up with the Dubai port deal? I mean it really is small potatos next to some of the other policies coming from 1600 Pensylvia Avenue these days. I understand that people are pissed about it, but why aren't people as pissed about, oh, all the illegal aliens that are prancing across the border or the situation in Iraq, or the steady deterioration of the US Economey or any number of other major problems aflicting the US?
Actually, now that I think about it, I do understand, people see this as something the Bush administration was supposed to appear strong on - putting an end to the terrorism come hell or high water. After all Bush kept telling people about those dirty damn Arabs and the threat, yellow today, orange tomorrow and light mauve with green accents on Monday, of a terrorist strike. Now Bush wants to sell the ports to those same terrorists. I guess no shocker there, I just wish people would start thinking instead of doing this silly knee jerk reaction crap. It is not healthy.
I regret that I no longer have the letter, which I actually gave to the online Globe and Mail in the comments section. However I have something I emailed in to CNN's Louis Dobbs, imgaine if they quote me there, eh!
After your interview, last night with Dr. Hansen it occurred to me. America has not only the worst port security the UAE can buy, but the worst Environmental Policy Haliburton and the Fossil Fuel Industry can buy. But at least you still have the best government money can buy! (Too bad its a rich person's only club.)
So I am sitting on a train returning to Toronto after a business trip to Montreal, the planning and implementation of upgrades in Montreal is my excuse for not lambasting the Bush administration lately.
I would like to veer off Bush for a moment and lament the sorry state of transportation in Canada, particularly the government owned rail service. Why on Earth didn’t I fly? Here I am stuck, for more than five hours, if unlikely as this one sounds, the train is on schedule, in first class, that for an airline would be called a very turbulent business class. Would someone explain to me why trains that are on shiny smooth rails cannot roll smoothly? Holly smokes most flights to China are smoother than this!
In other news, the Danish cartoons. Yes insulting religious figures or symbols is wrong, some of the guys in the office don’t seem to have much respect for my, admittedly weak religious beliefs, and I bare a silent offence to their words. But I don’t stage violent riots burn consulates and embassies or advocate killing people. (And you should see some of the anti-Jewish cartoons in Arabic papers!)
Anyway recently the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, a Professor of Engineering at Waterloo University (I am embarrassed to say I did my B. Math, Computer Science there) one Mohamed Elmasry said that insulting people’s religions is not "in line" with Canadian ideals, Canadian are recognized for their polite rejection of the Danish cartoons, and as a result Muslims in Canada had remained reasonably passive during this entire embarrassment to their religion.
Elmasry provoked me so I submitted a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail which, when you see the letter you will see why, was never printed. As the lousy train I am on lacks Internet Access I will have to add the letter later since I type this post in a word processor and upload when I get home. So look for the letter in a later post. What I should say before I publish the letter is just over a year ago the same Professor did profess on Canadian national television that the killing of Israelis over the age of 17 was acceptable because they are all drafted into the Israeli army and after a certain age they become reservists. He was given several chances on the same T.V. show where he made this remark to recant or otherwise retract his statement. But our daring professor of engineering needed several days to decide that advocating killing people might not be such a wise thing to do. (I am sure the fact the University had to threaten to revoke his tenure was no small part of his decision to utter a very forced, and rather lame apology.)
Well from blasting the left, lets blast the right a little bit.
The Cheney shooting: I am elated to see the White House press corps has discovered a backbone, now would someone explain to them that bashing poor Scottie does not make for good television. Why not do some bashing of Georgie on you know, what do you call those things… oh right, issues of some, any, national importance! I have given up on the Democrats "Republican lite" doing their job, but obviously the press has a backbone lets see it put to some use!
Here in Canada former Harvard professor Michael Ignatieff, and Iraq war advocate is going to make a run for leader of the Liberal party of Canada. And yes, he is a liberal. Although you will find no hard evidence that at one time I too supported war in Iraq, unlike Ignatieff, I honestly believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I believed that the reason weapons inspectors had not found anything was because of a very careful program of mass deception. Now that Saddam is in jail, Iraq is in Chaos and there are clearly no WMD – more to the point that there was a systematic denial of good intelligence to that effect by the Whitehouse and the Neo Conservatives in defense – I can say with no small humility that I was very wrong. I believed, foolishly, that for once George Bush was telling the truth, and for that I am wrong. It turns out Jean Chretien was correct, so was, heaven forbid, Jacque Chirac, what is the World coming to?
The difference between myself and Ignatieff, besides my lack of interest in leader of the Liberals? My support was modest and unconvinced that it was the right thing to do, at all. Ignatieff was a strong supporter of the war through and through.
Lets do a benefits analysis on this war and see how it turned out.
Projected cost: "next to nothing" Actual cost: Projections vary, I have seen some as low as $86 Billion to $100 Billion per year, (as of writing this post it is over $240 Billion, or about $9 Billion per month according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) but this fails to account for the vast number of veterans benefits to be paid out, the huge cost to America’s security from the new terrorist breeding ground. I have seen estimates that fall between one and two Trillion dollars!
International Reputation of the United States, Projected: "soldiers will be greeted with gifts and flowers". Actual: The US reputation is in taters, no one believes The President, American foreign policy seems more than ever a mindless purist of oil, the "insurgency" which I think would be better titled "rebellion" gains strength with the passage of each month.
Meanwhile the United States enjoys the highest budget deficit in history, the largest total debt ever. The US economy shocked by the ravages of Hurricanes in the summer and ice storms in the winter (whose damage has yet to be fully analyzed) is clearly in for more grief as is obvious from Global Warming. I might further point out that Global Warming is in such evidence that the only people who deny it are 24 year-old, college drop out, NASA Public Relation Bush appointees. Hey I have a Masters of Engineering, can Bush make me a Senior Engineer in charge of stealing all the money from Haliburton?
As for international trade the United States is being whipped by the Worlds largest cheap labour force, the Chinese. Thanks to such ludicrous pandering to certain lobby groups in the United States, soft lumber anyone? Many countries like Canada are looking to sell commodities, like – oh I don’t know, oil - to China instead of making favourable agreements with a country we used to call our best friend. Meanwhile the Bush administration watches and makes periodic noises about an over expensive Chinese RMB without taking the politically necessary if painful step of imposing tariffs and requiring proper labour and environmental standards from Chinese companies, before granting access to the US market place.
Of course the borders of the United states, an obvious point for infiltration by terrorists, particularly the Southern border (I’d like to think us Canadians can police our own borders properly) has a striking resemblance to Swiss Cheese if Louis Dobbs is to be believed.
My standing question to anyone who calls themselves Republican is, how can you?
Yet if we consider the American response to this, it is as if Canada elected George Walker Bush. Now even if our new Prime Minister were as conservative as Bush, he is not, consider, of the roughly fourteen million eight hundred thousand people who cast a ballot more people voted for supporters of Gay Marriage than voted for supporters of cuts to the hated Goods and Services Tax, by a ratio of almost two to one.
A real shift to the right Canada took today!
More relevant, I wrote on January 4 2006 that the conservatives would form a minority government. well lets see if there is anyone willing to govern with them!
My next prediction, this government will be more unstable than the last, it will take a lot of work to hold it together for one year. If the government manages to last eighteen months or more it will be quite a display of management prowess on the part of Prime Minister Harper. At its dissolution, depending on the qualities Harper displays will determine the outcome. I give a 75% of a Liberal minority, wasting time with a GST cut or trying to end Gay Marriage is going to bog the conservatives down in silly things and it will explode in their face.
On an unrelated point, I just finished Worse Than Watergate by John W. Dean, I would like to quote from it: Indeed, this [Bush] administration is surely Osama bin Laden's dream team, given its governing techniques. (Page 194)
I am going to China tomorrow, I will try to stay on top of things from there.
So the annual presidential State of the Union address is to take place on January 31, sadly I will be in China when the bumbling half whit known as King George upholds the constitution. (Okay I admit, he's not a bumbling half whit, he's a pretty clever guy - in a evil and deceitful way - he just happens to bumble a lot).
So how will King George uphold the constitution? Well lets take a look, first I would like to point out something I learned from the current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, "The legislative branch is in Article I of the Constitution; the executive branch in Article II. That is not an accident." I have to admit I never really paid much heed to that sort of thing, until I stumbled up that non-Rumsfeldesqe wisdom. But lets consider The Constitution of these United States: Article II section 3. [reads in part]He [That's the President, i.e. King George] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. Funny thing about that, when the third President Of The United States, one Thomas Jefferson, was in charge, Jefferson felt, unlike his predecessors, Washington and Adams, that rather than make a large ceremony of his constitutional duty he would deliver a note to the Congress which would then have to read his note. Jefferson was no big fan of presidential power and no doubt had to wrestle with his conscious before making the Louisiana purchase. If I am not mistaken the delivering of a speech to congress was not resumed until the twentieth century. In fact, it was not until 1857 that the president even had a staff, imagine, if the civil war had happened just ten years earlier Lincoln would have just been the guy in who lived in a house down the street from the congress. (Yes he would have had constitutional duties, but its hard to imagine Lincoln running the civil war without some sort of staff.) I would like to consider a different section of the same Article II: Article II section 2. [reads in part] He [The president, i.e. Slime Ball George] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Recently the Junior Senator from New York, and former first lady, Hillary Clinton compared the treatment of The Representatives by The Whitehouse to the treatment of a slave owner towards his slaves. I do not condone the Senator's comparison, slave owners committed unspeakable horrors upon their slaves, but the ideas behind Senator Clinton's remarks are worth further consideration. Recently a very respected, decorated war veteran and congressman, John Murtha, had his integrity challenged by the same conservative "ditto-heads" who questioned the three purple hearts of the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kerry when he ran for president in 2004. I will not, by quoting here, humor the sick individuals who are so despicable as to slam patriots because they have no other way to achieve their goals, rather I will just point out that anyone who risks life and limb by serving in a far off land and then returns home and remains in elected office gets a lot more respect from me than some Texas Air National guard AWOL cannot run a business anywhere other than into the ground lost the election in 2000 and stole it in 2004 son-of-a-bush. Finally, Article II section 1. [reads in part] "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-- I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This from January 10, 2006 ABC news: Russell Tice, a longtime insider at the National Security Agency, is now a whistleblower the agency would like to keep quiet.It had been my hope to update this blog on a daily basis however I do have a day job which has been consuming so much of my time that in recent weeks I just have not had time for daily updates. I will make an effort to make at least three entries a week, but even that may prove difficult.
In any event, I had been planning to discuss a book by John W. Dean, former Counsel to President Richard Nixon, Worse Than Watergate and how the unelected current resident of the Whitehouse and his excessive secrecy is the worst example of mismanagement in the 230 years of American History. I would like to put that discussion on hold for a few days and instead consider something else briefly.
According to a Republican Lobbyist, "On the ethics stuff, there's nothing Bush can do. He has no control. But what he can control and needs to work on is the war."
How well is the war going?
"If the War in Iraq and our continued large military presence was actually succeeding in driving a stake into the heart of Al Qaeda, the terrible loss of life and limb and the quarter of a trillion dollars we have spent in Iraq to date would be worth it. But I believe that President George H.W. Bush's National Security Advisor, General Brent Scowcroft, was right when he observed that the way we are handling the War in Iraq is 'feeding' terrorism, not eliminating it. Our heavy military presence in Iraq is the single most important reason our radical enemies have been able to recruit fresh new suicide bombers and terrorists and garner a measure of support from the Iraqi people. Even by the administration's own numbers, our current policy is creating as many or more terrorists than it is eliminating. It is simply not working." - Representative Jack Murtha.
Or how about this Murtha quote:
"It is time to 'change the course' of our Iraqi policy. It is time to wage an effective war against international terrorism. The American people know it. It is time for the administration and the Congress to catch up with them."
I like Jack Murtha.
There has been much talk lately about a Washington Lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. I would like to quote directly from, transcripts.cnn.com, an interview on Late Edition on January 8 2006 between Wolf Blitzer and Howard Dean, DNC chairman.
BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?
DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.
BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...
BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.
Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, always speaking out bluntly, candidly.
Appreciate your joining us on "Late Edition."
DEAN: Thanks, Wolf. Safe flight back.
BLITZER: Thank you very much.
The Republicans, the party that will bring integrity back to Washington and the Whitehouse.
So what does all of this have to do with the fact that the Thief-in-Chief is spying on Americans? Well consider that King Bush has said his spy program was, constantly reviewed by Justice Department officials. Senator Byron Dorgan took money from American Indian (First Nations to us Canadians) tribes. Jack Abramoff's biggest clients were also American Indian.
So what's the commonality? Using half baked semantics the Republicans are hoping to dismiss charges that they spy and that they are as crooked as Nixon... oh wait a minute Nixon was a Republican!
You see being constantly reviewed suggests that after informing Justice Department officials, those officials conceded that this was all hunkey dorey. In fact even John 'let the eagle sore, I detest personal freedoms, except for the right to bare a big frikin gun' Ashcroft had serious reservations about the spy ring in the NSA. Well Jack Abramoff's biggest clients gave to Senator Dorgan, but we cannot interpret this to mean that Abramoff gave to Dorgan. This sort of implication of wrong doing, it stinks and the fact that it is the primary Republican defense, tells you more about the integrity of the Republicans than it tells you about the integrity of anybody else.
It had been my intention today to lambaste Bill O'Reilly; he recently appeared on Letterman and did the usual, i.e. repeat Republican talking points, loudly, and try to out-shout the other guy. It certainly did not help little Billy much that he could not control the forum. Of course poor little Billy's inability to control the discussion and yell at Letterman pretty much ensured that the truth, delivered in the form of a popular talk show host, would prevail. Just because it is so much fun to watch Letterman give it to Billy, I'd like to quote a little bit:
O'Reilly: Let's stop with the lying... and the undermining... our philosophy is, we call it as we see it...
Letterman: Well, and you should be very careful with what you say also...
O'Reilly: I believe she [Cindy Sheehan] is run by far left elements in this country, I feel bad for the woman.
Letterman: Have you lost family members in armed conflict?
O'Reilly: No I have not.
Letterman: Well then you can hardly speak for her then can you?...
O'Reilly: I am not speaking for her...
Letterman: Why are we there in the first place?... I agree... we have to support the troops... however that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of why the hell are we there to begin with?
O'Reilly: If you want to question that and then revamp an intelligence agency that is obviously flawed, the CIA, but remember M1-6 [sic. MI-6, as in Mission Impossible - 6, not Mission One - 6] in Britain said the same thing...
Letterman: But then that makes it alright?... I am very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan honest to Christ...
O'Reilly: No way you're gonna get me, no way that a terrorist who blows up woman and children...
Letterman: You have children?
O'Reilly: Yes I do, I have a son that's the same age as yours... No way a terrorist that blows up woman and children is gonna be called a freedom fighter on my program.
Letterman: I am not smart enough to debate you point to point on this... but I have the feeling about 60% of what you say is crap.
So like I said I was going to lambaste Bill O'Reilly, but David "I am not smart enough to debate you" Letterman did the dirty work for me, thanks David. If only Letterman had used letters instead of T.V., damned transcribing took me two days, that is why I kept omitting stuff.
I would like to explore the Bush spy scandal some more in the days to come. In particular I would like to reply to these common Repulsive talking points:
I am sure that in the days to come there will be more Repugnant talking points to refute, but in the mean time, check out that former bastion of conservatism, Arianna Huffington, in the Huffington Post, in particular her blog entry from January 4, 2006 titled: Debunking Bush's NSA Lies: A Handy Pocket Guide.
It had been my plan to rant for at least several more weeks on the Particular crime of warrant-free wiretaps, a-la King Bush. However I have realized that:
First a quick review of the second point. Yes it is almost a year until the congressional midterms of 2006, but consider, in January 1994 we knew that the Dems were gonna be in big trouble. In January 1996 we all knew Bill was gonna cream Dole. In 1998, who cared, the stock market was booming! In 2000 we all knew Al Gore was going to win, of course it turns out that getting enough votes does not a winner make. In 2002 we knew that Brain of Slime, Karl Rove would win and as we all knew by January 2004, Diebold would hand the election to Thief-In-Chief Chenny and his right hand fool, Son of a Bush. So no, a week is not a lifetime in politics, rather a week of politics is worse than a lifetime of drudgery, except possibly for Matt Drudge, what a jerk huh?
On the Canadian side, consider, 1993 = Liberal, 1997 = Liberal, 2000 = Liberal (I think I am seeing a trend here), 2004 = Liberal, 2006, my big prediction, Conservative, barely (but it might be a very modest Liberal, although I give Harper a 60% chance), 19 days before the election. So lets see if a week really is a life time.
So today very briefly I'd like to discuss, in contravention of my first point, more violations of the Fourth Amendment. In today's Boston Globe under the headline, Bush could bypass new torture ban with a subheading: Waiver right is reserved we learn that through a sneaky loophole, Bush will still be allowed, like any good tyrant to torture people.
Remember all the hubbub Senator McCain (R) Arizona made about the United States not using torture. King Bush did not like that and lobbied congress really hard not to pass the torture ban, he even threatened to use the veto to stop the ban. Poor King Bush, congress passed the ban with a veto proof majority. So the king restored to plan B, he wrote a "signing statement" that says basically "I interpret this document to mean complete and total BS. Further I will torture whenever and whoever the hell I feel like it." (That gives me a great idea when my mortgage comes up for renewal!)
The Washington Director for Human Rights Watch, Elisa Massimino had this to say:
The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch. Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view.
This from the same administration that wants to spy on American's. Mister Bush, we all support the troops (why anyone would waste their hard-earned saying what we all believe anyway with a stupid bumper sticker is beyond me.) Mister Bush, we all want to see America win the war on terror and remain the great democracy that it was until November of 2000. That said, stop questioning the patriotism of liberals, its disgusting.
Tomorrow I promise, some slamming of Bill O'Liely, he was on Letterman recently and Letterman called Bill a lier. I like David Letterman.
I promise there will be a new Blog entry, probably a studied refutation of King Bush's claim that his little spy game is in some way not a criminal act. In the mean time, check out my solution to North America's Energy Needs sadly this might upset the Saudis and Halliburton a tiny bit so I don't think Dick 'President in an undisclosed location' Cheney will approve.
Grumble!
For an entire day King Bush has managed to keep himself out of enough trouble that I have not really noticed any new sins of the son. But it seems even Conservative Republicans and I agree on something, an online poll on the Wall Street Journal (not exactly a bastion of Liberal thought) showed that 62% of those who bothered to vote answered "No" to: Would you feel more vulnerable to terrorism if the Patriot Act expires? I found this poll while reading an article on the same rightist rag, under the title Wiretap Furor Widens Republican Divide In today's Wall Street Journal.
I would like to thank the Democrats for discovering their backbone and the few Republicans who have discovered sanity, at least enough sanity to say no to the Patriot Act. Now maybe consider this wild idea, Impeach the King!
Note there will probably be no new entires to this Blog until after the new year.
The sins of the Bush administration deepen. While the Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales tells us "that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States." Today's (Dec 21 2005) New York Times reports that there has been at least one purely domestic call that was intercepted. It seems that in the Kingdom of the United States, or should I say the Kingdom of Bush, the commoners no longer have freedom of privacy. The old ideals of English common law have been thrown out in favour of Bush common law.
It would seem to me that The Bush Law asserts that all men are created equal, unless they are not White, Christian Republicans, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Guns, Death Penalty and BS vote counting machines. - That to secure these rights, Bush has been instituted to govern Men, depriving them of their just powers to consent to be governed. And don't even try to talk about abolishing this Administration, such talk is treason and we'll be sure to sick Bill O'Reilly on you!
Meanwhile have you heard what an outstanding job King Bush did giving the Iraqis the vote? In today's Independent under the heading Iraq's election result: a divided nation. We are given an opener: Iraq is disintegrating. Further down we find:
The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq... Islamic fundamentalist movements are even more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities.
Would someone please remind me, the reason Bush got re-elected? Oh right, he lost the first election. okay the reason Bush defeated Kerry? Oh right, Diabold.
Mister Jefferson you screwed up, your wonderful experiment was defeated. Well I guess it is not such a bad mistake, the experiment did work for the first 200 odd years.
So I continue to read more and more about the abuses of power committed by King Veto, no not the real King Veto, Andrew Jackson has been dead for a good hundred fifty years by now. I mean the other King Veto, I guess we should call him King Bush (truth is I am not sure if King Bush has ever exercised his power with the Veto, but no matter, he still thinks himself a king not a president.)
King Bush said yesterday, "Consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorize the interception of international communications of people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations..." Only we know, (see my post from December 19 below) that it is totally not consistent with the Constitution to intercept communications. Of course I am no lawyer, but hey lets get a legal experts opinion: "He has no legs to stand on," said Michael Greenberger, a constitutional expert at the University of Maryland. "Bush is waving a bloody flag to try and confuse people... they have all the legal weapons they need to fight terrorism, this is a totally needless program".
It's not as if King Bush is doing a particularly good job with the tools already available to him. From the Los Angeles Times:
The commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks issued a harsh report card Monday [December 5, 2005] on the federal government's efforts to shore up defenses and protect the nation against future terrorist strikes.
"While the terrorists are learning and adapting, our government is still moving at a crawl,"said Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who served as chairman of the Sept. 11 panel. "Four years after 9/11, we are not as safe as we could be, and that's simply not acceptable."
Oops!
"To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and people expect us to protect them and protect their civil liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to continue doing my job." No King Bush, don't you remember, on January 20 2001 you swore to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, that is your job that is what you have failed to do from day one. And its not as if you would have forgotten, you had that reminder on January 20, 2005.
Osama Bin Laden knows, he cannot ever destroy the United States, it is too big, and too powerful. However he can terrorize the United States into a place where it self destructs. Put another way "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." (Former elected president FDR.)
Americans should not be afraid of what goes on in public, what they should fear is what takes place in secret. The greatest threat to liberty lurks in secrecy, by men of good means who lack understanding. Sorry I got that wrong!
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Last night the President Of The United States (POTUS), or as I like to think of him, the Thief-In-Chief, George Walker Bush gave a speech from the Oval Office. Gone were the annoying slogans printed behind POTUS and the hand picked audience, it was Dubbya trying to act presidential.
Quick the biggest difference between FDR and GWB? FDR had compassion. Or how about LBJ and GWB? LBJ did not actually want to get involved in Vietnam, he used to blame all the Harvard Grads for getting him into that damned war. William Jefferson Clinton and GWB? WJC lied about who was going down on him, GWB lied about who was a threat to the national security of the United States. So much for being reminded of the former greatness that used to fill the Oval Office.
In Bush's speech, which I was too sick to watch in its entirety, one thing that I cannot help but pickup was the attitude, still coming from the GOP that it is better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than in the United States. If it were true that all the terrorists are in Iraq than perhaps I would be inclined to agree. But consider, according to a CIA expert whose testimony was reported on the BBC web site on June 16, 2004 (under the heading Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links) "Al-Qaeda... has by no means been defeated and though weakened, it continues to patiently plan its next attacks... They may strike next week, next month or next year but they will strike." The sad fact is, Iraq has been a terrorist recruiting ground, not a terrorist battle field.
As I was working on this entry I discovered that POTUS, Son-of-a-Bush has just declared "Secret wiretaps to continue." In response to those people who would say "I am not a lawyer" Condi Rice, or "consistent with U.S. law" George Walker Bush, I have one thing to say to you:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That's the entire IVth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Consistent with US law? My rear end is more consistent than this Republican claptrap.
So I am going to be trying to keep up some sort of blog, lets see how this goes. Just an advance warning, expect this thing to be two things:
So this evening I saw Good Night and Good Luck the George Clooney take on Edward R. Murrow's battle against the Junior Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph C. McCarthy. The thing that strikes me from that movie is the pathetic and systematic dumbing down of news and society in general. Why did this happen? When Murrow reported there was no fancy special effects, the sound bite had not been invented. You got to see a guy with basically no back drop holding a cigarette reading off news or interviewing some character.
Now there are special effects galore and no actual news. I personally like how on Fox news (yes, blush I have watched Fox news, in my defense I desire to throw large objects at the T.V. after only a few minutes of watching that cess at which point I usually turn off the tube and pick up a good book.) But anyway I like how on Fox news they have "International Coverage" its called 'Around the World in 80 seconds' and it is, as the name implies silly stories of 'Man bites dog' variety, only its 'Man bites dog in town with unpronounceable name in county that the State department has no interest in.'
Obviously T.V. just follows the ratings, does that mean that people are too dumb, or that people want to be treated like morons? Or is it that making Murrow's 30 minute piece just cost too much for CBS? To make a game show cost less than Murrow so toss Murrow and put together some cheap shoddy thing call it "The News" and recover the losses on the Sixty Four Thousand Dollar Question.
Wouldn't that be pathetic?
We have cancelled the 2008 presidential election because it's too expensive, instead we will have a re-run of the Bush vs. Gore 2000 election, and this time my little brother Jeb will make sure that Florida isn't the debacle it was in the first match, or we'll make him sit at the kids table come Thanksgiving!
Back to Michael Cole's letters.