Ahhh, more quality treatment for our veterans:
WCBS:
Former Army Specialist Rodriguez started getting bills for $700 for lost or damaged government property this summer. Although he was discharged some four years ago, bills recently arrived demanding payment, but giving no details on what or why -- nor do they offer a way to dispute the charges.
And he's not alone. A 2006 government report found more than 1,000 soldiers being billed a total of $1.5 million. And while fighting overseas put their lives on the line, this battle on paper could cost them their future by ruining their credit. Rodriguez will be reported to credit agencies next month.
"It makes a terrible point about the nature of military service today," citizen soldier Tod Ensign said.
Ensign is a veteran's advocate. He says this is all part of the military’s push to be run more like a business.
"They'll just pound him and call him, call his employers, and make his life as miserable as they can until he pays up," Ensign said.
Testimony before Congress detailed in a report found that "although unit commanders and finance offices are authorized to write off debts for lost and damaged equipment ... they have not always done so."
Ummmm, What the fuck is that all about? If there is anything that can be classified as the 'cost of war' it's lost and damaged equipment, never mind the human costs...
Excuse me--numb fuck, stone brained looking for any angle to squeeze a buck from any potential source military beaurocrats:
IT'S FUCKING WAR. SHIT GETS BLOWN THE FUCK UP. FUCKING DEAL WITH IT. IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT, DON'T GET INTO A WAR!!
Of course, we know how receptive these folks are to common sense and logic now, don't we?
What's next? Billing widows or parentless children for the cost of a dead soldier's uniform and equipment they had on when they were killed? Maybe billing a Hummer driver's widow for the cost of the vehicle since it was damaged beyond repair by an IED or EFP?
I'm going to stop now before the wrong person stumbles upon this and thinks it's a grand idea and should be implemented yesterday...
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Money for Nothing
Jim Hightower:
By a 244-181 vote in June, our congress critters quietly hiked their own pay, putting them in an income class that exceeds 97 percent of American households. And guess what? Unlike us riff-raff, their pay raise is automatic! Deserve it or not, need it or not, they get this annual boost, unless they choose not to accept it. And, gollies, guess what again? They rarely choose to say no!
Glad to see that a little less than half of the reps. in Congress recognize how ridiculous this is, but it's still not enough...
Worse than the raise – which comes when the majority of Americans are falling behind economically – are the excuses of the congressional leaders. They say the big bucks are necessary to retain experienced lawmakers. Yeah... experienced at raising their own pay, which they've done for seven of the past 10 years. And if you want to hear a truly sad tale, try this: members wail that they have to meet with lobbyists who are paid far more than they are, so they need to narrow the gap to save face.
Ken Boehm of the National Legal and Policy Center:
"Their approval rating is 14 percent," Boehm points out. "That means that 86 percent of the American public thinks they're doing a pretty crummy job. If they were doing an absolutely sterling job -- and everybody knew it -- and working long hours and doing productive stuff and not getting caught stealing and so forth, then you might be able to make an argument about it. But that's hardly the case when their approval rating is [so low]."
In the Spirit of Hill...
By a 244-181 vote in June, our congress critters quietly hiked their own pay, putting them in an income class that exceeds 97 percent of American households. And guess what? Unlike us riff-raff, their pay raise is automatic! Deserve it or not, need it or not, they get this annual boost, unless they choose not to accept it. And, gollies, guess what again? They rarely choose to say no!
Glad to see that a little less than half of the reps. in Congress recognize how ridiculous this is, but it's still not enough...
Worse than the raise – which comes when the majority of Americans are falling behind economically – are the excuses of the congressional leaders. They say the big bucks are necessary to retain experienced lawmakers. Yeah... experienced at raising their own pay, which they've done for seven of the past 10 years. And if you want to hear a truly sad tale, try this: members wail that they have to meet with lobbyists who are paid far more than they are, so they need to narrow the gap to save face.
Ken Boehm of the National Legal and Policy Center:
"Their approval rating is 14 percent," Boehm points out. "That means that 86 percent of the American public thinks they're doing a pretty crummy job. If they were doing an absolutely sterling job -- and everybody knew it -- and working long hours and doing productive stuff and not getting caught stealing and so forth, then you might be able to make an argument about it. But that's hardly the case when their approval rating is [so low]."
In the Spirit of Hill...
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Citadel of Sanity
"The Atlantic and Pacific are our walls. Broad, stout walls. The Citadel of Sanity! If we get in it we'll go bankrupt like the others and lose a couple million of our finest young men."
Ike Lacouture, on why the U.S. should avoid entry into World War II, The Winds of War, by Herman Wouk. The character of Lacouture may have been based on the real life isolationist Senator from Michigan Arthur Vandenberg.
Houston Chronicle, 19 JUL 07:
Construction of a polarizing fence along the Texas-Mexico border is expected to begin by this fall, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff confirmed Wednesday, adding that border communities will be consulted "in terms of style" so the government doesn't "create any eyesores."
Chertoff said he had seen some fencing "that was quite attractive" during his visits along the South Texas border.
"I think I was in Brownsville ... and I saw some very nice fence that was ornamental but it did the trick," he said.
Similar to how effective the isolationist camp's views were in the lead up to the U.S.'s entry into World War II (all Pearl Harbor attack conspiracy theories non withstanding...) border barriers of any kind serve no purpose but to antagonize the nation that didn't build them and make life difficult for the people and other life living on either side of the border on all sorts of levels.
Oh, yeah, it probably won't keep folks from crossing the border in search of work and a better life, either. Despite what some of the commenters on the piece from yesterday had to say:
44mag wrote:
The fence won't solve all the problems on the border, but it will help. The open borders lobby knows this to be true, hence their hysterical opposition - it will ruin the environment, cause flooding, kill livestock, destroy the economy, bankrupt farmers, blah blah blah.
texrob1 wrote:
Build It! It certainly won't hurt anything,all these people claiming the fence will hurt the environment,what about the tens of thousands of Illegal aliens trampling all over the environment? I guess they are careful as they are entering our country Illegally, to not hurt any plants or animals,what a Joke.
sportfanatic wrote:
I want a fence with electricity, just like jurassic park.
Ahhh, I love Texas, just not too fond of some of my fellow Texans...
Back to Thursday's article:
Chertoff, however, pledged Wednesday to consult with border leaders on the fence design, but said "we can't give border communities a veto."
The homeland chief on Wednesday said he "can't rule out" that the government would use eminent domain to seize private property to make way for the fence. Governments use eminent domain to take private property for public use.
In a state rich in property rights history, that acknowledgment will likely earn a fiery reception along the border.
Yes, it will and it has:
Chronicle, 20 JUL 07:
(John Cornyn showing some intestinal fortitude on one thing at least)
"I assure you there will be local consultation," the Texas Republican said in a call with state reporters. "There will not be ... unilateral actions on the part of the Department of Homeland Security without local input."
"This could not be mishandled any worse, as far as I'm concerned," said Cornyn, who voted last year for legislation mandating the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing at the Southwest border but insisted that local leaders be consulted.
Or, maybe just self preservation by trying to please everyone on some level:
The fence issue is a tricky one for Texas elected officials in Washington, and particularly for Cornyn, who is up for re-election next year. On the one hand, Cornyn and other Texas congressional delegation members are pressing for increased border security. But they also are facing a huge wave of opposition to the fence from border officials and landowners who view it as the wrong approach to border security.
I myself like this comment:
txnflfan wrote:
Cherfoff says that construction was to begin by this fall... Hmmm
Weren't these the same people a few weeks ago who ran around talking about urgency, and the need for immediate legislation.
The last time I checked we are at the end of July, and the fall is in October.
Where is this urgency they were talking about???
I say get rid of every incumbent in office regardless of party. Perhaps the next batch will actually do the will of the people who sent them to Washington.
If only wishing would make it so. These Congress critters are worse than cockroaches in terms of getting rid of them for good. Remember our good buddy Tom Delay from Sugarland? He's still weighing in with random idiocy like this that Hill went off on the other day.
But I'd like to go back to a phrase from the article on Thursday:
The homeland chief on Wednesday said he "can't rule out" that the government would use eminent domain to seize private property to make way for the fence.
Ummmmm, excuse me? Homeland Chief? As in, "Jawohl, mein Commandant?" He's not my homeland chief, I'll tell you that right now.
Let's keep it in perspective and call him what he is, the Homeland Security Chief.
Amazing what the omission of a single word can do to a title... maybe I should apply as a copy editor over there at the Chronicle....
Another great passage that somehow didn't make it into the online article was a quote from none other than the Shrub himself on the merits and risks of stepping on the toes of landowners here in Texas over the issue of this pesky fence:
By the way, in my state of Texas, when it comes to the fencing, I would strongly urge those who advocate it not to go down there and go face to face with some of these Texas ranchers down there.
As Hill would say:
BwaaaaaaaaaahahaahAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think I can call Texas my state before he can, even though I've only been back for 12 years after being spirited away by parental units at the tender young age of one...
Remember: Broad, Stout Walls! Bigger Fences Make Better Neighbors!
Just ask the Israelis about how well their wall is working over in the West Bank.
Col. (res.) Shaul Arieli, who was the last commander of the Gaza regional brigade of the IDF, has stated that the effectiveness of the barrier will only be short-term. "The fence provides a partial security response to the terror threats and a good response to prevention of illegal immigration and prevention of criminal acts," he explains, "but on the other hand, in its current format it creates the future terror infrastructure because this terror infrastructure is precisely those people living in enclaves who will support acts of terror as the only possible tool that they perceive as being able to restore them the land, production sources and water wells taken from them."
Ike Lacouture, on why the U.S. should avoid entry into World War II, The Winds of War, by Herman Wouk. The character of Lacouture may have been based on the real life isolationist Senator from Michigan Arthur Vandenberg.
Houston Chronicle, 19 JUL 07:
Construction of a polarizing fence along the Texas-Mexico border is expected to begin by this fall, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff confirmed Wednesday, adding that border communities will be consulted "in terms of style" so the government doesn't "create any eyesores."
Chertoff said he had seen some fencing "that was quite attractive" during his visits along the South Texas border.
"I think I was in Brownsville ... and I saw some very nice fence that was ornamental but it did the trick," he said.
Similar to how effective the isolationist camp's views were in the lead up to the U.S.'s entry into World War II (all Pearl Harbor attack conspiracy theories non withstanding...) border barriers of any kind serve no purpose but to antagonize the nation that didn't build them and make life difficult for the people and other life living on either side of the border on all sorts of levels.
Oh, yeah, it probably won't keep folks from crossing the border in search of work and a better life, either. Despite what some of the commenters on the piece from yesterday had to say:
44mag wrote:
The fence won't solve all the problems on the border, but it will help. The open borders lobby knows this to be true, hence their hysterical opposition - it will ruin the environment, cause flooding, kill livestock, destroy the economy, bankrupt farmers, blah blah blah.
texrob1 wrote:
Build It! It certainly won't hurt anything,all these people claiming the fence will hurt the environment,what about the tens of thousands of Illegal aliens trampling all over the environment? I guess they are careful as they are entering our country Illegally, to not hurt any plants or animals,what a Joke.
sportfanatic wrote:
I want a fence with electricity, just like jurassic park.
Ahhh, I love Texas, just not too fond of some of my fellow Texans...
Back to Thursday's article:
Chertoff, however, pledged Wednesday to consult with border leaders on the fence design, but said "we can't give border communities a veto."
The homeland chief on Wednesday said he "can't rule out" that the government would use eminent domain to seize private property to make way for the fence. Governments use eminent domain to take private property for public use.
In a state rich in property rights history, that acknowledgment will likely earn a fiery reception along the border.
Yes, it will and it has:
Chronicle, 20 JUL 07:
(John Cornyn showing some intestinal fortitude on one thing at least)
"I assure you there will be local consultation," the Texas Republican said in a call with state reporters. "There will not be ... unilateral actions on the part of the Department of Homeland Security without local input."
"This could not be mishandled any worse, as far as I'm concerned," said Cornyn, who voted last year for legislation mandating the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing at the Southwest border but insisted that local leaders be consulted.
Or, maybe just self preservation by trying to please everyone on some level:
The fence issue is a tricky one for Texas elected officials in Washington, and particularly for Cornyn, who is up for re-election next year. On the one hand, Cornyn and other Texas congressional delegation members are pressing for increased border security. But they also are facing a huge wave of opposition to the fence from border officials and landowners who view it as the wrong approach to border security.
I myself like this comment:
txnflfan wrote:
Cherfoff says that construction was to begin by this fall... Hmmm
Weren't these the same people a few weeks ago who ran around talking about urgency, and the need for immediate legislation.
The last time I checked we are at the end of July, and the fall is in October.
Where is this urgency they were talking about???
I say get rid of every incumbent in office regardless of party. Perhaps the next batch will actually do the will of the people who sent them to Washington.
If only wishing would make it so. These Congress critters are worse than cockroaches in terms of getting rid of them for good. Remember our good buddy Tom Delay from Sugarland? He's still weighing in with random idiocy like this that Hill went off on the other day.
But I'd like to go back to a phrase from the article on Thursday:
The homeland chief on Wednesday said he "can't rule out" that the government would use eminent domain to seize private property to make way for the fence.
Ummmmm, excuse me? Homeland Chief? As in, "Jawohl, mein Commandant?" He's not my homeland chief, I'll tell you that right now.
Let's keep it in perspective and call him what he is, the Homeland Security Chief.
Amazing what the omission of a single word can do to a title... maybe I should apply as a copy editor over there at the Chronicle....
Another great passage that somehow didn't make it into the online article was a quote from none other than the Shrub himself on the merits and risks of stepping on the toes of landowners here in Texas over the issue of this pesky fence:
By the way, in my state of Texas, when it comes to the fencing, I would strongly urge those who advocate it not to go down there and go face to face with some of these Texas ranchers down there.
As Hill would say:
BwaaaaaaaaaahahaahAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think I can call Texas my state before he can, even though I've only been back for 12 years after being spirited away by parental units at the tender young age of one...
Remember: Broad, Stout Walls! Bigger Fences Make Better Neighbors!
Just ask the Israelis about how well their wall is working over in the West Bank.
Col. (res.) Shaul Arieli, who was the last commander of the Gaza regional brigade of the IDF, has stated that the effectiveness of the barrier will only be short-term. "The fence provides a partial security response to the terror threats and a good response to prevention of illegal immigration and prevention of criminal acts," he explains, "but on the other hand, in its current format it creates the future terror infrastructure because this terror infrastructure is precisely those people living in enclaves who will support acts of terror as the only possible tool that they perceive as being able to restore them the land, production sources and water wells taken from them."
Friday, July 13, 2007
Cataloguing(people...)
How long would it take for the idea of this to be shot down here in the U.S. where Democracy "exists"? The same sort of Democracy that we are purportedly bringing to Iraq?
U.S. troops are stopping Iraqis at checkpoints, workplaces and sites where attacks have recently occurred, and inputting their personal data using handheld scanners or specially equipped laptops. In several neighborhoods in and around Baghdad, troops have gone door to door collecting data.
Can this be far behind?
Over there and maybe over here?
I can't help but recall the fears of Paul Craig Roberts in this interview with Mark::
"the United States is is essentially finished. Liberty's dead, I don't see any way to bring it back. The country is balkanized, it's split, and ignorant. It hasn't the foggiest idea what's happening to it."
"...I don't see any signs of hope at all. I see none. None at all. I expect to die in a concentration camp."
U.S. troops are stopping Iraqis at checkpoints, workplaces and sites where attacks have recently occurred, and inputting their personal data using handheld scanners or specially equipped laptops. In several neighborhoods in and around Baghdad, troops have gone door to door collecting data.
Can this be far behind?
Over there and maybe over here?
I can't help but recall the fears of Paul Craig Roberts in this interview with Mark::
"the United States is is essentially finished. Liberty's dead, I don't see any way to bring it back. The country is balkanized, it's split, and ignorant. It hasn't the foggiest idea what's happening to it."
"...I don't see any signs of hope at all. I see none. None at all. I expect to die in a concentration camp."
More Support for the Troops...
I think all of this speaks for itself. My blood has been close to the boiling point and I'm going to meet a friend for lunch here in a little while, so I wanted to assemble these items together not unlike the modifications that the boys and girls over there have had to employ for years now just to feel like they have a chance of surviving an ambush:
But here we are in Iraq after 15 bloody months still welding steel plate onto Humvees. Sure, our soldiers gain a tad more protection, but it also turns the vehicles into rollover queens because it shifts their center of gravity.
The problem is that the soft-skinned Humvee was conceived as a light utility truck – not a close combat vehicle. "The Humvee is horribly thin-skinned and underpowered," says Army veteran Scott Schreiber, who drove one for six years. "It should be used in roles that don’t call for armor. If the role calls for armor, it’s simple: use armor."
Bob Geiger:
A study completed in late June by the Pentagon's Inspector General concludes that the Department of Defense (DoD) has risked the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq due to malfeasance in awarding and monitoring contracts for badly-needed armored vehicles.
The study, which was requested by Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York, found that since 2000 the DoD has awarded "sole-source" contracts valued at $2.2 billion to just two companies, Force Protection, Inc.(FPI) and Armor Holdings, Inc (AHI).
Inspector General auditors found that the Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) made these two companies the sole providers of armored vehicles and armor kits for troops, despite knowing that other suppliers may have produced the equipment so desperately needed in Iraq substantially faster. Both manufacturers fell far behind delivery schedules, while AHI also produced inadequate and faulty equipment.
Democracy Now!:
On Wednesday, Republicans defeated an amendment that would require U.S. troops to get as much or more rest between deployments as the time they were deployed. Seven Republicans joined Democrats in support but the measure failed to attract the sixty votes needed to move ahead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticized Republicans, saying: “Our troops are not machines, they are human beings.”
UPDATE 14 JUL 07 (very early):
Then there's this:
Following the Committee’s April 24, 2007, hearing on the Tillman fratricide, the Committee wrote to White House Counsel Fred Fielding seeking “all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President” relating to Corporal Tillman’s death. The White House Counsel’s office responded that it would not provide the Committee with documents that “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and produced only two communications with the officials in the Defense Department, one of which was a package of news clippings. The response of the Defense Department to the Committee’s inquiry was also deficient.
How far are these bastards willing to go? As Poppy put it in 1990:
That's why, in the Persian Gulf, George Bush had to say, 'This will not be another Vietnam.' He actually said, 'this time we're going all the way.'
*Rubbing eyes fiercely...*
But here we are in Iraq after 15 bloody months still welding steel plate onto Humvees. Sure, our soldiers gain a tad more protection, but it also turns the vehicles into rollover queens because it shifts their center of gravity.
The problem is that the soft-skinned Humvee was conceived as a light utility truck – not a close combat vehicle. "The Humvee is horribly thin-skinned and underpowered," says Army veteran Scott Schreiber, who drove one for six years. "It should be used in roles that don’t call for armor. If the role calls for armor, it’s simple: use armor."
Bob Geiger:
A study completed in late June by the Pentagon's Inspector General concludes that the Department of Defense (DoD) has risked the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq due to malfeasance in awarding and monitoring contracts for badly-needed armored vehicles.
The study, which was requested by Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York, found that since 2000 the DoD has awarded "sole-source" contracts valued at $2.2 billion to just two companies, Force Protection, Inc.(FPI) and Armor Holdings, Inc (AHI).
Inspector General auditors found that the Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) made these two companies the sole providers of armored vehicles and armor kits for troops, despite knowing that other suppliers may have produced the equipment so desperately needed in Iraq substantially faster. Both manufacturers fell far behind delivery schedules, while AHI also produced inadequate and faulty equipment.
Democracy Now!:
On Wednesday, Republicans defeated an amendment that would require U.S. troops to get as much or more rest between deployments as the time they were deployed. Seven Republicans joined Democrats in support but the measure failed to attract the sixty votes needed to move ahead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticized Republicans, saying: “Our troops are not machines, they are human beings.”
UPDATE 14 JUL 07 (very early):
Then there's this:
Following the Committee’s April 24, 2007, hearing on the Tillman fratricide, the Committee wrote to White House Counsel Fred Fielding seeking “all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President” relating to Corporal Tillman’s death. The White House Counsel’s office responded that it would not provide the Committee with documents that “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and produced only two communications with the officials in the Defense Department, one of which was a package of news clippings. The response of the Defense Department to the Committee’s inquiry was also deficient.
How far are these bastards willing to go? As Poppy put it in 1990:
That's why, in the Persian Gulf, George Bush had to say, 'This will not be another Vietnam.' He actually said, 'this time we're going all the way.'
*Rubbing eyes fiercely...*
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Ooops, who left that faucet running again? No wonder the damn water bill is so high...
George W. Bush, 9/30/03:
And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
Tom Delay, 7/13/05:
The law specifically says that the CIA operative, they're trained to keep them covert. That means usually they're overseas, they're not working out of Langley driving in and out of the gate, they are truly undercover, and you leak it, you're breaking the law.
That wasn't the case. That wasn't the case here. Ms. Plame was working at Langley, coming and going quite obvious she was working for the CIA and this...uh...er..this...there may be other's who leaked...uh...we'll find out when the investigation is over.
Paul Bedard, 7/3/07:
Robert Novak:
"I am sure it was not a planned leak but came out as an offhand observation."
The rest is history. Novak was investigated in the CIA spy case, slammed by fellow journalists for "outing" an agent, the subject of what he calls false stories, kicked off his regular CNN gig, and barred from Meet the Press for two years-and out $160,000 in legal fees. Still, he writes,
"Judging it on the merits, I would still write the story."
Bob Ewegen, Denver Post, 7/6/07:
I am angry at the underlying event - the fact that an American patriot whose only crime was to serve her country in a dangerous and honorable profession had her mission undercut for partisan political purposes.
I am even angrier that the vicious "outing" of Valerie Plame put her sources at risk - the men and women in foreign countries who had risked their own lives to help America in our war on terror.
In the intelligence trade, such foreign sources are called "assets." I call them heroes. And they are the ones who were put most at risk after columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame's CIA connection as part of a clumsy Bush administration effort to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had become a critic of the Iraq war.
I will never forgive anyone who willfully puts the lives of America's military or intelligence personnel or our friends abroad in danger.
And that's exactly what former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage did when he leaked Plame's identity to Novak - and what Novak did when he published the name of a covert CIA agent.
Between Armitage's dishonorable act and Novak's dishonorable act were a string of other dishonorable acts, including an executive order by President Bush empowering Vice President Cheney to declassify classified information, which Cheney did, thus allowing Libby to shop Plame's identity around in hopes of finding a journalist willing to smear Wilson through his wife. With Libby's information confirming Armitage's original tip, Novak willingly blew Plame's cover.
In so doing, he didn't put Plame at personal risk, because she was not overseas at the time. But he did irrevocably damage her mission - and put those human "assets" at risk.
You see, al-Qaeda and its ilk rarely try to kill CIA agents - or anyone else who can fight back. What these cowards do is kill people who have worked with U.S. agents.
You can imagine the conversation: "Hmm, that Valerie Plame who visited here turns out to be a CIA agent. Didn't she hang out at Hamid's coffee shop a lot?"
Next day, Hamid's body turns up, along with the bodies of his wife and family, all of whom were tortured to death before his eyes.
That's the way our enemies play the game. That's why we train brave men and women like Valerie Plame so America can fight back.
Politics, or national security?
Politics.
Politics, or the safety of our combatants and allies in the war on terror?
Politics.
Politics, or the Law?
Politics.
Politics, or common sense?
Politics.
Politics, or--
Politics.
And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
Tom Delay, 7/13/05:
The law specifically says that the CIA operative, they're trained to keep them covert. That means usually they're overseas, they're not working out of Langley driving in and out of the gate, they are truly undercover, and you leak it, you're breaking the law.
That wasn't the case. That wasn't the case here. Ms. Plame was working at Langley, coming and going quite obvious she was working for the CIA and this...uh...er..this...there may be other's who leaked...uh...we'll find out when the investigation is over.
Paul Bedard, 7/3/07:
Robert Novak:
"I am sure it was not a planned leak but came out as an offhand observation."
The rest is history. Novak was investigated in the CIA spy case, slammed by fellow journalists for "outing" an agent, the subject of what he calls false stories, kicked off his regular CNN gig, and barred from Meet the Press for two years-and out $160,000 in legal fees. Still, he writes,
"Judging it on the merits, I would still write the story."
Bob Ewegen, Denver Post, 7/6/07:
I am angry at the underlying event - the fact that an American patriot whose only crime was to serve her country in a dangerous and honorable profession had her mission undercut for partisan political purposes.
I am even angrier that the vicious "outing" of Valerie Plame put her sources at risk - the men and women in foreign countries who had risked their own lives to help America in our war on terror.
In the intelligence trade, such foreign sources are called "assets." I call them heroes. And they are the ones who were put most at risk after columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame's CIA connection as part of a clumsy Bush administration effort to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had become a critic of the Iraq war.
I will never forgive anyone who willfully puts the lives of America's military or intelligence personnel or our friends abroad in danger.
And that's exactly what former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage did when he leaked Plame's identity to Novak - and what Novak did when he published the name of a covert CIA agent.
Between Armitage's dishonorable act and Novak's dishonorable act were a string of other dishonorable acts, including an executive order by President Bush empowering Vice President Cheney to declassify classified information, which Cheney did, thus allowing Libby to shop Plame's identity around in hopes of finding a journalist willing to smear Wilson through his wife. With Libby's information confirming Armitage's original tip, Novak willingly blew Plame's cover.
In so doing, he didn't put Plame at personal risk, because she was not overseas at the time. But he did irrevocably damage her mission - and put those human "assets" at risk.
You see, al-Qaeda and its ilk rarely try to kill CIA agents - or anyone else who can fight back. What these cowards do is kill people who have worked with U.S. agents.
You can imagine the conversation: "Hmm, that Valerie Plame who visited here turns out to be a CIA agent. Didn't she hang out at Hamid's coffee shop a lot?"
Next day, Hamid's body turns up, along with the bodies of his wife and family, all of whom were tortured to death before his eyes.
That's the way our enemies play the game. That's why we train brave men and women like Valerie Plame so America can fight back.
Politics, or national security?
Politics.
Politics, or the safety of our combatants and allies in the war on terror?
Politics.
Politics, or the Law?
Politics.
Politics, or common sense?
Politics.
Politics, or--
Politics.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Still think it's not a Civil War?!?
BBC, 3/21/06:
US President George W Bush has said he does not believe Iraq has descended into civil war but urged the nation's leaders to confront sectarian violence.
Bill O'Reilly, 11/29/06:
It's not a civil war as NBC News wants you to think. It has nothing to do with that.
AP, 7/9/07:
Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died yesterday in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.
During a news conference yesterday in Baghdad, Abbas al-Bayati, a Shiite Turkoman lawmaker, criticized the security situation in Armili, saying its police force had only 30 members and that the Interior Ministry had finally responded to requests for reinforcements only two days before the attack.
In the absence of enough security forces, al-Bayati said authorities should help residents "arm themselves" for their own protection.
The call for civilians to take up arms in their own defense was echoed yesterday by the country's Sunni Arab vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, who said all Iraqis must "pay the price" for terrorism.
OK kids, it's official: the presence or absence of U.S. forces in Iraq has NO IMPACT on the fact that a Civil War is currently occurring there, therefore rendering this argument completely moot:
Iraq's foreign minister warned Monday that a quick American troop withdrawal could lead to civil war and the collapse of the Iraqi state, adding that the U.S. has a responsibility to build Iraqi forces so that they take over.
And if that's not enough fun and excitement for ya, chew on this:
Iraq says Turkey has 140,000 soldiers along its border, prompting fears of an incursion against Kurdish guerrillas.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari an ethnic Kurd himself, said his government was against any breach of Iraqi sovereignty.
Turkey accuses Kurdish separatists of staging attacks from inside Iraq. It has often warned Baghdad that it is prepared to take military action.
It's time to get the Hell out RIGHT NOW. If the saber rattling in the north as detailed above doesn't abate pronto, there will be a new huge messy front in this mess that the U.S. forces will be powerless to influence except through the implementation of force through the air, the accuracy of which has already been proven over and over again as suspect, to put it gently. The only sure result of any air sorties on the part of the U.S. forces would be the killing of Kurdish and Turkish forces, resulting in the ire of both groups being focussed upon the U.S., who right now can sort of call both groups allies, or at least "not enemies".
There's no way that the oil worshiping fat cats are going to get their hands on that oil:
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.
I suppose that the U.S. could stay and follow Gunner's advice:
One of the big problems with how we have fought this war of liberation is our unwillingness to completely exterminate the bastards. Churchill also said we should just gas the “uncivilized” fucks that give us a hard time. An American military man in Vietnam gave us a wonderful phrase for this, “destroy the village in order to save it.” That is exactly what needs to happen. And I don’t mean something small scale like 1-3 million dead Iraqis (the toll of our Indochina wars) I am thinking big. Like all males between the ages of 9-55, or something similar. That’s what it will take to win this thing, whatever that means. But the softies in the liberal media and Congress won’t go for it…
But in eliminating all the opposition, it would gravely polarize the rest of the region against the U.S. and demonize the U.S. imperialistic empire alongside such revered infamous members of the book that is world history as the Emperors and Centurions of the Roman Empire, Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes, the Vandals and Visigoths, Imperial Spain during the Inquisition, and Nazi Germany among others.
I kinda doubt that the fellas who got together in Philadelphia in 1787 had this sort of thing in mind when they drafted this:
US President George W Bush has said he does not believe Iraq has descended into civil war but urged the nation's leaders to confront sectarian violence.
Bill O'Reilly, 11/29/06:
It's not a civil war as NBC News wants you to think. It has nothing to do with that.
AP, 7/9/07:
Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died yesterday in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.
During a news conference yesterday in Baghdad, Abbas al-Bayati, a Shiite Turkoman lawmaker, criticized the security situation in Armili, saying its police force had only 30 members and that the Interior Ministry had finally responded to requests for reinforcements only two days before the attack.
In the absence of enough security forces, al-Bayati said authorities should help residents "arm themselves" for their own protection.
The call for civilians to take up arms in their own defense was echoed yesterday by the country's Sunni Arab vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, who said all Iraqis must "pay the price" for terrorism.
OK kids, it's official: the presence or absence of U.S. forces in Iraq has NO IMPACT on the fact that a Civil War is currently occurring there, therefore rendering this argument completely moot:
Iraq's foreign minister warned Monday that a quick American troop withdrawal could lead to civil war and the collapse of the Iraqi state, adding that the U.S. has a responsibility to build Iraqi forces so that they take over.
And if that's not enough fun and excitement for ya, chew on this:
Iraq says Turkey has 140,000 soldiers along its border, prompting fears of an incursion against Kurdish guerrillas.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari an ethnic Kurd himself, said his government was against any breach of Iraqi sovereignty.
Turkey accuses Kurdish separatists of staging attacks from inside Iraq. It has often warned Baghdad that it is prepared to take military action.
It's time to get the Hell out RIGHT NOW. If the saber rattling in the north as detailed above doesn't abate pronto, there will be a new huge messy front in this mess that the U.S. forces will be powerless to influence except through the implementation of force through the air, the accuracy of which has already been proven over and over again as suspect, to put it gently. The only sure result of any air sorties on the part of the U.S. forces would be the killing of Kurdish and Turkish forces, resulting in the ire of both groups being focussed upon the U.S., who right now can sort of call both groups allies, or at least "not enemies".
There's no way that the oil worshiping fat cats are going to get their hands on that oil:
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.
I suppose that the U.S. could stay and follow Gunner's advice:
One of the big problems with how we have fought this war of liberation is our unwillingness to completely exterminate the bastards. Churchill also said we should just gas the “uncivilized” fucks that give us a hard time. An American military man in Vietnam gave us a wonderful phrase for this, “destroy the village in order to save it.” That is exactly what needs to happen. And I don’t mean something small scale like 1-3 million dead Iraqis (the toll of our Indochina wars) I am thinking big. Like all males between the ages of 9-55, or something similar. That’s what it will take to win this thing, whatever that means. But the softies in the liberal media and Congress won’t go for it…
But in eliminating all the opposition, it would gravely polarize the rest of the region against the U.S. and demonize the U.S. imperialistic empire alongside such revered infamous members of the book that is world history as the Emperors and Centurions of the Roman Empire, Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes, the Vandals and Visigoths, Imperial Spain during the Inquisition, and Nazi Germany among others.
I kinda doubt that the fellas who got together in Philadelphia in 1787 had this sort of thing in mind when they drafted this:
Saturday, July 7, 2007
"You'd have to be dead...
not to be affected by Moore's movie."
-Barclay Fitzpatrick, Vice President of Corporate Communications, Capital BlueCross
Digby:
...it made me cry and a Michael Moore film has never made cry before. I've laughed and cheered and certainly gotten enraged, but even through all of those emotions in this film --- and there were plenty of them --- I remained choked up. I just couldn't get past the idea that people could make these life-ending and life-ruining decisions about other people --- for profit. It's so fundamentally at odds with what I think of as normal human empathy that on some levels it seems akin to being a concentration camp guard or an executioner. (And from the emotional reaction from those who'd worked in the industry and had quit, it takes a toll those with empathy who are asked to perform that dirty function as well.)
There is one story in the film of a woman whose husband was denied a bone marrow transplant allegedly because it was an "experimental procedure," --- is one a thousand excuses health insurance companies use to keep from having to provide care for those whose premiums they eagerly cashed in the years before their customer got sick. But I think what got me about that particular story was the fact that this woman worked in the hospital where the board of directors of this managed care company also worked. She spoke to them personally. She wasn't just a piece of paper in an in-box. It was a real live person, a colleague and neighbor, literally begging for her husbands life ... and they said no. For profit. It makes me want to howl in pain and outrage.
Moore's movie is actually quite successful in showing that people in other first world countries with universal care live very well despite the fact that they pay higher taxes for medical care (and other things) because --- they don't have to pay for medical care and those other things. The people who live middle and upper middle class lives as professionals don't lose anything --- and the society as a whole gains tremendously because those crippling worries are removed from all, the poor and middle class alike. I don't think Americans have any idea that they are not actually living at the top of the heap --- they think what we have is a good as it can possibly be, and it just ain't true.
Take a minute and read that last paragraph again.
Yes, the tax bracket is higher for everyone with a nationalized health care program.
But one doesn't have to take into consideration while seeking employment what level of health insurance is offered above and beyond all other aspects of potential employment--like what the actual job is, whether one is qualified and/or trained for it, schedule and pay, full or part time status, etc.
What a freakin' concept, eh?
-Barclay Fitzpatrick, Vice President of Corporate Communications, Capital BlueCross
Digby:
...it made me cry and a Michael Moore film has never made cry before. I've laughed and cheered and certainly gotten enraged, but even through all of those emotions in this film --- and there were plenty of them --- I remained choked up. I just couldn't get past the idea that people could make these life-ending and life-ruining decisions about other people --- for profit. It's so fundamentally at odds with what I think of as normal human empathy that on some levels it seems akin to being a concentration camp guard or an executioner. (And from the emotional reaction from those who'd worked in the industry and had quit, it takes a toll those with empathy who are asked to perform that dirty function as well.)
There is one story in the film of a woman whose husband was denied a bone marrow transplant allegedly because it was an "experimental procedure," --- is one a thousand excuses health insurance companies use to keep from having to provide care for those whose premiums they eagerly cashed in the years before their customer got sick. But I think what got me about that particular story was the fact that this woman worked in the hospital where the board of directors of this managed care company also worked. She spoke to them personally. She wasn't just a piece of paper in an in-box. It was a real live person, a colleague and neighbor, literally begging for her husbands life ... and they said no. For profit. It makes me want to howl in pain and outrage.
Moore's movie is actually quite successful in showing that people in other first world countries with universal care live very well despite the fact that they pay higher taxes for medical care (and other things) because --- they don't have to pay for medical care and those other things. The people who live middle and upper middle class lives as professionals don't lose anything --- and the society as a whole gains tremendously because those crippling worries are removed from all, the poor and middle class alike. I don't think Americans have any idea that they are not actually living at the top of the heap --- they think what we have is a good as it can possibly be, and it just ain't true.
Take a minute and read that last paragraph again.
Yes, the tax bracket is higher for everyone with a nationalized health care program.
But one doesn't have to take into consideration while seeking employment what level of health insurance is offered above and beyond all other aspects of potential employment--like what the actual job is, whether one is qualified and/or trained for it, schedule and pay, full or part time status, etc.
What a freakin' concept, eh?
Friday, July 6, 2007
What would you spend 1.4 trillion on?
Noah Shachtman:
Additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017.
Ummmmm, maybe some Universal Health Care of some kind or another?
NHS services are largely "free at the point of delivery", paid for by taxes; the NHS's budget for 2007-08 is £104($208) billion.
Or maybe rebuilding New Orleans...ten times over?
Hugh Kaufman, senior policy analyst for emergency response at the Environmental Protection Agency, said New Orleans may need one of the largest public building programmes ever seen in the US at a cost of $80-100bn - approximately the same as the yearly cost of the war in Iraq.(yearly cost of the war before the infamous surge...)
How about revamping the education system in this country?
The vast majority of students (up to 70 percent) lack the financial resources to pay tuition up front and must rely on student loans and scholarships from their university, the federal government, or a private lender.
Or research into altenative energy?
Consider the U.S. is spending $67 billion annually on the war on terror vs. $3.4 billion on energy research, according to the National Science Foundation.
What would you spend it on?
Additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017.
Ummmmm, maybe some Universal Health Care of some kind or another?
NHS services are largely "free at the point of delivery", paid for by taxes; the NHS's budget for 2007-08 is £104($208) billion.
Or maybe rebuilding New Orleans...ten times over?
Hugh Kaufman, senior policy analyst for emergency response at the Environmental Protection Agency, said New Orleans may need one of the largest public building programmes ever seen in the US at a cost of $80-100bn - approximately the same as the yearly cost of the war in Iraq.(yearly cost of the war before the infamous surge...)
How about revamping the education system in this country?
The vast majority of students (up to 70 percent) lack the financial resources to pay tuition up front and must rely on student loans and scholarships from their university, the federal government, or a private lender.
Or research into altenative energy?
Consider the U.S. is spending $67 billion annually on the war on terror vs. $3.4 billion on energy research, according to the National Science Foundation.
What would you spend it on?
Thursday, July 5, 2007
I think he may know what he's talking about...
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing President Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.
No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods.
Of course, no U.S. forces have found themselves being used a literal pawns in a colossal power and resource grab that the occupation of Iraq has become.
If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing President Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.
No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods.
Of course, no U.S. forces have found themselves being used a literal pawns in a colossal power and resource grab that the occupation of Iraq has become.
Oh, spiders, what beautiful webs you weave...
My head is seriously hurting after reading this:
Before entering government, Libby was a private attorney who represented billionaire international commodities trader Marc Rich.
Rich was indicted in 1983 by then-U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal dealing with Iran during the American hostage crisis.
Rich fled to Switzerland. He also occupied a spot on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
Giuliani, former mayor of New York, is now a leading Republican presidential candidate. He endorsed Bush's decision to spare Libby jail time even though he had tried to put Libby's client behind bars.
Ears...Bleeding...
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision, and I believe the decision was correct," Giuliani said in a written statement Monday evening.
Rich's fugitive days ended when former President Clinton pardoned him in January 2001, a move that prompted a congratulatory call from Libby to Rich.
**Nervously twitching**
Clinton, of course, is married to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is the Democratic front-runner for the White House.
She blasted Bush's decision on Libby, leaving out any mention of Libby's connection to Rich -- or Rich at all, for that matter.
OOooooo, look at all the pretty strands in the sunlight...
Before entering government, Libby was a private attorney who represented billionaire international commodities trader Marc Rich.
Rich was indicted in 1983 by then-U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal dealing with Iran during the American hostage crisis.
Rich fled to Switzerland. He also occupied a spot on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
Giuliani, former mayor of New York, is now a leading Republican presidential candidate. He endorsed Bush's decision to spare Libby jail time even though he had tried to put Libby's client behind bars.
Ears...Bleeding...
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision, and I believe the decision was correct," Giuliani said in a written statement Monday evening.
Rich's fugitive days ended when former President Clinton pardoned him in January 2001, a move that prompted a congratulatory call from Libby to Rich.
**Nervously twitching**
Clinton, of course, is married to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is the Democratic front-runner for the White House.
She blasted Bush's decision on Libby, leaving out any mention of Libby's connection to Rich -- or Rich at all, for that matter.
OOooooo, look at all the pretty strands in the sunlight...
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
And President George Bush threw it all away...
Robert J. Elisberg:
There's a singular moment that stands out in Michael Moore's new film, SiCKO. The moment bursts your heart with joy and gnashes your teeth with fury. That's a tough trick to pull off.
The moment in question comes during the highly-publicized sequence when Moore has brought a boatload of seriously-ill 9/11 rescue volunteers to Gitmo for treatment. Unable to land, they put ashore instead at Cuba. But the specific moment isn't about any of that, isn't about health care at all.
Just before Moore and his companions are set to leave Cuba, they're told that a local fire department has heard there are 9/11 rescue heroes and would like to meet them. When the Moore group arrives at the station, there are the firefighters standing at full-salute attention. The Cubans explain they wish they could have joined the Americans to help out on 9/11, but add that all firefighters are brothers, all rescue volunteers are honored.
As the Americans movingly head down the line to shake hands with the Cuban firefighters, suddenly they all break into hugs.
It's a glorious, emotional scene, that swells the heart with the sense of decency from both sides. The Cubans nobly reaching out, and the Americans who nobly risked their lives.
When I lived in PA, I was a volunteer firefighter with the local department for a few years in high school and college. I've often thought about it for the past five and a half years, knowing that hundreds or maybe even thousands of individual volunteers like I was during that time in my life rushed up to lower Manhattan and offered to do whatever needed to be done. Seeing these few folks in the film and hearing additional testimony from the in their appearance on Democracy Now! made me ponder the fact that I most likely would have gone up there myself if I hadn't have turned the page to this current chapter of my life here on the gulf coast, and most likely would have been in the same dire straits as Reggie and John.
But Mr. Elisberg uses the example of solidarity between emergency workers across physical and ideological barriers to springboard to a larger theme on squandered opportunities and potential global solidarity in favor of power and resource grabbing:
After 9/11, as horrific as that day was, there was an apparent thought in the air: that through tragedy, the world had come together. The entire world. Friends and enemies alike all over the globe were holding vigils for the stricken-America, knowing that in this disaster, everyone was connected. If there was to be a fight against terrorists, here was the world opening its door and its heart to America. United, the world had a chance to connect and work together to achieve whatever heights it wanted.
And President George Bush threw it all away.
He not only lost the rarest chance of uniting the entire world, but did the unimaginable: he got the world -- ready to support America -- to distrust, even in-part hate the United States to depths this country has never known.
There was our enemy, Cuba -- a nation we've been at conflict with for half a century, a nation off-limits to Americans without special permission -- standing at ready-salute to the heroic men and women who risked themselves in the 9/11 attack. Five years later, still swelling with honor towards them. Not just any nation, but Cuba. Our bitter enemy. Hugging Americans in support for 9/11. Still standing by us, five years later.
And President George Bush threw this all away.
On the Fourth of July, we turn our thoughts to the Statue of Liberty, standing tall in the harbor, welcoming immigrants from around the world to the freedom of our shores. For 232 years, we have been a beacon to all such people and such hopes, and those around the world have looked at that Statue with arm raised and flame held high to stand for all that is good, noble, glorious and important about America.
And President George Bush threw all that away.
The Democrats and even some Republicans who are finally recognizing the antics of this administration for what they are--a shameless grab at as much power, wealth and control as absolutely possible, consequences and repercussions be damned--keep invoking the moniker of Richard Nixon, as in Nixonian Stonewalling, but this goes far beyond what Tricky Dicky tried to get away with. He was content to spy on political rivals and lie to the American people about the escalation of an unpopular war. The Shrub and the Shooter (or is it the other way around?), not to be outdone, have raised the bar to almost unfathomable heights (or depths) by adding torture, kidnapping, illegal and covert wars on non belligerent nations, and the blatant disregard for established international institutions such as the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The damage that has already been wrought and may be additionally wrought in the next 17 months is staggering and hard to comprehend. What's even harder to comprehend is how the damage can be repaired after January 20, 2009.
There's a singular moment that stands out in Michael Moore's new film, SiCKO. The moment bursts your heart with joy and gnashes your teeth with fury. That's a tough trick to pull off.
The moment in question comes during the highly-publicized sequence when Moore has brought a boatload of seriously-ill 9/11 rescue volunteers to Gitmo for treatment. Unable to land, they put ashore instead at Cuba. But the specific moment isn't about any of that, isn't about health care at all.
Just before Moore and his companions are set to leave Cuba, they're told that a local fire department has heard there are 9/11 rescue heroes and would like to meet them. When the Moore group arrives at the station, there are the firefighters standing at full-salute attention. The Cubans explain they wish they could have joined the Americans to help out on 9/11, but add that all firefighters are brothers, all rescue volunteers are honored.
As the Americans movingly head down the line to shake hands with the Cuban firefighters, suddenly they all break into hugs.
It's a glorious, emotional scene, that swells the heart with the sense of decency from both sides. The Cubans nobly reaching out, and the Americans who nobly risked their lives.
When I lived in PA, I was a volunteer firefighter with the local department for a few years in high school and college. I've often thought about it for the past five and a half years, knowing that hundreds or maybe even thousands of individual volunteers like I was during that time in my life rushed up to lower Manhattan and offered to do whatever needed to be done. Seeing these few folks in the film and hearing additional testimony from the in their appearance on Democracy Now! made me ponder the fact that I most likely would have gone up there myself if I hadn't have turned the page to this current chapter of my life here on the gulf coast, and most likely would have been in the same dire straits as Reggie and John.
But Mr. Elisberg uses the example of solidarity between emergency workers across physical and ideological barriers to springboard to a larger theme on squandered opportunities and potential global solidarity in favor of power and resource grabbing:
After 9/11, as horrific as that day was, there was an apparent thought in the air: that through tragedy, the world had come together. The entire world. Friends and enemies alike all over the globe were holding vigils for the stricken-America, knowing that in this disaster, everyone was connected. If there was to be a fight against terrorists, here was the world opening its door and its heart to America. United, the world had a chance to connect and work together to achieve whatever heights it wanted.
And President George Bush threw it all away.
He not only lost the rarest chance of uniting the entire world, but did the unimaginable: he got the world -- ready to support America -- to distrust, even in-part hate the United States to depths this country has never known.
There was our enemy, Cuba -- a nation we've been at conflict with for half a century, a nation off-limits to Americans without special permission -- standing at ready-salute to the heroic men and women who risked themselves in the 9/11 attack. Five years later, still swelling with honor towards them. Not just any nation, but Cuba. Our bitter enemy. Hugging Americans in support for 9/11. Still standing by us, five years later.
And President George Bush threw this all away.
On the Fourth of July, we turn our thoughts to the Statue of Liberty, standing tall in the harbor, welcoming immigrants from around the world to the freedom of our shores. For 232 years, we have been a beacon to all such people and such hopes, and those around the world have looked at that Statue with arm raised and flame held high to stand for all that is good, noble, glorious and important about America.
And President George Bush threw all that away.
The Democrats and even some Republicans who are finally recognizing the antics of this administration for what they are--a shameless grab at as much power, wealth and control as absolutely possible, consequences and repercussions be damned--keep invoking the moniker of Richard Nixon, as in Nixonian Stonewalling, but this goes far beyond what Tricky Dicky tried to get away with. He was content to spy on political rivals and lie to the American people about the escalation of an unpopular war. The Shrub and the Shooter (or is it the other way around?), not to be outdone, have raised the bar to almost unfathomable heights (or depths) by adding torture, kidnapping, illegal and covert wars on non belligerent nations, and the blatant disregard for established international institutions such as the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The damage that has already been wrought and may be additionally wrought in the next 17 months is staggering and hard to comprehend. What's even harder to comprehend is how the damage can be repaired after January 20, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)