From Commondreams.org:
djprof March 27th, 2009 3:14 pm
Like most wars the US has instigated and engaged in via proxy corporate-connected dictators, this war is also an invisible war to most Americans. In relation to real reporting during the Vietnam war: the media tried, and tried very hard to disguise and deceive the public. It simply wasn't as sophisticated in that kind of business, and wasn't as completely controlled by corporations as it is today. There is one question that I feel must be answered in full: What role did the US play in generating what is now a war against terror in Afghanistan? Obama and others might say that it's a moot question; better to focus on what is now. But any shrink will tell you: until and unless the roots of a malady are confronted and resolved, the chance of a long term cure is slim. Obama needs to say what everyone there and throughout much of the world knows; namely that WE, the US of A were the ones who began the whole thing. We did it by funneling vast amounts of money and weapons to religious factions, while encouraging them to foment fundamentalist beliefs. Sure, there have always been fundamentalists (we have more than our share here in the US), but it was the US with the guidance of the CIA who baited the trap for Russia to invade Afghanistan in response to a growing instability associated with extreme fundamentalists. WE were the greatest perpetrators of what is now the war on terror. WE created the terror. And we did it for two main reasons. First, to suck the USSR into a Vietnam type quaigmire that would accelerate its decline. And second, to gain yet another foothold in the countries that surround Iran. Look at the map folks!!! WE were the ones who created Saddam. WE were the ones who courted Pakistan, even though we knew they were developing nuclear bombs. WE were the ones who, again and again, propped up dictators throughout most of the ring of countries surrounding Iran. Turkmenstan is now being courted by western companies for its natural gas (and, of course, the control that goes with it). France is currently hot to trot for the energy.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/18/business/AS-Turkmenistan-Franc...
Will Obama address the deep, deep involvement of the US that has brought Afghanistan from a peaceful and beautiful country to the hell hole it now is? Sure! As soon as he addresses our true motives for decimating Iraq, maintaining the best of ties with Saudi Arabia- that land of true 'corporate democracy/ AKA fascism), and labeling Iran as the world's leading exporter of terrorism. This is all such a crock of merde!!! We march into any country, under any pretense no matter how absurd, destroy that country, and yet, should a neighbor of that country try to help it resist, it is labeled a terrorist state. This economic meltdown has a silver lining to it: As falls the value of the dollar, so falls the power the US has to continue it rape of other countries. And as those rapes decline, the raping of Americans who are not among the elite will accelerate. Painful to watch it happen. But countries have karma just s people do.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Arianna Huffington: Larry Summers: Brilliant Mind, Toxic Ideas
Larry Summers is one of the top economic minds of his generation, but his core beliefs and assumptions helped lay the groundwork for the current crisis. As Treasury Secretary under Clinton, he played an important role in allowing commercial banks to get into the mortgage-backed securities game. He also backed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed financial derivatives to be traded without any oversight or regulation. So it was on his watch that the credit-default swaps warhead that has blown up our economy was launched. In 2000, Summers declared: "The traditional industrial economy was a Newtonian system of opposing forces, checks and balances... While, in contrast, the right metaphors for the new economy are more Darwinian, with the fittest surviving." He forgot to add the part about the fittest surviving by being bailed out by the rest of us.
Larry Summers is one of the top economic minds of his generation, but his core beliefs and assumptions helped lay the groundwork for the current crisis. As Treasury Secretary under Clinton, he played an important role in allowing commercial banks to get into the mortgage-backed securities game. He also backed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed financial derivatives to be traded without any oversight or regulation. So it was on his watch that the credit-default swaps warhead that has blown up our economy was launched. In 2000, Summers declared: "The traditional industrial economy was a Newtonian system of opposing forces, checks and balances... While, in contrast, the right metaphors for the new economy are more Darwinian, with the fittest surviving." He forgot to add the part about the fittest surviving by being bailed out by the rest of us.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Colin Powell’s former chief of staff: Cheney is ‘evil,’ his fearmongering is ‘assisting’ al Qaeda.
Weeks after President Obama was inaugurated, Dick Cheney gave an interview to Politico slamming Obama’s detainee policies and warning that he was making America less safe (charges he repeated again last Sunday). Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff who left the Bush administration in protest, wrote an essay on the Washington Note last evening slamming Cheney’s fearmongering. Wilkerson calls Cheney “evil” and says his detainee policies were only “assisting” terrorists:
Cheney went on to say in his McLean interview that “Protecting the country’s security is a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people and we are not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.” I have to agree but the other way around. Cheney and his like are the evil people and we certainly are not going to prevail in the struggle with radical religion if we listen to people as he. […]
But al-Qa’ida will be back. Iraq, GITMO, Abu Ghraib, heavily-biased U.S. support for Israel, and a host of other strategic errors have insured al-Qa’ida’s resilience, staying power and motivation. How we deal with the future attacks of this organization and its cohorts could well seal our fate, for good or bad. Osama bin Laden and his brain trust, Aman al-Zawahiri, are counting on us to produce the bad. With people such as Cheney assisting them, they are far more likely to succeed.
Wilkerson also writes that Powell and Richard Armitage “labored to ameliorate the GITMO situation from almost day one” but that Rumsfeld and Cheney were “[s]tanding resolutely” in the way and would “have none of it.”
Weeks after President Obama was inaugurated, Dick Cheney gave an interview to Politico slamming Obama’s detainee policies and warning that he was making America less safe (charges he repeated again last Sunday). Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff who left the Bush administration in protest, wrote an essay on the Washington Note last evening slamming Cheney’s fearmongering. Wilkerson calls Cheney “evil” and says his detainee policies were only “assisting” terrorists:
Cheney went on to say in his McLean interview that “Protecting the country’s security is a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people and we are not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.” I have to agree but the other way around. Cheney and his like are the evil people and we certainly are not going to prevail in the struggle with radical religion if we listen to people as he. […]
But al-Qa’ida will be back. Iraq, GITMO, Abu Ghraib, heavily-biased U.S. support for Israel, and a host of other strategic errors have insured al-Qa’ida’s resilience, staying power and motivation. How we deal with the future attacks of this organization and its cohorts could well seal our fate, for good or bad. Osama bin Laden and his brain trust, Aman al-Zawahiri, are counting on us to produce the bad. With people such as Cheney assisting them, they are far more likely to succeed.
Wilkerson also writes that Powell and Richard Armitage “labored to ameliorate the GITMO situation from almost day one” but that Rumsfeld and Cheney were “[s]tanding resolutely” in the way and would “have none of it.”
Friday, March 13, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Friday, March 06, 2009
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
WORST WEEK EVER: REPUBLICANS UNHINGED
from Huffington Post article by Paul Jenkins (pjpolitics.com)
When Republicans suffered a disastrous beating in November's election, it would have been fair to assume that things could not get worse for them: the-most-liberal-Senator was to be president, Nancy-Pelosi-from-San-Francisco was going to lead a massive Democratic majority in the House, and assorted socialists were going to run things. That was bad, yes, but this week, just like the stock market (funny how that goes), Republicans hit yet a new low. In recent days, Republican leaders were called cheesy, off-putting, disastrous, untrustworthy, and inconsequential, not by Democrats, but by their party's own members, from high-profile commentators to Governors.
The highlight of the GOP week was, of course, Governor Bobby Jindal's response to Barack Obama's Congressional address. The best that can be said for Jindal's performance is that it channeled Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock, presumably not the objective, even for someone who willingly changed his name to "Bobby." But the past seven days have offered so many moments of breathtaking inanity by the GOP that our head spins at trying to organize them cohesively. With the country on the verge of being swallowed up in its entirety by the spiraling economy, Republicans obsessed over Obama's citizenship, gay people, pregnant women with HIV, helicopters, primary challenges to their own Senators from porn stars and Christian fundamentalists, registration forms, hopeless recounts, and assorted variations on the 1981 theme of "Government Is The Problem."
In Alabama, Senator Richard Shelby took it upon himself to try to fan the fires set by Republican psychopaths, including Clarence Thomas: Obama is not really American because, Shelby said, he had "not seen any birth certificate." It is quite understandable that Shelby would want to detract our attention from the fact that he chaired the Senate Committee on Banking (!), Housing (!!) and Urban Affairs from 2003 to 2007, but in the end it only serves to increase the focus on the tragic consequences of his ineptitude. On the subject, John McCain this week became preoccupied with the order for a new presidential helicopter fleet, ordered by George W. Bush and, no surprise, dreadfully mismanaged. And, since McCain still can't chew gum and walk, this is now his sole obsession, a "good idea" that would "cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money," making it sound as if building Marine One was somehow akin to, say, the New Deal. Or perhaps akin to testing pregnant women for HIV or extending health care benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian government workers, both of which were decried this week by Republicans in the Colorado Senate because: a) pregnant women with HIV (or is just pregnant women?) are promiscuous and their unborn children should not be protected "from the negative consequences of their actions;" b) homosexuality is murder.
Other Republican nut jobs, convinced that the party lost power because it was too rational, moderate and accommodating, are circling like vultures. In Louisiana, Senator David Vitter, himself a right-wing madman, realized this week that he will likely face a dual primary challenge: by porn star Stormy Daniels (it is still unclear whether she -and we assume it is a she-- was involved in Vitter's pay for sex diaper play, but let's not rule it out); and by Family Research Council Tony Perkins, who is as sexually obsessed as Vitter, and is probably even more insane. Another barmy Republican, Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, whom his Republican colleagues are desperate to get rid of (yes, he is that cuckoo), has threatened to sue his own National Republican Senatorial Committee if they do not support his reelection in 2010. This week, he also said of the head of the Committee: "I don't believe anything John Cornyn says."
The ostensible new leader of the Republican National Committee, Michael "Hip Hop" Steele, also thinks that the party has veered way too far left, this week leaving open the possibility that the three moderate GOP Senators who voted for the Obama stimulus package could face retribution. "Oh, yes, I'm always open to everything, baby, absolutely," he told an interviewer when asked whether he may withdraw funds from those Commie Republicans ("Baby?" It was on Fox News, but still). Is it any wonder that moderates everywhere are mulling party changes? Mortified by his Republican colleagues, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this week made sure we realized that he had recently considered leaving the party, although why he did not is unclear. At the same time, New York City Republicans (sounds weird, no?) also took steps to remain out of power forever by refusing to support Mayor Michael Bloomberg's bid for a third term, unless he becomes a card-carrying Republican. Again.
Other GOP members don't bother leaving the Party, they just assault it from the inside. Some do it subtly, such as once-lifelong bachelor Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, who said this week that there is "a national leader, his name is President Obama," clearly meaning there are no Republican leaders. Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah also gave us a sense of how low his GOP has sunk, saying of the party's Congressional leaders: "I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential -- completely." This is not from a strange leftover Vermont Republican, it is from the Governor of the most consistently Republican state in the country. In New Hampshire, former Senator Bob Smith, an early victim of the state's leftward tilt, is also intent on destroying any comeback for his Republican party in the state. This week, he appeared to threaten to move back from Florida to New Hampshire (one more sign of his madness if any was needed) to challenge his Republican nemesis, former Sen. John Sununu, himself humiliated just this November in his reelection effort (all very complicated for a small party in a small state.) Not even their favorite cheerleader/pundit Stuart Rothenberg's irrational prediction that "2009 and 2010 could be the beginning of a rebound for the party in the Northeast" (ha!) is likely to save Republicans from their cannibalistic instinct.
That said, Republicans are not only molesting one another. Yes, they are powerless against Obama or Pelosi, but they have shifted their time and money to a Democratic threat even bigger, or at least one they think they have a shot at: Al Franken, who won his challenge to Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman by a slim margin. Coleman, who has already taken a new job but actually seems to want to remain a Republican, this week called for a do-over, and Republicans everywhere are throwing money at his challenge to the November election. From an electoral perspective, it is not entirely clear why, however. Republicans are busy trying to kick out the three Northeastern GOP moderate Judases from the Senate (and surely they know they don't have a shot at replacing them with anything but a Democrat, whatever Rothenberg may hope for), but they are fighting tooth and nail to keep the Minnesota moderate? The truth is, of course, that the GOP's Minnesota focus has to do with the fact that Franken is the author of Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and that Limbaugh, besides being a big fat drug-addled idiot, is also the actual leader of the Republican Party in 2009. Presumably this would explain why Republicans, to their dying breath, are fighting the slanderous Franken. In return, they can expect various favors to be bestowed by the head big fat idiot, and even be saved from political death. "I love Bobby Jindal [...] he's brilliant," Limbaugh said this week, in what is sure to be the Republicans' determining verdict on Jindal's very Bobby-ish performance.
With the sweet smell of defeat lingering in Republican Washington, three of the party's biggest losers are back. Tom DeLay, run out of the capital because even by its standards he was woefully corrupt, called Obama's Congressional address "the most irresponsible, hypocritical speech I have ever witnessed." This from the man who blamed the Columbine shootings on "school systems [teaching] our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup of mud." Speaking of irresponsible, hypocritical, primordial and muddy, Newt Gingrich is also back and you will be stunned to hear that he is "disappointed" with Obama's performance so far. Mitt "Who Let The Dogs Out" Romney, who drained $100 million on a creepy presidential campaign, this week decided to come to the financial rescue of embattled Republicans who are "standing up for fiscal responsibility and saying no to spending abuse" (ie, the stimulus package). Yes, that's right, the man who spent $400,000 per delegate in the Republican primary is proudly lecturing others about fiscal responsibility. Any moment now, we expect Rudy Giuliani, who outdid Romney by spending $59 million for just one delegate, to share some of his own financial wisdom, probably spicing it up with his usual light-handed touch of 9/11 doomsday.
In just seven days, Republicans have offered up more amusement and fodder for an election campaign than even the most hopeful among us could have expected. What is especially thrilling is that it comes at little expense: Obama is competently in charge, as are, by and large, Democrats elsewhere, and change is happening at a mind-blowing pace. In the long run, yes, there should be concern that having buffoons in opposition is not healthy, but for now let's enjoy the moment. Of course, you ask, what about Sarah Palin, one of the likely buffoons-in-chief in 2012? Well, her very serious documentarian took charge of her faltering public relations this week. He went on national television to tell us emphatically that she is not a "moron."
--------------Obama should ignore Republicans and Limbaugh, Palin, and the like and forge ahead with what Americans elected him for: bring Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld to justice, stop the war in Iraq, remove all troops from that country.
from Huffington Post article by Paul Jenkins (pjpolitics.com)
When Republicans suffered a disastrous beating in November's election, it would have been fair to assume that things could not get worse for them: the-most-liberal-Senator was to be president, Nancy-Pelosi-from-San-Francisco was going to lead a massive Democratic majority in the House, and assorted socialists were going to run things. That was bad, yes, but this week, just like the stock market (funny how that goes), Republicans hit yet a new low. In recent days, Republican leaders were called cheesy, off-putting, disastrous, untrustworthy, and inconsequential, not by Democrats, but by their party's own members, from high-profile commentators to Governors.
The highlight of the GOP week was, of course, Governor Bobby Jindal's response to Barack Obama's Congressional address. The best that can be said for Jindal's performance is that it channeled Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock, presumably not the objective, even for someone who willingly changed his name to "Bobby." But the past seven days have offered so many moments of breathtaking inanity by the GOP that our head spins at trying to organize them cohesively. With the country on the verge of being swallowed up in its entirety by the spiraling economy, Republicans obsessed over Obama's citizenship, gay people, pregnant women with HIV, helicopters, primary challenges to their own Senators from porn stars and Christian fundamentalists, registration forms, hopeless recounts, and assorted variations on the 1981 theme of "Government Is The Problem."
In Alabama, Senator Richard Shelby took it upon himself to try to fan the fires set by Republican psychopaths, including Clarence Thomas: Obama is not really American because, Shelby said, he had "not seen any birth certificate." It is quite understandable that Shelby would want to detract our attention from the fact that he chaired the Senate Committee on Banking (!), Housing (!!) and Urban Affairs from 2003 to 2007, but in the end it only serves to increase the focus on the tragic consequences of his ineptitude. On the subject, John McCain this week became preoccupied with the order for a new presidential helicopter fleet, ordered by George W. Bush and, no surprise, dreadfully mismanaged. And, since McCain still can't chew gum and walk, this is now his sole obsession, a "good idea" that would "cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money," making it sound as if building Marine One was somehow akin to, say, the New Deal. Or perhaps akin to testing pregnant women for HIV or extending health care benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian government workers, both of which were decried this week by Republicans in the Colorado Senate because: a) pregnant women with HIV (or is just pregnant women?) are promiscuous and their unborn children should not be protected "from the negative consequences of their actions;" b) homosexuality is murder.
Other Republican nut jobs, convinced that the party lost power because it was too rational, moderate and accommodating, are circling like vultures. In Louisiana, Senator David Vitter, himself a right-wing madman, realized this week that he will likely face a dual primary challenge: by porn star Stormy Daniels (it is still unclear whether she -and we assume it is a she-- was involved in Vitter's pay for sex diaper play, but let's not rule it out); and by Family Research Council Tony Perkins, who is as sexually obsessed as Vitter, and is probably even more insane. Another barmy Republican, Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, whom his Republican colleagues are desperate to get rid of (yes, he is that cuckoo), has threatened to sue his own National Republican Senatorial Committee if they do not support his reelection in 2010. This week, he also said of the head of the Committee: "I don't believe anything John Cornyn says."
The ostensible new leader of the Republican National Committee, Michael "Hip Hop" Steele, also thinks that the party has veered way too far left, this week leaving open the possibility that the three moderate GOP Senators who voted for the Obama stimulus package could face retribution. "Oh, yes, I'm always open to everything, baby, absolutely," he told an interviewer when asked whether he may withdraw funds from those Commie Republicans ("Baby?" It was on Fox News, but still). Is it any wonder that moderates everywhere are mulling party changes? Mortified by his Republican colleagues, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this week made sure we realized that he had recently considered leaving the party, although why he did not is unclear. At the same time, New York City Republicans (sounds weird, no?) also took steps to remain out of power forever by refusing to support Mayor Michael Bloomberg's bid for a third term, unless he becomes a card-carrying Republican. Again.
Other GOP members don't bother leaving the Party, they just assault it from the inside. Some do it subtly, such as once-lifelong bachelor Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, who said this week that there is "a national leader, his name is President Obama," clearly meaning there are no Republican leaders. Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah also gave us a sense of how low his GOP has sunk, saying of the party's Congressional leaders: "I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential -- completely." This is not from a strange leftover Vermont Republican, it is from the Governor of the most consistently Republican state in the country. In New Hampshire, former Senator Bob Smith, an early victim of the state's leftward tilt, is also intent on destroying any comeback for his Republican party in the state. This week, he appeared to threaten to move back from Florida to New Hampshire (one more sign of his madness if any was needed) to challenge his Republican nemesis, former Sen. John Sununu, himself humiliated just this November in his reelection effort (all very complicated for a small party in a small state.) Not even their favorite cheerleader/pundit Stuart Rothenberg's irrational prediction that "2009 and 2010 could be the beginning of a rebound for the party in the Northeast" (ha!) is likely to save Republicans from their cannibalistic instinct.
That said, Republicans are not only molesting one another. Yes, they are powerless against Obama or Pelosi, but they have shifted their time and money to a Democratic threat even bigger, or at least one they think they have a shot at: Al Franken, who won his challenge to Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman by a slim margin. Coleman, who has already taken a new job but actually seems to want to remain a Republican, this week called for a do-over, and Republicans everywhere are throwing money at his challenge to the November election. From an electoral perspective, it is not entirely clear why, however. Republicans are busy trying to kick out the three Northeastern GOP moderate Judases from the Senate (and surely they know they don't have a shot at replacing them with anything but a Democrat, whatever Rothenberg may hope for), but they are fighting tooth and nail to keep the Minnesota moderate? The truth is, of course, that the GOP's Minnesota focus has to do with the fact that Franken is the author of Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and that Limbaugh, besides being a big fat drug-addled idiot, is also the actual leader of the Republican Party in 2009. Presumably this would explain why Republicans, to their dying breath, are fighting the slanderous Franken. In return, they can expect various favors to be bestowed by the head big fat idiot, and even be saved from political death. "I love Bobby Jindal [...] he's brilliant," Limbaugh said this week, in what is sure to be the Republicans' determining verdict on Jindal's very Bobby-ish performance.
With the sweet smell of defeat lingering in Republican Washington, three of the party's biggest losers are back. Tom DeLay, run out of the capital because even by its standards he was woefully corrupt, called Obama's Congressional address "the most irresponsible, hypocritical speech I have ever witnessed." This from the man who blamed the Columbine shootings on "school systems [teaching] our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup of mud." Speaking of irresponsible, hypocritical, primordial and muddy, Newt Gingrich is also back and you will be stunned to hear that he is "disappointed" with Obama's performance so far. Mitt "Who Let The Dogs Out" Romney, who drained $100 million on a creepy presidential campaign, this week decided to come to the financial rescue of embattled Republicans who are "standing up for fiscal responsibility and saying no to spending abuse" (ie, the stimulus package). Yes, that's right, the man who spent $400,000 per delegate in the Republican primary is proudly lecturing others about fiscal responsibility. Any moment now, we expect Rudy Giuliani, who outdid Romney by spending $59 million for just one delegate, to share some of his own financial wisdom, probably spicing it up with his usual light-handed touch of 9/11 doomsday.
In just seven days, Republicans have offered up more amusement and fodder for an election campaign than even the most hopeful among us could have expected. What is especially thrilling is that it comes at little expense: Obama is competently in charge, as are, by and large, Democrats elsewhere, and change is happening at a mind-blowing pace. In the long run, yes, there should be concern that having buffoons in opposition is not healthy, but for now let's enjoy the moment. Of course, you ask, what about Sarah Palin, one of the likely buffoons-in-chief in 2012? Well, her very serious documentarian took charge of her faltering public relations this week. He went on national television to tell us emphatically that she is not a "moron."
--------------Obama should ignore Republicans and Limbaugh, Palin, and the like and forge ahead with what Americans elected him for: bring Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld to justice, stop the war in Iraq, remove all troops from that country.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Special Prosecutor for Bush War Crimes
Submitted by Bob Fertik on December 18, 2008 - 9:45pm.
39464 of 100000 people have signed this petition.
BackgroundDear Attorney General Eric Holder,
We the undersigned citizens of the United States hereby formally petition you to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in torture and other war crimes.
Update 1: Initially, we emailed Mr. Holder at his law firm. On 12/20/08 we received a reply from Mr. Holder: "Enough folks. I hear you." So out of respect we stopped forwarding each signature individually.
Update 2: After his Senate confirmation on 2/2/09, we began forwarding each signature to the Justice Department. We are trying to schedule a meeting to deliver the full list of signatures.
(Thanks to buhdydharma and the Docudharma community for the petition, and to Edger for the logo.)
Petition
Dear Attorney General Eric Holder,
We the undersigned citizens of the United States petition you to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in torture and other war crimes.
These crimes are being euphemistically referred to as "abusive interrogation techniques" by such respected figures as Senator John McCain. These are euphemisms for torture. Torture is a war crime. Waterboarding is a war crime. The CIA has admitted waterboarding detainees. Former Vice President Cheney brazenly admitted authorizing the program that led to waterboarding, other forms of torture too numerous to list, and ultimately, the deaths by homicide of detainees.
As Major General Antonio Taguba, the Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison has stated:
"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
The Washington Post summarized the Senate Armed Services Committee Report on detainee treatment:
A bipartisan panel of Senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.
We the undersigned citizens demand a full and thorough investigation immediately. This investigation should be pursued no matter where it may lead and no matter what the political implications may be. To this end, we remind you that you work not on behalf of or for the President or the Congress, but for the People of the United States of America and for Justice itself.
The United States is a representative democracy. The actions of our government officials are done in the name of its citizens. War Crimes have been committed in our name. Torture has been done in our name. The only way to clear our name of war crimes is to repudiate them through the aggressive prosecution of each and every person involved to the fullest extent of the law through the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.
Submitted by Bob Fertik on December 18, 2008 - 9:45pm.
39464 of 100000 people have signed this petition.
BackgroundDear Attorney General Eric Holder,
We the undersigned citizens of the United States hereby formally petition you to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in torture and other war crimes.
Update 1: Initially, we emailed Mr. Holder at his law firm. On 12/20/08 we received a reply from Mr. Holder: "Enough folks. I hear you." So out of respect we stopped forwarding each signature individually.
Update 2: After his Senate confirmation on 2/2/09, we began forwarding each signature to the Justice Department. We are trying to schedule a meeting to deliver the full list of signatures.
(Thanks to buhdydharma and the Docudharma community for the petition, and to Edger for the logo.)
Petition
Dear Attorney General Eric Holder,
We the undersigned citizens of the United States petition you to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in torture and other war crimes.
These crimes are being euphemistically referred to as "abusive interrogation techniques" by such respected figures as Senator John McCain. These are euphemisms for torture. Torture is a war crime. Waterboarding is a war crime. The CIA has admitted waterboarding detainees. Former Vice President Cheney brazenly admitted authorizing the program that led to waterboarding, other forms of torture too numerous to list, and ultimately, the deaths by homicide of detainees.
As Major General Antonio Taguba, the Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison has stated:
"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
The Washington Post summarized the Senate Armed Services Committee Report on detainee treatment:
A bipartisan panel of Senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.
We the undersigned citizens demand a full and thorough investigation immediately. This investigation should be pursued no matter where it may lead and no matter what the political implications may be. To this end, we remind you that you work not on behalf of or for the President or the Congress, but for the People of the United States of America and for Justice itself.
The United States is a representative democracy. The actions of our government officials are done in the name of its citizens. War Crimes have been committed in our name. Torture has been done in our name. The only way to clear our name of war crimes is to repudiate them through the aggressive prosecution of each and every person involved to the fullest extent of the law through the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Dick Cheney: War Profiteer
by Tom Turnipseed
Questions persist about Vice-President Cheney’s role in the ongoing investigation and scandal swirling about the White House. His chief of staff and confidante Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Let’s take a look at some personal incentives for Cheney’s selling war to our country.
Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits.
As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study recommended that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney’s privatization efforts for our military’s logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year's work with them before he slipped back through the revolving door of war profiteering to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it."
The Bush administration has dished out lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq to favored U.S. based corporations including Halliburton and denied contracts to many Iraqi and foreign based companies. To the conquerors go the spoils was the message on December 11, 2003 when Bush said, “The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, It's very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.”
Bush’s statement is a stunning admission of how much corrupt corporations control our foreign policy. Under Cheney’s leadership Halliburton out did Enron in using offshore subsidiaries as tax shelters to hide profits to bilk U.S. taxpayers. Halliburton also utilized off-shore subsidiaries to contract for services and sell banned equipment to rogue states like Iran, Iraq and Libya. This would be illegal if done directly by Halliburton.
At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton’s tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.
During Cheney’s tenure as CEO from 1995 to 2000, Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. The Halliburton subsidiary does approximately $40 million a year worth of oil field service work for the Iranian government. 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl visited the subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and found that it had no office and no employees. The mailing address was a local bank with which the subsidiary is registered. Stahl was met there by the bank’s manager who informed her that all mail to the subsidiary is forwarded to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. Halliburton had created the subsidiary to allow itself to do illegal business with a rogue state and to skip out on its taxes in the process.
With Iran’s president vowing to destroy Israel and being accused by the Bush administration of harboring and aiding al-Qaeda operatives, Cheney’s company is doing business with Iran through a subsidiary and dodging its tax obligations to the U.S.
Halliburton has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Before the Iraq War began, it was 19th on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors and zoomed to number 1 in 2003. In 2003 Halliburton made $4.2 billion from the U.S. government. Cheney stated he had , "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently asserted that Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million-- for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.
The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest.
Calling on Cheney to sever his financial ties to Halliburton, Lautenberg points out that the company has already raked in more than $10 billion for work in Iraq, and was handed some of the first Katrina contracts. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of no-bid contacts in Iraq, and there have been numerous allegations of over charging for services. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company also built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay. Lautenberg said, "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”
Cheney’s war profiteering requires redress and justice.
Tom Turnipseed is an attorney, writer and political activist in Columbia, South Carolina. www.turnipseed.net
by Tom Turnipseed
Questions persist about Vice-President Cheney’s role in the ongoing investigation and scandal swirling about the White House. His chief of staff and confidante Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Let’s take a look at some personal incentives for Cheney’s selling war to our country.
Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits.
As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study recommended that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney’s privatization efforts for our military’s logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year's work with them before he slipped back through the revolving door of war profiteering to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it."
The Bush administration has dished out lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq to favored U.S. based corporations including Halliburton and denied contracts to many Iraqi and foreign based companies. To the conquerors go the spoils was the message on December 11, 2003 when Bush said, “The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, It's very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.”
Bush’s statement is a stunning admission of how much corrupt corporations control our foreign policy. Under Cheney’s leadership Halliburton out did Enron in using offshore subsidiaries as tax shelters to hide profits to bilk U.S. taxpayers. Halliburton also utilized off-shore subsidiaries to contract for services and sell banned equipment to rogue states like Iran, Iraq and Libya. This would be illegal if done directly by Halliburton.
At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton’s tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.
During Cheney’s tenure as CEO from 1995 to 2000, Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. The Halliburton subsidiary does approximately $40 million a year worth of oil field service work for the Iranian government. 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl visited the subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and found that it had no office and no employees. The mailing address was a local bank with which the subsidiary is registered. Stahl was met there by the bank’s manager who informed her that all mail to the subsidiary is forwarded to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. Halliburton had created the subsidiary to allow itself to do illegal business with a rogue state and to skip out on its taxes in the process.
With Iran’s president vowing to destroy Israel and being accused by the Bush administration of harboring and aiding al-Qaeda operatives, Cheney’s company is doing business with Iran through a subsidiary and dodging its tax obligations to the U.S.
Halliburton has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Before the Iraq War began, it was 19th on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors and zoomed to number 1 in 2003. In 2003 Halliburton made $4.2 billion from the U.S. government. Cheney stated he had , "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently asserted that Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million-- for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.
The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest.
Calling on Cheney to sever his financial ties to Halliburton, Lautenberg points out that the company has already raked in more than $10 billion for work in Iraq, and was handed some of the first Katrina contracts. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of no-bid contacts in Iraq, and there have been numerous allegations of over charging for services. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company also built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay. Lautenberg said, "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”
Cheney’s war profiteering requires redress and justice.
Tom Turnipseed is an attorney, writer and political activist in Columbia, South Carolina. www.turnipseed.net
Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans
By John Tirman, The Nation
Posted on February 2, 2009, Printed on February 2, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/123818/
We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the war instigated by the Bush administration. Looking at the empirical evidence of Bush's war legacy will put his claims of victory in perspective. Of course, even by his standards -- "stability" -- the jury is out. Most independent analysts would say it's too soon to judge the political outcome. Nearly six years after the invasion, the country remains riven by sectarian politics and major unresolved issues, like the status of Kirkuk.
We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis -- more than half of them refugees -- or about one in every six citizens. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.
The mortality caused by the war is also high. Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. While there are differences among them, the range suggests a congruence of estimates. But none have been conducted for eighteen months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 "excess deaths" (mortality attributable to war); the other yielded 400,000. The war remained ferocious for twelve to fifteen months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside. Iraq Body Count, a London NGO that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to update the 2006 estimates. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends, which are striking. Its estimates are nearing 100,000, more than double its June 2006 figure of 45,000. (It does not count nonviolent excess deaths -- from health emergencies, for example -- or insurgent deaths.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology. So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million "excess deaths" as we approach the six-year anniversary of this war.
This gruesome figure makes sense when reading of claims by Iraqi officials that there are 1-2 million war widows and 5 million orphans. This constitutes direct empirical evidence of total excess mortality and indirect, though confirming, evidence of the displaced and the bereaved and of general insecurity. The overall figures are stunning: 4.5 million displaced, 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, about 1 million dead -- in one way or another, affecting nearly one in two Iraqis.
By any sensible measure, it would be difficult to describe this as a victory of any kind. It speaks volumes about the repair work we must do for Iraqis, and it should caution us against the savage wars we are prone to. Now that Bush is gone, perhaps the United States can honestly face the damage we have wrought and the responsibilities we must accept from it.
John Tirman is Executive Director of MIT's Center for International Studies.
© 2009 The Nation All rights reserved.
By John Tirman, The Nation
Posted on February 2, 2009, Printed on February 2, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/123818/
We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the war instigated by the Bush administration. Looking at the empirical evidence of Bush's war legacy will put his claims of victory in perspective. Of course, even by his standards -- "stability" -- the jury is out. Most independent analysts would say it's too soon to judge the political outcome. Nearly six years after the invasion, the country remains riven by sectarian politics and major unresolved issues, like the status of Kirkuk.
We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis -- more than half of them refugees -- or about one in every six citizens. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.
The mortality caused by the war is also high. Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. While there are differences among them, the range suggests a congruence of estimates. But none have been conducted for eighteen months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 "excess deaths" (mortality attributable to war); the other yielded 400,000. The war remained ferocious for twelve to fifteen months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside. Iraq Body Count, a London NGO that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to update the 2006 estimates. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends, which are striking. Its estimates are nearing 100,000, more than double its June 2006 figure of 45,000. (It does not count nonviolent excess deaths -- from health emergencies, for example -- or insurgent deaths.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology. So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million "excess deaths" as we approach the six-year anniversary of this war.
This gruesome figure makes sense when reading of claims by Iraqi officials that there are 1-2 million war widows and 5 million orphans. This constitutes direct empirical evidence of total excess mortality and indirect, though confirming, evidence of the displaced and the bereaved and of general insecurity. The overall figures are stunning: 4.5 million displaced, 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, about 1 million dead -- in one way or another, affecting nearly one in two Iraqis.
By any sensible measure, it would be difficult to describe this as a victory of any kind. It speaks volumes about the repair work we must do for Iraqis, and it should caution us against the savage wars we are prone to. Now that Bush is gone, perhaps the United States can honestly face the damage we have wrought and the responsibilities we must accept from it.
John Tirman is Executive Director of MIT's Center for International Studies.
© 2009 The Nation All rights reserved.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
David LattEmmy-Winning Television Writer, Producer
Posted January 30, 2009 | 09:48 AM (EST) BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index
Bush Punk'd Us Again
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us mixx.com ShareThis
Read More: Bush Administration, Bush Pardons, Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Miers Immunity, Rove Immunity, Politics News
Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Buzz up! Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam
Share Print CommentsA lot of ink was spilled by many writers, myself included, who were convinced that President Bush would pardon key members of his administration before he left office. We were certain he would protect Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others who were important architects of his expansion of executive power. As January 19th approached we beat the war drums ever more loudly, hoping to keep the issue in the public's eye. We believed that by publicizing the issue Bush wouldn't be able to hide in the shadows and sign pardons without public notice.
And then on January 20th Barack Obama was inaugurated as our 44th president. We took a collective breath and relaxed. Apparently Bush really didn't believe in granting pardons.
Think again.
Michael Isikoff reported for Newsweek that while many of us were fomenting about Bush preemptively pardoning at-risk members of his administration, he and his lawyer Fred Fielding (White House Counsel) were concocting one last expansion of executive privilege. Four days before he left office, Mr. Bush authorized Fielding to write letters to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove giving them "absolute immunity" from Congressional inquiry and prosecution. Preemptively. In perpetuity. Absolute and irrevocable.
The letters set the stage for what is likely to be a highly contentious legal and political battle over an unresolved issue: whether a former president can assert "executive privilege" -- and therefore prevent his aides from testifying before Congress -- even after his term has expired.
These letters were delivered before Congress or any prosecutor had initiated action against Miers and Rove. Clearly Bush sought to inoculate Rove and Miers from all attempts to prosecute them for their actions during his administration. Only when John Conyers (Chairman, House Judiciary Committee) subpoenaed Mr. Rove did the letters come to light. Waving his letter in the air, Karl Rove refused to appear before the committee.
In December while Bush was giving a round-robin of legacy interviews proclaiming his two terms as successes, Vice President Dick Cheney was taking his own victory lap. In two of those interviews he said something interesting: I authorized the CIA's use of torture and I did it because my boss wanted me to. The Vice President had pointed a smoking gun right at Bush's heart. Cheney was clearly prodding Bush to issue pardons to protect his underlings AND to protect himself.
Every protective measure by Bush is self-protective. If Karl Rove and Harriet Miers don't testify under oath, then they can't reveal what Bush agreed to and authorized. How many more such letters did Bush have Fielding write?
With so much public attention focused on whether Bush would pardon his associates, the ex-president did an end-run around the issue. Ultimately, his claim to broad powers of executive privilege may be overturned in the courts. But how long will that take? And at what expense? Clearly Bush hopes that by making inquiries so difficult, he will dissuade Congress and prosecutors from even trying to look into the dark recesses of his administration's activities.
Back home in Texas, surely Bush is having a good chuckle right now. He punk'd us again!
Karl Rove
A lot of ink was spilled by many writers, myself included, who were convinced that President Bush would pardon key members of his administration before he left office. We were certain he would protec...
A lot of ink was spilled by many writers, myself included, who were convinced that President Bush would pardon key members of his administration before he left office. We were certain he would protec...
Related News On Huffington Post: Bush Lawyer Fred Fielding Told Rove: Ignore Subpoena
Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into...
Posted January 30, 2009 | 09:48 AM (EST) BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index
Bush Punk'd Us Again
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us mixx.com ShareThis
Read More: Bush Administration, Bush Pardons, Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Miers Immunity, Rove Immunity, Politics News
Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Buzz up! Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam
Share Print CommentsA lot of ink was spilled by many writers, myself included, who were convinced that President Bush would pardon key members of his administration before he left office. We were certain he would protect Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others who were important architects of his expansion of executive power. As January 19th approached we beat the war drums ever more loudly, hoping to keep the issue in the public's eye. We believed that by publicizing the issue Bush wouldn't be able to hide in the shadows and sign pardons without public notice.
And then on January 20th Barack Obama was inaugurated as our 44th president. We took a collective breath and relaxed. Apparently Bush really didn't believe in granting pardons.
Think again.
Michael Isikoff reported for Newsweek that while many of us were fomenting about Bush preemptively pardoning at-risk members of his administration, he and his lawyer Fred Fielding (White House Counsel) were concocting one last expansion of executive privilege. Four days before he left office, Mr. Bush authorized Fielding to write letters to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove giving them "absolute immunity" from Congressional inquiry and prosecution. Preemptively. In perpetuity. Absolute and irrevocable.
The letters set the stage for what is likely to be a highly contentious legal and political battle over an unresolved issue: whether a former president can assert "executive privilege" -- and therefore prevent his aides from testifying before Congress -- even after his term has expired.
These letters were delivered before Congress or any prosecutor had initiated action against Miers and Rove. Clearly Bush sought to inoculate Rove and Miers from all attempts to prosecute them for their actions during his administration. Only when John Conyers (Chairman, House Judiciary Committee) subpoenaed Mr. Rove did the letters come to light. Waving his letter in the air, Karl Rove refused to appear before the committee.
In December while Bush was giving a round-robin of legacy interviews proclaiming his two terms as successes, Vice President Dick Cheney was taking his own victory lap. In two of those interviews he said something interesting: I authorized the CIA's use of torture and I did it because my boss wanted me to. The Vice President had pointed a smoking gun right at Bush's heart. Cheney was clearly prodding Bush to issue pardons to protect his underlings AND to protect himself.
Every protective measure by Bush is self-protective. If Karl Rove and Harriet Miers don't testify under oath, then they can't reveal what Bush agreed to and authorized. How many more such letters did Bush have Fielding write?
With so much public attention focused on whether Bush would pardon his associates, the ex-president did an end-run around the issue. Ultimately, his claim to broad powers of executive privilege may be overturned in the courts. But how long will that take? And at what expense? Clearly Bush hopes that by making inquiries so difficult, he will dissuade Congress and prosecutors from even trying to look into the dark recesses of his administration's activities.
Back home in Texas, surely Bush is having a good chuckle right now. He punk'd us again!
Karl Rove
A lot of ink was spilled by many writers, myself included, who were convinced that President Bush would pardon key members of his administration before he left office. We were certain he would protec...
A lot of ink was spilled by many writers, myself included, who were convinced that President Bush would pardon key members of his administration before he left office. We were certain he would protec...
Related News On Huffington Post: Bush Lawyer Fred Fielding Told Rove: Ignore Subpoena
Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into...
Saturday, January 24, 2009
From Al-Jazeera English (Mid-S.Asian News)
Pakistan calls on US to end attacks
Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, has called on Barack Obama, his US counterpart, to end American missile attacks in South Asian nation's tribal border regions with Afghanistan.
Zardari's comments were reported in the local media on Saturday, a day after the first US attacks in Pakistan since Obama's inauguration.
Such strikes against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters are counterproductive, the private NNI news agency quoted Zardari as saying.
Eight alleged foreign fighters, including one aligned with al-Qaeda, were killed with 14 other people in a double strike in the Waziristan area on Friday, according to Pakistani security officials.
The foreign ministry said that an unspecified number of civilians were also killed in the air raid by an unmanned aircraft.
The foreign ministry said that it had informed US officials of its "great concern".
"With the advent of the new US administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism," a ministry statement said.
"We maintain that these attacks are counterproductive and should be discontinued,'' it said.
Increasing attacks
US attacks within Pakistan increased in number in 2008, with more than 30 occurring since August.
Pakistan has previously criticised their effectiveness and consequent deaths of civilians in such attacks. They also say that the air raids heighten anti-US feeling locally and undermine the government's own attempts at halting opposition groups.
The Pakistani parliament has adopted a unanimous resolution stating that US and Nato attacks would be considered an affront to the country's sovereignty.
Obama has not commented on the missile policy but had made the war in Afghanistan and the linked battles against opposition fighters in Pakistan a foreign policy priority.
Richard Holbrooke has been appointed special-envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan in the Obama administration.
The US does not directly admit to firing missiles in the border region, which Pakistan has little control over.
Pakistan calls on US to end attacks
Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, has called on Barack Obama, his US counterpart, to end American missile attacks in South Asian nation's tribal border regions with Afghanistan.
Zardari's comments were reported in the local media on Saturday, a day after the first US attacks in Pakistan since Obama's inauguration.
Such strikes against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters are counterproductive, the private NNI news agency quoted Zardari as saying.
Eight alleged foreign fighters, including one aligned with al-Qaeda, were killed with 14 other people in a double strike in the Waziristan area on Friday, according to Pakistani security officials.
The foreign ministry said that an unspecified number of civilians were also killed in the air raid by an unmanned aircraft.
The foreign ministry said that it had informed US officials of its "great concern".
"With the advent of the new US administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism," a ministry statement said.
"We maintain that these attacks are counterproductive and should be discontinued,'' it said.
Increasing attacks
US attacks within Pakistan increased in number in 2008, with more than 30 occurring since August.
Pakistan has previously criticised their effectiveness and consequent deaths of civilians in such attacks. They also say that the air raids heighten anti-US feeling locally and undermine the government's own attempts at halting opposition groups.
The Pakistani parliament has adopted a unanimous resolution stating that US and Nato attacks would be considered an affront to the country's sovereignty.
Obama has not commented on the missile policy but had made the war in Afghanistan and the linked battles against opposition fighters in Pakistan a foreign policy priority.
Richard Holbrooke has been appointed special-envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan in the Obama administration.
The US does not directly admit to firing missiles in the border region, which Pakistan has little control over.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
In one week, the U.S. Constitution will be front and center as Barack Obama solemnly swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. Given all that has happened over the last eight years, that oath is not nearly as pro-forma as it used to be.
During his final press conference yesterday, President Bush said that when it came time "to protect the homeland" he "wouldn't worry about popularity." He would "worry about the Constitution of the United States." It wasn't clear, as it hasn't been for most of his time in office, whether his concern was directed at upholding the document or circumventing it.
So as the Obama Years are about to begin, one of the questions facing the new president is what will he do about the transgressions of the Bush Years? Will his promise to protect and defend the Constitution include an investigation into the assaults on it perpetrated by members of the Bush administration?
On change.gov, the website of the Obama transition team, there is a section where people can submit questions and readers can vote on the questions they most want the incoming administration to answer. The top question last week, receiving over 23,000 votes, came from Bob Fertik of democrats.com:
"Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?"
Instead of having Obama respond to Fertik's question, change.gov posted an earlier reply from Joe Biden who had said, "President-elect Obama and I are not sitting thinking about the past... I think we should be looking forward, not backwards."
Picking up the dropped ball on Sunday, George Stephanopoulos directly asked Obama Fertik's question ("the most popular question on your own website").
Obama echoed Biden's reply: "I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards... My orientation is going to be to move forward."
Given the multiple -- and massive -- obstacles looming directly in front of him, Obama is wise not to be driving into the Oval Office looking in his rearview mirror. But I hope he will realize that moving forward and looking backwards are not mutually exclusive. Particularly if he isn't the one focused on the past.
There is no doubt that the economic crisis, Iraq and Afghanistan, health care reform, and the regulation of Wall Street should be the Obama administration's primary concerns.
But that doesn't mean we, as a country, should allow Bush and Cheney's offenses to accompany their perpetrators to a peaceful retirement in Texas and Wyoming.
That's why I am in favor of John Conyers' efforts to create a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties -- a DC version of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission created after the fall of apartheid in South Africa. The new Commission would come with subpoena power, a $3 million budget, and the mandate to investigate a host of issues ranging from Guantanamo, to torture, to extraordinary rendition.
The Commission members would come from outside government -- appointed by Obama and leaders from both political parties. So the administration and Congress could continue looking and moving forward while the country avoids falling into the trap of allowing the outrages of the Bush administration to be forgotten or, worse, implicitly sanctioned.
Dawn Johnson, Obama's pick to head the Office of Legal Counsel, has eloquently made the case against turning the page and not looking back:
"We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure."
This becomes all the more important as Bush and Cheney continue their Polish the Legacy Tour -- aka Lie-a-palooza '09.
During his Monday presser, which he dubbed "the ultimate exit interview," Bush thanked reporters for giving him a chance to defend his record "because I think it's a good, strong record." And defend it he did, standing behind the war in Iraq, his handling of Katrina, the use of Gitmo, and his tax cuts. And he strongly disagreed with "the assessment that our moral standing [in the world] has been damaged."
As for the economy, Bush insisted, "I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession. In the meantime, there were 52 months of uninterrupted growth." Which is kind of like saying the flight of the Hindenburg was fabulous up until the landing.
Cheney has been even more relentlessly on message -- ie pathologically in denial. Say what you will about the VP, the guy is savvy.
Watching him make the exit interview rounds, including his brazenly unrepentant turn with Wolf Blitzer on Sunday, has been like watching a brilliant lawyer defending a clearly guilty client. He has constructed a narrative of what has happened, cherry-picked and twisted every fact to back up his story, and then repeatedly hammered home his rendering of things, refusing to give an inch. His version of what has happened over the past eight years is air tight, iron clad -- and completely wrong.
Among the lowlights from his interview with Blitzer was his demonstrably false claim that the administration "did not base going after Saddam Hussein on any connection with 9/11," his demonstrably false claim that "there wasn't anything the administration did to create that inaccuracy on the part of the [pre-war] intelligence," and his demonstrably false claim that waterboarding "is not torture" because "we don't do torture."
Cheney also has a masterful ability to pass the buck, as when he told Bob Schieffer that the chaos and bloodshed that followed the fall of Baghdad should be laid at the feet of the Iraqi people: "There weren't any Iraqis early on who were willing to stand up and take responsibility for their own affairs." And that torture, which isn't really torture since we don't "do torture," was, in any case, okay because morally creative legal flunkies like John Yoo told them it was: "What we did was authorized by the legal authorities that were to be the source of that kind of advice."
As ridiculous and deceitful as Cheney's closing arguments are, inflicting this much damage to the Constitution then coming up with rationales that allow high crimes to dissolve into Sunday morning rhetorical squabbles requires an impressive level of brainpower. But it's brainpower at its most dangerous -- divorced from judgment, wisdom, and reality.
That's why we can't allow the historical revisionism to stand uncontested.
I am all for moving forward. But we can move forward as a nation that looks the other way when it comes to torture and lawlessness. Or we can move forward as the nation envisioned in the Constitution that Obama is about to solemnly swear to preserve, protect, and defend.
Dick Cheney
In one week, the U.S. Constitution will be front and center as Barack Obama solemnly swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. Given all that has happened over the last eight years, that oath is ...
In one week, the U.S. Constitution will be front and center as Barack Obama solemnly swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. Given all that has happened over the last eight years, that oath is ...
During his final press conference yesterday, President Bush said that when it came time "to protect the homeland" he "wouldn't worry about popularity." He would "worry about the Constitution of the United States." It wasn't clear, as it hasn't been for most of his time in office, whether his concern was directed at upholding the document or circumventing it.
So as the Obama Years are about to begin, one of the questions facing the new president is what will he do about the transgressions of the Bush Years? Will his promise to protect and defend the Constitution include an investigation into the assaults on it perpetrated by members of the Bush administration?
On change.gov, the website of the Obama transition team, there is a section where people can submit questions and readers can vote on the questions they most want the incoming administration to answer. The top question last week, receiving over 23,000 votes, came from Bob Fertik of democrats.com:
"Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?"
Instead of having Obama respond to Fertik's question, change.gov posted an earlier reply from Joe Biden who had said, "President-elect Obama and I are not sitting thinking about the past... I think we should be looking forward, not backwards."
Picking up the dropped ball on Sunday, George Stephanopoulos directly asked Obama Fertik's question ("the most popular question on your own website").
Obama echoed Biden's reply: "I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards... My orientation is going to be to move forward."
Given the multiple -- and massive -- obstacles looming directly in front of him, Obama is wise not to be driving into the Oval Office looking in his rearview mirror. But I hope he will realize that moving forward and looking backwards are not mutually exclusive. Particularly if he isn't the one focused on the past.
There is no doubt that the economic crisis, Iraq and Afghanistan, health care reform, and the regulation of Wall Street should be the Obama administration's primary concerns.
But that doesn't mean we, as a country, should allow Bush and Cheney's offenses to accompany their perpetrators to a peaceful retirement in Texas and Wyoming.
That's why I am in favor of John Conyers' efforts to create a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties -- a DC version of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission created after the fall of apartheid in South Africa. The new Commission would come with subpoena power, a $3 million budget, and the mandate to investigate a host of issues ranging from Guantanamo, to torture, to extraordinary rendition.
The Commission members would come from outside government -- appointed by Obama and leaders from both political parties. So the administration and Congress could continue looking and moving forward while the country avoids falling into the trap of allowing the outrages of the Bush administration to be forgotten or, worse, implicitly sanctioned.
Dawn Johnson, Obama's pick to head the Office of Legal Counsel, has eloquently made the case against turning the page and not looking back:
"We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure."
This becomes all the more important as Bush and Cheney continue their Polish the Legacy Tour -- aka Lie-a-palooza '09.
During his Monday presser, which he dubbed "the ultimate exit interview," Bush thanked reporters for giving him a chance to defend his record "because I think it's a good, strong record." And defend it he did, standing behind the war in Iraq, his handling of Katrina, the use of Gitmo, and his tax cuts. And he strongly disagreed with "the assessment that our moral standing [in the world] has been damaged."
As for the economy, Bush insisted, "I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession. In the meantime, there were 52 months of uninterrupted growth." Which is kind of like saying the flight of the Hindenburg was fabulous up until the landing.
Cheney has been even more relentlessly on message -- ie pathologically in denial. Say what you will about the VP, the guy is savvy.
Watching him make the exit interview rounds, including his brazenly unrepentant turn with Wolf Blitzer on Sunday, has been like watching a brilliant lawyer defending a clearly guilty client. He has constructed a narrative of what has happened, cherry-picked and twisted every fact to back up his story, and then repeatedly hammered home his rendering of things, refusing to give an inch. His version of what has happened over the past eight years is air tight, iron clad -- and completely wrong.
Among the lowlights from his interview with Blitzer was his demonstrably false claim that the administration "did not base going after Saddam Hussein on any connection with 9/11," his demonstrably false claim that "there wasn't anything the administration did to create that inaccuracy on the part of the [pre-war] intelligence," and his demonstrably false claim that waterboarding "is not torture" because "we don't do torture."
Cheney also has a masterful ability to pass the buck, as when he told Bob Schieffer that the chaos and bloodshed that followed the fall of Baghdad should be laid at the feet of the Iraqi people: "There weren't any Iraqis early on who were willing to stand up and take responsibility for their own affairs." And that torture, which isn't really torture since we don't "do torture," was, in any case, okay because morally creative legal flunkies like John Yoo told them it was: "What we did was authorized by the legal authorities that were to be the source of that kind of advice."
As ridiculous and deceitful as Cheney's closing arguments are, inflicting this much damage to the Constitution then coming up with rationales that allow high crimes to dissolve into Sunday morning rhetorical squabbles requires an impressive level of brainpower. But it's brainpower at its most dangerous -- divorced from judgment, wisdom, and reality.
That's why we can't allow the historical revisionism to stand uncontested.
I am all for moving forward. But we can move forward as a nation that looks the other way when it comes to torture and lawlessness. Or we can move forward as the nation envisioned in the Constitution that Obama is about to solemnly swear to preserve, protect, and defend.
Dick Cheney
In one week, the U.S. Constitution will be front and center as Barack Obama solemnly swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. Given all that has happened over the last eight years, that oath is ...
In one week, the U.S. Constitution will be front and center as Barack Obama solemnly swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. Given all that has happened over the last eight years, that oath is ...
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday night's valedictory speech was quintessential Bush: delusional from beginning to end. He made Afghanistan sound like a swell place to vacation when, in truth, only those with a death wish venture out these days without an armed convoy. He lauded Iraq as "a friend of the United States" -- without ever mentioning the fact that if Iraq has a BFF it is Iran, not America. He claimed that America's "air, water, and lands are measurably cleaner." Who is doing the measuring, the same eco-unfriendly companies to which he handed his environmental policies? It's dangerous spin. It's easy to feel a pang of pity for a guy heading out the door. But the more sympathy he evokes, the more susceptible we are to the lies he is telling. Before we know it, his revisionism becomes accepted as the truth.
Arianna Huffington
Arianna Huffington
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
this is blueoregon
Bush thinks his legacy will forgive his lies and deception. It won't, because the entire world is affected. His will be noted as an aside as a 'greedy, destructive presidency--an assault on fair and just, good and goodwill.'
Bush thinks his legacy will forgive his lies and deception. It won't, because the entire world is affected. His will be noted as an aside as a 'greedy, destructive presidency--an assault on fair and just, good and goodwill.'
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Friday, December 05, 2008
President Bush is looking to repair his image, wanting to appear more like a human who makes mistakes rather than a 'decider' who manipulated intelligence to start a war of aggression, a 'decider' who led the nation through deception and lie, a torturer whose image was that of a follower of God yet doing the Devil's work. Who can honestly forgive Bush for what he has done to the image of America, a freedom-loving, transparent Democracy? Not me. Sorry. I'll be happy to see an international tribunal try him for war crimes, because he killed 4,208 of my fellow military members needlessly and without shame, all the while hiding behind them in public appearances to keep his sham of a 'just war' alive. May he burn in Hell.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
September 12, 2008, 9:50 JTP COMMENT 29Nov08: BEFORE BUSH LEAVES OFFICE?
US to invade Iran any day now?
A few weeks ago the Russian newspaper Izvestia, a well-known and authoritive daily published nationwide and abroad, came forward with something that would have been looked upon as a conspiracy theory if published by a tabloid.
The paper suggested that by attacking South Ossetia, the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili had badly damaged a planned U.S. military operation against Iran. In the newspaper's opinion Georgia was supposed to play the role of another "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for the U.S., i.e. an operational and tactical base for U.S.
aircraft that would be making bombing raids into Iran. Something akin to what Thailand was in the Vietnam war.
Thailand certainly benefited from the arrangement, and Georgia would have too, insists the paper, if its President hadn't put his ambitions above the US national interest and ended up beaten, disarmed, chewing on his neckties and totally incapable of providing whatever the U.S. needs from him.
That's why, according to Izvestia in yet another article on the matter, the U.S. response to the Russian retaliation was harsh in words but very mild in action. The latest on the issue suggests that Mikhail Saakashvili may be replaced any day now by direct order from Washington.
Having read the story in Izvestia I decided to try to figure out the extent of improbability and impossibility of the assumptions. As I was doing that, I remembered that early in August CNN had started showing U.S. generals who cried for more troops and hardware for Afghanistan which, in their opinion, was rapidly becoming a more intensive conflict than Iraq.
Shortly after that, a phone call came from a college friend who had just come back from Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he had seen American battle tanks being unloaded from a Ukrainian-registered Antonov-124 "Ruslan", the heaviest and largest cargo airplane in the world. The friend asked if I had any idea what tanks would be good for in Afghanistan, and I said I didn't. It's an established fact from the Soviet war in Afghanistan that tanks are no good for most of the country's mountainous territory. They are good for flatlands, and the main body of flat land in the region is right across the border in Iran.
Later in August there was another bit of unofficial information from a Russian military source: more than a thousand American tanks and armored vehicles had been shipped to Eastern Afghanistan by Ukrainian "Ruslans" flying in three to five shipments a day, and more flights were expected.
Somehow all this, together with the series of articles in Izvestia, the information that all U.S. troops in Afghanistan are going to be reassigned and regrouped under unified command, the arrival of NATO naval ships in the Black Sea, the appointment of a man used to command troops in a combat environment as the new commander of the US Central Command and other bits and pieces. To my total astonishment, when they all fell together the Izvestia story started looking slightly more credible than before.
Today the U.S. media reported that there had been a leak from the Pentagon about a secret Presidential order in which President Bush authorized his military (most of which is currently on Afghan soil) to conduct operations in Pakistan without the necessity for informing the Pakistani government. The U.S. military in Afghanistan - or shall we say in the whole region neighboring Iran - is getting a freer hand by the day. And it is getting more and more hardware to play with.
Of course it's quite clear now that Georgia has lost its immediate potential as a nearby airfield, but after all, the aircraft carriers in the Gulf are not so far away.
Believe me I'm not saying that the U.S. is going to start an all-out war against Iran tomorrow. But aren't there indications that it may happen the day after tomorrow, a month from now, or on any date before the official handover of Presidency in the U.S.? Or, as some suggest, before the election?
I'm just asking the questions. But there are some people, like those working for Izvestia, for instance, who answer them with a "yes".
Evgeny Belenkiy, RT.
US to invade Iran any day now?
A few weeks ago the Russian newspaper Izvestia, a well-known and authoritive daily published nationwide and abroad, came forward with something that would have been looked upon as a conspiracy theory if published by a tabloid.
The paper suggested that by attacking South Ossetia, the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili had badly damaged a planned U.S. military operation against Iran. In the newspaper's opinion Georgia was supposed to play the role of another "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for the U.S., i.e. an operational and tactical base for U.S.
aircraft that would be making bombing raids into Iran. Something akin to what Thailand was in the Vietnam war.
Thailand certainly benefited from the arrangement, and Georgia would have too, insists the paper, if its President hadn't put his ambitions above the US national interest and ended up beaten, disarmed, chewing on his neckties and totally incapable of providing whatever the U.S. needs from him.
That's why, according to Izvestia in yet another article on the matter, the U.S. response to the Russian retaliation was harsh in words but very mild in action. The latest on the issue suggests that Mikhail Saakashvili may be replaced any day now by direct order from Washington.
Having read the story in Izvestia I decided to try to figure out the extent of improbability and impossibility of the assumptions. As I was doing that, I remembered that early in August CNN had started showing U.S. generals who cried for more troops and hardware for Afghanistan which, in their opinion, was rapidly becoming a more intensive conflict than Iraq.
Shortly after that, a phone call came from a college friend who had just come back from Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he had seen American battle tanks being unloaded from a Ukrainian-registered Antonov-124 "Ruslan", the heaviest and largest cargo airplane in the world. The friend asked if I had any idea what tanks would be good for in Afghanistan, and I said I didn't. It's an established fact from the Soviet war in Afghanistan that tanks are no good for most of the country's mountainous territory. They are good for flatlands, and the main body of flat land in the region is right across the border in Iran.
Later in August there was another bit of unofficial information from a Russian military source: more than a thousand American tanks and armored vehicles had been shipped to Eastern Afghanistan by Ukrainian "Ruslans" flying in three to five shipments a day, and more flights were expected.
Somehow all this, together with the series of articles in Izvestia, the information that all U.S. troops in Afghanistan are going to be reassigned and regrouped under unified command, the arrival of NATO naval ships in the Black Sea, the appointment of a man used to command troops in a combat environment as the new commander of the US Central Command and other bits and pieces. To my total astonishment, when they all fell together the Izvestia story started looking slightly more credible than before.
Today the U.S. media reported that there had been a leak from the Pentagon about a secret Presidential order in which President Bush authorized his military (most of which is currently on Afghan soil) to conduct operations in Pakistan without the necessity for informing the Pakistani government. The U.S. military in Afghanistan - or shall we say in the whole region neighboring Iran - is getting a freer hand by the day. And it is getting more and more hardware to play with.
Of course it's quite clear now that Georgia has lost its immediate potential as a nearby airfield, but after all, the aircraft carriers in the Gulf are not so far away.
Believe me I'm not saying that the U.S. is going to start an all-out war against Iran tomorrow. But aren't there indications that it may happen the day after tomorrow, a month from now, or on any date before the official handover of Presidency in the U.S.? Or, as some suggest, before the election?
I'm just asking the questions. But there are some people, like those working for Izvestia, for instance, who answer them with a "yes".
Evgeny Belenkiy, RT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
