How soon they forget...
During Al Franken's radio interview with John Dean -- author of the new book Worse Than Watergate -- the subject of the Plame affair came up. Dean could not recall an instance in which Nixon went gunning for his enemies in a similar fashion.
Far be it from me to correct John Dean (of all people!) on his Watergate history, but what about the break-in of Dr. Lewis Fielding's office? The purpose of that invasion was to scoop up dirt on Fielding's patient Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers.
And what about Nixon's campaign against columnist Jack Anderson, who had published many anti-administration stories? Nixon personally approved attempts to smear the reporter as a homosexual. When that lie did not take hold, G. Gordon Liddy (whom Franken considers a friend) whipped up a plan to kill Anderson.
Granted, Nixon did not approve the assassination plan. And he probably did not give the "go" order for the Fielding break-in. Keep in mind that we have no evidence -- yet -- that Bush approved of the outing of Valerie Plame. So we have a rough equivalence of malice.
I have to admit, though, that Roughly Equivalent to Watergate doesn't quite have the same ring...
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
The next strike
I hope you've already read the new Buzzflash piece on the likelihood of a terrorist "October Surprise" sealing the election for Bush -- or, worse, forcing the cancellation of the election. A couple of excerpts, and a comment:
"If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?" David Brooks opined in the New York Times on March 16...
Rush Limbaugh then chimes in:
"Who do you think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country -- socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?"
Saying that a pre-election terrorist attack is not a question of "if" but "when," Limbaugh concluded that should anyone but Bush occupy the White House, the terrorists will have won.
I wonder how many conservatives will notice -- or, rather, will allow themselves to notice -- that these two statements contradict each other? If (as Brooks correctly suggests) another terror attack will consolidate Bush's support, then how can Limbaugh surmise that terrorists will strike in order to benefit Kerry?
Rush's silly conflation of a Kerry government and the Spanish Socialist Party will fool nobody but the dittoheads. The leaders of Al Qaeda know, as most Americans do not, that the Socialist party in Spain does not have a reputation for laxity in the face of terror. To the contrary: A previous Socialist government created a scandal by using death squads against the Basque separatists. In other words, the Spanish Socialist party acquired a reputation for being too tough.
By contrast, a new strike against America will certainly keep Bush in power. Bush has a reputation for tough talk, rash action, flag-waving, religious zeal and militarism -- all of which will be political virtues in the aftermath of an attack. Kerry will come under enormous pressure to squelch all criticism of the sitting president. He will lose the election.
Al Qaeda must be aware of this.
Thus, if another tragedy hits us, the continuation of the W's hold on power will be the intended effect. The next explosion you hear will be the sound of Osama Bin Laden applauding George W. Bush.
Incidentally, I have predicted that the next strike will be a "small" nuclear event near the Sears Tower. After it happens, if it happens, I'll explain how I knew.
I hope you've already read the new Buzzflash piece on the likelihood of a terrorist "October Surprise" sealing the election for Bush -- or, worse, forcing the cancellation of the election. A couple of excerpts, and a comment:
"If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?" David Brooks opined in the New York Times on March 16...
Rush Limbaugh then chimes in:
"Who do you think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country -- socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?"
Saying that a pre-election terrorist attack is not a question of "if" but "when," Limbaugh concluded that should anyone but Bush occupy the White House, the terrorists will have won.
I wonder how many conservatives will notice -- or, rather, will allow themselves to notice -- that these two statements contradict each other? If (as Brooks correctly suggests) another terror attack will consolidate Bush's support, then how can Limbaugh surmise that terrorists will strike in order to benefit Kerry?
Rush's silly conflation of a Kerry government and the Spanish Socialist Party will fool nobody but the dittoheads. The leaders of Al Qaeda know, as most Americans do not, that the Socialist party in Spain does not have a reputation for laxity in the face of terror. To the contrary: A previous Socialist government created a scandal by using death squads against the Basque separatists. In other words, the Spanish Socialist party acquired a reputation for being too tough.
By contrast, a new strike against America will certainly keep Bush in power. Bush has a reputation for tough talk, rash action, flag-waving, religious zeal and militarism -- all of which will be political virtues in the aftermath of an attack. Kerry will come under enormous pressure to squelch all criticism of the sitting president. He will lose the election.
Al Qaeda must be aware of this.
Thus, if another tragedy hits us, the continuation of the W's hold on power will be the intended effect. The next explosion you hear will be the sound of Osama Bin Laden applauding George W. Bush.
Incidentally, I have predicted that the next strike will be a "small" nuclear event near the Sears Tower. After it happens, if it happens, I'll explain how I knew.
Doctor Evil
Since Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently took it upon himself to slam Richard Clarke as a money-grubber, we have every right to ask how Frist acquired his wealth. The short answer: Corporate crookedness of the medical kind.
Perhaps the best recounting of Dr. Frist's financial malpractice can be found in this expose by Doug Ireland of the L.A. Weekly. Here's a sample:
Frist was born rich, and got richer — thanks to massive criminal fraud by the family business. The basis of the Frist family fortune is HCA Inc. (Hospital Corporation of America), the largest for-profit hospital chain in the country, which was founded by Frist’s father and brother. And, just as Karl Rove was engineering the scuttling of Trent Lott and the elevation of Frist, the Bush Justice Department suddenly ended a near-decadelong federal investigation into how HCA for years had defrauded Medicaid, Medicare and Tricare (the federal program that covers the military and their families), giving the greedy health-care behemoth’s executives a sweetheart settlement that kept them out of the can.
The government’s case was that HCA kept two sets of books and fraudulently overbilled the government. The deal meant that HCA agreed to pay the government $631 million for its lucrative scams — which, on top of previous fines, brought the total government penalties against the health-care conglomerate to a whopping $1.7 billion...
Since Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently took it upon himself to slam Richard Clarke as a money-grubber, we have every right to ask how Frist acquired his wealth. The short answer: Corporate crookedness of the medical kind.
Perhaps the best recounting of Dr. Frist's financial malpractice can be found in this expose by Doug Ireland of the L.A. Weekly. Here's a sample:
Frist was born rich, and got richer — thanks to massive criminal fraud by the family business. The basis of the Frist family fortune is HCA Inc. (Hospital Corporation of America), the largest for-profit hospital chain in the country, which was founded by Frist’s father and brother. And, just as Karl Rove was engineering the scuttling of Trent Lott and the elevation of Frist, the Bush Justice Department suddenly ended a near-decadelong federal investigation into how HCA for years had defrauded Medicaid, Medicare and Tricare (the federal program that covers the military and their families), giving the greedy health-care behemoth’s executives a sweetheart settlement that kept them out of the can.
The government’s case was that HCA kept two sets of books and fraudulently overbilled the government. The deal meant that HCA agreed to pay the government $631 million for its lucrative scams — which, on top of previous fines, brought the total government penalties against the health-care conglomerate to a whopping $1.7 billion...
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Con-denial
You know where Democrats buy their shoes? Target. That's why they keep shooting themselves in the foot.
I have no idea why the "liberal" pundits pressed for Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 committee. Since the rules place her words in a category beyond refutation, her version of events, however fictitious, will carry the day. Already, Republicans are talking about the impact of her testimony: A cabinet post, perhaps?
As regular readers know, I predict that she will attain the vice-presidential nomination. I will not feel even slightly surprised if the unpopular Dick Cheney should have a "Fred Sanford"-style heart attack just before the convention. A popular Condi could then step forward for the good of her party. Such a bold move could shift African-American voting patterns to a degree that would assure Bush's re-election.
Cheney, upon "recovery," would take a position as Chief of Staff or National Security Advisor and continue to run the country as before.
You know where Democrats buy their shoes? Target. That's why they keep shooting themselves in the foot.
I have no idea why the "liberal" pundits pressed for Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 committee. Since the rules place her words in a category beyond refutation, her version of events, however fictitious, will carry the day. Already, Republicans are talking about the impact of her testimony: A cabinet post, perhaps?
As regular readers know, I predict that she will attain the vice-presidential nomination. I will not feel even slightly surprised if the unpopular Dick Cheney should have a "Fred Sanford"-style heart attack just before the convention. A popular Condi could then step forward for the good of her party. Such a bold move could shift African-American voting patterns to a degree that would assure Bush's re-election.
Cheney, upon "recovery," would take a position as Chief of Staff or National Security Advisor and continue to run the country as before.
Globalization
"India is stealing American jobs." Pretty much everyone agrees with that statement. Much of our high-tech labor is being outsourced to that nation, where rents are cheap and well-educated English-speaking white-collar workers won't demand U.S.-style salaries.
The common wisdom: Liberal global trade rules are great for India, lousy for Americans.
The common wisdom is wrong.
Such is the argument of the extraordinary Dr. Vandana Shiva. I just heard a lecture she gave last October (as relayed by the Other Americas Radio, and not available on the web) in which she described growing famine in India, for the first time in decades.
Why? Because globalization is altering food production patterns in monstrous ways. Free trade may have given that nation a "new economy" -- i.e., computer-related jobs that used to be done by us -- but many more Indians live under the rule of the old, agriculture-based economy. And globalization has not been the friend of the Indian farmer.
This is from a recent article by Dr. Shiva -- I hope you will read the whole thing, and I hope she will not mind my lengthy excerptions:
In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds which needed fertilizers and pesticides and could not be saved.
As seed saving is prevented by patents as well as by the engineering of seeds with non-renewable traits, seed has to be bought for every planting season by poor peasants. A free resource available on farms became a commodity which farmers were forced to buy every year. This increases poverty and leads to indebtedness.
As debts increase and become unpayable, farmers are compelled to sell kidneys or even commit suicide. More than 25,000 peasants in India have taken their lives since 1997 when the practice of seed saving was transformed under globalization pressures and multinational seed corporations started to take control of the seed supply. Seed saving gives farmers life. Seed monopolies rob farmers of life...
Monocultures and uniformity increase the risks of crop failure as diverse seeds adapted to diverse ecosystems are replaced by rushed introduction of unadapted and often untested seeds into the market. When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002, the farmers lost Rs. 1 billion due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 Kg / acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kg. Instead of increased incomes of Rs. 10,000 / acre, farmers ran into losses of Rs. 6400 / acre.
In the state of Bihar, when farm saved corn seed was displaced by Monsanto's hybrid corn, the entire crop failed creating Rs. 4 billion losses and increased poverty for already desperately poor farmers. Poor peasants of the South cannot survive seed monopolies...
The second pressure Indian farmers are facing is the dramatic fall in prices of farm produce as a result of free trade policies of the W.T.O. The WTO rules for trade in agriculture are essentially rules for dumping. They have allowed an increase in agribusiness subsidies while preventing countries from protecting their farmers from the dumping of artificially cheap produce.
High subsidies of $ 400 billion combined with forced removal of import restrictions is a ready-made recipe for farmer suicides. Global prices have dropped from $ 216 / ton in 1995 to $ 133 / ton in 2001 for wheat, $ 98.2 / ton in 1995 to $ 49.1 / ton in 2001 for cotton, $ 273 / ton in 1995 to $ 178 / ton for soyabean. This reduction to half the price is not due to a doubling in productivity but due to an increase in subsidies and an increase in market monopolies controlled by a handful of agribusiness corporations.
Thus the U.S government pays $ 193 per ton to US Soya farmers, which artificially lowers the rice of soya. Due to removal of Quantitative Restrictions and lowering of tariffs, cheap soya has destroyed the livelihoods of coconut growers, mustard farmers, producers of sesame, groundnut and soya...
The rigged prices of globally traded agriculture commodities are stealing incomes from poor peasants of the south. Analysis carried out by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology shows that due to falling farm prices, Indian peasants are loosing $ 26 billion or Rs. 1.2 trillion annually. This is a burden their poverty does not allow them to bear. Hence the epidemic of farmer suicides.
There's more. I encourage everyone to become familiar with Shiva's work. The most astounding aspect of her lecture concerned the rigged science used to buttress this economic invasion of the subcontinent. She cites an article in a prestigious scientific journal -- an article regurgitating Monsanto-approved research, giving a very false notion of the results of that company's efforts.
Never think that unregulated global markets offer a "hand-out" to the poorer nations of the world. Quite the opposite: Globalization has given less-developed nations even fewer tools with which to fight the foreign mega-corporations.
The American worker complains when he loses his white collar job and dons a McDonalds uniform. And he has a right to complain. But so do the workers in other lands. The day will come when both first-world and third-world employees stop believing in the myth that all corporations are holy.
"India is stealing American jobs." Pretty much everyone agrees with that statement. Much of our high-tech labor is being outsourced to that nation, where rents are cheap and well-educated English-speaking white-collar workers won't demand U.S.-style salaries.
The common wisdom: Liberal global trade rules are great for India, lousy for Americans.
The common wisdom is wrong.
Such is the argument of the extraordinary Dr. Vandana Shiva. I just heard a lecture she gave last October (as relayed by the Other Americas Radio, and not available on the web) in which she described growing famine in India, for the first time in decades.
Why? Because globalization is altering food production patterns in monstrous ways. Free trade may have given that nation a "new economy" -- i.e., computer-related jobs that used to be done by us -- but many more Indians live under the rule of the old, agriculture-based economy. And globalization has not been the friend of the Indian farmer.
This is from a recent article by Dr. Shiva -- I hope you will read the whole thing, and I hope she will not mind my lengthy excerptions:
In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds which needed fertilizers and pesticides and could not be saved.
As seed saving is prevented by patents as well as by the engineering of seeds with non-renewable traits, seed has to be bought for every planting season by poor peasants. A free resource available on farms became a commodity which farmers were forced to buy every year. This increases poverty and leads to indebtedness.
As debts increase and become unpayable, farmers are compelled to sell kidneys or even commit suicide. More than 25,000 peasants in India have taken their lives since 1997 when the practice of seed saving was transformed under globalization pressures and multinational seed corporations started to take control of the seed supply. Seed saving gives farmers life. Seed monopolies rob farmers of life...
Monocultures and uniformity increase the risks of crop failure as diverse seeds adapted to diverse ecosystems are replaced by rushed introduction of unadapted and often untested seeds into the market. When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002, the farmers lost Rs. 1 billion due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 Kg / acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kg. Instead of increased incomes of Rs. 10,000 / acre, farmers ran into losses of Rs. 6400 / acre.
In the state of Bihar, when farm saved corn seed was displaced by Monsanto's hybrid corn, the entire crop failed creating Rs. 4 billion losses and increased poverty for already desperately poor farmers. Poor peasants of the South cannot survive seed monopolies...
The second pressure Indian farmers are facing is the dramatic fall in prices of farm produce as a result of free trade policies of the W.T.O. The WTO rules for trade in agriculture are essentially rules for dumping. They have allowed an increase in agribusiness subsidies while preventing countries from protecting their farmers from the dumping of artificially cheap produce.
High subsidies of $ 400 billion combined with forced removal of import restrictions is a ready-made recipe for farmer suicides. Global prices have dropped from $ 216 / ton in 1995 to $ 133 / ton in 2001 for wheat, $ 98.2 / ton in 1995 to $ 49.1 / ton in 2001 for cotton, $ 273 / ton in 1995 to $ 178 / ton for soyabean. This reduction to half the price is not due to a doubling in productivity but due to an increase in subsidies and an increase in market monopolies controlled by a handful of agribusiness corporations.
Thus the U.S government pays $ 193 per ton to US Soya farmers, which artificially lowers the rice of soya. Due to removal of Quantitative Restrictions and lowering of tariffs, cheap soya has destroyed the livelihoods of coconut growers, mustard farmers, producers of sesame, groundnut and soya...
The rigged prices of globally traded agriculture commodities are stealing incomes from poor peasants of the south. Analysis carried out by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology shows that due to falling farm prices, Indian peasants are loosing $ 26 billion or Rs. 1.2 trillion annually. This is a burden their poverty does not allow them to bear. Hence the epidemic of farmer suicides.
There's more. I encourage everyone to become familiar with Shiva's work. The most astounding aspect of her lecture concerned the rigged science used to buttress this economic invasion of the subcontinent. She cites an article in a prestigious scientific journal -- an article regurgitating Monsanto-approved research, giving a very false notion of the results of that company's efforts.
Never think that unregulated global markets offer a "hand-out" to the poorer nations of the world. Quite the opposite: Globalization has given less-developed nations even fewer tools with which to fight the foreign mega-corporations.
The American worker complains when he loses his white collar job and dons a McDonalds uniform. And he has a right to complain. But so do the workers in other lands. The day will come when both first-world and third-world employees stop believing in the myth that all corporations are holy.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Frist, do no harm
Hosts on Air America have had much amusement with the following tidbit, but if you are one of the many people not served by one of their stations, I'll repeat their find here.
Senate Majority Leader Bill First has denounced Richard Clarke in the most scabrous terms, and has described Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, in this fashion:
...notwithstanding Mr. Clarke's efforts to use his book first and foremost to shift blame and attention from himself, it is also clear that Mr. Clarke and his publishers adjusted the release date of his book in order to make maximum gain from the publicity around the 9/11 hearings. Assuming the controversy around this series of events does in fact drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make quite a bit of money for his efforts.
I find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, trading on his insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on Sept. 11, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce any plan to personally profit from this book.
Multiple problems beset this accusation. First, it's lazy. "He wrote that thing just for money" is a charge that can be leveled at any author who writes any book for any reason. I've heard this nonsense spouted even when book sales numbered only a few thousand copies. No conservative expressed outrage when, shortly after the World Trade Center tragedy, profiteers filled grocery store magazine racks with 9/11 "memorial" publications.
Second, as most people know, the book's release was delayed for a number of months by the White House. Anyone who doesn't like the timing should blame the administration.
Third -- and this is the juicy one -- Frist has his own book about terrorism out there. You can find it in your local bookstore or on Amazon.
No word yet on whether Frist will donate his royalties to charity.
Hosts on Air America have had much amusement with the following tidbit, but if you are one of the many people not served by one of their stations, I'll repeat their find here.
Senate Majority Leader Bill First has denounced Richard Clarke in the most scabrous terms, and has described Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, in this fashion:
...notwithstanding Mr. Clarke's efforts to use his book first and foremost to shift blame and attention from himself, it is also clear that Mr. Clarke and his publishers adjusted the release date of his book in order to make maximum gain from the publicity around the 9/11 hearings. Assuming the controversy around this series of events does in fact drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make quite a bit of money for his efforts.
I find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, trading on his insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on Sept. 11, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce any plan to personally profit from this book.
Multiple problems beset this accusation. First, it's lazy. "He wrote that thing just for money" is a charge that can be leveled at any author who writes any book for any reason. I've heard this nonsense spouted even when book sales numbered only a few thousand copies. No conservative expressed outrage when, shortly after the World Trade Center tragedy, profiteers filled grocery store magazine racks with 9/11 "memorial" publications.
Second, as most people know, the book's release was delayed for a number of months by the White House. Anyone who doesn't like the timing should blame the administration.
Third -- and this is the juicy one -- Frist has his own book about terrorism out there. You can find it in your local bookstore or on Amazon.
No word yet on whether Frist will donate his royalties to charity.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Burning Bushes
Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, is next in the dynastic line. Should he one day ascend to the presidency, will he be a religious zealot like his brother, or will he be a more practical-minded schemer, like his dad?
One hint can be found in Jeb's appointment of a man named Jerry Rigier to head Florida's Department of Children and Families, a choice which caused a flap in 2002. The details are worth recalling in this election season.
According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Rigier "once wrote a string of articles that provide a blueprint for turning religious values into public policy, suggest that households headed by women may produce homosexual children and complain that taxpayer-supported day-care centers could put religious day care out of business." He has also come out in favor of "smiting" children with a "rod." Women, according to Regier, should be helpmates to their husbands and "our aim, within the church and outside it, should be to encourage and facilitate mothers working at home.''
When Regier came under fire for these views, Jeb Bush accused critics of being bigoted.
Many wonder if the Bush embrace of fundamentalism is feigned or genuine. In the case of George Bush the elder, I always tended to suspect pretense. In that famous video clip of GHWB describing his "born again" experience, he seemed to be biting his tongue so deeply one feared that blood might trickle out of his mouth.
But George the younger is the Real Thing. So, it would seem, is Jeb.
Remember: If W wins in 2004, Jeb is in line for 2008. I wonder what post Rigier would have in his cabinet?
Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, is next in the dynastic line. Should he one day ascend to the presidency, will he be a religious zealot like his brother, or will he be a more practical-minded schemer, like his dad?
One hint can be found in Jeb's appointment of a man named Jerry Rigier to head Florida's Department of Children and Families, a choice which caused a flap in 2002. The details are worth recalling in this election season.
According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Rigier "once wrote a string of articles that provide a blueprint for turning religious values into public policy, suggest that households headed by women may produce homosexual children and complain that taxpayer-supported day-care centers could put religious day care out of business." He has also come out in favor of "smiting" children with a "rod." Women, according to Regier, should be helpmates to their husbands and "our aim, within the church and outside it, should be to encourage and facilitate mothers working at home.''
When Regier came under fire for these views, Jeb Bush accused critics of being bigoted.
Many wonder if the Bush embrace of fundamentalism is feigned or genuine. In the case of George Bush the elder, I always tended to suspect pretense. In that famous video clip of GHWB describing his "born again" experience, he seemed to be biting his tongue so deeply one feared that blood might trickle out of his mouth.
But George the younger is the Real Thing. So, it would seem, is Jeb.
Remember: If W wins in 2004, Jeb is in line for 2008. I wonder what post Rigier would have in his cabinet?
Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda
The tricky subject of Saudi relations with Al Qaeda keeps popping up.
The Chicago Tribune (not my favorite newspaper, although they do publish my favorite film critic) has has investigated two firms in Germany which allegedly have links to the terrorist network. These companies also have links to Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudis' former chief spook. Indeed, the firms in question may have been intelligence fronts.
Turki quit his post only a couple of weeks before the attack on the World Trade Center; he is now the Saudi ambassador to the U.K. He has always denied any link to Osama Bin Laden, although the two men did meet during the Afghan/Soviet war.
The long-ish Chicago Tribune story paints a complex picture, and includes such diverse elements as the Bosnian war and the Bali bombing. Read this article cautiously -- but by all means, read it.
The Saudi connection remains thorny for American progressives. On the one hand, the Bush "royal family" has long maintained close ties to its cognate dynasty in Riyadh, and many have scored W for protecting his Saudi friends. On the other hand, neocon theorists tend to despise the Saudi regime, which they consider a choice target for removal. (I can think of no other major area of contention between W and the neocons.)
Any attempt to realize the neocon dream scenario in Arabia would prove an incomparable disaster. While few Americans truly like the Saudi monarchy, most of us would prefer to avoid further costly military adventures in that region. Neither should we feel eager to take on the "challenge" of "democratizing" another massive Muslim populace enraged against us. An ungovernable Arabia cannot serve the interests of the United States. Iraq's current instability has interrupted the oil flow from that country; imagine the price of oil if Arabia should descend into chaos and other OPEC countries decided to punish American aggression.
The left must therefore exercise care. The Saudi-Bush-9/11 connections may provide a cudgel against W, but those who stress this linkage may inadvertently serve the neocons' warmongering agenda.
It's pretty clear that the Saudis have given Bin Laden go-play-somewhere-else money. It is less clear why they would favor the undertakings of a man who clearly hopes to found a new dynasty in the land of the Prophet. If the Chicago Tribune story is accurate, the American people need some serious answers -- and soon.
The tricky subject of Saudi relations with Al Qaeda keeps popping up.
The Chicago Tribune (not my favorite newspaper, although they do publish my favorite film critic) has has investigated two firms in Germany which allegedly have links to the terrorist network. These companies also have links to Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudis' former chief spook. Indeed, the firms in question may have been intelligence fronts.
Turki quit his post only a couple of weeks before the attack on the World Trade Center; he is now the Saudi ambassador to the U.K. He has always denied any link to Osama Bin Laden, although the two men did meet during the Afghan/Soviet war.
The long-ish Chicago Tribune story paints a complex picture, and includes such diverse elements as the Bosnian war and the Bali bombing. Read this article cautiously -- but by all means, read it.
The Saudi connection remains thorny for American progressives. On the one hand, the Bush "royal family" has long maintained close ties to its cognate dynasty in Riyadh, and many have scored W for protecting his Saudi friends. On the other hand, neocon theorists tend to despise the Saudi regime, which they consider a choice target for removal. (I can think of no other major area of contention between W and the neocons.)
Any attempt to realize the neocon dream scenario in Arabia would prove an incomparable disaster. While few Americans truly like the Saudi monarchy, most of us would prefer to avoid further costly military adventures in that region. Neither should we feel eager to take on the "challenge" of "democratizing" another massive Muslim populace enraged against us. An ungovernable Arabia cannot serve the interests of the United States. Iraq's current instability has interrupted the oil flow from that country; imagine the price of oil if Arabia should descend into chaos and other OPEC countries decided to punish American aggression.
The left must therefore exercise care. The Saudi-Bush-9/11 connections may provide a cudgel against W, but those who stress this linkage may inadvertently serve the neocons' warmongering agenda.
It's pretty clear that the Saudis have given Bin Laden go-play-somewhere-else money. It is less clear why they would favor the undertakings of a man who clearly hopes to found a new dynasty in the land of the Prophet. If the Chicago Tribune story is accurate, the American people need some serious answers -- and soon.
The beans just keep a-spillin'
You may have heard about Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator who is revealing more details about administration foreknowledge of the World Trade Center attacks. If you're not up to speed, check out this piece by the fine (if unfortunately named) British reporter Andrew Buncombe. An excerpt:
Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place...
She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented.
The administration's response? They are seeking a gag order to stop her from offering further testimony. She must be telling the truth; why else would they attempt to silence her?
You may have heard about Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator who is revealing more details about administration foreknowledge of the World Trade Center attacks. If you're not up to speed, check out this piece by the fine (if unfortunately named) British reporter Andrew Buncombe. An excerpt:
Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place...
She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented.
The administration's response? They are seeking a gag order to stop her from offering further testimony. She must be telling the truth; why else would they attempt to silence her?
Friday, April 02, 2004
Another one bites the Bush
Another insider has come out to denounce Bush's mishandling of the war on terrorism. Check out Democracy Now's interview of Flynt Leverett -- formerly of the CIA and the National Security Council -- who resigned from the administration in March of 2003. (Although Leverett does not actually say "resigned in disgust," listen carefully to his tone of voice as he discusses his exit.)
Leverett backs up Richard Clarke. The main charge: Personnel required for the Al Qaeda hunt in Afghanistan and Pakistan were removed at a key moment and re-assigned to Iraq. He has much more to say, of course -- for one thing, he offers insight into the administration's attitude toward the Middle East peace "road map."
I'm curious as to what tactics the slime-throwers will use when and if they decide to go after Leverett. Will they say that he beats his wife? Kicks his dog? Didn't like The Passion?
Another insider has come out to denounce Bush's mishandling of the war on terrorism. Check out Democracy Now's interview of Flynt Leverett -- formerly of the CIA and the National Security Council -- who resigned from the administration in March of 2003. (Although Leverett does not actually say "resigned in disgust," listen carefully to his tone of voice as he discusses his exit.)
Leverett backs up Richard Clarke. The main charge: Personnel required for the Al Qaeda hunt in Afghanistan and Pakistan were removed at a key moment and re-assigned to Iraq. He has much more to say, of course -- for one thing, he offers insight into the administration's attitude toward the Middle East peace "road map."
I'm curious as to what tactics the slime-throwers will use when and if they decide to go after Leverett. Will they say that he beats his wife? Kicks his dog? Didn't like The Passion?
They call him Flipper...Flipper...
The reactionary smear machine makes a brazen habit of hurling insults at Democrats that would better apply to the rightists themselves. Take, for example, the claim that John Kerry flip-flops on issues, an assertion founded on much strained reasoning. But turn the charge around on Bush, and there's no strain at all.
Check out the "Bush-vs.-Bush" record here.
The reactionary smear machine makes a brazen habit of hurling insults at Democrats that would better apply to the rightists themselves. Take, for example, the claim that John Kerry flip-flops on issues, an assertion founded on much strained reasoning. But turn the charge around on Bush, and there's no strain at all.
Check out the "Bush-vs.-Bush" record here.
Can Rove blame Plame?
After reading a "legal memo" on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Joshua Marshall offered some intriguing observations on Plame-gate. Marshall:
The essential argument is that the law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, does more than simply prohibit a governmental official with access to classified information from divulging the identities of covert operatives. The interpretation of the law contained in the memo holds that a government insider, with access to classified information, such as Rove is also prohibited from confirming or further disseminating the identity of a covert agent even after someone else has leaked it.
Marshall obviously hopes that this argument can be used to nail Karl Rove, who has admitted to discussing Plame in a derogatory fashion after the appearance of the Robert Novak column which set off the initial firestorm. But a disturbing thought has occurred to me: Doesn't the law also apply to Valerie Plame and her husband? Were they forbidden to confirm her status as a CIA operative, even after the toothpaste had (so to speak) exited the tube? If so, at what point does the law stop applying to them?
After reading a "legal memo" on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Joshua Marshall offered some intriguing observations on Plame-gate. Marshall:
The essential argument is that the law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, does more than simply prohibit a governmental official with access to classified information from divulging the identities of covert operatives. The interpretation of the law contained in the memo holds that a government insider, with access to classified information, such as Rove is also prohibited from confirming or further disseminating the identity of a covert agent even after someone else has leaked it.
Marshall obviously hopes that this argument can be used to nail Karl Rove, who has admitted to discussing Plame in a derogatory fashion after the appearance of the Robert Novak column which set off the initial firestorm. But a disturbing thought has occurred to me: Doesn't the law also apply to Valerie Plame and her husband? Were they forbidden to confirm her status as a CIA operative, even after the toothpaste had (so to speak) exited the tube? If so, at what point does the law stop applying to them?
"Weird aspects" of CNN journalism
Remember that appalling Wolf Blitzer assessment of Richard Clarke? The one in which Blitzer told us that unnamed administration officials, comenting on Clarke's personal life, were "suggesting there are some weird aspects in his life"? That's the sort of slimy rumor-mongering that can get you a failing grade in Journalism 101.
Paul Krugman called Blitzer on this one, and got a frustrating and evasive response. More than that. Krugman opens his column by detailing another instance in which CNN relayed a White House smear against -- believe it or not! -- the David Letterman show.
But wait -- there's more. Check out this Guardian piece on Israeli accusations of anti-Semitism in the press. Scroll down until you find this doozy:
CNN sources say the network has bowed to considerable pressure on its editors. Israeli officials boast that they now have only to call a number at the network's headquarters in Atlanta to pull any story they do not like.
And yet the right-wing pretends that CNN has a leftist bias!
Remember that appalling Wolf Blitzer assessment of Richard Clarke? The one in which Blitzer told us that unnamed administration officials, comenting on Clarke's personal life, were "suggesting there are some weird aspects in his life"? That's the sort of slimy rumor-mongering that can get you a failing grade in Journalism 101.
Paul Krugman called Blitzer on this one, and got a frustrating and evasive response. More than that. Krugman opens his column by detailing another instance in which CNN relayed a White House smear against -- believe it or not! -- the David Letterman show.
But wait -- there's more. Check out this Guardian piece on Israeli accusations of anti-Semitism in the press. Scroll down until you find this doozy:
CNN sources say the network has bowed to considerable pressure on its editors. Israeli officials boast that they now have only to call a number at the network's headquarters in Atlanta to pull any story they do not like.
And yet the right-wing pretends that CNN has a leftist bias!
Thursday, April 01, 2004
The echo effect
Has anyone seen any evidence that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is alive?
As we noted a couple of days ago, the Reverend Moon's Washington Times carried a story (placed under the Drudge magnifier) detailing an alleged FBI interrogation of the captured Al Qaeda chief. In language peppered with incongruous Americanisms, he indicated that the terror network had also targeted the Sears Tower in Chicago and the Library Tower in Los Angeles. Fortunately, the bad guys were thwarted by the mighty men of the Bush administration.
At least, so saith the Moonies.
Unfortunately, the yarn has one major problem: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed seems to have, er, died well before his alleged capture. So, at least, reported the Asia Times, which ran a very persuasive investigative piece.
Has the recent Washington Times report received confirmation from a more responsible news organization? No. Not exactly. But a right-wing "echo chamber" has created the appearance of confirmation.
The Washington Times report was echoed by one appearing on UPI -- also owned by Moon. This led to a report in the London Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Murdochians seem to have satisfied themselves with a re-write of the Moonie piece.
This led to a flurry of news accounts repeating the story, all crediting the London Times. Another "mirror" version -- with the exact same quotes from KSM, and no further information or investigation -- appeared in the right-wing Los Angeles Daily News. So now other news organizations can carry the story and credit that rag.
I've yet to see any evidence that a single reporter has called the FBI to verify the initial report or to ask for more data. Everything -- everything -- can be traced back to a single story in the Washington Times. Keep in mind that this same newspaper tried to sell us on the "Kerry intern" story well after it was exposed as a fraud. This is the newspaper which gave the world the verb "to Prudenize" as an indicator of journalistic mischief. This is a newspaper owned by a would-be Ian Fleming arch-fiend who -- laugh if you will, but it's true -- wants to turn the world into a theocracy.
I would like an editor at any one of these "echo effect" journals to explain why the Moon people deserve greater respect than does the Asia Times. Strained rationalization always provides a good laugh.
Has anyone seen any evidence that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is alive?
As we noted a couple of days ago, the Reverend Moon's Washington Times carried a story (placed under the Drudge magnifier) detailing an alleged FBI interrogation of the captured Al Qaeda chief. In language peppered with incongruous Americanisms, he indicated that the terror network had also targeted the Sears Tower in Chicago and the Library Tower in Los Angeles. Fortunately, the bad guys were thwarted by the mighty men of the Bush administration.
At least, so saith the Moonies.
Unfortunately, the yarn has one major problem: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed seems to have, er, died well before his alleged capture. So, at least, reported the Asia Times, which ran a very persuasive investigative piece.
Has the recent Washington Times report received confirmation from a more responsible news organization? No. Not exactly. But a right-wing "echo chamber" has created the appearance of confirmation.
The Washington Times report was echoed by one appearing on UPI -- also owned by Moon. This led to a report in the London Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Murdochians seem to have satisfied themselves with a re-write of the Moonie piece.
This led to a flurry of news accounts repeating the story, all crediting the London Times. Another "mirror" version -- with the exact same quotes from KSM, and no further information or investigation -- appeared in the right-wing Los Angeles Daily News. So now other news organizations can carry the story and credit that rag.
I've yet to see any evidence that a single reporter has called the FBI to verify the initial report or to ask for more data. Everything -- everything -- can be traced back to a single story in the Washington Times. Keep in mind that this same newspaper tried to sell us on the "Kerry intern" story well after it was exposed as a fraud. This is the newspaper which gave the world the verb "to Prudenize" as an indicator of journalistic mischief. This is a newspaper owned by a would-be Ian Fleming arch-fiend who -- laugh if you will, but it's true -- wants to turn the world into a theocracy.
I would like an editor at any one of these "echo effect" journals to explain why the Moon people deserve greater respect than does the Asia Times. Strained rationalization always provides a good laugh.
Were they CIA?
I strongly condemn xymphora's seeming glee at the ghastly fate meted out to the civilians killed in Fallujah. Even so, I find myself asking the same question he asks: Were the victims truly working for a private security firm? Or were they CIA?
Standard news accounts claim that they were employed by a North Carolina-based company called Blackwater Consulting. However, the founder of that firm, Jamie Smith, was a former "company" man. There's a long history of ex-spooks who "leave" the CIA yet continue to work for (or with) the Agency; E. Howard Hunt provides us with the most famous example. Long-time spook-watchers will recall the notorious Edwin Wilson, who set up firms similar to Blackwater as fronts.
Or were the Fallujah victims members of the American Special Forces, using Blackwater as a cover? That sort of thing has been known to occur before. The Age has reported that the victims wore dogtags. The vehicle is said to have been "of a kind" used by Special Forces and U.S. intelligence.
Estimates of the number of CIA agents in Iraq right now run as high as 3000.
More to come...
I strongly condemn xymphora's seeming glee at the ghastly fate meted out to the civilians killed in Fallujah. Even so, I find myself asking the same question he asks: Were the victims truly working for a private security firm? Or were they CIA?
Standard news accounts claim that they were employed by a North Carolina-based company called Blackwater Consulting. However, the founder of that firm, Jamie Smith, was a former "company" man. There's a long history of ex-spooks who "leave" the CIA yet continue to work for (or with) the Agency; E. Howard Hunt provides us with the most famous example. Long-time spook-watchers will recall the notorious Edwin Wilson, who set up firms similar to Blackwater as fronts.
Or were the Fallujah victims members of the American Special Forces, using Blackwater as a cover? That sort of thing has been known to occur before. The Age has reported that the victims wore dogtags. The vehicle is said to have been "of a kind" used by Special Forces and U.S. intelligence.
Estimates of the number of CIA agents in Iraq right now run as high as 3000.
More to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)