A Fair and Balanced Judgment

The Nation reports the following question was asked of potential jurors in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby:

"Would any of you have any difficulty fairly judging the believability of former or present members of the Bush Administration?"

While I know that I would have been immediately ejected from the jury selection, I believe that I am a fair, balanced, and -- more importantly -- accurate judge of this Administration's believability. Though I do realize that some still haven't acquainted themselves with the White House Spin Machine.

But, fortunately for all of us who prize a functioning democracy, fueled by an informed electorate, we got a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the Bush/Cheney disinformation operation from a first-hand insider testifying at Libby's trial:

A smorgasbord of Washington insider details has emerged during the perjury trial of the vice president's former chief of staff.

For example, when Dick Cheney really needed friends in the news media, his staff was short of phone numbers.

No one served up spicier morsels than Cheney's former top press assistant. Cathie Martin described the craft of media manipulation - under oath and in blunter terms than politicians like to hear in public.

The uses of leaks and exclusives. When to let one's name be used and when to hide in anonymity. Which news medium was seen as more susceptible to control and what timing was most propitious. All candidly described. Even the rating of certain journalists as friends to favor and critics to shun - a faint echo of the enemies list drawn up in Richard Nixon's White House more than 30 years ago.

[Thanks to AMERICABlog for the tip]

The level of intrigue and obsession with Joe Wilson on the part of Cheney's office is neither unexpected from Cheney nor necessarily surprising for politics in general - but that political gamesmanship and 'dirty tricks' exists in Washington isn't the point. Rather (once again!), it's the level to which this Administration obsesses over its enemies and suppresses and attacks any source of information that disagrees with its own. Take, for merely one example among many (e.g. 'stove-piped' Iraq intelligence), this report on the Administration's efforts to control what government scientists are saying about global climate change:

Federal scientists have been pressured to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.

The hearing focused on allegations that the White House for years has micromanaged the government's climate programs and has closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public.

"It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

You can read the press release and full report from the Union of Concerned Scientists here.

Such actions are anti-democratic and (despite personal hyperbolic risk) are profoundly un-American.

--Actions which, in themselves, are rather believable about former or present members of the Bush Administration, even if the members themselves lack any semblance of personal credibility.

Case closed.

Batallion of Intergalactic Smoking Missiles

I hate the phrase "smoking gun." It's an over-used, over-hyped, leading phrase that is usually closely followed by some kind of hyperbole or demagoguery - usually in the form of a mushroom cloud or some such nonsense.

Which is precisely why I'm hopeful this new report will actually cause some of the remaining climate-change doubters to break ranks with the likes of Über-Skeptic, Sen. James Inhofe:

"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles."

The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week. This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon, a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

I figure that my distaste for 'smoking guns,' dramatic press releases, and demagogic language is a signal that the American public-at-large might start paying attention. Though it seems as though many may be finally coming around, particularly if 10 major American corporations are asking the Administration to change its policy of ignoring/distorting/censoring true, sound science of climate change.

It's worth mentioning though that I'm not "excited" by the release of this report - much like I'm not excited by news of more carnage in Iraq or by the prospect of the U.S. losing that war, in order to make a point to the extreme right-wing (as many war-supporters would have you believe). Like the reality on the ground in Iraq, this report makes me very sad:

As confident as scientists are about the global warming effects that they've already documented, they are as gloomy about the future and even hotter weather and higher sea level rises...[the] future is bleak, scientists said.

Sad indeed.

But unlike those whose hope for Iraq is inextricably tied to doomed, fantasy troop-escalation plans, the hope this report provides is rooted in the Truth.

I am hopeful that the continued scientific consensus this report provides -- with its 'batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles' -- will allow us to finally, collectively, use our evolutionary advantage of Reason and start to resolve this climate crisis once and for all.

Dignity Missing

Sadly, I have yet to find any of these missing traits in our daily political discourse (...except perhaps an overabundance of pride), but just in case:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
Email: comments@whitehouse.gov

In a pinch:
Vice President Richard Cheney: vice_president@whitehouse.gov

Don't be discouraged if they ignore you...

Just accept it. Just keep sending.

Crisis, Pessimism + a little grain of salt...

(Click image to open in new window & enlarge)

Those crazy indecisive voters have sure traveled a long way since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, from the rabid euphoria of war to landing unceremoniously in the same place those of us who initially opposed the war (and the prophetic experts to whom we listened) began:

President Bush's address to the nation last week outlining a "new way forward" in Iraq failed to move public opinion in support of his plan to increase U.S. troop levels and left Americans more pessimistic about the likely outcome of the war.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than 6 of 10 back the idea of a non-binding congressional resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to commit an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq.

...note, of course, that any 'movement' in this poll this week is within the margin of error, so we can't definitively say whether Bush's latest Iraq speech caused more harm than good to his effort to mislead us again, but that's not really the point.

Rather, the point is that this president has truly (mis)guided us into such a state of pessimism -- and for such an prolonged period of time -- that a majority among us now believe that this country is actually in a state of crisis:

There is widespread agreement among Americans surveyed that the nation is in a state of crisis. Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to say the nation is currently facing a crisis – 86% of Democrats feel this way, and though less so, a majority of Republicans (56%) agreed. While 82% of progressives and 80% of moderates said a crisis now looms in America, 57% of conservatives said the nation faces a crisis.

More than half (59%) of respondents said they believe the nation is off on the wrong track – that figure jumps to 83% for liberal respondents. Conservatives were more likely to say the nation is headed in the right direction – 44% have a positive view of where the nation is headed, compared to just 30% of overall respondents.

As with any poll, take it all with a grain of salt...but you really don't have to be crazy to believe that this country is in a state of accelerated decline under George W Bush.

--In fact, you'd be crazy to deny it.

Radioactivity

(Suggestion: Click "play" & read the following article while soothed by Kraftwerk)

The New York Times recently reported:

The Bush administration is expected to announce next week a major step forward in the building of the country’s first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades. It will propose combining elements of competing designs from two weapons laboratories in an approach that some experts argue is untested and risky.

[snip]

If Mr. Bush decides to deploy the new design, he could touch off a debate in a Democrat-controlled Congress and among allies and adversaries abroad, who have opposed efforts to modernize the arsenal in the past. While proponents of the new weapon said that it would replace older weapons that could deteriorate over time, and reduce the chances of a detonation if weapons fell into the wrong hands, critics have long argued that this is the wrong moment for Washington to produce a new nuclear warhead of any kind.

At a time when the administration is trying to convince the world to put sanctions on North Korea and Iran to halt their nuclear programs, those critics argue, any move to improve the American arsenal will be seen as hypocritical, an effort by the United States to extend its nuclear lead over other countries. Should the United States decide to conduct a test, officials said, China and Russia — which have their own nuclear modernization programs under way — would feel free to do the same. North Korea was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council for conducting its first test on Oct. 9, and it may be preparing for more, experts said.

My favorite part? Nope! Not that we may be seen as hypocritical in the face of our stated goal (and urgent need) to minimize nuclear proliferation; rather, the reassurance provided by the weapon's name: "Reliable Replacement Warhead"

Now that's effective marketing!

UPDATE: The Union of Concerned Scientists has a petition you should sign in response to this proposal. The petition also suggests a different way to move forward:

The current Complex 2030 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is too limited. The EIS should include assessment of an alternative that would abandon plans to build new nuclear weapons, make deep reductions in the U.S. nuclear stockpile, and consolidate existing nuclear weapons facilities to the greatest extent possible.

Under this option, managing the U.S. nuclear stockpile will be more efficient, less costly, and more consistent with the goal of reducing U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons.

Also, as part of the review, the Department of Energy should prepare a nonproliferation impact assessment of Complex 2030 to determine how the plan would affect the U.S. goal of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and whether the project is consistent with U.S. treaty obligations to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Again, your John Hancock goes here.

RE: Rationale for the War [A Retrospective]

The following are snippets from an exchange with a Republican-leaning co-worker of mine, shortly after the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, on the rationale for that war. Consistent with my personal policy of benevolence and mercy (...rather Christian, no?), I won't reveal his name in order to spare him any humiliation, despite that this act of kindness may be wholly undeserved: by all accounts, this guy is still running with the devil, likely supportive of Wildly Popular Media Favorite and Maverick™, John McCain, and his McCain Doctrine...

At 10:27 AM 4/1/2003 -0800, [Horribly Misguided] wrote:

Allow me to spray some Cliché Repelant [sic] on this "No blood for oil" claim:
Oil prices, and oil company profits, are determined by market economics. If lots of oil floods the worldwide market, the price of oil goes down; if oil becomes scarce, the price goes up. Either way, oil companies adjust. Oil companies benefit most from stable relationships with stable governments; what they don't like is instability - which is precisely what war creates.

Unless the Iraqis drill and sell their oil, it is completely worthless to them. They must sell it somewhere on the world market to get any gain from it. Once they sell it, it becomes part of the world oil supply. So at that point, what difference does it make whether the oil came from Iraq, Venezuela, or Nigeria? The oil companies ALREADY HAVE the oil. Why would they need George Bush to spend billions of dollars to get them what they already have?

There are good arguments to be made in opposition to the war, but "No blood for oil" is not one of them.

At 11:01 AM 4/1/2003 -0800, non_seq wrote:

...Bush, Cheney, and other energy insiders stand to gain a lot by having a regime in Iraq who agrees (or at least complies) with the current vision for US economic hegemony. With this, energy traders and investors will have another middle east ally to help keep speculation to a minimum (especially given Iraq's control of the second largest oil reserves in the world), which will only serve to benefit multinational oil companies, to whom the Bush Administration has made no secret about its loyalty. This war is an investment in world oil dependence, which means these folks stand to gain a lot.

At 11:58 AM 4/1/2003 -0800, [Horribly Misguided] wrote:

And I would counter that the U.S. could've benefited a lot more from doing business with Saddam without all the time and trouble of going to war. I'm not buying into this vast right-wing conspiracy-theory of the Bush-Cheney plan for US economic "hegemony". Benefiting economically from US policy is a bi-partisan enterprise, and I'd be willing to bet a tank of gas that there are more than
a few senators with a D- behind their name whose pockets are also getting lined. Supposedly Gulf War I was all about oil too -- obviously that failed pretty miserably in 1991 if we have to go back and snatch those oil fields today.

At 01:25 PM 4/1/2003 -0800, non_seq wrote:

...I don't buy into conspiracy theories, either, and I agree that Democrats and Republicans have both benefited (and, hey, so have I with all the advantages of a dominant economy). I certainly don't vote exclusively Democratic.

But I'll say it again: Bush/Cheney make no secret of where their loyalties lie...it's merely that those loyalties don't align with my own, overall.

I still disagree that war will:

• Improve the lives of Iraqis (long term? maybe. but was war necessary to do that? we'll never know...)
  
• Improve our national security

But it will:

1. Potentially get rid of an asshole (Saddam if we win; Bush if we lose (with a protracted, costly (both lives and $$))
   
2. Be a boon to military-industrialists (Halliburton!)
   
3. As mentioned [earlier], it will benefit Bush's energy strategy, which I strongly disagree with: everything from his rejected plans to drill in ANWR (yay!), to his half-assed "promise" to develop alternative-fuel cells by 2030.

I ain't saying I like Saddam, but I think our attempt to get rid of him should have been better negotiated with the world community. France/Russia were on board before the Bush Administration began dropping hints that we don't need the UN, nor them. Colin Powell remains the primary reason why the Bush Administration continued to even work with the UN, but it was clear that there was no intention for the US to be cooperative...and I repeat: France/Russia were in agreement that Saddam was in violation of UN mandates, they simply don't favor rushing to war. And, yes, Bush, in the context of world opinion and preference, rushed to war.

But I suppose that the US can afford to isolate itself (rather than Saddam). Especially now that we need a strong international coalition to fight international terrorism.

Drinks? [/END]

Nearly 4 years on, let's revisit some of the statements made in this exchange to see where we stand:

1. Possible two-fer? We did indeed get rid of an asshole (Saddam), and we appear to working on ridding ourselves of the other asshole (latest approval/disapproval ratings) and his shitty policies
   
2. A benefit to military industrialists? My God. Let's just say that Eisenhower is rolling in his grave...
   
3. Iraqi standard-of-living/quality of life: Sadly, in the toilet
   
4. Improve U.S. national (or global) security? Ah...no.
   
5. ...And how does my favorite claim -- that "there are good arguments to be made in opposition to the war, but 'No blood for oil' is not one of them" -- fare 4 years later?

Well, apart from it being obvious from the start, there's now a new oil law up for a vote before the Iraqi parliament "within days":

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Sorry, Horribly Misguided: You and everyone else who rationalizes their complicity in this mess have oil- and blood-stained hands.

Please start cleansing.

"...a very, very, very, very bad bet"

Per today's WaPo:

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration have privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof," in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam.

"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."

[snip]

Biden said that Vice President Cheney and former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld "are really smart guys who made a very, very, very, very bad bet, and it blew up in their faces. Now, what do they do with it? I think they have concluded they can't fix it, so how do you keep it stitched together without it completely unraveling?"

Agreed, Joe.

I look forward to Congress finally -- finally! -- delivering on their constitutionally mandated role of Executive oversight. Perhaps once we shed light on the manipulations, distortions, and political scheming that lead us into this mess, we can help to avoid future foreign policy disasters...at least once this president leaves office and his advisors leave positions of influence.

[Fingers crossed!]

The 'Sacrifice' of War

--Speaks for itself and for me.