What The Hell Happened?

The War Begins

2003-03-20T12:40:00.000-06:00

The War Begins
Our job here is not as transcendently clear as the soldiers' job. Now that the first strikes have begun, even those who vehemently opposed this war will find themselves in the strange position of hoping for just what the president they have opposed is himself hoping for: a quick, conclusive resolution fought as bloodlessly as possible. People who have supported Mr. Bush all along may feel tempted to try to silence those who voice dissent. It will be necessary to remind them that we are in this fight to bring freedom of speech to Iraq, not to smother it back home.

2003-03-18T11:06:00.000-06:00

Salon.com | An open letter to Ralph Nader voters
How are you? It's been a long time since we've talked. Almost two-and-a-half years, back during that whole Florida mess. I was pretty nasty to you at the time, complaining about your lack of foresight, your shunning the potential consequences of voting for Nader, your insistence that there would be no difference between a President Bush or a President Gore. I was particularly critical of one Nader voter who, hearing about the Florida voting stalemate, exclaimed "I'm part of history!"

I was wrong. She, and all of you, are indeed part of history. I realized that when I picked up this morning's New York Times. Story after story sang out with examples of the way you've made American history.

Like this one: "Lopsided Vote by Senators Against Type of Abortion." The Senate went and voted against what they call "partial-birth" abortions again. You all know they did it twice before while Bill Clinton was president and he vetoed it. History might not have changed if you didn't help George W. Bush get into the White House. But now, with an anti-choice president, we can count on the bill being signed into law after the House passes it next month. The procedure won't even be allowed when the health of the mother is in danger. If Al Gore had been in the White House, he probably would have upheld Clinton's veto. Thanks to you, history will change.

2003-03-10T15:44:00.000-06:00

Just War — or a Just War?

ATLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

2003-03-10T09:55:00.000-06:00

Saying No to War

Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United Nations opposition. We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections. But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing. If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no.

Creating a Monster: Republican Foreign Policy in the late 20th Century

2003-03-03T18:06:00.000-06:00

By Chris Durbin

When I think of much of the foreign policy of latter day Republican presidents, the metaphor that most frequently comes to mind is that of a golem. A golem is a monster created usually out of rock or clay, and somehow animated by one form of magic or another. This creature is then used by their creator to attack their enemy. The tragic flaw in most tales about golems, is that the creatures are typically almost indestructible, and are notoriously hard to control. The majority of the tales end with the monsters turning on their creators after completing the task for which they were created.

The issues that this most clearly demonstrates are Iraq and al Queda. With Saddam, we furnish him with WMD and turn a blind eye when he uses them against Iran, 'cause we don't like Iran. In fact, one might say that the only reason we did sell that evil shit was because we WANTED him to use it against Iran. Short-sighted and evil. Then we turn around and he's using it against his own people. That's pretty f***ing evil, but our fearless leader still said nothing. It went uncommented upon until it was politically expedient for Bush I to engage in an easily winnable military campaign to boost his approval ratings. Then, our armed forces had to deal with the chemical weapons our own government sold to him. And soon they must do so again, if Junior gets his way.

With al Queda it is very similar. Former Reagan Administration evil bastard George Schultz has openly admitted that they spurred Islamic militants in Afghanistan and neighboring Soviet states into making guerilla attacks against the Soviet infrastructure. Their intent was to draw the USSR into "their own Vietnam." You have to hand it to them, it worked beautifully. The US then trained as many of these Islamic headcases in guerilla warfare and how to use and modify captured Soviet munitions. These muhajadeen were ultimately very effective at their intended goal: They kept the Soviet Union involved in a long, costly war of occupation. One that the mighty Soviet Union ultimately lost.

The problem comes in after the Soviets pull out. Then, so does all aid from the US, much to the chagrin of the "freedom fighters" we supposedly supported. In this vacuum, one group of muhajadin decide that what Afghanistan really needs is an oppresive, murderous government based solely on the most extreme interpretation of Islamic law. Enter the Taliban. Without any guidance from freedom-loving and democratic America, but with plenty of weapons and training from us, the Taliban quickly becomes the most despotic and murderous regime since Idi Amin, and Pol Pot before him. By all accounts, Saddam has nothing on these guys.

Another of these muhajadin, Usama bin Laden, sets up a separate but loosely affiliated group of fundamentalist Islamic crazies called al Queda. Al Queda provides more military muscle to help the Taliban enforce their extreme rule, and consequently can use Afghanistan as a base of operations for their hobby: Trying to overthrow the infidels of the Western world.

There are likely more examples, but I am too tired, sick and cranky now to try and list. Besides, I think I made my point. How many golems are we going to have to deal with? At the rate at which the current Bush administration is alienating our allies and trading partners, the numbers may become astronomical.

So, what's the solution? And, what is the goal, or should be the goal?

A simple solution would be to not use the people of third world nations as puppets in our foreign policy schemes. Or at the very least, keep our promises to the people we use as puppets. In both the cases cited, we betrayed our supposed allies as soon as we had acheived our goals, greatly increasing the amount of hatred towards the US and our foreign policy goals.

In both cases, we could have used our relationship with those groups to exert pressure via monetary and military aid to help guide those regimes away from the the totalitarian and profane forces they became and towards more free, open and democratic societies. The spread of American-style democracy has been the professed goal of the US's global foreign policy since the close of WW II. Yet, in these cases, our leaders passed on the opportunity to acheive these goals.

Some might say that those regimes were inherently twisted, and nothing the US could have done would have changed them. To that, I would obviously reply that if they were so evil, why are we partnering with them? It's been said you can tell the character of a man by the company that he keeps. The same can be said of nations, global superpower or not. The Republican administrations mentioned show a distinct moral relativity when it comes to with whom they would deal. Saddam Hussein has been vilified as being a cruel and vicious tyrant, which is likely quite true. In that case, a) why did we choose to deal with him and b) why did we not attempt to pressure him him to change?

Because we could use him to advance our foreign policy goals, and because once we had expended his usefulness, it was no longer necessary to pretend that we gave a shit about him or Iraq. When it became politically expedient to do so, our leader chose to encourage him to invade Kuwait, then used that invasion as a pretext to wage politically and financially motivated war.

What is true of Saddam Hussein is doubly true of the muhajadeen of Afghanistan. After the pullout of the Soviet occupation, there was a remarkable leadership vacuum, and an almost unprecedented opportunity to shape the face of Afghanistan's future government. We could have supported a regime that supported open and democratic society, but instead, we abandoned them, and our pledge to help them rebuild after the USSR was evicted. Consequently, Afghanistan degenerated into a set of warring feudal tribes, and the power vacuum was filled by the strongest and most ruthless of these tribes, the ultra-radical Taliban.

That pattern is being repeated today by Dubya. To secure the assistance of the various warlords opposed to the Taliban, we once again promised them boatloads of aid. A new Marshall Plan, it was once called. So far, that aid has not appeared. In fact, Junior completely left it out of his latest budget. So either he left that money out of the budget because he wanted diminish the magnitude of his deficit spending and would just let it be added later on as an emergency appropriations bill, or he never intended to make good on his pledge to help the Afghans. So he lied, either to the American people or to the Afghanis or both. And quite literally, there is little difference. A lie is a lie.

So, to answer your question, the goal should be to have our actual foreign policy goals reflect our stated foreign policy goals. The spread of open and democratic societies and the expansion of foreign markets. And if we need a guide, we need only look to the previous administration.

Now, before the Clinton-haters start wailing and gnashing their teeth, allow me to explain. Clinton is one of the most universally loved world leaders, and he also presided over the longest period of economic expansion in our history. These are not are not isolated effects, but rather, deeply linked. The three guiding principles of Clinton's economic policy were:

1) Reduce the deficit. Contrary to the beliefs of most Republicans, deficit spending doesn't expand the economy. It may give it a short term boost as it did for Reagan, but in the long term it reduces the amount of capital available for investment. It's pretty simple: The more money the government borrows to pay its bills, less is available for you, me, and the rest of America.(1)

2) Expand global markets. America has less than 5% of the world's population and produces 20% of the world's products. This one should be pretty obvious. We need foreign markets to bring in more capital, and to siphon off our excess supply. Clinton's universal respect and diplomatic skills opened many new markets while simultaneously creating new allies.(2)

3) Invest in people. Clinton invested large chunks of cash in education funding, vocational training and welfare to work programs. Huge expansions to Pell Grants, the Hope Scholarship, the Lifetime Learning Credit, Educational IRAs, welfare to work tax credits, Workplace Reinvestment Initiative, etc... created a smarter stronger workforce. More people were able to get better, higher paying jobs, increasing the tax base. Meanwhile, Junior's latest budget cuts every single education initiative by 17 to 54%. But it still includes tax cuts for the very rich, and a repeal of the tax on dividends.

The great thing about Clinton's domestic policy is that it also serves as a great basis for a sound coherent foreign policy. The expansion of foreign markets requires that you obtain and maintain civil relations with a large and varied group of nations. He strengthened our traditional alliances while making new ones. His abilities as a diplomat were a tremendous boon here.

Clinton also used humainitarian aid to improve the US image to the global community, albeit usually as incentive to open markets, but it was appreciated by the recipients nonetheless. It had the dual effect of opening markets and creating and strengthening alliances.

Bush on the other hand, has decimated our foreign relations. We're are losing France and Germany, and getting Pakaistan and Kuwait? Good job. Bush's humanitarian aid is usually either a lie as was the case with Afghanistan, or a bribe as it is with the promise of $26 billion to Turkey.

I realize that I've digressed, but if you look for it, the point is still there: The last three Republican presidents' foreign policies have alienated us in the global community, and in some cases, have actually fabricated enemies where before there were none.

Footnotes:

(1) I understand that interest rates are low now, but we don't have an entirely free market economy. The Fed has kept interest rates low in an attempt to stave off recession. Unfortunately, without discipline and deficit reduction, low interest rates won't work. As we begin the second dip of a double dip recession, the Fed will have to jack up the interest rates to stave off inflation. Many people, including most Republicans, credit Alan Greenspan for the remarkable economic expansion of the 90's. He in turn is pretty specific about who he thinks is responsible: Clinton and his deficit reduction policies. Greenspan to Clinton: "I couldn't have done it without what you did on deficit reduction. If you had not turned the fiscal situation around, we could not have had the monetary policy we've had." (Quoted from Maestro: Greenspan's Fed and the American Boom by Bob Woodward)

(2)Meanwhile, Dubya has done more to squash the global markets than anyone in history. His protectionist tariffs on steel and lumber, gifts to campaign contributors from the steel and lumber lobbies, have resulted in a large increase in taxes on our exports worldwide. Also, his stupid, harsh, unilateralist cowboy diplomacy, and the stupid, unsypathetic actions of his administration have decreased our global market. Just as Bush has threatened to pull all aid to Germany and a few ignorant Americans are boycotting French products, large numbers of the world population are turning to other alternatives rather than buying from the US bully.

2003-02-18T17:16:00.000-06:00

War: The Most Horrible Human Experience
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

2003-02-18T08:38:00.000-06:00

Bert the Turtle in Duct and Cover

Too funny not to go and see...

2003-01-31T11:49:00.000-06:00

BURYING UNCOMFORTABLE NEWS ON IRAQ

2003-01-30T12:04:00.000-06:00

The Onion | U.N. Orders Wonka To Submit To Chocolate Factory Inspections

2003-01-23T12:03:00.000-06:00

Salon.com | Bush's bogus "reverse racism" charge
How does a guy whose pedigree opened doors all the way to the White House get away with pretending to believe in meritocracy?

2003-01-09T11:51:00.000-06:00

Bogus Stimulus
Bush's plan will benefit the wealthy -- but not the economy.
Robert Kuttner

If ever there were a president who needed a war, it is George W. Bush. And if ever an opposition party needed to start behaving like an opposition, it is the Democrats.

The economy is faltering; Bush's foreign policy is a mess; his domestic program is aimed more at rewarding favored interest groups than solving national problems. If properly challenged, Bush's program would be monumentally unpopular.

The centerpiece of the Bush economic program is permanent repeal of the tax on corporate dividends, falsely advertised as an economic "stimulus." The Bush plan would reduce revenues by $670 billion over 10 years, about half just from repeal of the dividend tax.

2003-01-08T12:21:00.000-06:00

The Liar's Club
...
In this case, he surely would've been aware that the U.S. forces earmarked for fires on the Korean peninsula are many of the same Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine units now moving at max speed toward Iraq. He also had to know that despite the almost $400 billion 2003 defense budget, there's no way the USA can handle two major scraps at the same time – not to mention the mother of all threats: al-Qaida – with forces at about half Desert Storm strength and stretched to the breaking point in more countries than there are flags.
So in this old soldier's opinion, Rummy has just joined a club of cads chartered by Louis Johnson in 1950 when he assured Harry Truman that we had the right stuff to easily prevail over North Korea's blitzkrieg into South Korea – an attack we were able to stop only after several hundred thousand battered and brave grunts paid a hard price at the Pusan perimeter.
Another charter member of the club is the architect of the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara, who for eight years told the lies that kept us in another war in which – he promised – we'd also "prevail." Those words cost almost half a million American casualties in a bloodbath that almost ripped our country apart and came close to destroying Vietnam.
Both Johnson and McNamara walked. The perps did no jail time for their perjuries despite rows upon rows of white crosses and stars bearing witness to their deceptions and dereliction of duty.
...

2002-12-30T14:03:00.000-06:00

The Memory Hole >U.N. Workers Petition Israel: Stop "Beating and Killing" Us
>>> On 3 December 2002, sixty-four U.N. workers issued a stunning petition. Stationed in Israel and the Occupied Territories, they demanded that the Israeli military stop "beating and killing" them.

You might think that such a strongly-worded statement sent by more than five-dozen United Nations workers to the "Middle East's only democracy" would be highly newsworthy. Apparently not. Among the very few media outlets to cover it were Reuters, the BBC, the Independent (London), Ha'aretz (Jerusalem), and the Jerusalem Post. Notice that all these sources are British or Israeli. Not one American media outlet has covered the story.

2002-12-30T13:55:00.000-06:00

Ignoring the war that really counts

2002-12-18T11:56:00.000-06:00

Salon.com Politics | How YOU can help the economic recovery

2002-12-11T13:56:00.000-06:00

The Onion | Infographic

How did Strom Thurmond celebrate his 100th birthday?

2002-12-11T12:34:00.000-06:00

'All These Problems'
A man from Mars — or from Europe — might expect Mississippi voters to favor progressive taxation and generous social programs. After all, the state benefits immensely from the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson: it doesn't pay a lot of federal taxes because it has the lowest per-capita income in the nation, and it does receive a lot of aid. Unlike, say, New Jersey, which pays far more into the U.S. Treasury than it gets in return, Mississippi is a major net recipient of federal funds.

But Mississippi is, in fact, the home of Trent Lott — a leader of a party determined to roll back as much as it can of the Great Society, perhaps even the New Deal. Why do Mississippi and its neighbors support politicians whose economic policies seemingly run counter to their interests?

Do I really need to answer that?

2002-12-11T10:14:00.000-06:00

Dilbert looks at corporate accounting

2002-12-06T12:39:00.000-06:00

t r u t h o u t - Heather Wokusch | Material Breach: US Crimes in Iraq
D-Day of December 8th quietly approaches - the day Iraq must provide the UN Security Council with a complete accounting of its weapons programs, plus its civilian chemical/biological/nuclear production and research activities. Even though UN weapons inspectors have criticized the December 8th deadline as unrealizable, the consequences for missing it will be catastrophic: Iraq will be in "material breach" of UN resolution 1441, and therefore subject to swift and decisive military action.

But at this point, UN 1441 seems little more than a whitewash pretext for a US-led attack on Iraq. With US warplanes patrolling Iraq's no-fly zone, bombing raids against Iraq ongoing, multiple aircraft carriers on alert and 60,000 US troops currently in or around the Persian Gulf, it's clear the war has already begun, "material breach" or not. When it's convenient for the Bush administration, Iraq will be found to have violated some aspect of the UN resolution, and the current buildup and covert military activity will explode into an all-out attack.

The justification (that Iraq's Hussein violates international law with his weapons of mass destruction and is thus a menace to world peace) seems a bit ironic in light of US actions in Iraq these past eleven years.

2002-12-04T09:17:00.000-06:00

Oh, Henry
...
Two years ago, the appointment of an "independent" investigator with business ties to one of the president's most generous political contributors – who also happens to have made the president a multimillionaire -- would have drawn angry snarls. But the fact that Kissinger sits on the European board of Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, the investment firm of Bush benefactor Thomas O. Hicks, is apparently just business as usual. Tight-lipped Henry doesn't even have to tell how much he's being paid.
...

Which makes me wonder whether Kissinger should be asking questions -- or answering them.

2002-11-27T09:57:00.000-06:00

Bush Saves Turkey from Thanksgiving Dinner Table

It's official. Bush has now saved more turkeys than he has people.

2002-11-27T09:41:00.000-06:00

Tenet and Myers made troubling statements. Your courtiers refuse to discuss them
The Daily Howler examines how the US press corps is ignoring the fact that Bush's Iraq fetish is actually harming the War on Terror in a large scale fashion. Read it. It's good.

2002-11-27T09:26:00.000-06:00

Are you shitting me?

from the "What the f*ck are they smoking?" department:

washingtonpost.com: Low-Income Taxpayers: New Meat for the Right

Further proof (as if it was needed) that the conservative wing of American politics is dangerously out of touch can be found in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. The original column is available only to subscribers, but E.J. Dionne's take on it is available for free at the link above.

2002-11-26T20:49:00.000-06:00

Israel's Choice
Jerusalem

Returning to Israel after an extended absence can be a disturbing experience. On the way back from the airport to my Jerusalem apartment, I noticed new posters tacked onto utility poles and bridges along the highway. They read: Transfer= Peace and Security. The meaning was unambiguous: Israel must expel the 3 million Palestinians living in the occupied territories--and perhaps even its own Palestinian citizens--in order to achieve peace and security.

While racist slogans have become pervasive in Israel, it was this particular message--the notion of expulsion as a political solution--that unhinged me. One does not need to be a Holocaust survivor to recognize the phrase's lethal implications. The slogan, however, does not merely underscore the moral bankruptcy of certain elements in Israeli society; it also helps uncover some of the inherent contradictions underlying Israel's policies in the occupied territories.

2002-11-26T12:39:00.000-06:00

Ralph, Don't Run
by RONNIE DUGGER

[from the December 2, 2002 issue]

Given the GOP sweep in the midterm elections, progressives and populists must position themselves to play a pivotal role in the next presidential contest. As we demonstrated in 2000, we are a fragmented political force, divided between those who supported, however reluctantly, the Democratic choice, Al Gore, and those who backed the Green Party's Ralph Nader. But the Bush disaster, compounded now by the meltdown of the Democratic Party on November 5, is an emergency. We cannot afford another division in our ranks that will bring about the election of George W. Bush in 2004.

2002-11-26T09:34:00.000-06:00

The Sons Also Rise
By PAUL KRUGMAN

America, we all know, is the land of opportunity. Your success in life depends on your ability and drive, not on who your father was.

Just ask the Bush brothers. Talk to Elizabeth Cheney, who holds a specially created State Department job, or her husband, chief counsel of the Office of Management and Budget. Interview Eugene Scalia, the top lawyer at the Labor Department, and Janet Rehnquist, inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services. And don't forget to check in with William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and the conservative commentator John Podhoretz.

2002-11-25T14:17:00.000-06:00

The Price of Silence
The election of 2002 produced a political earthquake. Republicans took control
of all the institutions of government, and that will have profound policy and political implications.
But 2002 was not an electoral earthquake. With the country divided down the
middle, a relatively minor shift to the right – almost invisible to most analysts right up to
election eve – gave the Republicans their crucial victory.
On Election Day, Republicans won by 4 points in voting for the House of Representatives
(51 to 47 percent). That produced a gain of just 4 seats in the House. In the
Senate, Democrats went from a one-seat majority to being in the minority. That represents
a swing of 4 points away from Democratic performance in 2000 (even), actually the
switch of around 2 percent of the voters, not a seismic change.
This small, but dramatic shift was produced by historic events, by a President who
took the stage and played his part boldly, by tactics, and by money. And it was produced
by the Democrats who barely took the stage, failed to tell voters what this election was
about, and failed to offer bold critiques or alternatives, particularly on the economy.

2002-11-25T14:02:00.000-06:00

The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt
Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."

But when Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour cable network, debuted in 1996, a curious thing happened: Instead of denouncing it, conservative politicians and activists lavished praise on the network. "If it hadn't been for Fox, I don't know what I'd have done for the news," Trent Lott gushed after the Florida election recount (Washington Post, 2/5/01). George W. Bush extolled Fox News Channel anchor Tony Snow--a former speechwriter for Bush's father--and his "impressive transition to journalism" in a specially taped April 2001 tribute to Snow's Sunday-morning show on its five-year anniversary (Washington Post, 5/7/01). The right-wing Heritage Foundation had to warn its staffers not to watch so much Fox News on their computers, because it was causing the think tank's system to crash.

2002-11-16T18:55:00.000-06:00

The Village Voice: Features: Richard Goldstein: The Eminem Consensus by Richard Goldstein
Two events of lasting significance occurred last week: the breakdown of the Democratic party and the breakthrough of Eminem. His debut film, 8 Mile, became the highest-grossing movie in America just days after Republicans won control of Congress. These two events may not seem related, but they both reflect the mainstreaming of ideas that seemed extreme just two years ago. Bush's right-wing agenda and Eminem's violent misogyny were once considered over the line. Now they have crossed over and become the line.
Not that Em is a Republican (though he might favor ending the estate tax). But he and George W. Bush do have certain things in common. Both draw their power from the compelling image of the strongman posing as the common man. Both played the populist card to win the nation's heart. And I would argue that both owe their success to the sexual backlash.

2002-11-12T10:18:00.000-06:00

Everyone loves Arik
During Sharon's 20 months in office, the country has skidded downhill in every possible sphere: The economy is six-feet under. More Israelis have been killed in Mr. Security's day than under any other prime minister. The man has never come up with a peace initiative. We've been turned into untouchables in the eyes of just about the whole world.

And despite it all, everyone still loves Arik.

2002-11-12T09:44:00.000-06:00

Los Angeles Times: Chokehold on Knowledge
Since it's the threat of obscurantism we're hoping to thwart, let's be blunt: The Bush administration's plan to strip the Government Printing Office's authority is a threat to democracy.

Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels wants to transfer control of information management from the printing office to individual Cabinet agencies. That would spell the end of the current system, in place since the Jeffersonian era, which requires executive branch agencies to send their documents and reports to neutral librarians, who then make them available to the public both online and in 1,300 public reading rooms nationwide.

2002-10-22T12:58:00.000-05:00

Business as Usual
And don't forget the personal incentives. Almost all of those ex-C.E.O.'s in the administration became wealthy thanks to the connections they had acquired in Washington; the exception is Mr. Bush himself, who became wealthy thanks to the connections his father had acquired in Washington. This process continues. Senator Phil Gramm, who pushed through legislation that exempted Enron's trading practices from regulation while his wife sat on the company's board, is retiring and taking a new job: he's going to UBS Warburg, the company that bought Enron's trading operation. Somehow, crusaders against business abuse don't get similar offers.

The bottom line is that you shouldn't worry about those TV images of men in suits doing the perp walk. That was for public consumption; now that the public is focused on other things, it's back to business — insider business — as usual.

2002-10-14T12:49:00.000-05:00

That which must be forgotten

2002-10-03T13:10:00.000-05:00

Sen. John Kerry on 'Hardball with Chris Matthews'
Transcript of Kerry's thoughtful and considered remarks on current foreign policy towards Iraq.

2002-10-03T12:38:00.000-05:00

Ask Auntie Pinko - How can I help ensure Democratic victory in November?
I keep hearing how it's important for the Democrats to win control of the House and Senate in the upcoming elections. Why is that? What can I do to help? I plan to vote in my local elections, but is there anything else I can do?

2002-10-03T11:42:00.000-05:00

2002-10-03T11:32:00.000-05:00

Bush's real goal in Iraq
"The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence."

2002-09-17T11:23:00.000-05:00

Cronies in Arms

2002-08-21T13:00:00.000-05:00

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall
A quick debunking of the argument that our current deficit is the result of the September 11 attacks, not the Bush tax cut. FYI: tax cut is responsible for almost 40% of our current and projected deficit.

2002-08-21T11:59:00.000-05:00

Working for TIPS
Another of Mark Fiore's incredibly funny political cartoons

2002-08-15T11:13:00.000-05:00

Saddam Hussein-Dick Cheney radio spot
Radio spot produced by gwbush.com that details Dick Cheney and Halliburton's ethically questionable business deals with Saddam Hussein.

2002-08-15T10:54:00.000-05:00

The Corrections
Omigawd this is freakin' hilarious. Put the impending war on Iraq into focus...

2002-08-15T10:49:00.000-05:00

Social Security Shell Game (washingtonpost.com)
Bob Kerrey and Warren Rudman tell it like it is with respect to Social Sewcurity reform. The opening paragraph is classic:

"Wall Street's slump and the disappearing budget surplus are shaping this year's campaign rhetoric on Social Security reform. It's easy to see why. These events have taken two cherished free-lunch options off the table. Politicians can no longer claim that investment returns from a never-ending bull market or general revenue transfers from perpetual budget surpluses will save them from making hard choices."

2002-08-12T16:10:00.000-05:00

Independent Argument
British columnists calls for overthrow of Bush regime

2002-08-12T16:02:00.000-05:00

Mirror.co.uk - QUESTIONS AMERICA MUST ANSWER
Questions American plans for post-war Iraq.

2002-08-12T13:57:00.000-05:00

The Bush Effect
Interesting op-ed piece detailing how Bush's policies have undermined foreign investment in the US stock market, which is slowing the economic recovery.

2002-08-10T11:19:00.000-05:00

Women who put babies up for adoption required to publish sexual pasts
Only in Florida. How in the world could possibly even be allowed by our governmen.... Oh yeah, I forgot, we have an idiot for a president, and his right-wing nutjob VP is running the country.

2002-08-08T12:06:00.000-05:00

Is There A Doctrine In The House?
Sends up the US's new first strike policy.

2002-08-08T11:58:00.000-05:00

To Arms!
Heh heh heh, this just cracks me up

2002-08-08T10:56:00.000-05:00

The Wage Slave Journal: George W. Bush Scorecard of Evil
This site rocks!!! The scorecard of evil that I'm linking is the all-in-one Cliffs Notes to the abuses of the Bush administration for which I've been searching for months.

2002-08-08T10:44:00.000-05:00

The Wage Slave Journal: Done in by decency
I couldn't have said it better myself. The liberals are at a disadvantage in the political discourse, because they are decent human beings and try to live up to a standard of public decency and respect. Their opponents on the right have no such stricture, and therefore have no problem with uncalled for personal attacks and stupid, fictionalized accusations. The lies don't have to be provable, just damaging. As I stated in my previous editorial, there was once a time when liberals could have respect for their political opponents. This is not that time. I have no respect for self-serving lying jerks, and have no desire to work with them in any sort of bi-partisan initiative of any kind. All I want to see is the administration of that idiot imposter Bush dismantled piecemeal and chucked into the garbage can where he and impossibly crooked cronies belong.

2002-08-07T17:18:00.000-05:00

Apologists of the Right
Or The Conservative Double Standard

The large numbers of people who are downplaying President Bush’s and Vice-President Cheney’s own shaky business deals has been striking recently. There are conservative leaders who are actually stating that the current wave of companies going belly-up because of illegal or unethical business practices are the ethical result of Bill Clinton’s personal immorality. There once was a time when good liberals could respect the arguments of their opponents on the right, while still disagreeing with them. That time has long past, as increasingly conservative leaders are implicated in wrongdoing; their attack dogs in the press have become gradually more hysterical and nonsensical in their defense of their fallen heroes.

Why is it that the same people who thought Bill Clinton should be removed from office because he lied about a private sexual affair with a consenting adult show no signs of remorse that their leaders are ethically corrupt and complicit in many of the worst corporate scandals since, well, the last time a Bush was in the White House? Because they are still being told lies by the media. They are told that Clinton’s administration was ineffective, immoral and corrupt. The media accuses Democrats of using abusive language and muddying the waters of political debate with personal attacks. It is at this time that I would to introduce the concept of “projection.” Projection is a psychological term referring to the process of attributing qualities that the subject dislikes about himself or herself to another person. I would suggest that many conservative pundits have begun to suffer from this psychological disorder after watching the carefully crafted images created for their leaders vanish in a puff of reality.

Take Ann Coulter’s new book Slander, for instance. In it, she accuses Democrats of bringing civilized political debate to a halt by making abusive attacks on conservatives based on appearance. She also says that Democrats create false impressions of current events by using comments out of context or simply lying to create a negative impression of a conservative leader or initiative. Coulter is clouding the debate with ad hominem attacks on liberal leaders. It has also been proven in many arenas that most of the more scathing accusations are backed not by fact, but by fictionalized accounts from newspapers. Therefore, Coulter is guilty of the same charges she levels at her liberal opponents. Slander is an appropriate title for her book; just not in the sense it was intended.

This effect is also making its way down to the grassroots levels. In some of my conversations with conservative acquaintances, they are unerringly apologetic for some of the more egregious trespasses of this administration. When they are confronted with evidence of Bush and Cheney’s shady dealings while CEOs of major corporations, and their attempts to cover over those same shady deals, they respond with variations on “Well, everybody’s got a skeleton or two in their closet.” Let me get this straight: When a sitting President has an extra-marital affair with a consenting adult, it is an impeachable offense. But when sitting Presidents are proven to be involved with insider trading, unethical business practices, influence peddling, and in the case of the Vice-President treasonous arms sales to Iraq, it gets glossed over with the equivalent of “Boys will be boys!”

Let us play pretend now. We will exchange the name Bill Clinton for George W. Bush in any given headlines involving Harken and Halliburton. Now let us guess how long it would take the Republicans to howl for his head. Now let us go back to the days of Whitewater and replace Bill Clinton’s name with Duh-bya’s. Who even thinks that story would have made it to print if it had been Resident Bush who was accused of inappropriate behavior? Not me.

2002-08-07T14:09:00.000-05:00

Trading Liberty for Illusions
All about the stupidity of trusting the government to look after your civil rights

2002-08-01T17:33:00.000-05:00

Guardian Unlimited Observer | Special reports | John Pilger: The great charade

2002-07-31T13:36:00.000-05:00

www.mnftiu.cc | get your war on | page one

2002-07-30T16:26:00.000-05:00

Looking for another bounce?

Bush Plan to Attack Iraq Taking Shape

You can't really blame George W Bush. It's not his fault he's stupid, and without the least scrap of originality about him. Blame it on bad genes. Blame it on sagging approval numbers. Shit, even blame it on Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden. Or is Yassir Arafat our targeted embodiment of all evil this week? God knows it'll be somebody Arabic. But, ferchristsake don't blame it on Bush, that would be un-American and un-patriotic. Which, as we all know, is tantamount to carrying a rifle for al Queda.

We probably ought to blame ourselves for not working harder to stop this, because we really should have guessed this was coming:

KRN reported, however, that other aides are pushing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to adopt a much quicker but riskier assault plan that may catch Saddam off guard. That plan, the officials said, could be in place by fall and involve only about 80,000 U.S. troops.

"If it happened in October, I wouldn't be completely surprised," said one official involved in the planning, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

So there are Bush staffers running around trying to push an accellerated timetable for an attack on Iraq? Oh, and the date for hostilities to commence may be as early as October? Why am I not suprised? It wouldn't happen to be because the mid-term elections are in November and Bush's and the Republican's approval ratings have been slowly sinking? Nah, that's crazy-talk. Bush wouldn't risk the lives of American servicemen in a baldfaced attempt to generate positive public opinion, would he? No, we MUST have some other reason for this military spectacle, mustn't we?

The short answer is NO. As of this moment, we have no proof that Saddam Hussein was involved with the al Queda attacks on 9/11, or that he directly or indirectly supported those who were. We have no proof that he has any criminal intent towards the US. Shit, we still don't have conclusive evidence that Osama bin Laden and al Queda were behind the attacks in the first place.

But, what the hell, pick up your rifle and get to go to war for Uncle George and Uncle Dick's oil company buddies. You may not eradicate evil, but you sure as hell are going to give Duh-bya and his Congressional pals a bounce in the polls, and that's worth dying for, isn't it?

2002-07-29T17:20:00.000-05:00

World Leader Pretend

Two years under the occupation

Here's a couple of articles from the Trib detailing how relationships between the US and its European allies have begun to drift apart. These are the first two articles in a series of four:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0207280293jul28.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0207290160jul29.story
Some of you may remember some of my comments of almost a year and a half ago, (after the sinking of a Japanese fishing boat by a US sub) regarding the US's position in global affairs. I held then that the Bush Administration was incompetant, and that their foreign policy was extremist and incompetant and would lead to alienation of our llies, and a worsening of tensions with the entire world. Damn, sometimes I feel like some sort of crazy-ass prophet.

Here we are, a year and half later, and the only ally we really have left is the UK. Everyone else is pissed off because the Bush administration is using its role as sole superpower to dominate the global agenda. Matters of great importance to the rest of the world (Kyoto Protocol, ICC) are being ignored while we focus on an infantile moron's simplistic "Axis Of Evil." Isreali-Palestinean releations are at an all-time low. Bombings have started again in Northern Ireland. Pakistan and India are inches away from mutual assured destruction. There is one, count him, ONE person in the Bush administration at all qualified for the post he holds: Secretary of State Colin Powell. He is a gifted statesman who is savvy on foreign affairs, and he is the least influential member of Bush's administration. He is sole voice of reason, and he is consistly ignored.

Here's a few concepts for everyone to chew on:

1) Bush = Recession: Why is it that every time we have a Republican in the White House, our economy goes in the crapper? Is it incompetance, corruption, or just a complete lack of any confidence in their promises of any kind of corporate reform.

2) Bush = War: To paraphrase the above, why is it that every time we have a Bush in office, we are at war with a nation that controls petrochemical resources that his crooked oil/car buddies covet? No question here, the answer is obvious.

3) Bush = Corruption: From daddy's scandal-fraught tenures as DCI and "Drug Czar" , to Junior's incompetant/corrupt business practices, to Jeb's more than questionable actions before/during/after the 2000 election, to Neil's monstrous mishandling of his gift S&L, one thing is crystal clear. These idiots have no idea how to run a small S&L or a Major (for some definition of major) League ball club, let alone the most powerful nation on earth.

These are just the tip of the iceberg.

2002-07-29T12:44:00.000-05:00

What happened to the American hi-tech economy?

In the year 2001, 9 out of every 10 jobs for computer/IT were taken by H-1Bs.

Shame h1B

Yea.. I was really stunned also.. turns out during the last couple of years of layoffs, the h1B cap has been doubled every year, to the point where it's now at 195,000 people/year, with visas good for 3-6 years... during the dot-com bubble years, everybody was all for raising the cap, as there was more work than there were people.. ( a myth being rapidly debunked by census and employment figures now available) but to raise the cap for 115,000 to 195,000 during a recession when the unemployment rate in silicon valley is topping 25% seems unjust and (at least to me) unreasonable

In addition.. the rules for h1Bs lock them into virtual indentured servitude.. which I though went out of vogue with the puritanical era.. I suppose globalization is inevitable given the WTO et. all, but if we in the 1st world are going to pay the price of globalization in lower wages, benefits and salaries commiserate with a more mobile workforce, shouldn't we also gain the advantages of lower costs for goods and services enabled by this globalization? Or should the top 2% of American society still be allowed to control 98% of the wealth and pay less than 2% of the taxes (oh, silly me.. it's been that way for years.. similar to the illusion of a representative republic propagated on individual franchise negated by the institution of an electoral college)...

Why is it after a discussion like this I always want to say something like "The struggle of the urban proletariat".. must be too much Monty python...

:-{>}...
Jim

2002-07-17T12:55:00.000-05:00

Bush Asserts His Right To Be A Moron

Bush Stands by Social Security Plan Despite Market

What is it that people don't understand about this? This is an idea that could have only been hatched by the stupidest person ever to occupy the Oval Office. Let's break it down really simply so that maybe even Duh-bya himself will understand why this idea is moronic.

Money obeys the law of physics, so it cannot be in two places at the same time.
Money being put into Social Security right now is needed to pay those people currently receiving benefits
For Bush's plan, money would be taken out of FICA payments and put into an investment account for the payee to manage.

Now, absorb the reality of both #2 and #3. Then ponder how to reconcile both #2 and #3 in light of #1.

It simply cannot be done.

Some other good reasons not to invest Social Security money in the stock market:

Enron
Worldcom
Qwest
GlobalCrossing
Tyco
Harken
Halliburton

The best reason to NOT invest social security money in the stock market: The market reached its all-time high of 11,722.98 on Jan. 14, 2000, and is now at 8680.03 which is a drop of over 25%. Why settle for a measly gain of 3.5-4.0%, when you can achieve monumental losses.

This seems to be Duh-bya's motto: Why be a minor success when you can be a monumental failure.

2002-07-16T16:58:00.000-05:00

Okay, time to get going on this...

This is What The Hell Happened, the editorial arm of the Alternative News Network. For the uninitiated, the ANN was started about 1.5 months ago to answer a need that I (and others) have perceived for impartial and unbiased news reporting in the USA. The basic idea is that because the major news outlets in the US are owned by huge media conglomerates, news reported by them is homogenous and subject to censorship and bias from their corporate masters. The only bias and censorship in the ANN is that brought to it by the individual posters. Okay, primarily my own personal biases. If you don't know my personal bias yet, you haven't been to ANN and checked out what kind of stories I've been posting.

Unfortunately, because of the stringent "no editorializing" clause I put on posts to the ANN, I find myself often censoring my own descriptions of these articles to prevent my own personal views from interceding. I quickly realized if that I forced myself to simply post and report, I would go crazy trying to suppress my thoughts and opinions. So here it is, the editorial section. Now Selena and Amy don't have to sit around and listen to me pontificate any more... they can go online and read my rants.

Oh... oh yeah.... who'll be posting? Right now, just me. I'll open membership to only a select few people, as any good editorial body should have a primary focus. I would also like to make sure that those pontificating here are at least somewhat up-to-date on current events, so the first rule is that they must be a posting member of ANN. By posting member I mean that you regularly post to ANN, not that have have made a post to ANN. I.e., you post something more than once a week. Also, I will have final editorial control over the content of this site, so if I don't like what you're writing, I'll pull it. Don't like it? Tough... make your own weblog and call it "Chris is a big meany-pants". I really don't care