Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Rise of the Petroeuros: No Blood for Greenbacks?
The world of international currency has been in a state of suspended animation ever since President Nixon chose to de-couple the dollar from the gold standard back in the early 1970s. Until that time, paper currency had been valued with a corresponding amount of gold or other precious metal held by the nation that issued the bills. Nixon’s removal of a gold standard meant that dollars were now worth what was an agreed upon value, rather than any commodities balance in Fort Knox.
One way that the dollar continued to play a dominant role was by multilateral agreements to use dollars for certain transactions, the most important of those being an agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia to transact oil products through OPEC in dollars, which became known as Petrodollars.
The importance of the dollar as a worldwide currency is maintained is by assuring that petroleum transactions between Japan and Saudi Arabia are conducted in dollars rather than directly in yen and dinars. This keeps demand for dollars high around the world, since it is the universal currency exchanged for the world’s most important energy source.
But there are signs that this agreement may be just another artifact of the Cold War era whose time is drawing to a close. The emergence of the euro as a currency to challenge dollar hegemony is one development, as is the recent decline in the dollar’s value. The final straw, however, may be more political than economic.
OPEC countries surprisingly announced a move to curtail production this month. The result would be to keep world prices at their high levels. The Minister from Oman expressed this reason for the decision, “We are a nation that earns our salary in dollars and pays our expenses in euros.” The same could be said for most Middle East nations that purchase the bulk of their goods and services from Europe.
As the dollar continues to decline in value relative to the euro it would make increasing sense for nations in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East to convert their petroleum revenues to the common currency of Europe. There is a recent precedent for this conversion, as well as a strongly cautionary tale—Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
As a thumb to the nose of the US and Britain, when the Food for Oil program was instituted in Iraq the payments were made in euros at Saddam’s request. The institutional threat to this shift was not unnoticed in the United States. Several writers and even a former Pentagon military analyst gave this as one of the primary, and hidden, reasons for the current War in Iraq. These articles by Marc Cooper and P.D. Scott go into great detail about this aspect of the war as well as the politicization of the intelligence process. It’s disturbing reading, no doubt—one with more than a hint of conspiracy theory. However, the fact that one of these commentaries comes from a lifelong Republican conservative military analyst, one who retired from the Pentagon so she could publicly go on the offensive against the corruption of her former colleagues, makes for sobering commentary not easily dismissed.
It is possible, however, that in the final analysis the US may not have any say over a possible rise of the Petroeuro. OPEC nations disgusted with US policies toward Israel and Palestine and the ongoing stalemate in Iraq could be induced to making this change unilaterally. The US may well increasingly find itself at the mercy of its creditor nations as our dollar loses value and our balance of trade continues to decline.
This,too, is not without precedent. Scott notes:
"The US is strong enough to dominate the world militarily. Economically it is in decline, less and less competitive, and increasingly in debt. The Bush peoples' intention appears to be to override economic realities with military ones, as if there were no risk of economic retribution. They should be mindful of Britain's humiliating retreat from Suez in 1956, a retreat forced on it by the United States as a condition for propping up the failing British pound."
With friends like these. . .
The world of international currency has been in a state of suspended animation ever since President Nixon chose to de-couple the dollar from the gold standard back in the early 1970s. Until that time, paper currency had been valued with a corresponding amount of gold or other precious metal held by the nation that issued the bills. Nixon’s removal of a gold standard meant that dollars were now worth what was an agreed upon value, rather than any commodities balance in Fort Knox.
One way that the dollar continued to play a dominant role was by multilateral agreements to use dollars for certain transactions, the most important of those being an agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia to transact oil products through OPEC in dollars, which became known as Petrodollars.
The importance of the dollar as a worldwide currency is maintained is by assuring that petroleum transactions between Japan and Saudi Arabia are conducted in dollars rather than directly in yen and dinars. This keeps demand for dollars high around the world, since it is the universal currency exchanged for the world’s most important energy source.
But there are signs that this agreement may be just another artifact of the Cold War era whose time is drawing to a close. The emergence of the euro as a currency to challenge dollar hegemony is one development, as is the recent decline in the dollar’s value. The final straw, however, may be more political than economic.
OPEC countries surprisingly announced a move to curtail production this month. The result would be to keep world prices at their high levels. The Minister from Oman expressed this reason for the decision, “We are a nation that earns our salary in dollars and pays our expenses in euros.” The same could be said for most Middle East nations that purchase the bulk of their goods and services from Europe.
As the dollar continues to decline in value relative to the euro it would make increasing sense for nations in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East to convert their petroleum revenues to the common currency of Europe. There is a recent precedent for this conversion, as well as a strongly cautionary tale—Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
As a thumb to the nose of the US and Britain, when the Food for Oil program was instituted in Iraq the payments were made in euros at Saddam’s request. The institutional threat to this shift was not unnoticed in the United States. Several writers and even a former Pentagon military analyst gave this as one of the primary, and hidden, reasons for the current War in Iraq. These articles by Marc Cooper and P.D. Scott go into great detail about this aspect of the war as well as the politicization of the intelligence process. It’s disturbing reading, no doubt—one with more than a hint of conspiracy theory. However, the fact that one of these commentaries comes from a lifelong Republican conservative military analyst, one who retired from the Pentagon so she could publicly go on the offensive against the corruption of her former colleagues, makes for sobering commentary not easily dismissed.
It is possible, however, that in the final analysis the US may not have any say over a possible rise of the Petroeuro. OPEC nations disgusted with US policies toward Israel and Palestine and the ongoing stalemate in Iraq could be induced to making this change unilaterally. The US may well increasingly find itself at the mercy of its creditor nations as our dollar loses value and our balance of trade continues to decline.
This,too, is not without precedent. Scott notes:
"The US is strong enough to dominate the world militarily. Economically it is in decline, less and less competitive, and increasingly in debt. The Bush peoples' intention appears to be to override economic realities with military ones, as if there were no risk of economic retribution. They should be mindful of Britain's humiliating retreat from Suez in 1956, a retreat forced on it by the United States as a condition for propping up the failing British pound."
With friends like these. . .
Friday, February 20, 2004
Wars: Past, Present and Future
The ongoing struggle in Iraq continues to draw parallels with Vietnam, much to the chagrin of TeamBush hawks.
A far more troubling analogy was drawn by Newsday's James Pinkerton, to whom the pattern of Iraqi car bombings and overly optimistic reports of impending government success recalls nothing so much as Terry Gilliam's 1985 classic film Brazil. Routine terror bombings by an unseen and apparently doggedly unstoppable group of insurgents is, however, only a surreal back story to this film. As Pinkerton notes, "(T)he film's focus isn't on violence. Instead, its target is lying in high places. One government official, appearing on a TV news show, blames a "ruthless minority" for the bombings and predicts quick victory over terrorism. "But it's been 13 years," the interviewer protests. To which the official replies, dismissively, "Beginner's luck!"
More troubling, he observes,"'Brazil'-like levels of implausibility-in-the-face-of-reality are visible at the Coalition Provisional Authority, the hub of American operations in Iraq. In that bureaucratic bubble in the middle of chaotic Baghdad, it's seemingly easy to make the real yield to the unreal."
The inherent difficulty of running a counter-insurgency program, especially in a foreign country, is that one always has to alternate between carrot and stick--and the questions of how, when, where, and with what intensity to apply either are rarely clear cut. This is just what gives such situations their surreal quality.
A few examples. Pinkerton notes:
"Of course, the Americans insist that we are winning the "hearts and minds" of most Iraqis.
Yet we might consider these details about last week's car bombing of a police station in Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad, as reported by the Washington Post's Ariana Eunjung Cha: "After the explosion, U.S. troops trying to secure the area clashed with angry Iraqis who contended that the explosion was caused by a missile fired by a U.S. warplane. Witnesses said the troops fired into the crowd, hitting civilians." One Iraqi subsequently died."
Winning hearts and minds is a term and idea straight outta Vietnam, and one which finds itself again expressed by US Marine General Michael Hagee discussing the 25,000 Marines being rotated into the Iraqi Sunni Triangle area to the immense relief of the now-exhausted Army 82nd Airborne.
Hagee apparently sees little contradiction in his mission. He notes, "They (the enemy) know that the most lethal, dangerous weapons system on any battlefield is the United States Marine armed--and that is one of the things that we will bring." Later he includes, "Establish that relationship--'hearts and minds' was the term used in Vietnam. I think that's still accurate ... where the people will come to you and say 'Hey, the bad guy is around the corner here and I want to show you where he is."
While Hagee claims that that is starting to happen in Iraq (and I hope he's right for the sake of his Marines), he ignores one point. It ultimately did not work in Vietnam. When faced with the prospect of killing damn near every man, woman, and child in the South if we were going achieve our objectives, we began to pull out.
One last Vietnam link. This one surprisingly an article where Donald Rumsfeld speaks truth to power. Or at least did, back in 1966. Seems Rummy was very upset about the no-bid contracts that Halliburton forerunners Kellogg, Brown and Root were getting to rebuild South Vietnam. But back then it was LBJ's cronies making all the loot from war profiteering and not W's.
What a difference 35 years makes.
The ongoing struggle in Iraq continues to draw parallels with Vietnam, much to the chagrin of TeamBush hawks.
A far more troubling analogy was drawn by Newsday's James Pinkerton, to whom the pattern of Iraqi car bombings and overly optimistic reports of impending government success recalls nothing so much as Terry Gilliam's 1985 classic film Brazil. Routine terror bombings by an unseen and apparently doggedly unstoppable group of insurgents is, however, only a surreal back story to this film. As Pinkerton notes, "(T)he film's focus isn't on violence. Instead, its target is lying in high places. One government official, appearing on a TV news show, blames a "ruthless minority" for the bombings and predicts quick victory over terrorism. "But it's been 13 years," the interviewer protests. To which the official replies, dismissively, "Beginner's luck!"
More troubling, he observes,"'Brazil'-like levels of implausibility-in-the-face-of-reality are visible at the Coalition Provisional Authority, the hub of American operations in Iraq. In that bureaucratic bubble in the middle of chaotic Baghdad, it's seemingly easy to make the real yield to the unreal."
The inherent difficulty of running a counter-insurgency program, especially in a foreign country, is that one always has to alternate between carrot and stick--and the questions of how, when, where, and with what intensity to apply either are rarely clear cut. This is just what gives such situations their surreal quality.
A few examples. Pinkerton notes:
"Of course, the Americans insist that we are winning the "hearts and minds" of most Iraqis.
Yet we might consider these details about last week's car bombing of a police station in Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad, as reported by the Washington Post's Ariana Eunjung Cha: "After the explosion, U.S. troops trying to secure the area clashed with angry Iraqis who contended that the explosion was caused by a missile fired by a U.S. warplane. Witnesses said the troops fired into the crowd, hitting civilians." One Iraqi subsequently died."
Winning hearts and minds is a term and idea straight outta Vietnam, and one which finds itself again expressed by US Marine General Michael Hagee discussing the 25,000 Marines being rotated into the Iraqi Sunni Triangle area to the immense relief of the now-exhausted Army 82nd Airborne.
Hagee apparently sees little contradiction in his mission. He notes, "They (the enemy) know that the most lethal, dangerous weapons system on any battlefield is the United States Marine armed--and that is one of the things that we will bring." Later he includes, "Establish that relationship--'hearts and minds' was the term used in Vietnam. I think that's still accurate ... where the people will come to you and say 'Hey, the bad guy is around the corner here and I want to show you where he is."
While Hagee claims that that is starting to happen in Iraq (and I hope he's right for the sake of his Marines), he ignores one point. It ultimately did not work in Vietnam. When faced with the prospect of killing damn near every man, woman, and child in the South if we were going achieve our objectives, we began to pull out.
One last Vietnam link. This one surprisingly an article where Donald Rumsfeld speaks truth to power. Or at least did, back in 1966. Seems Rummy was very upset about the no-bid contracts that Halliburton forerunners Kellogg, Brown and Root were getting to rebuild South Vietnam. But back then it was LBJ's cronies making all the loot from war profiteering and not W's.
What a difference 35 years makes.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
The Republicans Strike Back--or at least try to
Man, TeamBush is just off its game these last few weeks. Not that that bothers me, but it's just so out-of-character.
First, GW gives less-than-stellar interview to Tim Russert (see previous posts for detail), then comes the whole 'AWOL controversy' which even GOP insiders say was mishandled and still leaves doubt in the minds of Americans.
Following that we had some of the first TeamBush mudslinging toward Kerry of the election season, but it seemed to have backfired and stuck to Bush. Hesiod has a good stream of postings on the issue at Counterspin Central that seem to debunk any further notion that Kerry had an affair with Alexandra Polier (raised in Philly's own suburban Malvern). Even the photo intended to ally Kerry with Jane Fonda during Vietnam-era antiwar activities was quickly shown to be a cheap forgery propagated by right-wing quacks.
So what does W do? He speaks in front of safe audiences (Daytona 500, more military bases) and spews old party lines. Due to the overheated diligence of his security detail he's not even seen or heard a protester in years now, let alone spoken before any public group not specifically hand-picked for its TeamBush loyalty.
Since by his own admission he doesn't read a paper, do you think it's possible he doesn't even know over half the country now believes the War with Iraq was a mistake and that he misrepresented the case for war during the lead-up?!
A sane person would be tempted to dismiss that as absurd, but be certain W isn't going after the rational voter this time around. As proof note his comments to Guardsmen at Fort Polk, Louisiana:
"My resolve is the same as it was on the day when I walked in the rubble of the twin towers," Bush said, referring to the terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center. "I will not relent until this threat is removed. And neither will you."
So there we have it. Although high ranking TeamBush cabinet members and even he himself personally disavowed the notion that proof of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection existed, he continues to link the two rhetorically in his speeches.
I would say that at this point he's dangerously close to becoming an utterly untrustworthy hack. A few more months of this and W could wind up with trustworthiness poll numbers down there with Dick Cheney's.
Man, TeamBush is just off its game these last few weeks. Not that that bothers me, but it's just so out-of-character.
First, GW gives less-than-stellar interview to Tim Russert (see previous posts for detail), then comes the whole 'AWOL controversy' which even GOP insiders say was mishandled and still leaves doubt in the minds of Americans.
Following that we had some of the first TeamBush mudslinging toward Kerry of the election season, but it seemed to have backfired and stuck to Bush. Hesiod has a good stream of postings on the issue at Counterspin Central that seem to debunk any further notion that Kerry had an affair with Alexandra Polier (raised in Philly's own suburban Malvern). Even the photo intended to ally Kerry with Jane Fonda during Vietnam-era antiwar activities was quickly shown to be a cheap forgery propagated by right-wing quacks.
So what does W do? He speaks in front of safe audiences (Daytona 500, more military bases) and spews old party lines. Due to the overheated diligence of his security detail he's not even seen or heard a protester in years now, let alone spoken before any public group not specifically hand-picked for its TeamBush loyalty.
Since by his own admission he doesn't read a paper, do you think it's possible he doesn't even know over half the country now believes the War with Iraq was a mistake and that he misrepresented the case for war during the lead-up?!
A sane person would be tempted to dismiss that as absurd, but be certain W isn't going after the rational voter this time around. As proof note his comments to Guardsmen at Fort Polk, Louisiana:
"My resolve is the same as it was on the day when I walked in the rubble of the twin towers," Bush said, referring to the terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center. "I will not relent until this threat is removed. And neither will you."
So there we have it. Although high ranking TeamBush cabinet members and even he himself personally disavowed the notion that proof of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection existed, he continues to link the two rhetorically in his speeches.
I would say that at this point he's dangerously close to becoming an utterly untrustworthy hack. A few more months of this and W could wind up with trustworthiness poll numbers down there with Dick Cheney's.
Madge is dead--Long Live the manicurist!
From the world of infotainment we learn today of the death of actress Jan Miner, who died recently at age 86. Miner, in her role of Madge the Manicurist, was for 27 years the face of Palmolive Dish Detergent. Indeed, she was an icon of my youth. Not only did she bring the phrase, "you're soaking in it" into our lexicon, but she was single-handedly responsible for perpetuating the advertising myth that American women would not be compelled to pull their hand out of a bowl full of slimy, viscous toxic-green colored goo until after they learned it was actually dishwashing detergent.
From the world of infotainment we learn today of the death of actress Jan Miner, who died recently at age 86. Miner, in her role of Madge the Manicurist, was for 27 years the face of Palmolive Dish Detergent. Indeed, she was an icon of my youth. Not only did she bring the phrase, "you're soaking in it" into our lexicon, but she was single-handedly responsible for perpetuating the advertising myth that American women would not be compelled to pull their hand out of a bowl full of slimy, viscous toxic-green colored goo until after they learned it was actually dishwashing detergent.
Friday, February 13, 2004
Some privacy rights are more equal than others
Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department is seking to subpoena private medical records of patients who may have had dilation-and-extraction procedures, known as partial-birth abortions to the anti-choice crowd, at numerous hospitals around the country.
The Justice Department claims they need to review such records as part of their attempt to enforce the ban on these procedures, a law which has been temporarily put on hold due to court challenges. Ashcroft's lawyers insist privacy information will be blacked out; hospital and doctor representatives claim that enough information will still exist to identify the individuals involved. Given Ashcroft's nearly militant stand against abortion throughout his long political career, pro-choice advocates feel they are justifiably worried about handing over such private records.
Listening to stories of Ashcroft's people go to such lengths to secure this personal information reminded me that the AG himself was personally involved in gutting portions of the Homeland security bills and USA Patriot Act that dealt with gun purchase and possession by known or suspected terrorists. This includes ammunition or other paramilitary weaponry.
So as currently written the statutes allow the government to monitor the phone records, library accounts, video rentals, bank accounts, mail, e-mail, etc. of anyone it deems a terror threat BUT they cannot inquire at all if you had purchased, attempted to purchase, or were thought by reasonable people to be stockpiling pistols, rifles, infrared night-vision scopes, cop-killer hollow point bullets, semi-automatic rifles, assualt rifles or the like, because that would be too grave of an infringement on their privacy right with regard to the second amendment.
All I can say is thank God we still live in a country where loose-moralled sluts and the doctors who service them in their immorality are hunted down at the highest echelons of government while fanatical terrorists like Mohammed Atta can still exercise their Constitutional rights to own as many firearms as they wish free from the intrusive preying eye of government.
Insert irony here.
Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department is seking to subpoena private medical records of patients who may have had dilation-and-extraction procedures, known as partial-birth abortions to the anti-choice crowd, at numerous hospitals around the country.
The Justice Department claims they need to review such records as part of their attempt to enforce the ban on these procedures, a law which has been temporarily put on hold due to court challenges. Ashcroft's lawyers insist privacy information will be blacked out; hospital and doctor representatives claim that enough information will still exist to identify the individuals involved. Given Ashcroft's nearly militant stand against abortion throughout his long political career, pro-choice advocates feel they are justifiably worried about handing over such private records.
Listening to stories of Ashcroft's people go to such lengths to secure this personal information reminded me that the AG himself was personally involved in gutting portions of the Homeland security bills and USA Patriot Act that dealt with gun purchase and possession by known or suspected terrorists. This includes ammunition or other paramilitary weaponry.
So as currently written the statutes allow the government to monitor the phone records, library accounts, video rentals, bank accounts, mail, e-mail, etc. of anyone it deems a terror threat BUT they cannot inquire at all if you had purchased, attempted to purchase, or were thought by reasonable people to be stockpiling pistols, rifles, infrared night-vision scopes, cop-killer hollow point bullets, semi-automatic rifles, assualt rifles or the like, because that would be too grave of an infringement on their privacy right with regard to the second amendment.
All I can say is thank God we still live in a country where loose-moralled sluts and the doctors who service them in their immorality are hunted down at the highest echelons of government while fanatical terrorists like Mohammed Atta can still exercise their Constitutional rights to own as many firearms as they wish free from the intrusive preying eye of government.
Insert irony here.
"Get up and fight like Apes!"
Yes, mammal friends, it's time to once again get all hopped up about evolution deniers. Just recently Georgia's highest education authority tried to remove all mention of 'evolution' from that state's public school textbooks. Only the impassioned intervention of former president Jimmy Carter halted this process. Governor Sonny Perdue failed to wade into this 'controversy.'
This would be laughable if it weren't so serious.
I should note: I am a believer, so don't tar me with a 'secular humanist' label (almost worse then being called a liberal in some crowds, eek!!). Yet, I can separate my beliefs from what rational policy should be in a diverse world. Of course my own conscience and beliefs inform my actions but not to the point of denying the obvious. And that is my problem with fundamentalism of every stripe. It yields not a whit to culture, modernity, science or reason. Karen Armstrong's wonderful book The Battle for God gives great detail in a very balanced way of how fundamentalism came to be a major force in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the last century. It should really be required reading for anyone who seeks to understand conflicts in the Middle East, Israel and the West Bank, or even people still trying to re-live the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1920 here in our own backyards.
In many ways the concerns of fundamentalists are all of our concerns (the overly-fast pace of the modern world, the removal of defined guideposts of morality, decency, and humanity). The problem is they seem to approach these critical issues by returning to a 'golden age,' the major theme of which is an unyielding reliance on whichever holy book they tend to value. This view ignores the fact that religion always has been more art than science, and various interpretations of those books have always existed--when allowed. How many versions of each of these religions are there?
Fundamentalists fall into the trap of believing their view to be unerring, not just to themselves or their own sect, but universally to all of humanity. This of course, leads automatically to the creation of 'lesser than' groups in the world. Eventually this logic taken to an extreme explains how we end up blowing ourselves up in buses full of school children or marching entire cultures into gas chambers or justifying human slavery.
It's all just got to end.
Yes, mammal friends, it's time to once again get all hopped up about evolution deniers. Just recently Georgia's highest education authority tried to remove all mention of 'evolution' from that state's public school textbooks. Only the impassioned intervention of former president Jimmy Carter halted this process. Governor Sonny Perdue failed to wade into this 'controversy.'
This would be laughable if it weren't so serious.
I should note: I am a believer, so don't tar me with a 'secular humanist' label (almost worse then being called a liberal in some crowds, eek!!). Yet, I can separate my beliefs from what rational policy should be in a diverse world. Of course my own conscience and beliefs inform my actions but not to the point of denying the obvious. And that is my problem with fundamentalism of every stripe. It yields not a whit to culture, modernity, science or reason. Karen Armstrong's wonderful book The Battle for God gives great detail in a very balanced way of how fundamentalism came to be a major force in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the last century. It should really be required reading for anyone who seeks to understand conflicts in the Middle East, Israel and the West Bank, or even people still trying to re-live the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1920 here in our own backyards.
In many ways the concerns of fundamentalists are all of our concerns (the overly-fast pace of the modern world, the removal of defined guideposts of morality, decency, and humanity). The problem is they seem to approach these critical issues by returning to a 'golden age,' the major theme of which is an unyielding reliance on whichever holy book they tend to value. This view ignores the fact that religion always has been more art than science, and various interpretations of those books have always existed--when allowed. How many versions of each of these religions are there?
Fundamentalists fall into the trap of believing their view to be unerring, not just to themselves or their own sect, but universally to all of humanity. This of course, leads automatically to the creation of 'lesser than' groups in the world. Eventually this logic taken to an extreme explains how we end up blowing ourselves up in buses full of school children or marching entire cultures into gas chambers or justifying human slavery.
It's all just got to end.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Wither Dick?
TeamBush looks increasingly edgy with things not going their way of late. As Karl 'The Brain' Rove looks to jettison some dead weight from the team while simultaneously feeding a little raw meat to the masses, is Dick Cheney beyond his evil gaze?
Murmurs of dissatisfaction among GOP loyalists have been heard softly in the background for some time now. Joan Vennochi at the Boston Globe floated the idea of a Bush-Romney ticket, guessing that TeamBush might prefer a smiling hatchet man like the affable-but-venomous Massachusetts Governor over the snarling hatchet man Cheney has become in most American's eyes.
And you know its bad when a decidedly center-right publication like Time weighs in on Cheney. Haliburton, secret energy committees, Scalia, the neo-con connection, his championing of the War and the now-tired lines about al-Qaeda and Iraq and nukes in the basement are all beginning to be a drag.
Perhaps worse, though, is the threat of multiple indictments hanging over his office regarding the intentional outing of a CIA agent. Julian Borger reports here that three of the five targets of the investigation do or did work in Cheney's office. Of course, some people were crowing about this whole allegation for months, but TeamBush tried last year to push it under the rug with a trademark smirk. But CIA knew from their own investigation where this trail lead--to the same guys who were trying to pin the decision to go to war on them because of faulty intelligence gathering.
Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori, Dick.
TeamBush looks increasingly edgy with things not going their way of late. As Karl 'The Brain' Rove looks to jettison some dead weight from the team while simultaneously feeding a little raw meat to the masses, is Dick Cheney beyond his evil gaze?
Murmurs of dissatisfaction among GOP loyalists have been heard softly in the background for some time now. Joan Vennochi at the Boston Globe floated the idea of a Bush-Romney ticket, guessing that TeamBush might prefer a smiling hatchet man like the affable-but-venomous Massachusetts Governor over the snarling hatchet man Cheney has become in most American's eyes.
And you know its bad when a decidedly center-right publication like Time weighs in on Cheney. Haliburton, secret energy committees, Scalia, the neo-con connection, his championing of the War and the now-tired lines about al-Qaeda and Iraq and nukes in the basement are all beginning to be a drag.
Perhaps worse, though, is the threat of multiple indictments hanging over his office regarding the intentional outing of a CIA agent. Julian Borger reports here that three of the five targets of the investigation do or did work in Cheney's office. Of course, some people were crowing about this whole allegation for months, but TeamBush tried last year to push it under the rug with a trademark smirk. But CIA knew from their own investigation where this trail lead--to the same guys who were trying to pin the decision to go to war on them because of faulty intelligence gathering.
Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori, Dick.
Molly and the Memory Hole
The world of TeamBush is one that relies a good bit on "Up-is-downism." A deforestation scheme long championed by the timber industry is titled "Healthy Forests" and a pollution bill that actually increases toxic chemicals pumped into our air is known by the moniker "Healthy Skies Initiative."
Molly Ivins once again wades into this tangle of half-truths and outright lies by reminding us that not everyone was wrong about Iraq's weapons capabilities in the months leading up to war. In fact, those of us not possessed by Orwellian tendencies may recall that after the largest world-wide demonstrations about one topic in the history of mankind last February 15, one foreign news outlet noted, "(t)here are two superpowers on the planet: the United States and World Opinion."
I'll admit--I would have felt pretty stupid if huge stockpiles of weapons turned up, along with sophisticated delivery systems at-the-ready capable of firing them around the world at a moment's notice. I would have felt even worse if documents or persons linking Iraq and Al Qaeda turned up--more so if we could have shown how Saddam planned to give those madmen bio-weapons and nukes to use against western civilian targets. That's what they taunted us with. "Wait and see and then you'll be sorry" was the TeamBush pre-war mantra.
In short, they would have been absolutely right. I would have owed Bush, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz a big apology. I may have even reassessed my own geopolitical perspective.
Don't they at least owe me the same? They were wrong. They put all of their eggs in one basket and, not inconsequently, have put our nation in its most precarious position in a generation.
Clinton was wrong and looked foolish with his cheap attempts to define what "is, is" regarding his contact with a White House intern. The right-wing press grilled him on that, as did alot of other people. But in the end he was playing word games about a tawdry series of quickies and his own personal marital infidelity. And he even apologized for that on national TV, as I recall.
Bush is betting the election that his refusal to admit any serious mistakes or missteps will play to the American people as resolve and determination. His quickly eroding poll numbers suggest that may not be the case. Josh Marshall put it this way when talking about Bush's Meet the Press mano-a-mano with Tim Russert:
"The issue, I think, is that right now the president doesn't have a particularly good story to tell or a particularly good explanation for why almost nothing he's said would happen (budget, Iraq, etc.) has happened. That's a problem.
So when he goes on an hour-long interview he doesn't sound very good. And since he's not willing to confront the debacle of the weapons search, the fiscal mess, or what's happening on the ground in Iraq he comes off sounding evasive, incoherent and out of touch with what's happening on his watch."
Indeed.
The world of TeamBush is one that relies a good bit on "Up-is-downism." A deforestation scheme long championed by the timber industry is titled "Healthy Forests" and a pollution bill that actually increases toxic chemicals pumped into our air is known by the moniker "Healthy Skies Initiative."
Molly Ivins once again wades into this tangle of half-truths and outright lies by reminding us that not everyone was wrong about Iraq's weapons capabilities in the months leading up to war. In fact, those of us not possessed by Orwellian tendencies may recall that after the largest world-wide demonstrations about one topic in the history of mankind last February 15, one foreign news outlet noted, "(t)here are two superpowers on the planet: the United States and World Opinion."
I'll admit--I would have felt pretty stupid if huge stockpiles of weapons turned up, along with sophisticated delivery systems at-the-ready capable of firing them around the world at a moment's notice. I would have felt even worse if documents or persons linking Iraq and Al Qaeda turned up--more so if we could have shown how Saddam planned to give those madmen bio-weapons and nukes to use against western civilian targets. That's what they taunted us with. "Wait and see and then you'll be sorry" was the TeamBush pre-war mantra.
In short, they would have been absolutely right. I would have owed Bush, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz a big apology. I may have even reassessed my own geopolitical perspective.
Don't they at least owe me the same? They were wrong. They put all of their eggs in one basket and, not inconsequently, have put our nation in its most precarious position in a generation.
Clinton was wrong and looked foolish with his cheap attempts to define what "is, is" regarding his contact with a White House intern. The right-wing press grilled him on that, as did alot of other people. But in the end he was playing word games about a tawdry series of quickies and his own personal marital infidelity. And he even apologized for that on national TV, as I recall.
Bush is betting the election that his refusal to admit any serious mistakes or missteps will play to the American people as resolve and determination. His quickly eroding poll numbers suggest that may not be the case. Josh Marshall put it this way when talking about Bush's Meet the Press mano-a-mano with Tim Russert:
"The issue, I think, is that right now the president doesn't have a particularly good story to tell or a particularly good explanation for why almost nothing he's said would happen (budget, Iraq, etc.) has happened. That's a problem.
So when he goes on an hour-long interview he doesn't sound very good. And since he's not willing to confront the debacle of the weapons search, the fiscal mess, or what's happening on the ground in Iraq he comes off sounding evasive, incoherent and out of touch with what's happening on his watch."
Indeed.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Head Scarves and Gay Marriage
I was reading today about the struggles in Europe concerning women wearing the traditional Muslim hijab, and I must say that I'm having second thoughts in this debate.
As an American, I have a strong bias toward individual rights, especially rights of expression and religion. The more I read, however, I see that this case hinges on the fact that, as Bob Weir used to sing, "there's freedom from and freedom to."
From about 1500 to 1700 or so Europe pretty much reeled from one bloody conflict to another over the issue of religion. The rise of nationalistic systems that came after these conflicts tried, not always easily, to keep religion out of the public sphere. Despite a secular revolution in 1789, it was only in the last century that crucifixes, symbol of France's dominant Catholic Church, were removed from secular French schools, according to this fine article by Elaine Ganley examing the hijab controversy. While doing some more background folks may also want to read this piece from The Guardian.
Europe's answer to religious conflict in the modern era has typically been to strongly secularize the state and notions of national identity. As these articles discussed, such efforts are under attack again, this time by Muslim fundamentalists.
The US chose an opposite tack--we embraced much religious display and self expression. Of course, until recently (and even now in many parts of the country) that meant Christian display of a certain Protestant leaning, so we shouldn't pat our own backs too hard in this regard. Nevertheless, its clear that these ties go back to our nation's founding, and were part of our own history and tradition. America's tradition of manifest destiny embraces a religious fervor, and our secular institutions have engaged in an alliance with religion from the beginning. The religion clause notwithstanding, the US has had (and Americans generally favor) far less of a church-state separation than Civics 101 would have us believe. Good or ill, it's a simple fact.
Here's the gay marriage part. We do something unique from most Western European countries that have tried hard to separate the religious from the secular--we put government in the business of religious marriage. I'm sure a part of this can, like the endangered common-law marriage, be traced to the uneven development of our nation's vast frontiers. Preachers, let alone judges, were scarce in many samll communities, so we took the step of linking their duties with regard to unions. Everyone in America knows the phrase, "by the power vested in me by the State of X"--yet that would sound quite out of place to many Europeans. Alternately, in most Western countries there is both a civil marriage and, if you choose, a religious one. The church service might keep you from the fires of eternal damnation, if that's your belief, but if you want benefits, legal rights of marriage, and a chance at alimony down the road should things go bad, you'll need that civil ceremony.
We've co-joined the two for so long in our own minds that I think folks forget this key point. Even GW Bush has said many times that, "marriage is a sacrament." Well, yes and no. Marriage is both a secular and religious event. There are right now a number of faiths that are willing to conduct same-sex marriages--it is the state that doesn't recognize those unions. Likewise, there are some faiths that will take centuries before they will join same-sex partners. (And even some that won't ordain 50% of their members--sorry, wrong posting!) That struggle is one in which members of that particular faith community should be engaged. I don't believe the state should force gay marriage on religious institutions, but I also don't believe they ever would. Civil marriages, however, could give committed gay couples all of the rights and responsibilities that marriage entails. In fact, given the state of straight marriages today among both the religiously-inclined and avowedly-secular, having a new cohort of committed people modelling the long-term benefits of marriage would ultimately strengthen, not weaken, the institution.
I was reading today about the struggles in Europe concerning women wearing the traditional Muslim hijab, and I must say that I'm having second thoughts in this debate.
As an American, I have a strong bias toward individual rights, especially rights of expression and religion. The more I read, however, I see that this case hinges on the fact that, as Bob Weir used to sing, "there's freedom from and freedom to."
From about 1500 to 1700 or so Europe pretty much reeled from one bloody conflict to another over the issue of religion. The rise of nationalistic systems that came after these conflicts tried, not always easily, to keep religion out of the public sphere. Despite a secular revolution in 1789, it was only in the last century that crucifixes, symbol of France's dominant Catholic Church, were removed from secular French schools, according to this fine article by Elaine Ganley examing the hijab controversy. While doing some more background folks may also want to read this piece from The Guardian.
Europe's answer to religious conflict in the modern era has typically been to strongly secularize the state and notions of national identity. As these articles discussed, such efforts are under attack again, this time by Muslim fundamentalists.
The US chose an opposite tack--we embraced much religious display and self expression. Of course, until recently (and even now in many parts of the country) that meant Christian display of a certain Protestant leaning, so we shouldn't pat our own backs too hard in this regard. Nevertheless, its clear that these ties go back to our nation's founding, and were part of our own history and tradition. America's tradition of manifest destiny embraces a religious fervor, and our secular institutions have engaged in an alliance with religion from the beginning. The religion clause notwithstanding, the US has had (and Americans generally favor) far less of a church-state separation than Civics 101 would have us believe. Good or ill, it's a simple fact.
Here's the gay marriage part. We do something unique from most Western European countries that have tried hard to separate the religious from the secular--we put government in the business of religious marriage. I'm sure a part of this can, like the endangered common-law marriage, be traced to the uneven development of our nation's vast frontiers. Preachers, let alone judges, were scarce in many samll communities, so we took the step of linking their duties with regard to unions. Everyone in America knows the phrase, "by the power vested in me by the State of X"--yet that would sound quite out of place to many Europeans. Alternately, in most Western countries there is both a civil marriage and, if you choose, a religious one. The church service might keep you from the fires of eternal damnation, if that's your belief, but if you want benefits, legal rights of marriage, and a chance at alimony down the road should things go bad, you'll need that civil ceremony.
We've co-joined the two for so long in our own minds that I think folks forget this key point. Even GW Bush has said many times that, "marriage is a sacrament." Well, yes and no. Marriage is both a secular and religious event. There are right now a number of faiths that are willing to conduct same-sex marriages--it is the state that doesn't recognize those unions. Likewise, there are some faiths that will take centuries before they will join same-sex partners. (And even some that won't ordain 50% of their members--sorry, wrong posting!) That struggle is one in which members of that particular faith community should be engaged. I don't believe the state should force gay marriage on religious institutions, but I also don't believe they ever would. Civil marriages, however, could give committed gay couples all of the rights and responsibilities that marriage entails. In fact, given the state of straight marriages today among both the religiously-inclined and avowedly-secular, having a new cohort of committed people modelling the long-term benefits of marriage would ultimately strengthen, not weaken, the institution.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
It really is all about oil
Not just the war--- oil is the cheap fix crux of not just our nation, but western civilization.
And it's running out. Pretty fast, it may turn out.
A Quick digression: A few years ago I was listening to Radio Times when I wanted to engage one of Marty's guests about something alarming called the TIPS Program that I had just read about on a lefty website. My comment was pretty much dismissed out of hand, its source questioned and the article's author called a known anti-American professional ranter now living in (gasp!) Scandinivia.
Of course, not two weeks later the mainstream press began to carry stories about Admiral Poindexter's program to have our neighbors, postmen, cable guys, and contractors spy on us, the thought being that they could get into someone's house routinely and notice things cops or feds couldn't. Like most neo-con proposals, on some level it makes sense at first, expect for the EXTREME invasion of privacy it represents. On a more practical level, such wide-open systems of snitching have proven highly unreliable in the past, they are often used for personal vendettas, and rely on basic assumptions like you're going to leave a note about your plans to destroy Western society on the fridge when you call the plumber over to fix the kitchen sink!!!
Of course, public outcry comdemned the TIPS program as originally envisioned to the dustbin of history.
I engaged in this brief (OK, somewhat long) digression for the following reason: Among the public there is large resistance to such fundamental topics. Those who advance them are often considered "one of those insufferably enthusiastic prophets of doom, the flannel-shirted, off-the-grid types who take too much pleasure in letting us know that the environment is crumbling all around us." This quote comes from a NY Times review of David Goodstein's new book, Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil.
It turns out the author doesn't at all fit the above stereotype, as nor did the man who started this whole conversation in 1956, Marion Hubbert. An oil engineer with Shell in Houston, Hubbert predicted that US peak would occur in 1970. He was, of course, wrong. It occurred in 1971. Since then many scientists have replicated his formula to apply to world production and have come up with some scary numbers.
A review of such a book in the Sunday NY Times might be just the thing we need to get 'elite opinion' in this country to start to face the decline in oil that is an absolute certainty. Estimates vary widely, with world oil supply expected to peak as early as 2004 or 2008, or most reassuringly, about 2037. The earliest proposals estimate that we'll be dry by about 2040, the rosiest about 40-50 years past that. This means if not my lifetime, certainly the lifetimes of my kids or without doubt, their kids.
Yet where have we heard any discussion about this? Like everything else TeamBush has its head in the sand about, this issue is one being deferred to our grandkids so we can be reassured in the present as to how really normal everything is. Oh, and don't forget to go out and shop a bit more to help the economy.
The saddest part: Right now we could do so much to reduce the impact this will have on our lives in a pretty painless way. Consider this: If our baseline is people in Bangladesh, who, because of wretched conditions, leave very little footprint on the planet (what energy is expended for one's food, comfort, transport, the whole thing), then people in the United States rate at 168. That is, we use 168 times more total energy than a Bangladeshi to get our needs met. However, Europeans use only 17 times more energy than them. How could that be? Part is simple geography, but the much larger part is that Europeans have established energy standards, recycling and re-use standards, and are far more committed to local sources of food, products and livelihood than Americans.
It's that simple, really. And the choice is right here for us to make, and it's not even to the point of being painful. . . at the moment. Goodstein assessed the chances of 'Technology' solving our problems by the time they become problems thusly: ''In an orderly, rational world, it might be possible for the gradually increasing gap between supply and demand for oil to be filled by some substitute. But anyone who remembers the oil crisis of 1973 knows that we don't live in such a world, especially when it comes to an irreversible shortage of oil.''
It is that simple. And it really is all about the oil.
Not just the war--- oil is the cheap fix crux of not just our nation, but western civilization.
And it's running out. Pretty fast, it may turn out.
A Quick digression: A few years ago I was listening to Radio Times when I wanted to engage one of Marty's guests about something alarming called the TIPS Program that I had just read about on a lefty website. My comment was pretty much dismissed out of hand, its source questioned and the article's author called a known anti-American professional ranter now living in (gasp!) Scandinivia.
Of course, not two weeks later the mainstream press began to carry stories about Admiral Poindexter's program to have our neighbors, postmen, cable guys, and contractors spy on us, the thought being that they could get into someone's house routinely and notice things cops or feds couldn't. Like most neo-con proposals, on some level it makes sense at first, expect for the EXTREME invasion of privacy it represents. On a more practical level, such wide-open systems of snitching have proven highly unreliable in the past, they are often used for personal vendettas, and rely on basic assumptions like you're going to leave a note about your plans to destroy Western society on the fridge when you call the plumber over to fix the kitchen sink!!!
Of course, public outcry comdemned the TIPS program as originally envisioned to the dustbin of history.
I engaged in this brief (OK, somewhat long) digression for the following reason: Among the public there is large resistance to such fundamental topics. Those who advance them are often considered "one of those insufferably enthusiastic prophets of doom, the flannel-shirted, off-the-grid types who take too much pleasure in letting us know that the environment is crumbling all around us." This quote comes from a NY Times review of David Goodstein's new book, Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil.
It turns out the author doesn't at all fit the above stereotype, as nor did the man who started this whole conversation in 1956, Marion Hubbert. An oil engineer with Shell in Houston, Hubbert predicted that US peak would occur in 1970. He was, of course, wrong. It occurred in 1971. Since then many scientists have replicated his formula to apply to world production and have come up with some scary numbers.
A review of such a book in the Sunday NY Times might be just the thing we need to get 'elite opinion' in this country to start to face the decline in oil that is an absolute certainty. Estimates vary widely, with world oil supply expected to peak as early as 2004 or 2008, or most reassuringly, about 2037. The earliest proposals estimate that we'll be dry by about 2040, the rosiest about 40-50 years past that. This means if not my lifetime, certainly the lifetimes of my kids or without doubt, their kids.
Yet where have we heard any discussion about this? Like everything else TeamBush has its head in the sand about, this issue is one being deferred to our grandkids so we can be reassured in the present as to how really normal everything is. Oh, and don't forget to go out and shop a bit more to help the economy.
The saddest part: Right now we could do so much to reduce the impact this will have on our lives in a pretty painless way. Consider this: If our baseline is people in Bangladesh, who, because of wretched conditions, leave very little footprint on the planet (what energy is expended for one's food, comfort, transport, the whole thing), then people in the United States rate at 168. That is, we use 168 times more total energy than a Bangladeshi to get our needs met. However, Europeans use only 17 times more energy than them. How could that be? Part is simple geography, but the much larger part is that Europeans have established energy standards, recycling and re-use standards, and are far more committed to local sources of food, products and livelihood than Americans.
It's that simple, really. And the choice is right here for us to make, and it's not even to the point of being painful. . . at the moment. Goodstein assessed the chances of 'Technology' solving our problems by the time they become problems thusly: ''In an orderly, rational world, it might be possible for the gradually increasing gap between supply and demand for oil to be filled by some substitute. But anyone who remembers the oil crisis of 1973 knows that we don't live in such a world, especially when it comes to an irreversible shortage of oil.''
It is that simple. And it really is all about the oil.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Dick Cheney--The Man Behind the Curtain
So I'm trying to be pretty fair-minded here, but doesn't it almost always come back to Dick Cheney and his minions?!
The mockingly self-described "Man Behind the Curtain" can chuckle all he wants, because he knows just how true that description is. But in case you need a reminder here's a fine article by Jonathan Landay and his colleagues at the Washington Bureau of Knight Ridder.
Among the topics reintroduced to us in this piece is the extent to which the Office of the Vice President created a direct back channel of its own intelligence, mostly from Iraqi dissidents who were dying to get a US dog into this fight no matter what. Cheney and his aides, including personal assistant, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby began to systematically downgrade the importance of intel from branches such as CIA and State Dept. that it thought were riddled with inertia and arabists in favor of their own 'more pure' information.
Scooter himself pushed Colin Powell up until minutes before his now somewhat-tarnished speech to the UN in February 2003 to add intel from their own personal sources to his presentation. Powell discarded much of the most unproven or brashest allegations, but what's important is the context in which this whole decision-making process was being assessed.
And it all leads to the person who had been obsessed with Iraq for many years, that Man Behind the Curtain.
Where's Toto when you need him?
So I'm trying to be pretty fair-minded here, but doesn't it almost always come back to Dick Cheney and his minions?!
The mockingly self-described "Man Behind the Curtain" can chuckle all he wants, because he knows just how true that description is. But in case you need a reminder here's a fine article by Jonathan Landay and his colleagues at the Washington Bureau of Knight Ridder.
Among the topics reintroduced to us in this piece is the extent to which the Office of the Vice President created a direct back channel of its own intelligence, mostly from Iraqi dissidents who were dying to get a US dog into this fight no matter what. Cheney and his aides, including personal assistant, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby began to systematically downgrade the importance of intel from branches such as CIA and State Dept. that it thought were riddled with inertia and arabists in favor of their own 'more pure' information.
Scooter himself pushed Colin Powell up until minutes before his now somewhat-tarnished speech to the UN in February 2003 to add intel from their own personal sources to his presentation. Powell discarded much of the most unproven or brashest allegations, but what's important is the context in which this whole decision-making process was being assessed.
And it all leads to the person who had been obsessed with Iraq for many years, that Man Behind the Curtain.
Where's Toto when you need him?
Patterns of Behavior and Falling on Swords
As details of the inquiries into intelligence failures and their creation of a causus belli for War against Iraq take shape in Washington, DC and belatedly (in poodle like fashion) at 10 Downing Street we begin an interesting period that requires very close attention.
As no investigations, likewise no actions, take place in a vaccuum we should all bear in mind the context of this situation and similar events of the recent past. The obvious pattern is one of politically-driven beatdowns coming out of TeamBush since the beginning of their Reign of Error.
No president has had such an active or lengthy 'Enemies List' since the days of Nixon, and no president since has so ruthlessly wielded the carrot and stick (OK-lots of stick, few carrots).
Paul Krugman reminds us of this history in his recent NY Times piece. He concludes with the statement that:
"These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse."
But the other part of this story is who else is willing to fall on their sword for TeamBush. Since these folks took office there's been so much ritualized disembowelment going on across the Capitol that it looks like Julius Caesar meets Sumo-Night Seppuku Party.
David Kay is the latest. But he has a track record of being a parrot for this administration from the start. As former UNSCOM inspector he was trotted out to refute and disparage the remarks and person of Scott Ritter, another fellow inspector who was adamant about the lack of threat posed by Iraq in the days leading up to our invasion. His piece of chum for that performance was heading up the Iraq Survey Group--perhaps the most partisan group of weapons inspectors that could have been assembled. Made up of pro-War folks who wanted in the worst way to peg something on Iraq, even the ISG had to admit there was nothing there. So Kay blamed the CIA and went on to provide a strong alibi (or at least testimony) for the administration. No doubt a cushy job at Halliburton or The Carlyle Group awaits him after any hearings on the Hill conclude.
George Tenet is the real lynchpin here. He seemed to take full responsibility for allowing the President to include the Niger uranium lie in the State of the Union, even though anyone could see that politics was driving that emphasis more than intel. Even so, any reading deeper than the USAToday headline indicated that his carefully worded statement left open the kind of wiggle room perfected by a man who's job is being our 'Chief Spook', as it were. More falling on a stage sword than really taking steel for 'The Man.'
If the winds are changing, and the donkeys look like they'll be measuring drapes for the Oval Office, and the pack of lies he's being asked to cop to is just getting too heavy, I have little doubt he'd be less-pliable than Team Bush requires.
And, of course, lets look past John Snow to the real 'first squealer' of the Bush Administration, Philly's own John DiIulio. Before Ron Suskind ever got to Snow he was painting an unflattering picture of life inside Bush's Dark Camelot with the help of info given by DiIulio, who saw it all first hand. And had the lack of foresight to write it all down.
Like Tenet's, DiIulio's prompt apology seemed gushing at first but later seemed to be more theater than honesty. In fact, the actual apology came not from his mouth but from a flak from the PR Department at Univ. of Penn, DiIulio's employer. It seems clear that it was Penn President Judy Rodin, not he, who woke up with the horse's head in her bed that morning.
So as this whole thing unravels (and during an election year, no less) lets keep these lessons of the past in mind and study the Administration for signs of structural weakness. As we know from experience, when great stresses build up, huge pressures, and the structure finally gives way, it rarely does so in a slow,orderly fashion. Rather, a long build-up is often followed by sudden, total, catastrophic, failure. Think bridge collapse. Dam bursting. Skyscrapers plummeting on an onimous September day.
As details of the inquiries into intelligence failures and their creation of a causus belli for War against Iraq take shape in Washington, DC and belatedly (in poodle like fashion) at 10 Downing Street we begin an interesting period that requires very close attention.
As no investigations, likewise no actions, take place in a vaccuum we should all bear in mind the context of this situation and similar events of the recent past. The obvious pattern is one of politically-driven beatdowns coming out of TeamBush since the beginning of their Reign of Error.
No president has had such an active or lengthy 'Enemies List' since the days of Nixon, and no president since has so ruthlessly wielded the carrot and stick (OK-lots of stick, few carrots).
Paul Krugman reminds us of this history in his recent NY Times piece. He concludes with the statement that:
"These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse."
But the other part of this story is who else is willing to fall on their sword for TeamBush. Since these folks took office there's been so much ritualized disembowelment going on across the Capitol that it looks like Julius Caesar meets Sumo-Night Seppuku Party.
David Kay is the latest. But he has a track record of being a parrot for this administration from the start. As former UNSCOM inspector he was trotted out to refute and disparage the remarks and person of Scott Ritter, another fellow inspector who was adamant about the lack of threat posed by Iraq in the days leading up to our invasion. His piece of chum for that performance was heading up the Iraq Survey Group--perhaps the most partisan group of weapons inspectors that could have been assembled. Made up of pro-War folks who wanted in the worst way to peg something on Iraq, even the ISG had to admit there was nothing there. So Kay blamed the CIA and went on to provide a strong alibi (or at least testimony) for the administration. No doubt a cushy job at Halliburton or The Carlyle Group awaits him after any hearings on the Hill conclude.
George Tenet is the real lynchpin here. He seemed to take full responsibility for allowing the President to include the Niger uranium lie in the State of the Union, even though anyone could see that politics was driving that emphasis more than intel. Even so, any reading deeper than the USAToday headline indicated that his carefully worded statement left open the kind of wiggle room perfected by a man who's job is being our 'Chief Spook', as it were. More falling on a stage sword than really taking steel for 'The Man.'
If the winds are changing, and the donkeys look like they'll be measuring drapes for the Oval Office, and the pack of lies he's being asked to cop to is just getting too heavy, I have little doubt he'd be less-pliable than Team Bush requires.
And, of course, lets look past John Snow to the real 'first squealer' of the Bush Administration, Philly's own John DiIulio. Before Ron Suskind ever got to Snow he was painting an unflattering picture of life inside Bush's Dark Camelot with the help of info given by DiIulio, who saw it all first hand. And had the lack of foresight to write it all down.
Like Tenet's, DiIulio's prompt apology seemed gushing at first but later seemed to be more theater than honesty. In fact, the actual apology came not from his mouth but from a flak from the PR Department at Univ. of Penn, DiIulio's employer. It seems clear that it was Penn President Judy Rodin, not he, who woke up with the horse's head in her bed that morning.
So as this whole thing unravels (and during an election year, no less) lets keep these lessons of the past in mind and study the Administration for signs of structural weakness. As we know from experience, when great stresses build up, huge pressures, and the structure finally gives way, it rarely does so in a slow,orderly fashion. Rather, a long build-up is often followed by sudden, total, catastrophic, failure. Think bridge collapse. Dam bursting. Skyscrapers plummeting on an onimous September day.
Monday, February 02, 2004
Howard Dean: Do Not Go Gentle Into Tomorrow's Primaries!
Several great stories over the weekend about the Dean campaign, which is increasingly portrayed as being in full meltdown mode. The tipping point seems to have been the Trippi Point, so to speak. Replacing his loyal wunderkind with dyed-in-the-wool K Street guy Roy Neel really got the fans and would-be fans fuming, it would seem. David Corn over at The Nation retracted any endorsement of Dean, even though he hadn't previously given him one!
But perhaps most ominously, articles such as that one on the front page of Sunday's New York Times written by Jodi Wilgoren and Jim Rutenberg had a distintly 'past tense' feel. They were practically post mortems of a campaign where only one primary and one caucus have been held to date.
Still, no doubt, the good Doctor could well be out rather than in come next month.
Regardless, I'm just waiting for the Kucinich surge anyway!!
Several great stories over the weekend about the Dean campaign, which is increasingly portrayed as being in full meltdown mode. The tipping point seems to have been the Trippi Point, so to speak. Replacing his loyal wunderkind with dyed-in-the-wool K Street guy Roy Neel really got the fans and would-be fans fuming, it would seem. David Corn over at The Nation retracted any endorsement of Dean, even though he hadn't previously given him one!
But perhaps most ominously, articles such as that one on the front page of Sunday's New York Times written by Jodi Wilgoren and Jim Rutenberg had a distintly 'past tense' feel. They were practically post mortems of a campaign where only one primary and one caucus have been held to date.
Still, no doubt, the good Doctor could well be out rather than in come next month.
Regardless, I'm just waiting for the Kucinich surge anyway!!
Weapons, Weapons, who has the weapons?
Or had. And when did Bush and Cheney know the info they were using to drag out nation into its first pre-emptive war was so precarious (to be extremely gentle)?!
There are alot of good postings out their on the topic. As is often the case, Josh Marshall has a fine series of posts over at Talking Points Memo that give a good take on the Bushie deceptions and looks forward to what a panel of experts could find out. . . IF they're really allowed access and independence.
Perhaps the most ominous non-scientific tidbit I came across was a quick poll attached to Newsweek's Cover Story asking if people thought Bush was being deceived or if he and Cheney knew the intel was wrong. As of my posting 13,433 respondents had answered: 18% thought Bush was deceived, 76% thought he knew the intel was bogus.
Not exactly a 'Four More Years' moment for TeamBush.
Or had. And when did Bush and Cheney know the info they were using to drag out nation into its first pre-emptive war was so precarious (to be extremely gentle)?!
There are alot of good postings out their on the topic. As is often the case, Josh Marshall has a fine series of posts over at Talking Points Memo that give a good take on the Bushie deceptions and looks forward to what a panel of experts could find out. . . IF they're really allowed access and independence.
Perhaps the most ominous non-scientific tidbit I came across was a quick poll attached to Newsweek's Cover Story asking if people thought Bush was being deceived or if he and Cheney knew the intel was wrong. As of my posting 13,433 respondents had answered: 18% thought Bush was deceived, 76% thought he knew the intel was bogus.
Not exactly a 'Four More Years' moment for TeamBush.
