Menace
[Related articles:
-AP: Rumsfeld reaches out to Democrats
-Washington Post: Pentagon Cites Spike In Violence in Iraq
-Frank Rich (NY Times): Donald Rumsfeld’s Dance With the Nazis]
"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin." -- Linus van Pelt in It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown
The NY Daily News' David Hinckley writes this on the duelling pageants of the Katrina and 9/11 anniversaries...
...For most of us, 9/11 is history.
Yes, we still wrestle with its ongoing implications for national security, and no, we don't have a Ground Zero memorial yet.
But while we vow never to forget 9/11, just as our parents vowed not to forget Pearl Harbor, the event itself is over.
We want 9/11 in the rearview mirror, and that presumably is where much of television's anniversary coverage will place it.
The message of Katrina coverage is just the opposite: Friend, this one ain't even close to over.
When 40% of New Orleans doesn't have power, 60% of its schools aren't open and miles of its residential streets are piles of dead lumber, that's naturally going to shape the coverage...
...In a few days we will be encouraged to remember 9/11 because remembering honors the victims and reminds us there's a meanness in this world with which we still must deal.
We're being asked to remember Katrina because hundreds of thousands of lives still must be physically put back together.
It's the same story, and it's not.
As a followup to the new poverty statistics, the Washington Post's E. J. Dionne has a good editorial-
I already covered this story (from another source) a week ago, but it's important enough to deserve mentioning again. It is a story that confirms that if people and politicians take decisive action against an environmental threat, we can get results. People claimed 'An Inconvenient Truth' was all just doom and gloom, but also had at its core a message that we have the power to reverse the trends. It takes time, and sacrifice, but it can be done. As Al Gore said in that film, all we lack now is the political will to do it. We need to get it back.
Earth's protective ozone layer, which was notably thinning in 1980, may be fully recovered by mid-century, climate scientists said on Wednesday.
Ozone in the stratosphere, outside the polar regions, stopped thinning in 1997, the scientists found after analyzing 25 years worth of observations.
The ozone layer shields the planet from the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation, but human-made chemicals -- notably the chlorofluorocarbons found in some refrigerants and aerosol propellants -- depleted this stratospheric ozone, causing the protective layer to get thinner.
The scientists said the ozone layer's comeback is due in large part to compliance with an 1987 international agreement called the Montreal Protocol, which aimed to limit emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals.
"These results confirm the Montreal Protocol and its amendments have succeeded in stopping the loss of ozone in the stratosphere," said Eun-Su Yang of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who led a team that analyzed the data.
"At the current recovery rate ... the global ozone layer could be restored to 1980 levels -- the time that scientists first noticed the harmful effects human activities were having on atmospheric ozone -- sometime in the middle of this century," Yang said in a statement...
With the majority of Americans against them, the war's defenders have to make up opponents to debate...
Yesterday on The O’Reilly Factor, former administration official Dan Senor told guest host John Kasich that “many leftist centered activists, political activists” — such as MoveOn.org — believe “we would be better off” if the United States withdrew from Afghanistan.
But when pressed by Kasich, Senor couldn’t name any progressives who have advocated pulling out from Afghanistan and admitted that MoveOn.org has called for withdrawal from Iraq, not Afghanistan.
Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."
Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone.
With news today that "Iran shows no signs of freezing uranium enrichment, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday in a report that opens the way for U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran," we have to be ready for the administration and their allies to heighten the war rhetoric in the next month or two. The usual suspects (read: Fox News, Drudge Report) have been laying the groundwork for months. We also know that key Republican leaders in Congress have expressed anger that the intelligence community has not given them a smoking gun to justify action.
...[Y]ou would [expect that Teheran would feel like a garrison town] if you've been following the media's dubious, highly-spun coverage of the issue. But you wouldn't if you asked yourself some basic questions. For example, if Iran is preparing to mount a Hitler-style bid for world domination they must be engaged in a big military build-up, right? But there is no such build up. Maybe there's no need for a build-up because the Iranian military is already so vast and mighty? Well, no. Iran has a defense budget of about $6 billion a year.
...Lets compare our would-be regional hegemon to its neighbors. Well, Israel spends $9.6 billion and Saudi Arabia spends $25.2 billion. Pakistan, immediately adjacent to Iran and nuclear armed, actually has engaged in a recent defense buildup. What kind of quest for hegemony is Iran supposed to be on? Ignorant American pundits and television personalities may be unaware of these facts, but surely Iranian military and intelligence officials have noticed that Iran has no capacity whatsoever to conquer the region.
Meanwhile, the freaky and unpredictable Iranian regime has actually been in power for a very long time. Since before I was born. The regime is not only long-entrenched, but quite corrupt. Mightn't this lead you think it's being run by reasonably comfortable men who enjoy the fruits of power, intend to stay in power, and know a thing or two about maintaining their power rather than by irrational lunatics who've been waiting in the wings for 27 years preparing to spring their bid for world domination upon us without first having acquired so much as a single modern tank?
And then there's the small matter that our purported would-be Hitlers in Teheran were trying to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with the United States as recently as 2003. Their proposal was rejected by the Bush administration. Not rejected, I remind you, because the Bushies found the details of the proposal inadequate and Teheran refused to compromise further. No! It was rejected without any effort at negotiation because, at the time, the administration was busy threatening to overthrow the government of Iran as the second or third item in an ambitious plan to overthrow every government in the region.
So, here's Iran. Outgunned by its two leading religio-ideological antagonists, Israel and Saudi Arabia, in the region. One immediate neighbor is Pakistan, with a larger population base and a nuclear arsenal. Another immediate neighbor, Afghanistan, is occupied by soldiers under the command of an American president who has spurned peace offers and threatened to overthrow the Iranian government. A second immediate neighbor, Iraq, is occupied by a larger number of soldiers from the same country. The Iranian military's equipment is outdated and essentially incapable of mounting offensive operations. So Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Under the circumstances, wouldn't you? Don't you think a little deterrence capability would serve the country well under those circumstances?...
...Of course it would be better to find a way to persuade, cajole, whatever Iran out of going nuclear -- the spread of nuclear weapons is, as such, bad for the USA. But there's no need -- absolutely no need -- for this atmosphere of panic and paranoia.
Another series of news/commentary flying under the radar amidst the madness-
My cynical side has me following the liquid-bomb/plane plot, trying to see if this plot (which is increasingly falling out of the spotlight) was what it was hyped to be. Here's the latest news on the arrested terrorists-
Five suspects who have not been charged in an alleged plot to blow up U.S.-bound airliners with liquid explosives can be held for another week, a judge ruled Wednesday...
...Of the 25 people originally arrested in raids earlier this month, 15 have been charged. In addition to the five who remain in custody without charge, five others have been released.
Eleven have been charged on those counts of conspiracy to murder and preparing to commit terrorist acts. Four others are accused of lesser offenses, including withholding information about a planned terrorist act from police...
...[F]ive senior British officials said, the suspects were not prepared to strike immediately. Instead, the reactions of Britain and the United States in the wake of the arrests of 21 people on Aug. 10 were driven less by information about a specific, imminent attack than fear that other, unknown terrorists might strike...
...In fact, two and a half weeks since the inquiry became public, British investigators have still not determined whether there was a target date for the attacks or how many planes were to be involved. They say the estimate of 10 planes was speculative and exaggerated...
...Despite the charges, officials said they were still unsure of one critical question: whether any of the suspects was technically capable of assembling and detonating liquid explosives while airborne...
..."In retrospect,"’ said Michael A. Sheehan, the former deputy commissioner of counterterrorism in the New York Police Department, “there may have been too much hyperventilating going on.”
For those interested, here is a link to Keith Olbermann's response to Sec. Rumsfeld's speech-
Complaining on Tuesday's show about how our country will fall into economic ruin and lose to terrorists if Democrats win the fall elections, Sean Hannity said "This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker. I mean, look. I want to talk to you Republicans out there, both candidates and voters. Here's some unsolicited advice: Ignore the polls, ignore the media, ignore the pundits. It's 70 days to go. The end is not here yet. We still can turn this thing around. Your future is in your hands, and it's up to you to go grab it."
There is a palpable increase in the level of extremism and desperation among Bush followers as the Commander in Chief's approval ratings fall lower and lower and as the views which Americans have of both him and his party become more hostile. This is going to be a significant dynamic -- as their power slips further and further away, Bush followers are going to resort to increasingly radical and rage-fueled measures to keep it...
...Many of them have become convinced -- or convinced themselves -- that it is literally a matter of their immediate and personal survival that the country be controlled by Republicans devoted to the neoconservative mindset. Many of them actually believe that if those who deviate from that worldview gain political power, that they will be irradiated or blown up by Al Qaeda. And then still others are just so filled with rage and contempt for "liberals" (meaning anyone who is not a Bush supporter) that those sentiments are, by themselves, sufficient to push them into extreme and irrational thought as they lose more and more power.
But you only have to watch O'Reilly or read Powerline or listen to Sean Hannity or David Horowitz to know that the only thing that really gets them fired up any more is loathing of liberals. The only way the GOP base will be motivated to vote for an incompetent, exhausted, fiscally insane administration is if they get to vote against "libruls". Michael Moore, the Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, George Clooney, et al. are therefore the GOP's last, best hope this fall. ... My gut predicts a huge swing against the GOP this fall. So watch out for the anti-left hate and hysteria from Republicans. It's coming. It's all they've got left.
Are you a morally and intellectually confused Nazi appeaser? Read on to find out.
If anyone is advocating withdrawal based on arguments like these, we haven't been hearing them. The case for withdrawal is pretty simple: We shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, and the cost of staying there -- in lives, in money, in the lost opportunities to deal with Osama bin Laden or Iran or North Korea -- far exceeds whatever marginal benefit there may be in staying the course, which is serving mostly to make Americans a target and create a dangerous sort of codependency on the part of the Iraqi government and its fledgling security forces.
Cheney didn't engage with that argument Monday, and why should he? It's easier to fight against caricatures than to debate whether an additional 50 or 100 or 2,600 dead Americans will bring security to Iraq or transform the Middle East. It's easier to debate a straw man than a real one.
It's on the rise.
– In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004.
– The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005.
– For full-time, year round workers, the median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386, and the median earnings of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858.
– In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.
A major revelation in Plamegate comes not with a bang, but a mere whimper-
Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation... Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.
The identification of Mr. Armitage as the original leaker to Mr. Novak ends what has been a tantalizing mystery. In recent months, however, Mr. Armitage’s role had become clear to many, and it was recently reported by Newsweek magazine and The Washington Post...
...The book quotes Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the intelligence and research bureau at the State Department, as saying that Mr. Armitage had told him, “I may be the guy who caused this whole thing,’’ and that he regretted having told the columnist more than he should have.
A couple of odds and ends about the Katrina anniversary as a followup to my last post. Harry Shearer- who has been on top of this story all year better than any real journalist outside Louisiana- laments that the news coverage is solely focusing on the emotion of the story and not delving into the substance. Sounds like par for the course for that lot, though. They'll be back to John Karr tomorrow. (Sidenote: the complete absence of Katrina posts on the conservative sites I visited today- Drudge, Malkin, Powerline, etc- speaks volumes).
A year ago, in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, NEWSWEEK published a cover story called "Poverty, Race and Katrina: Lessons of a National Shame." The article suggested that the disaster was prompting a fresh look at "The Other America"—the 37 million Americans living below the poverty line. "It takes a hurricane," I wrote. "It takes the sight of the United States with a big black eye—visible around the world—to help the rest of us begin to see again." I ended on a hopeful note: "What kind of president does George W. Bush want to be? ... If he seizes the moment, he could undertake a midcourse correction that might materially change the lives of millions. Katrina gives Bush an only-Nixon-could-go-to-China opportunity, if he wants it."...
...Well, it turned out that the critics were largely right. Not only has the president done much less than he promised on the financing and logistics of Gulf Coast recovery, he has dropped the ball entirely on using the storm and its aftermath as an opportunity to fight poverty. Worker recovery accounts and urban homesteading never got off the ground, and the new enterprise zone is mostly an opportunity for Southern companies owned by GOP campaign contributors to make some money in New Orleans. The mood in Washington continues to be one of not-so-benign neglect of the problems of the poor...
...If the president was MIA, Congress hasn't been much better. Consider the estate tax and the minimum wage. The House in June passed a steep reduction of the estate tax (so as to apply only to couples leaving more than $10 million to their heirs) that would cost the Treasury three quarters of a trillion dollars over the next decade. Last time I checked, that was real money. Senate Republicans tried to push it through by linking the bill to an increase in the minimum wage, which has not been raised in nine years. The idea was to get credit for giving crumbs to the working poor—but only if the superrich receive hundreds of billions of dollars. Fortunately, the bill failed. Unfortunately, other tax cuts for the wealthy keep moving through the system, ballooning the deficit and drying up money for everything else. Meanwhile, the GOP wants to make welfare reform (now 10 years old) more punitive, which will increase suffering...
...After all the heat he took last year, how could Bush have blown the aftermath of Katrina? It's not as if he lacks confidence in the power of his office. He believes he can fix Iraq and transform the Middle East. He aspires to spread democracy to the far corners of the globe. But the fate of an American city and millions of his impoverished countrymen are apparently beyond his control, or perhaps just his interest.
Good luck with that, lawyers. Can you say 'stonewall'?
...Two lawyers who brought the first lawsuit against the Bush Administration, Verizon and ATT for illegally examining the phone records of virtually every American citizen will announce today that they are serving subpoenas on the Bush White House and on Verizon.
"We are subpoenaing the White House because we have developed evidence that the Bush Administration began unlawful efforts to obtain Americans' private phone records prior to 9/11/01 and the White House must disclose documents relevant to that claim," said Afran. "We believe that Verizon had extensive involvement in illegally disclosing the records of millions of Americans."
"We are going to determine with these subpoenas whether the Bush administration has unlawfully targeted journalists, peace activists, libertarians, members of congress or generated an 'enemies list' by creating the most massive domestic spying operation in America's history," said Mayer.
The subpoenas come on the heels of two federal court decisions that were major blows to the Bush Administration warrantless spying program...
"I want to thank you all for -- and, Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. The FEMA Director is working 24 -- (applause) -- they're working 24 hours a day."
Some quick news briefings while I continue to recover from my trip-
There's been a lot of stories in the news lately about the two supposed frontrunners for the 2008 presidential race: John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Neither candidate inspires me in any way and reinforces my belief that the next election will be a disaster. After everything that has happened in the last six years, we need a major change. Neither of these two represents that. They are both running on ego and would only be reluctantly supported by their respective bases. I can only hope that there's a shift in the next year or so and these two names don't end up on the '08 ballot. This election lineup seems appealing only to Beltway insiders and fans of predictability.
I have returned from Washington DC... 'twas a good trip.