March 2007
Monthly Archive
March 12, 2007
George Bush’s controversial Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has to be feeling the heat. With Scooter Libby convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and with a Democratic Congress happily exercising their power to drag folks in under subpoena to tell it all – under oath – the US administration has become surprisingly co-operative these days.
Despite all the talk about how the Dems are stumbling, their key to victory in ’08 is to use little pieces of paper to rip the lid off the past six years of chicanery by the White House and its compliant, Republican Congress. There is much, much to expose and weasels like Gonzales can see the writing on the wall.
At the moment he’s on the hot seat over the firings of 8 federal prosecutors. It was something that wouldn’t have risen to the level of a belch while the White House was able to rule in secrecy but it’s now grown into quite a scandal. What the Dems are eager to show is how the Bushies perverted the nation’s justice system to serve their own, partisan ends.
What’s at issue is whether the eight prosecutors were fired because they were instrumental in going after Republicans. The flip side to that is whether the other prosecutors, those still safe in their jobs, used their positions to unjustly derail Democrats, especially at election time.
There have been plenty of accounts of investigations announced against Democratic candidates in the midst of election campaigns, investigations that mysteriously evaporated once the polls closed. Does that smack of vote fraud by the justice system itself? Yeah, it does.
When this scandal first surfaced, Gonzales told Congress it was an “overblown personnel matter.” He claimed the dismissals were the result of poor performance by the prosecutors affected. It didn’t take long to show that was completely untrue. Now the whole business has been tied directly to the White House and Karl Rove.
Bush and his gang have persistently abused their powers since the day they took office in 2001 and they reigned for six years in a state of blissful hubris. Now the Dems, with their little pieces of paper, are about to put that abuse, and the guy who ruled like a monarch, on trial.
March 12, 2007
Blix, in the eyes of US WarHawks
A common sop about the war against Iraq and the failure to find the WMDs used as a justification for invading is the line about “who could’ve known?”
Well, if anyone was listening, they could have easily known. The top UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was telling everyone that they could find no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction. Remember that the UNSCOM inspectors would dutifully inspect, usually by suprise visits, every suspected site that US intelligence could or would point out to them.
Now Blix is poking a sharp stick at Tony Blair’s performance in ginning up the evidence for pre-emptive war. In an interview with Britain’s SKY News, Blix accused Blair of spinning the truth.
“Describing the conflict as “clearly illegal”, Mr Blix, who led the UN search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq until June 2003, refused to specifically accuse the prime minister of open deceit.
“However, he said pre-war intelligence such as the UK government dossier which claimed Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and could deploy some within 45 minutes, appeared to have deliberately overstated the case for war.
“I would never dare to accuse any statesman of bad faith unless I had absolute evidence of it. I do think they exercised spin,” said Blix.
So there it is. Blix suspects Blair of outright lying, I’m sure he doesn’t have any doubt, but he won’t say it unless he’s given absolute evidence of it and I don’t think TB is about to hand that over just yet.
March 12, 2007
For the Pentagon it seems this is it. Either the current “surge” works or it’s time to head for the door and get out of Iraq.
As hard as that may be to believe, the LA Times quotes Pentagon sources as saying it may be time to start gradually withdrawing US troops and concentrate mainly on training Iraqi troops rather than fighting the insurgency.
“‘This part of the world has an allergy against foreign presence,’ said a senior Pentagon official, adding that chances of success with a large U.S. force may be diminishing. ‘You have a window of opportunity that is relatively short. Your ability to influence this with a large U.S. force eventually gets to the point that it is self-defeating.’
“The new round of planning is taking place in an atmosphere of extraordinary tension within the Pentagon, which is grappling with a war about to enter its fifth year and going poorly on the ground while straining U.S. forces worldwide.
“At the same time, the war has created divisions within the Pentagon. Some support the new commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who advocates using more American forces to protect Baghdad neighborhoods, whereas others back the position of Gen. John P. Abizaid, the retiring commander for the Mideast, who favored handing responsibility more quickly to Iraqis.”
There are some, notably in the White House, who believe that even talking about withdrawal will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
March 11, 2007
A real big thanks to Big City Lib for drawing attention to Conservapedia, the far-right’s counter to Wikipedia. You can have some serious fun at this site. For example, I decided to look up Conservapedia’s entry for “liberal.” Here it is:
“Liberal is often a term used to describe any person who considers themself a strong proponent of a large and controlling government. They believe that powerful bureaucracies are needed in order to provide equality, personal safety and many other services such as health care.
Their speech and actions convey emotional or popular opinion which is often used as a method of solving the perceived problems of society.
Liberals also tend to admire popular or authoritarian figures such as dictators, movie stars, or anyone holding positions of power that are in line with a their own philosophy. Since the election of George W Bush in 2000 they have become overtly angry in their demeanor with anyone who disagrees with them while showing support for dictators such as Hugo Chavez (who recently nationalized many of the industries of Venezuela).
Liberals openly use their collective positions of power within government to perpetuate their causes such as the current popular notion of a man made climate change. (Man Made Global Warming) Scientists who have openly disagreed with this premise have been threatened by the removal of their licenses or titles.
Retrieved from “http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal“
There you have it. We admire dictators, believe in man-made global warming and use intimidation and threats to silence scientists who disagree.
“The term “liberal” is used often in the United States, Canada and Great Britain. Some examples of liberal beliefs include:
gun control
taxpayer funding of abortion
prohibiting prayer in school
equal rights for men and women
distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
government programs to rehabilitate criminals
same-sex marriage
amnesty for illegal aliens
teaching of evolution
increased taxpayer funding of public school
protection of endangered species
taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
increased power for labor unions
disarmament treaties
increased taxes
dependence on government programs such as welfare
reduction of millitary expenses”
The site then gives us this, “An alternative definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative.”
“For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of “liberal”: ‘ Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas … ‘”
There’s a real nihilistic element to this sort of thinking. It admits of no mutuality of interests or beliefs whether political, economic, religious or social. It thus casts liberals as the natural enemy of conservatives. We skulk about, using “our collective positions of power within government” to “perpetuate” our causes such as the preposterous notion of man-made global warming. There’s a real McCarthyist phobia in this thinking.
March 11, 2007
Germany and the autobahns. They can seem almost inseparable and that’s just the way most German leaders want to keep it.
Officials of other EU nations have ruffled German feathers by urging the imposition of speed limits on the autobahns. Up till now, speed on the autobahn has been pretty much regulated by the person behind the wheel and the horsepower under the hood.
A spokesman for the German transport ministry claims to have a study showing that a 100 km/hr speed limit would reduce GHG emissions by only 0.6%. Still, polls have shown growing support among the German people for speed limits to reduce GHG emissions.
March 11, 2007
California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is officially a Republican. Now into his second term a lot of his fellow Republicans think he’s not Republican at all and they’re griping about it.
One Republican state senator the governor’s post-partisan approach as, “the process by which Arnold sits down with Democratic leaders and gets them to do exactly what they wanted to do all along.”
Two of the governor’s most heralded accomplishments are a plan for cutting prescription drug prices and a program to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. California’s Republican legislators were nearly unanimously opposed to both initiatives.
March 11, 2007
Conrad Black is more famous now than at any time in his life. Even al Jazeera has run a story on the guy. His name has been splashed around every major newspaper in the English-speaking world. It’s the story of Icarus flying too close to the sun and plumetting into the sea. A man of privilege and wealth who fell victim to his own greed. The stuff that gets churned into movies.
Now I know CBC did a docu-drama on the man but it was far too CBC for mass consumption. No, once the trial is over this will be the fodder for mainstream movie treatment. Perhaps the measure of Black’s life will be whether that translates into a real flick or a made-for-TV yawner.
Here’s the question: who would you cast to play Lord Black and the other half of this story, Barbara Amiel? I’m having trouble coming up with an actress to play Babs but I have a guy in mind to play Connie – cold, aloof, at times sinister. The only drawback is that he’s dead. My pick is Charles Laughton:
March 11, 2007
The Independent reports that British commanders are gearing up for what they claim will be the decisive battle for control of Afghanistan. Put simply, the Brits (and NATO) are counting on the Taliban coming out this year, although hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned, and either be destroyed where they stand or mauled so badly that their popular support among the Pashtun people collapses. This, of course, begs the question of whether the Taliban is willing to follow the NATO script.
If the Taliban are simply willing to commit suicide, the Brits’ predictions may prove to be right on the money. If the Talib, however, don’t want to fight the conventional war, the one where NATO holds all the cards, and instead fight their war, a war of insurgency, then the Brits are wrong. In any insurgency, the decisive year is the final year of the conflict and the odds are 4-1 that turns out to be the year the foreigners pull up stakes and leave.
NATO’s Achilles’ Heel still lies in the woeful lack of combat boots on the ground. This year they’re going to try to clear – and hold – the area around the Kajaki dam to allow the power plant to be repaired. Beyond that, it’ll mainly be “search and destroy” type missions, whipping around from place to place, clearing out the bad guys and then leaving and allowing the bad guys to move back in.
I really hope the Taliban are as stupid as NATO is counting on them to be. I hope they get totally trashed this year so that maybe we can just leave the country to the warlords and thugs and drug barons who run the government and get our troops home. I’m hoping and apparently so is NATO.
March 11, 2007
Alberta’s Tar Sands boys are genuine operators, world class. They know how to use scare tactics to deflect problems that are ultimately of their own making. In Alberta Premier, Ed Stemlach, they have their ideal gopher.
The Tar Patch is concerned about the levels of pollution they create. Actually what really concerns them is that they might be compelled to clean up their operations. Clean up = Cost = Less Profit. The last item, profit, is taken to be a right and one that comes with precious few responsibilities beyond that of making more profit.
The ever-helpful Stemlach yesterday told the Tar Patch boys that Ottawa should but out. “We’re the trustees. Those resources belong to Albertans and Albertans are the ones who will decide the best way to approach them.”
So, let’s get this straight: the bitumin (tar) belongs to Albertans and they should decide how it’s produced although they are willing to freely share one part of the deal – the pollution – with the rest of Canada and the world. Stemlach’s argument might have some validity if Alberta kept all the Tar Sands emissions in Alberta, all of it. But of course, in the many years his government has been in bed with Big Tar, they really haven’t found it necessary to be particularly bothersome to this industry – not for ground pollution, nor for water pollution and certainly not for greenhouse gas emissions.
Meanwhile, Big Tar spokesman, Pierre Alvarez, wasted no time before playing Chicken Little. “There’s the perception out there that the industry is just going to carry on and continue to grow regardless of what happens out there and I just don’t think that is the case. …we could be in for a period of tremendous uncertainty,” Mr. Alvarez said. “When you’re spending tens of billions of dollars a year, uncertainty is not helpful.”
One thing is clear. Big Tar is willing to go just as far as they’re shoved and not one inch further. It’s a safe bet they’ll continue to puff themselves up and complain and threaten. This bunch isn’t going anywhere without a fight and, if it comes down to a fight, they’d much sooner fight a wimp like Stemlach any day.
March 11, 2007
The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.
They claim to be superpatriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjugation.
Truman administration Vice-President Henry Wallace, April, 1944.
from American Fascists, by Chris Hedges
« Previous Page — Next Page »
The Mound of Sound 