Good News & Bad News

First; the good news:

Over the past few days it has been reported by various news services that Dick Cheney has been indicted in Nigeria for crimes committed while CEO of Halliburton.

And now; the bad news:

Neither Cheney nor Bush have yet been indicted for the war crimes committed during their administration. Cheney will likely remain free as he is in an undisclosed location supervising Halliburton's reconstruction of the Death Star.

Bush Admits War Crimes

George W. Bush, in his new memoir, Decision Points (he was "The Decider" after all), admitted that he authorized water-boarding. Admission of water-boarding, held to be torture by treaties the U.S. has signed, is grounds for prosecution as a war criminal. The ACLU has already called on Bush to be tried and will be joined by this writer and others interested in international law in the very near future.

Under international law, the country in which the war criminal lives is given first responsibility for the prosecution of such acts. Should the U.S. fail to act, then other countries are then tasked with prosecution. While it is unlikely that Bush will ever be prosecuted in the U.S., it is likely that he will soon find it difficult to travel outside the boundaries of the country without risk of arrest.

What an embarrassment this man has been to the nation. "W" doesn't just stand for wrong, it also stands for war criminal.

George Orwell for GOP Chair

George Bush once commented that his base was the "... the haves and the have mores." Since that time little has changed within the GOP. Long the party of big money, the banks and the wealthy, the Republicans are working overtime to kill financial reform.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), has been leading the charge and walking the tightrope. Aware of public anger over the bank bailouts and Wall Street excesses, McConnell is attempting to protect his constituents - the banks -while feigning populist indignation at the same institutions. Claiming to be intent on changing the status quo while working to insure it is no doubt a difficult balancing act. Luckily for McConnell he is not bound by any notions of truth. Claiming that the very legislation that attempts to prevent further bailouts will cause an endless chain of bailouts is the essence of doublespeak. George Orwell would be proud.

All 41 Republican senators have signed a letter indicating they will oppose financial reform. In addition to the blatant lie that McConnell is propagating, the talking points of free markets and getting government out of lives, the Republican establishment is trying to ignore the fact that they were for the bailouts.

This approach to financial reform, oppose the legislation on political grounds but use political buzzwords to manipulate the populace, is becoming the standard GOP approach to all legislation. No longer does the Republican party even attempt to put forth a coherent counter approach. Instead, their approach has become one centered on manipulating the emotions of the voters by the repetition of the same phrases, no matter their veracity, to the point of absurdity. It seems they are aware that they cannot prevail if they honestly reveal their agenda so they are attempting to shape the debate through neurolinguistic programming.

War is Peace. Hate is Love. The GOP is for the little guy.

"No Siege Mentality"

Yesterday Barack Obama spoke about the Christmas Day bombing attempt by Umar Abdulmuttallab. He did something rarely seen in these days by a politician - he took responsibility. Using a phrase borrowed from Harry Truman, Obama stated that "The buck stops with me." He then went on to point out that this was a series of screw ups that culminated in a person already on watch lists being allowed to board a plane with explosives. Pettiness, infighting and human error all seemed to play a part in the act. Since Christmas Day there have been a series of events at various airports that show the generally shoddy nature of security.

But it was not just the taking of responsibility that made this speech noteworthy While stating that "We are at war," Obama also stated that we would be "no siege mentality." In a stark contrast to the previous administration Obama advocated that we not panic and be ruled by fear. In refusing to make our remaining liberties sacrificial lambs in the name of the illusion of safety, Obama has taken a step towards restoring the belief in the values on which the country was founded. It is these actions, taking steps towards restoring our democracy that the last administration so trampled that have been his most important actions since taking office.

By refusing to accept the notion that we must live as we are under siege at all times, Obama also took a step towards the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda. Turning the country into a military police state and shredding the Constitution in the name of security is not what a strong leader would do. That is what Bush tried to do - he tried to act strong because he felt he was weak. Obama did the converse. By stating that we are going to be true to our values, Obama showed real strength and a confidence in the underpinnings of our nation. A confidence that all of those who supported the Patriot Act and advocated surrendering our liberties in the name of security did not and do not have.

In taking the occasion to further announce that Guantanamo would be closed, he demonstrated a further commitment to the rule of law. This event could have provided a perfect excuse to delay or stop the closing of Gitmo, but instead, he used it as an opportunity to reaffirm a commitment to the legal process. It should be noted that Abdulmuttallab has reportedly been providing a great deal of intelligence completely within legal confines.

This speech is being examined for what it says about security. The truth is, no matter how secure, no matter what we do, something will eventually happen. The important part of what Obama said is that it signaled a change to a view that is consistent with the purported values of our country. In refusing to undermine them, not only refusing to go further, but pulling back on the mentality that sacrifices liberty for security he has already surpassed his predecessor in understanding what it takes for a country to be great.

Let's hope Dick Cheney shuts up and goes back to an undisclosed location.

Ronald the Wrong

I recently received an email that posed the question, "Do you miss this guy?" When you opened the email a picture of Ronald Reagan followed by a few of his pithy quotes popped out. As I said to the sender of the email, "Yes, I miss Reagan. I miss him like I miss a boil on my butt."

Reagan, who I will always think of by Jello Biafra's wonderful moniker for him, "Grandpa Caligula,"was the consummate politician. Referred to by many as the "Great Communicator," he could deliver a magnificent speech even though he usually had no clue what he was talking about. He built a career campaigning for fiscally conservative principles and promptly busted the budget once in office. In a self fulfilling prophecy he mocked government as incompetent and then made sure that it was. He began the give away of the public wealth of the nation, through privatization (code for profits to private corporations, costs to the tax payer), subsidies to industry and other forms of corporate welfare. He began a never ending stream of tax breaks for the wealthiest. His emphasis on deregulation and trickle-down economics (code for the wealthy come first to the trough) led to a course that culminated during the Bush (mis) Administration with the ultimate theft of the nation, the raiding of the Treasury by Henry Paulson for the good of Goldman-Sachs and the other criminals on Wall Street. The past thirty years have been little more than a thinly veiled effort to transfer the wealth of the nation and its people to the wealthiest of the wealthy.

Reagan spouted platitudes like so many lines from his movies. Unfortunately for the world, his acting seemed to improve with age. When president he lied with ease (Iran-Contra) and got away with it. Near the end of his term in office he clearly exhibited signs of the Alzheimer's that would eventually incapacitate him, on one occasion describing a scene from a movie as an actual event. Yet, with a good natured wink and nod of the head he would slip back into character as the President of the United States and most were none the wiser.

It was a simpler time, a time when the president could have Alzheimer's and we would still be okay. A time when our biggest war was invading a golf course in the Caribbean. A time long ago, before we elected the village idiot, who in eight years, destroyed the economy, plundered the Treasury, started two wars, and shredded the Constitution.

Yes, I do miss Reagan. I miss having a barometer of what is completely wrong. Style over substance, party loyalty over country, corporations before people. That was Reagan. Ronald the Wrong.

What Did Pelosi ( and Others) Know?

It was reported in the Washington Post that leaked CIA memos confirm Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was informed about the practice of torture being used against detainees. Pelosi, in an interview in February with Rachel Maddow stated that she was only informed that these techniques had been authorized and that she had no knowledge of their use. Curiously she also stated that anything she had been told was covered by national security laws that prevented her from disclosing the details of her briefing.

Pelosi's protestations do not appear to stand up to scrutiny. Why would she have thought that she would be informed that certain methods had been authorized if there were no plans to use them? That now appears to be nothing more than a transparent attempt to cover her own behind. Now it seems abundantly clear that she was informed of the actual torture plans.

More ridiculous is her assertion that national security laws prevented her from disclosing the information to the public. Is it really her assertion that she was obligated to keep anything disclosed to her secret? If she had been told that there was a plan to engage in genocide would she have kept that secret? If she had been told that there was a plan to bomb an American city so that the flames of war could be further whipped, would she have kept that secret?

The answer to the above questions is certainly "No." As a member of Congress her duty is to the nation, not to keeping secret the violation of international agreements that ultimately caused harm to the nation through damaging its' reputation. Her duty to the nation was to inform the citizenry of the great crimes being committed in our name, even if that resulted in her being imprisoned for her actions. Yes, it was her duty, and that of the others who were briefed, to inform the nation as to the violation of our laws. In point of fact, it was only Pelosi and the other three members so briefed, who could have prevented this.

What prevented her from disclosing this information was her fear that the disclosure would be used against her politically. She, and other members of Congress, went along with torture because it was politically expedient. Like many politicians, Pelosi was afraid to challenge anything the Bush (mis)Adminiatration did for fear that they would be accused of being in league with al-Qaeda. It was just this lack of political courage that enabled the most egregious crimes For that, she bears culpability for these actions.

Pelosi has been one of the people standing in the way of investigations into the dirty little secrets of the last administration. Now we know why she seems to be holding up a thorough accounting of the acts of the Bush (mis)Administration. She is afraid her own complicity will be revealed.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo, Bybee, the list goes on. To it we can now add the names of Pelosi (and Rockefeller and on and on). All those who were complicit in these actions, in both parties, must be held accountable. They placed their political careers before the nation and its ideals. At the time at which it mattered most that they fulfill their Constitutional duties, they bowed to pressure and acted primarily in the interests of their own political careers.

Es Verdad? Spain Steps Forward

Will there be justice at last? It is being widely reported that Spanish courts are soon to indict former Bush (mis)Administration members, Alberto Gonzalez, John Yoo, David Addington, Douglas Feith, Jay Bybee and William Haynes II for their part in the torture of persons held in U.S. custody. Gonzalo Boye, the lawyer who filed the suit, submitted a complaint on behalf of five Spanish citizens held in Guantanamo. The case is expected to be heard before Baltazar Garzon, the judge who brought the indictments against Pinochet.

There are two great questions lurking beneath the surface in all of this; why a Spanish court and why not Bush and Cheney as well?

The answer to the question of why a Spanish court is apparently because they take allegations of torture and the disregard of treaties seriously. Under international law it is the duty of the nation involved to investigate war crimes. Since it appears that there is no political will in the U.S. to follow through on these obligations, it seems that the Spanish are merely fulfilling their rightful role as a signatory of the Geneva Conventions given that the nation that should lead this prosecution is unwilling. Note that the Geneva Conventions require investigation and prosecution when credible allegations are made. Clearly, that legal hurdle has been surpassed long ago.

The second question, why not Bush and Cheney too, bears more scrutiny. Cheney has come as close to admitting and bragging about torture as it is possible. Bush has long justified any and all of his actions under the guise of his imperial presidency. Their very actions have destroyed the reputation of the country internationally and have sullied the nature of their offices. Their actions in causing an undermining of the protections of the Constitution on U.S. citizens through their wiretap and spying programs likely rise to the level of treason. Their part in the authorization of torture must be investigated if international law has any meaning.

Could it be that the Spanish courts are giving us our chance to get Bush and Cheney ourselves? Or are they bowing to political pressure in leaving them out of this. Americans who are upset by the Spanish taking these actions against members of the Bush (mis)Administration should demand that these actions be taken here. At present, the Spanish have been forced to take the lead. Will we do the right thing and take over as we should have long ago?

One more question: Why is it that right wingers who have cataleptic fits over the "rule of law," always seem to look the other way when it's their political compatriots who are breaking the law?

Obama's Vietnam

What do all occupations of foreign lands have in common? Answer: they all fail.

It was with great consternation that I learned of Obama's plan to send 4000 more troops to Afghanistan on the heels of the 17,000 he sent last month. This time, the 4000 are labeled as trainers, and a new fanciful strategy that involves letting the Afghans slowly take over has been revealed.

When I heard the word "trainers" bells began to go off like it was the fire of the century. This is how we first began to dig our hole in Vietnam. Support troops who would train the indigenous population to fight for themselves. Like Vietnam, the Afghans are already fighting for themselves. Against us!

Witnessing the French get their behinds whipped taught us nothing about the foolhardiness of the folly in Vietnam. Apparently, the long history of the "graveyard of Empires," has taught us nothing as well. Whether it's 4000 trainers or 17,000 troops or for that matter, 170,000 troops, history shows us that Afghanistan is remarkably resistant to occupation and invasion.

Why then is Obama doubling down on Bush's blunder? I believe that he is aware of history (something I was never sure about with Bush) so this action seems all the more curious. Is it that he is simply playing against the right wing that want so desperately to call him weak on defense? Is it that he really believes he can do something in this place that no one has been able to do before? Or is there some reason that we are not being told?

Whatever the reasons, this seems to be the biggest blunder of the administration. I remember how the Soviets were ridiculed for their efforts to control Afghanistan. Over two thousand years ago the world likely laughed at Alexander the Greats efforts here as well.

Today, I am not laughing and this is no joke. Almost eight years into this futile effort and we are upping the ante. Read history, this is just like Vietnam, only it's Afghanistan, and historically, that's been even worse.

The Double Standard

In ancient times, the official standard for the length of a foot was determined by the size of the king's foot, or so the legend goes. This had the effect of different standards being applied based on the size of the sovereign. That process seems to have continued to this day, although it is not really a measurement of the leaders foot that is responsible.

George W. Bush, the Connecticut Texan, who got everywhere because of his daddy's name, rose to the top despite his obvious limitations. Failed in business, accused of being a deserter from the Guard during Vietnam, convicted of a DUI, and an accomplished torturer of the English language, Bush got a pass on 9/11 occurring on his watch apparently because he had only been in office for eight MONTHS when it occurred. This, despite a briefing labeled, "Bin Laden determined to strike with airplanes in the U.S." Bush even gets credit for no further attacks. Excuse me, what were the anthrax mailings.

Barack H. Obama, on the other hand, is the child of an interracial marriage who got to where he was in spite of his father's name. An accomplished author, former head of the Harvard Law Review and a dynamic speaker, is currently being skewered over the economic crisis. This, despite the fact that he has only been in office a few weeks.

Is it that the standard being applied relates to intelligence? Did Bush get a pass because he was seen as the village idiot? Is Obama being more closely scrutinized because he is intelligent? Or is it something else? Could it be that the reason Bush got the pass was that he was viewed as part of the entitled elite? Sure he was dumb, but there was never a doubt as to who he represented, his base, "the haves and the have mores." Obama, by contrast, is an intellectual without a doubt, but the attacks are more related to his former status as a community organizer and a people based populism.

Let us extend this beyond the Oval office.

The contracts of rich bankers are sacrosanct and they are awarded large bonuses for failure. Blue collar, middle-class auto workers have renegotiated contracts shoved down their throats because their bosses failed. They are told they should do this for the good of the country.

Conservative politicians and right wing bloviators decry raising the marginal income tax rate on the highest rate from 35 to 39.5 per cent. The super wealthy, you see, must have the country do for them and then their largess will trickle on the rest of us.

The real double standard is that if you want to do something to help the poor or the weak, you're accused of being a bleeding heart liberal who just wants to throw good money away, but if you crush unions and destroy the livelihoods of everyone in the world, you're a hard nosed businessman. Average people are expected to pay their taxes, transnational corporations hide out in off shore tax havens. Corporate bankers, creating a financial crisis to enrich themselves, claim they are too big to fail and ask for even more money. Meanwhile, average people who never miss a payment are seeing credit card rates adjusted upward because the bank has "reevaluated" their credit.

Will we continue to accept this double standard or will we demand that a new standard, one that applies the same to everyone, finally be adopted? Right now, the wealthy are giving us all the finger. For their own good, they need to remember what happened the last time they told the masses to eat cake.

For Ann Richards

As Bush's helicopter took him back to his village in Texas, I remembered Ann Richards. Ann Richards was the woman who tried to save us from George Bush, both of them.

Richards famously said about the first Bush, "... he was born with a silver foot in his mouth." The world didn't listen.

Richards is perhaps best remembered as a governor of Texas. Riding a motorcycle with a beehive hairdo she was hard to miss. Unfortunately this colorful figure, was upended in her re-election bid by the second Bush, W. Ann Richards knew what a turkey this guy was, if only the world had listened. For the last years one of the things I have taken solace in is that I contributed to her campaign even though I didn't even live in Texas. Too bad he wasn't stopped back then. Maybe he would have never had the chance to ruin the world.

Thanks for trying Ann. You'll be remembered for trying to stop the rise of the village idiot to ruler of the world.

Obama's First Week

On Inauguration Day I decided not to comment on any decisions, pronouncements or policies until at least one week had passed. I will now join the cacophony with my thoughts on the first week. Before any evaluation of decisions I would first like to note that the sheer volume of work turned out by the Obama Administration in its first week appears to be about six months worth of policy from the previous administration of George number 2. There is so much that I have resorted to a mere listing of the various actions.

The Good:
- Begin the Closing of Guantanamo. Necessary if we are to ever begin the restoration of the moral integrity of our nation and honor our treaty obligations.
- Categorically Prohibit Torture. Adherence to the Army Field Manual and International law is beginning to be restored.
- Restore Transparency to Government. After eight years of a secretive government that classified everything including the lunch menu, this is unbelievable.
- Pay Freeze for Staff. Symbolic, but at least in the right direction. Were they going to get a raise anytime soon? They just started.
- Recognition of the Depth of the Economic Crisis. Compared to the floundering of the Bush Administration which managed to blow another $350 billion in its final days by giving it to banks with no effort at accountability, even acknowledging that the problem is serious and long term was a welcome step forward.
- Advocacy for Green Infrastructure. Needs to push for even more. Solar panels on 100 million houses and building would sure stimulate the economy and provide for a greater degree of energy independence (see previous blogs and link "The Myth of Energy Independence," to see why this won't happen).
- Al- Arabiya interview that set a new tone for American foreign policy. In a complete about face of the previous administration's policy, Obama set the stage for an effort at resolution of the long standing grievances between the rest of the world and the U.S. That's right, the whole world. Bush has turned everyone against us, even putative allies. Obama already possesses greater stature on the international stage than Bush ever had.


The Bad:
- Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner, who will oversee the IRS, did not pay his taxes.
- Bill Lynn, ex-lobbyist for Raytheon, nominated to number two post in the Pentagon. Violating the pledge of no lobbyist in the administration, Lynn requires an exception to the ethics rules outlined by Obama.
- Economic Compromise: his efforts to gain GOP support for the economy recovery will only be weakened by attempting to enlist their support. As a party they have no coherent philosophy and can only result to being in opposition. Mitigating this is his "I won," statement that suggests he may impose his will upon them if they continue to obfuscate.

The Ugly:
- Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang at the OK Corral are still walking around free. I can't tell if Obama is just trying to stay clear of the issue and let Congress do the work of investigating the Bush (mis)Administration or if he doesn't have the will to defend the Constitution. If he believes that what they did were crimes and he does anything to prevent their prosecution, he is acting as an accessory.
- Bombing of Pakistan by CIA. Allegedly he was briefed, so it would appear he gave his consent, unless, of course, the CIA is running its own war.

& We'll See:
- Iraq: So far, just talk. When do we leave?


All in all a very good start. Clearly though, this first week, especially Pakistan, shows us that change will not be immediate or complete. However, compared to his predecessor, he is inconceivably better.

I'm sure I've missed many things. As I said it was a busy week. It good to have a President who is not an embarrassment. Above all else, this makes me proud to have Obama in office. Also sad, because I realize how much George W. Bush destroyed this country. We are now proud to simply not be embarrassed.

Christmas Deferred

It's January 20th and today I finally find out if I get my Christmas wish. Yes, the excitement of the inauguration of Obama adds a special lustre to the day, but his election was already a done deal by Christmas. For Christmas, I made a wish for the nation.

What I really wanted for Christmas is accountability for the Bush Administration. If I get my wish, as soon as he has taken the oath of office, Obama will order Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few others (Gonzalez and Yoo, for two) to be immediately taken into custody and tried for their War Crimes against the world and the American people.

Obama has talked a great deal about "moving forward," but I would argue that it will be impossible to move forward until we deal with the sorry spectacle of the past eight years. The election of Obama stunned the world precisely because we lived up to our ideals. In doing that we regained some of the authority we once had in the world.

However, in order to fully regain our moral authority in the world we must clean our own house. We have committed torture, we have engaged in acts that are direct violations of treaties we have signed. We have also admitted it. Cheney even seemed to brag about it. To let it go without prosecution is to make a mockery of our values.

Imagine the reaction of the world should we prosecute these miscreants who have sullied our reputation and made us a lawless and feared pariah on the world stage. Stating that no one is above the law, especially those in government, would allow the U.S. to once again exhibit the ideals that have drawn countless people to our shores.

Over the past eight years this nation has come as close to fascism as I hope it ever gets. If Bush and the rest of his administration is allowed to fade into history without answering for their crimes, we the people, will be the ultimate victims. Our nation will be permanently damaged and the scars will continue to grow as history begins to realize what happened in our country during the Bush II years.

Okay, so I don't really think that Obama will have Bush taken into custody at the inauguration. I will continue to let this Christmas wish be deferred for a little longer. But if we fail to act as a nation, if we do not address the wrongs, the crimes, the evil that has been committed in our name, we will NEVER be a great nation again.

In order to move forward, we must first address the past. If this is allowed to pass, no matter the success of the Obama Administration, we will forever join the list of nations that have sanctioned torture and rationalized war crimes.



In the next few days I will present the case for war crimes trials against the Bush Administration. Further, I will also establish the case for the rest of the world to act against Bush et. al should the U.S. fail to act.

A Nightmare Ends

It seems fitting that the official holiday celebrating the 80th birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. also marks the final day of the Bush (mis)Administration. While Dr. King famously had a dream, George Bush has given us a nightmare.

An ABC News poll, released today, showed that only 22 % of the nation approves of the job Bush is doing, while 73 % disapproves. My only question - Who are these 22 %.

Inheriting a budget surplus, Bush has driven us to the brink of recession. He took all the goodwill directed towards the country post 9/11 and squandered it with bullying and cowboy diplomacy. Promising peace in the Middle East, his final days saw the Palestinian-Israeli conflict boil over. His efforts in encouraging democracy led to the election of Hezbollah and Hamas. The privatization of the government led to a "heck of a job" during Katrina. The nation that was once the champion of liberty and civil rights opened a torture chamber at Guantanamo.

How is it possible that even 22 % of the country APPROVES of the job Bush has done? I wouldn't think it possible that even 22 % of his immediate family could approve of his work.

As the administration of George W. Bush finally draws to a conclusion and we awake from our national nightmare, the words of the Dr. King seem all to fitting: "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, We Are Free at Last."