If Watergate was the original and quintessential presidential scandal involving abuse of power, what shall we call the emerging scandal over Iraq? WorldGate?

We now have budding investigations, or powerful calls for investigations, about government lies to justify an unjustifiable war, in the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and Italy. We have new revelations almost daily about spying during the run-up to the war, by the US-led pro-war coalition, against diplomats of friendly countries. And now, we have the claim from a former British cabinet member that the coalition was monitoring UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself.

Much of what we are learning is coming out of Britain. A translator with the British intelligence services, Katherine Gun, leaked evidence of the spying on UN diplomats, and the UK authorities prepared to prosecute her. Now, however, faced with the risk that further negative information about the British role in misrepresenting the Iraqi threat might emerge, the government has abruptly decided not to go after Gun at all. Also, in the past few days, Labour MP Claire Short (a former member of Blair’s cabinet) declared that she had seen transcripts of private conversations of the UN boss. And now we’re hearing that allies of Bush’s who backed the war are on the hot seat for misleading their countrymen – and may not survive politically.

Yet most of this news comes to us from the British and other overseas media, with the mainstream US media extremely sluggardly about following up. Even worse is its failure to elevate the mega-scandal to the kind of recurring front-pager it deserves. Soon, though, the growing global chorus may prove irresistible even for the reticent American media establishment.

Certainly, the implications are enormous. Cumulatively, the evidence suggest that the Bush White House was willing to stop at nothing to achieve the most dubious of ends: validating war by deceit. In constructing a justification that simply did not exist, the administration employed tactics redolent of the sorts harkening back to the Austrians and Germans prior to World War I and II. In stacking the deck and forcing the conclusion, the administration twisted the US intelligence agencies’ output, twisted arms of allied country leaders, and twisted the traditional understanding of when spying is permissible, under what circumstances it may be carried out, and against whom.

The acts of the Bush Administration (and their willing or reluctant collaborators) are increasingly looking like much more than just those of an overly cynical, overtly political White House. They are starting to look like the grounds for a kind of global conference call on where the buck must stop.
##
- posted by Russ @ 11:10 AM

THANKS, KARL

How do you take a vulnerable, borderline-unelectable person and make him unbeatable? Ask Karl Rove. He’s got a tough act with George Bush, but he looks ready to rumble.

First, you match all your guy’s weakest points with the parallel positions of his most likely opponent, and then go after the opponent in any way you can. Say your guy blew it on Iraq. You find that his opponent is vulnerable because he was sort of both for and against Iraq. You can attack him as indecisive, which, in many people’s eyes, is worse for a president than being wrong.

Next thing, what should your own platform be? Basically, only two things get the mass of Americans going: their pocketbooks and their lifestyles. Or, put another way, their lifestyles and their lifestyles. So: promise to keep cutting their taxes and warn that the other guy won’t follow suit. Then, suggest that the other guy threatens their lifestyle. The way to do that is to grab any controversial, visceral issue where the Democrats are being backed into taking a principled stand. Easy one: gay marriage. With all the problems out there, the right of gays to get hitched – valid or not – is hardly the most crucial thing. But there it is. Poor Dems – always some delicate social issue they have to handle. It’s a lot easier for Bush to “secure his base” than it is for the Dems to secure their base, since, other than on foreign policy and economics, it is pretty fragmented.

We can already see the Bush strategy of choice because today the president announced that he supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It’s a win-win for him. He wasn’t going to get the pro- votes anyway, and to everybody else, gay marriage either sounds wacky and un-American or just a bit unsettling. Most people have no idea what a president does, day in and day out, and care less, but at least expect him to project a strong image. This position allows Bush to do that.

Meantime, in a speech yesterday, Bush tested out his basic one-two approach of (1) jab the opponent on whatever you can, then (2) stand firm. He took Iraq, NAFTA, taxes and the Patriot act, and accused the Democrats of being divided over these things. Well, he won’t be running against the Democratic party, but this is a good start on picking apart Kerry’s statements and votes for inconsistency.

And he can credibly do that, because there’s one sure thing about Bush: he hates indecision, or the appearance of it. In private, he enjoys telling people that he isn’t about to “start an argument with himself.” Generally, he takes a stand – on Iraq, on taxes, on whatever, and sticks with it no matter what. He leaves all the backpedaling to his subordinates: find any excuse, any rationale, make whatever explanations or modifications you need to, but don’t put me in the position of having to publicly renounce a previous stance.

If the Democrats are going to beat Bush, they’d better find something they’re for, and stick with it. And it better be something meaty. Divisive social issues are not the way to win an election.

- posted by Russ @ 9:18 AM

FAITH-BASED CROOKS

The term “faith-based initiative” had me terrified from the get-go. The more benign-sounding the White House initiative, the more slimy things crawling beneath the surface.

And so it is with the president’s plan to turn taxpayer monies over to religious groups so they can provide social services. One component of the initiative will involve mentoring recently-released convicts. What’s wrong with leaving these raw, often antisocial or violent, and certainly malleable souls in the hands of members of the Faith-Based Initiative? Well, it’s a happy Freudian trick that the initiative's acronym is FBI. Because there’s going to be plenty of skullduggery to investigate in this particular temple.

A good thinker could summon up myriad possibilities of how this plan could go deeply astray in the same way as have so many other Bush visions presented in the most glowing terms– whether “bringing democracy” (through large-scale destruction and epic destabilization) or “boosting the economy” (through tax breaks that largely benefit the affluent.) An example is the fact, reported by the Washington Post, that one of 42 religious institutions applying to participate in the prison-release program is the Church of Scientology.

Anyone unfamiliar with the problems this presents may be unaware that members of Scientology’s leadership have repeatedly been charged – and in some cases convicted and imprisoned – for serious criminal acts themselves. Taken together with credible allegations from former adherents of the cultish group, these activities might include kidnapping, burglary, wiretapping, harassment, extortion, blackmail, surveillance, money-laundering, and – well, the list just goes on and on. A quick web search will provide the neophyte with a staggering range and quantity of disturbing material.

So there you have it – some of the most troubled, vulnerable and impressionable people in America getting their religious guidance (and moral marching orders) from the playbook of Scientology’s late founder, the science fiction writer, paranoic and revenge-loving hustler and huckster L. Ron Hubbard.

The total taxpayer funds earmarked currently -- $300,000 – are modest. But it’s an opening wedge, and a precedent, nonetheless. Symbolically, and philosophically, it’s enormous.

Surely, when it was hatching its new FBI, the administration must have been well aware that unstable and extreme groups, operating under constitutional cover as “religious” entities, might gain official sanction and a foothold into credibility-enhancing programs. I haven’t seen the Nation of Islam on any list yet, or one of the “Aryan-superiority” Christian groups, or some offshoot of the poison-brewing Aum Shinrikyo. But if Scientology is permitted to apply, the safety mechanisms appear minimal at best.

“Securing the base” – i.e. the continued political loyalty of Christian fundamentalists and religious conservatives – was seemingly the primary motivation in launching FBI. Apparently, in pursuit of short-term gains, the Bush Administration didn’t think about, or care about, who else made it through the barn door.

##




- posted by Russ @ 4:05 PM

MORTALITY IS THE ISSUE, NOT IMMORALITY

Those of us who remember with consternation the many disgusted bailouts by Clinton Administration officials over idealism, promises and common sense abandoned left and right by the Clinton White House can only marvel at Team Bush's ability to consistently outdo its predecessors.

Not a week goes by, it seems, that some bureaucrat doesn't abandon his or her comfortable perch for a kind of principled verbal kamikaze act. Administration problems with candor, commitment and decency have been noted by the fired, outspoken former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, and by a number of voluntarily-departed officials of the EPA, the foreign service and other units. This past week brought news of a US federal prosecutor suing Attorney General Ashcroft for meddling in and botching a terror prosecution in pursuit of what the prosecutor claims were strictly political gains.

Now comes a nuclear expert, warning that the national nuclear waste dump intended for Nevada is, according to AP, a "poorly designed and could leak highly radioactive waste." That official, Paul Craig, a physicist and engineering professor, resigned recently from a federal panel of experts on the Yucca Mountain disposal site.

It is almost too depressing to recount the specifics of Craig's frightening complaint, but, taken together with other concerns about abandonment of safety or health or survival concerns in relation to global warming, ocean pollution, deforestation, civil liberties and virtually anything else you might examine, it's a sure sign that the soccer moms and NASCAR dads routinely quoted by campaign reporters haven't yet heard that their well-ferried youngsters are in danger from something besides immorality.

##
- posted by Russ @ 8:49 AM

POST CARRYING BUSH'S WATER?

Anyone reading a Washington Post story from January 31 would have learned that John Kerry is beholden to the very same special interests he says will be banished from a Kerry White House.

But a trio of campaign finance reform activists –from Common Cause, Public Citizen and Public Campaign-- issued an unusual statement declaring that the Post had it all wrong. According to them, the analysis of lobbyist donations to Kerry while he was a senator “paints an inaccurate picture using an arbitrary statistic” – focusing simply on the fact that he accepts contributions from lobbyists. Well, it sounded bad – according to the Post, in his 19-year Senate career, Kerry has received $640,000 from lobbyists – more than any other senator over the past 15 years.

But the reformers say such a number is misleading – what matters much more is PAC money. The reformers’ analysis is must-reading for alert citizens and fans of high-quality journalism alike. “A more accurate indicator of whether a candidate has ties to special interests is whether that candidate receives political action committee (PAC) as well as lobbyist money, and if so, how much. An analysis of PAC and lobbying contributions combined shows Kerry is near the bottom in receiving such funds when PAC money is averaged from 1993 through the present and lobbyist money is averaged from 1990 through present. Further, the lobbyist money that Kerry has taken in the presidential campaign is less than 1 percent of his total money raised.”

Whew! But there’s more. “Not only has Kerry historically refused to take PAC money, but his record shows that he been a leader for more than a decade in full reform of campaign financing, advocating for clean public money not only for presidential but also congressional campaigns.”

Okay, this seems a legitimate argument against the line the Post put out. But how much attention did it get compared to the Post’s story?

Presumably, anything the Post writes during the presidential election has a kind of snowball effect with other news organizations who look to the Times and Post for guidance on coverage and interpretation. But what about the reformists’ rebuttal?

I did a database search of news articles, using the words “John Kerry” and “Common Cause” and got a grand total of ONE brief item – from the insiderish National Journal. Presumably, the rest of the media didn’t want to write about a criticism of a member of the media, in part because the whole thing would reek of “inside baseball.”

Yet the Post’s depiction of Kerry as tainted presumably gets treated as a story, or at least becomes a not-very-subtle influence on what other campaign reporters write and editorial pages mull. I’ll leave it to the political scientists to prove or disprove this scientifically. For me, the whole thing is common sense. And it confirms an excessive willingness by many in the media to show neutrality by giving all candidates a hard time – even when they don’t equally deserve it.

Final word on this goes to the campaign finance reformers: “Dean and..Edwards also have endorsed campaign finance reform. Dean has
endorsed public financing and reform of the presidential public funding
system. Edwards played a leadership role in the effort to pass the
McCain-Feingold bill and has endorsed reform of the presidential public
funding system. President Bush has not endorsed either. [Itals added]”

Um, Post, isn’t THAT your story? Less sexy, to be sure, and less surprising. But a lot more significant.


- posted by Russ @ 3:14 PM

THE MYSTERY OF THE BUSH CAMPAIGN PLANK

Let me make sure I have this right:

First, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then there weren’t. First, the US was going to go it alone without UN help, now it isn’t. First, the US opposed real elections in Iraq, now it doesn’t.

The latest: Iraqi security forces were well-equipped to take over security – and now they aren’t. After Saturday’s bloody raid on the Fallujah police station, in which 23 Iraqi policemen were killed and many prisoners released, officials – including US grand wizard Paul Bremer – now admit that there’s no way locals will be ready to take over by July 1. Yet US forces are pulling back and expecting Iraqi forces to go out on the incredibly dangerous patrols.

In Afghanistan, the administration is now talking about delaying planned June elections because of instability in parts of the country.

The Bush Administration, faced with a stinker of an economic situation, plans to run on a national defense foreign policy plank. But how’s it going to do that? Can anyone name any significant claim that turned out to be true from this gang that definitely can’t shoot straight?

- posted by Russ @ 5:09 AM

I hate to say ‘I told you so’, but I told you so. Reading the NYT frontpager Sunday about the problems with Colin Powell’s credibility concerning his statements about Iraqi WMD almost exactly a year ago, I was a little astonished that this is being treated as a revelation.

Here's The Times:

"Mr. Powell's testimony… was widely seen as the most powerful and persuasive presentation of the Bush administration's case that Iraq was bristling with horrific weapons. His reputation for caution and care gave it added credibility. A year later, some of the statements made by Mr. Powell have been confirmed, but many of his gravest findings have been upended by David A. Kay, who until Jan. 23 was Washington's chief weapons inspector."

Well, pardon me, but I know a crock when I almost step in one. For another viewpoint from those days when everyone was so enamored of Secretary Powell’s credibility, you can look at a handful of critiques. I can’t put my hand on the others, but I happen to have handy one I wrote back then for In These Times . By way of example, I reviewed electronic intercepts of Iraqi officers allegedly discussing how to hide WMD’s, which Powell presented to a largely adulatory audience, including many in the media. It was patently obvious to anyone who bothered to read the so-called ‘proof’ itself that there was nothing to Powell’s material. But see for yourself.

Flash forward. Something wrong with Powell, everyone now says, just as there was something wrong with Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld. So what lesson can we draw from this universal and far too belated mea culpa? It is – and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough – extremely dangerous that so few people in positions of influence or power within the world’s only superpower seem to favor the application of rigorous scrutiny to what is going on…… And who did? Even the so-called pundits and alternative press were largely more focused on predictable anti-Bush criticism than on examining the evidence itself. What this country desperately needs is more honest brokers, players who actually assess material carefully and thoughtfully, and with some degree of disinterest. That’s the message of Ron Suskind’s powerful new book about Paul ONeill, Bush’s former treasury secretary. who was fired for his candor. Ditto with a couple of people in the US foreign service and at least one employee of the British government, who spoke out against what has been going on, and paid the price professionally. Let’s hope more decide to take the kind of risks that could get them fired. It’s only a job, after all – as opposed to a world, and a civilization under threat.

##

- posted by Russ @ 11:50 AM

Pinch me! Am I dreaming or did The Times actually publish new Public Editor Daniel Okrent’s amazing remarks Sunday about the paper’s unwillingness to properly acknowledge the important work of other journalists?

The Times is clearly the best paper one can find, and an inspiration so often. But it misses a lot of good material, and when it does, it usually doesn’t share others’ scoops with its readers. Paradoxically, that means that America’s best-informed newspaper readers are often the worst-informed, compared to, say, readers of online publications and blogs, or of other fine papers like the LA Times, which is generally better about acknowledging others’ work.

Paradoxically, the New York Times’s own reporters and editors know a lot more than their audience, because they read other people’s work. But if they can’t find a way to pass along that material to their readers, then that hugely influential audience of bankers and professors and UN delegates will inevitably be like calves on the way to vealdom – cosseted and half-blind.

Do take a minute to read this magnificent column, and, if you’re so inclined, tell the editors of the paper what you think of it. It’s not easy doing what Okrent is attempting, and he deserves support.

- posted by Russ @ 4:06 PM