POST-CLARKE QUESTIONS

Two of the more relevant questions raised by the unfolding Richard Clarke affair:

1. Why did it take a high-level defector confirming what so many credible others already knew and were already asserting, before the Bush Administration really began to face trouble for its Iraq policy?
2. Why has the White House’s constant obstructionism, equivocation and outright lying not been a central issue? Today’s NYT notes, almost in passing, that the White House has had to reverse an earlier claim that President Bush had not spoken with Clarke about Iraq on Sept 12 in the Situation Room (and that he had not, indeed, even been in the Situation Room), as Richard Clarke claimed he had. That’s only the latest in an endless string of deceptions, all carried out without serious repercussions.

In the long run, they may matter more to the Republic than even Clarke’s revelations themselves. At root, they’re troubling reminders of the institutional failure of the nation’s watchdogs to aggressively seek out and publicize larger truths about our government.

##

- posted by Russ @ 8:51 AM

PANDORA’S BOX: NEW THREATS FROM AL QAEDA MULTIPLYING; BUSH INCAPABLE OF HANDLING IT

The news is full of individual new threats from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers. But, taken cumulatively, things look even worse -- much worse.

Among the most recent additions are a Palestinian group that says it is connected with Al Qaeda and is urging Palestinians to get into the act of attacking Americans. And this group, and all Palestinians, are now being urged by Al Qaeda to attack Americans, and, especially, Jews, wherever they can be found.

Also an Algeria-based Al Qaeda sympathizer group is moving south into four Northeast-African countries as what seems to be an Al Qaeda Africa initiative. IN Pakistan, President Musharraf’s dramatically increased use of his army as surrogates for US troops has led to a new call for army officers there to refuse to kill fellow Muslims, and, indeed, to overthrow Musharraf. There are also indications of moves throughout Europe, including not just the Spanish train bombing, but possibly an explosive device disarmed today by French railroad authorities. And there’s more.

No one can doubt any longer that the Bush Administration's unilateral, highly aggressive approach to solving complex international problems has opened an awesomely terrifying Pandora’s Box. That he is incapable of closing that Box, or even of understanding the true awfulness of it, is becoming rapidly more apparent.

Obviously, new American leadership is urgently needed. And so, too, is the convening of a global coalition of reasonable people everywhere, the Middle East significantly included, to hammer out a start at reversing this monstrous tide.

##
- posted by Russ @ 8:56 AM

THE BIG QUESTION FOR 9/11 PANEL

The 9/11 investigative panel is now asking lots of good questions. But the biggest and most important may be this one:

Didn't the administration botch an opportunity to halt terrorism and solidify world opinion behind it during sympathetic days after 9/11?

Strategically, the Bush administration started with what amounted to a tremendous gift -- in that the attacks against WTC and Pentagon afforded a chance to build world consensus on the dangers of radical Islam, and to forge a working relationship with democratic forces worldwide, including in the Islamic world. That’s exactly what the White House did not do, and the Iraq mess massively worsened an already delicate task. As a result, everyone hates the US, and the Al Qaeda threat has multiplied and spread like a virus, fueled by new self-justification. The failure of the administration to reign in the Israelis, evidenced by the Hamas chief assassination and the massive worldwide reaction to it, has again tossed fuel on a raging fire.

It is critically important to advance this simple message. It's one that can help the confused electorate rise above the noise of daily charges and countercharges. Otherwise, there is no real context to statements by Bush Administration officials. And they are surely praying that context does not get the upper hand.

##

- posted by Russ @ 5:19 AM

How much material do Bush’s critics need? They could air a fresh commercial every night with the staggeringly embarrassing material the administration and the Bush campaign dishes out. The failure to capitalize properly on these stunners shows why the Republicans are still king when it comes to winning elections. They always find something to harass their opponents with, even if it is something minor by comparison with their own transgressions – but hammer away at it relentlessly. It’s all about muscle, not logic.

The latest in an endless string of Bush Bloopers that could – and should – generate public discussion is Newsday’s revelation that Bush’s presidential campaign is selling clothing made in Myanmar (formerly Burma) – in complete contravention of Bush’s own policy and words toward that country.

Bush banned products from Myanmar from sale in the U.S. on account of the country’s savage military dictatorship and its affinity for trafficking in women and illegal narcotics. According to Newsday, "the merchandise sold on http://www.georgewbushstore.com/ includes a $49.95 fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo and bearing a label stating it was made in Burma, now Myanmar."

With the Bush administration’s own embargo on Myanmar, with all its talk about why Saddam’s human rights violations warranted an invasion, with its high-profile global campaign against sex-traffickers, and with its zero-tolerance policy on drugs, one would think that this decision to buy campaign merchandise in that country would represent a golden opportunity to question the fundamental falsity of virtually everything emanating from the Oval Office.

Top that off with Bush’s talk about protecting American workers in an environment where thousands of US textile workers have lost jobs to Myanmar, where labor conditions are downright savage. And you’ve got quite a doozy. It hardly matters that the campaign can – and surely will – try to fob the contracting-to-Myanmar “error” off on some hapless underling.

Almost every revelation of this sort is profound, poetic, consequential. It’s a pity that these gifts are not more gratefully received by those in a position to promote them to the fullest extent.

##
- posted by Russ @ 4:27 AM

For the latest installment of That’s Incredible, we have the chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign explicitly lying about George Bush’s war record. Not the usual hair-splitting over whether he had shown up for guard duty. No. Chairman Marc Racicot actually contended that Bush “volunteered to go to Vietnam.”

As noted by the Missoula, Montana, "Independent," during a Feb. 23 interview with National Public Radio’s Juan Williams, Racicot stated: '[President Bush] signed up for dangerous duty. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn't selected to go, but nonetheless served his country very well'.”

Yet two weeks earlier, Bush had admitted the exact opposite to NBC’s Tim Russert, who asked him point-blank, 'Were you in favor of the Vietnam War?' Bush replied: 'I supported my government. I did. And I would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.' Russert then asked: 'But you didn’t volunteer or enlist to go?' And Bush replied: 'No, I didn’t. You’re right.' Bush couldn’t deny the fact that he himself had completed a form and a check-off box requesting he NOT be sent on any overseas assignments.

If so, wouldn’t Racicot know that? And, as campaign chairman, wouldn’t he also know that Bush himself admitted on one of America’s most-watched programs that he had not volunteered? Certainly. That means he deliberately lied.

Why is this important? Because the team surrounding Bush is desperately lashing out at everyone else about everything they can find or invent in order to distract the public from the point that matters most: Not only did Bush not serve, but neither did practically any of the hawks around him, hawks who have now supported two unjustified wars in which huge numbers of others did and will die. Not Cheney. Not Ashcroft. Not Wolfowitz. Not Perle. Oh--- and not Racicot. Not a one of them stepped up to personally do their part for the cause they backed.

- posted by Russ @ 4:07 AM

The Ugly Truth from Guantanamo

Remarkable articles in the British press about the first detainees to be released from Guantanamo Bay. According to accounts given to the Observer and Daily Mirror, these men, who spent two years in custody without being charged with any crime, were exposed to all manner of brutality, harrassment, psychological intimidation, and what can only be described as de facto torture. Is this considered allowable behavior by representatives of the United States, one wonders? Is there to be no accountability whenever matters of national security are invoked? If this passes unremarked-upon within American society, as it well may, what other excesses could be tolerated next?
- posted by Russ @ 2:29 PM

So Al Sharpton is our next mega-commodity.

You may have seen a recent New York Times article about a deal he has signed with the William Morris Agency, and the possibiliities of seeing Big Al as a cable talk show host, major book author, nationally syndicated radio personality, movie star, and... let's see.... can't remember whether he's getting a cooking show and his own lingerie line.

Can we admit that we love to watch him because he is a guilty pleasure -- charming and funny and wacky -- but that he's got a documented lifetime of dubious incidents suggesting that he's bogus in almost every respect? Can we admit that Al Sharpton does not really represent African-Americans? Can we admit that it’s a darned shame he gets the limelight as today’s preeminent spokesperson for what some deem to be a black “viewpoint” -- despite the fact that most African-Americans don't trust the guy and didn't vote for him in the primaries? Can we admit that thousands of supremely qualified African-American leaders cannot get any limelight because Sharpton won't make room, and because no one else seems to care? Can we admit that Sharpton loves the inside way too much for someone claiming to represent perennial outsiders? Can we admit that Al Sharpton has always been about cutting Al Sharpton a good deal?

Today we have both William Morris and John Kerry kowtowing to the man. The world truly is Al Sharpton's oyster.

- posted by Russ @ 11:46 AM

The Bush campaign, armed with massive corporate and special interest campaign funding, is now in a full-scale assault to prevent Democrats from getting on an even footing with their own creative exploitation of campaign finance law loopholes. Liberal moneybags like George Soros have been donating to independent organizations known as 527 committees, which they hope will be able to effectively bring criticisms of Bush’s presidency to the American people through expensive television advertising.

The whys and hows of the Bush assault, which stands a reasonable chance of making the election presentation an incredibly one-sided affair, can be found in an article on TomPaine.com

Democrats hope to keep the 527 channel open through the election. But there’s a better, and more proper, way to maintain a level playing field, and get the truth out to the public. It’s called public participation. Besides the official campaign finance system, which many candidates have opted out from, there’s the private mass appeal.

Taking a page from Howard Dean’s innovative and highly successful web fundraising approach, Democrats might go directly to the people to pay for their message. Get a website, post a selection of clever ads on various issues, recruit celebrities and others with megaphones to get the word out, then ask citizens to choose their favorite vehicles and help get them on the air.

Not only is there nothing wrong with raising massive sums from a massive base, but it is the very stuff of democracy. And there are an awful lot of people out there who can be tapped for $10 at a time. Get those credit cards out, and let’s get this debate going.

- posted by Russ @ 1:36 PM

The Disdain in Spain

On Sunday, Spanish voters gave the boot to their rightist government, vigorously rejecting its role as a devout ally of the Bush Administration in hyping for war with Iraq.

Some surprise was warranted, since Spain had just suffered through the most horrific terrorist bombing in its history, and a vote of solidarity with the tough-talking regime might have been expected. But in refusing to be distracted from the Iraq issue, the Spaniards are the rule, not the exception. In Britain, Australia, Italy and elsewhere, voters are making it clear that a price will be paid for their leaders’ role in the deception and manipulation that undergirded the “coalition” supporting an invasion. Politicians who knew better, or should have known better, are on the ropes for going along with one of the more remarkable fake-outs in recent history.

Which makes the lack of dissent in the United States all the more notable. Americans have historically not hesitated to rise up in indignation over perceived mistreatment at the hands of authority -- from the Boston Tea Party to the recent recall of California Governor Gray Davis. Yet, with the exception of a vocal minority, they cannot seem to get exercised by the vast mountain of evidence on the Iraq Falsity -- no matter the cost, the number of dead, the levels of duplicity and cynicism documented.

Foreigners are mystified. They know that Americans have historically taken longer to wake up from their isolationist, self-absorbed slumber, but still expect them to do so, and to produce a wondrous roar. The question is, when might the world hear that sound?

##
- posted by Russ @ 1:29 PM