I was going to post a rant about the fluidity of American morality after being disgused by Dennis Miller whining at guest Eric Alterman about how it was really okay that Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds when he was our friend, because Iran 'was a bigger threat,' as if that would ever make gassing ANYONE okay... And then I got annoyed by the run-on-sentence nature of it all...
But then I decided to post something lighthearted instead. So here it is: "Charlie McCarthy Hearings" by Maureen Dowd. (04/01/04 NYTimes). Favorite line: "The President at all times, even on trips to the men's room, will be accompanied by the Vice President."
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
The Iraqi press should be free... but not TOO free. (sfgate.com photo - see sfgate article for more.)
Another sad day without peace and security in Iraq
Just before my afternoon meeting I listened to the first half of 60 Minutes (cbsnews.com), where there was an extensive discussion of today's deaths of 4 civilians in Fallujah. (5 soldiers were also killed elsewhere.) They were killed with grenades and, quite appallingly, had their remains dragged through town. One correspondent discussed all the possible things civilians could have been doing for the Iraqi people, like supplying electricity or running water... but not what these particular civilians were actually doing.
According Five U.S. troops, four American. civilians die in day of 'horrific' violence in Iraq, by Robert Burns (sfgate.com/AP), there is information that the "civilians" were former military personnel providing [armed] security services for the military.
I noticed this odd omission from the 60 Minutes reporting because a friend of mine has pointed out that "private contractors" or "civilian contractors" in many cases actually means "mercenaries" employed by private, for-profit armies.
They're good "civilian contractors" if they're working for us; they may be bad "foreign fighters" if they're working for others.
Right before I turned my radio off, it finally came it up: one of the hostesses asked why these "civilians" had DOD-issued dog tags, and the answer was that most of these "civilian contractors" are former military personnel, and they're functioning in a similar capacity now for the DOD... It may not come up in all reporting of the incident, however. I've now heard several news stories that omitted what role these contractors had, which is somewhat relevant. (It could not justify the treatment of their remains, but it does mean the men were armed foreigners, which makes the situation make slightly more sense.)
[Also see "Occupiers Spend Millions On Private Army of Security Men" by Robert Fisk and Severin Carrell in the Independent UK (truthout.org, 03/28/04) on how mercenaries are acting like, well, mercenaries during their time in Iraq...]
Just before my afternoon meeting I listened to the first half of 60 Minutes (cbsnews.com), where there was an extensive discussion of today's deaths of 4 civilians in Fallujah. (5 soldiers were also killed elsewhere.) They were killed with grenades and, quite appallingly, had their remains dragged through town. One correspondent discussed all the possible things civilians could have been doing for the Iraqi people, like supplying electricity or running water... but not what these particular civilians were actually doing.
According Five U.S. troops, four American. civilians die in day of 'horrific' violence in Iraq, by Robert Burns (sfgate.com/AP), there is information that the "civilians" were former military personnel providing [armed] security services for the military.
Early evidence indicated that the four civilian contractors worked for Blackwater Security Consulting, a company based in Moyock, N.C., the company said in a statement. The company is a security firm that hires former military members from the United States and other countries to provide security training and guard services. In Iraq, the company was hired by the Pentagon to provide security for convoys that delivered food in the Fallujah area, the company statement said.(Similar info is available in this Washington Post article.)
I noticed this odd omission from the 60 Minutes reporting because a friend of mine has pointed out that "private contractors" or "civilian contractors" in many cases actually means "mercenaries" employed by private, for-profit armies.
They're good "civilian contractors" if they're working for us; they may be bad "foreign fighters" if they're working for others.
Right before I turned my radio off, it finally came it up: one of the hostesses asked why these "civilians" had DOD-issued dog tags, and the answer was that most of these "civilian contractors" are former military personnel, and they're functioning in a similar capacity now for the DOD... It may not come up in all reporting of the incident, however. I've now heard several news stories that omitted what role these contractors had, which is somewhat relevant. (It could not justify the treatment of their remains, but it does mean the men were armed foreigners, which makes the situation make slightly more sense.)
[Also see "Occupiers Spend Millions On Private Army of Security Men" by Robert Fisk and Severin Carrell in the Independent UK (truthout.org, 03/28/04) on how mercenaries are acting like, well, mercenaries during their time in Iraq...]
Monday, March 29, 2004
The September 11th Commission hearings and their aftermath (Or, 1000 reasons to read the Washington Post)
I haven't been writing as much as I've been reading and listening to the news of recent weeks as it has unfolded.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States ("the 9-11 Commission") hearings have undoubtedly been THE media feeding frenzy of recent weeks. The hearings have been broadcast live on countless radio stations. Their purpose is to "prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." Mysteriously, the commission was long opposed by the current administration, who has provided various levels of cooperation with the Commission.
Much of the testimony I heard was very polite and professional, with blame cast on no one in particular, and a shared theory that little could have been done to prevent the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center in New York. The testimony was faster paced than I expected, and more educational: one of the questioners pointed out that decision makers seemed to never be presented with more options when presented with likely or possible terrorist facility location intelligence other than a) cruise missiles or b) the Normandy invasion. The questioner wanted to know why there weren't options presented in between. It took a while for the gentleman testifying in response to mention that there were options outside the narrow spectrum of missiles-to-Normandy, which was of concern to me. I was relieved when the idea of sending investigators (overt or covert) to actually visit a site to find out what it was used for eventually came up, but...
[An anti-Clinton opinion piece called 'The Clinton Mindset' by Peter Feaver (washingtonpost.com,03/24/04) actually suggests that the only option available to Clinton was cruise missiles, because the military was so opposed to Clinton's very existence. "A White House that could not prevail over military objections to using ground troops in Kosovo would have had a hard time overcoming institutional military objections." Feaver then blames Clinton for being a weak leader for this predicament, rather than military disloyalty, and insists that this lack of control over the military made us a target, and Bush is better/stronger because he invaded Iraq without a mandate. So the true measure of Presidential success is what you can get away with...]
Eventually, the tone of blamelessness gradually dissolved as past and present government officials suggested that nothing effective could have been done during their own watch, implying fault by others. (BBC)
And then came Richard Clarke, Republican, former Bush Administration counter-terrorism expert, and author of a new book which states that Bush didn't make terrorism an urgent priority. (BBC) (see also Washington Post summary) As with another Republican administration official who criticized Bush's decision making, the Bush Administration has gone bonkers trying to discredit him. In Bush, Clarke and A Shred of Doubt by Richard Cohen (washingtonpost.com, 03/23/04), the oddity of Bush's people so eager to discredit people they chose to work with doesn't add up.
That's a question we're not supposed to ask. Terror experts 'almost quit' in frustration with Bush
by Rupert Cornwell (Independent (UK), 03/25/04) makes the list of allegedly disgruntled employees longer, by reporting "that two veteran CIA counter-terrorism experts were so frustrated in summer 2001 that they considered resigning and making public their fears about an imminent terrorist strike against US targets."
The list of names of those within the Bush Administration who can't agree with its policies is growing. The best summary of this is The Professionals' Revolt by Harold Meyerson (washingtonpost.com, 03/24/04). This is an amazing article on internal rebellion by Republicans, and it names names:
But back to Clarke. Clarke's testimony and recent interviews are fascinating. In this Fresh Air interview (npr.org, 03/24/04), Clarke reveals that when he turned in his 9/11 report that blamed Al Qaeda but not Saddam Hussein, his memo cleared with CIA and FBI, but Bush's people returned it with a variation of 'wrong answer - do it again.' Clarke notes that the three major concerns of the outgoing Clinton intelligence personnel (Al Qaeda, the Arab-Israel Peace Process, and North Korea) appeared to become the lowest priorities of the Bush Administration, which fuels the perception that Bush's people had such a reactionary aversion to Clinton's administration and its ideas that it couldn't objectively look at the available information. (Great conceptual statement: 'There are more police in Manhattan than there are troops that the US put in Afghanistan.' I guess that shows how concerned we STILL are about terrorism there!)
Attempts to discredit Clarke are in full swing. But with a catch: Clarke's former boss, Condoleezza Rice, has been attempting to discredit his testimony while refusing to publicly testify herself. Rice's attempts to point to inconsistencies in Clarke's testimony has only called attention to her statements which conflict with those of her Bush Administration peers. (washingtonpost.com)
Perhaps that is why Condi looks SO VERY ANGRY in this photo. (Time magazine cover illustrating this BBC article)...
*
The problem that has become apparent to me is that nothing substantive that our government does has changed for the better in the wake of the WTC attacks. THAT is really the main point of concern for those of us listening to these hearings, and the point of the commission. The Bush Administration may want mileage out of posturing as a protector of the nation, but we do NOT need posturing: we need a real plan, and people who are willing to put safety and security above their own geopolitical agendas. If that isn't happening, we need new leadership to MAKE it happen.
I haven't been writing as much as I've been reading and listening to the news of recent weeks as it has unfolded.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States ("the 9-11 Commission") hearings have undoubtedly been THE media feeding frenzy of recent weeks. The hearings have been broadcast live on countless radio stations. Their purpose is to "prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." Mysteriously, the commission was long opposed by the current administration, who has provided various levels of cooperation with the Commission.
Much of the testimony I heard was very polite and professional, with blame cast on no one in particular, and a shared theory that little could have been done to prevent the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center in New York. The testimony was faster paced than I expected, and more educational: one of the questioners pointed out that decision makers seemed to never be presented with more options when presented with likely or possible terrorist facility location intelligence other than a) cruise missiles or b) the Normandy invasion. The questioner wanted to know why there weren't options presented in between. It took a while for the gentleman testifying in response to mention that there were options outside the narrow spectrum of missiles-to-Normandy, which was of concern to me. I was relieved when the idea of sending investigators (overt or covert) to actually visit a site to find out what it was used for eventually came up, but...
[An anti-Clinton opinion piece called 'The Clinton Mindset' by Peter Feaver (washingtonpost.com,03/24/04) actually suggests that the only option available to Clinton was cruise missiles, because the military was so opposed to Clinton's very existence. "A White House that could not prevail over military objections to using ground troops in Kosovo would have had a hard time overcoming institutional military objections." Feaver then blames Clinton for being a weak leader for this predicament, rather than military disloyalty, and insists that this lack of control over the military made us a target, and Bush is better/stronger because he invaded Iraq without a mandate. So the true measure of Presidential success is what you can get away with...]
Eventually, the tone of blamelessness gradually dissolved as past and present government officials suggested that nothing effective could have been done during their own watch, implying fault by others. (BBC)
And then came Richard Clarke, Republican, former Bush Administration counter-terrorism expert, and author of a new book which states that Bush didn't make terrorism an urgent priority. (BBC) (see also Washington Post summary) As with another Republican administration official who criticized Bush's decision making, the Bush Administration has gone bonkers trying to discredit him. In Bush, Clarke and A Shred of Doubt by Richard Cohen (washingtonpost.com, 03/23/04), the oddity of Bush's people so eager to discredit people they chose to work with doesn't add up.
As with former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, another fool who had somehow risen to become chairman of Alcoa, Clarke's account of his more than two years in the Bush White House was immediately denounced by a host of administration aides, some of whom -- and this is just the sheerest of coincidences -- had once assured us that Iraq was armed to the teeth with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.Why is it that former Bush aides are all telling the same story?
That's a question we're not supposed to ask. Terror experts 'almost quit' in frustration with Bush
by Rupert Cornwell (Independent (UK), 03/25/04) makes the list of allegedly disgruntled employees longer, by reporting "that two veteran CIA counter-terrorism experts were so frustrated in summer 2001 that they considered resigning and making public their fears about an imminent terrorist strike against US targets."
The list of names of those within the Bush Administration who can't agree with its policies is growing. The best summary of this is The Professionals' Revolt by Harold Meyerson (washingtonpost.com, 03/24/04). This is an amazing article on internal rebellion by Republicans, and it names names:
Step back a minute and look at who has left this administration or blown the whistle on it, and why. Clarke enumerates a half-dozen counterterrorism staffers, three of whom were with him in the Situation Room on Sept. 11, who left because they felt the White House was placing too much emphasis on the enemy who didn't attack us, Iraq, and far too little on the enemy who did.If you read any one article about the Bush Administration's internal dynamic, this should be the one.
But that only begins the list. There's Paul O'Neill, whose recent memoir recounts his ongoing and unavailing battle to get the president to take the skyrocketing deficit seriously. There's Christie Todd Whitman, who appears in O'Neill's memoir recalling her own unsuccessful struggles to get the White House to acknowledge the scientific data on environmental problems. There's Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, who told Congress that it would take hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to adequately secure postwar Iraq. There's Richard Foster, the Medicare accountant, who was forbidden by his superiors from giving Congress an accurate assessment of the cost of the administration's new program. All but Foster are now gone, and Foster's sole insurance policy is that Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress were burnt by his muzzling.
But back to Clarke. Clarke's testimony and recent interviews are fascinating. In this Fresh Air interview (npr.org, 03/24/04), Clarke reveals that when he turned in his 9/11 report that blamed Al Qaeda but not Saddam Hussein, his memo cleared with CIA and FBI, but Bush's people returned it with a variation of 'wrong answer - do it again.' Clarke notes that the three major concerns of the outgoing Clinton intelligence personnel (Al Qaeda, the Arab-Israel Peace Process, and North Korea) appeared to become the lowest priorities of the Bush Administration, which fuels the perception that Bush's people had such a reactionary aversion to Clinton's administration and its ideas that it couldn't objectively look at the available information. (Great conceptual statement: 'There are more police in Manhattan than there are troops that the US put in Afghanistan.' I guess that shows how concerned we STILL are about terrorism there!)
Attempts to discredit Clarke are in full swing. But with a catch: Clarke's former boss, Condoleezza Rice, has been attempting to discredit his testimony while refusing to publicly testify herself. Rice's attempts to point to inconsistencies in Clarke's testimony has only called attention to her statements which conflict with those of her Bush Administration peers. (washingtonpost.com)
At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.Rice's appearances on a variety of major media outlets while refusing to provide sworn testimony have attracted more and more attention to these problems. Some of Rice's private comments to the commission may wind up being released as a compromise to ward off even more bad press. (also washingtonpost.com, which has been FABULOUS as a source on this story.)
Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before 9/11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban; the CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats; and Rice's assertion this week that Bush told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.
Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.
Perhaps that is why Condi looks SO VERY ANGRY in this photo. (Time magazine cover illustrating this BBC article)...
*
The problem that has become apparent to me is that nothing substantive that our government does has changed for the better in the wake of the WTC attacks. THAT is really the main point of concern for those of us listening to these hearings, and the point of the commission. The Bush Administration may want mileage out of posturing as a protector of the nation, but we do NOT need posturing: we need a real plan, and people who are willing to put safety and security above their own geopolitical agendas. If that isn't happening, we need new leadership to MAKE it happen.