Lee Smith shows neocon naivete
November 15
It's amazing a neocon like Lee Smith can call anyone else naive, but his logic follows once you see the premise. Look at this article calling for continued support of Pervez Musharraf with the assumption that the US can and should decide who should govern other countries, and therefore foreign policy success can be achieved by picking the right rulers for other people. Using this premise, it suddenly makes sense the shah could have been saved if only the US had wanted to save him regardless of what the Iranians did, and that Sadat was assassinated only because the shah fell, and not because of Egyptian internal politics.
The most amazing statement was this: "Remarkably, Rice is compromising Musharraf's only sources of political legitimacy ---U.S. support and his status as a military man. Maybe she believes that the general should surrender his sidearm as well." Only a fool refuses to see that his military status and image as an American tool are exactly what makes him illegitimate. As usual, the neocon has reality reversed, which explains their foreign policy record so far. Surrender his sidearm? Interesting question, because it's a symbol of how Musharraf holds power only by sheer force. Once again, we're backing a bad guy because he's OUR bad guy, as if that doesn't make it worse in the eyes of his people. When he inevitably falls, probably to the Islamists because he's suppressed the democratic secular opposition, neocons like Smith will of course say it was because the US didn't back him sturdily enough.
Senate candidate forum November 27
November 14
For those of you in Minnesota, my state senate district DFL is hosting a forum for DFL candidates for Senate. It will be on Tuesday November 27 at 7 PM at Roosevelt High School in south Minneapolis. For those of you wondering how these things happen, there is no network or news channel, no Tim Russert trying to give every question to Hillary Clinton. A group of us, all volunteers, are running it by committee, and more volunteers will help on the day. It's a chance to hear from the four candidates seeking the DFL endorsement to challenge Sen. Norm Coleman: Al Franken, Jim Cohen, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, and Mike Ciresi. The moderator is the state party chairman, Brian Melendez. Admission is free, though we'll have a donations bucket if anyone would like to help us recoup costs.
I think it noteworthy, for those who think a big party is inaccessible, that this is being done by volunteers who got into the position of hosting the eventual candidate for Senate by essentially sticking up our hands and saying "I'll do it." For those of you alienated from the process, taking over you local party really isn't tough. Just show up and you're halfway there.
I did miss some things about the State Dept.
November 14
I was right that I missed some things in Monday's brief catalog of the scandals besetting the State Department. The most obvious thing is probably the backlog with the processing of passports, followed now by overcharging for fees. I don't want to dismiss mismanagement. After all, the Bush administration's routine incompetence by loyal appointees with little to recommend them except their loyalty is a major factor dragging down the Republican Party, and showing what happens when government is run by conservative principles. I'm sure the passport backlog was nothing minor to someone whose travel plans were ruined by the inability to get a passport. I'm just saying it doesn't rile me as much as corruption, like cronyism as a basis for awarding contracts, or punishing whistle blowers instead of investigating their charges. I might even put mismanagement behind obviously dishonest statements by the secretary herself.
I'm thinking of her recent statement to the House committee on oversight and government reform regarding the lack of oversight of contractors, specifically Blackwater: "I certainly regret we did not have the kind of oversight I would have insisted upon." Well, isn't that nice. Too bad Secretary of State Rice doesn't have some authority, like being Secretary of State. Seriously, look at her distancing language. "Regret" is diplomatese for something disapproved of, generally used by someone in no way responsible for what happened, but merely disapproving. "Would have insisted upon..." if what? She's implying either she didn't know (which begs the question of why when her contractors are killing people), there was nothing she could do, or nothing anyone could have done. She could have said "ought to have insisted upon," "wish I had insisted upon," even "will henceforth insist upon." It's a reflex for her to dodge. If statements seem like a small thing, I suggest that Congress and the media turned against Gonzales mostly in reaction to his dishonest statements in press conferences and hearings. The spectator at one hearing who kept count of his 70+ I-don't-recalls might have done as much as anyone to bring him down. Rice tends to talk herself into messes less than Gonzales, but maybe enough.
Just to join two scandals, it came out in today's testimony by State Inspector General Howard Krongard that his brother sits on an advisory board for Blackwater. The brothers have different stories about when the IG knew. Right now it just smells bad. They could easily have honest but different recollections of when they talked and who said what. I find it hard to believe that Blackwater picked the brother of State's IG by pure coincidence, though he joined fairly recently and Blackwater might not have benefitted yet.
I regret putting this at the end ("regret" in the general sense, not diplomatese) but there is an aspect I should mention. Part of the reason so many get up in arms about the Justice Department scandals (I first wrote "got", but they aren't over) is that Justice is supposed to be politically neutral. It's the same reason many get upset when the armed forces appear to have been politicized. These two have roles where the appearance of neutrality is central to their credibility. I don't think the same assumption applies to State, which might prevent State's scandals bringing about the same level of anger. I think it's understood that while State has non-political functions, like handling passport applications or helping Americans overseas caught up in a foreign legal system, it's essentially carrying out political policy. However, if Justice acts with political motives, that undermines the basic concept of rule of law, and if the armed forces take sides, that threatens the very existence of our republic. This is hardly to suggest that everything said above should be disregarded, but to acknowledge I realize this and to put it in it's proper perspective. It may not threaten to shred the Constitution (though State officials lying to the public and Congress does venture into that territory), but it is part of the dysfunction of the federal government and damaging to our interests abroad.
Maybe Rice going down like Gonzales
November 12
Let me first state that Condoleeza Rice is not the same person as Alberto Gonzales. They ran different departments, and the big difference is they have different names. Otherwise, one could be forgiven for confusing two incompetent criminal sycophants. Oh, one other difference: Gonzales has been forced from office as his department turned out to have one scandal after another, all from some alert people at TPMMuckraker noticing eight US attorneys (USAs) departed at the same time. Rice is still there, though perhaps this Blackwater scandal is her equivalent of those attorneys being fired.
Rice, along with Gonzales, were the two cabinet appointees at the start of the acting president's second term who were clearly the most noxious. They were the two I begged Senate Democrats to oppose. Now that Torture Boy is gone, it's a hopeful sign that enough scandal can force out even the dearest of Bush's fart catchers. Rice's downfall, if it comes, can be dated to the incident in Nisour Square on September 16 when Blackwater guards fired on nearby vehicles, allegedly without provocation, and killed 17 Iraqis. The investigations, a bit like how the investigations of the sudden resignations of the USAs turned up one thing after another, have been, well, turning up one thing after another. Some stories disappeared into the interior depths of the daily news, and some turned up only because someone started looking, or someone felt they could blow a whistle. Most State Department scandals have involved the security contractors in Iraq, especially Blackwater, though not all. Since Nisour Square, we have learned about or had brought back to our attention:
- A Blackwater contractor wrote State's initial report, with the investigation ended with witnesses uninterviewed and evidence destroyed.
- Many if not most shooting incidents go unreported in violation of the terms of the contracts.
- Blackwater tends to have more incidents than other security contractors.
- A Blackwater employee killed a bodyguard of an Iraqi vice-president, and all that happened was he got fired.
- Blackwater has profited immensely from its ties to the Republican Party to such an extent that it might be better described as paramilitary rather than mercenary, because it sure seems to serve one party.
- The contractor building the Baghdad embassy, First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting, is accused of using slave labor.
- The State inspector general, Howard Krongard, not only didn't dig into this, he's accused of blocking investigations.
- Krongard is also accused of threatening whistleblowers. You know, those people an IG supposedly relies on for tips on wrongdoing.
- State employees are objecting strongly to being sent to a war zone and might be drafted, to coin a word. To those who think they're no different than soldiers who signed up knowing a war might happen --- no they didn't. They're supposed to go to carry out diplomacy, not war.
- When Rice was asked in a recent hearing about the rendition and torture of Canadian citizen Maher Arar, she said, "I am aware of claims that were made." As if there's doubt. The man was seized on false information, held secretly, and imprisoned and tortured for a year in Syria. If only she had shown such skepticism about smoking guns being mushroom clouds.
Kucinich may bring impeachment on Tuesday
November 4
Rep. Dennis Kucinich may try to force the impeachment issue on Tuesday. He's planning to offer a privileged resolution. I found an explanation of this term on a blog called The Influence Peddler. In essence, a House member gives at least two days notice of his intention to give the resolution, and the speaker has to determine if the resolution fits the rule. If she says no, which she presumably will, the member can appeal to the whole House, which votes on whether to debate the resolution. As the Influence Peddler suggests, holding this debate can only help congressional approval ratings. Republicans will hate it, and independents an be unpredictable, but the loss of support in the base is the source of those low ratings, and this will help. For Kucinich's campaign, maybe this will get the talk off his UFO sighting. I'm not optimistic about that, what with Tim Russert ignoring repeated mentions of impeachment to ask Kucinich about the UFO story, but we can hope. Meanwhile, I urge readers to contact their own representatives and tell them to back Kucinich. Most of them are scared silly by impeachment, so let them know we have their backs if they'll show some courage.
Speaking of bad interviewers, look at this interview Kucinich had with Hanna Storm of CBS. It's generated some blogosphere controversy with warnings that Storm is so bad that it's too painful to watch, but I disagree. Not about Storm, who is truly Russertesque in her dumb questions, but it shows Kucinich in a good light in the way he handled her questions. Clearly Storm was trying to draw him into saying the magic word "Ahmadinejad" so the whole story would be about him saying he would meet with the media's current demonized foreign leader. Americans always try to personalize a dispute with another country by making out a leader of that country as a madman who is the greatest enemy we face, and maybe ever have faced, and despite the limits on his power, that's Ahmadinejad right now. Kucinich kept saying he would talk to Iran or anyone to make peace, and she kept repeating the question. She understood his answer, but pretended not to in hopes he'd say the magic word. Good for him for not falling for it. He also was quite prepared for the question about his wife, which was how he felt that his hot wife gets so much attention, and he and gave great answer, again refusing to be baited. He talked about Elizabeth's background, making her out to be a person of impressive credentials in her own right, and when asked how Americans would feel about a foreign born first lady (did Teresa Kerry ever get that question?), she said Americans could use more international perspective. The nutjob right normally gets offended at the idea they have anything to learn from foreigners, but she told it like it is. Oh yes, she refused to show the tongue stud.
Ellison offers bill to ban photo ID requirement for voting
November 1
I've been among those saying I'm dissatisfied with Congress despite the Democratic majority. I've felt that they were actually doing pretty good at the lower agenda items, and though they need to move speedily towards impeachment, they have been investigating the incredible number of scandals that need investigating. However, what I consider the top agenda items have languished, including election reform. That's why I'm glad to highlight this article from the Star Tribune about a bill by my representative, Keith Ellison, to prohibit the requirement of photo IDs to vote. He's correct that this is essentially a poll tax, since it causes people who don't otherwise carry photo IDs to pay whatever it takes just to vote. That's illegal. Even when IDs are free, there's a cost in getting to government offices where IDs can be had, and in getting the required documentation. In the case of Georgia, whose ID law was approved only when DOJ voting section chief John Tanner overruled career employees who ruled it discriminatory, the law required birth certificates which many elderly rural poor have never had, and the DMV, which issued the IDs, had no offices in Atlanta, which is predominately black. Georgia required poor blacks without cars to somehow travel at least nine miles to get an ID. Clearly the purpose of ID laws is to stop poor people from voting. It's not as if there's a real problem of fraudulent voting.
This is part of the election fraud issue which I consider of paramount importance. The requirement of IDs which some people, conveniently in demographic groups which vote Democratic, don't have is part of it, like fraudulent challenges to individual voters, intimidation, fraudulent purging of registration rolls, deliberate dissemination of misinformation, secret recounts, and of course unauditable voting machines. Ellison's bill finally starts to address the issue. Other than the stalled bill on touchscreen voting, nothing has been done. Ellison's bill is based on Minnesota's Id requirements, which worked pretty well, and on our registration laws, which have given us simple registration that I'd put up against any state for efficiency and accuracy, especially registration at the polls which is a big reason we always have the biggest turnout. It wipes out all problems with people thinking they're registered and being wrong or being the victims of someone else's error. If this was implemented nationwide, it would end the use of placebo ballots (what "provisional ballots" should be called), protect against the wrongful purging of registration rolls, and fix the problem when something went wrong with pre-registration, like happened to me and my wife in the 2006 primary, where it appeared the motor-voter law was, shall we say, not fully observed.
While I'm giving this kudo to my congressman, let's not forget the rest of the election fraud agenda (for definition sake, the common usage is "election fraud" when it's committed by those running the elections, and "voting fraud" when committed by individual voters): eliminate paperless voting above all; outlaw attempts to mislead or interfere like jamming phone lines, giving wrong locations of polling places or election days, and caging schemes; end partisan and racial purging of registration rolls; guarantee enough voting machines; replace the electoral college with direct popular vote.
