November 30
There are a couple pieces of good news on the scandal front.
Michael Scanlon, already cooperating in the investigation of Jack Abramoff's alleged bribery
of congressmen, is also cooperating in the investigation of
Abramoff's purchase of SunCruz Casinos, where knowing where the
bodies are buried might have a more literal meaning. Imagine, a corrupt man getting involved in casinos. Though it's
tempting to see Abramoff as a step toward catching the crooked
congressmen, and he might be, he was nonetheless one of the most powerful
lobbyists in Washington, which means he was one of the most powerful
Republicans. Remember what Wayne Berman said about lobbyists being part of
the Republican institution? Abramoff might be as important as any
congressman. I call this story good news because if he wiggles out
of the bribery investigation, he might go to prison for this casino deal.
The other news you've probably seen because it's been front page news. "Duke" Cunningham has pleaded guilty to bribery charges. This isn't directly connected to the other scandals swirling around Congress at he moment. Some of you may have noticed the word "directly". "Directly", Cunningham got into this one by himself and it appears no other members of Congress are involved. Indirectly, however, this is part of the same arrogance and corruption that has infected the top of the Republican party, and I certainly include Republican members of Congress in "top". This infection has manifested itself in Cunningham's scandal, Abramoff's scandals and however many congressmen get caught up in those, Tom DeLay's multiple ethical lapses, Bill Frist's "blind" trust and his alleged insider trading, and of course in those things that aren't technically illegal like refusing to investigate anything about the Bush administration, and the House resolution they called the "Murtha resolution" when it wasn't John Murtha's and he opposed it. There was the special session for the Shiavo bill to attempt to mandate, not ban but mandate, judicial activism (what else do you call it when courts look into a case that's been judged the same way by 17 courts?). There was the stacking of the House Ethics Committee with dependents of DeLay, the "nuclear option" (coined by Trent Lott, not the Democrats) to kill the filibuster so ethically challenged judicial nominees could be approved, and the demand to investigate the leak of the CIA's secret prisons overseas until they discovered the leak came from the Senate Republicans, at which point the demand was dropped.
What this means is the people who run our government have grown as corrupt as any in US history, and as a history buff, I thought through that statement before writing it, so that's not lightly tossed off hyperbole. I don't propose that keeping public pressure on the prosecutors in the cases under investigation will help because if they're honest, they won't be influenced by it, and if they're not, there won't be a conviction anyway. What I do suggest is that public pressure might work to get investigations going where none are yet in progress. Even the current crop of Republicans might investigate something if they realize the refusal to investigate is endangering their own political future. Then they might turn on each other like subjects of the Plame investigation leaking whatever damages someone else.
If they can't be persuaded that investigations of theft, embezzlement, bribery, lies, and abuses of power by their own are worthy of investigation, then what an issue for 2006. I can see the litany of uninvestigated scandals being a lovely campaign commercial: election fraud, misrepresentation if intelligence regarding Iraq, obstruction of the 911 commission, the Downing Street memos, use of torture, disappearance of billions of dollars given to contractors in Iraq, refusal to plan for or respond to Hurricane Katrina (beyond just Michael Brown). I'm sure I forgot some things. You can tell me what I left off if you want, but more important, tell your members of Congress you want these things investigated. Tell the news media you want these covered. Tell those running for office that they need to address this.
November 26
I asked readers to contact some media outlet and ask why they hadn't carried the Al-Jazeera bombing and 9/21/01 PDB story. I just wrote to the St. Paul Pioneer Press asking that question. Just to be as sure as possible, I checked their web site before writing to them. I expect my letter is too long to get published as a letter to the editor, but I don't care if it's published, because I want them to think about whether they were right to not publish these stories. I mentioned that I searched the web site in case I didn't see the print edition the day it was published, and that i searched right before writing. I explained why I thought the stories were important, and I compared them to the Downing Street memo. I suggest to readers similar points in letters to other media outlets, though please check that they didn't already cover the stories and you missed them.
I am pleased to report that the other Twin Cities daily, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, did carry an AP story on the near bombing of Al-Jazeera, and a request from a Labour MP for the government to release the leaked document.
November 25
Following up from Tuesday, when I asked if the media would pick up the story about the 9/21/2001 PDB, and from yesterday, when I asked the same about the story Bush considered bombing al-Jazeera:
The al-Jazeera story has been picked up pretty well in mainstream media (maybe I should mention that mainstream media, often shortened to "MSM", refers to the news media generally regarded as trying to be objective and operating on a somewhat large scale, as opposed to blogs, talk radio, or media with a point of view like The Washington Times or Air America, and for the moment I'm excluding foreign media). NPR ran a story Day to Day today. interviewer Madeleine Brand must be on top of things because she asked the same questions I did (pardon me while I ice my arm after patting myself on the back). The story made it to CNN, which I found through Netscape news. I searched on the Star Tribune site and found an AP story. However, the other Twin Cities daily, the Pioneer Press, has not carried it. I give the Twin Cities dailies such importance for the purely parochial reason that I live here, and I buy one or the other's print version every day.
I wish I could say the same about the 9/21/2001 PDB, which I actually think is the bigger story since Bush didn't bomb al-Jazeera, but he did tell the country Saddam was closely tied to al-Qaida after he was allegedly told point blank there was no connection. Unfortunately this story is much harder to find. The Pioneer Press has again not said boo, and in the Star Tribune, the only reference has been a letter to the editor. In the national media, the only place I've seen the story is MSNBC. Keith Olbermann, the host of Countdown, easily the most incisive host on the cable news channels (without him, the story of the alleged fraud in last year's presidential election would have been ignored by the MSM), had a segment on his show Tuesday. An article on MSNBC includes the Bush quote in October 2002 that the US had "learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and gas." Since there was never any evidence of that, we must conclude it was made up. In other words, he was lying. The main point I'm making here however is that this huge story has been ignored just like the Downing Street memos and election fraud were ignored. So again, I suggest to readers that you contact some media outlet that has not covered this story and ask why not.
Sam Alito is promising senators that despite his criticism of Supreme Court decisions making one-man one-vote the principle behind legislative redistricting, he accepts it now. The White House and Republican senators are trying to convince us Alito has seen the light on this one, and apparently they accept it too. Good. Having now accepted this principle, just what is the defense for the Electoral College? It's the one remaining part of our electoral system where one-man one-vote does not apply. If it isn't a universal principle, then why not assign each state seats in the House by a random drawing? If it isn't a universal principle, just what was wrong with the way it used to be done, where some state legislators represented several times as many people as others? If the rural voter doesn't deserve more representation than the urban voter in the House of Representatives and state legislatures, why do they get more to say about the president? Yes I know, it's in the Constitution. That doesn't mean it was a good idea and even if it was at the beginning, that doesn't make it a good idea now. A platform for election reform needs to include an amendment for direct popular election of the president. I've argued the case for abolition at length before and won't repeat it here, but I do want to bring it up since it's been forgotten.
November 24
Two days after I wondered if the story about the September 21, 2001 PDB (presidential daily briefing) would get picked up by the mainstream media faster than the Downing Street memo story (so far it hasn't), here's another story in that vein. That is, another story that is potentially explosive (you'll see why that's a pun that needs excusing) and makes the acting president look very bad. Two days ago, the Daily Mirror reported that a leaked British memo says Blair had to talk Bush out of bombing the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Doha, Qatar. Though I linked to the original story, I heard it elsewhere, I think an AP (Associated Press) story, I don't recall where. However, in conversations with reasonably aware people it wasn't heard about. So here's another story where I suggest to readers that we check to see if media outlets have reported it and if they haven't, ask them why. This insistence that an important story get covered worked not just with the Downing Street memo, but the more astute among you may recall that the stories of the fraud in the 2004 election was ignored until we shouted enough about it.
If I may address a small detail, namely, what the story means:
We all have bad ideas we get talked out of before putting them into action. To blame Bush for bombing al-Jazeera when he didn't would be like giving credence to the defense of the invasion of Iraq which says Clinton believed the same things Bush did. Even if that's true, it's irrelevant because Clinton didn't invade, and neither can we attack Bush for bombing al-Jazeera's headquarters when he didn't. That said, some problems come to mind. First, how scary that Bush had to be talked out of it. A passing thought when Al-Jazeera ran a story Bush disliked, sure; but serious consideration --- ouch.
The second problem is that Bush supporters (or any American since we have to live with this guy as president) won't want to believe the story is right, but if it isn't, why has the British government come down so hard on The Daily Mirror, threatening them with the Official Secrets Act? This suggests there is indeed a secret memo saying just what the Mirror says it said. On a related point, one of the Mirror's sources says Bush was kidding, but why would a passing joke be written down and made "top secret"?
The third problem is why the story is readily believable. US forces attacked al-Jazeera HQ in Kabul, presumably accidentally. Same again in Baghdad where Abu Dhabi TV was also bombed. There have been other incidents during the war where US forces killed journalists, each individually looking accidental. So many accidents (note I did not put quotes around "accidents") lead to suspicion the armed forces have a strong dislike for journalists. Indeed, they have a reputation for despising journalists though accusing them of deliberate killings seems like a stretch. Nonetheless, to foreign journalists, especially Arab journalists, it might not seem a stretch. If you start from the point of view that the Bush administration holds your life cheap, and considers your TV channel an enemy, and you've been hit a bunch of times already, maybe you can believe Bush would bomb your HQ. As an American, I have to admit that an administration that stole elections to get into office, launched an aggressive war on false pretenses, let cronies loot both the US and Iraqi treasuries, imprisoned people without charge or trial, and practices torture (sadly, I put that in the present tense), would be quite capable of bombing a foreign TV channel.
So having established the charge is unproven but believable and with probable cause, the right thing to do is release that memo. If the story is false, then show us. If they keep it secret, that answers that question, just like the refusal to release the September 21, 2001 PDB. Unlike the latter secret document, which might prove Bush deliberately misled us about Iraq, there's no crime in having considered a criminal act and decided against it. However, we have the right to know if we have a "president" who would seriously consider bombing media outlets.
November 22
I've suspected ever since the first Downing Street memo came out that there must be an American version. Well what do you know, it might have been found, if the anonymous sources are right. According to Murray Waas writing in The National Journal, Bush was told in a briefing ten days after 911 that definitely Saddam was not involved. I say "if" because I've learned to be wary of anonymous sources because while they can be Deep Throat exposing big time crime, they can also be lackeys of the acting president spreading lies to stenographers posing as reporters. If I'm going to skeptical of anonymous sources making Bush's case, honesty requires being careful of those which might be blowing the whistle. That's a long justification for using the word "if" to describe something I suspected existed and sure seems to seal the case that the case for Iraq War II was a deliberate lie. So pardon me if I'm careful about something that seems very convenient for anyone of my point of view.
The caveat made, let's think about the ramifications of this if it proves true.
- It proves that when Bush admitted Iraq wasn't involved in 911 but claims he didn't know until after the invasion, he lied.
- It gives strength to the counterargument that Saddam thought Al Qaida was a threat, not a potential ally, which so far has been based on the logic of Al Qaida's hate for secular regimes in the Muslim world.
- Not that the argument that the Democrats had the same evidence as Bush hadn't been debunked already, but this by itself disproves it since it's new to everyone except Bush and his inner circle.
- The argument that the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation produced a bipartisan report that said evidence wasn't faked didn't make sense anyway (the committee didn't even investigate the use of intelligence, that's why the Democrats took the Senate into closed session to get that part started) but the fact the committee didn't have this makes such an assertion worthless.
- The fact it hasn't been disclosed despite the request of members of the committee, and that it was never shown to the 911 commission when this was exactly the sort of document they were supposed to be shown (it was after 911, but showed what the administration knew about the attacks) means that Bush engaged in a coverup.
- For many Americans, impeachment will become a lot more thinkable. This could be the smoking gun proof the administration lied to trick the country into supporting a war.
November 19
Rep. John Murtha must have loved it yesterday when he was called a coward on the House floor. After all, referring to criticism from chickenhawks of veterans who oppose the war in Iraq, he said, "I like guys that never been there that criticize us that been there. I like that. I like guys that got five deferments, and never been there, and sent people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what need to be done". Oh wait, maybe he was being sarcastic. In that case, he probably hated it when Jean Schmidt, R-OH, not only called him coward but hid behind someone else to do it:
"A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bop, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."Here's video.
Getting less attention is this subtly deceptive remark by Speaker Hastert, "We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will not retreat." Can you spot the deception? It's the word "Afghanistan". Nobody called for retreat from Afghanistan. He's trying to tie them together like they're the same conflict, and make it look like opponents of the Iraq war oppose Afghanistan too.
I'm glad the House Democrats got worked up about it. Grassroots Democrats have been yelling for Many years about the insults and smears hurled at Democrats and liberal by the Republicans and our leadership just took it and took it, and kept trying to be the reasonable moderate ones long after the people who voted them in saw the republicans were less statesmen and more like schoolyard bullies in their attitudes. Lately they seem to be finding backbone. The Republicans and their propagandists will yelp like child bullies do when someone finally stands up to them. They will act like the injured party and wonder how the Democrats will sink so low. So what. There's no working with the current crop of Republican leaders. They have to be removed, and let us hope the next generation is more reasonable. If we can succeed in gaiing contgrol of Congress, the explanation will be "It's the arrogance, stupid."
Here's an excerpt from Murtha's press conference that brought this swiftboating upon him:
"I had one other kid lost both of his hands, blinded. I was praising him saying how proud we were of him and how much we appreciated his service to the country. 'Anything I can do for you?' His mother said, "Get him a Purple Heart.' 'What do you mean get him a Purple Heart?' He had been wounded in taking care of bomblets, bomblets that they drop, that they have to dismantle. He had been wounded and lost both his hands. The kid behind him was killed. His mother said because they were friendly bomblets they wouldn't give him a Purple Heart. I met with the commandant. I said, 'If you don't give him a Purple Heart I'll give him one of mine. [Murtha won two during his service]. And they gave him a Purple Heart. Let me tell you something. We are charged, congress is charged, with sending our sons and daughters into battle, and it's our repsonsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I'm speaking out. Our military has done everything that has been asked of them. The US cannot achieve anything else in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home."
