I'm away for a few days in Atlantic City for the Ultimate Fighting Championship.
Buy it tonight on Pay-Per-View!!! Support what I do!
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Khodorkovsky
The imprisonment of Mikhael Khodorkovsky was a given since the day he was arrested. Lets be clear about this guy: he's an idiot. He may be shrewd in the business sense, but clearly this guy didn't realize what he was up against.
Long story short, Khodorkovsky (and partner Platon Lebedev who will serve the same sentence) made the right connections over the years. They attached themselves to inner circle politicians like Boris Berezovsky, who had the ear of Yeltsin. As the Communist Soviet Union moved slowly towards the more capitalistic Russia Khodorkovsky consistently backed the reformers, who continued to win. I guess he assumed Putin was going to be one of those guys.
Having made money selling computer products, he and his partner moved into the banking industry where they charged high interest rates on hard currency since that's what was needed to build anything in Russia. As time went on the two men were also involved in off-shore banking, and later on they received the rights to purchase a government fertalizer company. Part of the deal during the purchase was to complete future obligations and they never did. In fact, they went to court over it, and it came back to bite them in the ass during this current trial.
As time went on the two men were closer and closer to the inner-circle of Russian politicians who were bent on transforming the economy even more into a capitalist one. As the Russian government engaged in a massive sell off, Khodorkovsky was right there to purchase all of Russia's biggest prizes, i.e., oil and gas.
So while Khodorkovsky certainly made something of himself as a businessman, which was ballsy to begin with, he had a lot of advantages along the way. He eventually bit the hand that fed him by challenging Putin politically.
Khodorkovsky was pushing for further reforms, and using his cash to further opposition parties. He had become so rich he probably believed he was above the law. However, the government knew full well about every deal he made, and every tax he didn't pay. They basically held this over his head, but I guess he assumed (wrongly) he could keep pushing Russia to be a capitalist society. Seeing how beneficial a society like that is when compared to old Russia he probably felt it was the right thing to do. It was also the greedy thing to do.
Many Russians, especially Putin, feel Russia has lost its identity, and that the breakup of the Soviet Union is a huge embarrassment. The further away Russia moves away from its past the further embarrassment in the eyes of Putin. Putin is a leader and doesn't want, or need, some businessman whose goals are so at odds with Russia's history, dictating the direction of the country. That, in my opinion, was Khodorkovsky's fatal mistake.
He now has a decade to think about it, assuming the government lets him live. They killed a lot of businessmen just like him over the years.
Long story short, Khodorkovsky (and partner Platon Lebedev who will serve the same sentence) made the right connections over the years. They attached themselves to inner circle politicians like Boris Berezovsky, who had the ear of Yeltsin. As the Communist Soviet Union moved slowly towards the more capitalistic Russia Khodorkovsky consistently backed the reformers, who continued to win. I guess he assumed Putin was going to be one of those guys.
Having made money selling computer products, he and his partner moved into the banking industry where they charged high interest rates on hard currency since that's what was needed to build anything in Russia. As time went on the two men were also involved in off-shore banking, and later on they received the rights to purchase a government fertalizer company. Part of the deal during the purchase was to complete future obligations and they never did. In fact, they went to court over it, and it came back to bite them in the ass during this current trial.
As time went on the two men were closer and closer to the inner-circle of Russian politicians who were bent on transforming the economy even more into a capitalist one. As the Russian government engaged in a massive sell off, Khodorkovsky was right there to purchase all of Russia's biggest prizes, i.e., oil and gas.
So while Khodorkovsky certainly made something of himself as a businessman, which was ballsy to begin with, he had a lot of advantages along the way. He eventually bit the hand that fed him by challenging Putin politically.
Khodorkovsky was pushing for further reforms, and using his cash to further opposition parties. He had become so rich he probably believed he was above the law. However, the government knew full well about every deal he made, and every tax he didn't pay. They basically held this over his head, but I guess he assumed (wrongly) he could keep pushing Russia to be a capitalist society. Seeing how beneficial a society like that is when compared to old Russia he probably felt it was the right thing to do. It was also the greedy thing to do.
Many Russians, especially Putin, feel Russia has lost its identity, and that the breakup of the Soviet Union is a huge embarrassment. The further away Russia moves away from its past the further embarrassment in the eyes of Putin. Putin is a leader and doesn't want, or need, some businessman whose goals are so at odds with Russia's history, dictating the direction of the country. That, in my opinion, was Khodorkovsky's fatal mistake.
He now has a decade to think about it, assuming the government lets him live. They killed a lot of businessmen just like him over the years.
Not-So-Clandestine
I read Ed Lasky's conservative blog and he remarks that the NYTIMES story about the CIA is "worse than the Plame affair." Of course, this guy, like the rest of them, is an apologist all the way for anything conservatives do, but he's also an idiot.
Simply put if the CIA cannot keep operations secret from the NYTIMES then they're not doing too good a job, right? I mean, afterall, if the Times can uncover all of your secrets I'm sure enemies won't have a tough time doing so as well. I consider what the Times does a favor! The CIA should now be aware they need to do more if they want to remain in the dark.
As to the story itself, I'm against a lot of what the CIA does, and you should be too. The most notable story involving an innocent man, and the rendition the CIA practices is an embarrassing situation. These practices have far reaching affects around the world. It's also just plain wrong.
The United States Government feels it can operate with impunity solely because we are us. The standards we force others to adhere while we do as we please has quietly become a national nightmare. When the US practices things out of the public eye, the nation as a whole bears the brunt of the retaliatory measures, and what results is a further divided country.
I assume the Intelligence Agencies, and current Administration, believe they can do whatever they want because of the examples set by previous administrations. When the United States was a growing power it didn't force people to do this, or that, but rather we led. Now as the sole superpower this administration assumes the world trusts us based on those examples. Because all of these people grew up in a country that was striving to be the best, once we became "the best" it's viewed by our current leaders as a given, and all people should want to be just like us. Therefore, no matter what we do, regardless of how legal, they justify it in their minds because they believe everyone should want to be just like us: Free! Again, these people are the parents of the world. They assume since they were raised during a time of great examples they have capital to work with, passed on by others. They are, of course, spending more than they've earned.
I'm all for openness. I expect the CIA, FBI, and others will conduct secretive operations, and on some level it's necessary, but idiots expect us to turn a blind eye toward these things. If the citizens don't check the government, who will?
Clandestine operations, and extra-governmental operations have led us into some of our worst problems. I'm all for the media uncovering these things. If we can't survive under the rules and laws we've laid out for our country then apparently those things aren't strong enough to keep the nation intact. If that's the case, so be it, but I'd rather go out with integrity as opposed to lies.
Simply put if the CIA cannot keep operations secret from the NYTIMES then they're not doing too good a job, right? I mean, afterall, if the Times can uncover all of your secrets I'm sure enemies won't have a tough time doing so as well. I consider what the Times does a favor! The CIA should now be aware they need to do more if they want to remain in the dark.
As to the story itself, I'm against a lot of what the CIA does, and you should be too. The most notable story involving an innocent man, and the rendition the CIA practices is an embarrassing situation. These practices have far reaching affects around the world. It's also just plain wrong.
The United States Government feels it can operate with impunity solely because we are us. The standards we force others to adhere while we do as we please has quietly become a national nightmare. When the US practices things out of the public eye, the nation as a whole bears the brunt of the retaliatory measures, and what results is a further divided country.
I assume the Intelligence Agencies, and current Administration, believe they can do whatever they want because of the examples set by previous administrations. When the United States was a growing power it didn't force people to do this, or that, but rather we led. Now as the sole superpower this administration assumes the world trusts us based on those examples. Because all of these people grew up in a country that was striving to be the best, once we became "the best" it's viewed by our current leaders as a given, and all people should want to be just like us. Therefore, no matter what we do, regardless of how legal, they justify it in their minds because they believe everyone should want to be just like us: Free! Again, these people are the parents of the world. They assume since they were raised during a time of great examples they have capital to work with, passed on by others. They are, of course, spending more than they've earned.
I'm all for openness. I expect the CIA, FBI, and others will conduct secretive operations, and on some level it's necessary, but idiots expect us to turn a blind eye toward these things. If the citizens don't check the government, who will?
Clandestine operations, and extra-governmental operations have led us into some of our worst problems. I'm all for the media uncovering these things. If we can't survive under the rules and laws we've laid out for our country then apparently those things aren't strong enough to keep the nation intact. If that's the case, so be it, but I'd rather go out with integrity as opposed to lies.
There's No Way
He didn't think it was porn. There's no way he had a clue.
Lets get real here. He couldn't tell you thing one about the story, and I'm sure many of his blockhead constituents couldn't either. They appreciate his stupidity because he's a regular guy, and regular guys probably don't know much about this story outside of "Nixon was a crook."
Without a doubt the first president to not have a clue about the story, or a care in the world to know about it.
Why be surprised by the United States' education slide when the guy sitting on top of the pole is a moron.
WASHINGTON - President Bush said on Wednesday the disclosure that the former No. 2 official at the FBI was Watergate's "Deep Throat" source caught him by surprise and he's anxious to learn more."It's a brand new story for a lot of us?" Think about that statement for a second. It doesn't even make sense. He's either saying he didn't know about the story at all, and others didn't as well, or that this is a new part of the story for everyone who knew the story. Is he part of the "us" that was wondering?
"It's hard for me to judge" whether former deputy FBI Director Mark Felt provided a valuable public service or acted improperly, Bush told reporters.
"A lot of us have always wondered who Deep Throat might have been. And the mystery was solved yesterday."
Felt's revelation that he was the source for The Washington Post's reporting that helped to bring down the presidency of Richard Nixon in the early 1970s "caught me by surprise," Bush said. "It's a brand new story for a lot of us who have been wondering for a long time who he was."
Lets get real here. He couldn't tell you thing one about the story, and I'm sure many of his blockhead constituents couldn't either. They appreciate his stupidity because he's a regular guy, and regular guys probably don't know much about this story outside of "Nixon was a crook."
Without a doubt the first president to not have a clue about the story, or a care in the world to know about it.
Why be surprised by the United States' education slide when the guy sitting on top of the pole is a moron.
Nice
Lucky for him his core constituency doesn't care about blacks:
President Bush refused on Wednesday to budge on his administration's opposition to doubling aid for Africa, a major proposal on the agenda for a summit meeting of industrial nations next month in Scotland.Fear not for he is aware of the issue:
The long-simmering dispute could culminate next week when Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who has advocated the plan, visits Washington in advance of the July session, a meeting of the Group of 8. As host of the meeting, Mr. Blair set the agenda, and he argued during his successful campaign for a third term in office that the world's richest nations had to make a $25 billion increase in support for Africa. But Mr. Bush has been cool to the idea from the start and has resisted making new aid commitments.
Asked Wednesday about the issue, Mr. Bush said, "It doesn't fit our budgetary process."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Wednesday he was concerned about genocide in Sudan's troubled Darfur region but stopped short of offering military involvement beyond the logistical aid Washington now provides. 'This is a serious situation,' Bush said during a meeting at the Oval Office with South African President Thabo Mbeki. 'As you know, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, with my concurrence, declared the situation a genocide.'And with that I'll continue to do as little as possible, unless we discover oil there, then in 20 years people like me will use this genocide to fight a war there.
Sad
When the North Koreans can make statements about our leaders that almost half our country agrees with:
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea called Vice President Dick Cheney a 'bloodthirsty beast' on Thursday, in response to Cheney saying the North's leader Kim Jong-il was irresponsible and ran a police state. 'Cheney is hated as the most cruel monster and bloodthirsty beast, as he has drenched various parts of the world in blood,' a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman was quoted as saying by Pyongyang's official KCNA news agency.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
HealthCare
This is a conversation between two friends of mine. I hope they don't mind me posting it here, but I've removed their names just in case.
And get this, these are two guys on the high end earning scale with Harvard and Penn educations taboot. Damn elitists!
And get this, these are two guys on the high end earning scale with Harvard and Penn educations taboot. Damn elitists!
Harvard Guy
18 Posts
Posted - 06/01/2005 : 6:06:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologize for the "homework" but this post is a great single source to get up to speed on the state of the healthcare systems in the US and the world.
Hard to believe that the US spends 15% of GDP and we can't insure all of our citizens (millions of CHILDREN without access). We also don't rank all that high on life expectancy. The irony is the amount in the % GDP our government spends on healthcare (not including private sector expenditures), is about what the others spend on total healthcare with the same or better health outcomes.
France's system seems about right. We'll have to rename it though: FreedomCareUSA
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/health_of_nations/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvard Guy
Posted - 06/01/2005 : 7:33:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the cost of healthcare...I found my recent personal experience astonishing.
I had an issue with my appendix bursting, which required surgery and 10-days in the hospital. The billed expenses for all my medical care came to $109,222 (with the bulk coming from hospital costs: $87,891 not including surgery, doctor's visits or fees or radiology -- but including drugs -- lots of drugs!).
Of the $109,222 only $38,109 was actually paid to the healthcare providers. The rest was written off due to negotiated rates between the insurance company and the doctors/hospital. Because I have good coverage, I was only personally responsible for $1300 -- just over 1% of my total costs incurred.
The irony is that because I have a good job and money, I only had to pay $1300. If I didn't have good coverage I would have been responsible for a lot more -- possibly over $100,000 (much more than what my insurance company paid!). Most people without health insurance don't likely have an extra 100-grand sitting around. More likely, I wouldn't have been eligble for treatment where I went and I wouldn't have gotten as good care as I did. Instead of getting laproscopic surgery, I might have been cut open -- which would have required a recovery time possibly 3 times longer than what I dealt with -- and 3 times more hospital fees.
I'm glad I have good health insurance and I encourage you all to have the same.
-Penn Guy
18 Posts
Posted - 06/01/2005 : 9:29:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and just in case one were to respond that it is the malpractice "crisis" that causes problems in the US and those darn "trial lawyers":
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006404.php
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_04/005997.php
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_02/005703.php
Harvard Guy
Great Advice
My friend Josh told me this weekend he buys 2-3 types of socks, same color. This way he never has to worry about losing any, and laundry is so much easier.
Maybe everyone does this, but I think it's some good advice to pass along.
latahs.
Maybe everyone does this, but I think it's some good advice to pass along.
latahs.
Off Air America?
Hmmm...the rumors swirl around Al Franken.
I'll hold off on my judgement of Air America because I certainly have a few things to say, but won't for the time being. What I will say is Al Franken isn't needed, and that's a fact.
Lets put aside what a nice person he is, and all that stuff. It's all true. I pray if he does run for US Senate in Minnesota he puts a Cleveland Steamer right on Norm Coleman's chest. That's a different story.
Franken isn't generating monster ratings, and has essentially been learning on the job. Unfortunately, Franken's show is too, hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for, uhhh, BORING? Yeah, that's it. Boring. Sometimes he's very funny, and it's more than obvious the guy's a borderline genius, but that doesn't mean it's good radio. Yesterday I think I heard an interview with Phil Lesh. I could be wrong, but it sounded just like him. Let me tell you, I LOVE the GRATEFUL DEAD, in fact, I'm listening to them as we speak, and yet I still don't want to hear an interview with Phil Lesh! I want to laugh, be entertained, especially since the politics of America can really get you down.
Sean Hannity is no genius, in fact, he's a fucking moron, yet he manages to pull off what other people believe is good radio. I don't agree, but his audience does, and that's all that matters.
Neil Rogers is a genius, his ratings prove it. Sure, it's getting old, but if you listen to this guy online, or at 560/WQAM in Miami you can see how a guy operates with a leftist ideology, but gets the job done. Personally, I don't think Franken gets it done.
Randi Rhodes, she also gets it done. She's a radio pro all the way. She's great. It's too bad she's not sandwiched by great talent. She had great ratings in Palm Beach, and probably still does, and was positioned right next to Rush Limbaugh. That gets to a point I always make about radio: you need to entertain the people who already listen to the radio, now a specific group of people, or those with a set ideology. Rhodes does that.
If AirAmerica is going to go somewhere it's high time they started getting radio people, and entertainers to do radio. I know, shocking concept, but it's that simple. People laugh at Jerry Springer doing radio on AirAmerica? Please, Springer is going to be amazing. It's not that I think any particular person on AA is bad, I'm just saying Franken isn't that good that if he leaves AA will dive. In fact, it may do better because it will no longer be looked at as the "Al Franken Station."
As for Springer, this guy knows politics, knows entertainment, and knows what the lowest common denominator is all about. If given the tools he will succeed. They need more people like him.
I don't want to do their jobs for them, but if they need me too... ;)
---------------------------
And a note to Liz Winstead, who is supposedly suing AirAmericaRadio. Please, get a grip. Winstead is upset about being outted at AA, but that's life.
If she truly has any desire to see liberal based radio succeed the last thing she should be doing is suing a company that is already cash strapped. Maybe she's so self-absorbed she doesn't care, and that would make her anything but a liberal.
Based on that fact they should throw the case out!!!
I'll hold off on my judgement of Air America because I certainly have a few things to say, but won't for the time being. What I will say is Al Franken isn't needed, and that's a fact.
Lets put aside what a nice person he is, and all that stuff. It's all true. I pray if he does run for US Senate in Minnesota he puts a Cleveland Steamer right on Norm Coleman's chest. That's a different story.
Franken isn't generating monster ratings, and has essentially been learning on the job. Unfortunately, Franken's show is too, hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for, uhhh, BORING? Yeah, that's it. Boring. Sometimes he's very funny, and it's more than obvious the guy's a borderline genius, but that doesn't mean it's good radio. Yesterday I think I heard an interview with Phil Lesh. I could be wrong, but it sounded just like him. Let me tell you, I LOVE the GRATEFUL DEAD, in fact, I'm listening to them as we speak, and yet I still don't want to hear an interview with Phil Lesh! I want to laugh, be entertained, especially since the politics of America can really get you down.
Sean Hannity is no genius, in fact, he's a fucking moron, yet he manages to pull off what other people believe is good radio. I don't agree, but his audience does, and that's all that matters.
Neil Rogers is a genius, his ratings prove it. Sure, it's getting old, but if you listen to this guy online, or at 560/WQAM in Miami you can see how a guy operates with a leftist ideology, but gets the job done. Personally, I don't think Franken gets it done.
Randi Rhodes, she also gets it done. She's a radio pro all the way. She's great. It's too bad she's not sandwiched by great talent. She had great ratings in Palm Beach, and probably still does, and was positioned right next to Rush Limbaugh. That gets to a point I always make about radio: you need to entertain the people who already listen to the radio, now a specific group of people, or those with a set ideology. Rhodes does that.
If AirAmerica is going to go somewhere it's high time they started getting radio people, and entertainers to do radio. I know, shocking concept, but it's that simple. People laugh at Jerry Springer doing radio on AirAmerica? Please, Springer is going to be amazing. It's not that I think any particular person on AA is bad, I'm just saying Franken isn't that good that if he leaves AA will dive. In fact, it may do better because it will no longer be looked at as the "Al Franken Station."
As for Springer, this guy knows politics, knows entertainment, and knows what the lowest common denominator is all about. If given the tools he will succeed. They need more people like him.
I don't want to do their jobs for them, but if they need me too... ;)
---------------------------
And a note to Liz Winstead, who is supposedly suing AirAmericaRadio. Please, get a grip. Winstead is upset about being outted at AA, but that's life.
If she truly has any desire to see liberal based radio succeed the last thing she should be doing is suing a company that is already cash strapped. Maybe she's so self-absorbed she doesn't care, and that would make her anything but a liberal.
Based on that fact they should throw the case out!!!
Bolton
I've basically been ignoring the Bolton for Ambassador story for a while now because I just assumed, like everything else, he'll be nominated, and the United States will continue on the path of the absurd. Things aren't so clear anymore.
Take a look at the NYTIMES story.
Then take a look at what the Left Coaster has to say about it.
What could possibly be the basis for protecting US companies who illegally did business with China, N. Korea, and Libya? What national security secrets could possibly be protected? Of course, there aren't any. No US company, particularly specific individuals, should have access to national security secrets, per se.
The Bush White House doesn't even have an excuse beyond "no" that should allow them to withhold these documents. They are crossing out the names to protect themselves. Hello Dick Cheney?
How excited does a conservative get when a discussion about the UN Oil for Food Scandal makes the news? They want to close the UN down because of it! I would think a conservative should be equally excited about this, no? Then again, conservatives are part of the "Don't Blame America Ever" crowd.
Take a look at the NYTIMES story.
Then take a look at what the Left Coaster has to say about it.
What could possibly be the basis for protecting US companies who illegally did business with China, N. Korea, and Libya? What national security secrets could possibly be protected? Of course, there aren't any. No US company, particularly specific individuals, should have access to national security secrets, per se.
The Bush White House doesn't even have an excuse beyond "no" that should allow them to withhold these documents. They are crossing out the names to protect themselves. Hello Dick Cheney?
How excited does a conservative get when a discussion about the UN Oil for Food Scandal makes the news? They want to close the UN down because of it! I would think a conservative should be equally excited about this, no? Then again, conservatives are part of the "Don't Blame America Ever" crowd.
Mark Felt
I don't have too much to say considering the whole world is saying it, but I do find it humorous to listen to folks like G. Gordon Liddy and Charles Colson when they say Felt is more traitor than hero.
It seems Felt went to Woodward and Bernstein partially because of political backbiting and partially because he was blowing the whistle. Whatever the case, had he went through the supposed proper channels Nixon would have done everything possible to bury this thing, and all his supporters probably would have helped. Not saying he wouldn't have been caught, but they would have tried to protect him.
Because the press is the court of public opinion, at first a lot of people may have become tangled in a net they should not have. Assuming they were innocent they most likely walked. Granted, no one really reads "Corrections" and once your name is tarred it's difficult to clean yourself off, but I'm a lot more comfortable with stories like this not going to the top of the political chain first.
Take the current White House, the most secretive ever, and wonder if they this happened on their watch how going to them first would actually help us get to the bottom of this story. We're still waiting to find out which White House staffer leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press! STILL WAITING! Now take a look at this story here, and ask yourself how much of a good thing it is when the White House controls the message.
Mark Felt may not be the truest of heroes, but he's certainly more heroic than all the people working within the Intelligence agencies, and other fields, who have remained mum about the lies directing this country. When people like Paul O'Neil, Lawrence Lindsay, Jay Garner, or Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told the truth to, and about, this White House they were fired and then ostracized.
Politicians, and those involved, can comment all they want about whether Felt used the right channels, but it seems to me the ones who are commenting that he didn't are the ones who are very happy about the secretive nature of the United States Government. Again, these people believe they are above the law, and don't think what applies to normal Americans should apply to them. They feel they deserve a chance to analyze things they've done wrong before all other Americans do, so they can form a media circus and defense that will trick Americans into thinking what has been done isn't so bad.
Unfortunately, Watergate has made our politicians even sneakier than ever, and helped make people in the media less accountable as every reporter needs to break the next "Gate." Republicans have been on the attack ever since Watergate. It's their revenge for what their man did wrong. Clinton was their total revenge, regardless of how ridiculous it was.
I'm not sure we have a better country because of Watergate, but I'm more satisfied seeing it played out in the open press rather than reading about it after the fact by a deceived and closed press.
It seems Felt went to Woodward and Bernstein partially because of political backbiting and partially because he was blowing the whistle. Whatever the case, had he went through the supposed proper channels Nixon would have done everything possible to bury this thing, and all his supporters probably would have helped. Not saying he wouldn't have been caught, but they would have tried to protect him.
Because the press is the court of public opinion, at first a lot of people may have become tangled in a net they should not have. Assuming they were innocent they most likely walked. Granted, no one really reads "Corrections" and once your name is tarred it's difficult to clean yourself off, but I'm a lot more comfortable with stories like this not going to the top of the political chain first.
Take the current White House, the most secretive ever, and wonder if they this happened on their watch how going to them first would actually help us get to the bottom of this story. We're still waiting to find out which White House staffer leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press! STILL WAITING! Now take a look at this story here, and ask yourself how much of a good thing it is when the White House controls the message.
Mark Felt may not be the truest of heroes, but he's certainly more heroic than all the people working within the Intelligence agencies, and other fields, who have remained mum about the lies directing this country. When people like Paul O'Neil, Lawrence Lindsay, Jay Garner, or Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told the truth to, and about, this White House they were fired and then ostracized.
Politicians, and those involved, can comment all they want about whether Felt used the right channels, but it seems to me the ones who are commenting that he didn't are the ones who are very happy about the secretive nature of the United States Government. Again, these people believe they are above the law, and don't think what applies to normal Americans should apply to them. They feel they deserve a chance to analyze things they've done wrong before all other Americans do, so they can form a media circus and defense that will trick Americans into thinking what has been done isn't so bad.
Unfortunately, Watergate has made our politicians even sneakier than ever, and helped make people in the media less accountable as every reporter needs to break the next "Gate." Republicans have been on the attack ever since Watergate. It's their revenge for what their man did wrong. Clinton was their total revenge, regardless of how ridiculous it was.
I'm not sure we have a better country because of Watergate, but I'm more satisfied seeing it played out in the open press rather than reading about it after the fact by a deceived and closed press.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Dream World
Where Dick Cheney lives:
Cheney said he was more optimistic than he had been at any time in the last for years about the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, citing Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's decision to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.I guess he assumes if he just tells his little stories and anecdotes ignorant Americans will just think he's telling the truth.
Cheney said Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is the ``best hope'' and may be an effective negotiator.
Palestinian militant group Hamas has said it will boycott a partial re-vote of local elections to be held in three districts in the Gaza Strip.Bush Israel Policy: Ignore situation, pray, hope it doesn't get worse for 8 years.
Election officials had ordered a new vote on 1 June after a dispute between Hamas and the mainstream Fatah faction.
The group has withdrawn from the poll despite efforts by Egyptian mediators to bridge the gap between the two.
Hamas won the districts on 4 May, but a court froze the election result after Fatah complained of irregularities.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Discovery
Two newspapers discover a set of balls on the same day.
At the beginning of the Iraq war, Pfc. Jessica Lynch's story was so overspun and distorted as to become ridiculous. In Afghanistan, we now know, Ranger Pat Tillman was mistakenly killed by U.S. soldiers, but the Army seized upon his death to try to create a fighting legend - out of whole cloth. These PR blunders serve neither of those soldiers well. Lies have marked these wars from the beginning, and besides being ultimately self-defeating, they are an affront to all Americans, most especially those whose bravery and sacrifice have gone unheralded.
Hmm
Check out this line for (the) Dick Cheney:
Shouldn't all of the "individuals" be "the enemy?" Is he not admitting there are prisoners being held who are not the enemy? Not guilty? How long will they remain?
Administration in defense mode this week as General Myers pointed out what these terrorists would do:
Gotta love that. Bringin' in the children. I'd say it'd probably be a bad idea to release any supposed terrorist on American soil, and it's pretty unlikely there are any American children in Afghanistan whose throats could be slit. But it sounds real ominous, that I'll give ya.
Hey, I'm not saying most of these people are good peeps, and that some aren't lying, etc., but why in the world would I trust Dick Cheney and General Myers over Amnesty? Amnesty doesn't have a trail of lies relating to the Iraq War. In fact, Amnesty has a history of reporting abuses, the same abuses Dick Cheney used to justify the war in the first place.
He said that many Guantánamo detainees were "individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans," and that some had provided "significant amounts of intelligence" to their interrogators.
Mr. Cheney added, "What we're doing down there has, I think, been done perfectly appropriately."
Shouldn't all of the "individuals" be "the enemy?" Is he not admitting there are prisoners being held who are not the enemy? Not guilty? How long will they remain?
Administration in defense mode this week as General Myers pointed out what these terrorists would do:
Myers said the report was "absolutely irresponsible." He said the United States was doing its best to detain fighters who, if released, "would turn right around and try to slit our throats, slit our children's throats."
Gotta love that. Bringin' in the children. I'd say it'd probably be a bad idea to release any supposed terrorist on American soil, and it's pretty unlikely there are any American children in Afghanistan whose throats could be slit. But it sounds real ominous, that I'll give ya.
Hey, I'm not saying most of these people are good peeps, and that some aren't lying, etc., but why in the world would I trust Dick Cheney and General Myers over Amnesty? Amnesty doesn't have a trail of lies relating to the Iraq War. In fact, Amnesty has a history of reporting abuses, the same abuses Dick Cheney used to justify the war in the first place.
FINALLY!
A newspaper willing to say it!:
Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.
In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.
The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.
At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were right. Both have been pilloried for writing that by summer 2002 Bush had already decided to invade.
Walter Pincus, writing in the Washington Post on May 22, provides further evidence that the administration did, indeed, fix the intelligence on Iraq to fit a policy it had already embraced: invasion and regime change. Just four days before Bush's State of the Union address in January 2003, Pincus writes, the National Security Council staff "put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims" about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. The call went out because the NSC staff believed the case was weak. Moreover, Pincus says, "as the war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs." But no one at high ranks in the administration would listen to them.
On the day before Bush's speech, the CIA's Berlin station chief warned that the source for some of what Bush would say was untrustworthy. Bush said it anyway. He based part of his most important annual speech to the American people on a single, dubious, unnamed source. The source was later found to have fabricated his information.
Also comes word, from the May 19 New York Times, that senior U.S. military leaders are not encouraged about prospects in Iraq. Yes, they think the United States can prevail, but as one said, it may take "many years."
As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
