When Do "Lock-Steps Become "Goose-Steps"?

Answer: when elected Representatives "rubber-stamp" administration's dictates and the self-appointed "guardians of Democracy" (The Press) blindly accepts administration rhetoric as fact.
A democracy functions when skepticism prevails over blind faith and when checks and balances are exercised: tyranny flourishes when they are not.
Everyone has climbed onto the "bandwagon" for a hellacious ride; and no one has an idea as to when or where it will end.
Democracies have been subverted before and can be so again. Our representatives have been blindly following this administration's dictates for the sake of party discipline; afraid to raise legitimate arguments for fear the Party's power will be lessened.
This reticence to question policies does not serve the Party in the long run and does not serve the people well at any time, present or future.

What Rules of Engagement?

What with the new London bombings (July 21) the police are out in force dressed in black uniforms, black leather boots, kevlar helmets and vests, with sub-machine guns at the ready, as well as camo dressed National Guard carrying AR-16's.
Heroes must dress the part I suppose; black is "sexy" and the trappings of heroes must be the latest "thing"; HK sub-machine guns and the like.
What do they expect to confront? The Administration has said in the past that "it is better to fight terrorists over "there" than on our own streets". Do they expect to fight terrorists in gun battles on our own streets? If so what are the "Rules of Engagement" and how do the rules impact on the public? Do the police have "shoot to kill" orders, and if so who? Anyone ethnic-looking carrying a large backpack?
Or must the terrorists blow themselves first before they are shot? Or would carrying an AK-47 or a RPG into a subway suffice?
Does being a "terrorist" make a person more dangerous than your run-of-the-mill gun-toting criminal?
Is the public being served by this armed display or is it an expensive feel-good measure?
There must be a few people out there who are scratching their heads, wondering about our reactions to events taking place abroad.
The terrorists are winning their war of terror despite the remonstrations being made; "we won't be intimidated". We are being intimidated, for when a country spends many billions of dollars, attacks a country because of a non-existent threat, restricts travel, searches everyone's luggage, puts machine-gun carrying troops on the streets and in subways, airports, and when government evacuates its offices because of small planes flying near the Capitol, places Patriot ground to air missiles around the Capitol; that is being intimidated.
Reaction to terrorism by closer scrutiny of those who wish to enter the U.S. is appropriate; checking passengers luggage at airports is appropriate; being watchful and adding more numbers of police at subway stations, airports, and other sensitive points is appropriate, revising and updating security measures at nuclear, chemical, electrical installations is appropriate; educating the public to what the real potential dangers are is appropriate: "over-dress", dressing up for war in peace-time in civilian areas is not appropriate;"hyping" the danger, stressing WMDs, that are not remotely possible, over more likely scenarios is not appropriate; creating a "police-state" atmosphere by taking away Constitutional rights is not appropriate.
No government action should be excluded from public oversight. When governments can operate secretly, without some form of public oversight, abuses will crop up and democracy weakened.
No one knows better than the public what is "right". There are too many self-appointed guardians of democracy, who have in the past, and are doing so today, deciding for "us" what "right" action to take and the subversion of our Democracy is the result: Nixon and Watergate; Reagan and Iran-Contra; Bush and the Iraq War; the outing of Valerie Plame--all are good examples of abuses of power. But, I'm straying from the original theme--rules of engagement.
Our government, local and Federal, have not come clean with the American people. Is all the armament for show, intimidation, or for spraying bullets willy-nilly at bad-guys?
Are civilians expendable; i.e., can cops shoot through civilians to get at bad-guys? When can they shoot--preemptively, or only when shot at first? No one has asked and the people have a right to know. One of those "basic" questions the Press has overlooked.

Rx For Iraq

We shouldn't have gone into Iraq but did. Anyone with half a brain should have known that to do so would be like opening Pandora's Box; no one had a clue of what the consequences would be, how the Arabs in the region would react, and what future relations with them would be. So, now what?
Well, doing what we are doing now is obviously not the answer. So what is? The one thing needed before any progress, politically and economically, can be made is the establishment of security; for the troops and more importantly for the Iraqis. Seems simple enough, so why aren't we doing it? Because politics are taking front stage over good military necessity; like it was in Vietnam.
We are losing credibility fast, as well as any good will we may have had for getting rid of Saddam, because we can't provide security and provide a sense of normalcy for the Iraqis. If the Iraqis were not mad at us before the invasion they are now as more and more Iraqis are dying everyday. So how do we 'solve' the problem?
By biting the bullet; by sending in more troops. We need a minimum of 175,000 to 250,000 troops in Iraq in order to put the "big clamp" on the "insurgents". As it is now we "stamp" out one insurgent redoubt only to have it move to somewhere else, all the while bombs are going off.
Movement needs to be controlled, people identified, and arms caches found and destroyed. That takes lots of troops.
It can be done; the Germans did it in France during WWII. France, in fact, is a good model for putting "The Big Clamp" on a populace.
Every Iraqi citizen needs to be identified, fingerprinted, photographed, and issued an identity card. As a double-check citizens will have to "vouch" for each other as a verification of who they say they are.
The country can then be divided up into regions and districts and people's movement restricted between regions using a travel permit system. The identity system makes it easier to control movement and to spot possible insurgents.
Each region, or province, would have several district offices where records would be kept, travel permits issued, and other bureaucratic duties performed.
Before whole-scale repair of the infrastructure can be implemented security must first be established; this is where some of those troops come in. Since large projects are particularly vulnerable to attack because of the numbers of workers involved and the propaganda potential these sites need added protection. Large numbers of people equals a target of opportunity. For some reason this fact hasn't sunk into the Iraqi or U.S. consciousness. Bombers are still hitting at unprotected gatherings.
Insurgents can strike anywhere and at anytime if allowed to do so. Restricting their movements denies them intelligence as well as opportunities to attack.
All this seems simple to do. Just put in more troops and establish an identity and travel permit system. No it is very difficult to do and the populace wouldn't like it, but what is the alternative? Go on year after year and hope for breaks; that the odds in time might favor the U.S. and it's pro-U.S. Iraqi government?
Our goal in Iraq still has not been defined. What is our definition of "win". Does "win" mean our total withdrawal from Iraq? Or does it mean 100,000 troops scattered about Iraq "unseen" for decades to come? What was and what "is" the goal in Iraq?

Did Osama Shoot His Wad? (cont'd)

Finding terrorists is like trying to corner a blob of mercury; the more you try the smaller and more numerous the blobs become: all we did in Afghanistan was scatter the problem: a great PR move, but it was not very well conceived as a means of eliminating terrorists.
Was the object of the exercise to blow up training facilities or was it to destroy Al Qaeda?
Instead of sending in a large number of troops to surround, engage, and eliminate the terrorists, we sent in missiles and bombs; which are good against installations. but aren't very effective at rounding up terrorists. We went for the "high-tech" and low casualty route, instead of doing it the old fashioned sure way by using large numbers; like dropping in 10,000 airborne and their equipment at strategic spots to surround and eliminate the bad guys.
Developing and proving new military concepts was more important to Rumsfeld and his war planners than doing the job right. The American people are now paying the high price for the ineptitude of our leaders.
The U.S. had the same problem, of ambitious generals, high-tech advocates, bad strategies, and planning, in Vietnam--and the troops paid the price as always.
The Taliban were no threat to speak of to our military; we could have landed an AB division near Kandahar, captured the airfield there, unloaded our equipment, and then dared the Taliban to do something about it. We could have gone anywhere we wanted to in that country; but no, instead we let a rag-tag indigent force do our heavy lifting and they ended up letting Osama and his Al Qaeda thugs slip away to continue to threaten and bomb.
The question I have not heard asked, by the media to the administration, is how will the terrorists attack us in the U.S. and with what? How much danger are we really in?
The experts speak generally about WMDs--nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; which supposedly are capable of killing thousands of people. The Kurds in Iraq are often cited as examples of how terrible WMDs are; and of course the nuclear threat is well known (or is it?); and the pictures of small pox victims are frequently flashed on our TV screens by the media, yet no one has explained in any explicit way the details of how they can be manufacturred by unsophisticated and untrained individuals, how these weapons can be used, and how much of a threat they are.
The question of effectiveness is a pivotal one. A terrorist carrying a germ or chemically filled mortar or artillery shell in a back pack or suit case is unlikely to be much of a threat for a number of reasons--the main one being that he would be noticed right away; and two, such a small number of devices would be hardly effective as WMDs: not much more effective than an regular explosive device of the same weight.
All of these so-called WMDs are "dangerous", but they are designed to be dropped or projected by a weapon, such as a gun or airplane, to be used in large numbers.
No one in the administration has described explicitly how military WMDs were to be used against us in any effective manner. I have heard many "ifs", "coulds", "mights", but no specifics as to what threat the WMDs posed.
Most of the WMDs talked about required great expertise and complex facilities to develop and produce; something that terrorists don't have and countries are not about to give them.
WMD effectiveness is limited because they need to be delivered accurately and conditions at the target must be right; i.e., wind blowing the right direction etc. Another factor is WMD concentration; to be effective chemical and biological weapons must be delivered to their intended victims in sufficient quatities in order to maim or kill. This is very difficult to do using an aerosol can or small portable bomb.
Even more complicated and difficult is making a nuclear bomb. The first two U.S. nuclear bombs were so large and heavy they required a special Boeing B-29 airplanes to carry them. The nuclear bomb a terrorist might construct, if he could refine uranium, would as large, in not larger, than the Hiroshima bomb. Smaller bombs can be made, using about 30 pounds of 90% U-235, but would require expertise and facilities way beyond any average person's capabilities.
You don't hear counter arguments such as these; only the "what-ifs" that support scary scenarios, kind of like kids telling "ghost" stories under the blankets.
Fortunately the "terrorists" are dumber than rocks. They are fair at tacticts but strategic morons. They go for sensationalism and overlook more effective ways of creating fear--our problem is they may wise-up.
The most dangerous WMD is the low-tech paper match. It is one of the most common objects around, and the BIC lighter is not far behind.
The terrorists today are only effective once. They are expendable, to be used once, and then are used up. In the long run this is counter-productive, for the most zealous members annihilate themselves and fervor declines.
The Achilles Heel of the Al Qaeda group is their dependence on the use of explosives. The explosives and bombers identities are important leads and clues, which ultimately will lead to the incident's planners and expediters.
P.S.
I wrote the above just prior to the London bombings and held off posting it for further developments. The bombings do not change anything, in fact support what I have been saying. The bombings do help to clarify the mind-set of the terrorits however There is "glamour" involved in the movement that is being overlooked--glamour on both sides of the conflict in fact. It is a case of "them" against "us"; the "us" being the Arab/Muslim identitiy, which is being "abused" world-wide by "them"; the West. They (and we) see themselves (ourselves) as heroes "righting" wrongs done. They see Kosovo, Chechnia, Serbia, Israel, Iraq as reasons to "punish" the West. We are in Iraq to preserve "Freedom" and democracy and payback somebody for New York.
The bombing points out, while 52 lives lost and horrendous damage done is a tragedy, in real terms the bombing was ineffective. The bombers are dead, to "fight" no more, clues will be found to point to more, they will be eventually caught, and life goes on.
What does that mean to the U.S.? It means we are facing an impotent foe.
England is a much easier target to attack, because of its proximity to the main continent, where borders between the counties are very porous. It is much harder to get to the U.S., despite our open border, because of the distances getting to this continent and it's large land mass.
No, we may sustain a bombing or two, like the London bombing, but in the long run, keeping our cool and being sensibly vigilant, our country is safe.

Did Osama Shoot His Wad?

Everyone, it seems, has commented on how well our Homeland Security apparatus has worked, that there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11.
They seem to have forgotten that seven years had passed between the first World Trade Center bombing and the second (9/11).
A point should be made, the second attack was done by a respectable number of individuals who were well educated and had lived for some time in the West. Another point to make; the "right" combination of suicidal tendencies, intelligence, and sociopathic traits, may be a hard combination to find in the future recruitment of terrorists.
I can see the newspaper ad now--"wanted: individuals who want to commit suicide in a spectacular fashion, can speak English, familiar with American culture, can fly a Boeing 727 or 747 airplane, and are willing to kill a large number of infidels".
Granted Osama's Al Qaeda has found plenty of recruits willing to blow themselves up, but they have been for the most part young and relatively uneducated Jihadists that have a goal of driving an invader from what they consider their holy land. These would be unsuitable for the more sophisticated operations required in the U.S. They would stand out like a "sore-thumb" now that we are aware of the "potential" danger.
So patting ourselves on the back for a job "well-done" is a little premature--we don't know what is happening behind the scenes or what the real reasons for not being attacked are. It is very likely that Osama expended his "resources", having had only one good "bullet" to expend.
Al Qaeda can be compared to a cancerous tumor that has been carelessly removed, but before its removal it had spread "cells" throughout the body, which in time will develop into tumors. The "surgeons" are complimenting themselves on how well the surgery went, however, until the remedy is found, we will be plagued by tumors.
While this is going on we continue to try out complex treatments, rather than cures, that allays our fears; treatments that are as expensive as they are ineffectual; more like slapping a Band-Aid on a major wound.
One "Band-Aid" is field intelligence; i.e., spies on the ground. Spies against a country are one thing, a country is a known targetable target, but spies against a cultural movement is quite something else.
Besides the problem of numbers of spies needed to cover all the trouble spots in the world, finding the right people for the job is an almost impossible task.
The problem is that the "war" is a clash of cultures (with religion being a focal point) not merely a difference in political philosophies. It is not tyranny against Democracy as is often expressed.
Finding intelligence agents that can speak idiomatic Arabic (and other ME languages), knows ME culture and religion, and can travel freely within the targeted Arabic groups (and others), to ferret out their secrets is asking the near impossible. We've tried to compensate by going high tech without a great lot of success.
Recently the U.S. opened up its Terrorist Command Center; it looks appropriately high tech and efficient with all the latest gadgets, which I'm sure will do a good job of collecting, synthesizing, and forwarding any intelligence information that comes in. The problem however is getting the needed and pertinent information; if you don't have agents on the ground, gleaning information from the bad-guys, you really don't have the intelligence needed to process and forward. You don't have the details about brewing plots; you don't know who your enemies are, and where they are. Tapping phones may give up some information, but all you have in most cases are bits and pieces, without history or context. Then you have the problem of interpreters. This lack of detail and specifics makes a high tech Terrorist Command Center more like a "virtual reality" palace; imposing but impotent.
Money works well in espionage but it has failed in the case of Osama bin Laden. The "Coalition" has had a $25 million bounty on both Osama and his partner Al Zarqawi for a number of years now yet no one has stepped forward to claim the reward. Greed is one of the strongest drives in man, yet it hasn't been strong enough to overcome loyalty to cause and persons.
The former CIA Director Tenet said that the U.S. would need at least five years to bring up it's intelligence capabilities to where they need to be. He was more than likely speaking about diplomatic and military intelligence, rather than the more critically needed "field" agents; i.e. spies on the ground, because it will take many more years than that to be where we should be; if it is an attainable goal.
Terrorists, who are groups of tight-knit zealots, are almost impossible to find, and even harder to infiltrate. Look at how difficult it has been to find ELF members in the U.S.; then look at the 1.3 billion Muslims world-wide. The nearly insurmountable task of surveilling them doesn't mean you don't try, but the major successes will come from "friendly" countries, who live and deal with the terrorists on a day to day basis; i.e., Israel, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, France, etc. Our "success" will come from fostering cooperation with these countries, rather than from our own field efforts. (To be continued)

Reasons for Taxing the Rich

One reason I have for advocating taxing the rich is that I am not one of them. Aside from that obvious and selfish reason it makes good sense to "rob" the rich and give to the poor. The reasons for doing so are the same as they were back in Robin Hood's day--the rich then were busy robbing the poor and otherwise keeping them down-trodden, using government goons--the Sheriff and the tax collector.
The Rich have been very successful so far in convincing the masses that it is only fair that the middle-class are the ones to be taxed rather than the Rich. The middle-class have fallen into a tax trap of their own making, one designed for them by the Rich.
A rationale being bandied about by proponents for the Rich is that the Estate (Death) Tax is unfair; because it is a tax on money already taxed. It is not much of an argument. We all pay taxes on things already taxed, as well as paying taxes on taxes; and no one makes a big squawk about the unfairness of that.
Then too, is a Rich person more worthy to receive medical care than a poor person? He or she is if we create a tax system envisioned by the Rich.
Their reasoning is, "why should the Rich pay for medical care for those who cannot afford it?" "It simply is not "fair" to take money from someone and give it to someone else". Yet taxes are now being levied on the lower and middle-class to help subsidize corporations and their CEOs. Is that fair?
Why should someone, who has had all the advantages of "class"; connections, inheritance, fortune, and a good education; have more "health rights" than someone who has been born more or less to poverty, lacks opportunities, fortune, and has a mediocre education? Hasn't taxes been the great societal equalizer, diffusing, at least in appearance, the boundary lines of class and reducing to some extent the tyranny of the Rich?
Then too, I'd argue that the Rich don't seem to mind giving money away--look at all the $100,000 diner donations made to political campaigns. Since it is maintained that there is no "quid pro quo" the money therefore means little to them, why shouldn't they then opt to pay more taxes, to give back some of the "blessings" they have received from our way of life; for where else can you make $30,000 for every dollar invested in politicians? (Kevin Phillips', "Wealth and Democracy")
"Taxing the Rich means less money to invest, and investment is important because it creates jobs". The argument they make, that investing creates (significantly) more jobs, is a bogus one for, from what I've seen, investments end up buying equipment that makes workers more efficient; which means fewer workers are needed to do the same amount of work. Investors are antagonistic to labor, they are "not" going to give labor any more power, by increasing their numbers, than is absolutely necessary.
"Investments" and "jobs" are words often said in the same breath. Investments do not "guarantee" the creation of jobs; in fact an investment may instead result in a manufacturing company obtaining the finances needed to move south of the border, or overseas.
Investments have also been used in the past to buy up and merge large companies; which invariably meant workers would be laid off.
In the Reagan era, as well as now, large companies were bought and their assets sold, than allowed to go bankrupt. This callous strategy created large profits for the major investors, but was a major disaster to the workers, many of whom had worked for the company up to 20 years.
The big corporations do not have any loyalty to their workers, who are often laid off so that their companies will make a big profit. The investor's bottom line is to make that quick buck, regardless of who gets hurt.
Enron brought to light just how the Rich have been getting rich, and richer, by robbing the small investors, pensioners, and even their own employees, by falsifying company earnings, cashing out their stocks before they tanked, and not "expensing" their stock options.
It is estimated that the CEOs of 4500 of our largest corporations engaged in similar schemes, but by being less "greedy", had less impact on their corporation's earnings, thus escaping the wrath of their stockholders and attention from the SEC.
CEOs ae now getting 1000 times the salary of that of the average worker; compare that to their European counter-parts, who make 70 times the average worker. U.S. CEOs salaries are not linked to company performance; that means if a company loses money the CEOs still get their "big bucks". If a worker doesn't "produce" he gets canned. Talk about a "stacked deck"!
However, the people have a choice of whether they want "Corporate Welfare" or "Social Welfare".
If you choose to eliminate "social welfare" you can kiss good-bye to child services, public schools, public health services, regulators, food inspectors, infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewer, water, parks, etc.); with no "corporate welfare" you can kiss good-bye to Boeing, Lockheed, Bechtel, Halliburton, GE and many others who have been feeding from the government trough. It is a simple case of who gets the benefits--the Rich, or everyone else. Talk about who gets the benefits, the type of tax is also important.
The Rich would love to have a "Consumption" tax--because they have the "choice" of where to consume--The Riviera, Monaco, Switzerland, Paris, Bahamas--and the Rich do not consume "essentials"; food, clothing, toothpaste, etc. at much of a greater rate than those of the non-Rich.
Most "luxury" items are already have "consumption" taxes, so there would be little difference in tax revenues there. No, a consumption tax would be a real boon to the Rich as it would significantly lower their taxes as well as reducing the costs involved in finding all those loop-holes.
No, I don't get all choked up about the taxes the Rich have to pay. They are better off than ever before and their contributions to political parties and candidates assure that they always have loopholes to slip through if the going gets too rough. The Rich have many ways to make up for the "losses" that the lower classes don't have.
Dodges, such as buying a painting for $100,000 then in a few years, when the tax load is heavy, donate it to a non-profit at a value of $250,000 or more, which means they pay a lot less in taxes due to a healthy deduction. Talk about "leveraging" an investment.
Making the Rich pay high taxes is a form of insurance for the rest of us. It results in their having less money available to subvert our Democracy; reducing their ability to buy up TV Networks, Radio Stations, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, financing "Think Tanks", and their "ace-in-the-hole" the politician. The ownership of media outlets increases their "power" exponentially--Fox News comes to mind.
No, taxing the Rich would be like "turn about is fair play"; an indirect means, but a means never-the-less, of getting back some of what they have robbed from us. A little justice maybe?
(Definition of Rich: The Rich know who they are, and how they got that way. Some people have a lot of money, like Michael Jackson, but they are not rich. They are just people with a lot of money. Some people have power, like Reagan did, and G.W. Bush has now, but they got that power by of knowing and associating with the Rich--get the idea?)

Stem-Cell Research

One of the main arguments against stem-cell research, using viable rejected cells, is that the science is uncertain, unknown, and as yet unproven. That is like arguing against traveling west to China in 1492; that was also an unknown--yet, Columbus ended up "proving" that the world was round, found a New World, and that people wouldn't fall off the edge.
Irrational arguments, wrapped in pseudo-logic and pseudo-science, are pitiful.
Billions, yea trillions of dollars have been, and are now being spent on America's National Security. Yet only a small percentage of the U.S. budget is being spent saving people's lives through medical research. Compare the casualty rate from war against that of people who die from cancer, diabetes, genetic problems, and disease in general and then try to justify the money and effort being spend for war. Where does the "real" danger lie?

Republican Double Standard

The present rule of behavior is that a Republican can do bad deeds but the Democrats can't. There exists a striking double standard, that Democrats must behave under stricter rules of ethics than Republicans.
Republicans, for instance, can lie with impunity but Democrats can't even appear to be lying. When Clinton lied about having an "affair" with Monica Lewinsky that was elevated to "obstruction justice" and a high crime. He didn't have "sex" he claimed.
Sounds very much like the excuse Karl Rove is using of not "naming" Valerie Plame, yet made it plain who she was; saying she worked for the CIA, yet not mentioning that she was a deep cover operative. Then too Democrats can't make claims that Rove engaged in "wrong doing", because that would be engaging in "dirty politics".
Clinton was investigated (hounded more like it) for eight years, at a cost of 50 million dollars, for what the Republicans hoped was fraud--G. W. Bush sold stock for over $800,000, just before the stock tanked because the company had big losses; Bush was in a position to know the company's financial status; on top of that he failed to report the sale to the SEC for many months--a no-no. No investigation done, no charges made.
Hillary Clinton made a statement that G.W. Bush's handling of the government was like Mad Magazine's "What Me Worry" line--to the Republicans that is unfair and "name calling". Democrats can't engage in name calling, but it is O.K. to call John F. Kerry a "flip-flopper", complete with shower shoes.
There are many other examples of using the "double-standard" by Republicans; it is a major part of their strategy to deligitimize the Democrats. The Republicans are more than quick to point out possible Democrat strategies, which in many cases is the legitimate action of pointing out Republican unethical tactics and misdeeds.

What Propaganda Ploy Next?

The reactions by the Republicans are standard fare in the use of Propaganda--stall, deny, muddy the waters, and stall some more. The "message" seems to be "Rove was just trying to keep the Times from printing something that wasn't "true""--they are still trying to sell the story that Saddam was trying to buy "yellowcake", even in the face of reality; that it would have been impossible for Saddam to buy it in the first place; that he had no way to convert it to enriched uranium for a bomb. The Republicans depend on the ignorance and disinterest of their "core" to get away with balderdash such as they have been trying to spread around--but if they can get enough people out there saying the same thing it is possible they can get away with it. They hope maybe some other big story will distract people for long enough that it becomes a ho-hum issue, like Harken and the National Guard issues. You can't rely on propaganda forever, people wise up eventually.

The Valerie Plame Case

Already the strategy of denial is shaping up--"I didn't say her name and I didn't know she was a "deep cover" agent--so I'm innocent of wrong doing."
That Karl Rove is not the only one involved can be logically deduced from the writings of Bob Novak and the actions of Judith Miller, now being incarcerated for refusing to reveal her source. If it had been only Karl Rove he would have likely have given her a waiver as well.
The fact that no one came forward immediately after the brouhaha started, about the "outing" of a CIA operative, is significant and revealing.
If it had been an "innocent" mistake, in order to clarify the reasons for Joe Wilsons going to Niger, as Rove would have everyone believe, the person, or persons, responsible would have copped to it and admitted to an inadvertent and "innocent" mistake--no real harm done.
Instead an investigation to ferret out the perpetrators has gone on for two years. Everyone signed a waiver to the Press but no reporters came forward--so much for waivers; they aren't worth the paper they are printed on; but in this case serve the purpose of pointing out that those engaged in "outing" a CIA agent are in fact guilty of a crime, at least to the extent of obstructing justice. Maybe it will come to to defining the word "is"?
However, this is more than just an issue about "outing" a valuable CIA asset, but is about the abuse of power.
The "outing" is a vindictive act, but the act goes beyond pettiness to a more serious issue, that of trying to cover up the falsehoods being used to justify a war. The public was lied to, the Congress was lied to, the UN was lied to, the World was lied to.
That lies were being told is obvious. The U.S. has at is disposal huge resources to gather, analyze, and disseminate information. It is not believable that the CIA, with all its resources, got it wrong--that the CIA may have "cooked" intelligence for the administration, to justify a war, is more believable. It has happened before--remember Nicaragua? The CIA has been the "cats-paw for more than one administration--both Democrat and Republican.
The American people had better wake up to the fact that our government is no longer accountable to the people for what it does. There are no longer checks and balances , no oversight that works, and our legislators only appear to listen during election time.
Maybe a campaign to get rid of them all, no matter what the party, would send a message--represent the people, not irresponsible special interests--We the People are the "Special" interests.

Has The Catholic Church Gone Too Far?

During the last Presidential campaign G. W. Bush intimated to the Pope that he interject religion into American politics. Significantly Archbishops in the U.S. became vocal about Kerry's evilness, because he was representing secular interests over religious Catholic ones, and advised their congregations not to vote for "evil", that do do so would make them culpable of a sin.
I can remember clearly the debate that went on about John F. Kennedy being a Catholic when he ran for President and his promise to the public that he would not let his religion interfer and dominate his civil duties, that his religion impacted only his personal moral actions.
In interjecting itself into American politics the Catholic Church has broken a trust by engaging in coercion and intimidation in order to influence a political process. The Church should be reminded that it was once a minor, and dispised, religion in the United States and only due to liberal tolerance and a belief in the separation of State and Religion, allowed to florish to the extent it has.
Most christians do not realize the power that the Church holds over its members: such as "fear" appeals; the fear of purgatory, withdrawal of Holy Communion, excommunication, and maybe even a return of "extermination of heretics" and the inquisition.
Some may pooh-pooh the extreme cases just mentioned above but think for a moment; if the Church is willing to take one extreme step it has always been case that it was willing to take even more stringent steps.
The danger lies in what has just transpired--nothing. No one of note has spoken out in diplomatic protest (our present administration is a party to the guilt of encouraging interference, the public has been lulled into a zombiatic state, thanks to very effective propaganda, and the media is out there in Never-Never Land obsessing about Michael Jackson and hurricanes.
What to do about it?
One answer is to remove the non-profit status on Church owned commercial land (maybe on all); for Church lands are tax-exempt and businesses run by churches are tax-exempt, which gives them an advantage in a "Free-Market". Why should a church be able to compete with private business while it is engaging in Faith-based politics? Religion engaging in politics impinges on First Amendment rights--or it should if it doesn't, legally.
People expect in a democracy to be able to follow and vote their own conscience and not be coerced or intimidated by religion.
What voters should do is not vote for Catholics in the first place just to be sure we keep a separation of State and Religion.
If voters don't want to go to such an extreme voters should tell the Church to butt out and mind their pews.
Bishops who threaten sanctions against U.S. Legislators should be considered agents of a foreign hostile power and sent packing back to the Vatican.

Bush A Strong Leader?

During the last Presidential campaign Bush and others made claims to being a strong leader (and Kerry wasn't) and I listed those things that made Bush the leader that he is.

1. Bush is a strong leader because he doesn't change his mind once it has been made up. Could be that is because he can only grasp one idea at a time.

2. He is a strong leader because he made up his mind in the first place (while reading " My Pet Goat"?)

3. He is a strong leader because he waged war on Afghanistan and Iraq--both conflicts unresolved and getting worse.

4. He is a strong leader because he appeals to only half of the populace and totally alienates the other half.

5. Is a "strong leader" universally a good thing? Weren't Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, Saddam Hussein also considered "strong leaders"?

6. Does a strong leader have to resort to unethical propaganda ploys in order to control public opinion?

7. Does a strong leadeer govern behind closed doors, answers to no one, and tries to "rule" instead of lead?

Protecting Reporters Sources

In general I believe that sources should be protected, but only in cases of the public being served and not in cases where reporters are complicitous in doing harm; abettors of vindictive actions such as is apparently the case of Valerie Plame.
Protecting sources in cases of whistle-blowing is different; when the public is served and not being dis-served. The people are participants in government, voting and engaging in the political process, and must be informed, which reporters and journalists help to do.
However, reporters have the "privilege" of protecting their sources, not an absolute right to do so; like some cases of freedom of speech being abridged because of the possibility of harm--such as crying "fire" in a theatre.
Sources should be protected if whatever being revealed needs to be known by the public, to the publics benefit. Too often information is "classified" for purposes of covering up government bad deeds, detrimental in some manner to the public good, rather than for "national security" reasons.

When is a Litmus Test Not a Litmus Test?

When G. W. Bush says it isn't. Of course he may never have had chemistry in school or read the definition in a dictionary. A litmus test is a test that uses one criterion as a determiner of a particular quality.
A determiner that Bush has chosen for picking a judge is that the judge will not "legislate from the bench". Of course the definition of "legislate from the bench" depends in this case on opinion that is well skewed to the right. If that doesn't constitute a litmus test I don't know what would.
What is wrong with having a litmus test? Wouldn't that include eliminating prejudice, irrationality, bias?
There are many judges that are considered to be competent in legal matters but may be irrational in some particular area. A judge swears an oath to be impartial, unbiased, and unprejudiced. Being picked to be a judge because you are biased, prejudiced, and partisan is contrary to good legal ethics; particularly for a judge in the highest court of the land.
The people do have some say in the matter and they should be demanding that if justice is to be served that it be from a court that is fair, unprejudiced, and non-partisan as well as competent.

The Perverted Logic of Dick Chaney

Dick Chaneys obsessive insistence that Iraq had WMDs and of Saddam's supposed connections with Al Qaeda deserves scrutiny.
His allegations has to raise questions about his mental state, if not his competence. A case in point is that of Abu Nidals presence in Iraq 2001-2002.
The person known as Abu Nidal was born Sabri Khalil al-Banna and later became a leading member of the Palestinian Fatah Party; also known as the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), Black June, Black September and others, which over time was responsible for attacks in 20 countries and the killing and injuring of over 900 people.
Abu Nidals motivation is complex and seems to be a result of paranoia, hate for Israel, as well as a desire for personal gain rather than for religious and/or political ideological reasons. The last attacks that are attributed to the ANO occurred in 1991 and 1994.
The most notorious and bold attacks by the ANO were the El Al airport counters in Vienna and Rome in 1985, which killed 18 and wounded 120.
Countries that Abu Nidal operated in and from were Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Egypt. Abu Nidal entered Iraq the last time, reportedly using a fake Yemeni passport, sometime before or during 2001.
On August 16, 2002 he was "visited" by Saddams internal security force and Abu Nidal committed "suicide"--some claim he shot himself in the mouth, other reports are that he had four bullet holes in him, in any case Saddams forces weren't carrying a red carpet of welcome.
Dick Chaney has made a big case of Saddams complicity with terrorist groups such as Abu Nidal because Abu Nidal took up residence in Iraq. Using that logic you could say that Atta, one of the hijackers in the 9/11 attack was being harbored by the Bush administration because he lived for a time in the US and because the Republicans have a history of using terror as an instrument of political coercion.
Any "connection" between Abu Nidal and Al Qaeda would be like adding apples and oranges. Yes both indulged in senseless violent attacks but they did so for different reasons.
Hate can bring antagonists together for common cause, but the melding together of such diverse ideologies, such as Al Qaeda and the Abu Nidal organization, is very unlikely for many reasons.
Dick Chaneys super simplistic analysis also led to the "conclusion" that Saddam had, or was planning, a nuclear program; i.e., they use aluminum tubes to centrifuge uranium so that must mean aluminum tubes equals uranium centrifuges--never mind that other things use aluminum tubes, such as 81mm rockets. That the specifications for the aluminum tubes matched 81mm rockets and not centrifuges seemed to have passed right over Dicks head--conveniently.
Dick also "made" the case that Saddam was "financing" terrorists because he was donating money to families of suicide bombers whose homes were blown up by the Israelis in their effort to deter future bombings. Dick never mentioned the fact that the Saudis were also making like donations to the bombers families. Excluding such information is called "card stacking", in propaganda parlance.