The Fulcrum

Saturday, April 17, 2004

NRA News? 

This is interesting; the NRA is setting up a news operation. Why would such a narrowly focused organization want to set up first an internet radio news station with plans to expand into radio and TV? Do you think they might run newstories 24/7 about accidental shootings and stray bullets from drive-by shootings? Perhaps they'll have special interest stories about just why teflon-jacketed bullets that slip right through police bullet-proof vests are such a good idea. Maybe there will be pictures of deer riddled with AK-47 rounds; they do want to keep them legal - you know - for hunting.

Think the worst thoughts you may have about this group...

The media operation is expected to provide a platform for the NRA in the run-up to this year's presidential elections - a time when restrictions surround the use of donors' money for political advertising.

The NRA's media outlets will be financed by unlimited donations, known as "soft money".

Campaign finance laws ban the use of "soft money" for political advertising in the run-up to elections

"If you own a news operation," said Mr LaPierre, "you can say whatever you want. If you don't, you're gagged."

Experts say that the NRA might be able to sidestep campaign finance laws if it can convincingly show that it is running a media organisation.
While I have less than the most respect for our media, I do not think that they can "say whatever [they] want." Seems Mr. LaPierre has a little to learn about responsible news media.

Of course responsibility is something the NRA has been dodging for a long, long time.


NOTE:I was a police Explorer Scout and an expert marksman by the time I was 10 years old. I have at least 5 family members who are police officers. I spent 14 years firing weapons of every type and size from 9mm automatic pistols to 155mm howitzers; from 5.56mm M16A2s to 20mm cannon. I don't fear weapons or misunderstand them.


Face to Face With Death? 

It had to have happened sooner or later. A soldier, thought to be missing since last week's attack on a fuel convoy, was shown on Arab TV as a hostage. The US government has said - as it has long said - that it would not negotiate for his release in exchange for captured Iraqi insurgents.

What now? The treatment and release of these hostages has been mostly an unknown, although some were released at the end of last week. But this is different. This soldier is not "merely" a coalition soldier or an NGO worker; this is a representative of the "Great Satan" himself. Will Private Keith Maupin be returned to his comrades or will we all be subjected to his videotaped execution?

The quagmire deepens; increasing its sticky, relentless grip on our soldiers, on our nation. It threatens to drown us in a morass of death and violence spiraling out of control.

What now?


Friday, April 16, 2004

Bush, Rumsfeld Incompetent III (Coda) 

Do you imagine, in their worst nightmares - if they even have them - that George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld ever see this:



It is my fondest wish that this scene plays itself out beneath their fevered and sweat-stained brows every night.



Via The Agonist.


Bush, Rumsfeld Incompetent II 

BushCo. are reducing troop strength on the central front of the War on Terror.

The United States, which has increased troops numbers in Afghanistan to hunt for Osama bin Laden and other militants, may cut their number after the country holds elections, the top U.S. military officer [General Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff] said on Friday.

[snip]

"We will see how events unfold. I think generally most of the country is pretty secure as a matter of fact,"he added.

[snip]

Driven from power by U.S.-led forces in late 2001, the Taliban have declared a jihad, or holy war, on foreign and Afghan government troops and aid organizations, and threatened this week to step up attacks against the government and foreign troops.
While Myers emphasized that the war in Iraq was not driving this decision, I think the all-but-announced cancellation of the rotation out of about 20,000 troops from Iraq puts lie to that statement. Myers also stated, perhaps in a slip of the tongue that Pakistan was not fully engaged in helping to hunt down bin Laden or other al Qaeda or Taliban members in the border area, he was confident that they would soon be engaged.

Sounds to me like everyone's telling a different story in hopes that the public doesn't put it all together before November. I think they are hoping against hope.


Bush, Rumsfeld Incompetent 

In case you still had any doubt.

Lots of people actually thought about and worried about bin Laden before 9/11.

Lots of people actually did think about and talk about terrorists using airplanes as missiles before 9/11.

Lots of people actually told BushCo. that there were no WMD in Iraq.

Lots of people actually warned the administration that an invasion of Iraq was a really bad idea:

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.

"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"

At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in the past week.
Now, Marine Generals are not usually what you'd call liberal America haters - or whatever epithets the right-wingnuts are throwing around these days. And Zinni, especially had the C.V. to be authoritative in his assessments. That should have inoculated him against the usual mud slinging BushCo. breaks out for its detractors, right?

Wrong.

Known as the "Warrior Diplomat," Zinni is not a peace activist by nature or training, having led troops in Vietnam, commanded rescue operations in Somalia and directed strikes against Iraq and al Qaeda.

He once commanded the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton.

Out of uniform, Zinni was a troubleshooter for the U.S. government in Africa, Asia and Europe and served as special envoy to the Middle East under the Bush administration for a time before his reservations over the Iraq war and its aftermath caused him to resign and oppose it.

Not even Zinni's resume could shield him from the accusations that followed.

"I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things,"
said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.
Zinni's assessment of how the Iraqi situation is developing? It's pretty chilling:

"I spent two years in Vietnam, and I've seen this movie before," he said.


Thursday, April 15, 2004

bin Laden's Offer 

What will this mean? What discussions, debates, arguments will it engender across the political and international spectrum?

In the near-term, it appears that it will not - thankfully - result in the capitulation of any European countries to bin Laden's demands. I don't really think there was too much fear of that. Despite what the right has insisted, Europeans (new or old) really do want to fight terror. They just didn't want the distraction of Iraq.

In the longer-term I wonder how right-wing governments - most especially, but not solely, here in the US - will use this pronouncement. As a cudgel to convince voters that to "change horses in mid-stream" would be tantamount to being pro-terrorism is my guess. This offer of a truce to Europe fits so well into BushCo.'s attempts to get American's to "stay the course" that with a little tin foil one could almost wonder at the timing of it all.


Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Compare and Contrast III 

Condoleeza Rice: We couldn't have known that terrorists would use airplanes as missiles.

President Bush: Nobody told me that terrorists would use airplanes as missiles.

Even planners for Pentagon exercises were thinking about terrorists using airplanes as missiles:

The U.S. military rejected a scenario in which a hijacked airliner flew into the Pentagon as it planned a training exercise months before an airliner was slammed into the building by hijackers in September 2001, defense officials said on Wednesday.

The proposed scenario was rejected by the Pentagon's elite Joint Staff as not in keeping with the April 2001 exercise, which dealt largely with how U.S. forces would be commanded in a confrontation with North Korea if defense headquarters somehow became incapacitated.

Defense officials said several scenarios under which military command had to be moved from the Pentagon were rejected and that the suggestion involving a possible foreign commercial airliner strike not only appeared unrealistic but could have taken over the whole exercise.
While rejected as a part of this particular exercise, this is proof that the meme was floating around the Capitol; that it wasn't some unimaginable pipe-dream scenario which could only have come from the mind of a cave-bound Osama bin-Laden.

See Compare and Contrast II and BushCo. vs Clinton (Compare and Contrast I, effectively).


Patriotism 

Despite what the neo-cons and Rethugs tell you, patriotism is NOT agreeing with everything their exalted leader says and does. It is NOT stifling debate and protest. It is NOT submitting silently to the scorn and hatred heaped upon you by Rethugs, the religious-right and the neo-cons.

Go see this post by Hesiod for more.


Deconstructing Bush 

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome?

A stern, defiant President Bush said he wouldn't back down from the challenges of Iraq and offered no hint he would alter his approach there, despite a recent surge of violence that has boosted U.S. casualties and heightened criticism of the president's war plans.

In a rare nationally televised address, Mr. Bush insisted that success in Iraq is vital to defeat terrorism and protect Americans. Above all, he indicated that none of the violence and turmoil there would alter his plan to turn sovereignty over to Iraqis on June 30.
Doesn't it take a more mature person to admit mistakes and to learn from them?

In reply to the overtures, Mr. Bush offered no apologies and admitted no specific mistakes.

He did allow that before Sept. 11 "there are some things I wish we'd have done, when I look back. I mean, hindsight's easy. It's easy for a president to stand up and say, now that I know what happened, it would have been nice if there were certain things in place." Mr. Bush noted, though, that "I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein." Weapons of mass destruction, he said, "could still be there. They could be hidden."
And finally - for now - shouldn't a president, especially one who makes great and public claims to Christianity, shouldn't that president be a humble person?

For his part, the President, asked if his job was at risk, said, "I don't plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they'll stay with me. They understand the stakes."
A Final Note: If the pResident is planning on "telling the American people that [he's] got a plan to win the war on terror," shouldn't that be something he should have told us when we first got into the so-called war? And isn't the real question does he have a plan for Iraq? That's the real question we all want the answer to. And one he seems singularly intent on not answering.

All quotes from this article in the Wall Street Journal.


Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Compare and Contrast II 

Condoleeza Rice: We couldn't have known that terrorists would use airplanes as missiles.

President Bush: Nobody told me that terrorists would use airplanes as missiles.

From Reuters:

Freeh [ex-FBI Director], questioned by Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, later said intelligence services were aware of the danger that a terrorist might use a hijacked plane as a weapon.

He acknowledged steps were taken to protect the White House as well as special events, such as the 2000 Olympic Games and meetings of world leaders, against such a threat, but nothing was done to protect the country at large.

Ben-Veniste asked: "So it was well known in the intelligence community that this was a potential threat?"

Freeh responded: "It was part of the planning for those events, that is correct."


Country to Bush: "You're Fired!" 

Out of touch, out of ideas, out of his f***ing mind:

"The situation in Iraq has improved," Mr. Bush insisted [with his trademarked smirk - ed].
April 12, 2004


When the Going Gets Tough... The Contractors Leave 

A report I saw on ABC News last night and an article I read this morning in The San Francisco Chronicle have me so angry I can hardly write this post. Not that that's all that rare these days...

The ABC report was about contract truck drivers returning home from Iraq; apparently they are leaving in droves because the situation is so hot that they are refusing to drive supplies to units spread around Iraq. Who did al the drivers interviewed work for? Kellogg, Brown & Root, subsidiary of Halliburton. The article in the Chronicle was mostly about the situation outside of Najaf and Fallujah, but the last couple of paragraphs were related to the ABC report and are what set me off:

Military officials expressed concern about a growing problem that also plagued U.S. forces during the invasion last year: attacks on supply convoys. Over the past week, insurgents repeatedly have attacked military and commercial trucks and passenger vehicles on two major highways that run west and south from Baghdad, slowing the movement of troops and supplies and rendering both roads off-limits to most foreigners, U.S. military commanders said Monday.

The two highways provide the major links to the densely populated agricultural zone in the south and to Fallujah and Ramadi to the west. In the past week, armed bands of as many as 60 men have ambushed fuel convoys, kidnapped foreign civilians and shot down aircraft along the highways.

Military commanders remain very concerned about the motorways and have declared them dangerous but not impassable, Kimmitt said. He said it could take several weeks before they were completely safe for traffic.

The attacks have led many truck drivers working for Kellogg Brown & Root and other private contractors to refuse to drive, delaying the delivery of much-needed supplies to troops, military officials said.

Private contractors are responsible for providing about half the military's supplies in Iraq.

(Emphasis mine, ed.)
The combination of a complete failure to plan for the aftermath of the war, a desire to conduct this folly on the cheap, the refusal to accept the situation on the ground and provide more troops and the outright cronyism of letting contracts for support of the troops is endangering the lives of our soldiers. I commented on a post yesterday by Hesiod at Counterspin Central, that logistical planning is the least glamorous, but most important job in military operations. Nothing can happen without bullets, fuel and food. Nothing.

There is no other way to say this. The mismanagement of BushCo. is directly responsible for a lack of proper levels of supply line security, supply of ammunition, equipment and food for our soldiers. These factors directly cause additional deaths and injuries.

A military commander who planned and conducted such a shoddy campaign, resulting in so many deaths would be court-martialed.


Monday, April 12, 2004

9/11 As an Excuse 

BushCo. has been excotiated by nearly all those left of Newt Gingrich for using 9/11 as an excuse to implement a mix of neo-con pipe dreams and far-right wet dreams. Everything from invading Iraq to Patriot Acts I and II, from CAPPS I and II to continuous warfare in the Middle East. There have even been those that accused them of wishing to facilitate the coming of the Apocalypse in some strange twist of Religious-Right prophecy mid-wifery. This last has usually been met with skepticism from all but the most rabid conspiracy theorists.

Is this proof that these folks were not so off the wall after all?

Rather, the task force wants to see the U.S. nuclear arsenal expanded to include more precise, lower-yield weapons -- especially those that could penetrate targets buried deep underground where conventional weapons can't reach. The idea is to give a President the option of incinerating enemy weapons, leaders and command-and-control systems with as little damage as possible to civilians. Having the option of highly precise nuclear weapons with greatly reduced radioactivity would also make the threat of their use more believable to terrorists contemplating attacks on the U.S. or allies.
Yes, the specter of low-yield nukes are back in the spotlight and back in consideration.

What this would allow, I contend, is lowering the threshold for use of nuclear weapons when things become too difficult to manage in more conventional ways. It is also a continuation of the fallacy that BushCo. has operated under since the beginning: That terrorists can be threatened with the destruction of a state actor. Al Qaeda has already shown this to be false as has Hezbollah and other non-state, non-local terrorist organizations. If al Qaeda were to launch an attack on the US again using the same staging areas as they used for 9/11 (not at all likely, but the example is instructive), would we use a couple of low-yield nuclear weapons on Germany? On Saudi Arabia?

The other uses contemplated by the administration are much better solved using other tools than the most horrible weapons ever imagined by man.

This administration, however, seems singularly incapable of learning a single lesson from history.


CAPPS Hasn't Disappeared 

Think that the attempts by the government to upgrade the CAPPS system were stalled by privacy concerns?

Think again.

First JetBlue incited customer wrath (and a lawsuit) by releasing some 5 million customer records to the government, then Northwest did the same in January of this year. You'd think that the ensuing disaffection of customers and expensive lawsuits would be enough to scare the other airlines into respecting the privacy of customer information. You would, of course, be wrong.

From this morning's Wall Street Journal (subscription):

In a disclosure likely to rekindle privacy-concern fires, AMR Corp.'s American Airlines admitted giving information on 1.2 million passengers to outside research companies vying for contracts with the Transportation Security Administration.

[snip]

American's disclosure comes at a sticky time for the TSA, which is struggling to develop the new system amid growing privacy concerns by the public. Testing for the screening system is already months behind schedule.
I've never flown JetBlue, it's been years since I flew either Northwest or American; it may be a long time before I fly on any of them. If your travel plans include any of these airlines in the near future, you should consider letting them know how you feel about this.


Setting an Example 

As you read statements by Bush Administration officials there's one thing you should keep in mind. If the head of the administration, the President of the United States, is willing to stand before the American people and the world and lie about the reasons he want to be the first president to start a war, there is no reason to believe that anyone else in his administration would have any compunction about lying about anything less important.

Bush has already set the example for his people. He lied and - so far - has gotten away with it.

And so we have an entire administration of people who know that it's okay to lie. Bush lies about WMD and yellow cake, Cheney lies about and covers up the Energy Task Force and Halliburton, Rice lies about everything. Take your pick. The boss has set the bar; he's set it so low that the rest of his people just step right over it. As we anticipate the directors of the CIA and FBI testifying before the 9/11 Commission this week, keep that in mind.

History will eventually, hopefully, uncover the truths that BushCo. has buried at every step. What they uncover, I can't imagine, will be very flattering to any of them.


Sunday, April 11, 2004

This Has to be a Joke 

An article today on MSNBC states that Bush's speeches are getting longer. Which, considering his tendency towards malapropisms and syntactic gaffes, is probably not a good thing. But here's the line that really made me laugh:

"He takes that role seriously, as sort of educator-in-chief," [Dan] Bartlett said.
"Educator-in-chief." Right...


Stuff

Politics
Move On


Previous Posts

Google

Web The Fulcrum
Free Google Page Rank Checker

TTLB Ecosystem

Bloggers Parliament
Bloggers Parliament

Issues and Google Bombs
visit LIBERAL FORUM

Shopping

Directories

Site Stuff

Creative Commons License

The Fulcrum Archives

Refering Sites

Who Links to Me