The Fulcrum

Friday, October 29, 2004

Explosives Bringing Down Bush? 

It seems that BushCo. can't catch a break on the al Qaqaa story. With the evidence at hand, nobody who's a member of the Reality Based Community can deny that this was the result of widespread and continuing malfeasance on the part of the administration in the planning and conduct of the Iraq invasion. If this stays at the top of the news through the weekend, it could be the death knell for Bush.

Help keep it that way.

Keep up with all the details (lots of links!) at Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo.


100,000 Iraqi Deaths 

It will be interesting to see whether BushCo. decides to spin this or just ignore it.

Researchers have estimated that as many as 100,000 more Iraqis - many of them women and children - died since the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq than would have been expected otherwise, based on the death rate before the war.

Writing in the British-based medical journal The Lancet, the American and Iraqi researchers concluded that violence accounted for most of the extra deaths and that airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition were a major factor.
There was some concern with the initial results of this survey because it included data from Fallujah, where the post-war fighting has been most intense. But the nearly 100,000 number is based on calculations without the Fallujah data.


Shifting the Vote 

Last night on ABC News, one of the talking heads following Bush around said that the President was making appeals to Democrats to cross over and vote for him. At the time, it only made my wife and I laugh. But this morning it gave me hope.

Such an appeal means that Bush is worried that his base will not be enough to carry him, it means that he's worried about the Republican internal polling numbers. It could also mean something very good for John Kerry.

I cannot imagine that more than a few Democrats are so anti-Kerry or so enamored with our empty (flight)suit president that they would be willing to go through four more years of BushCo. It boggles the imagination to even contemplate it. In other words, for every Zell Miller there are 100,000... well... me's.

On the other hand, besides the far right christian fundamentalists and the high-powered, high-contributing business leaders, there are many traditionally Republican constituencies that have plenty of reasons to either vote Kerry or not vote at all in protest. Think of those Republicans who are true fiscal conservatives; or of those sportsmen for whom the environment is important. Think of the Arab-Americans who voted for Bush in 2000 by a large majority. I'm sure you can think of plenty of others.

Both candidates are making appeals to the other side of the aisle. Only one, I think, has any chance of getting anyone to cross over.


al Qaqaa Just a "Small Portion" 

With John Kerry on the attack and BushCo. scrambling from explanation to explanation for the missing explosives (must be the same spin-meisters who spun out reason after reason for the war in the first place), the story just won't die. Bush has accused Kerry of "disrespecting the troops" while his stand-in Rudy Giuliani was saying it was the troops fault.

And while Bush has said that al QaQaa represents a small amount of missing arms in relation to the amount that was actually captured or secured, the Wall Street Journal had this paragraph tucked away at the end of a short article this morning:

He [a bomb expert under contract to the Pentagon] added, however, that what was looted from al-Qaqaa is just a small portion of the dangerous munitions in the country at the war's end. Prewar Iraq was studded with similar weapons depots and many of them were left unguarded and subsequently looted. "There are hundreds and hundreds of tons of munitions kicking around Iraq," he said.
As usual, Bush had it only half right. These explosives were only a small portion of the arms that were all over Iraq, but they were also only a small portion of the arms that were looted and that are now killing our soldiers.

If this is not incompetence, the word no longer has any meaning.


O'Reilly Slithers Away 

Leaving, as he always does, a trail of slime behind him.

I had really wanted to see O'Reilly left twisting in the wind; undone, broken like the hypocritical, sanctimonious ass that he is. Now we'll never know.

Damn.


Thursday, October 28, 2004

Dr. Cheneystein 

Maureen Dowd lets us in on Dick Cheney's true identity. It's a good read and the timing is perfect as we fast approach Halloween.


Iraq is Unwinnable 

Those of us without rose colored glasses saw this a long time ago. Perhaps the recent spate of news out of Iraq is starting to make an impression on those who didn't see or ignored reality before.

Today's New York Times reports that the provincial capitol of Ramadi, a few kilometers down the road from Fallujah, is fast becoming another "no-go" area for American soldiers and exceptionally dangerous to anyone who works for the Americans. The proximity to Fallujah and the close coordination between insurgents in both cities means that any attempt to deal decisively with one must deal with the other.

The marines in Ramadi are so short-handed that they cannot usually put together four HMMWVs required to convoy safely through the center of town. Lists of "collaborators" are posted outside of the mosques and these people have been harassed and killed.

The situation in Ramadi and Fallujah and towns all over Iraq put the lie to BushCo.'s insistence that things in Iraq are progressing nicely and that "freedom is on the march." An uprising in Ramadi like the one in Fallujah would put the possibility of elections in January - already highly unlikely - beyond reach. Any vote taken without including these two cities would be highly suspect and not supported in the rest of Iraq.

This is what "staying the course" gets us in a war that never should have been.


That's Going to Leave a Mark 

On the election, hopefully...

From today's Globe & Mail:

Four British former inmates of the U.S. detention centre at Guantanamo Bay sued Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others yesterday, saying they were tortured in violation of U.S. and international law.

The four former detainees are seeking $10-million (U.S.) in damages...
Holding them without access to legal aid or to their families was getting them bad press - and even worse legal rulings. Now this. Poor Rummy; nothing he does is right. What to do?

[they]want Mr. Rumsfeld and other defendants to be held accountable for their actions...
We do, too. We do, too.


Bush - No Connection to Reality 

In declaring what would become the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of preemption, Bush declared that "moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place..."

Can you think of a more parochial, more narrow or more dangerous view of the world? If Bush really believes this, and there is every indication that he does, then he is more dangerous than just his recent debacles indicate. That his statement is false on its face is obvious to anyone who has read any history. Think of the "moral truths" of the Incas or the Aztecs in Meso-America. The ancient Egyptians certainly had their own take on morality. Think of the Huns, the Visigoths, the dynastic Chinese, feudal Japan. Imagine saying such a thing in a world that has seen the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. Even Bush's favorite bogeyman, Saddam Hussein, had a different twist on "moral truth."

Bush's world paradigm has no connection to reality. He's already proven to be a danger to the world and our country in his quest to impose his reality on us all. He must not be allowed another four years, without the restraint of a pending reelection, to continue his pillaging.


Insurance Malpractice 

No, I didn't get my title mixed up. Remember during the debates how we heard so much from Bush about how soaring medical malpractice insurance rates were caused by evil trial lawyers and outrageous punitive awards? (Not that we've heard much about that since, but that's another story...) And that the only way to cure the problem was with damages caps?

Seems that either Bush had bad information - where have we heard that before - or he was lying out of his ass. If I remember correctly, the number Kerry used was 0.5% of the rise in insurance rates for doctors could be traced to so-called "problems" with the tort system. Seems that John Kerry was much closer to correct that Bush. From this morning's Wall Street Journal (subscription):

Last year, after a pitched political battle, Texans voted to amend their state constitution to allow caps on awards for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, in medical-malpractice cases. In most cases, that cap is $250,000.

In a filing with the Texas Department of Insurance seeking a rate increase, Medical Protective Co., an arm of General Electric Co., said the caps would lower payouts by just 1%.
Much like the "Texas Miracle" in school reform, seems that Texas' tort reform is so much smoke and mirrors. While the number one medical insurer in Texas enacted a rate reduction after the reform bill passed, the filing from which the 1% figure is taken was filed by the number two insurer as part of a request for a 19% rate increase. If this gets through the review process, there's no doubt that the top insurer will follow suit.

The relevant sentence from the filing: "Noneconomic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping noneconomic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%."


Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Triple Point 

noun: the condition of temperature and pressure under which the gaseous, liquid, and solid phases of a substance can exist in equilibrium.
I remember from my physics courses that triple points were exceptionally interesting; a small change in any condition could cause a substance at a triple point to collapse into one of the states. The triple point is a precarious condition which rarely occurs naturally.

But it seems as if we've reached the political analogy of a triple point in this last week prior to the elections. The polls, taken all together, seem to have this race at a precarious balance where the slightest nudge could collapse the system into one of three possibilities: a Kerry win, a Bush win or a tie/contested result. All three of these outcomes have definite and distinct consequences.

Most interesting - and perhaps most dangerous - is that the national mood (if such a thing can really be said to exist at all) seems to be at somewhat of a triple point as well. A clear outcome would provide a needed relief from the ennui of the recent closely divided nature of politics. A tight finish has the potential to provoke either quiet acceptance or a spasm of... something... I'm not sure what. A tie or a contested result would likely result in some real outbursts of anger and frustration - not the staged, so-called "white collar" riots of 2000.

The interesting thing about this particular, public, triple point is that, unlike the clear results of a change in a physics experiment, there is no good way of predicting what would happen as an outcome of any particular result. The clear, non-contested outcome is the most predictable, but the results of the other two are, to borrow a phrase, "up in the air."

This triple point, with the country poised at a most precarious point, has caused a lot of anxiety. I know that for the past couple of weeks, I've become more anxious. From moment to moment my thoughts on the election range from despair to elation. One news piece will fill me with hope for a change, another seems to make it certain that we are doomed to another four years of war, deficit and bigotry. But so it is with these seeming magic points in physics and history. There are too many variables to predict which way the system will collapse. And so we have to fall back on our own small efforts to make a difference, hoping that the small push we provide will be the one to move the system in the way we want.

Your small push to the system is your voice and your vote. Use them both.


Tuesday, October 26, 2004

This is NOT Who We Are 

In a New York Times article describing how BushCo. lawyers have come to the conclusion that certain persons captured in Iraq are not subject to the Geneva Convention, I found the following two paragraphs.

It is possible that some of the prisoners transferred out of Iraq may have been handed over to friendly governments, like those of Egypt or Saudi Arabia, in a procedure known as rendition. Another possibility is that they were transferred to the secret American-run sites around the world that have been used since the Sept. 11 terror attacks to house the highest ranking Qaeda detainees, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is accused of being the mastermind of the attacks.

Such transfers have been used by American officials in the past three years in part to subject suspected members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to interrogation practices harsher than those permitted under the Geneva Conventions or under American law. American officials have defended such practices, including a technique in which a prisoner is made to believe that he will drown, as essential to extract information that may be useful in preventing terrorist attacks.
This is exactly who the administration members are; secretive, lawless, vengeful, spiteful. But this is not who Americans are. We have laws and are signatories to The Geneva Conventions for a reason. But BushCo. continues in their push to remove the US from the community of civilized nations.

We are now exactly what aWol warned us that Iraq was: a rogue nation.


Campaign of Fear 

BushCo. and their allies are at it again. While on the stump, they accuse Kerry & Edwards of running a campaign of fear. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal is, once again, asking questions about who has the authority to cancel elections should a major terrorist attack occur just prior.

Government officials say they have no specific intelligence to suggest an imminent attack; and many states, exercising caution, are putting various safety and emergency measures in place around polling time. Still, that hasn't stopped some people from wondering: In the event of a major attack around Nov. 2, could the election be canceled or postponed? And who has the power to decide?

The simple answer, like in Missouri, is nobody. But there are enough shades of gray to suggest all sorts of caveats and complexities. The bottom line: If an election-time catastrophe were to arise, the government's reaction would likely depend on the particulars of what happened when and where -- not to mention inevitable legal wranglings.
Yes, there are the usual statements that there are no specifics around attacks close to elections. But they go on with the article anyway. And although the article goes on to say that probably nobody has true legal authority to delay or cancel federal elections, there is this one, ominous paragraph to think about:

The Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, addressed the question in July and found that Congress does in fact has the power to postpone presidential elections in the event of a national emergency. Moreover, the CRS's sweeping review of American case law and statutes found that the executive branch also has the ability to make it "difficult or impractical" for an election to take place. A memorandum drawn up for lawmakers said that the administration could limit the movement of citizens under emergency powers although an "exercise of such power would not appear to have the legal effect of delaying an election." In such an event, it concluded, legal resolution would ultimately fall to the courts.
Such questions are legitimate to ask during planning sessions. But barring clear, actionable intelligence of the danger of such attacks, floating articles such as this just a week prior to the election is fear mongering at its worst.

Campaign of fear, indeed.


Monday, October 25, 2004

BOOM! 

Interesting details surrounding the "loss" of that 350 tons of high explosives from Iraq's former nuclear weapons research facility:

Several hundred tons of conventional explosives are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that once played a key role in Saddam Hussein's efforts to build a nuclear bomb, the U.N. nuclear agency confirmed Monday.

[snip]

Nearly 380 tons [note the discrepancy between the numbers - 30 tons is a lot of explosive power - ed.] of powerful explosives that could be used to build large conventional bombs are missing from the former Al Qaqaa military installation, the New York Times reported Monday. The explosives included HMX and RDX, which can be used to demolish buildings but also produce warheads for missiles and detonate nuclear weaponry, the newspaper said. It said they disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year.
And, most damning of all:

Al Qaqaa, a sprawling former military installation about 30 miles (50 kilometers) south of Baghdad, was placed under U.S. military control but repeatedly has been looted, raising troubling questions about whether the missing explosives have fallen into the hands of insurgents battling coalition forces.
Under military control... repeatedly looted.

Think about that in the context of my previous post about post-war planning. We do not need these slow learners in control of complicated decision.

Remember, "it's hard work."

VOTE


Better Late Than Never? 

Not really. Late contingency planning for post-war chaos will not save those soldiers and civilians killed since Bush's flightsuit fantasy flight. But it might save some lives in the future.

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

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office has prepared a directive instructing the military's four-star regional commanders to "develop and maintain" new war plans designed to lessen the chance of postwar instability like the situation in Iraq.

The directive, still in draft form, amounts to a concession that prewar planning for Iraq fell short. [snip]
It may amount to a concession, but you can be sure that nobody will take responsibility for that "short fall" and nobody will be punished for it either.

The Pentagon's four-star regional combatant commanders, who each oversee U.S. military operations in wide swaths of the world, would have to devote more resources and attention to posthostility planning in their war plans. In Iraq, plans for the war and postwar periods were largely developed separately. Inherent in the new directive is the idea that a commander might plan the high-intensity part of the war differently if the commander is also thinking about how to stabilize the country after the major fight is over.

[snip]

In contrast to planning for the Iraq war, in which the Defense Department kept civilian agencies largely out of the process, the directive calls for the Pentagon to support the State Department's newly created Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations. State Department officials are working separately to develop reconstruction teams that would work with the military.
Seems that BushCo. is filled with slow learners, from the top, down. If the world is going to change as often and as rapidly as it seems to have done over the past four years, it makes sense to have a President and staff that learns much faster than BushCo. has shown it is capable of.

VOTE


Can I Ask a Favor From You? 

One week to go.

It seems that I've been blogging forever and yet it's been only about 16 months or so. But all that effort, the nearly 800 posts, the hours of writing and researching, has been leading up to this moment.

In the course of those 782 posts - including this one - I hope I've provided my readers with some information they didn't have, some insight they hadn't thought of, something to think about, to laugh about, to cry about. I hope I've been able to get at least a few readers, those who were looking for something other than the pre-digested bits they got from television or the mainstream press, to continue their search for information, to become informed citizens. And if I've gotten just one person to click through to an article or another blog that they might not have read otherwise and if they discovered something they didn't know before, then all that work will have been worth the effort.

Now, the favor. With just one week before the elections on Tuesday, November 2, I'd ask anyone that reads this post to dedicate themselves to do two things. Just two.

1. Vote. I'm sure my regular readers are all registered, have found out where their polling places are and have set aside some time from their busy schedules on Tuesday. But have YOU? It's too late to register, of course, but if you were wondering whether it was worth your effort, stop wondering. Please, get out on Tuesday, do whatever you have to do to get to the polls. Call a friend, call a cab - hell, call me. But vote.

2. Get Someone else to Vote. If you're going to the polls, you might as well take someone with you. It doesn't really matter what party they are registered with - although I'd love for you to take along someone voting for Kerry/Edwards - just get someone else to vote who might not otherwise have done so. With all the polls pointing to one of the closest elections ever, both in the popular vote and in the Electoral College, every vote will be important.
I haven't been in the habit here of asking for anything from my readers - other than for more comments - but in this case I thought it important to ask these favors of you. Despite the rhetoric and the spin flying around the airwaves and on the web, as we close in on Election Day, this really is the most important vote you will ever have cast.

VOTE


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