Obama, Obama, Obama!

I have been following the speeches from the Democratic Convention with some interest, and overall I am happy. Last night, we heard from Kennedy, Heinz Kerry and Dean, as well as Barack Obama. While Kennedy and Dean seemed fairly restrained, and I think their speeches suffered a little because of it, Obama was electrifying. He was an incredible speaker, intelligent, fluent, enthusiastic. He hit all the right notes, and in a way that would appeal to any American, not just the base.

Here is a link to MSNBC's site where you can see the full speech. It is well worth watching. I have a feeling we will be seeing a lot more of him in the future. For those who would rather read, here is the transcript.

My favorite part of the speech?

John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people.

If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child.

(APPLAUSE)

If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent.

(APPLAUSE)

If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

(APPLAUSE)

It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: "E pluribus unum," out of many, one.

Now I am excited. This is why it is great to be a Democrat. This is why it is the party of Hope and of Optimism. Obama is running for the Senate, and I hope he wins. If he does he will be the first black man in the U.S. Senate. He will also be a breath of fresh air that will hopefully enrich us all.

9/11 Commission Final Report

The 9/11 commission has released their final report, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Both the Bush and the Clinton Administrations are accused of failing numerous opportunities to have done something significant about the growing threat of Al Qaida. The CIA and other intelligence agencies also are criticized for maintaining a cold war mentality, for not have the required human intelligence sources, and for not connecting the dots on the intelligence they did have.

All around, it was a major failure in many ways.

So what were their recommendations? There are a lot, but the most controversial was the idea of creating a new cabinet level position, a kind of intelligence tsar who would oversee the myriad intelligence services and provide a single location for the evidence. Someone who would be able to connect the dots.

There are a couple of problems with this that I can see, and that have been brought up by many voices, including the Administration. (I know, I am agreeing with some of the things that Bush's Admin says!! Yikes!). One of the main problems is that this position would in effect become a political role. The position would be appointed by the President as part of his cabinet, and would be involved in cabinet level decision making. The problem with this is that a big part of the problem we have faced with our intelligence is that it has been too political, and not independent enough. Our intelligence services were almost too willing to give the President the evidence he needed to invade Iraq, while simultaneously overlooking evidence that didn't conform to their goals. This is a huge problem, as intelligence must be independent, objective and unbiased. If it is not, it is next to useless.

It is important that if a position like this is created, it has to be as independent as possible. However even that has its dangers, as you have one person with enormous powers and little overstay. They would have the ability to pretty much determine the course of American foreign policy.

The better solution would be to beef up the Congressional Committees, such as the Senate Intelligence Committee, so that they can take on this role. This allows for multiple elected officials being involved from both sides of the aisle. This can serve as a collection point and clearinghouse of intelligence data, but would not have the risks that the Intelligence Tsar position would bring with it.

Should we have invaded Iran?

The 9/11 commission's report is due out this coming Thursday, and one of the very interesting threads contained within it is the fact that Iran had significantly more interactions and connections with Al Qaida that Iraq did. The fact that the 9/11 commission found there was no evidence of any significant connection between Saddam and Al Qaida has been discussed a lot lately. But this new information about ties with Iran and Al Qaida is new.

Cheney and Bush continue (in the face of all evidence) to insist that there are "longstanding" ties between Iraq and Al Qaida, and they are doing this for one reason only. It is pretty much the only rationale for war they have left. The WMD were not found, and Bush has finally admitted that it is unlikely that they will be. So the only other possible rationale is the terror ties. Remember, the war was fought as a defensive, pre-emptive war. We were defending ourselves from imminent attack. If Iraq had no WMD, and no ties to Al Qaida, then where was the threat?

The fact that the 9/11 commission is now pointing to ties between Iran and the 9/11 hijackers is very interesting because it again shows just how politically motivated our attack on Iraq was. If we were really attacking in retalliation for 9/11, then we would have invaded Afghanistan and Iran, not Afghanistan and Iraq. If we really wanted to stop a country that was making it easier for hijackers to get into our country, then Iran was the place. If we really wanted to take care of a regime sponsoring terrorists, then Iran was it. Iraq was a distraction and a sideshow, and Bush had wanted to invade from day one.

AIDS, the Drug Companies, George Bush and France

There is a lot of talk currently about the recent surge in the AIDS epidemic, especially in the third world. Kofi Annan (Secretary General of the U.N.) has even called for the First World to spend the kind of resources on fighting AIDS as we do on fighting terror. He has a point, how many people have died or had their lives destroyed by terrorism, compared to the millions each year effected by AIDS? Where are our priorities?

Today there was an interesting wrinkle in the debate. Many countries are frustrated with the fact that Bush paired down the number of people sent to the recent world AIDS conference by 75%. They feel this was a snub, and it likely was, since Bush has been upset with the fact that the world doesn't agree with him that the best solution to the AIDS crisis is abstinence programs.

France however went one further step today. They accused the United States of blackmailing countries into protecting U.S. drug companies' patents in return for free trade agreements. Many third world countries (India is a great example) have such a huge AIDS problem, and so little resources, that they have refused to respect the patents on AIDS drugs, and have mass produced generic versions to treat their people. The U.N. has even advocated the position that this is acceptable, in times of emergency, which clearly this is. It is far more important to protect lives than to protect U.S. drug company profits.

Even though the U.S. is signatory to this agreement, the Bush Administration is still playing hardball on behalf of the drug companies. They have been dangling the potential for trade concessions to these countries if they will recognize the patents, and therefore stop making their generics and buy the drugs from the U.S. companies instead. This puts these countries in a difficult position, where they either take favorable trade conditions with the U.S., which could improve their overall economic position, or they make sure that as many of their citizens can get the drugs they need. The U.S. drugs, while heavily discounted, would still be far more expensive for third world countries than the generics, and this makes for a difficult decision.

The simple fact is Bush should not be playing with people's lives in this way. It is unconscionable. It is like holding a fire hose and bargaining with a burning man over how much he will pay you to put him out. We should be shipping literal tons of these drugs to these nations for free, not extorting them for as much as we can get. Remember, it is not even the U.S. that will benefit, but a handful of U.S. drug companies, and their shareholders. The profit motive at work again.

While this accusation will not help improve the impression many American's have of France right now, they are right in this situation. We need to take a good look at ourselves and our motivations. We need to stop this absolute tragedy, and we are not serving that purpose by enriching a few.

Here is a link to an article on the issue in Salon

Abu Ghraib. We were torturing Thieves and Prostitutes

The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal has sickened most Americans, but of course not all. Many (like Limbaugh and Hannity) have claimed the torture and abuse was no big deal. That these guys were terrorists, and they aren't playing by the rules, so why should we? That is the gist of most of the defense of the abuse from the right, that is was justified in this situation. These guys are terrorists and we are fighting a war.

Well the only problem is that the majority of people we were abusing and torturing were not terrorists. It has come to light that many of the abused were simple criminals. One woman, a prostitute, was sexually abused. Others were thieves and rapists.

Remember the iconic image of a hooded man standing on a box with electrodes on his fingertips? Must have been a very dangerous terrorist right? Well actually no, he was a car thief. Obviously had lots of important information on the car theft rings of Baghdad that we just had to have.

According to this Newsweek article, there were 26 prisoners who have been interviewed by investigators over the prison abuse allegations. Of those 26, 13 of them were there for criminal actions such as rape and theft. Bad crimes yes, but no-one is suggesting we turn to torture for these crimes.

What of the other 13? Well they were held as terrorist suspects, however of those 13, 8 were later released as innocent. So we tortured and abused 13 prisoners we absolutely shouldn't have, and 8 more that we also shouldn't have.

So there is now very little justification for the torture that occurred. It just saddens and sickens me even more.

Senate Intelligence Committee Report

The Senate Intelligence Committee has been running its own investigation of the intelligence failures, and has recently released its report, or at least part of it. They have released their findings one the CIA, and there is plenty of condemnation of the CIA's role in the intelligence fiasco leading up to the Iraq war. However, for some reason (I wonder why) the Republican controlled SIC decided to break the investigation into two parts, and review the CIA's role first, and the Bush Administration's role second. The convenient aspect for Republicans is that the CIA portion of the investigation is done, and the Bush Administration portion will not be complete until after the November election. What a happy coincidence for the Whitehouse.

Sorry I am so cynical today, but this and the "Bush microfilm disaster" coincidence have put me in a punchy mood.

The truth of this is that the SIC has made the best of a bad situation for the Bush Administration. The report is not kind to them, it destroys their rationale for war, a rationale that both Bush and Cheney continue to spout at every opportunity. The SIC report shows that the evidence that tied Saddam to Al Qaida, and that pointed to his production of WMD was weak, inconclusive, and riddled with problems. The CIA receives a scathing rebuke and Bush and Cheney are left scrambling again. However the fact that the report on Bush's role in the whole fiasco is being left until after the election allows them to deflect the criticism onto the CIA as fall guys. Tenet's resignation a month ago now looks like a smart move.

So how is Bush reacting? Here is what he said during a campaign stop:

"Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons. See, he had the ability to make them. He had the intent. We knew he hated America," Bush said. "We knew he tortured his own people, and we knew he had the capability of making weapons. That we do know. They haven't found the stockpiles, but we do know he could make them."

Yeah, all that talk of there being "no doubt" that he had "tons" of weapons, that we even knew where they were, that Saddam was ready to sell them to Al Qaida, that he had stockpiles, was all just a funny joke? They were just using creative license? Give me a break.

The SIC had bad news for the Whitehouse, but they managed to make sure that the Bush Administration would have someone else to blame until the election. Nice of them, huh?

George Bush's military records "inadvertantly" destroyed

There has been a controversy over Bush's military service for years, and Democrats and the media have clamored for evidence to support Bush's claim that he fulfilled his responsibilities in the Texas Air National Guard. Unfortunately, Bush has been unable to produce the documents that would prove his service, about the best evidence he had was a dental appointment that he kept. The documents that would have proved his participation would have been payroll records, but these were never released.

Well now we know why. The microfilm that contained Bush's payroll records were "inadvertantly" destroyed during a preservation effort back in 1997. The fact that this is probably about the time that Bush started to seriously consider running for the Whitehouse is I am sure a sad coincidence. The fact that millions of payroll records are fine, while the ones that Bush says would have proved his service were destroyed, is I am sure another sad coincidence.

Of course, according to Bush, we should just trust him, without any access to evidence. That is pretty much the pattern for the Whitehouse these days, and it has certainly worked out well so far!



http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/9123032.htm

9/11 Commission calls Cheney on the evidence. He had none.

Here is an interesting follow-up that has been buried in most of the mainstream media. A couple of weeks ago, the 9/11 commission stated their finding that there was no evidence of substantial ties between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Immediately the Bush Administration went on attack, claiming that there was evidence. Cheney even said that maybe he had seen evidence that the 9/11 commission hadn't.

Well the 9/11 commission called him on it, and asked for the additional evidence. Cheney of course had nothing to give them. Finally today, the 9/11 commission has come out and stated that they believe they have seen everything that Cheney has, and they still find that there is no evidence of substantial connections between Saddam and Al Qaida. None. Zip. Nada.

So how did Cheney's office respond? By spinning and saying there was no conflict between the 9/11 commission's position and Cheney's. HUH!!!! Cheney is saying there are long standing ties, the 9/11 commission is saying there is no evidence of them, and there is no conflict? How do these guys get away with this stuff?

Good question, I will tell you. The media makes it easy for them. Cheney's statement weeks ago was big news. Now that the 9/11 commission has come out and said that they have seen Cheney's evidence and he is still wrong, there is no coverage. I found the story buried in a 3 paragraph story on one of the inside pages far into my local newspaper. Searching online, the only articles I could find on this announcement were on foreign papers and progressive sites. The mainstream media has buried it.

See the pattern? Cheney makes broad sweeping statement with no evidence to back up his claim. The media reports it. 9/11 commission finds that he had no basis for his claim, and the media doesn't report it.

That my friends is how they get away with it. All anyone ever remembers is the first statement.

Anyway, here is a link to one article on the announcement.

Bush claims Edwards not as qualified as Cheney to be President

The GOP hit men are out in force, and they have been attacking Edwards on numerous fronts since yesterday. One of the attacks I have heard numerous times is that Edwards isn't experienced enough to be President. That he doesn't have enough foreign policy experience.

Well Bush joined the attack today, saying that "Dick Cheney can be President" and that Edwards is no where near as experienced as Cheney.

This is just hilarious. If Bush is qualified to be President, then surely Edwards is qualified to be Vice-President. Granted, Cheney has long years of government experience, but Bush does not have the luxury of such a comparison.

Bush was the Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. The Governorship of a State is no small matter, although the Texas Governor holds less powers than most Governors do. Edwards has been a Senator for about the same length of time. Neither held public office before that, and neither had any other political experience. Outside of the political arena, Bush sat on some company boards, he worked in some oil ventures, and he owned a baseball team. Edwards was a trial lawyer, representing individuals against big corporations.

So the only really valid comparisons would be between their actual political careers. Bush received practical experience in running a State. Edwards has been a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee. In truth I would give the edge to Edwards, since his experience is in national and international issues, and Bush's are provincial. However I could see the argument either way.

The point here though is that it is the height of hypocrisy for Bush to be saying that Edwards is not qualified to be President. Sure I would say Cheney has more political experience than Edwards, but Kerry has far more than Bush. This is a ridiculous argument, and I cannot believe they are making it. If this is the best they can do, then we are in good shape.

One final note. Aren't the Republican's the ones that abhor Government, and believe that the best leaders are those who have experience in the outside world? Doesn't that conflict with their latest attacks? Or is it simply another double standard?

Edwards is in!

As you have all no doubt heard by now, John Edwards is John Kerry's running mate. As a long time Edwards supporter (and Edwards delegate at the local level) I am very excited by this announcement.

Edwards is exactly who Kerry needs. He provides balance to many of Kerry's supposed negatives. Wheras Kerry is seen as dour and dull, Edwards is optimistic and refreshing. Where Kerry is a Northern Ivy Leager, Edwards is the "son of a mill worker" from the south. Where Kerry is all qualifications and substance, Edwards is the flash, dazzle and excitement. I think this is a good pairing.

I agree with Edwards, we cannot ignore the South, we need to win at least some of those states to prevail. Edwards will likely bring in at least one or two, and that will likely be all that is needed, as it looks increasingly like Kerry will do well most everywhere else (except maybe the intermountain west.)

Edwards is a great speaker, motivating and enthusiatic. He is compatable with Kerry ideologically, he is just able to express himself better than Kerry can. Kerry needed him, and I am optimistic about the result.

Kerry/Edwards! Let's do it!

Happy 4th, and lessons from the past.

First of all, happy 4th of July! The 4th is an opportunity for all of us who love this great nation to come together, no matter our differences of opinion, and together celebrate those values we hold dear. Let us all hope that the future of our country can be a bright one, and that we will all work together to improve the lives of our citizens, and those of the citizens of the world.

I just finished watching the Fog of War. It is a documentary on Robert McNamara. He was the Secretary of Defense during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. He was a principle architect of the Vietnam War, as well as having been involved in some other important events, including the firebombing of Japanese cities in the close of the Second World War, and the Cuban Missile crisis. It was interesting to watch him explain the feelings and decisions that surrounded these events, especially from a man so intimately involved.

As for the Vietnam war, he said two things that I thought were directly applicable to us today in our current situation. The first was that you have to be able to empathize with your enemy, in order to understand his motivations. He gave two good examples, the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis, and the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war. He attributes the successful outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Administration successfully understanding the mindset and motivations of the Soviets. They understood that the Soviets would be willing to withdraw from Cuba as long as they would be able to represent the entire situation as a success to their own people. The understanding of the motivations allowed us to escape from nuclear annihilation by the skin of our teeth.

He contrasted that with the North Vietnamese, and stated that we totally misunderstood their motivations. We were looking at them through the eyes of the cold war, as if they were a vanguard for the Soviets and the Chinese. In reality, the North Vietnamese cared little for the Soviets and Chinese, and saw themselves as fighting a war of independence from Colonial occupiers. In our minds, since they were only fighting for an ideology, we should be able to beat them, sap their will, and get them to give up. However since they were fighting for freedom and independence, they would never give up. This miscalculation was the direct cause of thousands of deaths.

When I think about this, I can see parallels in our war on terror. Our President continually misrepresents the motivations of the terrorists. He continually says they are fighting freedom, that they hate our freedom, and want to destroy it. This is simply not true. The main motivation for Bin Laden is Islamic pride and a fierce determination to expel the western influences from the middle east. They see these influences as detrimental to their goal of a religious society. It is not freedom they hate, but that we remove their freedom to do as they will. You have to remember, I am not saying they are right, I am simply stating the way they likely feel. It is important to understand our enemy's true motivations or we cannot successfully fight them.

Another good example of this is the whole idea of invading Iraq as a way to stop the terrorists. Bin Laden's stated goal is to provoke a holy war with the west. That is why he attacked, hoping that we would attack back with overwhelming force and in the process, alienate and enrage the Muslims of the world so that they would rise up in the final battles that would finally destroy the evil influences of the western world. Bush mischaracterizes the attacks by saying that Bin Laden hoped we would withdraw, and cower away. That is the exact opposite of his hopes. We have played directly into his hands, and we are doing exactly what he hoped we would. The only place Bin Laden was mistaken is that the Muslim street has not risen up quite as fast as I am sure he was hoping. If Bush is re-elected, maybe they will.

Bush either totally misunderstands his enemy, or he is just trying to make us think he does. Either way, we have a problem. As McNamara so clearly showed in the documentary, thousands of lives can rest on truly understanding your enemy. When we don't, we make a grave mistake.

The second thing that struck me in the documentary was a statement McNamara made that has direct implications for our current situation. Here is what he said:

What makes us Omniscient?

Have we a record of Omniscience?

We are the strongest nation in the world today, I do not believe that we should ever, apply that economic, political or military power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule in Vietnam, we wouldn't have been there. None of our allies supported us. Not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we had better re-examine our reasoning.

This obviously from a man re-examining his reasoning that led him and the men he advised into a war that is seen by many to be a disaster. Obviously the lesson for us is that if our cause is righteous and sensible, then why would those nations that have similar values to us oppose us? Shouldn't that give us pause? Yes, Australia and Great Britain share our values, and they fought with us. But any objective view of the facts surrounding that make it clear that there were more important geopolitical forces at work, they desired to maintain good standing with an ally, and in the case of Great Britain, felt they could do more good in the long run standing by the United States, than they could by letting the U.S. go it alone. Many other nations who also share our values of freedom and democracy opposed us. Why? Out of spite, jealousy or plain hatred? Even if these were the reasons, the very presence of their opposition, especially as fervently as the opposition actually was, should have made us question our actions at least a little.

Unfortunately our President and his administration are not given to self refelction and re-examination. They are convinced they are guided by God and providence, and their cause is just. They do not waste time of second guessing. They never are wrong, and they never apologize.

Time for a change?