Showing posts with label Scott Horton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Horton. Show all posts

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Taking a public stand against our country's use of torture

Tomorrow morning I’m heading with my “Torture R US” sign to the plaza in my hometown, Healdsburg. It's a small town described as ”Nestled in the heart of Sonoma's County's wine country, Healdsburg offers relaxation, fun, and adventure for people of all ages. The natural beauty, friendly attitudes, and a cosmopolitan flair suggest the perfect backdrop for a splendid vacation.” I will stick out like a sore thumb.

On March 18th, I posted "Torture R Us" - What do you think? and received comments both discouraging and encouraging me about going public with this message. Given the news this past week about the recently released torture memos and the “torture team,” (the lawyers who advised Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.,) it feels like the right thing to do.

I’m also mindful that it isn’t just “unlawful enemy combatants” that are being tortured. Read Scott Horton’s post yesterday morning, "...Pentagon Moves Ahead on Contractor Accountability," which opens with “Today, The Nation’s Karen Houppert reports on a gruesome rape case out of Iraq. The victim is a young American woman given the pseudonym ‘Lisa Smith’.

“It was an early January morning in 2008 when 42-year-old Lisa Smith, a paramedic for a defense contractor in southern Iraq, woke up to find her entire room shaking. The shipping container that served as her living quarters was reverberating from nearby rocket attacks, and she was jolted awake to discover an awful reality. 'Right then my whole life was turned upside down,' she says….”


*Posts most worth reading

(stick figure: my friend Pat Denino, who blogs at Wandering Wonderings)

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Torture: Whom do you believe? Murat Kurnaz or Bryan Whitman?

This evening on CBS's "60 Minutes" Murat Kurnaz, a German resident held by the U.S. for almost five years, will describe the many ways Americans tortured him. When he was first captured, he claims he was hung from the ceiling for five days.

The March 29th Washington Post article, "Ex-Afghanistan Detainee Alleges Torture by U.S." reports that Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, “The abuses Mr. Kurnaz alleges are not only unsubstantiated, they are implausible and outlandish." [emphasis mine]

If you don’t know much about Bryan Whitman, go to this January 16th, 2008 article "Bogus Iran story was product of Pentagon spokesman.” Excerpt: “…[I]n an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that US ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away - a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official."

Since Kurnaz’s alleged torture occurred several years ago, you may conclude that the U.S. has changed its ways. Not according to Scott Horton, who blogs for Harper's Magazine at No Comment posted his remarks delivered on March 28th at the City [New York] University Law Review Symposium “Preventing Torture”here. It’s worth reading. The final paragraph: “The torture policy of the Bush Administration is a policy of, by and for torturers. It marks a radical departure from prior U.S. policies of honorable compliance with the Convention [against Torture]….”

I hope you’ll watch "60 Minutes" this evening and decide for yourself whether or not you think Kurnaz is telling the truth about what happened to him.

(photo of Kurnaz: CBS News)

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Recommended reading: Scott Horton on the road to surfdom

Yesterday, Scott Horton, who blogs for Harper's, posted "Another milestone on the way to surfdom." It’s not an upbeat article. It describes three recent issues that are all being resolved unfavorably for we citizens: (1) The FISA Farce, (2) the NSL Scam, and (3) the Torture President.

Horton doesn’t think that a new president is going to make that much difference. I tend to agree.

Our Constitution is being eroded away. I used to think that people in this country should do what they love to do, i.e., make music, grow flowers, etc. I’ve come to believe that we all need to spend some time learning what’s going on and voicing our concerns to others, including our elected representatives. It’s time to wake up!

(drawing: Pablo Picasso. Sleeping Peasants. 1919. Tempera, water-color and pencil. The Museum of Modern Arts, New York, NY, USA)

Monday, February 25, 2008

Today's must read: Scott Horton's inside report on CBS's coverage of the conviction of Don Siegelman

CBS: More Prosecutorial Misconduct in Siegelman Case Alleged

Excerpt: "The CBS piece, for which I was repeatedly interviewed, came through on its promise to deliver several additional bombshells. The most significant of these was the disclosure that prosecutors pushed the case forward and secured a conviction relying on evidence that they knew or should have know was false, and that they failed to turnover potentially exculpatory evidence to defense counsel. The accusation was dramatically reinforced by the Justice Department’s failure to offer a denial. It delivered a fairly elaborate version of a “no comment,” and even that came a full twenty-four hours after it had conferred with the prosecutors in question. The gravity of the accusations made and the prosecutors’ failure to deny them further escalates concerns about the treatment of the former Alabama governor."

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Action Alert: Watch CBS's "60 Minutes" this evening

This evening at 7 pm (PST/EST) I will be watching the “60 Minutes” segment on "GOP Operative: Rove Sought to Smear Dem."

I’ve been following the tragic story of the imprisonment of former governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman, since June of last year, posting about it on June 30th, “Where is the outrage?”, July 1st , "Read Rove's lips," and July 15th, "Keep your eyes on the Siegelman case."

Scott Horton, who blogs for Harper's at No Comment, has done the best job of keeping up with the Siegelman case, with his 2007 posts available here. He also covers the conviction and incarceration of Siegelman in "Vote Machine" in the March, 2008 issue of Harper’s.

If you think Rove is out of the picture now that he’s no longer Bush’s advisor, think again. On April 10, 2007, TPMuckraker post included Rove’s responses to questions after his speech on "voter fraud" to the Republican National Lawyers Association convention in April of 2006:

QUESTION: In 2008, what states do you think are going to be the swing states?

ROVE: You know, I think in 2008, there will be a number of states which will be competitive that are familiar states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, maybe not Florida, Colorado, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico….

“So a lot in American politics is up for grabs…. [This is an understatement: think of the consequences to the Bush Administration if the executive branch and Congress are in Democratic hands and we citizens put pressure on both of them to hold Bush's cabal accountable.]

“I intend to observe it with a great deal of interest….”

I suspect Rove is going to do a lot more than observe the 2008 presidential election.

(photo of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman: That's Politics)

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The Democratic Activist Takes Over

I’m out of steam. I hope you’ll go to my friend Chris Borland’s blog, The Democratic Activist and check "This could be it ! Conyers can be moved...."

Impeachment isn’t really off the table if we citizens stand up and demand it. Chris gives us some background and easy directions on how to take action.

If you still aren’t convinced that impeachment is imperative, I urge you to read Scott Horton’s February 3rd post, "The Case for Impeachment."

(banner: True American Patriots)

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Recommended reading: Two articles on the US economy and one on the myth of free trade

What is happening to the U.S. economy? Why are the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, dominated by the US, preaching "free markets" and "free trade," which are myths? Here are three recently published articles, all interesting, and, in my opinion, related.

1. Richard Heinberg’s "Peak Everything Economics, or, What Do You Call This Mess?" Heinberg, according to his bio, is “[O]ne of the world's foremost Peak Oil (oil depletion) educators and is a Senior Fellow of Post Carbon Institute. He is the author of eight books including The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World and The Oil Depletion Protocol - A Plan To Avoid Oil Wars, Terrorism, and Economic Collapse.

2. Chalmers Johnson’s "The Myth of Free Trade." The American Empire Project (cofounded by my favorite blogger, Tom Englehardt), describes Johnson: “[P]resident of the Japan Policy Research Institute, a non-profit research and public affairs organization devoted to public education concerning Japan and international relations in the Pacific. He taught for thirty years, 1962-1992, at the Berkeley and San Diego campuses of the University of California and held endowed chairs in Asian politics at both of them. At Berkeley he served as chairman of the Center for Chinese Studies and as chairman of the Department of Political Science. His B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in economics and political science are all from the University of California, Berkeley.”

Johnson’s most recent books, a trilogy: Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, The Sorrows of Empire - Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic and Nemesis - The Last Days of the American Republic.


3. Scott Horton’s post at Harper's, "How Bush's Fiscal Mismanagement Produced a Recession," commenting on and linking to the excellent study, "Is the 2007 U.S. Sub-Prime Financial Crisis So Different? An International Historical Comparison. This evening, I'm tackling this study, a 12 page draft published on January 14, 2008.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Why aren't we hearing about H.R. 1955, the bill "to prevent homegrown terrorism," overwhelmingly passed by the House on October 23rd?

I just learned about H.R. 1955 last night from my blogging buddy, Chris Borland, and am so alarmed about it that it’s now at the top of my concerns, although I will continue making calls to Congress in support of H.R. 799, the impeach Cheney resolution.

I need to get a handle on it. A link to the text of the bill is here. The details regarding the stunning 404 to 6 vote here.

The best post I’ve seen so far on it is here.

Right off the top:

1. Section 899 F of the bill, the protection of civil liberties, appears extremely weak to me, and the "auditing mechanism" by the DHS isn't an independent audit.

2. It also appears to open the door to identifying "thoughtcrime" in order to take preemptive action against those considered likely to commit a crime in the future.

I admit I don’t know much about it, but I plan to learn more. Please post a comment if you are aware of ramifications of this bill.

Update: Keep your eye on Scott Horton’s blog for Harper’s, No Comment. I expect to see a post on this soon.

(photo: Informed Dissent, also worth checking re H.R. 1955)

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Pakistan Watch: Three posts worth reading

1. This excerpt from Dan Froomkin’s Washington Post White House Watch, ”Another Bush Backfire”:

What Cheney Wrought
Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid writes in a Washington Post op-ed: "The spread of anti-Western feelings and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism have been fostered by a U.S. policy that has sought to prop up Musharraf rather than forcing him to seek political consensus and empower a representative civilian government that would have public support for attacking the extremists."

And who's most responsible for that policy? Here's what Rashid wrote in The Post in June: "Current and past U.S. officials tell me that Pakistan policy is essentially being run from Cheney's office. The vice president, they say, is close to Musharraf and refuses to brook any U.S. criticism of him. This all fits; in recent months, I'm told, Pakistani opposition politicians visiting Washington have been ushered in to meet Cheney's aides, rather than taken to the State Department.

"No one in Foggy Bottom seems willing to question Cheney's decisions."

2. Scott Horton at No Comment: "Bush's Musharraf Envy."

3. Barnett Rubin at Informed Comment Global Affairs: "Islamabad: Parting Thoughts on Policy."

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

A nose for the news - The Iran war roll-out: one cartoon and four articles

The October 23rd Tom Toles cartoon says it all, but the following articles fill in the details.

1. On October 23rd Amy Goodman interviews Middle East Analyst & Historian Juan Cole on U.S. War Plans Against Iran.

2. On October 22nd, Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin posts "Cheney Beats the Drums of War."

3. On October 22nd, Scott Horton posts "The Roll-Out Presses On."

4. On October 22nd, Barnett Rubin at the group blog, Informed Comment Global Affairs posts "The War Rollout Keeps Rolling Along."

(Photo from my friend, Pat Denino, who blogs at Wandering Wonderings)

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Freedom's Watch is on a roll...out for war on Iran

On August 22nd, Freedom's Watch was launched. Its message: “Victory is America’s Only Choice.” Its first project was a $15 million advertising campaign designed to maintain Congressional support for President Bush’s troop increase in Iraq, which was the focus of my September 13th post.

Now that the surge is safe until next March when the next Congressional review is scheduled, it appears that Freedom's Watch is going to become the propaganda machine for an attack on Iran, yet another privatization of what used to be a governmental function (think Blackwater contractors in Iraq). Apparently the group hopes to raise as much as $200 million by November, 2008.

Freedom's Watch [FW] hasn’t yet rolled out its war-on-Iran-promo, but it’s been given its marching orders, according to Scott Horton (who blogs for Harper’s Magazine) posting on October 1st, “…[I]t seems they’ll be advocating the Next War" Horton quotes from The New York Times September 30th article, "‘Although the group declined to identify the experts [who were invited to a Freedom’s Watch private forum focusing on Iran as a threat], several were invited from the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research group with close ties to the White House....

“‘If Hitler’s warnings were heeded when he wrote ‘Mein Kampf,’ he could have been stopped,’ said Bradley Blakeman, 49, the president of Freedom’s Watch and a former deputy assistant to Mr. Bush. ‘Ahmadinejad is giving all the same kind of warning signs to us, and the region — he wants the destruction of the United States and the destruction of Israel.’”

Jim Lobe, who blogs at LobeLog, posted Freedom's Watch Bears Watching on September 30th: “It seems that last week’s full-page ad by Freedom’s Watch (FW) denouncing Columbia University for hosting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the New York Times was the tip-off to what will clearly be a high-powered, high-priced, and well-orchestrated campaign to rally support behind an attack against Iran. That assessment is bolstered by Sunday’s lengthy article by the Times’ Don Van Natta, Jr., entitled ’Big Coffers and a Rising Voice Lift a New Conservative Group’, “ the same article Scott Horton referenced.

Lobe surmises that FW is going to be ascendant because…"[T]he administration and its dwindling clutch of hawks have lost virtually all of the credibility they enjoyed in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. The hawks within the administration have also lost the control they once exerted over the government’s own formidable propaganda machinery. That is precisely why they must now rely to a much-greater extent than in 2002-03 on a 'private-sector' group making their case and mobilizing behind it. Much like the White House Information Group (WHIG), whose purpose was to sell the Iraq invasion, FW may well become the hub of a new effort to create an ‘echo chamber’ with the usual suspects at AEI…the Weekly Standard, the National Review, Fox News, the [Wall Street] Journal’s editorial page, and sympathetic journalists and columnists for attacking Iran. As evidenced by last week’s vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment last week, it may be able to count on the timidity of Democrats, as well.” [emphases mine]

The Lobe post is well worth reading.

(logo from the FW website)

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Giuliani - a worse president than Bush?

Is there a likely contender for President who could be worse than George W. Bush? Yes. Rudy Giuliani.

At this time, Giuliani is at the top of the Republican heap. As of September 21, Rasmussen Reports in its Daily Presidential Tracking Poll…”[F]ormer Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani are now tied. Each man is the top choice for 24% of Likely Republican Primary Voters."

Wonkosphere shows Giuliani as the most “buzzed-about” candidate in the blogosphere:
What’s wrong with Rudy? Kevin Baker knows. His article, A Fate worse Than Bush - Rudolph Giuliani and the Politics of Personality appeared in the August 2007 Harper's Magazine (subscription required).

For those who don’t subscibe to Harper's Magazine, ( I recommend that you do) here are three sources of information:

1. President Rudy, posted by Jon Wiener of The Nation on July 30. Wiener interviewed Kevin Baker, who writes for The New York Times and the Washington Post as well as Harper’s.

Below are excerpts from the interview with Baker's comments in quotation marks.

“Most of 9-11 was actually a debacle for the city government," Baker told me in an interview, and "Giuliani bears a great deal of the responsibility." The World Trade Center had been attacked in 1993, but Giuliani had "learned none of the lessons that could have been learned. There was no serious attempt to coordinate the radios between the police and fire departments, or even to insure that the fire department had its own communications that would work inside buildings. The consequences? Probably hundreds of unnecessary deaths that day.'' [emphasis mine]

The second failure: Giuliani insisted on locating his emergency control center in the World Trade Center complex, even though that had been the target of the 1993 attack. "He did that against the advice of virtually all the security experts he consulted," [emphasis mine] Baker explained. "He put it on the twenty-third floor of a forty-seven-story building, World Trade Center Tower 7. It included an unprotected, 7,000 gallon fuel source on the seventh floor, a sort of a fuse to set the building off. When the building was hit by debris on 9/11, that did indeed bring the whole building down."

Giuliani told the 9/11 Commission that the firemen in the towers died because they refused orders to come out. He said they wanted to save lives of people trapped inside.

"That's a demonstrable lie," Baker told me. [emphasis mine] "The firemen in the buildings were simply waiting for orders. They never got the word. It's easy to second-guess people in such a traumatic event, and anybody could be forgiven for not making the right decisions in the middle of everything. But to go to Congress months later and lie about this--I find that despicable."

The workers at Ground Zero in the following months, we now know, were exposed to significant health hazards. How much of that is Giuliani's responsibility? "He made no real attempt to determine the safety of working there," Baker said.

2. Rudy's foreign policy, posted by Scott Horton on August 17 at No Comment: “A few days ago the new Foreign Affairs arrived carrying an article which purports to have been authored by Rudy Giuliani entitled ‘Toward a Realistic Peace.’… In it we learn that the world of foreign policy for Rudy consists of just one thing: the long twilight battle against America’s natural and mortal enemy, Islamo-Fascism. Everything else is entirely peripheral to the Great Struggle, which Rudy is committed to winning by leveraging brute force to pummel the Enemy. And after they have been obliterated, we will have 'realistic peace.' This is Cheney on steroids. And I don’t mean the rational, articulate, cautious Dick Cheney from 1994. I mean the post-microstroke, delusional Dick Cheney who shoots his own friend in the face with birdshot. The Dick Cheney of today. Rudy would substitute a tactical nuclear device for the birdshot....

"[I]t [Giuliani’s Foreign Affairs article] leaves me more convinced than before that the man deep inside of Rudy waiting to emerge after a successful election on the national stage doesn’t care much for democracy, the Constitution, or civil liberties. He has one overriding obsession: power.”

3. Glenn Greenwald’s September 21st post, Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars on behalf of Israel: "In London this week, Rudy Giuliani proposed what is probably the single most extremist policy of any major presidential candidate, certainly this year and perhaps in many years: Rudy Giuliani talked tough on Iran yesterday, proposing to expand NATO to include Israel and warning that if Iran's leaders go ahead with their goal to be a nuclear power we will prevent it, or we will set them back five or 10 years."

NATO nations are obligated to defend one another in the event of an attack on one of them.

Greenwald concludes: “Now that we are occupying two Middle Eastern countries, with a broken military, and are threatening imminent war with at least another one, isn't it long past time to have the discussion about the extent to which the U.S. is willing to wage war on behalf of Israel's interests? Do Americans really think that Iranian hostility towards Israel or its support for 'terrorists groups' that are hostile to Israel are grounds for declaring Iran to be our Enemy or waging war against them? If so, then let proponents of war with Iran make that case expressly. And for the rest of the presidential campaign, shouldn't Giuliani's desire to involve the U.S. military in every war Israel fights be a rather central feature in discussions of his potential presidency?”

(cartoon of Giuliani- Cox and Forkum, buzz chart: Wonkosphere)

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Perpetual War?

This morning, The New York Times reported Officials Cite Long-Term Need for U.S. in Iraq: “The two top American military and diplomatic officials in Iraq conceded Tuesday that the Bush administration’s overall strategy in Iraq would remain largely unchanged after the temporary increase in American forces is over next summer, and made clear their view that the United States would need a major troop presence in Iraq for years to come. …


“As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker wound up two days of grueling testimony to the House and Senate, Ms. Pelosi said everything she had heard ‘sounds to me like a 10-year, at least, commitment to an open-ended presence and war….’

“Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, who is one of the party’s leading voices on foreign policy, asked whether the current strategy in Iraq was 'making America safer.' General Petraeus retreated to an explanation that he was doing his best ‘to achieve our objectives in Iraq.’

“But when pressed again, he said: ‘Sir, I don’t know, actually’.”

And then there’s The Next War, as reported by Harper’s Magazine blogger, Scott Horton: “Dr. Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher of the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies look at the signs for an American aerial war on Iran and say the pieces are in place for this to happen imminently. It now only awaits Bush’s command….Read the entire SOAS study here. (PDF)”

Check Steve Clemons’s The Washington Note the next couple of days. Yesterday he posted that he’s working on an article about whether or not we will bomb Iran right now.

(photo: Grow a Brain)

Monday, September 03, 2007

The Rollout War: Michael Ledeen of the A.E.I. vs. Mohamed ElBaradei of the I.A.E.A.

vs.
Mohamed ElBaradei

It seems that the debate about whether or not to attack Iran has shifted from within the Bush Administration to a larger arena.

Last May I posted Cheney center of war talk targeting Iran, directing readers to Steve Clemons's post Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush, which describes "...the conflict between Condi Rice and her supporters, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Cheney and his 'team and acolytes.' Rice is leading the diplomatic effort; Cheney supports 'hot conflict' with Iran.”

The conflict between Rice and Cheney, if it existed, appears to be over. On September 1, a post at Daily Kos, WH departures- Cheney consolidates power? opened with, “Today's Financial Times puts what for us must be a chilling slant on the recent departures of Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales from the Bush administration. Coupled with today's piece in the NYT suggesting that Condoleezza Rice's influence in the Bush Administration is waning, the FT article makes the case that while we've been celebrating the collapse of the Bush cabal, Mr. Cheney has been consolidating his power….”

Concerning whether or not to attack Iran, Condi is out. So who is in? Michael Ledeen, who is the Freedom Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute [A.E.I.]. Ledeen has a rich history as a neoconservative. He’s also a shady character.* The best source of information on Ledeen’s position on Iran is Steve Clemons’s Michael Ledeen's Dangerous Obsession, posted August 18, 2007. Clemons reports that Ledeen told him that he “…[O]nly supported the Iraq War because it provided momentum and pre-positioning of American military forces to then go after Iran [and] is not going to feel self-actualized until America unleashes a considerable portion of its arsenal against the nation and people of Iran.”

According to Scott Horton, who posted The New Rollout on September 1, “And no sooner does this [evidence of plans to attack Iran] appear in the blogosphere [see my posts here and here] than we see what may be the first bit of ground-preparation for the rollout: Michael Ledeen’s new book, set for release right on schedule a week after Labor Day, and it’s called—get this– Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots' Quest for Destruction."

The voice of reason whose facts negate the basis for an imminent attack on Iran is Mohamed ElBaradei (photo), Direction General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Steve Clemons comes to the rescue again with The I.A.E.A. Iran report, posted August 31st. Clemons includes a link to the full report by ElBaradei along with “…[c]lips from the Summary [that] underscore that ElBaradei sees Iran moving in a positive direction and setting its nuclear program up for high level transparency that had not been previously the case…”**

In his post, Clemons concludes, “At a minimum, ElBaradei's report probably stalls somewhat the neoconservative effort to start yet another war….”

Ledeen vs. ElBaradei….keep your eyes open for the next few weeks to see who’s winning.

*For more information about Michael Ledeen:
1. July, 2006 Vanity Fair article, The Wars They Wanted, The Lies They Needed
2. Ledeen’s blog, Faster, Please!

** For more information about the I.A.E.A. Iran report, August 30th Reuters article, Iran atom work at slow pace and not significant: IAEA.

(photos: Ledeen: Physics911.ca; ElBaradei: ConciseBritinnica.com)

Friday, August 24, 2007

Update on whether or not Bush will attack Iran

Scott Horton, who blogs for Harper’s Magazine at No Comment posted "The Next War Draws Near" on August 23, 2007:

Horton says, “I continue to put the prospects for a major military operation targeting Iran down as ‘likely,’ and the time frame drawing nearer. When will Bush give the go ahead? I think late this year or early next would be the most congenial time frame from the perspective of the war party.”

Horton lists six developments that go into his call, including the influence of Fox News, the subject of my earlier post.

Horton’s observation: “The Predictable Role of Fox News. Fox News is intimately intertwined with the Administration’s propaganda machine, as a study of its coverage of the run-up to the Iraq War shows (and similarly, its decision to all but pull the plug on more recent coverage of the dismal situation in Iraq). Producer Robert Greenwald has done a terrific summary of how Fox News continues a propaganda build-up to support military action against Iran which closely parallels what it did for its masters in the run-up to the Iraq War. Catch the video here.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

On this day 73 years ago, Hitler was elected Fuhrer by 90% of the electorate- how did this happen?

On August 19, 1934, the vast majority of German voters gave Adolph Hitler sweeping dictatorial powers, electing him as "Fuhrer," or absolute ruler.

The next day, The New York Times published an article about Hitler’s victory, with a view of the actual newspaper article available here.

I’m not attempting to compare President George W. Bush with Adolph Hitler. I’m interested in what was going on in Germany, in the early 1930's, when it had a democratic parlimentary republic, that prompted 9 out of 10 Germans to cast votes in support of a dictator.


Wikipedia, in the section Hitler's rise to power, states, “The political turning point for Hitler came when the Great Depression hit Germany in 1930…. The new Chancellor, Heinrich BrĂ¼ning of the Roman Catholic Centre Party, lacking a majority in parliament, had to implement his measures through the president's emergency decrees. Tolerated by the majority of parties, the exception soon became the rule and paved the way for authoritarian forms of government.” [bolding mine]

A national disaster, the Reichstag fire, helped consolidate Hitler’s power. From Hitler's rise to power, “…[O]n 27 February 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire. Since a Dutch independent communist was found in the building, the fire was blamed on a Communist plot to which the government reacted with the Reichstag Fire Decree of 28 February which suspended basic rights, including habeas corpus….”

I believe that Hitler was elected Fuhrer because of the rise of authoritarianism in Germany in the early 1930’s. I believe the United States is being dragged toward authoritarianism and away from a democratic future.

Two contemporary writers who share my opinion that about the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. are Joe Conason and Scott Horton.

In Conason’s recently published book, IT CAN HAPPEN HERE - Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush, he quotes Sinclair Lewis, author of the well-known It Can't Happen Here, published in 1935: “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.” I highly recommend that you read this book from cover to cover.

Scott Horton, a prolific blogger, posted The Gleichschaltung at Justice on May 1 of this year: “In the final days of the Weimar Republic, the party in power employed a conscious policy for the consolidation of their authority within the state bureaucracy and other social institutions. This policy was simple—it required silencing critics and ensuring that all positions of confidence were in the hands of persons who were true to the line of the party. For historians of the period, this process is known as the ‘Gleichschaltung’ or ‘synchronization.’ Is the process pursued by Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove in the American Justice Department an American sort of Gleichschaltung”? Every day it seems that a stronger case can be made that it is.”

Horton was referring to the purging of US Attorneys by the Department of Justice, which is currently being investigated by Congress. Scott has been dogging this story for months, available at his Harper’s Magazine blog, No Comment.

(photo of Hitler at a Nazi rally in Nuremburg in 1928 - Wikipedia)

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Heifer International - A refuge from a world of woes

The past few days I have felt overwhelmed by the news. I’m particularly disturbed by what appears to be a coup by the Bush Administration in invoking “Executive Privilege” to forestall any oversight by Congress into any and all activities by members of the Executive Branch. If this is of interest to you, I highly recommend Glenn Greenwald’s Bush's magical shield from criminal prosecution - The administration's latest power of lawbreaking is but a natural extension of its long-held theories and Scott Horton’s A Republic, If You Can Keep It, both posted on July 20.

Fortunately my July/August issue of World Ark, published by Heifer International , arrived yesterday. On January 27, I posted My end run around the government, about my involvement with Heifer International. Today, thanks to the arrival of its bi-monthly magazine, it’s my refuge until I can gather up my energy to keep tilting at Washington windmills.

I hope you’ll take a look at Lester Brown’s article in World Ark, A $93 billion tab we can't afford not to pay about restoring the earth. For more about Lester Brown’s plan to save the environment, check Tod Brilliant’s blog. Tod is tirelessly promoting Lester Brown’s book, Plan B, Version 2.0 (which you can download for free).

Heck, the US is spending $12 billion a month to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan. If eight months of funds were diverted from this destruction to restoring the earth, there would be $96 billion to spend!

Finally, for an uplift, check out the article in World Ark about artist Betty LaDuke, who travels about the world and creates wonderful artwork for Heifer. Then visit her website. I promise you’ll feel better.

(drawing - Betty LaDuke website)

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Update on the NIE report that al-Qaeda is stronger than ever

Yesterday I posted Why is al-Qaeda stronger now than it was in 2001?, linking to an hour-long interview by Michael Krasny of four Middle Eastern experts, focusing on the recently released NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report on the continuing threat from al-Qaeda.

I’ve read most of today’s news articles on this subject and have concluded that the Krasny interview is still the best source of information and opinion on the NIE report.

President Bush keeps saying that we’re fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them here. As one of the experts interviewed by Krasny pointed out, al-Qaeda wants to engage the US in bloody wars closer to its home, i.e., the Middle East. It has succeeded in its goal of drawing us in to Afghanistan and Iraq, at great cost both in US lives and resources. There’s also the possibility that before Bush leaves office, Iran will be attacked.

It feels obscene to ignore the carnage that is taking place in the Middle East, the death and destruction raining down on the residents of the countries we’ve invaded, the death and injuries to coalition soldiers, and the tremendous waste of our resources while boasting that our “homeland” is being kept safe. Is Bush being confronted about this mammoth, gigantic, monumental hypocrisy?

If you want to follow the news on the NIE report, the best one-stop place to go for what the mainstream media (MSM) is saying is Dan Froomkin’s blog, White House Watch, where he’s posted Bush's Osama problem: “Nearly six years after President Bush pledged to capture him "dead or alive," Osama bin Laden is not only still at large, but he and his al-Qaeda organization have apparently benefited greatly from Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

“That's not just me saying so. It's the inevitable conclusion from the declassified summary of a White House intelligence report released to great fanfare yesterday.”

Scroll on down Froomkin’s post to the numerous links to MSM articles.


Then go to Scott Horton’s Newflash from the ministry of fear, where you’ll find this comment: “And yesterday we have the latest assault on reason. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Al Qaeda is declassified and released in part. The NIE itself is a significant document, and read with some care. It points to the magnitude of the conceptual and tactical failures of the administration’s ‘war on terror’: it has not effectively engaged Al Qaeda. Instead, just as Richard Clarke and other professionals warned at the outset, it has taken the wrong turn at every crossing and has actually served to fan the flames of the Al Qaeda movement. Consequently, approaching six years into the war, Al Qaeda is back and as strong as at the time of its 9/11 attack on America. "

Finally, check out Juan Cole’s post this morning, NIE: Iraq Fueling al-Qaeda Threat to US, which opens with, “Fred Kaplan at Slate points out that it does not take much reading between the lines to conclude that the new National Intelligence Estimate indicates that Bush`s Iraq War has generated a new and deadly threat against the US. In other words, the US had al-Qaeda on the run and would be safer now if it hadn`t invaded Iraq.”

(photo: IntelCenter, on Saturday, July 14, 2007, shows Osama bin Laden in a new videotape posted on a militant Web site by Al-Qaida's media production wing)

Monday, July 16, 2007

Update on Siegelman Case

Yesterday I posted Keep your eyes on the Siegleman case. This morning, Scott Horton has posted 44 attorney generals demand inquiry into Siegelman prosecution.

I promise you, following this story will not be boring!

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Keep your eyes on the Siegelman case

Why, you may be asking, should you be following the Siegelman case? Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman (photo) is in prison, serving a seven year sentence. In my opinion, it is one of the most important cases because:
1. It is a perfect example of political profiling by the Department of Justice;
2. There’s compelling evidence of voting fraud, which the Department of Justice ignored;
3. Karl Rove is involved. See my June 30 post and Scott Horton’s posts, below.

The best source of information about the Siegelman case is found at Scott Horton’s No Comment. On July 13, he posted a lengthy article, Noel Hillman and the Siegelman Case. Additionally, since June 17, Horton has posted about the Siegelman case (in reverse chronological order) here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

1. Political profiling: Horton provides the detail in his July 13 post. While the Siegelman case was being developed, Noel Hillman was head of the Public Integrity Section (PIN) within the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division. “His unit had responsibility for the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government—state, federal and local. It also had responsibility for criminal action involving elections officials….

“It seems reasonably clear that one of Rove’s key levers at Justice throughout this period was the Public Integrity Section (PIN). This is both because PIN had responsibility for prosecuting corrupt politicians and because of its key role in the elections process….”

Horton references the study done by Professors Shields and Cragan, which shows that seven cases were opened against Democrats for every one case against a Republican. since Hillman became head of PIN in 2001. The professors conclude, “the current Bush Republican Administration appears to be the first to have engaged in political profiling.”

2. Voting fraud: In his July 13 post, Horton devotes a section to "Election Fraud in Baldwin County" (Alabama). Another “cast of characters” is introduced here, but the bottom line is that in 2002 when Siegelman was running for governor, “…6,000 votes inexplicably shifted from Siegelman’s column to Riley’s [the Republican candidate] due to a 'computer glitch.'" When the results were studied, the conclusion was that there should have been a recount. However, the last resort for supporting Siegelman’s request for a recount was the Department of Justice, and Hillman, in charge of the Public Integrity Section which was responsible for the elections process, did nothing.

3. Karl Rove: Well, what more can I say?

(photo: USA Today)