"The Bush administration contends that it is not trying to make government less open. Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said, 'The bottom line remains the president is dedicated to an open government, a responsive government, while he fully exercises the authority of the executive branch.' " - Adam Clymer, The New York Times, 01/03/03
The actions of Howdy's administration, however, show this statement for the outright lie that it is.
In 2001, Herr Ashcroft issued a directive which encouraged federal agencies to reject any and all requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act if there was even the most tenuous legal reasons for doing so, with the promise that the DOJ would back them up in court.
We see the ongoing struggle between the GAO and "Bunker-Boy" Cheney over the transcipts of meetings he had with representatives from the energy industry regarding national energy policy. Such public policy and the process of its formulation must be open to public scrutiny. From the information that has been made available, Cheney basically bent the American public over a brass rail so the energy industry could have its way with us.
Then you have that walking corpse, Donald Rumsfeld, threatening Pentagon officials who discuss military operations with reporters. "I don't think the American people want to know anything that's going to cause the death of any one of these enormously and talented and dedicated and courageous people that are here today." he said before the troops at the Army Special Operations Command in November of 2001. What I want to know is how Rummy, or anyone else in Bush's cabinet, know what Americans really want. They are, after all, so divored from the everyday experience of the average person that there is no connection.
And we have the White House order to the National Archives not to release 68,000 pages of records from the Reagan administration. This, undoubtedly, was based on the fear of the skeletons that would come shambling from that closet.
Let's not forget Howdy's transfer of records from his days as Governor of Texas to his daddy's Presidential Library and, in effect, disappeared.
"Mr. Fleischer contends that there is no secrecy problem. "I make the case that we are more accessible and open than many previous administrations — given how many times [Secretary of State Colin L.] Powell, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft have briefed," he said."
Yeah, and shit don't stink either.
For the full text, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/politics/03SECR.html?tntemail0=&pagewanted=print&position=top
Saturday, January 04, 2003
Thursday, January 02, 2003
During Iraq's war with Iran in the 1980's, the Reagan administration did little or nothing to stop Iraq's chemical and biological warfare research and developement. In fact records are available that indicate the US provided Saddam Hussein with equipement and materials to produce these weapons, especially in the face of fears that Iraq would be overrun by Iran's human-wave attacks.
Rick Francona, a former Army intel officer in Baghdad during 1987, stated "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, bbbut that was not as sinister as nerve gas.
"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84 but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."
In November of 1983, with intel that Iraq was using chemical weapons on an almost daily basis, Reagan signed a secret order with instructions for the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" keep Saddam Hussein in power.
In December of that same year, Donald Rumsfeld was brought in by then President Reagan to act as a "Middle-East troubleshooter". Rumsfeld met with Hussein and reassured him that the US was willing to help his government and restore full diplomatic relations. Rumsfeld later said that he had "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, but statedepartment notes of that meeting mention nothing about such a warning.
Support for Hussein and his regime continued, even after evidence came to light of Saddam Hussein using chemical, nerve and possibly biologic agents against civilian Kurdish populations in northern Iraq.
When, now vice-president, Dick Cheney was CEO of Haliburton, an oilfield service company, Haliburton through its subsidiary Dresser-Rand sold nearly $73 million in equipment to Iraq. In a 7/30/2000 interview on ABC's "This Week", Cheney denied Haliburton ever did business with Iraq. He recanted that statement on the same program 3 weeks later.
Before Haliburton sold its stake in Dresser-Rand in 2000, Cheney signed some $30 million in contracts with Baghdad. Any claims of ignorance of Haliburton's dealings with Iraq on Cheney's part ring hollow, after all, there was due diligence on Haliburton's part in the acquisition of Ingersol-Dresser Pump Co.
So, we are now faced with the spectacle of both of these men out to have Hussein's cojones for breakfast. They beat the drums of war, and speak of evidence of Saddam Hussein having, and developing weapons of mass destruction, yet they fail to present that evidence...to anyone. Purged from the 12,000 page declaration provided by Iraq, was any mention of the US companies which provided Iraq with the equipment and materials necessary for the production on chemical and nerve agents. Why this animosity towards Iraq, if not for control of Iraqi oil-fields?
Rick Francona, a former Army intel officer in Baghdad during 1987, stated "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, bbbut that was not as sinister as nerve gas.
"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84 but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."
In November of 1983, with intel that Iraq was using chemical weapons on an almost daily basis, Reagan signed a secret order with instructions for the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" keep Saddam Hussein in power.
In December of that same year, Donald Rumsfeld was brought in by then President Reagan to act as a "Middle-East troubleshooter". Rumsfeld met with Hussein and reassured him that the US was willing to help his government and restore full diplomatic relations. Rumsfeld later said that he had "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, but statedepartment notes of that meeting mention nothing about such a warning.
Support for Hussein and his regime continued, even after evidence came to light of Saddam Hussein using chemical, nerve and possibly biologic agents against civilian Kurdish populations in northern Iraq.
When, now vice-president, Dick Cheney was CEO of Haliburton, an oilfield service company, Haliburton through its subsidiary Dresser-Rand sold nearly $73 million in equipment to Iraq. In a 7/30/2000 interview on ABC's "This Week", Cheney denied Haliburton ever did business with Iraq. He recanted that statement on the same program 3 weeks later.
Before Haliburton sold its stake in Dresser-Rand in 2000, Cheney signed some $30 million in contracts with Baghdad. Any claims of ignorance of Haliburton's dealings with Iraq on Cheney's part ring hollow, after all, there was due diligence on Haliburton's part in the acquisition of Ingersol-Dresser Pump Co.
So, we are now faced with the spectacle of both of these men out to have Hussein's cojones for breakfast. They beat the drums of war, and speak of evidence of Saddam Hussein having, and developing weapons of mass destruction, yet they fail to present that evidence...to anyone. Purged from the 12,000 page declaration provided by Iraq, was any mention of the US companies which provided Iraq with the equipment and materials necessary for the production on chemical and nerve agents. Why this animosity towards Iraq, if not for control of Iraqi oil-fields?
Tuesday, December 31, 2002
"Last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the United States could fight two wars at once if it had to, against Iraq and North Korea. Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized that the United States preferred peaceful solutions to international differences..." - David Stout, The New York Times, 12/30/2002
Is it just me, or does Rummy's statement ring hollow? After all, the US is positioning enough in the way of troops, supplies, armor, and aircraft to turn Iraq into a parking lot, in and around the Persian Gulf.
North Korea has admitted that it has a nuclear, not nukyuler as some have taken to saying, weapons program, the US blows it off as an international incident, nothing to worry about. Yet rumors of Iraq having such a program sends the Bush administration into an apoplectic fit, and results in the situation regarding Iraq we now find ourselves.
The difference is that North Korea has no oil reserves. Iraq, on the other hand, is sitting on nearly 25% of the worlds proven oil reserves. Imagine that, a failed Texas oil-man going to war over oil.
Matters became clearer when Colin Powell, in an interview on "Meet the Press" said, "The oil fields are the property of the Iraqi peopl. And if the coalition of forces goes into those fields and make sure they are used to benefit all the people of Iraq and are not destroyed or damaged by the failing regime on its way out the door." He went on to further say that the the income produced by the oilfields will be used "In accordance with international law and to the benefit of the people of Iraq." And, let's not forget, for the benfit of the oil companies which so generously supported Bush's presidential campaign.
British Labour MP, George Galloway said of Colin Powell's interview that "The point of invasion is to steal Iraq's oil. This is naked confirmation that they intend to seize it, ramp up production, and thus cut the price of oil...They are going to reap a terrible whirlwind from all of this."
But this view from abroad never made it into the US media, which continues in supporting the administrations continuing drumbeat of war.
Is it just me, or does Rummy's statement ring hollow? After all, the US is positioning enough in the way of troops, supplies, armor, and aircraft to turn Iraq into a parking lot, in and around the Persian Gulf.
North Korea has admitted that it has a nuclear, not nukyuler as some have taken to saying, weapons program, the US blows it off as an international incident, nothing to worry about. Yet rumors of Iraq having such a program sends the Bush administration into an apoplectic fit, and results in the situation regarding Iraq we now find ourselves.
The difference is that North Korea has no oil reserves. Iraq, on the other hand, is sitting on nearly 25% of the worlds proven oil reserves. Imagine that, a failed Texas oil-man going to war over oil.
Matters became clearer when Colin Powell, in an interview on "Meet the Press" said, "The oil fields are the property of the Iraqi peopl. And if the coalition of forces goes into those fields and make sure they are used to benefit all the people of Iraq and are not destroyed or damaged by the failing regime on its way out the door." He went on to further say that the the income produced by the oilfields will be used "In accordance with international law and to the benefit of the people of Iraq." And, let's not forget, for the benfit of the oil companies which so generously supported Bush's presidential campaign.
British Labour MP, George Galloway said of Colin Powell's interview that "The point of invasion is to steal Iraq's oil. This is naked confirmation that they intend to seize it, ramp up production, and thus cut the price of oil...They are going to reap a terrible whirlwind from all of this."
But this view from abroad never made it into the US media, which continues in supporting the administrations continuing drumbeat of war.
Sunday, December 29, 2002
What has become of the "compassionate conservatism" which Howdy had as a plank in his campaign platform?
"Yes, this holiday season--even as Bush prepares the nation for war--selfishness is back in style for those at the top of the economic pyramid. Sacrifice and "compassionate conservatism" are out.
It almost calls for resurrecting the phrase "ruling class," a notion once popular in left-wing circles that claims that the primary function of the highest levels of government is to protect the interests of the very rich. According to this view, big business and the ultra rich influence government at various levels through campaign contributions, personal relationships and ideological affinity. Policy-making becomes not a "mediation" of competing interests but a not so subtle capturing of policy-making institutions by the rich and powerful.
While the Bush Administration is doing all it can to focus our attention on the threat of Iraq and Al Qaeda to the "American way of life," a close look at the current Republican domestic agenda makes you wonder whether this crude radical theory warrants a closer look. Ironically, while the GOP and much of the media apply the term "class warfare" any time the Democrats and their allies in the labor and environmental movements push for even the most timid reform, it is the Bush Administration that perfected the most blatant version of ruling-class politics.
During its first two years in office--from its $1.35 trillion tax cut (including elimination of the inheritance tax), which primarily benefits the wealthiest 2 percent of the population, to its repeal of Clinton-era "ergonomics" standards, affecting more than 100 million workers, that would have forced companies to alter their work stations, redesign their facilities or change their tools and equipment if employees suffered serious work-related injuries from repetitive motions--the Bushies have acted without shame to serve the interests of their friends in corporate board rooms and the very rich." - Kelly Candaele & Peter Dreier, The Nation, 12/23/2002
In the first two years of Howdy's occupation of the White House, his legacy has been one of fattening the purses of his campaign contributors, gutting environmental regulations, tossing aside worker safety rules, and generally screwing the average American.
For the complet text, go to: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030106&s=dreier
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; It's time to put aside the rhetoric of war and move beyond the politics of the current administration. Bush and his merry band must be called to task, and if they will not act responsibly either vote them out of office or dig up the evidence they have tried so hard to bury and offer them a simple choice: Resign or be impeached. Either solution is acceptable, so long as the power in this country is given back to we, the people.
In all fairness though, it is "We, the people..." who bear much of the blame for bring the nation to its current state of affairs. By failing to accept the responsibilies that living in a rfree an democratic society impose upon us, namely casting a considered and informed vote, as well as failing to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions, we have America as it has come to be. We have an America whose domestic and foreign policy directed more by the goals of a few monied interests rather than the goals and interests of all of its citizens. It is time for Americans to awaken and once more take up our responsibilites to help secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. The dream of our forefathers is fading, and will soo be nothing more than a vague memory if we fail to do so.
"Yes, this holiday season--even as Bush prepares the nation for war--selfishness is back in style for those at the top of the economic pyramid. Sacrifice and "compassionate conservatism" are out.
It almost calls for resurrecting the phrase "ruling class," a notion once popular in left-wing circles that claims that the primary function of the highest levels of government is to protect the interests of the very rich. According to this view, big business and the ultra rich influence government at various levels through campaign contributions, personal relationships and ideological affinity. Policy-making becomes not a "mediation" of competing interests but a not so subtle capturing of policy-making institutions by the rich and powerful.
While the Bush Administration is doing all it can to focus our attention on the threat of Iraq and Al Qaeda to the "American way of life," a close look at the current Republican domestic agenda makes you wonder whether this crude radical theory warrants a closer look. Ironically, while the GOP and much of the media apply the term "class warfare" any time the Democrats and their allies in the labor and environmental movements push for even the most timid reform, it is the Bush Administration that perfected the most blatant version of ruling-class politics.
During its first two years in office--from its $1.35 trillion tax cut (including elimination of the inheritance tax), which primarily benefits the wealthiest 2 percent of the population, to its repeal of Clinton-era "ergonomics" standards, affecting more than 100 million workers, that would have forced companies to alter their work stations, redesign their facilities or change their tools and equipment if employees suffered serious work-related injuries from repetitive motions--the Bushies have acted without shame to serve the interests of their friends in corporate board rooms and the very rich." - Kelly Candaele & Peter Dreier, The Nation, 12/23/2002
In the first two years of Howdy's occupation of the White House, his legacy has been one of fattening the purses of his campaign contributors, gutting environmental regulations, tossing aside worker safety rules, and generally screwing the average American.
For the complet text, go to: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030106&s=dreier
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; It's time to put aside the rhetoric of war and move beyond the politics of the current administration. Bush and his merry band must be called to task, and if they will not act responsibly either vote them out of office or dig up the evidence they have tried so hard to bury and offer them a simple choice: Resign or be impeached. Either solution is acceptable, so long as the power in this country is given back to we, the people.
In all fairness though, it is "We, the people..." who bear much of the blame for bring the nation to its current state of affairs. By failing to accept the responsibilies that living in a rfree an democratic society impose upon us, namely casting a considered and informed vote, as well as failing to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions, we have America as it has come to be. We have an America whose domestic and foreign policy directed more by the goals of a few monied interests rather than the goals and interests of all of its citizens. It is time for Americans to awaken and once more take up our responsibilites to help secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. The dream of our forefathers is fading, and will soo be nothing more than a vague memory if we fail to do so.