A friend of mine asked me what I expected President Bush is likely to say about Iran at tonight's speech from the throne (as even some conservatives are calling it). I predict that he'll say the following:
Iran is a a lawless regime which is threat to international security by its belligerent rhetoric and its flouting of international law. It thus can't be trusted with nuclear technology.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
Bush admin, mullahs come to agreement
Despite all the tension between the US and Iranian governments, it's good to know that the Bush administration and the mullahs can come to an agreement on something. Too bad it's on the subject gay-bashing.
The Challenger
It's said that every youthful generation has an incident where everyone remembers where they were when they heard the news. A single event that binds them in collective grieving and/or anger. For my grandparents' generation, it was Pearl Harbor. For my parents' generation, it was the assassination of President Kennedy. For my sister's generation, it was 9/11.
But everyone my age remembers where they were when the space shuttle Challenger exploded, twenty years ago last Saturday.
I was in 6th grade. When I first heard whisperings about the shuttle's explosion, I was in 'industrial arts' (ie: wood shop). This was around 12:30 PM. I spent the rest of the day agitating to get out of school so I could run home and see it with my own eyes.
Little did I know, I would see it with my own eyes dozens of times in the following weeks.
It was a different time back then. The main worry was the threat of nuclear war. Up until I was about 12 or 13, the most words I most feared on television, the words that made my spine stiffen instantly, were, "We interrupt this programming to bring you this special report."
We were supposed to worry about the Soviets, not about spacecrafts exploding.
But everyone my age remembers where they were when the space shuttle Challenger exploded, twenty years ago last Saturday.
I was in 6th grade. When I first heard whisperings about the shuttle's explosion, I was in 'industrial arts' (ie: wood shop). This was around 12:30 PM. I spent the rest of the day agitating to get out of school so I could run home and see it with my own eyes.
Little did I know, I would see it with my own eyes dozens of times in the following weeks.
It was a different time back then. The main worry was the threat of nuclear war. Up until I was about 12 or 13, the most words I most feared on television, the words that made my spine stiffen instantly, were, "We interrupt this programming to bring you this special report."
We were supposed to worry about the Soviets, not about spacecrafts exploding.
Amusement for the day
Every year, I get a solicitation from the Democratic National Committee for my money. While not as amusing as the solicitation I received for President Bush's re-election campaign, the Dems letter also gets a snicker out of me.
Apparently, they still haven't figured out that I quit their party seven years ago.
Apparently, they still haven't figured out that I quit their party seven years ago.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Commenting
Please note: I've never been a big fan of completely anonymous notes. Lately, I've received some obscene anonymous notes on some of my entries in my various blogs. Hence, from now, only registered users can leave comments in my blogs. Becoming a member is easy and free. You don't actually have to maintain a blog to register. It's easy and free and you can choose a pseudonym if you don't want to use your real name. Just click here. I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may cause, but few newspapers publish unsigned letters either.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Filibustering Alito?
So now a couple of Democratic senators have talked of filibustering Samuel Alito, President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court. They probably won't have the numbers, since even Democratic leader Sen. Harry Reid has said it's a bad idea. But is it?
I have serious questions about Alito's seemingly excessive deferrence to presidential power. The Constitution mandates a separation of powers. It delineates specific authority to each of the three, theoretically co-equal, branches of government. The Constitution offers no such provision for those separations to be erased at the whim of the executive, even during an undeclared war waged ad infinitum against a nebulous enemy.
Though Democrat Robert Byrd, the Senate's leading critic of Congressional subsevience to the executive branch, said he'd vote for Alito.
And I acknowledge that judicial nominees are different than other nominees because once approved, judges can serve for life; Congressional hearings are the only oversight unless they're involved with impeachable misconduct.
But while I'd probably vote against Judge Alito's accession to the Supreme Court, I still wouldn't support a filibuster against him. I guess I'm a believer in giving people their day in court, if you'll excuse the pun. He, and all nominees, should be given an up or down vote.
It's one thing to filibuster a bill, but unless a singularly grave threat to the Republic is being nominated, you shouldn't filibuster people. And it's hard to argue that one justice on a nine-person body constitutes by himself a grave threat to the Republic. Maybe he wouldn't be so great, but a grave threat to the Republic? I've seen no evidence to that. I remember back when liberals said the sky would fall if David Souter were confirmed to the bench. And now he's one of its more liberal justices.
The Senate has no obligation to act on legislation proposed by the president, but it does have a constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on judicial nominees. Up or down.
It's true that Republicans acted much differently when Democrat President Bill Clinton was in power. But given all the ethical scandals immersing the Republicans in Washington, taking the high road is not only the right thing to do for Democrats, but probably the politically smart one as well.
I have serious questions about Alito's seemingly excessive deferrence to presidential power. The Constitution mandates a separation of powers. It delineates specific authority to each of the three, theoretically co-equal, branches of government. The Constitution offers no such provision for those separations to be erased at the whim of the executive, even during an undeclared war waged ad infinitum against a nebulous enemy.
Though Democrat Robert Byrd, the Senate's leading critic of Congressional subsevience to the executive branch, said he'd vote for Alito.
And I acknowledge that judicial nominees are different than other nominees because once approved, judges can serve for life; Congressional hearings are the only oversight unless they're involved with impeachable misconduct.
But while I'd probably vote against Judge Alito's accession to the Supreme Court, I still wouldn't support a filibuster against him. I guess I'm a believer in giving people their day in court, if you'll excuse the pun. He, and all nominees, should be given an up or down vote.
It's one thing to filibuster a bill, but unless a singularly grave threat to the Republic is being nominated, you shouldn't filibuster people. And it's hard to argue that one justice on a nine-person body constitutes by himself a grave threat to the Republic. Maybe he wouldn't be so great, but a grave threat to the Republic? I've seen no evidence to that. I remember back when liberals said the sky would fall if David Souter were confirmed to the bench. And now he's one of its more liberal justices.
The Senate has no obligation to act on legislation proposed by the president, but it does have a constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on judicial nominees. Up or down.
It's true that Republicans acted much differently when Democrat President Bill Clinton was in power. But given all the ethical scandals immersing the Republicans in Washington, taking the high road is not only the right thing to do for Democrats, but probably the politically smart one as well.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Scott Ritter's speech
I was listening on public radio to a great speech by Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector and former US marine. Ritter has been a leading critic of the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq.
His speech was very interesting. It dealt not primarily with the aggression against Iraq but with the history of US policy toward Iraq since 1990. His monologue is about half an hour long followed by a question and answer session of the same length.
He says that the assertion that there was "an intelligence failure" with regard to WMDs is fraudulent. He says that it was known in the early 90s that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction in the summer of '91, shortly after the end of Gulf War I. Yet the ruse that Iraq still had WMDs was maintained because disarmament had been the pretext to maintain sanctions against the country. The real objective of US policy from the get go was not disarmanent, but regime change.
Except the objective wasn't really regime change but dictator change. Ritter argues that the US government did not necessarily want a complete removal of the Baathist regime in the country, only the removal of the man Saddam Hussein. He claims that Saddam's continued hold on power represented zero threat to US national security or international stability. Iraq's military had been annihiliated during Gulf War I and its weapons of mass destruction destroyed a few months later. Economic sanctions denied Iraq the revenue to seriously rebuild or restart either. Yet, Saddam Hussein's continued hold on power was politically embarassing to President George H.W. Bush, who'd launched a war against a man he'd described as the Hitler of the Middle East. You don't call someone the Hitler of the Middle East if you merely want to remove him from a neighboring country; you do so to remove him from his own country.
Ritter says the real intention of successive US administrations was never disarmament, particularly since Saddam's Iraq was never a threat to any other country after Gulf War I. The disarmament ruse created by Pres. Bush I that was unchalleneged by Pres. Clinton and obviously Pres. Bush II. Revelation that disarmament was complete would've compelled the US (by its own logic) to order sanctions lifted, thus undermining the possiblity of internal regime change.
Ritter concedes that Iraq's disarmament in the summer of 1991 may not have been evident immediately, but it was clearly to inspectors on the ground by 1995. Sanctions were maintained through the US invasion in 2003.
He says the "intelligence failure" assertion is patently false because the assertions presume that they were trying to get it right and simply failed. He cites a former CIA director (though I could be wrong, I inferred it to be James Woolsey) who said something like, "We think Iraq has 15-20 missles and nothing will convince us otherwise."
Basically, the 'don't let facts get in the way of pre-conceived notions' mentality pre-dated Pres. Bush II.
Ritter is also very critical of the Clinton administration for maintaining the disarmament ruse. He also noted with contempt an infamous comment by then UN-ambassador Madeleine Albright.
When told by a 60 Minutes reporter that some half a million Iraqi children had died as a result of US sanctions against Iraq, Albright pointedly did not deny the figure. (And this was only through the first four years of the twelve that sanctions were imposed)
Instead, Albright said, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
Ritter noted acerbically that it wasn't Sec. Albright who had to pay that price.
He also lambasted formerly pro-war Democrats who now sanctimoniously claim that they were deceived by the administration. They knew better, Ritter claims. They knew better at the time.
I have come to have a great deal of respect for Scott Ritter, citizen. Ritter has been a tireless warrior to make the truth heard. He did so even at a time several years ago when the truth was decreed unpatriotic, a decree enforced with an almost McCarthyistic zeal. (And I don't use that adjective lightly) He has been courageous and unflinching in the face of vitriol and smear, unlike the Democrats mentioned above. There's hardly any westerner with more detailed, first-hand knowledge of the history of Iraq's weapons programs than he, which is why the smear hasn't stuck.
He patiently lays out the facts, the chronology, the things we've forgotton about (or never knew about) and first-hand observations in a rational, mostly dispassionate but firm manner. He avoids sensationalism. He avoids partisan politics. His speeches are refreshingly free of hysterical rants, juvenile taunts and ad hominem. He makes his criticism of the long-standing US policy in Iraq in a dignified, statesmanlike way sadly rare on all sides of the political spectrum.
The speech and Q&A is definitely worth a listen.
His speech was very interesting. It dealt not primarily with the aggression against Iraq but with the history of US policy toward Iraq since 1990. His monologue is about half an hour long followed by a question and answer session of the same length.
He says that the assertion that there was "an intelligence failure" with regard to WMDs is fraudulent. He says that it was known in the early 90s that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction in the summer of '91, shortly after the end of Gulf War I. Yet the ruse that Iraq still had WMDs was maintained because disarmament had been the pretext to maintain sanctions against the country. The real objective of US policy from the get go was not disarmanent, but regime change.
Except the objective wasn't really regime change but dictator change. Ritter argues that the US government did not necessarily want a complete removal of the Baathist regime in the country, only the removal of the man Saddam Hussein. He claims that Saddam's continued hold on power represented zero threat to US national security or international stability. Iraq's military had been annihiliated during Gulf War I and its weapons of mass destruction destroyed a few months later. Economic sanctions denied Iraq the revenue to seriously rebuild or restart either. Yet, Saddam Hussein's continued hold on power was politically embarassing to President George H.W. Bush, who'd launched a war against a man he'd described as the Hitler of the Middle East. You don't call someone the Hitler of the Middle East if you merely want to remove him from a neighboring country; you do so to remove him from his own country.
Ritter says the real intention of successive US administrations was never disarmament, particularly since Saddam's Iraq was never a threat to any other country after Gulf War I. The disarmament ruse created by Pres. Bush I that was unchalleneged by Pres. Clinton and obviously Pres. Bush II. Revelation that disarmament was complete would've compelled the US (by its own logic) to order sanctions lifted, thus undermining the possiblity of internal regime change.
Ritter concedes that Iraq's disarmament in the summer of 1991 may not have been evident immediately, but it was clearly to inspectors on the ground by 1995. Sanctions were maintained through the US invasion in 2003.
He says the "intelligence failure" assertion is patently false because the assertions presume that they were trying to get it right and simply failed. He cites a former CIA director (though I could be wrong, I inferred it to be James Woolsey) who said something like, "We think Iraq has 15-20 missles and nothing will convince us otherwise."
Basically, the 'don't let facts get in the way of pre-conceived notions' mentality pre-dated Pres. Bush II.
Ritter is also very critical of the Clinton administration for maintaining the disarmament ruse. He also noted with contempt an infamous comment by then UN-ambassador Madeleine Albright.
When told by a 60 Minutes reporter that some half a million Iraqi children had died as a result of US sanctions against Iraq, Albright pointedly did not deny the figure. (And this was only through the first four years of the twelve that sanctions were imposed)
Instead, Albright said, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
Ritter noted acerbically that it wasn't Sec. Albright who had to pay that price.
He also lambasted formerly pro-war Democrats who now sanctimoniously claim that they were deceived by the administration. They knew better, Ritter claims. They knew better at the time.
I have come to have a great deal of respect for Scott Ritter, citizen. Ritter has been a tireless warrior to make the truth heard. He did so even at a time several years ago when the truth was decreed unpatriotic, a decree enforced with an almost McCarthyistic zeal. (And I don't use that adjective lightly) He has been courageous and unflinching in the face of vitriol and smear, unlike the Democrats mentioned above. There's hardly any westerner with more detailed, first-hand knowledge of the history of Iraq's weapons programs than he, which is why the smear hasn't stuck.
He patiently lays out the facts, the chronology, the things we've forgotton about (or never knew about) and first-hand observations in a rational, mostly dispassionate but firm manner. He avoids sensationalism. He avoids partisan politics. His speeches are refreshingly free of hysterical rants, juvenile taunts and ad hominem. He makes his criticism of the long-standing US policy in Iraq in a dignified, statesmanlike way sadly rare on all sides of the political spectrum.
The speech and Q&A is definitely worth a listen.
Self-analysis
Don't you wish the Bush administration engaged in this level of public self-examination, self-criticism and accountability?
At least the UN had enough decency to embarassed by its screw ups.
At least the UN had enough decency to embarassed by its screw ups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)