Get it Right Please!

Saturday's editorial concerned an appearance on "Meet the Press" by Roger Simon, a reporter for Politico. The editorial was correct in saying that the case revolved around the "'outing'" of CIA analyst Valerie Plame. The Prosecutor in this case actually found that there wasn't enough evidence or reason to bring charges in this aspect of the case. Scooter Libby is on trial for LYING under oath to a grand jury. From Think Progress posted by Payson:

"Actually, Scooter Libby lied — under oath, to a federal grand jury. He is facing serious felony charges: obstruction of justice, making false statements to a grand jury, and perjury. But according to Simon, these aren’t “'real crimes.'”

This issue is important as shown by an ABC News poll taken at the beginning of the trial that found:

"70 percent of Americans considered the charges against Libby to be serious, and a majority of Americans believed the Libby indictment 'indicates broader problems with ethical wrongdoing in the Bush Administration.'”

The DNR should retract and correct the false headline "A Case of Treason?" The DNR was wrong in calling this a show trial. The DNR should apologize for trivializing lying, obstruction of justice, making false statements to a grand jury, and perjury.

The DNR went on to decry the bias in the media and the hypocrisy shown by the LA Times and the NY Times concerning the "three CIA fliers who may have been used to transport terrorists to different countries." The DNR should recognize that the “three patriots” in question were involved in illegally transporting SUSPECTS in terrorism investigations so that they could be tortured. This simple difference in wording highlights the whole point that the DNR is trying to make.

In the view of the NeoCon ideologues, if you are SUSPECTED of terrorism, you ARE a terrorist! If you are FOR the War you are patriot, if you are AGAINST the war you are "helping the terrorists." This type of absolutism is completely false. The DNR continually parrots this mythological NeoCon dogma. Over and over we hear the DNR proclaim from the Bully Pulpit that Torture is an essential tool for fighting terrorism, that absolute loyalty to the party and it's leaders is the only true patriotism and that anyone who is critical of the Leader and his War-making is a traitor. From this perspective it's easy to see why this editorial is so far off into the realm of fantasy. Once again the DNR has used the Editorial Page to proclaim it's NeoCon "Realworld," a world full of villains and evil-doers, of sin and falsehood, of imminent destruction, where we all need to get in the bunker, hunker down, and prepare ourselves for an "existential conflict" that will last far beyond our lifetime. Be afraid.. be very, very afraid...

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”

- Joseph Goebbels.

Vote Wisely

All 140 members of the the Virginia legislature are up for election this year. The results of that election will determine the character and tone of Virginia governance for the next four years. Will it be harsh and demanding, socially conservative? Will it be moderate, compassionate, and socially liberal? Will government intrude in private lives to decree the social order or will government stay away from moral and religious dogma? The two views were expressed recently in the Washington Post by current opposing factions of the majority party in the State government.

"I'm a moderate Eisenhower-type Republican, and I don't believe in all this interfering in people's personal lives," said Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr. (R-Winchester), chairman of the education and health committee. "I'm very, very moderate on the immigration issue."

House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem) countered, saying that Republicans

"are just trying to punish people for breaking the law."

Conservatives advocate punishment, incarceration for criminals, enforcement of a harsh, disciplined, social justice. This side complains that the opposition is intolerant to opposing viewpoints.

Liberals advocate compromise, rehabilitation, and a compassionate enforcement of social justice that reflects the multi-cultural society in Virginia.

An example from the Post article of this ideological divide can be seen in action this week where:

"the Senate killed bills that would have cut off funding for charities that help illegal immigrants and punished employers who hire illegal immigrants."

In order to force illegals, charities, and employers to obey the law, Conservatives would take away their health care, access to education, and access to social services that otherwise deserving and needy persons would receive. Liberals will say this is harsh and disciplined, that it's just plain mean-spirited to pick on the children, the working mothers and fathers who are working against very long odds to make a life for themselves. Conservatives counter by saying they are here illegally, so they have no rights and are taking resources away from law abiding citizens. In effect, if you're not a member you can't use the facilities.

Here's another example of the divide:

"Senators also rejected legislation that would have made it a state crime for undocumented citizens to live in or travel through Virginia."

Conservatives tell us that Virginia must take the lead in illegal immigrant reform, since the Federal government is dropping the ball. No information has come out yet saying exactly how this will be enforced. Liberals will say that "driving while black" will seem compassionate in comparison. Conservatives will say that enforcing the law is exactly what our State Troopers should be doing.

And finally:

"Last month, the House approved a bill denying in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants. The Senate approved a separate version of the bill that makes exceptions for those in the process of becoming citizens. The House voted Friday to reject the Senate bill, meaning that a conference committee will be needed to sort out the differences."

Conservatives will target the families and children of illegal immigrants in an attempt to make their life so hard that they will want to return to their native land. Liberals will offer support and assistance to illegal aliens while reforms in the immigration policy are formulated. Conservatives feel that what's ours is ours not yours. Liberals feel that what's ours is ours, but you can get some too. Closed, Open. Harsh, Compassionate. Hard-line, Compromise. To be able to choose or to have choices taken away.

The vote this fall is ironic. To vote one way will take away choices. To vote another will preserve choices.

We all get to choose. Vote wisely.

Perpetual War

The war is won!

Saddam is dead, the weapons of mass destruction do not exist, regime change has occurred and our mission is accomplished. Why do we have to keep fighting in order to "support the troops?"

The war is won!

We are now running a counter-insurgency/police action with minimal help from the Iraqi's, which will go on for YEARS! So, to support the troops we must engage them in a never ending quagmire?

To support the troops, we must make war-making the centerpiece of our foreign policy?

Our magnificent soldiers are now responsible for the moral decisions our great nation faces about war-making?

The President bears the responsibility.

The President serves the People.

The People have spoken.

The war is won!

Bring them home!

UPDATE 3/2/07

This article was published in the Daily News Record today.

Myths, Fallacies and Dishonesty in a time of War.

The DNR is once again lost in the web of Myths and Fallacies. First of all let's make a false assumption concerning the Congressional debate about stopping the war in Iraq.

"They (Democrats) are engaging not just in dishonesty and deceit, but in behavior dangerous to American troops."

Now let's set up a false choice.

"If they (Democrats) think the war is unwinnable then they should cut off all funding immediately, period. No strings. No attachments."

Restating myths as truth or demanding false choices is the height of dishonesty, yet in today's editorial our fearless, feckless DNR editor proclaims them loudly and with a sincere conviction as absolute truth.

The myth in question is stated and elaborated eloquently by William E. Odom, Washington Post. Read the entire article here.

"We must continue to fight in order to "'support the troops.'"

Everyone supports the troops. NO ONE has ever advocated stranding troops in the field, depriving them of equipment, armor, ammunition, or field support. De-funding wars is how Congress exerts control and oversight, a normal part of a working democracy. A working democracy is a good bit less efficient than an all powerful Leader who can simply issue an executive order or attach a signing statement.

Congress is simply following the will of 70% of Americans who want the war to end. Dude! It's not just the Democrats! It's Democrats, Republicans, Historians, the Military, the State Department, and ALL of the Intelligence Agencies.

Then, as Mr. Odom also points out,

"(The) strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue the president's course. That political and moral responsibility belongs to the president, not the troops."

Telling Congress to wave it's magic wand to stop all funding and then say that it's undercutting the troops in doing so is a myth, dishonest and a little silly. Myths belong in fairy tales not in editorial journalism.

You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority

Dan Froomkin is my hero! He's just published a list of Jounalistic principles that all reporting should reflect. Those who write blogs, those who read any news reports need to keep all of these in mind. It would seem that these are basic rules, but reading them has raised my awareness of just how dramatically we have been hoodwinked by policy makers in Washington. Read them and weep...

Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.

1. Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie.
2. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.
3. Don’t print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true.

Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War

1. War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn’t enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better.
2. Demand to know what happens if the war (or tactical strike) doesn’t go as planned?
3. Demand to know what happens if it does? What happens after “victory”?


4. Ask them: Isn’t it possible this will make things worse, rather than better?

Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy

1. Don’t assume that these officials, with their access to secret intelligence, know more than you do.


2. Alternately, assume that they do indeed know more than you do – and are trying to keep intelligence that would undermine their arguments secret.

Watch for Rhetorical Traps

1. Keep an eye on how advocates of war frame the arguments.
2. Don’t buy into those frames unless you think they’re fair.
3. Keep a particular eye out for the no-lose construction. For example: If we can’t find evidence of WMD, that proves Saddam is hiding them.
4. Watch out for false denials. In the case of Iran, when administration officials say “nobody is talking about invading Iran,” point out that the much more likely scenario is bombing Iran, and that their answer is therefore a dodge.

Don’t Just Give Voice to the Administration Officials

1. Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them.
2. Listen to and quote the people who got it right last time: The intelligence officials, state department officials, war-college instructors and many others who predicted the problem we are now facing, but who were largely ignored.
3. Offer the greatest and most guaranteed degree of confidentiality to whisteblowers offering information that contradicts the official government position. (By contrast, don’t offer any confidentiality to administration spinners.)

Look Outside Our Borders

1. Pay attention to international opinion. Raise the question: What do people in other countries think? Why should we be so different?
2. Keep an eye out for how the international press is covering this story. Why should we be so different?

Understand the Enemy

1. Listen to people on the other side, and report their position.
2. Send more reporters into the country we are about to attack and learn about their views, their politics and their culture.
3. Don’t allow the population of any country to be demonized. All humans deserve to be humanized.
4. Demand to know why the administration won’t open a dialogue with the enemy. Refusing to talk to someone you are threatening to attack should be considered inherently suspect behavior.

Encourage Public Debate

1. The nation is not well served when issues of war and peace are not fully debated in public. It’s reasonable for the press to demand that Congress engage in a full, substantial debate.
2. Cover the debate exhaustively and substantively.

Write about Motives

1. Historically, the real motives for wars have often not been the public motives. Try to report on the motivations of the key advocates for war.
2. Don’t assume that the administration is being forthright about its motives. If no one in the inner circle will openly discuss their motives, then encourage reasonable speculation about their motives.

Talk to the Military

1. Find out what the military is being told to prepare for.

Now let's all get busy and respond. Blog! Letter to the Editor! Comment! Don't let anything get printed without questioning! Today's headline was all about the military's evidence of Iranian weapons supplied to Iraq fighters. Anonymous sources! No proof! Who's asking?

E Tu McCain?

And now we've found that political anti-hero is now for independent financial support after he was against it. The degradation of a once attractive bipartisan candidate continues. Read on..(John Solomon, Washington Post).

Just about a year and a half ago, Sen. John McCain went to court to try to curtail the influence of a group to which A. Jerrold Perenchio gave $9 million, saying it was trying to "evade and violate" new campaign laws with voter ads ahead of the midterm elections.

As McCain launches his own presidential campaign, however, he is counting on Perenchio, the founder of the Univision Spanish-language media empire, to raise millions of dollars as co-chairman of the Arizona Republican's national finance committee.

It's really painful to watch such blatant hypocrisy. Selling out it seems is just the way business is done these days. You can almost hear the political advisors whispering in John McCain's ear, "It's about winning." Folks, politics is blood sport. Anything goes in order to win. I guess the feeling among the powerful is that if we win then we have a chance to change things. Right....

Senator McCain has learned his lessons well from his defeat in 2000. President Bush showed him that all you need is a solid 30% base, lots of money and a willingness to say and do anything to get elected, knowing that once in office, Rule will ensue. Now Senator McCain is using the same fundraisers, political advisors, and apparachniks that are now out of a job with the demise of Mr. Bush. This is truly sad...

"Certainly we are disappointed that he has decided not to take the lead in fixing the presidential-financing system he is competing in," said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, the ethics watchdog that cheered McCain's reform efforts for years. "But it is understandable he is opting out.

"It is apparent to us that to run a competitive presidential campaign inside a system that is still broken, that is what he has to do," she said.

Read the article by John Solomon HERE.

Saber Rattling

The Bush Administration this morning in the AP lets us know that they have found real evidence of Iranian involvement in the Iraq war. Serial numbers and markings on fragments of bombs can be linked to Iranian sources. Hmm... serial numbers.... markings....

A couple of thoughts. If they are offering actual physical evidence as proof, lets wait and see if they actually produce it. If they do produce it let's see if anyone challenges them to prove it's accurate. (Investigative Journalism 101) Let's see if anyone points out the excellent articles in the LA TIMES HERE and HERE and the Washington Post which, according to Glen Greenwald,

"...raise serious questions about the reliability of the administration's accusations against Iran."

Let's find out if the Daily News Record (Page One, February 10, 2007) is only one of many news publications that only recites administration talking points without any questioning or investigation. Remember another basic rule of journalism from Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post,

"Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself."

The carriers are in the gulf. An air-strike can be carried out by early Spring and is very likely before President Bush leaves office. The administration Neo-Con Radicals are simply quivering with delight with itchy trigger fingers ready to make war yet again. Folks, before we go to war again maybe we should remember another Dan Froomkin rule of Journalism that states:

"War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn't enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better."

Ok, lets examine the four years of the Iraq war and make a list that includes ALL the ways we've made things better. Let's see how much better off the Iraqi's are in the streets and the market places now that they aren't facing a dictatorial, murderous regime. How about the delight of the Syrians, Jordanians, and Iranians to have millions of new "guests" in their countries? And of course lets include the tens of thousands of proud parents and loved ones who've lost a soldier, a martyr, a son or daughter, or loved one to the "just cause" of freedom and democracy.

Let's check our investment in war-making of more than 500 billion dollars and find out if we are better off with the debt we've incurred as a result. Let's hear about how much better off our military is now, how much stronger, and more prepared. Let's hear about how much better off the private defense contractors and mercenaries are and let's hear about how much safer our ports and cities are. Let's hear from anyone who used to live in New Orleans about how much better off THEY are.

Comments anyone? I'm sure there are more items we can add to this list!

More from "Club Gitmo"

More news from "Club Gitmo." This from the Washington Post this morning written by Eric Fair a former civilian interrogator attached to the 82n Airborne Division in Iraq.

"The lead interrogator at the DIF had given me specific instructions: I was to deprive the detainee of sleep during my 12-hour shift by opening his cell every hour, forcing him to stand in a corner and stripping him of his clothes. Three years later the tables have turned. It is rare that I sleep through the night without a visit from this man. His memory harasses me as I once harassed him."

Three years later the interrogator is being tortured... by his conscience. In the article he relates that he was appalled by the behavior of his friends and colleagues and was ashamed of his failure of character remaining silent. The most damning statement of all is testament to the major issue involved with torture. Is it effective?
Mr. Fair -

"The violence raging there today is evidence that those tactics never worked. My memories are evidence that those tactics were terribly wrong."

We're still engaged in torture, somehow hoping that it will work.. textbook insanity.

New Taxes? Sure! Honesty? Well.....

Well written in today's (Feb. 7) Washington Post, Ruth Marcus hits the nail on the head with the difference between what President Bush says and what really happens. Tax Cuts? Alternative Minimum Tax? Who's paying the bills? Bush's new budget proposal is supposed to provide a balance budget by 2012. The AMT is the cash cow that makes it possible. Tax Cuts for the wealthy and corporations? Yes! New higher taxes for the middle class Yes! Whatever happened to "No new taxes?" Here's a highlight:

"The AMT, as you may have had the misfortune of discovering, is hitting growing numbers of taxpayers who are further down the income scale. That's because (1) the level at which it takes effect isn't adjusted for inflation, so more taxpayers find themselves covered over time and (2) the Bush tax cuts lowered regular income tax rates, sweeping additional taxpayers into the alternative system.

Figures compiled by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center demonstrate the AMT's dramatic effect. If nothing is done to fix the AMT and the Bush tax cuts are extended as he wants, 89 percent of married families with two or more children and incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will be hit by the AMT by 2010 -- compared with less than 1 percent in 2006. By 2017, almost half of all taxpayers -- 53 million -- will owe the AMT. The tax will hit two-thirds of those making between $75,000 and $100,000 and 90 percent of those making $100,000 or more.

Looked at another way, what the Bush tax cuts give to taxpayers, the AMT grabs back. By 2012, if it isn't changed, the AMT would take back almost one-third of the Bush tax cuts. ...it would take back more than half of the tax cut for people making between $100,000 and $200,000.

That leaves the middle class, the better-off and corporations to divvy up the tab. In that context, does it really make sense to permanently repeal the estate tax? To leave in place lower tax rates for the richest Americans? To continue to tax capital gains and dividends at far lower rates than ordinary income? These are the choices that the Bush budget entails, even if it fails, deliberately, to spell them out."

Of course our delusional DNR editor offers in this morning's editorial that it certainly is the divine right of corporations to make mega-bucks and huge profits that seem to stoke his view that the economy is just fine thank you. Ms. Marcus seems to be answering the editorial today pointing out that what's rosy to some is higher taxes and financial insecurity to others.

Dishonesty?

Our fearless, feckless DNR editor is stomping and shouting again this morning (February 6) about those "intellectually dishonest" Democrats who are too chicken to really DO something about the Iraq War. "What wimps!" he cries! "All they can do is pass a non-binding resolution expressing their disapproval of the war? Where are your ca-hones gentlemen?" "Where is your honesty! Why don't you stand up and really DO Something!"

Of course! Impeach President Cheney! The grounds:

• The way to world peace is through Armed Might.
• We will be greeted as Liberators.
• You can't talk to your enemies, they are EVIL!
• If you're not with us you are against us!
• If you aren't with us you are FOR them, since THEY are EVIL, YOU are EVIL!
• It's treason to argue against the Leader's position, because You give comfort("embolden") to the enemy!
• The biggest problem with the Iraq war is ... THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, 70% of whom are now FOR the terrorists!
• This is an "existential conflict" that will go on forever!

Now these are LIES! This is TREASON! Here is real dishonesty! I remind our science fiction writing friend and editor that all of these positions are taken from the Radical Neo-Conservative think tanks in Washington that have driven the debate for the past 6 years. Who is the head of this debate and the real "decider" in matters of foreign policy? Vice-President Cheney! Any radical ideology whether it comes from the left or the right is to perfect to be believed and too far from reality to be the truth. Not only are these lies, they are cowardly, foolhardy lies! Dick Cheney is so afraid of a third world despot with maybe a couple of serious weapons that maybe could reek some havoc in his neighborhood that he has convinced us to spend A TRILLION dollars and TENS OF THOUSANDS of human sacrifices to stamp him out! A whole spectrum of third world gangs and militias are now making sport

Understand the cowardice of our Right Wing Radical friends. We live in a country that has the ability to blow up THE WORLD 500 times over! We can literally level entire countries! We can swoop in and conquer them on a WHIM of over-cooked political rhetoric! Opposing us is a country that almost maybe has the capability of building one small nuclear weapon. Cheney is ducking and dodging and calling these our most "fearsome" enemies. He's used lies, both intellectual and criminal. He's hijacked the United States foreign policy and given new meaning to the term "The Ugly American." Some would move to impeach President Bush. Nothing would change! Impeach Cheney! We'd have a chance for Peace.

Update 1:

How honest is this? Tell the Democrats that their non-binding solutions won't have any real affect and are just a waste of time, then fight tooth and nail to defeat any said resolution thereby PROLONGING the debate! If Republicans were intellectually honest, they would help the Democrats pass their "meaningless" resolution and get on with the business of the country. Pots and Kettles here folks....

The Numbers Game

I just read two numbers in the paper that speak louder than a 200 word essay. The President just asked for 70 BILLION dollars in CUTS for Medicare and Social Security. The President just asked for 170 BILLION dollars FOR the Iraq war. Folks, it's more than just "guns or butter." Just think about it....

We're talking about a radical ideology that says it's OK to bankrupt our nation for the sake of preemptive war! War-making is the primary result of our no-nothing-about-foreign policy president! Molly Ivins summed it up pretty well in 2004 in an NPR interview when she said,

"He knows nothing about foreign policy so he signed up his buddy Dick Cheney's favorite neo-cons to run the show."

They don't even think we're in a mess! As Cheney himself said, they think that we've had "enormous successes" in Iraq and that "significant progress has been made." The neo-cons say that we're in an "existential conflict" that will last for generations! Even now, in spite of the November elections, status as a lame-duck minority party leader, and stark reality our President and his advisers are laying the groundwork for WAR IN IRAN! Hey folks we're so good at this watch us do it again! They are cooking the intelligence, rattling sabers, spouting rhetoric that is not even as believable as was the run-up to Iraq. IMPEACH BUSH! This is a crime!

Economy 101

"'The president is right. The economy in aggregate is performing very well. So he's right to claim that the economy, looking from above, looks very good,'

[Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com]

'Democrats are also right. The fruits of this strong economy have largely accrued to higher income wealthier households.'"

You know, Mr. President, you are right and your view of the economy is correct. You know, Mr. Senator, you are also right and your view of the economy is correct. How could both of these seemingly opposite views be correct, you, the reader, ask? Simply put, neither side will give an accurate and COMPLETE report on the economy. Both sides will only cite statistics that back their particular ideology. Both sides will ignore or discount statistics that don't back up their ideology. Fact is, the economy is growing and doing well for the rich. Fact is, the economy is uncertain at best and downright dismal at worst for the middle class. Fact is, the poor are being ignored.

The DNR has once again entered the nether-world of ideology to declare that the economy is doing great, quoting all of the reports, experts, and statistics that support their view. Are they right? Sure, but only about their own half of the argument. Are they as truthful as they want us to believe? Absolutely not. Not until they also account for the rest of the argument. It is especially dangerous to attempt to subvert the public's opinion with half-truths and biased ideology with which the DNR has openly misrepresented the debate. Let's hear the whole argument!