Argentine Protest Turns Violent

Argentines, led by Venezuela's communist president Hugo Chavez, took to the streets to protest President Bush's attendance at the Summit of the Americas. (Newsday: Summit Protests Turn Violent in Argentina). The President, considered by many in the region to be a Monroe Doctrinist, is extremely unpopular in Latin America. Few, if any, US objectives are supported by a region that is quickly slipping into the grips of socialism or communism.

Latin American leaders accuse President Bush of turning his back on them after they turned their back on us in the drive to isolate Iraq. They see the President as an adversary rather than the mejor amigo he professed to be early in his first term. The real issues, however, are monetary and have nothing at all to do with the war in Iraq.

Argentina has a lengthy history of financial mismanagement. Financial crises in that country lead them to request over $25 billion in aid from the US in 2002. Yes, they hate President Bush but they are more than willing to accept our money. Argentine President Nestor Kirchner is currently attempting to negotiate his way out of $100 billion in foreign debt. It seems to me that violent protests over the arrival of our President is not the best way to gain our support in that debt forgiveness.

Also at issue in the Summit is FTAA, a free trade agreement encompassing North, Central, and South America. Not surprisingly, Chavez - a communist - is denouncing the free trade agreement and is seeking a more socialistic vision in the Southern Hemisphere. That he has so much support throughout the impoverished region is disturbing at best. What neither he nor other Latin American leaders seem to realize is that a free trade agreement will benefit them far more than it will benefit us. That agreement would spur an increase in US industry throughout that region, generating job growth there and improving the local economies. Instead, they would rather continue their downward spiral of economic failures and continue their efforts to foist all of the blame for their troubles on Bush.

What it boils down to is the form of aid the US should provide to a region that is growing increasingly hostile. Simply funnelling additional US dollars there is not the answer. That has been done for several decades and the money has simply been squandered by either inept or corrupt (or both) governments and it has done nothing to improve the state of poverty in Latin America. Reform in the region is a requirement before any additional aid can be provided.

As we learned the hard way in the mid-1980's, $30 billion in IMF aid to Argentina did nothing to improve their economic situation, but it did allow Argentine leaders to avoid any reforms that would have lead to an economic turn-around. We cannot continue throwing good money after bad. Faced with our own budget issues at home, one must question why we bother to continue to send money to countries that so openly display their hatred and contempt for the US. It is high time we made it clear that they cannot hate us but love our money. They have to either take the entire package or reject the entire package, but they cannot scorn us any longer while holding out their hands for more money.

Technorati: politics Argentina Summit of Americas Latin America Chavez Kirchner Bush
IceRocket: politics Argentina Summit of Americas Latin America Chavez Kirchner Bush

Senate Budget Bill Faces Veto

The US Senate passed a sweeping budget reform bill that would cut some $35 billion over the course of the next 5 years. (Washington Post: Senate Passes Plan to Cut $35 Billion From Deficit). The bill would reduce federal funding to pharmaceutical companies, tap into agricultural support measures, squeeze student loan providers, and attempt to clamp down on Medicare fraud. President Bush has already threatened to veto the measure since it tampers with his recently implemented Medicare drug plans.

Before anyone gets overly excited about the numbers, let me point out that the savings is over a 5-year period. Averaging only $7 billion per year in cuts, the bill barely covers the amount proposed this week to address Avian flu concerns. Senator Tom DeLay (R-TX), while praising the tax reduction measures over the past 5-years also acknowledged congress' lackluster spending constraints in prior budgets: "Our record on spending has not been as consistent, unfortunately."

DeLay's comments are an understatement. Imelda Marcos showed more restraint in a shoe store than Congress does with federal spending. A $35 billion reduction over 5 years is a non-event. Unfortunately, there is little chance Congress will do anything substantial with the 2006 budget given that it is an election year. Neither side of the aisle is going to risk angering key constituents by clamping down on pet pork projects that only benefit a limited number of people for the simple reason that those pork projects benefit voters in key districts.

This particular measure may never get to the President's desk anyway. There is sufficient opposition to many aspects of the measure in the House, leading budget committee member Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) to comment, "There are a dozen issues, any one of which could break this deal. This is going to be a heavy lift."

Expect the usual from Congress when it comes to the 2006 budget. Don't look to an election year congress to make any sweeping spending reforms. Also don't look to this budget reduction bill to have any impact whatsoever, even assuming its unlikely passage in the House.

Technorati: politics budget budget cuts Adam Putnam Putnam DeLay
IceRocket: politics budget budget cuts Adam Putnam Putnam DeLay

Brown E-Mails Disgraceful

Recently released e-mails sent by former FEMA director Michael Brown show a disgraceful level of incompetence and one that borders on criminal negligence. (Washington Post: Brown Discussed Wardrobe During Katrina). At a time when residents of the Gulf Coast were in desperate need of assistance and state governments were in need of direction, Brown was busy joking about his wardrobe and his imminent (and planned) departure as head of the agency.

While Hurricane Katrina was making landfall, Brown sent an e-mail joking about his wardrobe saying, "I got it at Nordstroms. Are you proud of me? Can I quit now? Can I go home?" He might as well have quit and gone home since he provided nothing of value throughout the crisis.

If that were the only e-mail it could easily be overlooked or excused, but it simply did not end there. On August 31, he received a desperate call for assistance from FEMA official Marty Bahamonde who called the situation "past critical." Speaking of patients in emergency temporary shelters he warned that, “Estimates are many will die within hours.” The e-mail went on to state, "We are out of food and running out of water at the dome, plans in works to address the critical need.” What is Michael Brown's response to this escalating emergency? "Thanks for the update. Anything specific I need to do or tweak?”

Responding to criticism of FEMA's lack of response in the crisis, Brown publicly stated, “My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday [two days before the storm hit] that Louisiana was dysfunctional." Sadly, it's not Louisiana that was dysfunctional, it was Michael Brown. One must wonder how many lives were lost and how many families have lost everything because of his gross incompetence. This is precisely the type of behaviour that requires an investigation. Brown should certainly be held accountable for his disgraceful actions in time of crisis.

Brown's actions go beyond incompetent. An incompetent manager in time of crisis will still attempt to take action. They may make the wrong decisions or they may fumble about incapable of making decisions, and more often then not the incompetent manager will get in the way. None of this describes Brown's actions. He was not just incompetent, he was negligent. He was too self-centered to even recognize that there was a problem. When confronted with it, he attempted to blame everyone else on the planet for his own negligence. He needs to be held accountable. Too many lives depended on his agency for this type of behaviour to go unpunished.

Technorati: FEMA Brown Michael Brown Katrina
IceRocket: FEMA Brown Michael Brown Katrina

$7.1 Billion Flu Plan Proposed

A decade in the making, the federal government released a $7.1 billion proposal for fighting a flu pandemic. Significant portions of the plan rely on state and local officials, recognizing that the federal government would not be in any position to spearhead nationwide efforts in a pandemic. (Washington Post: Flu Plan Counts on Public Cooperation).

The plan also relies heavily on public cooperation and common sense, two traits rarely found in emergencies of this nature. Rather than impose force quarantines, the plan would prefer to use voluntary quarantines. That's not likely to be effective. Interestingly, the plan does not mention use of the military to assist local areas in dealing with the flu impacts. That's actually reassuring since rapid mobilization of the military would likely escalate the spread of the virus rather than contain it.

Reminiscent of the Y2K hype, one section of the plan suggests that people stockpile a 10-day supply of food. This would serve in the event local officials declare a "snow-day" type emergency that closes all business for a week or more. Whether or not an imposed 10-day local shutdown is practical remains to be seen.

Other suggestions include travel bans and quarantine stations at airports. Even a hint of avian flu breakout in tourist areas could cripple the travel industry as witnessed during the SARS outbreak several years ago. Travel bans would also have a crippling effect on the economy in general due to the heavy dependence on business travel and intrastate shipping.

Much of the plan stems from an attempt to learn from prior pandemics, three of which occurred in the past century. The two outbreaks given the most scrutiny were the Influenza pandemic of 1918 and the Smallpox pandemic closer to the turn of the century. Quarantine, even of entire towns, was implemented in both of those cases with little effect. Given that this particular virus can be spread by migratory birds, I'm at a loss to understand how quarantine is even practical in this case.

The harsh reality is that there is little we can do to counter the spread of an avian flu pandemic should one of the influenza viruses mutate into human to human contagion. All planning aside, nature will have to run its course. That is what happened in 1918 and with smallpox, and that is what will happen with the next pandemic whenever that occurs. Planning for the effects is a worthwhile exercise, and may even mitigate the effects to some small degree, but in the end it will be time, not money, that will get us through the pandemic. That is a time honored truth.

Technorati: H5N1 avian flu bird flu pandemic
IceRocket: H5N1 avian flu bird flu pandemic

CIA "Black Sites" Disclosed

According to US and foreign officials, the CIA has been holding top level al Qaeda operatives in secret detention facilities around the world. These detention facilities, referred to as "black sites", are only known to a handful of people and operate outside the scope of US judicial system rules and regulations. (Washington Post: CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons).

Congress recently overwhelmingly passed regulations that further define how prisoners of war are treated while in US custody. Both Vice President Cheney and CIA director Porter Goss have asked Congress to exempt the CIA from those regulations. Obviously, such an exemption will rankle the various human rights watchdog agencies that seemingly scream "prisoner abuse" if lunch is served without a linen napkin. Yet, such an exemption is absolutely necessary if we are going to successfully wage war against terrorists who consider beheadings to be an accepted form of negotiation.

Make no mistake about the intentions of those held at these CIA black sites. These are people that will do anything in their power to kill as many Americans as possible. As we have seen in Iraq and in the 9/11 terror attacks, these terrorists do not seek military targets. Rather, their targets are those that will have the greatest shock value. The more women and children killed in the attack, the better it is for the terrorists. That is the type scum being held by the CIA in these black sites.

Before there is any outrage over the existence of these sites, let me express outrage that their very existence was ever revealed, for in so doing we have compromised the ability of the CIA to conduct very necessary interrogations for our national security. Terrorists do not acknowledge US law. They do not acknowledge the US judicial system. The US constitution is a document of derision to them, not a standard of conduct. We are fighting people that wish to destroy our society and will take any steps necessary to accomplish just that. They are not deserving of any protections under the US constitution. Whatever means are required by the CIA to extract information from them is more than justified.

For covert activities to succeed, they must remain precisely that: covert. It's most disturbing that anyone with knowledge of these black sites would even think to release that information. Let the CIA do its job, and right now that job is extracting as much information as possible from the terrorists in their possession and quietly discarding the spent husk afterwards. I don't really care how they get information from the terrorists and I don't really care what happens to the terrorists afterwards. What I do care about is identifying and eradicating the scum currently targeting the US, and to do that the CIA must be able to operate covertly. Let them do their jobs.

Technorati: CIA black sites Cheney Goss prison abuse human rights
IceRocket: CIA black sites Cheney Goss prison abuse human rights

Reid Hijacks Senate

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) forced the Senate into a closed door session today, ostensibly to focus discussions on a congressional investigation into pre-war intelligence. (Bloomberg: U.S. Senate Closed Session Yields Intelligence Accord). A closed door session has only been invoked 53 times since 1929, and it was quite clear that today's antics by Reid was politically motivated and had little to do with pressing national security issues.

What today's stunt was intended to do was counter any momentum that Republicans could gain from the nomination of an ultra-conservative to the Supreme Court. The left could smell blood after the indictment of Scooter Libby and the withdrawal of Harriet Miers as a court nominee. Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito, however, reignited his conservative base, something the Democrats want to avoid heading into the confirmation process. Today's closed door session to draw attention to Iraqi war intelligence is nothing more the sleight of hand intended to distract Senate Republicans and the American people. Senate Majority Leader Frist correctly summed it up when he said, "The U.S. Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leaders."

Obviously, the issue of pre-war intelligence is not going to disappear. The intelligence may have been faulty in some cases, and certain aspects may have been overstated in others. What the Democrats don't want the people to know, however, is that seven of the fifteen members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are Democrats. What's more, an ex-officio member of the committee is none other than Senator Harry Reid! Senator, methinks thou dost protest too much!

The pre-war intelligence was presented to both the Senate and House intelligence committees. They were privy to the exact same information the President had. They drew the exact same conclusions the President did regarding Iraq's abilities and their intentions. What's more, in 2000 President Clinton and his intelligence services came to the same conclusions. If there was any duplicity at all in the intelligence game, the members of the House and Senate intelligence committees are of equal blame. But they don't want you to know that.

What we have now is nothing less than a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking for political gain. The same people that were adamant that force was necessary are now experiencing the same amnesia that is about to beset Libby in his CIA leak defense. It's amazing just how much these folks don't recall, even when it's a matter of public record.

So please spare us the theatrics. We really don't need Harry Reid or anyone else grandstanding in the Senate. If you want to investigate where our intelligence agencies came up short and how best to fix that, then fine. But please save the conspiracy theories for the next episode of Roswell.

Technorati: politics Reid Harry Reid Senate Intelligence
IceRocket: politics Reid Harry Reid Senate Intelligence

Impotent Resolution Sent to Security Council

Seeking to gain unanimous support for a resolution condemning Syria for the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, the US, Britain, and France agreed to delete the threat of economic sanctions. The new resolution only threatens to refer Syria to the council for further consideration if they don't comply. (China View: UN draft resolution on Syria revised to get unanimous support).

What it boils down to is that the UN Security Council will consider a completely worthless resolution that has no teeth and offers only the hollow threat of drafting another worthless resolution if this one doesn't have them shaking. This is the same pattern we have seen continuously from that worthless organization.

Historically, UN resolutions do little more than constitute an international finger wag. The overwhelming majority of resolutions go unenforced and are summarily ignored by the offenders. No wonder so many nations were shocked when we actually enforced UN Resolution 1441 against Iraq. Had they known we would actually enforce the clause that threatened serious consequences, there's little doubt that the Chapter 7 clause would never have made it into the final draft.

So the pattern continues. Syria will be threatened with the diplomatic equivalent of a time out, but nothing of consequence will ever come of it. The UN will once again turn a blind eye to a nation that openly sponsors terrorism, conducts assassinations against other heads of state, and provides safe harbor for insurgents disrupting the peace process in Iraq. Once again, the UN has proven to be worthless. Two months ago I questioned why we spend a dime on UN dues when they are clearly a waste of money. That question is still valid today.

Technorati: politics Syria Hariri UN Security Council
IceRocket: politics Syria Hariri UN Security Council

"Quiet Conservative" Picked for Top Court

In just under an hour, President Bush will nominate 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Conner on the US Supreme Court. (CNN: Officials: Bush to nominate Alito to high court). Alito's pick quickly follows the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' name from that same position.

In selecting Alito, the President has picked a candidate that will have overwhelming support from his conservative base - something he did not have with Miers and what ultimately scuttled her nomination. He has also selected a judge with a lengthy history of public decisions, and someone that has extensive experience on the bench. From the standpoint of qualifications, Judge Alito certainly passes muster.

The confirmation of Alito is no slam dunk, however, and the President is in for an extremely difficult fight in the Senate. Many describe Alito as being "Scalia-like", something that will not sit well with the left. Like Scalia, Alito is a very conservative judge and would also be described as a constructionist. Attorneys that know Alito claim that, were they on the same court, he and Scalia would typically vote the same way. In some circles, he has earned the nickname "Scalito", in reference to the similarities between the two.

This nomination raises the spectre of a filibuster, although that could be politically damaging to the Democrats when it involves a Supreme Court pick. Of course, with O'Connor's decision to remain on the bench until a replacement is found, there's no rush to fill the vacancy, and the Democrats may only need to hold out until the 2006 elections to force the selection of their choice.

For the record, I fully support the nomination of Samuel Alito. He is precisely the type judge I want to see on the Supreme Court. He is a conservative, a constructionist, has extensive judicial background, and has a lengthy and consistent judicial record. Whether or not the President has enough political clout left to see Alito confirmed remains to be seen. In the end, that is what will decide Alito's fate, not his qualifications.

Technorati: politics news Alito Samuel Alito Scalia Supreme Court
IceRocket: politics news Alito Samuel Alito Scalia Supreme Court

Rosa Parks to Lie in Honor

Civil rights legend Rosa Parks will be given an unprecedented honor on Monday when her body lies in honor in the Capitol Rotunda. It is a fitting tribute to the woman than sparked the peaceful - and most effective - aspects of the civil rights movement. (Montgomery Advertiser: Crowds honor civil rights legend Rosa Parks).

The lesson Parks taught the nation in 1955 was that a single act of civil disobedience could inspire a nation. That the actions of one woman could make such a huge difference. The snowball Rosa Parks set in motion on December 1, 1955 would result in a Supreme Court ruling banning segregation on public transportation. It would lead to the integration of the nations public colleges. It would inspire a young man by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the most peaceful civil rights movement the world has ever seen. What Rosa Parks did would ultimately lead to minority men and women holding the highest positions possible in our government. So yes, it is only fitting that she lie in honor in the Rotunda.

What many today don't realize is that there were very different factions in the civil rights movement, and each faction had their own agenda. Of the various factions, it was ultimately the peaceful movement lead by Dr. King that succeeded. The more radical movements headed by Malcolm X and Elijah Mohammed along with groups such as the Black Panthers either promoted violent revolution or sought "separate but equal" status. Sadly, none of the leaders of today's civil rights movement are in the same mold and mindset of Rosa Parks or Dr. King. Today's leaders preach a message of hatred; something that Dr. King would have abhorred.

The lessons taught by Rosa Parks are still valid today. It was not violence that fostered dramatic change in the area of civil rights. It was not a message of hatred that fostered it. It was not an attitude that blamed everyone else for every problem that fostered it. That is something that today's civil rights leaders need to learn. Sadly, today's leaders are setting race relations back decades. They are not only part of the problem, they are the problem. They would do well to learn from Rosa Parks.

Technorati: Rosa Parks civil rights
IceRocket: Rosa Parks civil rights

Second Term Woes Commonplace

The troubles facing President Bush a year into his second term are nothing new. Every president elected for more than one term in the last century has had to deal with scandals at high levels throughout their administrations. (New York Times: The Latest in Second-Term Scandals). Even FDR was confronted with extreme opposition when he attempted to expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 15 members, a move that almost cost him reelection in 1940.

Other more serious scandals have plagued subsequent multi-term presidents. Eisenhower lost his Chief of Staff to resignation thanks to accusations of corruption. Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign after he was indicted on bribery charges in his home state. President Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment over the Watergate cover-up. President Reagan's second term played host to the Iran-Contra scandal that also involved his VP and successor George H. W. Bush. President Clinton's second term was marred by impeachment on charges of perjury. Now, President George W. Bush is facing scandals of his own involving his Chief of Staff Karl Rove and his Vice President's former Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby.

No president, regardless of how popular, is immune to second term blues. The reasons for it are already being discussed ad nauseum all over the web and I won't bother to repeat them here. What I haven't seen discussed, however, is a reexamination of the presidential term limits. Given the track record of virtually every two-term president we've had, it seems to me that it makes sense to restrict the office to a single term, be that a four-year term or a six-year term. I favor the latter as it is already a term length for the governorship in many states.

There are many on both sides of the aisle that strongly oppose term limits of any sort. Their argument is a valid one. In a democratic society, people have the right to vote for whomever they wish and term limits would infringe on that right. That is a true statement. Yet, we already place limits on who can fun for President. The candidate must be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen of the US. That candidate must also not have been elected twice, nor may the candidate's total service exceed 10 years. The candidate may not be a convicted felon. So we do have restrictions on the office. Why not amend the term limits to prevent the second term scandals that have plagued even our best presidents? Doing so is not an infringement on our rights, it is pure common sense.

Technorati: politics scandals term limits Bush
IceRocket: politics scandals term limits Bush

Palestinian Terrorist Puts Cart Before Horse

Khaled al-Batsh, a leader of the terrorist organization Islamic Jihad, claimed they would stop launching rocket attacks against Israel after Israel stops attacking them in Gaza and the West Bank. (BBC: Palestinians issue rockets pledge). He did not pledge to halt suicide attacks, however, which were the primary reasons behind Israel's retaliation against the terrorist group.

What al-Batsh and his ilk don't seem to want to accept is that the ball is currently in their court. If they want Israel to stop targeting them, then they must first halt the suicide bombings and rocket attacks being conducted against Israel from Gaza and the West Bank. They must also end their calls for the utter destruction of Israel - something that is still first and foremost in the mission statements of both Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

Israel has halted retaliatory strikes many times in the past. Each time they were immediately confronted with more rocket attacks and suicide bombings from one or both of the terror groups operating in that region. For Israel to pledge non-retaliation is absurd. As long as those terrorist organizations exist, Israel will face attacks. It appears, however, that Israel is going to repeat the same mistakes it has been making over the past decade. It appears that they have been in negotiations with these groups and have agreed to a cease-fire. A spokesman for Abbas stated, "The effort and contacts between Israel, the United States and the Palestinian Authority during the last 24 hours succeeded to stop the escalation."

While Israel has yet to comment, they do appear to be in agreement with this statement. That is a tremendous tactical mistake that will ultimately cost Israeli lives. All a cease-fire will accomplish is to give Islamic Jihad and Hamas time to regroup and resupply. Once they are fully armed they will again strike Israel and the cycle will start all over again. The only viable option for Israel is to aggressively attack the areas where these terrorists are based, destroy those bases and drive the terrorists from Israeli and Palestinian territories. Fortunately, it is in the best interests of the Palestinian Authority to do the same, and there does appear to be cooperation between the two.

The pattern of diplomacy being pursued by Israel has not been successful in the past decade, nor is it likely to succeed in the future. Whether they are willing to admit it or not, Israel is at war. It's time they started to fight that war in earnest. Only after Islamic Jihad and Hamas are made homeless will there be any chance for peace in that region.

Technorati: politics Israel Islamic Jihad Hamas Palestinian Authority al-Batsh Abbas
IceRocket: politics Israel Islamic Jihad Hamas Palestinian Authority al-Batsh Abbas

Iran Solidifies Terrorist Sponsorship

Iran scoffed at worldwide outrage over their call for the annihilation of Israel, and even upped the ante this weekend by promising a $10,000 reward to Islamic Jihad if they launch rocket attacks against Tel Aviv. (The Sunday Times: Tehran ‘bounty’ for attack on Israel).

According to Israeli intelligence reports, Iran has a triple threat aimed at Israel including long range missiles in Lebanon, the use of terrorist organizations like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and via new terrorist controlled arsenals in the West Bank. Over the past year, Islamic Jihad has overtaken Hamas as the leader in attacks against Israel, prompting a series of Israeli retaliatory strikes against their bases in both the West Bank and Gaza.

Islamic Jihad is yet another terrorist organization headquartered in Damascus, further implicating Syria as a terrorist sponsoring state. Its annual budget of several million dollars is financed almost exclusively by Iran.

Israeli patience must be wearing thin by now, and the brazen statements coming out of Tehran may be the last straw. There have already been a series of Israeli strikes against Islamic Jihad missile factories based on intelligence provided by the Palestinian Authority. There has been increasing cooperation between the two sides, especially against Islamic Jihad and Hamas, since these terrorist groups are the greatest inhibitor to peace in the entire Palestinian - Israeli conflict. How long it will be before Israel takes the battle directly to the source of funding in Iran and to the terrorist headquarters in Syria is anybody's guess, but I have no doubt such plans are already being discussed.

Iran may well be on borrowed time. While the US and the EU may be willing to extend the diplomatic talks aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear technology, Israel does not have that luxury and may be forced to act if the US doesn't. Israel has far too much to lose if Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons. There's little doubt that the first test of an Iranian nuclear device will be in the heart of Israel. There's also no doubt that Israel is not going to wait long enough to see if it's a successful test. When it comes to Israel's survival, a preemptive strike is their only option.

Technorati: politics Israel Islamic Jihad Hamas Syria Iran Palestinian Authority
IceRocket: politics Israel Islamic Jihad Hamas Syria Iran Palestinian Authority

"I Don't Recall" Defense In Play

Joseph Tate, lead attorney for former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby appears poised to play the "I don't Recall" card in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trials. "As lawyers, we recognize that a person's recollection and memory of events will not always match those of other people, particularly when they are asked to testify months after the events occurred," he said, alluding to allegations that Libby's testimony before the grand jury constituted perjury. (USA Today: Lawyer for Libby signals possible memory defense).

The memory defense was made famous in Ronald Reagan's testimony in the Iran-Contra scandal, but it has long been a popular and effective defense for embattled political advisers. The defense even worked well for former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton during the Whitewater scandal.

The basis behind the charges against Libby stem from his testimony that he learned Valerie Plame's name from NBC correspondent Tim Russert. Russert subsequently denied ever talking to Libby about it and Fitzgerald has evidence that Libby in fact learned of Plame from Vice President Dick Cheney.

There's a distinction between lying about conversations and having a poor recollection of the events including those conversations. Human memory is indeed very poor when it comes to past details, especially concerning conversations or actions that one doesn't consider important at the time. This particular chain of accusations and evidence appears pretty flimsy and one hopes Fitzgerald has more to display than what has been made public thus far.

Getting a grand jury to hand down an indictment is not much of a challenge even in the absence of any tangible evidence. An indictment is not a conviction, but in many cases the distinction is largely irrelevant. Most careers are destroyed on indictment, not on conviction. In fact, when it comes to damage done, the outcome of a trial often has little meaning. A not-guilty verdict does not undo the damage done by the simple indictment. That fact is a problem we as a nation sorely need to address.

In the meantime, Scooter Libby is out of a job and the Vice President is out a Chief of Staff. I certainly hope Fitzgerald has more to justify this than he has thus far displayed.

Technorati: politics Libby Cheney Fitzgerald
IceRocket: politics Libby Cheney Fitzgerald

Bush's Most Horrible Week

Without a doubt, this was the worst week of President Bush's 5 years in office. The withdrawal of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee dealt a severe political blow to a president already suffering from extremely poor public opinion ratings, raging energy costs, an increasingly unpopular war, and multiple natural disasters along the Gulf Coast. (San Francisco Chronicle: Bush Heads to Camp David to Ponder Nominee).

Following right on the heels of Miers' resignation came the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. (The Irish Times: Bush faces political crisis as top aide resigns). While the news could have been worse for the White House, all indications are that the investigation into other potential charges continues.

In a way, the questionable status of other White House staffers including top Presidential adviser Karl Rove is worse (for the President) than actual indictments. Until the investigation is completed, Rove is effectively neutralized. His ability to advise the President on critical matters is severely impaired. The effects of the investigation may well have first manifested in the nomination of Harriet Miers. To promote a candidate that drew such immediate and sharp criticism from the President's power base is glaring evidence that his closest advisers dropped the ball on the nomination.

President Bush has now retreated to Camp David to ponder his next nominee for the Supreme Court, however he does so with a severely crippled advisory staff. The record for most nominees rejected by the Senate is 8, set by President John Tyler in 1844. Let's hope President Bush does not make a run on that record. There are several lessons to be learned by Miers' failure to garner support:

• The next nominee must be a judge with a lengthy track record. The Senate is not going to support more on-the-job training in the Supreme Court.
• The nominee must have a clear and accessible paper trail that the Senate can review. Nominating another inner circle confederate with documents the administration will not release simply won't fly.
• The nominee will have to be a moderate. As much as I would like to see an ultra-conservative judge on the court, I do not believe the President has the political clout to push a conservative through the Senate. He may have been able to pre-Miers - barely - but he's on the ropes now and the Senate knows it. He's getting a moderate.

Without a doubt, this is a week the President would like to forget. Unfortunately, all indications are that the legal and political troubles will continue. The best move for the President now is to promote a court nominee that will have an easy time in the confirmation process and then focus his attention on cleaning his inner circle of advisers. The investigation will likely take down a few more people in his inner circle, and his chief adviser may well head that list. With three years remaining in his term, the President would be well advised to clean house, regroup, and make a fresh start. Trying to salvage the current situation will be both distracting and futile. A good house cleaning is in order.

Technorati: politics Libby Miers Cheney Bush
IceRocket: politics Libby Miers Cheney Bush

Sunnis Oppose Charter By Getting Involved

The Iraqi constitution passed by the slimmest of margins, coming very close to being defeated by the needed 2/3 majority in three or more provinces. In fact, two Sunni controlled provinces defeated the measure by far greater margins than 2/3, and a third province defeated the measure by 55%, falling just shy of the 67% needed to block passage. The strong Sunni opposition is being touted by critics as setting the stage for civil war or for increased violence in the months ahead. Yet, what we are really seeing is a ground swelling of support even in the Sunni regions, not for the constitution as written, but for the democratic process that gave it life. (Washington Post: The New Sunni Jihad: 'A Time for Politics').

Abu Theeb, an Iraqi guerrilla, described it thus, "It is a new jihad. There is a time for fighting, and a time for politics." Rather than urging a boycott of the elections or planning attacks against the polling places, Theeb went door-to-door in Sunni regions urging the people to register to vote and use the political process to have their voices heard.

This is the most encouraging news possible out of that region. That the vote totals in Sunni controlled provinces was so remarkably high is a major blow to outside insurgents, and al Qaeda specifically, since it signals a dramatic shift in the overall philosophy of the people in that region. For the first time, they participated in a democratic process rather than resort to roadside bombs and terror attacks to get their message across.

Elections for the new Iraqi parliament will forever change the face of Iraq. Sunni presence in that new parliament will be far higher than the current one, scarred by a Sunni boycott a year ago. While still a minority party, they will be a voice that cannot be ignored and they will have a far greater say in how Iraq - and their own provinces - are run.

Theeb's tribe has a harsh reputation for kidnappings and executions. Their reputation is so bad that election officials refused to staff a polling station there, and instead had to rely on a local sheik to serve as the election monitor. That democracy can be embraced in that region is the most encouraging news possible for the future of Iraq's fledgling government.

Democracy is not just a form of government, it is a mind-set; a way of life. It is not simply a case of going to the polls, it is an understanding that the will of the people expressed in those polls is the greatest political force on the planet. For the first time, Iraqis are starting to think with that mind-set. For the first time, we can see that the majority of Iraqis now understand what that process means. They understand that they do have a voice and that their voice matters. Now let's see what they do with it.

Technorati: politics Iraq Abu Theeb Sunni
IceRocket: politics Iraq Abu Theeb Sunni

Withdrawal Call Blind to Regional Issues

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), silver medalist in the last presidential election, issued calls for immediate troop reductions in Iraq. According to Kerry, "The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay 'as long as it takes.' We must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces." (Washington Post: Kerry Urges U.S. to Start Withdrawal From Iraq).

While such a "pull out now" attitude may be popular with the anti-war crowd, which is admittedly growing in numbers, the policy turns a blind eye to regional issues that require a very strong US military presence. A withdrawal from Iraq now will only complicate matters when it becomes time to deploy troops sometime in 2006 for likely action against either Syria or Iran or both.

Just yesterday we heard Iran call for the complete eradication of Israel, something the west is certainly not going to tolerate. If there was any doubt about Iran's nuclear intentions before, that doubt was dispelled yesterday. Given yesterday's remarks, we have to assume the worst possible intentions for their nuclear program. Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear technology without resorting to the use of force is extremely unlikely.

Also in the past several days Syria was implicated in the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister. The world is now debating what action to take against Syria, however given their track record and their continued support for terrorist groups and their hands-on involvement in the Iraqi insurgency, avoiding military action sometime in 2006 is unlikely.

The US presence in Iraq must be viewed in the larger context that includes Iran and Syria. A pullout of US forces now would be foolhardy. Rather, the US and allies must take whatever steps are necessary to prepare for that inevitable day when action against those two pariahs becomes necessary. At the rate things are moving now, that day will be sooner rather than later.

Technorati: politics Kerry John Kerry Iraq Iran Syria
IceRocket: politics Kerry John Kerry Iraq Iran Syria

US to Detail Oil For Food Corruption

A US report will detail corruption in the pre-war Iraqi Oil for Food program and will show that fully half of the 4500 companies that participated provided kickbacks to Saddam Hussein to the tune of $1.8 billion. (New York Times: U.S. Is to Detail Who Paid Bribes in Iraq Oil Sales). Over 60 nations were involved in the program and virtually all of them were able to skirt UN monetary controls to provide kickbacks to the Iraqi regime and to make money for themselves.

The corruption that ran rampant in the Oil for Food program is one in a long line of UN failures when it comes to providing assistance to impoverished nations. In this case, the program was intended to provide food and medicine to the Iraqi population while strict economic sanctions were in place against Hussein's government.

There is one significant flaw in the concept behind economic sanctions. In order for sanctions to work, there is a basic assumption that the government of the nation under sanction has some measure of concern for the well being of the general population. The problem is, that is hardly ever the case. Hussein couldn't have cared less for the general health of the population. The same is true of virtually all dictators in third-world countries. Of course, if they truly cared about their people, chances are pretty good that they wouldn't be under economic sanctions in the first place.

Equally troubling, of course, is the amount of corruption running rampant among the nations and companies allegedly trying to help. That Over 2300 companies were involved in kickbacks and were spread across 60 nations, speaks volumes to the amount of greed that drives many of these so-called aid programs. Not so coincidentally, the majority of companies came from France and Russia - two of the three most vocal nations arguing against military action. That would certainly explain their reluctance to take action since the war effectively stopped the flow of illicit funds.

Saying the UN is in desperate need of reform would be a vast understatement. UN peacekeeping missions are notorious for prolonging a crisis, their aid programs are rife with corruption, their nuclear proliferation watchdog has been asleep at the wheel for 12 years, and their most visible entity - the Security Council - is an exercise in stagnation, indecision, and weakness. The Oil for Food scandal is only the tip of the iceberg. The entire organization is a textbook case of mismanagement, corruption, and incompetence. Reform the UN? The challenge will be to find parts that are salvageable.

Technorati: politics UN Oil for Food
IceRocket: politics UN Oil for Food

Iran, Hamas Share Common Goal

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's support for the terrorist organization Hamas could not be any clearer. Speaking at a conference in Tehran called "The World without Zionism," Ahmadinejad said, "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world." (China Daily: Iranian Leader: Israel will be destroyed).

Just in case anyone still had doubts about Ahmadinejad's message he went on to state, "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." This hard-line tone should come as no surprise to anyone. Despite quaint slogans such as the "road-map for peace", despite land concessions by Israel, despite a peace accord with the more moderate Egypt, and despite overtures by the Palestinian Authority, the fact remains that the Islamic states want nothing less than the full destruction of Israel. The idea that there can ever be peace in that region is sheer folly.

The blunt statements by Iran's president, however, make it quite clear that he - and Iran - have openly chosen to back the terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel. There is absolutely no difference between the terrorists that run Hamas and the terrorists that run Iran. As long as those terrorists exist, there will be no peace in Israel.

While the world takes umbrage over the assassination of a Lebanese prime minister, the world must be equally outraged by Ahmadinejad's remarks and the official anti-Semitic stance of Iran's government. Iran must be taken to task for their open support of terrorist activities in the Middle East. As financiers and political supporters of the terrorists bent on the destruction of Israel, they are as effectively at war with Israel as is Hamas.

In an address to the nation in 2001, President Bush referred to Iran as a part of the "Axis of Evil". He was not entirely accurate. Iran is the hub of that axis. It is the grease that keeps the wheels of terrorism in the Middle East turning. The only way to truly foster peace in that region is to exterminate rodents like Ahmadinejad that openly promote terrorism and scuttle any movements to bring stability to the Middle East.

Technorati: Ahmadinejad Iran Israel Hamas
IceRocket: Ahmadinejad Iran Israel Hamas

SCO: The New Warsaw Pact

Recent Chinese - Russian military training maneuvers appear to be far more than just window dressing. The two nations will today discuss the formation of a new counter-NATO alliance comprised of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan and may even be extended to include India, Pakistan and Iran. Should the latter three be included, the organization would contain four members of the nuclear club. (Christian Science Monitor: Russia, China looking to form 'NATO of the East'?).

The alliance was formed initially to counter the growing US influence in the region. Buoyed by post-9/11 support among former Soviet powers, the US established military bases in several former Soviet republics including Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. That expansion was troubling to a Russia that is still unwilling to accept that the Soviet Union has dissolved. The SCO has recently demanded the US removal of bases from Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, although Secretary of State Rice did succeed in winning a long-term lease from the former.

Equally troubling would be the inclusion of Iran and Pakistan into this alliance. China and Russia already openly oppose US policy and have veto power in the UN. Iran may soon find themselves at war with the US and EU over nuclear proliferation, and Pakistan is only one political coup away from becoming a state governed by terrorists. China and Russia appear to be aligning themselves to directly compete with the US over power influence in the Middle East. Given China's insatiable thirst for oil to fuel their 9.5% growth rate, it's not surprising that they would seek to limit US influence in that oil-rich region.

The blocks are all falling into place for another cold-war era triumvirate of opposing powers. This time, it would appear that the three major factions will be the US, the EU, and now SCO. Whether or not this iteration is as openly hostile as the former US - Soviet struggle remains to be seen, however conditions are ripe for it to degenerate to that level. The battleground would appear to be the Middle East, although there are plenty of other minor theaters in play as well. The SCO alliance puts an interesting twist on the conflict with North Korea - something that seems to have taken a back seat in recent weeks - and also in the situation between China and Taiwan.

Dismissing this alliance out of hand four years ago was a huge blunder; one of many our foreign policy experts have made since the fall of the Soviet Union. This alliance bears watching. The struggle for control of the Middle East has already begun. Don't be surprised to see SCO members taking a more openly aggressive posture as we continue to debate UN sanctions and subsequent action against Iran and Syria. This struggle is only beginning.

Technorati: politics SCO Shanghai Cooperation Organization Russia China
IceRocket: politics SCO Shanghai Cooperation Organization Russia China

No Consensus For Syria Resolution

While German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis prepares to deliver his report to the UN Security Council today, strong disagreement remains over the wording and intent of a resolution being prepared by the US and France. (Washington Post: Security Council Split Over Resolution on Syria). The holdouts appear to be Algeria, China, and Russia. The Arab world is also a bit queasy about invoking sanctions against Syria, although their logic for opposing it remains a bit shaky.

China's UN ambassador Guangya Wang openly opposed the invocation of chapter seven which would threaten "serious consequences", tantamount to the authorization of the use of force if Syria doesn't comply with the resolution. Said Wang, "I think we have to be very careful with Chapter 7. Chapter 7 is the dog that will bite, not just bark."

That, Mr. Wang, is precisely the point. Any resolution that does not invoke Chapter 7 is just noise. Syria knows it and the rest of the world knows it. Don't waste our time with a series of meaningless resolutions. Sadly, that appears to be precisely what is going to happen. Even France is starting to back away from the stronger resolution since there does not appear to be unanimous support for it in the council.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shrugged it off yesterday, saying that she would support a series of progressively stronger resolutions leading up to an ultimate invocation of Chapter 7. Rice said, "This is all about Syrian behavior, but if people want to sequence it, fine, we can sequence it." She then added that the world, "must make very clear to the Syrians that this is a really serious matter and that their nonchalant attitude, their efforts to discredit the investigation . . . are not the attitude of the international community."

So it looks like this will be another typical long dragged out UN affair that accomplishes nothing. It looks like a resolution will be proposed that has no substance and no teeth; a resolution that leaves Syria plenty of room to wiggle off the hook. Meanwhile, Syria continues to support the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. They continue to allow Iraqi insurgents safe harbor in border towns within Syria. They continue to allow easy access to the Iraqi border for those same insurgents. They will remain unpunished for the assassination of a head of state that had taken an anti-Syrian shift in his policies. Well, that is the UN at its finest. There is not another organization on this planet better at doing absolutely nothing than is the UN. What a waste of time and money.

Technorati: politics UN Security Council Bolton Rice Condoleezza Rice Syria Mehlis
IceRocket: politics UN Security Council Bolton Rice Condoleezza Rice Syria Mehlis