Bad Apples
Cross-posted atConyersBlog An indictment of Karl Rove should be cause for his dismissal for the same reason Libby was dismissed, and the reason DeLay was forced to step down. It points to a rot at the top of the entire Republican rule (yes rule, not govern) of our country.
This of course is not a case of one bad apple spoiling the barrel, it is a case of an entire truckload of bad apples from the start.
Indictments do not mean convictions, and the presumption of innocence still holds, but it is clear that the unethical nature of Mr. Rove's well-documented past willingness to do anything necessary to obtain political gain makes it abundantly clear that this man, a political hack, should not be, and should never have been in a position to influence policy at the highest level. His security clearance should not have been revoked, it should never had been issued. This kind of power in the hands of an amoral man such as Rove should never have been granted in the first place. It seems inevitable that that power would be misused.
I would like to address the questions raised by Nolip in number 7 above. The pre-war comment by Rumsfeld putting a $50 B cost on the war, and then saying Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the war is, and always has been to me, curious.
I mean that on several levels. First look at what reparations did to Germany after WW I. The Paris conference exacted a reparation plan to charge Germany for the victorious allie's costs of executing the war. These reparations destroyed the economy of Germany, and can be said to be a proximate cause of the rise of Hitler, as the people of Germany were looking for a change to reverse the hyperinflation which was caused by the reparations.
Second, in my memory, this was the first time an announcement in advance, before the first shot of the war was fired, our government had already made the decision to exact reparations from Iraq. Since oil revenues was responsible for probably 80 to 90 per cent of Iraq's foreign exchange, we announced in advance that we would decimate their economy.
Third, the oil legitimately belongs to the Iraqi people, not the United States, and the United States should have no claim on the revenue stream from Iraqi oil. Under what means would the United States gain access to this revenue?
Fourth, the United States, the nation declaring war on false pretenses to a nation who was not belligerent with the United States, and then announcing an intent to exact reparations from the driver of the entire economy of the nation gives the lie that oil and its control was not a motivating factor for the United States leadership.
Let's move on to the war cost. For the sake of argument, assume for a minute that the financial cost for the war is $320 Billion (not a real cost because we are executing the entire war on credit, and no figure for interest is included). Then the figure for executing to the end of the war is expected to double. This a clear indication that according to the Congressional Research Service that the war will go on for at least another three years, or to match a doubling of the cost, at the minimum, the engagement will last twice as long. That is just adding 2 plus 2.
Now, the administration is agitating for war once again. This time with Iran, a country that has a modern economy, that has a modern military, a nation with three times the population of Iraq or Afghanistan. A nation with varied topography, not a flat desert like Iraq. Iran is also a nation with a single national identy, and one likely to fight to maintain it, with internal cohesion that has the loyalty of the military forces.
All of that indicates that a war with Iran would be far more costly, both in lives and dollars. The two wars we are engaged in right now have bled us dry. How do we find enough soldiers to fight another war? The only answer is conscription. How do we pay for another war? We can't unless we as a nation choose to tax the Haves and the Have Mores, the President's base. Can you imagine this happening? I can't. Of course the funding source will be American generations, yet unborn. We will owe that debt to two entities. First, it will be the Haves and Have Mores, those who can afford to purchase the 30 year bonds on a tax free basis. Second, it will be our nation's commerical and economic rivals, who will hold the lion's share of the debt.
Again, those who will pay the human and financial cost of the war will be the lower and middle wage earners and our children and five generations of our progeny. In effect, Americans will still be paying for this folly 100 years from now.
I haven't checked this statistic lately, but in years past, the second largest expenditure of tax revenue in the United States budget was debt service, right after defense. In the future, Defense will fall to number two, and debt service, paid by the low and middle wage earners will be far and away the number one expenditure of the American taxpayer.
Congress must stop this madness.
QuestionItNow Blogs
posted by Ohiodem1 at
4/27/2006 10:09:00 PM
8 Comments:
This is Steve (not from Henderson) over at Give 'Em Hell Harry and stoufi1 at ConyersBlog.
I wish to point out this paragraph in your post:
"Now, the administration is agitating for war once again. This time with Iran, a country that has a modern economy, that has a modern military, a nation with three times the population of Iraq or Afghanistan. A nation with varied topography, not a flat desert like Iraq. Iran is also a nation with a single national identy, and one likely to fight to maintain it, with internal cohesion that has the loyalty of the military forces."
No offense intended, but you need to read more about Iran before making statements like this. Iran is hardly a nation with a single identity as Farsi-speaking Persians, Kurds, and Arabs (and other nationalities) inhabit Iran, just as there are people in Iran who do not practice Shia Islam (the Kurds and a group called the Baluchis are Sunnis; there's a sizeable Christian population; those who practice the Ba'hai faith, and who are being systematically wiped out by Ahmadinejad; those who still practice the ancient Persian Zoroastrian religion).
To show how divided the nation is, there have already been two attempts on Ahmadinejad's life, one in the southeastern province of Baluchistan and one in the primarily Arab southwestern province of Khuzestan. It is also being reported (by the AP) that 10 days ago, Iranian artillery fired more than 180 shells into northern Iraq, targeting Kurdish rebel bases. Why no outcry from those who complain the US violated Iraq's sovereignty by invading when clearly the Iranian government is doing the same?
Most (about 70%) of adults under the age of 30 hate being under the thumb of the backward and tyrannical theocracy and want Iran to be welcomed back as a modern state, one that doesn't support terrorism, and one that trades with the US. These are the people President Bush talked to during his State of the Union address earlier this year. I agree that an invasion of Iran by the US at this time would damage any goodwill the US may be building, but supporting a revolution from within is the best option for the US to pursue.
By
Anonymous, at 8:50 AM, May 01, 2006
Steve, Stoufi1,
I suspected you were one and the same. Thanks for clearing that up.
I am aware of divisions in the nation of Iran. I also know that there is nothing like an external threat to generate internal cohesion in a diverse nation. We are now providing that external threat to Iran.
I do not feel it is wise for us to fire up the Iranian opposition (estimates I have seen are between 30 to 41 per cent), for the simple reason that we have failed oppositon movements where we encouraged revolution by the opposition, then failed to back it up with real support. The most recent example is after Gulf War I, we encouraged the Southern Shia to attempt to overthrow Saddam, they followed our encouragement, expecting our support, which we failed to deliver, which created a crushing defeat at the hands of Hussein's remaining organized miliary.
Under what basis does the Iranian opposition which much of is Shia, have to trust that we will back them up? They observed first hand the failure to support in Southern Iraq only 15 years ago.
Democrats are not angels here either. The Bay of Pigs did the same thing.
Our military is overstreched. We would find it difficult to find enough soldiers to mount a war against Iran when we can barely contain the violence, ethnic cleansing and daily attacks on our soldiers, Iraqi oil and civil infrastructure, the government in Iraq. If we diverted say, 100,000 of those soldiers who are trying to help secure Iraq to a conquering of Iran, and we had to muster up another 200,000 or 300,000 soldiers to conquer Iran, where would we get them? Do you think we could find a coalition of the willing? We would be going it alone, or may with Britain. It is said that France is a major opponent of Iranian nuclear ambitions, do you think France would send troops to fight alongside us in Iran?
I do not necessarily believe that supporting an internal revolution is the right answer. I think diplomacy is still possible, but the Bush adminstration does not seem to favor that approach. To be perfectly frank with you, I think another war before the last one is complete will destroy our economy, and the constant breaking of laws, ignoring our constitution, crashing our alliances will destroy our freedoms, which over 1,000,000 Americans and countless other non fatal casualties have fought for. I think we can agree that this is at least a potential outcome.
I cannot keep up with you because I do not have as much time on my hands as you seem to have. We can still have a respectful conversation while continuing to disagree. The entire Middle East is still a tribal society, complete agreement on any topic is not possible in such an environment, nationhood forced on a geographical area based on outsiders thoughts on what the map should look like (Iraq combined by the Brits), India and East, West Pakastan by the Brits, plus creating the Kashmir embroligo is primarily fruitless, witness the Bangladesh split from an illogical country, separated by hundereds or maybe thousands of miles (not sure of subcontinent geography).
I still think war with Iran will drag our nation down. I hope you can at least entertain the thought.
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 12:13 PM, May 01, 2006
P.S. The mistreatment of the Ba'hai faith started when the Ayatollahs took over. There were accounts that they were being killed then, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. It did not start with Ahmadijehad, but I have read no accounts that would either agree or disagree with the conclusion you reached. You would think that after 25 years, there would be none left if it was a systematic extermination or genocide. I just don't know. When religious zealots rule, no matter what the religion, bad things happen
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 1:15 PM, May 01, 2006
"I am aware of divisions in the nation of Iran. I also know that there is nothing like an external threat to generate internal cohesion in a diverse nation. We are now providing that external threat to Iran."
First, we haven't bombed them. Second, I believe the divisions between the various groups are greater than you think. Enough for the US to exploit. Third, a majority of the ethnic Iranians absolutely hate what the mullahs have done to their country, also exploitable by the US.
I do agree that the US's ability to back revolutions is abysmal, but Bush has not been the same kind of cut-and-run (sorry, it's the only phrase that fits) President that other Presidents have been in the past. Where I might agree with you is how well the Bush administration could handle supporting a revolution. The Communists could easily support exported revolutions because they had no problem with mass slaughter of the civilian population; they didn't care who they killed. All one has to do is look at Castro, Guevara, and Pol Pot. I know our leaders would not want that to happen, which makes their job much harder.
"To be perfectly frank with you, I think another war before the last one is complete will destroy our economy,..."
The only thing that will destroy our economy is if the costs of the 40-year old War on Poverty programs (and Social Security, as it exists right now) aren't slashed. The problem isn't that defense spending is too high (at best, it's 5% of the GDP; France's is over 4%), it's that too much money is given to the government for permanent nanny-state programs. Much of that could be removed if the government (at all levels, especially local) set up a tax structure and regulation that allowed business (all kinds of businesses, big and small) to offer health care and retirement benefits for employers and employees. All the entitlement programs do is make more poor people. Bad government programs create poverty, whether through over-regulation and entitlements, or under-regulation and allowing businesses to screw workers.
"...and the constant breaking of laws, ignoring our constitution,..."
Sorry, that isn't happening. As an example, I went through Feingold's censure resolution. From a legal standpoint, Feingold couldn't use his resolution to censure Osama bin Laden for jaywalking, it's so full of holes. Even Specter (the liberal RINO that he is) looks like an idiot when he shows more concerrrn about the NSA program than about the leakers and the traitors at the New York Times who reported it. If anything, I believe it is members of Congress who are violating the Constitution as they try to assert powers they were not given; Justices and judges have consistently ruled in favor of the Executive branch with regards to war and foreign policy for decades.
I don't know if war with the Iranian government would drag our nation down; weak-kneed liberals (of both parties) are doing that now and we haven't even fired a shot at Iran (although the Iranians have into Iraq). I saw Kucinich and Waxman try to engage in a game of verbal chess with John Bolton and it wasn't a fair match; Bolton got the better of both. This even after Conyers and Waxman voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act (Kucinich voted against it). Kucinich and Waxman tried to get Bolton to admit that the Marines had gone into Iran, as stated in Seymour Hersch's fiction (Bolton's words). I note that neither mentioned the Iranian shelling of Iraq. (Neither did Bolton, at least not in the couple of minutes I saw; perhaps he should have.)
I do agree that the Europeans balkanization of the Middle East has led to much of the mess that is going on there now, although the borders of both Iran and Afghanistan have been stable for a long, long time as neither was under the authority of any of the major 19th century European powers or the Ottoman Turks. Neither was much of the Arabian peninsula, which was mostly based out of Riyadh for the last 250 years (maybe a little less) by the current Saudi ruling family (never conquered by the Ottomans, either). The Saudi family added to this balkanization by conquering the region where Mecca and Medina reside in the mid-1920s, from the Hashemites (the grandfather or great-grandfather of Jordan's King Abdullah) after it was given to them by Ataturk and the Turkish Republic (after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire). (It's one of the main reasons bin Laden is at war with the Saudi government; he's not a Wahhabi.)
I think one other area we do agree is your statement about religious zealots. What I would add is that Islam's religious (imams, clerics, mullahs, etc.) are given a lot of political power, something not seen amongst Christian clergy in over 200 years. Christian clergy do have influence, but no real political power, not like the religious within Islam. That is a problem the people who practice Islam will eventually have to face.
By
Steve, at 12:05 AM, May 04, 2006
Steve,
My response. Limited time, not much wordsmithing here.
1.
External threat: Threatening is not bombing or shelling. If I am across the street shaking my fist at you, but making no move to make good on that threat, it is not really a threat. This is what Iran is engaged in.
If I walk across the street and stand next to you, and threaten to punch you out, you may suddenly get apprehensive because I am now threatening you, and I have the ability to carry it out. The United States is standing next to Iran, with 140,000 troops on the left, and 20,000 troops on the right in Afghanistan, and rattling the nuclear weapons card. Now this is a threat, with the apparent ability to carry it out.
The situation I just described above is an interpretation of the Ohio law on assault. A threat, with the apparent ability to carry it out constitutes Assault in Ohio. A threat, with no ability to carry it out does not meet all the elements of the crime. This describes the situation between the USA and Iran.
Now, the threat of an outside attack is all that is necessary to create that internal cohesion. The Bush administration is providing that threat.
2.
The policy of our nation has always been to oppose exported revolution. I oppose America exporting revolution, for the same reasons we oppose others exporting revolution. Let's face it though, America has engineered coups when it fit our needs. The CIA overthrew the regime in Iran in 1956 when the existing government made noises like they were going to nationalize the oil industry. The Shah promised not to do that. We helped depose Allende in Chile and enabled Pinochet to take over. Therefore we helped depose a democratically elected leftist government and replaced it with an authoritative right wing government. Mr. Pinochet, while very old is the subject of human rights abuse legal action right now. Panama. We have intervened all around the world when it is convenient to some policy objective. To put it bluntly we have behaved badly internationally for a long time. We always say we are not the world's cop, but our actions say we are.
That we choose to oppose left-leaning states, whether elected or not, is not a point of contention here. We have also gone after right leaning authoritarian states when that state collides with our leadership's perceived policy needs. Saddam, the Taliban, Iran, and most other middle Eastern states cannot be said to have left-leaning authoritarian governments. They are right leaning authoritative governments. They also have oil.
The Taliban in Afghanistan harbored our enemy, Osama bin Laden. We had a legitimate interest in going after them, but we dropped the ball by not finishing OBL. That was a massive mistake on the Bush admininstration's part, and it has nothing to do with exporting revolution. The Bush administration just screwed up. They just will not admit it.
I believe we are in Iraq right now because of a personal grudge between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. Thousands have died on both sides because of the immaturity and impulisiveness of George W. Bush. And they are still dying. And we are agitating for another war, when neither Iraq no Afghanistan are complete. It makes no sense to me.
3.
Visit this website and look at a breakdown of how our federal government spends its funds. Click on the pie chart icon and enter a number in the dialog box. I used $10,000. See how that $10k is spent. I believe our nation has the resources to take care of our national health. I believe we have the resources to create a measure of income protection for our elderly citizens.
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
The Republican Talking Point on Social Security is that when the SS program started there were 16 wage earners for each recipient. Makes sense, at the beginning of any program, before full implementation, there would be a large imbalance. The ratio now is 3 workers for 2 retirees. The projection for the future is that it will fall to a ratio of 2:2, and that the fund will begin paying out more than it takes in in 2042 or recently a number of 2040 came out. The 1982 adjustment by the Reagan administration was intended to make the fund solvent until 2052, when the youngest of the baby boom generation would be 88 years old, and 95% of boomers will have died off. That is, through our elected representatives, our generation took necessary steps to fund the SS system, with our own tax money in exchange for a guaranteed retirement stipend.
Is it an entitlement to expect to receive our taxes back? I don't think so. All we need to do to keep the ratio of workers to recipients at the current 3:2 is to put illegal immigrants onto a citizenship track, get them in the SS system, and SS will be solvent into the forseeable future. I believe the static population model used by the administration, who is attempting to implement the Butler and Germanis 1983 Social Security phaseout plan (Search Butler and Germanis on the Cato Institute website). Twelve million producing immigrants and their progeny will keep the ration of workers to retirees what it is today. In fact, when the baby boom generation dies off, it will make sense to reduce the SS tax because the needs will taper off because of the belly of the snake effect of our (at least my) generation will have passed in a manner of speaking.
Since you have me going on the so-called entitlement mentality, I can say that the biggest entitlement mentality comes from corporate America. Consider a factory location decision. Nine out of ten times, before a company makes its need for a new plant known, the decision has already been set. The typical strategy then is to announce 3 to 5 potential locations, even some across national borders. This sets up a bidding war between the announced competing sites. The shakedown process starts. Who will offer the best tax abatements? Who will offer the cheapest infrastructure improvement costs? Who will offer the best training subsidies? In most cases, the decision has already been made regarding the locational decision, which is made on the basis of labor availability and cost, location of raw material suppliers, location of the market, and so on. The kind of consessions sought in the bidding war are usually far down the list of items that factor into the decisions.
Then after the city has been shaken down, the company uses assets provided by the local, state and federal governments. Fire and police protection. Highways. Airports. When the company chooses to entertain clients, say at the Superbowl, the stadium where the game is played is paid for by taxpayer money. The transportation assets used to get there are paid for with taxpayer money, and so on. By transportation assets, the public streets and highways, the Airports are Federally owned or federal/state/city owned assets (billions of dollars), the Baggage Screeners are tax-paid employees, the Air Traffic Controllers and so on.
I cannot get a tax break if I threaten my city that I will move my residence to another city, and the receiving city will not offer me tax relief for me to make the move. So please don't say I have an entitlement mentality because I want to receive back the tax money I have paid into a system for 50 years. When I retire at age 67, I will have been paying into SS for 51 years. As will my wife.
The real entitlement mentality comes from corporate America, and the politicans who, in a symboitic relationship feed the beast, which in turn feeds the politicans.
The biggest runup in the history of Medicare is the Section D prescription drug program, which is a case of the pharmaceutical industry feeding the politicians, and the politicans feeding them back to the tune of at minimum $140 B over 10 years, and most likely $320 B, since Congress was prohibited from knowing the true cost of what they were voting on by the Bush administration. The acturary was threatened with his job if he told the truth. This legislation was passed in the middle of the night by a Republican house, by the holding of he vote open for an extra three hours by the Speaker, and the Majority Leader twisting arms, up to and including an offer of a $100.000 bribe, which was refused by a Michigan Republcian (good for him).
Please do not say the reason we are going broke is because of social programs. The reason is wars on credit.
4.
I know you think Arlen Spector is somewhat of a traitor to Republcian causes, but he is now discussing the need for oversight hearings to look into the President's penchant to legislate by proclamation or, technically by Signing Statements, in effect if the investigation proves to be true, stepping far over the line limiting legislation to the Legislative Branch. There seems to be a real reason to believe that the administration in general, and the President specifically are breaking the laws. Do you think that is ok?
The Feingold resolution is intended to get Congress on record that some presidential behaviors are illegal and outside the scope of his authority granted by the Constitution. I believe this to be true myself. Do you prefer Impeachment? If you do, we are in agreement.
5.
Seymour Hersh was the first to report on the Mai Lai Massacre. He was right. He was the first to report on Abu Ghriab. He was right.
It is my belief that Seymour Hersh has more credibility than the Bush administration. I cannot either confirm or deny the veracity of this recent report, but Mr. Hersh has a better track record than the administration does.
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 9:17 AM, May 04, 2006
I do want to respond, but will probably not be able to do this in one sitting (I have to get ready for work).
1.
The Iraqi people didn't stand by Hussein when we invaded in 2003, and we had them under the gun for 12 years. What ended up happening was groups trying to take advantage of the situation after the overthrow of a tyrant. We ended up fighting some Saddam loyalists, but most of them seem to have decided its better to work within the new political structure and have given up on Hussein. Same with the Shiite militias, who themselves are getting marginalized by the political leaders and, believe it or not, Grand Ayatollah Sistani. The rest are the al Qaeda terrorists, who had no problem taking money from Hussein and do jobs for him (whereever that would be), but this should not be confused with loyalty.
In WWII, the Soviet Union almost collapsed during the initial 1941 invasion as the Ukrainians would have gone over to the German side had the Nazis not brutalized them along with the Russians. Several different ethnic groups did join the Germans, most notably the Cossacks, who fought with them throughout the war (and suffered from Stalin after it).
So, I don't see that there's overwhelming support for the Iranian government, and that the only people who feel threatened are the theocrats within the Iranian government, not the Iranians themselves.
What's being seen is a game of brinksmanship, one which the United States has successfully played. Ahmadinejad (along with his handlers in the Guardian Council) are neophytes. We're trying to get them to blink first. Despite the high and mighty approach of using diplomacy and working with others (ie., the UN), foreign policy is still based on the law of the jungle. As long as governments are still led by the likes of an Ahmadinejad, Hamas, Kim Jong Il, Castro, etc., this will continue to be the case.
I'll get to the rest when I have time.
By
Steve, at 8:08 AM, May 05, 2006
Steve, agreed with your historical analysis of the situation in Russia.
Most analysis including the 9/11 commission disagree with operational ties between Hussein and al Qaeda. Assume that there was financial support. Al Qaeda was not a player in Iraq before the war, because Hussein feared a radicalized religious movement within the borders of Iraq, because it would threaten his power.
Agreed that Hussein has been abandoned by his former supporters because of the reality that he will die in jail or be hung. His time has passed unless someone springs him from jail, which seems unlikely. If he is not convicted by the Iraqis, the USA controls him, and he will wind up in the international court on Human Rights, who has indicted him. He will not go free, ever.
There is not overwhelming support for George W. Bush but he is still in charge and wields enormous power in America, as all Presidents do. Assume 40 per cent of the Iranians oppose the Ayotollahs, including a majority of those under 30. That leaves approximately 60 per cent who do support them. There is no doubt that effective political control belongs to the Ayotollahs.
I have read and seen TV news reports that younger people are asserting major independence from the leadership, but it still does not constitute strong enough enmity to support a revolution.
That's my opinion.
I am taking a break from blogging, back in a couple of weeks. Responses here will be answered when I end my vacation.
By
Ohiodem1, at 11:39 AM, May 05, 2006
This has been an interesting and pleasantly respectful dialogue. It is refreshing to read such an exchange. Even though I have serious disagreements with Steve about the alleged ties of Saddam to Al Queda and many other assertions, I see that he is not the typical "talking points" Bush loyalist.
In my opinion OhioDem scored big points when discussing our corporate welfare, especially using the Super Bowl example. Detroit officials made outlandish promises of the windfall we would experience by hosting a Super Bowl. We are now in the hangover period, and the economy remains in toilet.
Let's face it, both parties pander to corporations. Clinton was no liberal. Corporate control over mainstream media remains one of the most serious factors the undermine American democracy.
Have a great vacation OhioDem.
By
REB 84, at 9:08 PM, May 05, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home