It's Worse Than We Thought

Happy Friday.

Last week I expressed the opinion that the Roberts confirmation was a foregone conclusion. I still believe it is. Remarkably, however, the White House's unwillingness to release documents relating to the candidate has placed his nomination in jeopardy--or at least created headlines (perhaps, just to distract from the Rove debacle).

This latest controversy is forcing people to question what the White House is hiding. No one doubts that Roberts is a conservative jurist. However, the Senate and the media are now methodically scanning every scrap of paper to see if it’s even worse.

Notably, one useful incongruity has come to light. Roberts repeatedly has insisted that his work as an attorney should not be considered representative of his own views. He claims that, as an advocate, he is representing his clients’ interests, not his own, and is arguing positions on their behalf without regard to his personal beliefs.

Nevertheless, the few documents that have been disclosed (by the National Archives, not the executive branch) reveal Roberts himself to be an arch-conservative. For example:

• Roberts opposes the right of courts to uphold the First Amendment to preclude prayer in public schools.
  
• Roberts opposes affirmative action.
  
• Roberts opposes the right of habeas corpus (due process rights accorded prisoners).
  
• Roberts opposes the intervention of courts to ensure equal educational opportunity.
  
• Roberts opposes Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funding.
  
• Roberts opposes busing to desegregate schools.

Amazingly, these are not contemporary “hot button” issues like gay marriage or abortion. They are established constitutional principles that form the bedrock of our nation--a bedrock that is crumbling under the reactionary zeal of the “majority” party.

There is much Roberts opposes. It is time to oppose Roberts.

Fighting the Wrong War

Happy Friday.

The Roberts nomination is a foregone conclusion. There is little to say: it is a smart, Machiavellian choice that presents itself as a reasonable compromise putting a staunch "conservative pragmatist" on the Court thereby paving the way to put a staunch "conservative ideologue" on the Court when Rehnquist vacates.

There is other, perhaps more severe, news from Washington. Last week every Republican Senator voted against a Democratic amendment to allocate $1 billion for mass-transit security. During that same time period, the current administration spent a $1 billion in Iraq fighting a war that fails to combat terrorism (it promotes it), fails to advance our national interest (it weakens it), and fails to protect our citizenry (it increases the threat).

This rate of spending will total a trillion dollars by the time the troops are allowed to return home, in 2010 or 2012 (Rumsfield's estimate).

In Bush's Folly, the author imagines the impact of spending a trillion dollars fighting a real war on terrorism by: implementing security measures at home, developing technologies to escape reliance on foreign oil, purchasing "loose" nuclear weapons being sold on the black market, and campaigning to win the "ideas, hearts and minds, both within Islam and outside it." (Tony Blair's pragmatic, thoughtful reaction to the first London bombings.)

There is a forgotten war going on. Tens of thousands have died and many more will perish before it is "over," five to seven years from now. Unfortunately, it is the wrong war.

The Underlying Issue

Happy Friday.

Karl Rove identified a CIA analyst (if not by name, by marital association--a difference?) to a reporter in an effort to undermine criticism of the current administration’s bases for going to war in Iraq. Newseek, fresh off its own scandal regarding erroneous reporting about conditions at the prison camp in Gitmo, went in for the kill on this one. Finally.

Rove’s reported misconduct does not constitute a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which requires that: (1) the disclosure by a government official have been deliberate, (2) the person doing it to have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and (3) he or she to have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent’s identity. (50 U.S.C. § 421.) There is no evidence, to date, which indicates that Rove knew the CIA analyst was a covert agent or that the government was actively concealing her identity.

Regardless, whether Rove’s misconduct was “criminal” or not is beside the point. Rove committed a severe breach of national security. As the president’s deputy chief of staff he has top-level security clearance. Prior to making this disclosure, he should have confirmed that the analyst was not a covert agent. Anything less represents an egregious error of judgment worthy of termination; regardless of position. As promised by the president, Rove has got to go.

More significant, however, is the underlying issue: Did the current administration lie about its motivation for going to war in Iraq? The scandal erupted over the president’s claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Nigeria for the purpose of making WMD. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, the husband of the CIA analyst whom Rove desperately was trying to discredit, insisted this claim was false. He was right. Yet, to war we went.

The focus of the investigation, and the media, should be extended to ascertain whether the purpose of the disclosure was to conceal the fact that the current administration intentionally relied on false, discredited evidence to deceive the nation into supporting the war in Iraq.

Watergate was political. Monicagate was sexual. This scandal goes to fundamental issues concerning our nation’s security, the trust we place in our elected (and unelected) government officials, and the (accurate?) perception of the United States as the world’s policeman turned self-interested, manipulative, hegemonic bully.

Lies About the War on Terror

Happy Friday.

The current administration loves to bandy about two bits of propaganda concerning the war on terror:

(1) The assertion that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
(2) The participation of our "allies" in the war on terror especially those participating in the "coalition of forces" in Iraq; for example, Spain (now withdrawn) and Britain.

But, if our wartime allies are under attack aren't we, by definition, under attack as well? Was the Battle of Britain, in World War II, of no consequence to the United States because it happened on British soil and not here?

In truth, there have been more terrorist attacks since 9/11 than before, regardless of location. The current administration is losing their war. Last year the State Department's report Patterns of Global Terrorism was harshly criticized by a professor of economics at Princeton University and a professor of political science at Stanford University. In their article, Faulty Terror Report Card they revealed that, contrary to the current administration's claims of success:

The number of significant terrorist acts increased from 124 in 2001 to 169 in 2003 --36 percent -- even using the State Department's official standards. The data that the report highlights are ill-defined and subject to manipulation -- and give disproportionate weight to the least important terrorist acts. The only verifiable information in the annual reports indicates that the number of terrorist events has risen each year since 2001, and in 2003 reached its highest level in more than 20 years.

In stark contrast, relying on the same report, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contended: "You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight [against terrorism]."

As the professors explained, the report's attempt to "spin" the war on terror was accomplished:

... by combining significant and nonsignificant acts of terrorism. Significant acts are clearly defined and each event is listed in an appendix, so readers can verify the data. By contrast, no explanation is given for how nonsignificant acts are identified or whether a consistent process is used over time -- and no list is provided describing each event. The data cannot be verified.

As a result of these criticisms, the current administration was forced to acknowledge it had "undercounted" and issued an amended report. This year, however, although publication of the report is required by law (22 U.S.C. § 2656f), the current administration determined to eliminate the report. This blatant failure of governmental transparency and honesty is exacerbated by the fact that:

"statistics that the National Counterterrorism Center provided to the State department reported 625 "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004. That compared with 175 [as amended] such incidents in 2003, the highest number in two decades."

In short, it's getting a lot worse. And yesterday was just one more example. Oh wait, the attacks on London don't count ... they didn't happen "here".

Downing Street Memo

Happy Friday.

It has been more than two years since Bush declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." It has been a year since the United States "handed over sovereignty to Iraq." (Hobbes is spinning.)

In the past year, 886 members of the U.S. military have lost their lives (1,774 since 3/21/03)and another 6,725 have been wounded (12,855 since 3/21/03). Estimates indicate that between 22,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Every day there are approximately 70 insurgent attacks. No WMD have been found.

The current administration calls this "progress."

The not-so-secret Downing Street memo reveals the true motivations behind the current administration's "Iraqi policy." Matthew Rycroft, the British foreign policy aide who drafted the memo, summarized a discussion of Iraq between British and U.S. officials:

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

(emphasis added.) The meeting took place eight months before the invasion in the midst of UN efforts to achieve the resumption of weapons inspections. Nevertheless, the current administration already had determined to reject UN efforts and, in the absence of any compelling justification -- except for "fixed" policy -- proceed with the military effort:

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

The current administration has failed to offer a response to the revelations contained in the memo. The media remains afraid to pursue it (Newsweek still bleeds).

But, some are demanding action: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/.