On the Sh*t List of both Sides
For that reason, I only lurk at certain sites and I remain reluctant to provide my true identity here. Remember, it would still the government doing the investigating. Why make it easy.
If the domestic security police do happen to stumble on the hard drive of this site and locate my email address, I am certain that any and all of my posts here will have been a case of someone stealing my true identity.
Re: On the Sh*t List of both Sides
Originally Posted by monoghan
Why would a self-styled neo-conservative living in the Number One Nation on the Planet live in such fear? Do advise.
Yo. Ob. Sv. Virgil K. (my real name) Saari
Because the issue remains in doubt.
After watching the "politics of personal destruction" practiced by both sides during the clinton administration, does anyone believe that the winning faction might not resort to roundups, inspections, or just IRS audits to deal with those it opposes. And this is if we have a successful crisis as a nation. We did it before as a nation, and not just in a crisis. I once received advice from someone whose grandmother lived in Poland during and after WWII, when sides changed quickly, "Don't get high on anyone's sh*t list". I agree with Stonewall that the infrastructure is in place for a police state. I just happen to believe that the Bushies are less likely than the Clintonistas to explore the entire extent of government authority.
I am not prepared to fight city hall until I know who is in city hall and what is the issue. The armchair prognosticating we all do here is interesting but not vital to me or my family.
Holding one's breath
Some issue will always remanin in doubt and one can always find a way out. The American Revolution was 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. The United Empire Loyalists, The Rebels, and those who waited to see what turned up.
The first two signed upon some dotted line, the last...well some egged their neighbors' sons on to do their duty and then condemned or applauded on the direction of the weathercock and then applauded and condemned. This was later styled "Prudence".
Mid Course Corrections
"The Cousins' Wars" - a history of the English Civil War, Glorious Revolution, American Revolution and American Civil War - goes further than that. Once the extremists on either side - either progressive or conservative - gets control or advantage, the dominant leader might attempt to push his agenda too far. This causes the moderates to shift their weight to counterbalance.
If one is into S&H, one can daydream about a regeneracy building a consensus. One can say Fourth Turnings are a time of consensus. One can hope the division and stalemate of the Third Turning fades. It doesn't always go that smoothly. A prudent politically aware Gray Champion might manage to get and stay in touch with a good solid majority. FDR got a bigger majority in each election. Lincoln played a difficult balancing act well, though he really needed the victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg. The Revolution and English Civil War had more twists and turns than more recent crises.
It remains true that the need for unity and decisive action becomes obvious during a period of crisis, but this doesn't necessarily imply a straight and well paved road. While no crisis is focused purely on a single issue, we might have a more complex crisis with more issues than we have seen in the past. It is much to ask that the Gray Champion or any leader could hit every issue right the first time. It might be prudent to expect and demand some mid course corrections.
Virgil, between the assertion "America could have won the revolution without French aid," and your original statement that "American forces would have lost the Battle of Yorktown but for the French fleet," there exists quite a bit of visible daylight. I was questioning the second statement, not asserting the first.
Still, it's worth noting that the rebels wouldn't even have gotten French aid in the first place but for the major victory at Saratoga, won with help from nobody.
Stonewall, you might be interested to know, or may already know, that a federal appeals court has invalidated the secret tribunals erected by the Bush administration in the cases of immigrants suspected of terrorist activities. The court used very strong language about the incompatibility of secrecy with democracy.
I may say that I expected this. Our Constitutional system is in real trouble when it faces a challenge the founders did not foresee, such as the corrupting influence of campaign contributions. But they certainly did foresee usurpation of power by the executive branch and offenses against liberty by same. The system contains multiple failsafe mechanisms to prevent that, and is well designed to prevent it. We are now seeing those failsafe mechanisms in action. Expect more of the same. If Bush continues down this line, he will be increasingly frustrated.
That's why, although I share your disdain for Mr. Bush's violations of civil liberties, I've never worried all that much about it.
I would assume that the Bush administration is appealing it to the Supreme Court. The appeals court may have used strong language about the incompatibility of secrecy with democracy, however the Supreme Court upheld these things in Ex Parte Quirin. Even if the SC upholds the lower court's opinion, might the administration tell the SC to shove it? Certainly Reichsfuehrer Ashcroft already told that lower court judge to shove it with respect to the order to release the names of the "detainees." I would not get too comfortable yet. These Bush people do not like to do anything out in the open and they have less respect for the Constitution than any administration in recent memory.
Brian, I was pretty firmly in the we-still-have-checks-and-balances camp also, but some of the stuff that has been happening recently is starting to scare me too, especially around military tribunals.
On a different note -- this is another signal tht the unravelling is starting to unravel:
Harvard Law School, in Shift, Will Allow Military to Recruit at Campus Office
By RICHARD MORGAN
The U.S. military will be allowed to recruit at Harvard Law School's Office of Career Services for the first time since the university instituted a ban on such practices more than 20 years ago to protest the military's discrimination against gay people, the law school's dean announced last week.
In a memo sent on Friday to students and faculty and staff members of the law school, the dean, Robert C. Clark, made it clear that the change was made "reluctantly." The ban on military recruiting "reflects a fundamental moral value," he wrote.
The law school's shift followed a sudden change in the U.S. Air Force's interpretation of the Solomon Amendment, a 1996 statute that denies some federal funds to any educational institution that "prohibits or in effect prevents" military recruiting. Since the early 1990s, the military has been more aggressive in lobbying for a presence on college campuses, with fewer academic holdouts remaining each year.
Military recruiters have been allowed to recruit at the law school, but not in the career-services office. They face no obstacles in Harvard's other schools, according to university officials.
In 1998, the Air Force determined that Harvard Law was in compliance with the Solomon Amendment because the law school allowed an alternate method of recruiting through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, a registered student organization. However, in December 2001, during a new evaluation, "apparently the Air Force's interpretation of the Solomon Amendment had changed," said Mr. Clark.
On May 29, the Air Force notified Mr. Clark that it had found Harvard Law in violation of the Solomon Amendment and gave the school a July 1 deadline for compliance. If the law school did not comply, the Air Force threatened to send notice to the Defense Department with a recommendation for denial of federal research funds. The Air Force granted a one-month extension on the deadline, and Mr. Clark informed the military of the policy change on July 29.
Harvard Law does not depend on federal funds, but noncompliance would punish the entire university, which receives $328-million -- approximately 16 percent of its operating budget -- annually for federally funded research.
Mr. Clark's memo reiterated the law school's strong rejection of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, but conceded that "at the same time, most of us reluctantly accept the reality that this university cannot afford the loss of federal funds."
However, he added, "to say that the decision was just about money trivializes its impact. At issue potentially were the fruits of the federal funds -- students' educations, faculty's careers, significant medical and scientific research, and perhaps even cures to life-threatening diseases."
People close to the policy discussions, in both the faculty and the student body, expressed strong resentment at Harvard Law's being "forced" to relax its ban.
Since September 11 and the installation of the Bush administration in 2001, "the wind is blowing in a different direction," said Heather K. Gerken, an assistant professor in the law of democracy and a member of the Placement Committee, which oversees who can recruit through the law school's career-services office. "[The government has] been targeting law schools across the country," she said, adding that the military has "never had any problem recruiting out of Harvard Law. This is not a battle of practicality. It's a battle of symbols."
Lindsay C. Harrison, a third-year law student and president of Lambda, a gay-student organization, said that she was angry at the federal government as well as at Harvard's president, Lawrence H. Summers, who has been more pro-military than his predecessors.
Mr. Summers "paved the way for the government to force this policy," said Ms. Harrison. "He gave them the green light, and he's a really unpopular president with the students for this reason." Mr. Summers has made a point of trumpeting the merits of civil and military service, and has pushed for a stronger presence for ROTC students at Harvard.
Ms. Harrison also expressed frustration that the government could have such sway with a private institution, adding that the armed forces are "taking advantage of military actions in Afghanistan. ... Here at Harvard, they're saying, 'We get to tell you what you do.'"
The shift is unsettling, she said, because "once you cave for one organization, it sets a precedent."
Lambda, however, is planning to subvert the military presence. "If the military think they're going to have an easier time recruiting non-gay students, they're wrong," Ms. Harrison said, laughing. "Every interview slot is going to be filled with gay students wanting to talk about this discriminatory policy -- not to sign up for JAG."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who takes the king's money; he is the king's man."
Pre-Saratoga Froggie Aid
1775
In April 1775, the American colonists' opposition to British policies grew into an armed rebellion. Vergennes suspected that, without aid, the American colonists' rebellion would fail, and Great Britain would be all the stronger. However, based upon his earlier intelligence, such aid from France had to be low profile so as not to incite the British any sooner than necessary, or to arouse anti-French resentment in the colonies.
In September 1775, the French sent an agent, Achard de Bonvouloir, to Philadelphia to hold secret discussions with the American Continental Congress. At the same time, Vergennes obtained the king's approval to authorize loans to the US. The support was mainly to be in secret delivery of war materials to the Americans.
French Money was advanced to Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, who created a private trading company, the house of Hortalez & Cie. His 'trading company' purchased military supplies from the French government, and then transported the supplies on merchant ships, mostly going to the West Indies. The merchant ships were expected to return to France with agricultural products from North America. Beaumarchais also financed the transport and initial expenses of many of the volunteer officers who went to America in the early part of the war.
The French sought to get Spain [both monarchies were of the Bourbon dynasty] interested. Ports of both nations were effectively 'open' to American ships, which was a hostel act against Britain. The French ignored the presence of American ships in their ports. On occasion, when the British delivered formal protests with specific evidence, the French would request the Americans to depart -- temporally. 'Out-of-sight' from American shores, the catering to American privateers in French ports was a particular offense to the British, against which the protests of the British ambassador in Paris proved helpless. Further, French naval squadrons [stationed off the Channel ports and in the West Indies] were instructed to protect ships that the British wanted to search for contraband shipments to the American colonists.
1776
From the American perspective, the need for French assistance evolved more slowly. Considerable anti-French feelings remained from the era of the colonial wars in North America, and there was ignorance of what an armed rebellion would really require. For the most part, the colonists had not faced the full power of a eighteen-century, European military power. Except for in Canada, France and England had not sent such forces in the earlier wars, and such a level of warfare had not been experienced in the thirteen colonies. Even the British, were not fully aware of the full military strength that they would be required to deploy to North America. However, by 1776, the realities that it would be a real war became evident to both sides. As the English increased their military and naval deployments, the American colonial leaders recognized the need to seek some assistance. Only one nation which could conceivably do so, and which expressed interest, was France.
In March 1776, the American representative, Silas Deane, arrived in France. French authorities made it be known that the American colonists needed to make a formal declaration of the intent. This 'Declaration of Independence' was officially announced 4 July 1776.
Anticipating the need for some formal agreement, the US Congress, in September 1776, adopted a 'model treaty', drafted by John Adams, to submit to France. About two weeks later, three commissioners were appointed to negotiate agreements with European nations along the lines of the 'model'. It was largely a commercial treaty and not a wartime alliance.
[The French aid was not successfully kept secret from the English. Deane's secretary (Bancroft) was a British spy. However, England was not prepared for an open war with France, so the British efforts to deter the French aid to the American rebels remained in the form of diplomatic protests.]
Beginning with September 1776, the British offensive drove the American army from New York and across New Jersey. The Americans now appreciated what it was to confront a formal European army. 'Minutemen' were not going to do the job. Recognizing the reverses, Congress amended instructions to its agents in France, authorizing them to secure a military alliance with France and Spain.
Deane was joined by Benjamin Franklin, who arrived in France in December 1776. The third American representative was Arthur Lee, who would be recalled in January 1778.
1777
Early 1777 saw the peak in the arrival of French military officers who served as 'volunteers' in the American army. Professionally, the most valuable of these were engineers and artillerymen. However, in June 1777, one of the most important 'volunteers', a French aristocrat possessing only a junior officer's rank in the French army, arrived at Georgetown, South Carolina. He was the marquis de La Fayette, and would see his first military action and be wounded in the American defeat at the battle of Brandywine (11 September 1777).
The American reverses in the Philadelphia Campaign of 1777, in which many French military volunteers participated, exposed serious weaknesses in the Americans standing up against a well led, trained, and equipped European army. Fortunately, a poorly led British army was defeated by the Americans at Battle of Saratoga (17 October 1777). Vergennes learned of the American victory at Saratoga in early December 1777.
Conventional histories describe this as 'a turning point' in winning French commitment to the American cause.{VKS}
Events just covered leading to this moment, and those following belie the exaggeration. More at
http://www.xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/allianc2.htm
Perspective on the French-American Alliance
HTH
The tautological president.
It really bothers me that the talk from the hawks in this Administration makes war with Iraq seem inevitable.
I mean, if we don't go to war now after all this saber-rattling, we look stupid.
How can the US step back from this position? Is it even possible?
Is the choice between looking stupid or doing something stupid? Better to look stupid than do something stupid, because doing stupid means that people will die.
1st Deadly Sin
It's usually other people or their children and domestic livestock that do the expiring in the case of stupid doers...the stupid lookers would bear the brunt of their foolishness.
Thus, it is more easily shunted to cannon fodder and/or targets.
************************************************** **************
Re: Holding one's breath
Sounds like the way of the Nomad. Never cheer before you know who's winning.
Of course it is possible. In fact, I am not even sure that the administration will really go forward with this thing. All these leaks have been tied to the White House. Then we have this massive mindgame with Scowcroft, Eagleburger et al. posing as opponents of the administration (i.e Junior and Uncle Dick). Bullsh*t! Junior and Uncle Dick would not go against Daddy because the only reason they are installed in office is to carry out Daddy's will (and that of Daddy's cronies). Can you see hapless Junior in there with all those Neo-Con sharks without his father's guidance? What a laugh! Those two are on the phone non-stop every day. This whole "disagreement" is 100% orchestrated by Daddy and his crowd. But why?
Let's face it, all this BS has diverted attention from the economy and that is all the White House wanted anyway. They are getting more mileage out of the talk than they ever would from the walk. I tend to think that there will be no actual Iraqi invasion, at least not in the immediate future. As it is, they have the public's mind off the economy; they have Saddam off-balance; they have the Neo-Cons off-balance; they have the illusion that Junior is his own man, not his father's puppet; they have driven a distinction in the public's mind between his father's crowd and the Neo-Cons in an effort to remove the suggestion that the oil companies might be behind any Iraqi adventure; and if Saddam takes the bait and launches a pre-emptive strike, then they can stretch this BS out even longer with a properly "provoked" Iraqi invasion. This is all BS but it is a win-win for the White House.
On the other hand...perhaps the White House really is eager to go in there. The sooner they go in there, the sooner the Arab World is likely to explode. The sooner the Arab World explodes, the sooner the attacks will come here at home. The sooner the attacks come here at home, the sooner the administration can declare martial law. The sooner the administration declares martial law, the sooner thay can take direct control of the media and American citizens. The sooner they can seize absolute control, the sooner they will no longer need to resort to BS like this Iraq business, leaks and all. Hell, they could even suspend elections if they wanted. And they will have cast the illusion that Daddy and the oil companies had nothing to do with it. If you don't like it, they want you to blame those Neo-Con "mouth breathers." Pretty ingenious really. I just pray that these corrupt degenerates in the administration are really not THIS evil! Let's hope that this is all BS to distract attention from the economy and there will be no Iraqi invasion.
For whatever it may be worth, here is Al martin on Iraq and a few other things. I'll highlight where he jumps on new topics:
www.almartinraw.com/column69.html
(Excerpted)
BEHIND THE SCENES IN THE BELTWAY
by Al Martin
The Bush Cabal: An American Kleptocracy (Part 2)
(August 28) Bush continues to waffle on the new war. On CNN, there was a press release issued by the Bush White House stating that they do not want to consider a full blown war against Iraq, until such time as the administration has concrete proof that Saddam Hussein is developing bio-chemical weapons. At the every same instant (I was watching three TVs), Fox News had a statement by the CIA saying that is safe to assume that Saddam Hussein has at least some biochemical capabilities already developed. Then, at the same time, there was a release by the Department of Defense stating that we now have conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein is developing biochemical weapons. This was three different press releases on three different networks - all at the same time. And I thought that if the White House has any confusion on the subject as to whether Saddam Hussein is developing biochemical weapons, why don't they just contact the Department of Defense who say they have definitive proof?
This just shows how ludicrous and to what absurd lengths this waffling has reached and just how driven by public opinion polls the Bush Administration has become -- because opinion polls indicate that the public is very evenly split on the question about what to do with Iraq. This has been seen in the past in Bush Administrations. When the public is evenly split, what they do is they will waffle every day, and then eventually, as we have seen, they will form a blue-ribbon committee to "investigate" the question of what should be done. They will not take a stand and it shows just how politicized the Bush Administration is.
Of course this brings up the issue of the need for a government Lie Coordination Bureau (See previous column Think Like a Bush: Lie Coordination Bureau Needed).
This mistake become obvious when they have three different press releases come out at the same time on three different networks. Again it shows the desperate need the Bush Administration has for a Lie Coordination Bureau. Then when it happens, AlMartinRaw.com can be considered an unofficial consultant to the Bush Administration. As a matter of fact, this column is already acting as a defacto Lie Coordination Bureau, until this task is adopted by official channels.
In other news, the Department of Defense is so desperate they're even dummying up war games. An AP news item entitled "Ex-General Says War Games Were Rigged", states "A retired general who commanded 'enemy' forces in a recently concluded $250 million U.S. war game says the exercise was rigged so that it appeared to validate new war- fighting concepts it was supposed to test. Paul Van Riper, who headed the Marine Corps Combat Development Command when he retired in 1997 as a three-star general, said he became so frustrated with undue constraints on his command of 'enemy forces that he quit?"
This is probably the first time that war games have been dummied up. These are war games combined with the supposed coordination of federal state and civilian agencies like FEMA and all the new agencies created since September 11. This was supposedly a test of coordination of all military and civilian forces. The Bush Administration has made a big deal out of this -- how well coordinated we now are. If it came down to an attack against the United States we could handle it. But of course it's a lie.
The exercises were literally a joke and there is no coordination. Even though we've spent billions of dollars supposedly to coordinate these agencies, from FEMA to the Coast Guard, under this unified command structure ultimately to be put under the Office of Homeland Security.
There were troops attacking targets and the FEMA people were supposed to be there to provide medical care for so-called wounded civilians. They had civilians playing that they were wounded and they had FEMA people would be forty miles away - lost in the woods someplace.
Bridges were supposed to be secured by the National Guard and then the National Guard wouldn't let the federal troops over the bridges because they were suspicious of the "identification" of the federal troops, so they wouldn't let them across to fight the enemy that was supposed to be on the other side.
In this exercise, it was also discovered that fully 40% of the new high-tech equipment (everything from non-lethal weaponry to global positioning systems to the new advanced scopes for rifles) didn't work. Not only did they not work, but also they were getting bad information because it was all coordinated from a field office in Washington. The global positioning systems, which were supposed to be used for a landing in Kuwait and the guys who were feeding the latitude and longitude, fed them the wrong numbers so they ended up in the wrong country.
In another news item, it was revealed that the United States, under the Bush I Administration had supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons, in the hope that Iraq would win their war with Iran. CNN would not run the whole story because of White House pressure. But this US covert aid for Iraq had been going on during the Reagan Administration since about 1985. Iraq had been given the components for binary bio- chemical weapons since the US wanted to see Iran defeated and they believed that we could deal with Iraq.
As we have mentioned in "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider", it should be remembered that this was an ongoing process and that the Bush I Administration continued to covertly supply Iraq with embargoed weapons systems right up until three days before Operation Desert Shield was begun. Even CNN has admitted that the Bush I Regime continued to illegally supply Iraq with illegal embargoed weapon systems three days before Desert Shield.
Iraq owes its biochemical and nuclear capability to the United States (and more specifically to George Bush I) - and that should never be forgotten.
Beginning in 1989, it was George Bush I who ramped up aid to Iraq covertly.
The LCB (Lie Coordination Bureau) is still needed. They could advertise for people in the Washington Post. "WANTED: LCB people. Must know how to shred documents."
[snip]
The Bush Administration is doing the same thing that the Reagan Bush people did and that is pushing American banks and other corporations to lend money and extend financing to increase economic activity - even when it is not prudent to do so. The administration has purposely crafted the rules on how debt is recorded (fast and loose, in other words) that it allows corporations to use every artifice known to man, in an effort to disguise the total amount of debt they have but more importantly to disguise the quality of that debt.
One way the debt is hidden, of course, is by calling an "expense" a "depreciated asset" but what this guy was referring to is JP Morgan and Citibank and Microsoft and General Electric as examples of corporations with enormous amounts of debt.
In some cases, the corporations themselves employ sophisticated derivative trading in an effort to hide debt and such byzantine accounting methods that in some cases the corporations themselves after a period of years of trying to lie about how much debt they have, don't know themselves any more how much debt they have. There is no regulatory agency in the federal government, which has a handle on how much real debt corporations have or what the quality of that debt is.
The derivative problem was mentioned in the past but it faded away, but it's a problem that persists. These complex derivatives were initially a good idea the concept of hedging risk and of hedging prices. But the problem is that companies have realized that these complex derivatives can be used to generate phony assets and to hide losses, as camouflage.
Now 80% of the derivative trading that goes on among corporations is no longer used to hedge future prices, but is used to generate false profits and hide losses. There have been rumors of this at JP Morgan, Citibank, GE and Microsoft.
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has said publicly that in order to manage the liability of speculative bubbles, the air should be let out of those bubbles gradually. How do you do that in a country where people always have a knee jerk reaction and will immediately run to sell all those stocks?
Greenspan was afraid that markets would fall and liquidity would dry out and who knows what the impact would have been. He is the master of sublime hints, when he tried to warn people about "irrational exuberance" in the marketplace. And the American people in their own greed and naivet? didn't listen.
Remember that Greenspan wanted to retire after the Clinton Administration and the only reason he decided to stay on was because a Bush was elected.
Remember what Greenspan said in 1993 - the nation couldn't afford any more Bushes. And what he said recently in answer to a reporter who asked him why don't you cut rates further? Greenspan glared at this guy and spoke the stark naked truth - the American people deserve another economic spanking for having voted for George Bush. He said it before too but he waited for George Sr. to be out of office. And that's been consistently his warning. If you vote for a Bush, you deserve an economic spanking.
Some people are actually mystified. I tell people on every radio show I do that the short-term memory of the American people is known. Let's hope that losing 50% of your money in eighteen months will help you remember by 2004.
[snip]
Despite Bushonian optimism and, as we have reported in the past, the National Council of Economists issued a forecast that there will be a double dip recession in the third quarter of this year 2002. Also as we have reported about Rumsfeld's complaining about leaks regarding potential invasion plans of Iraq. He pounded his fists again and said anyone who leaks documents should be in jail.
Finally it was reported on CNN that in fact ALL of the leaks on the so-called invasion of Iraq have been orchestrated by the White House in order to drum up support for the War on Iraq and the War on Terrorism in general. It's no longer necessary for George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld to play the Good Cop/Bad Cop Routine on this issue. The people are beginning to se through this fa?ade. This is the formal outing of the Rumsfeld/Bush Good Cop/ Bad Cop Routine. It's becoming ludicrous but we believe that the Good Secretary Rumsfeld should have his wish and all those leaking documents in question should be put in jail. That would clean up and clean out the White House.
The national security court (FISA) issued a stinging rebuke of the Department of Justice under John Ashcroft. The court stated that the DoJ has since 9-11 lied 75 times in application for surveillance warrants in order to surveil against mostly American citizens The national security court was "much dismayed" at John Ashcroft's heavy handedness and his efforts to in their opinion to turn the Department of Justice into a "Modern Day Gestapo." It reminded the Attorney General that the court was there to maintain a firewall between law enforcement and domestic intelligence operations. Ashcroft has specifically asked the court that this wall be dismantled and that the Department of Justice be given "unlimited authority" to surveil upon American citizens -- at will.
FBI agents come up with the submissions, but the Department of Justice submits the brief to the national security court. It should be noted that before 9-11 in the last 7,000 submissions the national security court only turned down one of the DoJ requests. Since then they have turned down numerous requests and have warned them against increasing heavy handedness. The statement virtually implied that the national security court would use its influence and block future requests for subpoenas if Ashcroft continues to try to turn the Department of Justice into an "American Gestapo."
Everyone is astounded because the national security court has never released a public statement and it's a stinging rebuke of the Department of Justice -- and a rebuke of Ashcroft personally.
The national security court exists within the Department of Justice. It operates like a defacto star chamber, even though it's located in the same building. It's where the Department of Justice has to go when they go from domestic law enforcement into intelligence matters. For a court, which is ostensibly controlled by the Bush White House to come up with such a rebuke -- it's unprecedented.
The inference is that someone within this court has decided to take a stand, and that if not the Department of Justice could very well become a "Modern Day Gestapo."
[snip]
Course Change In Progress?
It is too soon to be sure, but it might not only be possible, but in progress.
A week or so back, after a meeting with a Saudi prince, Dubya announced he was patient, he would listen to his allies, and he would listen to Congress. This sounded like a change in spin. Several other than myself noted it. While Chaney is continuing full scale war talk, Dubya himself has taken a few steps back of late. Shortly after this change in spin, Kissenger and several other senior Republican foreign affairs experts from prior administrations came out for patience, coalitions and no unilateral action.
I'd watch the spin carefully for a while. It's possible Dubya already knows an Iraq war can't happen. We may get a chance to observe him changing course while losing as little stature as possible.
If you think that Kissinger came out against unilateral action, then you need some diversity in your news sources beyond the NY Times. The Times got battered pretty good on its mischaracterization of the Kissinger position.
People who don't think that Bush will proceed on Iraq are clinging to the belief that he will commit the same mistakes as were allegedly committed by his father. If we have learned anything about this Bush, is that he won't do that (even if, as some allege, he is a corporatist like his father).
(But if he does make those mistakes, Hillary the Hawk in 2004).
OK, I didn't seek out the entire Kissinger release. I care less for the exact position of each Republican elder statesman than the coincidence of several of them popping up at roughly the same time. This implies someone mobilized them, and there aren't many who would have influence with that bunch. No, I'm not sure there is a change in progress, but lots of pressure is being applied from many directions. One might want to keep an attentive ear and open mind for a bit.
Monoghan's right about Kissinger, by the way: he came out strongly in favor of invading Iraq. But it is also true that a couple other highly-placed Republicans have come out against doing so over the past week.
Are these guys coming out against doing so Silents? I note that as an aside; I know that there are plenty of examples of Silents being in favor of invading, such as Cheney, of course.
Still, this "yes Hussein is a bad, bad man, but we can just keep managing him short of war" versus "we've tried that for ten years, let's just get this thing over with" argument at times seems generational.
I'm not sure the adminstration wants to invade Iraq. Why are they vacillating? I think they are waiting to see if an invasion will be necessary.
Good question. Things are pretty mysterious; historians are going to have a lot to write about.
One observation: among the arguments FOR invading is the "The Gulf War never really ended" argument. This argument, of course, involves not only the largely legalistic fact that, like the Korean War, no peace treaty was ever signed, merely a conditional cease fire (the conditions of which have been violated), but also the fact that hostilities have continued at a low level all during the 1990's, with US and British planes periodically bombing Iraqi air defenses and Iraqis periodically shooting at US and British planes. Iraq never really got full soveriegnty back: witness the no-fly zones.
If the Bush administration intends to use this as part of their justification, they might see it as beneficial to GRADUALLY ramp up the hostilities, making the transition to an invasion seem less profound. This might be going on now.
Or not. Just a thought. Like I said, things are mysterious. I hope they're scrupulously keeping the minutes of all of the meetings, so that someday (if we live long enough) we'll know what the arguments have been.
I'm thinking along another line. Perhaps the administration is waiting to see if we need to go to war to jump start the economy. If things improve on their own then maybe we don't.
