“The Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act includes new provisions to further strengthen congressional authority and oversight, and provide clear rules for electronic surveillance if the President notifies the Congress that he has reason to believe that an attack is imminent that would result in death or serious injury or substantial economic damage. The rules will include time limits, written notification, full justification, and clear identification of the groups and their affiliates believed to be about to launch an attack.
We listen to our enemies. Our intelligence community must be able to gather information to protect us, and react rapidly to threats. At the same time, we must ensure that the liberties of Americans are protected. We can do both.” N.M. GOP Rep. Heather Wilson
So according to this proposed Act, if the President doesn’t notify Congress that he has reason to believe that an attack is imminent, just as he didn’t notify Congress of his circumvention of FISA was and is illegal and continues to this day, then Congress in its ignorance has nothing to do. This “Act” would negate FISA and add to Bush’s increasingly imperial powers.
“Our elections are too important to allow the possibility of fraudulent and illegal voting practices and that is why I supported H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. This bill would ensure that state and local governments have effective means to prevent non-citizen immigrants from illegally registering and voting in federal elections.
The Federal Election Integrity Act would require voters in federal elections to provide a photo ID by 2008. By 2010, voters would be required to provide a photo ID that can only be obtained with proof of citizenship. Federal law already makes it a crime for non-citizens to vote in federal elections and this bill would give state and local governments the tools they need to enforce the law. H.R. 4844 is important legislation and will preserve the democratic integrity of our electoral process.” Texas GOP Rep. John Culberson
Why the hell would non-citizens vote?
And why have a new photo-ID to prove citizenship when we already have one—it’s called a passport.
Oh yeah, and federal law makes it a crime for citizens to manipulate the election process and results. Try starting there.
“Congress must do more to increase access to affordable, quality health insurance and we must work to control the costs in our health care system. I have proposed several common sense interim steps - including expanding and encouraging health savings accounts, allowing individuals and businesses to buy insurance across state lines and over the internet and expanding tax credits to help small businesses provide coverage for their employees.” Vt. GOP Candidate for Congress Martha Rainville
All this was done two years ago and resulted in higher costs. More restricted coverage and a reduction in those insured. And why should small businesses (the Labor Department defines “small business” as a company with up to 500 employees or $12 million p.a. gross income) get a tax credit if individuals, going by this idiotically vague “plan”, would then be able to get “affordable” healthcare on their own due to the benefits of this magical scheme?
"Unfortunately, Hugo Chavez has become a clown. What’s even more unfortunate is his deliberate efforts to intervene and interefere (sic) with the internal politics of his neighbors, jeopardizing democracy and destabilizing many Latin American nations who are struggling to secure a better future for their citizens." Ill. GOP Rep. Jerry Weller
Unfortunately, George Bush has become a clown. What’s even more unfortunate is his deliberate efforts to intervene and interfere with the internal politics of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran, jeopardizing democracy and destabilizing many Middle-Eastern nations.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Iran, Panic and the “Nuclear Option”
Well I’ve read Col. Gardiner’s report that claims US Special Forces have been in Iran for a while in preparation for possible military action.
Whilst they may indeed have been there, are they really there now? Gardiner writes very coherently but he doesn’t provide any kind of corroboration the public can use.
If it’s true, isn’t he tipping the Iranians off and putting SOF and CIA in danger?
Or is he sufficiently convinced the Bush plans to launch a military campaign he thinks would be so disastrous that blowing the whistle now is the lesser of two evils?
Or, is he perhaps the witting or unwitting agent of psy-ops campaign? I have no idea.
Gardiner provides some depressingly clear-eyed reasons why attacking Iran would be a monumentally stupid idea—far, far more disastrous than the Iraq misadventure—and is seeing signs that the Bush administration is keen to stay the course by not listening to sense but to some higher power located between their ass-cheeks. Gardiner hears the same aggressive rhetoric and confused claims from Bush and his supporters in the “think-tanks” and the media that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq, being applied to Ahmedinejad and Iran. Combined with whatever scuttlebutt he hears from his military sources he’s probably got some pretty good reasons to be concerned.
But however much the neo-cons and their idiot lackeys in the GOP and the press might want to attack Iran, it doesn’t mean they can or will.
The war-mongers ideal would be to destroy the entire Iranian nuclear program—they can’t just whack one or two “key” sites.
According to Gardiner the target list runs to around 400 and some of those are hardened, naturally.
To get the job done, the attacks would have to be quick and massive—requiring a combination of cruise-missiles launched from stand-off positions and over-the-target attacks from fighter-bombers which would need protection from the Improved Hawk (and other) SAM systems Ronald “we are not trading arms for hostages” Reagan so generously sold to the Ayatollah. That would require a bunch of F-111 Wild Weasels and EA6-B Prowlers for radar suppression and F-117 Nighthawks to knock out the SAM sites. It’s easier and quicker to commit the Air Force and the Navy than it is the Army to military action but it would still take some evident preparation.
On the political front, Bush won’t have any military support from the UK, or from anyone else—except Israel, which has been receiving shiny new F-16I fighter-bombers (I think they have about 50 out of the 102 ordered) fitted with custom, long range fuel tanks ideal for getting them from Israel to Iran and back.
Some Israeli minister today (I forget who) was shouting about Iran being a major threat but then Israel has been embarrassed by the Lebanon screw-up, is being pressed hard on it’s use of cluster-bombs and the Israeli public is none too happy and I suspect he's just trying to divert attention.
The American public isn’t too happy either. The Congress is up for grabs and most importantly there’s already a lot of public pushback from the military to the suggestion that force should be use against Iran.
I may be wrong but apart from the usual suspects, there doesn’t seem to be as much cheerleading for action in the media against Iran as there was for Iraq and less acquiescence to the White House noise-machine amongst the more moderate press this time around. Most of the fear-mongering seemed to occur in the first quarter of this year and with all the other very public misfortunes Bush and his pals have visited upon us and themselves they aren’t getting the traction they need to prosecute this issue.
Gardiner may be sounding the alarm but he seems to be fear-mongering in his own way—but a “good” way.
The only trouble with all this is that this administration (meaning Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and the most rabid members of the GOP) don’t operate on reason and don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves and their own fantasies of certitude and superiority. Desperate to justify themselves in the face of criticism and opposition they could be tempted to forget the preamble, the propaganda and the pretense and just go for broke and order an attack anyway.
But you know what? If it came to that I think the military would say no. It would be the military’s “nuclear option”, one that wouldn’t destroy anything for once.
I really think there’s no need to panic. Unless I’m wrong in which case panic won’t do you any good any how—it’ll be too late.
Have a nice day--tomorrow could be your last. Enjoy!
Monday, September 18, 2006
IRAN-Don't Panic! (Yet)
Retired Air Force Colonel (and former teacher at the U.S. Army National War College) Sam Gardiner told Wolf Blitzer tonight on CNN: “We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now.”
At various times over the past 18 months he has said that he believed covert surveillance and HUMINT operations were being conducted, focused on Iran’s nuclear disposition and its political dissidents.
Frankly I would expect the US to conduct such operations anywhere at any time in any country.
But now, says Gardiner. “The evidence is overwhelming.” To support this more elevated claim he cites the following:
a) When the House Committee on Emerging Threats recently called on State and Defense officials to testify if U.S. forces were in Iran or not, none showed up.
b) Some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment (according to Time magazine), which Gardiner calls “a major step”
c) Gardiner states that “The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House; that means we’ve gone to a different state.”
ThinkProgress has the full transcript here
Plenty of pundits, politicians and commentators have weighed in on this subject over most of the year—those on the political Right beating the war drums yet again and those on the Left remarking on the similarity to the lead-up of the Iraq invasion.
Now given the orchestration of lies and the colossal cock-up that the Bush administration has wrought and still refuses to acknowledge in Iraq, it is entirely possible that the White House is not only contemplating attacking Iran but is actively involved in the early stages of actually doing so.
HOWEVER…
Just because Gardiner has respectable military qualifications, it doesn’t mean his expertise extends as far as his words and conclusions imply. Gardiner lays out his analysis presumably more thoroughly in a .PDF titled The End of the “Summer of Diplomacy”: Assessing U.S. Military Options on Iran.
I haven’t read it yet, but I intend to.
The highlighted points above he makes to support his assertion are weak in themselves and not very strong even together ( except perhaps for the first, which is very curious) .
Remember, it was the pursuit of “facts” to fit suspicions that got us into Iraq in the first place.
That’s not to say Gardiner is wrong, it’s just that his apparent conviction needs to be supported by more than a limited collation of fact and supposition as presented in this CNN appearance.
Nor is he wrong to be alarmed by the possibility that he may be correct; there were some indicators of the Iraq invasion that hardly anyone noticed (such as the huge increase in sorties over the no-fly zones for several months prior to the Iraq invasion).
I can think of all sorts of reasons why BushCo would want, and need, to attack Iran in the very near future. So I’m going to read Gardiner’s analysis with a skeptical eye and try and corroborate or refute his arguments with some research.
In Bush’s age of fear, I’d like to keep some semblance of reason. I don’t plan to succumb to panic just yet. Give me a week before I freak.
At various times over the past 18 months he has said that he believed covert surveillance and HUMINT operations were being conducted, focused on Iran’s nuclear disposition and its political dissidents.
Frankly I would expect the US to conduct such operations anywhere at any time in any country.
But now, says Gardiner. “The evidence is overwhelming.” To support this more elevated claim he cites the following:
a) When the House Committee on Emerging Threats recently called on State and Defense officials to testify if U.S. forces were in Iran or not, none showed up.
b) Some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment (according to Time magazine), which Gardiner calls “a major step”
c) Gardiner states that “The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House; that means we’ve gone to a different state.”
ThinkProgress has the full transcript here
Plenty of pundits, politicians and commentators have weighed in on this subject over most of the year—those on the political Right beating the war drums yet again and those on the Left remarking on the similarity to the lead-up of the Iraq invasion.
Now given the orchestration of lies and the colossal cock-up that the Bush administration has wrought and still refuses to acknowledge in Iraq, it is entirely possible that the White House is not only contemplating attacking Iran but is actively involved in the early stages of actually doing so.
HOWEVER…
Just because Gardiner has respectable military qualifications, it doesn’t mean his expertise extends as far as his words and conclusions imply. Gardiner lays out his analysis presumably more thoroughly in a .PDF titled The End of the “Summer of Diplomacy”: Assessing U.S. Military Options on Iran.
I haven’t read it yet, but I intend to.
The highlighted points above he makes to support his assertion are weak in themselves and not very strong even together ( except perhaps for the first, which is very curious) .
Remember, it was the pursuit of “facts” to fit suspicions that got us into Iraq in the first place.
That’s not to say Gardiner is wrong, it’s just that his apparent conviction needs to be supported by more than a limited collation of fact and supposition as presented in this CNN appearance.
Nor is he wrong to be alarmed by the possibility that he may be correct; there were some indicators of the Iraq invasion that hardly anyone noticed (such as the huge increase in sorties over the no-fly zones for several months prior to the Iraq invasion).
I can think of all sorts of reasons why BushCo would want, and need, to attack Iran in the very near future. So I’m going to read Gardiner’s analysis with a skeptical eye and try and corroborate or refute his arguments with some research.
In Bush’s age of fear, I’d like to keep some semblance of reason. I don’t plan to succumb to panic just yet. Give me a week before I freak.
The Hill Blog- Representin' Our Representatives
As if our politicians don't have enough opportunites and outlets to express their opinions whilst ignoring the citizens', they also have a cozy little spot called "The Hill's Congress Blog" where our elected Representatives tell us what's on their minds.
The public is welcome to comment on the postings but seeing as the comments never appear anywhere I'm not sure what the point is and besides I'm sure the reps. don't have time to engage in a discussion thread (nor indeed should they).
Still as thus utterly pointless as this may seem, the blog is very informative in that it provides many examples from Republicans and Democrats alike--easily copied of course for later reference--of their rhetorical style, the issues they think are important and frankly their mental capacity.
For instance Brian Billbray (R-CA) has posted House Acts to Make Border More Secure which reads like a press release or official statement and sounds all sensible and mature, but his previous post of September 15 seems to be much more personal.
Entitled No Amnesty For Terrorists Billbray leads by quoting Nancy Pelosi; "...and even to capture him[Bin Laden] now, I don’t think makes us any safer.”
From this Billbray concludes that "The American people don’t want amnesty for terrorists."
Right, well, there you go then. That was certainly worth the extra $3000 pay raise.
How about J.D. Hayworth's (R-AZ) Appeasing Iran Does Not Work
"History has proven that the Democrats have a horrible track record when working toward stability in the Middle East and it’s laughable that they would blame President Bush for enabling Iran to become a global menace. It was Democratic President Jimmy Carter who stood by as Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah of Iran, ushering in the dangerous, volatile theocracy that is still in existence today. Most importantly, it was Carter, not President Bush, who in 1979 watched as the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun and American citizens were held captive for 444 days."
The last, first: that doesn't make any sense at all! But what about the rest of the "arguments?"
Ah yes! History! That Camp David thing? That was actually from a Dean Koontz novel. And that popular uprising in Iran? Not that popular! And talk about unstable! Remember when they tried to topple Hussein back in the 80's, but couldn't because we provided him with nerve gas which Hussein used on the Iranians? Remember when the US Ambassador gave our good friend Hussein the green light to grab some Kuwaiti oil on the border--but then went and invaded the country instead? Now he was stable!
Oh and remember when Reagan DIDN'T appease the Iranians by selling them missiles for hostages in Lebanon? Or was that the other way around? I guess I'll have to wait for one of Dubya's future historians to decide that for me when we are all dead.
"During the Clinton Administration, it is now clear that the secret Iranian nuclear program was up and running and Iran was providing support for Hezbollah and al Qaeda terrorists."
Of course! It was Clinton's fault that the Russians in 1995 agreed to begin rebuilding the then 20 year-old Bushehr nuclear reactor that had been crippled in the Iran-Iraq war.
And it was his fault that Madeline Albright persuaded the Ukraines not to provide needed turbines in 1998.
And it was Clinton's fault that the reactor was surrounded by Raytheon Improved Hawk SAMs that Reagan sold Iran. Oh, and of course the rebuilding of the reactor was known only to a few thousand journalists over the ten years since reconstruction began and only this year, during Bush's tenure, has the reactor begun to provide a tiny amount of enriched uranium though the plant isn't actually completed yet. (detailed Global Security report here ). Oh and that bit about supporting Al Qaeda? Ummm....not true. False. Made-up.
"After all that’s happened the Democrats still don’t get it. The pattern of unspoken appeasement clearly does not, and never will, work. It didn’t work in the 70’s, didn’t work in the 90’s and especially won’t work now."
So you see this half-assed blog that is paid for by our tax dollars has its uses; between the obvious cut-and-pasted press releases are the telling, personal posts--direct from the source and unfiltered by journalists. So there you have it, in his own words Rep. Hayworth is clearly a deranged, lying sack of shit--not for slamming the Dem's you understand, but for incoherent babbling, rewriting history and lying. See? I'd only assumed that before and now I know for sure--right from the source!
The public is welcome to comment on the postings but seeing as the comments never appear anywhere I'm not sure what the point is and besides I'm sure the reps. don't have time to engage in a discussion thread (nor indeed should they).
Still as thus utterly pointless as this may seem, the blog is very informative in that it provides many examples from Republicans and Democrats alike--easily copied of course for later reference--of their rhetorical style, the issues they think are important and frankly their mental capacity.
For instance Brian Billbray (R-CA) has posted House Acts to Make Border More Secure which reads like a press release or official statement and sounds all sensible and mature, but his previous post of September 15 seems to be much more personal.
Entitled No Amnesty For Terrorists Billbray leads by quoting Nancy Pelosi; "...and even to capture him[Bin Laden] now, I don’t think makes us any safer.”
From this Billbray concludes that "The American people don’t want amnesty for terrorists."
Right, well, there you go then. That was certainly worth the extra $3000 pay raise.
How about J.D. Hayworth's (R-AZ) Appeasing Iran Does Not Work
"History has proven that the Democrats have a horrible track record when working toward stability in the Middle East and it’s laughable that they would blame President Bush for enabling Iran to become a global menace. It was Democratic President Jimmy Carter who stood by as Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah of Iran, ushering in the dangerous, volatile theocracy that is still in existence today. Most importantly, it was Carter, not President Bush, who in 1979 watched as the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun and American citizens were held captive for 444 days."
The last, first: that doesn't make any sense at all! But what about the rest of the "arguments?"
Ah yes! History! That Camp David thing? That was actually from a Dean Koontz novel. And that popular uprising in Iran? Not that popular! And talk about unstable! Remember when they tried to topple Hussein back in the 80's, but couldn't because we provided him with nerve gas which Hussein used on the Iranians? Remember when the US Ambassador gave our good friend Hussein the green light to grab some Kuwaiti oil on the border--but then went and invaded the country instead? Now he was stable!
Oh and remember when Reagan DIDN'T appease the Iranians by selling them missiles for hostages in Lebanon? Or was that the other way around? I guess I'll have to wait for one of Dubya's future historians to decide that for me when we are all dead.
"During the Clinton Administration, it is now clear that the secret Iranian nuclear program was up and running and Iran was providing support for Hezbollah and al Qaeda terrorists."
Of course! It was Clinton's fault that the Russians in 1995 agreed to begin rebuilding the then 20 year-old Bushehr nuclear reactor that had been crippled in the Iran-Iraq war.
And it was his fault that Madeline Albright persuaded the Ukraines not to provide needed turbines in 1998.
And it was Clinton's fault that the reactor was surrounded by Raytheon Improved Hawk SAMs that Reagan sold Iran. Oh, and of course the rebuilding of the reactor was known only to a few thousand journalists over the ten years since reconstruction began and only this year, during Bush's tenure, has the reactor begun to provide a tiny amount of enriched uranium though the plant isn't actually completed yet. (detailed Global Security report here ). Oh and that bit about supporting Al Qaeda? Ummm....not true. False. Made-up.
"After all that’s happened the Democrats still don’t get it. The pattern of unspoken appeasement clearly does not, and never will, work. It didn’t work in the 70’s, didn’t work in the 90’s and especially won’t work now."
So you see this half-assed blog that is paid for by our tax dollars has its uses; between the obvious cut-and-pasted press releases are the telling, personal posts--direct from the source and unfiltered by journalists. So there you have it, in his own words Rep. Hayworth is clearly a deranged, lying sack of shit--not for slamming the Dem's you understand, but for incoherent babbling, rewriting history and lying. See? I'd only assumed that before and now I know for sure--right from the source!
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The 1% Solution
As I’ve been off-line for a week I exchanged some loose bits of greenish paper for tightly bound organized white paper which are apparently called “books”.
The larger and thicker of the two was "Fiasco", a highly detailed account of the invasion and occupation of Iraq that illustrates and illuminates the strategies, tactics, thoughts, experiences and actions of those directly involved—from generals to corporals. Frankly it’s a bit of a slog, but then such is both the soldier’s and the documentarian’s life. The efforts of the soldiers and commanders and the efforts of the author are worth an effort from the reader.
The more compact book is “The One-Percent Solution" by Robert Suskind. Its title explains the doctrine Cheney espoused immediately after 9-11; that basically any conceivable threat to the US should be regarded as a certainty and acted upon. The book then goes on to illustrate how this singular doctrine both energized and confounded the prosecution of the “war on terror”.
It is written like a fast-paced movie, akin to Fox’s “24”. The bulk of the book concerns the actions of intelligence officials, but it is interspersed with moments of deep narrative, exposition, insight and comment about the nature and practice and impact of intelligence and personality and how these factors shape policy as a whole.
The terrible thing about this book is that it is thrilling and all too real. My impression from this book is that Bush et al are not overstating the case that there are extremists in the world constantly plotting to kill innocent people en-masse in pursuit of their respective causes and to affect change, and the administration and government are certainly obliged to counter them.
On the other hand the “1% Solution” is clearly not the means by which the US (or anyone else) should defend itself. Suspicion alone is not grounds for action, especially when that suspicion is based on a personal conviction. Sadly or rather horrifically this book illustrates both practically and philosophically, by example, how poorly equipped our current leaders and political infrastructre are to deal with the problem they so often claim is exclusively within their expertise and jurisdiction.
This book, through real examples and judicious commentary, explains the harsh and bizarre realities of governance and politics that surround not just the “war on terror: in particular, but policy in general—how it is formed and promulgated.
There is little outright blame in this book, but a lot of exposure. It is very explanatory, but inconclusive. It is above all eye-opening. Read it!
The larger and thicker of the two was "Fiasco", a highly detailed account of the invasion and occupation of Iraq that illustrates and illuminates the strategies, tactics, thoughts, experiences and actions of those directly involved—from generals to corporals. Frankly it’s a bit of a slog, but then such is both the soldier’s and the documentarian’s life. The efforts of the soldiers and commanders and the efforts of the author are worth an effort from the reader.
The more compact book is “The One-Percent Solution" by Robert Suskind. Its title explains the doctrine Cheney espoused immediately after 9-11; that basically any conceivable threat to the US should be regarded as a certainty and acted upon. The book then goes on to illustrate how this singular doctrine both energized and confounded the prosecution of the “war on terror”.
It is written like a fast-paced movie, akin to Fox’s “24”. The bulk of the book concerns the actions of intelligence officials, but it is interspersed with moments of deep narrative, exposition, insight and comment about the nature and practice and impact of intelligence and personality and how these factors shape policy as a whole.
The terrible thing about this book is that it is thrilling and all too real. My impression from this book is that Bush et al are not overstating the case that there are extremists in the world constantly plotting to kill innocent people en-masse in pursuit of their respective causes and to affect change, and the administration and government are certainly obliged to counter them.
On the other hand the “1% Solution” is clearly not the means by which the US (or anyone else) should defend itself. Suspicion alone is not grounds for action, especially when that suspicion is based on a personal conviction. Sadly or rather horrifically this book illustrates both practically and philosophically, by example, how poorly equipped our current leaders and political infrastructre are to deal with the problem they so often claim is exclusively within their expertise and jurisdiction.
This book, through real examples and judicious commentary, explains the harsh and bizarre realities of governance and politics that surround not just the “war on terror: in particular, but policy in general—how it is formed and promulgated.
There is little outright blame in this book, but a lot of exposure. It is very explanatory, but inconclusive. It is above all eye-opening. Read it!
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
The Path to 9/11 and the Destuction of Truth
When the South Tower was hit the broadcast repeaters that the “rabbit ears” attached to my TV relied upon were knocked out, so when I switched on my TV that morning at nine a.m. my first inkling that something unusual had happened was the static on the screen as I began searching for a signal. And then there it was--the WTC billowing smoke.
The only reason I was getting any TV news at all was because there was just one New York station that broadcast via the Empire State Building and that was Channel 7, WABC. As that awful day unfolded Peter Jennings did the most extraordinarily professional job—no one could have done better.
So how does ABC choose to depict 9-11 upon the advent of the fifth anniversary? By airing a “docudrama”called "The Path to 9-11" supposedly based on the 9-11 Commisions report that Bush fought tooth and nail to prevent ? What the fuck do we need a “docudrama” for? The news footage wasn’t dramatic enough?
And it’s becoming evident from pre-release reviews that the “documentary” aspect of this enterprise is riddled with fiction dressed as fact.
It was sickening enough when Bloomberg (who I think is a very practical mayor) pimped Manhattan to the RNC and Bush, back at the scene of his criminal negligence, proclaimed himself a hero as his sycophantic audience spat and shit on New York’s citizens in their applause.
I remember the events of that day and the days and weeks and months that followed well enough and not just through witnessing it on TV.
There was the regular roar of combat jets as they circled overhead providing pointless “air-cover”.
There was the endless convoy of emergency vehicles lighting up the night as they stretched for miles along the Pulaski Skyway that feeds the Holland Tunnel and downtown Manhattan.
There were the photos and fliers and messages that were plastered on the walls at Journal Square Plaza. There was the unusual quiet of my neighborhood as police, fire and ambulance crews abandoned their usual routes past my apartment and concentrated on the Hudson and Manhattan.
There was the shutting-down of the Holland Tunnel to all but official traffic that lasted a year and to this day still disallows commercial vehicles for fear of a massive truck-bomb.
I queued with thousands at Madison Square Garden for half a day, given food and drink by the Red Cross as we all waited for our chance at a couple of hundred jobs.
I went downtown and wandered around Wall Street and Vesey and Church where everything was coated in dust and debris as though a vast overstuffed vacuum cleaner bag had been emptied over the city, turning everything grey.
When I finally found a job I worked pretty much every other week in Manhattan and forced to drive through the Lincoln Tunnel on every trip I could see the vast emptiness of the WTC’s absence. At home, at night, when I went to the local store I could see the huge columns of light piercing the sky that marked where the towers had been. When the WTC PATH station re-opened the train curved around what was once an undergorund mall and was now a rectangular crater open to sky, grey and vacant and as we circled the scene with all the blackberries and cell phones and people packed cheek by jowl, there was no sound.
I wasn’t actually there when the buildings were struck, when they collapsed, I wasn’t on the streets. I knew one person who worked in the WTC, Henry Jennings, who broke his arm trying to squeeze out of a jammed elevator. I wasn’t a victim, I don’t have nightmares or health problems nor was I financially ruined—I was just a peripheral witness.
But if I want to recall 9-11 I have my own memories and the documentary footage stored on my computer. If I want to “understand” it I can re-read the 9-11 Commission report also on my PC along with other documents I’ve saved for reference and review. And I have wealth of visible and invisible reminders of the event and it's aftermath. I for one don’t need some fucking “docudrama” to explain it all for me.
The very fact that ABC has chosen to dramatize the most dramatic and important event the US has experienced for a century and attempted to give the effort some authority by claiming documentary support in the re-telling of the event, its causes and effects, already suggests unnecessary and callous manipulation of a national tragedy that is already a matter of well documented record. Does anyone need a fucking "docudrama" of 9-11? Certainly New Yorkers don't.
With 4 days to go until the first airing, ABC-7 has yet to promote in its 5-7 local news what ought to be a significant program of great interest to New Yorkers as well as to the nation. Is ABC being sensitive? Why, if the show is going to be an honest appraisal five years after the event? Perhaps instead of producing something scholarly and relevant, something to be proud of, they've ended up with a melodrama, a mockery of a reality and fact that still shapes our lives today?
If ever there was an example of how far TV news and analysis has fallen this unnecessary "docudrama" is surely it. Dan Rather was fired, Ted Koppel is retired as is Tom Brokaw a long time favorite of mine and IMHO the best of those three. Phil Donahue was blackballed, Bill Moyers has quit, having nothing to lose but he's still active and David Broncacccio and the NOW team are doing good work. 60 minutes and 20-20 are shadows of their former selves.
On 9-11 I was forced to watch ABC first and then was able to switch between it and WNET Channel 13 who had arranged to piggy-back off the ABC signal. I pretty much stuck with Peter Jennings. He simply amazed me with his insight and inquistion. He functioned as both a real "anchor" and as an investigate reporter functioning "on the fly" as he gathered and applied his personal and professional resources as he quizzed his guests and informed the public calmly, sometimes emotionally, but professionally and responsibly.
So much was damaged or destroyed on 9-11. Symbols, property, lives, families, faith, hope, confidence, freedom, honesty and trust. ABC still promotes itself as "the most trusted" in broadcast news. They owe that claim to Peter Jennings and his team. Though some at ABC still do sterling work with Jennings no longer at the helm there is no one left to champion that claim and there is no more obvious proof than this "docudrama". It''s mere existence is an insult to New Yorkers, to the nation and to responsible journalism. It is theater masquerading as fact, national tragedy made product and maniplated to satisfy a niche market.
I may be wrong but I doubt Peter Jennings would have made a "docudrama'' about 9-11. Like me he wasn't directly involved, but he was there and it was all too real for him, for me, for some 40 million people in the tristate area and Washington D.C.
That's a lot of potential critics with actual experience and intimate knowledge of 9-11, ABC/Disney! I don'tt doubt you'll get great Nielsen ratings ( I'll certainly watch it) , but I'd keep an eye out on the "put" options on your stock if I were you.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Of Cluster Bombs and Cluster-Fucks
F-16I--Israel-specific version of the US manufactured F-16 includes upper fuselage mounted external fuel tanks for increased radius/time over battlefield that also "free-up" the two largest capacity underwing hardpoints for increased bombload. The IAF has approx 330 Fighter-Bombers (F-15 and F-16) s and 50 A-4 ground attack aircraft.
The F16I is wicked gorgeous IMHO (but only as long as you are the pilot) . If you are the recipient of its capablities, it has to be terrifying.
When Hezbollah conducted a cross-border ambush of an Israeli patrol, killing 8 and capturing two, Israel could have responded they way usually do (and the way Hezbollah expected them to) —by launching a public, token punitive raid of their own whilst developing negotiations and formulating a rescue plan in private.
Instead Ehud Olmert took the radical decision of launching a war intended to “smash” militant Hezbollah and force the return of the two military captives.
In other words, because a militant group over which the one-year old Lebanese government had little control had engaged in a criminal act against military personnel, the entire Lebanese nation would have to pay for the transgressions of a few.
After bombing national entry and exit points (the airport, sea-ports and border crossings), the IAF (Israeli Air Force) then bombed communications centers, transportation facilities and roads--anything that served an urban society that might also serve an urban military. This strategy hindered or prevented externally-sourced re-supply and support as well as movement for Olmert’s declared target Hezbollah, which, were it a discrete military force with clear logistical communications would make perfect military sense by confining Hezbollah militants to one areas and subjecting them to a siege that would be relieved either by surrender or destruction.
As the militant Hezbollah were not a discrete military force with easily identifiable military bases, personnel and equipment but instead a militia integrated with the general population in towns and villages, the ‘containment’ strategy also meant containing civilians too, in the geographic arena where Hezbollah was supposed to be ‘smashed’.
In an effort to separate civilians from militants Olmert allowed the southern Lebanese some 24 hours to evacuate from the declared target area. This magnanimity however risked undermining the military containment strategy, so whilst bombing suspected Hezbollah-riddled civilian centers was temporarily halted no such moratorium was applied to the potential escape routes; thus civilians were given a day to decide whether to be bombed at home or bombed when they left.
Apart from preventing civilian evacuation to clear the way for classic military-vs-military warfare, Olmert’s military strategy also hindered ordinary humanitarian aid both from within Lebanon and especially from without. It also hindered the evacuation of foreigners, many of whom were citizens of Israel’s traditional allies, and I suspect it was those people that the 24-hour warning was meant to serve more than anyone else, but thanks to the strategy in place even that concession to civilians and innocents fell short of the practical, let alone the ideal.
The US government didn’t voice actual approval of Olmert’s actions but it didn’t condemn them either and that should come as no surprise to anyone. What was surprising to me (sort of) was that the US gave tacit approval not through the usual guff of “we’re analyzing the situation” but by essentially stating that Olmert had at least two weeks to “defend itself”. The continued launching of large salvoes of retaliatory Katyusha rocket attacks by Hezbollah gave a clear indication of the ineffectiveness of the IAF’s bombing campaign. Instead of changing the patently flawed strategy, it was decided that more bombs were needed which, as the IAF had already expended much of its supplies, were quickly provided by the US.
As soon as the shaky ceasefire went into effect, NGO’s, UN personnel and reporters were able to move in and assess conditions on the ground. But though the air strikes had stopped, the bombing campaign in essence was still ongoing courtesy of the cluster bombs--supplied in significant part by the US.
A recent report by the BBC showed reporter Orla Guerlin (possibly the world’s most experienced television reporter of armed conflict) pointing out a dozen bomblets scattered around the remains of a Lebanese home. The bomblets shown appeared to be of an American anti-armor type, dull grey and about the size of a soda-can (US anti- personnel bomblets resemble the typical tuna-can, squat and wide).
Now why would the IAF use anti-tank cluster-bombs when Hezbollah doesn’t have any tanks? Because that’s what was most readily available from the US? Because dropping anti-personnel bomblets in civilian areas would be a clear violation of international law governing their use?
Manufacturers of CBU (Cluster Bomb Unit) bomblets claim they will explode on impact (as they are supposed to) 95% of the time, but in the real world the failure rate has proven to be 70% to 90%. CBUs release anywhere from around 200 to 600 bomblets, meaning that anywhere from 10 (5% of 200) to 200 (30% of 600) won’t explode on impact but may well explode upon being disturbed later on.
Regardless of whether cluster-bombs are configured with anti-armor or anti-personnel bomblets they are ONLY allowed to be used against distinctly military targets and NOT in civilian areas. Clearly the IAF has disregarded this restriction (just as the US has in Iraq).
According to Jan Egelund of the UN the IAF dropped the majority of their cluster bombs in the last three days leading up to the ceasefire. The US had been supplying the IAF with more cluster bombs for nearly two-weeks by that time. And since the ceasefire UN investigators report having found approximately 100,000 unexploded bomblets at 359 sites. Even when one allows for exaggeration ther is still the potential that as many people could be killed afte the cease-fire as before it, and most of them will be civilians.
The US State Department is now investigating how US-supplied cluster-bombs came to be used by our steadfast ally Israel on civilian areas (against an enemy they couldn’t see that didn’t have any tanks) which would be a contravention of US policy and law. Given the US government’s record thus far regarding illegal actions by the military and “wrongdoing” by the military’s suppliers I wouldn’t expect anything to come it.
It’s pretty obvious that both Olmert’s strategy and execution was conducted with a calculated disregard of civilian casualties especially towards the Lebanese but also in part towards Israeli civilians too; and let’s not forget his sledgehammer campaign also risked the lives of the two IDF hostages (and encouraged large scale retaliation against Israeli civilians). Added to this is the US complicity not just in Olmert’s craptacular strategy that couldn’t possibly deliver on its promised aims, but also in the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. With the evidence of a two-week bombing campaign already common knowledge, for the US to supply anti-tank CBUs to the IAF upon urgent request against targets that had no armor, on some assurance that they would not be used against civilians is beyond naivety or stupidity, it’s just criminal .
Hezbollah’s initial raid violated all kinds of statues and Israel had every right to use similar force to redress the situation. Instead Israel effectively went to war against Lebanon as a whole, though they did not engage the Lebanese army (who remained notably absent throughout the conflict). The strategy of simply bombing an enemy dispersed amongst civilians and near impossible to distinguish from them guaranteed both significant civilian deaths and the failure of the declared mission.
Olmert’s strategy failed to smash Hezbollah and recover the two soldiers. Israel had enough problems with Syria, the Palestinians and Hezbollah anyway. Now it has bolstered support for Hezbollah and given the rest of the Lebanese cause for revenge.
The regular Israeli population unsurprisingly supportive of the initial response soon realized the dangers of Olmert’s war and are now calling for his head. The IDF was given goals it simply couldn’t achieve despite its long proven effectiveness so now with its reputation diminished Israel’s national security has been compromised.
The parallels between Bush’s and Olmert’s strategies and execution are remarkable and the lesson is pretty clear: universal use of cluster-bombs (rhetorical, metaphorical and actual) to solve perceived problems invariably results in a cluster-fuck.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The Iraq War Explained-Click on the Link!
Holy crap! It's been a month since I posted anything! I put it down to a combination of disorganization and "weltshmertz". I'm laboring on an analysis of the Israel-Lebanon War ("crisis" ? Hah!) but in lieu of my pathetic efforts (or lack thereof) I highly recommend "The Iraq War Explained", courtesy of the BBC, Channel 4 and Google's new video service.
Not only is it incisively funny like "The Daily Show" it provides they type of deep and crtical narrative in one hour that Jon Stewart is obliged to spread throughout a season, and though much of its basic content is familiar there a plenty of jabs at UK policy and punditry too which gets little notice here in the US .
I couldn't tell exactly but I think the programme ( sic) dates from late 2003 or early 2004, yet given the continuing "stay the course" policies from Bush and Blair it is still relevant.
Though I may be biased, what strikes me about this video is the depth of knowledge that underpins this comedic yet serious commentary and the fact that it was transmitted on traditional broadcast airwaves during prime-time--it was something that ABC, CBS, NBC et al. would never have done. That fact and the fact that the BBC and ITV's Channel 4 were prepared to collaborate in this effort also points to a greater independence of the UK televsion media than exists in the US, and thus a greater appreciation for the viewing audience.
Anyway, you can stream it ( it will buffer, which really helps) or download Google's media player and to save and watch it later at your convenience. Whatever your choice, watch it.
Not only is it incisively funny like "The Daily Show" it provides they type of deep and crtical narrative in one hour that Jon Stewart is obliged to spread throughout a season, and though much of its basic content is familiar there a plenty of jabs at UK policy and punditry too which gets little notice here in the US .
I couldn't tell exactly but I think the programme ( sic) dates from late 2003 or early 2004, yet given the continuing "stay the course" policies from Bush and Blair it is still relevant.
Though I may be biased, what strikes me about this video is the depth of knowledge that underpins this comedic yet serious commentary and the fact that it was transmitted on traditional broadcast airwaves during prime-time--it was something that ABC, CBS, NBC et al. would never have done. That fact and the fact that the BBC and ITV's Channel 4 were prepared to collaborate in this effort also points to a greater independence of the UK televsion media than exists in the US, and thus a greater appreciation for the viewing audience.
Anyway, you can stream it ( it will buffer, which really helps) or download Google's media player and to save and watch it later at your convenience. Whatever your choice, watch it.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Fear Factor
FDR famously said "We have nothing to fear except fear itself".
The latest opinion polls indicate that the Republican administration’s consistent and shameless exploitation of the threat of terrorism to maintain their grip on power and the public isn’t working as well as it used to; the approval numbers for Bush, the Congress as a whole, Republicans in particular and the administration’s policies and management have been stuck in the toilet for months with quite a few specific issue ratings trending even lower.
All this is of course music to the Democrats and their supporters who have been variously accused of being wrong, treasonous and crazy for finding fault with the Republican agenda and actions. And now, finally complaints are being voiced not just from the Left but from the Right as well.
The radical Christian Right which has so heavily and deeply invested in the Republican administration feels it has been used as its attempts to ban “gay marriage”, overturn Roe vs. Wade and turn religion into an essential component of social and political life have withered on the vine. Fiscal conservatives have witnessed a massive increase in the national debt and massive waste in government spending. Libertarians have seen a growth in the size of government and the erosion of personal freedoms, and collectively they have all come to realize that the occupation of Iraq and its management has not delivered the promised dividends. Now with explicit dissatisfaction from many quarters, the “political capital” and the “mandate” that George Bush and the Republicans claimed to have acquired in 2004 appears to be spent.
With so little to show their traditional supporters, let alone their traditional opponents and the remaining 50% of eligible voters who traditionally don’t vote and thus don’t count, the incumbent Republicans are faced with a serious dilemma: do they change course and abandon the strategy and rhetoric that has served their own ambitions and egos so well, so far, or do they respond to the mood and express concerns contained in the public opinion polls as November approaches? Do they adapt or do they die? (As this is the basic tenet of the Origin of Species which the Republicans have been so vociferous in denouncing, it’s a very thorny question indeed).
Having spent the last six years betraying the public’s trust (and even that of all but a select few of many special interests) the majority of incumbent Republican Senators and Congressional Representatives now realize that the Barbarians are at the gate, the wolf is at the door and someone is about to move the cheese.
The defining characteristics of the current GOP and this administration have been polarization and fear.
In defining every issue as black and white, right and wrong, “us versus them” and then having had their assessments proved wrong and the results contrary to their promises, the Republicans now face being judged by the very same polar standards they have so readily applied to everyone else.
That they survived this long is a testament to their manipulation of fear, claiming that the questioning of policies would make America look “weak” and abet the terrorists; or that requests for information in order for Congress to make informed decisions on the public’s behalf would reveal secrets that would encourage the terrorists to strike; or equating the thwarting of some nebulous, impractical plot as justification for the administrations governance of any public issue, no matter how unrelated.
Now it seems the majority of Americans are shaking-off their former Pavlovian programming—they have other, more important fears which they, not the administration, are choosing to define.
It is the incumbent Republicans who now have something to fear. Not only do they risk losing their pensioned jobs, inflated status and extraordinary benefits they also risk losing the personal and collective power that has served them so well. But more than that, they risk being held to account for criminal acts—bribery, theft, lying under oath, endangering the public, perverting justice and so on. With the prospect of not just public approbation but actual criminal indictment in their future (should the Democrats regain some power) fear--and not their sworn responsibility to the public and the Constitution--will be the primary motivator of their actions in the near future.
I maybe wrong, but it’s my impression that the crazy rhetoricometer is already close to bouncing against the peg. As amusing as it is to watch politicians squirm and scramble, remember what’s at stake here for the politicians and for the voting public.
All the polls over the last six months reflect a desire for change from all quarters and both sides. With those polled no longer influenced by “terror alerts” and if Bush and the Republicans “stay the course” a discrepancy between public attitudes and election results will be a clear indicator of blatant manipulation of the electoral process and its mechanisms.
There is still only one, ONE, issue where Republicans as a whole maintain a perceived advantage—fighting terrorism. Why? I have no idea. But given that the polls indicate that the prospect of terrorism now ranks near the bottom of the list of major public concerns (and has done for months) and that “terror alerts” have ceased to be a motivating factor for the public, if the Democrat party doesn’t gain a majority in either the House of Representatives or the Senate this November, then our own democracy will have surely been usurped.
Ironically I’m playing the “fear card” myself here. But it is this administration that has made fear an essential factor of politics and policy, and fear now drives those who have exploited it
Fear is a powerful motivator. For myself, I fear what actions fear will drive our fearful politicians to take. I also fear what fear will allow the electorate to accept. The question this November is really about what do we fear the most?
The latest opinion polls indicate that the Republican administration’s consistent and shameless exploitation of the threat of terrorism to maintain their grip on power and the public isn’t working as well as it used to; the approval numbers for Bush, the Congress as a whole, Republicans in particular and the administration’s policies and management have been stuck in the toilet for months with quite a few specific issue ratings trending even lower.
All this is of course music to the Democrats and their supporters who have been variously accused of being wrong, treasonous and crazy for finding fault with the Republican agenda and actions. And now, finally complaints are being voiced not just from the Left but from the Right as well.
The radical Christian Right which has so heavily and deeply invested in the Republican administration feels it has been used as its attempts to ban “gay marriage”, overturn Roe vs. Wade and turn religion into an essential component of social and political life have withered on the vine. Fiscal conservatives have witnessed a massive increase in the national debt and massive waste in government spending. Libertarians have seen a growth in the size of government and the erosion of personal freedoms, and collectively they have all come to realize that the occupation of Iraq and its management has not delivered the promised dividends. Now with explicit dissatisfaction from many quarters, the “political capital” and the “mandate” that George Bush and the Republicans claimed to have acquired in 2004 appears to be spent.
With so little to show their traditional supporters, let alone their traditional opponents and the remaining 50% of eligible voters who traditionally don’t vote and thus don’t count, the incumbent Republicans are faced with a serious dilemma: do they change course and abandon the strategy and rhetoric that has served their own ambitions and egos so well, so far, or do they respond to the mood and express concerns contained in the public opinion polls as November approaches? Do they adapt or do they die? (As this is the basic tenet of the Origin of Species which the Republicans have been so vociferous in denouncing, it’s a very thorny question indeed).
Having spent the last six years betraying the public’s trust (and even that of all but a select few of many special interests) the majority of incumbent Republican Senators and Congressional Representatives now realize that the Barbarians are at the gate, the wolf is at the door and someone is about to move the cheese.
The defining characteristics of the current GOP and this administration have been polarization and fear.
In defining every issue as black and white, right and wrong, “us versus them” and then having had their assessments proved wrong and the results contrary to their promises, the Republicans now face being judged by the very same polar standards they have so readily applied to everyone else.
That they survived this long is a testament to their manipulation of fear, claiming that the questioning of policies would make America look “weak” and abet the terrorists; or that requests for information in order for Congress to make informed decisions on the public’s behalf would reveal secrets that would encourage the terrorists to strike; or equating the thwarting of some nebulous, impractical plot as justification for the administrations governance of any public issue, no matter how unrelated.
Now it seems the majority of Americans are shaking-off their former Pavlovian programming—they have other, more important fears which they, not the administration, are choosing to define.
It is the incumbent Republicans who now have something to fear. Not only do they risk losing their pensioned jobs, inflated status and extraordinary benefits they also risk losing the personal and collective power that has served them so well. But more than that, they risk being held to account for criminal acts—bribery, theft, lying under oath, endangering the public, perverting justice and so on. With the prospect of not just public approbation but actual criminal indictment in their future (should the Democrats regain some power) fear--and not their sworn responsibility to the public and the Constitution--will be the primary motivator of their actions in the near future.
I maybe wrong, but it’s my impression that the crazy rhetoricometer is already close to bouncing against the peg. As amusing as it is to watch politicians squirm and scramble, remember what’s at stake here for the politicians and for the voting public.
All the polls over the last six months reflect a desire for change from all quarters and both sides. With those polled no longer influenced by “terror alerts” and if Bush and the Republicans “stay the course” a discrepancy between public attitudes and election results will be a clear indicator of blatant manipulation of the electoral process and its mechanisms.
There is still only one, ONE, issue where Republicans as a whole maintain a perceived advantage—fighting terrorism. Why? I have no idea. But given that the polls indicate that the prospect of terrorism now ranks near the bottom of the list of major public concerns (and has done for months) and that “terror alerts” have ceased to be a motivating factor for the public, if the Democrat party doesn’t gain a majority in either the House of Representatives or the Senate this November, then our own democracy will have surely been usurped.
Ironically I’m playing the “fear card” myself here. But it is this administration that has made fear an essential factor of politics and policy, and fear now drives those who have exploited it
Fear is a powerful motivator. For myself, I fear what actions fear will drive our fearful politicians to take. I also fear what fear will allow the electorate to accept. The question this November is really about what do we fear the most?
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Politics, Plots and Paranoia
Two years ago blogger Julius created a chart and a timeline illustrating an apparent close relationship with Bush’s political fortunes and the announcement of terror alerts.
Now, over at Crooks & Liars is a WMV from MSNBC’S Countdown titled The Nexus of Politics and Terror in which Keith Olberman presents a similar examination with some cautious commentary.
Though Julius suspects Olberman’s team lifted his work and if so would like some recognition for it, he’s still glad that Olberman addressed the issue on TV. Julius’s work is IMHO more effective in its presentation than Olberman’s: this is a case where words are worth more than pictures and Julius’s information is more “accessible” and practical.
But there’s something they’ve both missed which I think strengthens the argument that most of the alerts were overblown and used for political rather than public benefit, to amplify supposed threats and amplify the Govenrment's activities in thwarting them :
Where the hell are all these terrorist plotters that the authorities have supposedly thwarted? Shouldn’t there have been some arrests and convictions -- even just a notification of in-camera trials?
Using Julius’ heavily researched and well-sourced work as a basis, here's a timeline featuring declared threats and thwarted plots that actually ignores Julius' premise and poses a different set of questions: which if any of the alerts were justified, and what has resulted? Is the US safer and are the DHS'S security efforts delivering any tangible results? :
2002
Feb 12: General alert, no specific target. No arrests.
May 24: Transit system, Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge. No arrests.
June 10: “Dirty Bomb”. Jose Padilla arrested (actually a month before and eventually tried in Criminal Court—but never convicted on the principal “dirty bomb” charge).
September 10-24: General alert. No arrests.
2003
Feb 9: General alert. No arrests.
May 20: General alert (possible Al-Qaida attack). No arrests.
June 20: Plot to cut through Brooklyn Bridge cables with blow torch. Iyman Faris arrested and convicted (he had reservations that he could actually do it)—Julius missed this one.
July 29: General alert (possible Al-Qaida attack). No arrests.
Sept 5: General alert (Al-Qaida “working on plans”). No arrests.
December 21: General alert. No arrests.
2004
March 21: General alert. No arrests.
April 2: General alert (transportation the target, sometime in the summer). No arrests
May 25: General alert (as above). No arrests.
June 15: “Imminent” Ohio mall bomb attack averted. 1 arrest. (Except that the Somali immigrant was arrested November 28 2003 and was in jail since then for suspected terrorist ties and a “plot” that was dated to March 2000.)
July 8/11: No actual alert, but public discussion of the potential for terror alerts through the summer and possibly delaying elections.
August 2: Alert for Washington DC, New Jersey and New York financial institutions. Bush daughters visit one of the “targets” that very day (the Citicorp building). Information describing the plot is actually four years old. Arrests in Pakistan.
Adding-on to Julius’ list:
August 4, 2004: Though Katherine Harris (R-FLAke) claims arrest of a man in Carmel, Indiana planning to blow up power grid, caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives. Despite being refuted by all the authorities of Carmel, Ind. and having absolutely no evidence, she claims the next day that “over 100” plots had been thwarted since 2001 but she wasn’t at liberty to divulge any information on any of them. No arrest.
November 2, 2004: Ken Blackwell (Secretary of State for Ohio, Republican, and in charge of the entire election infrastucture) issues a terror alert exclusively for Warren County during the election, apparently denying would-be terrorists (and coincedentally anyone not associated with the GOP or Diebold) access to or observation of voting machines and the voting process. No arrest.
Anyway more recent terror announcements have been:
2006
June 22: Miami-based plot to blow up Sears Tower. No Al-Qaida ties, no explosives, timing devices, travel plans, no money, but the plotters were jonesing for some new boots and uniforms so essential to the respectable terrorist. 7 arrested.
July 7: NYC Holland Tunnel Bomb Plot. Changed to PATH train bomb plot. Planning conducted in an internet chat room. Several arrests in Lebanon, Europe, Canada. Dissected by yours truly here.
I’ll leave the correlation of terror plots and politics in the capable hands of Julius, and instead ask the question: where are all the other purported plotters?
I appreciate that counterterrorism organizations can’t be expected to sweep up everyone involved in a plot at the same time, that information of plots do not necessariky lead directly to plotters, that time is required to gather evidence and that the wheels of justice turn at their own pace. But for all of the anti-terror activity described above what has been the result and where is the evidence to support the seriousness of the declared risks and the qualifications and presence of the plotters themselves in the courts of justice?
Out of this list of 20 plots/alerts, two were completely invented and six produced arrests (leaving 12 supposedly legitimate plots/threats with no result).
Of those arrested there’s not much cause for celebration given the basic details:
Note: Moussaoui—the “20th hijacker”-- is not part of this timeline and predates the “GWOT”. Though he had strong links with Al-Qaida, his credentials as an effective terrorist are doubtful. Al-Qaida basically disowned him.
Note: Richard “Shoe Bomber” Reid also predates this timeline and the “GWOT” and his capture was thanks to a diligent flight attendant; not Jack Bauer or "Rainbow-Six", let alone the DHS.
Jose Padilla was well known to US intelligence services for decades—indeed he worked with the CIA for several years. He was never convicted of the “dirty-bomb” plot and the entire prosecutorial process he underwent was remarkably inconsistent with both normal criminal proceedings and the extraordinary powers invoked and implemented by Bush regarding “terror” suspects. He was of no relevance to the “GWOT”.
Iyman Faris appears to have had some relevance to the GWOT, but even he had no real expectations of carrying out the scheme with any success. Not much of a threat there, then.
The Somali accused of planning mall bombings was already in jail for “terrorist ties” and had apparently made no attempt to execute his “plot” for three years. Yet the “plot’ was described as “imminent”.
The NY/NJ financial center “plot” was likewise ancient history, the plotters were in Pakistan at the time of the “alert” and going nowhere, and this announcement actually blew the cover of a Pakistani Al–Qaida mole—much to the anger of both Pakistan and the UK.
The “Miami Seven” clearly had neither the brains nor the resources to carry out their supposed scheme—in jail now, the strength of the case against them remains to be seen.
The “Holland Tunnel” plotters appeared to have the money to carry out their scheme, but the fact that it was discussed in an internet chat room suggests an impressive level of incompetence that casts doubt on the execution of the plan. In addition the plot as originally described by the DHS was implausible to say the least, and was then changed to something more plausible—but why?
So based on all the above, over the course of 5 years and at the cost of many billions of dollars during at least 20 major alerts US counter-terrorism efforts have yielded one well-known career criminal and about sixteen incompetent fantasists (without the actual means for causing any death or destruction).
By the DHS's own system a Yellow Alert or "Elevated" means "a significant risk of terrorist attack" and Orange Alert or "High" means a "high risk of terrorist attack". Now, of those alerts described above, how many of them seem to have qualified as presenting significant or high risks?
Of what benefit have the various terror-alerts been?
Has anyone actually been caught in the act of actually executing a terror plot? No.
Has anyone actualy been found with the means of their intended method attack (i.e. bomb components)? No.
Has the DHS halted any plots that had a reasonable probability of actually working? No.
Has the country freaked out every time a terror alert was announced? Pretty much.
Have the alerts coincided with bad political news for Bush? Yes.
Has Bush acquired higher ratings in the polls immediately afterwards even though either no evidence has been provided or usually only incompetents have caught? Almost always yes.
Has the alert system made us safer, or at least "feel safer"? No.
Has it made Bush feel safer? Yes.
So I guess the system does work!
Now, over at Crooks & Liars is a WMV from MSNBC’S Countdown titled The Nexus of Politics and Terror in which Keith Olberman presents a similar examination with some cautious commentary.
Though Julius suspects Olberman’s team lifted his work and if so would like some recognition for it, he’s still glad that Olberman addressed the issue on TV. Julius’s work is IMHO more effective in its presentation than Olberman’s: this is a case where words are worth more than pictures and Julius’s information is more “accessible” and practical.
But there’s something they’ve both missed which I think strengthens the argument that most of the alerts were overblown and used for political rather than public benefit, to amplify supposed threats and amplify the Govenrment's activities in thwarting them :
Where the hell are all these terrorist plotters that the authorities have supposedly thwarted? Shouldn’t there have been some arrests and convictions -- even just a notification of in-camera trials?
Using Julius’ heavily researched and well-sourced work as a basis, here's a timeline featuring declared threats and thwarted plots that actually ignores Julius' premise and poses a different set of questions: which if any of the alerts were justified, and what has resulted? Is the US safer and are the DHS'S security efforts delivering any tangible results? :
2002
Feb 12: General alert, no specific target. No arrests.
May 24: Transit system, Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge. No arrests.
June 10: “Dirty Bomb”. Jose Padilla arrested (actually a month before and eventually tried in Criminal Court—but never convicted on the principal “dirty bomb” charge).
September 10-24: General alert. No arrests.
2003
Feb 9: General alert. No arrests.
May 20: General alert (possible Al-Qaida attack). No arrests.
June 20: Plot to cut through Brooklyn Bridge cables with blow torch. Iyman Faris arrested and convicted (he had reservations that he could actually do it)—Julius missed this one.
July 29: General alert (possible Al-Qaida attack). No arrests.
Sept 5: General alert (Al-Qaida “working on plans”). No arrests.
December 21: General alert. No arrests.
2004
March 21: General alert. No arrests.
April 2: General alert (transportation the target, sometime in the summer). No arrests
May 25: General alert (as above). No arrests.
June 15: “Imminent” Ohio mall bomb attack averted. 1 arrest. (Except that the Somali immigrant was arrested November 28 2003 and was in jail since then for suspected terrorist ties and a “plot” that was dated to March 2000.)
July 8/11: No actual alert, but public discussion of the potential for terror alerts through the summer and possibly delaying elections.
August 2: Alert for Washington DC, New Jersey and New York financial institutions. Bush daughters visit one of the “targets” that very day (the Citicorp building). Information describing the plot is actually four years old. Arrests in Pakistan.
Adding-on to Julius’ list:
August 4, 2004: Though Katherine Harris (R-FLAke) claims arrest of a man in Carmel, Indiana planning to blow up power grid, caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives. Despite being refuted by all the authorities of Carmel, Ind. and having absolutely no evidence, she claims the next day that “over 100” plots had been thwarted since 2001 but she wasn’t at liberty to divulge any information on any of them. No arrest.
November 2, 2004: Ken Blackwell (Secretary of State for Ohio, Republican, and in charge of the entire election infrastucture) issues a terror alert exclusively for Warren County during the election, apparently denying would-be terrorists (and coincedentally anyone not associated with the GOP or Diebold) access to or observation of voting machines and the voting process. No arrest.
Anyway more recent terror announcements have been:
2006
June 22: Miami-based plot to blow up Sears Tower. No Al-Qaida ties, no explosives, timing devices, travel plans, no money, but the plotters were jonesing for some new boots and uniforms so essential to the respectable terrorist. 7 arrested.
July 7: NYC Holland Tunnel Bomb Plot. Changed to PATH train bomb plot. Planning conducted in an internet chat room. Several arrests in Lebanon, Europe, Canada. Dissected by yours truly here.
I’ll leave the correlation of terror plots and politics in the capable hands of Julius, and instead ask the question: where are all the other purported plotters?
I appreciate that counterterrorism organizations can’t be expected to sweep up everyone involved in a plot at the same time, that information of plots do not necessariky lead directly to plotters, that time is required to gather evidence and that the wheels of justice turn at their own pace. But for all of the anti-terror activity described above what has been the result and where is the evidence to support the seriousness of the declared risks and the qualifications and presence of the plotters themselves in the courts of justice?
Out of this list of 20 plots/alerts, two were completely invented and six produced arrests (leaving 12 supposedly legitimate plots/threats with no result).
Of those arrested there’s not much cause for celebration given the basic details:
Note: Moussaoui—the “20th hijacker”-- is not part of this timeline and predates the “GWOT”. Though he had strong links with Al-Qaida, his credentials as an effective terrorist are doubtful. Al-Qaida basically disowned him.
Note: Richard “Shoe Bomber” Reid also predates this timeline and the “GWOT” and his capture was thanks to a diligent flight attendant; not Jack Bauer or "Rainbow-Six", let alone the DHS.
Jose Padilla was well known to US intelligence services for decades—indeed he worked with the CIA for several years. He was never convicted of the “dirty-bomb” plot and the entire prosecutorial process he underwent was remarkably inconsistent with both normal criminal proceedings and the extraordinary powers invoked and implemented by Bush regarding “terror” suspects. He was of no relevance to the “GWOT”.
Iyman Faris appears to have had some relevance to the GWOT, but even he had no real expectations of carrying out the scheme with any success. Not much of a threat there, then.
The Somali accused of planning mall bombings was already in jail for “terrorist ties” and had apparently made no attempt to execute his “plot” for three years. Yet the “plot’ was described as “imminent”.
The NY/NJ financial center “plot” was likewise ancient history, the plotters were in Pakistan at the time of the “alert” and going nowhere, and this announcement actually blew the cover of a Pakistani Al–Qaida mole—much to the anger of both Pakistan and the UK.
The “Miami Seven” clearly had neither the brains nor the resources to carry out their supposed scheme—in jail now, the strength of the case against them remains to be seen.
The “Holland Tunnel” plotters appeared to have the money to carry out their scheme, but the fact that it was discussed in an internet chat room suggests an impressive level of incompetence that casts doubt on the execution of the plan. In addition the plot as originally described by the DHS was implausible to say the least, and was then changed to something more plausible—but why?
So based on all the above, over the course of 5 years and at the cost of many billions of dollars during at least 20 major alerts US counter-terrorism efforts have yielded one well-known career criminal and about sixteen incompetent fantasists (without the actual means for causing any death or destruction).
By the DHS's own system a Yellow Alert or "Elevated" means "a significant risk of terrorist attack" and Orange Alert or "High" means a "high risk of terrorist attack". Now, of those alerts described above, how many of them seem to have qualified as presenting significant or high risks?
Of what benefit have the various terror-alerts been?
Has anyone actually been caught in the act of actually executing a terror plot? No.
Has anyone actualy been found with the means of their intended method attack (i.e. bomb components)? No.
Has the DHS halted any plots that had a reasonable probability of actually working? No.
Has the country freaked out every time a terror alert was announced? Pretty much.
Have the alerts coincided with bad political news for Bush? Yes.
Has Bush acquired higher ratings in the polls immediately afterwards even though either no evidence has been provided or usually only incompetents have caught? Almost always yes.
Has the alert system made us safer, or at least "feel safer"? No.
Has it made Bush feel safer? Yes.
So I guess the system does work!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
