A Silent Cacophony

Thought for the day(s)

2007-07-14T11:17:00.000-07:00

I'm experiencing some major life changing events right now, to the neglect of my blog and three regular readers. It's all good, however, very good, that much I'll share. I don't have an original thought for the day, but I just visited Main and Central, where this line grabbed my mood:

"If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican."

Exactly.

Another level of reasonable lol

2007-06-23T11:15:00.000-07:00

I'm all for reasonable accommodation in the workplace, and the progressive nature of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but the Swedes take "reasonable" to a whole new level. LOL.

Ordinary heroes

2007-06-22T11:16:00.000-07:00

If you're somewhat morbid like me, then perhaps you have a habit of perusing the obituaries as part of my daily read of the newspaper, and I'm often struck by accomplishments of ordinary citizens who have made an extraordinary difference. One such man, whose obit appeared today, did just that. Emphasis is mine.

Roy Torcaso, 96; Defeated Md. in 1961 Religious Freedom Case
By Adam Bernstein, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 21, 2007;

Roy R. Torcaso, 96, whose application to be a Maryland notary public led to a U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed his refusal to take a state oath requiring him to declare a belief in God, died June 9 at the Himalayan Elderly Care assisted living home in Silver Spring. He had complications of prostate cancer.

Mr. Torcaso, who said he was an atheist, was a bookkeeper by profession. He worked for a Bethesda construction company when his legal challenge started in 1959. He had been urged by his boss to become a notary public.

At the Montgomery County Circuit Court, he refused to swear to a state oath given to notaries public that made them profess the existence of God.

"The point at issue," he said at the time, "is not whether I believe in a Supreme Being, but whether the state has a right to inquire into my beliefs."

As Yogi Berra once famously said...

2007-06-17T11:19:00.000-07:00

"It's Déjà vu all over again". The Washington Post begins a series on how we, in the United States, are failing our new damaged combat veterans in the same way we let those from the Vietnam experience down.

Army Spec. Jeans Cruz helped capture Saddam Hussein. When he came home to the Bronx, important people called him a war hero and promised to help him start a new life. The mayor of New York, officials of his parents' home town in Puerto Rico, the borough president and other local dignitaries honored him with plaques and silk parade sashes. They handed him their business cards and urged him to phone.
But a "black shadow" had followed Cruz home from Iraq, he confided to an Army counselor. He was hounded by recurring images of how war really was for him: not the triumphant scene of Hussein in handcuffs, but visions of dead Iraqi children.

More.

Colombia to recognize gay unions

2007-06-16T11:27:00.000-07:00

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) - Colombia is set to become the first Latin American country to give established gay couples full rights to health insurance, inheritance and social security under a bill passed by its Congress.

The plan approved Thursday is expected to take effect soon. It is backed by the country's conservative President Alvaro Uribe.

The measure would allow gay couples in long-term relationships to have the same health insurance and social security benefits as heterosexual couples. It also guarantees that assets accumulated during the relationship will be divided between the two, and in the case of death, inherited by the survivor.

There goes our erstwhile enthusiastic support for the Andean Regional Initiative (formerly, Plan Colombia.)

Prime contender: Idiocy of the year

2007-06-13T11:28:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan has been on a roll this week. He's excused himself of all responsiblity for the catastrophies of the last six years because, at the very last minute, he "endorsed" Kerry over Bush in 2004 (gee, I supported Kerry, but I don't know who I endorsed). But, according to him, he gets a pass for the first four years where he ardently supported the war in Iraq and questioned anyone's patriotism who didn't. Because hey, we were all fooled, right?

Wrong, nobody was fooled, and he has the blood on his hands of many young Americans, whose lives he was eagerly willing to offer up, in support of Mr. Bush's policies -- a luxury if ever there was one for a British citizen. And he did oppose Medicare reform and compassionate conservatism during the first term, so that counts for something, surely.

He points to a chart of where and when conservatives bailed on Bush, and proudly counts himself in the class of 2004, way before so many others. How about those who foresaw much of this in, oh, say, 1999? It means he was stupider for many more years than he should have been, not that he was prescient in November, 2004. Cripes.

His mantra is if you don't like what he says, read some other blog. He's right there; because occasionally he has a kernal of wisdom and writes good books, I continue to read his often deranged, warped, misunderstanding of his adopted homeland and its people, to my own frustrated detriment.

He took on Mike Kinsley's assessment of marriage rights for gays in Massachusetts this week, because Kinsley implied that the "left" had won. Andrew asserts it's really a conservative (right) victory - notwithstanding Romney, McCain, Gingrich, Robertson, Falwell, Reagan, and yes, even Guiliani's cowardly stance on the issue (small exception made here for Guiliani and Romney, who after all, did support equality to their credit before it became expedient not to). But tonight's comment takes the cake. In his own words, I give you the ~~idiocy~~ idiot of the year:

The lesson of Reagan and to a lesser extent Thatcher - the pre-eminent conviction politicians of my lifetime - is that even those who deeply disagreed with them eventually respected their ability to stand for something unpopular and to lead. When I look at the Democrats today, I see no such conviction. That's a problem. No one is worse than Clinton, of course.

I'm not going to link to him but he's easy enough to find if you want to read the rest of the nonsense. This week is exceptionally bad. He has a Ph.D from Harvard in government -- that alone should alarm us all.

A leadership vacuum

2007-06-07T12:11:00.000-07:00

With 12 million undocumented workers living in the dark shadows in this country, who can argue that something has to be done. We've debated what is right and what is wrong for years, and it appeared that Congress was on the verge of starting the process of addressing the problem but the final result appears to be a colossal failure.

As today's New York Times editorial suggests, there were some draconian measures in the bill that were unpalatable to all, but that these could be addressed in future sessions of Congress where the law could have been amended and tweaked. Instead we end up with nothing, and for disgraceful reasons.

There were many provisions in this bill that I objected to. However, in leadership 101, the first rule is that a bad decision is preferable to no decision. Perhaps our representatives and our president missed that day of school in 9th grade.

A Failure of Leadership
The immigration compromise collapsed on the floor of the Senate Thursday night. Many of its hard-line foes are celebrating, but their glee is vindictive and hollow. They have blocked one avenue to an immigration overhaul while offering nothing better, thwarting bipartisanship to satisfy their reflexive loathing for amnesty, which they define as anything that helps illegal immigrants get right with the law.
The tragedy is that the compromise bill was written to bring these restrictionists along, with punitive, detestable provisions that many supporters of comprehensive reform agreed to endorse for the sake of a “grand bargain.” The bill was badly flawed but fixable, as long as there was the possibility of leadership and courage in Congress.
But obstruction happened. Republican amendments, designed to shred the compromise, happened.
Jeff Sessions wanted to deprive legalized immigrants — yes, legal residents — of the earned income tax credit, a path out of poverty for millions.
John Cornyn wanted to strip confidentiality protections for immigrants who apply for legal status, making them too frightened to leave the shadows.
Jim DeMint just wanted to kill the bill, so he voted for a volatile amendment whose substance he disagreed with. “If it hurts the bill, I’m for it,” he said.
Leadership was desperately needed to stop Republicans from dragging the bill off one of its pillars — the one that would put 12 million people on a path to legal status. It didn’t show up. Republicans who should have been holding their party and the deal together — President Bush, minority leader Mitch McConnell, Senator John Kyl — failed utterly.
The anti-immigrant hard-core — no amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty ever — must not be allowed to hold the nation hostage. Like nativists of generations past, they think the country is being Latinized, and they fear it. The country is changing, but the way it always has, absorbing newcomers, shaping and being shaped by them, inexorably turning them, their children and grandchildren into Americans. Globalization has accelerated and complicated that upheaval, and decades of federal dithering have made things messy and chaotic.
Restoring order will be wrenchingly difficult, but it must be done. The country cannot leave an unlawful, chaotic system to fester, with legal immigration channels clogged, families split apart, crops rotting and state and local governments dreaming up ways to punish 12 million people whose identities are unknown to the authorities, and who aren’t leaving, no matter what Congress does. We cannot simply fortify a wall while continuing to extract cheap labor from cowering workers who risk death to get here. Inaction on immigration carries a brutally high price, but those on the phobic right are willing to mortgage their country’s future to pay it.....

The Katrina War

2007-06-03T12:16:00.000-07:00

The casualties from the Katrina War continue to mount in New Orleans and along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Beyond the wounds and deaths that were reported in the immediate weeks and months following the most noticeably conflictive period in the late summer of 2005, the number of victims suffering from often mortal respiratory infections, poisonings, and insidious cancers continues to swell. As with the conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq and elsewhere, those who suffer from the maladies of post traumatic stress syndrome are largely ignored, and many do not and will not receive needed help for this terrible affliction, so they will continue to suffer, or worse.

This article indicates that attention to this issue has begun, but that the numbers of casualties from Katrina provided to us by officialdom are woefully underestimated and sadly inaccurate. Unlike Vietnam and Iraq where the government, though belatedly and inadequately, has paid lip service to PTSD for combat veterans and in a few cases, their families, and has offered half-heartedly, limited relief to some of those victims, there is very little mention of this regarding the denizens of the Gulf coast. The topic is just now entering the conversation as regards the hundreds of thousands whose lives were forever shattered as a result of Katrina and to some degree, Rita.

The common thread with these national nightmares is that disastrous decisions by our government are largely responsible for the volume of pain that has been inflicted on the victims of these conflictive episodes, in terms of those directly damaged by the events as well as the indirect but also very serious pain inflicted on families, friends, and communities affected.

The United States will continue to suffer from our government’s neglect of those impacted by Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and other recent large-scale national traumas for at least a generation, probably longer. We can do better.

Lest we forget…

(Note: The amazing photo above was taken in the historic Garden District in New Orleans in the days immediately following the rupturing of the levees in that city. Via YourDailyAwesome.)

Update: By all means, check out the link from Mark in the comments at the Wet Bank Guide.

Strong backs and epiphanies

2007-06-01T12:19:00.000-07:00

It's interesting to read the steadily growing numbers of conservative cognoscenti coming forward to tell the tales of when they officially could no longer support the Bush administration. The excerpt below is taken from a letter that Andrew Sullivan posts from one of his readers.

Peggy Noonan is the latest luminary to come clean on her transfiguration. What is still interesting to me is where are all the other voices from the original conservative ascendancy of the 1980s and what have they got to say now?

I was thinking about former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. I remember many years ago reading her article in Commentary called, "Dictatorships and Double Standards" wherein she rips apart Jimmy Carter's decision to back off support for the Shah of Iran and Anastazio Somoza in Nicaragua in protest of widespread state-sponsored human rights abuses in those countries. She argued that authoritarian regimes can evolve into democracies, but that totalitarian regimes cannot, and that Mr. Carter was incredibly naïve to isolate Somoza and the Shah, because those oppressive dictatorships were replaced by totalitarians, such as the Ayatollah in Iran and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

This seminal piece was supposedly what introduced Ronald Reagan to Dr. Kirkpatrick, and brought her into the conservative fold. In fairness, she postulated this theory before the collapse of the Soviet Union or the election in "totalitarian" Nicaragua which peacefully ousted the Sandinistas via democratic elections.

Still, could she have totally abandoned the her core premise that the U.S. should not actively engage repressive dictators in places that were not in the "vital" interests of the United States? If so, where was she during the debate on invading Iraq? I'm still waiting to hear where the American Margaret Thatcher and others stand on the current direction of U.S. foreign policy.

_______________

Sullivan's reader argues that for many conservatives, it became a question of when the straw was lain that broke the proverbial camel's back. It's an interesting assessment, and I can only wonder how it is that so many of these people have such strong backs. Even if I had been a true believer, which thankfully I never was, my back would have been broken in, oh, I'd say early 2002:

The reader you posted stated that Noonan and others who are late to the party have no credibility to criticize Bush. Hogwash. Have you and this reader never heard of the expression "the straw that breaks the camel's back?" You maintain loyalty in politics even when you are in disagreement with a party or a President. If you are part of a political movement you realize that no politician is ideologically pure or completely without fault. However, you do expect that your loyalty will be rewarded with more than mere lip service to one's ideological beliefs and you expect more than comically bad incompetence.
A lot of intellectual conservatives are now asking themselves at which moment did they lose faith in Bush. For some, such as yourself, it was Abu Ghraib. For others, it was the chaos that unfolded in late 2003-04 and the intransigent refusal of Rumsfeld and Bush to respond to it.
For another group, it was the President's use of warrantless wiretaps and vast expansions of federal power. For many it was the realization that two of the three biggest domestic accomplishments for Bush (outside of the tax cuts) were Ted Kennedy sponsored pieces of legislation. For a huge number it was the culture of profligate spending.
For myself, the seminal moment at which I lost real faith in this President was in the aftermath of Katrina. He could no longer profess to hold the mantle of competence and indeed, he was the poster child of cronyism and ineffectiveness. He proved himself to be dilatory and disinterested, all in the face of the worst natural disaster in this country's history. Granted the local politicians screwed up royally (and are still doing so in NOLA), but he is the POTUS and is expected, at the least to focus our efforts to recover, and to lead. He held that mantle after 9/11, he pissed it down the drain after Katrina.
The last straws for conservatives are the White House's arrogant refusal to contenance any criticism of what it is doing in Iraq coupled with its arrogant and condescending ramroding of a disastrous immigration boondoggle, all the while telling the people "who have carried his water for years" that they are a bunch of bigots and ignoramuses.
Don't forget Andrew that the scales had to fall from your eyes as well. It has come at different times and in different ways for all of us, but it does not make Noonan's critique of Bush any less credible that it has come later than your own. It just means that you were more foresighted than she was.

I'll have some of whatever they're smoking.

Notes on Chuck Hagel

2007-05-30T12:14:00.000-07:00

There's a very interesting profile in the latest edition of The New Republic on oddball Chuck Hagel. He's an interesting guy, and I'm intrigued by his approach to foreign policy, particularly his long opposition to the Iraq war.

It's no secret that Senator Hagel has strong presidential aspirations, so I've found his courage to confront Mr. Bush and the Republican establishment, long before the recent tide of credentialed Republicans had begun to jump on the anti-Bush, anti-war bandwagon, puzzling.

He's always had a streak of maverick in him; he supported John McCain for president in 2000 even when almost everyone else in the party, except John McCain, had already foretold the inevitable coronation of GWB as the Republican party's nominee.

The thoughtful essay in The New Republic, called "Look Back in Anger," makes the persuasive case that Hagel's experience as a grunt in Vietnam is what informs his world view, and his position on the use of the U.S. military to further U.S. interests abroad.

The excerpt below, where he takes a swipe at his former mentor, John McCain, is fascinating. It is completely consistent as far as I'm concerned for someone who bucked the mainstream of his party to back McCain for president six years ago to now question the very honesty of Mr. McCain. While I never supported McCain for president, like many others, I genuinely admired him once but no longer do. It will be interesting to see if Chuck Hagel is eventually driven out of the party, or if the small segment of the Republican party that he represents will gain ascendancy, before it completely implodes.

But again, what's so striking about all of this is that one was made to look like an idiot not all that long ago if Vietnam and Iraq were used in the same sentence. It now seems impossible to analyze the latter without the former.

Hagel's fury over Iraq has unsettled his political life. He has been at odds with the White House for at least five years, but he has now alienated some of his Republican colleagues in the Senate. Even his friendship with McCain, who was once his mentor, appears to be on the rocks. In early February, Hagel called a McCain resolution on the Iraq war "intellectually dishonest." When a reporter from GQ asked Hagel this winter how serving in Vietnam had affected his decisions on Iraq, he drew a cruel contrast between his service and McCain's: "When I got to Vietnam, I was a rifleman. I was a private, about as low as you can get. So my frame of reference is very much geared toward the guy at the bottom who's doing the fighting and dying. ... John McCain served his country differently--he spent five years as a prisoner of war. ... I don't think my experience makes me any better, but it does make me very sober about committing our nation to war." In March, after Hagel had voted for the Democratic resolution on withdrawal from Iraq, McCain fired back. "My views are not framed by events that happened thirty years ago," he said. "I don't think it would be fair to my constituents, intellectually, to have my views formed only by that one experience of my life. That's maybe where Chuck and I have some differences." McCain's comments were as cruel as Hagel's. And they were also hypocritical, given that McCain invariably uses his own experience as a prisoner of war to attract support for his current stance.

Fais do-do (or pass the dough )

2007-05-22T12:15:00.000-07:00

Part of the reason New Orleans, and indeed Louisiana, where natural resources and riches are so plentiful, resides in the developing world is the same reason so many countries south of our borders and elsewhere do. It's because of the graft and immoral greed of the people placed in charge. Rep. William Jefferson follows a long history of just such leaders in Louisiana.

I won't recount yet again my many anecdotes from the time I lived in New Orleans, where residents talked about their corrupt leaders with a wink and a smile, as I've done that here before. But it's hard to passionately make arguments that we need to rescue that precious place, when voters there continue to elect people like this guy. It's not like this information wasn't available and well-known before November of last year, and yet they sent him right back to Washington.

Sometimes I feel about Louisiana the way I felt about the crumbling city of Washington, DC, that continued cycle after cycle to re-elect Marion Barry, the poster child for all that is wrong with politics in the country today. I hope Mr. Jefferson will get to enjoy Angola, the notorious Louisiana state prison, and not be shoved off to some cushier, federal institution, if and when he's finally held accountable for his deeds.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.

The indictment handed up in federal court in Alexandria., Va., Monday is 94 pages long and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 235 years. He is charged with racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Jefferson is accused of soliciting bribes for himself and his family, and also for bribing a Nigerian official.

Almost two years ago, in August 2005, investigators raided Jefferson's home in Louisiana and found $90,000 in cash stuffed into a box in his freezer.

Jefferson, 63, whose Louisiana district includes New Orleans, has said little about the case publicly but has maintained his innocence. He was re-elected last year despite the looming investigation.

More.

Civil-Military Relations - The Meltdown

2006-11-30T11:20:00.000-08:00

Check out Part of the Plan, where our intrepid blogger links to a short, very useful article in the May/June journal, Foreign Affairs, that provides an excellent recent historical overview of civil-military relations in the United States. Thankfully, it does not let our military leaders off the hook, completely. It explains the post-Vietnam truce, and how that relationship eroded under President Clinton, and then disintegrated under the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush cabal -- and finally explains, satisfactorily in my mind, how it is that Mr. Paul Wolfowitz could have possibly out-maneuvered Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, and prevail in sending us so ill-prepared into the morass that has become Iraq. Really, it's well worth any one's 10 minutes, I promise, here.

The anticipated "October surprise?"

2006-10-26T12:20:00.000-07:00

I've been waiting for something, to which I've become accustomed, to occur in October that would serve as a catalyst to energize the Republicans' rural base. And lo and behold, today's New York Times blares, "G.O.P. Moves Fast to Reignite Issue of Gay Marriage " (based on the N.J. Supreme Court ruling today that gays are people too.)

No surprises here, but with a raging, failing war in Iraq, public corruption at unprecedented levels, a ballooning debt completely out of control, Republican hubris and arrogance that defy believability, and a public that seems to be screaming out for reasons to tune all of this out so that they can vote for the corrupt party that the self-appointed evangelical leadership have told them is the right one to choose according to God, with a blindly clear conscience -- I still find it surreal. It appears that the star in the heavens that guides Karl Rove and his immoral political strategy (and ultimately points to the depths of hell, as he'll discover someday), has shown in the night sky brightly once again. I hope I'm wrong but I fear I'm not. I don't know if it is time to throw in the towel yet or not, but I'm furious, and damn close to doing just that.

Army, Services, meet 2006 recruiting goals

2006-10-25T12:21:00.000-07:00

How is it that the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force had all met their respective 2006 recruiting goals, after a disappointing 2005. In the midst of a very unpopular war, which the majority of Americans oppose, and nightly images on the news of still more young American women and men dying in a war about which the president has finally agreed needs some tweaking in "tactics", how is it possible that recruiting of volunteers to possibly make the ultimate sacrifice, is not more difficult than it is? Add to this the facts that we now enjoy low unemployment and a relatively strong economy, on the surface at least, and comprehending this becomes even more difficult.

I have nothing but respect for the organization. It afforded me educational, training and leadership opportunities that would have been otherwise completely outside of my reach. Despite the very serious scandals involving torture and other alleged unforgivable acts, I still believe that the crux of the culture within our military rests on honestly, morality, discipline and selflessness. Still, in this day and age, under the current leadership at the top levels, I could not with a clear conscience advise or recommend to anyone I know and care for that they embark on a military career, or even a term in service, though I know that under normal circumstances, that avenue can open many opportunities that might not otherwise be available to some of them.

This week's Army Times is a reminder of the explanation for meeting the recruiting numbers goal is the result of lowering the standards for enlistment. It also reviews the arguments over why doing so is such a bad (and dangerous) idea on many levels, most of which I've already commented on here, but are worth refreshing. I won't detail them here yet again, and hence repeat myself, but if you have a few minutes, the article, linked above, is worth that short time. Lowering those standards for enlistment is unfair to the enlistees themselves, the troops with whom they'll serve, the commanders in the field, the parents and friends of all those just mentioned, and the Armed Services and their legacies as well.

Say what?

2006-10-21T12:23:00.000-07:00

This article is the first official honest statement I've seen issued from our government in six years, and my reaction was shock. How sad that, as a patriot who genuinely loves my country, I should feel and react this way to something that was once just taken for granted. Yes, there's always been spin and selective interpretation offered by our governments that required a healthy dose of skepticism, but six years of a steady stream of continuous and obvious lies has made credulity an unexpected reaction.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.
Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America's war in Iraq.
"We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said.
"We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation," he said, speaking in Arabic from Washington. "The Iraqi government is convinced of this."

Whether or not you agree with the substance of the statement is not the issue and is subject to legitimate debate, but it is a reasonable and honest assessment, for a change.

The pro-torture act

2006-10-17T12:24:00.000-07:00

President Bush signed the legalize torture act today, effectively ending the expectation that we expect adversaries to treat our POWs with certain humane rules that has been our practice for a very long time, and thus, our ability to hold those who violate these norms responsible and accountable. What's remarkable, is the spin and equivocation and manipulation he used to describe the new law, and why it's necessary. The official pronouncements of our government, and the art of disingenousness now on display, makes Orwell's writing look amatuerish.

I can't remember when I've been more disillusioned and disgusted with the whole political process than I have over the past six years. And it just gets worse. If the stakes weren't so high, I'd do my best to just tune it out, but that's not an option.

President Bush Signs Military Commissions Act of 2006 The East Room
President's Remarks

Fact Sheet: The Military Commissions Act of 2006
9:35 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Welcome to the White House on an historic day. It is a rare occasion when a President can sign a bill he knows will save American lives. I have that privilege this morning.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is one of the most important pieces of legislation in the war on terror. This bill will allow the Central Intelligence Agency to continue its program for questioning key terrorist leaders and operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man believed to be the mastermind of the September the 11th, 2001 attacks on our country. This program has been one of the most successful intelligence efforts in American history. It has helped prevent attacks on our country. And the bill I sign today will ensure that we can continue using this vital tool to protect the American people for years to come. The Military Commissions Act will also allow us to prosecute captured terrorists for war crimes through a full and fair trial.
Last month, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, I stood with Americans who lost family members in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania. I listened to their stories of loved ones they still miss. I told them America would never forget their loss. Today I can tell them something else: With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice.

I want to thank the Vice President for joining me today. Mr. Vice President, appreciate you. Secretary Don Rumsfeld, I appreciate your service to our country. I want to thank Attorney General Al Gonzales; General Mike Hayden, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; General Pete Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I appreciate very much Senator John Warner, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Congressman Duncan Hunter, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, for joining us today. I want to thank both of these men for their leadership. I appreciate Senator Lindsey Graham, from South Carolina, joining us; Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Congressman Steve Buyer, of Indiana; Congressman Chris Cannon, of Utah. Thank you all for coming.

The bill I sign today helps secure this country, and it sends a clear message: This nation is patient and decent and fair, and we will never back down from the threats to our freedom.
One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America. He didn't get his wish. We are as determined today as we were on the morning of September the 12th, 2001. We'll meet our obligation to protect our people, and no matter how long it takes, justice will be done.

When I proposed this legislation, I explained that I would have one test for the bill Congress produced: Will it allow the CIA program to continue? This bill meets that test. It allows for the clarity our intelligence professionals need to continue questioning terrorists and saving lives. This bill provides legal protections that ensure our military and intelligence personnel will not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists simply for doing their jobs.

This bill spells out specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes in the handling of detainees so that our men and women who question captured terrorists can perform their duties to the fullest extent of the law. And this bill complies with both the spirit and the letter of our international obligations. As I've said before, the United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values.

By allowing the CIA program to go forward, this bill is preserving a tool that has saved American lives. The CIA program helped us gain vital intelligence from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, two of the men believed to have helped plan and facilitate the 9/11 attacks. The CIA program helped break up a cell of 17 southeastern Asian terrorist operatives who were being groomed for attacks inside the United States. The CIA program helped us uncover key operatives in al Qaeda's biological weapons program, including a cell developing anthrax to be used in terrorist attacks.

The CIA program helped us identify terrorists who were sent to case targets inside the United States, including financial buildings in major cities on the East Coast. And the CIA program helped us stop the planned strike on U.S. Marines in Djibouti, a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi, and a plot to hijack airplanes and fly them into Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London.

Altogether, information from terrorists in CIA custody has played a role in the capture or questioning of nearly every senior al Qaeda member or associate detained by the United States and its allies since this program began. Put simply, this program has been one of the most vital tools in our war against the terrorists. It's been invaluable both to America and our allies. Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. By allowing our intelligence professionals to continue this vital program, this bill will save American lives. And I look forward to signing it into law.

The bill I'm about to sign also provides a way to deliver justice to the terrorists we have captured. In the months after 9/11, I authorized a system of military commissions to try foreign terrorists accused of war crimes. These commissions were similar to those used for trying enemy combatants in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War and World War II. Yet the legality of the system I established was challenged in the court, and the Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions needed to be explicitly authorized by the United States Congress.
And so I asked Congress for that authority, and they have provided it. With the Military Commission Act, the legislative and executive branches have agreed on a system that meets our national security needs. These military commissions will provide a fair trial, in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them. These military commissions are lawful, they are fair, and they are necessary.

When I sign this bill into law, we will use these commissions to bring justice to the men believed to have planned the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. We'll also seek to prosecute those believed responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, which killed 17 American sailors six years ago last week. We will seek to prosecute an operative believed to have been involved in the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed more than 200 innocent people and wounded 5,000 more. With our actions, we will send a clear message to those who kill Americans: We will find you and we will bring you to justice.

Over the past few months the debate over this bill has been heated, and the questions raised can seem complex. Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat? Every member of Congress who voted for this bill has helped our nation rise to the task that history has given us. Some voted to support this bill even when the majority of their party voted the other way. I thank the legislators who brought this bill to my desk for their conviction, for their vision, and for their resolve.

There is nothing we can do to bring back the men and women lost on September 11th, 2001. Yet we'll always honor their memory and we will never forget the way they were taken from us. This nation will call evil by its name. We will answer brutal murder with patient justice. Those who kill the innocent will be held to account.

With this bill, America reaffirms our determination to win the war on terror. The passage of time will not dull our memory or sap our nerve. We will fight this war with confidence and with clear purpose. We will protect our country and our people. We will work with our friends and allies across the world to defend our way of life. We will leave behind a freer, safer and more peaceful world for those who follow us.

And now, in memory of the victims of September the 11th, it is my honor to sign the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law. (Applause.)
(The bill is signed.)
END 9:47 A.M. EDT

Joy to the world

2006-03-09T21:28:00.000-08:00

Don't worry, this isn't another sports post, but it does have a sporting tangent.

Last week I was lamenting the downfall of the Big Ten and pondering how cruel life can be. Today I enjoy the demise of Duke and Gonzaga and think how wonderful life is.

I grew up in a family that couldn't care less about sports. My parents still don't. But I remember the moment when I fell in love with sports - and a side benefit of sports.

I was playing football in with the neighborhood kids in someone's backyard. It was "touch football," but we were playing as though the definition of "touch" was not causing the other guy multiple fractures. The teams were split between the young guys - about 8 and 9 years old - and the old guys who might be 10 years old. The age difference accounted for quite a talent split, and my team was definitely on the short side of talent.

Still, we were determined to not let the big kids beat us and gave it our very best effort, despite being so outmanned. It came down to the end of the game and the football was floating toward the makeshift endzone between the two lawn chair markers. One big kid defender against two little kid receivers. I was one of those receivers and I couldn't catch anything but a cold.

So I did what any talentless, fat little punk would do - I ran into the big kid with everything I had, and as we both crashed to the ground, my fellow receiver caught the ball, safely between the lawn chairs, inside the endzone. Victory over the big kids! I felt like I'd won the Super Bowl.

Sure, the big kids complained that I committed pass interference, and the kid I knocked to the ground did end up pounding me, but we'd won and it felt great.

I forgot to mention - I suffered from stuttering and dyslexia. I was a non-athletic, chubby little kid who sounded funny, had a hard time reading and was a generally social outcast. I was always the last kid chosen for a team in gym class - even after the girls, and not to sound sexist, but as a little boy, that was real hard. I was only invited to play in the game that day because they needed me to round out the numbers for the "little kid" team. This was the first time I'd felt great about anything in months, and years later it still makes me smile and brings a feeling of satisfaction.

That is the beauty of sports, especially at tournament or playoff time. We can tune in to a game and spend time immersed in a sporting duel that will, ultimately, mean nothing when we wake up the next day. Life will go on regardless of the winning or losing status of our beloved teams. But the stress and junk we all deal with simply because we are living can be put on the backburner for a few hours. We can whoop and holler at the TV, radio, or even in the stadium or arena and burn off the anger, stress, embarrassment, or whatever is eating away at us.

You may ask, "Jay, what if I really hate sports? Is there any hope for me to whoop it up and holler?" Good news - yes. No matter how much you hate sports, spend a few minutes yelling at a referee next time you pass a basketball game on the TV or radio. You'll never go wrong with yelling at a referee, and you'll get to enjoy the stress-relief benefits of fandom.

When truth hurts

2006-02-19T12:26:00.000-08:00

While parts of the Middle East and other areas of the Muslim world erupt again, this time over the publication of political cartoons depicting the image of Mohammed, first in Scandinavia and then throughout other parts of Europe, we had our own mini-eruption last week, at least inside the beltway, over a political cartoon published in the Washington Post by my favorite political cartoonist, Tom Toles.

Admittedly, the comparison of the two events ends there. There are no demands here that the Washington Post be punished by our government, or that Toles be fired, rather, the issue is over the intent, content, and propriety of his January 29th cartoon. The caricature came in the immediate aftermath of a report, commissioned by the Pentagon and subsequently leaked to the press, that outlined the sustained damage being done to our Army as a result of the strains placed upon it because of the sustained deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Subsequently, a peeved and defensive Secretary Rumsfeld expressed his disagreement with the conclusions of the study, and rather, pointed out that these experiences had created a different Army; far from on the verge of losing its readiness, the wars had made this Army “battle hardened.”

Toles’ cartoon, linked here , criticizes Rumsfeld’s remarks, and generated a letter of protest from the Pentagon, signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman, and each of the respective service chiefs, arguing that the depiction of a soldier with multiple amputated limbs, makes light of their tremendous personal sacrifice for their country, and was in effect beyond the pale.

I often re-post Tom Toles’ cartoons, because so often, as the proverb says, a picture speaks a thousand words. When I saw the cartoon last week, it made me wince, but the thought that it was disrespectful to seriously injured soldiers never entered my mind. Instead, it forced me to think about the thousands of amputees these wars have produced. In an article some days later in the same paper, unrelated to this controversy, the photo of a young man (maybe 21 years old) walking on his two new prosthetic legs and with his new prosthetic arm, receiving physical therapy at Walter Reed Medical Center, further drove home the reality of this tragedy.

Yesterday, the “letters to the editor” section of the Post dealt with the controversy, with equal numbers of letters deploring the cartoon, as those who supported its principles and message. Mr. Toles himself stated that he had no intention whatsoever of making light of the tremendous pain inflicted upon the soldiers, marines and their families, and one of the letters was from the Director of the Disabled American Veterans Association, also expressing his opinion that he saw nothing insulting or offensive about the sad truth portrayed in the cartoon.

I chose not to re-post that cartoon of Mr. Toles here, because it is quite disturbing, but I think its publication is important, and I linked to it in case you haven’t seen it and wish to judge for yourselves. I absolutely don’t doubt the genuine sincerity that the Joint Chiefs expressed in the unusual letter they sent to the Washington Post, but I don’t agree with their premise. A letter to the editor from yesterday’s paper, reprinted below, best sums up my sentiments. This is a link to all of the letters published yesterday in response to this debate, and they’re all interesting and make valid, intellectually sound arguments, whatever side of the issue they support.

I was a lowly sergeant in the Army, not a member of the Joint Chiefs, which is probably why I get the Tom Toles cartoon showing the Army as an amputee, with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld making the kind of dismissive commentary on military challenges for which he is infamous. The cartoon was tasteless, but it wasn't pointless.

This administration hides the coffins, the rehab wards and the force-readiness statistics to protect itself from criticism of its mismanagement. It would like Americans to be oblivious to the financial and human cost of war.
Whoever wrote the letter for the Joint Chiefs knew that the cartoon wasn't about wounded soldiers. It was about rear-echelon political hacks who dismiss the results of their foolish decisions, who never seem to learn from their mistakes and who don't seem to care that when they write a check, the infantry signs it in blood.
RONALD M. GARRETT

One of a kind

2006-02-11T12:27:00.000-08:00

Andrew Sullivan links to this AP article that discusses some of Bill Clinton's comments before the annual gathering of the world's movers and shakers in Davos, Switzerland, ostensibly because of the humorous retort Mr. Clinton came up with in response to a question concerning advice to future U.S. presidents. The quip is indeed funny, but I suspect that Mr. Sullivan points to the article more so because of the substantive clarity and sensibility of Clinton's remarks, though he won't come right out and say that because he so loathes Bill Clinton.

Mr. Clinton's speech doesn't really contain anything earth-shattering or particularly new, but when you read his comments on global warming, Iran, Hamas, globalization, etc., and then look at the recent approach by the United States, particularly rhetorically, on all of these issues, it becomes very clear how far away from the approach Mr. Clinton advocates we currently are, officially.

I'm an unabashed fan of Bill Clinton, obviously, though I don't agree with everything he says, nor do I pretend that his shortcomings are not as gargantuan as his amazing skills. But when you read an article like this one, which describes the rapt nature of the audience, hanging on his every word, it's difficult to imagine another American leader (or another international personality, for that matter) who has that kind of stature , even (and especially) among those who diametrically oppose much of what he stands for.

It is also a sort of reminder of how close November of 2008 really is, and of the undeniable fact that no one currently on the horizon from either of our two political parties even comes close to capturing the imagination, or being able to articulate a vision for the country and the world the way that President Clinton can.

We can all agree that hopefully, somehow, that will change over the course of the coming months...

The price is right

2006-02-10T12:25:00.000-08:00

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

For an administration that refuses to accept responsibility or blame, increasing proportionately as you go up the chain, it seems (seemed) remarkable that shortly after the discovery that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the retired and some would say disgraced former head of the CIA, George Tenet, would receive the nation’s highest medal awarded to a civilian, the Medal of Freedom. Although President Bush spoke of Mr. Tenet in the most glowing terms, there was little doubt that Tenet had resigned to take the fall for the debacle that was the decision to invade Iraq.

I try not to be too cynical, but it becomes harder and harder every day. In the Intelligence Community, the highest substantive authority on regional intelligence issues is the National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for a region. He or she is the person who coordinates all of the analysis from eight or ten separate organizations that independently produce strategic intelligence products (DIA, CIA, NSA, Army, Navy, State, Treasury, etc.) Far from a low-level player, he is the voice who informs the Director and, consequently, the President.

It’s great that the Washington Post featured this article prominently on page one today, because it is VERY important news, and one more (of many) damning pieces of evidence proving that the Bush administration duped the Congress and the American people into invading Iraq.

Sadly, my guess is that this, too, will be old news by tomorrow. So, a Medal of Freedom is the going price for staying quiet and allowing the buck to stop at one’s level, or so the Tenet example would imply. I hope he doesn’t have it mounted near a mirror, where at some point he’d be forced to look at that medal, and himself, at the same moment…

Notes on Veterans Day

2005-11-11T12:30:00.000-08:00

In observation of the 2,000th Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) American servicemember's death, the Notes on Veterans Day
In observation of the 2,000th Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) American servicemember's death, the Army Times last week published a fairly comprehensive statistical breakdown of who has been killed, by age, race, grade, hometown, branch of service, reserve, guard, active, etc... The figures for each of those categories are sobering and sad. The graphics above, however, are the ones that put the biggest knot in my throat. The numbers show that while 17 - 19 year old "men and women" make up only 6.9% of the total Department of Defense population, they represent nevertheless 46.1% of the total killed thus far in the conflict (918 Americans who'll never see their 20th birthday). This group is closely followed by the 20-24 year olds, who comprise 33.2 % of those who've died, meaning that 79.3% of the total dead attributed to this war were 24 years old or younger, representing as of last week, a total of 1,579 young Americans. And of course, even looking at these staggering numbers, we're leaving behind the number of men and women who have been seriously and permanently injured (or damaged) since the hostilities began, a figure that dwarfs the numbers outlined above. The numbers aren't quite so sterile when you try to put a face and a family behind each of them, which I hope we'll all try to do. This seemed a fitting approach for Veterans Day, when we're exhorted to remember, and hopefully, to think critically about what this all means to us as a country...b/20051210030810/http://www.armytimes.com/">Army Times last week published a fairly comprehensive statistical breakdown of who has been killed, by age, race, grade, hometown, branch of service, reserve, guard, active, etc... The figures for each of those categories are sobering and sad. The graphics above, however, are the ones that put the biggest knot in my throat. The numbers show that while 17 - 19 year old "men and women" make up only 6.9% of the total Department of Defense population, they represent nevertheless 46.1% of the total killed thus far in the conflict (918 Americans who'll never see their 20th birthday). This group is closely followed by the 20-24 year olds, who comprise 33.2 % of those who've died, meaning that 79.3% of the total dead attributed to this war were 24 years old or younger, representing as of last week, a total of 1,579 young Americans. And of course, even looking at these staggering numbers, we're leaving behind the number of men and women who have been seriously and permanently injured (or damaged) since the hostilities began, a figure that dwarfs the numbers outlined above. The numbers aren't quite so sterile when you try to put a face and a family behind each of them, which I hope we'll all try to do. This seemed a fitting approach for Veterans Day, when we're exhorted to remember, and hopefully, to think critically about what this all means to us as a country...

Progress is a four letter word

2005-10-20T12:28:00.000-07:00

Sunday morning news shows, because they're basically outlets for the administration to repeat its questionable assertions, adding to that process by which they're able to re-write history by repeating falsehoods over and over, until it becomes the standard wisdom. And of course, it works. I watched Mr. Rumsfeld talking about the "progress" we're making in Iraq on the morning talk show circuit. Then, later in the day, I checked the online version of the New York Times and the Washington Post and of course, they repeated Rumsfeld's mantra in headlines, and so it goes.

Love him or hate him, almost all of us can agree that the Secretary of Defense is a pretty smart guy. That's why it seems so odd to me that with his understanding of the English language, he hasn't found another way to say "progress" without actually using that word. If it wasn't completely discredited during the war in Vietnam, then certainly those of us who were around to watch the Salvadoran Armed Forces in El Salvador, and the contras who fought the governing Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 1980's, remember the Reagan administration's assurances, year after year, that the sides we were backing in those conflicts were continuing to make "progress." Of course, after 11-12 years of protracted civil war, both conflicts were resolved through negotiated settlements, and not through the military superiority of any of the combatant forces.

And, of course, the positions that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld continue to take publicly on the war in Iraq rule out the diplomats or the military generals from coming to any such terms there. The mere suggestion of resolving that war by any means other than destroying the insurgents -- whoever they are -- is viewed as treasonous. So, we'll go on with the same dance until the American people reach that tipping point where they can no longer stand to watch the inexorable attrition of our young men and women, who will continue to die or be maimed while we make "progress" that only those in power in the administration and the congress seem to have figured out the metric that leads them to that conclusion.

As an interesting aside, on the very same "Meet the Press" that featured Donald Rumsfeld today, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) had this comment: "I'm absolutely convinced that we're making no progress at all," said Mr. Murtha, who served nearly four decades with the Marines and the Marine Reserves. "Until we turn it over to the Iraqis, we're going to continue to do the fighting. Our young men and women are going to continue to suffer."

But we all know that Congressman Murtha has no credibility on the subject, since the smear machine has already established that he's a "coward" and is giving aid and comfort to the enemy while undermining the morale of our own soldiers and marines....