George Gets A New Hat

The cover of Rolling Stone shows Bush in a dunce cap. Alternet.org has a string of postings responding to the "Bush is a Moron" piece they recently posted. My response: tell me something I don't know.

Yes, George W. Bush is a moron. Unfortunately, the group who trained and positioned him as president is comprised of very clever (albeit amoral) men who have propped him up and created a plausible deniability scenario aimed at fooling the American public into thinking Bush means well but just doesn't always understand the finer points.

In reality, he's been deliberately kept ignorant so his "honest" protestations of well-meaning actions that have somehow inadvertently resulted in horrific failures can be made palatable to religious right, who are so busy trying to be gracious that they have forgotten how to be conscious. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it is not statistically possible to fail 100% of the time, by accident.
This mess we're in now isn't due to Bush's moronic nature, it's the result of calculated decisions aimed at failing in ways that ultimately serve the neocons running the show. The more Iraq becomes a cesspool, the greater our need to employ the war profiteers in bed with Bush/Cheney, et al. The more we live in fear for our own safety, the less we will concern ourselves with the unconscionable acts our government supports in other countries.

Our government, largely due to complacency and failure to apply critical thinking skills on the part of the American people, is no longer taking care of us; they are simply using fear tactics to justify taking over the world--one step at a time. The only question now is what are we going to do about it?

Scott Stops Spinning

Scott McClellan announced his resignation today. I'm not surprised. He likely got so tired of spinning that it just wore him out. With Powell coming forward to debunk the administration's claims around Iraqi WMDs, a slew of retired generals calling for Rumsfeld to resign, and so much of the Republican party in disgrace, McClellan is smart enough to know he can't spin his way to favor with the American public any more, and that has to hurt.

Looking back, he has a lot to be proud of. He stepped into Air Fleischer's shoes and never looked back. He fulfilled his commitment to maintain the President's plausible deniability stance on every level. Every time someone accused Bush of lying or misleading the American public, McClellan was right there to spin us into an alternate truth, where everything Bush does is right and every seeming wrong is really due to accidental misinformation.

If we're to believe Scott McClellan, the CIA told Bush about the two trailers found in Iraq, they just didn't bother to fill him in on the fact that they were for providing hydrogen for weather balloons, not for making biological weapons. I seem to recall that the CIA told Bush about the aluminum tubes Rice cited in her call to war as well, but for some reason they failed to tell him they weren't suitable for nuclear weapons. The CIA even told Bush there was a deal between Niger and Iraq for yellow-cake uranium, they just left out the part about it not actually being true. According to McClellan, none of these intelligence failures are the President's fault; the man just didn't get the memos.

Yet if discovering the truth were Bush's goal, how do you account for the fact that when Joe Wilson had the guts to come right out and say, for example, that the uranium yellow-cake deal with Niger was not true--having been to Niger to investigate that claim--the Bush administration outed Wilson's wife and did their best to vilify him? The only thing this business clarified for me is why everybody's afraid to tell Bush the truth. Apparently, he doesn't want it.

As the now infamous PNAC report and Downing Street Memo make painfully clear, George W. Bush intended to invade Iraq, regardless of whether or not the intelligence supported that decision. McClellan did some pretty heavy spinning around that too--but he wasn't the only one.

Then CIA Director, George Tenet, did a bit of tap dancing as well. Whereas, in the past, the CIA Director might be tasked with providing detailed, accurate and complete information to the Commander in Chief, George Tenet's assignment was special. His goal was to withhold information the White House didn't want. It was, quite simply, the only way to create the plausible deniability Bush needed to wage an unnecessary war and get away with it. And there is no doubt that Mr. Tenet performed magnificently. In fact, he performed so well that he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Sounds absurd, I know. But when you think about it, it makes perfect sense: George Tenet's failures were George Bush's success.

As were the failures of Condoleezza Rice. Had her goal been to prevent an attack like 9/11, Condoleezza Rice would not have refused to meet with Richard Clarke, the foremost expert on the subject of Al Qaeda and the threat they posed to the United States. Had her goal been foiling an attack, her first act as National Security Advisor should have been to gather as much information as possible from the experts at her disposal. Instead, she sidelined Clarke and refused to invite him to meetings. What's more, she ignored the list of action items he carefully passed on to her and had the gall to tell the 9/11 Commission that she did nothing with them because she considered it a "list" not a "plan" and "nobody told me what to do."

Yet, as with Tenet's failures, Condi's snafus gave the White House exactly what they needed. Bush knew he couldn't attack Iraq without the support of the American public, and he knew without a "Pearl Harbor" he wouldn't get that support. So, Condoleezza Rice looked the other way while Al Qaeda worked unchecked. She too was rewarded. As were Robert Bolton and Alberto Gonzales.

The pattern is clear: those who agreed to assist the president in achieving his goal of invading Iraq, at the expense of the truth and the welfare of the American people, have been well compensated. The few who were willing to speak the truth to protect the American people, have been smeared, discredited and/or ignored. Yet every day we hear another report about how the White House did their best, they just got it wrong. And each time the pattern repeats, Scott McClellan has been there to remind us that our president has always made the best possible decision based on the information he had. That is, until now.

Scott McClellan is stepping down. I am sure he's tired. But I suspect there's more to it than that. In fact, I have a hunch that he's more than tired. I'd be willing to bet he's just a little bit angry. Despite his continued insistence that the many mistakes made by the White House were not due to any conspiracy or decision to "cherry pick" information, he must have finally realized it just isn't possible for the colossal failures of the Bush administration to have all been due to nothing more sinister or complicated than a series of completely accidental mistakes.

Why? Because it's not statistically possible to achieve a 100% failure rate by accident. In order to perform that badly, you have to work at it.

The Free Market: How we're paying for it

Conservatives love to talk about the "free market" and letting the market work unfettered. At the core of their philosophy is the idea that a free market is the only fair way to go. Re-distribution of wealth, of any kind, for any reason, is anathema to them. At least, that's what they say.

The truth is that conservatives manipulate the market to their advantage all the time--and if that's not redistribution of wealth, I don't know what is. At least when liberals say let's tax to pay for highways or healthcare, they're up front about what they're taking and what they plan to do with the money.

Conservatives, on the other hand, pay lobbyists to pressure Congress to do them favors, which the rest of us can't afford to do, and essentially buy themselves more democracy than we can get. When was the last time you paid several million dollars to somebody to tell Congress exactly what you wanted them to hear? And when was the last time your personal desires became legislation?

In fact, until the internet and organizations like MoveOn.org came about, the rest of us had virtually no influence on Congress. Finally, we have something at least resembling real democracy--at least now we can make our voices heard--even if they're still largely ignored. But Republicans have tried to discredit organizations like MoveOn.org. Pretty ironic, isn't it? It's okay to manipulate a take-over of K Street so lobbying concerns are almost entirely Republican, and it's okay to call for redistricting outside the normal process solely to force a Republican majority in Congress, but somehow it's bad to let people like you and me send in $20 a year to have a venue for making our own opinions heard? I can't help but laugh every time the likes of George W. Bush or Tom DeLay speak of "compassionate conservatism" "graciousness" or "morality." I honestly don't think they know what any of those words mean.

While the rest of us scramble to find a way to get reasonable healthcare, finance a home and pay for our education, large government-backed corporate interests are forcing our wages down by hiring illegal immigrants who are too frightened of exposure to demand reasonable pay and humane conditions.

Of course, that cat's out of the bag now, but all it means is that the politicians tied to corporate interests are frantically attempting to enact legislation that will make it okay for companies like Wal-Mart to hire illegals--that's pretty much what all this immigration law stuff is about. It's not about protecting Americans from terrorists or saving our jobs: it's about changing laws so big corporations and wealthy folks who've profited from illegal (see: slave) labor won't have to be accountable for their own lawlessness. It's much like what Bush and DeLay have done all their political lives: push the law to the edge, go over when necessary, then get lawyers to say it's okay. In other words, to hell with the intent of the law, if the laws don't give us permission to do what we want, we'll just rewrite them.

I used to think that we could prevent this kind of abuse of our legal system by sending important cases to the Supreme Court, where (presumably) greater minds and higher morals were at work. Now, I'm not so sure. Recently, I heard Jose Padilla was finally turned over to the court system, after years of detention without a trial. He sued. But instead of letting the case go to the Supreme Court, as it should, the administration finally gave in and decided to give him a trial after all. End of story. Now the Supreme Court won't hear the case because it's "moot."

But what about the next guy? This is clearly not the only time this situation will come up. Surely, the Court understands the importance of a ruling on this issue, so there is no ambiguity in the future? Apparently not.

The same thing happened with the issue of reporters and their confidentiality clauses. When Judith Miller went to jail, it brought a larger issue to the fore: should reporters be required, by law, to testify in spite of their oath to keep sources confidential, when a criminal case is involved? The Supreme Court refused to hear that case as well.

If there is ambiguity in the law, particularly in important cases like these, isn't it the Supreme Court's responsibility to deal with those ambiguities, so we can use their rulings to guide our actions in the future? Frankly, I'm beginning to think they want the law to remain ambiguous. As long as there is debate on these issues, those taking advantage of that ambiguity can pretend they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. (Another fine example of plausible deniability.)

And this brings us back to this so-called "free market." We're told we're free, but the circumstances under which we make our choices--where we work, where we live, what we buy--are manipulated by forces so much wealthier and, therefore, more powerful than ourselves, that while we may have the choice to say "yes" or "no," what we're saying "yes" or "no" to is completely out of our hands. In other words, unless you're part of the middle- or upper-class, you're free alright, free to eat shit or starve. That, is the essence of this "free market."

But that's all about to change. With the advent of the internet, people are now able, for the first time in history, to see what's really going on. This is why conservatives are so concerned about regulating the internet. If we are all able to communicate and share knowledge, the current power base in this country will shortly be on its way out. Thus far they have depended on legal ambiguities and an ignorant, uneducated populace to keep their power.

The freedom to share information among all classes, the ability to educate the poor and disenfranchised as well as the middle-classes and the elite as to what's really happening in government and around the world, is actually the only thing that will allow us to have a truly free market: one where both the circumstances that create our choices and the choices themselves are a natural by-product of ethical and moral behavior, monitored by a variety of groups providing a constant source of organic checks and balances. This is what a true democracy looks like. And it's scaring the pants off the likes of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay.

America the Punitive

It's bad enough that the current administration is so hell bent on the punitive solution to everything, but why must we always punish the wrong people?

The big debate on the Sunday talk shows yesterday was Immigration law. Some are proposing new laws to make illegal immigration a felony. That would make all undocumented residents of this country felons--even the ones who were brought here, by their parents, when they were children. I'm not sure of all the specifics of this proposed new legislation, but one thing I'm clear on: the real source of the immigration problem is being ignored.

There is a saying in ancient wisdom: the solution is in the problem. That is to say, if you want to solve a problem you have to look at it. Clearly, the present path of new legislation, aimed at doing what our old legislation could have done had we enforced it, is not based on that ancient principle. Instead of looking at the problem in order to fully understand it, we are (as we are so fond of) simply acting out our frustration on the victims of our own failed policy.

For example, we have failed, miserably, to enforce immigration law for years. As a result, the laws have been broken regularly. Foreigners heard, through the grapevine, that if they could get into the United States, they could find employment. How did that happen? Companies like Wal-Mart hired contractors whose ability to stay in business depended on ultra-cheap labor. And where does one find such labor? From the pool of illegal immigrants who are too frightened of being exposed to complain. Corporate farming concerns have been using illegal immigrants the same way. And who doesn't know somebody who brags at upscale dinner parties about the great "find" they discovered in the form of a gardener or a nanny who is top notch but charges virtually nothing?

While we looked the other way so big business and the wealthy could take advantage of frightened immigrants who believed they were coming to the land of plenty, more and more foreigners heard more and more about the opportunities here. And as with most stories, each time they are told they are more and more dramatic. In other words, the folks in Cuba and Mexico (and wherever else illegal immigrants tend to come from) are playing "telephone" with the truth. By the time they save up what they need to pay the smugglers, they've become totally convinced that getting to the States is the answer to their prayers. Hence, the doctor who is flipping burgers; the engineer who cuts your grass; the scientist who clerks at Walgreen's. This is what the American dream has morphed into.

You'd think at some point these folks would get the picture and stop selling everything they own to come here and work for peanuts, wouldn't you? But no, they won't. Because they have something we don’t: they have the ability to think beyond themselves. They are capable of delayed gratification, a concept totally foreign to most of us. And they aren't selfish, oddly enough. Despite how little they have, they actually come here more concerned about how they might position their children for a better future, rather than worrying every moment about how they can take, take, take, for themselves and foist the payment off on future generations. It's really no wonder Americans are so fed up--they are dealing with people they simply can't comprehend.

And now, we are going to blame another failure, the failure to protect ourselves from terrorists, on the wrong people. Instead of securing our ports, improving airport security, fixing obvious communication problems and logistical snafus, we are blaming our sense of insecurity on the people who are cleaning our toilets. Instead of taking responsibility for our own failures, we are going to use new immigration legislation to point the finger of blame on people whose only crime was wanting a better life, and who observed the lax enforcement of immigration law long enough to believe that it might allow them to provide more for their children. Had the United States been diligent in its own enforcement of these laws, as written, in prior years, these people would not be here in the first place. And had we not quietly, covertly, taken advantage of their presence to greedily profit ourselves, they'd have had no reason to stay.

Come to think of it, this is not unlike what we've done in Iraq. We waltzed into their country, uninvited; we removed their government and destroyed their infrastructure and then left them without water, power or a functioning government, essentially we created a political vacuum. And now, when they're having trouble getting squared away, we pompously pronounce that all the problems they are having are due to their own inability to "get their act together."

We may not be able to see into the future; we may even be failures at taking care of our own; but there is one thing we do quite well: we play the blame game with the best of them. We play it so well, in fact, that it has long ceased to even matter what's true--only that we know how to win.