Author: Trish

Pres. Clinton: Bush Wrong to Legitimize Whacking People Around

Trish

Did Bush skip Ethics 101 his junior year at Yale? You know, the course where you have to start out reading the Greeks and end up with John Stuart Mill, and know the difference between situational ethics and moral absolutism? And then you have to write a paper describing what you think is the best system for society — one that strives to produce the greatest good for the greatest number or one where everyone just does what works for them in the moment and maybe it equals out in the end.

Clinton: “The president says he’s just trying to get the rules clear about how far the CIA can go when they’re whacking these people around in these secret prisons”

Yeah, I thought Bush sat that one out.

But former Pres. Bill Clinton must have earned an “A” in that class.

“The president says he’s just trying to get the rules clear about how far the CIA can go when they’re whacking these people around in these secret prisons,” Clinton said in NPR’s “Morning Edition” interview, recorded on Wednesday.

“If you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Convention and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we’re going to be in real trouble,” he said…

Even if there were circumstances where such treatment is necessary to prevent an imminent attacks, Clinton said: “You don’t make laws based on that. You don’t sit there and say in general torture’s fine if you’re a terrorist suspect.”

Buck, Look Out for the Caribbean Crazy Ants!

Trish

I think these are the ones I noticed on the floor of the bathroom this week.

Caribbean Crazy Ants are now welcome in Trish’s bathroom. But no reggae after midnight.

As the saying goes, almost no one living in Florida is from Florida…

The Caribbean Crazy Ant has made its way to Florida.

“There are ants that were imported into Florida through cargo ships and freighters,” said [Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens Senior Veterinarian Nick] Kapustin.

Jacksonville’s thought to be its second stop in this country, making its first appearance in West Palm Beach.

Hear that Buck? West Palm Beach! Just up the turnpike from you!

But actually, they don’t sound so bad.

“They’re not harmful to the animals, they’re not a problem for our guests, they’re just literally, a nuisance,” said Kapustin.

The Caribbean Crazy Ant, called that because they don’t move in any real direction, isn’t just new to this country. It’s new to the world.

And unlike many other species, these ants don’t usually eat food we leave behind…

“They eat other insects. They’ve been known to eat fire ants,” said Kapustin.

Well, O.K. then. Plus, I like the name. The ones in the bathroom were milling around so randomly that I felt kind of bad stepping on them. Next time, maybe I’ll let them live. I think it’s what Bob Marley would do.

Bush Adding Signing Statement to Geneva Conventions

Trish

It worked the first 750 times: You know about Bush’s signing statements: First, he signs a bill passed by both houses of Congress, the people’s representatives. Next, he signs a statement that cancels out, reverses, ignores, or undermines the letter and intent of that bill.

Since this technique has worked so well for Mr. Bush, allowing him to run things as he — and he alone — sees fit, why not expand it beyond domestic policy to international law?

Don’t like Article III of the Geneva Conventions? No problem! Just issue a clarification — aka signing statement — that says we’ll do whatever the hell we want, and the world can’t stop us because… Well, just because.

I think we should all do this. Got a hangover? Call work and say you’re sick, then sign a statement authorizing yourself to define “sick.” Having an affair? Swear to your spouse you’re true blue, then sign a statement authorizing yourself to clarify “monogamy.” Go ahead, it’s easy. I’m signing one right now authorizing myself to define “president.” Then I’m sending an email to Al Gore.

Bush Lacks Credibility on Torture Guidelines

Trish

Bush keeps pushing the case for uplifting the morale of folks on the front lines of torture by “clarifying” the Geneva Conventions. But those same people are still smarting from the exposure of a CIA agent’s identity by, it now appears, not one but three members of his administration. And ain’t nobody talking about clarifying the rules on that.

None of Bush’s threats and arguments whose theme is, “What are you? Stupid?” about a fair playing field for our torturers will have any credibility until he addresses the flagrant anti-American game playing among his own staff

Well, actually Palm Beach Post columnist Tom Blackburn is.

Mr. Novak, that bull in the china shop, now writes that the revelation of Mr. Armitage as the source doesn’t fit “the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson.” Mr. Armitage was not a mouthpiece for Mr. Rove or Vice President Cheney.

Maybe so, but it’s not that easy. Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby did mention Ms. Plame’s name to other reporters. So maybe it wasn’t well-crafted and maybe it wasn’t a conspiracy, but the revelation of a covert officer’s name was not a fantasy. For a while, it seems as if “Valerie Plame is a spook, and she’s Joe Wilson’s wife” replaced “have a nice day” among Washington pleasantries. Why Ms. Plame’s name was on so many lips doesn’t alter my point. It never should have been there.

Blackburn reminds us why all this matters.

We don’t reveal CIA officers’ names because if a foreign government knows, it can find out whom the officer had contacted. The foreign government can unmask its own leaks. With some regimes, that can mean death. At least it can cost someone who helped the United States his or her job.

When that happens and is known to have happened, it makes work more difficult for other agents we have around the world. Who is going to talk to an American whose name may turn up in Mr. Novak’s column?

None of Bush’s threats and arguments whose theme is, “What are you? Stupid?” about a fair playing field for our torturers will have any credibility until he addresses the flagrant anti-American game playing among his own staff. We’re waiting.

Will God Change Parties in 2006?

Trish

Finally, some reassurance Americans haven’t totally lost their minds. Only 4 percent believe God belongs to a political party.

According to a study produced by Baylor University and administered by Gallup, 92 percent of us do believe in God. But after that initial agreement, defining who God is gets a little varied.

The study also found belief in an authoritarian God — along with frequent church attendance — is strongly tied to the notion Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks

According to the study, believers hold four very different views about their deity:

Authoritarian — An angry God who metes out punishments to sinful humanity and is very active in their daily lives or worldly affairs.

Benevolent — An active but forgiving God, less willing to condemn or punish.

Critical — A God who judges the world harshly, but doesn’t intervene.

Distant — A God who is neither active in worldly affairs nor angry, a sort of cosmic prime mover.

The study also found belief in an authoritarian God — along with frequent church attendance — is strongly tied to the notion Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.

I guess we know which God Dick Cheney believes in. The question is how to get God to read a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Won’t Get Fooled Again: IAEA Rejects U.S. Claims on Iran

Trish

In case you missed it in all the tantrums and threats from Pres. Snippy O’Huffnpuff, the world is doing what many of us who have been paying attention long feared: refusing to believe us when we cry wolf.

In a case of deja vu all over again, the Bush administration is trying to sell a story of imminent crisis, this time in Iran. Except now, nobody’s buying it.

The IAEA has been down this road before, when it entered the fray over Iraq’s weapons program before the 2003 U.S. invasion

The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has written a scathing letter to a congressional committee saying part of its case against Iran is “outrageous and dishonest.”

…The International Atomic Energy Agency wrote the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, lambasting it for claiming that the Islamic republic “is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade.”

Iran is far from that capability, the IAEA said.

So how did Team Bush react? Did they learn a lesson from Iraq and accept the U.N.’s facts? What do you think?

In a word, no. They had a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R—Mich.), say that the inspectors are conspiring with Iran to cover up its weapons program.

The subcommittee’s report also insinuates that the IAEA may be in cahoots with Tehran in covering up Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The report alleges that an IAEA inspector might have been removed at Iran’s request “for not adhering to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.”

The IAEA shot back that the claim was “an outrageous and dishonest suggestion,” but Rogers stood by it Thursday.

…The IAEA has been down this road before, when it entered the fray over Iraq’s weapons program before the 2003 U.S. invasion. During that tussle, the Bush administration criticized the agency for being too cautious and opposed the reappointment of agency chief Mohammed El-Baradei.

“This is a very troubling instance here, this report, of U.S. policymakers in my view trying to push the intelligence community to find evidence that they believe supports their suspicions and their end policy goals,” said Daryl Kimball of the nonprofit think tank, the Arms Control Association in Washington.

Quote du Jour

Trish

“I did not want my tombstone to read, ‘She kept a really clean house.’ I think I’d like them to remember me by saying, ‘She opened government to everyone.'”

— Ann Richards (1933 – 2006), Texas governor, shortly before leaving office in January 1995

Bonus Quote du Jour from Gov. Richards: “Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, only backwards and in high heels.”

What We Really Lost After 9/11

Trish

Today’s New York Times marks the empty, token sacrifice we’ve made since 9/11, and names what we were really cheated of.

It was a time when the nation was waiting to find out what it was supposed to do, to be called to the task that would give special lasting meaning to the tragedy that it had endured. But the call never came.

The attacks themselves have begun to acquire the aura of inevitability that comes with being part of history. We can argue about what one president or another might have done to head them off, but we cannot really imagine a world in which they never happened, any more than we can imagine what we would be like today if the Japanese had never attacked Pearl Harbor.

What we do revisit, over and over again, is the period that followed, when sorrow was merged with a sense of community and purpose. How, having lost so much on the day itself, did we also manage to lose that as well?

The time when we felt drawn together, changed by the shock of what had occurred, lasted long beyond the funerals, ceremonies and promises never to forget. It was a time when the nation was waiting to find out what it was supposed to do, to be called to the task that would give special lasting meaning to the tragedy that it had endured.

But the call never came. Without ever having asked to be exempt from the demands of this new post-9/11 war, we were cut out. Everything would be paid for with the blood of other people’s children, and with money earned by the next generation. Our role appeared to be confined to waiting in longer lines at the airport. President Bush, searching the other day for an example of post-9/11 sacrifice, pointed out that everybody pays taxes.

That pinched view of our responsibility as citizens got us tax cuts we didn’t need and an invasion that never would have occurred if every voter’s sons and daughters were eligible for the draft. With no call to work together on some effort greater than ourselves, we were free to relapse into a self-centeredness that became a second national tragedy.

What the Times doesn’t say is that it could have been no other way with a leader as morally vacant as ours, a president whose first words of inspiration were to buy, buy, buy and show our patriotism and courage by indulging in mindless consumerism.

There was a time when America could do better than this, and I’m still not convinced we chose the alternative. It’s a plain fact that George Bush received less of the popular vote in 2000, and from everything I’ve read about Ohio in 2004, I think the chances are good he did that year also. Those of us who want something finer are still out here. We just have to get better at claiming it.

Crapudrama and Farenheit 911 Not the Same

Trish

I’m already tired of hearing Bush supporters say that the crapudrama, “The Path to 9/11” is no different than Michael Moore’s, “Farenheit 911.”

It’s different, morons.

A “docudrama” employs actors to portray real people who participated in real events.

Farenheit 911 featured a narrator, Michael Moore, presenting his opinion with newsreels, interviews, and other nonfiction footage to illustrate.

Farenheit 911 was not presented on television without commercial interruption by a major broadcast network with a major broadcast news division.

Farenheit 911 was not picked up by Scholastic children’s publishing company to be presented as a curriculum in public schools.

Farenheit 911 was not denounced by people who appeared in it as a travesty before it was ever aired.

Farenheit 911 was blocked from being released by Disney/Miramax/ABC, acting on its own. The same media conglomerate has refused calls not to air The Path to 9/11 from Pres. Clinton, Secretary of State Albright, members of the 9/11 commission, other senators and representatives, and the public.

I’m sure there are lots more ways the two films are different. Help me out here in the comments section.