Little Russ Got It Wrong

This morning I watched Tim Russert of Meet the Press, interview Senator Hillary Clinton. As one might expect, Russert challenged Clinton's numerous contortions about Iraq since 2002. Russert did a good job and perhaps I’m nitpicking but this error on his part stuck in my craw. Russert replayed Senator Clinton’s October 10, 2002 speech on the Senate floor. It’s a speech many of us bloggers have heard or read many times before, this passage in particular:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.”

After playing the video Russert noted that:

“As we sit here this morning, Saddam rebuilding a nuclear weapons program, just not true; giving aid and sanctuary to al-Qaeda, debatable. .”

It is not debatable whether Saddam gave aid or sanctuary to Al Quaeda. The Washington Post, which has been an enthusiastic cheerleader for the neocons, and the Iraq War from the beginning reported the following on June 17, 2004:

“The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.”

Perhaps Russert misspoke when he said, “debatable” but the record needs to be corrected. Far too many Americans continue to believe Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein had a relationship and justify the Iraq War because of it. This is not “debatable.”

Click here to let Tim Russert know he made a mistake and has a responsibility to correct the record.

Purgatory For Alan Greenspan

Alan Greenspan belongs to the Club of Emasculated Moderate Elites who enabled corporate theocrats to destroy the American Dream at home and annihilate our moral authority abroad. A prerequisite for membership is to first allow crazy ideologues to exploit their prestige and later disown the disastrous policies their reputations facilitated. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is a charter member of this club and a pathetic figure who criticizes the Bush Administration about Iraq when it no longer matters. Powell’s domestic policy soul mate, Alan Greenspan, joined him with his new memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures In a New World.

Actually, one could argue that Greenspan was a charter member as early as 2001. The prescient and sagacious Paul Krugman wrote the following for his column entitled “Reckonings; Doing the Wrong Thing” on February 14, 2001:

“Three weeks ago Alan Greenspan, in his now-famous testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, gave decisive aid and comfort to the advocates of huge, irresponsible tax cuts. Rumor has it that Mr. Greenspan himself was taken aback by the feeding frenzy unleashed by that testimony, and that he is now engaged in a backdoor campaign to limit the damage. (Damage to the nation, or to himself? Good question.) The Medley Report, a newsletter on economic affairs, says that ‘many Congressional Democrats have heard Mr. Greenspan -- or his aides -- tell them that he actually favors something like $1 trillion in total tax cuts rather than $1.6 trillion.’

But if those rumors are true, Mr. Greenspan's performance yesterday, in his first official testimony since he let the genie out of the bottle, was a profile in cowardice. Again and again he was offered the opportunity to say something that would help rein in runaway tax-cutting; each time he evaded the question, often replying by reading from his own previous testimony. He declared once again that he was speaking only for himself, thus granting himself leeway to pronounce on subjects far afield of his role as Federal Reserve chairman. But when pressed on the crucial question of whether the huge tax cuts that now seem inevitable are too large, he said it was inappropriate for him to comment on particular proposals.

In short, Mr. Greenspan defined the rules of the game in a way that allows him to intervene as he likes in the political debate, but to retreat behind the veil of his office whenever anyone tries to hold him accountable for the results of those interventions.”

The upshot is that Greenspan’s reputation in 2001 was at stratospheric levels following eight years of prosperity under President Clinton. It was a flawed prosperity to be sure, aided by the Internet bubble and trade policies that rewarded corporate elites at the expense of too many working people. Nevertheless, the fiscal management of the country was far superior under President Clinton and most were better off than they are today. Greenspan and Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin were regarded as the architects of an economic renaissance.

As Krugman illustrated in his column over six years ago, Greenspan allowed the tax cutting privatization fundamentalists to exploit his reputation so wayward congressional moderates would go along. And when he had the chance to correct the record and prevent the fiscal insanity to follow, he choked. As Krugman put it in that column’s final paragraph:

“Mr. Greenspan faced a test of character yesterday. He didn't have to admit to a mistake; to do the right thing, all he had to do was ‘clarify' his previous remarks. Yes, the headlines would have said ‘Greenspan Makes U-Turn.’ But isn't it worth accepting some brief personal embarrassment in order to head off a looming policy disaster that you yourself have helped create? Apparently not.”

And what a disaster it’s been! Even without 9/11 and the Iraq War, the tax cutting privatization fundamentalists had us headed toward a path of deficits minus meaningful investments. It’s one thing to accumulate deficits if we make investments in infrastructure and human capital that deliver a return such as education, health care, renewable energy, bridges and levies. Contrary to generations of conservative propaganda however, the super wealthy don't "invest" their wealth into the economy and create jobs. Most horde it because they don't need to spend frequently on necessities.

Greenspan's conduct in 2001 resulted in less money for people who truly are the engine of economic growth: small business entrepreneurs, salaried employees earning under $100,000 per year and low wage earners.

Yet Greenspan continues to reject any accountability for his transgressions. According to the New York Times, Greenspan is “chagrined about his role in the Bush tax cuts.” The article describes Greenspan as surprised at how his endorsement of the Bush tax cuts would be perceived even as he recounts how Robert Rubin and Senator Kent Conrad, of North Dakota warned him.

Yet Greenspan’s bewilderment is at best disingenuous. Rather like Claude Raines “shock” at finding gambling in Casablanca. He endorsed Bush’s tax cuts because they empowered the Ayn Rand economic fetishists who promote wealth redistribution in favor of the wealthy while claiming to champion liberty and a culture of work. Indeed, as Harriet Rubin reported in the New York Times, Greenspan was an admirer of Rand’s work.

As a reward for his disservice to the American people, Greenspan’s book will no doubt soon become a best seller as the republic spirals towards fiscal insolvency. That is Alan Greenspan’s legacy unless a true progressive is elected president in 2008. Either way Greenspan’s reputation should be condemned to a special purgatory for so-called moderates such as Colin Powell who mortgaged America’s standing and future for their own self-aggrandizement.

No More Bleed and Win

Political schemes are afoot as congress anticipates the report to be delivered by David Petraeus this Monday. Our pitiful and pathetic democracy has been reduced to outsourcing its national security policy to a general with a history of erroneous assessments about progress in Iraq. This is what Petraues wrote in his opening paragraph for an op-ed in the Washington Post on September 26, 2004:

“Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.”

Think about it. Three years ago he claimed tangible progress was being made inside Iraq and this very same man’s testimony is being anticipated with more reverence than Moses upon his return from Mt. Sinai.

It has come to this because nobody believes a word President Bush says anymore while the so-called opposition Democratic Party suffers from battered wife syndrome. Meanwhile, Republicans in congress are desperate for cover yet still hoping they can turn their jingoism knife into Democrats as they did after Vietnam. Hence, Bush needed a new medals wearing puppet to serve as his mouthpiece while members of congress are poised to either exploit the veneer of Petraeus’s medals or cower behind the weasel words of "bipartisanship."

It’s a sick kabuki dance. Congressional Republicans want to save face and ensure their survival in the post Bush era. If they can sign onto bipartisan legislation that establishes force reduction as a goal without a mandated target date for withdrawal, they will have the cover and save face. And later they can always turn on the Democrats with their jingoism knife when the moment is right for “losing Iraq.”

Democrats are hoping to implement a strategy of bleed and win. They oppose the war rhetorically but don’t have the nerve to follow through where it counts and cutoff funding. The Iraq war has served Democrats well, driving down Bush’s ratings and filling up party coffers. I’m not so sure they really want it to end at this point.

So after Petraeus delivers his report, enough Republicans will likely join Democrats on legislation that won’t end the war. Yes some forces will be reduced next year out of logistical necessity and the Democrats will claim they forced “a change.” But the war will go on still and more will die for no good reason. A political solution with regional input that also includes Iraq’s neighbors contributing to reconstruction is the only way to go and can’t happen with our toxic presence.

Watching this insanity I can’t help but think of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone. Senator Wellstone, along with his wife and daughter tragically died in a plane crash on October 25, 2002. Five years ago the political climate was very different. Yet Wellstone, with the political winds in his face during a tough re-election fight didn’t waver. Prior to voting against authorizing the use of force in Iraq, Wellstone simply said,

“I’m not making a decision I don’t believe in.”

Sadly, too many members of congress don’t possess the Wellstone standard about their decisions. Most are content to let the war go on and score political points to their advantage as best they can. They care little for the blood that is shed. Unlike Wellstone, the prestige and perks of power matter more to them. Both parties are hoping to implement a strategy of bleeding in Iraq while winning at the ballot box.

I worked my butt off to elect Democrats in 2006 but to this point they only seem to care about “bleeding and winning.” They're not inclined to make policy decisions based on what’s right like Paul Wellstone. But hopefully there are enough Democrats who can be forced to acknowledge the will of the people. Perhaps not but we still have to try.

Most Republicans of course are beholden to a crazy constituency that wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them in the face with an exploding cannon ball. Sadly, too many Republicans are feculent and completely beyond redemption. Some of their senators however may serve in states with enough blue leaning voters that they can’t simply dismiss antiwar sentiments. A few house Republicans are feeling heat too.

Click here to contact your senator and here for your representative in the House of Represenatives. Let them know you've had enough of their "bleed and win" gambits. It's time to bring the troops home.

It's Labor Day Weekend: Do You Know Where Our Country Is?

One autumn evening several years ago, I needed to blow off steam after a stressful day at work. I was fed up the way employees often are in their jobs. You know that toxic feeling when your superiors are overpaid while contributing little to the effort other than gratuitous criticism, while those on your pay grade won’t bust a nut to get the job done because they know you will? How often have you felt that way? I felt underpaid, under-appreciated, was mad as hell and ready to drown my anger in beer. It was self-pity really as plenty of people in this world had it far worse than me but I wasn’t in a perspective mood.

So I walked about forty blocks south from my day job in mid-town Manhattan to clear my head until coming across a dive bar with sports on television and hardly any patrons. Perfect, that’s just what I wanted. Typically, I’m not the sort to talk with strangers and certainly wasn’t looking for any conversation this night. Somehow, I became engrossed in a three-way conversation with two middle-aged registered nurses. We talked about how friends, families, communities and countries gloss over pain and misdeeds through symbolism and empty platitudes.

The alcohol flowed as one of the nurses with a thick Brooklyn accent reminisced how her parents physically abused her, made her feel worthless but still celebrated her birthday every year. I was inebriated too but recall her venting,

“What kind of sense is that? For 364 days a year they beat me up, told me I was no good. But on my birthday they were nice as can be with presents, cake and hugs? I could never figure that out. I always wanted to tell them, presents on my birthday won’t make up for when you beat me up again tomorrow.”

I think that’s what she said. In retrospect I wish I had written down everything she said when I got home.

I find myself thinking about her today this Labor Day weekend. We’re supposed to “honor” working people this weekend with a holiday. Well I would surmise that a whole lot of working people out there are thinking,

“A holiday doesn’t make up for my not having health coverage. A holiday doesn’t make up for the money-lenders fleecing me out of my income. A holiday doesn’t do me much good when I have to work anyway while the super rich vacation in the Hamptons. I don’t need a holiday. I need the law to let me declare bankruptcy so I can pay health care bills for my elderly parents who can’t afford it and I can’t help because the money-lenders swindled me out of cash for a home in this ‘ownership society.’”

And then you have the war. The corporatists who seized upon the aftermath of 9/11 to rationalize constructing an American Rome by sacrificing the blood of people from poorer urban and rural communities. And those that survived often return home damaged after serving as the instruments of torture and death for the Iraqi population. Meanwhile, those who speak platitudes about “supporting the troops” are vacationing this Labor Day weekend and not giving them a second thought. And why should they? After all they’ll receive top-notch care at Walter Reed just as children without health coverage can always go to the emergency room. But let’s revel in this holiday when we “honor” working people with backyard barbeques.

And this September 11th we will “honor” the victims of terrorism as we continue to kill Iraqis, causing more “collateral damage” in Afghanistan while accomplishing nothing and needlessly shedding more of our own blood. But at least we can feel better with a moment of silence and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani will surely deliver some nice platitudes to “rally” us.

So what if Giuliani wanted an emergency “command center” at the same site targeted by Islamic radicals in 1993 and his advisers urged him to put it in Brooklyn instead. The man needed it to be in walking distance of City Hall while carrying on an extra-martial affair with Judith Nathan. And this September 11th he will wrap himself around the symbolism of the moment while pursuing the nomination of the family values and national security party. Good for him.

And do any of the top tier Democratic presidential candidates have the guts this Labor Day weekend to lament that America’s biggest growth industry is corrections? Are Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama willing to say that an honest days work for too many Americans means sustaining the prison industrial complex that has two million citizens incarcerated? Want a job with benefits then help guard young minorities guilty of possession while wealthy whites vacation on their Labor Day weekend with expensive alcohol.

Meanwhile, it is also two years after the city of New Orleans was liquidated from a hurricane due to gross incompetence and rebuilding it has become a ponzi scheme for the rich. All of this together and it’s hard not to feel this Labor Day weekend that my country is slowly dying. No holiday "honoring" working people can make up for that. But I'll happily settle for a genuine progressive reformation starting with next year's election. We have much work to do and I'm not ready to give up on my country yet.

Government Lies About the Drug War: A Podcast Interview With Criminal Justice Professor Matthew Robinson

The “war on drugs” doesn’t consume as much oxygen in the public square as it used to. In September 1989, President George Herbert Walker Bush, spoke from the Oval Office, held up a plastic bag filled with white contents and announced,

“This is crack cocaine seized a few days ago in a park across the street from the White House . . . It could easily have been heroin or PCP.”

For Bush this speech was public relations homage to an issue that dominated the media and politics during the 1980s. It also impacted Bush’s 1988 presidential election campaign. The near hysteria about the “crack” epidemic in particular resulted in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. This act established The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). According to their website,

“The principal purpose of ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation's drug control program. The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences. To achieve these goals, the Director of ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy. The Strategy directs the Nation's anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and guidelines for cooperation among Federal, State, and local entities.”

The General Accounting Office reported that as of 2000, ONDCP’s annual budget was almost $20 billion. Depending on whether one factors local incarcerations and law enforcement costs we continue to spend billions annually. So as tax payers, how are we to assess the ONDCP’s performance? Are they having any success at achieving their goals? Do they have the right goals? Is ONDCP accomplishing anything useful or simply justifying its own existence and sustaining the prison industrial complex?

Understandably, we have other things on our minds these days. The “war on terror” has dwarfed the “war on drugs” in recent years and unlike 1988, receiving little attention from presidential candidates this time around. However, given the health repercussions of drugs on society as well as the impact on our justice system, foreign policy, and economy, a thorough analysis of the ONDCP’s efforts are in order.

One interesting cost-benefit analysis of the drug war was posted online by Brian C. Bennett, who in 2005 concluded that,

“trying to stop people from using drugs is still costing us more than three times as much as the drug abuse itself.”

Two Appalachian State University professors provide another sobering analysis: Matthew B. Robinson, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Renee G. Scherlen, Associate Professor of Political Science. Their book, Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (State University of New York Press) primarily focuses on data published by the ONDCP from 2000-2006. They also provide an instructive historical overview about America’s war on drugs dating back to 1875 and illustrate the common themes of racism, media hyperbole and bureaucratic self-interest that have helped define this country’s drug policies.

Robinson, an author of six books, including most recently, Death Nation: The Experts Explain Capital Punishment, agreed to a podcast interview with me about his book and the war on drugs. Please refer to the media player below. This interview is just over thirty minutes and can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for "Intrepid Liberal Journal."

The Karl Rove/Clinton Gambit

My apologies for not posting anything in recent days. A brutal combination of illness and my day job intervened.

I did want to at least post my theory about Karl Rove's recent commentary regarding Hillary Clinton's "high negatives." Obviously, Senator Clinton being on the receiving end of Rove's attention is beneficial to her campaign and Rove knows this. Naturally, this leads to speculation that Rove wants Senator Clinton to prevail in next year's primaries because he perceives her as the Democrats weakest candidate. Senator Clinton's defenders will no doubt claim Rove's attention illustrates she is the strongest candidate and Rove wants her softened up.

This is my take. Rove knows that among the three Democrats perceived among the establishment as most likely to be nominated, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Senator Clinton, she is the most likely to maintain a long term American presence in Iraq. Although Clinton has adjusted her rhetoric about the war and her vote in 2002 to become more palatable to core Democratic voters, she once again was cautious about implementing a withdrawal during yesterday's debate in Iowa.

Rove meanwhile may be thinking that if the next President pulls out of Iraq, Bush's legacy will lose any remaining chance to be salvaged. He also knows the GOP is headed toward its worst defeat since 1964. Hence, the highest probability for staying in Iraq after the election and vindicating the Bush/Cheney immoral war of choice is Hillary Clinton. At least that's probably how Karl Rove sees it.

Replacing the Empire Culture: A Podcast Interview With Author David Korten

“There is a culture war in America, but it is not between liberals and conservatives, who in fact share a great many core values – including a commitment to children, family, community, personal responsibility and democracy. It is between the lower and higher orders of our human nature. It is between an imperial politics of individual greed and power and a democratic politics based on principle and the common good. It is between Power Seekers at the extreme political fringes who remain imprisoned in an Imperial Consciousness and the realists of the political mainstream who truly want to solve the problems that beset us all.”

David Korten wrote those provocative words in his book, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community published last year by Berrett-Kohler.

Korten worked for more than thirty-five years in preeminent business, academic, and international development institutions. He eventually turned away from the establishment and instead worked with public interest citizen action groups. He is the co-founder and board chair of the Positive Futures Network and Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures, an associate of the International Forum on Globalization and a member of the Club of Rome. He serves on the boards of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economics and the Bainbridge Graduate Institute.

In his early career, Korten set up business schools in low-income countries starting with Ethiopia, hoping to help establish a new class of professional business entrepreneurs would be the key to ending global poverty. He also completed his military service stateside during the Vietnam War as a captain in the U.S. Air Force, with duty at the Special Air Warfare School, Air Force headquarters command, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Following his service in the military, Korten was a faculty member of the Harvard University Graduate School of Business where he taught in Harvard’s middle management, M.B.A. and doctoral programs. Korten also served as Harvard’s adviser to the Central American Management Institute in Nicaragua and later joined the staff of the Harvard Institute for International Development, where he headed a Ford Foundation funded project to strengthen the organization and management of national family planning programs.

When Korten left academia in 1970 he moved to Southeast Asia where he lived for almost fifteen years, serving as a Ford Foundation project specialist and later as Asia regional advisor on development management in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). His work there earned Korten international recognition for helping to engineer the development of intervention strategies for transforming public bureaucracies into responsive support systems dedicated to strengthening community control and management of land, water and forestry resources.

Korten ultimately broke with the international aid system when he became convinced they were actually increasing poverty and environmental destruction and impervious to change. During the last five years of Korten’s work in Asia he coordinated with leaders of Asian nongovernmental organizations on identifying the root causes of development failure in the region and building the capacity of civil society organizations to better facilitate positive global level change.

Korten’s life experience abroad convinced him that the United States was actively promoting both at home and abroad – the very policies responsible for, inequality, environmental devastation and social disintegration. At that point a friend advised Korten he would best serve the cause of ending global poverty by returning to the United States and educating his fellow Americans about the destructive role of corporate imperialism. Hence, Korten returned to the United States in 1992 to share with his fellow Americans the lessons he had learned abroad.

Ironically, Korten’s original motivation for international travel as a college senior in 1959 was to persuade the world’s poor to reject revolution in favor of America’s political and economic system. Instead, as he writes, Korten found himself learning far more from the people he hoped to teach:

“The subsequent experience of working for some thirty years as a member of the international development establishment profoundly changed my worldview. I had gone abroad to teach. Far more consequential than what I taught was what I learned – about myself, my country, and the human tragedy of unrealized possibility. Ultimately, I realized I must return to the land of my birth to share with my people the lessons of my encounter with the world.”

In 1995 Korten published an international bestseller, When Corporations Rule the World and followed that up with The Post Corporate World: Life After Capitalism several years later. Korten agreed to a podcast interview with me about his current book, life experience and worldview. Please refer to the media player below. The interview is approximately fifty-six minutes.



This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Words of the People

How often do you read letters to the editor in newspapers? I do everyday. They can be a treasure house of golden nuggets. In today's New York Times (subscription required), Carol Shlesinger, of Livingston, New Jersey, wrote the following about the Protect America Act recently passed by the Democratic congress and signed into law by President Bush:

"I have no objection to increasing powers of surveillance by the administration as long as there is a quid pro quo: give the voting public the same rights of surveillance of their elected executive branch.

We could start with records of the lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq; continue with the list of those attending Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy conference; include phone records on the role of Alberto R. Gonzales and others in the firing of United States attorneys and ascertain who was responsible for inadequately protecting our troops with proper equipment and support.

After all, these are matters of national security."

Now why didn't I think of that? Ms Schlesinger, you should start a blog.

And this caustic letter from Fred Roberts of Decatur, Georgia absolutely speaks for me:

"To their shame, 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House voted to hand the president monarchical powers that the signers of the Constitution had withheld. The Fourth Amendment has served to safeguard citizens against warrantless searches and seizures; this president says instead: Just trust me.

These Democrats will no doubt be astonished, but Republicans will not stop calling them weak on terrorism. The rest of us just think they’re weak, period."

Mr. Roberts, that's what I call telling it like it is.

The American people are broadly culpable for empowering the Bush Administration's six year reign of indecency. Thankfully, in Ms. Schlesinger and Mr. Roberts there are at least two citizens who get it. A generation ago President Nixon referred to the "silent majority." I desperately hope that Ms. Schlesinger and Mr. Roberts represent the emergence of a newly empowered progressive majority that will keep silent no longer. Silence has empowered the agents of indecency for too long.