A Cracker's Rant

Ahh, the sweet exultation of power - I publish my critique of the administration’s refuse to allow Condi Rice to testify before the 9/11 Commission and the administration reverses course. Now Condi can testify!

The nation should thank me. Really, it should

Really.

Ok, maybe not. I guess I should accept the fact that I am a helpless against the tides of coincidence.

God that’s depressing

Unusual situations require unusual responses. That seems clear, obvious, and uncontroversial – unless you are the Bush Whitehouse. Richard Clarke, the counter terrorism expert whose tell all book about the Bush administration’s terrorism record has caused a stir, was on Larry King Live last Wednesday (3/24/04). Dick Clarke compared the Clinton administration’s response to the 1999 millennium terror threat to the Bush administration’s response to 9-11 terror threat. He noted that Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor, held daily meetings with the FBI, CIA, and the Justice Department during the run up to the millennium. These daily meetings facilitated cross-organizational cooperation and unearthed many useful leads in the effort to prevent a spectacular terrorist attack during the millennial celebration. He contrasted this with Condi Rice’s, Bush’s National Security Advisor, daily activities during the Summer of 2001 when there was even more evidence of an imminent terrorist attack then back in 1999. According to Dick Clarke, Condi Rice did not change her daily routine. She apparently did not believe that an unusually high level of intelligence requires an unusual response.

Here’s the troubling part; you have to take my word for it. Why did doing nothing different despite an unusually high amount of intelligence suggesting an attack seem reasonable? After all poor communication between the FBI, CIA, and Justice Dept. is sited as one reason 9/11 happened. Why did Condi Rice think Sandy Berger’s approach was wrong? Why was sitting on our hands the right move?

These are good questions that the 9/11 Commission will not be able to ask. Condi Rice refuses to appear before the 9/11 Commission. The Bush Administration agrees that she should not testify. Why? As Condi Rice said, there is an important principal at stake, acting National Security Advisors have never testified before any body, much less the 9/11 Commission, while still holding office. This is an important principal that should not be broken. Why? Because she said so, that’s why.

It’s sad. 3000+ families do not deserve answers to seemingly reasonable questions because Condi Rice said so, so much for transparent government.

I’ve been negligent, I know. Life, et al have kept me nipple deep in putrescence, leaving my blog lonely. I am here to rectify that with a rant about campaign season rhetoric. … I HATE HOW BASHING FOREIGNERS EQUALS POLITICAL POINTS! The ebb and flow of the business cycle has nothing to do with outsourcing “American Jobs”. Just as Ross Peroit was wrong about NAFTA (there was no “giant sucking sound of jobs moving south to Mexico”) so is John Kerry barking up the wrong tree in promising to revise free trade agreements.

For the love of all that is good and holy, would all the anti-globalizers please, please, please find a way to see the difference between “free-trade” and resource allocation! Liberalized trade leads to social upheaval, no doubt. But social upheaval does not mean that liberalized trade is bad. The crux of the issue lies in a counter intuitive notion; free trade leads to a greater economic pie. Bigger, not smaller – Marx was wrong it is not a race to the bottom.

I could go on and on about why I’m right…but I don’t want to bore you. Comment me if you disagree. I’d be happy to explain why I’m right…hehe

There’s some nasty, nasty mojo coming down the pike in Afghanistan. With little fan fare the US dominated Afghani coalition forces launch their spring offensive, Operation Mountain Storm, this week. Part and parcel with the Afghani operations was intense diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to crack down on the autonomous tribal areas boarding Afghanistan. It is no coincidence that Secretary of State Colin Powel is in Kabul on the same day as the deadly shoot out at the Wana coral. Very few mainstream American news outlets offered prominent coverage of the clash between Pakistani paramilitary forces and Pakistani tribal fighters in the village of Wana in South Wasiristan (part of the autonomous Pakistani tribal areas). Ostensibly yesterday’s fighting in Wana was an attempt by Pakistani forces to capture al-Queda and Taliban people. Such operations are to serve as the ‘anvil’ to the coalition’s ‘hammer’ in Afghanistan.

Don’t be seduced by the soothing words from the US or Pakistan. This is a very dangerous situation. Those Pakistani tribals are generally part of the greater Pashtun tribe that inhabits an area contiguous within Afghanistan and Pakistan. These Pashtun tend to be of a most conservative (and militant) Islamic strain. Many of them see no distinction been their tribes men and see a great distinction between them and Islamabad (e.g., the rest of Pakistan). Such divisions may lead to Pakistani civil war. This a nightmare scenario. How secure are those Pak nuclear sites? How much support do the Taliban and al-Queda really have in Pakistan? Could a Pak civil war lead to Osama getting his hands on the Islamic bomb? If so big, bad al-Queda could wind up with the ultimate piece of black mail – how much damage do you think the Islamic bomb might do to New York, Washington, Brussels, Moscow? It may be Islamic, but its still a nuclear bomb. Ouch.

Ok, so I’m in the gym this weekend. Whilst huffing and puffing on the elliptical machine I’m struck by an observation. Most middle age women who go to this gym seem proud to flaunt their bodies in skintight work out gear. What’s with the willingness to strut flabby bodies? Does lost youth lead to lost modesty?

Are Americans more secure since the invasion of Iraq? If you listen to the current administration we are. But why should the good citizens of the Republic believe the administration when the 2nd senior most official of the executive branch has been caught in a lie? Witness the most recent reason to be skeptical towards the administration.

A 10/27/03 memo to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee written by the Undersecretary of Defense, Douglas Feith was leaked to the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine. The memo served the basis for Stephen F. Hayes’ article “Case Closed” published in the 11/24/03 issue of the Weekly Standard. Mr. Hayes argues that the Feith memo ‘PROVES’ the link between Saddam and al-Queda. During an interview with the Rocky Mountain News on 1/9/04, Vice President Cheney refers to Mr. Hayes’ article in the Weekly Standard as "your best source of information” on Saddam’s link to al-Queda.

George Tenet, Director of the CIA testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on 3/9/04 that the 10/27/03 Feith memo was not correct. Mr. Tenet testified that the CIA had no evidence to suggest an operational link between Saddam and al-Queda. Mr. Tenet said that he privately conveyed this to Vice President Cheney.

THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS NOT ISSUED A CORRECTION!!! He is still on record as saying the Weekly Standard article summarizing the INCORRECT Feith memo is “your best source of information”.

Again I ask, on what basis should the administration be believed?!?

LINKS TO SOURCE ARTICLES:
The Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Rocky Mountain News:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/politics/article/0,1299,DRMN_35_2565269,00.html

Hello dear reader,

Welcome to my attempt to record my musing. The 2004 Presidential race inspired me to begin blogging. I am curious to explore my own thought on life, universe, and everything. That journey will begin and may stay largely centered around politics. I make no promises, however, I can be entirely too capricious for such focus.