Obama rightly debased the rationale of the previous administration for many of the actions they took over the last 8 years, but he did so in a way that was not (to me at least) designed to inflame partisan passions. Rather, he presented this information as a way to cause us to reflect on what America is supposed to be, how it was designed by our framers, and how it can be so easily derailed by weak minded officials faced with problems too big for them to handle and hard nosed ideologues whose only goal is to exert unopposable power without regard to moral and legal right and wrong. Obama also spread the blame for the savage departure from American values and ideals of the last 8 years to all politicians left and right-for the truth of the matter is that we, the American people, were let down on all sides by cowardly politicians and even more cowardly bullies. For 8 years, our elected officials threw out their responsibilities of due diligence and oversight in favor of political posturing. The actions, and inactions, of those who held elective office during the Bush administration and helped create the national nightmare or did nothing to prevent the fall into the abyss, has caused this country great harm both domestically and abroad. The blame is shouldered equally, and recent partisan bickering only further cements this as fact, for those who protest to their own defense most loudly are likely also those whose actions may seem most detestable.

“Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.” (Obama-5-21-09)

Obama has a tough road ahead. Calls from the left scream for investigations and “truth” commissions. Calls from the right demand an “end to persecution.” This balance is hard to manage while retaining the desire to right the wrongs of American governance. But again, Obama takes the right path, for he is the president, not the judge and jury of this nation. While recognizing the wrongs committed in our names, he also understands that to rectify those wrongs requires a return to rationality and legal principals that this country was founded on. It is not for the president to declare guilt or innocence or to demand trials for grevious wrongs done in the name of “freedom.” That is why we have a Justice Department and a court system and a Congress with investigatory powers. By promoting direct legal action, Obama would be unnecessarily politicizing what is in effect a legal matter, albeit one that goes to the heart of what it means to be America.

“That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.” (Obama 5-21-09)

At the end of the day, it’s not just what he says that marks this president as a class above his predecessor, but the way he says it, and the way he understands his role in American government. Obama embodies the difference between being president and being presidential- a difference as marked as that between being the class leader and the class bully. Perhaps the juxtaposition of these two quotes is the best illustration of all.

“I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.” George W. Bush

“In our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers – especially when it comes to sensitive information.” – Barack Obama

It’s nice to have a real leader back at the helm.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Foiling Terror Plots Doesn’t Take An Army (August 10, 2006)

Law Enforcement Continuing To Succeed Where War Fails (October 4, 2006)

New Alleged Terror Plot Thwarted-Again Without Destroying A Foreign Country (June 2, 2007)

U.S. Should Rethink “War On Terrorism” Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida (July 29, 2008)

These articles, covering a span of about two years, are all saying the same thing: fighting terrorism is better done through law enforcement than through war. Interesting enough, the first three articles were written by me and posted at Bring It On. The final article was published yesterday by the Rand Corporation, a think tank developed by the US Air Force after WWII and today a major supplier of policy advice to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands and other defense agencies. Seems like the Rand Corporation is a little behind the “obvious curve.”

In it’s newly released report, the Rand Corporation says:

“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.” -Seth Jones, the study’s lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.

Hmmmmm….sounds an awful lot like this:

“There are terrorists who want to harm the west, specifically killing as many civilians as they can. If they are determined enough, some will succeed. But through the application of solid investigative work and application of the rule of law, many of these folks have been stopped before reaching their murderous intentions.” – Ken Grandlund, 8-10-06

And this:

“Law enforcement, including cooperation with intelligence agencies and other countries, is more effective in breaking up terror cells than going to war.” – Ken Grandlund, 6-2-07

I’m not trying to brag here. I’m just pointing out that for over two years, I’ve been saying publically what the Rand Corporation (and presumably the folks who rely on its reports to craft policy) is only now figuring out. I’m no genius, but then again, it doesn’t take a genius to state the obvious. Apparently it just takes waiting for an idiot president who has squandered untold billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, soiled the reputation of the United States of America and garnered the disgust of people everywhere to enter his final months in office for someone (in a position to be really heard) to finally stand up and state the obvious.

(Sarcastic) Kudos to the Rand Corporation and every other asshat politician, corporate executive, and neo-con ass-licker for finally facing the facts- namely that massive military action is a stupid way to deal with terrorists.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Bush, ever the tough guy, took little time in labeling North Korea as a terrorist state, blacklisting them from international trade and aid and further isolating the reclusive regime-all in an effort to force the hand of Kim Jong-Il to give up his nukes. Yet instead of capitulating after admitting they had been ignoring the 1994 agreement, North Korea put their nuclear program on the fast track and out in the open, and finalized the process by detonating a nuclear device during the reign of George W. Bush. Arguably, while Clinton may have had the wool pulled over his eyes to North Korea’s true intent regarding its nuclear program, Bush watched whit eyes wide open as they advanced from a nuclear wannabe to a nuclear power. Indeed, it is perhaps the openly belligerent attitude of Bush that may have increased the North Korean nuclear timeline.

Yet now that North Korea has returned to the table to continue talks about their program, Bush has done a complete 180 degree turnabout, removed them from a US list of terrorist states, and approved aid to that country. And what has North Korea done to deserve this reward? Turns out that they haven’t done much at all. They’ve released details on some of their nuclear activities and programs and they blew up a building. And this after stalling for years. But the evidence that they intend to stop their nuclear program is no stronger now than it was after the 1994 agreement was signed, and yet Team Bush acts like its solved a major crisis in Asia.

The Clinton agreement was based on trust, and it turned out that trusting the regime in North Korea was not a wise choice. Without verification, that trust was misplaced and North Korea continued to work on their nuclear program while accepting the gifts that came with the agreement to stop those actions. The Bush doctrine in North Korea has been to end all US aid and brand the nation a rogue terror state. Remember that under Clinton, North Korea was still a fledgling nuclear hopeful working at a slow pace. Under Bush, their nuclear efforts were expanded and accelerated and they finally got a working nuclear bomb. Under Bush, North Korea got the power they wanted. And under Bush, they have used this power to get what they wanted-US aid, removal from the list of terrorist states. In return, they have provided relatively little and we have no evidence they have stopped anything.

Bush may claim that his “tough guy” approach actually got North Korea to come back to the table for talks. I dismiss this. Bush’s “tough guy” mentality just gave North Korea the push to finish their bomb project. Now that they have a nuclear weapon, they hold more cards than ever before, and Bush, trying to eke some success out of his mangled tenure somewhere, is ready to call it a day and claim Mission Accomplished.  But when it comes to North Korea, or any reclusive regime, what we know and what we think we know are always going to be very different things. And what they say and what they do will be too.

Clinton’s path of engagement didn’t stop the North Korean nuclear program, but it slowed it up while trying to open the country through humanitarian assistance. Bush’s path of belligerence brought to the world an uptick in North Korean nuclear program development and a nuclear armed North Korea, and now he is giving them humanitarian aid too. Pretending that his agreement is more valid, more enforceable, and more effective than the 1994 agreement is laughable at best.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Remember those old X-Ray Vision goggles advertised in the back of your favorite comic books? The thrill of surreptitiously seeing through peoples clothes drove youthful imaginations into a frenzy of giggles and gasps. Of course, if you actually ponied up a few bucks and sent off for a pair, you were probably disappointed with the results-not only could you NOT see through people’s clothes, you couldn’t see much at all through the little red peephole centered amid those creepy hypnotic lens covers.

Seems as if a few pissed off kids grew up to make their frustrated childhood peepshows a reality, and now, in the name of SECURITY, real x-ray vision is being deployed across the United States at major airports.

The new scanners use a technology called millimeter wave scanning and can see through clothing, leaving no part of your anatomy unviewed. (Another similar scanner uses a process called backscatter radiation and offers similarly revealing results.)

The image above was produced by backscatter radiation scanning. The millimeter scan is even more revealing. But remember, it’s for YOUR OWN SAFETY that these devices are in use. Just like it was in YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST not to be able to take a bottle of water on a plane, or toothpaste.

The TSA, who is in charge of deploying these machines, says that the images shown have blurred out faces (like they can’t see your face when you walk in to the scanner) and that images can’t be printed, sent, or saved on the machines. But those charged with screening will still be able to know for certainty who has had a mastectomy or a penile implant, and of course, who is carrying a gun. (Oh wait, I thought metal detectors sniffed out guns.)

The question is this: how much privacy should we be forced to sacrifice in the name of SECURITY? Should we really have to expose our genitals to some low-paid airport screener just to go visit grandma in another state?

The machines have been in use at a few locations abroad for a little while, and testing of the devices has been occuring at Phoenix International Airport since October, 2007.

Next time you fly, you might as well just fly naked. Just remember that it’s all in the name of SECURITY. And it is FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.

(Cross psoted at Bring It On!)

Not a big deal you say? Congratulations! You can now get a job as an LA County Terrorism expert. That agency’s spokesman said they didn’t think there was any real danger since the man had called in to report the incident. And, after all, mercury is not toxic unless ingested into the body.

But according to surveillance video obtained by CNN (which you can view by clicking the link in the referenced post), the actions of the unknown man hardly look accidental. In fact, they appear to show the man deliberately kneeling down to pour the mercury on the platform, then calmly getting up and walking away. And according to a joint FBI and DHS intelligence bulletin released in 2005, calling the authorities could be just the kind of thing a would-be terrorist may do in a dry run to gather information about how authorities will react.

CNN analyst Pat D’Amuro, a former top FBI counterterrorism agent, says it’s premature to rule out terror.
“I’m not saying that in this video these people are terrorists, but there’s some very strange activity that needs to be identified here.”

EIGHT FRICKING HOURS TO RESPOND??? What the hell kind of security response is that? And yet the government and security organizations keep telling us that they are doing all they can to keep us safe? If this was indeed some kind of ‘dry run,’ the response of the authorities couldn’t be worse for us, nor could they be more promising for a terrorist group. We’re spending billions of dollars on homeland security, yet we can’t even count on the ‘experts’ to do their job in a timely manner? Imagine if a real toxic substance had been released…would they just nail boards up over the subway entries and run away? Or would they sit blithely by for hours while the potential chemical or biological agents worked their way through the subway tunnels or up into the streets while the culprits simply faded away?

I tell you folks…it’s bad enough to have a president who enrages our enemies at every turn, who taunts them with bravado and sneers, who practically dares them to ‘bring it on.” It is completely unacceptable for our homeland responders to sit on their asses while a potential toxic disaster sits untended on a subway platform.

Keeping us safe, huh? Not bloody likely.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Despite the fact that he and his party suffered a sound defeat in the November elections, returning both houses of Congress to the opposing Democratic party; despite the fact that a clear majority of Americans have judged his policies (both domestically and) in Iraq to be abject failures; despite multiple assessments from military, intelligence, and diplomatic professional experts (who, by the way, have more experience collectively and individually than Bush will ever have) that say we need to be finding a way out of the Iraqi quagmire; despite the fact that Iraq is well past the smoldering stages of civil war; despite all these seemingly important hallmarks, the President has applied his hands to his ears and loudly proclaimed, “Lalalalalalala- I can’t hear you, I don’t care.”

Already surmised, Bush says he is increasing troop levels in Iraq, primarily in Baghdad (where the daily death count for Iraqi’s and Americans alike continues to increase) but also in Anbar province, the area he calls the al-Qaeda base in Iraq. At least 20,000 more American troops will be (re)deployed in pursuit of presidential folly. Adding more Americans troops will inflame the Iraqi population and keep providing excuses for the sectarian violence and death squad retributions that are increasingly out of control. American presence, widely viewed as an occupation force by Iraqi citizens, gives each side a reason to attack the other under the excuse of collaboration with America.

Also in the speech was the financial infusion Bush wants to send to Iraq in the form of untold and likely largely unaccounted for billions of dollars to rebuild what we have destroyed and to create Iraq jobs. The notion of a State Department oversight position to “ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq” is laughable considering this administrations (mis)handling of the billions spent so far. If Bush was serious about confronting or eliminating fraud and waste, he would have called for and created an independent (as in outside his administration and Congress) review panel. That he did not shows he still wants to keep real costs as close to the vest as possible as well as remaining able to control the flow of reconstruction information.

Those are the points we already expected to hear. But despite outward appearances, the President’s speech was less about restructuring the Iraq War and more about laying a long term, albeit subtle, escalation of warfare with the added benefit of further decimating the social compacts of America through the systematic squandering of American tax revenue on warfare and its associated costs. Also buried beneath the glossy exterior is the framework to further destabalize the Middle East, through the insistence that only through the adaption of American ideals can the world be safe.

Consider this from the President’s speech:

“We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century.”

Aside from the costs of continued warfare in the Middle East, Bush plans to call for an increase in the military overall. Already the US spends more on its military than most countries combined. That we can scarcely afford our domestic obligations in the process seems to matter not, and indeed, this is a core concept in the neo-con efforts to scale down (bankrupt) government. As military spending continues to increase, at some point it will be necessary to place the costs of this war on the books. Add to that an increased force size, the rebuilding of materiel and equipment depleted, and the Bush plan to create a new generation of American nuclear weapons, and it becomes clear to see that military spending will not only dwarf domestic spending, but completely overshadow it to the point of irrelevance. Such a shift in government spending will have serious effects on the public institutions of health, education, justice, and poverty assistance. And as the military wing of the US government expands at the same time that social programs contract or disappear, the breakdown of the American social system will become more apparent, creating domestic problems and strife not seen in generations. If this happens fast enough (i.e. before Bush leaves office) look for an increase in a domestic police state under the guise of keeping order. But remember, it is all part of the plan.

I mentioned a framework being built that maps out the further destabilization of the Middle East:

“We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.”

and

“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

These words, when combined with his calls for an increase in the military in general, seem clearly to point out where the tanks and planes are headed next. Make no mistake- Bush has every desire to extend the Iraqi War into these countries. He has been simply waiting for an opportunity. His rhetoric about Iranian nuclear intentions and capability have been consistently rebuffed by experts who say that Iraq is at least 7 years or more away froma viable nuclear weapon. In other words, plenty of time to try and work something out. But Bush, in classic ‘screw you’ form, has planted the seeds of war in those spoken words. By tying them in as material support for the foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq, Bush has laid down the gauntlet. If he goes forth as intended, expect to see border incursions and firefights at both the Syrian-Iraq and Iran-Iraq borders, with an eventual crossing of one or both by US troops. Such an escalation would only make matters far worse as nations divide and join sides.

And I mentioned the concept that Bush holds dear- that only American might, followed by exported American ideals, can bring true democracy to the world:

“We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.”

No matter that much of the Middle East wants nothing to do with American culture and democracy, seeing how poorly it has been applied in Iraq and Afghanistan and watching how the vaunted American Rule of Law has been flaunted by our own elected eladers. Bush ignores all cultural reality and blindly surges ahead with the notion that the American way is the only way to go. What he really means though is that capitalism, controlled by the richest of the corporate giants and reaping trillions in profits off the backs of average human beings, is the only way to go. Unfortunately, a look at the capitalistic laissez-faire policies of the Bush administration has only served to expose the wicked underbelly of our way of life, showing the world that classic American values (values that were once respected and envied) like hard work, dedication, honesty, honor, trust, and fairness are no longer relevant in Bush’s America. What matters n
ow is money- get it, keep it, keep others from having it. The world, and inparticular the Islamic world, has seen that American export, and no amount of worldy advances are making them want to adopt our ever-corrupted way of life. No longer does the world see “a shining city on a hill” when they look to North America. Instead, they see a run down tenement with a seedy landlord at the door banging for the rent while the pipes drip endlessly on the floor.

For their part, the newly elected Democratic Congress is trying to put up road blocks to stop, or at least stall, some of the Bush proposals. Good for them. Frankly, this is why I voted for a federal Democratic ticket. I had no real illusions of them producing great reforms or legislation. I simply wanted them to slow down the Bush juggernaut. To what extent they intend to do so remains to be seen, but the Kennedy Bill in the Senate prohibiting increased funding for additional troops in Iraq is a start. For me, this Congress has a mandate, but it isn’t one of great social change. This congress must be a roadblock and holding effort until Bsh finally leaves town. If that is all they accomplish, I will consider them successful. If they manage to advance a progressive social domestic agenda as well, then it’s frosting on the cake.

Stripped of the rhetoric and flowery jargon, this has to be one of Bush’s scariest speeches to date. Not only does this speech continue to inflate the war in Iraq, it lays the groundwork for a militarized and financially strapped America and plants the seeds for wider military conflict, violence and death. It holds out scant promise for future generations of Americans if this path is followed, yet promises safety in the distant future. It catapults America towards a century of warfare and strife at a time when human endeavors should be better spent on finding new sources of energy, combatting preventable disease, and protecting our planet from our own excesses.

No doubt that the right side of the aisle will be bogged down in the patriotic nuances, the continued attempts to tie the Bush doctrine to the 9-11 attacks, and the overt and covert appeals to America’s narcisstic nature as greatest nation on Earth. No doubt that they will zero in on the mentions of Islamic terrorism connected to American security. But they will see little else in his words, hearing nothing but the words they are comfortable with. They will not dig past the shiny coating to see what lays beneath and the implications that lay ahead. And they will denounce those who write things like this essay as cowards or worse, as traitors. It is easier to denounce a critic than to reflect on ones own failures.

The President has set forth his goals and vision of the future of America, the Middle East, and perhaps the world. It is time now for the newly elected Congress to do the job they were put there to do. Slow down or stop the Bush juggernaut before its actions can cause any more havoc in the world. Bush’s ideas may look nice on paper, but in reality they may be pretty damn scary indeed.

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

The fun thing is that these pictures are so ambiguous they could mean anything! Here are a few interpretations.

If you have set yourself on fire, do not run.

If you spot terrorism, blow your anti-terrorism whistle. If you are Vin Diesel, yell really loud.

If you spot a terrorist arrow, pin it against the wall with your shoulder.

If you are sprayed with an unknown substance, stand and think about a cool design for a new tattoo.

Use your flashlight to lift the walls right off of you!

The proper way to eliminate smallpox is to wash with soap, water and at least one(1) armless hand.

Michael Jackson is a terrorist. If you spot this smooth criminal with dead, dead eyes, run the hell away.

Hurricanes, animal corpses and your potential new tattoo have a lot in common. Think about it.

Be on the lookout for terrorists with pinkeye and leprosy. Also, they tend to rub their hands together manically.

If a door is closed, karate chop it open.

Try to absorb as much of the radiation as possible with your groin region. After 5 minutes and 12 seconds, however, you may become sterile

After exposure to radiation it is important to consider that you may have mutated to gigantic dimensions: watch your head.

If you’ve become a radiation mutant with a deformed hand, remember to close the window. No one wants to see that shit.

If you hear the Backstreet Boys, Michael Bolton or Yanni on the radio, cower in the corner or run like hell.

If your lungs and stomach start talking, stand with your arms akimbo until they stop.

If you are trapped under falling debris, conserve oxygen by not farting.

If you lose a contact lens during a chemical attack, do not stop to look for it.

Do not drive a station wagon if a power pole is protruding from the hood.

A one-inch thick piece of plywood should be sufficient protection against radiation.

Always remember to carry food with you during a terrorist attack. At least you’ll be able to enjoy a nice coke and apple before you die.

Thanks, Homeland Security. I’ll be sure to share this information with all my friends!

(special hat tip to a friend of mine for passing this along.)

(originally posted on Bring It On!)

While it becomes increasingly clear that Bush’s war of choice in Iraq only produces more terrorists and does nothing to address the real problems associated with international terrorism, in Italy, we are once again shown that diligent, competant law enforcement can and does dismantle terror cells without any kind of ‘collateral damage.’

Hard to believe, eh? After all, aren’t those just the kind of tactics laid out by John Kerry during the 2004 election? Didn’t he note that fighting terrorists was as much, if not more, a law enforcement measure than one for the military? Do we need the military to stop terrorists? Sure, they were doing a great job in Afghanistan before Team Bush pulled a “Cut and Run” strategy that now has that country falling back into the hands of the Taliban. But do we need to blow up entire countries to isolate, track, and arrest the terrorists in the world?

Of course we don’t. But it will take better leadership than we have now to actually figure that out. Sadly, we’re still working with the government we have, not the government we want.

Spying On Americans-Good. Reading Convicted Terrorist Mail- Bad?

Ask yourself a simple question.

Which is more likely to uncover future terror plots and reveal terror operatives?

(A) Intercepting, recording, monitoring, storing, or listening to communications in America between Americans

or

(B) Monitoring and reading mail sent and received by convicted terrorists sitting in U.S. Federal Prisons

If you answered A, congratulations. You are the president of the United States or an elected legislator. But if you answered B then you have a brain.

Unfortunately, while the first option is being carried out with great vigor, and being touted as one of the best, most important tools to keep America safe, the second option, the one that could actually provide clues to terror operations, is barely being done at all.

According to a review of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, undertaken by the DOJ, letters are being written by convicted terrorists to other terrorists, including a letter sent to one of the Madrid bombing terrorists. That letter was being used to recruit more terrorists to the cause of jihad.

“The threat remains that terrorist and other high-risk inmates can use mail and verbal communications to conduct terrorist or criminal activities while incarcerated,” concluded the report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

So what exactly is being done to close this gaping hole in terror monitoring? Apparently not much. After all, we’ve got a bogus war and the surveillance of American citizens to conduct, and there’s only so much money to go around.

U.S. Won’t Attack North Korea? Why The Hell Not?

Remember the Axis of Evil? That nefarious threesome that our president targeted as the biggest threats to civilization as we know it? Remember the tough talking rhetoric that told us that no nation would be allowed to harbor terrorists or pursue WMD’s so long as George W. Bush was on the job?

Guess what? It turns out that George W. Bush is full of shit. In a recent speech, Bush told reporters that although North Korea (one of the fearsome triumverate of evil) was a “threat to international peace” and that “serious repercussions” would ensue following North Korea’s purported nuclear test, he asserted that no military response is planned to thwart this looming menace.

No military response? Why the hell not? After all, when it came to dealing with a non-nuclear member of the axis of evil (Iraq), Bush went in guns a-blazing, creating a whole world of hurt in that part of the world. In fact, military action against Iraq was always plan one for Bush, regardless of whether they had WMD’s, including a nuclear capability. But he used the false notion of an “imminent mushroom cloud” as an excuse to invade a country ruled by a horrific tyrant, not to go after al-Qaeda, not to bring democracy to the Middle East, but rather to settle family sleights and gain control of the Iraqi oil fields for his corporate minders. (Go ahead and argue these points, my conservative friends. I’m not here to offer proof beyond what we’ve rehashed time and again. The proof, if you ask me, is in the pudding so nastily laid out before us.) In fact, I’ll even submit that the Bush Administration was fairly certain, based on the evidence that existed but they excluded, that Iraq was nowhere near ‘going nuclear’ and that was a prime factor in targeting them when they did. It is easy to tear down a paper tiger you have built yourself.

But Bush is just engaging in classic Bully Behavior, so there’s nothing remotely surprising about his stance on North Korea. The bully always targets the weakest foes (or faux-foes as the case sometimes is) to dominate while slewing threats at those who might be able to offer a real challenge. We see the same thign happening right now regarding Iran.

Iran is also on the nuclear path, but experts warn they are at least 5-8 years away from any meaningful weapons program. Yet the Bush administration has overstated the Iranian nuclear capabilities and hyped up the threat as imminent. Again, what we have in Iran is an oil rich country and a competing religious ideology. Clearly, in the Bush declared War on Terror, where all bad guys are Islamic Terrorists, the countries you invade are the ones who can do your country the least physical harm. Iran not only doesn’t have nukes, they don’t have a system to get nukes to the US mainland. But they pray towards Mecca, so let’s target those bastards. By all accounts, US war plans are already far past the planning stages regarding Iran.

Yet curiously, North Korea, the only non-Muslim member of Club Evil, not only has nuclear capability, they have a missle system that could (potentially reach the US west coast. Yet where Iraq and Iran are to be dealt with militarily (after all diplomacy has failed) North Korea is not on the path to war with America. Again, why the hell not?

No oil in North Korea?

I’m not advocating for an invasion of North Korea, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I have to wonder why Mr. Bring ‘Em On isn’t being consistent. If ever there was a case against one of the three harbingers of world evil, North Korea is it. If ever there was a fulfillment of the reasons for pre-emptive war against a rogue nation that had no democracy, tortured it’s people, and sought WMD’s, North Korea is the proverbial “slam dunk.” If ever there was a case of “with us or against us” this is it, isn’t it?

Before the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, there was no real race for countries to get nuclear weapons for themselves. In that sense, the world was a safer place. Thanks to George W. Bush, rogue nations are scrambling to join the nuclear club as fast as they can. And clearly, if you want to remain unscarred by American military destruction, going nuclear may be the best way to go. In that sense, the world is immeasurably less safe. Thanks Bush.

Time to change the direction.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Bush again used the events of September 11, 2001 to further politicize America’s security and to drive a wedge between the American people. In the past, this effort has been successful, as so many American’s prefered to believe in the fantasies of their commander in chief. Today, fewer and fewer people are buying the administration’s version of reality. With mounting evidence to refute much of what the president believes, it’s no wonder that Americans of all stripes and political persuasions are turning away from Bush and his neo-con agenda. Much like a Hollywood film purportedly ‘based’ on real events, the difference between the real world and the world according to Bush is stark. Consider a few of the following points…

Bush Reality: “On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them. So we helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.”

Actual Reality: Afghanistan is falling back into the hands of the Taliban, and our ally in the GWOT, Pakistan, has made peace with some elements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This is hardly a picture of a Taliban on the run. And what was that again about distinguishing between terrorists and states that harbor them? Of course, when you ‘cut and run’ from an unfinished military effort, as Bush did in Afghanistan so he could start a war in Iraq, this is not an altogether unexpected result. If only Afghanistan had a bunch of oil, maybe we’d have finished the job. Then again…

Bush Reality: “Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice. “

Actual Reality: The U.S. government has closed up the task force whose main goal was to track and capture or kill bin Laden. In fact, they haven’t been actively looking for bin Laden for years. After downplaying bin Laden for years, Bush has only recently begun to reincarnate this boogeyman as we near the mid-term elections, an election that most politicians and pundits believe will result in reversals of the Republican majority in one or both houses of government.

Bush Reality: “I’m often asked why we’re in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat…The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.”

Actual Reality: Hussein was an evil, brutal dictator, but he posed no threat to the United States, unless one considers his desire to create his own oil bourse using Euros instead of dollars as the primary exchange currency. The recent Senate Intelligence Committee report states as much by noting that Iraq had no WMD’s and no ties to al-Qaeda. Kuwait may be safer today. Maybe even Iran or Israel are safer today. But ordinary Iraqi’s seem to be no safer, and certainly the U.S., Spain, Britain, Indonesia, and scores of other countries are not safer because Hussein was militarily deposed. This assertion by Bush is just another in a long string of false information clearly not supported by the facts on the ground.

Bush Reality: “We’ve tightened security at our airports and seaports and borders…”

Actual Reality: Little to no action has been taken to secure American sea ports, strengthen security at our borders, or improve actual security at airports, unless you count banning water bottles and frisking grandmothers. It is almost as if by simply saying the word ‘security’ Bush expects us to believe that it is being done. But several million illegal border crossings do not suggest a secure border. Less than 10% of port cargo being inspected either before shipping or before being off-loaded into ports does not suggest increased port security.

I could go on and on and on deflating the president’s bubble of false assertions, but you clearly get the point. The president and his policies have offered little to America and the world in terms of security or success against global terrorism. In fact, his policy of preemptive war has only helped fuel the fires that create more terrorists. Time and again, the most successful efforts against terrorists and their plots have been won through persistent policing and investigative work. They have not been borne at the end of a gun, with the drop of a bomb, or by waterboarding some captured jihadist.

George W. Bush may not be a 21st century Nazi, but his propaganda tactics sure would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Indeed, by sticking to the Nazi propaganda minister’s primary dictum, that one must only repeat a lie often enough for it to eventually be taken for the truth, Bush has riden a wave of irrational exuberance for the last four years. It took total annihilation for the German people to rid themselves of their insidious propaganda government. Fortunately for America, we only have to wait a few more months. Come November, America will be changing the direction. We’ve had more than enough of the course we’re on now.