The act of a fool
From Monday's New York Times here are two must reads - if you haven't done so already.
Bob Herbert writes about the danger to the very cornerstone of our democracy posed by Mr. Bush's warrantless spying program. He notes:
So I call upon conservative and moderate visitors to this column to ask yourselves a few simple questions. If there is even a slim chance that the hypotheticals described by Mr. Herbert could result from the President's illegal surveillance activities, how can you in good conscience support their continuation? Aren't you the party that opposes the intrusion of Big Government into our everyday lives, and believes in stringent checks on federal power and "judicial activism"? When the FBI itself complains that the sheer amount of random information "mined" by this process is actually wasting precious manpower, thereby rendering officials less able to "connect the dots", how can you obediently swallow White House contentions that this program is increasing our safety?
That's not patriotic loyalty. That's willful idiocy.
And if Mr. Krugman's descriptions of the primitive societal conditions in Iraq are even partially true, how can you continue to believe that this Administration has been honest with its repetitive claims of achieving "progress" for the Iraqi people? Is "two to six hours of electricity a day" the definition of success you'd hoped for, a "victory" worth the lives of more than 2,200 American lives and $300 billion? Is this what you truly believe constitutes "democracy and freedom", and is "winning hearts and minds" to keep us better insulated from hatred and attack?
The removal of this Administration is not now, and has never been, a partisan gimmick. It is a course of action that is absolutely necessary for the protection of our way of life from the consequences of Mr. Bush's global and domestic incompetence. The proof, the patterns, the blatant examples of that incompetence are in plain sight for everyone, Democrat and Republican, to see.
And to deny those obvious and dangerous signs even a moment longer is not the badge of a loyal citizen. It is the act of a fool.
- - - - -
(NOTE: For those of you who are not yet subscribers to the NYT's "Times Select", Messrs. Herbert and Krugman's articles are reprinted in the comments section below. Click "add your opinion" to access the full editorials.
Click here for details on purchasing "Times Select", and obtaining a 14-day free trial.)
Bob Herbert writes about the danger to the very cornerstone of our democracy posed by Mr. Bush's warrantless spying program. He notes:
Freedom of speech in the United States covers matters trivial and profound. The corrosive damage that is being done to the First Amendment, that cornerstone of free speech, has been largely overlooked in the controversy over President Bush's decision to permit the government to eavesdrop without warrants...And Paul Krugman launches a scathing attack on the dismal ineptitude of our reconstruction effort in Iraq, and why the President's decision to leave that vital job unfinished (like so many others in his wake), demonstrates that his Administration had no concrete plan to begin with. Mr. Krugman states:
When the government's spies are allowed to snoop willy-nilly on phone calls and e-mail in the United States, without the important legal constraint of having to seek a warrant, it means that the all-important First Amendment has developed a chill, symptomatic of a life-threatening illness.
In the State of the Union address, President Bush will surely assert, to choreographed applause, that he has a strategy for victory in Iraq. I don't believe him. In fact, I believe that three years into the conflict his administration refuses to admit defeat but has given up even trying to win.And later:
[I]f reconstruction stalls, as seems inevitable, it's hard to see how anything else in Iraq can go right.I find that what increasingly frustrates, angers, and disheartens me is not so much the mistakes or the scandals or even the lies themselves, but the stubborn refusal of Mr. Bush's loyalists to admit that these demonstrable shortcomings exist at all. In the face of undeniable, verifiable evidence of Administration ineptitude and corruption that grows more voluminous every day, the idea that any American in his or her right mind could want three more years of the same is a concept beyond my powers of comprehension.
So what does it mean that the Bush administration is apparently walking away from responsibility for Iraq's reconstruction? It means that the administration doesn't have a plan; it's entirely focused on short-term political gain.
So I call upon conservative and moderate visitors to this column to ask yourselves a few simple questions. If there is even a slim chance that the hypotheticals described by Mr. Herbert could result from the President's illegal surveillance activities, how can you in good conscience support their continuation? Aren't you the party that opposes the intrusion of Big Government into our everyday lives, and believes in stringent checks on federal power and "judicial activism"? When the FBI itself complains that the sheer amount of random information "mined" by this process is actually wasting precious manpower, thereby rendering officials less able to "connect the dots", how can you obediently swallow White House contentions that this program is increasing our safety?
That's not patriotic loyalty. That's willful idiocy.
And if Mr. Krugman's descriptions of the primitive societal conditions in Iraq are even partially true, how can you continue to believe that this Administration has been honest with its repetitive claims of achieving "progress" for the Iraqi people? Is "two to six hours of electricity a day" the definition of success you'd hoped for, a "victory" worth the lives of more than 2,200 American lives and $300 billion? Is this what you truly believe constitutes "democracy and freedom", and is "winning hearts and minds" to keep us better insulated from hatred and attack?
The removal of this Administration is not now, and has never been, a partisan gimmick. It is a course of action that is absolutely necessary for the protection of our way of life from the consequences of Mr. Bush's global and domestic incompetence. The proof, the patterns, the blatant examples of that incompetence are in plain sight for everyone, Democrat and Republican, to see.
And to deny those obvious and dangerous signs even a moment longer is not the badge of a loyal citizen. It is the act of a fool.
- - - - -
(NOTE: For those of you who are not yet subscribers to the NYT's "Times Select", Messrs. Herbert and Krugman's articles are reprinted in the comments section below. Click "add your opinion" to access the full editorials.
Click here for details on purchasing "Times Select", and obtaining a 14-day free trial.)
posted by Bob P @ 10:30 AM
2 Comments:
WHAT'S LEFT UNSAID
By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 23, 2006
Have you ever talked sexy to your wife or your girlfriend - or your husband or your boyfriend - on the telephone? Would you keep talking if you thought that one of Dick Cheney's operatives was listening in?
Talk about a chilling effect.
What if you were thinking of running for Congress and you tried to bolster your understanding of terrorism by speaking with knowledgeable but controversial figures in the Middle East? How would you feel if you knew - or even suspected - that government agents were monitoring your conversations? Would you be less likely to engage in those conversations? Would you begin to censor yourself? Would your contacts still be willing to speak freely if they thought the feds were listening in?
Freedom of speech in the United States covers matters trivial and profound. The corrosive damage that is being done to the First Amendment, that cornerstone of free speech, has been largely overlooked in the controversy over President Bush's decision to permit the government to eavesdrop without warrants on phone calls and e-mail messages inside the United States.
Most of the attention generated by this domestic spying program has understandably been focused on its affront to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, and its brazen violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established clear-cut rules for electronic surveillance in the U.S.
But there's an additional danger. When the government's spies are allowed to snoop willy-nilly on phone calls and e-mail in the United States, without the important legal constraint of having to seek a warrant, it means that the all-important First Amendment has developed a chill, symptomatic of a life-threatening illness.
The ostensible aim of the president's domestic surveillance program, conducted by the supersecret National Security Agency, is to home in on communications into and out of the United States that involve individuals or organizations suspected of some sort of terror connection. But, as The Times reported last week, F.B.I. officials have repeatedly complained that the N.S.A. has bombarded them with thousands upon thousands of unsubstantiated tips - names, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and so forth - that have either led nowhere, or to completely innocent individuals.
Whatever its stated goals, the N.S.A. seems to be operating the greatest fishing expedition in the history of the world.
The American Civil Liberties Union, in a lawsuit seeking a halt to the spying, warned that scholars, lawyers, journalists and others who communicate with people outside the U.S. are already experiencing a chilling effect. People who are doing nothing wrong, but who feel they may become targets of the program, for whatever reasons, are curtailing their conversations and censoring their correspondence, according to the suit.
Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, noted that people who are aware of the surveillance program and who believe that their political views may be seen as hostile by the government, may also become less candid in their telephone conversations and e-mail. Others could unwittingly become the victim of contacts by individuals that the government may be interested in.
He gave an example:
"I recently got a series of e-mails from someone, quite without invitation, that got rather scary in the sense that they started saying positive things about Osama bin Laden. I asked the person in reply to stop e-mailing me, and I got an e-mail today saying, 'Your request is permanently granted.' But in the meantime, granted or not granted, that could easily put me on some kind of targeting list."
Speaking about the potential long-term effect of widespread domestic spying, Professor Tribe said:
"The more people grow accustomed to a listening environment in which the ear of Big Brother is assumed to be behind every wall, behind every e-mail, and invisibly present in every electronic communication, telephonic or otherwise - that is the kind of society, as people grow accustomed to it, in which you can end up being boiled to death without ever noticing that the water is getting hotter, degree by degree.
"The background assumptions of privacy will be gradually eroded to the point where we'll wake up one day, or our children will, and it will seem quaint that people at one time, long ago, thought that they could speak in candor."
©2006 The New York Times
- - - - -
- - - - -
IRAQ'S POWER VACUUM
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 23, 2006
In the State of the Union address, President Bush will surely assert, to choreographed applause, that he has a strategy for victory in Iraq. I don't believe him. In fact, I believe that three years into the conflict his administration refuses to admit defeat but has given up even trying to win.
To explain myself, let me tell you some stories about electricity.
Power shortages are a crucial issue for ordinary Iraqis, and for the credibility of their government. As Muhsin Shlash, Iraq's electricity minister, said last week, "When you lose electricity the country is destroyed, nothing works, all industry is down and terrorist activity is increased."
Mr. Shlash has reason to be strident. In today's Iraq, blackouts are the rule rather than the exception. According to Agence France-Presse, Baghdad and "much of the central regions" - in other words, the areas where the insurgency is most active and dangerous - currently get only between two and six hours of power a day.
Lack of electricity isn't just an inconvenience. It prevents businesses from operating, destroys jobs and generates a sense of demoralization and rage that feeds the insurgency.
So why is power scarcer than ever, almost three years after Saddam's fall? Sabotage by insurgents is one factor. But as an analysis of Iraq's electricity shortage in The Los Angeles Times last month showed, the blackouts are also the result of some incredible missteps by U.S. officials.
Most notably, during the period when Iraq was run by U.S. officials, they decided to base their electricity plan on natural gas: in order to boost electrical output, American companies were hired to install gas-fired generators in power plants across Iraq. But, as The Los Angeles Times explains, "pipelines needed to transport the gas" - that is, to supply gas to the new generators - "weren't built because Iraq's Oil Ministry, with U.S. encouragement, concentrated instead on boosting oil production." Whoops.
Meanwhile, in the early days of the occupation U.S. officials chose not to raise the prices of electricity and fuel, which had been kept artificially cheap under Saddam, for fear of creating unrest. But as a first step toward their dream of turning Iraq into a free-market utopia, they removed tariffs and other restrictions on the purchase of imported consumer goods.
The result was that wealthy and middle-class Iraqis rushed to buy imported refrigerators, heaters and other power-hungry products, and the demand for electricity surged - with no capacity available to meet that surge in demand. This caused even more blackouts.
In short, U.S. officials thoroughly botched their handling of Iraq's electricity sector. They did much the same in the oil sector. But the Bush administration is determined to achieve victory in Iraq, so it must have a plan to rectify its errors, right?
Um, no. Although there has been no formal declaration, all indications are that the Bush administration, which once made grand promises about a program to rebuild Iraq comparable to the Marshall Plan, doesn't plan to ask for any more money for Iraqi reconstruction.
Another Los Angeles Times report on Iraq reconstruction contains some jaw-dropping quotes from U.S. officials, who now seem to be lecturing the Iraqis on self-reliance. "The world is a competitive place," declared the economics counselor at the U.S. embassy. "No pain, no gain," said another official. "We were never intending to rebuild Iraq," said a third. We came, we saw, we conquered, we messed up your infrastructure, we're outta here.
Mr. Shlash certainly sounds as if he's given up expecting more American help. "The American donation is almost finished," he said, "and it was not that effective." Yet he also emphasized the obvious: partly because of the similar failure of reconstruction in the oil sector, Iraq's government doesn't have the funds to do much power plant construction. In fact, it will be hard pressed to maintain the capacity it has, and protect that capacity from insurgent attacks.
And if reconstruction stalls, as seems inevitable, it's hard to see how anything else in Iraq can go right.
So what does it mean that the Bush administration is apparently walking away from responsibility for Iraq's reconstruction? It means that the administration doesn't have a plan; it's entirely focused on short-term political gain. Mr. Bush is just getting by from sound bite to sound bite, while Iraq and America sink ever deeper into the quagmire.
©2006 The New York Times
- - - - -
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Hue and Cry has no affiliation with the originator of this article nor is The Hue and Cry endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Thanks for posting these columns. These are two good writers who aren't afraid to tell it like it is. I wonder why the NYT continues to employ them? ;-)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home