| Page 230

Victor Harris Says That George Bush In His Farewell Speech Unwittingly Admitted Many Failures

Posted on January 18, 2009 by Mike Bock

I had a good phone conversation with Victor Harris a couple of weeks ago. Last year at this time I was busy helping Vic in his campaign to become the nominee for the Democratic Party for Ohio’s 40th Ohio House District. Vic organized a great campaign and received 44% of the votes in that race, but, his opponent, Roland Winburn, won the primary and subsequently also won the general election.

Victor Harris with Governor Strickland. I snapped this picture last year, 2008, on MLK Day, after the governor's speech.

Victor is a very impressive individual, a retired army colonel who, unfortunately, came up against the very unfair actions of The Montgomery County Democratic Party. Last year, I wrote about the campaign in these articles: Victor Harris: Surprised That Local Democratic Party Wanted To Suppress Primary Competition and, How Gerrymandering Defeated An Outstanding Candidate.

Vic is now living in Washington DC and is working as a speech writer for the Secretary of the Army. I’m sure he is doing an outstanding job. He has a new baby boy, his second, and he says that he and his wife are enjoying Washington and looking forward to the inaugural.

I got a chance to know Vic and his family during his campaign — Senite, Vic’s wife, fixed a lot of good meals for us — I was very positively impressed with Vic, his character, outlook, and abilities. I hope that, eventually, Vic will once again become involved in the The Montgomery County Democratic Party. Vic says he has kept his official residency in Dayton, still owns his house here. Vic has a lot to offer. The local Democratic Party would receive a big boost if Vic would decide sometime to return to Dayton and become active in the local Party.

Victor sent me this e-mail:

In the last address to our nation George W. Bush stood before former and current administration staffers in the West Wing of the White House facing them, and the nation through the camera lens to provide one last defense of his Presidency. In the same manner that I turn my head and look as I drive by a car wreck, with about 500 other people if the TV ratings are correct, I decided to watch Mr. Bush’s closing argument for the eight very difficult years he put our country and world through. The following are my musings and observations of what I saw and heard:

Without his knowing it, many of Bush’s defenses were an admission of his failures. To say that he had “good intentions,” or that he was unafraid to “make tough decisions,” is to say “I meant to do well but did not, and like an Olympic gymnast I should get points to overcome my failures because I had a high degree of difficulty.” Most Presidential decisions are difficult, so Bush’s comments about his courage in making tough decisions sounds empty.

Mr. Bush, you were President of the United States. If there is a job description for the position I’m sure somewhere in the first paragraph its says “Must be unafraid to make tough decisions.” In any case, unafraid, or frightened to death, the only thing the American people care about is that the president’s decisions are good, even if he pissed his pants while making them.

Bush’s continuation of the overly simplistic “good vs. evil” argument defending his disastrous invasion of Iraq shows that he did not learn a thing in eight years. In all the numerous intelligence and foreign policy briefs our incurious president actually listened to (Aug. 6, 2001 not included), you would think he would have discovered a gray-area or two. Bush effectively said that the world is like a bad movie script with absolutes defining every challenge and that the way to “VICTORY” is to ride into town on a white horse with guns blazing, shooting all the bad guys without hitting any of the good folks, and, to leave town with those good folks lining the streets cheering praises, under a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner.

Mr. Bush trotted out his old illogical mainstay that freedom is a gift from God and that democracy is the global panacea that will solve our world’s problems. This ignores the very undemocratic way in which Mr. Bush gained office in 2000, and ignores his willingness to run roughshod over the Constitution to justify numerous illegal actions. Mr. Bush never understood how cultures trump political ideology and that the Bible is a document of faith not a document of governance. I would love to ask, “How’d those elections turn out in Gaza, George?” A little less reading of the Bible and more reading of our Constitution would have served him well.

Mr. Bush’s claim that “there can be little debate about the results” of his post 911 actions, because we have not had another attack since 911, is particularly disturbing. This is about like the producer of Ford Theatre saying, “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln what a great play we put on last night, huh.” Mr. Bush: 911 HAPPENED ON YOUR WATCH AND IT’S TIME YOU TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT!!!

Wouldn’t it be great if we all could ignore huge screw-ups as if they didn’t happen and could not take any responsibility for them? An inmate could say, “Aside from that triple homicide I committed 10 years ago, I ain’t broken the law since.”

There can be a whole lot of debate as to the actions Mr. Bush took to keep us safe post 911. I seem to recall his Administration fighting against the formation of the Department of Homeland Security he touted last night. I also recall Mr. Bush fighting against the formation of the 911 Commission, fighting to prevent Administration officials from testifying before the commission once it was formed, and then fighting to prevent implementing its recommendations. I also recall Bush invading a country that had nothing to do with 911, taking resources away from the country that had a lot to do with 911, and making over 4,000 Americans a whole lot less safe in the process.

It’s also worth noting, that saying we have not had another attack on U.S. soil in the past seven years is not all that great of an accomplishment, given that about 50 years and 11 Presidents have come and gone since we had the last attack on U.S. soil.

Mr. Bush said, “Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy.” This is like saying, after I “sucker-punched” you in the eye and blinded you, I quickly decided to give you an ice cube to make the swelling go away. Once again Bush fails to take responsibility for his role in a major screw-up.

It’s funny to see George and the neocons swear by deregulation and tax cuts as the absolute solution for our economy for decades and then act like the imposition of their economic doctrine had no relation to the record deficits, unemployment, housing foreclosures, sky-high energy prices, record debt owed to foreign countries, and the collapse of our financial system. I guess all these things just coincidentally happened under Bush’s watch with no relation to the fact that his economic policies guided us over the last eight years.

And what is it with the “decisiveness” argument? A bad decision is a bad decision, regardless.

I could go on but I will stop. This pathetic chapter in our nation’s history, thankfully, is about to close — as the current occupant slithers out of the White House — allowing us to begin again with new hope for a bright future.

Posted in Special Reports | Tagged bush farewell speech, victor harris | Comments Off

Israel’s Bold Shock And Awe Violence In Gaza Should Bring New Attention To Israel’s Nuclear Weapons

Posted on January 16, 2009 by Mike Bock

I am surprised, that in the wake of Israel’s application of extraordinary violence in Gaza, with accusations that Israel is advancing “state terrorism,” that the topic of Israel’s stockpile of WMDs, particularly nuclear weapons, has not become a topic of discussion.

Israel’s nuclear weapon program is much documented, but Israel steadfastly refuses to acknowledge its existence. Greenpeace says that one reason that Israel refuses to acknowledge the existence of its nuclear weapons is because, according to US law, it is illegal for the US to grant aid to any country who has unauthorized WMDs: “If Israel formally acknowledges their WMD they would risk losing more than US $2 billion a year in military and other aid from Washington.” (It appears that likely that this amount of US grants is now more like $3 billion or $4 billion every year.)

Robert Gates, in the Secretary of Defense confirmation process in 2006, confirmed that Israel has nuclear weapons, and speculated Israel’s nuclear weapons are is one motivation for Iran to seek nuclear weapons as well.

In 1986, The London Times broke the story of Israel's secret nuclear weapon program

In 1986, The London Times broke the story of Israel's nuclear weapons.

Last May, Jimmy Carter angered the Israeli government by publicly estimating that Israel has at least 150 nuclear weapons. Carter said, “The US has more than 12,000 nuclear weapons; the Soviet Union (sic) has about the same; Great Britain and France have several hundred, and Israel has 150 or more.”

I accidentally discovered this BBC documentary (below) that tells about Israel’s atomic bomb plant in Dimona. The documentary focuses on a young Israeli citizen, Mordechai Vanunu, who worked at the Dimona facility until 1985 and who provided the London Times with photographs he secretly took at Dimona that proved that the Israelis were making atomic bombs at the Dimona facility. On October 5, 1986, The London Times published an extensive article about Israel’s atomic bomb production using Vanunu’s information. This is a lengthy video, but well worth the time needed to watch it:

Shortly after the Sunday Times’s article appeared, Vanunu was kidnapped by the Israelis and taken to Israel for trial. Vanunu was convicted of espionage and treason and sentenced to 18 years in prison, and 11 years of those 18 years Vanunu spent in solitary confinement. Vanunu was released from prison in 2004, but he is still not allowed to leave the country and his actions are closely monitored by the Israeli secret police.

An article by the “Wisconsin Project On Nuclear Arms Control” says, “France launched Israel on the nuclear path in the late 1950s by building the Dimona reactor, which is still the source of Israel’s plutonium–its main nuclear weapon fuel. The reactor’s heavy water, essential to achieve a chain reaction, was supplied by Norway in 1959. In 1963, when the reactor started operation, the United States supplied four more tons of heavy water. … In 1986, Francis Perrin, high commissioner of the French atomic energy agency from 1951 to 1970, was quoted in the press as saying that France and Israel had worked closely together for two years in the late 1950s to design an atom bomb. Perrin said that the United States had agreed that the French scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project could apply their knowledge at home provided they kept it secret. But then, Perrin said, ‘We considered we could give the secrets to Israel provided they kept it a secret themselves.” He added: ‘We thought the Israeli bomb was aimed against the Americans, not to launch it against America but to say ‘if you don’t want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us, otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'”

Vanunu today

The Wisconsin Project says, “After the United States discovered the Dimona reactor in 1960, U.S. nuclear specialists inspected Dimona every year from 1965 through 1969, looking for signs of nuclear weapon production. It is not clear what they found, but in 1968 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported to President Lyndon Johnson its conclusion that Israel had already made an atomic bomb. In 1969, Israel limited inspection visits by U.S. scientists to such an extent that the Americans complained in writing. Without explanation, the Nixon administration ended the visits the following year.”

Posted in Special Reports | Tagged Israel nuclear weapons, vanunu | 1 Comment

Robert Reich Decries $350 Billion Waste Of TARP I, Outlines Recommendations For TARP II

Posted on January 16, 2009 by Mike Bock

Robert Reich says, in his blog, about TARP I, that it looks like American taxpayers wasted $350 billion. He says, “No one knows exactly where it went…. In all likelihood, on the basis of the skimpy evidence we now have, the money went to bank shareholders in the form of dividends; to bank executives, traders, and directors as compensation to some holders of bank debt; and to platoons of lawyers, accountants, and other financiers who have advised the banks about other places to park the rest of the money in the meantime.”

These are Reich’s recommendations of how the second $350 billion, TARP II, should be spent:

Do not use any of the money to buy stock in — that is, to “recapitalize” — the banks. This is a sinkhole of cosmic proportion. Citigroup, to take but one example, has so far received $45 billion of taxpayer cash since early October (along with some $250 billion in taxpayer-supported guarantees from the Fed for junky assets on Citi’s balance sheets), and is in far worse financial shape than it was three months ago. Perhaps, someday over the rainbow, these shares in Citi along with Citi’s lousy assets will be worth more than taxpayers paid for them. But we’re not in Wonderland yet and probably never will be. Giving Citi or any other big bank more taxpayer money is analogous to giving it to Bernard Madoff. It’s a giant Ponzi scheme. The money will disappear.
Do not use the money to buy the banks’ “troubled” assets. This might have made sense a year ago when the proportion of such assets — which include mortage-backed securities as well as loans to private-equity partnerships that pissed them away — was relatively small. But these days a huge and growing proportion of bank assets are “troubled.” (It’s also a huge waste of taxpayer dollars for the Fed to exchange them for Treasury bills.)
Prohibit any bank that gets TARP II funds from issuing dividends, purchasing other companies, or paying off creditors.
Bar any bank that gets TARP II funds from paying its executives, traders, or directors more than 10 percent of what they received in 2007.
Require that any bank getting TARP II funds be reimbursed by its executives, traders, and directors 50 percent of whatever amounts they were compensated in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. This compensation was, after all, based on false premises and fraudulent assertions, and on balance sheets that hid the true extent of these banks’ risks and liabilities.
Insist that at least 90 percent of the TARP II money be used for new bank loans. If the banks cannot find suitable borrowers, they should return the money.

Reich says, “You may judge these conditions harsh. I think them prudent. They may force a number of big banks to go into chapter 11 bankruptcy, which would not be the end of the world but perhaps the beginning.”

In addition, Reich says, “Congress should attach to TARP II — or to the upcoming stimulus bill — a small change in the bankruptcy law allowing homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages on their primary residences (as owners of second homes and commercial real estate can already do). The practical effect will be to give homeowners more bargaining leverage with their mortgage banks, and save at least 800,000 homes from foreclosure.”