August 21st, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Nepal and Pakistan provide good lessons in foreign policy to both Barack Obama and John McCain. The democratically-elected new Prime Minister of Nepal, Prachanda (photo above) who led a 10-year guerrilla war, now professes that his country’s era of “capitalist democracy” has begun. He was sworn in by Nepal’s first president, Ram Baran Yadav.
Lesson No. 1: The president or prime minister of any country must not be sponsored/pushed by the USA to remain friendly. Good diplomacy is making friends out of enemies.
Lesson No. 2: If the USA looks for, and sponsors, loyal and subservient leaders in the world, the public in that country would rise against their own subservient/sponsored leaders and the USA.
Lesson No. 3: It is a dangerous foreign policy to bribe foreign leaders/dictators and tempt them to follow the US policy. Only myopic policy needs to find supporters abroad with the help of bribery. Corruption would ultimately corrode the democratic functioning in the USA itself. Unaccounted billions of dollars went to the Musharraf regime from the US administration. In the end the USA has become a staunch enemy of both militants and the Pakistan public.
Lesson No. 4: To turn an enemy into a friend needs patience and sincere efforts. In other words SINCERITY and PERSEVERANCE. The BUSH and MUSHARRAF strategy of BLUFF and BLUSTER ultimately boomerangs. It also empowers/strengthens terrorism.
Lesson No. 5: NEVER take foreign policy decisions/actions unilaterally. There is the United Nations. Only dictators act unilaterally. The USA has lost much credibility with its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even in Afghanistan there should be UN troops, if at all. The US will never be able to justify (or get results) by only taking NATO forces. The Musharraf tangle was solved when the US involved Britain, Saudi Arabia and other countries for parleys.
Lesson No. 6: If my neighbour has begun to treat his family violently, I can only call the police. I can’t force my way into my neighbour’s house and then tell him that I am going to stay there for years to prevent violence (as in Iraq).
Let’s come back to Nepal. After months of bickering among the political parties, a huge majority of the assembly has elected a former rebel as prime minister. The Economist notes many firsts. “(Prime Minister Prachanda) wore Western clothes (another first) but made a gesture to national custom by donning a traditional Nepali cap.
“It has been an astonishing transformation. For over a year the Maoists have been part of Nepal’s transitional government, heading ministries and becoming ambassadors. Many poor Nepalis will wonder whether, after ten years of war costing 13,000 lives, the Maoists will now sink into the comforts of power and prestige and forget them.
“The Maoists will have to prove them wrong. Their election manifesto called this the era of capitalist democracy in Nepal and stressed that the private sector is intrinsic to their plans. More immediately Prachanda must reassert the authority of the state, which has been badly eroded over the past two years as crime has spiralled and ethnic groups clamoured for their rights.”
As you might imagine, trying to cover what the rest of the world thinks and says about the United States is a pretty ambitious undertaking. At times, when there is a major story like the war in Georgia or the U.S. presidential election, many other issues get shunted aside for a time.
One such issue is the ‘war on drugs’ now taking place in Mexico, in good measure funded by the United States.
Unbeknownst to most people in our country, many Mexicans feel that the drug ‘war’ we are waging along with the Mexican government is not only illegal, it is part of a Bush administration plan to permanently undermine the Mexican state and turn it into a U.S. vassal.
“Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, under the guise of an effective but undeclared state of emergency, the administration of George W. Bush has proceeded with the systemic demolition of the Constitutional order of the United States. … The White House chief has instituted illegal espionage operations at home and has become embroiled in pre-emptive war abroad, has resorted to ‘legalized’ torture and the abduction-disappearance of suspected terrorists, and has kept thousands of ‘enemy non-combatants’ under indefinite arrest, detaining them in an archipelago of clandestine and ‘floating’ prisons under the control of the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency … In a permanent state of emergency, the exception becomes the rule. In the case of the United States, the war became the ontological foundation of the State. All these years Bush has governed through fear, encouraging nationalism and exploiting the racial and ethno-religious prejudice of his fellow countrymen.”
“Here, as in Colombia, the pattern of U.S. intervention took the form of a war on narco-terrorism, by de facto including Mexico as part of the ’security perimeter’ of the United States, via the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, from which is derived the Merida Initiative, which is similar to Plan Colombia. … Bush’s model for Mexico is that of the “Colombianization” of the country. As part of a system that protects corruption and the impunity of entrenched criminal networks within the institutions of State, banks and large corporations, the prescription is more narco-politics, heavy-handedness, torture, detentions and disappearances, dirty war, mercenaries, the criminalization of social protest, and the militarization of society. The goal of the United States is to plunge the country into chaos and destabilization, in order to penetrate [Mexico’s] States security institutions, further weaken national sovereignty and accelerate dependency.”
The NYTimes’ Adam Cohen outlines the issue in an editorial opinion piece Thursday:
The 2002 Georgia Senate and Governor Races — Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was defeated for re-election and Gov. Roy Barnes, a Democrat, was unseated. Polls had suggested that both men would win.
The votes were cast on Diebold A.T.M.-style machines. A whistle-blower who helped prepare the machines reported that secret “patches” — software intended to fix glitches — were installed late in the process without being certified by the state, as the law required.
The unexpected outcomes were likely because of heavy turnout by rural whites, prompted by a Confederate flag dispute, not faulty voting machines. Still, skeptics wonder if the patches contained malicious software that changed votes. Because the Diebold machines did not produce paper records, there is no way to put those doubts to rest.
RawStory’s Larisa Alexandrovna fills in some details:
Initially, the whistleblower said, there were no concerns or questions regarding the $54 million contract, for which Diebold beat out eight other firms, to install a statewide electronic voting system. It was only after certain “red flag” events occurred that people inside the Secretary of State’s office, as well as Diebold employees, began to have suspicions, he added.
What initially raised questions, according to the source, was the behavior of then-Diebold CEO, Bob Urosevich, who personally flew in from Texas and applied the patch in just two counties, DeKalb and Fulton, both Democratic strongholds.
Another flag went up, this person added, when it became apparent that the patch installed by Urosevich had failed to fix a problem with the computer clock — which employees from Diebold and the Georgia Secretary of State’s office had been told the patch was designed specifically to address. […]
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who was five percentage points ahead of Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss in polls taken only a week before the voting, lost 53 percent to 46 percent. Roy Barnes, the incumbent Democratic Governor, who had been leading challenger Sonny Perdue by a fairly wide margin of eleven points, lost 51 percent to 46 percent.
Cohen’s conclusion on the lessons learned:
Electronic voting makes large-scale vote theft easy. A patch slipped onto voting machines or centralized vote tabulators can change an election’s outcome. Every piece of software must be scrutinized by neutral experts. If there is not enough time, election officials need a backup plan, such as conducting voting entirely on paper ballots.
Alexandrovna’s piece suggests something more:
According to Georgia Election Law Title 21-2-322.16: “No voting machine shall be adopted or used unless it shall, at the time, satisfy the following requirements. … It shall, when properly operated, register or record correctly and accurately every vote cast.”
The last-minute patch installation and the lack of official recertification may have rendered the 2002 GA results invalid.
U.S. officials say the Justice Department has indicted Alaska Senator Ted Stevens on charges related to a long-running investigation of business dealings in Alaska.
Stevens, who has served in the U.S. Senate for 40 years, is up for re-election this year, and Democrats view his seat as one of their top pick-up opportunities.
[snip]
Seven other Alaska politicians had previously been indicted in the FBI’s long-running investigation of political corruption, including state Sen. John Cowdery, chairman of the influential Legislative Council Committee. Cowdery resigned last week.
Stevens acknowledged in June 2007 that he was under investigation.
A month later, FBI agents raided his house in Girdwood, a suburb of Anchorage, after a wealthy Alaska businessman told prosecutors that he paid his employees to renovate the house.
Stevens has denied any wrongdoing. He announced last week that he would not attend next month’s Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.
Joe Windish has provided some background, some blogger reactions, and some other useful links.
I spent a couple of hours this afternoon browsing the report (h/t to Sadly No! where I found the link to the report (actually entitled ‘Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General’) (pdf.file) I’ve set out relevant quotes below. I felt angry while I was reading it—which probably shows in my commentary; I don’t know—but now that I’m done I just feel sad. I certainly don’t feel disposed to rejoice, but I do want to see these people held accountable.
As someone who is concerned about government accountability, I admire exceedingly Alan Grayson, now running for our 8th District here in Florida (see here and here).
Because of his track record suing defense contractors, Grayson is completely uninterested and unintimidated by ridiculous arguments about secrecy and national security. He thinks that war crimes have been committed, that people need to be put in prison, and that we absolutely cannot let bygones be bygones with the 2000-2008 era. He’s also running a good campaign with one of the best commercials I’ve ever seen., and doing it without any help from the DC establishment.
In a recent post, “Bush’s Aspirational Words on Timetables, and Torture,” I briefly touched on the Bush administration’s sorry record when it comes to the issue of torture. It would be my hope that, one day, those guilty of trampling our Constitution, our laws, and international Conventions and treaties on any issue, but especially on the issue of human rights, would be made to face Justice.
Sadly not everyone has the same expectations.
In a recent Newsweek article (“The Truth About Torture“), Stuart Taylor Jr. tells us that, “To get a full accounting of how U.S. interrogation methods were used, the president should give those accused of ‘war crimes’ a pass.”
More specifically, and for the sake of getting “a full and true accounting of what took place” Taylor proposes:
President George W. Bush ought to pardon any official from cabinet secretary on down who might plausibly face prosecution for interrogation methods approved by administration lawyers.
With respect to Bush pardoning Vice President Dick Cheney or himself, Taylor finds this “unseemly,“ but takes solace in the hope that “the next president wouldn’t allow them to be prosecuted anyway—galling as that may be to critics.”
Taylor gives various reasons for all of us to forgive and forget any and all criminal acts that may have been committed by administration officials:
“Legal”: “The officials involved appear to have approved only interrogation methods found legal by administration lawyers, and in particular by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). According to long tradition, the OLC is considered a sort of Supreme Court of the executive branch.” And, “officials could raise a nearly airtight defense of good-faith reliance on advice of counsel—OLC memos on approved methods would be like “get out of jail free” cards.”
Compassionate: “The goals [of Taylor‘s substitute for criminal investigations, a “Truth Commission”] should not include wrecking the lives of men and women who made grievous mistakes while doing dirty work.”
There are even shades of the Nuremberg Defense: “dirty work…they had been advised by administration lawyers was legal.”
And, of course, the national security issue: “dirty work…which they believed was necessary to prevent terrorist mass murder.”
But the main thrust of Taylor’s argument for convening a “truth commission,” and for all of us to just get along would be to:
“Explore every possible misdeed and derive lessons from it…to uncover all important facts, identify innocent victims to be compensated, foster a serious conversation about what U.S. interrogation rules should be, recommend legal reforms, pave the way for appropriate apologies and restore America’s good name.”
Excuse me, but who are we going to “compensate” if there were no “war crimes” and thus no victims?
“Foster a serious conversation about what U.S. interrogation rules should be?” I thought we already had such rules—before the Office of Legal Council, and others, rewrote them or ignored them.
And, didn’t we go through similar “pardoning“ experiences along with “serious conversations” after the Watergate and Iran-Contra “scandals,” effectively “destining” us to repeat history—as we clearly are.
“Restore America’s good name?” By pardoning the criminals, by “paving the way for appropriate apologies,” and by singing Kum Ba Yah?
Perhaps Taylor’s most “compelling” argument for giving those accused of war crimes a pass, are his concluding comments that sweeping this national tragedy under the rug will make it possible for our new president, especially if it is Barack Obama, to get “beyond partisan bickering.”
Investigating and prosecuting criminal conduct, “partisan bickering?”
And, has anyone bothered to ask Barack Obama (or John McCain, for that matter) whether he considers pursuing justice to be “partisan bickering?”
Hey, you! Make a six-figure or so donation to the Bush Library and you can get access to key administration figures! Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice could meet with you but George Bush barely sees anybody….
That’s what the Sunday Times says Stephen Payne, a Bush pioneer and a political appointee to the Homeland Security Advisory Council more or less told an undercover reporter who he apparently thought was one of those well-heeled people who aren’t among the “whiners” who McCain (increasingly distant if close at all) adviser Phil Gramm feels has mental problems because they think the United States is in a recession.
And, oh.
His exact pitch has been caught on tape in a newspaper undercover report.
FOOTNOTE: It has long been suspected that Presidents use some kind of leverage to get donors to give to their libraries. What is notable here again is how this administration came into office in 2000 insisting it would be different from the Clinton administration and operate under a different standard.
And it has: on several fronts it has been more blatant.
Once again, the American taxpayer appears to be footing the bill for rampant corruption and mismanagement within the Iraqi government.
This article from Iraq’s Kitabat newspaper relates charges that Iraq’s finance minister, with the connivance of Iran, had billions in counterfeit Iraqi currency trucked into Iraq and exchanged for American dollars.
“In a grave conspiracy against the Iraqi economy, Minister of Finance Bayan Jabr Solagh exploited his position and influence over the Iraqi Central Bank by exchanging billions of dinars in counterfeit Iraqi currency with American dollars. … The details, which were leaked from within the corridors of the Ministry of Finance, are that the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council [Iraq’s most powerful political party ] had for a time transported by truck, large sums of counterfeit Iraqi currency printed in Iran into Iraq, to the Iraqi Ministry of Trade, and that this counterfeit currency was then replaced with American dollars.”
No matter how you slice it, this has to go down as one of the most outlandish blunders of any White House press office.
According to this write-through from France’s Le Figaro, A press kit distributed to journalists traveling with President Bush to the G-8 Summit in Japan, contained a biography of one of the President’s closest allies, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, that reads in part:
“One of the most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for governmental corruption and vice” and “A political dilettante who gained high office only through use of his considerable influence on the national media.”
Sometimes you don’t know whether to cry or scream. There are many forms of corruption and waste in the government’s fulfillment of its functions, and most just make me furious. But the story of Katrina’s aftermath is one long chronicle of incompetence piled upon a degree of bureaucratic cluelessness that just boggles the mind. The waste here is of money and goods designed to alleviate the misery of our own people.
First, let’s review recent events. These illustrate one kind of problem: a tragic failure of communication between federal agencies and state agencies, and between state agencies and relief organizations that actually do the work of getting supplies to victims.
Remember when conservatives warned that dope-smoking hippies were going to destroy America? How ironic since it is our conservative leaders who are doing most of the damage.
While those oh-so-liberal Democrats will no doubt have their own chance to screw things up and as it is have been feckless helpmates of the Republicans, the fallout from the 1994 Contract on America through George Bush’s Reign of Error is simply mind-boggling:
* Tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else, including programs like Head Start that actually work.
* Runaway big-government deficit spending.
* Economic policies that reward Wall Street and punish Main Street.
* A bomb-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy.
* Despite 9/11, a flimsy homeland security apparatus and a military that is focused not on defense but projecting American might.
* Two failed wars.
* The embrace of torture in defiance of international covenants.
* Making a hash out of terrorist prosecutions.
* Failure to confront the crises in health care and education.
* An energy policy predicated on foreign oil and global warming denial.
* Executive power grabs that have skewed the system of checks and balances.
* Bad behavior by people like Tom DeLay and Paul Wolfowitz who go on to second and third careers as public personae whom we are told should be taken seriously.
* Using their bully pulpit not to lead and inspire but to feign piety, sew fear and wage culture wars.
Oh, and by the way, arrests for dope smoking today exceed those for all violent crimes combined.
My mind started thinking of the infamous Senator Larry Craig, then of Conservatives, then of hypocrisy, and then of “family values and moral values”–perhaps not in that exact order.
Then, my mind somehow wandered back to the 2,000 and 2004 elections, and how, during those elections, Conservatives blanketed the electronic and printed media with messages of how our country had lost its moral compass; how Americans had lost their family and moral values; how Republicans and Conservatives–if elected–were going to re-instill those values in government, in society and anywhere else they could; how our new president would “restore honor and dignity to the White House.”
As a matter of fact, just prior to the 2004 elections a whole new class of voters was created, the “values voters,” and political analysts claim that moral values and family values trounced every other value or issue in the 2004 elections–even the economy, the Iraq war, and terrorism–and were responsible for the Republican victories that year.
Our great, fair and balanced Fox News proudly proclaimed on November 4, 2004,
“Though the airwaves preceding the election were rife with talk of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the management of the war in Iraq, job creation and even the so-called legions of angry, young voters — it turns out good old ‘family values‘ may have been the key to President Bush’s successful Election Day strategy.”
The Democrats were “doomed” until they can woo the voters who belong to this new political force, the values voters.
But wait, it is now 2008 and the presidential campaign is in full swing. It is awfully quiet out there when it comes to “good old” family values and moral values. Where are the Republicans to once again tout their moral and family values superiority and to claim such values as Conservatives-only territory?
The last time I remember a Republican presidential candidate addressing that issue was Mitt Romney back in December of 2007.
… there are signs that family values have lost their punch as a campaign issue. Most voters say family values in general are important to them, but a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds they don’t care much about candidates’ personal lives. Political analysts say voters and candidates have broader, more immediate concerns: the ongoing U.S. action in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, the threat of terrorism and an economy that’s putting stress on low- and middle-income people.
And,
The “traditional” family — a married couple with kids — made up fewer than 22% of U.S. households last year, according to the Census, down from 40% in 1970. Roughly one-fifth of Americans have been divorced. Nearly two in five U.S. births last year were out of wedlock, more than twice as high as in 1980. More than half the country says same-sex partners should be able to marry or form civil unions.
It could also be that when comparing the major Republican presidential candidates against the major Democratic presidential candidates during this year’s elections in terms of “family values,” the Republicans do not fare as well as the Democrats. According to USA Today:
Among the Republicans, Giuliani is in his third marriage while McCain and Thompson are each in his second… Romney and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee are married to their high school sweethearts. On the Democratic side…Dennis Kucinich, 61, is in his third marriage…Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina senator John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson are married to their original spouses. So is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite her husband’s affair while he was president…Overall, “the Democratic candidates actually have more stable family lives than the Republicans,” says Tony Fabrizio, a GOP pollster
On Giuliani, in particular, USA Today said:
The most surprising candidate this year has been Giuliani. He remains a top GOP contender despite his longstanding support for abortion rights and his widely publicized extramarital affair with Judith Nathan — to whom he is now married — during his previous marriage. He’s even been endorsed by Pat Robertson, a leading Christian conservative who says the key issue is who can best fight terrorism.
And finally,
Americans also have seen major cultural changes become woven into society. Divorce, blended families and women in the workforce are common, and polls show most people support gay civil rights. “First we had the feminist and the sexual revolutions, and then we went through a long period where so much of politics was a backlash against those movements,” says Frances Fox Piven, a sociologist and political scientist at the City University of New York Graduate Center. “That’s kind of been worked out now. People have adjusted.”
Yes, these are all plausible explanations as to why Democrats are not being lectured as much on “values” by Republicans. But on a lazy, summer Saturday afternoon in Texas, the mind does funny things, like recalling names such as:
David Vitter, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Bob Packwood, Bob Ney, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Ted Haggard, Rick Renzi, Bob Allen, and, yes, the one that got my mind wandering to begin with, the inimitable Larry Craig.
And the mind comes up with additional and interesting explanations.
A note to my gay friends and readers: This lazy afternoon’s epistle should in no way be viewed as critical of anyone’s sexual orientation. On the contrary, I find it distasteful when people cover-up their God-given sexual orientation for political purposes, and I find it morally unforgivable when people misuse their positions of power to legislate against, prosecute or punish the perfectly legal and human actions and behavior of those of their own sexual orientation.
In “McCain: Four More Years of Mumbling?” Michael Reagan says, “…a quick look at the amazing progress in present day Iraq accomplished by the president reveals a greatness that offends liberals.”
While I agree with Michael Reagan that we definitely do not want “Four more years of mumbling,” and although I am not a “liberal,” I am offended, but–please–not by President Bush’s “greatness.” In fact let’s take a look at this president’s “greatness,” by examining what greatness is not.
“Greatness” is not taking our nation into a disastrous war based on lies, cooked intelligence, exaggerations and deception.
“Greatness” is not mismanaging such war at the expense of over 4,000 of our finest and bravest
“Greatness” is not Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture, waterboarding, black prisons and extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, the end of habeas corpus, kangaroo courts, warrantless NSA wiretapping on Americans…
“Greatness” is not Walter Reed, the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch lies, neglecting our veterans, outing a CIA operative.
“Greatness” is not Katrina, the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the Terry Schivo “case.”
“Greatness” is not, “Osama Bin Laden, where are you?”, “Heckuva job, Brownie,” “We don’t torture,”
“Greatness” is not Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Paul Bremer, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Doug Feith, John Bolton, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Halliburton, Blackwater…
“Greatness” is not a vast increase in our budget deficit; an increase of over 60 percent in our national debt; attempts to privatize social security; pillaging Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s health care; declaring war on stem cell research, efforts to mitigate global warming, evolution science, abstinence programs; swift boating your political opponents.
“Greatness” is not the failure to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations; the failure to bring a modicum of peace and stability to the Middle East.
“Greatness” is not using signing statements (more than 150 of them) to obey and implement only those parts of the law one likes.
“Greatness” is not corruption, nepotism,cronyism, Dick Cheney’s secretive Energy Task Force, lost White House emails, ignoring subpoenas, stonewalling, subverting justice.
“Greatness” is not Recession, an economy in tatters, mounting fiscal deficits, tax relief only for the wealthy…
“Greatness” is not promising to “restore honor and integrity to the White House,” and doing just the opposite.
“Greatness” is not diminishing the image of and respect for our country abroad
“Greatness” is not, to begin with, getting selected by the Supreme Court with a little bit of help from Katherine Harris and “dimpled chads.”
Sorry, Michael, but this kind of greatness offends not only “liberals,” but every American.
June 12th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
We often hear that the world is now a “global village” and “globalization” is inevitable. But there are warning signs we cannot overlook. Two experts point out that “for the first time in more than 200 years we are moving into a world not wholly dominated by the West.
“If we want to influence this environment rather than be held to ransom by it, and if we want to take hold of some of the worrying features of globalisation, then real, practical multilateralism is a strategic necessity, not a liberal nicety…
“Today’s security agenda is often presented as a long list of threats: international terrorism, transnational crime, the threat of a new pandemic, energy insecurity and the dangers of climate change. These are all pressing issues but it is too easy to present them as disparate and unconnected…”
The two experts are Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, a former General-Secretary of Nato, and Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, formerly the High Representative of the International Community in Bosnia & Herzegovina. They are co-chairmen of the IPPR Commission on National Security in the 21st century.
What’s a great way to combat juvenile crime? Why, give the kids golf lessons.
Instead of having kids get t-ed off and break the law on the street or in gangs, teach them how to be really t-ed off so they can play the sport at their own country clubs. (Don’t ALL kids belong to country clubs?).
A senior Justice Department official says a $500,000 federal grant to the World Golf Foundation is an appropriate use of money designed to deal with juvenile crime in America.
“We need something really attractive to engage the gangs and the street kids, golf is the hook,” said J. Robert Flores, the administrator of the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
The Justice Department, in a decision by Flores, gave the money to the World Golf Foundation’s First Tee program, even though Justice Department staffers had rated the program 47th on a list of 104 applicants. The allegations were first reported earlier this year by the trade journal Youth Today.
“I don’t know why people insist on denigrating it, it’s a sound program,” Flores told ABC News.
Perhaps its because in a time of scarce money when the government is run by an administration that has caused all kinds of cutbacks in services due to the economy, the Justice Department gave the half a million dollars to save the country’s youth via golf by passing over a host of other programs.
And this allegation fits in with pattern we’ve seen in so many other aspects of this administration: ignoring governments staffers who urge a course of action based on non-political needs and instead opting to help its friends or act upon its political and other biases. The Bush administration’s theme song should be “With A Little Help From My Friends…”
Current and former Justice Department employees allege that Flores ignored the staff rankings in favor of programs that had political, social or religious connections to the Bush White House.
The honorary chairman of the First Tee program is former President George Bush. On a videotape presentation, the former President Bush praised the program for “serving others and building character and building values.”
The director of the golf program, Joe Louis BarrowJr., said the program would help teach inner city children because “golf is a game where values such as honesty, integrity and sportsmanship are essential.”
See? It’s the perfect answer to the nation’s juvenile crime problem…
The golf program grant is one of a number of Justice Department grants now coming under scrutiny by a Congressional committee which will hold hearings next week.
A key witness will be a former employee of Flores’ office, Scott Peterson, who says the grants were awarded based more on politics than merit.
“This is cronyism, this is waste, fraud and abuse,” Peterson told ABC News in an interview aired on Nightline Monday night.
Cronyism from the Bush administration? Critics are just being picky and it’s a coincidence that the former President Bush is on the panel.
Critics will eat their words when they see juvenile halls throughout the country lay off staff and Crips and Bloods argue over the latest PGA news rather than colors at their country clubs.
Many Americans are unaware that most of the world considers Washington’s decades-old blockade and general treatment of Cuba to be - if not a war crime - certainly a case of human rights abuse.
For those interested in sampling the general mood, this article written by a former member of the Mexican Congress is a good place to start.
“As he has done repeatedly, U.S. President George W. Bush - so discredited in his own country and in some ways bordering on mental retardation - persists in harassing the Cuban people under the ridiculous pretext of advocating liberty in that nation, which has for almost half a century endured terrorist attacks financed and supported from the highest spheres of the U.S. government.”
“Years before they popularized the concept of weapons of mass destruction so hypocritically applied against the enemies of the empire (Saddam Hussein is the best illustration of this), U.S. leaders used such weapons against the island. From U.S. military laboratories along the Panama Canal, originated biological cultures destined to contaminate pig farms, destroy Cuban foodstuffs and reduce resistance from the people with hunger. What is was, then, was an attempt to punish Cubans for supporting the Revolution. In a broader context, what better example of the use of weapons of mass destruction is there than the U.S.-imperial economic blockade of Cuba?”
“although the conditions imposed by economically powerful U.S. interest groups will try to bind the hands of the next president of that country, the truth is that with the approach of almost-Democratic-candidate Barack Obama, the situation can turn and give way to a stable relationship between the two countries. Rebuilding U.S. relations with Latin America is necessary for us and for the U.S. itself, and this will be impossible without rebuilding relations with Cuba. Already John McCain, in an attempt to discredit Barack Obama, has accused him of lacking expertise in international affairs. This remains to be seen; but the truth is that the Republicans - and especially Bush - are expert only in leading their people into wars they cannot win.” Read the rest of this entry »
As a warning to readers, this column has nothing to do with the Treasury. One of the most persistent, puzzling questions in Congress these days (at least for yours truly) is how Congressman William “Dollar Bill” Jefferson (D - Louisiana) hangs on to his day job in the legislature. While we all fully understand that everyone - even congressional critters - are innocent until proven guilty, this is a member of Congress who is not only under investigation for a raft of fraud, bribery and corruption charges, but was found to have nearly $100,000 in his freezer at home, wrapped up in tin foil parcels. One might think there comes a point where the circumstantial evidence is enough to simply end the charade. And now, via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, it seems that more trouble may be brewing for the controversial congressman.
Businessman Robert Guidry made about $100 million from one of those [fraudulently obtained casino licenses], and then testified against [Governor Edwin] Edwards. But Guidry’s plea bargain raised eyebrows across the state. Not only did Guidry receive only five months in a halfway house, but prosecutors also allowed him to keep more than $96 million of the $100 million he made from the illegally obtained license.
As a local columnist opined: “The abiding mystery of the Edwards trial is how come Guidry got such a sweet deal.”
Perdigao says he can solve the mystery: Guidry bribed the feds. And, Perdigao says, he did so through William Jefferson.
Read the rest of at the link, but Morrissey touches on some very valid questions. The Democrats swept into power in 2006, at least in part, on a promise to clean up the “culture of corruption” among Republicans in Congress. Granted, Jefferson has been stripped of some of his former committee leadership roles, but he remains in his seat. Should there not, at least, be some sort of deeper ethics committee investigation going on here? Particularly in such a hotly contested election year when Democrats are licking their lips in anticipation of even bigger gains in their majority status, this would seem to be exactly the wrong message to send to voters.
Money and power… power and money - the two are completely interchangeable. And without proper oversight, corruption is all too often their partner in the parade. This is in no way an implication that such problems are unique to Louisiana or the Democratic party, but an opportunity to set an example of real, meaningful reform is going to waste here. Congressional approval ratings are currently only a few points higher than the popularity of herpes, and leaving a problem like this to fester in the People’s House won’t do anything to inspire additional confidence.
