Goodbye Señor Bush, Hello Ambiguous Future

As an eleven year old, I wasn't much into politics. I had a faint grasp that Clinton got into trouble over something with a lady (not his wife), that we had bombed someplace far away (which my family watched on the news... in night vision), and that Bush beat Gore after some confusion in Florida. Yes, George W. Bush claimed the presidency before I became politically aware; and for millions of young Americans like myself, this is truly significant.

Tomorrow we say goodbye to the man who played a crucial role in shaping the views of so many in this country. After 9/11, I remember the leadership the President showed... I remember how much support he had. Bush was confident and on message-- he assumed the role of valiant leader during a time when so many were confused and afraid... including myself.

W. told me to stand with the country. He assured me that this great nation would prevail and defeat evil. I believed and defended him for many years. But George Bush did not teach me how to be a patriot-- he did not teach me the inspirational power of our ideals. Instead, he showed me that in times of terror, we must fear and act with that fear in our hearts. No, Bush will never be known as the man who reassured us, once again, that "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror..."

George Bush, along with nearly every member of the Congress, taught me that the United States could do whatever it wanted. That our government is free to spy on Americans. To torture. I was duped, and became cynical. Bush's words brought American arrogance to center stage, and his blunt style made this country a laughing-stock. He is an embarrassment to liberty and to the Republic... forever a stain on the American tale.

But in this final night of his presidency, perhaps it is time to put a hold on the character assassination; perhaps a moment of self-reflection is in order. Let's start with a question: Who is truly responsible for the last 8 years? The blame-game is fun, but not so much in a democracy-- for in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

It was ultimately American apathy, disillusionment, and ignorance that brought us Bush. Our inability to understand clear threats to the democratic fabric, and unwillingness to demand the best possible representatives has put us in a truly unfortunate position--one where the very essence of our ideals are slipping away.

But perhaps we are beginning to wake up... Obama did win an astonishing victory. He seems too good to be true, and maybe there is more truth to this statement than people would like to admit. Americans have, at the very least, denounced the ways of the Bush Administration, which is a start. But the complicit Democrats have escaped the wrath of voters, and will one day have to be reckoned with.

It is clear that Americans are ready for a new day, and tomorrow the next chapter of our story begins. The new President must help lead us out of the darkness that we have brought upon ourselves, but as he has said time and time again: this movement is about what we can do ourselves. President Bush is no more responsible for the economic crisis than a weatherman is for the weather, and a President Obama will not be able to fix the world. We must demand receptive and honest lawmakers. We must fight for reform and for our vital causes. We must rethink what place corporate America has in government, and what place America has in this world. And, indeed, we must develop the tools of the Internet so that we may enter an age of unprecedented civilian involvement in government.

President-elect Obama has taken serious strides, but America must be wary. Simply electing new people will not be enough. The restoration of responsible citizenship is the only way for us to survive.

With optimism and resolve.

A Huffington Post

Will The Madoff Debacle Finally End The "Who Could Have Known?" Era?

by Arianna Huffington

See if this sounds familiar:

An ambitious and risky undertaking carried out with hubris, and featuring the weeding out of anyone who raises alarm bells, little-to-no transparency, an oversight system in which no central authority is accountable, and the deliberate manufacturing of ambiguity and complexity so that if -- when -- it all falls to pieces, the excuse "who could have known?" can be used....

Is it Iraq? Fannie Mae? Citigroup? Bernie Madoff?

The correct answer is: all of the above.

When you look at the elements that were crucial to the creation of each of these debacles, it's amazing how much in common they all have. And not just in how they began but in how they ended: with those responsible being amazed at what happened, because...who could have known? Well, to paraphrase James Inhofe, I'm amazed at the amazement.

In fact, when historians look for a name that sums up the Bush II years, they could do worse than calling them The "Who Could Have Known?" Era.

Each of the disasters listed above was entirely predictable. And, indeed, was predicted. But those who rang the alarm bells were aggressively ignored, which is why it's important that we not let those responsible get away with the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse.

Let's start with Iraq -- specifically the reconstruction of Iraq. This weekend the New York Times got its hands on the unpublished 513-page federal history of the reconstruction. It's not pretty. As the Times puts it: it was "an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure." As a result, almost six years and $117 billion later, many essential services are only now reaching pre-war levels.

The report quotes Colin Powell on how the Pentagon, to cover up its failures, "kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces [that had reached readiness] -- the number would jump 20,000 a week! 'We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.' "

Hmm, making up numbers to realize a short-term gain, but which end up making the inevitable long-term reckoning much worse? Sounds a lot like what was happening at Citigroup at around the same time.

In late 2002, Charles Prince was put in charge of the company's corporate and investment bank. The banking giant was already knee deep in toxic paper and aggressively looking the other way.

He was so successful at averting his eyes that when, five years later, as Wall Street began to feel the initial shocks of the mortgage meltdown, he was told that the bank owned $43 billion in mortgage-related assets -- it was the first he'd heard of it. Isn't that something he should have known? Or did he prefer not knowing?

Prince had plenty of help ignoring the obvious, particularly from Robert Rubin. According to a former Citigroup executive quoted in the long New York Times analysis of Citi's downfall, despite ascending to the top of the Citi food chain, Prince "didn't know a C.D.O. from a grocery list, so he looked for someone for advice and support. That person was Rubin."

When it all came tumbling down, both Rubin and Prince portrayed themselves as helpless victims of circumstance, because...Who Could Have Known?

"I've thought a lot about that," Rubin said when asked if he made mistakes at Citigroup. "I honestly don't know. In hindsight, there are a lot of things we'd do differently. But in the context of the facts as I knew them and my role, I'm inclined to think probably not."

What he means, of course, is the facts as he chose to know them.

Prince's head is even higher in the clouds: "Anything," he said, "based on human endeavor and certainly any business that involves risk-taking, you're going to have problems from time to time."

Sounds like he's reading from the same damage control playbook as former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. According to Raines, he can't be blamed for what happened at Fannie Mae because mortgage stuff is so, well, complicated. In fact, he can't even understand his own mortgage: "I know I can't and I've tried," Raines told a House committee last week. "To this day, I don't know what it said... It's impossible for the average person to understand" mortgage terms such as negative amortization. In other words, Who Could Have Known?

Committee chair Henry Waxman wasn't buying it: "These documents make clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew what they were doing. Their own risk managers raised warning after warning about the dangers of investing heavily in the subprime and alternative mortgage markets."

Ignoring warning after warning is an essential element of the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse, as are rewriting history and shamelessly disregarding the foresight shown by those who sounded the alarm bells.

We're seeing the same ingredients in the Madoff affair. "We have worked with Madoff for nearly 20 years," said Jeffrey Tucker, a former federal regulator and the head of an investment firm facing losses of $7.5 billion. "We had no indication that we...were the victims of such a highly sophisticated, massive fraudulent scheme." It's a sentiment echoed by Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission: "I've known [Madoff] for nearly 35 years, and I'm absolutely astonished."

Who Could Have Known?

Well, Harry Markopoulos, for one. In 1999, after researching Madoff's methods, Markopolos wrote a letter to the SEC saying, "Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme." He pursued his claims with the feds for the next nine years, with little result.

Jim Vos, another investment adviser who had examined Madoff's firm, says: "There's no smoking gun, but if you added it all up you wonder why people either did not get it or chose to ignore the red flags."

The answer comes from Vos's cohort Jake Walthour Jr., who told HuffPost blogger Vicky Ward: "In a bull market no one bothers to ask how the returns are met, they just like the returns."

Hasn't the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse been exposed as a sham enough times to render it obsolete?

Apparently not. Here come the Bush Legacy Project's revisionists expecting us to believe that everyone thought Saddam had WMD -- even though many were on record saying he didn't.

In the wake of 9/11, Condi Rice assured us nobody "could have predicted" that someone "would try to use an airplane as a missile." Except, of course, the government report that in 1999 said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House."

After Katrina, the White House read from the "Who Could Have Known?" hymnal: No one could have predicted that the storm would be a Category 5, and that this could result in the levees being breached. We now know, of course, that plenty of people knew that the levees could be breached and said so before the storm hit.

Then there is Alan Greenspan, who, looking back in October of this year on the makings of the financial crisis he helped create (I mean, that just happened to come out of nowhere) delivered this "Who Could Have Known?" classic: "If all those extraordinarily capable people were unable to foresee the development of this critical problem...we have to ask ourselves: Why is that? And the answer is that we're not smart enough as people. We just cannot see events that far in advance."

The only problem is, many people did see events that far in advance.

Unlike Greenspan, I don't believe the problem is that we are "not smart enough as people." As we've seen time after time, smart enough people are all too willing to ignore facts they don't like. Or, even worse, they construct oversight systems designed to be ineffective -- and unable to provide to those in power information they don't really want to know.

Much has been made of the smartness of Obama's new team. But I'm hoping that their defining characteristic won't be their IQs but their willingness to confront reality and take responsibility for their decisions.

It's time to say goodbye to the "Who Could Have Known?" era. It's time to know things again. And to know that you know them.

How to Break a Terrorist

I just watched a good interview on the Daily Show with a guy named Matthew Alexander who wrote the book "How to Break a Terrorist." This guy was an interrogator for the U.S. military and has been a part of hundreds of hundreds of interrogations, but now he is speaking out against the torture techniques.

Basically, he is saying that the best way to extract information from a prisoner is not to demonize them--by treating them like animals and putting them in pain (both psychological and physical)--but to understand them. Alexander is advocating that by coming to terms with insurgents, you can work to establish an agreement with the goal of helping Iraq in the best way possible.

In fact, he explains that the insurgents aren't ideologues like Al Qaeda; they are mostly regular people who fight for community or for money--suggesting that they would be much more than willing to cooperate if you build a bond of trust.

Alexander says that these methods are proven in many interrogations, but that the Department of Defense does not wish to concede that point--going as far as trying to stop the book from being published. He says to Jon Stewart: "I never saw coercive methods pay off..."--but rather rapport building and relationships yielded the results.

I think it's time that we find a better way. Isn't it obvious? We as a civilization are more advanced than any that has preceded us. Of course there is another way. We know what is right, so let's just do it.

Here is the interview:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Matthew Alexander

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Tragic W.

In his new film W., Oliver Stone has provided the world with a haunting portrayal of the 43rd Presidency of the United States and the man at the forefront of it.  It is tragic in the strictest sense, not only of the man who rises to greatness only to destroy his own family name, but also of the nation whose highest and most revered office has been ravaged by the forces that be.

As a young man Bush was a reckless party fiend who lived in the shadow of his father and brother.  Jeb was supposed to be president, but George, Jr. stepped up to the plate to prove he could be everything that his father said he could not--or so the film suggests.  It is hard to believe that George W. Bush's sole motivation to do what he has done was to prove something to his father (and in fact to be better), and perhaps no one will ever know, but these thoughts are surely an important part of the complexity of this man.  W. made me think of Bush as less of an idiot--he is not stupid; however, his ideology and arrogance make him simple-minded.  Bush has not expressed regret for his blunt policies, and does not seem to possess the sensitive reflections of an intellectual.  He is a blinded man who successfully surpassed his senior's legacy, but tarnished the Bush name and divided the country in the process.

There was a time when American presidents--popular or not--were respected for the sake of the Office. But something has changed. Perhaps it was the rise of 24 hour cable or possibly the growth of online media. I for one believe that it is more a matter of trust. Citizens no longer believe in the president as they have before. Too many of our leaders have disgraced the Office--lying to the public and engaging in disingenuous acts. While watching W. it was truly chilling to witness the meetings that took place in the lead up to the War in Iraq.  The Vice President's justification for the invasion was purely for geo-political gains--control over the world's oil, not terrorists or WMDs.  And when a skeptical Colin Powell asks to know the exit strategy, Cheney simply says, "There is no exit strategy."

W. is empathetic in its portrayal of Bush, and Stone's script and dramatic film techniques make it more that just a biopicture.  This is an epic tragedy in the tradition of Oedipus and Hamlet.  It is the story of a man who captured the American imagination and divided the country.  Nothing will ever be the same after George W. Bush--no matter who is president.

Intellectual Elitism is Bad?

Since when did being an "intellectual" become such a negative aspect of our leaders? When I have surgery done, I want the best and the brightest--not just some guy or gal who is likable.  The same should go for running the country, right?  But John Kerry was lambasted for being too much of a "liberal" intellectual, and the cowboy ended up winning that one. In David Brooks' NYT Op-ed, he explains that:

The Republicans have alienated whole professions.  Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

Yes, the smart people are now with the Democrats, but only because the Republican party alienated their intellectuals.  Republicans have sought out to capture the "average Joe" voter by nominating very "average" people.  Social-conservatism is not progressive or forward thinking, but it is what many people cling to.  Obama was correct when he saidthat people turn to "guns and religion" largely due to economic woes--after all, religion is the "opiate of the masses."  But Obama was slammed for the remark, and was portrayed as someone who worships his own superiority and wisdom, and looks down on the common man.

It's really too bad that intellectualism has been given the cold shoulder because there are many brilliant conservatives--I know some myself.  But they have been abandoned by their base, and now grudgingly trot along behind their mediocre ticket.  

If you look back

 at some of the greatest American statesmen, you will find that they were men who were well informed, well educated, and well versed in literature.  They were philosophers and visionaries.  From the Founding Fathers to Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR.  They were masters of policy and diplomacy.  Their wisdom celebrated the dynamism of knowledge, and was their source of strength.  

Now we have Sarah Palin. 

My Thoughts on the Bailout

Full disclosure: I don't understand the economy like I should (though I'm working on it), but I have been carefully listening to various explanations of what is going on, and what should be done--in fact, the more I read about it, the more I understand that most people don't get it either.

I was watching C-SPAN the other day (we had to for class... seriously), and this Senator from ND named Byron Dorgan was talking about this thing called the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed in 1999 (when the Senate voted for the further deregulation of the banks and end of GS, Dorgan said: "I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past... and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010.")

In response to the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the resulting banking failures of the Depression, the U.S. government implemented a series of bank regulations within the Glass-Steagall Act. It created the Federal Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced reforms that were to control speculation. Basically what it did was separate "banks that did risky investing from those that did basic lending" (NYT). Without the regulations, firms began taking bad mortgages and risking lenders' money. When the value of houses went down, the banks were stuck with all these mortgages, etc. etc.... And my understanding quickly dissipates from there (it's much more fun to discuss foreign policy!).

But essentially Glass-Steagall divided the banks into the safe banks that the public could depend on to be consistent, and the risk-taking banks who were allowed to make reckless investments. When this divide was eliminated, all the banks started taking huge risks with your money, and now it's all going to hell.

So the first bailout plan was 4 pages long and called for the Congress to hand over $700 billion to the Wall Street honchos to save their tails, no questions asked--thereby rescuing "Main Street" (what they are calling the common folk). The second one was longer, but still involved giving $700 billion to the same guys who got us into this mess. Granted I don't have a great grasp on all of the technicalities, but this seems REALLY SHADY. I really think that the federal government is being exposed for what it truly is: the Wall Street government. They reap in billions as a result of the criminal and disastrous Iraq War, and now they are trying to make out like bandits by getting a free pass for their reckless actions. When the Treasury Secretary is a former Golman Sachs exec, and the EPA is headed by energy company execs, something has gone terribly wrong.

When did our government become dominated by the selfish elitists? How did they take it from us? More importantly, what happened the last time Americans were abused by their rich minority leadership?

State of Affairs

Did you know that if you and I had a conversation that was critical of the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq, that we could be labelled as "conspirators" according to an Executive Order dated July 17, 2007?  Our assets can be frozen, our homes can be seized, and we can be rendered as "non-persons" by the U.S. government.  Habeas Corpus has been thrown out the window; we are a nation that tortures; the U.S. government defied international law, and illegally invaded a sovereign nation based on a false premise -- oh yeah, and they are listening in on your conversations --and cutting health care for kids... and the media is totally complicit.

I hope you are upset.  

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 2

Here is the next part of my research paper on the Iran-Iraq-U.S. relationship post 2003. If you'd like to read it in its entirety (and to dig my sources), check out my knol here.

In December 2004, almost two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Reuel M. Gerecht[5], a former member of the CIA and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (a neoconservative think-tank), wrote, “Iran’s primary objective is to ensure that Iraq remains destabilized, incapable of coalescing around a democratically elected government.”[6] He describes a condition of bitterness between the Shia of Iraq and the Shia government of Iran—“The Iraqi Shia retain enormous bitterness towards … Iran’s clerical regime, which did virtually nothing to help their Iraqi ‘brethren.’ He continues by saying that the Iranians are resentful towards the Iraqi Shia “given the damage the [Iran-Iraq] war did to Iran, that Iraq’s army was primarily Shiite, and that Saddam’s elite Sunni Republican Guards were on several occasions near the cracking point. When the Iraqi Shia felt Saddam’s wrath in ’91, there was more than a little schadenfreude on the Persian side.”[7] While there is perhaps legitimacy to many of these claims, Gerecht’s assumption (one that is shared by many in Washington) that “Iran ideally wants to see … strife that can produce an Iraq Hezbollah”[8] does not seem to hold much merit considering the present situation.

Raed Jarrar[9], an Iraqi from the American Foreign Services Committee, explains that the ruling parties in Iraq are directly tied with Iran, and fails to see the logic in an Iranian plot to keep Iraq in chaos. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Iranian supported Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and Nouri al-Maliki of the Dawa Party (a party with Iranian origins) came from Iran in 2003.[10] “Why would Iran send special Iranian forces (called Al-Kud’s brigade) into Iraq to attack a regime that is run by their own people?”[11]

Though it is quite unlikely (and illogical to assume) that Iran desires a complete structural breakdown in Iraq, it is clear that Iran has specific goals for Iraq’s future. The International Crisis Group suggests that:

Tehran’s priority is to prevent Iraq from re-emerging as a threat, whether of a
military, political or ideological nature, and whether deriving from its failure
(its collapse into civil war or the emergence of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan
with huge implications for Iran’s disaffected Kurdish minority) or success (its
consolidation as an alternative democratic or religious model appealing to
Iran’s disaffected citizens).[12]

To accomplish this, Iran certainly desires a Shia dominated government in Iraq that is friendly to Iran. Professor Sabah al Nasseri[13] from York University suggests that Iran wants a stable, independent, and democratic Iraq, but only as long as its allies (the regime of al-Maliki and al-Hakim) are in power. But if “other political forces—secular forces, or maybe Al Sadr”—become popular and offer a “different kind of democracy,” Iran will oppose it.[14] Direct Iranian intervention is known to have occurred in the January 2005 elections in Iraq, where “Iran had played a significant behind-the-scenes role in assuring the electoral success of the UIA (United Iraqi Alliance—a coalition of mostly Shia groups … in particular, the Dawa party and SCIRI), and had a great deal riding on the UIA’s choice of prime minister.”[15]

In 2005, President Bush made an appearance on Israel’s state-owned news network, and made a comment with regards to a possible military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear aspirations: “As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and, you know, we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.”[16] Within the Bush administration, there is a commonly held belief that “Iran is the major threat in the region and … simply cannot be allowed to produce nuclear weapons, whether or not it intends to do so.”[17] Iran has declared that it aspires only for “a civil nuclear-power programme,” and denies allegations that it will use these advancements for weaponry.[18] In fact, U.S. intelligence reports indicate that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003; furthermore, Mohamed El Baradei, Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has stated that there is no nuclear weapons program being pursued by the Iranians.[19]

....I'll post the next part soon.

SHOWDOWN: Iran

Well, it’s been about 2 months since my last post, and I must say that I have no good excuse for the extended hiatus. I suppose there was a lot of energy and motivation when I decided to found the blog—I had a lot of ideas in my head that I wanted to express. Over time that initial sense of purpose sort of wore off. I took a week off, then a month, and now my break has gotten out of hand. But now I’m back—hopefully this time for good. Today’s topic: SHOWDOWN IRAN.

Today, an official U.S. intelligence report came out that declares Iran’s nuclear weapons program an indefinitely halted operation. In fact, it states that the program was halted way back in 2003. Iran is continuing its process of uranium enrichment, but as of now there is no evident intent to develop a bomb (confirmation of what the mullahs have been saying all along). So when President Bush stated in October that we could be facing the third World War, was he wrong? Apparently not—according to the White House.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley states that this report is in fact a confirmation of everything the Administration has been saying. “It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons…” So they were right all along, but Hadley doesn't want the American public to jump off the fear-bandwagon quite yet: “the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”

What I don’t understand is how this administration claims that it has been right all along. In October of this year, Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of “lying” about its nuclear program; the Vice President has voiced direct and pointed attacks and threats on the government; the President has assured everyone that the nuclear program is, without a doubt, active. Clearly these threats and accusations were either knowingly over-hyped or completely baseless—perhaps a reminder of many of the threats and accusations against Iraq, which were later found to be total fabrications. Perhaps Iran is actually developing nuclear power for the sake of developing the nation. Could it be that the mullahs aren’t lying? Maybe they aren’t the hostile terrorists that we make them out to be.

My fear is another war. The neo-conservative movement has already succeeded in waging one unjust war, and I have no doubt in my mind that they are fully capable to do it again. Our leaders do not seem to understand that the game they are playing involves millions of people. The current war has devastated Iraq—a terrible civil war has broken out, millions are now refugees, and God knows how many Iraqi civilians have been killed (some counts are up to a million). This is worse than reckless foreign policy—this is criminal. This cannot be accepted.

Sources: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/america/cia.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516968/