The Workermonkey

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

bare with me. 

# posted by Supreme Monkey Overlord @ 3/24/2004 03:10:00 PM

OPk i know its long but heres a pretty good run down of whats been happening over the last week in politics that i read on one of my comic sites. Its Stevens Grants "Permenant Damage" column.



"Weird week. It's clear now what the Hand Puppet's reelection strategy is: presume the American public, like the President himself, doesn't pay attention to the news. (Might just work.) At the same time officially authorized campaign ads put forth the notion that voting for anyone other than the Hand Puppet will functionally put al-Qaeda in charge of America (as they are, apparently, now in charge of Spain, at least to hear TV pundit shows talk about it), books, official reports, etc., are outlining just how much the administration turned its back on the al-Qaeda threat prior to 9/11 while eagerly eyeing the "Iraq" threat. (In case you missed it, former White House counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke's new book accuses the Hand Puppet of first ignoring any potential terrorist threats, then pressuring him to connect 9/11 to Iraq, charges strong and credible enough to alarm even Senate Republicans, though National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice had to make the rounds of morning shows to vaguely dismiss them, even though her office bounced Clarke's official report distancing Iraq from 9/11 with a curt "Wrong answer... Do it again.") (It should be noted that Clarke's book can't be considered partisan; the Clinton administration takes its lumps as well.) My favorite part of the campaign ad, though, is its scornful accusation that John Kerry wanted to wait for UN permission to "defend America," meaning, I guess that he'll sell us all out to those damn furrners. The context goes unspecified, probably because they're talking about invading Iraq, which pretty much nobody anymore thinks had anything to do with defending America. But, oooh, doesn't it sound bad that someone might actually not believe in unilateral unprovoked invasions of foreign countries. Of course, now, since we invented the principle that any action in opposition to terrorism is no vice, we're catching blame for Israel's very public assassination of the leader of Hamas (last I heard Israel was swearing to slay Hamas to the last man, which is understandable given the incessant bombings, etc., but how do they plan to do it?) on the premise that Israel, which has increasingly become a loose cannon under Sharon, would never have done such a thing had we not given the okay. Which the White House officially says we didn't. I don't see any reason, at least not yet, not to believe them, but what does it matter? Hamas has declared war on the USA in retaliation. Not exactly sure how they're going to manage that either, though I wouldn't want to be in Iraq at the moment, but since we wiped out one of Hamas' main benefactors (Saddam), a good guess would be a bonding with whatever nation or organization (al-Qaeda, for instance) is willing to step into help. Despite the traditional antipathy between the two organizations. One of our arguments for taking out Saddam was to prevent him from unifying the Muslim world against us (something that was never going to happen anyway, since most of them hated him more than we did), but, with help from Israel, we may be doing that ourselves. (Which won't be helped when the Hand Puppet imposes sanctions on Syria in a few weeks, based again on allegations without much to back them up. Which is almost certain to shut off the flow of anti-terrorist data coming to us out of Syria since 9/11.) Of course, since Hamas is a localized phenomenon, as opposed to the more ethereal al-Qaeda, that just gives us another easier target in the "war on terror."

Here's a good one. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the case to force Vice President Dick Cheney (whose Halliburton Corporation managed to make around $75 million off Saddam Hussein over the years despite sanctions) to open the records of his energy task force (exclusively composed of representatives from the oil and nuclear power industries) is going before the Supreme Court. No one yet knows what's in the meeting minutes, but given that Enron was one of those consulted and subsequently, among other financial cuteness, fixed energy prices in western states, particularly California (not that Nevada wasn't also hit bad), causing brownouts and shortages that lined their pockets and almost put some states into bankruptcy (and not in small part fueled the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis, who was pushing for a full investigation into the price fixing... which now won't happen under Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger, who, coincidentally, was very chummy with Enron execs prior to his election), and given that Iraq's oil supplies were a focal point of discussions of the invasion of Iraq, they could have all manner of embarrassing things in them. What's clear is that in the wake of the discussions, the administration pushed an "energy policy" of non-conservation, new funding for nuclear power plants, full exploitation of fossil fuels, billions in corporate welfare to Big Oil, and a virtual banning of the concept of alternative energy sources. (The Department Of Defense subsequently tried to put out of business a wind farm here in Nevada that had been started up during the Clinton administration to provide cheap power to rural regions in the state.) On the Supreme Court is Antonin Scalia, close friend of Dick Cheney, who went duck hunting with him after the court agreed to take the case. A duck hunt maybe isn’t that big a deal on the surface of it, but it does smack of collusion between a defendant before the court and a judge on the case. The common word for it is "corruption." Does this mean Scalia is corrupt? Not necessarily. Does it give the appearance of corruption? Absolutely. Is it important to protect the Supreme Court from, at minimum, the appearance of corruption, given that it's theoretically the last resort of justice for every American? One would think. So is Scalia recusing himself from the case? Of course not. Why not? Because the press has said he should, and it would undermine the integrity of the court if it were seen to be taking orders from the press! Plus: since actions against the government often result in embarrassment to the government, recusing himself from the case would give the impression the vice president and the government were guilty. It wouldn't, but any excuse in a storm, right? "

0 comments Post a Comment