The Populist

On Tuesday the Homeland Security Adviser, Frances Townsend, met with the press to release the recent NIE, or National Intelligence Estimate. Ms. Townsend highlighted several points in the report including Al Qaida’s willingness to strike the “homeland”, its attempts to leverage its contacts and relationships with Al Qaida in Iraq (AQI), and the fact that top Al Qaida leadership is currently enjoying safe harbor along the Afghan/Pakistani border. These are facts that have become relatively apparent to anyone paying attention over the past year. Nothing new. The problem is, the report points out other facts that don’t seem congruent with the historical facts of the last 5 or 6 years. It’s at these points where Homeland Security, an agency created by the Bush administration and led by Bush administration appointees, seems to lose its credibility.

Ms. Townsend begins the session by pointing out the classified report that was leaked last week which reads “Al Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West.” However, she goes on to say “Our greatly increased worldwide counter terrorism efforts since September the 11th have constrained the ability of Al Qaida to attack the U.S. again and have led terrorist groups to view the homeland as a harder target to strike than it was on 9/11.” Are we to believe that “the West” noted in the classified report does not include the United States? Much like President Bush did immediately after the report was leaked, Ms. Townsend sounds as if she’s doing damage control. In Mr. Bush’s case, we’re to believe that Al Qaida is not as strong as it was BEFORE 9/11, just as strong as it was ON 9/11. It appears Ms. Townsend is simply saying, although there’s a classified document stating the contrary, we really have slowed down Al Qaida; at least, that’s the story we’re feeding the public.

As I noted above, Ms. Townsend also talks about Al Qaida in Iraq. “Of most concern is that Al Qaida will try to exploit the conflict in Iraq and leverage the contacts and capabilities of Al Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland.” This quote is disquieting for a couple of reasons. First, it implies that “Al Qaida in Iraq” is an organization that existed before the war in Iraq began, a assertion we know to be false. Al Qaida in Iraq, led by the now deceased Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, was formed and pledged its allegiance to Osama Bin Laden in late 2004 – almost two years after the war started. As with the rest of the administration, Ms. Townsend continues to characterize sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis, growing daily into a full-fledged civil war, as purely Al Qaida terrorists de-stabilizing the democratic process. These fallacies allow the Bush Administration to continue the ridiculous “chicken and egg” argument of why we are in Iraq in the first place.

The Bush Administration, through Ms. Townsend, is touting its “successes” for a number of reasons including “protecting critical infrastructure and strengthening our border security.” Obviously, Ms Townsend defines “border security” as the influx of as many as 50,000 illegal immigrants into the U.S. per week, or the safety inspection of 1 out of every 100 cannisters that come into our ports on a daily basis. They must not have read the Reuters article last week reporting that undercover investigators were able to obtain a license to buy enough radioactive material to build a “dirty bomb”. The license was issued in 28 days from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after what was described as a “cursory review”. In fact, the Government Accountability Office said “the NRC approved the license after a couple of faxes and phone calls and mailed to the phony company’s headquarters — a dropbox at a United Parcel Service.” This is not exactly what I’d call “protecting critical infrastructure and strengthening our border security.”

The most confusing aspect of the NIE report is echoed by National Intelligence Director, Mike McConnell. Ms. Townsend notes “our worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years helped disrupt a number of plots against the U.S.” Director Mike McConnell referenced a “relatively large number of plots we have been able to thwart since 9/11.” According to reports, however, Mr. McConnell didn’t offer any details. What exactly are these two supposedly high level officials saying? What “relatively large number of plots” are they talking about. Perhaps they’re referring to the recent plot to blow up JFK international airport.  Four men, including a former member of Guyana’s parliament, planned to use explosives to blow up the pipeline underneath the airport.  Interestingly, one of the ringleaders of this plot was actually an FBI informant who pushed the idea of blowing up JFK in the first place.  The plot was foiled well before the planning stages were even complete.  Not to mention the fact that the apparent ineptness of the plan and incompetence of the would-be terrorists caused FBI officials to note that there was no real danger to the public.  FBI spokesman Richard Kolko in Washington said “There is no threat to air safety or the public related to this plot.”  Would-be terrorist attempts like this are no laughing matter, of course, but this is the only example the Bush administration as put forth in over 5 years.

Maybe Ms. Townsend and Mr. McConnell were speaking of the extended 9/11 plot to fly a plane into the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles simultaneously with the attacks in New York and Washington D.C.  The plot fell through, according to Ms. Townsend’s report on February 9th, 2006, because Al Qaida could not find enough operatives.  Strange how when you need a suicide bomber there’s never any around, huh?  The reconstituted plot was to happen in early 2002 when the cell leader was captured.  Ms. Townsend also reported that the cell trained with Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, before he was arrested in December 2001.  In March 2003, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad – accepted as the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks – was captured effectively ending the immediate West Coast threat.

So, what have we learned?  In the last 5 years, the Bush administration has reported thwarting two terrorist plots.  How does this in, any way, constitute “a relatively large number”.  If there have been more attempts at attacking the US “homeland” as Ms. Townsend calls it, why haven’t we been informed.  If they could tell us about these two plots, why can’t they tell us at least some information about others.  In what can only be described, generously, as a completely biased report, administration officials appear to be guilty of “padding their stats”.

When we take the time to read between the lines of this doctored document, the gist of the National Intelligence Estimate is undeniable:  Al Qaida’s leadership has safe haven along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, the war in Iraq has created prime conditions for the development of a new Al Qaida threat which is getting guidance from Al Qaida leaders in Pakistan, and we continue to fight on the wrong front because we still believe that democracy can be forced on a people who’ve known nothing but totalitarianism for the last 1000 years.  The Bush administration has done an excellent job infiltrating every level of our government from the Supreme Court to the EPA, appointing anti-government hit men (and women) to  masquerade as civil servants.  This report is a perfect example of why we can’t take anything the current powers that be tell us at face value.  Remember, they’ll stop lying when we finally stand up and say “ENOUGH”!

This is not a movie/documentary review.  I don’t tend to do those, mainly because I’m not a very good film critic.  But as a citizen of the United States who has been subjected to the American health care system and a former community organizer who heard the health care stories of the poor and middle class, I walked out of the theater with tears in my eyes and rage in my heart.  This entry is for those who have seen, or are thinking about seeing, the film.  I hope every U.S. citizen gets a chance to see it.

Let me start off by saying that Michael Moore is an accomplished propagandist.  I’ve seen parts, but not all, of his other films.  His first work “Roger and Me” was nothing if not groundbreaking.  As a very wealthy filmmaker he takes on the “everyman” role and plays it quite well.  He has been known to take facts and bend them to his own design, and was most notably criticized for the rampant conspiracy theories put forth in his 2004 release, “Fahrenheit 911.”  In “SICKO”, Moore masterfully strings together some of the worst case scenarios in health care he could find and creates a dark comedy that successfully points out the American people as the butt of the joke.  These stories were picked from what Moore claims is over 25,000 submissions to an email address, after he put the word out that he was looking for health care stories for his film.  In the film, Moore travels to Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba to test their health care systems.  It appears that, no matter where he goes, the health care in that country is better than what the average citizen of the United States receives here.  His point he echoes throughout the film is, “Why can’t we have this?”

There are many who will claim that the Canadian health care system is a mess, that the taxes paid in Great Britain and France to cover such outlandish health care costs would crush our economy, and that Moore’s smoke and mirrors showmanship deftly hides any problems that “socialized” medicine puts on a nation and its people.  Sadly, these naysayers – many from the for-profit health care system – are missing the point.  It doesn’t matter if 90% of what Michael Moore put into “SICKO” was a complete lie.  It doesn’t matter if he made up the statistics – most of which are legitimately taken from the World Health Organization – or if he simply has some vendetta against the health care industry.  None of that matters because if just ONE of those stories is true; if just ONE little girl DIED because she was denied care when she was taken to the wrong emergency room; if just ONE woman DIED of a brain tumor because the only viable treatment option was deemed too “experimental” by her insurance company; if just ONE working class citizen with a life threatening illness was denied treatment because it was considered a “pre-existing condition”, then Mr. Moore’s point has been made.

In Iraq, the Bush administration has pushed for health care to cover all Iraqis.  We demand this kind of humane treatment from other nations but continue to ignore the fault in our own country.  We constantly claim that higher taxes will hurt the citizenry, squelch innovation, and suppress investment in our economy.  Out of nothing more than fear, we ignore our social compacts; that society cannot exist without cooperation.  It makes more sense to us to turn our backs on each other rather than to give up another dollar.  We make sure people “take control of their own health care” all in the name of corporate profit.  And, consequently, the nation that gave the world its first democratic revolution falls short of Saudi Arabia in health care for its citizens.  That’s right, Saudi Arabia; a totalitarian nation that won’t let its women drive cars.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.  So tell me, can there be any greater injustice than the death of a child to save a buck?  I doubt Dr. King would have thought so.  It’s about time we started redefining “profit”.

Hello and welcome to The Populist.

For some time now I’ve debated and discussed various political topics with friends and family from across the United States.  I’ve had the pleasure of engaging in lively discussion with liberals, conservatives (both traditional and neo), libertarians, and progressives.  Not surprisingly, the old adage about opinions is true; everyone’s got one.  The problem is, many opinions today have little basis in fact.  We all have beliefs we carry along with us in life.  Some of these are based on faith, others on values we were taught as children.  Sadly, more than a few of us don’t allow these beliefs to grow and evolve, even in the face of new evidence.  We find it nearly impossible to look at the world differently because we keep clinging to the idea that this is how the world is supposed to be, or worse, that this is just “the way it is”.  I would like this blog to be a place where we might change that outlook.

To say we live in politically charged times is an insult to understatement.  Our courageous fighting men and women fight for freedoms abroad while we continue to lose freedoms at home.  Our hard-working families in the U.S. are losing their pensions, their health care, and struggling to keep up in a system that continues to squeeze the middle class.  The executive branch of our government has been gifted with unprecedented powers and created a personality cult bent on proving that, over time, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.   Now, more than ever, we cannot lose sight of our responsibilities as citizens of this nation and this world.  We’ve heard time and again over the past six years that “Freedom isn’t free”.  I believe this with all my mind and heart.  If we don’t get informed as individuals and stand up for what we know to be truth,  we could very easily lose that freedom and ensure tyranny for future generations.

The Populist blog was conceived with one idea in mind; to educate and inform individuals about current events and the political process.  It is designed to be a forum for discussion, debate, and learning.  Without the exchange of ideas and information we cannot grow as intelligent, thoughtful, self-examined beings.  To this end, I strongly encourage comments to anything and everything you read on this blog.  I will always put forth my opinion, but I’ll do my level best to support it with hard facts.  If you disagree, please let me know. I love to learn.  I would, however, encourage you – for your own education and enlightenment – to back up your opinions with facts as well.

Welcome, again, to The Populist.  Get Informed.