OlsonOnline

Thom Hartmann: James Bamford - "The Man Who Sold the War"

James Bamford, author of the Rolling Stone article, "The Man Who Sold the War",  is the featured guest on Thom Hartmann's radio show tomorrow (Thursday) morning. 

Tune in to 620 AM (6 - 9 a.m.) to hear the real story of the propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq.  Hartmann's show is the best progressive talk show in town.  (Joe Uris on KBOO Tuesday mornings is a close second.  But only because he's weekly, not daily.)

Sten vs. Burdick: Round 2

The well-organized, well-connected, and well-heeled opponents of public power - and of Erik Sten- took a well-deserved body blow today with the revelation by Willamette Week (and the Oregonian) that their beloved PGE has been systematically pilfering money ratepayers thought was going to the city and the county for taxes.  The bottom line, according to WW, is this:

"In other words, PGE collected money from customers above and beyond its allowable profit for the purpose of paying taxes but kept almost $100 million in its own coffers."

PGE can't blame this theft of ratepayer money on Enron, as they have in the past, because the money never went to Enron!

This development is another good reason to vote for Erik Sten (should he run) in next spring's race for city council, and NOT Ginny Burdick.  Why?  Because Burdick is backed by Gard & Gerber, the ad agency most responsible for the rejection of public ownership of PGE by voters in November 2003.

Gard & Gerber is also the public face of the cabal of movers and shakers who opposed Sten on city acquisition of PGE, and who now are opposed Sten's publicly-financed city elections, which threatens their influence.   Burdick is not only an employee of Gard & Gerber, but also the hand-picked choice of Portland's business establishment to replace Sten on the city council.

I've long argued that public power would be a good thing.  In the process, I've written about the  inflated salaries and bonuses of PGE's fat-cat executives.  It appears now that the stolen tax money has been used to enhance PGE's bottom line. And the bonuses paid to Peggy Fowler and Jim Piro. 

So good work, Willamette Week.  And too bad, Gard & Gerber.  Let's see if your ad writers can put a good spin on this story for PGE.

And let's not forget the business big shots of the Committee to Save PGE, set up to keep our local utility out of the grasping hands of city bureaucrats.  Clayton Hering, Tim Boyle, Harold Schnitzer, Tom Walsh - they gloated openly at the failure of Sten's public ownership initiative. 

I ask them now, in the words of Bob Dylan, "How does it feeeel?"

Questions for Bush about this morning's speech

I don't expect Bush to answer them.  In fact, I don't think he's capable of answering them, but perhaps some brave White House correspondent will pose these questions at his next news conference (no, NOT at the press briefings with Presidential mouthpiece Scott McClellan, where celebrity journalists tend to show more spunk):

1. What's an "artificial deadline"?  How does it differ from just plain "deadline", or "timetable"?   Isn't the phrase just a rhetorical flourish tailor-made for Republican Party talking points?
2. You say:  "America and our troops are proud to stand side by side with these brave Iraqi fighters."  Isn't the insurgency we're trying to defeat primarily "brave Iraqi fighters?"  According to our own estimates, the "enemy", however defined, is well over 90% Iraqi.   Does that meet we're training Iraqi soldiers to fight a civil war?
3. Twenty-seven seconds into your speech, you bring up 9-11.  What does 9-11 have to do with the war in Iraq? 
4. You say:  "A time of war is a time of sacrifice."  In this time of war, what sacrifices have you asked of yourself, of your family, and of the American people, other than the hapless military recruits you ship over to Iraq?

Lastly, here's a plan for troop withdrawal from Joe Conason based on negotiations and a cease fire, a plan that most Iraqi leaders seem to support.   I suggest you, Mr. Bush, read it.

Why lies matter

It has become all too common for media pundits and pro-war Democrats to dismiss the lies that led this country into the war in Iraq, a war which has squandered lives and money, and a war which a clear majority of the American people believe was a terrible mistake.

Here's David Broder on Meet the Press, for example:

MR. RUSSERT: David Broder, is it possible for official Washington--the president, Democratic leaders, Republican leaders--to arrive at common ground, a consensus position on Iraq?

MR. DAVID BRODER: It's possible, Tim, but they won't get there by arguing about who did what three years ago. And this whole debate about whether there was just a mistake or misrepresentation or so on is, I think, from the public point of view largely irrelevant. The public's moved past that.

Broder is wrong both factually- the public has clearly not "moved past that"- and on principal.  Lies matter, especially when they lead to war. 

That Bush and company lied about the intelligence and exaggerated the threat of Saddam Hussein is beyond debate.  That they continue to lie to cover up their initial pretenses, as Frank Rich points out, is evidence enough that Bush should be held accountable:

"No debate about the past, of course, can undo the mess that the administration   made in Iraq. But the past remains important because it is a road map to both the present and the future. Leaders who dissembled then are still doing so.  Indeed, they do so even in the same speeches in which they vehemently deny having misled us then - witness Mr. Bush's false claims about what prewar intelligence was seen by Congress and Mr. Cheney's effort last Monday to again conflate the terrorists of 9/11 with those 'making a stand in Iraq.' "

Eric Alterman offers a history lesson.  The same people who lied about the threat of Iraq- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - exaggerated the military and economic might of the Soviet Union back in the mid-70's.  And again in the late 80's, the budding neoconservative movement warned against an American alliance with Mikhail Gorbachev to end the Cold War.  "Glasnost" and "Perestroika" were mere tricks, they said.  In both cases they were wrong.  But they survived.  And they gave us the invasion of Iraq.

What should we do?  Hold Bush accountable.  How?  Through the process of impeachment.  The impeachment of Nixon uncovered the truth about Watergate.  The impeachment of Bush will certainly uncover the truth about the leadup to the war in Iraq.

David Swanson of ImpeachPAC has written about Michigan Congressional candidate Tony Trupiano.  His platform includes the impeachment of Bush, which he defends in these words:

"We don't need to be afraid to use the word impeachment.  It is the process that was set up.  It's not a bad word.  It stands for accountability.  It is the system of justice in our political system.  Hey, maybe the guy's innocent  just give us a chance to find out.  There's nothing radical in that.  That's not a left leaning thing."

Questions for Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart's corporate mucky-mucks recently released this statement to counter all the bad publicity heaped on Wal-Mart from the just-concluded "Higher Expectations Week", which included the Robert Greenwald anti- Wal-Mart movie.

Here are three questions I have for Wal-Mart's corporate brass in response to the "statement":

1. If you want to benefit "working families", why not pay your 1.5 million employees a living wage?  As you are well aware, Wal-Mart's low wage strategy is widely emulated by other big-box mega-retailers.  You have the opportunity to set a good example.
2. Is the plan to provide health coverage for an additional 100,000 employees enough?  Only 47% of your employees, or about 705,000, are currently covered.  Providing health insurance for 100,000 more would still leave 605,000 uninsured.
3. The plan to cut corporate greenhouse gases sounds great, but what about all those cars people drive to your Supercenters and giant discount stores?  I don't know for sure, but I think that the gases emitted from those millions of weekly car trips dwarf whatever pollutants you say you won't release.  Good PR though.  And at least you tacitly admit that global warming is a reality, unlike your conservative free market comrades who deny it.

Before you answer these questions, you might want to read this Neal Peirce column.  It includes this interesting flip-flop on corporate responsiblity as enunciated by the Business Roundtable:

"...as recently as 1992 (the year of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton’s death), the Business Roundtable of top business leaders was asserting that corporations had a major responsibility not just to stockholders, but to their employees, society at large, and the nation’s economy. But now ..., the Business Roundtable, indeed most of the corporate world, focuses almost exclusively on profits for stockholders."

Do you agree?

UPDATE: War lies, the Democrats, and the new Josef Goebbels

Bush and company undoubtedly thought their war lies would be overlooked, even forgiven, had the venture in Iraq gone smoothly.  A country liberated from a vicious dictator with few military casualties, a country with massive oil resources to help offset the cost of war, would have been a stunning accomplishment for a floundering Presidency.  Success in Iraq would have benefited George W. Bush both politically and diplomatically, and the shaky pretenses for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein would be quickly forgotten.

But the lies that led to war have blown up in the faces of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neoconservatives who favored the invasion of Iraq.  And they may have inadvertantly blown up in the faces of Democratic war supporters as well.

That's the thesis of this article by Jeremy Scahill who writes that the claims of the Democratic opposition that they were "duped" into voting for the war just won't wash:

"The Democrats didn't need false intelligence to push them into overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime. It was their policy; a policy made the law of the land not under George W. Bush, but under President Bill Clinton when he signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, formally initiating the process of regime change in Iraq."

Scahill even includes Democratic National Party chair Howard Dean in his indictment of the failed Democratic opposition. His argument is compelling. 

But even more damning is the role John Rendon of the Rendon Group has played in promoting war for both Democratic and Republican administrations.   I linked the Rendon Group article from Rolling Stone in my previous post about the dishonesty of the Bush Administration.  After rereading it, I can't help but think that Rendon is the Josef Goebbels of the fascist and hyper-militaristic Bush regime.

Don't believe me?  Well, look closely at what James Bamford writes about Rendon in his excellent profile of the self-described "perception management" specialist, a term that translates easily to propagandist:

• And the man who had long been in charge of the marketing [of the Iraq war] was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.
• By law, the Bush administration is expressly prohibited from disseminating government propaganda at home. But in an age of global communications, there is nothing to stop it from planting a phony pro-war story overseas -- knowing with certainty that it will reach American citizens almost instantly.
• What Bush needed to fight the War on Terror was a skilled information warrior -- and Rendon was widely acknowledged as the best.
• Rendon would use his media analysis to conduct a worldwide propaganda campaign.
• Rendon was also charged with engaging in "military deception" online.
• As the acknowledged general of such propaganda warfare, Rendon insists that the work he does is for the good of all Americans. "For us, it's a question of patriotism," he says.

The Bush Administration has long been accused of news management.  Cases of paying columnists for favorable commentary and planting "fake" news stories have surfaced in the past.  But employing the Rendon Group to "sell" the war in Iraq is an entirely new and dangerous development in the manipulation of public opinion. 

Propagandizing war can never be a good thing.

 

The Oregonian plays dumb

Talk about journalistic malfeasance.

In an astounding editorial this morning, the Oregonian summons the temerity to claim that  Bush Administration ineptitude, not dishonesty, is a "plausible" explanation for the disastrous American invasion of Iraq:

"We've learned to our sorrow that the administration made many misjudgments, from failing to find weapons of mass destruction to misjudging the degree of armed resistance its forces would encounter in Iraq. Yet it is as plausible to attribute such mistakes to ineptitude as it is to deceit. In the absence of proof, it remains something for the campaign season."

Absence of proof?  That's an inexcusable claim.  Here's the latest proof, briefly:

• Senator Bob Graham's article in the Washington Post, which includes this revelation from Gen. Tommy Franks :  "In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda."
• The phony intelligence from "Curveball":   "The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq."
• The Rendon Group, hired by the CIA and the Pentagon, according to Rolling Stone magazine, for the "express purpose of selling a war."

Add that to what we know the Administration knew about aluminum tubes, Iraq's connection to Al Qaeda, and virtually every other faulty premise for the preemptive war, it's no wonder that the American people are way ahead of the Oregonian, and our Congressional "leaders", in believing - knowing- that Bush lied us into an illegal and immoral assault on a sovereign country. 

It's even more outrageous that the Oregonian dismisses the debate over the exaggeration and manipulation of prewar intelligence as a "vote gathering exercise." 

I suggest that the debate has far greater implications.  It should lead to articles of impeachment filed against George W. Bush.

Again, according to the latest polls, that's what over half of Americans believe should happen.

A star-studded event

Yesterday's gala event at the Moreland Theater, the showing of Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, attracted a crowd of 300 people and a smattering of local celebs.  Oh, and the man himself, Robert Greenwald, the director and producer of the documentary.

In attendance were City Commissioner Sam Adams, who said a few words before the show (as did Greenwald.) Barbara Bernstein from KBOO was there.  So was Steve Duin, the O's marquee columnist.  Look for a column from Duin about the event, about Greenwald, and about Wal-Mart sometime soon.

But it's the people, the everyday folks, that matter.  Word has it that Greenwald's movie has been attracting hordes of people everywhere.  The battle- between the corporate behemoth and just about everyone else, save a few right wing zealots, libertarians, and Bill O'Reilly- has been joined. 

How will it turn out?  Time will tell, but I trust in the power of the people.

Fudging history: BRO's endorsement of Diane Linn

With all due respects to the good people at Basic Rights Oregon (and former Governor Barbara Roberts), the endorsement of Diane Linn for re-election as chair of the Multnomah County Commission may be based on a slight misreading of history.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm 100% in favor of gay rights.  I was a strong and vocal supporter of Multnomah County's decision to issue marriage permits to gay couples.  In March of 2004, I wrote:

"...Multnomah County is doing the right thing, absolutely, in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.  And it's right that the process continues despite the mealy-mouthed pleas by our governor and attorney general for the county to desist until the courts have decided the issue of constitutionality."

But is Diane Linn the real hero, the true champion, of the county's gay marriage campaign?  I have my doubts.

Acccording to this Willamette Week anaysis, Roey Thorpe of BRO first approached Commissioners Lisa Naito and Serena Cruz with the idea about getting a legal opinion from County Attorney Agnes Sowle about the legality of issuing gay marriage licenses.  And it was Naito and Cruz who asked Sowle about it:

"A few hours later, Cruz summons Sowle to her office. When she arrives, Naito hurries in behind her and shuts the door. After sufficiently imparting the gravity of the situation, the two commissioners ask Sowle to look into whether the county could issue same-sex marriage licenses."

Granted, as chair of the Commission, Linn announced the decision and took the most heat from the local press.  But my reading of the events points to Naito, Cruz, and Sowle as the people initially out front on the issue.  In fact, Naito emerges as the staunchest defender of the county's action, as evidenced by her withering response to  the pleas of Attorney General Hardy Myers and Gov. Ted Kulongoski for the county to desist:

" 'Through some convoluted, bureaucratic gibberish, Myers and the governor advise us to continue to discriminate,' Naito said. 'This is Law School 101. You learn in the first week of class that the Constitution always prevails when state law is wrong.

" 'The governor could have shown leadership in achieving consistency in our state's civil marriage laws. He did not. He took the politically expedient course and cowers behind a state statute he and the attorney general know violates people's constitutional rights.' "

Those are strong words. Two months later, facing a recall effort, Diane Linn apologized for the way the county handled the "process". 

Linn is often late to the party.  Last June, a member of the steering committee of Neighbors Against Sellwood/Ardenwald Wal-Mart wrote Linn requesting support in opposing the proposed Sellwood Wal-Mart development. Linn demurred in her initial written response, claiming that the development was "no longer in her jurisdiction."  Two months later, as her re-election campaign was gearing up, she showed up at a general meeting vowing to help in the fight. 

Who knows?  I may end up voting for Linn in next May's primary.  But not based on a single decision that may or may not be evidence of "bold" leadership.  Other issues abound in the upcoming election, like Linn's suitability for the position, as Willamette Week (again) has pointed out.  Bear in mind that she has managed in short time to alienate the other four county commissioners.

That probably explains why Lisa Naito (and Maria Rojo de Steffey) have endorsed her opponent in the race for county chair, Ted Wheeler.

 

New school board members "exposed"!

Ok, bloggers and blog readers.  Listen up.  Class is now in session.

Today's lesson is about local educational decision-making and the school boards we elect to make those decisions.

(What's that?  No, it's not borrriing!)

You may think that talking about the school board and local educational issues- or any educational issues, for that matter-  isn't very exciting or particularly important. You may think that the public schools you atttended are still there and will always be there in some form regardless of who's running the show.  You may think that all this talk about standards and testing and No Child Left Behind is mildy diverting but hey, as long as we have teachers in the classroom, what's all the fuss about.  And you may think that school choice and focus options and charter schools are simply the mutterings and ramblings of edu-wonks and what difference does it make anyway.

(Hey you!  You in the back row!  Stop yawning and pay attention!)

Well, stop thinking and write this down:  There is no single issue, either locally or nationally, more important or worthy of discussion than public K- 12 education.  I say that for two reasons.  Write 'em down:

1. Public universal compulsory education is the greatest democratizing institution this country has ever devised.  Public schools, or "common schools", as they were once known, expose kids to other kids they otherwise would never rub shoulders with.  That's why they're called public schools.  The bulk of the nation's private schools are called parochial schools.  Parochial means-  "Narrowly restricted in scope or outlook; provincial."
2. Without a good public education, which includes exposure to diversity, citizens are incapable of making sense of the other issues that clutter so much of our public lives-- issues such as war, the lies emanating from the White House, gay marriage, global warming, and Terri Schiavo. Or intelligent design, or the growing gap between the rich and the poor.  Or Wal-Mart.  The sexy issues, in other words.  The ones that capture our attention because they're in the news all the time.

Now that that's settled (stop fidgeting!) turn your attention to Portland's school board, the seven elected citizens who set policy for Portland Public Schools, particularly the three newly elected members  - Dan Ryan, Sonja Henning, and Trudy Sargent.

(No, no, you don't have to memorize their names for the test.  Just try to associate them with school board when you hear them mentioned.)

As many of you will not remember, last May 31 I wrote that the three new members "on policy issues represent more of the same."   I was wrong.  Based on yesterday's charter school vote, they're worse than the same.  They voted as a bloc- Ryan,  Henning, and Sargent - against the old guard in favor of two charter schools.

(Are you passing notes back there?  Bring them up here, get back to your seats, and concentrate!  I'm almost done.)

If you've read my blog, you know how I feel about charter schools.  They're bad.  Unless of course charters are given to all the schools within a public district and transfers and school choice generally are disallowed.  But don't take my word for it.  Listen to what Madison High School teacher Tom Conry said in his appeal to the board:

" 'Public education is the last frontier of the common good,' Conry told the board.

"He said charter schools, even though they are public, are in a larger sense part of the movement toward privatization because they turn schools into commodities that cater to a few rather than institutions that whole communities support for the benefit of all.

" 'This devaluing of the common good is the cancer that will kill us all if we let it,' Conry said. 'To believe in public schools . . . you have to believe that our lives are important to one another on some noncommercial, nonmarket-based level.' "

Ok, that's it.  For homework reread the news article about the charter school debate.
And write a short essay on what you think the two 3 - 3 votes bode for the future or Portland's schools.

And for extra credit read this far from boring article by Linda Baker about Portland's school choice options.

Class dismissed.