The War Powers Act and Iran

In 1964 the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and provided President Lyndon Johnson the legal cover he needed to prosecute the Vietnam War. Partly, the Tonkin Resolution stemmed from the expansion of presidential powers that took place during World War Two under FDR and the Cold War under the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy Administrations. The threats to our national security were real and Americans believed whatever their presidents told them.

That changed when Presidents Johnson and Nixon sundered America’s honor and confidence to pursue an un-winnable and immoral war. The body counts multiplied and social unrest intensified as “peace with honor” eluded the grasp of Johnson and Nixon. Congress was stuck with a mistake it couldn’t undue and never wanted to repeat again.
Hence, Congress in 1973 enacted the War Powers Act. It requires the White House to regularly consult with Congress whenever contemplating military action, written notification within 48 hours of such action and its’ estimated “scope or duration” and congressional consent through either a declaration of war or “specific statutory authorization.” Once invoked, the act prohibits a president from keeping the troops deployed for more than 90 days unless congress either declares war or passes a joint resolution upholding the president’s policy.

One can make a compelling argument that the War Powers Act is an egregious example of legislative overreach. Indeed, the Constitution empowers the president as commander and chief of the armed forces. Presumably, this gives the President the authority to repel sudden attacks and deploy forces as he or she sees fit to contend with perceived threats. The act appears to encroach upon the President’s authorithy as commander and chief. It can also be argued that this act amounts to dangerous micromanaging by the legislative branch.

Politically, no congress has dared to take on the executive branch and invoke the War Powers Pact since its passage 33 years ago. Once hostilities are engaged the natural inclination is for the public to rally behind the president. During the early stages of a military conflict a president is at their high water mark of political strength and congress typically becomes docile.

Strategically, in most instances invoking the War Powers Act may also be dangerous if the president is forced to withdraw forces prematurely. America’s enemies may perceive it as a sign of weakness.

If I seem uncomfortable with the War Powers Act it’s because I am. Far preferable is for the president to respect the Constitution and not initiate pre-emptive wars without congressional authority and for the legislature to assert its’ prerogatives and demand justification and assurances before hostilities are engaged. Invoking the War Powers Act is an extreme measure rife with risks and repercussions that we can’t possibly foresee.

Sadly, however we’re living in extreme times. The first President Bush didn’t believe he needed any congressional authority in 1991. Had Congress not given it to him he would’ve pursued Desert Storm anyway. In 2002-03 the current President Bush also would’ve plunged ahead without any congressional authority.

In a way both congresses were effectively coerced into supporting each war with Iraq whether there was popular support for them or not. Neither congress was about to invoke the War Powers Act if either President Bush went ahead without congressional authorization and everyone knew it. Now three years after President Bush declared “mission accomplished” in Iraq he’s once again beating the drums of war. Indeed, if Seymour Hersh’s reporting is to be believed, war with Iran is inevitable.

Putting aside whether one agrees with military intervention in Iran or not (I’m vehemently opposed for moral and strategic reasons), we have ample proof that this administration is not competent to manage a conflict with Iran. The Pentagon is currently imploding from within due to their lack of confidence in Donald Rumsfeld because of his mismanagement of our current war with Iraq. Furthermore, the diplomatic aftershocks following a military strike in Iran would require tremendous skill and finesse. Skill and finesse is simply not part of this administration’s DNA.

I have no confidence in this administration’s ability to competently process parking tickets. I certainly don’t have faith in their ability to manage a war with Iran and the resulting diplomatic turbulence. It would be an absolute calamity for our country, the Iranian people, and the world.

In spite of the Iranian President’s irrational boasts the threat is not immediate. Indeed his threats are really about enhancing his leverage internationally with the United States North Korean style as well as domestic politics. Also, unlike 1981 when Israel bombed Iraq there are no easy cocksure targets.

Our best weapon against the current regime is time and patience. The myriad of factions and entities within Iran’s bureaucracy and society are hungering for western contact. Covert diplomacy with the regime’s political adversaries may be more effective and realistic than doing anything needlessly rash. Demographically this is a population that is young, restless, and receptive to western culture. They are Iran’s future face if we don’t disrupt the evolution currently taking place.

Sometimes we Americans just have to get over our arrogance, hubris, and belief that we’re entitled to absolute guaranteed security because we’re Americans. The real world doesn’t work that way. We do have limitations and a mature society knows when not to overreach. Anyone who believes strategic air strikes or invasion is a viable option is delusional.

However, this President is deluded and that’s becoming embedded in our conventional wisdom. Bush is even more deluded then Nicholas II during the final days of Czarist Russia. Politically, he may find it impossible to obtain a congressional resolution for war this time. In spite of polls indicating a slight majority favoring strikes the Democrats are not likely to cooperate and even some congressional Republicans such as Chuck Hagel understand that Bush is off his rocker.

Off his rocker or not Bush retains command of our armed forces and he’s trigger-happy. The only way to stop him may be by invoking the War Powers Act and forcing a constitutional crisis. We can expect the Bush Administration would challenge congress’s authority facilitating far reaching political disruption and trauma for the country. However, allowing a war with Iran to go forward would be even worse.

ACF Running “Rape Camps” in Akha Villages of Laos

Action Contre Le Faim, the French organization against hunger seems to be satisfying a lot of its own appetites in the Akha villages of north Laos.

1. Akha villagers claim that ACF forces them to feed their entire work crews for the duration of any project, no matter how many people that is, no matter how long they stay in the villages and no matter how many pigs, chickens, cows are required to be slaughtered and how much rice and other foods are eaten. ACF is suppose to be the organization that fights hunger. So why are they forcing the target villages to feed their troops in Muang Long District of north Laos? Villages are already without food for much of the year, have a high rate of malnutrition, have endured forced relocations and no longer have enough farm land or water resources. Muang Long District is listed by the Lao Government as one of the poorest 47 districts in the nation. Despite the fact that Long District has severe forms of malaria, ACF refuses to provide free mosquito nets. This despite the fact that ACF in their own reports place mortality rates after relocation as high as 20-50% of village populations in the first year, due to intestinal upset and malaria. Some villagers stated that they buried villagers at the rate of 3-4 people per day. Mosquito nets are approximately $1 each and are the most cost effective way to prevent malaria and the high cost of treatment or outright death. This should be noted in comparison to bloated staff levels and salaries.

(NCA staff stated that they list nets as costing $9 each in their budget.)

  1. ACF has close to 90 staff members in Muang Long District. No one can explain the excessive numbers. Nearly the entire population of Long District is Akha. Nearly all the target villages are Akha. But ONLY 10 staff members are Akha. They are paid the lowest wages despite the fact that they speak two languages, and without them the work in the villages would be impossible. Non Akha staff are paid double and above of what the Akha are paid. The Akha are also required to do the hardest menial tasks such as carry concrete, construction work and are ridiculed by the Lao staff. They are not provided with ongoing education. They are not allowed to climb up through the NGO management. They are not provided with ANY health care benefits.
  2. There are NO Akha women on ACF staff in Muang Long District.
  3. Witness statements on video say that 70% of ACF staff visiting or overnighting in Akha villages demand Akha girls for sex. Girls are not allowed to refuse to go to the men’s huts. ACF staff then say in town that Akha girls are “easy”. If ACF staff is in a village ten days, they will demand a different girl each night. This is in a region already at high risk for HIV transmission. There may be as many as ten staff members staying in the village, eating Akha food for free, demanding girls. Witness statements say that if there are ten men, at least 7 will demand girls, and that the men who don’t demand girls are by far in the minority. ACF staff will not allow Akha men to gain rides on their vehicles through a region, only young women.
  4. ACF failure of management structure has led to this nightmare. Failure to have the staff made up of the target group. Failure to maintain 50% Akha women on the staff. Failure to have an Akha advocate or person who can readily speak Akha and VERIFY what is going on. Failure to train the Akhas for ALL positions on staff and failure to have an open and democratic process between staff and villagers.
  5. NCA (Norwegian Church Aid) is also located in Muang Long. NCA staff are accused by the Akha of the same sexual abuse. Women and ensuing babies have been identified. It is worth while to mention here that NCA teamed up with New Life Foundation and UNESCO to put on a HIV prevention and Anti Trafficking Project in Muang Long, Maung Sing and Vieng Poukha Districts.
  6. These accusations are voiced by scores of Akha from villagers to village elders, that the conditions are pervasive, that it is going on right now, that sexual abuse of the Akha girls is rampant in the villages by staff of ACF, NCA and GTZ. While direct aid for items the Akha need is intermittent. NCA staff in Vientiane stated that the Akha have a policy of “free sex”. The Akha stated that this is highly offensive as compared to what appears to be a policy on the part of the NGO’s to DEMAND sex from Akha girls. The Akha stated that in some cases Akha men threatened that they would shoot NGO workers for demanding Akha girls for sex.

Video transcripts will be posted to this site within days.

ACF, NCA and GTZ must reorganize their structures. Organization management and staff must be terminated for gross incompetence. Staff numbers must be changed such that Akha staffing and rank represents the population of the villages including 50% women. Staff must be equally given health insurance, same as the expat staff has, and staff must be offered ongoing education.

Girls who were sexually abused must be compensated. Staff identified in the sexual abuse must be fired and prosecuted. Organizations must hire outside Akha speaking consultants to review measures implemented to prevent sexual abuse in villages.

Clear policies that prohibit staff from having ANY sexual contact in the course of their work, must be clearly spelled out to prevent sexual abuse. The prevention of sexual abuse must be tied to all funding that is given into the region.

ACF, NCA and GTZ show shocking disregard for the population that they are paid with European funds to assist. Flashy publications cover the real abuse that is going on in the region. UNESCO has failed to monitor the true activities of these organizations, while funding numerous projects in the region such as Eco Tourism. There is no Akha advocate who can represent the collective interest of the Akha and other ethnic villagers in UNESCO’s TOP DOWN approach to eco tourism, claiming tourism is community based when in fact there is no way to prove this, and villagers have NOT given Free, Prior and INFORMED Consent to the process. Meanwhile the tourism projects get wealthy, numerous individuals get wealthy, numerous UNESCO staff have good jobs, and the villagers have little say in the process as these westerners would require if it was in their own western communities. While the tour organizations get healthy sums of cash immediately from the scores of daily tourists, the villagers get a “fund” which is a racist construct of UNESCO and the Tour Agencies, rather than their fair percentage in cash at the time the tourists enter the village. The issue of whether villages are private and this is an intrusion has not been discussed. Aid agencies have had plenty of time to provide assistance to these villagers and sufficient funding that the villagers should not be having to support a romanticized “Akha this” “Akha that” to finally gain economic benefit.

Scores of tourists who have gone on the tours state that they felt that the tours were intrusive, that they felt ashamed at the poverty of the people who were made to entertain them, and that the most basic needs of the villagers were not being met including health care. None of the tour operators, tourists or guides live under these conditions. As well, tourists stated that they were told many prejudicial and racist statements by tour guides which cast the villagers and their culture in a bad light.

Prostitute Comes Forward Confirming Rumors of Republican and CIA Involvement in Sex Scandal

Anonymous prostitute produces photographic evidence of upper level CIA and Bush administration involvement in prostitution for favors ring

Washington, DC (Rotters) – A Washington, DC area prostitute has come forwards lending credence to the allegations of CIA officials’ involvements in wild poker parties and prostitution exchanged in favors for legislation. The prostitute who remained nameless and in an undisclosed location has released pictures to Rotters and talked with its reporters about his story.
CIA Director Porter Goss has vehemently denied any involvement in the growing scandal. Personal support for his number three man Dustin “Dusty” Foggo, who is also reputedly involved, has been lukewarm at best. Both men now appear to have been longtime participants in Republican sponsored poker get-togethers which frequently deteriorated in various levels of debauchery. The parties were first organized as informal get-togethers at the Virginia home of Brent Wilkes, a recently identified co-conspirator in the bribery case of former Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

Rotters anonymous prostitute source claims that he first became involved over 15 years ago. He stated that one of the participants’ favorite games was something they called “stripper poker”. As a sort of side bet, the winner of the hand was allowed to remove a piece of clothing from the stripper. He states that the game initially never went past this, but as the years progressed the participants seemed to become bored, and insisted that he participate in varying scenarios of bondage and humiliation, bordering upon torture.

At a point a few years ago, the anonymous source states that the group began to tire of him when he became less willing to acquiesce to more and more outrageous demands. The group remained fearful of him and apparently arrangements were made for a high profile job and start up journalism company to keep him silent. The source relates that earlier this year this arrangement fell through and he began to be threatened and intimidated to keep quiet.

CLICK TO ENLARGE Private “stripper poker” party at the Virginia home of Brent Wilkes. In later years they migrated to the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC

“They know that I have pictures,” said the anonymous source. “What I’ve given you today is just the tip of the iceberg. I saw what happened to Jack Abramoff, and that’s not happening to me. These are some dangerous people. The last few years, I would go to bed every night and lie awake wondering if I was going to wake up in another country where they allowed torture.”

The anonymous source produced a photograph reputedly showing a typical gathering at Wilkes’ home in Virginia prior to its moving to the Watergate Hotel in later years. Attorneys for those depicted insisted that the picture was nothing more than a crass conspiratorial hoax produced by a frustrated individual seeking to impugn the reputation of the Republican Party.

Rotters has entered negotiations for turning over the identity of the prostitute and his photographic evidence to independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for further scrutiny. Fitzgerald office offered no further comment except to say that the investigation would receive all due diligence with the understanding of the limitations of manpower as further avenues of Republican corruption are uncovered.

"Merchants of Misery" and the "Do-Less-Than-Nothing" Congress

[Cross-posted at Firedoglake and The Great Society]

March 1st marked the sixty-fifth anniversary of the appointment of the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, otherwise known as the “Truman Committee.” Heralded as one of the most productive committees in United States history, then-Missouri Senator Harry S. Truman chaired the effort to cut out government monetary waste on defense contracts amounting to $15 billion. Truman went as far as to proclaim that war profiteering was “treason.”

Ironically, we intersect with another statement from the former president. Truman dubbed the 1948 Congress as the “Do-Nothing Congress” because they were in session for only 108 days. But I think the current collection of suits has them beat with only 97 days in session. It’s the “Do-Less-Than-Nothing” Congress and while they chase 12 million undocumented workers all over the country in the House and go off on gay-bashing tirades on the Senate floor, they are ignoring a major issue – war profiteering.
If there ever was a time when the Truman Committee was so desperately needed, that time is now. The cost of the War in Iraq recently reached $320 billion and likely to double by war’s end without adequate oversight that has led to billions missing and defense contractors running amok in Iraq.

“[Iraq] can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” -Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, March 2003

Just days after the initial decapitation strike aimed to kill Saddam Hussein, Noelle Straub of the Boston Herald reported on March 26, 2003 that President Bush sought (and received with stipulations in April) $74.7 billion from Congress to cover the cost of the war and post-war rebuilding efforts.

Immediately, concerns were raised as non-competitive contracts were awarded to the “most politically connected” in the country. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) told BBC News that most of the funds went to corporations or persons that were George W. Bush campaign donors in 2000. (Halliburton’s subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root received a $7 billion contract, which Vice President Cheney claimed that he had “no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form” in the decision. However, an e-mail from Doug Feith said “We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP’s office.” And if you challenge him on it, he’ll tell you to go Cheney-yourself. Talk about a major-league asshole. Big time.) Companies which the Institute of Southern Studies (ISS) dubbed the “merchants of misery.” The no-bid contracts for Republican-friendly corporations were described as “looting” the federal treasury in an April 2003 editorial (May issue) in The Nation. Representatives Henry Waxman (D-California) and John Dingell (D-Michigan) questioned the bidding process at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Bechtel Corp. received a large contract worth as much as $680 million to rebuild water, sewage and power systems. In the Associated Press, Larry Margasak wrote that Bechtel would receive $34.6 million up front and could receive the higher figure pending Congressional approval.

Resistance continued to be stiff in Iraq after the President’s overdone entrance and declaration of “mission accomplished” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. By August, the U.S. was spending $3.9 billion a month in Iraq.

The White House and Congress sparred over additional funds for Iraq and Afghanistan in late 2003. The Bush administration sought an $87 billion grant package while others wanted the aid to be loans. The administration won out in November but Iraq reconstruction aid was cut to slightly to $18.6 billion, according to David Firestone of the New York Times. In April 2004, Alan Fram of the Associated Press wrote that security concerns slowed reconstruction progress as “up to one-fourth of U.S. reconstruction money for Iraq is going to security.” Five senators asked the General Accounting Office to investigate private security firms in Iraq:

The letter was signed by Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin. It underscores concerns that lawmakers have expressed in recent weeks about the contractors.

A recent review of government documents by The Associated Press found that 10 companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction have paid more than $300 million in penalties since 2000 to resolve allegations of bid rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage.

The United States is paying more than $780 million to one British firm that was convicted of fraud on three federal construction projects and banned from U.S. government work during 2002. (emphasis mine)

And I ask you, where are the investigations? Still, nothing.

In late April 2004, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the House Armed Services Committee that the war in Iraq was costing $4.7 billion a month. By June 2004, over $5 billion in reconstruction contracts were awarded for work in Iraq, Matt Duffy of the New York Sun reported, but the “PMO [Program Management Office] says about $2 billion worth of work is actually under way.” Two months later, an audit by the Coalition Provisional Authority’s Inspector General revealed that $8.8 billion was missing.

Surely, after reports of the CPA throwing their hands up and saying “Err I don’t know” as to where almost $9 billion went, the Congress would get to the bottom of it. Perhaps… if they knew about it. According to Al Franken, Virginia Senator, 2008 Republican presidential hopeful and accused violent racist George Allen didn’t even know the money was missing. And he’s on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Go figure.

With the news of a $855 billion deficit forecasted for the next decade by the Congressional Budget Office, President Bush approached Congress to fund a $81.9 billion supplement that included funds for the two wars, the new Director of National Intelligence and a new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The embassy is roughly the size of the Vatican City. [What’s good for the Pope is good for the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad, right? Obviously persons of equal stature.]

In July 2005, the Washington Post reported that, for some projects, as much as 36 percent of appropriated funds are diverted for security purposes. By late 2005, reconstruction funds were quickly drying up as the insurgency still raged in Iraq.

“For war, billions more but no more for the poor.” -Reverend Joseph Lowery, February 2006

CBS’ 60 Minutes reported in February 2006 that contracts went to corporations “with little or no oversight.” The second-in-command of the Coalition Provisional Authority’s Ministry of Transportation Frank Willis said that the accounting system was “nonexistant.”

The next week, President Bush submitted a request for more money – $72.4 billion. David S. Cloud of the New York Times reported that the supplemental request would push the “total price tag for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to almost $400 billion.” It included $65.3 billion for military operations, $4.2 billion for reconstruction and $1.9 billion “would go to research and fielding of equipment to help troops detect and defuse homemade bombs, the leading cause of American casualties.” [They are just now getting to this?] The figure “does not include $50 billion for war costs that the White House plans to ask for soon for the first months of the 2007 fiscal year.”

The Senate is currently debating the emergency spending bill on the heels of a recent GAO study that had troubling conclusions on the progress of the war and the black holes that large chunks of government funds wind up. Oil, water and electricity are all below pre-war levels and now the conflict has devolved into “sectarian strife” – the buzz word of the media at large but known to the rest of us as a “civil war,” one that is not like the U.S. Civil War, Rummy informs us.

It was reported days ago that the cost of the war is fast approaching $10 billion a month while yearly expenditures have doubled since the invasion and are outpacing annual expenses of the Vietnam War.

It is not to say no one has ever tried to rein in contractors but ultimately they are shrugged off by the powers-that-be in Congress. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) and Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) tried to reconvene the Truman Commission without success. In 2005, a largely party-line vote of 224-196 blocked efforts to resurrect a 21st century reincarnation of the Truman Committee in the House. The refusals to investigate bewilder me. I cannot help but to ask…

Why?

Why are we not zealously investigating this?

Why is it that politically-connected corporations are allowed to loot the federal treasury with impunity?

Why are the Vice President’s buddies giving our soldiers contaminated water and not hauled before a Congressional committee because of it? Please explain to me how that “supports our troops” because I’m simply not seeing it.

Why are companies like Halliburton allowed to price gouge the government without consequence? cough ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP cough

Why are companies hiring foreign nationals (as opposed to Iraqis) and paying them slave wages? Just how does that help spread our brand of democracy?

Perhaps some members of Congress didn’t realize that supporting the troops entailed more than just sporting the standard U.S. flag lapel (or two), a yellow ribbon slapped on the back of their gas-guzzling SUV and using our forces as background fixtures to curry favor with the American people.

The truth is that these companies are not there to fulfill America’s objective in the region. They are not there as American ambassadors of good will. They are not there out of a patriotic duty to country. Rather these bigwigs at Bechtel and Halliburton are in Iraq out of corporate greed and are dangerously cutting corners and overcharging the government to maximize profits. These “merchants of misery” inflame tensions by alienating Iraqis and put our forces at risk only to increase their bottom-line at the experience of the American taxpayer. Period.

War profiteering is not a partisan issue (or at least it shouldn’t be). Even our frothing friends at LGF should be mad (if there’s enough room in their “black book of hate.”) It’s bad enough these companies got no-bid contracts that could have gone to local Iraqi companies for a fraction of the cost because of their political connections. The last thing we want is to let them get away with it.

Dear Neil: open letter to Neil Young

Dear Neil,
I want to thank you for your honest new album Living With War.  See, I am a child of the sixties, no really, I was born in ’66.  My mom was a non-active hippie but a later active feminist with ERA and George McGovern signs on our lawn.  Though she now teaches art history and has illustrated two children’s books, she was a campaign photographer for Tom Daschle in the early eighties.  My dad was a Marine and they divorced when I was two and I ended up with my mom.  And I was a mistake.  I listened to you as a kid, but I didn’t “get” you because, well, I was young.

Like a normal kid, I rebelled against against my mom.  She rebelled against my grandfather who was a Marine aviator in WWII.

Know what I did?  I grew up and became a Green Beret.  I was just in time for Reagan/Bush I and was assigned to Latin America in 7th Special Forces Group.  Unfortunately, I am still paying for that with guilt and shame that comes with my recently diagnosed PTSD, but hey, those are the forgotten dirty wars of the US.

Now I will be 40 next month and I rediscovered you a few years ago.  I’ve been listening to your “old stuff” as if it was a new discovery for me because now I “get” it.  As well as the NY band Sonic Youth (you produced them once or twice, bravo), The Clash, Audioslave, Rage Against The Machine, and a host of others.

But you are the master.  I’m not being a syncophant here, it’s your experience from the sixties/seventies that’s replaying a tragic story today.  I only wish you didn’t have new material to draw from.  Nevertheless, your new album speaks to me just as your “old stuff” spoke to my mother’s generation (I rediscovered CCR too, BTW).

Neil, unfortunately your message applies today just as it did when I was six years old and I wanted Nixon to be reelected because he had the same first name as I do – ah, the comphrehension of children!

So I do enjoy your new album.  It’s remarkable.  It gives me hope and motivation to correct the personal wrongs I did as a perpetrator and help my younger brothers and sisters in the Armed Forces as they will have a heavy burden for the rest of their lives.  They may not realize it now, but it comes back, later in life, when one is out of the military subculture and one realizes what they have done.

So thank you, for your message of my mother’s generation; and thank you for speaking to mine.  It’s just a shame that we didn’t listen to it and learn the first (?) time around.

Schumer and Emanuel vs. Blogdom

Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel are in charge of taking back the Senate and House, respectively. Adam Nagourney, in the New York Times, gives them a fairly glowing review. Now, I am of two minds about Schumer and Emanuel. On the one hand, they have a job to do, recruiting candidates that can win and raising money for their campaigns. On that score, they have outperformed their Republican counterparts by a country mile. On the other hand, they haven’t exactly put ideology or party principles at the top of their list when they set out to find their candidates. What I find most galling is the way they have tried to shut down primary challengers and dictate to their candidates. As an example, take the following boast from Chuck Schumer:

“In the past, if you were a big shot in the Democratic caucus, you got a couple of million bucks,” he said. “No more.”

He went on, as he sought to assure his audience that their checks would not be squandered, to recount the strict conditions he set with senators and candidates alike.

“We’ll give you money, but you have to hire a campaign manager, a finance director and a communications director who we approve,” Mr. Schumer said. “They have to toe the line.”

Emanuel is even worse. You want to talk about micromanaging? Look at how he treats poor Lois Murphy…




















Mr. Emanuel calls 40 Democratic candidates every weekend, demanding to know what they have done for him lately.

“He calls me on my cellphone just to see where I’m going,” said Lois Murphy, a lawyer from the Philadelphia suburbs who is challenging Representative Jim Gerlach.

Mr. Emanuel is paternal and approving when his candidates meet his standards for raising money or zinging an opponent. He is withering when they do not. Mr. Emanuel is legendary in Washington for ceasing communications with those who have displeased him (which presumably is preferable to the time he sent a dead fish to a Democratic pollster whose work he found lacking).

“I said to every challenger, between now and March 31, besides having X dollars cash on hands, they have to have three proactive policy things that they have announced,” Mr. Emanuel said. “I want to see clips. Otherwise you’re not part of my red-to-blue program, O.K.?”

Again, I am two minds about this. Emanuel is taking his job seriously and he is working hard. But, he is also dictating who gets hired, and using his ability to withhold money as a weapon to make candidates toe the line.

And that might be okay, except for stuff like this:

“When the far-left wing of the Democratic Party runs the party, we lose,” Mr. Schumer said at one fund-raiser.

Now, I can’t recall a time when the far-left of the Democratic Party ran the party. So, I take it that Schumer means that the Democrats lose because they are too left-wing for the electorate. And that belief is clearly reflected in Schumer’s decision to recruit Bob Casey, Jr. for the run against Rick Santorum.

So, while I must confess that Schumer and Emanuel have performed well overall, especially when compared to their Republican counterparts, I don’t think we can fix what ails the party and the country without taking on their candidates in future primaries, and we can’t do that unless we can compete financially. In 2006, we are going to have to go with the team we have, but by 2008 we need candidates that pledge not to take Schumer and Emanuel’s money, nor hire their campaign managers, finance managers, or communications directors.

We need a party within a party. It’s not that Emanuel and Schumer aren’t doing a good job, they are. But, they are doing it for pure power, not for the people. If we are going to have a two-party system that isn’t bought and paid for by corporate interests and lobbyists, we’ve got to break the paradigm. And shutting down primaries is not acceptable. We can’t let them get away with that strategy in ’08.

Call Out the National Guard: May 1-3, 1970, at Kent State

On May 1, 1970, Kent State University responded to Richard Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia with a protest similar to those on a hundred other campuses that May 1. But, as the weekend progressed, so did the level of confrontation. Still, no one expected the bloody events of May 4, 1970, when the Ohio National Guard killed four and wounded nine students. To understand what happened that Monday, it’s necessary to review the events leading up to it.  

Part I of this series examined Nixon’s curiously timed announcement of the Cambodian invasion and the May Day rally at Yale University. This, Part II of the series, examines the events of the May 1-3 weekend at Kent. Part III will deal with the events of May 4 and Part IV will examine the legal aftermath.  

In memory of Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, Bill Schroeder, and Sandy Scheuer, then, join me on the flip to explore the events of this, the last weekend of their lives.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.)
Even among Ohio college students, Kent State didn’t have much of a reputation for political activism. In 1968, a group of Kent State student activists formed a chapter of Students for a Democratic Society but it never acquired much of a following. When Mark Rudd, best known for his role in shutting down Columbia University, came to speak at Kent State, only a couple dozen students turned out. At the height of their influence, Kent SDS could only claim about 1% of the student body as members and the pre-1970 list of student-led campus disruptions was quite small. In November, 1968, Kent SDS and the Black United Students protested recruiters from the Oakland Police Department. In the spring of 1969, SDS presented the administration with a list of demands, including the abolishment of ROTC on campus. The disruptions that followed ultimately led to the suspension of the SDS campus charter. Since that pretty much sums up Kent’s Vietnam-era radical activities, it’s probably not all that surprising that a spring 1970 survey found a majority of KSU students supporting Nixon’s policies.

On May 1, 1970, the day after Nixon’s speech announcing the invasion of Cambodia, a hastily-organized group of Kent State students, calling themselves World Historians Opposed to Racism and Exploitation (WHORE), gathered on the campus commons to denounce the invasion. Declaring the Constitution dead, they ripped a copy of the document from their history books and buried it. The rally attracted only 500 of Kent’s 20,000 students. At the end of the event, the organizers announced another rally for noon on Monday, May 4.  

That night, as usual, the action in Kent was at the downtown bars. With televisions on campus scarce in those days, many kids had gone to the bars to watch the NBA finals. In the streets, a motorcycle gang performed stunts to entertain the crowd. Then, spontaneously, someone announced a street dance and the kids began blocking off the road. When an elderly driver refused to detour, the revelers rocked his car. The driver finally pulled back and the kids cheered. About 11 PM, people began snake-dancing through the streets. The atmosphere, according to Kent sociologist James Best, was “lighthearted, if frantic” which was not particularly unusual for downtown Kent on a spring weekend.

Then the mood began to change. Some kids started stopping motorists to ask their opinion of the Cambodia invasion. Someone overturned a garbage can and set its contents on fire. A smaller group, mostly not students at Kent State, began throwing rocks and bottles through storefronts. Kent police Chief Roy Thompson watched anxiously, hoping the crowd would “simmer down.” When they didn’t, he ordered his full force of twenty-one men into riot gear and called neighboring law enforcement departments for additional support. He then called Kent Mayor LeRoy Satrom and told him that a riot was in progress. When Satrom reached Main Street around 1 AM, he declared a civil emergency, along with a retroactive 11 PM curfew. The officials went around and closed down the bars. This forced an additional 1500 kids into the streets. Those kids, angry at having had to leave their already-paid-for beers behind, now joined the much smaller group of agitators. Thompson, who later admitted this decision was “probably a mistake,” ordered his men to lob tear gas into the crowd. Meanwhile, Satrom telephoned Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes and reported, erroneously, that “SDS students had taken over a portion of Kent.”

The crowd, prodded by police and tear gas, scattered and then regrouped at the Prentice Gate to KSU’s campus. Rocks, bottles, and taunts flew. The Kent police, lacking authority to enter the campus, fired tear gas and waited for support from the campus police but they never arrived. At 2:30 AM, a freak accident, with a workman stranded on a traffic light, diverted everyone’s attention. His predicament and subsequent rescue diffused tensions and, about 3 AM, the students drifted back onto campus and the police dispersed. In all, Friday night’s protests resulted in about $10,000 worth of property damage, seven slightly injured policeman, and fourteen arrests. By contrast, when Ohio State won the Rose Bowl the previous January, about five times as much damage occurred in Columbus. That, however, was dismissed as light-hearted, celebratory fun.    

Saturday morning, many KSU students woke up to the news of what had happened in town Friday night. By then, Mayor Satrom had imposed a dusk-to-dawn city curfew and banned the sale of alcohol and gasoline, unless it was pumped directly into a car tank. Later that morning, Satrom met with a liaison from the Ohio National Guard. The liaison officer told the mayor that, if Satrom wanted the Guard’s help, he had to ask for it by 5PM. Why the Guard imposed such an artificial deadline is unknown but, clearly, this created an artificial sense of urgency. Later that day, the same guard officer told a KSU vice president that, if the Guard came, it would take “complete control” of the town and the campus. Even as these officials met, students were downtown helping to clean up the debris from the previous night’s disturbances.

In mid-afternoon, Kent Police Chief Roy Thompson reported to Satrom that Weathermen had been positively identified on campus, guns were being stockpiled, and plans hatched to burn the banks, post office, and campus ROTC buildings. Thompson urged Satrom to call in the Guard. Although none of these rumors could be substantiated, Satrom acquiesced.  

Meanwhile, on campus, word spread of an evening rally at the Army ROTC building, a ramshackle surplus World War II barracks on the edge of the university Commons. Later, many claimed it was common knowledge that the building would burn that night. In any case, by about 8PM, several hundred students had gathered near the ROTC building. Banned from town, the students had little else to do. Someone suggested “liberating” a hastily-scheduled dance and the students marched to the dormitories where they picked up a few additional protesters and then returned to the Commons.

What happened over the next couple of hours remains controversial. As the students watched, a small group of hard-core agitators rushed the ROTC building, pelting it with rocks and battering its windows. Attempts to burn the building were made by throwing lighted railroad flares onto the roof, but these rolled off. Someone else ignited a curtain with a cigarette lighter but that quickly fizzled out. Finally, someone lit a rag dipped in gasoline, threw it inside, and the ROTC building began to burn.

What baffled many at that point was the absence of an effective response by the Kent State police. The Reverend Robert Lee remarked:  “The curious thing to me is that when the mob of students approached the ROTC building, they were not met by a prepared group of law enforcement people in sufficient numbers to stave off the burning.” One student noted:  “People kept expecting the police to come, and when they didn’t come, [the crowd] got braver.” Professor Glenn Frank recognized none of the so-called leaders of the group attacking ROTC. Because this activist core threatened photographers, few photographs of Saturday night’s events exist.

Shortly after 8:45 PM, the Kent fire department arrived. As they tried to put the fire out, demonstrators threw rocks and slashed their hoses with ice picks. Professor Glenn Frank watched in confusion as “a small group of helmeted police (stood) at the side of the ROTC building (and) made no attempt that I could see to defend the firemen.” With no protection, the firemen left, but not until the fire was fully contained, according to a fireman. Around 9 PM, with the fire out, the crowd of students drifted away, heading towards town to challenge the curfew. After being tear-gassed at the campus gate, they returned to the Commons where, to their astonishment, they found the ROTC building completely engulfed in flames. Although the fire department returned to campus, by the time they got there, the building was a total loss. “How (the ROTC fire) happened is unclear,” said Peter Davies, author of The Truth About Kent State, “but it could not have happened at a more inopportune moment:  the advance units of the Ohio National Guard were entering Kent.” Seeing the fire on campus, the ONG immediately proceeded to campus. Without the excuse of the ROTC fire, the Guard would have been stationed in Kent and might never have entered the Kent State campus. This, along with the actual events of the fire, have led most of those who have studied the Kent State shootings to believe that the ROTC fire was set by agents provocateur. Charles Thomas, who worked at the National Archives and obtained the separate FBI report on the ROTC fire through the Freedom of Information Act, says those documents prove “the police had been deliberately held back” and “the building was apparently burned while it was intact and in the hands of the police.”

On Sunday, May 3, students awoke to find their campus filled with jeeps, armored personnel carriers, and Ohio National Guard soldiers. At 10 AM, Governor James Rhodes arrived in Kent to assess the damage. The two-term governor, running in Tuesday’s May 5 primary for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator, saw Kent as a last, great opportunity to promote his law-and-order campaign. At a press conference, the angry governor pounded the table while denouncing “the most vicious form of campus-oriented violence yet perpetrated by dissident groups and their allies in the state of Ohio.” He promised “to put a stop to this…. We are going to eradicate the problem. We are not going to treat the symptoms…. These people … terrorize the community. They are worse than the brown shirts and the Communist element and also the night riders and the vigilantes. They’re the worst type of people that we harbor in America.” Thanks to a broadcast hookup in the barracks, the National Guard heard all the governor’s inflammatory rhetoric. (Post script:  Rhodes would lose the May 5 election.)  

National Guard Adjutant General Sylvester Del Corso used the Sunday press conference to discuss tactics:  “Like the Ohio law says, use any force that is necessary even to the point of shooting.” Governor Rhodes emphasized the peril he saw for the community:  “No one is safe in Portage County. It is just that simple.” After the meeting, when the Portage County prosecutor urged Rhodes to close the university, the governor refused, saying that to do so would just play into the hands of the radicals. (Emphasis mine.)

As a result, Kent State remained open and Sunday afternoon passed quietly. Students chatted on campus with the guardsman, many of whom were about the same age and some of whom were themselves Kent State students. Nevertheless, widespread confusion reigned on campus regarding curfews and the students’ right to assemble. No one was quite sure who was in control of the campus and the distribution of some 12,000 leaflets declaring that a state of emergency existed, that the National Guard controlled the campus, and that “all forms of outdoor demonstrations and rallies – peaceful or otherwise” had been banned, didn’t help.

That night, a small crowd again gathered on the Commons. Around 9:30 PM, they began a sit-down strike just off campus, to protest the city curfew. For about an hour, students sat quietly under the watchful eyes of the police. Eventually the demonstrators asked to meet with the mayor and KSU’s president. The Kent police agreed, provided the students agreed to move back onto campus. But as the students began to do so, the police suddenly announced that the curfew was being moved up from 1 AM to 11 PM, giving students less than half an hour to find shelter.

Almost immediately, the Guard fixed their bayonets and began firing tear gas. Panicky students sought whatever shelter they could find. Helicopters spotlighted the fleeing students. The demonstrators, feeling betrayed, became hostile. One remembered that “as we moved up the street, stones were being thrown back toward the Guard and the State Police.” A guardsman told the New York Times, “You could hear the rocks falling all around you. One brushed my sleeve. It was scary as hell. We were worrying about the snipers. They kept saying there were snipers out there.” Before this Sunday night confrontation ended, at least two, and possibly as many as seven, students had been bayoneted.

Many students never made it back to their rooms that night and few got much sleep. Isolated gunfire and the whip-whipping of helicopter blades continued all night long. One student later said, “I fell asleep with the sound of helicopters in the air and the feeling I was in an armed camp.”

Many guardsmen’s nerves were also frayed. Before being sent to Kent State, these same units had been on active duty in a Teamsters strike, during which they were shot at and had huge blocks of concrete dropped on them from overpasses. Although some guardsmen had riot control experience, others were recent recruits with limited training or experience. Some had had little sleep or food for days. One company got off duty after Sunday’s events at 3 AM. They bedded down only to be awakened an hour later:  “Our tents were not arranged in straight enough rows, we were told. We had to get up, knock down the tents and rearrange them, then finally [we] were permitted to sleep.”

All this kept everyone on edge, setting the stage for Monday’s disaster.

Froggy Bottom Lounge — Closed

What Are Ya Havin’?

This is an Unhosted Cafe.

Beer, Wine, and Setups
Snacks on every table.

Rude, crude, lewd behavior appreciated.

Please recommend (and unrecommend the Cafe/Lounge from earlier)

May the 4’s be with you

A Statue for Colbert

I don’t want to make too big of a deal about it, but Steven Colbert’s performance at the White House Correspondent’s dinner was spectacular. I don’t know where he found the guts to take the President to the woodshed like that when he was standing ten feet away. The brilliance of his construction, ostensibly being a huge supporter of Bush, and his refusal to be sidetracked by the lack of laughter and the uncomfortable smiles, made for a comedic triumph of the highest order. The truth stands in such stark contrast to the official spin manufactured through the White House, and through the White House correspondents, that Colbert’s job was relatively easy. Just tell the truth, tell it relentlessly, say it doesn’t matter, say not to care, endorse closing one’s eyes to what everyone clearly knows. The emperor and the Washington press corp are wearing no clothes, and last night they were exposed. A captive audience had nowhere to run, as Colbert dropped bomb after bomb after bomb on them. If there is a hell, Bush will be there getting subjected to Colbert’s speech over and over again for all eternity.

We should build a statue to Steve Colbert for providing a little dose of justice on a most deserving ‘inside Washington’ glitterati. He savaged Antonin Scalia, he savaged John McCain, he savaged the corruption in Washington, he accused the press of being mere stenographers for the administration, he bashed the Washington Post, he brutally attacked the war in Iraq, the President’s response to Katrina, his failure to address global warming, the budget, the NSA leaks, the Plame affair, the secret prisons, and the torture. Colbert left almost no national disgrace unmentioned, and he pulled no punches. I have nothing but admiration for him.

Unsuprisingly, the wingnuts see things somewhat differently…









Some samples from Pam’s House Blend:

“God bless our President for having the fortitude to put up with this waste of time and these tacky, talentless, hollow little people.”

“Oh. My. God. I cannot believe the vile string of invective cloaked as comedy delivered by that simpering fool Colbert. It was a serious lecture. He picked up confidence and conviction with every worn out accusation he learned on Daily Kos. Unlike Imus, who had enough of a conscience to pour flop sweat on his filthy self, this guy actually developed a glow by the end of his diatribe. He was proud. I cannot believe our president was forced to endure this disgusting insult. I am beyond ashamed.”

“If you have the stomach to watch, be sure to pay attention to the psychopath’s exit. GWB shook his hand curtly. Laura pointedly refused to stand or extend her hand. She gave him a look. Then the filthy coward moved on to kiss and warmly embrace the fossil Helen Thomas… great minds and all.”

“Stephen Colbert’s long presentation could not have been more awful. I did not laugh once. I broke a smile maybe once (the Mayor Nagin joke). Colbert even managed to ridicule the President’s standing-on-the-rubble 9/11 moment as a “staged photo-op”. His blinding hatred for all-things-Bush could not have come across more clearly. Ugh.”

“Watching Stephen Colbert was an exercise in agony. It went on and on and on forever, generating few laughs with everyone checking their watches. Whoever said he was funny, besides Don Imus, should have watched Colbert’s non-performance tonight. It’s like he didn’t have a clue that he had bombed! Bush and his look-alike stole the show. Bush is a master of self-deprecating humor which makes him endear himself more to the American people. Gosh, I love this guy and am so proud of him.”

“I just watched the clip with Steve Bridges, it was great! I’ve seen him doing his Bush impersonation on The Tonight Show, he was exactly the same tonight. He has the style and mannerisms down and their timing was excellent. Missed Colbert and it sounds like a good thing. He is a smarmy little guy. I’ve watched his show a few times to see what it’s about. Whoever invited him failed to realize that he is MOCKING conservatives and Fox News types (especially O’Reilly), not in a nice way either. [Give this moron a cookie!] Too bad he couldn’t be decent tonight. “

The truth hurts.