Monica Goodling's uncomfortable feeling

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is a creep.

There's no other conclusion that can be drawn from the testimony of his former aide, Monica Goodling, last Wednesday in front of the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last December.

Ms. Goodling told the committee about the day she called the attorney general and asked to see him. It was, she recollected, at the end of the last full week she was to spend working at the Department of Justice.

She was distraught, she said several times, as she asked the attorney general for a transfer to another job. She said she felt she should no longer be working on his staff.

Ms. Goodling testified that the attorney general listened to her plea for a transfer and said he would have to think about it.

Then he did something she didn't expect. He said, "Let me tell you what I remember" about the firing of the U.S. attorneys.

He laid out his recollection of events and asked Ms. Goodling for her reaction to it.

She testified that she didn't say anything. She told the House Judiciary Committee that she thought it was a conversation they should not be having, and that it made her uncomfortable.

Monica Goodling told the committee she did not believe the attorney general was trying to shape her testimony. She said she thought he was just being friendly.

That's sweet.

She may really believe that, or maybe Pat Robertson's law school teaches Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment.

Alberto Gonzales said late Wednesday, through a spokesman, that he "has never attempted to influence or shape the testimony or public statements of any witness in this matter, including Ms. Goodling." Brian Roehrkasse, the spokesman, said Mr. Gonzales was only trying to "comfort" Ms. Goodling "in a very difficult period of her life."

Of course, this period of her life would be less difficult if Alberto Gonzales had given her a transfer to another job.

Was he holding that over her head when he asked her for her "reaction" to his recollection of events? Was he letting her know that keeping the story straight--in other words, lying under oath to Congress--was a good career move?

Monica Goodling may have been too distraught, or too honest, to fully grasp that message, but her subconscious sounded the alarm. She felt uncomfortable.

It is not to President Bush's credit that he has refused to fire Alberto Gonzales. Every day, this administration looks less like a presidency and more like a Marlon Brando film festival.


Copyright 2007

.

Where the rivers of scandal join: Meet Susan Ralston

While almost nobody was paying attention this week, a woman by the name of Susan Ralston asked the House Oversight Committee for immunity from prosecution.

Ms. Ralston is the former executive assistant to White House adviser Karl Rove, and before that, she was an assistant to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, currently in jail after pleading guilty to conspiracy to corrupt public officials.

The House Oversight Committee has asked Ms. Ralston to testify about her knowledge of contacts between Abramoff and administration officials.

This would be a good time for Vice President Dick Cheney to check the batteries in his pacemaker.

America Wants to Know has previously traced the links connecting Mr. Cheney's office to the appointment of Patrick Pizzella, a former Abramoff colleague, to a job in the Labor Department.

But it's just recently that our cracked team of psychics and gumshoes has identified a link between Jack Abramoff and the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last December.

We call to your attention this widely unnoticed news item from April 9th: NBC News producer Joel Seidman reported that Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Schwartz filed court papers in March asking for a reduction in Jack Abramoff's six-year sentence, "based upon the defendant having provided substantial assistance to the government in the investigation and/or prosecution of others."

Investigations take time, so if the prosecutor was asking for a sentence reduction in March, it is not unreasonable to infer that targets of the Abramoff investigation were receiving visits from federal authorities in the months prior to December, 2006, when the U.S. attorneys were suddenly fired.

It made our cracked team wonder if some of those targets telephoned their best contacts in the Bush administration to ask for help, and if those requests landed on the desk of Karl Rove.

Someday soon we will find out what Jack Abramoff has been saying that merits a reduction in his sentence, and we will be able to follow the pointing finger around the country to see if it matches up with the U.S. attorneys who were fired in December.

Then we'll all know if White House officials coordinated an attempt to obstruct the prosecution of public corruption cases by replacing key U.S. attorneys with loyal and politically ambitious new appointees.

Jack Abramoff's next court appearance in the influence-peddling case is scheduled for June 5th.

Stay tuned.


Copyright 2007

.

Hillary Clinton digs up the dead

Senator Hillary Clinton told parents and teachers in Miami Monday that she is proposing a $10 billion federal program to provide universal preschool for every 4-year-old child in America.

She said she would pay for the program by closing tax loopholes and ending the Iraq war, although she believes quality pre-kindergarten programs pay for themselves by preventing behavior problems, lowering the drop-out rate and reducing the welfare caseload.

"If you add up all the benefits, it's really astonishing," Senator Clinton said.

Can't argue with that. "Astonishing" is a synonym for "incredible" and "unbelievable."

In case you can't believe it yourself, here's a link to Monday's Associated Press report.

AP writer Brendan Farrington didn't mention this, but a proposal for universal preschool was put on California's 2006 June ballot by actor and director Rob Reiner. He made the same argument Mrs. Clinton is making for the value of pre-kindergarten programs, although he didn't offer to pay for them by ending the Iraq war. Mr. Reiner's proposal called for a 1.7 percent increase in the state income tax for individuals making more than $400,000 and couples with income over $800,000.

The California measure was defeated by a margin of 61 to 39.

If you went to school in California, that's almost two-thirds.

Yet Hillary Clinton has decided to dig around in California's political graveyard and haul up the crumbling bones of this dead issue.

Why?

Because she believes it is the proper role of government to create programs that solve people's problems for them. And 4-year-olds are cute. If you want people to come into your pet shop and buy what you have to sell, always put the puppies in the window.

Inside Hillary Clinton's pet shop is a ravenous monster eating our freedom.

Read "The Tyranny of the Children" at www.SusanShelley.com to find out why.


Copyright 2007

.

A better idea on immigration

Senator Ted Kennedy and a bipartisan group of his colleagues made a dramatic announcement today that they have crafted a compromise on comprehensive immigration reform. Senator Arlen Specter described the long hours of work and the many sleepless nights put in by staffers to complete the bill. "We're all dragging," he said.

They should have stood in bed.

What an obnoxious proposal.

First, the idea that U.S. lawmakers are holding border security hostage to legalization for illegal immigrants is, frankly, repulsive. The American people have the right to expect their government to enforce the laws and secure the border without side deals, trade-offs, or ransom demands.

Second, the plan to create two temporary worker programs, one for agricultural workers and one for everyone else, sounds like a hideous throwback to the nineteenth century. Are we planning to attach the workers to their employers and prohibit them from leaving to accept a different kind of job? Tell me again, what's everybody's problem with the Confederate flag?

Third, the proposed $5,000 fine that illegal immigrants would be asked to pay is harsh, cruel and pointless. These beleaguered people don't have any money, and we don't want their $5,000. We don't need to take the bread out of the mouths of their children just so politicians can stick out their chests and declare that they're not supporting amnesty.

It is amnesty, no matter what the politicians say, when we retroactively legalize conduct that was criminal and welcome the law-breakers back into the world of the law-abiding.

It was amnesty in 1986 when millions of illegal immigrants were legalized. The law was supposed to prevent more illegal immigrants from coming to the United States and working here. Yet today there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

How will the new law prevent the next 12 million from coming? Employer sanctions? Tamper-proof ID cards? Border security?

Oh, really. How about a good-faith demonstration? Let's see the U.S. government enforce the border for one year. Or one month. Or one week.

Here's a better idea.

Let's put a tax on remittances. A substantial tax. Let's have the federal and state governments take a large chunk of the money that is sent out of the United States in the under-the-radar world of small money transfers.

It's probably half drug profits anyway.

A tax on remittances would reduce the incentive to come to the United States and work illegally in order to support people in other countries. It would offset some of the costs of providing education and emergency medical care to illegal immigrants and their children, as well as the costs of enforcing the border and incarcerating criminal aliens.

The New York Times reports today that Mexico received $23 billion in remittances coming from foreign countries in 2006, with most of that money coming from the United States. After oil exports, remittances are Mexico's second-largest source of revenue.

It seems perfectly reasonable to tax that money in order to pay for services that taxpayers in the United States are providing to the citizens of Mexico.

It's certainly more civilized than grabbing a farm worker by the shirt and demanding $5,000.

Senator Kennedy noted today that ninety U.S. cities have passed some kind of ordinance attempting to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. He said this was anarchy and further evidence that a comprehensive federal law is needed.

In the unlikely event that the bill proposed by Senator Kennedy today ever becomes law, the sleep-deprived denizens of Capitol Hill may be in for a surprise.

The U.S. Constitution can be amended by the people of the United States without the permission or approval of the House, the Senate, the president, the Supreme Court, or any of the fifty state governors.

On the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures, a constitutional convention may be called to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. In this way, it would be possible to undo the Supreme Court's ruling requiring states to provide education to illegal immigrants, and even to change the birthright citizenship law so children born to women who are in the country illegally do not automatically become U.S. citizens.

A constitutional amendment has the same force of law as the rest of the Constitution once it is ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures.

No presidential signature is required. No House or Senate vote is needed. No federal court has the power to strike down a constitutional amendment.

Did you know that?

Read more about it in "How to Get Congress to Foot the Bill for Illegal Immigration, and Fast" at www.SusanShelley.com.


Copyright 2007

.

Ron Paul's good question

Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican congressman from Texas, drew contemptuous sneers from members of the media Wednesday following his performance at Tuesday night's GOP presidential debate in South Carolina.

NBC News' State Department correspondent Andrea Mitchell told David Gregory, on his inaugural show as Don Imus' replacement, that Ron Paul had really hurt himself with his comments and ought to be dropped from the next debate.

CNN commentator Donna Brazile made the same point to Wolf Blitzer.

Fox News contributor Nina Easton made the same point to Brit Hume.

What did Ron Paul say that so disgusted these eminent and distinguished women?

"I think the party has lost its way," Congressman Paul said, "because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

"Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

"Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

"And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don't end."

Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler, who was questioning the candidates, asked Rep. Paul if he thought the 9/11 attacks had altered the party's support for a non-interventionist foreign policy.

"No," the congressman answered. "Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

"We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."

At this point some members of the audience broke into applause.

In South Carolina. In the Republican party in South Carolina.

You can imagine what the audience was thinking in New York and California. And Michigan. And Ohio. And Illinois.

As a matter of fact, Rep. Paul led the Fox News viewer poll ("Who won the debate?") with thirty percent of the vote for most of the evening, just barely losing his first place spot to Mitt Romney at the very end of Fox's post-debate coverage. Rudy Giuliani was far behind with sixteen percent of the vote.

It wasn't a scientific poll, of course, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that somebody out there is listening to the questions Rep. Paul is raising.

Fox News, however, is not listening. Moderator Brit Hume decided it would not be appropriate to allow each of the candidates thirty seconds to weigh in on whether U.S. policy is inciting suicide bombers, or whether it is a good idea for the United States to be building fourteen permanent bases in Iraq.

"I don't think we're going to solve this tonight, gentlemen," Wendell Goler said with a chuckle.

If he thought that was funny, he should have seen Sean Hannity's face as he reported all night long that Ron Paul was leading the viewer poll.

The American people have never really had the opportunity to hear a full debate over the scope of the U.S. policy now being pursued in Iraq. President Bush decided sometime after the September 11th, 2001, attacks that containment of Saddam Hussein was no longer sufficient to protect the national security of the United States, and he began to speak in grander and grander terms about remaking the dictatorships of the Middle East into free, democratic, Western-style countries.

By the time President Bush gave his State of the Union address in February, 2006, he was describing U.S. foreign policy in these terms: "Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world."

"We do?" no one asked, "How are we supposed to do that?"

Congressman Ron Paul's comments on Tuesday raised that question in, of all places, the Republican party's presidential race.

It's a question that needs an answer.

Even if you accept the premise that fighting terrorists in Iraq makes it less likely that suicide bombers will attack shopping centers in the U.S., it's hard to argue that the war in Iraq is saving lives. Thousands and thousands of U.S. service men and women have lost their lives or their limbs, the National Guard and Reserves are under severe and perhaps fatal strain, and the volunteer military itself could be a casualty of this war.

As if that wasn't enough, there's the financial cost, the abrasive effect on relations with U.S. allies, and the growing risk that trouble elsewhere in the world may find the United States unprepared in both manpower and equipment.

With all that in mind, consider this: What if the Iraq war doesn't make it less likely that suicide bombers will attack shopping centers in the U.S.? What if the Iraq war makes it more likely that suicide bombers will attack shopping centers in the U.S.?

Congressman Ron Paul has now asked that question.

This is no time to throw him out of the debates.



Copyright 2007

Editor's note: You might be interested to read "The Motive for War: How to End the Violence in Iraq" and "A Plan to Get Out of Iraq: Blackstone's Fundamental Rights and the Power of Property" at www.SusanShelley.com.

.

Tabloid update: Bush marital turmoil

One of the joys of cooking is the pleasure of standing in the supermarket checkout line and feeling your whole body give in to the desire to buy The Globe tabloid and read the story headlined, "Laura Flees Boozing Bush."

This is a sensation you miss entirely unless you go to the store to pick out your own steaks. You can ask the waiter at the Palm if he's heard anything, but it's just not as good without the photographs.

Well.

Here's the latest.

The Globe divulges that gossip columnist Ted Casablanca, who writes The Awful Truth column for E! Online (oh, stop judging, you know you want to hear this), was told by "prominent and knowledgeable Washington sources" that Laura Bush is staying at the Hay-Adams Hotel following yet another "angry confrontation" with the president over "the state of their marriage."

The Globe reminds its readers that it has been reporting for twelve months that Laura has "battled to keep the marriage alive despite the president's drinking and her suspicions that he was cheating on her with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."

That might explain why Laura Bush arranged the seating at Monday night's state dinner so that her husband was seated between Queen Elizabeth and Nancy Reagan while Condoleezza Rice, dressed in a dress so red it looked like Rhett Butler picked it out for her on the way to Melanie Wilkes' party, was seated at Mrs. Bush's table where her every move could be watched.

The dresses were gorgeous. Mrs. Bush looked slender and elegant in a custom-made aqua Oscar de la Renta gown, and Condoleezza Rice looked like Lena Horne. See for yourself:




Secretary Rice might look a little less like a torch singer if she wasn't standing next to the piano player (pianist Rohan de Silva, who performed with violinist Itzhak Perlman).

Is it possible that the tabloid reports are true? If the president of the United States was "back on the bourbon" and sleeping with his Secretary of State, you would think the White House press corps would report it. After all, we're in a war. The president's judgment is an important, legitimate issue.

Then again, Newsweek spiked the story of President Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. It might never have come to light if the Drudge Report hadn't posted the unbelievable details, leaked by a frustrated source or reporter, on the Internet.

Is Laura Bush really leaving the president? Time will tell, and so will we. If you don't do your own grocery shopping, come right back here.

Copyright 2007

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier posts, "Laura Bush's cover story" and "All right, let's dish."

.

Disney Lawyers 1, Hamas Militants 0

Yesterday the Associated Press carried a story about a Palestinian television program for children that featured songs about destroying Israel and spreading Islamic domination, sung by a character that looked a lot like Mickey Mouse.

Mickey Mouse.

The Walt Disney Company's trademarked, copyrighted, locked-in-a-vault-at-Fort-Knox Mickey Mouse.

You may not know this, but the Walt Disney Company headquarters has an entire floor of lawyers who do nothing all day except hound people who mistakenly thought they could make cheerful little copies of trademarked, copyrighted, locked-in-a-vault-at-Fort-Knox Disney characters.

Now that you know that, you won't be surprised to hear that the Associated Press carried a story today reporting that the Hamas militants who produce the little TV show with the Mickey Mouse lookalike have pulled it off the air.

Exactly one day.

That's how long it took Disney lawyers to leave Hamas terrorists cowering in a heap on the ground, trembling and crying and begging for their lives.

Pretty impressive.

The job of Israeli prime minister is about to open up, in case anyone in Burbank is interested.


Copyright 2007

.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II spits upon the European Union

While the entire U.S. press corps was obsessing about hats and protocol and winks and scowls, everyone seems to have missed Queen Elizabeth's resolute and crystal clear statement that the United Kingdom ought to stay aligned with the United States economically, and not join the European Union in its effort to establish an economic rival to America.

Did you miss it?

In a toast to the President of the United States at Monday night's state dinner, Her Majesty said: "Divided or alone we can be vulnerable. But if the Atlantic unites, not divides us, ours is a partnership always to be reckoned with in the defense of freedom and the spread of prosperity. That is the lesson of my lifetime."

It's characteristic of Americans that we are utterly disinterested in other countries, so you may not know or care about the debate that has taken place in Britain over whether to join the EU, give up the pound and switch to the Euro, and generally throw in with the French and the Germans in any dispute between Europe and America.

A partnership always to be reckoned with. The defense of freedom. The spread of prosperity. The lesson of her lifetime.

Her Majesty has spoken: Britain chooses the United States over Europe.

The hats are lovely but it's a shame to cover up such a fine mind.

Copyright 2007

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "Why the European Union will collapse."

.

Photo finished: The slanted front page of the Los Angeles Times

The editors of the Los Angeles Times have had a challenging week.

It's not that easy to portray illegal immigration as a right and a virtue in the face of overwhelming public opinion that it is a crime and a burden.

Still, they're trying.

Wednesday's front page carried a photo and a report of Tuesday's rallies for legalization of illegal immigrants. The balanced story by Times staff writers Teresa Watanabe and Francisco Vara-Orta began with this:

Waving U.S. flags and demanding citizenship for undocumented immigrants, tens of thousands of jubilant protesters marched through the streets of Los Angeles on Tuesday during a mostly peaceful day that ended with clashes between police and demonstrators in MacArthur Park.

Fifteen police officers were among those hurt. About 10 people were taken from MacArthur Park by ambulance to hospitals for treatment, said d'Lisa Davies, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Fire Department. She said the injuries mainly were cuts, including head and neck wounds. None of the injuries were believed to be serious. Police reported that one demonstrator was arrested.

But the Times editors did not choose a photo of the violence between police and protesters to accompany the story. This is the picture they selected to represent the events of the day:



This photo by Luis Sinco was captioned "Parents and their babies march down Broadway for a May Day rally at Los Angeles City Hall."

The madonna-and-child portrayal of the immigration rallies was chosen over some of the more threatening images captured by Times photographers, like this one by Rick Loomis, captioned "Demonstrators stand their ground during a confrontation with police at the end of an immigrant rights march in MacArthur Park":



On Thursday morning, after it had become clear that the police officers -- and not the masked immigrants -- were going to take the blame for the violent clashes, this is the picture the editors chose for the front page:



It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the editors of the Times would like their readers to feel sympathy for illegal immigrants and anger at the Los Angeles Police Department.

Unfortunately for the editors, the images of illegal immigrant mothers and their babies may actually be perceived as more threatening than the photos of fist-waving masked men.

On Wednesday, the Times reported that the population of Los Angeles has climbed past the four million mark, up from 2.9 million in 1980. That's just the City of Los Angeles. It doesn't include the area's separately incorporated cities, like Burbank and Pasadena, or the unincorporated parts of Los Angeles County, or the adjacent Southern California cities in Orange and Riverside counties.

The City of Los Angeles now has a population greater than that of 24 states and equal to the population of New Zealand.

Meanwhile, the city's annual campaign against toilet-flushing has begun.

"Mother Nature Disappoints...." screams the flyer stuffed into my Los Angeles Department of Water and Power bill this month. "LADWP Anticipates Below Average Water Year from Sierra Snowpack." It goes on to warn that everyone must conserve water so the department can meet the city's needs. "Don't use the toilet as a wastebasket," the flyer advises.

Perhaps you've heard that the schools are overcrowded, and that programs which once were guaranteed to all students, like Drivers' Education, have been dropped from the schools due to budget constraints.

Perhaps you've seen our traffic reports on World's Scariest Videos.

However compelling the individual stories of illegal immigrants may be, the unlimited immigration of impoverished people and their dependents comes with a cost. The citizens of Los Angeles are paying it -- in the schools, in the housing market, on the roads and in the emergency rooms.

But the editors of the Los Angeles Times don't want anyone to talk about that. They choose photos for the front page that tell a story of joyful protesters with children and evil police with batons.

You have to turn many pages to find out that the batons came out in an incident that began with a crowd full of masked protesters throwing bottles at police.

Maybe it's not the Internet that's causing the paper to lose circulation.


Copyright 2007

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "A wall and a bus ticket: the new shape of immigration reform," and in the essay, "How to Get Congress to Foot the Bill for Illegal Immigration, and Fast" at www.SusanShelley.com.

.

Changing the locks: What we did on their summer vacation

The Iraqi parliament is thinking about taking two months off for the summer.

"If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight that would be the outrage of outrages," said Connecticut Republican Rep. Chris Shays.

"That is not acceptable," said Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner.

"I certainly hope they're not going to take any sort of recess when the question is whether they're going to make any progress," said Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson.

The "progress" relates to a pending hydrocarbons law, which would divide Iraq's oil revenue between the rival ethnic and religious groups in a manner that everyone considers fair. Washington lawmakers think this will help to end the violence in Iraq.

They're wrong about that. As long as group leaders are empowered to hand out the country's wealth, Iraqis will be forced to demonstrate their loyalty to those leaders, even at the cost of their lives.

If you're an Iraqi, you don't have an independent path to success in the private sector. There effectively is no private sector in Iraq. The government owns the oil and the oil industry, as well as all the other major industries in the country including agriculture. If you want a job in Iraq, you have to stay on the good side of the people who control the government, or your group's share of it.

If the Americans muscle the Iraqi government into handing "fair shares" of oil revenue to the leaders of ethnic and religious groups, individual Iraqis will not have American-style property rights to that money. Instead, they will be supplicants to their group's leader. This is not a system that will reward bold innovation and courageous risk-taking. This is a system that will reward blind loyalty, including the violent defense of a leader's position of power.

It's embarrassing that American government officials do not know this, but an economy based on collectivism is incompatible with political freedom.

The indispensable foundation of freedom is private property.

As long as the Iraqi government owns all the property and hands it out to people who will hand it out to people, the Iraqis have to survive by watching their words and watching their backs. They may sit still for lectures from American leaders on the importance of freedom, but they are humoring us. They are not free, and they know it even if we don't.

So here is a modest proposal from America Wants To Know.

As soon as the Iraqi parliament leaves for its two-month summer vacation, let's change the locks on the Green Zone, take over the government again, and get it right this time.

It is absolutely essential to privatize the state-owned enterprises in Iraq. All of them. Immediately.

The citizens of Iraq, even the ones living outside the country, should have the opportunity to buy shares of the new companies. Employees of the government, like teachers and soldiers, should receive shares as part of their compensation package.

Secure, private financial services must be made available to individual Iraqis. No one who lives in Iraq should be forced to rely on a cleric or a mobster for handouts of cash on payday. Surely someone in New York knows how to set this up quickly. Surely someone in the American government has a phone number for the chairman of Citibank.

Of course, if we do this, there will be endless criticism. There will be dark muttering about our intentions. There will be open accusations that we are only trying to enrich U.S. oil companies at the world's expense.

So what else is new.

America Wants To Know would like American policy-makers to consider whether privatization would, if it were achieved, solve the problems of violence and instability in Iraq. Because if they think it would, they should have the courage to endure the world's criticism and stand up for real freedom for the Iraqi people.

Otherwise, they should bring U.S. troops home immediately. Americans should not be fighting for the Iraqi government's right to spend its oil money on a two-month vacation.


Copyright 2007

Editor's note: You might be interested in the 2006 article, "The Motive for War: How to End the Violence in Iraq" and the 2004 article, "A Plan to Get Out of Iraq: Blackstone's Fundamental Rights and the Power of Property," at www.SusanShelley.com.

.

George Tenet: Portrait of a clawing careerist

Have you ever had a job you liked so much that you would let the United States launch an unnecessary pre-emptive war rather than risk losing it?

Me, neither.

But if former CIA director George Tenet has made anything clear in his latest round of book-promoting interviews, it's that he really liked his job. Really. A lot.

He liked it so much that he was careful, so careful, to make sure the boss was happy. He didn't want the boss to feel uncomfortable. Or pressured. Or challenged.

Maybe that's why, during the summer of 2001, when Mr. Tenet says he became so alarmed at intelligence suggesting an al-Qaeda plan for "multiple, spectacular attacks" on the United States, he never mentioned it to the president.

Mr. Tenet told CBS' Scott Pelley that he took his concerns to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, indicating, with visible contempt, that she dropped the ball by delegating this immensely pressing life-and-death matter to lower level officials.

Why, Mr. Pelley asked, didn't the director mention this alarming intelligence to the president of the United States during one of his daily face-to-face intelligence briefings in the Oval Office?

"That's not the way the government works," Mr. Tenet answered. "The president is not the action officer."

Is that right.

The director of the CIA wanted authorization to conduct military-style raids in Afghanistan, and it's nothing the president needs to know about?

Here's another interpretation of the same facts. Mr. Tenet covered himself by including all kinds of alarms in his written materials, but when the principals looked him in the eye and asked him for an executive summary, he minimized, downplayed, or neglected to mention the material he now says, rolling his eyes and raising his voice, was so obviously urgent.

If Mr. Tenet was so alarmed about al-Qaeda's plans for multiple, spectacular attacks on the United States, you would think he might have sent a memo to his people--his hard-working, dedicated, patriotic people, about whom he cannot say enough--reminding them to be on the lookout for known al-Qaeda members who manage to get into the United States. Then perhaps two of the 9/11 hijackers would have been tracked by the FBI instead of being filed away in the secret, inaccessible files of the CIA, where no one in law enforcement could know about them.

It was a mistake, Mr. Tenet said.

Well, he's not wrong about that. But not being wrong about that doesn't count as being right about something.

Neither does the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which described the CIA's "high-confidence judgment" that Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of deadly chemical and biological weapons.

"We were wrong," Mr. Tenet said, "And we have to live with that."

How brave of him.

Much braver than he was in the Oval Office, when President Bush reviewed the case the CIA proposed to take to the public to convince the American people and the Congress that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to U.S. national security. "It's a slam dunk," Mr. Tenet said.

Now Mr. Tenet has explained that remark. He did not mean it was a slam dunk that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, he says. He meant it was possible to construct a slam-dunk case to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

That's his defense.

He desperately wants everyone to understand that he did not persuade the president there was slam-dunk evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq. He was only telling the president that he could assemble a case to make it look that way.

I think we understand.

He was perfectly willing to help the president of the United States mislead the country into a war by cobbling together bits of secret intelligence to create a false impression of an imminent threat.

He went to the United Nations with Secretary of State Colin Powell and sat behind him as Powell read a list of deadly weapons that Saddam Hussein was thought to possess. He did not tell the country what he told Scott Pelley on Sunday night, that Saddam Hussein had no operational relationship with al-Qaeda, that Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism, and that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States no matter how many chemistry sets he had in his garage.

Did he tell the president?

We may never know the truth about that, but we do know this: he didn't resign.

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency watched as the president cited secret intelligence to justify a war against a country that the CIA believed to be no threat to the United States, and he didn't resign.

The evidence accumulates that Mr. Tenet looked the other way when the administration told its tales to the country. The infamous reference to Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium in Africa made it into President Bush's State of the Union address after Mr. Tenet declined to read the president's speech before he gave it. "I delegated it to my executive assistant," he told Mr. Pelley. "I said, 'You guys handle the speech.' So I have to take my share of the responsibility for that."

He must have really liked that job. A lot.


Copyright 2007

.