Trump; 100 Days

Op Ed in Cambridge Chronicle:

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/news/20170516/guest-column-comparing-trumps-first-100-days-to-bushs

The Decider Vacillates

December 13th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

So the great decider, cannot decide what to do in Iraq. George Bush's aphorism "I'm the decider" was a paraphrase of Harry Truman's "The buck stops here." As Bush shilly-shallies, young men and women are dying in Iraq. If he cannot decide in a timely fashion, the President should take to heart another of Truman's sayings "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." He should step down and let his Vice-President take the decisions -- if he is not doing so already.

Perhaps Cheney with his impeccable marksmanship could go Iraq and lead some patrols in person, to compensate for the more important priorities he had during the Vietnam era. There is a precedent. The neo-cons' darling, Winston Churchill, after being ousted from the Cabinet commanded a regiment in the trenches during World War I.

Green Card and Recent Legislation

Call me paranoid if you like but I am getting a little bit scared. I am a Green Card Holder and am, I hope, in the last stages of getting my U.S. citizenship. I also frequently write letters to the newspapers, mostly unpublished, decrying the actions of the current administration.
Today the President signed into law a bill that removes Habeaus Corpus safeguards from Green Card Holders if they are deemed to "give material aid" to terrorists.
If I write that terrorist suspects should receive the benefits of Habeaus Corpus, is that giving material aid?
If I write that the US reliance on the State Secrets defense in the Arar and el-Masri  cases is misguided, is that giving material aid?
If I write that retrospective legislation indemnifying US agents against war crimes is odious (Boston Globe, August 13th. 2006), is that giving material aid?
If I write that this administration has shown a contempt for international law, for the Geneva Convention, and for the Vienna Protocol on consular relations, is that giving material aid?
I hope not. But I am no longer sure and that is why I am just a little bit scared.

Withdraw the Hayes Nomination

July 12th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

The President should withdraw the nomination of William Haynes for a judicial appointment.

If appointed he will prove to be the Judge Jeffries of American jurisprudence.

He is really too stupid to serve on the bench. Unlike his military lawyer colleagues, he did not grasp that for the US to adhere to the Geneva conventions in all dealings with prisoners and detainees is not simply to protect those prisoners. American adherence to the rules also protects, or should, Americans who fall into enemy hands.

To the extent that we fail to live up to the tenets of international law, our opponents are encouraged to do likewise.

This pattern of activity by the administration, beginning in the early months of its accession to power clearly shows a contempt for international law, a contempt for the Geneva Convention (encouraged by Mr Haynes) and an arrogance that is stupefying in its stupidity. All of these decisions will come back to haunt the United States as other groups and other nations start to play by the US rules. We will come to regret the day we turned our back on the world.

The administration has taken one step in the right direction by declaring itself bound by the Geneva Conventions, let it take another by withdrawing the nomination of Mr Haynes.

Marriage Amendment

June 5th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Today the U.S. Senate is to consider the Marriage Amendment. I sent the following message to the President (president@whitehouse.gov) who instigated this move:

"Hands off Massachusetts marriage."

I hope your readers will do the same.

Condoleeza Rice at Boston College

Date: May 23 2006

Sent to but not published in the New York Times

In her address to students at Boston College yesterday, Dr. Rice wisely stated, "But at those times you're absolutely sure that you are right, go find someone who disagrees. Don't allow yourself the easy course of the constant 'Amen' to everything you say (New York Times, May 22. 2006, page A19).

What a pity she has never been able to persuade her boss, President Bush, to do that. Instead he has consistently surrounded himself with the mindguards of Group-Think.

Belive Scooter Libby

April 7th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

I find it difficult to believe Scooter Libby's claim that President Bush declassified the previously classified information that he passed on to various journalists.
Can you imagine that George Bush, a president of unimpeachable integrity who has been absolutely forthright in all his dealings with the public; can you imagine that George Bush would stand before the public and say that he wanted to get to the bottom of the question and that anyone involved in the leaks of classified information would be fired if he had already declassified that information?
Can you imagine that George Bush, a pillar of fiscal responsibility would stand before the public and allow an expensive investigation unfold if he knew, having declassified the information that no classified information had been passed on.
Can you imagine that George Bush, a man who is loyal to a fault to the people who work for him, would have put his subordinates through the wringer of a criminal investigation?
Actually I can imagine all of these. Bush lacks integrity, he lacks fiscal responsibility, and his loyalty is the kind that keeps people on because he cannot stand face to face conflict.
So, I guess I can believe Scooter Libby after all.

Troop Levels in Iraq

March 13th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

President George Bush said today that future troop levels in Iraq will depend upon the situation on the ground.
Why do I not believe him?
Before the Iraq war began, General Shinseki told him and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that we needed 300,000 soldiers to pacify Iraq. [Paul Wolfowitz pooh-poohed this number as he thought there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq as there had been in Kosovo where the General had served.] We did not get those 300,000. In the early stage of the occupation, Pro-Consul Bremer told him and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that we needed more troops to control the just-beginning insurrection. We did not get more troops.
The consequences for Iraq have been devastating: the looting that occurred just after the fall of Saddam (and continues in remote archeological sites to this day); and the full scale insurrection that is now under way with dozens of Iraqis killed each day and with the destruction of hallowed religious sites.
No, I do not believe Mr. Bush. I do believe that there will be a draw-down of American troops later this year, but it will occur as the 2006 election season gets closer and will have nothing to do with the state of play in Iraq itself.

Bush's Energy Policy

February 1st. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

In his State of the Union Address President Bush made an eloquent but incomplete plea for reform in our energy policy (New York Times, February 1st, 2006; page A1.
The question is whether we can believe him.
In his Jackson Square speech of September 15th 2005, President Bush said: "there's also some deep, persistent poverty in this region, as well. That poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality."
What in the intervening four months has the Bush administration done to relieve poverty in New Orleans or elsewhere (except among the hyper-rich)?
Is it that Mr. Bush is merely a man of fine words, or is he unable to bring the Congress along with him?
In either case, I remain skeptical that there will be any change in our disastrous energy policy.

January 23rd. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

I hope that Professor Laurence Tribe invented the anecdote reported in today's column by Bob Herbert in the New York Times (Page A23):
Laurence Tribe said: "I recently got a series of e-mails from someone, quite without invitation, that got rather scary in the sense that they started saying positive things about Osama Ben Laden. I asked the person in reply to stop e-mailing me, and I got an e-mail today saying 'Your request is permanently granted.'  But in the meantime, granted or not granted, that could easily put me on some kind of targeting list."
If the anecdote is true then I am appalled that someone of Professor Tribe's stature, University Professor of Law at Harvard, would be cowed by the fear of being on an Administration watch list. The correct response surely is: "Bring 'em on!"
Surely an Administration that is so inept as to target Professor Tribe has completely lost touch with reality. But we really must resist, not succumb to the Administration's unconstitutional activities. We must remember Martin Niemöller's lament (in my updated form):

• First they came for the enemy combatants, and I did not speak out -- because I was neither an enemy nor a combatant; 
• Then they came for those seeking or providing abortions, and I did not speak out -- because I neither sought nor provided abortions; 
• Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Muslim; 
• Then they came for the gays and lesbians, and I did not speak out -- because I was neither a gay nor a lesbian; 
• Then they came for the buyers and borrowers of books, and I did not speak out - because I neither bought nor borrowed a book; 
• Then they came for the e-mailers and bloggers, and I did not speak out -- because I was neither an e-mailer nor a blogger
• Then they came for the remaining non-Christians; and I did not speak out because I was not a non-Christian; 
• Then they came for the non-Evangelicals, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a non-Evangelical; 
• Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I hope this e-mail letter does not increase the New York Times' risk of being on a watch list.
Full Disclosure: In fact, I am a borrower and buyer of books, I am a blogger and an e-mailer, and I am a non-Evangelical Christian

Machete Budget

January 2nd. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

In his Jackson Square speech of September 115th 2005, President Bush said: "there's also some deep, persistent poverty in this region, as well. That poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality."
Just exactly how do the Budget proposals of the House and Senate (Bob Herbert, The Machete Budget, January 2nd 2006, A17) help us to rise above that legacy of inequality? The Budget goes in the opposite direction with its cuts in Medicare, Student Assistance, Support for Families, and delays in Social Security Assistance.
The President, if he is a man of his word rather than a man who merely says fine words, will veto any Budget that does not lead in the direction of poverty reduction.

Impeach the President

December 20th. 2005
Sent to but not published in the Boston Herald

The President has violated the law. The President has made a large number of disastrous decisions. The only way to prevent future problems is to impeach the President.

Do it now.

Date: November 9th., 2005
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

Patricia Skalka (Letters, November 9th. 2005) asks what she should do to change the administration's course on the war in Iraq. First, she should be clear that she is not alone in wanting to bring about change. There are millions of us out there but we have to act.
E-mailing and petitioning is not enough (the right can wield the delete key as easily as the rest of us -- as was pointed out in an Op-Ed earlier this week in your sister publication, the Boston Globe; Victoria Bonney, November 7th, 2005).
The peace movement is alive and well. It lives all across this country in church basements and community centers. Perhaps because of the evident injustice of the current war the peace movement flourishes. Find your local peace groups and plan and undertake peaceful protest on the streets of AMerica.
Once this administration sees the swelling stream of protesters in every state, red, blue, and every shade in between, it will change course.
We have nothing to lose by action. Bush and his team have everything to lose by our actions. Bush only wins if we fail to act.

Lack of Planning

Date: October 7th., 2005
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

It really is time for this Administration to go. Not because it makes mistakes, all Administrations do that; but because it fails to learn from its mistakes.
I read in today's "Bush addresses GOP Unease over Nominee" (October 8th, pages 1, 16) that "the White House was working to assemble a dossier that would back up its case about Ms. Miers' record of accomplishment, her legal qualifications, and her conservative credentials."
Why are they only now working on dossier? What information went into the initial decision?
Like with the Iraq war, planning in how to deal with resistance must have been minimal. This Administration just doesn't understand Murphy's law: that if something can go wrong it will. As a result the Administration does not prepare to deal with the worst case scenario: something that all MBA's learn early in their program.
It really is time to get rid of the cronies and replace them with competent professionals in the White House, in the Defense Department and throughout the government.

Taking Responsibility

Date: September 15th., 2005
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

When Lord Carrington took responsibility for British Intelligence failures prior to the Falkland war, he resigned as Foreign Secretary.
Is George W. Bush going to do the same? If not, what does "taking responsibility" mean?

Strikeout!

Date: August 2, 2005
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

President George W. Bush with his unerring talent for getting things wrong, managed to make a trio of bad decisions in the past day.
He made a recess appointment of John Bolton to be ambassador to the UN (Boston Globe, August 2nd, Pages A1 and A12). If ever there was a situation requiring a person with subtlety and strong persuasive, as opposed to bullying, skills, it is the US ambasssadorship to the UN. First strike against G. W. Bush!
He made a strong endorsement of Karl Rove as a "valued member of my team" despite his appeal to everyone to remain silent on the issue of Rove and the Wilson/Plame leak until all the facts were in (Page A3). Strike two!
Finally he announced that "intelligent design" should be taught in high school science classes along with the theory of evolution (Page A7). The problem is that scientifically, there is no controversy. Intelligent design has no empirical evidence in its support -- the theory of evolution does. The ideas of the proponents of Intelligent Design and their social implications can be taught in social studies classes but they have no place in science classes. Strike three!
Surely after three strikes in a single day, he should be out.

Loyalty to Karl Rove

Date: July 13th., 2005
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

Unlike Morgan Forster, the President of the United States does not have the luxury of "having the courage to betray his country." The President has a higher loyalty to the country. The President swore to uphold the constitution; The President promised us that he would fire anyone involved in outing Ms Plame. The President must act to fire Karl Rove now.
If Karl Rove had any loyalty to the country and to the President, he would have admitted his fault a year ago and resigned; thereby saving the expense of a complicated Grand Jury investigation.

Bush in the Dark

Date: May 13th., 2005
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

The failure to alert Mr Bush to the Cessna intrusion in Washington the other day was one of the better decisions made by this administration in the last few weeks.
First like those Mayday parade photographs studied so earnestly by Kremlinologists in the 1950's it shows clearly where the power in Washington lies: in the hands of the Vice President.
Second, with his track record, would anyone seriously want George W. Bush calling the shots during a National emergency?
To whoever made that decision: Thank you for keeping him in the dark.

Date: May 10th., 2005
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

There is an interesting juxtaposition in your pages today. In the main section Peter Cannellos discusses the geographic localization of military values and culture (page A3). This culture includes "loyalty to the chain of command, its patriotic sense of the rightnesss of Americas mission in the world, its commitment to retaining a supportive home front." Then on the op-ed page we have James Carroll's devastating indictment of the Bush administration's betrayal of each of those values.
Bush and his team show no loyalty to the chain of command. There is no accountability; not for Abu Ghraib; not for the torture in Guantanamo Bay; not for the intelligence failures prior to 9/11 nor for the misinformation on Iraq; not for under-armored troop carriers in Iraq; not for the failure, despite the advice of seasoned professionals, to provide sufficient troops to provide a peaceful aftermath to the invasion of Iraq.
The Bush administration is not doing the right things. It began an unjust war; just where were those weapons of mass destruction? It continues that war with no end in sight. It has withdrawn from the International Criminal Court because, in the words of Colin Powell "We are the most accountable nation on earth." No Longer! It withdrew from the Koyoto accords and has failed on every measure of environmental conservation. It has even abrogated the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that ensures that jailed foreigners have the right to talk to consular officers.
The Bush administration is undermining the home front with its attempt to privatize Social Security; with its failure to fully fund the expanded need for homeland security, education, and Medicare.
I wonder how long those military values with last once it is realized how badly they have been betrayed by the people who were expected to embody them in their actions: the President and the Administration Team.

Abandionment of Consular Rules

Date: March 10th., 2005
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

International Standards

Yesterday, the United States took one more step in its rejection of international standards of behavior. The United States withdrew from an Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that ensures that jailed foreigners have the right to talk to consular officers.
This has two chilling effects, one domestic and one international. On the domestic front it is a direct repudiation of the Supreme Court's reasoning that international standards should apply when considering the applicability of the death penalty. Clearly the Bush administration does not agree.
Internationally it represents just one more repudiation of international law and the wrong insistence that the US is accountable to no one but itself. It follows three similar actions:

• the repudiation of the International Criminal Court.
• the US pressure to sign bilateral agreements with 50 countries to exclude US citizens from the rules of the ICC treaty.
• the withdrawal from the Kyoto accords.

We will I fear regret these actions as foreign nations begin to apply our rules to us. The Congress should take steps to pass legislation incorporating the optional protocol on consular relations into United States law. Surely both Democrats and Republicans can agree on the necessity of due process.
This latest action reinforces what I find so despicable about the current administration's actions: it's unwillingness to live by the same rules that it insists that others follow. How sad.