Friday, April 27, 2007

You call this "compassionate"?

In 2000, George W. Bush ran for president on a platform of being a "compassionate conservative." Yet, this month, W has again demonstrated that he has not a compassionate bone in his body.

The Bush administration has again besmirched the reputation of the USA in the global community. Earlier this month, the US government did not send a single representative to the UN convention for the signing of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities document. After leading the international community regarding civil rights of persons with disabilities by passing Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under previous administrations, the Bush administration has failed to participate in any of the negotiations leading to the historic UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

As ashamed as I am with the leadership of our great country, I am a relatively dispassionate person. Therefore, on this matter, I am going to let John Lancaster, the Executive Director of the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), speak to the shame Americans should feel in their executive leadership. The Justice for All newsletter gets credit for providing America with the following note from Lancaster:
Weekly Advocacy Monitor (WhAM)
Vol. 5, No 12, April 2, 2007

Executive Director's Note:

Last Friday, as President of the United States International Council on Disability (USICD) and Executive Director of NCIL, I had the honor to represent both organizations at the United Nations as a witness to the initial signing of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As I sat in the observers' area on the floor of the UN's General Assembly Hall, delegates from 80 nations and the European Community took their turn at the official signing table to commit their country to the human and civil rights of people with disabilities. At several points, my eyes welled with tears. They should have been tears of joy and pride as an American, as a citizen in the country that had created this world-wide movement for the rights and empowerment of people with disabilities. Instead, they were tears of shame and embarrassment in being an American.

I do not relate these feelings to you, my friends and colleagues in the Independent Living Movement, lightly or as a passive observer. Almost 40 years ago, I acquired my spinal cord injury as a Marine Platoon Commander in combat just east of Hue City, Viet Nam. I had become a Marine out of a Kennedy era inspired desire to defend my country and the principles for which we stand "that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Following law school, I dedicated my career to these principles as they pertain to people with disabilities. I was proud to work with many great Americans, many with disabilities, as part of a great movement for the rights, empowerment and independent living for all. The United States for many years took the world-wide lead with passage of Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and then the Americans with Disabilities Act and many other great laws ensuring the rights and inclusion of people with disabilities. From 1995 to 2004, I traveled many times to and then lived for four years in Viet Nam. There, I assisted Vietnamese with disabilities and their Government in establishing similar principles, laws and policies within the context of their political system. I had always been proud of my efforts in this movement and especially of my country's world leadership. For the last six years, that National pride has given way to shame, embarrassment and anger; it culminated for me emotionally last Friday during the Convention Signing Ceremony.

The UN General Assembly Hall was full; the observer galleries were packed with disabled advocates from around the world; and delegations from UN member nations huddled behind their respective desks and country signs. After initial speeches, one-by-one in alphabetical order, the delegations from the various signing nations filed to the ceremonial table to sign the treaty books. In some cases, it was that country's ambassador to the UN. In the case of Ecuador, Vice President Lenin Moreno Garces, a wheelchair user, signed. Even the countries, who were not signing at least had representatives from their UN Mission present and sitting at their country table out of respect for the UN processes and the historic importance of the occasion all but the United States.

For the past several years of UN discussion, debate and negotiations that led to this historic day, the United States had been generally not present. When towards the end we did begin to participate, it was generally contrary and negative in nature. And then, on this truly historic day when we could have resumed continued leadership for rights for people with disabilities, the United States thumbed our noses in insolent arrogance at the United Nations, the signing countries, and the six hundred fifty million disabled people of the world. Our country did not even have the courage to seat a representative from our Mission to the UN at our country table or to make any sort of official comment or explanation as to why the Country of the ADA was not signing on to the Convention. I was not proud to be an American. I was ashamed of my country and of myself for letting it happen.

Please join me in recommitting ourselves as advocates and leaders to human rights, empowerment and independent living for all peoples of the world. Write your Senators and President Bush today urging that the US sign and ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

John A. Lancaster, April 2, 2007.
Source: NCIL

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Defense department disagreement

A recently released Department of Defense report details how the Pentagon linked Saddam Hussein and al Q'aeda. Four months after the 9/11 attacks, the DoD's number three official, the undersecretary of defense, was Douglas J. Feith. He led a year-long Pentagon project intended to convince the most senior levels of the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein and al Q'aeda were linked. His group of Pentagon officials and intelligence analysts from other departments deflected reports contradictory to the findings Feith wanted to end up with. They instead focused on whatever intelligence they could find, no matter how weak, which supported the link. The team persuaded top administration officials that they had powerful evidence of connections between Hussein's regime and al Q'aeda.

Yet, contrary to Feith, a different DoD official, the Pentagon's inspector general, Thomas F. Gimble, tells a different story. He reported that Feith's intelligence report on Iraq was faulted, with "dubious" intelligence which fueled the push for war. The report said that Feith's team "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Q'aeda," ignoring the conclusions of the intelligence community. The inspector general reported that Feith fabricated a link between al Q'aeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration." This is clear evidence that the Bush administration intentionally shaped intelligence to justify invading Iraq.