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

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.

The militant arm of the GOP

In 2004, the GOP held their national convention in New York City. The actions of the New York police department that week turned out to be another indication that fascism lives in the USA. The NYPD detained 1,760 political protesters, crowding them into a filthy pier. The detainees were exposed to the frigid New York nights common in the autumn, some without needed medical care, and many without ever being charged with a crime. The conditions were so bad, a judge finally ordered the release of those held over 24 hours, although the police department refused to obey the order.

It seemed as if the NYPD were nothing more than a militant band of the Republican party. How did the NYPD manage to detain such a large number of peaceful, law abiding citizens over the few days of the Republican national convention? Police records and interviews are beginning to show that for at least a year before the convention, teams of undercover NYPD officers traveled globally to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention.

The partisan aspect of this activity is that the US District Court has ruled that the NYPD must have "some indication of unlawful activity on the part of the individual or organization to be investigated" before monitoring political activity. However, the NYPD violated this law in its covert surveillance program. Most of the NYPD's reports about their surveillance were regarding people who were not displaying any intent to break the law.

Subjects of the covert surveillance included the likes of antiwar organizations, street theater troupes, environmentalists, church groups, and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Even three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.

One of the reports was on a design student named Joshua Kinberg. There were four pages from the intelligence reports on his master's thesis project, a "wireless bicycle" equipped with cellphone, laptop, and spray tubes that could squirt messages received over the Internet onto the sidewalk or street. If it were to spray paint, it would have been an 'unlawful activity.' However, the report noted that the messages were printed in water-soluble chalk to avoid a criminal mischief charge.

NYPD records on Bands Against Bush reported that the group was planning a concert in New York during which, between musical sets, there would be political speeches and videos. The records said, "activists are showing a well-organized network made up of anti-Bush sentiment; the mixing of music and political rhetoric indicates sophisticated organizing skills with a specific agenda." If this is the NYPD's idea of 'unlawful activity,' the department is clearly partisan.

It appears that the mission of the NYPD is not only to protect and serve the people of New York City. It is also to conduct unlawful covert surveillance of Americans whose politics are in opposition to the Republican party.

About face in four years

On March 16, 2003, vice president Cheney said, when asked whether the war would be a short one or a long one, that it would be measured in "Weeks rather than months." Fast forward four years (and three days, to be exact) and the USA is still mired in a war that has now lasted longer than World War II. Last week found Bush in the Roosevelt Room of the White House discussing his bloating troop 'surge.' Of the Baghdad security plan, the latest tactic in the war, Bush said "success will take months, not days or weeks." This is a direct contradiction of how the White House was representing the Iraq war to the American people before president Bush invaded Iraq.

With allies like this, who needs insurgencies?

England is supposed to be the right hand of the "coalition of the willing." One would think that would qualify the Brits as allies. Well, it seems that they're not so willing anymore. Just as Bush is beginning to surge 21,500 additional troops into Baghdad, his key ally in the war, Tony Blair, is pulling out 2,100 of his own troops from Basra.

In total denial of the implications, the Bush administration is painting the withdrawal as a "sign of success." Vice president Dick Cheney said "I look at it and what I see is an affirmation of the fact that in parts of Iraq ... things are going pretty well." What Cheney failed to consider is that Basra is right on the supply line to Baghdad. With reduced security in the south of Iraq, the logistics supporting the surge are compromised, right at the time when they become most crucial.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi security forces are supposed to be the Americans' allies in Baghdad. Iraq's forces are leading American troops into Baghdad for the White House's 'new' Clear, Hold, and Build strategy (which didn't seem to make a dent in the insurgency when American troops tried it a year ago). However, it turns out the reason the mostly Shiite Iraqi forces are leading the American troops into Baghdad is so that they can warn Shiite residents to hide their weapons and other incriminating paraphernalia from the Americans. It seems the Iraqi forces are more like insurgents than national police officers.

The implication of Bush's 'surge' strategy is that, while there will be an initial swelling in forces, it will not be sustained. However, Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency plan, which is setting up hundreds of "mini-forts" all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, will take at least five years to as much as ten years to complete. With 160,000 American troops leveraged all around Iraq for many years to come, and insecure supply lines, they will need more allies, not more insurgents.

Bloating surge

The Commander in Chief has ordered a "surge" of 21,500 troops into Baghdad. Considering the failures of past troop increases in Iraq, many question the effectiveness this one will have calming the violence in a metropolitan area of 8-million. With a majority of Americans now wanting their country to withdraw from the war in Iraq, the "surge" is widely considered just more of the same tactics that have only led to increased violence.

Americans could be happy that at least Bush did not go into six figures for the troop increase since many generals have said that's what was needed early on in the war. After all, it's only a little over 20,000 troops, right? Wrong.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the deployment of of 21,500 troops could require as much as 28,000 additional troops to support the surge. It went on to say that the cost to sustain the surge could be as high as $27-billion if it's sustained for a year. Of course the cost that can't be calculated is the additional deaths that our military will sustain by having an additional 50,000 targets in Iraq.

To prevent Bush from following through on his planned surge, the senate is trying to pass a non-binding resolution opposing it. Of course, Bush's signing statements show his total disregard for binding law, so there's no expectation he'll pay any attention to the non-binding resolution.

An incomplete title

The New York Times today published an article titled U.S. Says Iran Meddles in Iraq but Is Delaying Release of Data. It actually should've been titled "U.S. Says Iran Meddles in Iraq but Is Delaying Release of Data Until the Bush Administration Gets the Chance to Finish Fabricating It." They're not successful connecting the dots with the data they have now.