Older Posts - June 2006

Sunday 6/11/06 - Read Between the Lines in AP Article 

The June 11, 2006 article entitled “Bush, advisers plan future of U.S. in Iraq” by AP is nothing more than a propaganda piece for the Bush administration to help push up the polls for Bush and the sagging support for Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. It’s filled with contradictions that one must read between the lines to understand the real U.S. military stance in Iraq.

Here are some of the lines:

• “President Bush is gathering his top military and civilian war advisers to plan the U.S. role in the country’s future.”  (It didn’t say that Bush is planning to leave the future to the “new established government of Iraq”.)
• “White House officials have said announcements of force reductions are not expected.” (In other words, no plan whatsoever for troop withdrawals.)
• “…he (Bush) has been careful not to signal any troop reductions yet, continuing to say he will make those decisions when commanders in the field advise him to do so.” (When has Bush ever listened to any of his military commanders in the field before, or anyone for that matter?)
• “Gen. George Casey said he thinks it will be possible to withdraw some of the 130,000 U.S. forces in the months ahead as long as Iraq's government and security forces make progress.”  (Right. In fact, the war situation is getting out of control.)
• “Among the most immediate concerns is how to buttress security operations in and around Baghdad. Some suggest that could involve short-term troop increases. “ (Notice the word “increase” for troops and the justification for that increase. In reality, no intention for troop withdrawals.)
• “He said more Iraqis are taking the lead in the fight, although that does not mean they can operate without support such as logistics, intelligence and medical evacuations.” (In other words, the U.S. troops will stay and support Iraqi security forces to fight insurgents indefinitely.)

 

Thursday  6/01/06 - Supreme Court Treats Government  Whistleblower as Corporate Worker

As expected, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Bush policy – everyone working for the government is under the executive branch, ultimately under Bush’s control. In a 5-4 decision, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the latest Justice member, Samuel Alito, all voted against protection for whistleblowers, giving the rationale that government employees don’t have the right to speak freely inside their offices on matters related to "their official duties."

 

The problem with this rationale is that these conservative judges consider the rights of government officials as the rights of corporate workers. Of course, there’s a huge difference. Government officials are supported by our taxes — their utmost duty is to serve the interest of the public. Whereas, corporate workers are paid by their employers — they are subjected to follow corporate rules. It’s unbelievable how these judges couldn’t see that obvious difference. Whistleblowing against government wrongdoing is not only necessary for the protection of the public, but also a legitimate right of the individual, protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. To stifle individual rights, the Supreme Court overturned an appeal court ruling in favor of individual’s protection by the First Amendment.

It’s becoming quite clear that our judicial branch is reshaping to support Bush’s polices.