Yesterday Al Gore, the former Next President of the United States, made a speech which laid down a moonshot style of challenge to Americans. It's a cool challenge but one which would personally enrich him because he is now a venture capitalist focusing on renewable energy and environmental solutions. Also, why did he place this challenge only on Americans? It is a global problem. Still, a very interesting speech, one which personally excites me..
There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake.
Wake up and see the truth. Wake up, the time is short, the time is now, there is a lot at stake, and the stakes are huge. It's one thing to make such a statement, but is it a true statement? Okay, he doesn't have space in such a speech to present the truth behind that statement instead the focus of this speech was to lay out solutions.
I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.
It's a well known trick of politicians that to get change you have to make the people believe the situation is dire, so that the people will wake up and make change happen. Yeah, things are bad. Gasoline prices or electricity rates are still a lot higher in Europe than they are in the U.S. Jobs being outsourced is nothing new and in fact probably were enabled by policies put into place during the time he, Al Gore, was either a Senator or Vice President, and to which he personally is partly responsible.
But, yes, there is a lot of consternating things happening. He doesn't mention the stupid illegal war in Iraq, launched with the purpose of gaining control over Oil. He doesn't mention the moral dilemna we have with U.S. forces using torture and the military being misused for the wrong war in the wrong place.
Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.
Yes.. There are more warnings than that specific one (which I haven't read) of this kind of danger. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this danger. We are shoveling money to the oil producing countries at an alarming rate because of the shrinking ability of the U.S. to produce oil from its own soil. This shrinking ability has nothing to do with building oil wells or more refineries, but has everything to do with the oil deposits in the U.S. having been tapped out. And the pattern of shoveling money to the oil producing countries is destabilizing U.S. economy, U.S. politics, and represents a shift in power to the oil producing countries. I covered this in Technosanity #3: Peak Oil ...
And, as he said a little later in the speech: We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change. .. .nice sound bite..
I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately - without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.
There's one kind of paralysis -- being frozen because of too much fear. Another kind of paralysis is at play, though, it's how the entrenched interests are protecting the status quo so that their businesses aren't threatened. The status quo is what got us into this mess and the status quo has to change. As Einstein said, the level of thinking which created the problems we face will not solve those problems. Solving the problems we create requires a higher level of thinking, a higher viewpoint.
The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels. ... one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf....What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?
Yeah, there are lots of known solutions, known technologies, all it takes is the realization that those technologies can solve the problems. In other words, a higher level of thinking.
If the dominant thinking remains that existing businesses have to be preserved -- well, dummy, it's those existing businesses which created the problems. The existing way the society is accomplished is based in products and technologies and practices which are inefficient, polluting, reliant on fossil fuels, etc.
There is one misstatement he says. Reliance on carbon-based fuels isn't technically the correct statement. I think the correct statement is ending reliance on fossil fuels. Biofuels are carbon-based and carry all the conveniences of fossil fuels, but do not participate in adding carbon to the ecosphere.
And as he says a little further along... enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year....Enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.
The natural energy resources of this planet are tremendous and largely untapped.
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.
This is an achievable goal, very practical, very real, it would make for a drastic improvement in quality of life, in our health, in the health of the planet, etc. It would also happen to personally enrich Al Gore because, as I said, his job is currently involved with venture capitalist investment activities. In this speech he takes the persona of the Politician, which used to be his job. He claimed at the beginning of this speech he sees his role as creating more political space for these questions to be debated and discussed on the political stage. But you have to question, is this challenge and program purely about solving real problems? Or is it about personal enrichment?
I think there are plenty of real problems in this space. And actually I applaud the idea that real solid businesses can be put into play to solve these problems. I suppose what is wrankling the back of my mind is that in this speech he's taking the Politician role, presenting the argument as one which is for the betterment of all life everywhere, and that part of it appeals to me, but I know he is also in this for the money because he has taken these jobs in the Tech industry.
This last week Karl Rove blew off a Congressional subpoena which required him to testify before Congress. Uh.. in what country of Laws are we living in? Isn't ignoring a subpoena grounds for arrest, contempt citations, jail time, etc?
A decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to the full Judiciary Committee and ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. House Republicans called Thursday's proceedings a political stunt and said if Democrats truly wanted information they would take Rove up on an offer he made to discuss the matter informally. The House already has voted to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with its inquiry into whether the administration fired nine federal prosecutors in 2006 for political reasons.
Rove's lawyer asserted that Rove was "immune" from the subpoena the committee had issued, arguing that the committee could not compel him to testify due to "executive privilege."... "A refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives," Conyers and Sanchez wrote. "We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal to even appear today as required by the subpoena," Sanchez said Thursday morning when Rove failed to show up. "The courts have made clear that no one -- not even the president -- is immune from compulsory process. That is what the Supreme Court rules in U.S. v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones."
Lawmakers subpoenaed Rove in May in an effort to force him to talk about whether he played a role in prosecutors' decisions to pursue cases against Democrats, such as former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, or in firing federal prosecutors considered disloyal to the Bush administration.
Raytheon has developed an active denial system (ADS) which behaves much like a ray gun. It projects microwave-like radiation for distances of more than 500 yards, creating an excruciating, full-body burning sensation in anyone caught in its beam. The millimetre-wave rays penetrate skin to a depth of about 1/64in but cause no permanent damage, according to Raytheon, the system’s US-based maker. Prototypes of the weapon, called Silent Guardian, weighed about three tons and were mounted on trucks. Both the British and U.S. governments are evaluating it for use by police and military.
The Silent Guardian™ protection system by Raytheon is a revolutionary less-than-lethal directed energy application that employs millimeter wave technology to repel individuals or crowds without causing injury. The system provides a zone of protection that saves lives, protects assets and minimizes collateral damage. Silent Guardian produces precise effects at longer ranges than current less-than-lethal systems and provides real-time ability to establish intent and de-escalate aggression. Various commercial and military applications include law enforcement, checkpoint security, facility protection, force protection and peacekeeping missions. The system is available now and ready for action.
In the news right now are many articles talking about a "UN Mandate" that will expire at the end of 2008, beyond which U.S. presence would not be allowed. UN Mandate? What Mandate? In Feb 2003 the United Nations voted against approving the invasion of Iraq, and (former) Secretary General Kofi Annan said the U.S. war in Iraq was illegal.
State: UN mandate in Iraq not needed relates an assertion by the U.S. State Department saying that neither a UN mandate nor Congressional approval is required to continue U.S. presence in Iraq. It further explains that with the expiration of the UN mandate the administration is negotiating a different agreement, a "long-term security plan", and that this agreement also would not require Congressional approval because it's not a "treaty". Elsewhere the article refers to Democrats who say all this is unconstitutional. Uh, yeah, unconstitutional activities would legitimately result in impeachment and conviction, would it not? Then why aren't the Democrats taking the impeachment resolutions seriously?
In any case the article does say this about the mandate: In his statement, Satterfield cites two legislative measures that he says gives the administration cover to remain in Iraq: the 2001 and 2002 resolutions authorizing force in Iraq and against nations harboring al-Qaida terrorists.
These are: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1382 (29 November 2001) which appears to be a continuing resolution granting continued approval for disarmament activities and names UNMOVIC and a specific list of armaments etc supposedly present in Iraq. And United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 which deplores the uncooperativeness expressed by Iraq etc and threatens further actions etc and again names UNMOVIC. In reviewing the UN Security Council Resolutions there's a large number of them which concern the situation in Iraq and often are worded to continue approval for prior resolutions. It's likely the mandate in question is derived from one of these continuing resolutions and it's possible the U.S. Administration believes it has authority deriving from the authority granted to UNMOVIC and previous organizations, whose intent was to disarm Iraq following the 1992 Gulf War.
There were similar prior events surrounding prior extensions of a UN Mandate. In late 2007 The Extension of the United Nations Mandate for Iraq discusses a mandate that would expire at the end of 2007 and discusses a previous mandate that would have expired in 2006. In 2007 Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent a letter to the UN Security Council requesting that the Council extend the mandate of the U.S.-led Multinational Forces for one year, beginning December 31, 2007. However for al-Maliki to do this was unconstitutional by the Iraqi Constitution, as it requires The Council of Representatives (their Parliament) to be involved with such requests. And, also in 2007, the Council of Representatives, sent to the UN a letter requesting that the mandate not be extended. "The Iraqi Cabinet has unilaterally requested a renewal of the U.N. mandate keeping the occupation troops (MNF) in Iraq" despite the fact that "such a request issued by the Iraqi cabinet without the Iraqi parliament's approval is unconstitutional."...The important thing to understand is that the run-around goes beyond the issue of the mandate itself. Iraq is not in the midst of an incomprehensible religious war over some obscure theological differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims but is deeply and profoundly divided over fundamental questions about the future of the country. In cutting the nationalist majority in the parliament out of the process of governing, the Maliki administration, Bush administration and, apparently, the U.N. secretary-general are making political reconciliation much more difficult.
Bush, Maliki Break Iraqi Law to Renew U.N. Mandate for Occupation By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted December 20, 2007 also covers the questionable legal status of the 2007 mandate extension. ...The move violated both the Iraqi constitution and a law passed earlier this year by the Iraqi parliament...Earlier in the week, a group representing a majority of lawmakers in Iraq's parliament sent a letter to the Security Council, a rough translation of which reads: "We reject in the strongest possible terms the unconditional renewal of the mandate and ask for clear mechanisms to obligate all foreign troops to completely withdrawal from Iraq according to an announced timetable."...This move speaks to the degree to which occupation and democracy are mutually exclusive, and to how Bush and Maliki must run roughshod over the Iraqi legislature (not to mention the U.S. Congress), sacrificing opportunities for political reconciliation along the way, in order to maintain an almost universally despised American military presence in the country....The U.N. mandate provides vital political cover for the occupation. The Bush administration has ignored or violated much of the international law governing the conduct of an occupying power. As Orwellian as it is, the United States, having bombed the hell out of Iraq, invaded it with a huge mechanized army and installed a government that exists wholly within the confines of its sheltered "international zone" -- the "Green Zone" -- and now maintains that its troops are in the country by the invitation of that government. The United Nations' mandate is a key part of maintaining that fiction....
Hmm.. this process of renewing a supposed UN Mandate of the US Occupation of Iraq.. the US Administration asserts it doesn't need approval from the UN, from Congress, and that they've been flouting Iraqi law in forcing the Iraqi government to "request" extension of the Mandate ... Uh...?
Bush pledges on Iraq bases a ruse analyzes some recent Bush Administration statements about the negotiations concerning the coming mandate renewal slated to occur later this year. Basically a series of statements have been made which appear to be using obscurating legalese to make what are effectively permanent bases to be legally defined as not "permanent". There are allegations the Administration plans to use bases in Iraq as a launching pad for an invasion of Iran, which the Administration denies, but it's clear the Administration wishes to launch an invasion of Iran. At the same time the Administration is seeking justification for the presence of forces in Iraq. Bush's Word Games on Permanent Bases is essentially the same article, by the same author, discussing how the Administration is using word play to avoid admitting the truth.
Secret US plan for military future in Iraq outlines secret plans being negotiated between the U.S. and Iraq. It is a draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorizes the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit. It goes on to relate how critics point out the agreement is including no limits, so while it may not be specifying "permanent" bases (as noted above about official word play), if there are no limits on U.S. presence and no limits on what U.S. forces can do, then it's effectively permanent, and effectively the bases could be used to launch an Iran war. ...Senator Edward Kennedy, a senior member of the armed services committee, have said it goes well beyond other such agreements and amounts to a treaty, which has to be ratified by the Senate under the constitution....
Q Mr. Secretary, there have been some critics who have questioned whether the talks with Iraq on a status of forces agreement could lead to security guarantees that might tie the hands of a future president in terms of how long to leave U.S. forces there. Is that a valid concern?
And the other thing is, they say that any agreement should go to Congress for congressional approval. What do you say to that?
SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, we haven't even -- we've hardly even started to talk about it among ourselves at this point. I think it's pretty clear that such an agreement would not talk about force levels. It would not involve -- we have no interest in permanent bases.
I think the way to think about the framework agreement is an approach to normalizing the relationship between the United States and Iraq.
As I say, I have -- there haven't even -- I haven't been involved in any discussions of what kind of form the agreement would make -- take or anything else. I do know that there's a strong commitment inside the administration to consult very closely with the Congress on this, but, you know, without any idea of what the form of an agreement is going to be right now, I think it's premature to talk about congressional agreement or executive agreement. I think we just don't know.
While the United States currently has status-of-forces agreements with 80 countries, including Japan, Germany and South Korea and a number of Iraq's neighbors, none of those countries are at war. And none has a population outraged about civilian deaths at the hands of armed American security contractors who are not answerable to the law of the land.
...The Bush administration has said the accords -- a status of forces agreement on the rights and responsibilities of U.S. troops in Iraq, and a vaguely defined "strategic framework" on the broader U.S.-Iraqi security and political relationship -- are "non-binding." But U.S. lawmakers have questioned whether they commit the United States to a long-term security role in Iraq and challenged the White House contention that that they do not require congressional approval. Both Republicans and Democrats have accused President Bush of trying to tie the hands of his successor.
In a letter Wednesday to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the four senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee emphasized that Congress is in charge of funding any administration commitment, "regardless of election outcomes in November."
The letter, signed by Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and ranking minority member Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), along with John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), cited "the Constitutional and legal implications of these potentially sweeping arrangements," and said the need for legislative approval "remains an open issue."
...
... US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion. Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion....
No UN member has brought this issue of the war's legality before the Security Council and no nation-member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has expressed the desire to have the ICC rule on the war's legality....The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. ...
... UNSC resolution 1441 was passed unanimously on November 8, 2002 to give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (resolution 660, resolution 661, resolution 678, resolution 686, resolution 687, resolution 688, resolution 707, resolution 715, resolution 986, and resolution 1284). ...
...The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42), not with individual nations. On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council resolution 1441 did not authorize any "automaticity" in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were force to be used. Critics have also pointed out that the statements of US officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council resolution was required to make an invasion legal, but the UN Security Council has not made such a determination, despite serious debate over this issue. To secure Syria's vote in favor of Council resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that "there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq."...
...Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law centers around ambiguous language in parts of UN Resolution 1441 (2002). The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression.
The position of the US and UK is that the invasion was authorized by a series of UN resolutions dating back to 1990. Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under UN Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the US and UK claim that they used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of UN Resolution 678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq invaded Kuwait. This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998.[29] They also contend that, while Resolution 1441 required the UNSC to assemble and assess reports from the weapons inspectors, it was not necessary for the UNSC to reach an agreement on the course of action. If, at that time, it was determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq"....
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors (By Patrick Cockburn Thursday, 5 June 2008)
...the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated...The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal....The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge."...
...The reaction in Iraq to the US demands for the long-term use of military bases and other rights has been so furious that Washington is now offering limited concessions in the negotiations. For example, the US is lowering the number of bases it wants from 58 to "the low dozens" and says it is willing to compromise on legal immunity for foreign contractors...US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, denied The Independent's report that the US wanted permanent bases in Iraq. But the reality of the US plan is that Iraqi authority would be purely nominal with a few Iraqi soldiers stationed outside the bases....It will also be difficult for the US to concede that the tens of thousands of foreign contractors in Iraq, who vary from heavily armed security men to support staff, be liable to Iraqi law because the US Army has become dependent on these forces and could scarcely function without them....
There's long been a question whether the Bush Administration was knowing telling falsehoods to justify the Iraq War or whether they were just confused. There's no doubt that the justifications they used were false ... but impeachability or culpability in a large extent rests on whether they purposely lied. Of course being so completely confused as to threaten us with Iraqi nuclear weapons, that did not exist, doesn't give any confidence as to their qualifications for high office.
Senate Intelligence Committee has finally released a long delayed report which covers these questions.
...The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.
...The "Phase II" report states -- in terms clearer than any previous government publication -- that there was no operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that Bush officials were not truthful about the difficulties the United States would face in post-war Iraq and that their public statements did not reflect intelligence they had at the time, and, specifically, that the intelligence community would not confirm any meeting between Iraqi officials and Mohamed Atta -- a claim that was nevertheless publicly repeated.
"Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.
However on a brief read of the reports the situation isn't as clear cut as "they lied" or that everything they said was 100% false.
The report follows a format of, for each type of potential weapon Iraq might have possessed, it first delineates the statements made by the Administration and then explores any existing supporting evidence in various reports. In many cases the administration statements were not completely supportable but not clearly a lie.
On nuclear weapons - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOMM) repeatedly found that Iraq's nuclear program had been destroyed or neutralized. It was clear they had been buying dual use technologies, however, and that they retained intellectual capital (people and information) that would let them restart a nuclear program if they had the freedom. That it would take 7-8 years, with foreign help, to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon and a bit more time to build a missile. The Defense Intelligence Agency produced several reports discussing the aluminum tubes as dual use material, and attempts to buy nuclear material, however recall that the DIA was this special office set up to concoct propoganda and cooked intelligence. It's not surprising, then, in the next bullet to learn that the Department of Energy (DOE) contradicted these claims. The State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (State/INR) also disagreed, and instead reported that the aluminum tubes were meant for other purposes. The National Ground Intelligence Center had also disagreed and found that the aluminum tubes were consistent with "rocket casings" (which they were) and inconsistent with centrifuges.
As expected the articles of impeachment ran into some headwind and got detoured into limbo.
By a 251-166 vote, the House sent the 35-count articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to let it die without further action. While the vote technically forces the measure to the committee for consideration, it also means the full House will avoid having to debate and vote on impeaching the 43d president. -- notice, 166 of the Representatives did not want this referred to committee.
Another thing to note is the subtle framing of the story as "impeachment is doomed". The article title "Representatives turn back impeachment" comes from a view that impeachment attempts must fail.
Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Turley discuss the Articles of Impeachment introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich in the House of Representatives.
“It is imperative that Members of Congress have a thorough opportunity to read the Articles of Impeachment and study the documentation,” said Kucinich, in the release. “When they do, I am confident that they will agree that it is both appropriate and necessary for the Judiciary Committee to begin hearings on the Resolution.”
In November, the House sent the Judiciary Committee a Kucinich-sponsored measure to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney. No hearings or further action have followed that move, and the same fate is likely to befall his attempt to impeach Bush.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has long said that impeachment was “off the table” as a legislative issue for the now-Democratic Congress, and Democrats seem more willing to simply run out the clock on the Bush presidency than to spend time on impeachment proceedings.
