Vilar Droppings

In the current Business Week:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_27/b3890119_mz063.htm


My take on it:

Vilar hasn't learned much from his "tumbles" has he--both in Castro Cuba and in the stock market.

The reason the Met, et al. took his name off is that he pledged that $20 million for a specific show and refused to let them postpone the opening. All the Met wanted was a short time to garner the requisite liquidity so they could host the production without any adverse effect on their fisc. Vilar wanted the usufructs of the donation (the show) without the obligation (the $20 million).

I have been saying for years, and continue to say now, that Alberto Vilar is still trying to revel in his aristocratic upbringing. It's nice and all that he made so much money in the stock market; I'm sure it was hard work and took much effort. But now he expects to be treated as a demi-god when he passes out his dough. That status needs to be earned, not hoisted upon one.

At least one other institution is still waiting for an $18 million check so they can finish (lo, pay for) a building that he wanted (and he suckered a certain college president into foolishly supporting).

I've met Alberto Vilar once--at a concert with the Vienna Chamber Orchestra. His hand shake was cold and his stance was almost "who are these peons talking to me". I was very put off, and have only seen more of his pomposity radiated in his "donations" and now current "victimization" as a result of his reneging.

Retribution is horrendous; but it stings the most when he who deserves it ignores his own culpability.

SCOTUS and War on Terror

Haven't had a chance to read all the opinions today (Hamdi, Padilla, and Rasul total 190 pages!), but here's a synopsis:

Hamdi--SCOTUS held that US citizen captured in Afghanistan and denoted as an enemy combatant can be held without charge, but he can challenge his enemy combatant status in federal court; Scalia (with Stevens!) dissents, saying that habeas corpus is a fundamental right in criminal law--if Hamdi's a traitor, then try him as a traitor. Reverse and remand.

Padilla--SCOTUS held that US citizen captured on US soil can bring habeas action only against immediate military commander/jailer (NOT Rumsfeld) and in the District Court of territorial jurisdiction (that is, one near the Norfolk or Charleston brigs); Dissenters went to the merits of the case, finding that Padilla can't be detained under existing Congressional mandate. Reverse and remand.

Rasul--SCOTUS held that Guantanamo detainees can challenge their detention in US District Court under 28 USC 2241; Dissent by Scalia bemoans the wide decision of the majority which allows the Guantanamo detainees to seek habeas in any District Court (forum shop), not just that of territorial jurisdiction (see Padilla, supra). Reverse and remand.


JPF Analysis: Kind of how I thought they would turn out, although Scalia's forceful (and intelligent) dissent in Hamdi arguing FOR habeas or a trial was surprising.

I happen to think that Article II and Eisentrager (German soldiers captured in WWII not able to challenge) allow a detention of non-citizens for intelligence purposes in a national security emergenc situation.

Furthermore, I saw a very significant wrinkle with the Hamdi matter that I'm not surprised SCOTUS veered away from; Supreme Court jurisprudence requires them to avoid a Constitutional issue if it can be resolved by statutory interpretation. That being said, Hamdi could have made a wrinkle in the Citizenship Clause of the 14tn Amendment "natural born citizen" language (Hamdi was born in New Orleans to Saudi parents here for short term engineering employment; Hamdi left at age 6 months or so, never to return until after capture).

I can live with the rulings, as they will not really affect much, but it is a big blow to the administration's intelligence gathering capabilities. It is also a crimp on the President's Article II foreign affirs power (see Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer), especially in a time of national emergency.

More as details develop...

When Hitchens is right...

he's very right.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

The War in Iraq

I have been saying all along that The 9/11 Commission is a waste of time--whether Clintonistas or Bushmen were testifying. The "bipartisan" (a media term meaning hard-core Democrats and some liberal-moderate Republicans that Democrats don't find too objectionable) Commission very quickly took it upon themselves to pass judgment upon the current war in Iraq (including the Bob Kerrey rant during Condoleeza Rice's testimony, wherein he spouted off for 10 minutes about the current situation in Iraq, then complained when his time for questioning was up).

This Commission's charge: "chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks."

What in God's name are they doing questioning the Iraq war, the reasons for going to war, etc. There was never any statement by the Bush administration that Iraq-Saddam planned 9/11. (There is still that CIA report that Mohammed Atta was at the Iraq embassy in Prague in July 2001, which George Tenet called "not proven or disproven"). Furthermore, the "no Iraq-Al Qaeda links" came from the Commission Staff Report (overwhelmingly Democrats by the way), and was immediately repudiated by the Co-Chairmen of the Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton. The staff of the Commission has been notoriously circumspect with regards to information--numerous leaks have been detected and the Chairmen have had to appear on network television more than they would have liked. (I will say this for the Chairmen--they have been very professional, which is more than can be said for many memebers of the commission and the collective staff). See Bill Safire's excellent column today, Monday 21 June, for some unanswered questions: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html

If the liberals want to make a big deal out of the causes for going to war in Iraq, then they may investigate (provided they get a Congressional mandate, etc.) with a separate Commission. But the current Iraq war has nothing to do with the 9/11 planning and intelligence, our state of readiness on that fateful Tuesday, or the immediate response (which is an off-shoot of the state of readiness).

This Commission has become what the President feared it would be when he opposed it at first--a vehicle for Democratic politics, "bipartisan" bullshit, and obtuse generalizations. This is not a creature of the administration, it is a creature of politics.

As for the American people being misled...

Saddam Hussein had NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical weapons (I hate the term WMD or weapons of mass destruction--say what they are, damnit!) They cannot be found now. Yet, there is no evidence from UNMOVIC or from the David Kay team that Saddam destroyed them, as he said he would and as he was required to do under the numerous UN resolutions. In fact, Kay says so in the report. So, if I am to understand correctly, Spin, you and the anti-war crowd (liberal Democrats and the UN-European peace coalition) would have us believe that a man who spent more than 10 years consistently disobeying U.N. resolutions and flaunting his malfeasance in regards to banned weapons had destroyed them just because they cannot be found.

The UN teams have admitted that there are thousands (possibly millions) of liters of sarin and other chemicals that are unaccounted. Likewise, there is evidence that he imported nuclear material and parts for reactors, etc. and no evidence that he destroyed those parts. Saddam Hussein has ties to Syria (the origins of the Baath party lie there) and with the terrorists running rampant in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as through Arafat's oraganization (particularly Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah). The sheer fact that those banned weapons are unaccounted should place his relations with any known or suspected terrorist group or sypathetic state under intense scrutiny and action.

It is true that Al-Qaeda had more links to Iran and Saudi Arabia (there is evidence now that the Saudi security forces aided the bastards who captured and killed that LockheedMartin engineer last week). Iraq had connections too--just because Saddam did not plan in the 9/11 attacks does not negate his involvement with a group that has professed their hatred of all things Western. Any aid or comfort that Saddam gave to Al Qaeda warranted the war. Any aid or comfort Saddam gave to Syrian terrorists warranted the war; likewise, for Palestinian terrorists.

This is a war on terrorism--not just Islamic terror, but all terror, be it religious, nationalist, or cultural. And tell those Sheiks and Mullahs in Iran, and that corrupt government in Saudi Arabia, as well as the IRA and the South East Asian groups, we are not putting up with their shit anymore.

More right-wing stuff

Furthermore, I fail to see how the current administration is "is slowly destroying itself and America with it" and "is leading us to another period of turmoil - one that will impossible to fix".

That's nice rhetoric, but very little fact to back it up.

The real story is that the Bush Doctrine is termed "preemptive" by its detractors, but I see very little difference between it and the "containment" policy which today's liberals love (and hated back then--the 1940s, '50s, and '60s).

International terrorism struck the United States in 1993, 1998, 2000, and that fateful day in September 2001. All our actions from here on out are defensive and "containing" the ever lurking threat of continued terror.

The Gipper would approve.

Reagan's Right-Wing?

I read down the list of Spin's right-wingers who "came to power" under Reagan and I am quite confused, especially since two of his Big Four came to Washington on their own and made names for themselves before Reagan was elected, and actually parallel to Reagan's rise to prominence.

To wit:

Donald Rumsfeld (via his official biography at www.whitehouse.gov):

Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

Mr. Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 during his fourth term to serve in the Nixon Administration as:

Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Assistant to the President, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1969-1970); and, as Counsellor to the President, Director of the Economic Stabilization Program, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1971-1972).

In 1973, he left Washington, DC, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974).

In August 1974, he was called back to Washington, DC, to serve in the Ford Administration successively as:

Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford (1974);
Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975); and, as
The 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense, the youngest in the country's history (1975-1977).


Dick Cheney (via his official biography at www.whitehouse.gov):

His career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, Mr. Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.

After he returned to his home state of Wyoming in 1977, Mr. Cheney was elected to serve as the state's sole Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was re-elected five times and elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988. During his tenure in the House, Mr. Cheney earned a reputation as a man of knowledge, character, and accessibility.


Richard Perle (via his AEI biography at www.aei.org:

Previously he served as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board (2001-2003); Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (1981-87); and served on the US Senate Staff (1969-1980).
[BTW--Perle's a registered Democrat, by his own admission].


Paul Wolfowitz (via his official biography at www.defenselink.mil):

Dr. Wolfowitz's previous government service included:

Two years as head of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff (1981-82); an earlier Pentagon tour as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs (1977-80), where he helped create the force that later became the United States Central Command and initiated the Maritime Pre-positioning Ships, the backbone of the initial U.S. deployment twelve years later in Operation Desert Shield;
four years (1973-77) in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, working on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and a number of nuclear nonproliferation issues; and a year as a Management Intern at the Bureau of the Budget (1966-67).

Dr. Wolfowitz taught previously at Yale (1970-73) and Johns Hopkins (1981).


Spin, I hope you aren't turning into one of those nutty conspiracy liberals (like those who write for The Nation, Maureen Dowd, or the prime quality champs at DemocraticUnderground.com).

Last I checked, the Democrats in 2000 bemoaned the fact that George W. Bush "wasn't qualified to be President." So he surrounds himself with qualified people (elected members of Congress, administration officials, academics), and now the Democrats bemoan his being surrounded by qualified people.

Where is the Donkey's bipartisanship and pragmatism that they, today, so miss in their old punching bag, Ronald Reagan?

R.I.P. Ronald Reagan