The Political Junkies

The U.S. current account deficit widened to a record $225.6 billion in the third quarter, the government reported Monday, in line with expectations, as the trade gap grew and the country paid more interest to overseas investors. . . .

The U.S. needs to attract about $2.5 billion a day to finance the gap, and any shortfall would potentially undermine the value of the dollar.

The gap amounted to 6.8 percent of the economy, the second-highest level ever, compared with 6.6 percent in the second quarter. The deficit reached a record 7 percent of gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2005. . . .

China is poised to overtake the United States this year as the second- biggest source of imports to the euro area, behind Britain.

A principle share of the 2006 debt is held by China, who has become “the Banker” to the United States. China (emphasis added) held the same position as the principle banker to the US in 2005:

Despite the ever growing imbalance with China, Bush continues to let China fix the deal to avoid “free trade” with the United States. China fixes the deal by artificially setting the value of its currency, permitting the value of the currency to move in a very narrow range in the international markets, while America permits the US Dollar to float in value against other currencies. As a result, China keeps the prices of its goods artificially cheap in international markets but the price of American goods sold in China relatively more expensive. More expensive American goods means Chinese purchase less of our goods while Americans continue to by inexpensive Chinese goods.

The resulting imbalance of trade belies the Republican mantra of “free trade,” making it a cruel myth. First, China is taking its trade profits and essentially reinvesting those profits by financing Bush’s burgeoning federal deficit. As the International Herald Tribune article notes, a part of our trade deficit consists of increasing interest paid to overseas investors. Second, the trade imbalance has cost Americans jobs that are being moved off shore (emphasis added):

The cruelty of Bush’s policies is clearly exemplified. America’s loss of jobs and reduced wages is driving many citizens into bankruptcy. However, instead of fashioning bankruptcy law that recognizes the hardships, Bush and the Republicans enacted bankruptcy “reforms” in 2005 that deprive Americans just relief. As one Bankrutpcy Court Judge wrote (emphasis added):

The Congress of the United States of America passed and the President of the United States of America signed into law the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the "Act"). It became fully effective on October 17, 2005. Those responsible for the passing of the Act did all in their power to avoid the proffered input from sitting United States Bankruptcy Judges, various professors of bankruptcy law at distinguished universities, and many professional associations filled with the best of the bankruptcy lawyers in the country as to the perceived flaws in the Act. This is because the parties pushing the passage of the Act had their own agenda. It was apparently an agenda to make more money off the backs of the consumers in this country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Act has been highly criticized across the country. In this writer's opinion, to call the Act a "consumer protection" Act is the grossest of misnomers.

Over the past several weeks, Bush dispatched a star-studded delegation, including six members of his own Cabinet and the Federal Reserve Chairman, to push China to let their currency float on financial markets. The result:

Mr Paulson [the head of the US delegation] said China and the US had agreed to "take measures to address global imbalances through greater national savings in the United States, and to increase consumption and exchange rate flexibility in China".

However, Mr Paulson and his high-powered delegation failed to agree a firm timetable for a further strengthening of China's yuan.

His opposite number, Vice Premier Wu Yi, described the talks as useful "to build mutual understanding," but did not comment on the currency issue herself.

In the intricate language of diplomacy with China, the Chinese have given their answer – No! Hard working Americans will continue to pay the price for Republican policy.

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos." . . .

Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross. . . .

Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment.

"What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added. . . .

One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff."

The revelation of Ross’ testimony at this point merely reaffirms the conclusions that circumstantial evidence had compelled for several years. Bush and Blair “cooked” the evidence to justify a war founded upon lies and distortions to unleash the neoconservative ambitions of the Project for a New American Century.

For those who believe that the truth should be the polestar of government policy, every word of Ross’ testimony is an indictment of Bush and Blair.

And, what has the war in Iraq predicated on these lies wrought? Timothy Gorton Ash, a Fellow at St. Antony's College, Oxford writes:

What an amazing bloody catastrophe. The Bush administration's policy towards the Middle East over the five years since 9/11 is culminating in a multiple train crash. Never in the field of human conflict was so little achieved by so great a country at such vast expense. In every vital area of the wider Middle East, American policy over the last five years has taken a bad situation and made it worse. . . .

The theocratic dictatorship of Iran is the great winner. Five years ago, the Islamic republic had a reformist president, a substantial democratic opposition, and straitened finances because of low oil prices. The mullahs were running scared. Now the prospects of democratisation are dwindling, the regime is riding high on oil at more than $60 a barrel, and it has huge influence through its Shia brethren in Iraq and Lebanon. The likelihood of it developing nuclear weapons is correspondingly greater. We toppled the Iraqi dictator, who did not have weapons of mass destruction, and thereby increased the chances of Iran's dictators acquiring weapons of mass destruction. And this week Iran's President Ahmadinejad once again called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Those American neocons who set out to make the Middle East safe for Israel have ended up making it more dangerous for Israel.

Last week, TPJ featured an article, A VERY REPUBLICAN SCRUBBING, on Bush administration scrubbing of scientific reports by Government scientists. The extent of the “scrubbing” comes from this article by the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.

The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.

According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.

It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.

The Union has released an "A to Z" guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging from global warming to sex education.

Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.

"It's very difficult to make good public policy without good science, and it's even harder to make good public policy with bad science," said Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security.

"In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources."

The statement was released at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting. It is an annual gathering of Earth scientists.

The link to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ guide to Bush’s political interference with scientific research and be found at:

The Military Commissions Act (“MCA”) is starting its way through Federal judicial review. Among is plethora of draconian provisions, the MCA denies access of foreign prisoner held by Bush in Guantanamo and to illegal aliens within the United States.

In the first legal decision on a federal law that denies access to U.S. courts to detainees in the war on terrorism, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that foreign prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could not sue for freedom.

But, in a split decision, U.S. District Judge James Robertson also ruled that the law's denial of that right to the more than 12 million legal immigrants living in the United States was unconstitutional.

The first part of the ruling affirmed what Congress intended when it passed the Military Commissions Act in October. The decision came in the case of Salim Hamdan, the onetime driver to Osama bin Laden, who won what appeared to be a landmark victory in the Supreme Court in June.

Taking up Hamdan's lawsuit, the high court's justices said President Bush had overstepped his power when he created a system of military tribunals for foreign-born alleged terrorists.

In response, Congress passed a law authorizing military tribunals. In addition, it moved to deny access to the courts to "aliens" accused by the president of being terrorists or "unlawful combatants."

Critics in the Senate said the provision was written so broadly that it took away legal immigrants' right of habeas corpus. This right allows people who are arrested and imprisoned to go before a judge and plead for freedom.

In Wednesday's ruling, Robertson said lawmakers had the legal power to close the courts to the detainees at Guantánamo Bay.

"Congress unquestionably has the power to establish and define the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts," he wrote in a 22-page opinion. Until some recent decisions, he said, it had always been understood that "an alien captured abroad and detained outside the United States" did not have a right to sue in a federal court.

Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay is, technically, sovereign territory of Cuba, Robertson noted.

However, the Constitution protects the right of habeas corpus for people living in the United States, the judge said.

This is “round one” of a case that will ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court. It is a reflection, however, that Americans can not depend on the Federal judiciary to block the extension of executive power that Republicans in Congress passed to Bush.

Tumble Weed (Bush) Watch