His Fingerprints Are All Over It

The breaking stories about the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys continue. The person on the hot seat now is "hopefully", the soon to be former Attorney General of the United States Alberto R. Gonzales. Even though I think he’s in the middle of this scandal, in no way do I think he’s the mastermind of this plot. This is clearly the maneuverings of one Karl Rove, Assistant to the president, deputy chief of staff and a senior adviser. Not a bad title for a political thug. An article by Wayne Madison before the 2002 midterm elections illustrates the tactics and lengths Karl Rove would go through to win. Mr. Madison was even a little prophetic when he wrote: “In all seriousness, rewarding the GOP on November 5 will only increase the appetite of Rove to amass more and more power into the White House. The advent of a Democratic-controlled Senate and House might even begin to spell the end of the road for Segretti's star pupil.” Before the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys would have been something Rove and the White House would have completely gotten away with.

Why would Rove and the White House even bother to fire these U.S. attorneys? Sydney Blumenthal in his article in Salon wrote: “Rising to the White House as Bush's chief political strategist, Rove well understood the power of U.S. attorneys to damage Democrats and protect Republicans, and he paid close attention to their selection.” Rove wanted the U.S. attorneys to go after the Democrats. The method the Republicans favored was voter fraud. Blumenthal explains how the tactic was used.

In 2002, the first midterm elections of the Bush presidency, Republicans systematically raised charges of voter fraud involving Native Americans in the hotly contended U.S. Senate race in South Dakota. Though the accusations were never proved and the GOP failed to depose the Democratic senator, Tim Johnson, the campaign served as a template. By the election of 2004, Rove became a repository of charges of voter fraud across the country, from Philadelphia to Milwaukee to New Mexico, all in swing states. In the campaign, unproven voter fraud charges, always aimed at minority voters, became a leitmotif of Republican efforts.

Even if it wasn’t voter fraud, the Republicans wanted Democrats to be indicted, especially before an election so it could be used against them. That’s why Senator Pete Domenici and Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico wanted David Iglesias fired, because he wouldn’t indict some Democrats before the 2006 election. Rove perfected this tactic in Texas, using it to help destroy the Democratic Party in Texas. Blumenthal writes: “From the earliest Republican campaigns that Rove ran in Texas, beginning in 1986, the FBI was involved in investigating every one of his candidates' Democratic opponents.”

Now we are beginning to see how this operation was handled. This wasn’t an isolated incident done just to punish a few U.S. attorneys who wouldn’t play ball. Using 9/11 as an excuse, this administration is always grasping for more power. The New York Times writes in its editorial: “Time and again, President Bush and his team have assured Americans that they needed new powers to prevent another attack by an implacable enemy. Time and again, Americans have discovered that these powers were not being used to make them safer, but in the service of Vice President Dick Cheney’s vision of a presidency so powerful that Congress and the courts are irrelevant, or Karl Rove’s fantasy of a permanent Republican majority.”

With a Democratic controlled House and Senate trying to practice oversight, something the Republicans didn't do the past six years, we might discover most of the dirty tricks this administration has used to try to create a unitary presidency ruled by one party. Whatever else is exposed, one thing we can be sure, Karl Rove’s fingerprints will be all over it.

No Where Man

If you were George Bush, would you come back to America after your “successful” trip to South America? With the fire he’s under with the firing of the US Attorney’s, with the problems at Walter Reed and let’s not forget Iraq, why would he want to come back.

Aside from his love of America of course, maybe he has to come back because no other country would take him. We know he can’t hide out south of the border, and aside from Israel, what other country would want him. I think this is a good time for Bush to start really working on the Mars man mission he proposed back in 2004. The way the scandals keep exploding around Bush, Mars might be the only place he’ll be able to live without fear of prosecution.

Giving Vulture’s a Bad Name

Last month, a High Court judge in London ruled in favor of a vulture fund over a debt the African nation of Zambia owed. This wasn’t a loan from a vulture fund called Donegal International owned by Debt Advisory International to Zambia. It was a loan Zambia had received from Romania to buy tractors back in 1979. Zambia was unable to keep up the payments so in 1999 Romania and Zambia negotiated to liquidate the debt for $3 million. Donegal International bought the debt from Romania for less than $4 million and calculating interest sued Zambia for $40 million. The High Court judge ruled in favor of Donegal International but it’s believed the judge will reward Donegal International half of what it is seeking.

Anti-debt campaigners and charities like Jubilee Debt Campaign and Oxfam were outraged. The money the vulture fund is attempting to get is money Zambia needs to pay for nurses and teachers. This is money Zambia has because of western governments writing off some of the debts of some of the poorest countries like Zambia. Zambia is not the first target of these vulture funds nor will it probably be the last. This tactic has been attempted in Argentina and Peru. Elliott Associates, a New York-based investment fund, forced payment of $55 million from Peru in 2000. It doesn’t always work for these vulture funds. Argentina had the biggest sovereign default in 2001. Argentina settled with most of its bondholders with a huge debt exchange in 2005, the investors who would not settle with Argentina have been ignored. This doesn’t keep the vulture funds from trying new ways to exploit these poor countries.

The UK Chancellor Gordon Brown told the United Nations five years ago: “We particularly condemn the perversity where Vulture Funds purchase debt at a reduced price and make a profit from suing the debtor country to recover the full amount owed – a morally outrageous outcome.” Activist in Britain are asking him to take action. Here in the U.S., Representative John Conyers has brought the Zambian case to President Bush’s attention. “It’s our position that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the comity doctrine brought from our constitution allows the president to require the courts defer in individual suits against foreign nations. And so, we’re conducting a couple of things,” Mr. Conyers said. “First of all, we want to know where these practices are going on at the present time, and, two, how we can get this information to President Bush so that he can, as he indicated to us, stop it immediately.” Of course Representative Conyers efforts might be futile since these Vulture Funds spend a lot of money on Washington lobbyists. Paul Singer a leading figure in vulture funds has donated over $1.7 million to Bush since his first presidential campaign. He’s now prepared to heavily back Rudi Guiliani’s presidential campaign, pledging to raise $15 million for Guiliani.

I first heard of this practice on Democracy Now back in February after the Zambia verdict had been announced. It’s such a despicable and sleazy act that it sounds like something a supervillian in the comic books would do. Except I couldn’t see Lex Luthor lowering himself to do such an act. Conquering the world yes; exploiting poor countries to beat them out of their meager funds, no. It reminds me of the predatory practices mortgage companies practice against poor people here in the U.S. These vulture funds must be condemned and western nations must work together to end this practice. Allowing companies to pry on poor countries and further endanger the lives of poor desolate people in unconscionable. The United States should lead the charge, if for no other reason than to use it to rebuild our standing in the world community. The vulture funds that sued Zambia and Peru are American companies. These companies illustrate why the rest of the world hates us. It would help if the American media actually covered this. I couldn’t find anything on this story from the mainstream media. I guess they were too busy covering Anna Nicole’s death or Britney’s meltdown. It’ll be hard for us to make positive change on this atrocity if no one knows about it.