Author Archives: rff_blog_admin

Election Politics

Posted on by

I nearly typed the title as “Election Year Politics,” but then was sad to realize that the next Presidential election is still about a year away. I don’t think I’ll begin a monthly countdown, because that would make the process to seem to last even longer. As a part-time Libertarian and dedicated Independent I mostly want the Republicans to decide on their nominee as soon as possible. Democrat spokespeople are puzzling whether Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, or some other Republican is the most evil person in America, and it is tedious listening to them trying to paint several people as the most evil while they await the Republican selection. The Republicans have the advantage that they already know that Barrack Obama is the most evil person, although there is some talk of Hillary getting back into the mix.

The arrival of the Tea Party (see the posting dated January 7, 2011 describing the origins), which apparently isn’t a political party at all, has been a further distraction or side show, depending on your view. And now we have the “Occupy” groups in various cities trying to decide what their message is beyond the fact they are enjoying protesting something and are angry about several things.

Much of front page of a recent Denver Post Perspective section was about the Tea Party, and pro and con views were given. A poll of Colorado voters not surprisingly found 79% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party while only 10% of Republicans agreed. The number I found most interesting was that only 36% of Independent/Others were favorable and 51% were unfavorable.

Curtis Hubbard’s article, “Where is the Tea Party taking us?’ lists people who are in the Tea Party as being called “Hostage –Takers, Heroes, Pariahs, Patriots, and Terrorists.”  It seemed to me that Democrats managed to energize enough voters who liked what the Tea Party was saying in the last national election to allow the Republicans to take control of the House of Representatives. (I can’t bring myself to credit the Republicans with being sufficiently clever to do that on their own.) I continue to be baffled by some the current rhetoric, but of course that’s probably because I’m not a skilled politician. As an example, let me give an example of what Robert Gibbs, former White House spokesperson recently said in an interview on NBC’s today show. He repeated what is becoming a Democrat campaign talking point that aims to cast the movement as extreme and divisive. ‘The Republicans are going to have to make a choice. Are they going to swear allegiance to the Tea Party, or are they going to work on behalf of the United States of America?’”  Michelle Bachmann recently explained the Tea Party by saying, “Let me say what the Tea Party stands for:  It stands for the fact that we’re taxed enough already. We shouldn’t spend more money than we’re already taking in. And, third, we should act within the Constitution.” Thinking about Bachmann’s explanation and the Gibbs’ comment, I wondered which of the three points Gibbs would consider un-American. I guess it must go back to that argument that we need to tax rich people more, and anyone who says otherwise is un-American. I posted a blog on the subject of how much we would need to tax rich people to be fair in December 2010, and my guess is that we would have to take all of the rich people’s money for some to consider it to be fair.  At least that is the approach that FDR proposed.

Going back to the polling about the Tea Party, the Denver Post articles recently said 40% of Americans now have a negative view.  I can’t help but wonder whether the media barrage of comments calling the non-existent party members “Terrorists” might have influenced those poll numbers.

For those who think my commentary has been slanted too far toward the Republicans, I will say one of my favorite comments about the differences between the two parties has been that Democrats want to tax and spend and Republicans want to spend and not tax. I believe the primary sin of the Tea Party is that the primary belief that neither approach is wise. A recent letter to the editor to the Idaho Statesman observed that witnessing Republicans and Democrats bicker over the U.S. debt is analogous to watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic.

Qaddafi is Dead, What Next?

Posted on by

Several events in the Mideast will have major influence on the reshaping the region. Egyptian Coptic Christians continue to be persecuted with the death of several shot at a recent gathering and the burning of another of their churches. Tunisia elected the assembly that will draft a new constitution and Muammar Gaddafi was captured and executed along with one of his sons. The election in Tunisia perhaps will have the most impact. An article by Charles Levinson in the Online Wall Street Journal leads off with the sentence, “In an election viewed as a template for emerging Mideast democracies, Tunisians appeared poised to offer a new narrative:  an assembly composed largely of an Islamist party promising a moderate platform, and two secular parties that have pledged to work with it.”

The Islamist Nahda Party won 43 of the 101 seats so far assigned of the 217-seat assembly that will rule for one year. The party has said it would not push for Islamist ideals in the new constitution. The Progressive Democratic Party that had campaigned heavily against Islamists won far fewer seats than had been expected. The U.S. government apparently isn’t skeptical about the outcome. Nahda leaders had visited with the State Department in Washington, D.C., and were said to be “…generally well received.” Aid to Tunisia had been increased before the election, and the Peace Corps will be reestablished. Hillary Clinton issued a statement praising the election, but with no mention of Nahda’s apparent victory.

There has been a flood of news reports since the execution of Muammar. I found a site that had a collection of political cartoons, and I appreciated many of them. My favorite was a cartoon that showed “Dozens of dangerous animals were shot dead in Oho this week…and one in Libya.” There was another that showed an oil pump from the Mideast to the U.S., with the captions “What could possibly go wrong.” Perhaps the most interesting was a depiction of President Obama on the Jay Leno show saying, “Jay, and then I personally beat Gaddafi to death with my Nobel Peace Prize.”

There is some pressure mounting for an investigation of Gaddafi’s death. It will be difficult to claim he was dead when discovered, since there is video of him being dragged from a drainage pipe wounded and bloodied, but still alive. He could be heard pleading for mercy for himself and his sons as he is being yanked around by his hair and beaten amidst taunts from his captors. The display of his shirtless corpse in a walk-in freezer was gruesome. I cannot help but cynically think, “Imagine the outrage if they had water boarded him.”

It is difficult to argue with the outcome of Gaddafi’s capture and death, which brought to mind Benito Mussolini’s execution in Italy during World War II. There were thousands of casualties in the bloody battle between the rebels and Gaddafi loyalists, and Gaddafi’s 42-year tyranny generated deserved hatred. He was buried in a secret location in the desert with the son who had been captured with him and his Defense Minister. He had three sons killed during the insurrection, but the one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, is still at large. He is thought to be trying to make it to make it to Niger to join other regime loyalists or perhaps to Algeria to join Gaddafi’s wife, daughter, and two other sons. There is concern that al-Islam might try to mount an insurgency against the new rulers if he succeeds at escaping to a country that won’t turn him over to the International Criminal Court to be tried for war crimes.

I’m more concerned about the speech given by the head of the Libyan National Transitional Council to announce Gaddafi’s death. He said, “…Islamic Sharia law would be the ‘basic source’ of legislation, and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.”

Current Events in the Middle East

Posted on by

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was recently in Libya promising U.S. support in rebuilding and establishing political stability. I disagreed with the military support used against Gaddafi’s forces, but I think that engaging in the remaking of the Middle East is wise. The British Telegraph reported that Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, Libya’s prime minister and interim leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil. She pledged $11 million in additional aid bringing the total since the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi began in February to $135 million. Part of the new aid money is for educational programs and seeking ways to diversify the economy beyond oil. State Department weapons experts are already in Libya working to find and destroy shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles.

The overall situation in the Middle East certainly remains volatile. Libyan rebels continue to hammer Mummar Qaddafi’s home town of Sirte, although they have finally captured Bani Walid.  Coptic Christians in Egypt continue to be attacked (see the posting dated May 17), protestors continue to be killed in Syria, etc.

Tunisia will be the first test of a country moving from dictatorship to democracy since the “Arab Spring” or “Jasmine Revolution” began with elections scheduled for late October. A New York Times article describes Tunisia “…as the most European country of North Africa, with a relatively large middle class, liberal social norms, broad gender equality, and welcoming Mediterranean beaches.” The negatives were that the government of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali was repressive and corrupt. The elections will choose a constituent assembly while a new constitution is being drafted. The elections have been delayed at least twice to give political parties time to organize and to get millions of people registered to vote. There is of course concern that the well-organized Islamic extremists will win enough votes to give them a strong voice in establishing the path forward.

I hope that world Muslims look at the model of how Muslims view life in the United States where there is freedom of religion and the freedom to prosper. Electra Draper published the results of a poll of 1033 American Muslims in the Denver Post, and I hope the State Department advertises the results. Most of those participating in the poll reject Islamic extremism, although 21 percent reported seeing some support for it in their communities.  There was 61 percent that expressed concern about the rise of Islamic extremism. Only 4 percent of them believed support for extremists is increasing. Perhaps the most encouraging statistic is that 82 percent said they were overwhelmingly satisfied with their lives,79 percent said their communities were good or excellent places to live, and 56 percent said Muslims immigrants  want to adopt American ways of life.

Something I didn’t realize until I made some internet searches is that there were Muslims in American before there was a United States. They weren’t immigrants; they were brought here by slave-traders. It has been estimated as many as 30 percent of enslaved blacks were Muslims. Some of them fought in the Revolutionary War.

We had a British-born visitor at a recent gathering of our book club, and she told a much different story of her experiences with Muslim immigrants in England than what she has seen in America. She said there are very few who assimilate into British society. Most live in enclaves where non-Muslims are not welcome. We should celebrate that the Muslim immigrants to our country have taken a different approach.

Libyan Nuclear Weapons

Posted on by

Supporters of Muammar Gaddafi continue to resist rebel forces in two cities as I type this. There have been concerns about the fate of chemical weapons stores in Libya, but the world can celebrate that Gaddafi was convinced to give up development of nuclear weapons in 2003.

An article on Globalsecurity.org w discusses that Libya wanted to develop nuclear weapons to counteract the weapons believed to be held by Israel. They were willing to work with any country to obtain the training and equipment necessary to operate a nuclear weapons development program.  Argentina sent geologists to Libya to teach methods of uranium prospecting and processing, and the Libyans obtained uranium “yellow cake” from Niger in 1978. India agreed to work with them in development of peaceful nuclear technology, and France agreed to build a nuclear research facility to power a water desalination plant. There were inquiries for nuclear weapons technology to China, North Korea, and Pakistan.  The Soviet Union helped staff a nuclear research facility outside of Tripoli, and at one time planned to build a small reactor for the Libyans. The Japanese provided them the technology necessary to operate uranium processing facilities.

U.S. intelligence had warned that Libya would have deployable nuclear weapons by 2007, but according to the article previously mentioned there were secret talks between Libya, the United States, and Great Britain after that warning. Gaddafi requested the talks immediately after the invasion of Iraq (Wikipedia reference) by 148,000 American, 45.000 British, 2000 Australian, and 194 Polish soldiers. George Bush and Tony Blair announced the invasion was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support of terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people. It is common knowledge that weapons of mass destruction were not found (see the posting dated December 31, 2010 titled “Which President Lied About Weapons of Mass destruction).

Libya continued with efforts to obtain processing equipment despite the talks. In October 2003 a U.S.-led naval operation under the Bush administration’s Proliferation Security Initiative intercepted a shipment of uranium enrichment centrifuge equipment bound for Libya. That operation apparently convinced the Libyans they could not continue with plans for development of nuclear weapons and it was announced on December 19, 2003 that they had agreed to destroy all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.  The agreement provided that Libya’s facilities could be inspected, and one official stated the opinion they were much further along in their development than had been previously thought. Twenty-five tons of equipment and uranium were removed and delivered to the United States. The New York Times reported there were 4,000 centrifuges of Pakistani design that might have been manufactured in Malaysia in the material shipped to the United States. Documents recovered during inspections included design information for a Chinese nuclear weapon. There was also information that as much as $100 million dollars had been paid by Libya to Pakistani scientists for information and equipment.

Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was instrumental in the international illegal transfer of nuclear materials and technologies. He was involved in development of Pakistan’s uranium enrichment capability, and he established a network of scientists, suppliers, and front companies that provided Libya, North Korea, and Iran nuclear weapons technology and equipment. Michael Laufer of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace developed a chronology of Khan’s activities.  Khan had acquired the blueprints for a Chinese bomb by the early 1980s. It was reported that he was approached by “…an unknown Arab country (possibly Saudi Arabia or Syria) requesting nuclear assistance.” Iran obtained centrifuges from Pakistan that were no longer needed by that country in 1989. Shipments of centrifuges to Libya began in 1997 and continued until they ended their programs in 2003.

There is no doubt Muammar Gaddafi had committed to arm himself with nuclear weapons. I did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq, and there have been many negative consequences of that invasion. However, there was one important positive achieved by that invasion. Gaddafi began negotiations with the U.S. and Britain on weapons of mass destruction immediately after coalition forces entered Iraq. The interception of centrifuges and other equipment by the U.S. Navy a few months later pushed him to end his programs and ship the equipment to the United States. It is frightening to think what might have been if Gaddafi had nuclear weapons when the rebels began to take over Libya.

The Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant Plea Bargain

Posted on by

I’ve received comments from knowledgeable people that questioned some of the things I wrote in my book titled “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked.” It has been interesting to do additional research in an attempt to better understand the issues questioned. I mentioned in the book I do not consider myself to be a Rocky Flats expert; the plant was far too large and complex for anyone to claim to be an expert. The comments verify that observation.

For those unfamiliar with the story, the government raided the plant in June of 1989 with dozens of federal agents after delivering a search warrant alleging sensational environmental crimes. I was the Manager of Environmental Management, and was frightened because I thought something really terrible must have been happening to justify such a large and highly publicized raid. It wasn’t long before I realized the agents knew very little about Rocky Flats, and they didn’t seem to be on the trail of anything specific. I would later verify they quickly learned they had been duped by tips from uninformed people who disagreed with the mission of the plant. The investigators also had misinterpreted physical evidence that they believed proved some of the allegations. The eventual guilty plea by Rockwell International, the operator of the plant at the time of the raid, was based on trumped-up charges that had nothing to do with the search warrant. The government insistence on a plea bargain was driven, in my opinion, by officials unwilling to admit they had made an embarrassing mistake.

Comments from a former Rocky Flats contractor who is familiar with how corporations balance legal and business risks and a person who was a senior DOE manager both disagree with what I wrote answering why Rockwell agreed to plead guilty. I speculated they agreed to the plea bargain and to pay an 18.5 million dollar fine to save the reputations of Rockwell managers being threatened with indictment. Both of the commenters say it was a business decision. Rockwell had already accumulated significant legal costs, and those costs were continuing to increase by about a million dollars a month. Trials that could have lasted two or three years would not have been good for the corporate reputation regardless of outcome, and the media circus that would have been created would have been a distraction from other business matters.

There is disagreement on one issue. One person thought the government decided to force a plea bargain on Rockwell after they “went nuts” when there were indications the Grand Jury was considering indicting one or more Department of Energy Officials along with several Rockwell people. The DOE official says that isn’t true, because the threat of indictments from the Grand Jury came a year or two after the plea bargain, and that the government “…did not care about the indictment of federal employees.” That person believes the government’s motivation to settle was that they did not want trials “…to disclose the trumped up nature of their search warrant.”   I’m inclined to believe the opinion offered by the DOE official.

Changing subjects to one of the “crimes” included in the guilty plea, the DOE official disagreed with what I wrote regarding Rockwell agreeing to pay $2,000,000 in fines for failure to file a permit application for a waste storage area. Rockwell wrote in the report they provided to the court about the guilty plea that they had delivered the permit application to the DOE office, and had “…no knowledge of what happened thereafter until the application was filed by DOE, apparently six months later.” (United States District Court (Defendants) March 26, 1992, pages 54-55) The DOE official wrote the application submittal was delayed because what Rockwell gave to DOE was “woefully inadequate.” I’ve had several back and forth messages with several people to try to sort this out, and I now believe the commenter was referring to a different permit application that the one that resulted in the fine. What I’ve learned from this is confirmation that the permit application process was complicated and filled with opportunities for disagreement between Rockwell, DOE, and the federal agencies that would make it difficult to prepare a permit application and submit it on schedule.

What I haven’t found is why Rockwell was forced to pay a two million dollar fine for failure to submit the application when, according to the statement submitted by Rockwell to the court, it was DOE that failed to submit the application. The DOE official wrote that both Rockwell and DOE were responsible for filling the application. However, that wouldn’t explain why only Rockwell was held accountable for failure to meet the application submital schedule. I concede I don’t know whether the application was submitted late because what Rockwell provided was inadequate. Who did what or who was most at blame might continue to be in dispute, but it is a fact that this was a paperwork problem and not an environmental problem. No one has yet questioned my continued belief that the plea bargain was too absurd to stand up to any kind of scrutiny. John F. Seymour wrote in an article titled “U.S. v. Rockwell:  GOCO Assessed Criminal Fines for Violations at Rocky Flats,” in the summer 1992 Federal Facilities Environmental Journal, that “…the plea bargain involves relatively mundane and commonplace…violations.” The DOE official said it well, “One of the crazy aspects of our legal system these days is the assignment of felonies to what should be civil matters.”  I think a final comment from that person is a good closing. “I have told people that RFP (Rocky Flats Plant) was never as good or as bad as it was alleged.”

Current Events in Russia

Posted on by

I am posting a multipart review of the book “The Forsaken, An American Tragedy in Stalin’s Russia” by Tim Tzouliadis that I recommend, and I decided I should do some research on what is happening in Russia today. Much of my reading of history tells me that Stalin’s Soviet Union was preparing to take on the United States as an enemy as we were supposed to be allies during World War II. Reading about current events in Russia leads me to the opinion that the Russians do not consider us to be an ally despite the efforts of the Obama administration to establish better relationships with them. Hillary Clinton famously delivered a “reset button” to Russia, but the televised event was embarrassing. The Russian word “Peregruzka” that was written on the button  means “overcharged” and not “reset.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergi Lavrov informed her of the error. Perezagruzka (with an extra “za”) means reset, and peregruzka means over charged.

Recent events in Russia indicate that dealing with the Russians is likely to get tougher. A Washington Post article by Will Englund and Kathy Lally reports that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will step aside after his one term as president and has called on the ruling United Russia part to endorse Vladimir Putin for the post. The Huffington Post writes that Medvedev will be awarded the position of Prime Minster, the number two position in the Russian government, while Putin will undoubtedly be elected President in a carefully controlled election. Putin was former president Boris Yeltsin’s choice to succeed him when Yeltsin resigned the presidency in 2000. Putin then engineered Medvedev’s election in 2008 when term limits wouldn’t allow him to continue. The recent announcement means that the “managed democracy” policies that have been in effect since Yeltsin’s resignation will be continued in Russia.

Political freedom is not expected to return after Putin and Medvedev trade positions.  Opposition groups are rarely given approval to hold rallies, and unsanctioned gatherings are quickly broken up by police. The major television channels are controlled by the state and rarely air opposition views. It is to Putin’s advantage that he is credited with the Russian turnaround from post-Soviet poverty to prosperity, although much of that economic success comes from higher prices for oil and natural gas. Some analysts think Putin will have to pursue reforms to move beyond a natural-resources economy. Putin believes wealthier Russians need to pay higher taxes. He has called for increases in consumption and real estate taxes.

Putin does have political opponents. Former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov has predicted that the government will fall after Putin returns to the presidency. “This government’s collapse is predictable and inevitable. This won’t take six or five years or the period of time until the next parliamentary elections.”

Putin is expected to continue the strict nationalistic stance that has been his signature from his days with the KGB and though his years as President and Prime Minster. His return to the presidency isn’t likely to ease relations with the United States. There are disputes over the building of a European missile-defense system, economic policies, and Russian support of Syria and Iran. According to an article by Joel Brinkley, Russia continues to sell arms to the Syrian government as protestors are being killed. The Syrian President, al-Assad Alawite is a Shiite Muslim, while three-quarters of Syria’s people are Sunnis. Ending his reign would probably result in a Sunni leader, which would isolate Iran’s Shiite leaders and the terrorist allies, Hezbollah and Hamas. Perhaps the Russian support to Syria and Iran is the reason the Obama administration seemed much less eager to file official protests about the treatment of protestors in Syria than they were in other Middle Eastern counties. I know foreign relations are incredibly complex, but I don’t believe that we should hold out hope that Vladimir Putin is going to become our friend.