CD pirates, too, by selling alleged "recordings" of the controversial conversation for P5 a copy may not be destabilizing the Arroyo regime – they’re making the "Hello Garci" thing a collector’s item.
The ones who’re destabilizing the GMA Administration are the eager-beaver defenders of La Presidenta who’re acting like Gestapo bullies and brownshirt Storm Troopers (GMA’s own Sturm Abteilung) such as the National Bureau of Investigation. The NBI didn’t worry in the past about pirated DVDs, but now NBI Director Reynaldo "Wyck" Wycoco has ordered the agency’s Intellectual Property Rights Division (IPRD) to investigate the bootleg CD copies and who’re distributing them. Speaking of intellectual property rights, who rightly OWNS those conversation pieces? Toting Bunye and the Malacañang Press Office, the ISAFP, Sammy Ong or King Kong?
What’s even more raw is the snarling manner in which the NBI is going after former NBI Deputy Director Ong with charges of subversion. There hasn’t even been an inquiry, or trial yet, but it sounds like the NBI has virtually declared Ong guilty of treason. If anything, Ong may be guilty of naivete or stupidity. Who told him he could oust a President with a press conference and a few "incriminating-sounding" tapped conversations? I’d say it could really be La Gloria and her friendly Comelec Commissioner Garcillano (Virgilio) talking, but tapes of illegally bugged cellphone conversations are not admissible either in courts or in impeachment proceedings – if the latter can even be mustered.
The NBI should pull in its horns. Its pathetic bias is showing. For that matter, an "invitation" for an inquiry could be issued, but how can a Warrant of Arrest for Ong be justified without a hearing, counter-affidavit, or legal procedure? The truth is that Ong is now in Metro Manila – still hiding out, but too many people already know where he is. What will be the next step in this gripping but stumblebum, badly-scripted melodrama?
I met Manila Mayor Lito Atienza yesterday afternoon and he said it’s evident the people are tired of commotion and upheaval, recalling that last weekend’s rally in Liwasang Bonifacio, in Manila, organized by church groups and Leftists, attracted barely 4,000 demonstrators. In a Manila city of three million, a Metro Manila of 11 million inhabitants, and a nation of 85 million, that’s not even a drop in the bucket – it’s one-hundredth of a drop. Not enough to drop GMA – forgive me, I couldn’t resist that awful pun.
There’s another question which bugs me, though. Let’s say GMA were dumped, or overthrown by a wave of anger over alleged "stealing" of the election – which doesn’t appear imminent anyhow – who’d replace her? Vice-President Noli de Castro? If there were poll manipulators who "fixed" the election results for GMA, they would have done so, too, for her runningmate, Magandang Gabi Bayan.
In the order of succession, then, Senate President Franklin Drilon?
In case of a coup (which is not bloody likely) would it be FVR, or retired General Fortunato Abat’s Senior Citizens’ Junta?
Even former President Joseph "Erap" Estrada has begun to dream in his Tanay "prison" of returning in style to Malacañang – after all, he’s always been claiming the Presidency was "stolen" from him.
If the election was conceivably "stolen" from Fernando Poe Jr., his brave widow Susan Roces has already pointed out that Ronnie is dead. His vice-presidential runningmate former Senator Loren Legarda’s election protest has not prospered.
So, take your pick. La Gloria may be battered, but she’s not packing her bags – except for Hong Kong.
Nobody really knows who’ll replace Ambassador Cameron Hume, currently envoy to South Africa, who was originally slated to come to the Philippines to take over the post vacated by Ambassador Frank Ricciardone who, we hear, subject to US Senate confirmation, will be posted to Cairo, Egypt. In Cairo, Ricciardone’s Arab-speaking expertise and his knowledge of and experience in the Middle East will be very useful.
Our Foreign Affairs Secretary Bert Romulo was even informed it would be Hume – but suddenly, last week, Hume's would-be-nomination was inexplicably withdrawn. The buzz for spook corner is that a more "aggressive" person will be dispatched.
It seems that the Americans are very unpredictable when it comes to who’ll be sent as an envoy to a foreign land. Or are Ambassadorships "bought" and "sold"? For instance, I ran across a fascinating piece in The Financial Times of London headlined: "$100,000 – The Price of a Bush Ambassadorship."
The subhead of the article by Caroline Daniel datelined Washington said: "The tradition of appointing top donors as diplomats is thriving under the current presidency."
Wow! When one considers that the Philippines has only 18 "political" Ambassadors, four of whom were former career Ambassadors who were re-appointed after retirement, we’re fairly even-steven.
Anyway, without further comment, here’s what the FT correspondent, Ms. Daniel, reported:
"President George W. Bush nominated two key political fund-raisers from California last week to serve as his top diplomats in the UK and Italy. The nominations of Robert Tuttle and Ronald Spogli prompted little public comment.
Indeed, generous US political donors have enjoyed a long tradition of landing ambassadorships. At the Court of St. James’ in London, Mr. Tuttle replaces William Farish, a horse-breeder who spent as much time on the racetrack as the diplomatic circuit. In 1969, Richard Nixon sent the rich publisher Walter Annenberg to St. James’, in 1938, Franklin D. Roosevelt sent the wealthy New Englander Joe Kennedy.
According to Public Citizen, the US consumer rights group, Mr. Bush as of August 2004 had 30 ambassadorships for "pioneers" who had raised more than $100,000 for his 2000 or 2004 political campaigns. The number of such appointments has risen since the election. These rewards flout the Foreign Service Act of 1980, which says: "Contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission."
Mr. Bush is not the only president to have ignored that law. He ranks evenly with Bill Clinton who doled out 30 percent of his ambassadorships to political appointees – about average, according to the American Foreign Service Association. Jimmy Carter ranked the best, at 24 percent. Richard Nixon’s 30 percent ranked lower than John F. Kennedy’s 33 percent.
The big mistake, however, is in making the link between cash and consulates too explicit. In June 1971, in a memorable exchange with H.R. Haldeman, his chief of staff, Mr. Nixon said of Raymond Quest, a big political donor: "I’m sure that he’s talking about quarter of a million at least because he gave $100,000 last time out in ’65 . . . Now he can be ambassador to Brussels. My point is that anybody that wants to be ambassador, wants to pay at least $250,000."
Mr. Nixon’s crass exchange has had a modern echo. In a 2001 letter released in February, Duane Acklic, a Bush pioneer, sent a name-dropping letter of complaint to Mike Johanns, then-governor of Nebraska and now US agriculture secretary.
"Jack Oliver (a Bush fundraiser) told me several weeks ago that I would not receive one of the eight major ambassadorships but would be receiving an ambassadorship. Since that time I have heard absolutely nothing and all of the people I know have already received appointments. Our friend Suc Cobb has been appointed ambassador to Jamaica. I don’t understand why I haven’t heard a single thing."
Prized posts reserved for donors include London and Paris – the two most prestigious – as well as sun-spots such as Bahamas. "Some are sold and some are earned, and never the twain shall meet," says Paul Light, professor of public service at New York University."