10 September, ABC shows "Path to 9-11," a TV miniseries that blamed President Clinton for 9-11.
22 September, Chris Wallace of Fox News challenged former President Clinton to explain why bin Laden was still alive when the next President, George W. Bush took office. Why did Clnton fail to kill bin Laden? As this was a surprise, unannounced question on Wallace's part, Clinton got a bit heated in his reply. Clinton received criticism all across the TV dial because he responded energetically.
Wallace was described as even-handed, objective, and a nice guy.
Why of course Wallace was just as tough on the Bush people as he was on Clinton, Fox News supporters said.
Well, here was a chance to prove it.
Wallace recently had Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on his show. She had been on 23 times previously and as the seventh anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole was very close by, people sent in 20,000 emails asking Wallace to prove his evenhandedness by asking her why the Bush Administration did nothng between Bush's inauguration in 2001 and 9-11. Specifically, why didn't the Bush Administration do anything about the recent certification by the CIA (Less than 20 days before Bush took office) that the USS Cole was bombed by bin Laden?
Wallace decided to chicken out, proving absolutely and unequivocally that Fox News is a Republican propaganda organ.
The court scholar serving Hermann of Thuringia.
The scholar
2006/10/19
2006/10/16
Iran running arms to Iraq insurgents?
The argument against the charge that Iran is running some sort of "Ho Chi Minh Trail" to Iraqi insurgents has long been the one of "Occam's Razor," the principle of not making a theory any more complicated than it needs to be to explain something. Iraqis use simple, easily-obtained weaponry (AK-47s & IEDs), they have all the training they need (Pre-war, a very large military establishment) and with the American occupation, all the motivation they need (Harsh pre-war sanctions, infidels who don't speak their language and don't care about their culture occupying their land, Abu Ghraib, etc.). Nevertheless, the British decided to investgate to see if the Iranians were sending anything over anyway.
Result?
Nothing.
Does the Bush Administration want to attack anyway? Well,
Result?
Nothing.
Does the Bush Administration want to attack anyway? Well,
If the fallout from the Foley scandal makes it appear inevitable that the Democrats will take the House, the Iran card may be the surest one, and perhaps the only one, that the Bush administration has left to play.
2006/10/14
Re: "The Sounds of Silencing" Oct 13
Peggy Noonan at Wall St Journal's OpinionJournal
Commentary from lawyer/blogger Glenn Greenwald
Ms Noonan asks why the left could not silence a critic. Katie Couric featured the father of a student killed in the massacre at Columbine High School making crazy and preposterous statements about the massacre having something to do with women controlling their own bodies and deciding on their own whether to bring pregnancies to term. But the unnamed "blog critic" had it right. The question was not "Why wasn't this critic of abortion rights silenced?" The question was "Why was this lunatic given a national platform from which to make crazy statements?"
Ms Noonan claims that the left does not want debate. Fuuny, but when former President Bill Clinton reacted heatedly to a Fox News person repeating talking points from the Disney/ABC miniseries of less than a month previously, conservatives and most of the news media demonstrated absolutely zero desire to debate the issue of presidential responsibility for 9-11. Clinton was portrayed as crazy and belligerent and cartoonists portrayed him as lunging at the poor, defenseless Fox News person.
No one in the media, to my knowledge, took up the point of "Yeah, just what did Bush do between January 2001 and early September 2001 to head off 9-11?" It's curious that the side of the political aisle that is now lecturing leftists had so little interest in the solid and substantive issue of presidential responsibility when it came to their own president. Had your beloved, "civilized" right wing, Ms Noonan, stopped to question themselves over that point, we liberals might take your crocodile tears seriously.
Commentary from lawyer/blogger Glenn Greenwald
Ms Noonan asks why the left could not silence a critic. Katie Couric featured the father of a student killed in the massacre at Columbine High School making crazy and preposterous statements about the massacre having something to do with women controlling their own bodies and deciding on their own whether to bring pregnancies to term. But the unnamed "blog critic" had it right. The question was not "Why wasn't this critic of abortion rights silenced?" The question was "Why was this lunatic given a national platform from which to make crazy statements?"
Ms Noonan claims that the left does not want debate. Fuuny, but when former President Bill Clinton reacted heatedly to a Fox News person repeating talking points from the Disney/ABC miniseries of less than a month previously, conservatives and most of the news media demonstrated absolutely zero desire to debate the issue of presidential responsibility for 9-11. Clinton was portrayed as crazy and belligerent and cartoonists portrayed him as lunging at the poor, defenseless Fox News person.
No one in the media, to my knowledge, took up the point of "Yeah, just what did Bush do between January 2001 and early September 2001 to head off 9-11?" It's curious that the side of the political aisle that is now lecturing leftists had so little interest in the solid and substantive issue of presidential responsibility when it came to their own president. Had your beloved, "civilized" right wing, Ms Noonan, stopped to question themselves over that point, we liberals might take your crocodile tears seriously.
2006/10/11
Straw man arguments explained
Bush made a statement about his warrantless NSA spying program:
"'One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,' ' Bush said at a fundraiser..."
This is of course complete nonsense. Democrats don't have a problem with listening in on the conversations of al Qaeda, they just have a problem with doing so without warrants and without agents demonstrating probably cause to believe that those being monitored are indeed al Qaeda and not just some peaceniks plannng their next legal, peaceful demonstration.
Many journalists, including the WaPo's Dan Froomkin, have remarked upon the President's tendency to do verbal sparring with imaginary foes who present made-up arguments. Well, now an aide of his explains:
"White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended Bush's remark as a reasonable extrapolation of the Democratic position. 'Of course, they aren't silly enough to say they don't want to listen in on terrorists, but actions speak louder than words, and people should know what the Democrats' voting record is,' she said."
Of course Bush didn't say anything suggesting he was re-writing anything that anybody said. Reading his statement, he appears to be quoting a number of people who all say more or less the same thing.
And naturally, the voting records of Democrats shows no such thing. People including Froomkin have commented on the tendency of Bush to make statements like this. Bush has repeatedly made up inane arguments, attributed those arguments to opponents of his and then masterfully and heroically demonstrate to his followers how inane the arguments are. In order to spot the fact that it's a straw ma argument, one has to know what the actual positions of the Democrats are. Accordingly, these arguments are very persuasive to "low-information" supporters, they're "not so much" to opponents and informed people.
The interestig and hopeful part is that enough people are catching on to this to provoke Bush's spokespeople to make up justifications.
"'One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,' ' Bush said at a fundraiser..."
This is of course complete nonsense. Democrats don't have a problem with listening in on the conversations of al Qaeda, they just have a problem with doing so without warrants and without agents demonstrating probably cause to believe that those being monitored are indeed al Qaeda and not just some peaceniks plannng their next legal, peaceful demonstration.
Many journalists, including the WaPo's Dan Froomkin, have remarked upon the President's tendency to do verbal sparring with imaginary foes who present made-up arguments. Well, now an aide of his explains:
"White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended Bush's remark as a reasonable extrapolation of the Democratic position. 'Of course, they aren't silly enough to say they don't want to listen in on terrorists, but actions speak louder than words, and people should know what the Democrats' voting record is,' she said."
Of course Bush didn't say anything suggesting he was re-writing anything that anybody said. Reading his statement, he appears to be quoting a number of people who all say more or less the same thing.
And naturally, the voting records of Democrats shows no such thing. People including Froomkin have commented on the tendency of Bush to make statements like this. Bush has repeatedly made up inane arguments, attributed those arguments to opponents of his and then masterfully and heroically demonstrate to his followers how inane the arguments are. In order to spot the fact that it's a straw ma argument, one has to know what the actual positions of the Democrats are. Accordingly, these arguments are very persuasive to "low-information" supporters, they're "not so much" to opponents and informed people.
The interestig and hopeful part is that enough people are catching on to this to provoke Bush's spokespeople to make up justifications.
2006/10/10
The "moral superiority" of Republicans
Open letter to Chris Matthews
Sources to write to him:
As you might remember, in late August of last year, New Orleans was flooded with water that was so full of junk and poisons that it was pretty much impossible to swim in it. People were trapped on their rooftops with very little in the way of clean water, food or shelter from the late summer sun. Citizens of New Orleans felt they didn't really need to stock up on anything because they were American citizens and could therefore expect rescue boats and helicopters to come along soon.
Please remember that G.W. Bush visited the home of "Saint" John McCain, the guy who later performed the torture bill kabuki, where he pretended to be a moral voice in the "debate." Bush celebrated McCain's birthday while the citizens of New Orleans died in the poisonous water and on their rooftops. The Vice-President remained at his ranch, the Secretary of State went to New York City to buy shoes and see a comedy.
The polls show that disapproval of the President's performance has actually grown by a modest amount in the past year, meaning NO ONE has forgotten, no one has forgiven.
Even when we leave all the conspiracy theories aside, the rock-hard, indisputable fact of 9-11 is that, in the very best possible case, the Bush Administration displayed negligence, incompetence and dereliction of duty. The website 911Truth.org lists 80 articles in both the mainstream and alternative press/blogs concerning Bush Administration foreknowledge/advance warnings about 9-11. At no time has Bush or any other member of his current Administration ever expressed the slightest regret over their dereliction of duty. How anyone can look at this record and say that Bush & Co are moral is, again, beyond me.
On the Iraq War, Bush has never once gone to the funerals of any fallen soldiers, his wife has visited wounded soldiers in the hospital, but secretly, as though there were something shameful in doing so, the Bush daughters could very easily have signed up to be Navy pilots after graduation from college and could be bombing targets in Iraq during the day and sleeping on the aircraft carrier at night. We have yet to hear calls to sign up for duty in Iraq from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin or any other right-wing pundits. Where is the morality here?
There has been a dispute over the past few years as to whether pharmacists can deny RU-486 to women who wish to head off their pregnancies. Wal-Mart came out in favor of pharmacists' "freedom" to do so, K-Mart said "No, pharmacists should do their job and dispense the medicines they're asked to dispense." Right-wingers and Republicans both appear to be in favor of allowing ignorant busybodies to interfere in a very serious and private matter with no controls as to whether they know the woman in question or anything about her situation. The Terry Schiavo case simply illustrated this general attitude in glaring detail.
In the case of former Congressman Foley and his pedophilia, Dr James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and the fellow who "outed" Spongebob Squarepants as gay, took over a week to even mention Foley and as of 10 Oct 06, does not feature Foley on the home page of his website.
You've made the claim that Republicans are more moral because they believe in balanced budgets. Well, first of all, President Reagan may have believed in balanced budgets in theory, but a quick glance as to how he actually managed the budget makes it clear that he had, at best, only a vague, theoretical grasp of how to actually balance budgets. Second, a Marxist economist, as she would favor helping out people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, has just as legitimate a claim to being moral as a balanced-budget-believer does. One could argue about which system is better in the long run, but it is simply impossible for one side to say "We're moral and the other side isn't."
The Republican claim to moral superiority is just that, a claim. Right-wingers and Republicans have absolutely no reason whatsoever to flaunt themselves as morally superior to liberals and I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that in the future.
Sources to write to him:
Chris Matthews
Chris Matthews
MSNBC
viewerservices@msnbc.com
MSNBC TV
One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, N.J. 07094
MSNBC contacts
Hardball
hardball@msnbc.com
Mr Matthews,
I must say, reading the snippet below and having read Digby's blog post, I'm really baffled as to how the Republican Party can claim any sort of moral superiority over their Democratic rivals.
Matthews: You didn't give us the deadliest which is that Democrats are now trusted more on moral values
Fineman: I thought that was the next question
Matthews: (incredulous) I mean that is a stunning ... the Democrats are the big city party, the tolerance party the ... in many ways libertarian on social issues and moral issues and now they're perceived to be more priestly, more honorable on moral questions ... I guess that includes sexual questions ... than the Republicans.
As you might remember, in late August of last year, New Orleans was flooded with water that was so full of junk and poisons that it was pretty much impossible to swim in it. People were trapped on their rooftops with very little in the way of clean water, food or shelter from the late summer sun. Citizens of New Orleans felt they didn't really need to stock up on anything because they were American citizens and could therefore expect rescue boats and helicopters to come along soon.
Please remember that G.W. Bush visited the home of "Saint" John McCain, the guy who later performed the torture bill kabuki, where he pretended to be a moral voice in the "debate." Bush celebrated McCain's birthday while the citizens of New Orleans died in the poisonous water and on their rooftops. The Vice-President remained at his ranch, the Secretary of State went to New York City to buy shoes and see a comedy.
The polls show that disapproval of the President's performance has actually grown by a modest amount in the past year, meaning NO ONE has forgotten, no one has forgiven.
Even when we leave all the conspiracy theories aside, the rock-hard, indisputable fact of 9-11 is that, in the very best possible case, the Bush Administration displayed negligence, incompetence and dereliction of duty. The website 911Truth.org lists 80 articles in both the mainstream and alternative press/blogs concerning Bush Administration foreknowledge/advance warnings about 9-11. At no time has Bush or any other member of his current Administration ever expressed the slightest regret over their dereliction of duty. How anyone can look at this record and say that Bush & Co are moral is, again, beyond me.
On the Iraq War, Bush has never once gone to the funerals of any fallen soldiers, his wife has visited wounded soldiers in the hospital, but secretly, as though there were something shameful in doing so, the Bush daughters could very easily have signed up to be Navy pilots after graduation from college and could be bombing targets in Iraq during the day and sleeping on the aircraft carrier at night. We have yet to hear calls to sign up for duty in Iraq from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin or any other right-wing pundits. Where is the morality here?
There has been a dispute over the past few years as to whether pharmacists can deny RU-486 to women who wish to head off their pregnancies. Wal-Mart came out in favor of pharmacists' "freedom" to do so, K-Mart said "No, pharmacists should do their job and dispense the medicines they're asked to dispense." Right-wingers and Republicans both appear to be in favor of allowing ignorant busybodies to interfere in a very serious and private matter with no controls as to whether they know the woman in question or anything about her situation. The Terry Schiavo case simply illustrated this general attitude in glaring detail.
In the case of former Congressman Foley and his pedophilia, Dr James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and the fellow who "outed" Spongebob Squarepants as gay, took over a week to even mention Foley and as of 10 Oct 06, does not feature Foley on the home page of his website.
You've made the claim that Republicans are more moral because they believe in balanced budgets. Well, first of all, President Reagan may have believed in balanced budgets in theory, but a quick glance as to how he actually managed the budget makes it clear that he had, at best, only a vague, theoretical grasp of how to actually balance budgets. Second, a Marxist economist, as she would favor helping out people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, has just as legitimate a claim to being moral as a balanced-budget-believer does. One could argue about which system is better in the long run, but it is simply impossible for one side to say "We're moral and the other side isn't."
The Republican claim to moral superiority is just that, a claim. Right-wingers and Republicans have absolutely no reason whatsoever to flaunt themselves as morally superior to liberals and I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that in the future.
2006/10/07
Tony Snow explains Bush's "just a comma" comment
The comma refers to the period of time between last year's election and today. We're talking about — well, the President is making the point is, when you look at a history book, a 10-month period is a comma.
----------
And I've talked to him about this a number of times. It was simply — what he means is that in the grand sweep of history
------
----------
And I've talked to him about this a number of times. It was simply — what he means is that in the grand sweep of history
------
Helen Thomas then points out (quite reasonably, I think): The war is three-and-a-half years old.
MR. SNOW: I know, but notice that "comma" reference was simply referring to the time since — what he really is referring to is the short lifetime so far of the government. Everybody trying to say, ah-ha, and trying to draw conclusions, is it working, isn't it working; do you have confidence in the Prime Minister, do you not? It's 10 months old. It's a government that is still in its infancy and trying to deal with a host of complex and very important issues. So when you take it in the broad sweep of history, and as we look back — you and I probably — well, you may, centuries from now, but I don't think I'm going to last as long as you will, Helen — but the facts is –
What Snow & Thomas disagree on seems pretty clear. Snow is essentially arguing that the "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" exercise that was concluded with the installation of the new government of Iraq was a "decisive turning point," much as was the signing of the Iraqi constitution on 8 March 2004:
US President George W Bush called the adoption an "historic milestone"
Or the "turnover of authority to the Iraqi people" on 28 June 2004, which resulted in:
"This is a historical day," Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said. "We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation."
Added Iraqi President Ghazi Al-Yawer: "This is a day we are going to take our country back into the international forum. We'd like to express our thanks to the coalition," Al-Yawer continued. "There is no way to turn back now."
Historic, eh? Funny how nobody celebrated the second anniversaries of these famed and historic days. 22 June 2005, Kofi Annan declared that various international pledges of support given at a conference in Brussels marked a:
"This conference marked a watershed for Iraq," Mr Annan said afterwards.
He said he hoped the long-suffering people of Iraq would "take heart from this strong message of support" and that the declaration would make future challenges "appear a little less daunting"
And of course, there was the 8 June 2006 killing of the head of "al Qaeda in Iraq," Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was wary of using the term "turning point." but was suitably enthusiastic:
[It] was a sign of "a new spirit to succeed", said Mr Blair.
"Our task, obviously, is to turn that spirit, that willingness, that desire to succeed into effective action," he said.
"If we are able to do so, then we will have accomplished something that goes far beyond the borders of Iraq."
Further commentary in this particular article demonstrates that the British press is far freer and less corporatized than the American press is by leaps and bounds.
2006/10/04
Pre-9/11 warning of 10 July 2001
Seems there wasn't just the 6 August PDB that notified the Bush Administration of the upcoming 9/11 attack. Secretary of State (Then National Securiy Adviser) Rice, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft were all briefed two months beforehand. Interestingly, the then-current Secretary of State, Powell, was not in the briefing. Also, it's very interesting to note that the 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikov, who was an NSC Deputy serving directly under Rice at the time, "...didn't respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers" concerning why the 9/11 Commission never included this meeting in their report.
It was relatively easy to dismiss the PDB as a fluke. One warning, delivered to one person, a person not really known for being all that bright. But to have the same warning delivered to three principal officials well before the event is a bit harder to explain away. As DailyKos explains, the evidence that at least Rice was fully aware of the upcoming attack is damningly specific.
Of course, what Rice, Rumsfeld or Ashcroft DID about the warning remains an open question.
It was relatively easy to dismiss the PDB as a fluke. One warning, delivered to one person, a person not really known for being all that bright. But to have the same warning delivered to three principal officials well before the event is a bit harder to explain away. As DailyKos explains, the evidence that at least Rice was fully aware of the upcoming attack is damningly specific.
Of course, what Rice, Rumsfeld or Ashcroft DID about the warning remains an open question.
2006/10/03
Again, the complete idiocy of "make the Army bigger"
To whack away again at the DLC/Joe Lieberman solution of "Let's just wave a magic wand and magically make the US Army bigger," here's a public opinion study quoted in DailyKos:
In other words, even if we could somehow make the Army bigger, very few Americans want that bigger force to be used to reinforce the units currently fighting in Iraq. Again, proposing a bigger force is a great way to bamboozle low-information voters into thinking that you're proposing a real solution, but it's quite uselss for actually solving anything.
Frustration with the [Iraq] war is further reflected in the fact that only 23 percent of respondents indicated that U.S. troops in Iraq should be "maintained at the current level." A plurality of Americans - 27 percent - now advocate the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops, while a combined 31 percent of Americans want the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to be decreased "some" or "a lot." Only 19 percent of respondents want U.S. troop levels "increased a lot" or "increased some." [emphasis added]
In other words, even if we could somehow make the Army bigger, very few Americans want that bigger force to be used to reinforce the units currently fighting in Iraq. Again, proposing a bigger force is a great way to bamboozle low-information voters into thinking that you're proposing a real solution, but it's quite uselss for actually solving anything.
2006/09/27
Bush and "finger-pointing" on 9-11
President Bush comments on former President' Clinton's assertion that Bush did little or nothing to try and head off the 9-11 attacks "I don't have enough time to finger-point."
Well, gee, let's think about this now...
- Disney/ABC pointed the fingr of blame at Bill Clinton in their TV miniseries "Path to 9-11"
- Fox News conducted a hostile, "gotcha"-type interview with Clinton
- Secretary of State Rice launched a further attack in the Administration-friendly New York Post
Yesh, Bush could have piled on further, but at that point, who needs to?
Well, gee, let's think about this now...
- Disney/ABC pointed the fingr of blame at Bill Clinton in their TV miniseries "Path to 9-11"
- Fox News conducted a hostile, "gotcha"-type interview with Clinton
- Secretary of State Rice launched a further attack in the Administration-friendly New York Post
Yesh, Bush could have piled on further, but at that point, who needs to?
2006/09/25
Lieberman's plan for victory in Iraq
Sigh! Again, we get this sort of stuff from people who support the vague, fuzzy concept of victory in Iraq:
Nice ideas. Where are the extra troops going to come from!?!?!?! The DLC has also recommended extra troops, again without giving any indication as to where they'll be coming from. The Army and Marine Corps are stretched to the breaking point. Does anybody who gives the issue a moment's thought really think the answer is to just wave a magic wand and more troops will magically appear? This next point is just pure fantasyland wishful thnking:
Seriously, what evidence does Lieberman have that the Bush Adinistration has shown any desire in the entire five-plus years they've been in office that they have any intention of working with Democrats on any issue, large or small?
Rubbish, utter rubbish!
Ninth, we must begin now to increase the size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and to make sure we are building the numbers and types of units we need to fight and win the kinds of conflicts that we are likely to be confronted with during this century. While this will not fix the shortages we have now, nor reduce the strain on our over stretched ground forces, it will begin to give us the greater capabilities we will need and send a signal to our troops that we understand what they are going through and that we are going to do something now about having reinforcements for them.
Nice ideas. Where are the extra troops going to come from!?!?!?! The DLC has also recommended extra troops, again without giving any indication as to where they'll be coming from. The Army and Marine Corps are stretched to the breaking point. Does anybody who gives the issue a moment's thought really think the answer is to just wave a magic wand and more troops will magically appear? This next point is just pure fantasyland wishful thnking:
...we should form a bipartisan Iraq working group early in the next session of Congress. This group would include the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate security committees - Armed Services, Intelligence, Homeland Security, Foreign Relations, and Appropriations - and meet regularly with the President and his team.
Seriously, what evidence does Lieberman have that the Bush Adinistration has shown any desire in the entire five-plus years they've been in office that they have any intention of working with Democrats on any issue, large or small?
Rubbish, utter rubbish!
2006/09/22
NY Times on Geneva Conventions
The Democrats have largely stood silent and allowed the trio of Republicans to do the lifting. It's time for them to either try to fix this bill or delay it until after the election. The American people expect their leaders to clean up this mess without endangering U.S. troops, eviscerating American standards of justice, or further harming the nation's severely damaged reputation.
DailyKos is right. If we were to rate the Geneva Conventions as they are at a 10 and Bush's attempt to gut them as a 2, then the changes sought by McCain et al, would count as a 2.2. Somewhere between slight and nonexistant. It's long past time for Democrats to make themselves heard, loudly and clearly, on this issue!! Will they? Well, this piece, suggesting that the Democrats intend to repeat the twice-failed (2002 & 2004) strategy of running on the economy, means they probably won't.
Too bad, because the campaign in the Second Congressional District of Ohio is looking very good for Democrats. In 2005, it was Paul Hackett (D) vs Jean Schmidt (R). The district was 63% pro-Bush. Now it's Jean Schmidt (R) vs Victoria Wulsin (D) and the race is now in a statistical dead heat. Why is OH-2 competitive? "...because the netroots threw so much into it in 2005." Not because any high-priced lobbyists in expensive loafers came up with any clever strategies, not because any official committes threw gobs of money into the race or because some people in Washington DC came up with oh-so-cute-and-clever slogans, but because people got down, threw their shoulders into it and pushed!
Geneva Conventions - RIP?
The Specter bill seeks to excuse all of the President's crimes concerning warrantless NSA spying. "The President and Vice President negotiated the Specter bill personally and every sign has strongly reflected its great importance to them." It's been pointed out that the Specter bill would "expressly immunize Bush officials from any legal consequences arising out of their illegal eavesdropping -- giving them what Pincus called "blanket amnesty" -- by retroactively legalizing warrantless eavesdropping going back to 1978."
The Existentialist Cowboy (Who also makes a number of other good points) quotes from the Constitution: " 'No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed' —US Constitution, Article I". What this means is that Congress cannot pass a law that goes back into time and excuses behavior that was illegal at the time that the behavior was engaged in. If a US agent committed a war crime while the US was formally observing the Geneva Conventions, then he's guilty of a war crime. No bill passed in 2006 can absolve him of a crime committed in 2003. The Cowboy also quotes a section of Article IV which states: "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land" which means that the Geneva Conventions, ratified in 1949, do not simply amount to a mere piece of paper that only foreigner care about, it's "the supreme law of the land."
At the moment, if the US decides that the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War no longer applied, that would immediately affect approximately 14,000 prisoners being kept in a "global network of overseas prisons."
"Human-rights groups count dozens of deaths that have never been explained and for which no one has been punished." Murder is a crime which has no statute of limitations (That means that if you rob someone of property and the crime is not discovered until after a certain amount of time has passed, the statute of limitations will have expired and you can no longer be charged for it.) and no ex post facto law can excuse a murderer who killed while his or her actions were illegal. While it's perfectly legal to kill an enemy soldier under many specified conditions, it's been quite another story to kill a prisoner of war since 1949, when the Third Geneva Convention was ratified.
Many have wondered why the Democrats have not stepped up and argued against the Specter warrantless NSA spying bill or to keep the Geneva Conventions in force. According to a blogger who interviewed him, Senate Minority Leader "Sen. Reid stated flatly and unequivocally -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that the Specter bill was not going anywhere, that it would not be enacted."
There's been a real battle over the competing bills, with reports that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has "...referred the warrantless surveillance matter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for further review and would not bring it up for Senate consideration until next week." This would be marvelous news for those who support the Constitution as time in the legislative session is short and any delay weakens those who would toss it all away.
And the story on Maher Arar, the man born in Syria, but who became a Canadian citizen in 1987, who was abducted from the JFK airport in September 2002 and was returned a year ago, telling of being sent to Syria to be tortured? The US Government showsnoe desire to evenacknowledgee that he exists (Back in February, his case against the US was dismissed.), but on September 18 of this year, a Canadian court found that his abduction, imprisonment and torture were all completely unjustified and that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should pay compensation. Intel can be wrong and officials can believe things that simply aren't true.
As of 6:00pm Sep 21, there's word that a deal has been reached between the Bush Administration and the small group of Republican Senators led by Senator John McCain.
As of 6:45pm it's clear that the "rebellious" Senators have completely capitulated and have given Busheverythingg he wants. Bush looks like a leader, McCain looks principled, Democrats look like losers and Geneva looks dead. "Here's the language. It's not subtle at all, and it only takes 30 seconds or so to see that the Senators havecapitulatedd entirely, that the U.S. will hereafter violate the Geneva Conventions by engaging in Cold Cell, Long Time Standing, etc., and that there will be very little pretense about it. In addition to the elimination of habeas rights in section 6, the bill would delegate to the President the authority to interpret 'the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions' 'for the United States,' except that the bill itself would define certain 'grave breaches' of Common Article 3 to be war crimes."
If this bill passes, we can say goodbye to the Geneva Conventions. The shell of them will still be around, but the core will have been completely gutted.
The Existentialist Cowboy (Who also makes a number of other good points) quotes from the Constitution: " 'No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed' —US Constitution, Article I". What this means is that Congress cannot pass a law that goes back into time and excuses behavior that was illegal at the time that the behavior was engaged in. If a US agent committed a war crime while the US was formally observing the Geneva Conventions, then he's guilty of a war crime. No bill passed in 2006 can absolve him of a crime committed in 2003. The Cowboy also quotes a section of Article IV which states: "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land" which means that the Geneva Conventions, ratified in 1949, do not simply amount to a mere piece of paper that only foreigner care about, it's "the supreme law of the land."
At the moment, if the US decides that the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War no longer applied, that would immediately affect approximately 14,000 prisoners being kept in a "global network of overseas prisons."
"Human-rights groups count dozens of deaths that have never been explained and for which no one has been punished." Murder is a crime which has no statute of limitations (That means that if you rob someone of property and the crime is not discovered until after a certain amount of time has passed, the statute of limitations will have expired and you can no longer be charged for it.) and no ex post facto law can excuse a murderer who killed while his or her actions were illegal. While it's perfectly legal to kill an enemy soldier under many specified conditions, it's been quite another story to kill a prisoner of war since 1949, when the Third Geneva Convention was ratified.
Many have wondered why the Democrats have not stepped up and argued against the Specter warrantless NSA spying bill or to keep the Geneva Conventions in force. According to a blogger who interviewed him, Senate Minority Leader "Sen. Reid stated flatly and unequivocally -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that the Specter bill was not going anywhere, that it would not be enacted."
There's been a real battle over the competing bills, with reports that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has "...referred the warrantless surveillance matter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for further review and would not bring it up for Senate consideration until next week." This would be marvelous news for those who support the Constitution as time in the legislative session is short and any delay weakens those who would toss it all away.
And the story on Maher Arar, the man born in Syria, but who became a Canadian citizen in 1987, who was abducted from the JFK airport in September 2002 and was returned a year ago, telling of being sent to Syria to be tortured? The US Government showsnoe desire to evenacknowledgee that he exists (Back in February, his case against the US was dismissed.), but on September 18 of this year, a Canadian court found that his abduction, imprisonment and torture were all completely unjustified and that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should pay compensation. Intel can be wrong and officials can believe things that simply aren't true.
As of 6:00pm Sep 21, there's word that a deal has been reached between the Bush Administration and the small group of Republican Senators led by Senator John McCain.
As of 6:45pm it's clear that the "rebellious" Senators have completely capitulated and have given Busheverythingg he wants. Bush looks like a leader, McCain looks principled, Democrats look like losers and Geneva looks dead. "Here's the language. It's not subtle at all, and it only takes 30 seconds or so to see that the Senators havecapitulatedd entirely, that the U.S. will hereafter violate the Geneva Conventions by engaging in Cold Cell, Long Time Standing, etc., and that there will be very little pretense about it. In addition to the elimination of habeas rights in section 6, the bill would delegate to the President the authority to interpret 'the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions' 'for the United States,' except that the bill itself would define certain 'grave breaches' of Common Article 3 to be war crimes."
If this bill passes, we can say goodbye to the Geneva Conventions. The shell of them will still be around, but the core will have been completely gutted.
2006/09/18
Oh, good grief!
Sorry, but I'm in complete and total agreement with this post. John Kerry had his time in the spotlight, he had his chance, he blew it. He failed to respond to the Swift Boat Vets, thereby losing his edge in the veteran's vote that he had previously built up. He failed to say anything about Ohio, which well before the vote was showng that it wasn't going to play fair. I supported Kerry wholeheartedly, but I have to agree, his coming out NOW to say he'd "kick ass" on the Swift Boat Vets is really, really pathetic.
You're two years too late John! Hang it up and resign youself to being "just" a Senator. You'll never gain the Presidency.
You're two years too late John! Hang it up and resign youself to being "just" a Senator. You'll never gain the Presidency.
2006/09/15
Geneva Conventions
On 17 April 2003, the Heritage Foundation produced a "fact sheet" on possible Iraqi violations of the Geneva Conventions. They examined 27 Iraqi actions and cited 38 possible violations. The following two items are good examples:
These examples are also quite interesting because President Bush is now claiming that Geneva Conventions rules on treatment of prisoners are unclear. After nearly 50 years, all of the sudden, the rules are considered "unclear." Funny, the Heritage Foundation had absolutely zero difficulty citing these "unclear" rules when it was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist followers who were going to be held accountable to them. Here's President Bush on the rules now:
I agree of course, that the US should not ask intelligence officers to violate the law, but what exactly is it that's unclear about the law? No one prior to President Bush in 2006 appeared to have any trouble understanding the law. I completely agree with the questioner here:
As the Heritage Foundation makes clear above, Article 3 and all of the other sections of the Geneva Conventions are already quite clear. If Article 3 needs further clarifying, then clarification needs to be made in the context of international negotiations. To simply "hope" that other countries adopt the standards that the US ultimately adopts seems like an astonishingly naive way to go about changing international rules of conduct. If Article 3 needs further clarifying, then Bush needs to designate people to re-convene at Geneva along with as many other nations as possible, to re-negotiate the Conventions. For the US to arbitrarily and unlaterally decide to reinterpret the Conventions constitutes an open invitation to all the other countries of the world to toss the Conventions into the trash can. The "new standards" are NOT clear and will NOT protect US troops from being abused by our nation's enemies.
Iraq's Actions
- On April 1, PFC Jessica Lynch, a member of the 507th maintenance company captured on March 23, was rescued from a hospital in the city of Nasiriyah. She was badly injured, suffering from two broken legs and severe back injuries. PFC Lynch was not allowed to eat for the nine days of her internment.
Violation
If proven upon further investigation, these actions would violate:
- Article 26 of the Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
The basic daily food rations shall be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to keep prisoners of war in good health and to prevent loss of weight or the development of nutritional deficiencies. Account shall also be taken of the habitual diet of the prisoners. Sufficient drinking water shall be supplied to prisoners of war.
Iraq's Actions
- The International Committee of the Red Cross was blocked by Iraq from seeing American prisoners of war as required by the Geneva Conventions.
Violation
If proven upon further investigation, this action would violate:
- Article 126 of the Third Geneva Convention
Representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers shall have permission to go to all places where prisoners of war may be, particularly to places of internment, imprisonment and labour, and shall have access to all premises occupied by prisoners of war; they shall also be allowed to go to the places of departure, passage and arrival of prisoners who are being transferred. They shall be able to interview the prisoners, and in particular the prisoners' representatives, without witnesses, either personally or through an interpreter. Representatives and delegates of the Protecting Powers shall have full liberty to select the places they wish to visit. The duration and frequency of these visits shall not be restricted. Visits may not be prohibited except for reasons of imperative military necessity, and then only as an exceptional and temporary measure. The delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross shall enjoy the same prerogatives. The appointment of such delegates shall be submitted to the approval of the Power detaining the prisoners of war to be visited.
These examples are also quite interesting because President Bush is now claiming that Geneva Conventions rules on treatment of prisoners are unclear. After nearly 50 years, all of the sudden, the rules are considered "unclear." Funny, the Heritage Foundation had absolutely zero difficulty citing these "unclear" rules when it was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist followers who were going to be held accountable to them. Here's President Bush on the rules now:
QUESTION: ... If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea and they were roughed up and those governments said, "Well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions."...
BUSH: My reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction.
We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.
And let me just repeat: We can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward.
You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish please -- they will not violate the law.
You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward if there's vague standards applied like those in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It's just not going to go forward.
You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.
BUSH: My reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction.
We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.
And let me just repeat: We can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward.
You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish please -- they will not violate the law.
You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward if there's vague standards applied like those in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It's just not going to go forward.
You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.
I agree of course, that the US should not ask intelligence officers to violate the law, but what exactly is it that's unclear about the law? No one prior to President Bush in 2006 appeared to have any trouble understanding the law. I completely agree with the questioner here:
QUESTION: But, sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit, as they see fit, you're saying that you'd be OK with that?
BUSH: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article 3 we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.
BUSH: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article 3 we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.
As the Heritage Foundation makes clear above, Article 3 and all of the other sections of the Geneva Conventions are already quite clear. If Article 3 needs further clarifying, then clarification needs to be made in the context of international negotiations. To simply "hope" that other countries adopt the standards that the US ultimately adopts seems like an astonishingly naive way to go about changing international rules of conduct. If Article 3 needs further clarifying, then Bush needs to designate people to re-convene at Geneva along with as many other nations as possible, to re-negotiate the Conventions. For the US to arbitrarily and unlaterally decide to reinterpret the Conventions constitutes an open invitation to all the other countries of the world to toss the Conventions into the trash can. The "new standards" are NOT clear and will NOT protect US troops from being abused by our nation's enemies.
2006/09/14
9-11 Conspiracy Theories
First off, I completely and totally support people who want to "debunk" the various 9-11 conspiracy theories. If we on the left are going to confront the public with these theories, our evidence and arguments have to be as strong and as well-thought-through as it's humanly possible to make them. My own perspective on the whole issue is that I found the website cooperativeresearch.org (Now folded into 911Truth.org, their Reading Room is an excellent resource.) Cooperativeresearch had a comprehensive listing of all the suspicious and related events conncted to 9/11 broken up into four sections: Before 2001, 1 Jan 2001 to 10 Sept 2001, 9/11 and afterwards. I printed out the third section. It came out to 35 pages (The Reading Room lists 75 references related to "foreknowledge" about the attacks.) After reading the third section, I went a few pages into the day of 9/11. There was no single item that convincd me that 9/11 was an inside job. It was just the sheer number of suspicious incidents that did it. Of course, the Bush Administration's determined efforts to prevent an investigation and/or to limit any investigation as much as possible (The Reading Room lists 27 pieces concerning FBI/CIA interference with various investigations of 9/11.) simply confirmed to me that something smelled awfully funny here.
The film Loose Change is getting known around the web and available at the link.
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now leads a discussion of the film between makers of Loose Change and editors of Popular Mechanics. Good debate. And yes, they do have an extended discussion near the end about the collapse of the three towers, which is a major subject of the eSkeptic story.
One item from the eSkeptic story that jumped out at me was
To take the last point first, yes, the people in charge would have had to have planned with some degree of precision exactly where the planes would strike. It could not have been a coincidence where the Bush Administration simply allowed bin Laden to carry out his plans, it would have to have been a coordinated operation. To that end, this article strongly suggests that the youngest brother of the Bush family had the necessary time and access to the buildings to have made this happen.
We know that people accociated with the PNAC (PDF) began planning the Iraq War shortly after the Persian Gulf War (Or Iraq War I, which would make the current conflict Iraq War II) wrapped up, so for Marvin Bush to have taken over Stratesec in 1993 makes sense. That would give him and his employees plenty of time to calculate how to make the collapse of the towers appear to be credible.
BTW, good Dutch film (20 min.) here.
Yes, I completely agree. The conspiracy theories appear quite credible, but they need lots and lots of vigorous debate.
The film Loose Change is getting known around the web and available at the link.
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now leads a discussion of the film between makers of Loose Change and editors of Popular Mechanics. Good debate. And yes, they do have an extended discussion near the end about the collapse of the three towers, which is a major subject of the eSkeptic story.
One item from the eSkeptic story that jumped out at me was
In controlled demolitions, detonating devices weaken or disrupt all major support points in a building at the same time. Therefore, once the collapse begins, all parts of the building are simultaneously in motion, free-falling to the ground. However, this is definitely not what happens during the collapse of WTC Buildings 1 and 2. Carefully review footage of the collapses, and you will find that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings are initially stationary.3 The parts of the towers below the impact point do not begin to fall until the higher floors have collapsed onto them. This is not what we would expect if the towers collapsed from a controlled demolition, but it is exactly what we would expect if the building collapse resulted from damage sustained by the impact of the planes and subsequent fire damage. A conspiracy theorist may counter that the buildings were rigged to begin falling from the top down, but what are the chances that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?
To take the last point first, yes, the people in charge would have had to have planned with some degree of precision exactly where the planes would strike. It could not have been a coincidence where the Bush Administration simply allowed bin Laden to carry out his plans, it would have to have been a coordinated operation. To that end, this article strongly suggests that the youngest brother of the Bush family had the necessary time and access to the buildings to have made this happen.
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
-----------
Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked.
-----------
Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked.
We know that people accociated with the PNAC (PDF) began planning the Iraq War shortly after the Persian Gulf War (Or Iraq War I, which would make the current conflict Iraq War II) wrapped up, so for Marvin Bush to have taken over Stratesec in 1993 makes sense. That would give him and his employees plenty of time to calculate how to make the collapse of the towers appear to be credible.
BTW, good Dutch film (20 min.) here.
Yes, I completely agree. The conspiracy theories appear quite credible, but they need lots and lots of vigorous debate.
2006/09/04
The Plan
This has got to be the most moronically meatheaded, idiotic set of "ideas" I've ever heard of. One of the "bright" ideas these turkeys come up with is to add 100,000 soldiers to America's army. Um, sure. Ri-i-i-ight! Uh-huh. Okay. Tell me, with soldiers on their second and third tours of duty in Iraq and the Army keeping people on through "stop-loss" programs, where exactly do the authors foresee getting 100,000 more soldiers from? Consider what US Dem Vet says about the Army trying to keep up to strength:
Republicans from Bush on down know that calling for a draft would be their political death and would probably keep them in the minority for the next 50 years. Do the authors have a better idea? I'd sure be interested to hear it.
Basically, if you work in an organization that lacks needed resources, you learn to make do with what you have or you adjust your goals. The authors here do neither, substituting fantasy and wishful thinking for serious thought.
Update: The Democratic Party has a much better plan!!
Further update: conservative Rich Lowry, a big cheerleader for the Iraq War, presents much the same plan, i.e. add more troops, but again, hasn't the vaguest clue as to where all of these extra troops will come from. I guess they'll just sort of appear out of thin air when we snap our fingers.
As the demand for boots in Mess O'Potamia increased, so too did the demand for fresh new faces to fill them. Clearly, the Yellow Elephant Class were not/are not going to fill them, they're too busy "fighting the war of ideas" here at home, not to mention staying in those well-paid Wingnut Think-tank jobs, all safe and secure.
So what's happened? Apparently recruits who might not normally make it out of basic training are finding their way into the field as fully-trained infantrymen. Recruits whose allegiance is perhaps to their unit for the time being, but might also be to such organizations as the Aryan Nations or the Crips...in short, not the kind of folks we want our tax dollars training in Urban Combat with weapons of small-scale destruction.
Where exactly do the authors of the above "strategy" guidance book believe these extra soldiers going to come from? I threw up my hands when I saw that the second author was a member of the DLC, the Democratic Leadership Council, that organization that favored Senator Joe Lieberman for President in 2004, but which grudgingly settled for John Kerry when audiences of Democrats stayed away from Lieberman in droves.Republicans from Bush on down know that calling for a draft would be their political death and would probably keep them in the minority for the next 50 years. Do the authors have a better idea? I'd sure be interested to hear it.
Basically, if you work in an organization that lacks needed resources, you learn to make do with what you have or you adjust your goals. The authors here do neither, substituting fantasy and wishful thinking for serious thought.
Update: The Democratic Party has a much better plan!!
Further update: conservative Rich Lowry, a big cheerleader for the Iraq War, presents much the same plan, i.e. add more troops, but again, hasn't the vaguest clue as to where all of these extra troops will come from. I guess they'll just sort of appear out of thin air when we snap our fingers.
2006/09/03
ABC intends to show anti-Clinton version of 9-11 docudrama
ABC intends to show "Paths to 9-11," what AmericaBlog terms "a false and partisan Republican hit piece" that lays the blame for 9-11 at President Clintons's feet. The essential charge is that Clinton and his people "erected a 'wall' to prevent information-sharing between government agencies." Media Matters shows that this claim is long since debunked and provides other details on the upcoming film. Very importantly, a right-wing website, Human Events, is very highly enthusiastic about the miniseries, indicating that there are few, if any criticisms as to how the Bush Administration handled 9-11. Also, Truthout has a piece entitled "Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts"
ABC has a form upon which to comment at but it has a limit of 500 characters, so the paper mail address for ABC is:
ABC, Inc.
500 S. Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521-4551
A buddy of mine from Rapid Response found the paper mail address for the Disney Chairman of the Board:
Senator George Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, California 91521-0931
ABC requires generous helpings of (politely worded, of course) verbal abuse for this!
ABC has a form upon which to comment at but it has a limit of 500 characters, so the paper mail address for ABC is:
ABC, Inc.
500 S. Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521-4551
A buddy of mine from Rapid Response found the paper mail address for the Disney Chairman of the Board:
Senator George Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, California 91521-0931
ABC requires generous helpings of (politely worded, of course) verbal abuse for this!
2006/08/30
Senator Bill Frist is concerned
Senator Frist (R-UT) complained on August 30th that the Democrats are:
Gee, why would those dirty, rotten scoundrels be doing that? Hmm, perhaps because that's where US soldiers are fighting and dying? Nah, that can't be it. The Democrats must be up to something sneakier. Greenwald suggests that perhaps that's because:
But nah, that can't be it because the Democrats are taking attention away from "Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, plus other areas where terrorism [exists]."
That must be it! The Democrats are just trying to confuse us! This makes Senator Frist angry. Of course, that makes it difficult to explain why, at the 2006 President's Dinner, Bush himself described Iraq as "the central front on the war on terror." But to remind folks of that would simply bring bothersome, y'know, facts into the picture. Greenwald then details how Frist intends to spotlight his preferred issues over the next few months.
In other news on demagoguery, DefSec Rrumsfeld came out swinging. Paul Begala remarked that Rumsfeld sounded like "a batty old man." Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) remarked that:
So Democrats gave as well as they got! Hoo yah! Now they need to keep this up into November and we're all set!
Update: Rumsfeld actually made a few decent points, but they're points that demonstrate he's not fully thought the things through.
taking the spotlight and doing whatever they can to focus that spotlight on Iraq, and trying to separate Iraq from the larger challenges that we have with the rise of the fundamentalist extremists
Gee, why would those dirty, rotten scoundrels be doing that? Hmm, perhaps because that's where US soldiers are fighting and dying? Nah, that can't be it. The Democrats must be up to something sneakier. Greenwald suggests that perhaps that's because:
We have 140,000 troops in a country on the verge of all-out sectarian war, a country which happens to sit in the middle of the most strategically important and inflammable region on the planet. That's the result of a war in which we've lost 2,600 American lives, have had tens of thousands more wounded, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, and spent hundreds of billions of dollars.
But nah, that can't be it because the Democrats are taking attention away from "Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, plus other areas where terrorism [exists]."
That must be it! The Democrats are just trying to confuse us! This makes Senator Frist angry. Of course, that makes it difficult to explain why, at the 2006 President's Dinner, Bush himself described Iraq as "the central front on the war on terror." But to remind folks of that would simply bring bothersome, y'know, facts into the picture. Greenwald then details how Frist intends to spotlight his preferred issues over the next few months.
In other news on demagoguery, DefSec Rrumsfeld came out swinging. Paul Begala remarked that Rumsfeld sounded like "a batty old man." Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) remarked that:
I have long thought that the Secretary of Defense’s judgement has been impaired.
-------
...we have been in Iraq- longer than in Europe for World War II. For him to talk about moral clarity when Abu Ghraib happened on his watch and destroyed our moral credibility in the world is interesting as well.
------
...you must know your enemy. Clearly the Bush Administration did not when it went to Iraq. [Transcript cleaned up]
-------
...we have been in Iraq- longer than in Europe for World War II. For him to talk about moral clarity when Abu Ghraib happened on his watch and destroyed our moral credibility in the world is interesting as well.
------
...you must know your enemy. Clearly the Bush Administration did not when it went to Iraq. [Transcript cleaned up]
So Democrats gave as well as they got! Hoo yah! Now they need to keep this up into November and we're all set!
Update: Rumsfeld actually made a few decent points, but they're points that demonstrate he's not fully thought the things through.
2006/08/29
I'm sorry, but this is pathetic!
I had just finished reading about LaShawn Barber in the comments section to this post (Yes, it's a satire) when I beheld this post. This gives me great insight to the chickenhawk mindset. Barber sounds brave and true and full of bravado at first:
Hear, hear! Dignity's a good thing and if someone believe's strongly enough in their religion that they'd rather die than renounce it, I'm all in favor of that. Doesn't matter who your god or goddess is, if you believe that strongly, then hoo yah for you!
But then:
Aw c'mon! What happened to all of that fine, fine, pure, righteous, determined belief?!?! Barber figures, well because, y'know, as she's saved anyway, no need to actually, y'know, take any risk of actual physical harm. What?!?! To assume that one is saved is the absolute height of arrogance! Barber speaks as though she's got her ticket all pre-punched and ready. She knows where she's headed to and she's looking forward to it! Sorry, but we get judged after death. Whether one believes in predestination or not, no one on Earth knows the mind of God. No one knows what the decision is until after there's no more chance for any do-overs.
If Barber was male and of fighting age (I have no idea how old she is), she'd assuredly be a chickenhawk. Someone who talks all brave and tough when there's no danger, but who runs and hides when the situation appears risky.
If I’m ever captured by Muslim maniacs or non-Muslim maniacs who gave me a choice between denying my Savior and death, I’d want to face death with all the dignity I had left.
Hear, hear! Dignity's a good thing and if someone believe's strongly enough in their religion that they'd rather die than renounce it, I'm all in favor of that. Doesn't matter who your god or goddess is, if you believe that strongly, then hoo yah for you!
But then:
[Clarification: If I gave the impression that I thought I would “lose” my salvation if I denied Christ, I certainly didn’t intend to, though the previous sentence may read that way. The Bible teaches that once Christ forgives us, we’re always forgiven...]
Aw c'mon! What happened to all of that fine, fine, pure, righteous, determined belief?!?! Barber figures, well because, y'know, as she's saved anyway, no need to actually, y'know, take any risk of actual physical harm. What?!?! To assume that one is saved is the absolute height of arrogance! Barber speaks as though she's got her ticket all pre-punched and ready. She knows where she's headed to and she's looking forward to it! Sorry, but we get judged after death. Whether one believes in predestination or not, no one on Earth knows the mind of God. No one knows what the decision is until after there's no more chance for any do-overs.
If Barber was male and of fighting age (I have no idea how old she is), she'd assuredly be a chickenhawk. Someone who talks all brave and tough when there's no danger, but who runs and hides when the situation appears risky.
Cheney's statements
"Some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone," Cheney told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada.
Dan Froomkin of the WaPo quotes a reporter who explains how the Bush Administration uses the rhetorical device of the "straw man":
Jennifer Loven , in a bold departure for the Associated Press, wrote a whole story on Saturday about Bush's extensive and generally unchallenged use of straw-man arguments.
"When the president starts a sentence with 'some say' or offers up what 'some in Washington' believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.
"The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.
"He typically then says he 'strongly disagrees' -- conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.
"Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed 'critics,' is just as problematic."
Just search the White House Web site for those phrases, and you'll find wonderful examples of Bush's straw-man use of " some people say ," " some say " and " some people in Washington ."
So it's pretty obvious that Cheney is using a "straw man" here. No one in America is on recod as suggesting anything that even remotely sounds like a desire to appease terrorists. Many members of the press corps are referred to as "stenographers" because they appear to be in the habit of simply writing down whatever they're told without stopping to ask how reasonabl or credible the statement is. John from AmericaBlog is correct in putting Patricia Wilson's designation as "reporter" in quotes, as her following statment isn't just that of a stenographer, but of a complete press whore:
Cheney did not use the word "Democrats," choosing instead the anonymous "some"
This statement not only fills in the blank that Cheney left open, it suggests that there actually are people who have made statements suggesting that they want to appease terrorists. Further on, Wilson accurately relays the story about Bush denying that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11:
When Bush answered a question about Iraq last week by raising Sept. 11, a reporter asked him "What did Iraq have to do with that?" The president replied, "Nothing," and added, "Nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack."
But prior to the U.S.-led invasion, Cheney suggested that one of the Sept. 11 hijackers met in Prague before the attacks with an Iraqi intelligence agent. The bipartisan Sept. 11 Commission found no evidence such a meeting took place.
The puzzling part about the second paragraph is that it begins with "But." The word "But" suggests that the "Mohammed Atta in Prague" story has some substance to it, that the repetition of the story stands as some sort of rebuttal to the "Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11" statement. By March 2002, the Atta story was regarded as highly dubious, if not ouright false. So it's difficult to see why this statement was even included.
While Cheney's statement that 9-11 occured before the US invasion of Iraq and that therefore violence in the Mideast cannot be blamed exclusively upon the invasion of that country, it's nevertheless true that the number and intensity of terrorist attacks has increased exponentially since then. No, the Mideast was not a happy, idyllic and peaceful place prior to March 2003, but that hardly means that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq have been irrelevant. Instead of acknowledging this, however, the reporter of the piece simply goes on to the next bullet-point. She apparently felt that quoting Cheney's less-than-complete analysis was sufficient to comprehensively cover the subject.
Cheney then finishes off with still more straw men and our reporter obediently repeats these accusations as though it was not the job of reporters to check out alleged "facts," as though it was not a reporter's job to provide some context.
Cheney said terrorists wanted to arm themselves with chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, "to destroy Israel, to intimidate all Western countries and to cause mass death in the United States."
Our reporter then records that Cheney was contemptuous towards those who disagreed, that his critics were naive. About the desire of people in foreign countries to do these terrible things, there is no doubt. But, and as a REAL reporter would have asked, do these terrible people have the capability to do these terrible things? Sure, the British arrested a group of people who wanted to blow up several planes over the Atlantic, but considering that many of them had not even obtained passports yet and that binary explosives are considerably trickier than the action movies suggest, it's not at all clear that they were a real threat.
2006/08/28
Lieberman responds
Senator Joe Lieberman responds (In a way that bloggers can respond back to) by writing an editorial for the Hartford Courant. He complains about people taking their politics too seriously, identifying the problem as: "partisanship and polarization that is blocking us from addressing the issues." Funny, I thought it was called democracy in action.
His comments on saving the submarine base at Groton are heartwarming IF one agrees that America needs that base and that money spent on the base is money well-spent. Not having looked into that particular issue, I can't really say, but I'm not aware that submarines have done much for US national security over the past two decades without a Soviet Union to oppose.
Lieberman is correct in identifying his "different way forward" as distinct from Ned Lamonts preferred mode of confrontation to the President. But his idea of handling the issue:
is fatally flawed by the utter and total lack of cooperation from the President. As Bob Edgar, the head of 38-denomination National Council of Churches said back in January 2003: "We're asking [President Bush] to at least listen to us before he makes the final decision to go to war." By March, it was clear that religious representatives were getting frustrated over their inability to dialogue with Bush:
More recently has of course been the case of Cindy Sheehan, a woman who did not consult with Democratic pollsters and strategists before heading out to speak with the President in Crawford, TX. ( I'm not even sure she's met with Democrats since then, either.) But Bush's reasons for not meeting with her were entirely political.
His comments on saving the submarine base at Groton are heartwarming IF one agrees that America needs that base and that money spent on the base is money well-spent. Not having looked into that particular issue, I can't really say, but I'm not aware that submarines have done much for US national security over the past two decades without a Soviet Union to oppose.
Lieberman is correct in identifying his "different way forward" as distinct from Ned Lamonts preferred mode of confrontation to the President. But his idea of handling the issue:
"I believe that the best way for us to win the war in Iraq is to come together - the administration, Congress, and Republicans and Democrats - to find a solution that will allow our troops to come home with Iraq united and free, with the Middle East stable and the terrorists denied a victory."
is fatally flawed by the utter and total lack of cooperation from the President. As Bob Edgar, the head of 38-denomination National Council of Churches said back in January 2003: "We're asking [President Bush] to at least listen to us before he makes the final decision to go to war." By March, it was clear that religious representatives were getting frustrated over their inability to dialogue with Bush:
"The entreaties of the pope and the cardinal seem not to have persuaded Mr. Bush, who at a news conference a day later made clear that war was imminent and that if necessary, the United States would wage it alone, without the support of the United Nations. If so, many Christians say the attack would not be a 'just war,' according to a theory developed by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, because it would not have what they consider proper authority, an important requirement for a just war."
More recently has of course been the case of Cindy Sheehan, a woman who did not consult with Democratic pollsters and strategists before heading out to speak with the President in Crawford, TX. ( I'm not even sure she's met with Democrats since then, either.) But Bush's reasons for not meeting with her were entirely political.
"For Bush, Sheehan's presence seems to create a no-win situation.
"If he invites her to talk, he further elevates her protest, potentially angers the other families of the more than 1,850 Americans who have died in Iraq and provides Sheehan a greater forum to spread her anti-war views.
"If he ignores her, he risks appearing so callous that he doesn't have the time, or the inclination, to spend a few minutes of his vacation with a mother who lost her son as a direct consequence of the president's foreign policy decisions."
As we know, Bush decided on "callous." Bush was never the slightest bit interested in discussing his policy with anyone who disagreed with him, a fact made very clear by Paul Koring of Toronto's Globe and Mail
" 'I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me,' [Bush] said, raising the very issue. In fact, questioning the patriotism of political opponents who crossed the Bush administration over the war in Iraq, both before it was launched and ever since, has been routine."
Senator Lieberman ought to concentrate his persuasive powers where they need to be concentrated, on the President and the President's supporters in the Repbulican Party. We on the anti-war left are not the ones who need lecturing or persuading.
2006/08/26
Responding to a Greenwald post
My, my, it's certainly "Beat-up-on-Glenn-Reynolds" week, eh? Not a problem, I just wrote a post below berating Glenn for confusing "sweet spot" with "political center". Not the same thing at all. Is Glenn correct in saying that the anti-war movement made numerous inaccurate predictions? He's certainly correct in tagging certain prominent individuals with that charge. As someone who attended what I believe was the first anti-Iraq-War demonstration (Washington DC in late September 2003) and who has played roles in local demonstrations ever since (He says, puffing is chest out with pride) I was one of those who remembered later in life the one fact about Karl Marx that gets repeated endlessly when you're in junior high school. Karl Marx was wrong. Marx made predictions about how the proletarians would rise and everything would be wonderful after that.
Well, Marx may have gotten a lot of other things right, but the proletarians were brought off and neutralized and if a movement is ever to be democratic, it must begin that way. The idea that an awful, tyrannical State would "fade away" after society was "fixed" is not true, never was true and never will be true. The anti-war movement very deliberately does not have leaders who dictate decisions to the rest of us. The way Russia was ruled after 1917 was precisely the way their revolutionary movement was run before their success and as we saw, it continued to be run in that fashion until 1989.
The lesson that lefties must never predict the future was one we kept to. That's why Reynolds quotes a lot of politicians, who didn't have that idea pounded into them. That's why one can't find many predictions from The Nation (The Editors didn't refer to an Iraq "qaugmire" until late November 2003 even though there were a few suggestions of it earlier) or from Z Magazine (Rahul Mahajan mentioed "quagmire" in mid-April 2003 and BTW, does an excellent summary of the anti-war position at the time.)
Instead, we focussed on the fact that Iraq most likely didn't have the WMD that Bush & Co claimed they had and that the legal basis for invading was approximately the same as Der Fuehrer's was to invade Poland in 1939. The Iraq War was and is a war of unprovoked aggression and the Bush Administration has not to this day told the American people their true motivations for launching it.
Well, Marx may have gotten a lot of other things right, but the proletarians were brought off and neutralized and if a movement is ever to be democratic, it must begin that way. The idea that an awful, tyrannical State would "fade away" after society was "fixed" is not true, never was true and never will be true. The anti-war movement very deliberately does not have leaders who dictate decisions to the rest of us. The way Russia was ruled after 1917 was precisely the way their revolutionary movement was run before their success and as we saw, it continued to be run in that fashion until 1989.
The lesson that lefties must never predict the future was one we kept to. That's why Reynolds quotes a lot of politicians, who didn't have that idea pounded into them. That's why one can't find many predictions from The Nation (The Editors didn't refer to an Iraq "qaugmire" until late November 2003 even though there were a few suggestions of it earlier) or from Z Magazine (Rahul Mahajan mentioed "quagmire" in mid-April 2003 and BTW, does an excellent summary of the anti-war position at the time.)
Instead, we focussed on the fact that Iraq most likely didn't have the WMD that Bush & Co claimed they had and that the legal basis for invading was approximately the same as Der Fuehrer's was to invade Poland in 1939. The Iraq War was and is a war of unprovoked aggression and the Bush Administration has not to this day told the American people their true motivations for launching it.
2006/08/25
Darwin & Hitler?
[Ann] Coulter, who also wrote the bestselling "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," said Hitler simply was taking Darwinism from the theoretical to the practical.
"He thought the Aryans were the fittest and he was just hurrying natural selection along," she said.
"We talk about the link between Darwin and Hitler, and in the middle ground, eugenics," said Newcomb. "Darwin led to eugenics, which led directly to Hitler."
Abortion follows, because the logic supporting that says not all human life is to be protected.
"To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler," said Kennedy, who is host for the special. "Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it."
I'm sorry, but Coulter and Newcombe are both giving Der Fuehrer far too much credit here. They're both making the presumption that Hitler justified the Holocaust on pseudo-intellectual grounds. He did not. Hitler had every intention of similarly slaughtering several million inhabitants of what was then the Soviet Union. He is documented as expressing the desire to turn Moscow into a lake and to turn vast numbers of the Slavic peoples into slaves.
To argue that Hitler was basing his theories on any sort of intellectual theory is to argue that the Unabomber was justifying his theories on similar grounds. Sorry, but the Unabomber was just a deeply disturbed man who murdered his victims at a distance. Nothing more.
If we were to look for what made Hitler's theories popular to Germans, if we were to look for why regular Germans found Hitler's theories attractive, we need only look at the German propaganda of World War I. German authorities constantly told the German people that they were winning. The German people were constantly being told of heroic German victories and crushing Allied defeats.
When the Western Front collapsed and Allied soldiers were soon walking the streets of German cities, regular German citizens were absolutely flabbergasted. "What happened to all of our great victories?" They cried. "We thought the Allies were on their last legs" They muttered.
No, there's no connection between Darwin and the Holocaust. Had Darwin's theories not existed, Der Fuehrer would have simply used some other justification.
Update: As my commenter points out , Hitler didn't even use Darwin as a rationalization. Der Fuehrer was a straight Creationist/Biblical literalist/Intelligent Design-er.
Further update: The Anti-Defamation League chimes in.
2006/08/24
A particularly stupid use of the term "sweet spot"
Generally, the term "sweet spot" is used to mean the spot on the golf club, the baseball bat or the tennis racket where connecting with the ball will have the desired effect. Strike a golf ball so that it connects with the center of the head of the golf club, i.e. the "sweet spot", and the ball will fly straight and true.
Billmon recently referred to Hezbollah having found the sweet spot between being a state (Powerful, but having many targets an enemy can strike at) and a guerrilla force (Weak, but flexible and having most of their assets hidden).
This, however, is a truly stupid use of the term:
I can understand what Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds is driving at here. It's often held that if the political left and right are both criticizing you, you must be doing something right. Problem is, they may both be appalled at your stupidity and incompetence, they might have different motivations for criticizing you (Rightwinger: "You failed to glorify Dear Leader enough!" Leftwinger: "Your piece fails to be useful to the voting public!"), or they might be criticizing different aspects of the same program (The warrantless NSA spying program is not catching anybody vs it's instrusive upon citizen privacy).
But as is pointed out above, the sweet spot is a point of maximum effectivenss, a point where the ball travels to where you want it to travel to. Reynolds is pointing out that Bush has reached a point of maximum ineffectivesness. This is normally referred to as the "worst of both worlds" or perhaps the "sour spot."
There's absolutely nothing "sweet" about being criticized by both sides.
Billmon recently referred to Hezbollah having found the sweet spot between being a state (Powerful, but having many targets an enemy can strike at) and a guerrilla force (Weak, but flexible and having most of their assets hidden).
This, however, is a truly stupid use of the term:
JOE GANDELMAN looks at Republican pundits deserting Bush, which does seem to be a phenomenon. Bush -- who, as I've said before, has always been politically weak, just stronger than Kerry or Gore -- is in the "sweet spot" on the war, fighting hard enough to anger the antiwar folks but not hard enough to please the prowar folks.
I can understand what Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds is driving at here. It's often held that if the political left and right are both criticizing you, you must be doing something right. Problem is, they may both be appalled at your stupidity and incompetence, they might have different motivations for criticizing you (Rightwinger: "You failed to glorify Dear Leader enough!" Leftwinger: "Your piece fails to be useful to the voting public!"), or they might be criticizing different aspects of the same program (The warrantless NSA spying program is not catching anybody vs it's instrusive upon citizen privacy).
But as is pointed out above, the sweet spot is a point of maximum effectivenss, a point where the ball travels to where you want it to travel to. Reynolds is pointing out that Bush has reached a point of maximum ineffectivesness. This is normally referred to as the "worst of both worlds" or perhaps the "sour spot."
There's absolutely nothing "sweet" about being criticized by both sides.
2006/08/23
Commenters on the FISA case and the Administration's warrantless NSA wiretapping
I noted here that I corresponded with a conservative who contended that the mainstream media put out generally fair and accurate articles. This view takes a terriffic beating with this post by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald delivers a very, very negative portrayal of the right-wing writer Ann Althouse, but makes it crystal clear that the New York Times is very much to blame for hiring her in the first place. Ms Althouse was hired to comment on the FISA/warrantless wiretapping case, a case that she very, very clearly knew very little about before being assigned to it. Greenwald describes in an earlier post how Althouse attacked Judge Taylor's decision and then shows us:
But then, in an "Update," Althouse has to correct herself because, apparently, she read the Comment section to Kerr's post and realized that she was just wrong about what happened -- specifically, that the court did previously deny the DoJ's request and ordered the DoJ to address the substance of the plaintiffs' claims. Learning about the procedural history of this case caused Althouse to write:
Arguably, this gave the defendants an opportunity to present evidence to defeat the summary judgment motion, and they chose not to take it.
In other words, Kerr's critique (which Althouse endorsed) of the court's opinion is just wrong -- factually wrong. The court directed the DoJ to address the substance of the claims and the DoJ simply failed and/or refused to do so -- facts which neither Kerr nor Althouse even knew when attacking the court's opinion.
Althouse attacked Judge Taylor's decision without being aware of a great many facts about the case. These are facts that would have been easy to have on hand, had she been following the case for a while as opposed to doing a rush job of reading the judge's decision and then immediately writing upon it. Greenwald mentions that Laurence Tribe was following the case and, unsurprisingly, reached many of the same conclusions that Greenwald did. As it was, Althouse kind of "parachuted" into the case, commenting on it after only having had time to skim the decision without taking the time to do any real background research. In a particularly ludicrous comment. Althouse complains that Judge Taylor's decision represents "judicial activism." As Greenwald puts it:
Althouse's accusation of "judicial activism" here is particularly incoherent given that Judge Taylor was upholding and enforcing a law (called FISA) that was overwhelmingly enacted by the American people through their Congress. Enforcing a democratically enacted law -- as Judge Taylor did -- is the opposite of what "judicial activism" describes (i.e., where a judge ignores the "will of the people" by undemocratically striking down laws they enact).
It is horrible beyond belief that an editorialist is given free reign to comment on a very important judicial decision that she quite obviously, barely understands. The idea that the NY Times is a responsible journalistic enterprise that is minimally competent to present citizens with the news they need takes terrible damage here.
2006/08/18
Unbelievably bad editorial
The WaPo (Washington Post) wrote an unbelievably bad editorial on the Bush Administration's warrantless NSA wiretapping case. Instead of looking seriously at the substance of what U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said, they're instead focused very intently on the style of what she said. Her opinion simply (One imagines them dipping into their silver snuffboxes while the ladies among them flutter their fans) doesn't reach the high, high standards of the WaPo ediorial board. Let's dispense with the idiotic assertion that "The program exists on ever-more uncertain legal ground." The program flatly, blatantly defies the Constitution. It's illegal. Period.
The Bush Administration has long argued that the AUMF, the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq gives them authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping. But this assertion has long since been under very serious dispute. In fact, Senator Feingold noted as much in his Censure Resolution of March in this year that the AUMF simply gave no such authority. The Bush Administration also claimed that the President has unenumerated (i.e. not explicitly declared) powers to conduct wiretapping at will. Hamdan vs Rumsfeld, was put out in June of this year and the Wikipedia summary of the case states that:
The unenumerated presidential powers, according to the Supreme Court, simply do not exist.
These are the only two grounds that the WaPo editorial can cite to justify taking the Bush Administration's position seriously. Both grounds are completely specious. It is thoroughly, thoroughly, utterly disgusting that the WaPo cannot simply agree that the Bush Administration's conduct is simply and purely illegal. To argue, as the WaPo does, that the country must show great care and thought and deep consideration in "evaluating or in ensuring the program's legality" is revolting nonsense of the most disgusting sort.
Is it really so very difficult for this administration to obey the law? Must the WaPo put themelves on the wrong side of the struggle between the Constitution and the Bush Administration?
The Bush Administration has long argued that the AUMF, the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq gives them authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping. But this assertion has long since been under very serious dispute. In fact, Senator Feingold noted as much in his Censure Resolution of March in this year that the AUMF simply gave no such authority. The Bush Administration also claimed that the President has unenumerated (i.e. not explicitly declared) powers to conduct wiretapping at will. Hamdan vs Rumsfeld, was put out in June of this year and the Wikipedia summary of the case states that:
Because the military commission does not meet the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of the Geneva Convention, it violates the laws of war and therefore cannot be used to try Hamdan.
The unenumerated presidential powers, according to the Supreme Court, simply do not exist.
These are the only two grounds that the WaPo editorial can cite to justify taking the Bush Administration's position seriously. Both grounds are completely specious. It is thoroughly, thoroughly, utterly disgusting that the WaPo cannot simply agree that the Bush Administration's conduct is simply and purely illegal. To argue, as the WaPo does, that the country must show great care and thought and deep consideration in "evaluating or in ensuring the program's legality" is revolting nonsense of the most disgusting sort.
Is it really so very difficult for this administration to obey the law? Must the WaPo put themelves on the wrong side of the struggle between the Constitution and the Bush Administration?
2006/08/16
We get a challenge
Andrew Sullivan throws the glove down:
There's a very good reason for the lack of a call to democratize the Arab Muslim world. Democracy, by its very nature, cannot be forced on anyone. For a nation to be non-democratic is not necessarily a terrible thing. Being a centralized, monarchical nation, with rulers who do not answer to citizens, is not necessarily a "Hell on Earth." For many centuries, during Europe's Medieval Era or Middle Ages, monarchy was the norm. Sure, it might have been nice to have had democratic states, but Medieval economies were so basic, democracies weren't really needed. The decisions that needed to be made on land distribution and other subjects could be handled by having the king visit an area once every five or ten years.
The people of the Arab Middle East are of course as advanced as we in the West are, but their economies aren't at the same level of complexity. Their economies simply don't need the detailed, subtle, sensitive management that our post-industrial economies do. The economic entities there don't require the same level of regulation that our corporations do. For their economic level of development, their more-tribal system is fine.
How about abusive, tyrannical rulers like the pre-2003 Saddam Hussein? Well, on the one hand, keeping a strong grip on Iraq's nationalist passions doesn't appear to have been such a bad idea. Not sure whether Iraq's current low-level civil war would have broken out anyway or whether the occupation provoked the civil war somehow (The fact that John Negroponte was the Ambassador to Iraq for a spell and that he was Ambassador to Honduras during a very busy time for Central American death squads does not fill me with confidence as to the innocence of the US.)
But of course tyranny is bad. Roman citizens disliked serving under Caligula and some of the Egyptian pharaohs came in for severe criticism as well. Tyranny is hardly a modern invention. Yes, democracy is a very good cure for tyranny. But I can't imagine that coming into a country, guns blazing, blasting whole city blocks into rubble is preferable to ANY level of tyranny. At that point, we're speaking of priorities. Dunno, but I sorta suspect people would rather be alive than free. Living right under Caligula (People living 50 miles away had very little to worry about), I might feel differently.
So is imposing democracy a good idea? No, because that's a completely blue-sky, cherry-tree fantasy. Is there another way to get countries to democratize? Yes, trade, aid, education, economic development, that sort of thing. "But Rich." You say "What can we do that will be effective today?!?!" Can't help ya there. We'll have to use the highly imperfect and often disappointing tool called diplomacy. Need to get democratization done faster? I don't see that the American government is accomplishing any such thing.
But, for all Cheney's and Rumsfeld's flaws, they are at least proposing something serious, however ineptly carried out. I have yet to hear anti-war voices on the left propose a positive strategy for defeating Islamist terror at its roots, or call for democratization of the Arab Muslim world.
There's a very good reason for the lack of a call to democratize the Arab Muslim world. Democracy, by its very nature, cannot be forced on anyone. For a nation to be non-democratic is not necessarily a terrible thing. Being a centralized, monarchical nation, with rulers who do not answer to citizens, is not necessarily a "Hell on Earth." For many centuries, during Europe's Medieval Era or Middle Ages, monarchy was the norm. Sure, it might have been nice to have had democratic states, but Medieval economies were so basic, democracies weren't really needed. The decisions that needed to be made on land distribution and other subjects could be handled by having the king visit an area once every five or ten years.
The people of the Arab Middle East are of course as advanced as we in the West are, but their economies aren't at the same level of complexity. Their economies simply don't need the detailed, subtle, sensitive management that our post-industrial economies do. The economic entities there don't require the same level of regulation that our corporations do. For their economic level of development, their more-tribal system is fine.
How about abusive, tyrannical rulers like the pre-2003 Saddam Hussein? Well, on the one hand, keeping a strong grip on Iraq's nationalist passions doesn't appear to have been such a bad idea. Not sure whether Iraq's current low-level civil war would have broken out anyway or whether the occupation provoked the civil war somehow (The fact that John Negroponte was the Ambassador to Iraq for a spell and that he was Ambassador to Honduras during a very busy time for Central American death squads does not fill me with confidence as to the innocence of the US.)
But of course tyranny is bad. Roman citizens disliked serving under Caligula and some of the Egyptian pharaohs came in for severe criticism as well. Tyranny is hardly a modern invention. Yes, democracy is a very good cure for tyranny. But I can't imagine that coming into a country, guns blazing, blasting whole city blocks into rubble is preferable to ANY level of tyranny. At that point, we're speaking of priorities. Dunno, but I sorta suspect people would rather be alive than free. Living right under Caligula (People living 50 miles away had very little to worry about), I might feel differently.
So is imposing democracy a good idea? No, because that's a completely blue-sky, cherry-tree fantasy. Is there another way to get countries to democratize? Yes, trade, aid, education, economic development, that sort of thing. "But Rich." You say "What can we do that will be effective today?!?!" Can't help ya there. We'll have to use the highly imperfect and often disappointing tool called diplomacy. Need to get democratization done faster? I don't see that the American government is accomplishing any such thing.
2006/08/14
In response to an editorial
On Sunday August 13th, the Philly Inquirer published an editorial entitled “A self-test on whether you are a partisan” wherein the editor tried to play cute by trying to copy Jeff Foxworthy with his "You just might be a Redneck if..." tagline. Pretty weak and fairly insulting "comedy" I thought. One of my buddies from the Rapid Response letter-writing network thought so too.
My response was as follows:
Am I a partisan? Absolutely. No two ways about it. But there's more than one kind of serious hard-core partisan. Do I make the presumption that the other side is ready and willing and able “...to do dastardly things to win.“? Yes, I most certainly do.
My response was as follows:
Am I a partisan? Absolutely. No two ways about it. But there's more than one kind of serious hard-core partisan. Do I make the presumption that the other side is ready and willing and able “...to do dastardly things to win.“? Yes, I most certainly do.
But the second part of that question is: “Does that justify dastardly things on our part?” My answer, and the answer of all of the liberals, leftists and progressives that I associate with, is “Absolutely not.” Rules must be followed, consideration must be shown. I'm part of a group that pickets Senator Specter's home every month over the Iraq War (Our next picketing is on August 20th - our flyer in PDF format.) . His house is actually about a hundred yards from where we gather. We have never blocked or disrupted his home and have no intention of ever doing so. We leave the area clean of litter every time. The notion that conservatives might do worse is in no way an excuse for anything.
Favorite “facts”? I had an email conversation with a conservative who felt that the media has a large, safe middle area known as the “Mainstream Media” where citizens can more or less take for granted that anything published there is, to the best of the MSM's knowledge and given ordinary human frailties, true. Unfortunately, that hasn't been true for well over two decades. Liberals don't accord any media outlet automatic trust. If DailyKos and Atrios and even Z Magazine agree on something, that doesn't make it true. These folks must win our trust every day by carefully-reasoned arguments and by well-documented facts. The story must “ring true” by being consistent with human nature and with what we've observed of the particular actors in the story so far.
Yes, I'm a partisan, but that doesn't make me all-wise. If we progressives were to take over all the levers of power tomorrow, we'd prefer that conservatives hang onto some and that conservatives continue to be given a place at the table. We're not perfect and will not always make the right choices. Truth is best found via vigorous debate.
The “Blog Cabin” feature is one of the best in the paper because we don't get mushy, middle-of-the-road, unclear pieces like “Terror still a danger, Bush says; Democrats criticize readiness”. No, Democrats are not opposed to “readiness”, their complaint is that the Bush Administration is using the latest terror alert in a highly partisan manner to gain electoral advantage. The assertion that President Bush only cares about national security and that it's the Democrats who are playing politics is belied by the fact that Bush is still on vacation. If there were truly an emergency, why is Bush making speeches at fundraisers? Would an actual emergency leave time for such things?
Truth is not and never was in the middle. As Jim Hightower once put it “Ain't nothin' in the middle of the road 'cept yellow stripes and dead armadilloes.”
2006/08/13
How involved is Iran in other Mideast troubles?
As this DailyKos piece makes clear, Ambassador Khaliizad, and by extension it's likely the US Government, thinks that Iran is VERY heavily, deeply involved. Problem with that theory is Occam's Razor. Essentially, this theory espouses parsimony in making theories, i.e. cut the theory down to its essentials. Don't add a lot of unneccessary detail that just clutters up the picture.
Is it necessary to conlcude that Iran is motivating the Iraqi insurgents to fight? Hardly. The fact that Iraq was invaded by a bunch of white, infidel Americans who appear to be more interested in Iraq's oil than in liberating Iraqis combined with the fact that Iraq's physical reconstruction has still not managed to raise Iraqi living standards even up to Iraq's February 2003 level and you have a completely sufficien explanation.
Do we need Iran to explain how Iraqi insurgents get their weapons? Again, hardly. Iraq was a very heavily armed society long before March 2003. Virtually every household had at least one AK-47. Also, the Iraqi government had ammunition dumps scattered all over the countryside. Those ammo dumps were not properly secured because the US Army was in a rush to get to Baghdad. The other major weapon of the insurgents is the IED, the Improvised Explosive Device. As the ammo dumps were not secured, this is a fully sufficien explanation for the ability of the insurgents to fight on.
We can't rule out Iranian involvement in Iraq, but it's hardly necessary to make the presumption that Iran must be involved.
Is Iran involved with Hezbollah? Again, there's no reason to think so. The Katyusha rockets (The Soviet Union originally produced them for use in World War II, so like the AK-47, it's difficult to trace where they ultimately came from.) that are landing all over Northern Israel could have been put into place many years ago as it would have been a pretty sure bet when Israel first pulled out of Lebanon in 2000 that Israel might someday return. Again, that doesn't rule out Iranian involvement, but it's hardly necessary to bring them into the picture to explain anything.
I strongly suspet that Iran is far less involved than the US thinks it is, but that Iran makes a good "Villain-of-the-moment" for the US to blame things on.
UPDATE: AIPAC, the lobbying group for Israel concocts a veritable Legion of Doom to describe all of the terrorist groups allegedly working out of Lebanon alongside Hezbollah. Deserves the conservative blogger's comment: "Interesting, if true."
Is it necessary to conlcude that Iran is motivating the Iraqi insurgents to fight? Hardly. The fact that Iraq was invaded by a bunch of white, infidel Americans who appear to be more interested in Iraq's oil than in liberating Iraqis combined with the fact that Iraq's physical reconstruction has still not managed to raise Iraqi living standards even up to Iraq's February 2003 level and you have a completely sufficien explanation.
Do we need Iran to explain how Iraqi insurgents get their weapons? Again, hardly. Iraq was a very heavily armed society long before March 2003. Virtually every household had at least one AK-47. Also, the Iraqi government had ammunition dumps scattered all over the countryside. Those ammo dumps were not properly secured because the US Army was in a rush to get to Baghdad. The other major weapon of the insurgents is the IED, the Improvised Explosive Device. As the ammo dumps were not secured, this is a fully sufficien explanation for the ability of the insurgents to fight on.
We can't rule out Iranian involvement in Iraq, but it's hardly necessary to make the presumption that Iran must be involved.
Is Iran involved with Hezbollah? Again, there's no reason to think so. The Katyusha rockets (The Soviet Union originally produced them for use in World War II, so like the AK-47, it's difficult to trace where they ultimately came from.) that are landing all over Northern Israel could have been put into place many years ago as it would have been a pretty sure bet when Israel first pulled out of Lebanon in 2000 that Israel might someday return. Again, that doesn't rule out Iranian involvement, but it's hardly necessary to bring them into the picture to explain anything.
I strongly suspet that Iran is far less involved than the US thinks it is, but that Iran makes a good "Villain-of-the-moment" for the US to blame things on.
UPDATE: AIPAC, the lobbying group for Israel concocts a veritable Legion of Doom to describe all of the terrorist groups allegedly working out of Lebanon alongside Hezbollah. Deserves the conservative blogger's comment: "Interesting, if true."
2006/08/12
Exploiting the airplane plot discovered in Britain
It's been a few days since police and investigators broke up a ring that was planning to smuggle explosive liquids aboard planes crossing the Atlantic and to then detonate the explosives onboard several of the aircraft simultaneously, but the political exploitation of the would-be plot has been non-stop ever since.
First has been the attempt to make it seem as though the Bush Administration's warrantless NSA spying program has had something to do with discovering the bad guys:
Senator Rick Santorum is a bit more explicit:
So it was amusing to see that Fox News is concerned about people trying to politicize the problem:
Not that Fox News isn't claiming that Republicans aren't trying to polticize the news, they're just suggesting that liberals and Democrats shouldn't do so.
It's extremely impotant to notice that breaking up the plot owed absolutely nothing to what in the US would have been un-Constitutional means. The police in Britain had obtained warrants for each and every target of their surveillance. The US assisted the British, but were entirely capable of doing so via the lawfully-constituted FISA courts.
And of course, one has to wonder how really important and scary and urgent the whole issue was in the first place when President Bush remained on vacation throughout the "crisis" and attended fundraisers instead of heading back to Washington DC. AmericaBlog notes that airports gave away unopened liquids to the homeless, suggesting that they knew the liquids were harmless.
Fortunately, Democrats appear to be picking up on the fact that the media is not their friend and that the media can't be expected to attack Republicans on their behalf. Democrats have spoken out strongly about VP Cheney's attempt to use the British plot to paint Democrats as weak on security.
To Democrats: "More of this, please!"
UPDATE: The DCCC has a timeline for August 9th and the Republican political exploitation of the British bombing plot.
First has been the attempt to make it seem as though the Bush Administration's warrantless NSA spying program has had something to do with discovering the bad guys:
Let's See a Show of Hands this Morning [Cliff May]
Who is for aggressive and secret initiatives to monitor terrorist groups and suspects, trace their finances, interrogate captured combatants thoroughly and detain combatants as long as necessary?
Wow, quite a lot of hands today - even in Connecticut. Thank you.
And who is for prohibiting all the above, and revealing as much as possible about what intelligence and covert initiatives we have underway, because the public (and, oh, yes, our enemies, too) have a right to know?
Ned Lamont, thank you. Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller, thank you, as well. The gentlemen and gentlewomen from the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Gov. Dean, Mr. Moore, Ms. Sheehan, Mr. Baldwin — loved you on Saturday Night Live! — thank you all so much.
Notice of course, that Mr May doesn't specifically, precisely say that "aggressive and secret initiatives" had anything to do with foiling the plot. Nor does he specifically, precisely accuse Ned Lamont of being a traitor nor that Democratic voters of Connecticut are dupes or that any of the other named persons don't care about whether Americans are secure or not. But it's all strongly suggested.Senator Rick Santorum is a bit more explicit:
"Leaking this type of information [about the warrantless NSA spying program] is traitorous," Santorum said. "The traitors must be pursued aggressively."
-------------
At his news conference, Santorum said the British arrests confirmed that the terror threat was continuing and that the administration's widespread electronic surveillance was an appropriate response.
-------------
At his news conference, Santorum said the British arrests confirmed that the terror threat was continuing and that the administration's widespread electronic surveillance was an appropriate response.
So it was amusing to see that Fox News is concerned about people trying to politicize the problem:
This week's experience reminds us of a hard fact: The terrorists have to succeed only once to achieve their goal of mass murder, while we have to succeed every time to stop them. Unfortunately, some have suggested recently that the terrorist threat is being used for partisan political advantage. We can have legitimate disagreements about the best way to fight the terrorists, yet there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face.
Not that Fox News isn't claiming that Republicans aren't trying to polticize the news, they're just suggesting that liberals and Democrats shouldn't do so.
It's extremely impotant to notice that breaking up the plot owed absolutely nothing to what in the US would have been un-Constitutional means. The police in Britain had obtained warrants for each and every target of their surveillance. The US assisted the British, but were entirely capable of doing so via the lawfully-constituted FISA courts.
Only Bush followers could point to a successful law enforcement operation which, by all appearances, complied with the law, and try to use it to argue how necessary it is that the law be broken.
And of course, one has to wonder how really important and scary and urgent the whole issue was in the first place when President Bush remained on vacation throughout the "crisis" and attended fundraisers instead of heading back to Washington DC. AmericaBlog notes that airports gave away unopened liquids to the homeless, suggesting that they knew the liquids were harmless.
Fortunately, Democrats appear to be picking up on the fact that the media is not their friend and that the media can't be expected to attack Republicans on their behalf. Democrats have spoken out strongly about VP Cheney's attempt to use the British plot to paint Democrats as weak on security.
POLITICIZING THE PLOT: A SAMPLING OF WHAT THE GOP HAS DONE SO FAR
Cheney Knew About Terror Plot When He Attacked Dems in Rare Conference Call. In a rare conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Cheney suggested that the results of the CT primary might encourage "the al-Qaida types." The AP notes, "As Cheney made those comments, the administration was aware of the plot unfolding in Britain..."
Cheney Knew About Terror Plot When He Attacked Dems in Rare Conference Call. In a rare conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Cheney suggested that the results of the CT primary might encourage "the al-Qaida types." The AP notes, "As Cheney made those comments, the administration was aware of the plot unfolding in Britain..."
To Democrats: "More of this, please!"
UPDATE: The DCCC has a timeline for August 9th and the Republican political exploitation of the British bombing plot.
2006/08/08
Reasons for opposing Iraq War
There are many reasonable, and even correct, reproofs that one may have for the conduct of the war. They are, to be sure, all retrospective.
There are a great many things wrong with this op-ed from the Wall St Journal, but this passage is particularly offensive. It was quite clear long before the invasion of Iraq began that it was a grossly immoral and completely unjustified exercise in raw power. Personally, it was quite clear to me long before the war began that Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons of any sort, nor did it possess the ability to produce any such weapons. I was convinced that there was a measurable probability that it possessed chemical or biological weapons, but it was quite clear that it had no ability to deliver said weapons.
Attacking a country that posed no threat to our country, especially considering that "Shock & Awe" was a deliberately planned part of that attack, was immoral. Attacking a country that turned over a 12,000 page document demonstrating that it had no WMD withot making the slightest attempt to prove that the document was false (And which to this day has not been proven false in any of it's particulars) was completely unjustified.
It was also my observation that Afghanistan had been nowhere near reconstructed. Major combat operations were completed in November 2001 and it was clear that no serious reconstruction had taken place by the time the Iraq War was being considered. It was my conclusion then and that conclusion has been proven correct since, that the Bush Administration's reconstruction of Iraq after the conquest would be similarly negligent.
No, my reasons for opposing the Iraq War were never "retrospective." I opposed it long before it broke out for the very same reasons that I oppose it today. My reasons were consistent with those of millions of other people around the world and our numbers grow larger all the time.
BTW, www.prawnworks.net lists 10 reasons as to why PRAWN currently opposes the Iraq War. It has not been necessary to update it very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)