Purpose of the press corps

A writer from Michnews.com does a long, long post (90 kilobytes!) on liberals and newspeople and the press corps and lots of other things. The writer is very, very angry at how liberals are so mean and write such terrible things about the president and conservatives in general and all sorts of other things. Facts? Arguments? Good points? As Jon Stewart says “Not so much”.

One of the major points he makes in his concluding round-up of terrible liberals is that “Ian Williams of the Far Left rag, The Nation” has been working with (Gast! Shudder!) the United Nations!!

Um..okay. What else has he got on Ian?

Seems the organization that he's part of, the United Nations Correspondents Association, has been employing someone who wasn't cleared through US Immigration.

Tim Russert, who has come under frequent scathing criticism from the Daily Howler for shamelessly supporting Republicans, whether they were in the opposition during Clinton's term or whether they've been in power since Bush took office, is also listed as a liberal-loving lefty.

Another indication as to how professional and accurate and trustworthy the article is:

Cameron, who’s one of the best White House correspondents in Washington, referred to John Kerry as a “metrosexual” in a private e-mail about Kerry’s over-the-top grooming habits. But it was inadvertently posted on Foxnews.com and, subsequently, the pro-Kerry media pounced.

FOXNews.com, a corporate news website, inadvertently posted a piece that just happened to smear a presidential candidate? The idea that a corporate news website that has all sorts of writers, editors and technicians, would allow a piece that just happened to support their political point of view to be accidentally posted calls for a serious suspension of disbelief. No evidence has been produced to back up this flimsy excuse. .

Much of the column is devoted to a biased and inaccurate re-telling of the Guckert/Gannon story, the guy who somehow obtained clearance to pose as a reporter, allegedly for a legitimate news organization, and was outed after two years of being able to ask President Bush along with Press Secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan questions during press conferences. How he got this access is a mystery as he also had a few websites where he posted naked pictures of himself and offered his sexual services to men.

The most interesting part of the piece is when the author complains that:

The bottom line is these disingenuous media leftists don’t really care that Gannon’s not from one of their precious Ivy League J-Schools: Their main gripe is that Gannon’s a pro-Bush conservative who they think shouldn’t have been allowed exclusive membership in their restricted clubhouse.

What exactly is the value of having a “pro-Bush conservative” in the press corps? If the guy is just going to ask softball questions designed to make the President look good, can't that be done in another context? This president holds fewer press conferences than did anyone in the 20^th Century. Do we really need to use up valuable air-time by letting a “pro-Bush conservative” speak?

Can't the president just appear on a FOX News talk show/interview and put out his words of the day that way? Why exactly do press secretaries need friendly faces in the press corps?

Is it really the job of the press corps to be gentle with administration personnel? The advice columnist Judith Martin, who goes by the name “Miss Manner” said that she was once speaking to a journalist who opined that it was their job to make the president (Nixon at the time) look good. Martin replied quite correctly that “It's the president's job to make the president look good.”

I read a piece that suggested that there are, quite properly, different standards for journalists who support the president (Whoever he happens to be at the time) and for those who are in the opposition. That's okay and preference should be given to opponents.

I agree completely. Opposition journalists should be given the ability to do their job. If a pro-administration person and an opponent of the administration both want to ask a question, preference should be given to the opponent. The author of the MichNews piece feels (Jumping up and down, banging on the table, hollering and screaming-feels) that journalists should be loyal to the President. The President has all the time he needs to deal with friendly journalists who gently toss him softball questions. The American People don't need a “journalist” like Guckert/Gannon who's there to be a friendly face in the crowd.

Interesting statement on possible war with Iran

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush said. "And having said that, all options are on the table."

He said he was "getting good advice from European partners," who agreed with the United States that "it's in our interests for them not to have a nuclear weapon."

Um...er...okay. Let me get this straight now. The US is not getting ready to attack Iran. The US maintains the right to attack. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, the US will consider that not to be in our interest. Gee, I don't remember what the US would do if something that wasn't in our interest came to pass.
Can we say "smokescreen"?
The run-up to the invasion of Iraq was preceded by all sorts of dishonest, misleading rhetoric. There's no reason to think the Bush Administration has gotten any more honest or honorable in the meanime.

Bush Administration's tenuous grasp on reality

See, this is the sort of quote from our president that just makes me shake my head and wonder at the guy's grasp on reality:

“We do not accept a false caricature that divides the Western world between an idealistic United States and a cynical Europe.”

I'm like - Huh?!?! Who in the heck is presenting such a caricature? Where does this caricature come from? What's it based upon? It's said next to comments upon Iraq. How can anyone possibly describe America's Iraq policy under Bush as idealistic? I suppose if you're insane, you'll ignore the fact that the US invaded in a war that religious authorities refused to describe as a "just war", that over 100,000 Iraqis are estimated to have perished in, that our latest “ambassador” (Read: pro-consul) is said to have been heavily involved with death squads in Honduras and seems to be running new death squads in Iraq. and ran an election that now threatens to result in an Iranian-style theocratic state. I suppose if one ignores alll that, one could concentrate on the fact that elections were held in the first place and just say that American objectives have been achieved.

This was also a rather amazing claim:

"America's Operation Iraqi Freedom is still producing shock and awe, this time among the blame-America-first crowd," he crowed. Then he said, "We continue to discover biological and chemical weapons and facilities to make them inside Iraq." Apparently, most of the hundreds of people in attendance already knew about these remarkable, hitherto-unreported discoveries, because no one gasped at this startling revelation.

Keep in mind, this is a statement made by a sitting Congressman of the US. It's like "What are these people on?" How in the heck could American troops (The inspection team tha scoured the country for WMD broke up a few months ago and joined the rest of the US occupation force in combatting the Iraqi resistance.) possibly find time to uncover more WMD when they never found any in the first place?

How can we possibly have any sort of conversation with these people when they appear to be living on a different planet?

UPDATE: Just heard a statement on TV whre Bush described the American and European disagreement over Iraq as a “past disagreement”. With the US asking Germany and France to contribute troops to the inferno over there, how can it possibly be described as “past”? From their perspective, the US has offered them absolutely no reason to want to contribute anything.

Business Privilege Tax from Stan via Marlene

Yesterday's public hearing at City Council on elimination of the Business Privilege Tax was the public coming out party for One Philadelphia. No one on City Council can ever pretend anymore that there is only one opinion out there on radical tax-cutting. I think Marc McDonald in the Daily News got it right: the tide is running our way (although he didn't give us enough credit.) Here's a link to his article, if you didn't see it, along with the Inquirer's take, which I think also captured pretty well what occurred and where we are. You'll note that while the Daily News gave One Philadelphia an organizational mention, the Inquirer didn't, but did note the range of opinions expressed. It also quoted our sign, if not our testimony.

Although I think the day was overall a big plus for us and our credibility -- our testifiers were outstanding -- some of us were disturbed that we weren't allowed at the witness table until near the end of the day. Councilman Cohen was vocally offended at that placement on our behalf, and I don't think it will happen next time.

Next time, btw, is Tuesday April 13 when the subject will be the entire budget, not just the tax bills. I've already signed up for One Philadelphia. Public testimony starts at 2:30 PM. I was told I was the third person to sign up. Please hold the date and think of signing up to testify individually or on behalf of your organization. To get on the list, call Anita Massara-Levin at 215-686-7740.

Next week we'll get back to building our broader program for the city when our policy committee meets. The committee will meet Wednesday at 1:00 at 1319 Locust St. (Jobs with Justice). Anyone who wants to talk about what our city should look like should come. Then Thursday we'll all meet to strategize our next steps both in the near and long term. That meeting will be at DC 47, 1606 Walnut St., 3rd Floor, from 12-2.

I look forward to seeing you all next week.

Stan

Reading too much into things

New York Magazine looks at a statement by Markos Moulitsas in DailyKos, that “January was the third bloodiest month for U.S. and allied troops. Will that cease now that Iraqis have voted? Nope . . . The war will continue unabated.” The author reads into this statement that Moulitsas is hoping for a US defeat. Personally, I read it as a simple statement of fact. By the time this issue of the magazine was published, the war has resumed its prior ferocity and the level of attacks are unchanged from a week before the elections.
The author also feels that the elections are a great and significant victory for the Bush Administration that should cause lefties everywhere to rethink their opposition to the war. I noticed that he also feels that:

....our heroic and tragic liberal-intellectual capaciousness is facing its sharpest test since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Back then, most of us were forced, against our wills, to give Ronald Reagan a large share of credit for winning the Cold War. Now the people of this Bush-hating city are being forced to grant the merest possibility that Bush, despite his annoying manner and his administration’s awful hubris and dissembling and incompetence concerning Iraq, just might—might, possibly—have been correct to invade, to occupy, and to try to enable a democratically elected government in Iraq.

I have no idea what this guy is talking about. When I was a freshman in college in 1978, I was aware that the Soviet Union was a declining power and that they had become a stodgy, flabby country without any real fire or imagination. Their misadventures in Afghanistan, their inability to secure the place, made their weakness all the more obvious. When they finally collapsed in 1989, Reagan was far more the guy who had been sitting in the Presidential Chair than he was any sort of conquering hero. If any of Reagan's actions were responsible for decisively weakening the Soviet Union, I'm not aware of them. The claim has been made that it was Reagan's arms buildup that did the trick. Leaving aside the fact that President Carter began that buildup after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there was little evidence then and there has been none since to indicate that it made any serious difference to the Soviet economy. Mikhail Gorbachev has written that the Soviet Union had deep and serious economic problems that had become quite serious long before he or Reagan ever took office.

My feeling on the election is that it would have been nice had they really meant anything and yes, it's possible they still might, but nothing can be considered as really accomplished yet.

Administration figure is correct

The temporary CIA director, Porter Goss says:

Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists, These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.

The Washington Post words it very gently, saying this is one of the "unintended consequences of the war in Iraq." An article from Inter-Press Service emphasizes something liberals have been saying since well before the Iraq War (This particular piece is about the accusation that Saddam Hussein tried to have the elder George Bush killed):

Saddam, according to the report, was convinced that the CIA had thoroughly penetrated his regime and thus would know not only that he had dismantled his WMD (which the CIA apparently did not), but also would know about his plans for important intelligence operations.

-snip-

The report even concluded that Iraq was willing to be Washington's ''best friend in the region bar none''.

The fact that the U.S., under Bush Sr. and Clinton, did not show interest was apparently a source of bewilderment to the Iraqi leader, according to the Duelfer report.

In other words, the Hussein regime had nothing to do with terrorism. Porter Goss is entirely correct in saying that terrorism from Iraq is now, currently, at this moment, a serious problem. What's clear is that this became a problem only upon the US invasion of that country.

Jonah Goldberg responds to critics

CHICKENHAWK REDUX [Jonah Goldberg ]

Sorry for reopening what may be for most folks an old and tedious argument.

It's an argument that Jonah lost. See Steve Gilliard's blog for details.

That’s not my intention. Unfortunately, my recent spat with Juan Cole has launched a second front of hate mail, spam and blog flames. And since I don’t have the time or energy to respond to every email or ever blog post, I figured I could respond here and then I’d at least have a link I can send back to folks.

As you may recall, Cole advocated the position that every able bodied male in America who supported the Iraq war should have enlisted.

True. Notice especially the “supported the Iraq war” provision. If you don't support it, you're under no moral obligation to go. You may be under a legal obligation later, but that's another issue.

In response to these and similar “chicken-hawk” arguments I mentioned in passing that “a few” of the reasons I never signed up before the war were my age, my financial situation, my brand new baby daughter and my physical condition.

The point is that these were the few reasons that he saw fit to mention. The following quote was pretty much it. If there were other reasons, he forgot to mention them.

As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice.

The blogger Atrios considered this an “incredible” admission as have several other leftwing bloggers. The moral outrage seems to be based on what I can only figure to be several misunderstandings and one fair point. The misunderstandings include the fact that I never said these were the “only” reasons I didn’t sign up. Merely that these were among them. I never expected Atrios to be a fair reader (he’s too concerned with my looks). But apparently this misreading has now become the official one among many on the web. I’ve received lots of email from folks who sincerely believe – for one reason or another – that I was saying my family or my financial situation was more important than those of the soldiers, marines and airmen in Iraq who also have families and, often, even greater financial challenges. So let me just say here that this was never my intention nor my meaning. If I gave that impression, I’m sorry.

Jonah did indeed give that impression by only listing those reasons. Apology accepted.

While obviously my family is everything to me, I have never thought in those terms. And I have never done anything but marvel at the contributions of America’s warriors. And, having gone to Walter Reed this weekend to meet with wounded vets, my gratitude and admiration for their sacrifices is even greater.

Visitng vets in the hospital is to be commended.

What I was trying to say was that it doesn’t matter what my reasons for not enlisting were, it wouldn’t matter to people who think it’s more satisfying or effective to hurl insults than engage in arguments.

It's not Jonah's business to psychoanalyse his critics. If he doesn't want to engage his critics, he can ignore them, but nothing gives him the right to sit there and try to read our minds and guess what our motives are.

Indeed, the fact that I am too old to enlist seems to bounce off of most of these people (to serve at my age I would need to have already served before or be in the reserve).

At age 35, he j-u-u-u-st barely made it over the line. He could have signed up when it became obvious that the war wasn't over back in July or August 2003. He would have had plenty of time then. There's nothing stopping him from doing other things there. Iraq has long needed civilian help doing paperwork-type jobs, running government services, setting up communications between the American occupation forces and the Iraqi people.

But as for the larger argument, I still think it is absurd. Every morning I get these emailed images of white feathers sent to me by folks who think I should sign up. The reference is to WWI when women would give young men not in uniform feathers to shame them into enlisting. It’s a clever bit of web-bullying I suppose. But the analogy is stupid. Those women supported the war.

Irrelevant. The point that the ladies of World War I were making was that the men who received white feathers were cowards who couldn't put their own butts on the line when their buddies were doing so.

The people reprising the role of WWI prim ladies on the homefront do not. Daily Kos’ reaction to the mutilation of American contractors in Iraq was "I feel nothing over the death of the mercenaries [sic]. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

That’s not the sort of thing one says when in support of the war effort.

The lefty blogs love pointing out conservative hypocrisy. Fair enough. But this chickenhawk nonsense itself is grotesquely hypocritical. Recently many on the left took great umbrage at Peter Beinart’s suggestion that much of the left opposed the Afghanistan war. No we didn’t! They declared. Well, okay. But if they didn’t oppose it, why didn’t they sign up? What about for the first Gulf War? Or Bosnia?

These were all extremely short wars where the fighting was over long before anyone could have finished boot camp. Heck, Bosnia was an air war where American forces did no serious ground fighting at all. Again, the point where it would have been appropriate to sign up would have been when it became obvious that the war was far from over and that the Army/Marines were short of troops. As I said, July or August of 2003 would have been an appropriate time.

Look, in the age of the all-volunteer military, and in a country which prides itself on civilian control of that military, there is no shame in not signing up.

There's no shame IF you're not loudly supporting the war.

Or even if there is shame, it’s personal not political. We have, by my rough estimate, some 70 million men of military age. Should they all join-up the moment they agree the military should do something dangerous?

No, but when the military is obviouusly overstretched (July 2003, the US agreed to pay $200 million plus $40 million in transportation costs to get a Polish 9,000 troop contingent over to Iraq.) and we have young men back home who are fully able to contribute, young men who are loudly supporting the war should get themselves into uniform.

I favor aggressive law enforcement at home, does this mean I should become a cop? Of course not.

I supported the war and I support the work the military is doing there now. I make no apologies for that. I do not believe they’re there on a fool’s errand nor do I consider them to be hapless dupes and slaves to a cause not worth fighting. About the folks sending me these feathers, I know no such thing.

Ah, there we go “Lefties are all dupes!” Of who, exactly? Perhaps Michael Moore is secretly beaming orders into our heads? What are these mysterious people trying to accomplish? Auugh! “They're all trying to (gasp) make peace!!”

Note: I fixed a couple typos from the version I originally posted.

Posted at 06:39 AM

Amazingly callous statement from Wolfowitz

Wow! Just...wow. How do I even begin to describe the sheer carelessness, evil and heartlessness behind a comment like this?

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The number two Pentagon official said reducing American casualties in Iraq was more important than bringing US troops back home -- and pointed to the rising Iraqi death toll as evidence this strategy was working.

"I'm more concerned about bringing down our casualties than bringing down our numbers," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview with PBS television's "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" program. "And it is worth saying that since June 1, there have been more Iraqi police and military killed in action than Americans." (emphasis mine)

Hey, these guys are doing great work for us! Oh yeah, a lot of them are dying as well. Oh well! No biggie!

This is hopeful however. American officials are definitely not onboard with this idea, but it's a very good sign that British officials are openly talking about withdrawal.

British officials believe that the time has come to give an "indicative timetable" for departure over the next 18 months or so, the Daily Telegraph said Thursday, citing unnamed sources.

There would be no firm deadline for the withdrawal, and it would depend on Iraqi armed forces becoming able to deal with security in the country, meaning foreign troops would not leave until around mid-2006, the report said.

British officials argue that however tentative a timetable, it would boost Iraq's transitional government and undermine claims from insurgents that Washington intends to occupy the nation indefinitely, the paper said.

"Giving a timetable would be an important political signal that we intend to leave Iraq," what was named as a "well-placed Whitehall source" -- meaning an official rather than a member of the government -- told the newspaper.

"The main Iraqi parties are already talking about when coalition forces should be drawn down. American knows it will have to deal with the issue soon."

It was pointed out the other day that the ones who want to see withdrawal from Iraq are largely Democrats amd those who want to "stay the course" are largely Republican.

Talk of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is simmering on Capitol Hill.
It's mostly from Democrats - Edward Kennedy on Thursday became the first senator to say "we must begin" withdrawal.

-------------

President Bush won't set a timetable and Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, says it's too soon to talk about American forces leaving.

Looks like the British agree more with the Democrats than the Republicans.

My view on the Iranian people vs their government

Essentially, I see the Iranian people's atitudes towards their own government through the "lens" or "filter" of my early readings on the Ukrainians of the Eastern Front in World War II. Naturally, the Iranian people have not suffered brutality from their government on anywhere near the scale that the Ukrainians suffered under "collectivization" under Joseph Stalin in the 1930s and Iranian suffering under American occupation will most likely not be as bad as the Ukrainians underwent when they were under the German occupation of 1941-1944.

Nevertheless, when people speak of the Iranian desire for liberation or the Iranian patriotism vs possible American attack, I think of the Ukrainians. My understanding based on the few sources I've looked at is that the Ukrainians were pleased when the Soviets were kicked off of their land and felt at first that they had been liberated. Very quickly, the Nazis made it clear that they had no interest in pursuing a military/political alliance with the Ukraine and, what was even more distressing, the Nazis had no interest in disbanding the hated communes and allowing free enterprise to flourish on the farms.

Very quickly, the Ukrainians became "partisans" and undertook a guerrilla war against the occupiers. I seriously doubt that the Soviets had much control over this "underground". My guess is that the partisans operated independently, perhaps accepting directions from other Ukrainians or perhaps listening to Soviets when the Soviets presented themselves, not as communists or even as Russians, but as lovers of the land and of Eastern traditions and haters of the Nazi occupiers.

When the tide of the war turned, Ukrainians were largely fighting on the side of the Soviets on a "The devil you know versus the devil you don't" basis.

My understanding is that if the Americans invade Iran, Iranians are not all that wild about their government, but their lack of enthusiasm about their goverment will NOT translate into enthusiasm for American occupation. Iranians are of course fully aware of the complete mess that Americans have made of Iraq, the lack of power, water, personal safety, etc.

Is it all possible that the US might foment revolution there against the will of the government? No. America, back during the struggle against the Sandinistas of Nicaragua were completely unable to spark disturbances in the heavily-populated Pacific Coast region of that country, despite the Nicaraguan Contras being perhaps the most well-funded, lavishly supplied guerrillas in world history up to that time. The Contras were able to make incursions into the sparsely-populated North-Eastern part of the country, but by the mid-1980s they couldn't even do that.

UPDATE: Seems Condi Rice is champing at the bit to invade Iran.

Iran The EU asked Condi to join them in seeking a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear crisis. Condi declined, saying that the US is is actively seeking “régime change” but did not mention how the US would go about achieving this.

Gee, I wonder how they'd do that? Amazingly enough, France and Germany resisted Dr Rice's attempts to persuade them to contribute troops to the American disaster in Iraq.

Triumphalism over Iraq vote smacks into reality

Oops!

Leading Shiite cleric says new Iraq must embrace Islamic law

By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

BAGHDAD — A high-ranking Shiite cleric who helped a coalition of religious parties to apparent victory in Iraq's elections eight days ago said Sunday that the new constitution must embody Islamic law.

"We will accept no compromise," said a statement by Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad, one of the three top Shiite clerics who serve beneath the most senior religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Al-Fayad said separation of religion and state must be "completely rejected."

Vice President Cheney, on Fox News Sunday, cautioned against jumping to conclusions about what kind of document Iraq's Transitional National Assembly will write. He indicated the United States plans a hands-off approach. "We need to step back a bit now," Cheney said. "The bottom line for everybody to remember here is, this is not going to be, you know, an Iraqi version of America. This is going to be Iraqi."

Cheney predicted Iraqis would try to avoid recreating what they've seen next door in Iran: "a religious theocracy that has been a dismal failure."

Hmm, Cheney and predictions..lemme see...yeah, here it is:

Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

So much for Cheney's predictive capabilities. Poor Allawi has gotten such a small percentage of the vote and Sistani has gotten so much of it that it's starting to look like he might short-circuit US plans and demand a speedy withdrawal.

Alberto Gonzales – further reasons why Senate should not vote in

Rewriting the Laws of War for a New Enemy

claims that liberals have “resorted to hyperbole” in describing the atrocities of Abu Ghraib, that the tortures performed by US troops caused a liberal to “go so far as to compare [the utterly inexcusablw atrocities of Abu Ghraib] to Nazi atrocites”. The author starts off well by saying “The Geneva Convention is not obsolete “. (Note that the author does not recognize that "Geneva Conventions" should be stated in the plural as there were several related documents.) But so far, so good. By the fourth paragraph, the author starts getting slippery on us by saying “The Geneva Convention provisions make sense when war involves nation-states” as though the Trung Sisters of Vietnam did not engage in the first guerrilla war back in 40 AD or as though the Irish Republican Army had not arisen in 1919 and fought a guerrilla war until 1921 or as though Ukrainianshad not greeted invading Nazis as liberators only to turn against their new occupiers and fought what was called "partisan" warfare until 1944, when the Soviets (who had killed millions of Ukrainians through forced collectivization. Note that that means the guerrilla warfare in the Ukraine against the Nazis was independent of the Soviet state.) took back over. Quite obviously, the signers of the Geneva Conventions were fully aware that not all armed conflicts took place exclusively between nation-states. The article goes on to claim that the main threats of today come from “terrorist organizations and rogue nations.“ and that "Al Qaeda, a non-state actor" does not warrant Geneva Conventions protections.

As to "rogue nations" -

Pseudo-states control areas and populations subject to personal, clan or tribal rule. A leader supported by a small clique (like Hussein and his associates from Tikrit) or a tribal faction (like the Pashtuns in Afghanistan) rule. Political institutions are weak or nonexistent. Loyalties depend on personal relationships with tribal chiefs, sheiks or warlords, rather than allegiance to the nation.

Quasi-political bodies such as the Iraqi Baathist Party, the Taliban or even the Saudi royal family exercise government power. Defeat of the "national" leader or clique typically results in the complete disintegration of the regime.

This is an interesting definition that draws in all manner of states and regimes and political parties and other groups. The problem with distinguishing between a group engaged in a nationalist rebellion such as the IRA of 1919 and between a terrorist, non-state actor such as jihadists who have traveled to Iraq from other Arab states specifically to fight American troopsversus the home-grown Iraqi resistance that fights for nationalist or religious reasons is a difficult call to make, especially when one is dealing with captives and must decide when the Geneva Conventions do and do not apply.

Do the authors suggest the setting up of any sort of international tribunal to decide these questions? No. They suggest that such questions should be left entirely up to the "good" states. In other words, the Geneva Conventions should be tossed overboard due, not to any serious changes in warfare or the international situation, but just because they feel like it and that individual states should feel free to reinterpret or reject the Geneva Conventions at their convenience.

Alberto Gonzales should be rejected as someone who does not respect the Geneva Conventions in any way, shape or form and who shows no respect for law in general. If the above article is the best his defenders can do to argue that the Conventions can be disregarded, then all American citizens must speak with one voice and reject the appointment of Gonzales to the office of Attorney General.

Follow-up to comment made by Bush at Inaugural

I attended the Inaugural Parade and later quoted the following statement from Bush:

In my meetings with Chinese leadership in the future, I will constantly remind them of the benefits of a society that honors their people and respects human rights and human dignity.

I thought: "Wow..how does one respond to such an incredibly non-self-aware statement? How would I even begin to inform a Bush supporter that these words are completely meaningless?" Then, I saw this article:

Bush to China: "Do as I say, not as I do."

By Mary Shaw, Amnesty International

The Bush administration has lost the moral high ground for taking others to task for human rights violations.

hinese pro-democracy activist Yang Jianli has been incarcerated in a Chinese prison since April of 2002. Jianli, a permanent U.S. resident, is the founder of the Foundation for China in the 21st Century. While on a return visit to China in 2002, he was arrested on charges of using a false passport. He was then placed in solitary confinement, held incommunicado, and tortured.

The Chinese government violated their own law when they failed to release Jianli after 37 days, which is required if no warrant is filed. They eventually convicted him of illegal entry and espionage and sentenced him to five years in prison. He suffered a stroke last summer while in custody.

The U.S. Congress has unanimously passed several resolutions condemning Jianli's prolonged imprisonment and demanding his release. In addition, Condoleezza Rice, while National Security Advisor, told Jianli's wife that American officials had pressed high-level Chinese authorities on the matter.

Jianli is now up for parole. As a human rights activist, I pray that the Chinese government will finally see fit to release him. At the same time, I can't help but note the irony in the Bush administration's support for the release of this Chinese dissident.

Let's look at the situation: The Chinese have essentially labeled a dissident as an enemy combatant, put him in jail, incommunicado, with stalled due process, and tortured him. The trial was conducted secretly. His family was not informed of his whereabouts. It sounds very much like how the Bush administration has been dealing with those suspected of terrorist ties in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and even right here on the mainland.

I originally hoped to present a point-by-point comparison of Jianli's situation with those of Bush's "enemy combatants"; however, it seems that the Chinese have released much more information about Jianli than the Bush administration has given us about any of the people it is holding in their own legal limbo. But we do know that the U.S. is holding thousands of suspects in detention, incommunicado, under cruel and inhumane conditions, and not even offering the minimal level of legal recourse that the Chinese afforded to Jianli. Just earlier this month, a federal judge in Washington threw out challenges to their detentions by inmates at Guantanamo Bay. Ironically, some information does leak out from Guantanamo and elsewhere as detainees in Bush's "war on terror" are occasionally released, one by one, when evidence leaks to the press and the public that their arrests were groundless.

The Bush administration has the nerve to complain about how awful the Chinese are. Somebody needs to send them a mirror. But, of course, we're the great and powerful United States of America, and Bush keeps reminding us that he's doing God's work and spreading "democracy", so it must be OK. Apparently, it's God's will that you can violate your own laws if Bush says so. If anyone else does, though, it's evil.

The Bush administration has lost the moral high ground for taking others to task for human rights violations. But I hope that the citizens of the U.S., despite their misguided leadership, will continue to stand up for what is right - in China, at Guantanamo, and right here in the U.S. We cannot let the Bush administration get away with its gross human rights violations, just as we cannot let the Chinese government do the same.

We must not forget the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller, who wrote the following from Berlin in 1939:

"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade-unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade-unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."

-----
Mary Shaw
Philadelphia Area Coordinator
Amnesty International USA
Email: mshaw@amnestyphilly.org
Web: http://www.amnestyphilly.org

As Amnesty International points out, the self-blindness and hypocrisy and sheer unmitigated gall of Bush's statement is just absolutely staggering. I can just imagine the Chinese leadership receiving his statements on human rights with polite smiles and gracious words and erupting into horse-laughs and guffaws and chortling afterwards. As other commentators have pointed out, yeah, the Inaugural Address was a great speech with really wonderful words and ideas all strung together like pretty beads on a string, but it's obviously a PR statement, not meant for serious people to take seriously.
It's like when Bush wears a cowboy outfit. He had a rich grandfather, a rich father and he himself went to Yale. It's pure PR. Bush clearly doesn't mean any of it.

So nice to see allies pitching in...

Saudi clerics urge militants to fight "infidels" in Iraq instead of at home

By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI
Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) -- Fundamentalist Islamic leaders in Saudi Arabia are telling militants intent on fighting "infidels" to join the insurgency in Iraq instead of taking up Osama bin Laden's call to oust the Saudi royal family at home, say Saudi dissidents who monitor theological edicts coming out of the kingdom.

Iraq as a battleground offers the solution to a quandary facing the Saudi clerics who have to both placate the kingdom's rulers and keep their radical base happy.

"If they preach that there ought to be absolutely no jihad, they would lose credibility and support among their followers. So what they do is preach jihad -- not in Saudi Arabia, but in Iraq," said Abdul-Aziz Khamis, a Saudi human rights activist in London.

"To them, Iraq is the answer to their dilemma."

So I see that not everyone's gotten the memo that terrorists and the states that shelter them are the enemy. What was that statement again?

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. (Italics mine)

Y'see, in order to have the kind of government we want in place, our allies must choose to join us. If the Saudis don't choose the American way, what then? How can we invade Iran if we're busy disciplining Saudi Arabia?

Bush's 2nd Inaugural speech

Before I look at anything Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address, I agree with DailyKos.com that this, from Vice-President Cheney, is vastly more important, by several orders of magnitude:

Cheney, interviewed hours before he was to take the oath of office for his second term, also said that Iran now tops the list of "the world's potential trouble spots." Iran is pursuing "a fairly robust nuclear program" and has a history of sponsoring terrorism, he said. "That combination is of great concern." Cheney said the Bush administration might seek U.N. sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program if necessary. The administration prefers to address the problem with diplomacy and doesn't want more war in the Middle East, he said. (emphasis mine)

On the bus, as I was getting passengers to fill out the muster sheet that we'd check off returnees with and that ANSWER could also use for mailing list purposes, I half-jokingly asked if Iran or Syria would be next on the Bush Administration's hit list. Sadly, it appears like they guessed correctly that Iran would be next.

As to Bush's speech, it was a very nice speech. Very stirring and dramatic words. It reminded me a great deal of being back in the Navy. A few years before I joined the Navy, I read a book where John Stockwell, a fellow who struck me as a good and competent administrator, attempted to direct CIA assets in Angola (The whole operation fell apart when the Soviets and Cubans intervened in force and the US, still smarting from the loss of Vietnam, dropped out of the struggle). Stockwell's idea of how to run the US effort in Angola was to sit down and answer lengthy telegrams from the field that were requesting specific answers or guidance.

On my first ship, I had an officer who ran my workgroup with lots of vague, general words about ultimate goals. I once overheard him talking about his “vision” for the office where he talked to some sailors from the Repair Department (who were going to work to design our office to his specifications). He essentially wanted our at-sea office to look like a dry-land (or shore-command) office, with equipment stacked up just so. In the meantime, the workgroup had severe disciplinary problems with young Seamen and junior Petty Officers not obeying orders and not cooperating with their seniors.

In the first instance, the Angola operation failed because of decisions and events wholly outside of the Stockwell's control and I felt after reading the book that Stockwell handled it about as well as it could have been handled. In the second, the officer who ran my workgroup ended up disgusting his superiors with his incompetence, losing his projected next assignment to a prestigious staff position and was assigned to another, smaller ship.

Bush's speech falls into the category of my officer's approach to running my workgroup. It was very vague and general and ignored numerous real-world, real-life problems.

A conservative points that the neoconservatives who have been running Bush's policies over the last four years

are not entirely conservative and confuse the public about the virtues of the hallowed native reluctance to spend blood and treasure abroad for dubiously idealistic purposes.

The conservative then attempts to distance Bush from the neoconservatives by commenting on “conspiracy thoeries” in which

...clever abolitionists from their New England pulpits and snooty colleges saw Lincoln as a suitable and naïve emissary of their radical agenda.

I'm not so sure that the picture is entirely wrong here as Lincoln did indeed end up endorsing the radical abolitionist agenda pretty wholeheartedly. I would quibble with the picture of Lincoln as being naïve and frankly, having been raised in New England, I of course don't see the radical abolitionist agenda as having been a bad thing.

In this case of course, Bush is pushing a radical, but stupid, agenda which has produced nothing but disaster and promises nothing but more of the same.

Peggy Noonan delivers a reasonably good piece in which she begins by engaging in her usual chirpy, good-news, golly-gee-isn't-everything-just-so-wonderful? tone that's made a reliable laugh line out of “Deep Thoughts: by Peggy Noonan”. But she also makes the good point that:

The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars.

Peggy then defines the conflict over foreign policy as being between “moralists and realists”, but as my group doesn't recognize Bush as either moral or realistic, we don't regard this as a real debating point. The following, however, is an extremely good point, that Bush spoke

...in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance.

The administration's approach to history is at odds with what has been described by a communications adviser to the president as the "reality-based community." A dumb phrase, but not a dumb thought: He meant that the administration sees history as dynamic and changeable, not static and impervious to redirection or improvement. That is the Bush administration way, and it happens to be realistic: History is dynamic and changeable. On the other hand, some things are constant, such as human imperfection, injustice, misery and bad government.

This world is not heaven.

The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him.

God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."

...

Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth.

In short, Bush needs to reconnect to Earth and get has feet back on the ground.

UPDATE (28Jan05): To recap, Peggy Noonan says "George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic..." Well, guess not. Less than a week later comes the headline to an editorial: "After Bold Speech Comes Furious Backpedaling". In other words "Oh...um...never mind."

Further thoughts on torture's usefulness

How to Interrogate Terrorists
First off, let's look at what's obviously a PR problem.

Nevertheless, Bush-administration critics seized on the [Abu Ghraib] scandal as proof that prisoner “torture” had become routine. A master narrative—call it the “torture narrative”—sprang up: the government’s 2002 decision to deny Geneva-convention status to al-Qaida fighters

It's quite impossible for a competing narrative to spring up if the official narrative is believable and widely known. If the government offers the public a credible explanation that accounts for all of the known facts, I find it quite difficult to believe that a competing narrative can spring up.
Of course, the Whitewater case from the Clinton years is an instance where a false narrative, a collection of unsubstantiated accusations, ultimately proved completely groundless. The distinction in this case is that the Whitewater accusations were driven by the Republican Party and a whole network of radio talk show hosts, the Washington Times, sympathetic newscasters and other media sources. Today, the Republican Party also counts Fox News as a close media ally. The Democrats and other liberals in today's media have Air America, the Internet (With political commentary dominated by blogs) and well...that's pretty much it. The rest of the media consists of news sources that are dedicated to serving as delivery vehicles for advertisements, much the same way that a cigarette serves as a delivery vehicle for tobacco smoke. Their objective is not to push a particular political agenda, but to provide reasonably credible (or at least credible-sounding) news that entice people to check out the advertisements while they're catching up on the latest developments.

No matter. The Pentagon’s reaction to the scandal was swift and sweeping. It stripped interrogators not just of stress options but of traditional techniques long regarded as uncontroversial as well. Red tape now entangles the interrogation process, and detainees know that their adversaries’ hands are tied.

Sounds very comforting, but how are we to verify this? Do we have sources among the Iraqi people that can vouch for these developments? Obviously Iyad Allawi will vouch for the Americans as he was appointed by Americans, but how about an authority Iraqis might trust? Has the Ayatollah Sistani or Moqtada al-Sadr appointed anyone to check on how detainees are being treated?
Had the military undertaken the abuses of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo openly, letting the American People in on their plans, their assurances today that the abuses have ended might be credible. Again, this is an obvious PR problem. If the Bush Administration were seriously interested in providing credible assurances, we would not still be hearing about "ghost" detainees, the CIA would have opened its files and would make its personnel available for interviews, etc.
Now, why would detainees need to be questioned? The article says:

The interrogation debate first broke out on the frigid plains of Afghanistan. Marines and other special forces would dump planeloads of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners into a ramshackle detention facility outside the Kandahar airport; waiting interrogators were then supposed to extract information to be fed immediately back into the battlefield—whether a particular mountain pass was booby-trapped, say, or where an arms cache lay.

Thinking back to my readings on the American Civil War, I don't remember anyone depending on prisoner interrogations to determine what lay ahead. Reconnaissance was carried out by fast-moving cavalry or lightly-armed infantry. In World War II, the light tanks and jeeps did that. In Vietnam, someone "took point" and walked well ahead of the main unit so that the point man would hit the booby-trap first and thereby warn those who were following behind. Getting recon info by interrogating prisoners strikes me as a "nice thing to have" as opposed to a "critical necessity".

The article complains that the detainees from Afghanistan and later Iraq were "not playing by the army rule book." They were trained to resist interrogation and knew that the Americans were limited in how roughly they could treat their detainees. My problem with using force in response to that is that information voluntarily given is by far the best and most reliable and most comprehensive you're ever going to get. I'm told that conservative bloggers like to bring up cases like, say, "suppose there was a bomb inside a safe, you knew the bomb was about to go off, you knew that you had a prisoner who knew the combination to the safe, wouldn't you torture the prisoner for the information so that the bomb wouldn't take out half the city block?" People have noticed, however, that these cases are always hypothetical. None of the people who ask this sort of question ever bring up a real case. That's because there's never been a real case to use as an example of how torture has to be allowed. So the questions then become: "Why do we need to torture these people?" "Do these people have worthwhile information that they're hiding from us?" "If we torture them, will the loss to America in terms of moral stature be gainfully balanced by the information we obtain?" The article presents no evidence that such questions were ever asked, let alone answered.

Battlefield commanders in Afghanistan and intelligence officials in Washington kept pressing for information, however.

It's not clear from this statement what, exactly, these officials were looking for. Yes, you need information in order to fight a guerrilla or Fourth Generation conflict, but such information is best gained by seeing to it that the civilian population is well-disposed towards the occupation. This favorable disposition is best obtained through ordinary politics, being honest and upfront with the civilians (as opposed to the people actually carrying guns and setting mines), providing public works programs, providing basic law & order, fixing up infrastructure like power plants, roads, railways, water supplies, etc.

President Bush had declared in February 2002 that al-Qaida members fell wholly outside the [Geneva] [C]onventions and that Taliban prisoners would not receive prisoner-of-war status—without which they, too, would not be covered by the Geneva rules.

For any nation to arbitrarily and unilaterally declare where the law does and does not apply means that the law is a dead letter. You might as well have a group of teenagers declare a section of their school to be a smoking zone, where they can light up whenever they please. You might as well have a group of people decide that the local bank has too much money and that they don't have enough. Where does the President get the authority to discard the Geneva Conventions? As was pointed out by LiberalOasis, he doesn't. The questioning of Alberto Gonzales makes it clear that he and Bush think Bush has the power to discard the Geneva Conventions like a used tissue paper.

The author says that treating enemy soldiers with humanity and decency depends on reciprocity. Do unto others as they do unto you. As "Terrorists flout every civilized norm animating the conventions.", there of course can be no thought of reciprocating by treating captured enemies with any semblance of humanity. The theory on this in economic terms is known as the "race to the bottom".
My Irish history professor back in college described this race in the following way: "Someone might bid to work a certain parcel of land and promise to deliver 20 bushels of potatoes for the privilege. Say the parcel is enough to produce 100 bushels in all and the person needs 20 to survive and sells the rest. Well, the land is getting scarce and there's plenty of competition. So when that person loses the land for whatever reason and someone else bids for the land, the next person faces those who will pay 25 bushels for the privilege. Eventually, people are offering 80 bushels for the privilege of working the land and now they have to start cutting into their own subsistence to compete. When the number of bushels nationwide got down to about 10 per person, in other words, when everyone was on a starvation diet, that's when rebellions began to break out."
For the United States to demand reciprocity, for it to take the view that "we'll only treat them as well as they treat us" is to put the whole world on a race to the bottom, where the way we all treat captured enemies will just continue to slide downwards.

The original reference to this story read that this article was the best torture-defense article that the blogger had seen. Color me deeply unimpressed.

Torture and Alberto Gonzales

First Jonah Golberg runs the following:

TORTURE [Jonah Goldberg]

So many readers have made variations of this point, many, many from personal experience:

After I was captured, my hands were tied behind my back and I was struck repeatedly in the face with an open hand. After enduring the beating I was thrown on the water board, where under questioning the enemy would drown you till the verge of losing consciousness, only to revive you and start all over again. Then a black bag was secured around my head and throat which made it difficult to breathe. I was confined to a three by four foot tiger cage with a coffee can for a toilet. Loud music blared from speakers in the compound and I was repeatedly dragged from my cage for more beatings and interrogation. At night when it was freezing the guards would pour cold water on me. I was deprived of any food for five straight days.

Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? Well that is only part of what EVERY U.S. Navy and Air Force pilot and flight crew goes through in survival school. The Army does it for their special forces guys as well. We do this to our own people for training but we can't do it to terrorists?
Incredible.

Of course the obvious answer to this point is that at the end of these "tortures", the person being brutalized can look forward to being commissioned as an officer in the Navy or the Air Force or as an Army Special Forces person. If you're a captured Iraqi being brutalized, you have no way of knowing what the endgame is, where you'll end up, if your tormentor is going to go crazy on you and start cutting off limbs or nailing your hands to the floor or whatever. There is no certainty that the torture will ever stop under any circumstances. In his next comment, Jonah sort of, kind of appears to maybe understand this:

SIMULATED TORTURE VS. REAL [Jonah Goldberg]

I'm getting a lot of flack for my point in my syndicated column that Air Force Academy cadets get water-boarded in their training and that therefore it might fall somewhere short of actual torture. Here's a typical email:

dont you think its a bit preposterous to cite torture simulation as a reason that torture is acceptible? "Our soldiers experience torture simulation as part of their training. Thus it's okay to torture prisoners." Do you actually see no difference between a simulation and the real thing? This is not just a ridiculously bad argument as a simple matter of rhetoric, it's a morally despicable argument that reveals some seriously warped thinking.

Me: Of course I see the difference between the two: it's a psychological difference. And while I don't want to be categorical about this and say "as long as it's only psychological, it's not torture" I do think this is an important distinction.

But then Jonah goes on to describe simulations of torture vs the real thing and making the reasonable point that cutting off a finger and preteding to cut off a finger are two different things.

Which means no, I don't think he gets it.

Torture is not properly defined as a certain intolerable level of pain. Torture is defined as inflicting pain for the purpose of getting information out of people. If you're puttiing someone's fingers in a vise in order to demonstrate "This is what can happen to you if you're captured by the enemy", that's one thing. If you're putting someone's fingers in a vise because you're under the impression he has information you want, that's torture and that's morally wrong.

If someone's undergoing beatings because he is knowingly keeping valuable information from the people doing the beatings, it won't be difficult for him to undergo still more beatings. If you're being beaten because you were getting a soda from a convenience store just as the cops made a sweep and you get tossed into jail along with the anti-government protesters, then having someone put bamboo slats under your fingernails in an attempt to find out why the protesters were arguing with the government then the torture is going to take on a very different meaning for you.

Are the people tormenting you going to give you medical care? Will someone see to your bleeding fingertips? Not if they're trying to extract information. Being nice and getting information out of people are two entirely different things. That's why torture is unacceptable. Not merely because it's bad to stick bamboo slats under people's fingernails, but because it's morally unacceptable to try to get information via torturing people in any event.

For anyone to make the attempt to define torture as a certain level of physical pain is first of all, completely beyond the interrogator's ability to measure, as it not only depends on the physical pain being endured, but how painful it is very heavily depends on the prior experiences and current physical condition of the person being brutalized. If you're a frail old lady in her 80s, your level of intolerable pain is going to be very different from a physically-fit man in his 20s.

Ah, but what about the practical argument? What about all of the valuable information we get via torture? To which my answer is: "What valuable information?" The abuses of Iraqi prisoners began shortly after the US occupied Iraq. At first, Iraqi saboteurs were confined to the outlying areas. By the time the photos from Abu Ghraib was discovered, the Iraqi resistance had a real foothold in the country and could move around pretty much as they pleased. In other words, US forces didn't learn much that was of any real value. The resistance continued to grow stronger and more capable while US personnel were torturing Iraqis.

Has the Bush Administration learned anything? Have they sworn off torture? Will they refrain from doing it in the future? The signs are not hopeful. From LiberalOasis:

Does Gonzales think the president has the power to authorize torture by immunizing American personnel from prosecution for it?

During the hearing, [Sen. Pat] Leahy called this idea, which comes from the August 2002 document dubbed the "Bybee memo," "the commander-in-chief override."

And by hearing's end it was clear that Gonzales believed in it.

That refers to this extremely telling and disturbing exchange:

LEAHY: The Bybee memo concludes that a president has authority as commander in chief to override domestic and international law as prohibiting torture and can immunize from prosecution anyone -- anyone -- who commits torture under his act.

Whether legal or not, he can immunize them.

Now, as attorney general, would you believe the president has the authority to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture?

GONZALES: First of all, sir, the president has said we're not going to engage in torture under any circumstances.

And so you're asking me to answer a hypothetical that is never going to occur.

This president has said we're not going to engage in torture under any circumstances.

And therefore, that portion of the opinion was unnecessary and was the reason that we asked that that portion be withdrawn.

LEAHY: But I'm trying to think what type of opinions you might give as attorney general. Do you agree with that conclusion?

GONZALES: Sir, again --

LEAHY: You're a lawyer, and you've held a position as a justice of the Texas Supreme Court, you've been the president's counsel, you've studied this issue deeply.

Do you agree with that conclusion?

GONZALES: Senator, I do believe there may come an occasion when the Congress might pass a statute that the president may view as unconstitutional.

And that is a position and a view not just of this president, but many, many presidents from both sides of the aisle.

Obviously, a decision as to whether or not to ignore a statute passed by Congress is a very, very serious one.

And it would be one that I would spend a great deal of time and attention before arriving at a conclusion that in fact a president had the authority under the Constitution to --

LEAHY: Mr. Gonzales, I'd almost think that you'd served in the Senate, you've learned how to filibuster so well, because I asked a specific question:

Does the president have the authority, in your judgment, to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture?

GONZALES: With all due respect, Senator, the president has said we're not going to engage in torture.

That is a hypothetical question that would involve an analysis of a great number of factors.

I agree with LiberalOasis that this answer is completely unacceptable. Gonzales is deliberately evading and fuzzing over and obscuring a very simple and important question. Does the President have the authority to override the Geneva Conventions at any time, under any circumstances, for any reason? Being a progressive of course, my answer is NO, the President does not, never did and (God willing) never will have any such authority and anyone who says he does, did or will is, by definistion, in favor of torture.

New estimate on size of Iraqi Resistance

The head of the American-sponsored Iraqi intelligence service estimates that the resistance numbers over 200,000 personnel, 40,000 of whom are full-time front-line fighters, the rest of whom perform service functions, lookouts, supplies, reconnaissance, etc.
The one and only superiority US forces have is in technology. US aircraft provide tactical support, but a guerrilla war is fought on a close-up basis and is heavily dependent on infantry. With morale less than superb, it's a mystery how US forces are still in command anywhere.

Tsunami relief - where one can contribute

DONATIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE TSUNAMI DISASTER MAY BE GIVEN TO

AFSC is mounting a full-scale response to the disaster. Grants from the AFSC Crisis Fund are being wired immediately to the Society for Health, Education and Environment for Peace (SHEEP) a local Indonesian organization and to the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) for relief work that has already begun in Indonesia with staff on the ground.

A delegation of medical personnel sponsored by AFSC & the Society for Health, Education & Environment for Peace (SHEEP) is traveling to Indonesia's remote Aceh Province. This group of Indonesian medical professionals will be relieving a team that left for the region on the 27th.

An AFSC assessment team, in partnership with MCC, is preparing to leave for Indonesia where work will build on AFSC's more than 30 years of experience in that country.

Go to AFSC.ORG for more information. You can give online using a credit card. You can give by phone also using a credit card; call toll-free:1-888-588-2372. And, you can give by mail by sending a contribution to: AFSC Development , 1501 Cherry St., Philadelphia, PA 19102.

[To give Material Donations and find Volunteer Opportunities contact: Center for International Disaster Information Website: www.cidi.org. Hotline number: 703-276-1914.]

Oxfam's Asia Earthquake Fund today.
https://secure.ga3.org/02/asia_earthquake04/nJ71MMGE1hXq-

-- American Jewish World Service
45 W. 36th St., 10th Floor
New York, NY 10018
(800) 889-7146
www.ajws.org

-- Catholic Relief Services
P.O. Box 17090
Baltimore, MD 21203-7090
(800) 736-3467
www.catholicrelief.org

-- Doctors Without Borders/ Medecins Sans Frontieres
P.O. Box 2247
New York, NY 10116-2247
(888) 392-0392
www.doctorswithoutborders.org <>

-- International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
P.O. Box 372
CH-1211 Geneva 19
Switzerland
41-22-730-4222
www.bayarea-redcross.org <>

This overwhelming crisis of need once again shows us that we must direct our world towards life and away from the enormous waste of human energy and resources on war and national divisions."

.......Mary Day Kent, WILPF, Executive Director

CIA hiding evidence on interrogations

The CIA allegedly oversaw interrogations of top-level detainees, and some investigators think the agency's tactics are at the heart of the question of whether the Bush administration has authorized torture.

The CIA is refusing to disclose any information about abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Juan Cole points out that a Gallup poll taken in August 2003 and then again in April 2004 and involving 3000 face-to-face interviews, showed a disastrously steep decline in Iraqi support for the American occupation.

On Balance, do you think of the Americans mostly as Occupiers or Liberators?

August 2003 Liberators 43%
April 2004 Liberators 19%

It's difficult to overstate the importance of this finding. The Bush Administration is counting on Iraqis to fill in the gaps caused by the shortage of American troops (Not enough sent in the first place and steep drops in recruitment) fighting in Iraq. As the number of Iraqi supporters of the occupation shrinks, so too does the pool of people available to recruit from. As it is, a blogger describes a guerrilla attack and mentions the resistance: "Oh yeah, they don't use masks. Only the people fighting for the Americans do." An Iraqi translator designated to be the native face at a US military checkpoint also hides himself. US programs to get all it's Humvees armored do not apply to Iraqis, who use old jeeps and AK-47s. There are no plans on the boards to re-equip Iraqis who work with the occupation.

UPDATE: The percentage of Iraqis who consider US soldiers as "occupiers": 92%

It's probably a waste of time to write either the CIA or the President, but it might be a good idea to write or call your Senators or Representative and to demand that the CIA turn over everything it has on detainee abuse yesterday!!!

Let us not forget...

I've commented a lot recently on how our military has messed up to the extreme detriment of American military people. I've never forgotten about the other side in this, but just to make it ultra-crystal clear:

In all of this, please remember that although for the American public, the deaths of their countrymen and countrywomen obviously hit close to home, it is the Iraqi public that is really suffering. The twin attacks in Karbala and Najaf two days killed more than 70. and literally hundreds of Iraqis die every week month in violence. The security situation is dire and it’s likely to get worse as the elections approach. There will be many more grieving families in America and Iraq before this is all over.