Edgewise

"Stuck in the middle with Jews..."

Speaking as a Jew, can I say: how classic is it that Iran is responding to those Danish Mohammed-themed cartoons by sponsoring a cartoon contest about the Holocaust? I mean (speaking rhetorically now, but still as a Jew), how did we get caught in the middle here? Couldn't they sponsor a cartoon contest about Hans Christian Andersen?

What do you do...

...when a political party that is pledged to your destruction wins on election day? I don't mean folks who you suspect would get a kick out of your destruction -- like, maybe, if you were destroyed they'd exchange a high-five on the side. But a group that's been actively putting out the positive spin on your non-existence for going on two decades, and following up these words with lethal action....

The news today out of the West Bank and Gaza is that Hamas appears to have won -- not placed strong, but won outright -- in yesterday's Palestinean election. And this is the trick (at least from the West's perspective) with introducing democracy to the angry anti-American/anti-Israeli Arab populations that have been given little reason to become pro-blue jeans. I mean, it sure sounds great on the stump to say that freedom is on the march and all that. But ya know, Adolf and friends had a pretty good election day too. Democracy in action!

I'm not comparing this situation to the Nazis winning in '33. Well, OK, I am. But only in this one sense: it's a stone cold fact that democracy in and of itself doesn't guarantee a country or a government that plays well with others. And when you stop and think about it. I mean really, when you stop. And think about it. Introducing democracy while giving a population all sorts of reasons to hate you and your allies is arguably just plain stupid.

Now I know, I'm wildly oversimplifying here. (1) consensus insta-analysis appears to be that Hamas' victory had more to do with Fatah's rising corruption than with rising anti-American/anti-Israeli sentiment. (2) Hamas actually removed the bit about the destruction of Israel from its manifesto earlier this month. And (3), they haven't launched an attack in the last year. All of which is to the good.

So here's hoping Hamas in power behaves differently than Hamas out of power. Here's hoping they rise to their moment.

Here's hoping.

Update: Ugh. I just heard on the TV that Bibi Netanyahu made a similar point today about Hitler coming to power through democracy. If there's one yahoo I don't want to sound like, it's that jerk. But you know the old saying: "even massive tools are right twice a day." Honestly, I never really understood that. But people have been saying it for a long time now, so it must be true.

Are they lining up Hizbollah for the Syria sequel?

James Wolcott notices (Second Verse, Same as the First) that the Syrian-sponsored, Lebanon-based, Israel-hating Party of God terrorist group is being groomed for supervillain status in the next big middle east blockbuster coming soon to an election season near you.

B said we should have a party of God in this country. We do, I said. They are in power.

Quote of the year

I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat for 23 years and I don't like them now in my own country.

From Ambassador Wilson, in an excellent interview posted on ye olde DailyKos.

The Bush Administration's War on Tsunami

The Bush Administration today announced its new policy: to wipe tsunami from the face of the earth. "We will find the tsunami where they live," said one extremely senior administration official, speaking from an undisclosed vacation hideaway. "And we will smoke them out."

prospects for peace

Interim Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas says the Palestinean's armed uprising has been a mistake and that Palistineans should pursue independence by peaceful means. This is, I'd say, big news.

So I'm reading the Oakland Tribune today...

...and the front page headline sez: "Rush to Fill Void Left by Arafat."

And I'm sorry, but I just don't think he's up to the job. I just don't.

If Kerry had been president, Saddam would still be in power

Then again, if Bush had been president, Osama would still be at large.

The "Ties" That Blind

AFP The White House insisted there were 'ties' that linked the former regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to the Al-Qaeda terror network.

DKo: Even if there weren't any actual Al-Qaeda-ties, there were certainly Al-Qaeda-ties-related-program-activities. And actual Al-Qaeda ties could have been deployed within 45 minutes.

From the Washington Times, no less

Found this on the redoubtable Buzzflash. Considering the source, Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Washington Times, it's a remarkably cogent summary of the situation. Also a little off-message, especially the bullet point that "the war on terror" is a political fiction - "a misnomer tantamount to rhetorical disinformation." Bleepin' A, Arnie!

Allawi may have been a terrorist

Hey, but at least he was "our" terrorist, kinda. He seems to have played every side of the street, according to a dossier rounded up by Ken Layne. The rundown on Allawi makes Chalabi sound relatively straightforward.

I suppose in the interests of stability, if not democracy, a CIA-installed strongman ruling Iraq does make some kind of sense. Meet the new boss, oh you liberated Iraqis, same as the old boss.

Vietnam not irrelevant to today

I heard from Harry Shearer's Le Show that the U.K. is about to rotate a third of its troops out of Iraq (mostly Basra, I imagine) in a "routine" changing of the guard, and that the 60 civil engineers from New Zealand are leaving soon as
well.

Shearer also mentioned that the Col. Tim Collins, whose exhortation to his men was so widely distributed online, has now retired from the Royal Irish Regiment and is speaking freely about the war in Iraq, saying its about as morally correct as "common assault" and complaining about the lack of a plan to deal with the power vacuum that resulted inevitably from toppling the Ba'ath regime.

Bush has not just recapitulated his father's presidency as farce but has now also rekindled the horrors of imperial overreach ("Vietnam syndrome").

I recall that one of the ways Kerrry beat Weld was in debate, when challenged on his then-blanket opposition to the death penalty, where he said "I know something about killing [or words to that effect]," and went on to suggest the idea that state-sanctioned killing degrades us all.

Swift Boats and Killian memos actually aren't irrelevant to today's adventures in the middle east. The Kerry campaign needs to remind us that Kerry learned from Vietnam not to spawn war for no good reason, and that the right-wing pro-Vietnam war-evaders internalized entirely the wrong lesson and have now done something worse than any of the "Democrat wars" (as Dole so bitterly put it) of the previous century.

This entry appeared in a slight different form originally in the Well's politics conference, called How Will Bush's Bombing of Iran Backfire?.

This blog, too, kills fascists

The Thorn Papers

The gang that couldn't shoot straight

They blew it with the mobile phone monitoring of Osama, they outed Plame, and now they've burned a turned al Qaeda mole (double agent) for short-term political damage control:

Read between the lines, and CNN is suggesting that the outing of Khan has led to greater caution in al-Qaeda and similar groups about using electronic communications, which may make it more difficult to monitor them.

Someone remind me where Bush's remaining advantage over Kerry (prosecution of the war on terror) derives from? Photo ops?

Opportunity costs

This op-ed chart from the NY Times compares how the money spent getting Saddam out of power could have been put to other uses in the war on people who hate our freedom.

When someone asks you if it was worth it getting Saddam out, ask them "compared to what?"

Torturing the Death out of Them: Ours

Al-Qaida detainee recants claims, The New York Times 7/31/04

A senior leader of al-Qaida was the main source for intelligence...that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to members of the organization....

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle, recanted the claims sometime last year, .... about links between Iraq and al-Qaida that involved poisons, gases and other illicit weapons.

Let's make the most charitable assumption about the When-Did-They-Know-It of this recantation, i.e., they still believed his original story at the time they went to war.

Now this was a paradigm case of an ultra-secret interrogation of terrorists that "could save American lives," hence it was an interrogation that would justify use of the "harshest" of methods. And let's suppose our hard-headed realpolitic leaders squared their jaws and used them.

Then what we tortured out of this man not only failed to save lives, it helped cause thousands of deaths in our global-vigilante military adventure.

Americans tortured children at Abu Ghraib

Boing Boing: Evidence for Hersh's claims of child sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib?

This story just gets more and more nauseating. What the fuck were these people thinking?

More fun with statistics: Iraqi death toll

This morning I heard a report on TV - Fox I think, but it could have been CNN, about the mounting death toll in Iraq. The hawk guest quickly noted that Saddam killed an estimated 35 people per day from the time he took control of Iraq. 35 per day! That's a staggering number.

And then I thought, hmm, how many people have died since the beginning of the war? The war started on March 19, 2003 and has been going for 467 days if my math is correct.

Casualties:
Iraqi civilians (estimate): 9451 to 11,333
Iraqi soldiers (estimate): 4,895 to 6,370
U.S. soldiers: 854

This is certainly not a complete list, but for the sake of argument let's assume it is, and let's just look at the Iraqi casualties mentioned here. With that we have the following estimates:

(9451 + 4895)/467 = 30.7 dead Iraqis per day minimum
(6370 + 11,333)/467 = 37.9 dead Iraqis per day maximum

So, to liberate Iraq from a dictator who killed 35 Iraqis per day, on average, our actions have directly or indirectly caused the deaths of 31 to 38 Iraqis per day, on average. In other words, it is basically a statistical wash.

I'm sure Iraqis take comfort in knowing that, though they are dying at the same rate, they are dying for a better cause.

Let freedom reign!

Iraq Is Free! Rejoice!!

Hooray!! Iraq is now a free, sovereign nation! Let me repeat that because it just sounds so sweet...

Iraq is free!!!

What a blessed day! I woke to the news yesterday morning and ran out into the street, heart and bathrobe aflutter, waiting for the throngs to join me in spontaneous celebration...

Hmm. Well, it was early, so maybe the neighbors hadn't heard yet. I went back inside to watch the spontaneous celebrations that the free, democratic Iraqi people clearly must have been enjoying and the news channels must have been broadcasting...

Well, maybe al Jazeera is suppressing it or something. Anyway, you all must be as totally PSYCHED as I am that Iraq is now free and sovereign!

Three cheers for the newly Democratic, Sovereign, Iraq!

Hip hip....hooray!!!!!
Hip hip....hooray!!!!!
Hip hip....hooray!!!!!

IRAQ ROQS!!!!!

C'mon people! What the hell's wrong with you all? This is a glorious day! The beginning of world democracy and the beginning of the end of evil as we know it!!!

Get hyped you bastards!!!!

Oh, forget it.

More than a few bad apples

Is Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page the first mainstream pundit to affix -gate to the word Iraq (No contest: Iraq-gate trumps Monica-gate)?

But, Technically!

In the face of George Bush's "non-denial denials" (Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate term) regarding torture, the British have so far bettered us in calling things by their right names.

Bush sidesteps questions over prisoners' torture, The Financial Times, 6/11/04 (article)
...when asked whether he had authorised the use of aggressive interrogation techniques to fight the war on terrorism, Mr Bush resorted repeatedly to a legalistic formulation: "The authorisation I issued was that anything we did would conform to US laws and would be consistent with international treaty obligations."....

Mr Bush was given several opportunities on Thursday to state his opposition to torture, but instead said that his administration was instructed to stay within the letter of the law....

The phrase consistent with has indeed stood out in a wide range of recent Administration and military statements. That and the phrase treat humanely have been insisted upon repeatedly.

It is sometimes possible to guess the silent rationalizations that are embedded in such angular terminology. Here are my guesses.

Consistent with. Suppose you claim the Geneva Conventions forbid the torture of POWs and of ordinary civilian detainees, but don't really cover terrorists and enemy combatants. And suppose you go ahead and torture the latter two categories. You wouldn't want to say you were following the Geneva Conventions. After all, you were not required to torture them. Still, your torture would be consistent with the Conventions.

Treat humanely. On this one, I can almost hear the Senator rise: "If you allow innocent women and children to die in a terror attack, just because you were a bit too finicky to put pressure on a terrorist, do you call that humane!?"

(One thing I want to reply is: And how many of these hundreds of cases have truly been of that kind? Another is: Well, if it is right, defend it!)

Meanwhile, we don't have much to go on. Hopefully, we will soon discover what they have been thinking to themselves, as they crossed their fingers behind their backs - juvenile mendacity, given flesh and blood to play with.

Reagan, Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War

I feel that someone in this space needs to comment in some way on the Reagan legacy, so I guess I will.

The two biggest things that will linger in memory are clearly the end of the cold war (good) and Iran-Contra (not good). The Cold War ended on his watch, and he certainly deserves some credit for it. Though his bluster concerned many liberals and skeptics, the fact is that he continued the reasonable policy of containment and diplomacy and eventually won the war of attrition. And possibly the bluster helped soften up the enemy, if you will.

But the main reason the Cold War ended was that Mikhael Gorbachev came to power on the other side, a forward-thinking man who was ready and willing to make a change. He represented a new generation of Russians who cared more about personal liberty than holding together an empire, and dared to begin the shift away from the command economy and back into the free market. Reagan was smart enough to realize this, work with him, and wait it out. For that, and his charm and aura that, like it or not, he had, I give the man credit.

On a personal note, I was in the Soviet Union on a student study program when Chernenko (Andropov? I keep forgetting which forgettable term came last) died and Gorbachev came to power. The fact that they didn't prop up another old cold warrior really generated some positive feelings. It was also one of the rare times in my life I found myself defending Reagan, over the "Bonzo Goes to Bitburg" fiasco. I fielded a number of questions from concerned Russians and other European students, and my take was basically, no, I'm sure he isn't a Nazi sympathizer - it must have just been a public relations blunder. Can't say I ever learned for sure what happened there.

So here's to President Reagan, a man who helped end the cold war. Iran-Contra ... nah, don't feel like going there right now.

I wasn't kidding about the draft

Even in my day (mid '80s) they were taking away financial aid from any (poor) student who wouldn't register for the (don't worry there is no) draft (yet, anyway).

Legislation just sitting there? Why haven't I been reading this on the front page of the Times, or Salon even:

He's right. There is pending legislation in the American House of Representatives and Senate in the form of twin bills - S89 and HR163. These measures (currently approved and sitting in the committee for armed services) project legislation for spring 2005, with the draft to become operational as early as June 15.

There already exists a Selective Service System (SSS). All young Americans are obliged to "register for the draft". It has been a mere formality since conscription was abolished three decades ago, after Vietnam, together with the loathed (and much burned) draft card. SSS will be reactivated imminently. A $28m implementation fund has been added to the SSS budget. The Pentagon is discreetly recruiting for 10,350 draft board officers and 11,070 appeals board members nationwide.

Draft-dodging will be harder than in the 1960s. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "smart border declaration", which, among other things, will prevent conscientious objectors (and cowards) from finding sanctuary across the northern border. There will be no deferment on higher-education grounds. Mexico does not appeal.

Arab conspiracies theories about CIA given huge shot in the arm

It looks like our [new] man in Iraq is publicly tied to the CIA, the US intelligence agency that many Arabs "on the street" reportedly believe secretly engineers all of their humiliations.

Evading Geneva

Orcinus: Ted Olson and Abu Ghraib, a must-read:

[Al Gore's recent speech: "...] These policies were designed and insisted upon by the Bush White House. Indeed, the president's own legal counsel advised him specifically on the subject. [..."]

Many others have zeroed in on this legal advice given to the president as being the real nexus of the problem, the turning point at which the administration descended into the abyss. Most notable has been Eric Muller at Is That Legal?, who hascalled for an investigation into how the Department of Justice's legal team came to give Bush this advice, and the possibility that Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement may have misled the Supreme Court when arguing the matter earlier this year.

The 3-step exit plan

George Saunders has a piece at Slate right now that is devastating in its brutal comedic factuality. This country is so far off track that just stating things plainly reads like near-dada absurdist poetic theatre.

I recommend that you read the whole article, Exit Strategy, to get the full impact, but I will quote the steps, just to give you an idea of the plain speaking I refer to:

1. Kill all the ones who are trying to kill us, in such a way that none of those who presently do not want to kill us suddenly start wanting to kill us.
2. At the moment of the death of the last person who wanted to kill us, race quickly out of the country before some additional person suddenly decides he/she wants to kill us, thus necessitating our continued presence in Iraq, in order to kill him/her.
3. Having left Iraq quickly, do not look back, so as not to witness individuals claiming they would have liked to kill us, which would then necessitate a return to Iraq, in order to etc., etc. (See No. 2, above.)

(via MichaelZ)

Abu Whaa???

How do you pronounce "Abu Ghraib"? I've heard a few different variations. I use a long "A," as in the word "brake." Regardless of what is most correct, anyone who has discussed the prison abuses there has by now settled on a way to say it.

So why was the President still trying to figure it out in the middle of his nationally televised speech the other day? This may seem nit-picky, but if you think about it, it's yet another disturbing indication of how frighteningly detatched this president seems to be.

Salon referenced the audio and if I find the URL I'll append it later. But I heard it live, and I was amazed to hear him stumble over it. It was not an inadvertent stumble or spoonerism or using the wrong word, which can happen to anybody. The man was trying to sound it out on the fly!

How can this be the biggest issue of the last few weeks and possibly the biggest embarrassment of his administration to date, helping to drag his approval rating to an all-time low with an election looming, and the guy still hasn't even spoken the words "Abu Ghraib" enough to feel comfortable saying it? We already know he doesn't like to read. But doesn't he even like to speak about the issues? You know, like with his advisors? Or hadn't he heard the phrase hundreds of times before giving his speech? Or didn't he at least run through the speech once and find the offending term and bother to ask someone, 'Hey, what's this here Ay-boo Gr.. Gray-ib thingie here?"

Is the guy really that detatched, or just really lazy, or what? I repeat for emphasis: the President of the United States of America was sounding out "Abu Ghraib" as if for the first time in a live speech to the world after everything that has happened. What reasonable explanation could there possibly be for this?

Sheriff Woody Reaches Out to the Iraqi People

"Iraqis will write their own history and find their own way. As they do, Iraqis can be certain a free Iraq will always have a friend in the United States of America."

- President Bush, May 25, 2004

I'm reminded of Robin Williams years ago describing doing an impersonation of then-President Bush, Sr., saying you just do John Wayne and tighten your ass. Well, here's his offspring, President Woody, singing as he rides off into his make-believe sunset.

By the way, has anybody yet commented on the irony that "stay the course" has become the desperate mantra of both Presidents Bush? I call dibs on it for the title of my book on the tragic legacy of the Bush family dynasty!

Exit strategy theory

Here's an interesting theory about how the Bush folks may be planning to cut and run extract our forces from Iraq. We hand over sovereignty, the new government asks us to leave, we say "You didn't say 'Simon Says'," they say it, and we leave.

International Day of Protests Against War and Racism

APRIL 20

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PROTEST AGAINST WAR & RACISM



On March 4 and 5, activists from the U.S. took

International A.N.S.W.E.R.'s call for April 20 to be

an International Day of Protest Against War & Racism

to the Second International Encounter in Solidarity

and for Peace in Colombia and Latin America in Mexico

City.  This call was met with an overwhelmingly

positive response, and as a result, demonstrations for

April 20 are now planned in:

Tabasco, Oaxaca, and Mexico City, Mexico

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

San Salvador, El Salvador

Santiago, Chile

Managua, Nicaragua

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Basque Country

Madrid, Spain

Montréal, Canada

Demonstrations in other cities in Latin America are

currently in the planning stages.

Also, anti-war activists in Japan are planning an

Arpil 20 demonstration at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.

Last November, these activists pledged to take action

in conjunction with all Internatioanl A.N.S.W.E.R.

calls to action.

In the United States, organizing centers in nearly 100

cities around the country are mobilizing for the

National March Against War & Racism at the White House

in Washington DC and for the West Coast march in San

Fracisco.

FOLLOWING IS A.N.S.W.E.R.'S CALL FOR THE

APRIL 20

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PROTEST AGAINST WAR & RACISM

Saturday, April 20, 2002, will be an International Day

of Protest Against War and Racism. Demonstrations are

planned on that day in a growing list of cities and

countries around the world. The need for international

solidarity against the extremely menacing and

expanding U.S. war drive has never been greater.

The International A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition calls on

organizations in as many countries as possible to hold

demonstrations on April 20. We stand at a critical

moment.

U.S and British military forces are continuing the war

in Afghanistan -- a war that is far from over. In

recent weeks the U.S. has dispatched troops to the

Philippines, Yemen and the Republic of Georgia, and

announced plans to step up military intervention in

Colombia and Peru.

The U.S./Israeli war against the Palestinian people,

who are courageously and determinedly resisting

overwhelming force.

A new U.S. assault on Iraq -- a country devastated by

more than 11 years of bombing and blockade -- is no

longer a matter of if but when according to the Bush

administration war planners.

New plans for nuclear war against seven countries,

five of them non-nuclear powers, has been sent to

Congress by the Pentagon. These plans defy

international law, international treaties and the most

elemental of human rights.

To fund their maniacal military plans, the Bush

administration is calling for the Pentagon budget to

be increased to a half-trillion ($500,000,000,000) by

2007, more than the combined military spending of all

other countries on the planet!

The Bush program threatens all of humanity. It must be

stopped, and the only force that change this dangerous

course is the global people's movement.

The International A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition urges all

anti-war, labor, women, student and other progressive

organizations to hold anti-war and anti-racism

protests on April 20. Please contact by email at

ANSWER@afgj.org or visit the website at

http://www.internationalanswer.org to let us know

about your plans and for more information.

International A.N.S.W.E.R.

Act Now to Stop War & End Racism