Wed. August 31, 2005
Get Real
It's late, I'm tired and I just finished watching an incredibly well done and riveting documentary on al Qaeda and 9/11 by National Geographic. And then I read this:
Bush Calls Iraq War Moral Equivalent Of Allies' WWII Fight Against the Axis. Of all the gall. Comparing the bunch of rag-tag guerillas that has the U.S. paralyzed in Iraq to the fascists and authoritarians of 1940s Germany, Japan and Italy is sophistry. "The Greatest Generation" knew what they were fighting for and knew it was right. Today, we don't know who we are fighting and we are "right" only in that we are acting as a pseudo-benevolent occupation force.
Remember that Bush vowed on 9/11 that he would hunt down those responsible and kill them. Osama bin Laden is still out there, and since 9/11 we've witnessed Madrid, London and scores of other major al Qaeda terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is growing more opium than ever before and Iraq has become a new rallying call for Islamic jihad against Western "infidels."
If Bush had any real courage, he would have nuked Islamabad when he had the chance. But then, throughout American history, it's been Democrats who fight wars, and Republicans who talk but don't walk. Get real, George; you cannot make history by wishing this were World War II. It's a different time, and a different war. The problem is, Iraq is the wrong war. We should be fighting terrorists, but instead we are just sowing the seeds for inevitably more terrorism against all of Western civilization.
Wed. May 4, 2005
The Second Front
Now Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, says in a classified report that the U.S. military's current commitments overseas may prevent it from adequately fighting future conflicts. Duh! Waging war on two fronts simultaneously has doomed armies from Napoleon to Hitler, so why should the United States be any different? Maybe the neocons running defense policy in the Bush Administration should have thought of this before embarking on the current, nation-building occupation of Iraq. At least Myers is honest. He's the one who admitted last week that the insurgency in Iraq hasn't lessened at all in the past year.
Wed. April 27, 2005
One Step Forwards, Two Steps Back
The insurgency in Iraq is "about where it was a year ago," in terms of attacks, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday, but he also asserted that American and Iraqi troops are "gaining ground" in the two-year-old conflict. Yeah, right (not). It was a quagmire two years ago and is worse now. $300 billion and counting (it was only $150 billion last September) and we're not out yet. "Shock and awe" has been transformed into long lines of flag-draped coffins, pictures suppressed by the military in order to avoid letting the American people know the real price of this occupation.
I am all for spreading democracy and freedom, and am overjoyed that America is finally -- after many decades of Machievallian foreign policy -- fighting against fascism and tyranny. But in Iraq we're engaged, pure and simple, in nation-building to protect the human rights of people who bascially either hate or are indifferent to us. Who cares? Let them rot in the desert. We knocked off Saddam Hussein -- a very good thing -- so let's get the hell out of there, leave Iraq to the Iraqis, and go after the real "Axis of Evil" in the world. How about Al Qaeda, you morons!!
Thu. April 21, 2005
The Rules of War In Occupation?
The Department of Defense is prosecuting a Marine Lieutenant, Ilario Pantano, for murder arising out of the shooting death, at an Iraq checkpoint, of two suspected "insurgents." Allegedly, Pantano ordered other troops to remove the suspects' handcuffs and look away, and then shot the pair in the back, vandalized their vehicle and hung a sign over their corpses bearing a Marine slogan: "No better friend, no worse enemy."
Pantano protests that it's impossible to differentiate between innocent civilians and potential terrorists in the environment of "post-war" Iraq. The problem, here, hoewver, is that both sides are at least partially right. As the 1968 Mi Lai scandal in Vietnam shows, a civilized society must have rules of behavior even in warfare. But the situation in Iraq is poised precariously between war and police-state security. More than 1,700 of our troops have been killed, the majority in car bombs and other "IED" attacks, after "major combat operations" ended in May 2003. How in hell are these young men supposed to know who the bad guys are? Isn't this just second-guessing combat decisions made in the fog of war? Genocide is one thing, but in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, this prosecution strikes me as one making a scapegoat of a solitary solider in order to offer a patina of legitimacy to the atrocious inhumanity of what's really going on over there.
America decided long ago that we could not be the "world's policemen." Now the miltary is doing just that in Iraq. The "rules of engagement" need to be changed, fundamentally, so the troops can defend themselves and do their jobs without being blown up by rag-heads whose idealogy is to kill Westerners, not matter why, just because they are not Muslims. As long as America remains an occupying power in Iraq -- which is what we are in reality -- this problem will not go away by itself. Even worse, Pantano gave up a lucrative career as a New York investment banker to enlist in the Marines to defend this country. He deserves better thanks than a trumped-up murder prosecution.
Sat. February 19, 2005
The Great Flip-Flopper
In a Newsweek opinion essay titled Hail to the Flip-Flopper, Fareed Zakaria writes that George W. Bush should be commended for not "staying the course" in Iraq.
Well Zakaria's right, of course. But it would be very helpful -- and certainly honest -- for the President to admit that the original Iraq war plan was a failure and that he's been forced to change his tune to accomodate reality on the ground. That's a sure sign of leadership. Pretending nothing's changed, when everything has, is just flip-flopping. Bush does it as good as any other cynical politician; his vaunted religious pieties and cowboy determination are all just for show.
Sun. February 13, 2005
Ah, THAT Leftist Europe
If folks in the EU are so rabidly anti-American as conservatives like to claim, what's this all about? Germany Rejects Call for Rumsfeld War Crimes Probe [Yahoo!News.com]. Seems like solidarity rather than confrontation and support rather than criticism. Even now-Attorney General Gonzales was worried in 2002 about potential war crimes charges against the Administration. That was never politically possible even in "leftist" Europe, as Germany's actions demonstrate quite clearly.
Thu. February 10, 2005
This is Torture?
Like many Americans, I was shocked and revolted by last Spring's revelations that detainees at the US-run prison in Abu Ghraib, Iraq were subjected to attacks by dogs, naked human pyramids and other degradations. But this takes things too far, the wrong way. The Washington Post, in a front-page article titled Detainees Accuse Female Interrogators, reported yesterday that some detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were "abused" because "women rubbed their bodies against the men, wore skimpy clothes in front of them, made sexually explicit remarks and touched them provocatively." That's not torture and it's not anything like the sort of brutality outlawed by the Geneva Convention (which the Administration refuses to apply to Iraq).
Now we all know that sexual values and mores in Muslim countries are more restrictive than in America and most Western democracies. But still, using sex to entice men to talk is the oldest game in the book of espionage. And any man, Muslim or not, who would complain that some women rubbed their bodies provocatively while wearing skimpy clothing is just out of his mind. (We can leave aside the 72 virgins that Muslim martyrs are supposed to receive in heaven -- what are they for if not sex?) I mean, this is something for which most men would LOVE to be on the receiving end. Reminds me more of the way in which the Army won the Iraq war in the first three weeks. They used bullhorns to announce loudly in contested areas that Iraqi men had small penises and could not satisfy their women. So the stupid Iraqi soildiers were so angry they stormed out of their foxholes and got machine-gunned to death instantly.
They can't have it both ways. Either Muslim men are defiantly proud of their sexual prowess, in which case provocative body rubbing by sexy girls should be no big deal, or they are sexually deficient, in which case the provocation here was as offensive as Ginger Lynn accosting a bunch of gay men. Whatever, but if this is torture, send me to Iraq!!
Sat. January 29, 2005
Fair & Balanced?
Carl Frank at No Oil for Pacifists has, once again, used me as his whipping boy, this time suggesting that I am some sort of lefty pacifist who is opposed to the U.S. using military force against terrorists.
Frank says I wrote him that "I don't 'resent' Bush, I just think it's ironic that a war started to stop an imminent threat that turned out not to be imminent." NO! Carl has disingenuously ommitted the most important part of my emailed comment, without even including an elipses.... Here's what I actually wrote:
Anyone who could just edit out all the stuff after the first dash is obviously not interested in a balanced or fair discussion of the issue. And any conservative who doesn't face up to the fact that the present rationale for the Iraq war -- making Iraq safe for democracy and to save Iraqis from Saddam's oppression -- is an ultra-liberal, leftist justification (Wilsonian foreign policy at its worst) is either self-deluding or just hypocritical. Without WMDs, the only reason for this war is "human rights," Jimmy Carter's albatross. Running away from accountability while presenting a shifting, neo-Wilsonian idealization of a war that started as a way to disarm a dictator who was said to have nukes pointed at Jerusalem and dirty bombs ready for explosion in New York is worse flip-flopping even than the greatest flip-flopper of them all, John Kerry.
Lest one think this is just another liberal or elitist Democrat talking (I am neither by the way), here's what George F. Will -- certainly not a liberal, leftist or even a Democrat -- says:
Duh. Will characterized the Bush doctrine of democratic nation-building as "the stunningly anticonservative idea animating the administration's foreign policy." Bush won't say "human rights" because it would expose him as a foreign policy liberal. His inauguration address was straight from John Kennedy in 1961, i.e., "bear any burden, pay any price . . . to ensure the survival of liberty" around the world. And to make matters worse, the day after the inauguration, the Administration immediately backtracked, using anonymous "sources" to announce that the speech did not mean what it said, that America would not intervene militarily in other nations to free people from tyranny and oppression.
Bush wants it both ways and so does his lapdog Frank. But reality has a way of intruding on idealism, which is what we have here. There needs to be an asterisk after the inauguration speech's stirring rehtoric about defense of freedom and liberty, namely "unless your country has lots of oil (e.g., Saudi Arabia) or supports the U.S. in the war on terrorism (e.g., Russia, Pakistan)." The rest of the world has long thought that American foreign policy was hypocritical because for decades this country supported dictators and repressive regimes out of Kissingerian realpolitik concerns. That caused the Iranian revolution in 1978 which started the whole Shiite Muslim backlash against America and the West.
Now we're finally at least fighting one war on the side of the oppressed, but our government is still caught in the same hypocritical trap. Putin and Musharef are oppressive, anti-democratic depots -- no need even to mention the House of Saud -- yet we support them without even a word of criticism. Oppressed people in other nations will rightly look at this, once again, as cynical, in turn devaluaing American ideals and the strength of our foreign policy. As Jonathan Alter observed, calling the liberty justification "a suspiciously convenient, third-string rationale for war:"
But Bush prefers Ronald Reagan to Wilson as an exemplar, which begins to explain where his vision falls short. Reagan wasn't much interested in promoting democracy except as a weapon to destroy the Soviet Union from within. All over the world, dictators like Saddam Hussein cheered his election. Reaganism was effective and inspiring but also hypocritical -- the kind of ersatz idealism that apparently allows Bush to press for democracy in every Middle Eastern country except the ones that sell us oil or help us fight terrorism. That's a rather long list.
Two more things. First, Frank implies that I am opposed to preemptive war and American unilateralism. Not true. As I blogged 18 months ago, well before the 2004 presidential race even really began, "Unilateralism is one thing -- something I most definitely can approve of -- but ginning up fake rationales is quite another." Second, Frank ends his ranting post with this admonition to me: "My recommendation, Glenn: courage" (which he links to a Wikipedia entry on Dan Rather, whom I have always detested). Well, that was also the name of Walter Cronkite's sailboat (his old one, before retirement). The same Cronkite, liberal and all, who by coming out against Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam war changed the course of history. And it's the heart of JFK's book Profiles in Courage, from another liberal Democrat. So yes, Carl, "courage" indeed. Like the president you admire so much, you too are a closet liberal.
Oh, and my 13-year old son says "Don't mess with my dad." He's bigger than you, Carl (in so many ways, including character), so watch out!
Wed. January 26, 2005
Liberal Bias or Alzheimer's?
Conservatives and Republicans love to rant about the supposed "liberal bias" in America media. I think it's the opposite -- that the right has so intimidated journalists that they afraid to do real reporting and point out the obvious.
Take today's story in the Washington Post about the President's new budget, which includes a record $427 billion deficit. A big part of that is another $80 billion for the Iraq war, bringing the total from 2003-2005 to $277 billion. "That $80 billion would come on top of $25 billion already appropriated for the war this year, pushing the total cost of fighting to $105 billion, up from $88 billion in 2004 and $78.6 billion in 2003." Record '05 Deficit Forecast.
That's not so bad. What is astounding, however, is that nowhere in the news story or the commentary does the Post point out that in the 2004 election debates, Bush-Cheney excoriated the Kerry-Edwards ticket for saying that the war would cost "$200 million." VP Cheney roundly chastized Edwards on October 5, 2004:
CHENEY: Well, Gwen . . . [w]ith respect to the cost, it wasn't $200 billion. You probably weren't there to vote for that. But $120 billion is, in fact, what has been allocated to Iraq. The rest of it's for Afghanistan and the global war on terror. . . . So your facts are just wrong, Senator.
Same thing in the last (October 13) presidential debate.
Well, the facts were NOT wrong. The United States spent $166.6 billion on the Iraq war in '03-'04 and is spending another $125 billion this year. That's way more than $200 billion, but no one in the "liberal" media has the cohones or gray matter to point it out. They're not biased liberals, they're forgetful cowards.
Fri. November 5, 2004
Reliving the '60s
I've been convinced for a while that the neocons who dreamed up what has turned into a fiasco in Iraq -- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice and that entire crowd -- really want to refight the Vietnam War and the counterculture of the 1960s. Well, they lost then and simply can't turn back the clock. While Hugh Hewitt of the Weekly Standard essentially concedes that the real fight in this election was about the '60s, his contention that Kerry's defeat "ends" the '60s is just whacko.
The End of the Sixties. Sorry, Hugh. The '60s ended with Watergate and Nixon's resignation. Those "mistakes" of 1974 and 1975 were the very victory of the left that you still can't accept. The mistakes made then were by the establishment, not the anti-war movement. The counterculture won and Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rice missed out. They never grew their hair long, supported one president (Nixon) who broke the constitution and another (Ford) who couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time, and now are doing it again.
So for 150,000 votes in a few counties in Ohio we've got to put up with this pious, contemptuous revisiontist history? Bullshit! To all those conservatives who still refuse to admit defeat in the '60s, I say get over it. You won Tuesday, fair and square, but only Chairman Mao could change history. America ain't Red China and thank God for that!!
Fri. October 15, 2004
Pablum Politics
I generally detest George Will, politically and for his obsession with baseball, but he can be surprising. A Lethal Idea Still Lives [MSNBC].
So here we are, in the final stretch of the campign, post-debates, and prominent Reagan-era conservatives have had it both with George Bush and with the pablum dished out in American politics today. Will says that more forces were and are needed in Iraq if the task can hope to be accomplished. "How do the administration's nation-builders think elections are going to be held in this maelstrom." Yet he correctly observes that:
Who believes there are now fewer terrorists in the world than there were three years ago? The administration should be judged as it wants to be judged, by its performance regarding the issue it says should decide the election -- national security. However, the opposition party is presenting an appallingly flaccid opposition.
According to WIll, Kerry "seems incapable of mounting what the nation needs -- a root-and-branch critique of the stunningly anticonservative idea animating the administration's policy." This is scary. Not just because there are so many people in our politically polarized country who like Stepford citizens are hypnotized by the caricatures of policy presented by the candidates, but also that Will and I agree -- a pox on both their houses.
Neither the Democrats nor Republicans have any integrity on the most fundamental issues facing the country, So we're stuck either with a second Bush term in which arrogant idealogs run amok with our foreign policy, making the United States more hated in the world than at any time since "The Ugly American," or a Kerry administration that has over-promised and lacks the courage to execute the dramatic policy reversals necessary to extricate America from the quagmire of Iraq and smash terrorism, rather than catalyze it. This is not a choice, it's a tragedy.
Thu. October 7, 2004
We Don't Need No WMDs
Well this just proves not only that the Bush Administration never accepts responsibility for its mistakes, but refuses even to acknowledge when it screws up. Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs [YahooNews.com]. As I've blogged previously, without weapons of mass destruction, the only reason to go to war in Iraq was to topple Saddam Hussein because he was a tyrant -- to protect the human rights of Iraquis. That's the most liberal rationale for war imaginable, even if the whole notion of "nation building" (which is what the United States is indeed engaged in in Iraq these days) had not been so firmly rejected by George W. before the 2000 elections.
The President likes to say that "9/11 shanged everything." Yes, it did. But one thing it did not change is that using American military power to build democracy in the Third World is both quixotic and short-sighted. Liberty is only gained by revolution. Revolution has to come from within, not abroad. If the American Revolution were to have been imposed by the French -- George Washington's ally during the Reolutionary War -- there would be no America today. One only says "give me liberty or give me death" if one is fighting for one's own liberty. Foreigners cannot create liberty at the point of a gun.
Fri. October 1, 2004
The Great Debate
I am not going to wade into the raging debate over the first Presidential Debate of 2004 last night, but it is illuminating that even my 13-year old son thought President Bush sounded "lame" when protesting that John Kerry forgot about Poland as part of the "coalition" fighting in Iraq. This is going to make some great late-night TV fodder.
Wed. September 29, 2004
The Costs of War
For years near Madison Square Garden in New York there was a large, digital billboard showing the size (increasing) of America's national debt. Now the liberal Center for American Progress has done the same thing for the War in Iraq, with an Internet billboard showing the costs of the war, dubbed "Project Billboard." It's well worth a look. As of this post, $140.7 billion and rising. (They've put up a real-world billboard in Times Square, but it sadly doesn't have the digital cost figures.)
Fri. September 3, 2004
Straight Talk Express
"Straight Talk Express" was the name of John McCain's campaign bus during the 2000 Republican primaries. He's known as a straight-shooter. And now McCain has proved it again.
When asked this week on CNN how long the U.S. military is likely to remain in Iraq, Senator McCain replied "probably" 10 or 20 years. "That's not so bad," he said, adding, "We've been in Korea for 50 years. We've been in West Germany for 50 years." Heads in the Sand [NYTimes.com].
I don't agree that 10-20 years in Iraq is a good thing, but McCain's continually refreshing candor certainly is.
Sun. August 29, 2004
The Buck Stops At the Top
The Bush Administration has long claimed that the embarassing and internationally harmful abuse of detainees in Iraq by the U.S. Army resulted from a few low-level and over-enthusiastic enlisted personnel. But Long Island's Newsday, hardly a bastion of liberalism, editorialized today about the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, laying out the case for why the Bushies are just plain wrong.
But responsibility goes farther up the line than that: All the way to President George W. Bush.
"The abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline," the Schlesinger panel said. "There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels." Actually, at the highest level
Bush set the stage for abuse in February 2002 when he declared that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al Qaeda prisoners and the Taliban were unlawful combatants unqualified for prisoner of war status. "When the man at the top says the rules don't apply, abusive excesses are a predictable result," says Newsday. The conclusion is unremarkable. What is striking is that, once again, no one in the White House or the Pentagon will admit to mistakes or accept responsibility.
In other cultures, government officials would have resigned immediately, perhaps even comitted hari kari. But not in the Bush Administration. No nothing, hear nothing, see nothing for these leaders. Rumsfeld even denies that there were any abuses during interrogations. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution concludes that "Rumsfeld refuses to admit it, but the horrors of Abu Ghraib lead right back to his doorstep." The guy's funny, but he's got to go.
Fri. July 30, 2004
George Will and WMDs
Conservative pundit George Will remarkably writes today that President Bush:
At least Will is rather consistent on this point. In June 2003, just a few months after the fall of Saddam Hussein, we wrote a piece saying that the "doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy" because of the "failure to find or explain the absence of weapons of mass destruction that were the necessary and sufficient justification for preemptive war."
The problem with this analysis, as I have pointed out before (in fact, around the same time that Will first took his stand), is that Bush is in fact arguing that human rights justified the war. Without WMDs and the al Qaeda threat in Iraq, all that is left to justify taking out Saddam is that he was a bad guy. Bush can't utter the words "human rights" because that would concede that his boys ginned up the intelligence to make a fake case for war, that today rests on the leftiest of all liberal justifications.
Tue. July 27, 2004
The Great Farce
There's a superb op-ed piece by Richard Cohen in today's Washington Post. It addresses the sad fact that despite the biggest intelligence failures of our generation -- 9/11 and the total absence of the weapons of mass destruction used to justify the invasion of Iraq -- the Bush Administration has changed little except its rhetoric.
Cohen observes that Pres. Bush said recently he wants to move "quickly" to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations (even though he opposed it's creation), while he could have done all of this stuff already. So "it takes a New York kind of chutzpah for Bush to suddenly announce he will do what he has put off doing for lo these past three years. In that time the president steadfastly stood by his team of jolly incompetents," like George Tenet at CIA, who was kept on "even after he had assured Bush that it was a 'slam-dunk' that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction."
The best part is his conclusion. Cohen writes, from the Democratic National Convention in Boston:
Touche!
Fri. June 18, 2004
Playing in Peoria
Today the Cincinnati Post editorialized against Dick Cheney's claim -- contradicted by the 9/11 Commission -- that Iraq was working with Al Qaeda before the war.
If the Bush line won't play in Cincinnati, America's heartland, it won't play anywhere. The President's answer is "[t]he reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." Gee, that explains everything.
Thu. June 17, 2004
Schoolyard Bully
An even better analysis of the failure of the Bush Administration's Iraq policies comes from Joe Klein of Time Magaine, who wrote on May 29:
The truth is, we are in full-scale retreat, both politically and militarily. Bush believes that Iraq is the front line in the war on terrorism, but his Administration just declared a truce with the men he thinks of as terrorists and is now turning security over to local militias. "Stay the course" really means "run away."
Why Bush Has Failed Even Conservatives
Readers of his blog will notice that in the 15 months since the Bush Administration took the "War on Terrorism" to Iraq, my views have changed, roughly in proportion to the failure of proof of any of the real, near-term justifications -- WMDs, chem-bio weapons, harboring Al Qaeda, etc. -- for launching a preemptive invasion in the first place. I am certainly not alone in this position. Andrew Sullivan, host of Deep Dish, has this to say:
Right on, Andrew; you are not alone. If America is going to act unilaterally, we've got to be sure that the target is a "clear and present" danger not only to our own security interests, but those of the world in general. All that the War in Iraq has done is to squander the good will engendered by 9/11, provide a breeding ground for terrorism and make a mockery of American resolve by the equivocating and back-sliding on unilateralism itself.
There may not be a next time, but if there is America needs to act right, act fast and not overplay its hand. The Bushies were so intent on taking out Saddam Hussein that they broke all of these elementary rules. The irony is that Bush will probably win against John Kerry, if only because Kerry himself projects the same equivocation that Bush now epitomizes. So if the choice is between two wafflers, why should anyone really care?
Thu. June 3, 2004
Back-Door Draft?
The Bush Administration has issued an order preventing thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan from leaving the military even when their volunteer service commitment expires. [Reuters.com]. Sounds a lot like a back-door draft and the end of the all-volunteer army.
Mon. May 24, 2004
A Bleak Mood
President Bush is hearing increasingly bleak warnings that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is heading for failure -- from Republican and Democratic members of Congress, current and former officials and even some military officers still on active duty. Iraq Setbacks Change Mood in Washington [LATimes.com]. So what is Dubya going to say tonight? If it's just the same old "stay the course," one's got to wonder who is steering the ship of state in the US these days.
Even more ominously, this same L.A. Times article reports that Republicans themselves are rapidly becoming the most pessimistic, charging that the "neocons" have led the party astray with expansive foreign ambitions.
Nice phrase -- "global social engineering." Illustrates how, without its now-defunct WMD and terrorism rationales, this Administration's only remaining justification for the War in Iraq is far more to the left, and cleary way more liberal, than anything Clinton or his Democtratic predecessors ever did.
Fri. May 21, 2004
Beheading Revulsion
Last weekend I found the video of Islamic terrorists decapitating American Nick Berg on the Internet, and watched it. Two Held Over Berg Beheading [ITV.com]. The video is revolting, but the rest of the world has seen it. Let's hope Islamic law, with rapid, brutal execution by stoning, is applied to these folks accused of the crime. And if not, that the US government finally begins to understand that guerrillas and insurgents fighting against an occupation army will always win in the long run.
Mon. May 17, 2004
War Crimes?
From bad to worse to an unmitigated disaster goes the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. Newsweek now reports that "[t]he White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush Administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue." The memo itself strongly recommended that President Bush exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from the Geneva Convention in order to avoid possible liability for dramatically more agressive interrogation techniques approved by the White House.
The memo -- and strong dissents by Secretary of State Colin Powell and his chief legal advisor, William Howard Taft IV -- are among hundreds of pages of internal Administration documents on the Geneva Convention and related issues that have been obtained by Newsweek and are reported for the first time in this week's issue. So while top White House officials publicly talked about trying Al Qaeda leaders for war crimes, the internal memos show that Administration lawyers were privately concerned that they could tried for war crimes themselves based on actions the Administration was taking, and might have to take in the future, to combat the terrorist threat.
Holy crap, this is dynamite! It blows a whole in Rumsfeld's argument that the Abu Ghraib atrocities were committed by a few individuals without sanction by the Pentagon or White House officials. And the really sad part is that the White House counsel concluded that even if the Geneva Convention was determined not to apply, America would still meet "its committment to treat the detainees humanely" consistent with "miniumum standards of treatment recognized by the nations of the world." Parading captives naked, hooded and with attack dogs nearby is hardly the stuff of "humane treatment," it seems to me.
We've got yet another new scandal, folks. If Clinton could be impeached for lying about a blow job, the same conclusion certainly would hold for Bush and an interrogation policy knowingly in violation of the Geneva Convention. Whether that will happen depends on politics, but it just might.
Sun. May 16, 2004
From Bad to Worse
The president of the Iraqi Governing Council was killed early Monday in a huge explosion set off by a suicide bomber outside the headquarters of the US-led coalition authority. [washingtonpost.com].
This quagmire is getting worse every day.
Mon. May 10, 2004
The End of the Line?
Here's what the Arab media are saying about the shocking abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison:
Sadly they are exactly right. These atrocities have revealed an occupation that is bereft of moral values and one that -- far from representing U.S. ideals -- looks a lot like what America has been fighting against. If the global war on terror is a battle against what President Bush calls "the evil doers," people now have to recognize that the enemy is us.
In other cultures, leading politicans and generals would long ago have resigned out of shame. Yet we're taking the approach of prosecuting a handful of young reservists, thrown into guard duty with no training, without forcing anyone higher up the chain of command to accept responsibility. It's a moral challenge America is failing.
Mon. May 3, 2004
Prisoner Abuse
For all its pissing and moaning over the Geneva Convention when it suited U.S. purposes, it turns out that the Bush Administration has been covering up atrocities like torture, electrocution and sexual abuse inflicted on Iraqi prisoners of war. Headlines like these and and photos like these are filling the Arab media. This is a very bad thing and a very bad time in the world today to be an American.
Fri. April 23, 2004
Photos of Coffins
A Pentagon contractor who captured the somber moment when flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were loaded onto a military transport plane, for the final trip home, has been fired for taking the photographs. U.S. Sanitizes Stain of Death [Toronto Star].
It's bad enough that the government wants Americans to bear the burden of war -- just out of sight, by banning photos of returning bodies -- but to cap it all off DoD released more than 300 coffin photos in a Freedom of Information Act case. So since the photos are already in the public domain, why is Rumsfeld going ape over this one photographer?
Wed. April 14, 2004
Last Man Standing
There have been a lot of political entries in this blog over the past few weeks. And I wrote well before President Bush's news conference last night that someone should stand up and acccept responsibility, Bay of Pigs style, for 9/11 preparation and the failure of pre-Iraq war intelligence.
Yet lest you think I am only a leftie liberal-type, read some of my posts from a year ago concluding that the American military can and should kick ass in Iraq. Things change, but the Vietnam analogy some have used is way, way premature and not helpful. Witness the cartoon below (click to enlarge).
Mon. April 12, 2004
Imminence Defined
Imminence is everything in American politics. President Bush dismissed the August 2001 PDB from his ranch in Crawford, Texas today because "[t]here was nothing there that said, you know, 'There's an imminent attack.'" [CNN.com]. Likewise, six weeks ago CIA director George Tenet defended his agency against charges that its intelligence on Iraqi WMDs was faulty by saying that the CIA never concluded the threat from Saddam Hussein was "imminent."
Of course, most people assume that imminent, as used in these quotes, means "immediate." But the dictionary says that the word has a secondary meaning, namely "full of danger; threatening; menacing; perilous." Both Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein surely meet that definition. So any way one cuts it, the sad fact is that politicians are playing word games with the security of America.
Nothing new there, unfortunately.
Wed. April 7, 2004
Dissent and Regime Change
A top U.S. general in Iraq vowed on Wednesday to "destroy" a Shiite militia led by wanted radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr that has launched a wave of attacks against coalition forces in southern cities. "We will attack to destroy the al-Mahdi Army," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters. "Those attacks will be deliberate, precise and they will be successful." [USAToday.com].
This could be a very serious escalation of the occupation resistance and a terrible long-term blunder. How is it possible to foster democracy in Iraq if the U.S. "destroys" dissenters, especially those who oppose the occupation itself? This is the kind of stuff that gives guerrillas the political advantage. And since insurgents don't need to defeat the occupiers in order to win, how America responds to al-Sadr may well dictate whether we get out of Iraq as scheduled on June 30 and whether the whole thing turns into the sort of quagmire that some have predicted.
Now Rush Limbaugh replies that
Calling an indigenous resistance to foreign occupation -- which is what al-Sadr, a leading Shia cleric, represents -- "terrorists of the world" is precisely the problem. We're lumping all Muslims together and fomenting the very sort of hatred that began so long ago with America's installation by coup d'etat, and long support for, the brutal dictatorship of the Shah of Iran. That blunder, termed by Business Week "regime change that backfired," launched the Iranian revolution of 1979, defeated Jimmy Carter and undermined American international prestige for a decade or more. We're still suffering the consequences.
George Will actually got it right.
So America is the new Napoleonic empire? That's not what I want our country to be, and certainly not how Jefferson, Wilson, Roosevelt (T.R. or Franklin) or even Ronald Reagan believed the U.S. should lead the world.
Tue. April 6, 2004
Screw Pravda
Pravda.ru, the old Soviet mouthpiece, is running an online story titled Exposing Bush the Liar, the Mass Murderer, the War Criminal. There, Timothy Barncoft-Hinchey (a Brit) writes that in Iraq, George Bush "hijacked [his] country, democracy and the world on a murderous ecstasy of assassination and destruction, just because of corporate greed."
What a fertile imagination. While it is true that the Bush Administration has given many Iraqi reconstruction contracts to supportive companies like Haliburton, there's no evidence at all that America started the War in Iraq as a commercial enterprise. Indeed, note that the old Islamist complaint that the West really wants to nationalize arabic oil wealth has proven totally false! And as far as a "mass murderer," come on, whatever the level of civilian casualties, not even the Iraqis are saying that the U.S. has intentionally targeted large civilian populations or committed genocide.
The American political right labels Democrats all the time as soft on defense and not willing to "stand up for America." Well, on these scurrilous Pravda charges, all Americans should agree that we all hang together. The United States may sometimes do bad things internationally, but it does not and has not engaged in anything like the crimes against humanity that Saddam Hussein launched against his own people. Pravda's complaints sound like Adolph Hitler charging that America ran the concentration camps. Something only psychopaths could seriously believe.
Fri. April 2, 2004
Quagmire
We are mired in a savage mess in Iraq, and no one knows how to get out of it. No End in Sight [nytimes.com].
Mon. March 22, 2004
Bush's Blind-Spot on Terror
Dick Clarke, former White House cybersecurity and anti-terrorism czar under both Presidents Clinton and Bush, says in a new book that "Dubya" was obsessed by Saddam Hussein and wanted to respond to 9/11 by going after the Iraqi dictator. Former Terrorism Official Criticizes White House on 9/11 [newyorktimes.com]. This has unleashed a furious counter-attack by the Bushies, led by Condi Rice's fawming op-ed in today's Washington Post, in which -- as a lead-in to some vicious personal attacks on Clarke during the network morning shows -- she pretends that the Bush Administration "quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to 'eliminate' the al Qaeda network. The president wanted more than occasional, retaliatory cruise missile strikes. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'"
This revisionist history from the White House is amazing. We now have two insiders who revealed (consistent with what we know) that Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz always pressed for action against Saddam, arguing -- contrary to the evidence -- that Iraq was a "state sponsor" of al Quaeda, and that the President from the start wanted to take up where his father had failed. How else to explain why a war started ostensibly to "disarm" Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, has found none.
Yes, toppling Saddam was a good thing, because he was a bad man. But it was not and is not a substitute for going after terrorists. Had the Bush Administration devoted as much attention and planning to the 2001 Tora Bora bombing campaign in Afganistan, we might have gotten Osama bin Laden and made a real contribution to the War on Terrorism. Whatever else the Iraq occupation represents, we now know it is NOT helping to reduce the risk of terrorism, and if anything works the other way.
Mon. January 26, 2004
Yes, We Have No WMDs
The chief U.S. weapons-hunter in occupied Iraq, David Kay, now says that "we are very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons. I don't think they exist." Ex-Iraq Arms Hunter Blames Data for Failure [LATimes.com]. So White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan announced in reaction that "Saddam Hussein's regime was a gathering threat, and in a post-Sept. 11 world, we must confront gathering threats before it is too late."
That's well and true. But is it necessary to lie to your own people, and the world, in order to do so? The sad part is that the Bushies would have had the same overwhelming support of Americans -- and the same opposition from the goodie-goodies and pacificsts at the UN and the EU -- had they come straight and not manufactured stories about Saddam's WMD stockpiles. Now, in hindsight, the whole thing is looking very much silly.
It's way too late to argue that imminent threat of WMDs was not the principal justification for the war. That the Bush Administration's continued efforts to try to deny and deflect reality shows only their disdain for real democracy or their underlying hubris -- or maybe both.
Thu. January 15, 2004
You Can't Handle the Truth
Conservatives have had a field day with Ted Kennedy's speech of yesterday, calling him a "gassbag" who cannot handle the truth. "The truth is," according to Angela Phelps of Human Events, that "if any American lived a single day under the former dictator of Iraq, they too would have been screaming for regime change in Iraq."
Duh! No one disagrees with that. But this country has long ago -- read nearly 100 years -- given up on the Wilsonian notion that America can or should remake the world politically in her own image. When the Right argues such blatantly liberal notions as human rights as the basis for new war policies, something really weird is going on. And almost no one seems to notice or care how backwards this all is.
Some have called the Bush Administration's philosophy "democratic imperialism," with a small "d" and an emphasis on the second word. That's the truth. But neo-conservatives can't handle the fact that they have been spouting flamingly liberal doctrine in support of their imperialistic aims, so they just made up the imminent threat of WMDs. That's the truth.
Wed. January 14, 2004
War As a Political Product
In a major speech today, Sen. Ted Kennedy said the Iraq war was a ''political product'' marketed by the Bush administration to win elections. ''The war has made America more hated in the world,'' Kennedy said. ''And it has made our people more vulnerable to attacks both here and overseas.''
I don't think any reasonable person would argue with this. It is also the case, however, that Saddam was a tyrant and deserved to be deposed. But as I have commented previously, without a clear and present danger -- the immediate threat posed by WMDs and bio-terror weapons that Pres. Bush assured America and the world Saddam possessed and was ready to use -- then the only reason to go to war was to protect the human rights of Iraqis. I personally don't think the war can be justified on that basis alone and am convinced that the electorate would opposed the war if it were presented in that correct fashion.
Fri. January 9, 2004
A Trial For Osama
Conservatives have had a great time the past month lambasting Howard Dean for suggesting that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be put on trial and that his guilt should not be presumed. Well, just so happens that President Bush himself said the same thing -- about the tyrant Saddam Hussein -- in a December 15 news conference:
You're not supposed to pre-judge.
QUESTION: Yes. I'm just counting the years.
OK, good.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 should be included, as well as his assassination attempt against former President Bush?
That'll all be decided by the lawyers. And I will instruct this government to make sure the system includes the Iraqi citizens and make sure the process withstands international scrutiny. But we'll let the lawyers handle all that. And, as you know, I'm not a lawyer. And I delegate. And I'm going to delegate this to the legal community which will be reviewing all of this matter.
So, where is the conservative anger when their own man makes the same "slip"? And why has the media not picked up on this, despite the Republican insistence that the media are a bunch of flaming, Democratic-leftie liberals?
Mon. December 15, 2003
It's Not Over
This article by William Rivers Pitt should give pause to any of us who are ready to believe that caputuring Saddam Hussein is going to end Iraqi resistance to the American occupation.
Welcome to the new Iraq. The theme that the 455 Americans killed there, and the thousands of others who have been wounded, fell at the hands of pro-Hussein loyalists is now gone. The Bush administration celebrations over this capture will appear quite silly and premature when the dying continues. Whatever Hussein bitter-enders there are will be joined by Iraqi nationalists who will now see no good reason for American forces to remain. After all, the new rhetoric highlighted the removal of Hussein as the reason for this invasion, and that task has been completed. Yet American forces are not leaving, and will not leave. The killing of our troops will continue because of people like Kashid Ahmad Saleh. All Hussein's capture did for Saleh was remove from the table the idea that he was fighting for the dictator. He is free now, and the war will begin in earnest.
This suggests, as one national Republican politician told me last week, that what we are observing in Iraq may be the start of something new, the rise of a new global movement like Naziism or Communism. If that's right, one must seriously wonder whether the public humiliation of Saddam is helpful or just adds more fuel to the fire.
Not Done With Saddam?
Bill Safire wites today, in an op-ed piece teasingly titled From the "Spider Hole," that we're not done with Saddam Hussein yet.
I think we've seen the end of Saddam. One trial, string him up and close the books on this sorry episode in international human relations. At least I hope we're done with him. And that Saddam's not as smart as Safire.
Dean's A "Class Act"
Yes, even my friends at Right Thinking From the Left Coast say (albeit holding their toungues) that Howard Dean has "class" -- evidenced by his statement yesterday that capturing Saddam was a "great day for the Administration." [Right-Thinking Comments - Klassy Kerry]. Oh yes, John Kerry is "just a vile, disgusting human being."
Sun. December 14, 2003
What Hole Did He Crawl Out Of?
Sunday's papers were filled with stories, like Max Boot (Council of Foreign Relations) in the L.A. Times, talking about how the Bush Administration's many foreign policy mistakes left one wondering what happended to the vaunted Republican "A Team." All-Stars of Team Bush Fall Flat in Iraq.
But with the capture of Saddam Hussein announced just a few hours later -- actually, 7:00 a.m. Eastern time, if one was awake -- the political talk has suddenly all shifted to war crimes trials, crimes against humanity and the like.
Personally, all of this pales in comparison to the wonderful irony surrounding Saddam's capture. Cowering in a hole in the ground, hardly big enough to lie down in, with a pistol and Kalashnikov rifle, Hussein managed not a single shot of resistance. 
Not struggle at all. A haggard, tired and weak old man lamely raising his arms and saying he was "ready to negotiate." Like all of them going back to Napoleon and Hitler, this dictator too proved in the final analysis to be a small man, a coward at heart, concerned more with saving his own skin than fighting. These kinds of men talk big when they're carrying big sticks, but their characters are puny. If only their kind did not so often defile the pages of history.
Wed. December 3, 2003
The Known Unknowns
Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld's aphorism that there are "known unknowns" has won this year's Foot In Mouth award. BBCNews.com The whole bit is worthy of a Saturday Night Live skit:
It's so good I plan to use it in a settlement meeting for one of my litigation cases tomorrow!!
Wed. November 12, 2003
We're Not Popular
A classified CIA report leaked today says that the United States is "losing" popular support among Iraqis. Duh!
Tue. October 28, 2003
The Long Hard Slog in Iraq
Donald Rumsfeld's October 22 memo -- promptly leaked and then defamed by conservatives -- signals a change in view that may be very significant. The memo pointedly calls the prognosis for the War in Iraq a "long, hard slog" and asks whether "we are winning or losing the global 'war on terror.'" As some have observed, it is very much like Robert McNamara's concern in 1967 that the US could not win in Vietnam. Yet McNamara said nothing at the time (the war lasted 8 more years and cost tens of thousands more lives) and only in 1995 admitted that his public certitude was a veneer, that architects of the war policy "were wrong, terribly wrong."
The Bush administration's glittering message of a few months ago "increasingly looks like a dark swamp." And they've got Donald Rumsfeld's clarity and brevity of expression -- coming from what was formerly the Iraq War's biggest champion -- to thank.
Tue. October 14, 2003
Pillow Bombs
The "War on Terror" has already disrupted life for years, but now MSNBC reports that Al Qaeda is fashioning pillows and stuffed animals into explosives to use on airplanes. So now teenagers bringing pillows and toddlers clutching teddy bears are all going to have the stuffing beat out of them -- or at least their plush carry-ons -- literally by TSA when boarding airlines. This stuff is just out of control.
Wed. September 3, 2003
Internationalizing the Iraqi Occupation
So having passed the landmark point at which U.S. military deaths in Iraq after the May 1 end of the war -- the "cessation of major hostilities" -- are more than during the war itself, the Bush Administration is now looking for international and United Nations assistance in the occupation. U.S. Wants Larger U.N. Role in Iraq [washingtonpost.com].
Car bombs, murdered clerics and busted up water systems are making Iraqis mad and Americans dead. It's the first sign of the United States retreat, and all because Bush never thought through what would happen after the war in Iraq was over. Repeat after me: "planning is good."
Mon. July 28, 2003
Sports Over Politics
Lance Armstrong's amazing win of a 5th-straight Tour de France puts him in the ranks of the immortals. Yet it also reveals that sports transcends politics even in these dark days of war and terrorism.
Wed. July 16, 2003
Yes, We Have Guerrillas!
The new general leading the US occupation of Iraq finally admitted yesterday -- despite the Bush Administration's denials -- that America faces a "guerrilla war." General Abizaid explained that the resistance is fighting a "classical guerrilla-style campaign" and that describing the opposition as using "guerrilla tactics" was "proper in strictly military terms."
Thank goodness for straight-talking miltary men!!
Fri. July 11, 2003
A Foreign Policy Liberal?
Terry M. Neal points out in the Washington Post that without the rationale of WMDs, the White House and the President's defenders have reverted to their fall-back humanitarian position -- that the removal of Saddam Hussein was justification enough for the Iraq war. That's a tradionally liberal perspective, souding a lot like the discredited Jimmy Carter "human rights" campaign of the late 1970s. Odd that when pressed to justify the war, Bush reverts to the very liberal ideas he, his father and their mentor Ronald Regan so vehemently oppose on principle.
As Neal concludes, whatever the case, the argument that it is a good thing that Hussein is gone and the argument that the Bush Administration may have lied to or misled the public on the issue of weapons of mass destruction "are not mutually exclusive. Both could be true. And if they are, the former fact won't exonerate the President if the latter is true as well."
Thu. July 10, 2003
Reasons To Believe
America and the Bush Administration are taking a worldwide and much-deserved beating after Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said yesterday that the US "did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder." For instance, the Candian Globe and Mail reports that "US Changes Reason for Invading Iraq." Rumsfeld's comments come on the heels of a White House announcement that a previous assertion that Iraq attempted to buy uranium from Africa was false. President Bush had included the accusation in his January 28 State of the Union address, even though Sec. of State Powell refused one week later to make the same claim to the United Nations.
Since Iraqi WMDs are proving elusive at best, this is certainly not going to help the standing of the United States in the global community. Unilateralism is one thing -- something I most definitely can approve of -- but ginning up fake rationales is quite another. Indeed, conservatives like Dan Pipes have taken things even further than the Administration, arguing that:
Talk about political damage control!! Using a public justification that is different from the hidden internal reason for the Iraq war, and one that is increasingly being shown to be based on false or overstated intelligence, makes the Iraq invasion seem much more like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution -- a deliberate lie that launched the Vietman War -- than the liberation mission it was advertised as to the American people and the world at large.
Mon. July 7, 2003
Guerrillas On Page One
Today's above-the-fold story on the front page of the Washington Post says that recent developments in Iraq "raise the specter of the U.S. occupation force becoming enmeshed in a full-blown guerrilla war." The Administration is clearly in trouble when Donald Rumsfeld's denial that the U.S. is now engaged in guerrilla warfare lasts less than one week.
Thu. July 3, 2003
Bring 'Em On?
President Bush has all but dared the Iraqi resistance to continue its hit-and-run attacks on US troops. "There are some who feel like conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. "My answer is: bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation." [Reuters]
This guy is certifiable. What an absolutely stupid thing to say. First of all, no commander in history has ever just dared the enemy to attack, especially when the enemy uses tactics that make our own troops sitting ducks. Second, as the Vietnam War (and Cuba, Afghanistan, etc.) shows, the guerrillas always win. Their mission is to inflict damage on the occupiers that takes a political toll, not to "win" militarily.
At that, the Iraqi resistance is already succeeding. Current polls show a sharp drop in American support for continued occupation of Iraq in the face of 60 military deaths since Bush declared "major hostilites are over" on May 1. And at the same time, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has tried to deny that Iraq right now is a "guerrilla war."
The Administration is clearly defensive, and rightfully so. They're wrong and they know it. As Tom Lassiter observed for Knight-Ridder, "The Americans learned it the hard way in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan, the British in Northern Ireland and now, it seems, the same scenario may be unfolding in Iraq."
Update: The New York Times on Monday July 7 wrote of the "growing signs of guerrilla resistance to American forces" after three more soldiers were killed in a 12-hour period in Baghdad. (When the Times adopts terminology, you know it's gone mainstream, depsite Rumsfeld's denials.)
Thu. June 12, 2003
With Peace Like This, Who Needs "War"
In just a week, a surge of bloodletting has plunged United States-led peacemaking efforts in the Middle East into turmoil. Meanwhile, post-war Iraq is proving to be every bit as violence-ridden as the war itself, with today's attack on a US Apache helicopter as a prime illustration. So if this is peace, what 's war?
Thu. June 5, 2003
Diving Miss Monica
Seems that in Iraq these days, the most popular vehicle is a Toyota Land Cruiser SUV, which the locals have nicknamed "Monicas," after Monica Lewinsky. [In Iraq, Its Moniker is Monica].
It is indeed tempting to say that this shows the reach of global mass culture. But where many Americans thought the Lewinsky affair was sleazy, Iraquis (or at least the men) see it differently. "We think Clinton was a very lucky man," said Hamid Mustafa, 55, a car trader in Irbil. Mustafa said he was baffled by the political crisis triggered by Bill Clinton's affair with the young intern.
Where Are the WMDs? (Reprise)
Newsweek's lead political story asks, finally, "Where are Iraq's WMDs?" Nowhere is the answer, so far. Bush says the weapons of mass destruction have been found, but all he's got is a few mobile labs without even residue in them. The intelligence community complains it was pressured, but the political bigwigs reply they just wanted "analysis" of the intelligence data. Probably a contradiction in terms. So the Pentagon's top policy adviser held a rare press briefing Wednesday to try to rebut accusations that senior civilian policy makers had politicized intelligence to fit their hawkish views on Iraq and to justify war on Saddam Hussein. Somebody's lying here.
Wed. May 28, 2003
Where Are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told the high-powered Council on Foreign Relations yesterday that Iraq "may have" destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction before the war. [Yahoo! News]. So without WMDs or terrorists harbored in Baghdad, what was the war for?
Ted Koppel remarked last night on Nightline that the rationale for the war is looking increasingly shaky in the absence of proof of WMDs or support for Al Qaeda. And as ABC reported several weeks ago, "To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had a very different reason for war -- a global show of American power and democracy."
The Bush administration is superb at constantly re-defining reality, but at some point the real world will catch up, and catch on!!
Thu. May 15, 2003
Isn't That Special
MSNBC reports that Colin Powell went to Sofia, Bulgaria to "thank Bulgarians for their support on Iraq." America must really must have failed in our efforts to generate international enthusiasm for ousting Saddam Hussein if the Secretary of State makes a special stop in Bulgaria, of all places. With friends like these, no wonder we have so many enemies.
Wed. May 14, 2003
Shooting Iraqi Looters
The new American administrator for postwar Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, announced yesterday that U.S. military troops will be issued revised rules of engagement authorizing execution of looters in Baghdad. New Policy in Iraq to Authorize G.I.'s to Shoot Looters.
A tougher approach over all appears to be at the core of Mr. Bremer's mandate from President Bush to save the victory in Iraq from a descent into anarchy, a possibility feared by some Iraqi political leaders if steps are not taken quickly to check violence and lawlessness. But these guys are making it up as they go along. How can the US come out of this with our interests and reputation enhanced if we cannot deal with the inevitable anarchy that follows the collapse of civilian rule? Seems like the United States government wants to have it both ways -- win the war but stay out of winning the peace. They're either really slow, really dumb or both.
Thu. May 1, 2003
Desperately Seeking Saddam
The title of this BBC News article is too cute to waste. Sorry, it has nothing to do with the real-world search for the deposed dictator in Baghdad. Rather, it's about casting a play in London! [BBC News]
Tue. April 15, 2003
Messing With Their Heads
Right-Thinking Comments - Penile PsyOps. Our friendly conservative on the "Left Coast" cites an interesting MSNBC article titled "The Secret War" which talks about pychological operations directed against Iraqi troops, by broadcasting 400-watt arabic messages from Bradley fighting vehicles saying that Iraqi men are impotent.
Well, if all it takes is a little insult to their dicks, then Iraqis really are dickless wonders. And their former leader either never had a battle plan or is the most inept general in history. It was the battle-that-never-was, defended by soldiers who died from taunting. Like the memorable line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- "Go way or I shall be forced to taunt you once again"!!
Fri. April 11, 2003
The TV War
All War, All The Time. What began as a fascinating experiment in real-time war television turned into a lesson in repetion, drudgery and superficiality. At least until the fall of Baghdad. As New York Times critic Charles McGrath observes:
The Iraq War, in short, was basically a TV bomb!!
Wed. April 9, 2003
Sheer Anarchy
Total control has been replaced by "sheer anarchy" today in Baghdad, which looks very much like the former Soviet Union did in the days surrounding the 1991 collapse of the Politburo. Photos of the masses taking down huge statutes of Saddam Hussein rival those of Lennin's statutes being torn down in Moscow. Perhaps not in hostorical significance, but certainly in emotional appeal. [washingtonpost.com]
Posted by glenn at 10:22 AM
|