Strange Journalism:Iraq the Model in the News Again

Strange Journalism:
Iraq the Model in the News Again

A couple of months ago, I passed along some information about some bloggers who were having doubts about the credibility of a couple of brothers (actually, there are three) by the name of Omar and Muhammad, and Ali. Blogger Jeff Jarvis has championed the brothers' blog, known as Iraq, the Model.

Jay Rosen is talking about the blogging brothers at Press Think. A NY Times article by Sarah Boxer, titled "Pro-American Iraqi Blog Provokes Intrigue and Vitriol, has reported about unsupported allegations that the brothers from Iraq are actually C.I.A. agents. It produces no proof whatsoever for such claims.

Whether they are CIA or propagandists, I am disturbed when I read that these brothers are being financed by ideologues. I don't make a single dime as a blogger. I speak my heart and I am politically obligated to no man or woman besides myself and my own conscience. One of these brothers, Ali, has quit. Poof. Cold turkey. He claims he just can't do this anymore. The other two brothers claim to have met with President Bush. I'm sorry, this is just too bizarre, people! Sarah Boxer writes:

As for financing, Ali said that Iraq the Model had received private donations from Americans, Australians, French, British and Iraqi citizens. In addition, the brothers were promised money from Spirit of America. But, he added, "We haven't got it yet."

What Sarah Boxer was trying to tell us in her report, as a mainstream journalist, seems just a litte fuzzy to many people. A theme that runs through many of the comments I see about the article is that the report seemed more like a blog entry than a professional journalist's NY Times report.

Jay says:

The finished report is supposed to reduce the "befuddling complexity" of the online world, not produce a more exquisite sense of it.

Jeff Sharlet of The Revealer (who is teaching a course at NYU this term on religion and journalism) has said that "good reporting is ordinarily the opposite of opaque, and that the situation should be more intelligible when the journalist's labors are completed."

Jay Rosen has concluded that:

Sarah Boxer's article about Iraq the Model was really about the Net and how you can't trust anyone or anything that originated on it. Leaving the situation opaque, at the level of a brouhaha, was part of the point. (And in that context, suggesting a CIA connection served quite well.) It remains, however, a strange assignment.

I have to wonder if Sarah Boxer wasn't trying to mock the blog world with her opaque article. Was she branding us, with crafty poison pen, a band of hooligans with our hands out for bribes; not to be trusted as you'd trust a NY Times journalist? I hope this was not the case. We honest, hard-working bloggers can be sensitive souls.

Here's what I really want to know. I'd love to know the facts, with which Sarah never bothered to satisfy us. The facts. Sarah ends her article by referring to a statement by one of the brothers, the last line reading "Now that seems genuine..", yet she never offers true investigative insight or a promise of investigative follow-up.

I could have written this piece, and I'm a blogger..not a NY Times journalist. If the NY Times would like a blogger who's a real deal, however, I am always willing and ready. ;)

I mean, are Muhammad, Omar, and Ali CIA agents or paid operatives of any kind? Are they simply propagandists? Have they been paid by DoD or any other governmental agency? Are they the Armstrong Williams of Iraq? Has anyone bothered to dig into this and give us a real investigative story? Are they too afraid they'll wind up suffering the fate of Dan Rather if they REALLY try to "dig in"? For Sarah, whose article I found entertaining, it seems as if it was easier just to muddy up the waters and make political bloggers look like most of them on the take.

I have to say that I deeply resent that soft accusation.

Bush Foreign Policy Devoid of Solid Moral Values

"Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honoured in Iraq."

--President GW Bush

Bush Foreign Policy Devoid of Solid Moral Values
His actions betray his words

I have a bone to pick with President Bush about his frothing rush to be Reaganesque.

The BBC has an excellent analysis of foreign policy-related statements made by President Bush in his SOTU speech. World Affairs Correspondent Paul Reynolds felt that Bush's use of language was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan and the Cold War.

He says:

where President Reagan called for liberty in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, so President Bush declares that he is trying to do the same for the Middle East.

While President Bush may intend to be the NeoReagan and saviour of the Middle East, there are some things he and many Americans are forgetting.

President Bush wants to lead the world to freedom, yet through his actions, most of the world sees him as a threat - especially the people who live in the very part of the world he wishes to change. The way he chooses to deliver freedom to the Middle East has been terribly unsuccessful, in reality.

The world sees directly through the broad and sweeping freedom-speak of George W. Bush and regularly glimpses, with horror, a little bitty mind with a big, big agenda. The most appalling thing about that agenda is the absence of real moral values and an ignorance about the culture and worldview of the part of the world he wishes to change.

Lenten Reflection #2

Lenten Reflection #2

Today's reflection is from a book by Carol Osborn titled "Nothing Left Unsaid". Carol's father, gravely ill, was about to be taken into surgery. She reveals how the language of love is spoken in the simple stories that we tell. Love can grow so large that it can break your heart. There's so much we wish to say when we are fully conscious of the fact that our time here on Earth is limited. There are times when we are not sure how to say what we want to say to a loved one when "the time" comes - and you know that one of you must part with this life. The simplest of words can carry loving messages we wish to relay in those unspeakable moments of sorrow and loss.

Listen to Carol's story.

"Despite his discomfort and the effort it obviously took, Dad wanted to share a story with me about something that had happened to him during World War II. Stationed in the Phillipines, far away from home, he had bonded deeply with his companions. Medics, sent to care for those injured and ailing on the front lines, he and his companions lived through dangerous times together.

Then, for no apparent reason, there was a lull in the fighting. Shortly after, a dispatch arrived, offering the medics much-needed R&R. The boys were free to take the day and go to swim in a lake nearby. Dad readied himself for the celebration, but soon a second dispatch arrived. This one contained orders that Dad, only, was to be shifted later that afternoon from his companions to a new battalion many miles away. He would have to say goodbye to his friends while he awaited transport to arrive to take him to his new assignment. His friends hugged Dad an emotional farewell then boarded the company’s Jeep. Dad stood there a good long time, listening to their laughter and singing fade into silence, feeling alone and abandoned. Every moment he waited for his transport to come felt like an eternity. And of course, the transport was hours late. When the driver finally arrived, he apologized, explaining that there had been an accident and the road had been closed. “A Jeep, carrying a group of medics, careened off the road and over the side of the cliff into the lake below. All had been instantly killed.” Dad paused to take a deep breath, then went on to finish his story quietly.

“I would have been on that Jeep, having nothing more serious on my mind than going swimming with my buddies at the lake.” I know what Dad was saying to me. He did not explicitly use the words “Life is precious” or “Every day has been a gift.” But these words, and more, were in the squeeze of his hand before he drifted off into sleep.



As I stood there beside him, thinking about his story, my mind wandered back to the sunny afternoon over forty years ago when Dad had run beside my wobbly two-wheeler, teaching me to ride. As long as his hand made contact with my arm, the bike stayed upright and I felt like I was riding on my own. But the moment he withdrew his hand, the bike would suddenly careen and crash. Eventually, of course, I pedaled faster than even he could run. Until this moment, I had not remembered the last time I felt his hand on my shoulder; I had only remembered the first time I took off down the road holding strong and steady. I had taken so much for granted in my life. Suddenly, I was overwhelmed with gratitude for it all. There were no words to communicate my feelings, so we just kept on telling stories and sharing memories — until the very last moment they came to get Dad and roll him away to surgery.

The stories and memories we shared were simple and sweet, And yet, just being together — sometimes sharing our thoughts, sometimes sitting in silence, some kind of completion was taking place that went far beyond the words that were being spoken."

Bush tells the truth - Twice!

Bush tells the truth - Twice!

President Bush told the truth at least a couple of times last night during his SOTU speech.

At the beginning of the speech, he averred that it was a great privilege to have been placed in office by the votes of people he serves. That was no lie. He serves his supportive base very well. It's the other 50% of the nation he plans to screw with every ounce of political capital he's gained.

He said he will listen to anyone who has a "good idea" to offer when it comes to Social Security. That was no lie. We know what he thinks of Democrats' ideas. They're all bad. Therefore, he will not be listening to them.

Byron Norwood’s Mother

Byron Norwood’s Mother

I felt so sorry for Byron Norwood’s mother at the State of the Union speech tonight. She forever has lost her son in a war of lies; a war now unpopular with the majority of Americans. The best (and closest) symbolic reason she could find for her son’s ultimate sacrifice was embodied in the Iraqi woman who stood one row below her in the audience.

Two women caught up in a liar’s web, they embraced. The Iraqi woman seemed truly grateful to the U.S. for bringing a war for democracy to her country. Completing the liar’s web, the dead Marine’s dog tags became entangled in the democracy-seeking woman’s dress-jacket as the women continued to hug. For a brief moment, they were as one.

GOP cheerleaders showed appreciation almost wildly, perhaps a bit too long and loud for Byron Norwood’s mother’s comfort.

President Bush had prefaced the introduction of Byron Norwood’s parents by saying that Byron “died for our freedom”.

But he didn’t. Byron Norwood died for a nation inside which his Commander in Chief told him were dangerous weapons of mass destruction. The weapons, Byron’s Commander in Chief told him, were imminently threatening U.S. national security and the lives of Byron’s countrymen. The prospect of a mushroom cloud was lurking. That, we now know for certain, was untrue, and seems to have been no more than a ruse to turn Iraq into President Bush’s testing ground for him to become some kind of ‘Freedom-Messiah’ for posterity’s sake, all at great risk to the lives of U.S. troops.

“Bring ‘em on,” he’d said. As one might expect, when invited and dared, insurgents ‘brought ‘em on’. What was once a land run by a internationally-contained tin-pot dictator has become a haven for something far more insidiously destructive to the safety of the Iraqi people and the preservation of their culture.

Iraq is now a magnet for terrorists. Iraq is in shamble, traces of their cultural history destroyed. Before the pre-emptive war, there was no provable connection whatsoever between Iraq’s government and the 9/11 terrorists, even though we were lied to, time and time again, about it. [Speaking of 9/11, remember how many times you heard it invoked during the Republican convention? How many times did you hear it tonight?]

He was a brave and loyal soldier, but Byron Norwood didn’t die for ‘our freedom’. We’ve been a free nation for centuries now, and the only threat to our freedom these days seems to come from within.

Let’s be honest. Byron died for Iraq’s freedom, a freedom that has not arrived yet. Elections do not equate to democracy. It’s going to be a long haul for the Iraqis, and it’s not the U.S. military’s responsibility to unilaterally fight a never-ending and violent battle for a foreign government when there is no threat to our own national security. I’ll wager that Byron didn’t even understand wht he was actually fighting (and dying) for. If there was one salvation for Mrs. Norwood, I’d imagine it was the day the elections went off with less than 50 Iraqis being blown to bits. It gave her what she could grab onto as a noble reason for her son’s sacrifice.

How many more U.S. soldiers will die for a foreign government in a war they never should have been sent to initiate in the first place? Millions of Americans are gullible. We know that, after seeing their acceptance of being lied to (so boldly) by their own government and forgetting so easily, with the tried-and-true recipe of a few repeated lines in a political speech, an emotional scene set up for political effect, and a few ounces of all-too-positive media coverage.

If we say we’ll be leaving when democracy takes hold in Iraq, that might mean “never”. It’s time for an exit strategy to be made clear to the American public.

I don’t want to have to see another American soldier’s mother hugging another woman from some other foreign land whose sovereignty we had no business meddling in next year, or the year after that. President Bush’s overt threats to Syria and Iran tonight gave me no comfort or trust in his future judgements

Jesus Pan

Peter Jesus Pan



*A tip of the hat to Tony Francis

Tonight's SOTU Speech

Tonight's SOTU Speech

President Bush has been so dismally predictable up to now, that I feel as if I could write up my critique of tonight's State of The Union speech before he even opens his mouth to speak. I am already picturing the cheers and the standing ovation after the President gives mention of the recent farce of an election in Iraq. (Oh, yay.)

According to Atrios, the G.O.P. is intent on politicizing everything Iraq-related. Congressional Republicans are reportedly planning to show up at tonight's State of the Union address with purple ink on their fingers to send the message that they support Iraqi voters. At Buzzflash, they suggest trying the color red. A good idea. They may take credit, then, for all the dead at their bloodied hands and lying tongues.

A leak of the talking points for the SOTU is HERE at Raw Story.

William Rivers Pitt, hard at work at his Truthout blog, summons the memory of a State of the Union 'best-of-hypocrite-highlights' past, the infamous "sixteen words", and the reality that followed the spewing of those irresponsible words. Says Will:

"None of the agents themselves were found. A few rusted-out munitions were dug up. The mobile biologial weapons labs were weather balloon platforms sold to Iraq by the British in the 1980s. The uranium from Niger story has been so thoroughly debunked that a special investigator is looking into the lie. Several journalists are in the dock because they carried water for a couple of Bush hatchetmen who went after the CIA-agent wife of the man who first blew the whistle on this nonsense.

That's quite a bit of disgraceful history inserted into the long story of the State of the Union, yes? Way to be, George.

One specific policy proposal has been leaked prior to tonight's speech. Anyone on any kind of governmental assistance program better perk up and read this closely:

Bush to Call for Near-Freeze in Spending: Aide
By Adam Entous
Reuters
Tuesday 01 February 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will call for a near-freeze in the overall growth of government spending not connected to national defense to try to rein in record deficits, a senior administration official said on Tuesday.

Bush will make the proposal in Wednesday's State of the Union address, previewing the fiscal 2006 budget he will send to Congress next Monday.

A senior administration official pointed to Congress' approval last year of a 0.8 percent cap in non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending, and said Bush "will articulate a similar type of goal or principle, which his budget will adhere to."

With the White House projecting inflation at about 2 percent, government programs subject to the cap would face the budgetary equivalent of a cut in spending from levels enacted in fiscal 2005.

The senior administration official left open the possibility the cap would be less than 0.8 percent, saying Bush "believes we can even go further" in restraining spending growth.

Having pushed through sweeping tax cuts in Bush's first term as president, "it's now time also to focus on the priority of fiscal discipline," the official added.

Read the rest from Reuters."

--WR Pitt

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Bush administration will campaign hard on a platform filled with many lies and scare-tactics in the coming months in order to acccomplish their goal. That goal is to slowly kill any form of democratic socialism in America. The buffer between your economic security and the natural flaws in our imperfect Capitalism-based system will disappear. You, my friends, will be left with no protection as you plunge to the abyss of the greedy mammonites. You think you've seen the worst of exploitation of the masses for the benefit of the few? Just wait until your built-in protections are no longer there!

Oh, well - what good is democracy, anyhow? No one really seems to care these days. It's much easier to fall into a comfy chair and stare at the framed stage the Republican party loves to set and watch their scary movies.

What about your economic welfare? Your future? There's always that charity down the street from you. I'd tell you to start saying your prayers, but that faith-based charity will force you to pray, anyhow, if you want what they're dishing out.

Welcome to Bushworld.

Right Bloggers Stalk CNN

Right Bloggers Stalk CNN

According to Rebecca MacKinnon, Right-wing blogs, including Little Green Footballs, have moved their sights from CBS to CNN. Find out why by visiting Rebecca's blog. It involves CNN's Eason Jordan, at Davos this week, asserting that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but of whom had, in fact, been targeted. Rebecca is hoping that, perhaps, other CNN reporters and free lance journalists blogging from Iraq (ie: Kevin Sites) will weigh in and let us know what they think.

Common Ills: Stories You Shouldn't Miss

Common Ills: Stories You Shouldn't Miss

Many thanks to Rob for the mention of Iddybud at Common Ills this week. It's not very often that I get to see my name up there with the likes of Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Since we're on the topic of The Common Ills, I wanted to mention a couple of their recent blog reports. (They're all superb, but these really stand out).

Be sure not to miss IRAQ ELECTIONS- DON'T BUY OPERATION HAPPY TALK It's everything I would like to have written. Why duplicate the effort when it's already been done so beautifully and competently?

Adam Nagourney and the NY Times have scrambled to get on the story they missed on Monday--Howard Dean emerged Tuesday as the almost assured new leader of the Democratic National Committee. (My note: "YEEEEHA!" I don't know about Adam, but count me in as one Nagurney who DOES support Gov. Dean for DNC chair! )

**Scrutiny Hooligans has a great piece on the Howard Dean story as well. See Give 'em Hope, Howard!

As The Lenten Season Approaches

“People with disabilities are humanity’s privileged witnesses. They can teach everyone about the love that saves us;
they can become heralds of a new world, no longer dominated by force, violence and aggression, but by love, solidarity and acceptance...”

--quoted from a statement by Pope John Paul II in his January, 2004 message to an International Symposium in Rome

As The Lenten Season Approaches

The Lenten season will begin a week from today.
Being raised Roman Catholic, Lent is a season with deep meaning to me.
I believe we are all sojourners before our creator, whoever we deem that creator to be. We're little more than tenants on Earth, as all who came before us were. Our days on the earth are little more than time spent in shadows. Where our hope springs from is a deeply personal matter, but there is no doubt we all require hope to guide us through the shadows...we need a map to steer us through the shallows.

In the coming week, I plan to take extra blog-time for reflection on the Lenten season, politics aside. My secular friends, I beg, you will have to indulge me.

I would like to extend prayers and healing wishes for the Pope, who is gravely ill as I write these words today.

I wish to begin with some words from Henri Nouwen, who came clearly to a realization that his vocation was to spend his life among the poor. [* not the unwealthy, but the poor in spirit and the disabled.] In the mid-80s, he made a break with Harvard, which was a difficult one because he felt that he could do much there. He'd begun to believe, however, that the way, for him, was the "downward mobility" of living with the poor, rather than the "upward mobility" of the academic world. He moved to Trosly, France, where the L'Arche community for the disabled was founded by Jean Vanier and Pere Thomas. Having succeeded in the academic world where productivity was an expectation, Nouwen discovered the pain and joy of caring for people who some had seen as "useless". He was attracted to the extreme vulnerability and honesty of the disabled community. These disabled peopel were to become his teachers. They were the people that were going to bring him the words that he was destined to bring to others in his spiritual writing.

Henri Nouwen writes about this one Good Friday experience with the disabled in his book: The Road to Daybreak: A Spiritual Journey. Whether or not you are a Christian, I ask you to set aside any prejudice you may be harboring and listen to the heart of Henri Nouwen. What he derived from this experience is the inspiration that could only come from a communion of unconditional love. What we can personally take away from Nouwen's words is up to us.

In them, I have found great hope....

“During the liturgy at the L’Arche Community in Trosly, Pere Thomas and Pere Gilbert took from the wall the huge cross that hangs behind the altar and held it so that the whole community could come and kiss the dead body of Christ.

They all came, more than four hundred people – handicapped men and women and their assistants and friends. Everybody seemed to know very well what they were doing: expressing their love and gratitude for him who gave his life for them. As they were crowding around the cross and kissing the feet and the head of Jesus, I closed my eyes and could see his sacred body stretched out and crucified upon our planet earth. I saw the immense suffering of humanity during the centuries: people killing each other; people dying from starvation and epidemics; people driven from their homes; people sleeping on the streets of large cities; people clinging to each other in desperation; people flagellated, tortured, burned and mutilated; people alone in locked flats, in prison dungeons, in labor camps; people craving a gentle word, a friendly letter, a consoling embrace; people – children, teenagers, adults, middle-aged, and elderly – all crying out with an anguished voice: ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken us?’

Imagining the naked, lacerated body of Christ stretched out over our globe, I was filled with horror. But as I opened my eyes I saw Jacques, who bears the marks of suffering in his face, kiss the body with passion and tears in his eyes. I saw Ivan carried on Michael’s back. I saw Edith coming in her wheelchair. As they came – walking or limping, seeing or blind, hearing or deaf – I saw the endless procession of humanity gathering around the sacred body of Jesus, covering it with their tears and their kisses, and slowly moving away from it comforted and consoled by such great love. There were signs of relief; there were smiles breaking through tear-filled eyes; there were hands in hands and arms in arms. With my mind’s eye I saw the huge crowds of isolated, agonizing individuals walking away from the cross together, bound by the love they had seen with their own eyes and touched with their own lips. The cross of horror became the cross of hope, the tortured body became the body that gives new life, the gaping wounds became the source of forgiveness, healing and reconciliation. Pere Thomas and Pere Gilbert were still holding the cross. The last people came, knelt, and kissed the body, and left. It was quiet, very quiet..."

--Henri Nouwen

MIA in Iraq: $9 Billion U.S. Taxpayer Dollars

"Wake up, America!
Your democracy is disappearing!"

--Congressman Dennis Kucinich
see link

MIA in Iraq:
$9 Billion U.S. Taxpayer Dollars

Over the past nine months, we've had a mysterious disappearance of $30 million per day in Iraq funds.

Where is our $9 billion?

Did it go to dirty bribes?
Was it out-and-out theft?

Where is Claudia "oil-for-food" Rosett when America truly needs a great investigative journalist? Too busy delegitimizing the U.N., I guess.

Is there a new "Iran-Contra"-style scandal looming?

Why is there no call for a Grand Jury investigation for our unaccounted-for billions? Doesn't democracy (small d) mean ANYTHING anymore? Are Americans that stupid?

Which blogger or journalist might get the "deep throat" tip that will win them the Pulitzer? Josh Marshall? William Rivers Pitt? Duncan? Jerome? Markos? Anonymoses? We can hope that one of these excellent bloggers might be chosen as a trusted carrier of truth, if our own government abandons their sworn duty to the people.

I thank Dennis Kucinich for keeping this at the forefront for public discourse and action. I also thank Reps Tom Lantos and Henry Waxman.

WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TODAY!
TELL THEM YOU WANT AN INVESTIGATION.
MAKE YOUR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE!

Iraq: So What The Hell Happens Now?!?

Iraq: So What The Hell Happens Now?!?

..besides "Boom!
...Bang-Bang! FPHLOOOOOM!
.....Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat!
..........Kerflowwwwwwwie!"??

Iraq: Now What??


• Change cannot be force-fed, Suter
• Iraq Elections: What's Next?, CAP
• Iraq: Post-Election Challenges, Harvey+Legum+Baskin
• Iraq elections set stage for deeper crisis of US occupation regime, Martin
• Iraq Leader's Uncertain Future, McGeough
• So, who really did win in Iraq?, Erikson
• Why the US will not leave Iraq, Escobar
• Elections Can be Start of Democracy or Violence, Dionne Jr.
• The Election is Only the Beginning, Cohen

• Democracy won, but do Americans care?, Mitchell-Salem

"..unless Americans buy into Bush's rhetoric for years to come, his experiment with democracy will fail..[..]..Realistically, American forces will remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Will there be American military bases in Iraq? Absolutely. Bush is not spending $300 billion to ensure that in 10 years' time the largest U.S. presence in Iraq will be that of the Baghdad embassy. Lip service is being paid to the idea of a sovereign Iraqi government dictating if and when the U.S. leaves. But should the Iraqis come to believe that, American officials are likely to yank them back into reality. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointed out during an interview on Sunday: "America responded out of national interest, not just the interest of the region"...Bush's democratic vision, more pragmatically defined."

• U.S. is obligated to foster a genuinely independent Iraq for all Iraqis, ds ed
• Upbeat about election, Iran hopes Iraq occupation ends soon , staff
• Iraq election: Another false dawn, Editorial, The Hindu
• It's not the vote that counts, Shahzad
• Analysis: The uncertainties of Iraq, sieff
• Low voter turnout by Sunnis fuels fear of more civil strife in Iraq, lasseter
• Al Qaeda vows to prolong `holy war', Star
• Horse-Trading Begins on Shape of Iraqi Govt, Parker, afp

• Turkey warns Kurds, don't stir up Kikurk, Yusuf Kanli

"The foreign minister was careful in underlining that Turkey has no intention of intervening in Iraq but cautioned at the same time that should the Kurdish factions persist with their campaign of changing the demographic composition of Kirkuk, an ethnic confrontation could become unavoidable and could create strong sentiments among Turks that could force the government to resort to an action it would not have otherwise considered."

• Not exactly reassuring: Ankara, frustrated with U.S. ignorance, gets reassurance from outgoing DoD Undersecretary Feith, Yusuf Kanli

"..outgoing U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, considered to be an architect of the Iraq war, reassured Turkey Monday, making clear Washington still opposed Kurdish separatism."It is crucial that Iraq's territorial integrity [is] preserved," he told reporters, adding that it was for all Iraqis, not one ethnic group, to decide Kirkuk's fate. That was the message Ankara had expected to hear from Washington for so long. What's unfortunate is that those strong words, which could have eased Turkey's worries, have come from a lame-duck American undersecretary of defense who will return to Washington to pack up his office."

• Saudi Prince Walid Ibn On Iraq and America's plans for democracy in the ME, ds
• America's Beachhead Rattles Local Monarchs, McGeough
• The Vietnam turnout was good as well , Ramadani

• Election euphoria unlikely to trigger a democratic domino effect , Tisdall

"Egyptians genuinely feel ideological outrage about the US invasion of Iraq. They see it as a neo-imperial exercise. The elections can't be used as an example because they are too tarnished by America's touch."

• Fig-leaf freedom , Whitaker
• Doubts cast on Allawi's vow to unite the country, Cockburn
• Straw says withdrawal of UK troops would be irresponsible, Grice
• British troops must now prepare to leave Iraq, Kennedy


*Hats off to BushWatch.com for headlines

NeoCons Want More War, More Young Flesh to Die for Their Insanity

NeoCons Want More War, More Young Flesh to Die for Their Insanity

Buzzflash poses a question and I think we all know the answer.
None dare speak the answer, mind you. But we know the answer.

Says Buzzflash:

The Neocon Petri Dish, PNAC, Calls for Increased Troop Strengths. So, Exactly How Do They Think This Will Happen without a Draft? Just Asking.

Mothers and Fathers of America:
The NeoCons want your children to fight and to lose their lives for more of their Utopian ideals. Their ideas, too impulsively put into dreadful practice by the Bush administration, have made the world a far less safe place.

Iraq will not be enough to sate these crusading monsters.

How far will you allow them to go before you speak out?
How many of you will have to stand over the graves of your children before you are awakened to the truth?

Iraq: Many Conservatives Losing Heart

Iraq: Many Conservatives Losing Heart

Read A Vote for Chaos by Christopher Preble of the CATO Institute. His current statement is fairly consistent with statements he made in 2003.

Trust in the sanity of the Bush foreign policy is fading among conservative Americans who are intelligently skeptical and concerned about the realities on the ground. The President's recent inaugural address did little to set aside growing concerns.

Once again, Christopher Preble of the CATO Institute:

"We are heroes in error," Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress declared in February 2004. "What was said before is not important." In other words, the lies he foisted on the American public did not matter to him, because he achieved his goal: the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

We can now expect similar figures to step forward elsewhere. They will profess to know the deeply felt desires of nearly 70 million Iranians clamoring for U.S. assistance. The Reform Party of Syria regularly flogs the government of Bashar Assad as a suitable target.

In this environment it is nearly impossible to differentiate honest patriots from duplicitous charlatans. By declaring to "democratic reformers" that "America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country," Bush has placed U.S. foreign policy at the mercy of others who will do anything to draw America into their schemes for power."

From: "W's Put U.S. Way Out on a Limb"

Voices against the way Bush has handled the mess in Iraq are coming from unexpected places.

Iraq: Media Should Focus Americans on the Reality

Iraq: Media Should Focus Americans on the Reality

"Iraq now faces many key issues that could tear the country apart, from the issues of Kirkuk and Mosul to that of religious law. James Zogby on Wolf Blitzer wisely warned the US public against another "Mission Accomplished" moment. Things may gradually get better, but this flawed "election" isn't a Mardi Gras for Americans and they'll regret it if that is the way they treat it."

- Juan Cole

The cheerleading in the media is misleading America about the reality on the ground in Iraq. Take a look at Juan Cole's blog entry about the reports coming in about yesterday's elections in Iraq.

Another dose of simple reality from director of a Washington think tank, Robert Weiner Public Affairs:

".. when we accept the reality of the low turnout, we will be better able to protect against the possibility that the elections will be like the war: the insurgents only committed minimal violence at the outset -- and then logarithmically increased their efforts afterward. In this case, because of the U.S. protection of the polling places, the insurgents effectively conceded; but now they could very likely go after all the hundreds of winning candidates as well as keep up their widespread violence. The possibility of civil war in Iraq remains strong -- we must not once again count our chickens too soon. This overriding instability and threat of attacks, which we have tried but not succeeded in stopping, is of course the reason for the low turnout, and the crisis continues."

In the Arab news, a plea for President Bush to finally get the international community on board (and stop bowing to the military wishes of dependent and needy Iraqis) :

"There could be a workable UN peacekeeping operation in Iraq, but first the Iraqis have to badly want it and second, the richer nations of the world have to properly fund it and man a good portion of it."

A few mainstreamers are keeping it real.

For example, Fareed Zakaria, a pundit at ABC News, reminds us that Elections are not "Democracy".

U.S. ENCOURAGED BY VOTE

U.S. ENCOURAGED BY VOTE
Officials Cite Turnout Despite Terror

The headline sounds really promising, doesn't it?

Great voter turnout despite the fear of terror.

It just so happens to have been written by Peter Grose in 1967.

About Vietnam.

When will we ever learn?

As history will show you, the mainstream media was not all that "liberal", even at the height of the civil rights/Vietnam era:

The Johnson administration sponsored "demonstration elections" in Vietnam in 1966 and 1967 to show that we were respecting the will of the Vietnamese people. Although that country was occupied by a foreign army (U.S.) and otherwise thoroughly militarized, free speech and freedom of the press were non-existent, and not only the only "mass-based political party" (NLF) but all "neutralists" were barred from participation, the New York Times took these elections seriously. Their news reports stressed the heavy turnouts, and the editorials noted the "popular support" shown by the peasants willingness "to risk participation in the election held by the Saigon regime" (ed., September 4, 1967). In both news and editorials the paper suggested that the elections might lead to peace, because by legitimizing the generals it "provides a viable basis for a peace settlement." As the whole point of the exercise was to keep in place leaders who would fight, this was promotional deception of the worst sort.

A Daily Kos reader has found a CIA discussion about the 1967 pre-election period. Take a look. Draw parallels to Iraq if you'd like. If you ask me, you can't help but draw parellels.

See LBJ's letter to Saigon in telegram 34017, September 8. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 15-1 VIET S).

"I have just received a detailed and most moving account of your election from the distinguished Americans whom you invited to Viet-Nam as observers. They returned believing in the fairness of the procedures and observed the intense interest of the Vietnamese people in this major step toward creating your own popularly chosen and constitutionally based government. Their individual reports were a testimonial to the courage and determination of the Vietnamese people to remain free and to create their own political institutions in their own way. The election was a milestone along the path toward the goal you have set for yourselves--a free, secure and peaceful Viet-Nam. But it is not the end of the journey. Many hard tasks remain. Not the least of these now is the creation of a strong, effective and broadly based government that will help you and your country achieve the objectives you set forth in your campaign. The American government and I, personally, look forward to continued close cooperation with you and your colleagues in the days and months ahead.."

Sound familiar?


At the American Street, Neil Shah says:

"What really made the South Vietnamese struggle in their battle to fend off the communist block in the North, was their ineffectiveness in crafting a government that was actually answerable to the people. Plagued by mind-boggling levels of government corruption and led by self-concerned and illegitimate leaders, there was never any real effort to establish a stable democratic state by a significant portion of SV’s themselves, despite countless efforts by the U.S. The significance for Iraq is that it will have to face many obstacles, including the current insurgency and the likelihood of communal violence, to actually establish a viable state (read: monopoly on means of violence) and that its success will depend more on Iraqis themselves than anything that can be done by the U.S."

Based upon what I've seen so far in Iraq, I don't think a sufficient number of the people have the drive and courage it currently takes to turn this into a sustained or successful Iraqi-based democratic revolution.

There is no doubt, we saw courage in the ones who voted yesterday, yet we also know how many Iraqis chose not to vote due to a feeling of injustice, the appearance of U.S. occupation, political dissent, and mistrust.

Don't expect me to opine a la "pie in the sky" about the glory of newfound determination in these people. We have not been able to train enough of them to adequately defend themselves against field mice, let alone sophisticated insurgents. Iraqi troops run at the slightest provocation. They are going to need the support and force of the world community for decades to come.

If President Bush fails to call upon the international community now, with humility, then you can expect our military to be misused and at grave risk for decades to follow.


UPDATE/9pm: See truthout.com's feature by William Rivers Pitt - The Story of the Ghost


*A tip of the hat to William Bollinger, who made me aware of this story.

'Just Say No' To Gonzales

'Just Say No' To Gonzales

I oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales for one main reason:

I believe that a vote for the confirmation of Mr. Gonzales would be a vote to marginalize the slap to the face of the Rule of Law, in light of the Abu Ghraib 'torture memo'. It would be like saying that the torture just didn't matter, in the long run.

The world is watching us from a distance, but the world is not such a large place these days. We have seen how the distance has closed in upon us. We remember the morning of September 11th, 2001. Let's show the world we still have a soul, even after what we faced on 9/11, as a nation of decent and civil people.

Vote "NO" to Gonzales' confirmation!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following is a statement which appears today on the main page at the Liberal Coalition website:

The Liberal Coalition opposes the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. As individual bloggers, many of us have written our own statements against the nomination; links to those posts are below. Promoting the man who authorized the use of torture to the nation's highest law enforcement position makes a mockery of that position and the notion that the U.S. is a nation of laws. His confirmation will signal that the United States can no longer be viewed as a champion for human rights and will diminish its ever-shrinking credibility on human rights issues.

Presidents are traditionally given a lot of leeway when it comes to their attorney general nominees. But extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. If authorizing torture does not cross that line, nothing will. We urge the Senate to vote no on Gonzales.

Archy
Bark Bark Woof Woof
Dohiyi Mir
Echidne of the Snakes
EdwardPig
First Draft
Iddybud
Left is Right
Make Me a Commentator
Rook's Rant
rubber hose
Scrutiny Hooligans
Steve Gillard (link is to the original statement on Kos to which Steve is a signatory)
Words on a Page
Yellow Doggerel Democrat

This post has been submitted to the no to Gonzales site.

LINK-Original Post by upyernoz

What We've Purchased

What We've Purchased
With Our Treasure, Our Life, and Blood

Ignatieff Employs Fantasy-Shame to Belittle Iraq Naysayers

Ignatieff Employs Fantasy-Shame to Belittle Iraq Naysayers

Michael Ignatieff ("Apostle of He-manitarianism") has written a piece for today's New York Times magazine that reflects a Bushworld view of today's election in Iraq. He plays the role of Daddy scolding the bad, bad liberals who see the sham-election as any less than a glorious exercise. (How COULD they?!?)

The article's called The Uncommitted. (He should be 'committed' for having written it).

Warning: If you're looking at matters with any kind of realistic focus, you'll wind up either laughing hysterically, puking, or throwing the magazine directly into the trashbin.

I wish Kerry had supported Kennedy

I wish Kerry had supported Kennedy

Senator Ted Kennedy was one of John Kerry's strongest supporters and campaigners in 2004.

On this morning's Meet The Press, I would have liked to have seen Sen. John Kerry give his full support to the ideas which Senator Ted Kennedy had shared in a speech last week, suggesting we send 12,000 troops home here and now, in order to show the Arab nations that we mean what we say [when we say we are not occupiers.] There is solid truth to what Senator Kennedy was saying in that speech.

Senator Kerry elected to politically separate himself from Senator Kennedy on the issue of Iraq, emitting that "waffling" attitude that has harmed him in his political past.

I don't think it will win any political points for Sen Kerry with the true progressives of his party.

Part of Karl Rove's "genius" in Campaign 2004, if you ask me, was using adequately offensive rhetoric (and getting it out to mainstream media)in order to get the Democrats to scramble to respond defensively, thus revealing/exposing their non-united front on the issue of National Security and foreign policy.

I wish Senator Kerry would have been more firmly supportive of senior Massachusetts Senator Kennedy today. The Democrats still haven't learned.

You'll hear a lot about 'fantastic Iraqi voter turnout' in the mainstream media today. While that may be true in regards to Iraq's Kurd population and more-secure Shi'ite-majority locations (the people and places who stand to politically gain the most), there were polls in some towns that not even opened at the set time; many unvisited due to either fear or sheer protest. This election was a sham, albeit a smart-looking symbolic move toward Bush-propaganda's version of "freedom".

According to an Aljazeera.com report, there was low turnout in polling places such as Baghdad, Baquba and Samarra, which could have been prevented if there had been more time to create "a genuine election".

This statement is from a Muslim scholar - not a violent insurgent:

"The elections are not a solution to the Iraqi problem, because this problem is not an internal dispute to be resolved through accords and elections … it lies in the presence of a foreign power that occupies this country and refuses even the mere scheduling of the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq", [Muhammad Al-Kubaysi/AMS spokesman] said.

Al-Kubaysi said AMS believed political consensus among Iraqi parties could only be reached once the foreign military presence left the country and all parties had to rely on debate rather than force of arms.

"We have consistently argued that elections can only occur in a democracy that enjoys sovereignty. Our sovereignty is incomplete. Our sovereignty is usurped by foreign forces that have occupied our land and hurt our dignity."

Asked whether the influential group was looking to upset a transition to democracy by rejecting elections, al-Kubaysi replied: "These elections … are a means of establishing the foreign forces in Iraq and keeping Iraq under the yoke of occupation … they should have been postponed."

I consider Senator Kennedy's suggestion to be realistic and made in utmost good faith and judgement.

The sham is complete.

Let's start moving some of those troops away from where they've never belonged, and aim them toward home, where they've always belonged.

Enjoy the Propaganda Today - Remember Tomorrow Will Arrive

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

– John F. Kennedy

(It was not the U.S.'s place to spark or to aid a violent revolution in Iraq - or battling the resistance we knew would come. After the smoke and mirrors are cleared, we have come to understand that this was the real goal of our nation in our occupation of Iraq.
The Bush administration must be made accountable for their lies to the American people).


Enjoy the Propaganda Today - Remember Tomorrow Will Arrive

Today's news seems like an an endless video stream of hands dipping ballots into boxes followed by raised purple fingers. On a day when we are seeing maximum propaganda about an election in a land where democracy's been promoted by bombs and guns and U.S. occupation, we come to understand that authentic democratic revolutions (producing meaningful reform) must be sparked by the hearts of the people of the nation that is being changed. Could the Iraqis have achieved this on their own? Of their own free will? Not a chance. To this day, we cannot spark enough Iraqi fortitude for the "guts-n-glory" attitude that's necessary to maintain a "free Iraq". Look at the Iraqi security forces (Ahnold would call them "girly-men") who run at the first sign of danger!

What we are seeing is a violent and manufactured revolution waged by America on behalf of a foreign (hoped-for) power. The Bush administration created a violent revolution on behalf of the Iraqi people, while lying to the American people about the "national-security" reason our military was being used. President Bush deserves no less than impeachment for what he has done to the American people.

What was manufactured will become real. There will be a new Iraqi elected government as of tonight (or whenever the results are complete). And Monday will arrive. There will be freshly-elected shooting targets for insurgents who are determined to prove that violent revolutions created by foreign governments do not meet peaceably with reality.

I was reading an article at LeMonde Diplomatique titled Ukraine: the practice of protest. The truth it contains is an appropriate topic for a day like today. It reminds us that very little altruism can truly be expected from governments. It makes Bush's “Greater Middle East” policy suspect. While the project allegedly aims to “bring democracy” to the region, it has few chances of finding local allies given the level of animosity toward the US and its policies in both Palestine and Iraq.

The article states, and I agree, that it's wrong to claim that mass protests can be imported from abroad, whether we're talking a violent OR non-violent revolution. The decision to follow the politicians in one's nation, or not, must be taken by the people.

I am reminded of the real and earnest foreign-policy success of President Clinton's administration, along with the blessing and participation of the international community, which was well-proven in Serbia, 2000 (after bombs failed to produce real democracy):

From the article:

The recipe for non-violent revolution had been perfected in Belgrade. In 1999 Nato’s bombardment of Serbia failed; the US and the European Union decided to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic, which they did in the presidential elections of September 2000. Milosevic, convicted of electoral fraud, faced powerful, carefully organised demonstrations. A few skilfully prepared ingredients and a year of preparations were more effective than bombs.

Once success was certain in Belgrade, the sky was the limit for the Georgian opposition and activist movement. They made contacts in Serbia, went to look and borrowed the recipe. It worked, thanks in no small part to several million dollars from US organisations (the cold war was not yet over). Even so, these revolutions, inspired by Gandhian tactics or by the uprisings of the 1990s in eastern Europe, were more than a matter of manipulation. To believe that would imply ignorance of the social and historical context of the countries.

How different than what we're seeing today in Iraq.

9/11 allowed a mistaken and misleading administration to lead the fearful and shocked U.S. in the wrong direction. Deliberately and decisively.

A sham, I'm sad to say. By acting as de facto revolutionaries on behalf of Iraq, and by setting up these sham elections, we have eliminated the opportunity for dissenting Iraqi citizens to peacefully revolt.

We have created the perfect atmosphere for decades of civil unrest and violence in a land about which our President resorted to lying to the American people in order to spark manufactured (violent/radical) revolution there.

When Bush taunted "Bring it on", he meant it. He knew what he was saying, even if he has now apologized for it.

God help America. I'm convinced we have a mad dog as our President.

Ernest Goes to Auschwitz

Ernest Goes to Auschwitz

"At yesterday's gathering of world leaders in southern Poland to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the United States was represented by Vice President Cheney. The ceremony at the Nazi death camp was outdoors, so those in attendance, such as French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin, were wearing dark, formal overcoats and dress shoes or boots. Because it was cold and snowing, they were also wearing gentlemen's hats. In short, they were dressed for the inclement weather as well as the sobriety and dignity of the event.


The vice president was dressed in the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower."

Will Muslim States Unite Against West?

Will Muslim States Unite Against West?

Here's an extremely interesting and timely report from PINR/Yevgeny Bendersky, titled ''Lines in the Sand: Western State Building in the Muslim World''.

Excerpt:

"..If the world's current dependence on oil continues to grow -- as recent reports about China's oil consumption seem to indicate -- many Muslim states will assume greater clout in world affairs, making it harder to treat each of them separately as distinct "identities" vis-à-vis other states.

The latest developments in the "war on terrorism" point to unifying movements in the Islamic world, either with Iran's help or under the banner of al-Qaeda and its allies -- a more coordinated attack on Western principles and Western interests in the Muslim world that cut across the religious and ethnic divides. While U.S. efforts in Iraq have faltered since 2003, the January 30 Iraqi election following a relatively successful election in Afghanistan will prove to be one of the turning points in the development of the Islamic world, which will either accept and foster the Western model and emerge as a collection of distinct and friendly states, or will finally break under the pressure of Iran and al-Qaeda and begin to emerge as a unified religious, political and military entity, heralding a new chapter in world history."

Hersh: US Government Taken Over By Cult

Hersh: US Government Taken Over By Cult

Sy Hersh says we've been taken over by a cult. Read the transcript of Mr. Hersh's recent appearance at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York.

Excerpt:

"...we are been taken over basically by a cult, eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government. Just how and why and how they did it so efficiently, will have to wait for much later historians and better documentation than we have now, but they managed to overcome the bureaucracy and the Congress, and the press, with the greatest of ease. It does say something about how fragile our Democracy is. You do have to wonder what a Democracy is when it comes down to a few men in the Pentagon and a few men in the White House having their way. What they have done is neutralize the C.I.A. because there were people there inside -- the real goal of what Goss has done was not attack the operational people, but the intelligence people. There were people -- serious senior analysts who disagree with the White House, with Cheney, basically, that's what I mean by White House, and Rumsfeld on a lot of issues, as somebody said, the goal in the last month has been to separate the apostates from the true believers. That's what's happening. The real target has been "diminish the agency." I'm writing about all of this soon, so I don't want to overdo it, but there's been a tremendous sea change in the government. A concentration of power."

What I Heard About Iraq

What I Heard About Iraq

Read this. Don't miss it. Written by Eliot Weinberger, whose '9/12' is published by Prickly Paradigm, it's destined to become a blogger's classic.

*A tip of the hat to Mathew Gross for pointing out the way.

Iraq's Election: Beyond the Rhetoric

Iraq's Election: Beyond the Rhetoric

The Iraq election is a sham. Many will not take part in the elections - not from fear, but because they're seen as phoney. Some say Iraqi democrats can't win in this desperate election. It's no wonder many see the elections as fake. [Only 10%] Of Iraqi expatriates, some not even citizens of Iraq, have begun Iraqi voting in the U.S. With a couple days to go, some Iraqis are asking: "What election?"

In other areas of Iraq, realistic Iraqis are getting ready for the worst. They've seen nothing but chaos, frustration and extreme violence as Iraq readies for this election.

Iraq is certainly no festival of democracy. It's more a travesty of democracy. Even in Baghdad, election security is terribly unsure. Iraqi forces, who run away at the first sign of danger, are expected to do little to stop election day violence. The violent intimidation campaign has nearly paralyzed Baghdad.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush continues to obscure his Iraq Quagmire.

Senator Ted Kennedy wants the troops to get back home.

On last night's NIGHTLINE episode, there was a televised townhall meeting at a church in D.C., (with staged questions). They called it "Iraq-Why Stay?" Ted Koppel moderated. Joseph Wilson laid out a wonderfully rational plan for the future of our disengagement from Iraq. I hope someone's listening. I know our President's administration abhors Joseph Wilson. He's on to their sham and trickery, you see, and he makes his knowlege loud and clear. They wouldn't have exposed Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as CIA - a wicked, cruel, and traitorous act - if they didn't want revenge for the SOTU/yellowcake incident. Wilson reminded the town hall audience that the only reason we should ever commit our Armed Forces to war is to protect America from imminent national security threats. And that is NOT what we are doing in Iraq today. By the Bush administration's arrogance, they will ignore the good advice of men like Wilson and gravely injure America in the process, by weakening and abusing the military. This, my friends, is the kind of leadership we have today.

_________________

*For those of you who saw last night's Nightline's so-called "town hall meeting" and heard a man shouting at the end, I have found out who he was and what he was saying!
See his own accounting here.

Excerpt:

I started chanting "GULF WAR SYNDROME" over and over again, very loudly so it filled the church and drown out Ted Koppel.

He replied, "I am sure I have no idea what you're taking about"

and I yelled, "It's about Depleted Uranium!"

Then I shut up, and he finished his closing and it was over.

As I was waiting to filter out with everybody else, I heard one of the Iraqi's, who was very upset, talking to a producer: "This is not what we expected, we were told we would get a chance to speak in the press release you sent us, and you did not give us the chance to say what we came to say."

Losing Feith

Losing Feith

Douglas Feith, one of the men highly responsible for our being in the Iraq-mess we are in today, will be leaving the DoD in six months. It couldn't happen soon enough for me.

"Someone" must have "something" on him. Something he may not be able to deny. Something incriminating, I'd guess.

Don't ask me what - I'm only guessing. Maybe he's just "damaged goods" after the implication of his involvement with Larry Franklin and the security disaster in Iraq. Sy Hersh's recent allegations certainly couldn't have helped to boost Feith's PR. It takes a major uncovering of impropriety and an elephant-sized monkey wrench to unloose the feithful..er, faithful.. from the Bush Administration these days. It seems it's been done, though.

See Laura Rozen's comments HERE and HERE.

Spongebob vs. the Missionary-Position

Spongebob vs. the Missionary-Position

Spongebob and the missionary position?!?
What could they possible have in common, you ask?

They both appear in a clever piece by SFGate columnist Mark Morford.

Excerpts:

"Note the people who look at hilarious children's cartoons and see only sinister mind control, who look at their fellow human souls and see only an army of debauched heathens, who look (reluctantly) at their own genitals and see only a gnarled clump of pain and confusion, who look up at the beautiful blue sky and see only a massive canopy of daggers.

How incredibly sad. And, for right now, how very, insidiously dangerous...[..]

[..]....They have jammed a black seed of paranoia and dread into the tired soil of American consciousness, and have made it their lifelong duty to ensure that the seed festers and erupts into a gnarled weed of hate and ignorance and bad missionary-position sex with the lights off."

Flip Flopping On The Definition of ‘Freedom’

Flip Flopping On The Definition of ‘Freedom’

The Bush administration’s had a lot of explaining to do about their meaning of “freedom”, the one little word which speechwriters had sprinkled throughout the President’s January 20th inaugural speech, leading to a lot of big questions. Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne says: “You can spin a lot of things. Freedom shouldn’t be one of them.” LINK

The day after the inaugural address, the White House basically said they didn’t really mean what we may have thought they’d meant when President Bush talked about the expansion of “freedom”. They went on to try to explain what they did mean, which in reality, had little to do with the bold speech itself. Dionne calls it the “Freedom Shuffle”. The uncertainty, after sounding oh-so certain and determined, can only increase political division in America and enhance further mistrust amongst foreign nations, according to Dionne. When it depends upon what the definition of “freedom” is on any given day, the President makes it easy for anyone to easily doubt his intent and tenacity in standing up for whatever he thinks the word means. We are only left to scratch our heads and wonder. Dionne says:

The younger Bush’s Freedom Shuffle — he’s an idealist on Thursday and a realist on Friday — may come as a relief to the many foreign policy specialists allergic to grand visions. A majority of Americans will be pleased with the elder Bush’s reassurance that the speech does not mean “newly asserted military forces.”

But the Freedom Shuffle is a terrible mistake for Bush, because the greatest barrier to Bush’s success in his second term is the intense cynicism he has inspired about his motives. This cynicism affects the near majority that voted against him at home but also a vast number of citizens in nations around the world that were once American allies. It is a cynicism that, if it spreads further through the Muslim world, could doom the very best aspirations of Bush’s policy.

Bush supporters see this cynicism as mean-spirited. In fact, it is the bitter fruit of bitter experience. A war originally justified in the name of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction is transformed with some well-chosen phrases into — presto! — an episode in the long struggle for freedom. The shifting rationale is never acknowledged. His disquisition on this struggle did not even mention the central theater of battle in Iraq. No need to mire grand dreams in grim realities. A nation that should be the world’s leading advocate of human rights gets caught up in a torture scandal, and the president has yet to hold himself or high officials accountable for this deep stain on his country’s reputation.

Bush's Vision of America Will Mean TYRANNY

Bush's Vision of America Will Mean TYRANNY
James Madison would spin like chicken rotisserie in his grave if he knew.

Read the selected quotes below.
James Madison sternly and solemnly warned against concentration of power in all branches of government.
There stands an elected majority in both the House and Senate. (Elected or not, heed Madison's warning from Federalist 47).
We can safely predict President Bush's political intent, should a Supreme Court seat (or two or three) become vacant in the near future. (Did you get a good look at the Chief Justice at the inauguration? I don't think it will be long.)
How can the President expect any of us to believe his rhetoric about fighting tyranny when he plans to create the perfect opportunity for tyranny to reign Supreme (pun intended) in his own country?

QUOTE ONE:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny..[..]..From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying ``There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,'' or, ``if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers..where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted''

--James Madison, Federalist No 47, February 1, 1788

QUOTE TWO:

"President Bush has indicated he favors nominating justices with a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, a judicial philosophy generally regarded as anti-abortion. Mr. Bush has said he favors a justice in the mold of the high court's strongest conservatives, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."

--Andrew J. Baroch, Voice of America, 26 November 2004

QUOTE THREE:

"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world...[..]..All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors."

--George W. Bush, Second Inaugural Address, January 20, 2005

In his inaugural speech last week, President Bush said there could be no justice without freedom.

Heed my warning.
There can be only an end to freedom with Bush' plans for the future of the Supreme Court.

Be prepared for four years of tyranny in your own country, America. The only oppressors the Bush administration will ignore, apparently, is the Bush administration.

"An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

----James Madison, Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788

Kevin Sites: Tsunami Stories

Mannequin in tsunami wreckage. image: Kevin Sites

Kevin Sites: Tsunami Stories

Kevin Sites' latest blog reporting from the Tsunami zone is a must-read.

Excerpt from "Black Plastic" by Kevin Sites:

Mohammed picks up a photo album. It's covered with mud -- the pictures inside ruined. All the years of memories destroyed like the lives they depicted.

A few feet away is an inflated life jacket. I wonder whether if the force of the wave ripped it from the person who was wearing it or whether they cven had a chance to put it on.

The Indonesian soldiers who are recovering bodies here have run out of latex gloves. They improvise by tying black plastic bags around their hands to do mortuary work on a scale they likely never dreamed of.

Universal Press Syndicate Will Harbor Bush Shill Maggie Gallagher

Universal Press Syndicate Will Harbor Bush Shill Maggie Gallagher

Universal Press Syndicate explains why they'll keep Maggie Gallagher.

They hype themselves as having "The best opinions in the universe." Instead, they should call it "the best opinions the Bush administration can purchase."

I'll never trust any of their journalism from here on in. Ted Rall should remove himself from this creepy group as soon as he can. Run, Ted. Run.

Torture:The New Casual Topic

"It's not nice to fool Mother Nature Uncle Sam!...If you think it's butter torture and it's not...it's Chiffon Al Gonzales' acceptable form of interrogation!"

Torture: The New Casual Topic

Tom Tomorrow makes a comically astute point about the new/cavalier (almost breezy) attitude toward the topic of torture. He titles his latest cartoon "How Low Can We Go? The Disturbingly Brief Journey From Unthinkable to Mundane"
Arlen Specter's performance in the Al Gonzales nomination hearing comes to mind...his casual questioning about the "ticking bomb" scenario, in particular. (*Someone's watching waaay too much "24").

________________

James Wolcott says 'Just Say NO' to Gonzales nomination

At Daily Kos, they're telling us that Gonzales has pointed out the Convention Against Torture treaty, as ratified by the Senate, which doesn't prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" tactics on non-U.S. citizens who are captured abroad, in Iraq or elsewhere..Gonzales, White House counsel and a close Bush adviser, described recent reports of prisoner abuse as "shocking and deeply troubling." But he refused to answer questions from senators about whether interrogation tactics witnessed by FBI agents were unlawful..." LINK to News Story-San Jose Mercury

Proposal to Democrats: Disband!

Proposal to Democrats: Disband!

My idea? Nope.
If you're wondering, I didn't propose this.
It's crossed my mind many times lately, though.
I'll bet it's crossed yours, too.
Do you think it's a harsh suggestion?
I don't know....
It was absolutely revolting to hear Sen. John McCain categorizing Dems who would stand up for truth and vote proudly against Condi Rice as "sore losers". (And getting away with it. CNN and FOX are replaying it ad nauseum).

I believe the real losers are the ones who willingly ignore reality for their own cheap political gain. Losers come in Red and Blue; Elephant and Donkey. I'm not being partisan here.

This post is for the Donkeys who refuse to stand up for reality and sell their supporters out at almost every opportunity. Shame on them!

At The American Street, Emma has decided to put it up for public discussion.

I think Emma's "DISBAND" suggestion isn't a bad one.

Seeing how few of the Dems actually stood their ground and voted a resounding "NO" for a woman who lied, bold-faced, to the public about a war into which our nation should never have entered is revolting. If Democrats are so easily intimidated by GOP hacks tossing around terms such as "un-American", they aren't representing those Americans whom they are charged with the duty of representing. The word "worthless" comes to mind.

Someone commented that a proposal of this type is barely necessary. Why propose to have them disband? The Democrats, by their abandonment of duty to the left and even many moderate Democrats, are systematically destroying themselves - and the success of the American system of government hoped for by the nation's Founders.

*An Alternative Idea?
"How about we just shake up the management and put a fighter in charge. Maybe a loud-mouthed Governor from New england or something?"
--Comment by 'Fast Eddie' at American Street

Americans Catching On To Bush Voodoo Optimism on Iraq

Americans Catching On To Bush Voodoo Optimism on Iraq

See the latest AP poll. Already-shaky confidence in Iraq's future has slipped.
Even Southerners and rural Americans are becoming resistant to President Bush's Iraq-related voodoo-optimism. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but sooner or later they're going to have your number.

It won't be long before they'll be calling for the troops to come home.

My only question will be: What took them so long?

Juan Cole: The Speech Bush Should have Given

Juan Cole: The Speech Bush Should have Given

Juan Cole lays out the speech he thinks Bush should have given back in 2002, as he was trying to convince Congress to give him the authority to go to war against Iraq.

Excerpt:

"..There also isn't any operational link between a secular Arab nationalist like Saddam and the religious loonies of al-Qaeda. They're scared of one another and hate each other more than each hates us. In fact, I have to be perfectly honest and admit that if we overthrow Saddam's secular Arab nationalist government, Iraq's Sunni Arabs will be disillusioned and full of despair. They are likely to turn to al-Qaeda as an alternative. So, folks, what I'm about to do could deliver 5 million Iraqis into the hands of people who are insisting they join some al-Qaeda offshoot immediately. Or else.

So why do I want to go to war? Look, folks, I'm just not going to tell you. I don't have to tell you. There is little transparency about these things in the executive, because we're running a kind of rump empire out of the president's office. After 20 or 30 years it will all leak out. Until then, you'll just have to trust me."

Gore Vidal: Bush Inaugural Speech Was Un-American

"I’d say what we have now in the United States is working up a nice tyrannical persona for itself and for us."

--Gore Vidal

Gore Vidal: Bush Inaugural Speech Was Most Un-American Ever
US Could Become Dictatress of the World And Lose Her Soul
LINK-DEMOCRACY NOW

GORE VIDAL QUOTE: "There's not a word of truth in anything that he said. Our founding fathers did not set us on a course to liberate all the world from tyranny. Jefferson just said, “all men are created equal, and should be,” etc, but it was not the task of the United States to “go abroad to slay dragons,” as John Quincy Adams so wisely put it; because if the United States does go abroad to slay dragons in the name of freedom, liberty, and so on, she could become “dictatress of the world,” but in the process “she would lose her soul.” That is what we -- the lesson we should be learning now, instead of this declaration of war against the entire globe. He doesn't define what tyranny is. I’d say what we have now in the United States is working up a nice tyrannical persona for itself and for us. As we lose liberties he’s, I guess, handing them out to other countries which have not asked for them.."

______________________

Gore Vidal: America Has Worst Educational System of Any First World Country

GORE VIDAL: "...And that an American audience would sit there beside the capitol or reverently in front of their TV screens and watch this and not see the absurdity of what was being said -- absolute proof of a couple of things that I have felt, and most of us who are at all thoughtful feel: We’ve got the worst educational system of any first world country. We are shameful when we go abroad, because we know nothing. Just to watch the destruction of the archaeologists’ work at Babylon. Babylon is a center of our culture. Nobody knows that. Nobody knows what it is, except it's a wicked city that the lord destroyed. Well, it was the center of our civilization, the center of mathematics, of writing, of everything. And apparently our troops were allowed to go in and smash everything to bits. Why did they do it? Was it because they are mean bad boys and girls? No. They're totally uneducated. And their officers are sometimes mean and bad, and allow them to have a romp, as they also had in the prisons, none of which we heard about in the last election. We were too busy with homosexual marriage and abortion, two really riveting subjects. War and peace, of course, are not worth talking about. And civilization, God forbid that we ever commit ourselves to that."

Okay, I'll admit it: I'm paranoid about Bushites' intent toward Iran

Okay, I'll admit it:
I'm paranoid about Bushites' intent toward Iran
Knowing they lied, rushed and botched the Iraq situation, I think I have good reason.

Should we be openly promoting the idea of democracy in Iran?

Yes, I think we should... with honor, good faith, and the utmost respect for human rights and the rule of law.

Does that mean attacking them with bombs (as we've done in Iraq)?

I say no, no; one thousand times NO!

First, you do not deliver human rights with a bomb.

It never works.

You support. You do not destroy as a first means of offering your nation's support or convincing people that your nation's intent is forwarded in good faith.

NeoCons showed us how NOT to support human rights and democracy in Iraq. They provided President Bush with the perfect blueprint (a blueprint he willingly accepted) for what NEVER to do again!

Listen to the reasoning of Shirin Ebadi (quoted below-see LINK). It's time for Americans to rely on our own sense and use our own freedom to speak out now...before we enter into another damned disaster.

"Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi has said that while she, too, opposes nuclear weapons, the West would do more good by focusing not on Tehran's nuclear programme but on promoting democracy in the Islamic Republic.

"In a country or a society where people supervise decisions and everything else, like a democratic country, the existence of an atomic bomb cannot be dangerous," Ms Ebadi said."