April 1, 2004, Chicken Hawk Down? Not on My Watch, Says Prez...
Americans, usually numb to the suffering of others in whom they do not have a direct financial stake, were stirred a bit out of their existential slumber by reports and images of an angry Iraqi mob burning and mutiliating the corpses of murdered American contract workers in Fallujah, Iraq. While reminiscent to some of similar images of American soldiers being dragged throught the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia, the President, cognizant that the Somalia situation was completely different because Bill Clinton-- a Democrat was in the White House-- and therefore, the Mogadishu episode demonstrated American weakness and lack of resolve-- determined to respond with an unmistakeable show of force against the Iraqi insurgents.
Accordingly, the President determined that decisive action was required once and for all, and ordered the execution of every man, woman and child in Fallujah. This is an election year, and the President was concerned that Senator Kerry might try to make too much of HIS war-time exploits, and point out that the President only served stateside. So as not to be accused of refusing to dirty his own hands in the matter, President George W. Bush is, as of this moment (0900 EST, or 1300 Zulu, 1 April 2004) in command of an F-3 Hornet fighter heading for Fallujah, where he will personally launch cruise missiles from his aircraft directed at a holding area where the population of Fallujah has been rounded up to await their date with Allah.
Although reports from a heated cabinet meeting revealed that Secretary of State Powell "had reservations" about the plan, and Homeland Security Secretary Ridge said he "saw potential problems" from the plan, the remainder of the cabinet gave it 12 "enthusiastic thumbs up" (Dick Cheney approving of the plan from Undisclosed Location, Wyoming).
The President's words before climbing into the cockpit to assembled press (who vowed secrecy, until the mission was safely carried out) was "We're gonna show these furriners what Amerrka stands for! We are a peace-loving, just and merciful people, and they will realize this as we blow them to Paradise. Sunni Triangle, get ready for your 70 Virgins."
May God continue to bless America.
March 30, 2004, Strata Lucida
Strata Lucida is the well-constructed little gem of Oakland, California's own Chris Tweney, whose status as a renaissance person seems confirmed by Chris's writings (available on the site) which literally run the gamut from cutting edge physics to cutting edge music (and, of course, the high-level discussions you get in the blog itself). But Buckaroo Bonzai this blog is not: what it IS is a solid, direct attack on politics and the world at large, from a fireballing southpaw; blogroll is NOT fair and balanced-- just some of your favorite fellow travelers.
TD Designation:
Strellufstover
March 30, 2004, Who Says Slime Doesn't Pay?
Not the American people. In a recent poll, in which President Bush has recaptured the lead over Senator Kerry (by around 51% to 47% of those "likely to vote"). Pollsters are interpreting this to mean that the President's picking of the low-lying fruit by accusing Kerry of being a "tax and spend liberal" in a barrage of key-state t.v. ads is carrying some resonance (hinting, of course, that the early caucus-goers in Iowa, by rejecting the fiscal tightwad Howard Dean by ridiculously considering Kerry "more electable" may have fucked up-- big time; note to all-too excitable self and everyone else-- its March, and these polls don't matter that much).
At the same time, however, Kerry has actually lost ground while he has more or less sat back as the Richard Clarke allegations and the 9-11 Commission hearings have played out. (These events include the politically necessary minuet that will now "allow" Her Holiness Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly (the deal, for those of you who need to be told it, is that she will get to see the questions ahead of time so she can rehearse her responses-- like the President was for the Russert interview; even having rehearsed, the President still wasn't up to it-- but I think Condi will put on a good show herself.)
I believe its an old Marx Brothers routine: who are you going to believe-- me, or your own eyes? The American people clearly opting for the former, IMHO.
Now, of course, the Bush Administration will bombard the key states with a black and white ad featuring Kerry advocating a 50 cent a gallon increase in gasoline taxes... I don't know the context of this, but we can be sure that the Bush Administration will not include it-- and just continue the "tax and spend liberal" show.
Irony, after irony, after irony-- assuming we are watching the precursor of the campaign (lo these 6 months and a week before the November election), then one of my original pet conspiracy theories-- the Republicans desperately DID NOT WANT to face Howard Dean, will have come to fruition. To his credit, Kerry seems to have a comeback for everything, and Bush's economic record, especially job loss numbers, continues to be something that the Administration would probably prefer not to emphasize.
Well, I think its great if Clarke has managed to take fear of terror as a theme in general away from the Bushmen-- forcing them into their "Kerry is a tax and spend liberal" theme already. Because in that case, its still the economy stupid. But I'd like to know something...
TTD's Assignment Desk: I believe that at some point early in the Clinton Administration, the Bureau of Labor Statistics changed its methodology on counting unemployment, which, at the time, greatly helped Clinton's numbers, ultimately ending at an unemployment rate in the staggeringly good 3% range. IIRC, the Clinton numbers under the old method would still have been really good (maybe 4-5%), but since Bush is getting credit for the new and improved Clinton methodology, my guess is that the current 5.6% would be measured at 7, maybe 8% under the old and lousy methods by which Reagan and Poppy and Carter were measured. Can anyone verify-- or even debunk-- my proposition? Discuss.
March 29, 2004, The Untouchables, Starring Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, citing some made up "executive privilege" argument, continues to stonewall the 9-11 Commission and refuses to testify publicly (though she is most certainly willing to try her case in the press). Before we take one step further-- I INSIST that you click on this link... I don't care if you read the article and its conspiratorial implications or not-- just look at the picture of the oil tanker named for our current NSC Director. Just do it.
OK. Get the picture? Condi does not have to testify publicly-- about this, or anything else, now or ever. OK? I'm reminded of a line from Goodfellas: "Pauly didn't move fast. He didn't have to."
The fact that Richard Clarke has made it clear that Dr. Rice unquestionably has blood all over her hands (coincidence that the tanker is red? well, yes). It seems the President held Clarke in high regard; Clarke showed Tim Russert a personal letter of thanks handwritten by the President.
In a previous post, I quipped that the President might be blameless... because he is clueless. Well, Clarke's statements are starting to put some flesh on that allegation: apparently, Dr. Rice and her staff made it a point to deny Mr. Clarke access to the President, and to deemphasize every alarm he tried to raise regarding Al Qaeda-- until it was too late of course. (BTW-- for those of you who STILL want to blame Clinton, the plot was going on for years, yada yada yada, note that some of the hijackers did not arrive in the United States until April of 2001.) Indeed, its beginning to look like the system set up in the White House was absolutely designed to keep the President out of the loop on just about anything important.
Maybe the President set this up himself to avoid accountability. Maybe this is the decision of his handlers. Don't know. But its clearly how this White House is managed.
As we saw after the erroneous statement in the State of the Union address, for which CIA Director Tenet was asked to take the bullet, the fault unquestionably lied in one place (besides Bush himself for reading it without insisting on backup): NSC Director Rice (and her deputy Stephen Hadley-- but she is answerable for him). And yet, she skated by.
Now it seems, Mr. Clarke is placing 9-11 squarely at the feet of Dr. Rice, and the shoe seems to fit. Alas, the shoe is a skate, and Dr. Rice will skate by this-- despite the blood of over 3,000 American 9-11 victims, nearly 600 American troops lost in Iraq, hundreds of billions of dollars in war costs and economic losses... clear lies that besmirched a state of the union address that it was HER JOB to vet... And yet, she will skate away.
March 28, 2004, The Blind Leading the Blind, Deaf, and Peculiarly Dumb...
It seems that the United States, Britain and Australia are not the only countries who have been engaging in various exercises in "self-exploration" regarding their nations' multifarious intelligence assessments of Iraqi non-conventional weapons leading into the Iraq adventure. It seems that Israel is also engaging itself in such an exercise, and a panel charged with examining Israeli intelligence before the run-up to Gulf War II greatly criticized that nation's own intelligence services as providing grossly inadequate and inaccurate information.
That would seem peculiarly troubling to me: the United States, in addition to deliberately forged British intelligence stolen from academic papers and magazine articles, as well as our own "intelligence" community, relied heavily upon back-channels from Israeli intelligence and, of course, more direct channels from the Iraqi emigre community (led by convicted embezzler and Iraqi-heir-apparent Ahmed Chalabi), which insisted that Saddam had a massive, readily deployable stockpile of chemical, biological and probably nuclear weapons (along with the Romulan cloaking device, and Klingon model photon torpedoes). The fact is, as many of us knew for certain at the time, and the rest of us learned later, Iraq had bubkes. Nada. Not a bloody vial of bad shit (in a country... the size of California). And enough of the partisan, cheerleading charade-- such Iraqi unconventional weapons simply don't exist. Not in Iraq. Not in Syria. Not on the moon. Nowhere. Having failed to plant them in Iraq thus far, seeing as said weapons don't actually exist, our military will never find them, which should give the President some slide-show-yuks for a long time to come.
So... is it really possible that Israeli intelligence was as wildly wrong as its American and British counterparts? Well, no... it isn't possible, actually. Israeli security actually IS more competent than its American and British counterparts, largely because it has no margin for error. Unlike either the United States or Britain, Israel has been threatened by Iraq in the past, and has numerous direct contacts involving actual human beings gathering actual real intelligence. We should all realize after the Jonathan Pollard fiasco that, while Israel's interests are largely consistent with those of the United States, they are not identical. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone reviewing intelligence provided by Israel that there would be a certain unstated incentive to. ahem, overstate just a little any threat that the irritating Saddam Hussein might present. (Sure, if you asked an Israeli security official, they would tell you that Hizbollah-sponsoring nuclear weapon developing Iran presents a far more serious existential threat-- but since the Bush Administration seemed so desirous of taking out Saddam at no cost to Israel-- hey, what the fuck, right?)
Hence, IMHO, the alleged Israeli intelligence failure just didn't happen. We are witnessing "Likudnik Fireside Theatre". In part, it would be nice for PM Sharon to deflect attention from a possible bribery indictment, but mostly, the alleged fallacies of Israeli intelligence will be cited later when it emerges just how much American intelligence relied on its Israeli counterparts. Its a win win situation for Sharon. The price Israel paid this round was monetary: it ordered a shitload of smallpox vaccine and fresh gas masks. Well-- better safe than sorry, guys. The price the United States has paid-- hundreds of billions of dollars, nearly 600 dead , thousands maimed for life-- is a bit steeper.
Sure, for its own public consumption, Israeli intelligence services incorrectly assessed the shit Saddam had.
But for Israeli overall purposes, its intelligence services served their nation brilliantly. Would we in the United States be able to say the same thing.
March 28, 2004, Shhhhh!!! Be vewy quiet, or you will make Beijing Vewy Angwy...
Back when I started Pravda Saturdays, I also meant to include a piece from the Chinese People's Daily as well (that way you could hear regularly on TTD from the metropoles of all three world powers: Oceania, Eurasia AND Eastasia); for a variety of reasons, I kept up Pravda-- but have found keeping up with the CPC's mouthpiece on a more regular basis... a bit less doable.
Well, Allah be Praised, I may start that People's Daily Sunday right up again. The People's Daily gives us this marvelous assault on the Bush Administration for having the audacity to congratulate Taiwanese "Authority" President Chen. China whines and whines that the Bush Administration evidently refuses to honor to Shanghai protocols signed by Nixon recognizing that there is "only one China".
Well... boo hoo. Taiwan is a vibrant democracy, and keeps voting for candidates who mouth off about independence. Frankly, a few weeks ago, President Bush issued a "stern warning" to President Chen about making too much noise about de jure independence (Taiwan has been de facto independent since the 1940's). Bad enough the leader of one democratic nation is so dictating to the leader of another... but not good enough for our friends in Beijing. (Damn Taiwanese don't want to go back to the KMT-- the party of the former dictatorship, btw).
Well, as I have said many times-- I believe the Mainland Chinese are smart enough to know how to play their leverage-- and right now, they have considerable leverage over us, what with their humongous trade surplus with us, and their immense holdings of American treasury securities. Yes, to actually go all out would involve mutual economic destruction-- but leverage they have (proving that bad fiscal policy can lead to bad foreign policy-- see, e.g., Saudi Arabia).
But here we go again: as I look at this-- while China would insist that Taiwan is its "internal affair", I would insist that China dictating to our government about its handling of AMERICAN foreign policy which DOES NOT CONCERN the Mainland itself is a meddling into OUR internal affairs. Not that anyone is listening to me.
Coming the same week I understand that China has banned both Movable Type's TypePad program AND blogger, all I can say is... nice. Just... nice.
March 27, 2004, Yassin Redux...
Allah be praised, this week's visit to Pravda gives us this explanation for the recent events in Israel, including the Sharon government's decision to assassinate Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Its an interesting take, that makes an awful lot of sense. A huge part of Arafat's actions involve never being seen as too conciliatory lest his own side have him killed. Many of us (me anyway) keep forgetting that any not-insane Israeli leader must be thinking precisely on the same terms, lest he be taken out by Jewish extremists a la Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Hence, the respective leaders' sense of sheer self-preservation is a key stumbling block to genuine reconciliation. I don't mean to equate the two-- Arafat is an arch-criminal and terrorist facilitator; Sharon is neither of those things. However, the restraints the two are under are remarkably similar, when you think about it in those terms.
Anyway, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey's Pravda piece
goes on to note that Sharon has a long-term strategic view of how he wants the West Bank to look (Sharon is more or less resigned to withdraw from Gaza, with the assassination of Yassin and other Hamas leadership intended to show the clear intent that Israel is withdrawing out of strength rather than weakness, as the Southern Lebanon pullout had been perceived). That West Bank would have Israeli settlements running in two corridors up the East part and up the West part of the West Bank, with highways running across between the two sets of settlements; the Palestinians would have whatever parts of the checkerboard were left-- the "archipelago" model.
Well, this sure seems to be exactly how Sharon is governing. Bancroft-Hinchey believes that Israel should withdraw from the entire West Bank, as its post-67 occupation is illegal. I probably concur with that, for different reasons. Aside from having to maintain appropriate military positions to maintain the international borders-- between "Palestine" and Jordan and Egypt-- as well as the sea coast. This is both for its own security and that of its neighbors-- Arafat famously tried to overthrow the Jordanian regime a few years ago, you will recall. I certainly think that Israel should get the &^%$ out of all of Gaza and the entire West Bank. This is not dissimilar to what the (disastrous) Avodah (Labour) Party campaign of Avram Mitzna was suggesting last year.
The easiest way for me to express the reasons for my opinion: going back to the pre-'67 borders is in Israel's interests. Israel is a democracy; its Arab houseguests propagate much faster than its Jewish nationals-- the last of the great Jewish communities likely to emigrate to Israel-- that of the former Soviet Union-- has by and large already moved to Israel. Israel needs to shed itself of these millions of hostile Arabs under its control-- or its status as a liberal democracy will ultimately not hold. (One sticking point might be Jerusalem-- but believe it or not, a plan to "internationalize" Jerusalem has actually already been worked out.) Israel will survive just fine under this arrangement; its ability to export some of its problems like an inability to provide affordable housing within Israel proper will just have to be dealt with differently. Anyone compelled to live in a holy site on the Palestinian side of the line will just have to live under Palestinian authority-- or move back to Israel, of course.
Of course, none of these proposed withdrawals will happen-- the status quo will persist. (Except for Sharon's vision-- that will happen, as it is happening now, and will continue to happen; plans for Gaza withdrawal are already well along-- along with settlement expansion in the West Bank a/k/a Judea and Samaria). The price of keeping the extremists happy is keeping over 1,000,000 citizen-soldiers (and btw a huge portion of the worst of the extremists get an exemption from military service to boot!) on high alert at all times, and, of course, cleaning up the mess of human remains and metal parts when a bus or cafe explodes a few times every year.
Existential angst about going outside seems a small price to pay to keep Zionist extremists happy, don't you think? Cautionary tale, boys and girls; just think about who else seems to have similar "grand visions"...
March 25, 2004, Pen-Elayne
Pen-Elayne on the Web is the link heavy brainchild of da' Bronx's own Elayne Riggs (who posts her resume on the site... in George W. Bush's America-- let's just say, good move). Elayne is a free-spirited gen-u-ine lib-e-ral (as duly reflected in a liberal heavy blogroll-- no nonsensical pretense of "fair and balanced" here). The posts vary from the political, to the personal, to women's issues, to cooking, leisure and writing issues, with numerous citations to other bloggers and other sources-- a very labor intensive, link intensive production. (I promised Elayne that when I got back to doggy bloggy reviewing, she would be first-- as her blog alone also conformed to my then "Beatles title" theme. Also, like me, Elayne is an avowed Marxist-Lennonist, so I thank her for that large postage stamp featuring both Groucho and John).
TD Designation: Pencil-tail Feist
March 25, 2004, From the files of the news magazine "Duh"
FBI director Robert Mueller stated that there was a substantial likelihood that "terrorists" (I guess he must mean A-rabs) will likely try to launch some sort of terror stirike right around November's Presidential elections here, or perhaps at the nominating conventions, or perhaps at the Athens Olympics this summer. You think that terrorists might try to do something high profile like that? Amazing.
What is becoming clearer and clearer from the 9-11 Commission hearings is that if plots are afoot by terrorists to engage in such wanton acts of terrorism against American interests (including quite possibly within the United States), they will much more likely be thwarted by sheer dumb luck than by any "national security" apparatus that includes the likes of Condi "I'm too sexy to appear in public" Rice or her Deputy Stephen "Clousseau" Hadley, or by DCI (which, I gotta tell you, I always thought was Drum Corps International) George "I enjoy the taste of shit-- no, really I do" Tenet. (I did enjoy watching SecDef Donald "Strangelove" Rumsfeld-- the guy amuses me, even while creeping me out).
Naturally, the Administration launches various attacks on former national counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, to the effect of he's a liar, perhaps he has personal problems, he teaches at the Kremlin on the Charles with a Kerry aide... all various forms of character assassination (for which, you know I DO blame Clinton for hiring the loathsome Sydney "I enjoy being a scumsucker" Blumenthal to perform personal character assassinations on young women-- oh wait, I've digressed).... The Bush Administration COULD just say "We appreciate Mr. Clarke's service to the nation. His opinions are clearly his own, and he is entitled to them. We strongly disagree with his assessments of events, as the Administration did everything within its power to combat terror, and even Mr. Clarke has noted the strong likelihood that there was nothing that could have prevented the events of September 11th. We leave it to the American people to make up their own minds". Actually, that would probably be so unexpectedly candid and classy as to be devastating, and the sheer stunned silence might end this issue. But, as expected, its knee jerk attack mode; we can only hope Mr. Clarke has no relatives in the covert service, or Robert Novak will be outing them any day now...
The fact is, even as I watch the Bush Administration suffer what should be death by a thousand cuts, we know better: Karl Rove is carefully figuring which states he knows he has locked up by sheer cheating and black box voting (such as Florida and quite possibly Pennsylvania); he also knows he can rely on a huge sector of Americans (in the key "swing states") to be as delusional as they are stupid, and vote for these fucking keystone kops to have another term (frankly, what is emerging is that while the Clinton Administration was pretty piss poor in this area of fighting Al Qaeda while Bill screwed around with... screwing around-- the Bush Administration has been nothing short of criminally negligent). In fact, a bettin' man would have to give the early inside line to the Bushmen: the press is playing it perfectly, treating everything as a he-said, she-said, as if unsupported, preposterous counter accusations are "news", let alone "truth".
Which takes us back to Spain, and we Americans-- especially we New Yorkers-- owe a huge debt to the Spanish people for showing the courage NOT to rally around a corrupt, anti-democratic and worthless-piece-of-shit government that not only couldn't protect its citizens, but was amply willing and eager (like the Bush Administration) to play national tragedy for partisan advantage. Because the fact that Bush cannot count on being assured of a positive political and electoral reaction from a major terror strike shortly before the election greatly decreases the odds that such a strike will take place. (As always, draw your own conclusions.)
March 24, 2004, Not with a bang, but with a wimper
One of the things that I have meant to discuss at some length (but was duly silenced by technical difficulties, and of late, professional obligation-- yes, I remain unemployed in George W. Bush's America) is the assassination of Hamas founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
The assessment is that the assassination of Yassin represents some sort of Israeli policy of eliminating Hamas prior to Israel pulling out of Gaza (which, lest it become an issue-- God help us-- in the American Presidential election-- will only take place after November (if at all), may smack of something more ominous.) As I see it, Sheikh Yassin, since his release from jail as part of an exchange for Mossad agents captured in Jordan after a botched assassination attempt on another Hamas leader, has been a royal pain in the ass. He has helped organize countless suicide attacks and other murders which have directly or indirectly resulted in the deaths of hundreds, both Israelis and Palestinians. And, as I said elsewhere, he will not be missed.
However... the Electronic Intifada piece conveys a sadness at the inevitable insanity of the after-consequnces. It describes a Palestinian mother of seven daughters who says she does not want land, does not even want her own state, all she wants is a normal life for her children. Golda Meir used to say that peace would break out when Palestinians (in general) loved their own children more than they hated Israel's. Sadly, I fear that the Palestinian mother described may represent a common sentiment among Palestinians that dare not speak up amidst the multifarious criminal gangs (led by the arch-criminal Arafat and his own Fatah Nostra). There is also a sadness that on the Israeli side, despite most Israelis craving for a normal life, extremists will hold sway on that side, and the policies that prevent normalcy will continue, unabated.
As I often note in matters of Israel's own war on terror, Israel gives us a sneak preview of what we're up against, as well as a cautionary tale. Secretary Albright testified during the 9-11 Commission hearings (which are fascinating in their own right, though, I confess, quite painful for me to listen to in more than little bits), had the United States successfully executed the death of Osama bin Laden, we would not have killed Al Qaeda by any means. Well, Israel may be knocking off its known leadership in Gaza, but it seems that two or three Palestinians seem to pop up in place of each one killed either by Israeli air power or attempting to murder Israelis. Hence, Yassin will be replaced... I understand he may already have been. (Some felt he was a moderating influence in Hamas; if he was, I guess Israelis are about to find out the hard way).
Yes, Israel proceeds with construction of the security fence, which, given how many Palestinian towns and villages are on the Israeli side, lends credence to the proposition that the fence is more land-grab device than security device. Charges of ethnic cleansing by Israelis have been made for decades, of course, by blowhard Palestinians; this time, however, they may actually have some credence. Settlement expansion continues-- despite the insane costs on both sides. The fence goes on, although its less of a big deal (the entire cost of it is in the range of $200,000,000, which I have pointed out represents less than a large size settlement, when one factors in infrastructure, roads, security, etc.) than are the settlements themselves.
But facts on the ground, they are a changing-- and they are slowly but surely whittling away at land, and hence, likely wealth in a Palestinian society that will be dependent on agriculture and tourism, assuming the criminal gangs that run it can be ousted and some semblancy of normal life ever be imposed. And ordinary Palestinians will become ever more desperate, and doubtless, the line to become suicide bombers will grow ever longer, and more Israelis will die on buses and in cafes, and more Palestinians will die in their beds, cars and street corners.
And "road maps for peace" and "peace processes" and "shining Arab democracies" in Iraq... won't mean shit. More people on both sides of the conflict will die, often horribly, and invariably senselessly. The mighty Israel that can probably mobilize as many military personnel in 72 hours as the United States despite having only boxed in Syria as a declared enemy on its border, remains in an existential trap... although at this point, one which it largely controls. But it won't. The politics dictate a "hard line"-- on settlements, on revenge assassinations, on the future borders of the Palestinian archipelago-- and Palestinian hopelessness will only grow.
I fear that Secretary Albright's capsule assessment (as seconded by Richard Clarke) is correct: just crossing off terror figures from a list as they die or are
captured does not mean one is winning the war on terror. More terrorists simply take their place. The ultimate fight will involve adjusting policy to remove the preconditions to terror (something neither Israel nor the United States has been willing to do), actual, meaningful human intelligence (something the Israelis at least are ahead of us on-- indeed, we relied on some of Israel's deliberately manufactured intelligence to justify the Iraq adventure, because our own intelligence these days doesn't seem that... intelligent); active internal security and law enforcement measures (the Israelis are again ahead of us), and only lastly, military action (again, the Israelis at least always know who to strike against).
And yet, despite its overwhelming military superiority, Jerusalem residents have to take a deep breath every time they step on a bus. And I suppose, we of the Big Apple may have to go back to thinking that way soon.
Yassin is (or was) a bad man. But is getting to cross his name off a list worth the price that will be paid for being able to strike that name? Time will tell... I think you can guess my opinion....
March 23, 2004, Long Time No Hear
Modern times are wonderful; we have fabulous high speed internet service. Just one thing: it has to WORK! After several days of waiting, the cable company sent over their troubleshooter, who replaced my modem.
So now, you will get to hear from me on a more regular basis than... lately.
I can tell you my thoughts on the Sheikh Yassin assassination (a truly bad man the world will not miss, but will it be worth the inevitable reprisals?), the Clarke interview (credible and damning, but the American people prefer not to believe that their leadership has its head up its ass-- and will grasp at anything to avoid believing Clarke), and finally, our condolences to Diana Moon, who conveyed some very sad news.
Well... maybe we'll go back to the... doggie blog reviews? Wouldn't you like to know!
March 21, 2004, A Random Jog Around...
First, let me tell everyone that Time-Warner Cable sucks. I have had maybe 15 minutes of internet access all weekend, despite the rather healthy premium I pay each month for its (*&&^%y) monopoly service.
Hence, this week's visit to Pravda has been delayed a bit. Its a shorty but goody: Trent Lott's statement to Russian media that the GOP leadership envies President Putin the degree of support he receives from the Duma and the rest of Russian government. Jeebus: the GOP controls both Houses and Congress and the White House, and much of the judiciary (having had the Presidency for 23 of the last 35 years). That's not enough? Apparently, Trent and the gang won't be happy until they have a Putin style autocracy.
Well, that's certainly good news, if you ask me. It means we don't have one here now!
Meanwhile, we'll here from a more moderate voice, that of Joe Gandelman, who tells us of the upcoming 60 Minutes interview of former White House terrorism expert Richard Clarke, who... blames Bush for a lapse of security that may have led to 9-11 (along with noting Rummy's obsession with attacking Iraq, even after it was established that the 9-11 attacks probably originated from AFghanistan). As with Paul O'Neill's statements, I will say again: there are very few "independent" voters in this round-- there are simply strong, or not so strong, feelings about Bush. Voters fall into the group of pissed-off people who hate him (more than love him, IMHO, though still hardly close to a majority), cheerleaders who love him to the point of supporting him even if he knife-raped a nun on live t.v. (many... far too many in a democracy, actually... the whole right wing blogosphere with the exception of some of our commenters)..., and a oretty fair number-- probably the largest number by far-- that fall into the "well, I kind of like the guy, I think he's kind of appropriately tough on terrorism, but you know, the tax cuts really are irresponsible and I'm kind of worried about the economy and the future, and its not like I want to go up and hug Kerry..."
That last group often stays home, if they are even registered to vote. Our anachronistic (and as the last election has shown us, ridiculous, anti-democratic, and downright dangerous) electoral college system basically means that about 8, maybe 10 states, will decide this election. Its really how this all plays in those states that matter; I should point out that that means we in New York will miss out on all the GOOD ADS, except for what we pick up off the net...
Finally, in my periodic jogger blogger segment, I took a jog around my part of Brooklyn this morning, passing a St. Patrick's Day parade in the vicinity of Prospect Park West, and then, near my house, the aftermath of a rally hosted by our local state assemblywoman (Joan Millman) at a closed fire house, protesting the City's closure of that and a few other fire houses. It reminded me of yesterday's rally in Manhattan, to mark the one year anniversary of the formal start of the Iraq adventure.
It made me think of this as "close the barn door after the horse has fled" weekend. The firehouses struck me as kind of easier: they were closed to save maybe $12,000,000 in a City budget well over a thousand times that. To me, more prudent cutbacks would be the security details of RudyGiuliani (millions a year, I understand, at public expense, even though St. Rudy is now a sought after speaker and consultant who can afford his own security) and Mayor Bloomberg himself who insists on living in his own townhouse rather than Gracey Mansion (causing double security expense). But... we didn't get it done-- the firehouses are closed. Ditto the big "anti-war" rally. The war happened-- we can't take it back. Protest Bush if you like-- God knows, I hope to have an opportunity to do so at the upcoming GOP convention. But calling for us to pull out of Iraq, now, immediately?
You see- this sort of things costs us liberals our credibility; this has to be better thought out than "Bring the troops home tomorrow morning". A recent ABC Poll (I think Unqualified Offerings has referenced it) shows that despite what we may think, 70% of Iraqis like the direction their country is going in. What that means is-- don't be so fast to pull out. Sure, we've made a hash of the occupation, and the whole war was probably unjustified, but at least something good came out of it: the Iraqi people are free of a really bad tyrant. Hey, we haven't secured the place, and other things suck... but we can't ignore those 70% poll numbers.
Sadly for Bush, his domestic approval ratings of the direction THIS country is going in are a wee bit lower...
March 19, 2004, The Grassy Knoll in Tainan
Democracy these days seems to be quite dangerous, sometimes even literally a call to violence (perhaps reminding one of the quip regarding a former loyalty oath given to inducted U.S. service personnel, where one of the questions was "Do you support the overthrow of the United States government by force or violence?" and a bemused new soldier answered "violence"). But I digress, because I don't even want to think about the fact that Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian and Vice-President Annette Lu have both been shot (not fatally, and neither is in critical condition) during a rally in Tainan in Southern Taiwan just one day before a national election there. (Chen was shot in the stomach, and Lu in the knee).
Obviously, Taiwan has upgraded its security status, including security around the opposition candidate. To some, this election might be seen as a referendum on Taiwanese independence, which, although a fact on the ground for nearly sixty years, is the political status that dare not speak its name, lest the autocrats in Beijing decide to go for broke and attack Taiwan. I regard this talk of violent reunification of the "renegade province" as more bluster than reality these days, given that Taiwan is a key source of capital and technical know-how for the Mainland, and (1) attacking Taiwan might destroy that, (2) there is no guarantee that the Mainland would win such an attack against armed-to-the teeth-Taiwan-fighting-on-its-home-field (even if one is not certain that the United States would assist in Taiwan's defense) and (3) the bluster itself ably serves the Mainland's own purposes of keeping jingoistic nationalism stirred up among a potentially discontented populace.
Unlike the Mainland, however, Taiwan is a vibrant, successful democracy, and if our rhetoric meant a God damned thing, that fact alone would kind of make it worthy of our unconditional support against the dictators across the Taiwan Straits. Of course, the Bush policies of perma-deficits require someone to buy our bonds, and right now, that someone is largely the PRC's Central Bank... but what do I know?
While Bush likes to say that the 9-11 attacks were somehow "an attack on democracy", I submit that the shootings of a democratic nation's top two leaders the day before an election is much more something that qualifies as that; by contrast, 9-11 was more of an attack on humanity, the Great Satan, and the biggest buildings in a city with a lot of Jews.
As to the Chen and Lu shootings, I can't even guess at what this was about-- some Mainland plot? A rival party? A rogue faction within Chen's own party? A random nut? Al Qaeda? The Bush Administration? (Ah-- why did I throw in that last one? No, no-- even I don't believe that one.)
Well, you see, the election in Taiwan will almost certainly go on, despite the shootings, just as the election in Spain went on despite the Madrid bombings (it is even unclear if Chen will get any kind of sympathy vote). The precedent in the United States-- the 9-11 attacks took place the same day as a New York mayoral primary, that primary then being moved back two weeks (understandable and necessary, though unfortunate)-- is more problematic. Of course after his beatification a bit later, St. Rudy Giuliani tried to further atack democracy by asking that his term be extended. So the American precedent-- albeit not necessarily "on point", is not as sunny.
In the event of another 9-11 type attack here in the days before the November election, I am not quite as certain that our election would go forward as scheduled... That, of course, would be an attack on our democracy. But it would be an attack from within-- the way our democracy has been attacked lo these last 2 1/2 years in all quarters, by... I'll let you all guess (Hint: the answer is not Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein).
March 18, 2004, Al-Zawahiri today; Osama in 33...
It is being widely reported that Pakistani troops and air power are surrounding the location of a "high value" Al Qaeda figure, believed to be OBL's chief deputy, Zayman Al-Zawahiri. As I told you in this column within the last few days, Pakistani forces are now moving internally in conjunction with the planned capture (as let out of the bag in my comments by Ayn Clouter) as scheduled by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney for April 20th...( or the 19th here... the 20th is Hitler's birthday; the 19th, that of Mary Poppins).
So we are right on schedule-- the traditional "softening up" will be done by Pakistani forces, as we are more or less watching now. American forces will mobilize (all 11,000 troops in the region-- barely 10% of our current deployment in Iraq-- and that is already a reduced number), and, in a coordinated effort, will "capture Osama bin Laden" on more or less the date I'm telling you (they may move it around by a day or two in either direction-- just to fuck with me... and Ayn). Hey-- al Zawahiri is big news-- he's a monster, and very important to Al Qaeda; if Pakistan gets him for us (along with a Ron Jeremy photograph)... well, thanks Pervez!!!
But why this sudden push now?
The Spanish situation should certainly be sobering to the Bush Administration. I once quipped that Bush shold be delighted by the Israelis-- Sharon was widely credited with undermining his nation's security, wrecking his nation's economy, and further lowering his nation's standing in the world... so naturally, when up for reelection, he won in a landslide. Well, that didn't happen in Spain... the people THERE were PISSED at being played for suckers by a government-- much like its pals in the Bush Administration-- that wanted to capitalize on its people's own suffering for its own political advancement. (Sound familiar?)
So... the American economy continues in its moribund state; the big bombings in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq have resumed, American troops continue to be killed; Kerry doesn't seem to be wilting under the (rather lame and ineffective) attacks on him... in short,
its crunch time at 1600 Penn
. We need something to turn around the momentum of ever weakening poll results-- NOW. Yes, yes, originally even I foolishly predicted that OBL would be delivered as a birthday present to Hillary Clinton (and myself): 26 October. But-- after the Spanish situation, that could very easily be interpreted as a pure political ploy which would backfire-- i.e., you let this bastard pose a threat to us for over three years when OBVIOUSLY you could have nailed him the whole time! (Or put another way, "we weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition").No-- October would not be propitious timing-- not at all. Look for a mid to late April Osama thing... maybe tax day-- make it a "hey, we give you tax cuts (don't look at state and local taxes behind the curtain!) AND Osama-- aren't we great!" Just the poetry of Hitler's birthday... (also, the Columbine anniversary-- something we could blame on the moral lassitude of the Clinton Administration!)
So, by the end of April, I will likely be hired as the Donald's new apprentice (playing the role of the "Sistah with attitude"), and OBL will be captured (or killed... nah-- he'll be captured). If I'm wrong, of course... it will just be the Bush Administration changing its plans to spite me... but if I'm right, I can assure you that my tax returns will be audited for some time...
March 17, 2004, Can anyone connect dots?
It seems that Spanish authorities were already well acquainted with a Madrid bombing suspect. Moroccan national Jamal Zougam was known to Spanish authorities, his apartment had been searched, and apparently, it was believed that he had been "vouched for" by Al Qaeda. But, absent something really, really big, like the Madrid bombing, the efforts necessary to "connect the dots" were not undertaken.
This would seem consistent with charges made stateside by FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley and others, that American officials, for a variety of reasons, did not fully investigate suspected terrorists sufficiently, and adequate investigation may have uncovered (and hence thwarted) the September 11th plot.
Are American and Spanish law enforcement manned by complete idiots? I don't think so...
Obviously, as a civilian outsider, I cannot know for sure if either set of "connect the dots" allegations is accurate. So I will play a little anecdotal "connect the dots" on my own, and say that I find it very unlikely that Spanish or American officials were not taking these things "seriously". In fact, as I tell you below, I think that these things were taken incredibly seriously, which leads me to believe that a political decision was made to de-emphasize this area of investigation (in the United States, that decision came from a known long-time business partner of the bin Laden family-- guess who?); it explains (1) why the only civilian flight allowed in American air-space between noon September 11, 2001 and the next flights several days later was a "mercy flight" escorting members of the bin Laden family safely out of the United States; (2) why allegations that the wife of the Saudi ambassador was personally supporting two or three of the hijackers in San Diego seem to have gone uninvestigated even after 9-11; and (3) why the Bush Administration continues to stonewall the 9-11 Commission (it was extended out of sheer political pressure-- but the stonewalling will go on).
You see, around ten years ago, back when I found myself engaged in a solo legal practice taking in literally whatever work came in, I was approached by the wife of a North African man who wanted me to prepare an application for a green card for him. Unfortunately, there seemed to be one little problem: he was arrested for carrying a false passport (and birth certificate... and credit cards...) He was, however, not in custody, while he cooperated with the FBI in trying to identify the fellows who... sold him his... fake... passport.
At that time, you see, the nation (and especially New York) was still smarting from the first World Trade Center bombing; the Ramzi Youssef and Sheikh Abdul Rachman trials were completed or winding down. This fellow who traipsed across my threshold was a nobody-- somebody who the Government had dead to rights on a variety of charges that probably carried a 10-20 year sentence followed by a one-way ride back to the Sahara, with no need for further questions. Instead, this schnook warranted a high level interview at the United States Attorney's office present at which were representatives of not only the Justice Department, but also of the FBI, the Secret Service and the State Department.
There was just one reason this obvious flight risk was allowed to continue to run around despite the fact that he was an illegal alien and apparently a felon. It seems, you see, that the source of his passport may have been the same custom forger frequented by members of the first World Trade Center bombing conspiracy. He could have led to a key path by which Middle Eastern troublemakers were entering the United States-- and my (again, anecdotal) understanding was that Middle Eastern terrorism was probably the number one priority of American law enforcement at that time.
Hence, this fellow, who under any other circumstances I can think of would have been held without bail, was allowed to remain free as long as he kept helping FBI agents try to identify leads associated with his fake document provider... This slim lead, you see, may have proven critical for counter-terrorism-- what seemed to be the FBI's top priority at the time.
Fast forward, a bit. After the subsequent bombings of the U.S.S. Cole and the embassies in East Africa (and let's not forget Oklahoma City), I find it inconceivable that the FBI and American law enforcement did not continue to make terrorism their absolute number one priority.
So what happened?
You got it: the Bush Administration. J'accuse, baby. It had its own priorities for law enforcement (such, as oh, medicinal marijuana users or late term abortion providers-- yes, I know I'm conflating time lines... or am I?). Bush also had (and has) an amazing relationship with the Saudis... a relationship neither I nor anyone without a really major league security clearance will ever know the full extent of. Hence, of all the countries in the Middle East, only the Sauds had "visa express"-- a fast track method of getting its citizens into the United States (expediting the process to go around other irritating measures put in place after... the... First... World Trade Center... bombing). To be honest, and to be fair, I don't know if visa express was in place under Clinton... I certainly suspect that most of the Saudi and other 9-11 hijackers made it stateside during the Clinton Administration. What I also don't know is what kind of scrutiny Saudi nationals entering the U.S. would have received under the Clinton Administration. I only know that they didn't receive adequate enough surveillance and scrutiny under the Bush Administration to thwart the 9-11 events. (You see, it turns out that law enforcement, rather than "preemptive" wars of aggression, might very well be the correct model to thwart terrorism; yes this assumes that we "could" thwart the 9-11 events... but if we could NOT under any circumstances, then I submit to you, boys and girls, what the fuck do we need a government for?)
Once again: I am speculating. It's all I got! I just want to dispel the notion that, at least during the Clinton Administration, the FBI wasn't treating potential leads associated with potential Middle Eastern based terrorism as if they were not the most serious thing in the world.
My query here is this: Whether the domestic terrorism obsessed Aznar government or the seemingly less interested in Mid-East based terrorism Bush Administration gave Middle Eastern terrorism the same top priority? As long as the President refuses to give full and absolute cooperation to the 9-11 Commission, I believe we are compelled to reach only one conclusion to that question.