5.18.2004
Demand investigations
Just read this. I can't add anything. Capital Games:Think about it. The secretary of state revealed that he, the CIA and the administration were conned (perhaps too easily) by exiles supported by the Pentagon, and this fraud helped set the stage for a war and a bloody and difficult occupation that still is claiming the lives of Americans. If this is not cause for investigations, dismissals, and angry statements from congressional leaders and administration officials, then what is?
More tolerance
I wonder if these guys understand what they're saying when they say it. Gay marriage foes work to reverse ruling:"It's very difficult, once a right has been claimed in law, to reverse that right, but we're going to try," said the Rev. Christopher Coyne, spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.
They're called rights for a reason, jackass.
The Bat's Back
More Tax Cuts
Yay, yay: The Nation:If you pay taxes, you probably know about the child tax credit. That's the $1,000-per-child break you can get from the government if your family income is $110,000 or less. It's Uncle Sam's tiny (very tiny) way of helping out parents. (Above $110,000, the credit progressively phases out, to zero for those making over $149,000. Since it's the tax code, nothing's ever easy, so there are also small adjustments for multiple children.)
There is one other category of parents -- other than the affluent -- that gets no child tax credit: The working poor. Families that earn less than $10,750 a year aren't eligible for it. According to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities (CBPP), full-time work at the minimum wage -- which has been stagnate for years at $5.15 an hour -- pays $10,300 a year.
(By the way: if the minimum wage had risen as quickly as CEO pay has since 1990, today it would be $15.71 per hour. A family with a full-time minimum-wage earner would be living not on $10,300 a year, but $31,420.)
Now Congress is moving toward doing something about this glaring injustice.
Yes, the House of Representatives is considering a bill to extend the child-tax credit to those long-denied it: Families making ... from $110,000 to $309,000 a year.
Tax cuts, yay. I can bring two of my friends. Yay yay.
Yeah, holy shit is right
People made a little fuss about Reagan relying on astrology for some key decisions, right? So is it not a bigger deal that Herr Bush is looking to the Rapture Jeebofascists when deciding Middle East policy. Look, Corrente toyed with this, and I joked about it half-seriously. This is way more fucked (WAY MORE FUCKED) than I thought possible. And I figured this administration ate babies (shit, since everything I've jokingly said about them has come true -- and worse -- maybe I shouldn't kid around about the baby-eating and seal-clubbing). The Jesus Landing Pad: was an e-mail we weren't meant to see. Not for our eyes were the notes that showed White House staffers taking two-hour meetings with Christian fundamentalists, where they passed off bogus social science on gay marriage as if it were holy writ and issued fiery warnings that "the Presidents [sic] Administration and current Government is engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level"—this to a group whose representative in Israel believed herself to have been attacked by witchcraft unleashed by proximity to a volume of Harry Potter. Most of all, apparently, we're not supposed to know the National Security Council's top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios.
But now we know.
"Everything that you're discussing is information you're not supposed to have," barked Pentecostal minister Robert G. Upton when asked about the off-the-record briefing his delegation received on March 25. Details of that meeting appear in a confidential memo signed by Upton and obtained by the Voice.
The e-mailed meeting summary reveals NSC Near East and North African Affairs director Elliott Abrams sitting down with the Apostolic Congress and massaging their theological concerns. Claiming to be "the Christian Voice in the Nation's Capital," the members vociferously oppose the idea of a Palestinian state. They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and David's temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won't come back to earth.
Atrios, naturally, had the link.
Election Day
At least for me it is, here in Louisville. I don't think I have missed a primary or general election since I became eligible eight years ago. (I admit I've skipped some school board elections, given that I have no children and don't own property -- if taxes go up to fund schools, I say yay, anyway.)
But today, as I walked around trying to find my polling place, tucked in the way-back of a school, I got a little pissed off. I managed to vote, but I wonder how many people saw the front entrance of the school, didn't see any signs telling people to walk around back and didn't see any Vote Here Today signs at the entrance off the street, and went home without voting.
I immediately wrote a letter to the Election Board here in Louisville:I am writing to complain about my polling place, specifically, how hard it was to find. There were no signs that I saw, and it was tucked way behind the school. For the November election, I would hope that more signs out front saying Vote Here Today would be prominent -- or at least in place and visible. This neighborhood is a diverse one, and the Metro Council district, I know, is heavily Democratic. The lack of signs and the placement of the polling place, to me, seems at best an accident, and at worst, an attempt to discourage people from voting.
I don't mean to sound conspiratorial, but I would hope that the Elections Board would be interested in making sure as many people who want to vote, can vote, on Election Day.
With anger about the Florida election in 2000 still raw, (yeah, I won't get over it -- screw you) and Nosey Online pointing out a Rolling Stone piece on stifling the youth vote, you wonder about the powers that be doing as much as they can to make sure people who usually skew liberal cannot vote.
Election Day should be a national holiday. We shouldn't erect more barriers to people controlling their government.
The Morning News
9/11 Panel: Rescuers Were Poorly Informed
Firefighters and police officers struggling to save thousands of workers in the World Trade Center complex on Sept. 11, 2001, were severely hampered by communication and organizational problems, and few believed that either of the Twin Towers was in danger of collapsing that morning, according to a new report issued this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Bomb shakes power-transfer prospects
AP photo
The car-bomb assassination of Iraq's highest-ranking civilian leader in Baghdad early yesterday appeared to make the prospect of a smooth transfer of political power from U.S. occupation authorities even more fragile and the risks of more violence even higher.
Iraqi terrorism blamed on U.S. pact with rebels
A senior Iraqi official lashed out at the United States yesterday after a spectacular assassination in Baghdad, saying a deal with insurgents has turned the city of Fallujah into a staging ground for attacks on the capital.
"The number of car bombs in Baghdad has gone up dramatically since the peace agreement in Fallujah," Defence Minister Ali Allawi told The Globe and Mail, hours after a suicide bomb blast killed Iraqi Governing Council president Izzadine Saleem.
Mr. Allawi said Fallujah, a city of 400,000 people 50 kilometres west of Baghdad, has become a haven for insurgents since the April 28 agreement between U.S. Marine commanders and rebel leaders that ended the siege of the city.
"They are forming a network, supported by guns and money, connected to insurgents in other parts of Iraq," he said. "And they are making a serious bid for power."
U.S. Rights Report Is Released After Delay
The State Department's annual report on United States efforts to promote human rights and democracy around the world often receives barely passing attention.
This year's version, released today, was different.
Troop redeployment seen as sign of U.S. woes
Critics say the Bush administration's move to shift 3,600 soldiers from South Korea to Iraq is another sign the worsening situation in Iraq is hurting U.S. efforts to deal with real threats elsewhere in the world.
Krugman's column: The Wastrel Son
Oil
I hate oil. More precisely, I hate our dependence on it. Forty years ago, we were dependent upon our own supply, so we drove big cars that guzzled gas, which we paid something like 25 cents a galloon for. The oil crises of the 1970s signaled the end to the good times. America responded with higher fuel-mileage standards and smaller cars. Energy efficiency became the norm, as everything from schools to factories to farms sought ways to make more with less. My family got a wood-burning stove. Jimmy Carter wore a sweater on TV and asked us to turn down our thermostats.
And it worked for a long time. Most people I know, for instance, drive cars that get pretty decent mileage. We haven't turned into a nation of bus riders, but we have changed. But then we got complacent again. The Cold War ended and the economy heated up. You know this part already. We forgot that much of the world's oil came from the Middle East, which, aside from a brief thaw in Arab-Israeli relations, was not a very stable place. We started driving bigger cars again. But who could blame us? As recently as six years ago, you could get a gallon of gasoline for as little as 80 cents in Louisville, where I live.
It could not -- it would not -- last. The 9/11 attacks roiled the world. It reminded us, as the oil shocks of the 1970s reminded us, that our economy is dependent upon nations full of people who cannot stand us, and, in some instances, want to destroy us. We can talk around the problem all we want, but the fact is that we are running out of oil in the short term. There may be some hope for extracting oil from coal, or using hybrid cars, or powering everything with hydrogen, but that's not going to happen tomorrow. We are stuck with oil. We are oil's bitch.
A conversation: A couple years ago, post 9/11, a friend of mine who is an environmental reporter told me that he was astonished that gas is still under $2 a gallon in this country, decades after the oil crises gave us our first warning that we needed to look for alternatives. He said this glumly, because he truly felt that Americans were never going to do anything serious about alternative fuels as long as they could fill up their SUVs with cheap gas.
Another conversation: I ran into an older, wiser co-worker today, a guy who invests in the stock market and follows it very closely. I asked him what he thought Wall Street was up to. He said oil prices are big problem, not just because they take money out of our pockets, but because they allow oil-producing nations to manipulate the stock market. He explained that when these nations drive up oil prices, it drives down the stock market. Investors from these nations then buy up cheap stocks. The price of oil is eased,fueling the economy and driving up the price of those stocks. He said we are doomed to repeat this cycle as long as we are dependent on foreign oil.
Both conversations were about oil, but from very different perspectives. My reporter friend is very liberal, while my older co-worker is very conservative. Yet they are obviously concerned about the future and would like our country to become less addicted to oil. The reason I cited these conversations is because it proves that energy independence is not the province of one particular political camp. What is frustrating is that we have a president and an administration that has proven itself time and again to care not one whit about reducing our dangerous dependency on oil.
But this president does not claim a "Republican stance" on oil. A lot of Republicans want us to sever all our ties to the Middle East, period. The parties that President Bush represents on this issue are the oil companies and the Saudi royal family. That's not some conspiracy theory, either. It just plain fact. The administration has done nothing to hide this. Worse, they have tapped into a misguided, populist sentiment in this country that cheap gas is a birthright and that war to secure the oil supply is justified, even if it means turning billions of people against us.
And don't tell me that gas is still cheap. I know that. Don't tell me about the Toyota Prius or that wind farm out in Colorado. I know we are developing new technologies. But we need more than that. We need leaders who tell it to us straight, leaders who level with us about the mess we are in and the monstrous task we face. Every time another American soldier or Iraqi civilian gets blown up, it's another death that could have been avoided had we not been so greedy, so ignorant, so naive about oil. THAT is the issue and I want to start hearing other people getting angry about this.
5.17.2004
Vampires, I tell you
Apologies for my several-day absence. I'm sure you all missed me terribly. I was trying to bask in lighter things for a few days, because all of the paying attention and resulting outrage was kind of getting me down. But alas, even Buffy couldn't rid the world of badness.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. Mock at will.
Shirking (even more of) our duties
Turns out there are some other provisions of the Geneva Conventions that we're conveniently ignoring:But at the same time thousands of others men, women, the elderly and the very young have been killed or maimed with far less fanfare. No one knows how many. They are Iraqi civilians, and the Americans and the British do not bother to keep count of the people they have "liberated" and then killed.
This is not usual in modern warfare. In most past conflicts, attempts were made to keep a tally of civilian losses. Legal experts say that, particularly in the case of Iraq, it is the duty of occupying powers to do so under the Geneva Conventions.
Says Amnesty Inernational: "We do not believe that it is not possible."
Hmm. Me neither.
More Tax Cuts!
Why? Because the ones they gave the rich obviously aren't working. Why else would a factory that Bush has cited as proof that his economic policies are working announce that it is shutting down?"Ironically, it was a little more than a year ago when President George W. Bush visited Timken's world headquarters heralding his tax cut and job creation plan. Now this very company's job cuts will be a major blow to the economy in Canton."
Via Counterspin
Sarin
Yeah, the rethugs will make a big deal of this. But, there's no fucking way a little sarin proves that Saddam had huge threatening stockpiles of WMD. We've been at war one year, and a bomb goes off that has sarin, and all of a sudden the war is justified?
Of course, I know they're gonna try.
Roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent explodes
UPDATE: Yep, already the dishonest wingnuts are trying to spin this.
You guys are right. The elections over, Bush is God. How wrong I was. Fuck, what if Syria has a small bomb with Vx? I for one do not want to wait to find out what might happen if they do. I'm joining up. No, fuck that, I'll do this vigilante-style. I'm arming myself, aligning with Halliburton, and I'm headed over. Who's with me?
Oh, and Istahack has this:UPDATE: Reader Kevin Greene says the spin has already started:
Found this quote interesting, and proof that the left will change the debate if WMD are found in Iraq:
"But David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, said the discovery does not provide evidence that Saddam was secretly producing weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War, as alleged by the Bush administration to justify the war that removed him from power." [emphasis is Insty's]
See, if we FIND actual WMD, then the left will begin to claim that Saddam wasn't "secretly producing" it, and so Bush lied. In fact, nobody ever claimed that we were invading Iraq because Saddam was actively producing WMD - only that he had undeclared WMD, might have mobile factories, and was preventing the UN from finding it and getting rid of it.
Look, you rethugs cannot have it both ways. I know it seems like you can say whatever you want and Insty will make it true. But, remember when Bush told us the war was about WMDs and then for a few months it became painfully fucking obvious that they weren't there? Remember how he changed his tune. Oh, fuck, it was all of a goddamn sudden about ousting Saddam and liberating these poor people who at least had electricity and could educate girls in schools. I'm not saying Saddam Good, I'm just telling you that right now, Iraq's a fucking mess. And if you believe the librul media and the commie pinkos are gonna all of a sudden change their message, you might try to think back and recall when the Chickenhawk Bushies did the exact same thing. It doesn't make it OK, but finding one sarin bomb sure as shit doesn't mean we needed to kill 10,000 Iraqi civilians, 700-plus U.S. fighters, spend hundreds of billions of dollars, and make a mess out of a sovereign nation. All for WMD -- and now we're moving troops out of the Korean peninsula (hint: that's where a rogue nation has nukes.)
Clueless
Yeah, we have no idea what we're doing anymore. Clearly, Bush has completely lost his mind. And since it was so little to begin with, it's gonna be hard to find it again. US plans to move troops from S Korea to Iraq:South Korean officials said Washington would leave enough forces to maintain the country's security. But North Korea could view the withdrawal as a sign of US military weakness at a time when the countries are engaged in a stand off over Pyongyang's development of nuclear weapons.
Those tolerant Christians
Here's a contest, whose sole prize will be the fame of getting your name posted on a blog near the bottom of the echo chamber. Find me a Bible quotation where it says God Hates Fags. Hell, I'd be impressed if you can find the word Fag or Dyke used to belittle homosexuals -- or reference to God hating anyone at all, for that matter. I'm no Bible scholar, and I'm not even a Christian. I do know that views like this...
AP photo
...are not the mainstream views of Christians. I even know there are churches out there that have been performing same-sex "weddings" for years. But I also know that while many Christian leaders will not say God Hates Fags, they will denounce homosexuality as a sin against God. They say hate the sin, but love the sinner, but that's absurd. The Bible -- again, I'm certainly no expert, but this is just the way I perceive it -- mixes its message homosexuality to begin with. It says it in the same breath that it talks about not eating fruit from a tree less than five years old. (see leviticus). Or see God Hates Shrimp. So to take such hardline views ... well, even tho they say Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner, I still see God Hates Fags.
And all that aside, the equal protection and church-state separation amendments of the Constitution should clearly tell governments that they have no right to deny same-sex marriages in terms of the legal benefits provided married partners, right? So the states should allow marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and let the churches do what they will. All I know is, I'd never want to be part of a club that tells me I'm a lesser human being, so I don't understand why gays or lesbians would be part of a church that tells them exactly that.
Rebecca adds: There's the larger question of the full faith and credit clause, and whether the equal protection amendment overrules a state's power to ignore a legal proceeding of another state if it violates the state's fundamental public policy. one could say that, say, utah's fundamental public policy is so opposed to same-sex marriage that to ask it to recognize a marriage performed in another state would violate the state's rights. but are the state's rights more important than the individual's rights? and how do you deal with the chaos that would cause as states variably recognized or ignored marriages?
But then there's the Romer case of 1996, which said that voters, at least, can't vote to deny a class fundamental rights. is marriage a fundamental right? can the legislature vote to deny a class fundamental rights?
As she said, wow this is confusing. But while legally it's murky, morally, there's only one right answer: Let every American be equal.
The Morning News
Lots of breaking news today, so this edition will be pretty obvious stuff. I'll try to blog later in the day when I come across more interesting and less-publicized news.
Power Transfer to Stay on Track Despite Killing, U.S. Says
A suicide car bombing near an entrance to the coalition headquarters here killed the head of the Iraqi Governing Council and six other civilians today, dealing a further setback to the American effort to stabilize Iraq in advance of a June 30 handover of sovereignty.
Same-sex couples begin marrying in Massachusetts
AP photo
Gay couples began exchanging vows here Monday, marking the first time a state has granted gays and lesbians the right to marry and making the United States one of four countries where homosexuals can legally wed.
Some Iraqis Held Outside Control of Top General
About 100 high-ranking Iraqi prisoners held for months at a time in spartan conditions on the outskirts of Baghdad International Airport are being detained under a special chain of command, under conditions not subject to approval by the top American commander in Iraq, according to military officials.
Senators won't let Rumsfeld off the hook
New clouds have formed over the future of U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as leading Democrats promised renewed efforts to look at responsibility up the military chain for the Iraqi prison abuse scandal.
How High Does It Go?
How high up does the responsibility go for the prison abuse scandal?
John Barry, Michael Hirsh and Michael Isikoff write in Newsweek: "The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by Newsweek. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war -- designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals -- evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war. . . .
"By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by Newsweek, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda."
Refugees flee camp before Israeli offensive
Palestinians fled homes in this refugee camp Monday, as Israeli tanks cut off the area from the rest of the Gaza Strip in preparation for what is expected to be a major Israeli military offensive.
RSS feed
We've got a new one. It seems likely to be a good bit better than the old one. If you like the RSS, hit up the new XML button on the right side o' the page.
As a side note, if you have found your way to our page and have a blog that's not on the blogroll, leave a comment, say hey, and we'll add you. Unless you're on Blogs for Bush. Seriously, those people are douchebags.
5.16.2004
Kerry, in a landslide
This is a good story in the Christian Science Monitor. It basically says that, whoever wins the election, the presidential campaign could be an easy victory, not the squeaker like 2000. It shows why it could be a rout for Kerry, and strains to make the same point for a Bush win, but I think it's more of a stretch. Yeah, the economy's improving, but gas prices appear to be staying high for the foreseeable future. People will remember they didn't get to take a vacation this summer, and if they did, they'll remember how much more they had to pony up at the pump. Capturing Osama bin Laden, at this point, doesn't strike me as being as huge a deal as it once might have been, but what do I know on that issue? Anyway, here's the Link:Already, the 2004 race has a number of factors that separate it from 2000. Not only is it likely to play out first and foremost as a referendum on the incumbent, with voters weighing how President Bush has performed on a set of key issues from the economy to Iraq. But the pull of national events also represents a far more potent force than usual - one that is largely out of either campaign's control, but seems likely to push public opinion sharply in one direction or the other, depending on how things unfold. "I happen to believe it's 1980," offers Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D) of Illinois. "[Kerry] is going to hang with this guy, the president, all the way through," he predicts. But in the end, "it's going to break open."
Of course, some states will be more competitive than others, and the overall popular vote is likely to stay fairly close.
But recent events in Iraq, particularly the prison scandal at Abu Graib, have been taking a toll on Mr. Bush's overall standing: Several new polls last week showed his approval rating dropping to the mid-40s - a low point for his presidency, and a clear danger zone for an incumbent. And a similar pattern is playing out across battleground states: An American Research Group poll last week in Ohio, for example, found Kerry ahead by 50 to 43 percent, while other new surveys have the Massachusetts senator up in states such as Wisconsin and Florida.
"There is a national component within the states in this race," says ARG pollster Dick Bennett. "What we hear in Ohio is similar to what we hear when we do a national survey, and what we hear when we [poll in] Iowa or Florida."
In the ARG poll, more Ohio voters also said they would vote for Kerry than said they had a favorable opinion of him - "which says it's really a referendum on Bush," Mr. Bennett notes.
...
But at the moment, Democrats say, Bush's inability to improve his own standing has left him focused more on casting Kerry as an unacceptable alternative.
"Clearly, the strategy they've chosen is to try to disqualify John Kerry," says a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign. "And clearly, they've done that because they don't think it's possible for the president to repair his own image."
Some of Bush's attacks on Kerry - put forward in a $50 million ad campaign that painted him as a flip-flopper and weak on defense - seem to be sticking. Although Kerry has risen in recent national polls, there are certain warning signs in how voters regard him personally. A recent Pew poll found Bush holds a strong advantage over Kerry when voters are asked which candidate they view as a "strong leader," and "willing to take a stand, even if it's unpopular."
Still, Kerry may have plenty of time to redefine himself for voters - as he's doing now, with biographical ads. Given that Kerry is now edging slightly ahead of Bush suggests that attacks from either side may ultimately shape voters' views far less than external events, say some analysts. "Bush basically threw $50 million out the window," says independent pollster Del Ali.
This hits on one thing I've been hammering at for months -- this really is a referendum on Bush. That's why I'm a little sad the "unelectable" Dean didn't win. But, I'm perfectly happy with Kerry on the issues . But I digress. The other thing this article notes is that Red-State Kentucky may be closer than initially thought possible. Kentucky seems to be about six months behind the curve (or a couple of centuries) when it comes to politics. So come election time, this state may be where the rest of us are right now -- totally fucking fed up with Bush and his lying liars. It may not go Blue, but if the race is even close in Kentucky, it should mean that Kerry's cruising everywhere else.
A question
Has anyone noticed how many news headlines lately have been some form of Bush administration denies _________?
Cool. They're on the defensive all the time, which hopefully means the good guys are winning.
Article Saying Rumsfeld Backed Harsh Tactics Stirs Controversy
Fahrenheit 9-11
Fahrenheit 9/11 could light fire under Bush:Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is without doubt the most flaming-hot ticket at the Cannes film festival. And with good reason: Moore hopes that it will bring down the US government.
The American film-maker has hitherto kept a tight lid on the contents of the documentary, saying only that it includes evidence of alleged links between the Bush and Bin Laden families. However, in two appearances in Cannes at the weekend before its premiere today, he revealed that the movie contains shocking footage from Iraq.
Yesterday he said: "When you see the movie you will see things you have never seen before, you will learn things you have never known before. Half the movie is about Iraq - we were able to get film crews embedded with American troops without them knowing that it was Michael Moore. They are totally fucked."
On Saturday he said: "The film is only partly to do with the Bin Ladens and Bush. I was able to send three different freelance film crews to Iraq. Soldiers had written to me to express their disillusionment with the war. It's a case of our own troops not being in support of their commander-in-chief."
Whoa
Our interrogation methods get even more appalling. Look at Patriotboy's post on The American Street. I wish it were unbelievable, but it's all too believable these days. the american street: We kidnap children to loosen the tongues of their fathers
More on the DoD and Abu Ghraib
The Nation connects some more dots:Despite his status as the Pentagon's über-intelligence authority, in the initial days of the breaking Abu Ghraib scandal Cambone was virtually invisible. When Rumsfeld was called to the Hill to testify before the Armed Services Committee on May 7, however, Cambone was unexpectedly summoned to the witness table from his chair behind Rumsfeld. That cameo appearance resulted in a more expansive return appearance on May 11, in which Cambone less than deftly tried to undermine Abu Ghraib investigator Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. (Cambone disputed the general's conclusion that military intelligence units effectively controlled the prison's military police detachment.) Cambone also reacted adversely to Senator Jack Reed's assertion (confirmed by Taguba) that recommendations made in a report on improving intelligence collection at Abu Ghraib by then-chief Guantánamo Bay interrogator Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller clearly called for the use of MPs in interrogations, which helped create an environment that begot the subsequent abuse and torture in the tiers. As a May 12 Washington Post editorial points out, Cambone's office approved interrogation practices that are in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Shattered myths
Atrios picks up a WaPo column and adds his usual pitch-perfect wisdom, with a dose of snark. Link: Yes, the myth of American moral exceptionalism has always been somewhat of a myth, but there was a substantial net benefit due to the fact that it was a myth that much of the world agreed to collectively buy into. Whether deserved or not, it does appear necessary to have a moral and ethical presence on the world stage which is backed by the economic and military might of the US. Someone needs to be in that role.
The neocons set out to irrevocably enshrine American exceptionalism in the world, and in a surprisingly short amount of time they've managed to destroy it. Mission accomplished!
I imagine that anyone reading this site is probably already a regular at Atrios' blog, but I thought this was just a wonderful quick-hit summary of how badly we've fucked up, in Iraq, and in the eyes of the world. We're screwed.
The Sunday News
Red Cross secrecy exposed
On May 7, the tranquil headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva was shaken by a sensational media story: the Wall Street Journal published damning excerpts from its report on the condition of American-held Iraqi prisoners, detailing incidents of violence, cruelty and sexual humiliation.
Another humanitarian group might have seized the opportunity to publicize the human rights violations.
But for the international Red Cross, the revelations that sent shockwaves across the globe were a nightmare come true.
Smarty Jones Proves Superior in the Preakness
The Smarty Jones story is no longer about an underdog from a little track or about his small-time jockey. Not anymore. On Saturday, it became about an exceptionally gifted horse who, with a victory in the Belmont Stakes on June 5, can become the 12th winner of racing's Triple Crown and its first since 1978.
Smarty Jones did not just win the Preakness. He ran away with it with a dazzling display of speed that left nine quality thoroughbreds in a losing struggle to keep up once he turned into the stretch.
Pioneers Fill War Chest, Then Capitalize
ined by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and a host of celebrities, hundreds of wealthy Republicans gathered at the Ritz-Carlton Lodge here in the first weekend in April, not for a fundraiser but for a celebration of fundraisers. It was billed as an "appreciation weekend," and there was much to appreciate.
As Bush "Pioneers" who had raised at least $100,000 each for the president's reelection campaign, or "Rangers" who had raised $200,000 each, the men and women who shot skeet with Cheney, played golf with pros Ben Crenshaw and Fuzzy Zoeller and laughed at the jokes of comedian Dennis Miller are the heart of the most successful political money operation in the nation's history. Since 1998, Bush has raised a record $296.3 million in campaign funds, giving him an overwhelming advantage in running against Vice President Al Gore and now Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). At least a third of the total -- many sources believe more than half -- was raised by 631 people.
Tight Oil Supply Won't Ease Soon
Two dollars for a gallon of gas? Get used to it. High fuel prices are here to stay, at least for the near future, because no relief is in sight for tight oil supplies.
Prison Guard Calls Abuse Routine and Sometimes Amusing
In a sworn statement to investigators, Pfc. Lynndie England explained the mystery of why soldiers at Abu Ghraib took pictures of detainees masturbating and piled naked with plastic sandbags over their heads by saying, "We thought it looked funny so pictures were taken."
Kerry Shifts Campaign Focus from Iraq to Economy
Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry offered on Sunday an economic agenda promoting middle-class growth and opportunity as an alternative to President Bush's "special favors" for the wealthiest Americans.
Whose Army?
UPDATE: Link was busted, now it just goes to BlueGrassRoots' mainpage.
BlueGrassRoots writes an interesting piece on why we shouldn't be all that shocked that our military was capable of such horrible things, at Abu Ghraib and beyond. It mentions that obviously, not all of the military is full of criminals and near-criminals. But there has been a solid history of scandal, enough to tell you that it's absurd for Bush to say this was inconceivable, and enough that greater oversight should have been in place:Aren't these the same troops that are killing suspected homosexuals at Fort Campbell? Aren't these the same troops that are running white supremacist groups out of Fort Bragg? Aren't these the same troops that are raping their female comrades? Aren't these the same troops that include distinguished alumni like Tim McVeigh?
Psst! The answer is "Yes."
Given that, it is hardly mindblowing to think that such people wouldn't behave much better abroad than they do at home.
...
A nation told nothing but inspiring stories about wholesome American youth doing right by God and Country was sucker punched with the not-that-unexpected news of rapists and sadists in our midst.
George Bush says those thugs don't represent the America he knows. Well, of course not. He's a privileged twit whose own run-ins with the law were fixed by daddy.
In the America the rest of us live in, a goodly number of people who get in trouble with the law can enlist in the Army in lieu of jail.
It's entertaining to watch lawmakers fall all over themselves to protect "the public" from those horrible images they keep under lock and key at the Pentagon. Who knew those guys paid to think up new ways to kill millions were so sensitive? Is Alan Alda the real Secretary of Defense after all of his years of outstanding service on MASH?
Or, could it possibly be that it's yet another bureaucracy looking to cover its hindquarters after such an abysmal performance in the field?
I'll provide links aplenty, especially check out the first one, a huge Denver Post series:
Betrayal in the ranks
Pentagon faults sexual-assault prevention
Sex scandals tarnish military's image
Three white soldiers charged in killings of 2 blacks
Pentagon: Stop Harassment Of Gays
Legal Group Investigates Army Slaying
Sexual Harassment in the Military
Air Force Rape Scandal Grows
5.15.2004
Head ... exploding
Stop blaming your henchmen, Mr. President:The second news story that heaves more burdens on the president comes from an NBC News broadcast by Jim Miklaszewski on March 2. Apparently, Bush had three opportunities, long before the war, to destroy a terrorist camp in northern Iraq run by Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al-Qaida associate who recently cut off the head of Nicholas Berg. But the White House decided not to carry out the attack because, as the story puts it:
[T]he administration feared [that] destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
The implications of this are more shocking, in their way, than the news from Abu Ghraib. Bush promoted the invasion of Iraq as a vital battle in the war on terrorism, a continuation of our response to 9/11. Here was a chance to wipe out a high-ranking terrorist. And Bush didn't take advantage of it because doing so might also wipe out a rationale for invasion.
The story gets worse in its details. As far back as June 2002, U.S. intelligence reported that Zarqawi had set up a weapons lab at Kirma in northern Iraq that was capable of producing ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon drew up an attack plan involving cruise missiles and smart bombs. The White House turned it down. In October 2002, intelligence reported that Zarqawi was preparing to use his bio-weapons in Europe. The Pentagon drew up another attack plan. The White House again demurred. In January 2003, police in London arrested terrorist suspects connected to the camp. The Pentagon devised another attack plan. Again, the White House killed the plan, not Zarqawi.
When the war finally started in March, the camp was attacked early on. But by that time, Zarqawi and his followers had departed.
This camp was in the Kurdish enclave of Iraq. The U.S. military had been mounting airstrikes against various targets throughout Iraq—mainly air-defense sites—for the previous few years. It would not have been a major escalation to destroy this camp, especially after the war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. The Kurds, whose autonomy had been shielded by U.S. air power since the end of the 1991 war, wouldn't have minded and could even have helped.
But the problem, from Bush's perspective, was that this was the only tangible evidence of terrorists in Iraq. Colin Powell even showed the location of the camp on a map during his famous Feb. 5 briefing at the U.N. Security Council. The camp was in an area of Iraq that Saddam didn't control. But never mind, it was something. To wipe it out ahead of time might lead some people—in Congress, the United Nations, and the American public—to conclude that Saddam's links to terrorists were finished, that maybe the war wasn't necessary. So Bush let it be.
In the two years since the Pentagon's first attack plan, Zarqawi has been linked not just to Berg's execution but, according to NBC, 700 other killings in Iraq. If Bush had carried out that attack back in June 2002, the killings might not have happened. More: The case for war (as the White House feared) might not have seemed so compelling. Indeed, the war itself might not have happened.
The enemy
Hesiod writes:"These are evil, demented people. Make no mistake about it. If they had the chance, they'd arrest all of those who oppose them, and do God knows what else. These people have the same mentality as Saddam Hussein. If you are against us, you are an enemy to be eliminated. A 'traitor.'
In fact, they are the ones who are traitors. Traitors to our ideals. Traitors to our principles. Traitors to our Constitution. Traitors to human decency and common sense.
All of the people who are whining about John Kerry's suposed lackluster candidacy ought to remember who we are fighting against here. It's not just Bush. It's ALL of the people who support Bush and think this way. It's truly, truly scary. And I am not going to waiver. So, if you want to pretend that voting for Ralph Nader, or sitting out the election is somehow a stand on moral principle, go right ahead. We all know it's not."
Yep, that's about right.
Get yr tinfoil, here
Whaddya make of this, from David Sirota? Bush's Uncle Is Executive At Bank Fined for Lax Oversight of Saudi Money.
While there, or from here, make sure you check out this, on the Bush-Saud ties
Open Letters
Patriotboy, at the American Street, found a great Open Letter at McSweeney's. Admittedly, it's a bit old, and I should have seen it before. But wow is this the funny. An Open Letter to William Kristol, Richard Perle, and President Bush's Other Neoconservative Puppetmasters:Dear Bill, Dick, et al:
Why didn't you tell President Bush to invade Western Australia first?
I've been playing Risk: The Game of Global Domination since I was eight years old and never, never have I seen someone win the game by massing their forces in the Middle East at the beginning of the game. Too many borders! Impossible to reinforce! Enemies from all directions! Australia, on the other hand, is easily conquered. Start in Western Australia, make a straight-line march through eastern Australia, then on into New Zealand and New Guinea, and finally up to Siam, sealing the entire continent and guaranteeing an extra two armies per turn for the duration of game. (Ask Secretary Rumsfeld if those would come in handy.) Once in Siam, you can leave the remainder of your provinces virtually unguarded and mass your armies of the Far East to eventually move north into Siberia, Irkutsk and Kamchatka, ultimately overtaking the entire Asian continent (seven extra armies per turn), including, finally, the Middle East.
Happy Fun Game
Corrente points out this little game. Learn about Bush's paymasters.
More McCain goodness
A guest at Altercation writes:And, anyway, after this week, to paraphrase the young comedy writer from My Favorite Year, I need John McCains as big as I can get them.
Admittedly, it did not begin well; I did not need to hear McCain on the radio telling Sean (Knocko) Hannity that the latter was doing "God's work." (For pity's sake, Senator, God's got enough trouble.) However, as the week went along, he stepped up time and again. As the incomparable Daily Howler pointed out yesterday, the senator even fed something back to Hannity himself concerning the God's work that Knocko had done in smearing McCain on behalf of C-Plus Augustus back in 2000.
Elsewhere, McCain grilled that Cambone character to a fine medium-well. He walked out on the revolting Senator Jim Imhofe (R-Plankton). Then, on Tuesday night, talking with Ted Koppel, he single-handedly redeemed Nightline, which otherwise spent the week looking down from a very great height upon The Shark. On Tuesday, McCain was preceded by a filmed report that seemed designed as an apologia for the indiscretion of reading all those dead people's names last week. It was all about how the murder of Nick Berg had put the prisoner scandal into perspective, and how Pat Roberts had read the dispatch in close to real time in the hearing room, and some more raving from Imhofe, and a lot of ends-justifying-means thumb-sucking. (Which was followed up the next night by a show on the theme "How Much Torture Should We Allow?" which included a package in which the views of Michael Ignatieff were paired off with those of the producer of Fox's "24." Nice.) Then McCain came on and threw a bucket of cold water on the whole parade, arguing that torture is, pretty much, well, torture, no matter under which flag it is inflicted.
Let's see.
On journalism, do I go with Sy Hersh or, ah, Jonah Goldberg?
On the correct treatment of prisoners-of-war, who do I take more seriously, John McCain or, let's say, Mickey Kaus?
Yeah, right.
Sy Hersh, Patriot
The best journalist working today has another bombshell story:In 2003, Rumsfeld’s apparent disregard for the requirements of the Geneva Conventions while carrying out the war on terror had led a group of senior military legal officers from the Judge Advocate General’s (jag) Corps to pay two surprise visits within five months to Scott Horton, who was then chairman of the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on International Human Rights. “They wanted us to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for detentions and interrogation,” Horton told me. “They were urging us to get involved and speak in a very loud voice. It came pretty much out of the blue. The message was that conditions are ripe for abuse, and it’s going to occur.” The military officials were most alarmed about the growing use of civilian contractors in the interrogation process, Horton recalled. “They said there was an atmosphere of legal ambiguity being created as a result of a policy decision at the highest levels in the Pentagon. The jag officers were being cut out of the policy formulation process.” They told him that, with the war on terror, a fifty-year history of exemplary application of the Geneva Conventions had come to an end.
Make sure you read the whole thing.
Kerry-McCain picks up steam
Nosey Online pointed out a piece I missed as I cruised for The Morning News. Undeterred by McCain Denials, Some See Him as Kerry's No. 2Despite weeks of steadfast rejections from Senator John McCain, some prominent Democrats are angling for him to run for vice president alongside Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, creating a bipartisan ticket that they say would instantly transform the presidential race.
The enthusiasm of Democrats for Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, is so high that even some who have been mentioned as possible Kerry running mates — including Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator — are spinning scenarios about a "unity government," effectively giving Mr. Kerry a green light to reach across the political aisle and extend an offer.
"Senator McCain would not have to leave his party," Mr. Kerrey said. "He could remain a Republican, would be given some authority over selection of cabinet people. The only thing he would have to do is say, `I'm not going to appoint any judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade,' " the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, which Mr. McCain has said he opposes.
And since I'm lazy, this is what I wrote in the comments on his site:
I continue to be torn on this. But, there are two reasons to like it: First, it virtually ensures that Bush will go buh-bye back to Crawford (he better not travel out of country, tho, a la Kissinger). Second, McCain's chief political objective is campaign finance reform -- which would change politics so thoroughly if his vision came to be. If he succeeds in getting big money out of politics, I really feel it would be the beginning of the end of the Republican party, because they cannot run on their ideas, only on negative attacks fueled by big-money donors.
Kerry needs to play this right -- he's looking like a winner without McCain's help. But with McCain on board, he'd nearly be a lock. But I want to make sure progressive values remain. I'm a fierce centrist, but this ticket could have some perception issues that it would have to address right at the very beginning.
Show & Tell in Abu Ghraib
I got my Nation late this week and just read Katha Pollitt's perfect column on the prison abuses:What are the thousand words, I wonder, that are worth the pictures of grinning US soldiers sexually humiliating Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison? An essay by Michael Ignatieff about human rights as the justification for war? An article by Samuel Huntington on the superiority of Western values? A rousing column by Tom Friedman calling on America to make Iraq a modern democratic state? Maybe Bernard Lewis could write up a talk about Islamic paranoia, or perhaps Alan Dershowitz could reprise in an op-ed his argument that torture can be morally permissible--a view that found a ready, even gleeful, hearing, I seem to remember, in journalistic circles after 9/11.
It's one thing, though, for writers to euphemize about "rough treatment" and propose scenarios in which there is one man in custody who can prevent World War III--and another to look at those pictures. Who are those soldiers, looking so much like frat boys and mean girls on steroids, how did they come up with their pornographic tableaux, and what were they thinking when they took their snapshots? True, Saddam's men tortured with impunity while our thugs will be brought to account (although maybe not those on contract--apparently even wartime atrocities are being outsourced now). Six supervisors have already been severely reprimanded and a seventh has received a "letter of admonishment."
...
In the United States that doctrine still burns bright. What, Americans commit atrocities? Our boys? Our girls? For having the courage to speak out in 1971 against rampant wartime atrocities in Vietnam--his finest hour--John Kerry has been demonized as a traitor, a defamer of servicemen who is unfit to serve as Commander in Chief. Tim Russert helped launch this line of attack on Meet the Press in April, when he offered Kerry the opportunity to distance himself from testimony that has been "discredited." Now, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a hastily formed group with close ties to the Bush Administration and big-time Republican donors, is leading the charge, and cable TV commentators are debating the "questions" these GOP hacks have raised about Kerry's patriotism. This, mere weeks after the Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer for its series on Tiger Force's vicious rampage across the Central Highlands of Vietnam in 1967--a months-long fiesta of murder, torture, rape and mutilation. The Commander in Chief who avoided active service and has made such a mess of Iraq is honored as manly and decisive; the man who volunteered to serve and then protested a war few would defend today gets labeled a prevaricating shirker, unqualified to lead.
The big winners, as with so many steps taken by this Administration for our supposed protection--Guantánamo, the confinement of José Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, the harassment and deportation of law-abiding Muslims--are Islamists and Al Qaeda. To their ideological bag of tricks, already bulging with religion, nationalism, misogyny, ethnic pride and antimodernism, they can now add the defense of civil liberties, human rights and the Geneva Conventions. Clash of civilizations, anyone?
More Catholic hypocrisy
That bastion of women's rights, the Vatican, brings us this gem. TheStar.com - Vatican discourages mixed marriages:In an official church document released yesterday, Vatican officials discouraged marriage between Catholics and Muslims — especially Catholic women and Muslim men.
When "a Catholic woman and a Muslim wish to marry," the document says, "bitter experience teaches us that a particularly careful and in-depth preparation is called for.'' It also says "profound cultural and religious differences'' exist between the two faiths, particularly concerning the rights of women, who are referred to as "the least protected member of the Muslim family.''
The church is just all over the place these days, finding ways to demagogue whatever they can.
The Morning News
Bush's Approval Rating, War Support Falls to Record, FT Says
President George W. Bush's approval rating fell to 42 percent, the lowest since his election, amid dwindling support for his handling of the war in Iraq, the Financial Times reported, citing New York-based pollster Zogby International.
U.S. Forces Kill 21 Iraqis in Baghdad Clashes
AFP photo
U.S. forces have killed 21 Iraqis and wounded at least 10 in operations in Baghdad in the past 24 hours in an effort to restore stability to the capital, a U.S. military spokesman said on Saturday.
Fighting damages holiest Shia shrine
U.S. tanks firing shells and heavy machine guns made their deepest incursion yet Friday into this stronghold of a radical cleric. Apparent gunfire slightly damaged one of Shia Islam's holiest shrines, prompting calls for revenge and even suicide attacks.
Opponents lose bid to halt gay marriage
Opponents of gay marriage failed in their last-minute attempt to derail gay marriage yesterday when the US Supreme Court refused to grant an emergency order halting same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, hours after a federal appeals court in Boston had denied a similar request. The rejection by the Supreme Court removed the remaining legal impediment to same-sex marriage beginning Monday in Massachusetts.
Europe Offers Help Privately, Kerry Says
Sen. John F. Kerry said Friday that despite public declarations from France and other European countries that they would not send troops to Iraq, there were indications some of the nations would be willing to change course with the right diplomatic effort.
Greece Struggles to Clear Hurdles in Sprint to Games
Register to vote
