I Hate What You Just Said

Sorry, Dick.

David Petraeus admits that the US violated the Geneva Conventions.

Did North Korea just declare war?

Matthew Yglesias offers an interesting post today (with a link to Michael Tomaskey) about the nature of partisan politics and sexual propriety.  You wouldn’t think that sexual affairs would be judged by the party affiliation of their participants, would you?  But you’d be wrong.

It seems that cheating on your cancer-stricken wife has career-ending implications if you’re a Democrat (John Edwards), but not if you’re a Republican (Newt Gingrich).  Getting busted for enjoying the services of a hooker?  If you’re a Republican (David Vitter), you keep your job;  if you’re Democrat (Eliot Spitzer), you’re expected to resign.

Fascinating.   It is especially curious since, as Yglesias points out, “only one of the two parties…puts a very high premium on the idea that state regulation of individual sexual behavior should be the main role of government.”  And that same party is the one that most loudly trumpets the importance of protecting “the sanctity of marriage,” too.  Fascinating.

But there’s more to this than just sex, it seems to me.  For instance, if you opposed the Vietnam War, and took steps to prevent yourself from going, and you’re a Democrat, you’re loudly and repeatedly labeled a draft dodger (Bill Clinton).  But if you’re a Republican, and you were in favor of the Vietnam War, and took steps  to prevent yourself from going (Bush, Cheney, et al), you’re fine. 

That’s totally backwards, isn’t it? 

If you were opposed to the war, and you made sure you didn’t go, (whatever one thinks of that position), at least it is morally defensible and consistent.  You didn’t want to fight in an unjust war, and you didn’t want others to have to, either.  If you were in favor of the war, and you made sure you didn’t go, it seems to me that you’re a coward and a hypocrite.  You thought the war was great, but there was no way you were going to fight it - you’d let others, especially those who didn’t have connections, fight it for you. But I suppose it isn’t exactly news that the likes of Dick Cheney are cowardly and hypocritical.

So if you’re a Democrat, and you have an affair, or you refuse to fight in combat, watch out.  If you’re a Republican - well, it’s complicated.

The Bush administration’s first “high value” detainee was a man named Abu Zubaida. As the recent report from the International Committee of the Red Cross revealed, Zubaida was the first person subjected to the administration’s enhanced interrogation torture program. And the Bush administration repeatedly claimed that their interrogation of Zubaida “saved lives.”

Today’s Washington Post begs to differ. If anything, the torture of this man did nothing but waste time and resources:

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida’s tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida — chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates — was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

And signficantly, it appears that Abu Zubaida wasn’t even a member of al-Qaeda. The former adminstration’s repeated claims that Zubaida was “al-Qaeda’s chief of operations” and a “trusted associate” of Osama bin Laden were all seemingly the product of an overactive paranoia:

Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda, according to a portrait of the man that emerges from court documents and interviews with current and former intelligence, law enforcement and military sources. Rather, he was a “fixer” for radical Muslim ideologues, and he ended up working directly with al-Qaeda only after Sept. 11 — and that was because the United States stood ready to invade Afghanistan.

While it seems obvious that Abu Zubaida was involved in a number of illegal activities involving Islamic extremists, he had no information or knowledge about al-Qaeda. Torturing him therefore ensured that US intelligence would be working from false premises, based on false information, spoken by a man who could do nothing but tell his torturers what he thought they wanted to hear. Such is the nature of torture.

Heckuvajob.

In the future of war, humans will become unnecessary:

The unmanned bombers that frequently cause unintended civilian casualties in Pakistan are a step toward an even more lethal generation of robotic hunters-killers that operate with limited, if any, human control.

The Defense Department is financing studies of autonomous, or self-governing, armed robots that could find and destroy targets on their own. On-board computer programs, not flesh-and-blood people, would decide whether to fire their weapons. [. . .]

The Pentagon’s plans for its Future Combat System envision increasing levels of independence for its robots.

“Fully autonomous engagement without human intervention should also be considered, under user-defined conditions,” said a 2007 Army request for proposals to design future robots.

I think I’ve already seen this movie:

The Terminator: The SkyNet funding bill is passed. The system goes online on August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. SkyNet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14am Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

Sarah Connor: And, Skynet fights back.

I, for one, welcome our autonomous cybernetic death machine overlords.

Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, has written what he calls “Some Truths about Guantanamo Bay.”  Parts of the piece maybe somewhat self-serving, as he gives credit to Powell and Richard Armitage for trying to curb some of the abuses (and there is some indication, of course, that Powell and Armitage were at times among the more sensible voices inside the administration).  But it is worth a read.  And Wilkerson was in a position to know many of the details of the most sordid dealings of the Bush administration.  Excerpts:

Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation.

This was a factor of having too few troops in the combat zone, of the troops and civilians who were there having too few people trained and skilled in such vetting, and of the incredible pressure coming down from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others to “just get the bastards to the interrogators”.

…

[Another point] largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.

But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror and these leaders already had black marks enough: the dead in a field in Pennsylvania, in the ashes of the Pentagon, and in the ruins of the World Trade Towers. They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces.

Wilkerson has more to say, too.

Bet you won’t be seeing this on CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS . . .

Secret Whitehall emails released yesterday provide damning new evidence that the notorious dossier making the case for invading Iraq was “sexed up”.

The video below is from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ appearance yesterday on Meet the Press. He is responding to David Gregory’s question about the differences in style between Bush and Obama. And Gates is doing his best to be diplomatic and positive.

(But hey, Bob - we hear ya).

“More analytical.” Nicely done.

It may not make major headlines, but President Obama’s overture to the leadership of Turkey may be of crucial importance to the future prospects for peace and security in Iraq:

U.S. President Barack Obama has told Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan he hoped to strengthen ties with their country and expressed support for Turkey’s growing relationship with Iraq, the White House said Monday.

Obama spoke to the two men by phone earlier in the day.

“In both calls, the leaders discussed a number of current issues, including U.S. support for the growing Turkish-Iraqi relationship, the importance of cooperation in Middle East peace efforts, and the U.S. review on Afghanistan and Pakistan policy,” the White House said in a statement.

Turkey has repeatedly attacked hideouts of Kurdish separatists in the northern mountainous region of Iraq [italics added].

The actions of the Turkish government may play a major role in determining Iraq’s fate if the Obama administration follows through with its plan to remove U.S. forces by the summer of 2010.  The looming possibility of an independent Kurdistan, combined with Turkey’s strident opposition to such Kurdish independence makes for a potentially explosive situation.  Thomas Ricks sees Turkey’s potential role as a part of a possible doomsday scenario following U.S. withdrawal:

I think you’d have a full-out civil war, bloodier than you have now, and I think you would see regional intervention [if there's a full departure of US troops from Iraq]. Iran is already there in spades, I think Syria would be there. You’d probably wind up with a civil war, a regional war fought on the streets of Baghdad between Shiite bodies and Saudi Arabian money. Up in the north, you’d probably have Turkey intervene against the Kurds.

Ricks’ assessment here may be overly pessimistic.  But this sort of disaster could be the outcome of Bush’s Big Adventure.  And if this isn’t troubling enough, the Turkish/Kurdish situation is especially worrying because of an additional X factor - Turkey is a member of N.A.T.O.  If the Turks end up at war with Kurdish forces, Kurdish attacks on Turkish soil could lead to a real mess if the Turks invoke Article V - the common defense provision in the North Atlantic Treaty.

Salon has been running a series of articles about what it calls “preventable deaths” among U.S. soldiers returning from combat.  The introductory article in the “Coming Home” series lays out some of the recent grim news involving veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars:

Late last month the Army released data showing the highest suicide rate among soldiers in three decades. At least 128 soldiers committed suicide in 2008. Another 15 deaths are still under investigation as potential suicides. “Why do the numbers keep going up?” Army Secretary Pete Geren said at a Jan. 29 Pentagon news conference. “We can’t tell you.”

Salon claims that not only have traumatized and troubled soldiers not received the help they need, but that at times their families have been treated “callously” by the Army.  For the introduction to the “Coming Home” series, click here.

Hat Tip: D

Former Chief of Staff from the Bush regime, Andrew Card, has recently voiced some strong criticism of the Obama White House.

Card thinks that the new Oval Office dress code is too laid back — an insult to all that it symbolizes:

“There should be a dress code of respect,” Card tells INSIDE EDITION. “I wish that he would wear a suit coat and tie.” [. . .]

“The Oval Office symbolizes…the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I’m going to say democracy.

Card repeated these claims with conservative talk-show host, Michael Medved:

I found that Ronald Reagan and both President Bushes treated the Oval Office with tremendous respect. They treated the Office of the Presidency with tremendous respect. And some of that respect was reflected in how they expected people to behave, how they expected them to dress when they walked into the symbol of freedom for the world, the Oval Office. And yes, I’m disappointed to see the casual, laissez faire, short sleeves, no shirt and tie, no jacket, kind of locker room experience that seems to be taking place in this White House and the Oval Office.

Um.

Ronald Reagan trained Osama bin Laden and the Muhjadeen who would later become Al-Qaeda; sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein; engaged in massive drug traffiking in Central America and illegal arms sales to Iran in order to support the Contra rebels who murdered tens of thousands of Nicaraguans in their effort to topple a democratically-elected government. But, he wore a tie.

George Bush launched an illegal war against Iraq using faked intelligence resulting in the deaths of thousands of servicemen and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children; exposed a clandestine agent of the United States for political payback; arbitrarily detained hundreds of persons — including American citizens — without charges; violated domestic and international laws that prevent torture; performed promiscuous eavesdropping on virtually every American’s electronic communications without warrants; and obstructed justice. But, he wore a tie.

Andy Card, I hate what you just said.

UPDATE:

I wonder what Andy Card would make of this symbolic gesture. Bad Barnie!

Remember our old drinking buddy FOIA, the one who you could count on to tell you his deepest secrets after you bought him a couple of pints? Then came September 11 and he just turned inward, stopped answering your phone calls and letters. Hell, you even went so far as to subpoena him, but to no avail.

Well, he’s back.

“In the face of doubt, openness prevails,” Obama declared January 21 in a memo on complying with the Freedom of Information Act. “The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.” He also issued an Executive Order on Presidential Records that makes final decisions about withholding information located in the records of the incumbent president or former presidents or vice-presidents subject to review by the U.S. attorney general, White House counsel, and the courts. “Information with not be withheld just because I say so,” President Obama said at the signing.

American Libraries

And now that FOIA’s returned to the pub curcuit, it sounds like he’s got a lot he wants to get off of his chest.

Ironically, on the same day President Obama issued the order easing access to presidential and vice-presidential records, the Justice Department sought to dismiss a lawsuit seeking the recovery of millions of White House e-mails exchanged between 2003 and 2005. However, the policy change may facilitate the release of information sought by several congressional committees from former Vice President Dick Cheney’s records, whose handover to the National Archives was the subject of a lawsuit lost January 19 by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

I’ll all ears. Welcome back buddy, this round’s on me.

As he exits the blood-stained stage of his presidency, George W. Bush has plenty to feel guilty about.  Warrantless wiretapping, Guantanamo, Katrina, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib, and the politicizing of the Justice Department are just some of the lowlights of this disastrous administration that will follow Bush for his remaining days.

But Bush’s taking the nation to war under false pretenses should always be remembered as one of the great crimes ever committed by an American.  And now, in his final press conference and  his farewell address, Bush appears part Willy Loman, part Lady Macbeth. 

He’s a sad figure, a unimpressive man who has fallen from low heights, and is now struggling with his downfall.  Bush’s pathetic attempt to defend his record conjures up images of Willy Loman.  Like Loman’s, Bush’s is that most sickening sort of tragedy - a tragedy without prior greatness.

But while I imgaine Dick Cheney sleeps soundly every night despite his villainy, Bush seems to show signs of the guilt he keeps buried deep inside.  The look on his face as he uttered these words seems to suggest a glimmer of recognition - some part of our misbegotten leader that knows the true nature of his administration’s dark deeds:

I have often spoken to you about good and evil, and this has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world and between the two, there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.

The irony of those words is beyond my ability to describe.  I imagine Bush, like Lady Macbeth, sleepwalking through the White House, unable to wash away the profound and horrifying guilt. 

And in his waking hours, what words must keep running through his mind? 

Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere…Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere…Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere…

That crusty old democratic socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has helped bring a little sanity to an exhibit at our National Portrait Gallery.  The caption to the new portrait of George W. Bush at the Smithsonian’s N.P.G. stated that Bush’s presidency was marked by “”the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Wow.

Sanders, because he is neither insane nor a member of the Bush administration, found this troubling.  He wrote the following to Martin Sullivan, the director of the N.P.G.:

When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one “led to” the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked … Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order[?]

Perhaps astonishingly, Sullivan agreed.  He replied to Sanders that

Our intention was to remind viewers of the portrait that the listed events were defining moments in the Bush presidency, within the limited space of an object label. I appreciate your concern, however, about the words ‘led to.’ We will revise the label and delete the words “led to.”

Score one for the good guys.  I mean, hey - it isn’t Bush and Cheney on trial, which I would prefer, but it’s somethin’.

As W (finally) prepares to leave us over the coming weeks, there will undoubtedly be any number of shills, power-worshippers, and assorted other loons who will remind us of all of the “good” things that he accomplished during the past 8 years.  We’ll  see plenty of these kinds of statements:  “Whatever you think of Bush’s (fill in the blank), you have to give him credit for (fill in the blank).”  Matthew Yglesias tips us off to one such statement - a particularly moronic one from Aaron Friedberg at Foreign Policy’s “Shadow Government” blog.  Long story short:  Friedberg congratulates Bush for realizing that it would be, er, a bad thing if terrorists got their hands on nuclear or biological weapons.  As is often the case, Yglesias is the voice of reason, and deftly (and somewhat humorously) points out the idiocy of Friedberg’s assertion:

That’s a pretty said claim if you ask me. Yes, it’s true that George W. Bush was correct to say that terrorists armed with nuclear weapons would be dangerous. But this is like congratulating him for knowing how to tie his shoes. Nobody disputes this point. The novel idea Bush brought to the table about this subject was his decision to prevent al-Qaeda from getting a nuclear weapon by invading a country that had neither a nuclear weapons program nor operational ties to al-Qaeda. This is like saying that whatever you think of Herbert Hoover’s economic policies, at least he correctly ascertained that a return to prosperity would be desirable.

It has come to this.  Our president is so ridiculous, so inept, so intellectually barren that we have to congratulate him for realizing something that everyone over eight years old also realizes.

You’d be wrong if you thought Joe the Plumber was heading to Palestine to fix their broken-down sewer system. Nope. Joe’s our newest foreign war correspondent:

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - Joe The Plumber is putting down his wrenches and picking up a reporter’s notebook.

The Ohio man who became a household name during the presidential campaign says he is heading to Israel as a war correspondent for the conservative Web site pjtv.com.

Samuel J. Wurzelbacher (WUR’-zuhl-bah-kur) says he’ll spend 10 days covering the fighting.

He tells WNWO-TV in Toledo that he wants to let Israel’s “‘Average Joes’ share their story.”

I really hope Joe accidentally runs into Ehud Olmert and finds time to jawbone about Israel’s communist national heath care system that steals shekels from the pockets of hardworking Israelis.

At the Guardian, Michael Tomasky has published his list of “the 19 worst Americans of 2008.”  (Damn - it has got to be hard to narrow it down to 19, don’t you think?)  Here are a few of the highlights:

19 ED Hill. Ms Hill is the Fox News anchor who referred to Barack and Michelle Obama’s on-stage fist bump in early June as a “terrorist fist jab”. I guess she’s well familiar with the various and sundry ways in which couples express intimacy - she’s been married three times herself. Fox announced in November that it wasn’t renewing her contract.

18 Don Blankenship. Who? He’s the head of a huge coal-mining company that is an industry leader, if one must put it that way, in so-called mountain-top removal mining. It’s a hideous practice that destroys mountains and communities, and Blankenship is its poster child. Our supreme court has agreed to hear a case in which Blankenship financed the election of a state judge who, in a $50m lawsuit, ruled for Blankenship’s company. Google Caperton v Massey, read more about Massey, and tell me if this fellow shouldn’t perhaps be even higher.

…

11 David Addington. Dick Cheney’s top aide told Congress in June that he didn’t even know what the unitary executive theory of presidential power was. This would be rather like Lavrenti Beria insisting that Lubyanka prison was actually a hotel.

…

5 Michele Bachmann. Of the many memorable moments the campaign produced, I will never forget watching this Minnesota congresswoman say on national TV in October that Obama “may have anti-American views” and endorse the idea of a media investigation of all members of Congress to determine whether their views were sufficiently pro-American. The single most appalling political statement of the year.

…

3 George Bush. There were years when he would have been higher - 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. I’ll give him a slight pass for 2001, what with the attacks and all that. In those previous years, he stole an election, started an unnecessary war, lied about it, approved torture, let a great US city drown and so on. This year he merely presided over the bankruptcy of the global economy. Twenty days and counting.

…

The top two are a powerful combination of baffling incompetence on the one hand, and profound thievery on the other - Sarah Palin and Bernard Madoff.

I would suggest one addition to Tomasky’s list:  Mitt Romney.  I realize that he suspended his campaign rather early in 2008, thus sparing us from a full year of his hair and his bullshit.  But his campaign, as long as it lasted, was grotesque.  Is there a less sincere or more disingenuous person on the planet?  He could not even tell the truth about his days as a great white (varmint) hunter.  He took the political flip-flop to new levels.  Case in point:  gay marraige.  When he ran for senate in 1994, he promised the Log Cabin Republicans that he’d be a better friend to the gay community than Ted Kennedy.  But when he had to court the troglodyte right in the presidential primary, he got all homophobic-er than thou on us.  And he just spouted nonsense, and was seldom called on it.  He told us that he wanted to defend “traditional marriage,” because he agreed with “three thousand years of recorded history,” in which marriage was always the same - one man and one woman.  “Marriage is not an ‘evolving paradigm,’” he told us.  Always the same.

Dude.  His great-grandfather had five wives.  His great-great grandfather had twelve wives.

So which “traditional” marriage does he want to defend?  Traditional plural marriage?  Traditional arranged marriage?  The kind of traditional marriage where all property and political rights revert to the husband alone?  Or the tradition in which people of different races can’t marry each other?  (Thank goodness for “evolving paradigms,” no?)

Romney would have to be wildly historically illiterate to believe the things he was saying.  And I don’t think he is that stupid.  And he would also have to be totally unaware of his own family history to believe those things, too.   So I guess he was, as usual, just being his regular old dishonest self.

Sorry.  I guess I used this post as an excuse to rant about Mitt Romney one last time.   Man, I hate what he just said.  Always.

For years the Bush administration worked in secret to kidnap, torture, and indefinitely imprison individuals in flagrant disregard of domestic and international law. When discovered, the administration explained that they didn’t need the cloak of secrecy at all; such behavior is perfectly legal. If the president ordered it during wartime, they reasoned, all things are permissible. Further, they claimed, torture can only be said to have occurred with a willful attempt to cause “organ failure” or “death.”

Just imagine for a moment the utter absurdity of people such as this pretending to the moral authority to prosecute other individuals for similar crimes.

Unbelievably, we no longer have imagine such a scenario. Today these paragons of virtue and administers of “infinite justice” have asked a federal judge to imprison the son of Charles Taylor for acts of torture committed during Liberia’s civil war:

U.S. prosecutors want a Miami judge to sentence the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor to 147 years in prison for torturing people when he was chief of a brutal paramilitary unit during his father’s reign.

Charles McArthur Emmanuel, also known as Charles “Chuckie” Taylor Jr. is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 9 by U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. His conviction was the first use of a 1994 law allowing prosecution in the U.S. for acts of torture committed overseas.

A recent Justice Department court filing describes torture - which the U.S. has been accused of in the war on terror - as a “flagrant and pernicious abuse of power and authority” that warrants severe punishment of Taylor.

“It undermines respect for and trust in authority, government and a rule of law,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Caroline Heck Miller in last week’s filing. “The gravity of the offense of torture is beyond dispute.”

You see, when someone like “Chuckie” tortures people, he undermines trust in authority, government, rule of law; his flagrant and pernicious abuses of power and authority are so odious that we must sentence him to several lifetimes in prison as an example to all who would attempt to emulate him.

Only other people and other nations would engage in such reprehensible behavior–not “US.” You see, my friends, when the US acts, it always acts legally and with the blessing of God. There is literally nothing in the whole history of our nation’s manifest destiny that merits apology or retrospection or alteration. We are nature’s only exception; there is no law, no covenant, no rule or promise that can bind us.

Seriously consider the gravity of this offense: After all this is over, Charles Taylor Jr. will rot in prison while George Bush Jr. will retire to his ranch and look forward to endless summer days of riding his bicycle, cutting brush, and reaping millions of dollars in speaking fees. And Dick Cheney will return to his fortified bunker and wait for his tired bionic heart to fail, wondering how there is yet a woman who could love him. No jail awaits them. No lengthy trial at the Hague. No sneering public will great them with derision and disgust and a thinly veiled hate.

No, they’ll get away with all of it. And as the sun sets on their last days in office they’ve found time to prosecute others for “flagrant and pernicious” abuses of other human beings. After they leave office, the rest of us who can still make some claim to integrity and sanity will be left to suck on that bitter irony.

On the fourth day of Israeli attacks on Gaza where over 350 Palestinians have been killed, the president has chosen to remain on vacation in Crawford.

At yesterday’s press briefing, Deputy Press Secretary Gordon Johndroe explained what was on the president’s schedule for the day:

Q: What is the President doing today?

MR. JOHNDROE: What is the President doing today? After his phone call with Abdullah and his intelligence briefing, he went to his office to work on paperwork and a variety of things. And I expect he’ll probably ride his bicycle today and spend time with Mrs. Bush. And we’ll — I expect he’ll also probably receive updates on the ongoing situation in the Middle East, as well.

Here’s an excerpt from Bill’s NYT column, which heaps praise on Dick Cheney for - get ready for this - his honesty and sense of justice.

You gotta love Dick Cheney.

O.K., O.K. … you don’t have to. But consider this exchange with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday”:

WALLACE: Did you really tell Senator Leahy, bleep yourself?

CHENEY: I did.

WALLACE: Any qualms, or second thoughts, or embarrassment?

CHENEY: No, I thought he merited it at the time. (Laughter.) And we’ve since, I think, patched over that wound and we’re civil to one another now.

No spin. No doubletalk. A cogent defense of his action — and one that shows a well-considered sense of justice. (“I thought he merited it.”) Indeed, if justice is seeking to give each his due, one might say that Dick Cheney aspires to being a just man. And a thoughtful one, because he knows that justice is sometimes too harsh, and should be tempered by civility.

Now Cheney isn’t, I’m afraid, always wise. For example, he’s still a defender of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He even told Wallace he disagreed with the decision to fire Rumsfeld: “I was a Rumsfeld man … I thought he did a good job for us.”

Unless I’m gravely mistaken, Kristol is giving Dick Cheney credit for admitting something that everyone already knows he did.  Furthermore, he’s giving Dick Cheney credit for admitting something entirely minor.  And finally (and this is the best bit!), he seems to privilege Cheney’s admitting that he did something minor that everyone already knows he did over not admitting that his views on major Defense Department policies under the Bush Administration are absurd.

Let’s examine this.  Kristol appears to be telling us that Dick was wrong-doodly-ong on policy that cost thousands of lives.  He supported, and supports, a Defense Secretary who orchestrated a calamatous failure in Iraq - literally a matter of life and death (mostly f*cking death!)  But he’s telling us not to worry about that, because Dick is willing to admit that he cursed out Pat Leahy.  Which we already knew anway. 

Bill Kristol gets paid to write this stuff.

George W. Bush is all about “freedom,” and “democracy,” right?

Also - he’s all about this:

He’ll invade your country and destroy it under false pretenses.  He will show little if any concern whatsoever for the civilian dead and wounded in your country.  In fact, his forces will use cluster bombs - considered barbaric by much of the world - which will ensure heavier civilian casualties in your country.  He and his administration will authorize the use of torture in your country.  Then, when he comes to visit your country, and you throw your shoes at him in disgust, he’ll crack jokes while he listens to you being beaten nearby.  Audibly beaten.

From the NYT:

The Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia, an independent Iraqi television station, stood up about 12 feet from Mr. Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it

As stunned security agents and guards, officials and journalists watched, Mr. Zaidi then threw his other shoe, shouting in Arabic, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!” That shoe also narrowly missed Mr. Bush as Prime Minister Maliki stuck a hand in front of the president’s face to help shield him.

Mr. Maliki’s security agents jumped on the man, wrestled him to the floor and hustled him out of the room. They kicked him and beat him until “he was crying like a woman,” said Mohammed Taher, a reporter for Afaq, a television station owned by the Dawa Party, which is led by Mr. Maliki. Mr. Zaidi was then detained on unspecified charges.

Other Iraqi journalists in the front row apologized to Mr. Bush, who was uninjured and tried to brush off the incident by making a joke. “All I can report is it is a size 10,” he said, continuing to take questions and noting the apologies. He also called the incident a sign of democracy, saying, “That’s what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves,” as the man’s screaming could be heard outside [bold added].

Compared to the brutality of the Iraq War itself, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition, this incident is of course relatively minor (unless you happen to be the guy being beaten - then it is quite major). 

But it is also a perfectly fitting way for George W. Bush to end his disgraceful presidency. 

WHILE A MAN WAS BEING BEATEN IN HIS PRESENCE, BUSH WAS CRACKING JOKES AND EXPLAINING DEMOCRACY TO EVERYONE.

George W. Bush knows no shame.

Welcome to Baghdad, W.

From today’s Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan Senate report released yesterday says that former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials are directly responsible for abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and charges that decisions by those officials led to serious offenses against prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere.

The Senate Armed Services Committee report accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the principal architects of the plan to use harsh interrogation techniques on captured fighters and terrorism suspects, rejecting the Bush administration’s contention that the policies originated lower down the command chain.

…

The report, released by Senators Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and Republican John McCain of Arizona, and based on a nearly two-year investigation, said that both the policies and resulting controversies tarnished the reputation of the United States and undermined national security. “Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority,” it said [bold added].

The report further asserts that high-level officials not only initiated harsh interrogation techniques [read: torture], but that they “redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality.”  It still appears unclear whether any high-level Bush administration officials will be held accountable for their actions. 

A symptom of the problem:  I am looking at cnn.com and foxnews.com right now.  And I can’t find this story.

Does anyone else find this extremely scary?

During the recent terrorist assault on Mumbai, India, an alleged ‘hoax’ phone call to the Pakistani government had the two countries on the razor’s edge of war.

According to reports Sunday, a man posing as India’s foreign minister called Pakistani President Asif Zardari on Friday, Nov. 28, and threatened military action if Islamabad did not hand over those behind the attacks, Pakistani newspapers reported on Saturday.

“I had made no such telephone call,” Mukherjee said in a statement explaining how India rushed to clarify that the call was a hoax.

Is there seriously no equivalent to the “red phone” connecting Pakistani and Indian leaders?

Charlie Gibson’s interview with W is a stomach-turning tribute to the ineptitude of his presidency, and his lack of self-examination and reflection.  As a handy service to our readers here at IHWYJS, I’ll translate.

Exhibit A:

Mr. Gibson: What were you most unprepared for?

Mr. Bush: Well, I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn’t campaign and say, “Please vote for me, I’ll be able to handle an attack.” In other words, I didn’t anticipate war. Presidents — one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen [italics added].

Translation:

Hey - I never said I could handle an attack or a war!  I mean it isn’t like I was running for President or something!  (Oh, wait…)

Well, anyway, the United States is like never involved in wars, so how could I have possibly anticipated one?  I mean, we had the Barbary Wars, and a bunch of Indian Wars and such, and the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War, and the Two World Wars, and Korea,  and Vietnam, and the Gulf War, and we’ve been involved in lots of other armed conflicts in the Philippines, and Grenada, and Panama, and during the Russian Revolution, and in Somalia, and Yugoslavia, etc., etc.

But how could I have seen it coming?  I never said I could handle an attack, and I didn’t anticipate war!

Exhibit B:

Mr. Gibson: You’ve always said there’s no do-overs as President. If you had one?

Mr. Bush: I don’t know — the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that’s not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

Translation:

Everything is just fine!  Oh, but I guess I wish the Iraq intelligence had been better.  But hey - lots of people thought Saddam had WMD!  You know - because we told ‘em he did!  Dick Cheney and I kept saying that Saddam had WMD, and lots of people listened and believed us, so it’s their fault, too!

Exhibit C:

Mr. Gibson: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?

Mr. Bush: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.

Mr. Gibson: No, if you had known he didn’t.

Mr. Bush: Oh, I see what you’re saying. You know, that’s an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can’t do. It’s hard for me to speculate.

Translation:

Umm…duh…duh…duh…der… I don’t understand your question, Chuck!

Oh, right.  I see.  Well, hey, you know, it is what it is!  There’s no use crying over spilled milk.  I mean, dude - you’re asking me to be reflective and to think about the consequences of my actions and decisions.  That’s nuts!  Sure, as a result of my colossal blunders, exaggerations, and lies, thousands are dead and wounded.  But I can’t be thinking about stuff like that.  I stick to my guns.  No do-vers!  No take-backs!  Jinx - owe me a Coke!

(I hate what he just said).

In today’s Boston Globe, foreign affairs columnist H.D.S. Greenway provides a brief retrospective on the calamitous reign of Bush the Younger.  Greenway mentions a number of Bush’s greatest hits, including “mission accomplished,” the botched job in Afghanistan, torture, and the current financial crisis.  But the money shot is Greenway’s comparison between the shame of Bill Clinton and the shame of W:

IT IS HARD to believe how far this republic has fallen since President George W. Bush took office. Eight years ago, the United States had a budget surplus, peace and prosperity reigned, and America was universally respected. True, Bill Clinton had besmirched the office of the presidency by his self-indulgence. In his memoir, he would put down his dalliance with a White House intern to the worst of all possible motives. He did it because he could. But that pales in comparison to what Bush has done to the country.

…

When all the various reasons for a preemptive war against Iraq are examined - the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, spreading democracy, helping Israel, etc., etc. - it all boiled down to the worst of all possible reasons: Bush invaded Iraq because he could  [Italics added].

I’ll say it again: draft George W. Bush.

As a handy supplement to the Zapatero fiasco, we have a harrowing summary of Oily McWar’s persistent confusion from Steve Benen:

Let’s also not lose sight of the broader pattern. McCain thinks the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia was “the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War.” He thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border. He believes Czechoslovakia is still a country. He’s been confused about the difference between Sudan and Somalia. He’s been confused about whether he wants more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more NATO troops in Afghanistan, or both. He’s been confused about how many U.S. troops are in Iraq. He’s been confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term presence in Iraq. He’s been confused about Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda. He’s been confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi’ia. McCain, following a recent trip to Germany, even referred to “President Putin of Germany.” All of this incoherence on his signature issue.

I’m curious. What do you suppose the reaction would be from the political establishment if Barack Obama had made these mistakes over the course of the campaign? What would reporters, pundits, and Republicans have to say about Obama’s ability to lead a complex world in a time of war and uncertainty?

Wow.

It’s a good thing that his running mate - Sarah “What the F*ck is the ‘Bush Doctrine’?” Palin - will be able to help him sort out all these complicated foreign policy thingies.

Somehow McWar continues to campaign as a foreign policy expert, and people seem to buy it.  Matthew Yglesias summarizes the ridiculous situation well:

The problem is in the underlying assumption that McCain has some deep underlying national security expertise. In conventional Washington terms, expertise and credibility on security issues basically just requires you to (a) enjoy talking about security issues and (b) support starting wars. Support for launching a war that turns out well is the best thing to do (+5 cred points), but support for launching a war that doesn’t get launched is pretty good (+3 cred points), and even support for launching a war that turns out poorly is okay (+1 cred points) — the important thing is to support launching wars.

He likes wars.  He likes oil drillin’.  That’s why I call him Oily McWar.

So polls show that “white voters” think that Barack Obama is a “risky” choice for president. The real risk we face right now is that a McCain presidency will be far too much like a third Bush term (I just shuddered writing those words), and that American militarism could spin further out of control (right, Condi?)

Max Bergmann explains why Oily McWar is the real risk:

The big concern with a McCain presidency – a concern which I am surprised has not been vocalized more fully – is that the U.S. will lurch from crisis to crisis, confrontation to confrontation, whether it be with Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. The danger is that McCain’s pundit-like rhetoric will entrap the U.S. in descending spiral of foreign policy brinksmanship. Just think about the very likely scenario of McCain giving Iran/Russia a rhetorical ultimatum and Iran/Russia ignoring it. Now we are stuck - either we lose face by not following through on our threats or we follow through and go to war. We can’t afford such a reckless approach after the last eight years. For the next eight we need a president not a pundit.

Speaking as a white guy (seriously - I’m mad white), I think it is time for “white voters” to grow up and realize that the best candidate for president isn’t just the guy who seems the most militaristic. Or the whitest.

Me likey.

So when you’re on the ropes and its time to come out fighting, the political handbook states: “attack a nonexistent constituency that you can tie to your opponent.”  On the McCain report, Michael Goldfarb writes that McCain didn’t lift any lines from Solzhenitsyn as he simultaneously waxed Georgian and prisoner-of-war, what are you talking about?  The real issue is this:

It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman’s memory of war from the comfort of mom’s basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others.

The McCain Report

Wargaming nerds in black, tight fitting t-shirts take that!   Don’t hate Obama because his Charisma score makes him a more powerful orc slayer than you.  You can forget my vote in November Mr. McCain.  Oh, and mom, can you bring down some more lemonade–make that hateorade– for me and the boys?

Washington Post on Bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan:

Hamdan’s sentence of 5 1/2 years, which amounts to five more months in U.S. custody, was far lighter than some Pentagon officials had expected. Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of at least 30 years, and now officials are preparing for the possibility of having to set him free or hold him indefinitely as an “enemy combatant.”

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said it has always been the Defense Department’s position that detainees could be held as enemy combatants even after acquittal at military commissions or after serving a prison sentence. “That’s always been on our minds in terms of a scenario we could face,” he said. “He will serve his time for the conviction and then he will still be an enemy combatant, and as an enemy combatant the process for potential transfer or release will apply.”

This is interesting.

Remember Robert Richer? He’s the CIA’s former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations who told reporter Ron Suskind that the White House faked a document designed to draw us into war with Iraq.

Curiously, the White House is now issuing statements “on his behalf” and he is backing off his claims. To counter, Suskind has released the transcripts of his interviews with Richer, which are pretty damning.

Raw Story has more.

Dear Congress, MSM, Blogosphere, and all Fellow Human Beings:

Please, please, please, please don’t let this story fade away until we know for sure whether it is true.

And if it is true, please, please, please, please don’t let them get away with it. They have already gotten away with so much. Surely this would have to be the final straw, no?

A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.

Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.

The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”

P.S. - as I am writing this post, the big headline on CNN.com is “‘Astonishing’ gorilla find reported.”

John McCain says he knows “how to win wars.”  And, heck - I guess that would be a rather handy thing to know if you plan on fighting wars.

From The Trail:

“I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars,” McCain told the audience at a town hall in Albuquerque. “And if I’m elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory, I know how to do that.”

OK.  I just want to know how he knows this.  How did he learn how to win wars?  I think it’s a good question.

Is it from his service in the Vietnam War?  Because we didn’t win that one.

In the situation room

There was a toy world

And a flight costume

and a picture of–

It’s Goodnight Bush!  Sweet Dreams…

[Updated Below]

I believe it was Emerson who wrote that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Yesterday, our nation’s media showed why they think Emerson is full of shit.

The truth, according to the Washington Press Corps(e), is that politicians show that they are big-minded and serious by never, EVER, changing their views–no matter what.

In a press conference Barack Obama stated that he would continue to “refine” his policy about Iraq as he traveled to the embattled country and met with our commanders on the ground.

How is a reporter supposed to respond when a politician uses a word like “refine” in a sentence? By doing the only thing you know how to do, of course: manufacture fake controversies.

Take the AP story, for instance, which was titled “Obama opens door to altering his Iraq policy”:

Democrat Barack Obama opened the door Thursday to altering his plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months based on what he hears from military commanders during his upcoming trip there.

The Washington Post’s headline was “Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline”

And Mike Allen, of The Politico:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could “refine” his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month. [. . .]

Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.

Nice work, Mike, you hack. Really going out of your way to construct a “flip-flopper” narrative.

Refining something, to our nation’s media, apparently means something akin to “reject,” “alter,” or “change.” But not according to the dictionary. There I find that “refine” can mean the following:

• S: (v) polish, refine, fine-tune, down (improve or perfect by pruning or polishing) “refine one’s style of writing”
• S: (v) complicate, refine, rarify, elaborate (make more complex, intricate, or richer) “refine a design or pattern”
• S: (v) refine (treat or prepare so as to put in a usable condition) “refine paper stock”; “refine pig iron”; “refine oil”
• S: (v) refine, rectify (reduce to a fine, unmixed, or pure state; separate from extraneous matter or cleanse from impurities) “refine sugar”
• S: (v) refine (attenuate or reduce in vigor, strength, or validity by polishing or purifying) “many valuable nutrients are refined out of the foods in our modern diet”
• S: (v) refine (make more precise or increase the discriminatory powers of) “refine a method of analysis”; “refine the constant in the equation”

Two points about all this.

First, I think that this dust-up is absurd solely on the basis of the language Obama used. To “refine” something does not mean to fundamentally “alter” or “change” it. If anything, refining something suggests a process whereby something becomes more concentrated, more itself — free from impurities or mistakes. Essentially, Obama is saying that he wants to end the war better.

Secondly, this event is evidence of the pathetic “gotcha” school of journalism where the objective is to expose a candidate as a “flip-flopper.”  God knows there is plenty of self-serving equivocation, waffling, and politically expedient reversal going on in Washington. And these things should be exposed for what they are. But we must also acknowledge that a “change of mind” based on the consultation of authorities and the study of new evidence is actually an indication of a sane, healthy intellect–not a suggestion of duplicity or dishonesty.

To our journalists and the preposterous commentator clowns who construct our media narratives, only a “flip-flopper” would state that they intend to thoughtfully consider evidence and take great care when making decisions about things like war and the lives of soldiers. And a “flip-flopper” is incapable of being a good president.

I suppose this means that the platonic ideal of the American president is someone like George Bush who gets an idea in his head and stubbornly refuses to alter course regardless of facts, evidence, objective data, polls, and the opinions of learned professionals. That kind of consistency takes character. And integrity. Better to be ruled by your “gut” than by your mind.

Way to go, media elites!

UPDATE I:

Not to be outdone, NPR issues this ingenious statement:

Democrat Barack Obama says he is not shifting his policy on troop withdrawals from Iraq, just hours after he said he was open to “refining” his policy.

Oh, snap! NPR, you just busted Obama wearing five pairs of flip-flops! Previously, Obama said he was committed to ending the war, but now he’s completely “refined” his policy and will probably keep our soldiers there for 100 years. McCain wins!

“Open to ‘refining’ his policy” is the equivalent of saying that Barack Obama is “open to perfecting his policy” on Iraq. Shock! Gasp!

One of the more popular statements on this issue (judged by Google) was penned by this budding philologist:

Does Barack Obama’s “Refine” Mean the Same Thing As Evolving, or Flip Flopping?

Refine, evolve, changes his mind…..they all mean the same thing…..Flip Flopping.

Can’t you just hear the rustle of the Cheetos bag?

UPDATE II:

This MSNBC write-up is pretty fair.

Some completely unbelievable news from today’s New York Times. The entire harsh interrogation torture regime used at Guantanamo Bay was plagiarized from Red Scare-era documents detailing Communist Chinese interrogation techniques:

The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency. [. . .]

The 1957 article from which the chart was copied was entitled “Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War” and written by Alfred D. Biderman, a sociologist then working for the Air Force, who died in 2003. Mr. Biderman had interviewed American prisoners returning from North Korea, some of whom had been filmed by their Chinese interrogators confessing to germ warfare and other atrocities.

The article further explains that the “only change made in the chart presented at Guantánamo was to drop its original title: ‘Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance.’”

American Torture.™  Made in China.

As the article is quick to reveal, the position of the US at the time was that the described Chinese practices were torture. Further, it was also clear at the time that such practices do not produce actionable intelligence; rather, they elicit promiscuous confession. In the end, torture does nothing but create an endless, self-justifying loop of hysteria and paranoia.

Perhaps it is time for someone to tell this president “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Sorry for the rather blunt title. But each day he seems to find a new way to prove it. In his column today, he takes on the new MoveOn.org ad.

He summarizes the ad this way:

The ad is simple. A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy:

“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”

Predictably, Kristol is offended by the idea of a mother not wanting her son to die in a phony war of choice, built on lies, mismanaged calamitously, and seemingly with no end in sight. I mean - the gall! How dare she?!

An example of the extreme dickitude:

Now it might be pedantic to point out that John McCain isn’t counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms.

Pedantic? You think?

Then he repeats this crap:

And it might be picky to remark that when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, “Maybe 100” — explaining, “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. …”

In other words, McCain is open to an extended military presence in Iraq, similar to ones we’ve had in Germany, Japan or Kuwait. He does not wish for, nor does he anticipate, a 100-year war in Iraq.

And the crescendo of dickness continues with this:

But it is surely relevant to point out that the United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex won’t be drafted, and his mommy can’t enlist him. He can decide when he’s an adult whether he wants to serve. And, of course, McCain supports the volunteer army.

Right. Because that’s how that works, Bill. You dick.

In one brief column, Bill has reaffirmed that his views on the Iraq war completely disconnected from reality, that he is a snotty bastard, and that he believes (or more likely, is willing to pretend) that America has no class system. From Bill’s point of view, since there is no class system to worry about, and economic opportunities are open to all, the concept of an all-volunteer army is perfectly democratic and lovely.

I officially endorse the draft - of William Kristol.

And I stand by the title of this post.

Just when it seemed that Gordon Brown’s troubles couldn’t get much worse, he received the ultimate kiss of death.

From the Guardian:

George Bush yesterday heaped praise on Gordon Brown as the prime minister announced that Britain would intensify sanctions against Iranian banks, dispatch 230 extra troops to southern Afghanistan and keep British troops in southern Iraq until the build-up of Iraqi security forces justified a withdrawal.

Big cuts in British troop levels in Iraq were not expected until next year, military sources said as the US president insisted there was no difference between British and American policy in Iraq.

Bush said he appreciated the prime minister being “tough on terror”, saying that Brown understood that the spread of freedom was transformative, and it was wrong to think that “only white guy Methodists” wanted self-government. He branded such thinking as the ultimate form of political elitism.

The last thing a guy with these poll numbers needs is an endorsement from, er, this guy.

The right wing freakout over the recent Supreme Court decision to permit habeas petitions for Gitmo detainees reached a skull-splitting crescendo today. Mike “gamecock” DeVine, so-called “Legal Editor” for the site Minority Report, posted the most laughably insane and transparently stupid argument ever crafted with a keyboard.

Today’s infamous 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court granting terrorists the right to an O.J. trial in U.S. civilian courts cries out for the present Chief Executive to so paraphrase Old Hickory’s similar defiance of John Marshall 176 years ago with respect to removal of the Cherokee from Georgia.

“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

The nation survived President Andrew Jackson’s defense of his constitutional executive powers against the first Judicial Oligarch. Should President Bush succumb to Justice Kennedy’s attempted coup to assume the role of Commander in Chief, it will be much harder for our nation to survive, much less thrive, as it has since 1832.

Beyond the fascistic, mindlessly authoritarian vision DeVine articulates for our country, I can only hope that he failed history class. Otherwise, he’s seriously advocating the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears as positive models for presidential behavior. That story is one of the darkest stains on the fabric of American history.

I suppose it’s only fitting that someone use it to justify unlimited, unchecked, and arbitrary executive detention — probably the most un-American and un-democratic thing that I can imagine.

Nobody can deny the rhetorical potency of a pithy bumper sticker:

A $300 million Pentagon psychological warfare operation includes plans for placing pro-American messages in foreign media outlets without disclosing the U.S. government as the source, one of the military officials in charge of the program says.

Run by psychological warfare experts at the U.S. Special Operations Command, the media campaign is being designed to counter terrorist ideology and sway foreign audiences to support American policies. The military wants to fight the information war against al-Qaeda through newspapers, websites, radio, television and “novelty items” such as T-shirts and bumper stickers.

You can laugh, but somebody has to combat those seductively hilarious “I Brake for Jihad” messages.

Glenn Greenwald just eviscerated David Broder over at Salon–exposing him as as the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the Washington media.

In a Washington Post “chat,” a citizen from Crestwood, NY wrote in with a fine point about the “Phase II” Senate investigation into pre-war intelligence:

So the Senate report — supported by two Republicans — supports the conclusion that we all reached several years ago, that Bush and Cheney used propaganda and ginned up intelligence to trick the country into war. If this is not an impeachable offense, what do you define as one? And if an impeachable offense is committed, isn’t it the height of irresponsibility for the Democrats to put possible harm to their electoral chances (negligible, in my opinion) ahead of their oaths to the Constitution? How will history look back at this disgraceful chapter in both the executive and legislative branches?

Broder’s response:

You’ll have to forgive me, but I am reluctant to see every big policy dispute turned into a criminal or impeachable affair. There needs to be accountability but there also needs to be proportionality. This country is engaged in two wars and has serious, serious domestic problems. To stop everything and attempt to impeach and remove a president who has less than a year to serve would not strike me as the best use of our energy. And for what? So Dick Cheney can be president?

Greenwald’s response was blistering, but I’ll only quote a portion:

The only news made by that Senate report is that, in our country, a report like this — documenting that the Government lied us into a war — is no longer news at all. Extraordinary conduct of that type has been converted by the David Broders of the world into commonplace “policy disputes.”

And:

When Scott McClellan used the term “complicit enablers” to describe our press corps, this is the face of that: soothingly assuring the public that there is nothing at all unusual or radical about what’s going on in our Government, that everything from torture to warrantless, illegal spying to process-less detentions and the abolition of habeas corpus and even lying our country into war are just standard “policy disputes” that should be resolved in a gentlemanly manner through respectful and civil discourse, not by excessive and mean-spirited weapons such as investigations and prosecutions. As Broder said, the notion that there should be a “sense of urgency” is for people who “get carried away by their own rhetoric.”

Read the whole post. Greenwald is the best, most insightful, and important voice speaking in the twilight of the Bush regime.

Check out all of David Rees’ Get Your War On cartoons.

In 10 years everyone will wax nostalgic over the good ol’ days of the Cold War:

WaPo

At least 40 developing countries from the Persian Gulf region to Latin America have recently approached U.N. officials . . . to signal interest in starting nuclear power programs, a trend that concerned proliferation experts say could provide the building blocks of nuclear arsenals in some of those nations.

At least half a dozen countries have also said in the past four years that they are specifically planning to conduct enrichment or reprocessing of nuclear fuel, a prospect that could dramatically expand the global supply of plutonium and enriched uranium, according to U.S. and international nuclear officials and arms-control experts.

Much of the new interest is driven by economic considerations, particularly the soaring cost of fossil fuels. But for some Middle Eastern states with ready access to huge stocks of oil or natural gas, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the investment in nuclear power appears to be linked partly to concerns about a future regional arms race stoked in part by Iran’s alleged interest in such an arsenal, the officials said.