Tristero |
||
Thursday, December 04, 2003Week OffNo blogging for the next 6 or 7 days. Rather busy right now...Tuesday, December 02, 2003America Is Not A Christian NationDetailed rebuttal of those who believe it is, with lots of great quotes."History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." ~ Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21 Bergen Eviscerates MylroieAfter reading this terrific article by Peter Bergen, which rebuts the wacky theories of neocon Laurie Mylroie, you will be left with little doubt that the "intellectual" qualifications of the men and women who advocated the Bush/Iraq war are bogus.Mylroie declined to be interviewed for this article "with regret," so the only chance I have had to talk with her came this past February, when we both appeared on Canadian television to discuss the impending war in Iraq and Saddam's putative connections to terrorism. As soon as the interview started, Mylroie began lecturing in a hectoring tone: "Listen, we're going to war because President Bush believes Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Al Qaeda is a front for Iraqi intelligence…[the U.S.] bureaucracy made a tremendous blunder that refused to acknowledge these links … the people responsible for gathering this information, say in the C.I.A., are also the same people who contributed to the blunder on 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans, and so whenever this information emerges they move to discredit it." I tried to make the point that Mylroie's theories defied common sense, as they implied a conspiracy by literally thousands of American officials to suppress the truth of the links between Iraq and 9/11, to little avail. seraphiel's Daily Cartoon Roundup12 Quotation Of The dayThe Times:"You can be a social conservative in the U.S. without being a wacko. Not in Canada." Chris Ragan, a McGill University economist. Monday, December 01, 2003Krugman On DieboldMaybe the press will start to take this seriously now:The attitude seems to be that questions about the integrity of vote counts are divisive at best, paranoid at worst. Even reform advocates like Mr. Holt [Democratic congressman from NJ, sponsor of voting machine integrity bill] make a point of dissociating themselves from "conspiracy theories." Instead, they focus on legislation to prevent future abuses. The Internet![]() Oh, this is a great site. The image above is of the Internet, generated on November 22, 2003. Go and download a larger version of this picture: it's worth it. Soon, they promise to have software that will be able to pinpoint your location in this map. After all these years of daily use, sometimes this stuff simply makes my jaw drop. 7 Year-Old Humiliated Because Of Gay MomTolerance in the Age of Bush:A 7-year-old boy was scolded and forced to write "I will never use the word `gay' in school again" after he told a classmate about his lesbian mother, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged Monday.Looks like the ACLU is on the case. If you're not yet a card-carrying member, join now. EeeuwStop now unless you have a strong stomach:When Tanya Andrews returned from a recent family holiday in Costa Rica, she had no idea she had brought back a gruesome souvenir. Sailing, SailingG.O.P. To Stay Off Of Manhattan On A Luxury Liner?The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, would like the ship to serve as a floating entertainment center for Republican members of Congress, and their guests, when the convention comes to New York City next Aug. 30 to Sept. 2.Well, it has two advantages, doesn't it? 1. Republican prigs won't be tempted by the corruptions of New York. 2. No one will embarass the rest of the GOP by taking pictures of all the hookers on board. Iraq Awareness Erodes Support For BushThat's why Bush wants to cut and run by June:[I]t seems clear that the higher the voter salience of the Iraq situation, the better the Democrats are likely to do in November, 2004. Sunday, November 30, 2003Many Gitmo Prisoners Were Innocent, Framed For The RewardThis is truly outrageous:According to Time, activities leading toward release of the 140 prisoners have accelerated since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. It said U.S. officials had concluded some detainees were kidnapped for reward money offered for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. (our emphasis)As Atrios remarks as well, I am ashamed of this country over this. We all should be. This is unconscionable and reparations are due the victims and their families. Chomsky Says Bush Is No HitlerI've discussed the mistake, both factually and tactically, in trying to draw a parallel between Bush and Hitler. On occasion, I've received email from people who believe that the parallels are obvious and that some people, not me, are afraid of saying so for one cowardly reason or another.In an online interview with the Washington Post, Noam Chomsky, who is not known for tailoring his opinions for any reasons at all, had this to say: What's happening in Guantanomy [sic] is an utter disgrace. In my recent book "Hegemony or Survival," I quote Winston Churchill's thoughts about the methods now being adopted the administration: that they are "odious" and the foundation of every totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist (I'm not using quotes only because that's from memory, but it's virtually exact). Nevertheless, one should not exaggerate. What's happening here now is bad enough, but it is nothing like what has happened in the past, even the quite recent past (most strikingly, the COINTELPRO operations that went on for 15 years before they were banned by the Courts),or certainly Wilson's Red Scare. And they are not remotely like what happens in much of the rest of the world. Ther is a very strong commitment on the part of the public to preserve the legacy of freedom that was won with hard struggle over centuries -- it wasn't a gift from above. And though events of the kind you mention [Patriot Act abuses and other actions], and much worse ones, do take place, and should be stopped by an aroused public, the fact is that for those who have even a limited share of privilege -- which is a very large majority in a rich country -- there are freedoms that are unusual, by world standards. Nothing to be complacent about, but worth keeping in mind.He is exactly right. "Martial Law" In New York Next Summer?LA Times thinks so:[D]rama aplenty will start to swell in late August as GOP delegates arrive in Manhattan — accompanied, perhaps, by thousands from the FBI and military intelligence, as well as conceivably more Army Rangers and National Guard soldiers taking up stations to protect the president...And the article doesn't even bother to mention the all but inevitable large scale protests that will be staged by the American people of all backgrounds outside the convention. Were Liberal Hawks Right To Trust Bush, At First? A Response To Kevin DrumIn a post today, Kevin Drum asks four sensible questions about Bush and Iraq:1. Was it reasonable back in January for a liberal to believe that George Bush was serious about building a moderately stable, tolerant, and democratic Iraq? 2. If you accept his policy goals as worthy, how good has Bush been at achieving them? 3. Why did Bush allow the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith gang to work out a plan that was so obviously divorced from real world considerations? 4. Why did the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith gang believe this stuff in the first place? I will now try to answer them in as serious manner as they were asked. No, it was not reasonable. There are two basic classes of reasons, the empirical and the philosophical. The empirical first: By January, Afghanistan, Bush's first attempt at nation building, was already being reported as sliding into disaster. In addition, bin Laden, al Zawahiri, and Omar had not been found, more demonstration that Bush could not complete what he began before losing interest (behavior consistent with one of numerous character flaws obvious to anyone in the country from the moment he began to run for president). Furthermore, beginning in the spring of '02 if not earlier, Bush had made it clear in numerous statements that the plans to invade and "remake" Iraq were not subject to debate (only much later did his infamous "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" remark come to light, but he had the much the same thing publicaly many times.) In addition, Bush claimed that he had the legal right to invade Iraq without the explicit approval of Congress or the United Nations. If nothing else, this arrogant assumption of being above any law on Bush's part should have set off alarms not only with liberals, of course, but nevertheless especially with liberals, who should have recognized that acting in the world's best interests was not foremost in his mind. During the entire runup to the war, until the State of the Union speech and Powell's early February UN presentation, Bush made public not so much as a shred of evidence that Saddam was the threat to world peace he claimed he was. That should have given liberals familiar with Nixon and Reagan/Bush a clear sign that Bush was hiding something. (That Powell's speech was deliberately padded should have been obvious as well to anyone who listened carefully, long before every major piece of evidence he offered was discredited. The method of presentation as well as the evidence, divorced from Powell's spin, was very weak.) Also during this time, the Bush administration was questioned repeatedly about its plans for Iraq after the invasion succeeded (its success was admitted by everyone in this country). They refused to answer the question. In December '02, at a high level seminar I attended which included Congressmen, Senators, officials from the Bush administration, military officers, and an unknown presidential candidate named Dean, the only plans profferred by the Administration representatives were that democracy would spontaneously arise and that Iraq's oil revenue afterwards would reimburse the expense. Again, one needn't be a liberal to realize that this meant the administration hadn't thought the post-war situation through with anything resembling care and attention. Kevin's question also assumes enough knowledge of Iraq and the Middle East on the part of the US government to formulate a plan. By January, 2003, it was clear that intelligence about Iraq was woefully inadequate. Also clear was that the CIA as well as every other American intelligence agency was so unprepared for serious engagement with the area that there were (still!) only a handful of Arab translators and almost none intimately familiar with the dialects in Iraq. Liberals prize the accumulation of knowledge and facts above ideology. The ignorance of this country's government about Arabic cultures was then (and remains) simply breathtaking and should have given liberals serious reasons to question Bush's obvious impatience to invade and "get started." Finally, at numerous times during the campaign Bush had disparaged nation building. All his behavior through January, 2003 was consistent with this opinion and a subsequent lack of knowledge and interest in learning what nation building would entail. Philosophical reasons: The question accepts the premise that George Bush, as leader of the most powerful nation on earth has the right to interfere with any country's governance as he sees fit. Liberals know, or should know post Vietnam and Mogadishu, that this is a faulty assumption. Of course, there are exceptions and dilemmas, but the very premise of the question is illiberal. Rather it is mixed up with American manifest destiny myths that have been used since the 1840's to justify numerous dubious foreign policy initiatives. The question also implies that a democratic and tolerant Iraq (it was already stable, horribly so) can be imposed via a preemptive, unilateral military strategy (which was announced long before January, '03). Even liberals, who might believe that the US has a moral obligation to spread democracy around the world, know, or should know, that democracy cannot be imposed via military coercion. If the illogic of doing so is not apparent, there was ample evidence, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that would have made this clear. This question is not well-framed by Kevin. First of all, with the notable exception of Afghanistan (see below for discussion of whether Kevin is right there), all Kevin's examples are examples of domestic political skill, not international examples of nation building expertise. Yes, Bush - meaning the administration as well as the man - has been remarkably talented at getting what it wants from Congress, the courts, and voters. Note, however, that many of the Bush political victories have been in nation un-building: rolling back taxes, reducing benefits and services, breaking treaties (not mentioned by Kevin) and so on. Hardly evidence of a man serious about constructing a nation from scratch. Bush's political skill also does not translate into operational skill. The wars between State and Defense are only the tip of the iceberg. There is open animosity between the administration and the FBI/CIA as well. Homeland Security has been more effective at locating Texas Democrats than at securing our ports. And despite a quarter of spectacular growth, no one expects either jobs or the economy to recover to the point that it was prior to Bush taking office. Another case in point: Afghanistan, which, contra Kevin's opinion, is a disaster. Heroin production is back in a big way after the Taliban curbed it and women are still in danger from religious fanatics. Warlords, the Taliban, and armed gangs control every area of the country except Kabul and somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border, bin Laden, al Zawahiri and many of their comrades in arms are hiding, with thousands of people loyally protecting their safety. In short, Bush is fairly good at ramming his proposals throught the American political system. He is truly awful at follow-through. This should make anyone highly suspicious as to whether Bush would be able to follow through on Iraq even if he was serious. It is altogether another question as to whether his proposals are well-crafted to meet his own goals, a question that is far too complicated to answer properly here. This is easily answered. Bush believes their analysis of the world is correct. The Cabal (their word, not mine) are the descendants of the far right Cold War warriors like Lemay and the Birchers. In this worldview, Roosevelt was a socialist who began the destruction of the very fabric of American society; McCarthy was right even if a little paranoid; Kennedy should have taken out Cuba when he had the chance in '62; nuclear bombs should have been used in Vietnam which we could have easily won; and liberals, perhaps even more than communists, represent a threat to the moral health, indeed the very viability of the United States as a nation because they sap the nation's will to fight. Flowing from this view is a sense that the US is always a force for good in the world (provided liberals don't interfere); that American values and its particular practice of democracy are objectively better than any other country's; and that any oppressed country, regardless of its internal politics, would leap at the chance to embrace Americans and the democracy they offer, welcoming us with sweets and flowers. Again, this is easily answered. Since before the debacle of Goldwater, the right has been carefully building both intellectual and political structures. The Cabal, immersed deeply at the center of this effort, devised ideas in the hothouse atmosphere of their thinktanks that they (mistakenly) believed were logical extensions of deeply held conservative beliefs. They were hired by Bush I to be the official "crazies," to come to the table with ideas that were not mainstream and shake everyone up. (During the missile crisis, both Lemay and Rusk served the same purpose for Kennedy, albeit on opposite sides). How could they be so wrong? Simple. First, they are not half as smart as they are glib. Second, they are very fearful men, afraid of violence so much that while their philosophy might seem to require it, their very souls compelled them to avoid the draft. Their fear also manifests itself in a taste for destroying all opponents, preferably with violence. Their fear makes it necessasary for them to control their environment. Hence, their propensity for gated communities, secrecy, lies, and military force. The combination of their mediocre intelligence and their fearfulness results in the ironic consequence that they create the very world they fear: a world where it is increasingly difficult for any American to feel safe, either at home or abroad. Their emphasis on extremely large and overly violent solutions to ensure their safety drove them to press, pre-9/11, for Star Wars redux and the breaking of major nuclear treaties, thereby making the spectacular mistake of neglecting the real threat: a committed group of low budget terrorists armed with nothing more than box cutters, donkey carts, and car bombs. Their response to what happened on 9/11 is in keeping with this threat: destroy as many terrorists as possible, not realizing that, unlike oil, terrorists are a renewable resource and that the best way to get terrorism to spread is to kill and humiliate people. For all these reasons, and many more, the liberal hawk position prior to the Iraq war was an unreasonable one. In the aftermath, as the supporters of the war have gradually awakened to the monumental stupidity of the undertaking and have begun to (dimly) perceive the enormous future dangers created for this country and the world by the Bush/Iraq war, it really is incumbent upon them to ask these questions of themselves: Given the patently obvious folly of conquering and invading Iraq when Bush did, an opinion more than borne out by recent events, how could we have been so gulled into, at least for a while, supporting the effort? How can we prevent ourselves from making the same or similar mistakes in the future? Iraq: "Ridiculousness" RulesAs coalition and US casualties mount, Josh Marshall sums up the sheer awful absurdity of what is going on in Iraq:On the homefront, the president is shaping his political campaign around the notion that we shouldn't show weakness and we can't cut and run. Meanwhile, it's clear to pretty much everyone in Iraq that we're doing both.For you extra credit folks, you might want to read up on Ayatollah Sistani, the major political power in Iraq right now. He is the one who forced the change in the US plans recently. Go here, here, and here. The following excerpt is taken from the last link: Sunnis may not actively protest or confront communities that do participate, but the refusal of large numbers to engage could undermine the U.S. plan or stall the political transition at the heart of Washington's exit strategy. seraphiel's Daily Cartoon Roundup12 3 4 Letter To The New York TimesCharles Murray misses the obvious and most egregious answer to the question he poses: what "truly wonderful accomplishment contributed to some truly awful consequences?" (Well, It Seemed Like a Good Idea At the Time, Week In Review, Nov. 30).None of the authors of the New Testament, nor Jesus himself, could ever imagine that their magnificent life and work would be used to justify the murderous Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of Joan of Arc, the countless pogroms, and all the other dreadful acts of religious intolerance and persecution that misguided followers have perpetrated in their names. |
||