Benazir Bhuttto Was Shot to Death
December 31, 2007 at 9:45 am | Posted in Pakistan | 3 Commentsand written evidence
(courtesy of New York Times – Max Becherer/Polaris, for The New York Times)
Who Remains An Ally of Bush?
December 29, 2007 at 9:02 am | Posted in American politics, Australia, Bush Administration, corruption, Foreign Policy, George W Bush, King George, Musharraf, Tony Blair | Leave a commentLet’s count them, shall we?
1. Aznar, Spain’s prime minister. Ousted in 2004 by an electorate who he crossed by entering into Iraq without their approval. 90% of Spaniards did NOT want to go into Iraq.
2. Tony Blair, Britain’s prime minister. He had such a good legacy going for him before he joined with Bush. Now with his legacy in tatters does anyone care what Mr. Blair has to say?
3. John Howard, Australia’s prime minister. Embarrassingly lost his own seat in the most recent elections. David Hicks will soon come knocking on his legacy door, once that gag order is removed.
4. General Musharraf, Pakistan’s…well, dictator. He doesn’t have much longer left in him, and the Bush administration knows this. This is why they pressed for Benazir Bhutto to come out of exile and return to her violent home to be assassinated. I don’t know if I am surprised or not that the Bush administration under Condoleezza Rice’s reign at State, failed to consider that many Pakistanis didn’t want to see Ms. Bhutto back in Pakistan, ruling the country. It is surprising because it is assumed people in such positions of power have the foresight and wisdom to see such paths before making a decision. Then again, it is not surprising because these are Bush loyalists in power. They really are horrendous.
5. Benazir Bhutto, dead. Poor Ms. Bhutto. A mere pawn of bigger players is assassinated in her home country after being convinced to return by Ms. Condoleezza Rice.
At Rice’s urging, Bhutto earlier this year agreed to take part in the parliamentary elections, with the understanding that the Pakistani president would keep his part of the bargain by permitting her, a twice-elected prime minister, to serve for a third term (which was banned by a technical rule). Instead, Musharraf did nothing to change the law and instead declared emergency rule—a decision that President Bush did not immediately denounce. Nor did the Americans push Musharraf on the other aspects of the deal that would have allowed her to be a three-time prime minister. “The Americans left her high and dry,” says a close Bhutto ally who requested anonymity when discussing diplomatic issues. “They did not keep their word.” America wants an ally in Pakistan—but with U.S. credibility in the country so low, Washington would be better off not trying to name any successors.
It is not good to be an ally of George W. Bush. When push comes to shove, you will be left out high and dry while he gets away scot free.
The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto
December 27, 2007 at 9:30 am | Posted in Pakistan | Leave a commentShe was shot by an assassin who then supposedly blew himself up, killing fourteen others. One has to ask, who benefits most from her death. Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists obviously don’t want women in power. But neither does Musharraf like Ms. Bhutto in power either. It is really hard not to question whether Musharraf was behind this assassination in some way, whether the sin of commission or the sin of omission. In either case, this is a terrible day for Pakistan and democracy in South Asia and the Muslim world. There is more coming to this story, of course. Americans should be keeping their eyes on Pakistan not Iraq. This is where our real enemy lies in hiding.
Cross-posted at Council of Fifty
Harry Reid, a Shame to All Democrats
December 21, 2007 at 9:56 am | Posted in Democrats, Harry Reid | 11 CommentsHow the mighty have fallen. Mr. Harry Reid, you are a shame to the Democratic Party and you, sir, must step down as the Majority Leader in the Senate. You have abrogated your Constitutional responsibility to hold the Executive branch accountable, and instead bent over and let them give it to you all year long. It is time for you to go back to Nevada. You, sir, are not worthy of being the Majority Leader in the Senate. You undermine members of your OWN party! who are trying to stop the abuse of power by this administration. That is unconscionable!
It is time for someone like Chris Dodd to take the leadership reins in the Senate. Or a Russ Feingold. Someone who will not cower to the megalomaniac Republican.
Please, Mr. Reid, step down.
The Depravity of Halliburton and KBR
December 20, 2007 at 12:54 pm | Posted in corruption, halliburton, Iraq, kbr | Leave a commentOut of their many crimes against humanity will this one finally put a stake in their heart?
The Council of Fifty
December 19, 2007 at 5:59 am | Posted in Blogroll, Mormon | 2 CommentsI recommend a new blog created in the Mormon Bloggernacle called The Council of Fifty. This new blog is intended to discuss politics and the role of Mormonism in the realm of the political. I am honored to have been invited to participate and invite all my readers to bookmark and visit often this new blog.
The Timeline of America’s Use of Torture
December 19, 2007 at 4:38 am | Posted in CIA, Torture | Leave a commentis found here, complete with numerous references and citations. The evidence is there, and has been since 2001. Highly recommended reading.
What the Future May Hold
December 19, 2007 at 4:02 am | Posted in American politics, conservatives, corruption | Leave a commentYou bet it can. Read for yourself what a popular conservative thinks now about liberals.
The quintessential liberal fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade-school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.
It’s not like these guys will suddenly retire in 2009. Nor are they close to death (most are still quite young). Will a Democratic victory in 2008 silence them? Of course not. Their unhinged stupidity will increasingly get worse. The question is, will rank and file conservatives realize how stupid their conservative ideology representatives really are?
These conservatives, people like Jonah Goldberg, will merely look at 2009 as a setback. They will push even harder. Times will get worse here in America, not better. This is merely the beginning. Unless rank and file conservatives begin to ignore and even push out people like Jonah Goldberg and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Will they do that? Not likely. The Savior will come first, methinks.
What A Popular Conservative Thinks
December 17, 2007 at 3:46 pm | Posted in conservatives | 2 CommentsThe quintessential liberal fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade-school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.
(courtesy of Matthew Yglesias
It’s coming out January 8th. It’s the 18th most popular book in the Conservatism section of Amazon.com. I bet it will be a bestseller. He writes for National Review, the center of modern conservatism. Is this truly how conservatives want to be represented? Is this truly how they want to be known? For such unhinged stupidity? Is this really the best modern conservatism has to offer? Let me just say, you guys are a sad lot if that is the case.
Shooting Themselves in the Foot
December 17, 2007 at 6:41 am | Posted in Afghanistan, American politics, Bush Administration, Iraq | 7 CommentsRemember, we didn’t actually NEED to go into Iraq. There really wasn’t any urgency. We knew there was no actual urgency in 2002, but the Bush administration pushed for the war anyways, diverting attention from Afghanistan into an unneeded war. Well, guess what? The administration now sees Afghanistan as the bigger threat. Heh. The irony.
Administration officials say the White House has become more concerned in recent months about the situation in Afghanistan, where grinding poverty, rampant corruption, poor infrastructure and the growing challenge from the Taliban are hindering U.S. stabilization efforts. Senior administration officials now believe Afghanistan may pose a greater longer-term challenge than Iraq.
Duh. We could have told you that (and we did) back in 2002 when you were shifting attention to Iraq. Our REAL enemy has always been in Afghanistan, you dope.
A Terrorist Escaped! Quick! Enact Martial Law!
December 16, 2007 at 9:16 pm | Posted in Musharraf, Pakistan | 11 CommentsA dastardly terrorist got away in Pakistan. A day after Musharraf ended martial law, no less.
The disappearance of a terrorism suspect wanted in Britain is an embarrassment to the government of Pakistan a day after President Pervez Musharraf ended six weeks of de facto martial law, announcing that security forces had broken the back of militants fighting in the northwest and that stability was returning.
There are many ways that the government of Pakistan is an embarrassment. This is but a piece of hay in the haystack.
Why America Tortures Its Detainees
December 16, 2007 at 4:29 pm | Posted in America, Torture | 1 CommentAs the evidence continues to come out in dribs and drabs, we learn more and more that indeed the Bush administration ordered the torture of detainees by the CIA.
So now the process can be fully diagrammed, and the cast of characters is stunning. The torture system involves the operations division of the CIA on the implementation side. They rely heavily on contractors, it seems, in torturing people. And a special role is apparently played by a couple of psychologists. (Time used to be that healthcare professionals had an oath. It started “first, do no harm.” But, just like the Bible and the Constitution, that’s so pre-9/11. And with the American Psychological Association providing full cover, what’s the worry.)
We know that the Justice Department is right in the thick of it. Who precisely? The answer is most likely the Office of Legal Counsel—which has now emerged as what George Orwell called the “Ministry of Love” (remember: in Nineteen Eighty-Four that’s the ministry that picked and approved torture practices). But it doesn’t end with the opinion lawyers. The National Security Division is also in the thick of things, apparently. Alberto Gonzales, before he became attorney general, played station master for the initial series of torture memos. Once he landed at Justice, he kept a close watch on all torture issues and lied to Congress about it. With the attorney general’s office staking out a close interest in torture, it’s unlikely that others in the Department would have substituted their judgment for his. Thus the ball would seem to be squarely in Michael Mukasey’s court.
And finally the White House. David Addington, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley—these are all name we can now link directly to the torture system. Not just as a matter of theory. As a matter of practical application. They decided who would be tortured and how. And John B. Bellinger III, the man who keeps making a laughing-stock of himself with speeches on international law (as, for instance, when he tells us he can’t raise a legal objection to the idea of the Iranians waterboarding some captured American airman), who was legal counsel at NSC and continues now to hold that role with Condi Rice at State. He constantly issued assurances “off the record” to human rights groups and bar groups that we certainly don’t torture. And now it’s reasonably clear that he was right in the thick of the torture approval process all along.
This resurrects the process of official cruelty under the Stuart monarchs in seventeenth century England. Persons accused of state crimes very frequently were interrogated with the use of specific techniques, including the rack, the thumbscrew, and waterboarding. King James I personally described the process in The Kings Booke (1606). He would, on the advice of his officers, “approve no new torture,” but he would certainly avail himself of the existing practices. In ascending order of severity they were: thumbscrews, the rack and waterboarding. That’s right. Waterboarding was considered the most severe of the official forms of torture. Worse than the rack and thumbscrews.
So what’s the rationale? What makes war supporters and torture supporters sleep at night? What justification do they use to rest their hearts? Kevin Drum shares a letter from a reader on the reason why, the rationale behind accepting torture:
I want our side to win. Or maybe more accurately, I don’t want our side to lose….As with any other form of violence, motivation is everything. A cop shooting a murderer is not the same as a murderer shooting an innocent victim, although both use guns, and at the end, someone is bleeding and dying.
You’d be amazed at how many people find these things nearly equivalent. A leftist I know sees no difference between a Palestinian child dying from a stray Israeli bullet during a firefight, and an Israeli child dying when a Palestinian terrorist puts the barrel of a gun to the kid’s forehead and blows his brains across the back wall of the child’s bedroom. In his two-dimensional perception, the only important factor is that both resulted in a dead child. Avoiding true moral analysis and motivations allows him to skirt the concept of “evil,” a term which makes many liberals intensely uncomfortable.
John Kiriakou said that waterboarding a terrorist stopped dozens of attacks. Dozens. Not attacks on military targets, but attacks on innocent non-combatants.
That was the motivation.
The terrorists who torture and kill our prisoners (never something as benign as waterboarding) don’t do it because they need information to save innocent people. They do it because they like it, because they want to hurt or kill someone.
At some point you have to decide if a known terrorist having a very bad day (after which he goes back to a hot meal and a cot) is more of a moral problem than allowing a terrorist to blow up a building full of people.
Yes, it’s good if we do it, when it’s for the right reasons. So far, it’s been for the right reasons. And no, it isn’t good when it’s done to us, for the reasons it has been done to us. Get back to me when some enemy tortures one of our soldiers in order to save innocent lives.
Got it?
But as some commentators said:
Behind the argument for torture is pretty straight up utilitarianism.
If somehow magically, you could know for ABSOLUTELY certain that torture of one person would save millions of lives, then you would do it. I know I would do it. I assume anyone that doesn’t follow an infantile version of Kant would do it.
The problem is that we will never know for certain that torture saves lives, and we can never trust the information we get from torture, and torture has so many morally corrupting side effects that go along with it, that in the end, the utilitarian calculus for routinized torture just isn’t worth it.
I understand his argument, and it scares me. Simply: we are good, therefore we can kill and torture. They are evil, therefore their torturing and killing are evil. Two problems: 1)”they” make exactly the same argument. 2) If we kill and torture, are we not therefore evil?
We are good because we DON’T torture. If we begin torturing our detainees, we lose the status of being GOOD. We turn EVIL, and become the enemy of the GOOD.
We Fear The World Around Us
December 14, 2007 at 9:18 pm | Posted in America, American politics, Torture | Leave a commentIt is so nice to see someone else say this.
Ever since the attacks, the United States has felt threatened and under siege and determined to carve out maximum room to maneuver. But where Americans have seen defensive behavior, the rest of the world has looked on and seen the most powerful nation in human history acting like a caged animal, lashing out at any and every constraint on its actions.
At the heart of this behavior is fear. Americans have become scared of the new world that is emerging around them. As long as this atmosphere of fear envelops U.S. politics, it will surely produce very similar results abroad.
When we are fearful, that’s when we turn to immoral acts, such as torture, for example. We feel so threatened by the world around us that we justify breaking our OWN laws just so we can feel more secure. Unfortunately, this all-encompassing search for security will be our greatest downfall.
Waterboarding, Then and Now
December 13, 2007 at 12:43 am | Posted in Torture | 3 CommentsThe cable reads:
THE PRESIDENT DESIRES TO KNOW IN THE FULLEST AND MOST CIRCUMSTANTIAL MANNER ALL THE FACTS . . . FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDS TO BACK UP THE ARMY IN THE HEARTIEST FASHION IN EVERY LAWFUL AND LEGITIMATE METHOD OF DOING ITS WORK. HE ALSO INTENDS TO SEE THAT THE MOST VIGOROUS CARE IS EXERCISED TO DETECT AND PREVENT ANY CRUELTY OR BRUTALITY AND THAT MEN WHO ARE GUILTY THEREOF ARE PUNISHED. GREAT AS THE PROVOCATION HAS BEEN . . . NOTHING CAN JUSTIFY . . . THE USE OF TORTURE OR INHUMAN CONDUCT OF ANY KIND ON THE PART OF THE AMERICAN ARMY.
This message from the president of the United States was sent not to members of the American military dealing with insurgents in Iraq but to an earlier Army dealing with insurgents in the Philippines approximately a century ago. Even without the characteristic capitalization of cablegrams sent during President Theodore Roosevelt’s time, the strong statement of outrage over torture and high regard for American values comes through. Today there is no similar message, either from the president or from the new attorney general. This is sad.
Teddy Roosevelt had to deal with the mistreatment of civilians by U.S. troops who were fighting an insurgency. American soldiers, who occupied the Philippines following the Spanish-American War, learned a technique of punishment and interrogation from the Spanish that they called ”the water cure.” Along with other violence toward civilians, the U.S. soldiers used the technique liberally. Edmund Morris’ biography Theodore Rex quotes the official report’s description of that “cure”:
“A man is thrown down on his back and three or four men sit on his arms and legs and hold him down, and either a gun barrel or a rife barrel or a carbine barrel or a stick as big as a belaying pin . . . is simply thrust into his jaws . . . and then water is poured onto his face, down his throat and nose . . . until the man gives some sign of giving in or becomes unconscious. . . . His suffering must be that of a man who is drowning, but who cannot drown.”
Our government is now unable to say whether it would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions for the Iranian government to waterboard a downed U.S. airman. How do officials such as Brigadier General Hartmann sleep at night, I wonder? How many decades will it take to undo this damage? Kudos to Lindsey Graham, whose disgust is really the only appropriate response. Now, if he can only muster some of his colleagues to support a two-thirds vote to override the forthcoming presidential veto of the law that would end the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Republicans today have shamed the party of Teddy Roosevelt. Those who support waterboarding have shamed America.
American War Hawks, Wrong on Iraq, Wrong on Iran
December 11, 2007 at 9:01 pm | Posted in America, American politics, Bush Administration, conservatives, corruption, Iran, Iraq, War | 12 CommentsThey were wrong about Iraq. So they shifted their target to Iran. Now that the NIE has proven them wrong, I wonder who the next target will be. Will they turn on Saudi Arabia, where most of our “real” enemies come from? Will they pick lowly Yemen? We’ve got (or had) a bunch of Yemenis in Guantanamo Bay prison. Maybe Algeria if Islamic insurgents overthrow the military government. We know they won’t shift away from the Middle East. They’re too addicted to the oil. In any case, TalkingPointsMemo created a nice little tribute to America’s warmongers.
The Face of an American Torturer
December 10, 2007 at 9:56 pm | Posted in America, American politics, Torture | Leave a commentTake a good look America.
This is an American torturer. This is a war criminal. He admitted it on tape. He tortured a man, and he knew it was torture, and he knew it was wrong. But he did it anyway, because, as he says, he could not forgive himself if another attack were to have occurred and he could have stopped it, the old ticking-time-bomb justification. It is what he uses so he can sleep at night. The trouble for this torturer is that he tortured an insane man. Kevin Drum quotes from Ron Suskin’s book:
The guy is insane, certifiable, split personality,” [Dan] Coleman told a top official at FBI after a few days reviewing the Zubaydah haul….There was almost nothing “operational” in his portfolio. That was handled by the management team. He wasn’t one of them….”He was like a travel agent, the guy who booked your flights….He was expendable, you know, the greeter….Joe Louis in the lobby of Caesar’s Palace, shaking hands.”
….According to CIA sources, he was water-boarded….He was beaten….He was repeatedly threatened….His medication was withheld. He was bombarded with deafening, continuous noise and harsh lights.
….Under this duress, Zubaydah told them that shopping malls were targeted by al Qaeda….Zubaydah said banks — yes, banks — were a priority….And also supermarkets — al Qaeda was planning to blow up crowded supermarkets, several at one time. People would stop shopping. The nation’s economy would be crippled. And the water system — a target, too. Nuclear plants, naturally. And apartment buildings.
Thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each flavor of target. Of course, if you multiplied by ten, there still wouldn’t be enough public servants in America to surround and secure the supermarkets. Or the banks. But they tried.
Kevin Drum then adds:
Sometime later, Zubaydah finally provided some actionable intelligence: the name of Jose Padilla and the news that “Mukhtar,” a code name that had popped up multiple times on NSA sigint, was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But that information didn’t come because Zubaydah had been tortured. It came only after a CIA interrogator slipped under Zubaydah’s skin by convincing him, with the help of some ideas from the Koran, that Zubaydah was predestined to cooperate with them
Imagine that. Being nice to them works. Huh…
A Good Article About Mitt Romney’s Mission in France
December 10, 2007 at 12:14 am | Posted in Mit Romney, Mitt Romney, Torture | Leave a commentWashington Post has a great article about Mitt Romney’s mission in France, detailing the terrible crash that killed his mission president’s wife. This makes me feel sad about today’s Mitt Romney. I feel he sold his soul for the conservative vote he won’t even get. If you run as a religious man to get the votes of people who don’t view your religion very positively, you’re most likely going to fail. I don’t get why he didn’t just run as the moderate he has always been. It’s a shame, because he is a good man, and he would set a good example. But dangnabit he had to go and support torture!
Some Great Reads
December 9, 2007 at 11:15 pm | Posted in American politics | Leave a commentI thought these four articles all in the Washington Post were worthwhile to read.
The first one is called Meet the ‘Decider’ of Iran. It goes into some good details about the real power in Iran. It is really sad that our media and our political leaders refuse to educate the American public on the real Iran. We keep getting this strawman that doesn’t actually exist. I keep wanting to say and believe that Iran is not our enemy. But I think the phrase needs to be changed. America is Iran’s enemy. We deposed their democratically elected leader back in 1953 because of oil. We installed an oppressive regime that Iranians overthrew in 1979. We supported that ugly regime. They were our puppets. We were complicit in the oppression of Iranians. We were their enemies. Is it any wonder that they would not be happy with us? We don’t want Iran to become a world power because we’re guilty of some of the very things we supposedly fight against, or decry in other nations. How dare Iranians want to be on the same playing field!
This piece called What we didn’t learn from the hunt for Iraq’s phantom arsenal is most illuminating. I like how the writer describes the whole thing as a farce basically. the Bush administration wanted answers but never gave them the proper tools to get the right answers. His conclusions should be taught to all Americans if they want to act properly in this world:
Americans were quick to forget our historical betrayals in Iraq, but our Iraqi victims did not. The few Iraqis we did reach before the 2003 invasion were usually far too wary to risk talking to the CIA. This cumulative failure lay at the heart of our WMD intelligence problems. (Not that outsiders understood that; critics assumed that the CIA should somehow have been able magically to penetrate the innermost circles of the Iraqi police state.)
Our newspapers and TV screens have been filled for months with rumblings about war with Iran. The bombs now seem less likely to start flying, but the problem of penetrating closed regimes and terrorist networks isn’t going anywhere. Let’s just say you were an Iranian nuclear physicist back in 2003, working on a bomb program that you believed was immoral. Now look at the decades-long debacle of U.S. policy in Iraq. Will all those who want to volunteer to spy for the CIA raise their hands? Anyone? Anyone?
This next piece entitled “As a Republican, I’m on the fringe,” is a timely criticism of the field I am in: academia. The problem really is there, as described in the piece: higher education, especially at the elite locales and departments, has a strong anti-Republican, anti-conservative belief, and it is harmful to the education process that these elite educators espouse. How can you learn something if you suppress opposing viewpoints? As much as I think today’s conservatives have lost their way, the only way they will learn that, and the only way that liberals can ensure they don’t also get lost from reality based reasoning, is by the constant opposition in all things. Fear not your opposite. If you do, you’re only showing your insecurity in the principles you believe in.
Finally, White may be might, but it’s not always right looks philosophically at whites and blacks. Another good critique of those who think they have it all.
Anyways, some good reads.
If Only The Press Were Consistently This Aggressive With Our Political Leaders
December 8, 2007 at 8:22 pm | Posted in Media, Mit Romney, Mitt Romney | Leave a commentMitt Romney felt the heat today from the press our political leaders should ALWAYS feel. If only the press were to be this aggressive all the time.
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.