TIME's Person of the Year
I'm hoping that they're giving this to Bush on a "most talked about person of the year" basis rather than a "most deserving of celebration" basis. Ugh.
I'm hoping that they're giving this to Bush on a "most talked about person of the year" basis rather than a "most deserving of celebration" basis. Ugh.
Like some of our readers, I attended the Dems Abroad-UK annual general meeting in London on Saturday, and gave 5 hours of my day to the glory that is parliamentary procedural debate. There was so much debate, in fact, that even factoring in the late start, we still didn't even cast the first vote (and that was on a proposed amendment to a proposed amendment to the by-laws) until 11AM, by which point people were applauding the fact that something had actually been achieved.
All in all, it could have been worse.
The fact of the matter is that when you have 98 opinionated people in one room, you're going to hear at least 98 opinions on any given topic. If you're lucky.
Things moved on a bit more quickly after the initial hullaballoo over expanding the size of the council and the Executive Committee, and soon we were even able to vote for actual people as opposed to by-laws. I would like to extend a heartfelt congratulations to the new officers, especially Margo Miller as the new Chair, who you may remember worked so hard on the Get Out The Vote effort leading up to the election.
Some of you know I was standing for Executive Committee - it turns out (I only found out last night) that I, along with several other new faces, was elected to the Committee and I would like to extend my congratulations to my fellow Committee members, both the old faces and the new. We have a lot of work to do in advance of the 2006 midterm elections.
I stood for the Committee on the basis of improving the communications side of DA-UK, and possibly of Dems Abroad as a parent organisation, both online and offline (obviously leaning towards the former). In the short term that means an urgent review of the DA-UK website and its strategic strengths and weaknesses.
What, you may ask, is the impact on this website? The short answer is, I don't know yet. Since I am now part of the management of Dems Abroad UK, will the tone of this website change at all? I would venture to say no. However, it is too soon to tell. The bigger issue is, I think, that if we are successful at reengineering the DA-UK and even the DA parent websites, we may come to a point where this website is redundant. I don't think that will be the case for some time yet (if at all) but it's a possibility. Don't start counting those chickens yet :)
In any case, I should be able to offer a fresh perspective on expat political life now that I have re-committed myself to the fight. I hope all of you are similarly inclined to keep up the good work.
I think this one speaks for itself:
An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.
Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
A spokesman for the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center called the bill censorship.
"It sounds like Nazi book burning to me," said SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.
Indeed.
If I had my way, I'd ban novels featuring illiterate, knuckle-dragging Alabama state legislators. Because, after all, our culture, as we know it, is under attack from every angle.
Motherjones has a piece up about a Vermont headmaster who received a rude shock when she refused to give over contact details for her students to some Army recruiters:
The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law's 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.
Huh?
I suppose that's one way to stave off a draft. Still, it concerns me that built into an education bill is a guaranteed right-of-entry to any public school for military personnel - not only that, but a guaranteed right of those same personnel to all of the school's student records.
There's been a lot of talk recently about Howard Dean taking over the reins at the DNC, and whether or not that's a good thing. This Newsweek web article, although short, does a good job of summation:
Dean gave hope to Democrats around the country with his maverick campaign. It was shock therapy, and Democrats need more of it. Every four years, one or the other party is written off. But stuff happens. President Bush is not immune to the second-term woes that have afflicted other presidents. He’s got a war that isn’t going well and a borrowing binge that could spiral into a recession if our allies decide to cash in the U.S. bonds they’re holding. For all the bravado, the Bush mandate is fragile. If 70,000 votes in Ohio had gone the other way, we’d be talking about the Republican enclave in the Old Confederacy and the Rocky Mountain states, and the resurgence of Blue America.
I would like to believe that Howard Dean could help, but not without a serious bout of hard soul-searching within the DNC to go along with Dean's leadership. There is no magic solution to the groupthink problem that contributed to our defeat this year.
I was just forwarded this satire email commenting on the oft-supposed impending emigration of America's left to other countries - namely Canada.
The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.
The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray and agree with Bill O'Reilly.
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.
"I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.
The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry.
"He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
Well, there's an attention grabber.
It seems this guy Stephen Roach, the top finance guy at Morgan Stanley, is not too hot on the economic future of the States. And when I say "not to hot", I mean Arctic:
Roach met select groups of fund managers downtown last week, including a group at Fidelity.
His prediction: America has no better than a 10 percent chance of avoiding economic ``armageddon.''
Press were not allowed into the meetings. But the Herald has obtained a copy of Roach's presentation. A stunned source who was at one meeting said, ``it struck me how extreme he was - much more, it seemed to me, than in public.''
Roach sees a 30 percent chance of a slump soon and a 60 percent chance that ``we'll muddle through for a while and delay the eventual armageddon.''
The chance we'll get through OK: one in 10. Maybe.
In a nutshell, Roach's argument is that America's record trade deficit means the dollar will keep falling. To keep foreigners buying T-bills and prevent a resulting rise in inflation, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan will be forced to raise interest rates further and faster than he wants.
The result: U.S. consumers, who are in debt up to their eyeballs, will get pounded.
Go have a read of the rest of the article. Chilling stuff.
I'm back in London now after my long weekend in New York, a quite eventful weekend in the end in which I managed to take in a poetry reading (my mother's) an art gallery opening (over the top), the new Museum of Modern Art (spiffy) and a couple of walks in Central Park (glorious).
Of course, in the social gatherings I attended I was pinned against the wall a few times by sympathetic family and friends and asked how I was dealing with life post-election. I didn't want to dwell on it, but obviously I was disappointed. I am ashamed to say a few times that I said I didn't want to depress myself with it and I changed subjects. And the couple of Republicans in my extended family were remarkably sanguine - there was none of the gloating or joshing I might have expected. I got the sense, overall, that the mood was somber on both sides of the fence.
Then again, that was Upper West Side Manhattan.
Ha. Bet you thought I was moving back. Fat chance. I am, however, going back to New York for the weekend to attend my mother's book launch.
As often happens when I return to America and the warm embrace of family members, conversation will inevitably turn to my level of happiness living abroad and any possible plans I might have for returning. I've always maintained that somewhere down the line I will feel the urge to return home, but that's a nebulous time frame and I must admit that recently that timeframe has been pushed back a bit by events back home- well, not only events, I suppose I should say trends as well. I know I'm not the only expat who feels like his home has been replaced with a slightly creepier copy that he's not entirely happy with; nor am I the only one to feel the urge to return fading a bit.
There are some things happening that have been bugging me lately, and bugging all of you as well, which make me think to myself, This is not the America I left not so long ago. Here is a choice selection of recent developments:
I am doing a lot of frowning when I read the news lately, as I am sure are many of you. My home is an alien nation, and I'm not sure when or if sanity will be restored.
Oh dear, oh dear. Anyone looking for evidence of Bush softening up his policies now that he doesn't have to face reelection will not have much ammunition to play with now that Bush has replaced the troublemaking Colin Powell with the loyal footsoldier Condi Rice. Assuming Rumsfeld stays on, the entire administration will now be in lock-step, personally tied into Bush, and, more ominously, into Dick Cheney.
Is it just me or does anyone else not place too much stock in Condi's diplomatic skills? She has one part of it downpat - lying through one's teeth - but it's the charm and nuance aspects that may elude her. Presidential staff? Sure. Stateswoman? Hmmm.
This was on the cards for a while now, but Colin Powell has apparently submitted his resignation - a humbled shadow of his former self, one of the only senior people to attempt to inject some reason into the debate, ultimately falls on his sword.
This means, I suppose, that we'll get to see who's going to be the next SecState any day now.
Man, it sure does suck when you get bad news. Don't you just wish, sometimes, that you could shoot the messenger and the bad news would go away (via Daily Kos)?
WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.
"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."
Guess they can just go hang out with their other pals in the reality-based community. One wonders what the new Presidential Daily Briefings are going to look like? I suggest the following:
CLASSIFIED - EYES ONLY
POTUS DCI Daily Briefing 02/12/2005IRAQ
Doing spiffy. Mopping up the last of the terrorists and rebels whodon't like being occupiedhate freedom, should be done any day now. Suggest scheduling 2nd anniversary "Mission Accomplished" celebration.AFGHANISTAN
Regional warlords have all sent their congratulations to POTUS on successful repeal of Roe vs Wade and wish to know when the public executions will begin in D.C.PAKISTAN
Osama bin Laden is definitely hiding in a cave, we've got him pinned down to within 300 square miles. Our new friends in the ISI are definitely on the case. Any day now. Honestly.IRAN
Reports of moderates in Iran are greatly exaggerated. Iran is a Clear and Present Danger to the United States of America and we recommend immediate preemptive action to make sure that the nuclear reactor they recently shut down stays that way. Otherwise we calculate a 98% probability that there will be a mushroom cloud over every American city within 18 months. Our assets indicate that Iranians will welcome American soldiers with open arms, garlands of flowers and free Persian rugs, and that they are prepared to set up a new government within 2 to 3 days after cessation of hostilities.NORTH KOREA
Recommend ignoring it. The problem will solve itself, we think. Besides, that's so Cold War.
I can't really believe this, but the Washington Times has an article seriously discussing the possibility of the Blue States seceding from the Union. In the words of Jimmy Stewart, that's just crazy talk.
The secession movement has already spawned commercial opportunism. One Web site is selling T-shirts that read "I seceded."
No one at the White House would comment on the calls for secession, but one top Republican official with ties to the Bush administration said the recent talk is not surprising, coming off an election in which the president received more than 59 million votes — the most in history.
"If we were that far out of the mainstream, maybe we'd be pushing the creation of our own country," the official said. "Then we might have a chance of ever winning an election again."
Meow!
Honestly, this is one of the silliest articles I have seen out of the mainstream press in quite a while.
UPDATE
Nope. Here's a sillier one. (thanks to Robert for this one):
The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face.
That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it.
Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.
What a jackass.
We knew it was coming, but it's still good to hear these words:
Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Don Evans resigned from President Bush's Cabinet yesterday, launching the first shake-up of his administration as it heads toward four more years in power.
In a five-page, handwritten letter, Ashcroft told Bush: "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. Yet I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration."
Hold on. We're safe from crime and terror? Well, I guess we can stop bombing people then. Right?
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, John boy.
I thought I'd pass along this quote my mother shared with me today:
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
--H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Boy we Robinsons sure are a literate bunch ain't we? I mean is we? I mean are we? Ah hell...
BBC Magazine has yet another article examining the "phenomenon" of Americans considering the expat life now that Dubya has won reelection. I think it quite correctly points out that a lot of talk doesn't necessarily guarantee action:
The BBC News website received several e-mails from Democrats and other anti-Bush activists threatening, in varying tones of seriousness, to quit their homeland if George Bush was to win again. A few even mentioned moving to the UK.
Of course, in the cold light of day these sort of threats have a habit of coming to nothing.
However, they do point out that several expat-related websites, including the Canadian immigration site, saw a marked increase in traffic following the election.
Of course, idle, frustrated web surfing in your spare time does not necessarily guarantee action. Right, y'all?
According to Reuters:
Palestinian President Yasser Arafat was declared clinically dead on Thursday in a French hospital, Israeli television said citing French sources.We shall see. In any case his days of running things in Palestine seem to be over; perhaps this is what it will take to restart the peace efforts.But Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie denied the report, saying: "I have just spoken to the officials in Paris and they say the situation is still as it was. He is still in the intensive care unit."
Well no sooner do I come out in public to say what nonsense that lady was spouting about getting anti-American abuse hurled at her, than I suffer some myself.
It wasn't specifically aimed at me, but I went to a comedy night in Shepherd's Bush last night that I was enjoying thoroughly until the last act came on, a middle class Londoner named Stewart Lee, who has been a standup comic for years, aside from a brief stint directing the London stage version of Jerry Springer: The Opera. I don't know if that experience (whether through the events portrayed onstage or through the day to day contact with tourist crowds) informed his material, but he had a solid five-minute-long bitter tirade against Americans near the start of his act. Not good natured, not qualified, nor aimed at our leaders. It was aimed at everyday Americans and basically accused us all of being slack-jawed yokels. I normally have thick skin, but something in the way he went for the jugular really annoyed me and I was close to either getting into an argument with him onstage or storming out. I didn't want to play into his hands, however, so I saved my ire and sent him an email instead, part of which I quote here:
[Y]our tirade against Americans (not America) really got under my skin last night. You presented an odd portrait of a man who seemed to want to promote global peace and be against bigotry, yet you turn around and tar an entire country with the same brush - guilt by association, if you will. There was no hint of "some Americans" being slack-jawed imbeciles, there was no qualification. You basically took us all and put us in the same basket. I wasn't the only American there last night, by the way.Last night's events notwithstanding, I still hold that anti-Americanism here is not nearly as bad as Ms Gould asserts. A few bad apples don't spoil the bunch, in this case.What you said on stage is little different than standing in front of a Jewish audience and telling "Hebe" jokes. Or standing in front of a black audience and telling "nigger" jokes. It just so happens at the moment that anti-Americanism is more accepted. That does not mean that you need to pander to it, especially as you spend the previous bit berating Little Englanders for their anti-Muslim bigotry. Can you see where this comes off as a bit hypocritical? Or, at the very least, as lazy, opportunist bush league comedy?
You might argue that hey, this is just comedy and if a few people are offended, dem's da breaks. But in order to attack bigotry you should not further it for a cheap laugh. You may have noticed losing the crowd as the night went on; I would suggest thinking a little bit more about how your bits are going to go down and who they're aimed at.
I know I shouldn't get upset by something someone says on a stage. But it's hard work to continually try to repair the damage done to my country's reputation by the imbeciles in charge there, and then go for an evening's entertainment only to be lumped in with them.
Kind Regards,
-Luke Robinson
The second article by an expat American in the British broadsheets in the same weekend to really get me hot under the collar was a piece in the Sunday Times titled, simply, "I'm a Democrat for Bush." Well you can imagine that went over particularly well with the morning bagel yesterday.
Nowhere near as bad as the first article, though.
Thanks to reader Larry Boyd for pointing out the Guardian article entitled "An American Scapegoat in London" with this lede:
In Britain, America-bashing is so bad that I fear for my safety.Oh, come on.
The author is an American expat living in London who apparently has had a pretty rotten time of it and has now decided that most Brits (and Europeans, for that matter) are merely waiting for the excuse to launch a bilious stream of anti-American invective at the first unwitting Yank to cross their paths:
I am aware that many Americans are leaving their homes abroad and returning home after decades in Europe because they can no longer endure the daily abuse. Anti-Americanism is not a result of Abu Ghraib or of a Rumsfeldian pronouncement. It is a disturbing and hurtful form of psychosis that is rapidly eroding the all-important special relationship.What? People are leaving? That's news to me.
Speaking personally I get along just fine with just about anyone you stick in front of me. I have to be honest though, I haven't tried wearing an American flag pin on my lapel lately.
I would go on, but I just now sent in a letter to The Guardian about this article, and in case it never sees the light of day I will copy it out here:
Dear sirs,I don't know. Maybe I am not sticking out enough to come in for the serious America-bashing.Regarding Carol Gould's article "An American Scapegoat in London," I must take issue with her alarmist tone. I too am an American expat (with five years of London living under my belt), and I cannot square my day to day experience with what she describes. Most of my friends are Brits or continental Europeans, and even moving in these circles I rarely encounter anything stronger than good-natured ribbing. The few occasions where I've "received dressing-downs at social and professional gatherings," it's been by someone either obviously inebriated or obviously pig ignorant; and, at the end of the day, you're going to get these types in any country. No, in my experience most Brits will suss me out first as an individual, knowing that what our governments do is often at odds with what we wish they would do. I was also at Ken Livingstone's peace rally last November, and I was in Trafalgar Square later. I can tell you that the vast majority of the quarter million marchers were not interested in burning flags; however, as with every protest march in the last several decades, it's the flag-burning that makes the evening news. It's not representative of the will of the masses; neither are Ms Gould's isolated incidences of anti-Americanism. The special relationship survives, tarnished but there nonetheless.
What about you all? Do you feel threatened? I am honestly curious.
UPDATE
The original link sent to me was the original, longer article from FrontPageMag.Com, which is a rabid paranoia rag. Why did the Guardian choose to draw this alarmist drivel from the pages of a propaganda sheet? Let's take a look at some of the more salient headlines:
Please go and read this post on Obsidian Wings right now - you need to know what's being considered for inclusion in the proposed bill implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission:
The provision Rep. Markey referred to is contained in Section 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10, the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004," introduced by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). The provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new regulations to exclude from the protection of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any suspected terrorist - thereby allowing them to be deported or transferred to a country that may engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the person being deported or rendered to establish "by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured," would bar the courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary's regulations, and would free the Secretary to deport or remove terrorist suspects to any country in the world at will - even countries other than the person's home country or the country in which they were born. The provision would also apply retroactively.You don't have to think too much about this without it giving you a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach.
America: Getting Others To Do Our Dirty Work For Decades™
Right along with the stop-the-presses revelation that Dick Cheney may not be entirely inclined towards truth-telling, comes the gee-hasn't-everyone-figured-this-out-yet exclusive that Iraq did not have any WMDs:
Saddam Hussein destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the Iraq invasion, according to a comprehensive US report released yesterday.Don't s'pose we'll hear that much about this from Bush & co, will we? They probably won't have much to say about L Paul Bremer's recent criticism of Bush's war leadership either, at least not if they can help it.The report, the culmination of an intensive 15-month search by 1,200 inspectors from the CIA's Iraq Survey Group (ISG), concluded that Saddam had ambitions to restart at least chemical and nuclear programmes once sanctions were lifted.
However, concrete plans do not appear to have been laid down, let alone set in motion. Nor did Saddam issue direct verbal orders to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The main evidence of his intentions are his own cryptic remarks, and the meaning his aides inferred from them.
The ISG conclusions, delivered to Congress yesterday, are badly timed for George Bush's re-election bid, as they starkly contradict his pre-war claims as well as statements he has made on the campaign trail.
I just can't wait for the next debate, can you? There's just so much vulnerability in Bush's record, domestic and foreign that Kerry can exploit. Should be good viewing.
Fascinating reading over at The Atlantic - one of their reporters got their mitts on a discarded al Qaeda laptop in Kabul as the Taliban fled in 2001, and uncovered an amazing number of emails and documents that give a great insight into the day-to-day workings of the terrorist network - and of the incredible thought put into the effects of 9/11 by Osama bin Laden himself, as you can see in this memo to Mullah Omar shortly after those attacks:
To: Mullah OmarObviously America pressed the battle, and widened the front to Iraq, no doubt to Osama's glee ("What a recruiting tool!").
From: Osama bin Laden
Folder: Deleted File (Recovered)
Date: October 3, 2001Highly esteemed Leader of the Faithful,
Mullah Muhammad Omar, Mujahid,
May God preserve him …1- We treasure your message, which confirms your generous, heroic position in defending Islam and in standing up to the symbols of infidelity of this time.
2- I would like to emphasize the major impact of your statements on the Islamic world. Nothing harms America more than receiving your strong response to its positions and statements. Thus it is very important that the Emirate respond to every threat or demand from America … with demands that America put an end to its support of Israel, and that U.S. forces withdraw from Saudi Arabia. Such responses nullify the effect of the American media on people's morale.
Newspapers mentioned that a recent survey showed that seven out of every ten Americans suffer psychological problems following the attacks on New York and Washington.
Although you have already made strong declarations, we ask you to increase them to equal the opponent's media campaign in quantity and force.
Their threat to invade Afghanistan should be countered by a threat on your part that America will not be able to dream of security until Muslims experience it as reality in Palestine and Afghanistan.
3- Keep in mind that America is currently facing two contradictory problems:
a) If it refrains from responding to jihad operations, its prestige will collapse, thus forcing it to withdraw its troops abroad and restrict itself to U.S. internal affairs. This will transform it from a major power to a third-rate power, similar to Russia.
b) On the other hand, a campaign against Afghanistan will impose great long-term economic burdens, leading to further economic collapse, which will force America, God willing, to resort to the former Soviet Union's only option: withdrawal from Afghanistan, disintegration, and contraction.
Thus our plan in the face of this campaign should focus on the following:
—Serving a blow to the American economy, which will lead to:
a) Further weakening of the American economy
b) Shaking the confidence in the American economy. This will lead investors to refrain from investing in America or participating in American companies, thus accelerating the fall of the American economy …
—Conduct a media campaign to fight the enemy's publicity. The campaign should focus on the following important points:
a) Attempt to cause a rift between the American people and their government, by demonstrating the following to the Americans:
—That the U.S. government will lead them into further losses of money and lives.
—That the government is sacrificing the people to serve the interests of the rich, particularly the Jews.
—That the government is leading them to the war front to protect Israel and its security.
—America should withdraw from the current battle between Muslims and Jews.
This plan aims to create pressure from the American people on their government to stop its campaign against Afghanistan, on the grounds that the campaign will cause major losses to the American people.
I wonder what he makes of the world's situation today.
Earlier in the article the author ponders the intent of forcing a showdown in Afghanistan:
Al-Qaeda's leaders worried about a military response from the United States, but in such a response they spied opportunity: they had fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and they fondly remembered that war as a galvanizing experience, an event that roused the indifferent of the Arab world to fight and win against a technologically superior Western infidel. The jihadis expected the United States, like the Soviet Union, to be a clumsy opponent. Afghanistan would again become a slowly filling graveyard for the imperial ambitions of a superpower.Replace Afghanistan with Iraq, and you're about there.
Apropos of last week's discussion of terror alerts and their value as political tools, the Bush administration seems to have been somewhat vindicated by the latest accounts of what really happened behind the scenes last week - and Newsweek has the best report:
There can be little doubt that Al Qaeda is trying to strike the American homeland before Nov. 2. "We are in the midst of Al Qaeda efforts to attack the U.S. on a scale as big or larger than 9/11," says John Brennan, chief of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, the interagency operation that consolidates threat information (and produces the Putter). The decision to raise the threat level to Code Orange ("high") last week was not, as partisans and conspiracists suggested, a Republican political stunt intended to slow John Kerry as he came out of the Democratic convention. But the announcement was clumsily handled, and the confusing press accounts that followed mostly obscured a larger and more important story.I was going to post a long diatribe defending my last post on the matter of terror alerts, but Kevin Drum beat me to it:
A quick note to all my Bush-hating homies out there: it's quite possible that (a) al-Qaeda really is planning an attack in the United States sometime soon and (b) that the Bush administration has cynically hyped this to the skies for the basest political reasons.Well put.Both of these things might be true. My guess is that both are true.
So: feel free to beat up on the Bushies for their casual and unserious use of intelligence as little more than a partisan political club. I certainly do. On the other hand, don't assume that just because the Bushies are irresponsible there isn't any actual threat. There probably is. OK?
I know Iraq's been out of the headlines a little bit the last couple of the weeks what with convention-mania and all of that, but it appears events have continued to unfold there regardless:
The radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr called for a national uprising against American and coalition forces today as a two-month truce between Mr. Sadr and the United States military appeared to collapsing.In fairness, the article goes on to say:In Baghdad and Basra, the largest city in southern Iraq, insurgents loyal to Mr. Sadr prepared for clashes with American and British troops.
But heavy fighting appeared confined to Najaf, a Shiite holy city 100 miles south of Baghdad that is a Sadr stronghold. An American marine helicopter was shot down in Najaf this morning, although the crew was reported rescued.I hope for our sake that it is the latter.[...]
"Fight the blasphemous, fight the Americans," Mr. Sadr said in a statement issued in Najaf, about 100 miles south of Baghdad.
Whether Mr. Sadr's call for rebellion will provoke clashes nationwide, as it did in April, or fizzle out, as it did last October, is unclear.
But Robert Fisk, writing rather alarmingly from Iraq yesterday, seems to think the situation there is pretty grim. Very grim. Doom and gloom prognostications about Iraq are nothing new, and many tut-tut the naysayers and take them to task for not writing about the many positive aspects of post-Saddam Iraq, but Fisk is on the ground there and his piece is pretty hard to dismiss out of hand.
I would dearly hope that Iraq does not implode, as Fisk seems to fear. Putting aside (for now) the question of how it got into this state in the first place, it is clearly in our interests to focus all our energies on making sure that Iraq survives as a state, even if that state does not take exactly the form we would like in a best-case scenario. A failed state, racked by civil war and with less-than-angelic neighbors, is not going to help us out in the long run.
An interesting article about Turkey and its possible invitation to join the EU in the New York Review of Books posits that we could all learn a bit about how to go about bringing stability and democracy to the Middle East from the example set here:
December's vote will be as much about Europe as about Turkey. It is a chance for Europeans to confront their fear of outsiders, and to emerge from centuries of hostility and suspicion directed against the Muslim world. The prospect of EU membership is a principal reason why Turkey is now moving so resolutely toward full democracy, which means that Europe has already had a very positive effect on Turkish life. This is a welcome example of how democratic countries can use their influence to promote the cause of freedom abroad. "While the hard power of the United States is destroying Iraq," Sahin Alpay, a professor of politics at Istanbul's Bahcesehir University, told me, "the soft power of Europe is transforming Turkey."Of course, this has something to do with the new Prime Minister Erdogan's radical push towards the West; I'm sure if Turkey had an intractable hardline Islamic government then there wouldn't even be a debate over their EU status. Still, it bears some comparison to America's approach to spreading democracy down the barrel of our very big gun.
Breaking news: The Iraqi insurgency is not being run by (foreign fighters / terrorists / boogeymen / delete where appropriate):
Contrary to U.S. government claims, the insurgency in Iraq is led by well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power, not foreign fighters, and is far larger than previously thought, American military officials say.Damnit, that's gotta be inconvenient. I mean, it's easier if it's terrorists (sorry, Enemies of Freedom) we're fighting in Iraq rather than Iraqis pissed off because we're in their country. Right?[...]
"We're not at the forefront of a jihadist war here," said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity. [...] Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the guerrillas are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreigners — usually al-Zarqawi.
... on your computer, that is.
On Wednesday I posted about Michael Moore saying it was OK to download pirated copies of his film. I guess that's still OK, and from what I've heard a lot of people have chosen to jump the queue and watch the film this way, in their homes. For some it's practicality (not being able to get out to the cinema) and for others its itching curiousity (wanting to be the first to have seen it). I've got a copy, but it's a pretty poor pirate camcorder job (as I suspect are most of the other copies floating around out there).
If you're considering seeing this film, and you have the capacity to do so, I would very much urge you to see this in the cinema. Not only will you contribute to the success of the film and thereby send a message to the Bush administration, but you will have a much more visceral experience. Seeing this film with a crowd makes it all the more poignant, especially as the crowd gets into it and starts to interact with the film (read: hissing and booing).
This is not a perfect documentary by any stretch of the imagination: it is at times infuriatingly coy and omits facts that might provide counterpoint. But these are inconsequential, as overall the film beats you senseless with the sheer horror of the War on Terror and its many sordid aspects. Several times I felt myself welling up with tears (yes, I was emotionally manipulated, and knowingly so) and other times (such as anytime Bush spoke) I found myself sinking into the chair and grimacing. Everyone I was with came out shaking their heads and muttering "Bastards..."
By far the most moving sequences are those surrounding Lila Lipscomb, the Flint, MI mother of Michael, who was killed in action only 2 weeks after shipping out to Iraq. I won't spoil the experience, but I was genuinely moved by her words and experiences, and I would think you would be hard-pressed to argue that she is not speaking from her heart (in fact someone does try to argue that point and comes off looking like Satan's little sister).
In short, whatever you think of Michael Moore, this is a powerful piece of filmmaking. Go see it.
Michael Moore says he has no problem with people downloading pirated copies of his film, according to this article. Bizarrely, the distributor (Lions Gate) also seems to have no problem with it. Not so, predictably, with the MPAA or the Hollywood establishment, who are unimpressed.
I am still going to see in in the cinema sometime in the next week, as are many of you, but it's good to know that Mr Moore wants his message to get across no matter the cost. Especially now that it's already done $60 million. I endorse this film with my usual reservations about the auteur - but no reservations strong enough to make me overlook the fact that this film will have a definite positive impact on the balance of swing voters in November.
By the way, not that I advocate this or anything, but www.suprnova.org might be a starting point (it's also linked from the article above so I don't feel like I'm telling tales out of school...) - but bewarned, all I could see is camcorder ripoffs. If Mr Moore truly believes, he should provide a DVD-rip pirate version for the masses :)
Update
Looking into this a bit more, I see that Michael Moore is basking in his own brilliance a bit (who'da thought?) but that he's had some factoids regarding the success of his flick brought to his attention, one of which disturbs me. See if you can spot which one I mean:
** More people saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" in one weekend than all the people who saw "Bowling for Columbine" in 9 months.Now, that's just wrong.** "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke "Rocky III’s" record for the biggest box office opening weekend ever for any film that opened in less than a thousand theaters.
** "Fahrenheit 9/11" beat the opening weekend of "Return of the Jedi."
** "Fahrenheit 9/11" instantly went to #2 on the all-time list for largest per-theater average ever for a film that opened in wide-release.
Hi all, Sarah here, trying to fill Luke's shoes until his return tomorrow. Been reading about the recently declassified documents supposedly showing the top guys didn't authorise the abuse of prisoners in Iraq. Puh-lease. . .giving permission to do something, then withdrawing it a few months later because lawyers said it could look bad? They'd have been better off continuing to deny all knowledge--now I'm envisioning Rummy and Co saying "We can't torture people, of course! (wink wink, nudge nudge)". Officially now, they can blame the torture of Iraqi prisoners on a few bad apples--just seems a bit too convenient for me.
Today the panel investigating the 9/11 attacks announced that it found no credible evidence that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda prior to the attacks:
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."Well, duh. I mean, that's pretty much been ironclad for a while now, right? Er, well except in the mind of Dick Cheney, who was still pushing that line on Monday, which stirred up a hornet's nest in the White House press room yesterday as the gaggle grilled Scott McLellan on the administration's continued refusal to clarify this position [via TPM]:
Q Can I ask about Vice President Cheney, because yesterday he repeated what is a very controversial claim. He said that Saddam Hussein had long-established ties with al Qaeda. Does the President believe that Saddam Hussein had long-established ties with al Qaeda?What a bunch of jackasses. Admitting there were no ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda would remove one of the pillars of justification for the Iraq war, which would leave the entire weight of justification leaning on... well, not much really. We can't have that - I mean, otherwise people would think that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq the way we did.MR. McCLELLAN: We certainly talked about the ties with terrorism between the -- between the regime that was removed from power, and we talked about those ties prior to the decision to remove that regime from power. So that was well-documented. Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and talked about some of those ties to terrorism, as well. And Zarqawi is certainly a senior al Qaeda associate who was in Iraq prior to the decision to go in and remove the regime from power.
Q There's also al Qaeda in the United States. That does not mean the United States is cooperating with those members of al Qaeda. Just by the presence of someone does not mean there's a cooperation.
MR. McCLELLAN: But, remember, we're talking about an oppressive regime that was in power in Iraq that exercised control over that country. And go back and look at what we documented, Norah. We documented all this, and I think that's what the Vice President was referring to.
Q So today you're saying the President does agree there were long --
MR. McCLELLAN: We stand by what we've said previously, in terms of the regime's ties to terrorism, yes. And I think that's what the Vice President was referring to.
Q The President said there were no ties in the run up to the war.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, that's a mischaracterization. There were clear ties to terrorism between the regime --
Q He said there were no ties with al Qaeda.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- certainly supporting suicide bombers in the Middle East.
Q Are you repudiating what the President said?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think you're talking about September 11th.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Apparently John Ashcroft has been greeted by a new theme song from protester's lately - the Imperial March from the Empire Strikes Back. Perfect.
There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation -- because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.Go here and read the full text.He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name.
I'm sure I will elicit protests from our conservative visitors that I am trumpeting doom and gloom with today's post, but since I last posted (I know, I've been slack) there hasn't been a surfeit of good news, has there?
Iraq. Where to start?
It would be better if we had not been played like patsies by an Iranian-backed stooge.
It would be better if we had not bombed a wedding.
It would be better if confidence was not eroding in Washington faster than any time in living memory. Especially among senior military folks.
It would be better if we had a President that was able to take control of the situation instead of going on holiday. Again.
Any good news? Only a bit: Apparently America's college students are incontrovertibly changing as a result of Bush's ineptitude: The number of students identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 36% to 44% in the last year. Maybe there's hope for us yet. I don't mean I want everyone to be liberal; that would be boring. I think we could use a bit more balance, a correcting influence on my country's collective lurch to the right over the past few years.
Update
Ach, of course, I forgot the other piece of good news from the weekend, which of course is the winning of the Palme d'Or at Cannes by Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9-11. Not because I think the film is going to be the be-all and end-all of documentary attacks on the Bush administration, but because this will force the American distribution companies to actually show the damned thing, and at least give people the opportunities to make their own minds up.
Compare and contrast this:
A Red Cross report disclosed Monday said coalition intelligence officers estimated that 70-90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake and said Red Cross observers witnessed U.S. officers mistreating Abu Ghraib prisoners by keeping them naked in total darkness in empty cells.With this:
"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment," the Oklahoma Republican [U.S. Sen. James Inhofe] said at a U.S. Senate hearing probing the scandal.Who let this knuckle-dragging moron into the Senate?"These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations," Inhofe said. If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, "they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."
And doesn't this just prove that our leadership, or lack thereof, is part of the whole problem?
Of course, it ain't a story till Rush chimes in is it? Speaking of knuckle draggers...
RUSH: We just have a couple more sound bites from Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe this morning. Really rocked this committee and he's a former member of the House. I think that matters. He's what I will call a "real guy." This is a man who is in touch with the people he represents.Really? All you Oklahomans out there OK with this cretin speaking on your behalf?
The Bushies came out strongly in Rummie's defense over the weekend, but that didn't stop even the Army Times from calling for his head on a plate in an editorial today, and senior ranks in the services expressing serious concern elsewhere over the wider conduct of the war, never mind the abuse scandal:
Army Col. Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam. "Unless we ensure that we have coherency in our policy, we will lose strategically," he said in an interview Friday.Even Fareed Zakaria, who was a bit hawkish following 9/11 and is always a tough one to read, has turned his full ire against the mismanagement of the war and the general incompetence and arrogance this administration shows in everything it does:"I lost my brother in Vietnam," added Hughes, a veteran Army strategist who is involved in formulating Iraq policy. "I promised myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do everything in my power to prevent that [sort of strategic loss] from happening again. Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we're in."
Leave process aside: the results are plain. On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq—troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani—Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world.With more abuse photos emerging daily, we have well and truly shot away all of our credibility. When did we turn into the bad guys?Whether he wins or loses in November, George W. Bush's legacy is now clear: the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of anti-Americanism around the globe. I'm sure he takes full responsibility.
More importantly, where is major gesture necessary to reassure the world that we take this seriously? Bush, for Pete's sake man, take the wheel of this country and at least start to steer it back on course! If I look at things from an election campaign perspective, then I would happily see Bush falter and flail as normal - but we're to the point now that he's inflicting lasting damage on our national security and standing in the world, and I'd rather he repaired some of that and came off looking good than damage our country even more than he has done.
So Bush finally came out and said he was sorry. Fair play. Mind you, he told it to the King of Jordan, cos, you know, he's an Arab too. Still, it's the first time we've heard the President say "I'm sorry" in a looooong time. But is it too little, too late?
Bloggerheads seem to think so. They have suggested a little bit of civil disobedience with their just-launched Sack Bush experiment. Keep your eyes peeled for bagged statuary worldwide!
It looks like the proverbial poo is hitting the fan about these torture abuse allegations:
The third and final act that is within the Army's power is to disband the 372nd Military Police Company. Dissolve it entirely; never resurrect the unit designation; strip it of its citations; bury the guidon in disgrace in front of all its soldiers and an Iraqi delegation in Iraq; scatter its alumni to the four corners of the Army. Cruel? Yes. Harsh? You bet. Salutary? Absolutely. The Army is a closed society that treasures its hierarchy and its heritage: institutional oblivion is therefore among its most dreaded fates. This ought to be the fate of the 372nd, with all the public humiliation and display that can be mustered. To the soldiers, it will say that there will be little mercy and no mitigation for crimes in America's service; to Iraqis, it will say that we have excised our cancer and are moving decisively forward. To Americans, it will say that we have the courage to be the best, not by comparison, but as an end in itself.
Nice work, George.
Torture is a word that doesn't seem to be getting much exposure in the US press at the moment. I noticed it this morning, when I woke up and checked the BBC, The Guardian, CNN, and a couple of other news outlets, and saw something incredible: The Incredible Vanishing Story of a few US Army bad apples documenting their humiliation of Iraqi prisoners, cameras rolling all the time. After one news cycle, this is developing into the story of an outraged international community. Here we go again.
You see, it's all over the press everywhere in the world except the US, which is ironic as it was a US station (CBS) which originally broadcast the story. Aside from CBS, though, this story has fallen into a virtual black hole in the US. The Guardian comments on this shameful phenomenon here.
I don't profess to know what was going on in the minds of these soldiers as they were going about this work, perhaps the frustration of constant warzone exposure was getting to them, I don't know. But there's no excuse whatsoever for these actions. They're idiotic and immoral, and they have bumped us down a peg in the Arab world, if that's possible. We have now swung all the way from the Liberators end of the scale and fully into Occupiers territory.
I have to wonder how much of this attitude of disrespect for the Iraqis stems from the general notion pushed by the Bush administration that invading Iraq was vengeance for 9/11. I remember watching some BBC documentaries last year that followed different units as the invasion of Iraq was underway and I was shocked (though I suppose I shouldn't have been) at the number of enlisted men and women that hinted or openly said that this was "payback time" for 9/11. It was sad and misinformed, and if this attitude continues it could cost us dearly for years to come. Though I know these 17 soldiers do not represent the armed forces and are paying the price for their bad judgment, the damage to our reputation is now complete and the other brave men and women in Iraq are going to face a tougher time of it out there now.
I'd like to urge all you London expats to join me in coming along to the screening of Uncovered on May 16th. I'll pass along the official Dems Abroad announcement:
“'Uncovered' is a devastating analysis of the abuses and distortions of intelligence used by the Bush administration in making its case for the war in Iraq."
Senator Edward KennedyThis widely heralded film features interviews with highly credible authorities, including Ambassador Joe Wilson, weapons inspectors Scott Ritter and David Albright, anti-terrorism expert Rand Beers, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and former CIA operative Robert Baer as well as others with critical knowledge of the decisions that took our country to war.
Some supported the war itself but are deeply concerned about the way information was misused. .
This is your opportunity to see Uncovered before its world premiere at Cannes next month and its release in the U.S. in September.
Following the film, Ben Fortna a professor of Modern Middle Eastern Studies at SOAS will answer your questions about the effect of the war on the region
Attendance: 15 pounds per ticket/ 5 pounds students/low wage Admission price will support Democrats Abroad UK's ongoing Get out the Vote efforts.
RSVP: events@democratsabroad.org.uk
___________________________________________________________Date: May 16
Time: 11am
Place Screen on the Hill
203 Haverstock Hill
London, NW3 4QG
020 7435 3366
Nearest Tube: Belsize Park
The cinema is directly opposite the Tube station
Not quite Bush-related, but Bloggerheads have got an excellent new Flash animation up, turning a very cheeky request from the Tories (asking bloggers to attack the Labour government) on its head - nobody is safe, least of all the Tories! Of course, as expected, our dear leader Bush does make a cameo appearance...
Some pretty scary stuff from the Village Voice, who've obtained a confidential internal memo from an official inside Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority:
[A]ccording to a closely held Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) memo written in early March, the reality isn't so rosy. Iraq's chances of seeing democracy succeed, according to the memo's author—a U.S. government official detailed to the CPA, who wrote this summation of observations he'd made in the field for a senior CPA director—have been severely imperiled by a year's worth of serious errors on the part of the Pentagon and the CPA, the U.S.-led multinational agency administering Iraq. Far from facilitating democracy and security, the memo's author fears, U.S. efforts have created an environment rife with corruption and sectarianism likely to result in civil war.
This is rich:
As on any other day when we have been struck by a terrorist outrage, Spaniards had a right to the truth on March 11. Under the impact of that massacre, and in the consternation that comes from pain and fury, my compatriots deserved the honest evidence that emerged from the investigations. And that is what my government gave them.Oh, please. He then goes on to say:[...]
My government was not alone in attributing the March 11 attacks to ETA. In the first few hours, the president of the Basque Autonomous Region, the secretary general of the Socialist Party, the general coordinator of the United Left and the secretary general of Catalonia's Esquerra Republicana, among others, did likewise.
The only person who, in fact, publicly denied ETA's responsibility on the morning of March 11 was the leader of Batasuna, an organization that our courts have declared illegal because of its ties to ETA. This organization is classified as a terrorist entity by both the United States and the European Union.
Nobody, then, should be surprised that during these first few hours, the Spanish government wanted to convey to its allies and friends the conviction that ETA was the group responsible for the Madrid massacre.
But it was also the moment just before the elections, and the temptation to exploit the situation for political gain proved irresistible to some. At a time when we most needed a common front, some set out to stoke the fires of doubt. Barely had 24 hours gone by when those who were themselves lying began to accuse my government of mendacity, of a coverup, of things that would be repugnant to all good people in the context of an attack upon our country.I sincerely hope he isn't talking about the PSOE - they knew that the ETA angle was unfounded, yet they were so reticent to say anything given the circumstances that they approached the PP and begged them to fess up rather than turn the terrorist attacks into a political issue.
The Spaniards will not be sorry to see the back of him. I believe the words would be, "Adios cabron - don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
Although I didn't get a chance to see 60 Minutes, Bush's former top anti-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke apparently pulled no punches when discussing the Bush team's failures leading up to and following 9/11:
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."He goes on to say that he was under immense pressure to find a way to pin 9/11 on Iraq from the get-go, despite all of his protestations to the contrary:Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."
The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.This is worth a look - I definitely suggest that you go and read through this."I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'
I do apologise, I'm sure everyone except me has tired of all the jokes stemming from the "Freedom Fries" incident--but "Freedom Sausage" was the first thought that popped into my head when I read this article regarding the Polish president's criticism of the Iraq war.
I also thought this snippet from an article about Bush thanking the troops was interesting, Cheney speaking on the subject of John Kerry:
Cheney devoted much of his speech to criticizing the Massachusetts senator, citing Kerry’s votes against weapons and defense spending, and his opposing stands on Iraq. . .“Whatever the explanation ... it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander in chief in this time of testing for our country,” Cheney said. “Senator Kerry has been one vote of 100 in the United States Senate and fortunately, on matters of national security, he was very often in the minority.”
Um...so apparently conformity is a virtue, even if the majority is wrong? And seeing as Kerry actually served in Vietnam instead of skipping out like Bushy, I find it laughable that they are trying to portray Kerry as unfit for military leadership!
Criticizing the war seems to be coming into fashion now, even Mel Gibson, normally quite conservative, gets in on the action. I wonder how the Christian conservatives are feeling about that--forced to choose between the man who brought Jesus to the big screen, and the man who brought Jesus to the White House (continuously ignoring the separation of church and state).
At any rate, I'm a happy girl these days, as my brother is NOT going to be celebrating another birthday in Iraq. After nearly a year, he is leaving in ten days time, and will finally get back to life as usual. Back to the girlfriend, back to university, and back to the polls in November to get rid of Bush!
This is priceless in case you haven't already seen it - Rumsfeld getting called on a big porkie by Thomas Friedman on Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?Up is down. Black is white. And we never said we were in imminent danger. Back to work, you!Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...
SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.
Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.
SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...
Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.
Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.
Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.
In related news, Rep Henry Waxman has released an excellent report (PDF) detailing every instance of misleading statements pertaining to Iraq made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice in the runup to the war. It's fascinating reading.
Sarah here... So imagine my surprise (not!) when I opened up my paper on the tube this morning. . ."Bush TV News Reports Are Exposed As Fakes"! I found this article about it from the U.S. that will fill you in. . .it is much kinder to Bush than the London paper was.
With the families of dead soldiers attending protests and Spain's new leadership talking of withdrawing troops from Iraq, folks in Washington are squirming. Shall I pre-empt them and start calling that spicy dish I like with my ethnically themed meal "Freedom Rice"? I only hope we Americans, like the Spanish, know to say ENOUGH of the lies, scare tactics, and propaganda come election time.
If the election isn't happening fast enough for you, we could always try to impeach Bush. Meetup is in 6 days!
Did you know you can trade futures on when they drag Osama out from his cave? I'm thinking about buying some shares in October - right in time for Bush to trot him out in a last ditch effort to win the election (just in case he isn't sure he's stripped enough minorities of their right to vote and sufficiently rigged the voting systems).
Right! That's enough from me. I'll leave it to you Non-Expat, Non-Against Bush people to start trashing the site, as per usual.
Luke, glad to have you back safe from your holiday.