Wednesday, January 25, 2006

America displays its priorities


Anti-war activist, guilty of civil disobedience: 4 months in federal prison and 4 months in community confinement


Anti-war activist, guilty of civil disobedience: 6 months in federal prison


U.S. military interrogator, guilty of negligent homicide in suffocating an Iraqi prisoner to death: reprimanded, fined $6,000 dollars in pay and confined to his base and place of worship for 60 days

At this rate I'm just going to go back to bed & hide

Day before yesterday, Deputy Director of National Intelligence General Hayden spoke before a meeting of journalists, and, while others have commented on some of the more obviously obnoxious things he said, I was disturbed mainly by this comment:

I'm disappointed I guess that perhaps the default response for some is to assume the worst. I'm trying to communicate to you that the people who are doing this, okay, go shopping in Glen Burnie and their kids play soccer in Laurel, and they know the law. They know American privacy better than the average American, and they're dedicated to it. So I guess the message I'd ask you to take back to your communities is the same one I take back to mine. This is focused. It's targeted. It's very carefully done. You shouldn't worry. (emphasis added)

Um, maybe he's been busy & stuff, and hasn't paid too much attention to the news for the last four years or so, but, jee-zus, what are we supposed to do? This White House has been lying to us over and over, from "nobody knew planes could be used as missles" to "we had no idea bin Laden had anything planned" to "massive Iraqi stockpiles of WMDs" to "uranium from Niger" to "the Iraq war will pay for itself" to "they'll welcome us as liberators" to "last throes" to "no idea the [New Orleans] levees would be breached". On top of that, we've seen similar "targeted" spying programs by the FBI, the CIA and the Pentagon that have been applied to such "credible threats" as vegans, Catholic Worker and Quakers. (As an aside: how many of the "credible threats" that mandated an Orange Alert over the last couple years were innocent meetings of anti-war activists?) Given this government's general track record of contempt for the truth and for the rule of law, I'd suggest being concered about the NSA program being abused is far from jumping to conclusions but is instead perfectly reasonable.

Meanwhile, the White House has contracted KBR (a division of Halliburton, natch) to

establish[ing] temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.(Props to Blah3 for this story.)

Well, can't see anything wrong with that. "Temporary detention and processing capabilities". Nothing to excite paranoia there. (Though it is odd, isn't it, rightwing snarking aside, that Halliburton gets so damn many contracts from this White House, isn't it?)

Though to put it into context we might want to take a look at (courtesy Blah3, Suburban Guerilla and Mark Crispin Miller) the New & Improved PATRIOT Act Bush wants passed (I'm not a lawyer, far from it, but these don't sound too good even to a layman):

  • SEC. 102. , which appears to redefine FISA to apply not just to "agents of a foreign power" (which includes terrorist groups) to simply someone "who is not a United States person"
  • SEC. 113. which specifies new offenses that justify wiretapping, including "relating to animal enterprise terrorism" (i.e. animal rights) and, interestingly enough, "torture" (with a wider legal definition of torture than the Pentagon/CIA are expected to hold to)
  • SEC. 114., which appears to extend the time a retroactive warrant can be issued from "a reasonable period" to, pretty much, infinity
  • SEC. 504., which states that the head of the ATF will be chosen personally by the President (I'm sure all you rightwing Libertarians would just LOOOVE the idea of President Hillary being able to do that...)
  • SEC. 590A., which creates a "National Security Division of the Department of Justice", 'cause evidently the FBI just isn't enough these days
  • SEC. 602. which not only increases the penalty for trespassing in the presence of The Leader or his retinue ("restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting") but extends this to "an event designated as a special event of national significance", even when "the Secret Service protectee is not in attendance"

but the bestest, most special part has to be:

  • SEC. 605. which creates "a permanent police force, to be known as the `United States Secret Service Uniformed Division'" under the direction of the Director of Homeland Security (or, at the President's option, the Secretary of State) which would have all the powers of domestic police forces but would be answerable, apparently, only to the White House. They'd be authorized to "(A) carry firearms; (B) make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony; and (C) perform such other functions and duties as are authorized by law."


Woo hoo! Warrantless searches and arrests! Fun fun fun fun fun. We're not supposed to be suspicious about our government, even though they're building "temporary detention" facilities and establishing a private governmental police force. Stasi, anyone?

Pardon me while I go get a fork to stick in Godwin's Law.

Monday, January 23, 2006

The Hypocrite-in-Chief still doesn't "get it"

The squatter in the White House, to the anti-abortion protestors Monday:

"You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient," Bush told the abortion foes.

Yeah, "every human life has value"...



unless it gets in the way of the bad guys:

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is a key U.S. ally in the war on terror, but many in the Islamic country resent those ties. Feelings intensified after the deaths of 13 villagers in the Jan. 13 U.S. attack.

Officials believe at least four foreign militants also may have died, including an Al Qaeda explosives and chemical weapons expert and a son-in-law of the terror network's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.


So, 13 innocent people to turn (maybe) 4 or 5 people into martyrs for their cause.

But we're "the culture of life", donchaknow.

(Edit: picture changed 'cause it was a link from Al-Jazeera, and now I can't get a link to Al-Jazeera, not even to the home page. How interesting.)

Friday, January 20, 2006

John Stossel is full of it

I've addressed this elsewhere but this is my damn blog and I'll address it here if I want. (MOO-HOO-HAH-HAH-HAH! To think they called me MAD! Well now I'll have MY REVENGE! Release MECHAGODZILLA!)

*AHEM.* anyway --

John Stossel, fakey-Libertarian and pro-corporate Useful Idiot, did a breathless "special" the other day on America's public school system and how icky it is, how it "fails" children and how private schools would be EVER SO MUCH nicer, 'cause they don't have a Stalinist bureaucracy behind them and they'll actually teach kids and all that folderol.

Evidently the idea was floated that this special would be the death knell for public schools, the "Black Friday" that would wake the slumbering masses and hold the miserable reality of America's failing schools before their bleary crusty eyes. Of course, back in 1999 Stossel did a similar special in which he made very similar allegations, and strangely enough the public school system didn't collapse then.

As usual, the gist of Stossel's "arguement" was an attack on teacher's unions, tenure, school bureaucracy and the "inevitable" result of a crappy know-nothing education that came from these. His big comparison was a school in Belgium and a school in America, both which he claimed to be representative of schools nationwide. (Guess which school system did better in his comparison?)

Well, evidently, ignoring the fact that Belgium is one of those Old Europe icky Decadent Socialist Welfare States that conservatives whine so much about, the comparison isn't a fair one to begin with:

Students entering high school can choose from four different secondary school curriculums [. . .] Students who have "learning difficulties due to their social background and situation" receive support from Pupil Guidance Centers [. . .] Student/teacher ratios in secondary schools are small [. . .] [and] Teacher/student contact hours are low

Further info on the Belgian school system is available here -- one might note that while there are private and religious schools in the Belgian system, they are subsidized by the Belgian government, which (if I read correctly) sets academic standards for all schools regardless of who runs them. (Plus - isn't it interesting that conservatives feel that Europe has nothing to teach the U.S. ... except for how to teach, I guess.)

Furthermore, the school that Stossel gave as an example of the best America has to offer, well, doesn't seem to have been the best America has to offer... far from it:

But is that true? Is Wilson “one of America's best public schools?” The Newsweek rating to which Stossel refers is based on one factor only—the number of AP exams taken by a school’s students. Judging by this single measure, Wilson ranks 318 on the Newsweek “Top Thousand”—right ahead of Clarence High School of Clarence, New York. Beyond that, there’s no apparent reason to call Wilson one of the nation’s best public schools—unless you’re playing the public for fools, as Stossel so casually does here.

And, in fact, the segment was filmed after finals, when learning is, to say the least, not of the highest priority:

STOSSEL: Note that the teacher is in the class when he does this. On that day, this teacher had his world geography class playing Monopoly.

STUDENT (videotape): Right now we're going to ask Mr. Reiner what Monopoly has to do with world geography.

TEACHER (videotape): Like Monopoly, we have countries that do better than others, based on where you live.

STOSSEL: It was after finals, and I don't know if Monopoly can help teach geography. I do know this teacher didn't have much control over his class.


I personally remember being shown "The Guns of Navarone" one time on the last day of school. I'm sure glad Mr. Stossel wasn't around for that. (And fancy that - kids being raucous on the last day of school! Who'da thunk it.)

There's more on Stossel's playing fast & loose with the facts on his TV shows here and here; suffice to say as far as I'm concerned, he's shown his complete contempt for any fact that doesn't support whichever corporate interest he's shilling for at the moment, and if Dan Rather was forced out of a job because of questionable evidence on an otherwise factual story, it would seem to be a wonder how someone as factually-challenged as Stossel is still managing to earn a paycheck. (Why, it would almost seem that the NATURE of the lies determines whether or not you're supported by the Right... hmmm...)

Monday, January 16, 2006

"Super-Hawks", indeed

"You know, something like this could never have happened in this country ten years ago," Bates said, his voice low. "Or even five years. . ."

I don't know how seriously I should treat this, and it probably doesn't deserve the attention I'll give it, but the other day I finished a little smegma-stain of a book called Super Hawks: Strike Force Charlie, by Mack Maloney.

It's yet another paint-by-numbers "male action adventure" of an A-Team type group Backed By Rogue Members Of The Government Sympathetic To Their Cause, fighting Al Qaeda in America, Doing What Must Be Done to defeat a terrorist plot to shoot down American air liners with Stinger missles.

The team had given up a long time ago on the niceties of conflict. Rules of war, Geneva Convention - all that crap. They moved in a new world, a place where things happened as fast as the bings and bangs of the Internet or the speed at which a picture could be flashed around the world. [. . .] They didn't have time for long-drawn-out investigations, or trying to explain themselves, or committees being formed. . .

While the terrorists cruise around the country in Greyhound buses posing as a soccer team on a cultural exchange mission, dropping off cells pre-positioned to attack airports, the team Stays One Step Behind Them At All Times, cruising around in their super-Stealth helicopter, Swooping In Just Before It's Too Late and Thwarting The Terrorists' Nefarious Plans...

Yes, this was a nasty business he was engaged in. He knew it. They all knew it, coming in. But it was nasty because it had to be. Brutal and nasty and painful and disgusting was the only language the Muslim fanatics understood, because that's exactly the way they conducted themselves.

I've capitalized so much of the plot summary, because it's a particularly standard example of the "lone wolf" type of plot we've seen so often. Rambo, Dirty Harry, Commando, Cobra, you know the type. The vigilante who must go beyond the limits of civilization and law, to defend civilization and law. It's nothing new. So why does it bug me so damn much?

. . .This was not how the typical U.S. soldier acted. The terrorists knew this because each had fought Americans in either Afghanistan or Iraq. These days American soldiers did not shoot first and ask questions later but actually did the exact opposite. So sensitive they were to inflicting unwanted collateral damage, many gave up their own lives rather than harm an innocent civilian.
But not these soldiers. . .

Probably because this seems to be an idea that is not only leaking from the extreme Right into the mainstream of American thought, but also into our own government. Pre-emptive war. "Special rendition" programs. Secret prisons. Secret wiretaps. Laws passed in the dead of night or during "terror" alerts. Missile strikes directed from the Oval Office, not the Pentagon. A continuing yet abstract state of emergency that legitamizes any action by those in authority, from local police to the White House. We're increasingly leaning toward this kind of vigilante mentality, and I guess this book kind of embodies everything that's wrong at the moment, everything I'm nervous about seeing in our country.

It was strange for Ozzi to hear it all, laid out by someone who was there for most of it. He couldn't imagine the multitude of national security violations they were racking up here. But like Fox said, breaking the law and violating national security were things the team couldn't worry about. Not anymore.

It would sit much easier with me if this was a unique kind of plot, but it seems not to be, as witness this article on the TV show "24". Not only is the vigilante mentality in the mainstream of government, it's also intruding into the mainstream of the media, and that's more worrying - that the public is internalizing these arguements of "the ticking time bomb", of the necessity of Doing Something NOW, of Anything Goes In Fighting "Them". Sure, it's nothing we didn't see, say, back in the Cold War with respect to Commies under the bed - but the propaganda methods are much more sophisticated now.

But the large man would not move. "He knows this guy!" he was screaming now, shoving the drawing of Ramosa into the clerk's mouth. "He probably knows a lot of things!"
"We got what we want," the smaller man said. "Time to go."
But the large man would not budge. "One bullet and we've got one less a--hole in this country," the man said. "
Our country...."[edited]

One of the most disturbing things here is that the "ghosts", as the secret team is called, NEVER get the wrong person. Everyone they Enact Their Vengance Upon is a valid target - they never assault an innocent person based purely on race or appearance. The Muslims they attack are all actual terrorists or conspirators in terrorism. Which makes it all the simpler for the "ghosts" - they can attack any brown person they meet, knowing full well that in doing so they're not "profiling" or being racist, but in fact are Defending America. Which is pretty much, in our world what we're being told is happening - our actions aren't based on prejudice, control of resources, a mistaken idea of "justice", but on the idea that THEY are out there and that anyone who's caught, arrested, shot, killed or blown up is one of THEM. So why worry?

"I'm sorry, sir," the corporal said, trying to apologize. "We're just looking for some bad guys and -"
"I don't give a damn who you're looking for!" Rucker complained again, at full volume. "What is this? Nazi Germany? Iraq? I'm handicapped and I'm a veteran.... I don't have to take this -"

While the government and military seem more concerned with tracking down the "ghosts" than the terrorists, the Secret Team continues on its merry way in a post-9/11 America that seems strangely unconcerned about this paramilitary death squad seemingly killing at random. Terrorism, in this world, is a threat, and the memories of the Towers falling are still fresh even in 2004, but news reports of the mystery helicopter and its exploits seem almost disinterested. One can imagine, in our world, the breathless reports on CNN or FOX as the "ghosts" leave a trail of death behind them, the speculations that Hannity, O' Reilly, Limbaugh and their ilk would be broadcasting about "al-Qaeda commando teams". But, after all, from the perspective of the writer, they're killing the "right" people, and somehow the American people can mysteriously sense this - and who could oppose self-defense?

But at least he could say that he was as fanatical about America and killing mooks as the mooks were about hating America and killing him. In fact, he worked harder at it. This terrorist stuff did not come easy to Americans.

Classic fascism is a picture of totalitarian government, of a Leader who must not be constrained by abstract concepts of humanity or morality in his actions to Defend The People. While on its face "Super Hawks", with its picture of a free-lance antiterrorist team taking over for a government which is either unable or unwilling to fight The Bad Guys, would seem to be a refutation of fascism in that sense, is it really?

The people the guy had complained about.... in the big Greyhound bus....
In a heartbeat, just one word popped into Audette's mind, this just as the veteran's flight was approaching the field again.
Terrorists....

Fascism, at its core, is based on the idea of "Just DO Something". Debate, compromise, give-and-take, negotiation, these are discarded in favor of *ACTION!!!*, of doing Something, Anything. Even beyond the vulgar concept of fascism as nothing more than brutality, it's an attitude that We Are In Trouble and They Are At Fault and We Must Do Somehthing RIGHT NOW, preferably taking Them out of the picture so they can't Threaten Us Further. It's the use of fear and paranoia to motivate action, action unconstrained by thought. And that's what we're seeing from our government - "shut up, we're in charge, they're coming to get us and if you know what's best you'll let us do what we must to save you".

It's not the question of "government vs. people" anymore. There's no contradiction when the government itself takes on these kinds of fascist vigilante ideas, when a philosophy that would fit better with a Third-World death squad become policy for the world's most powerful country. When those in power start acting as if they were little more than characters in a cheesy B-list action novel, that's something that's definitely worth being worried about.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Test your Citizenship!

(I found this on a Boy Scouting site yesterday, and was inspired... :))

Test Your Citizenship

By Pere Ubu

If you meet the President, you call him:

  • your Highness
  • your Excellency
  • Mr. President
  • Mr. Grand High Exaulted Mystic Ruler and Emperor of the Known Universe

The President and his family live in:
  • Blair House
  • the White House
  • the suburbs
  • denial

During the War of 1812, when Madison was President, this famous song was written:
  • the Battle Hymn of the Republic
  • God Bless America
  • The Star Spangled Banner
  • Let The Eagle Soar

The two big political parties today are:
  • Republicans and Democrats
  • Federalists and Whigs
  • Conservatives and Liberals
  • Patriots and Traitors

The U S National Anthem was written by:
  • George Washington
  • Francis Scott Key
  • Benjamin Franklin
  • Lee Greenwood & Toby Keith

The law says Presidential elections must be held on:
  • the first Monday in October
  • Halloween
  • the first Tuesday in November
  • we can't hold elections during a time of war... what are you, a traitor?

We hold Presidential elections every:
  • two years
  • four years
  • six years
  • we can't hold elections during a time of war... what are you, a traitor?

The United States is made up of:
  • 13 states
  • 37 states
  • 50 states
  • rich people and a few insignificant proles

The parties pick their Presidential candidates in:
  • Presidential primaries
  • national nominating conventions
  • by secret vote
  • consultations with the Dark Elder Gods

If a president dies in office, the next president is:
  • the Vice President
  • elected by the people
  • the oldest Senator
  • selected by Halliburton

If you want to run for President you should:
  • go jogging
  • take a nap
  • make speeches
  • suck up to People Who Have The Big Money

The President's wife is called:
  • the First Lady
  • the Queen
  • Mrs. President
  • Mrs. Get Your Ass Back In That Kitchen, Woman

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Mini-snark

Bush once again being patronizing to Iraqis:

"Compromise and consensus and power-sharing are the only path to national unity and lasting democracy," Bush said in a speech to a gathering of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

...said the man to whom power-sharing, consensus and compromise are alien concepts.

(Come to think of it - "lasting democracy"? Well, that explains a lot.)

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

A few comments on Alito's opening statements

But this was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn't help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community.


In other words, his "own community" was a group of nice, quiet folks who didn't concern themselves with nasty things like Vietnam and free speech and campus unrest and Watergate and just went about their lives like good little citizens. Is it me, or is that hardly reassuring?

And the members of this committee and the members of their staff, who have had the job of reviewing all of those opinions, really have my sympathy. I think that may have constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

Guffaw! Guffaw! Maybe we should let the detainees at Guantanamo read those opinions! That'd be TORTURE! guffaw snort

(Really, now - making a comment like that at this particular time and place - JUST a TAD tasteless, at the very least.)

And there is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law.

Oh, we're going to hold you to THAT one, Mr. Alito. We're going to hold you to that. When/if you're sitting on the Court and a criminal case is brought before you involving the Preznit, you're going to get that thrown right back in your face. And you'll deserve it.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Good, clean, wholesome fun!

Last night I, and quite a few other commenters, spent a number of hours "debating" a guy on the comments thread here at Tbogg's blog. Said guy was a sad little wingnut who is firmly convinced that the soon-to-be Flight 93 memorial in Shanksville, Pa. is some kind of mosque or atrocious expression of Muslim-ism or something.

He's got a massive diatribe on his Web page (which he doesn't need me linking to; I ain't giving him whatever traffic stops by here) about how the semicircular memorial faces Mecca and is therefore a the equivalent of a mihrab in a mosque and there's 44 glass blocks there for all the passengers who died, including the hijackers, and there's all this EEEEVIL Islamic symbolizm at the site which is somehow going to do something or other.

None of which is true. The crescent is not a universally-recognized symbol of Islam, there are only 40 glass blocks, the design was chosen by competition, not by one person, and even Mr. Wingnut had to admit that the "facing with Mecca" he made so much noise over is 2 degrees off, which over the distance between Shanksville and Mecca is a deviation of around 150 miles.

When these facts were pointed out to him, repeatedly, he would quickly switch to a new "proof" for his theory - and when the "proofs" ran out, he'd fret about our ignorance and "group-think" in disagreeing with him before he went back to "proof" #1 and started the whole cycle over again. He couldn't even explain WHAT the big deal with the orientation to Mecca was to begin with, other than something about "Muslims seizing territory from infidels". All in all, he spent something like 10 hours (!) running around his hamster wheel of spurious logic before he decided to leave.

I'd just like to once again thank Tbogg for allowing us so much entertainment at Mr. Wingnut's expense. We got some laughs, Mr. Wingnut was kept busy, and there's a wonderful display for all the world to see just how unhinged one human mind can be. All in all, a win-win situation.

Friday, January 06, 2006

Suck-ers!

A new TV drama about the Department of Homeland Security and the brave men and women who defend America against threat...

or maybe not:

Joseph Medawar's television show about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was supposed to be a drama with a difference, telling authentic tales of the war on terrorism with cooperation from top national security authorities, including President George W. Bush.

[snip]

Over the past two years, Bush, Cox and other officials who had at most passing contact with Medawar's program wound up lending unintended credibility to a television project that federal prosecutors now call a multimillion-dollar scam.

Trading on Hollywood glamour and Washington power, Medawar, a Los Angeles-based producer of a half-dozen low-budget feature films, collected $5.5 million since 2003 from investors in ``DHS: The Series,'' prosecutors say. Television viewers have never seen a single episode.


Evidently Medawar sold this series to a number of Christian investors as well:

Los Angeles-based Steeple, whose logo resembles a church tower, raised much of its funding from churchgoers drawn to Medawar's promise that the ``DHS'' program's story lines would reinforce Christian values, prosecutors say.

[snip]

Medawar was promoting the ``DHS'' series while conservative Christians were voicing support for Homeland Security efforts to fight terrorism and defending the war in Iraq.

And on the supposed D.H.S. series site, we get this thrilling summary of the show and its mission:

D.H.S. The Series is a one hour drama about an Executive Action Group or EAG within the Department of Homeland Security. Behind the politics, the press and the debate over how homeland security should be handled are the men and women who risk their lives every day to keep us safe. At the spearhead is the EAG who use whatever necessary to defend their homeland. The full extent of government and military resources at their fingertips, this team led by Agent Jack Callahan and Andrea Bacall, must identify, track and eliminate any potential danger.

Another SEEEKRIT Agency On A Mission From God Doing Whatever It Must To Defend The Country. Oh, joy. Somehow, coming on the heels of the revelations about the FBI/Pentagon/NSA spying on American citizens, that hardly sounds reassuring. Perhaps it's better the show never did get made, after all.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892—1984)

it can never be said too often:

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.


Translation:
First the Nazis came…
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

original German & translation courtesy Wikiquote

Thursday, January 05, 2006

And so it begins

NY Times editorial advocates repealing the 22nd Amendment:

Should presidents - whether George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton - be denied the opportunity to serve their country and carry through their programs? Should they be allowed to govern without any accountability to voters? Should voters be denied two supreme powers - the right to give popular presidents more terms in office and to repudiate a failed president at the polls?

Boy, THAT'S an innovative arguement. It isn't fair to the voters to allow only two term presidencies! We have to hold our leaders accountable!

Strangely enough, there IS a way to hold them accountable, if the Congress would just show some respect for the Constitution and the limits of executive power - it's called impeachment. Even ignoring the (to put it mildly) questionable results from 2000 and 2004, Bush is entirely the wrong person, at the wrong time. Bush/Cheney shouldn't even be allowed to contemplate running another scare-campaign, smearing the Dem opponent as "unAmerican" and claiming megadeaths in the offing if they don't win.

No comment necessary

from the White House press gaggle, Jan. 4, 2006:

Q Second question: The President's speech today at the Pentagon as far as terrorism and fighting terrorism is concerned, do you think that Osama bin Laden is still in -- is running the al Qaeda business?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, who?

Recess appointments

HRH Preznit CooCooBananas did his recess appointments today, bypassing that nasty inconvenient Congress and placing - mirable dictu again - a whole load of cronies and incompetents into Federal positions. Woo-hoo!

Some of the more interesting:

Julie L. Myers, of Kansas, to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement) , who was labeled by Michelle Malkin herself as unqualified, who, in fact, doesn't have the necessary qualifications, and who helped write the money-laundering sections of the PATRIOT Act

Tracy A. Henke, of Missouri, to be Executive Director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security, a John Ashcroft political appointee at the Justice Department, who, while at the Justice Dept., hid statistics on racial profiling

Dorrance Smith, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), whose previous employment involved being a PR flack for the Iraq CPA and for FEMA

Ellen R. Sauerbrey, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of State (Population, Refugees, and Migration), yet another "small-government" Republican who has been an anti-abortion advocate during her time at the U.N. and who, coincidentally, ran Bush's 2000 campaign in Maryland and who has, according to the NY Times (behind the TimesSelect Curtain)"...no experience responding to major crises calling for international relief."

Robert D. Lenhard, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission, who was part of a legal challenge to McCain-Feingold and just happens to be the husband of Viveca Novak, of "Plame leak" fame

but the winner has to be:

Hans Von Spakovsky, of Georgia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission, a member of the Federalist Society, who was not only involved with the Florida voter roll purges but went to Florida during the 2000 "recount" on behalf of the Bush campaign

Good times, folks, good times! Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go back to bed and hide under the covers.

Well, I'm not going into space anytime soon

...at least not on an US space flight:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Paying customers on commercially run flights to space would have to meet security requirements, but would not have to pass specific medical tests, according to draft U.S. regulations.

[snip]

Passengers also would have to clear a security check -- similar to airline passengers' -- to guard against any chance a space tourist would try to destroy the rocket or interfere with the flight crew and use it as a weapon. The FAA recommends that operators could consult the Homeland Security Department's global "no fly" list. [my emphasis]

And we all know how accurate Heimat-Sicherheit's "no-fly" list is, of course. Why, they NEVER get it wrong.

Looks like I'll have to stick to Orbiter for my rocket rides for the foreseeable future.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Allow me to parse

Bush: Iraqi forces will take more control in 2006

"In January 2006, the mission is to continue to hand over more and more territory and more and more responsibility to Iraqi forces," said Bush

Define "responsibility". Does "handing over territory" mean, as it seems to mean, the US forces retreating to "safe" areas while leaving more and more of Iraq to lawlessness, chaos, anarchy, Shiite theocracy, whatever? Isn't this reminiscent of the Marines retreating to their "safe" firebases in Vietnam?

"Today, 125 combat battalions are fighting the enemy, and 50 of those are in the lead," he said. "That's progress."

What is the size of an Iraqi battalion? Ten men? Twenty men? A thousand men? Is the size of the individual battalions being lowered to make the number seem bigger? Define "in the lead". Are these battalions operationg wholly on their own? How many of them are reliable, and will not turn their guns on the Iraqi government at the first opportunity? How many of them won't turn their guns on US troops at the first opportunity, for that matter?

He added, "As we see more of these Iraqi forces in the lead, we will be able to continue with our stated strategy that says as Iraqi forces stand up, we will stand down."

As, I have pointed out, compared to:
...This statement, reflecting a decision of the National Security Council, said the program for training Vietnamese troops should have progressed by the end of the year to the point "where one thousand United States military personnel" could be withdrawn.
-The New York Times, November 25th, 1963


And with the comment the other day from JCS Cahirman General Pace that " you could see troop level go up a little bit" if the insurgency continues (pretty much a given, it appears), this is essentially meaningless. This isn't a commitment, this isn't a promise, it's happy-face propaganda.

Bush noted that U.S. commanders have recently determined that combat forces in Iraq can be reduced from 17 brigades to 15 brigades, and that U.S. troop strength can drop by 7,000 below the baseline level of 138,000.

Well, that'd be all wonderful and stuff, but the additional two brigades were only there for the elections, and were going to be brought back anyway. It's merely making something that was going to happen anyway sound like progress.

Bush described as "troubling" and "unacceptable" recent reports that some Iraqi police units were mistreating prisoners, and said "adjustments" would be made in training to stop such abuses.

Among those adjustments will be the embedding of coalition forces with Iraqi special police units, he said.


Yeah, it's "troubling" to find out they're following the example of abuse and torture that you've set, sure. Of course, that means any further evidence of torture in Iraq will be blamed on "rogue Iraqi police" instead of "rouge US troops". More "bad apples". And if "coalition forces" are going to be embedded in Iraqi police units, how is this not continuing to put Americans or Brits in harm's way - since they're really the only "coalition forces" available?

The discovery of an Iraqi government facility in November where some inmates showed signs of torture caused an outcry, but Iraqi officials defended the actions, with the interior minister noting "Nobody was beheaded or killed."

"Nobody was beheaded or killed". That's a pretty damn low bar for morality, if you ask me. Of course, again, they're just following the example of the people who have re-defined "torture" as "whatever we don't do", thus allowing torture while claiming innocence.

All in all, hardly an inspiring presentation.

Start of a trend?

Marine, 65, arrested for not going to Vietnam

CAMP LEJEUNE, North Carolina (AP) -- A Marine was being held at Camp Lejeune on a charge of desertion for not going to war in Vietnam 40 years ago, a military spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Lesee... who else might they arrest... someone else who ducked out of his military responsibilities during Vietnam...



Hmmmm....

Do as I say, not as I do

Well, the Republicans who snarked about American troops under the command of foreigners back during Clinton's presidency, are, mirable dictu, now looking at Bush allowing American troops under foreign command.

Back in 1999, Alabama Congressman Spencer Bachus had this to say about the matter:

WASHINGTON -- American troops deployed to Kosovo as part of a NATO peacekeeping operation should not serve under foreign commanders, say U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and a bipartisan group of House members.

Bachus and the others warned President Clinton in a letter initiated by the Alabama congressman that they are "steadfastly opposed" to the administration's plan to put U.S. troops in Kosovo under foreign command.


[snip]

"While we certainly believe there are times when the U.S. should act in concert with our allies, the American public expects and demands that Americans be in charge when the lives of our men and women in the military are at risk," the bipartisan group of 24 members say in the letter. "We all witnessed the dangers of placing our military forces under foreign command during operations in Somalia."

Well, evidently 9/11 changed that as well, or some such, for Jamie Wilson reported this in The Guardian on Nov. 28:

The Bush administration is considering a plan to put America's awesome airpower at the disposal of Iraqi commanders, as a way of reducing the number of US troops on the ground. The plan is causing consternation among commanders in US air force, who say it could lead to increased civilian casualties and lead to airstrikes being used as means of settling old scores.

Surprise, surprise. This will of course reduce the number of soldiers lost to IEDs and sniping; the troops can be "brought home" (just in time for the 2006 elections! Fancy that!) and everybody's happy - except, of course, for the poor bastards who will be the recipients of the Iraqi-directed revenge bombings. (Even purely American air war isn't going all that well, as indicated by this charming story of a family wiped out because some men dug a hole nearby. But, as Rumsfeld could tell them, if they weren't dead, "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things". )

But, after all, it's not as if we give a rat's ass about the Iraqi civilians anymore - they're all libramated and stuff, lots of freeance and peeance all around, and it's time to pat ourselves on the back, cut OUR losses, pull out, regroup, and get ready for the Next Great Liberation.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

The hell have I not been reading James Wolcott?

Good stuff!

In fact, my policy is to refer to the warbloggers in 2006 as "bedwetters." There need be no shame in being a bedwetter. It's a condition that can be treated. But for the neocon-converted, treatment first requires taking honest self-inventory. Having the courage to look in the mirror admit, "I'm a pompous warmongering bedwetting crybaby who loves to hear myself maunder."

and then there's this:

For a few heady months, Americans were in high anxiety and on high alert, a warrior nation leaning forward into the future to shake the rotten fruit afflicting the tree of civilization. And now? Now they can't scarf down those Cheez Doodles fast enough as they bask in the creature comforts they take for granted. It's not really their fault. Liberal media and politicians have lulled them into false security.

That's GOTTA hurt.

And once again I find someone who says the same things I do, only SO much more eloquently. It's really a challenge, especially when you have a poor self-image to begin with.

I'm blogging while standing upon the shoulders of giants, I am.

Heh. Indeed.

Shorter Kos:

Conservatives = whiny-ass tittie babies.

These blowhards pretend they are macho even as they piddle on themselves in abject terror from every "boo!" that comes out of Osama Bin Laden's mouth. They like to speak about how tough they are, even though they send others to fight their battles and couldn't last a day in places like Iraq, or Sudan, or the El Salvador of my youth, or any other war-torn nation.

Meanwhile one of his conservative commenters has some trouble with the Left citing Patrick Henry:

As for Patrick Henry, I don't think most of you would have liked him. "Give me liberty or give me death". Very noble. He would have fought valiantly against the strong federal government that has developed after the Civil War.

Yeah, he might even have opposed a massive federal bureaucracy that seems to be nothing more than a home for corruption, and sucks down federal tax dollars while leaving people and businesses to their own devices.* He probably would have opposed an imperial presidency and seizure of power based on "national emergency". He probably would object to a government that spied on its own citizens, that treated dissent as treason and willfully violated habeas corpus, in addition to numerous other civil rights. In short, he'd be a REAL libertarian, instead of a fakey conservotarian who wouldn't see anything wrong with OTHER people's rights being violated, as long as HIS guns & pot were left alone.


*(Shorter ready.gov: "Come to us and we'll tell you how to prepare an emergency plan... by telling you to prepare an emergency plan.")

Monday, January 02, 2006

There goes another justification

The talking point from the right on Iraq there, for a while, was "we invaded to bring them democracy".

Well, looks like that's no longer the case:

President George W Bush promised in a pre-Chistmas speech that America will leave Iraq only when “victory” has been achieved, but the term is being quietly redefined.

Dov Zakheim, a senior Pentagon official during Bush’s first term in office, said: “The goal is not democracy, it is a united Iraq that doesn’t bother its neighbours. There is no law that says American troops have to be in the most hostile areas.”


So we spent all that money and blood to get an Iraq that "doesn't bother its neighbors"... which they weren't doing to begin with.

Ohhhh-kay.