bustardblog

N.Y Times Praises Bush

The New York Times editorial page today praised President Bush for his recent statement on  Darfur. I completely agree.

Yesterday, President Bush rightly served notice that America has finally run out of patience with Mr. Bashir’s duplicity and will press the international community to stand up to the genocide.

At least 200,000 of Darfur’s people have already been killed and more than 2.5 million have been driven from their homes.

Good for President Bush.

Not that one thing has anything to do with the other, but to keep things in perspective:

1. In October of 2006, the British "Lancet" and Baltimore's own Johns Hopkins University announced the results of their study which showed that over 655,000 people had been killed in Iraq.
2. In April of this year Reuters reported that close to 4 million people in Iraq had been driven from their homes.

 

Blair, Broder, Bush: Not Brave.

I've never really understood why some of my favorite bloggers, ones like Atrios, get so incensed by David Broder. Their frustration is palpable.

Today I understand - I actually read one of his columns. I suspect that what's so infuriating about Broder is not just his smug pomposity, but also his ability to be wrong on so many levels simultaneously. Those like Michelle Malkin, or her mentor Ann Coulter, are always single note writers. There are no chords in their work. So it's all the more infuriating that he has some ability, yet chooses only to write dissonant chords.

Today he Wrote of Bush and Blair, calling them "two wounded warriors."  A military theme dominates the piece: they "tried to shield each other from the slings and arrows of two nations' reporters;" they are " stripped of political protection by their woeful domestic approval scores;" and  the attacks of 7/7 on London and of 9/11 on New York "armed both men with a conviction that... the terrorist threat from radical Islamists is one that must be resisted at all costs."  Broder goes on to uncritically quote Blair: "what we are fighting, the enemy we are fighting, is an enemy aiming its destruction at our way of life....And this is a flight that we cannot afford to lose. " Not only uncritical, Broder called them "brave words", and suggested that when Bush responded by praising Blair for his courage, Bush "spoke from his heart."

It gets worse as Broder mentions the "awful price" Blair has paid, and expresses his sympathy for Bush's having had to endure a questioner "who was rude enough to point out" that the leader of the Conservative opposition in England "finds it advisable to avoid even meeting Bush."

Blair, Broder implies, is being forced out of office by a lack of support within his own party. While noting that our system would not allow a similar fate for Bush, he does regret that Bush "can be humiliated daily  - not only by his political adversaries but also by the incompetence of his own employees."

Broder's conclusion is that "both of them saw the threat to the West posed by terrorism and responded courageously," even if their own policies and conduct precluded success.

With all due respect to Mr. Broder, this is not St Crispin's day. It was a press conference. In the Rose Garden.

Neither Bush nor Blair are warriors, let alone wounded ones. As McCain pointed out last  week, actual warriors do not support torture. And just how has either one of them been wounded?

No one has "stripped" them of their arms: their "approval scores" are what they have earned; the humiliation they've endured because of the "incompetence" of their employees is the result of choices they themselves have made.

Sorry Mr Broder, there's been no courage on display.  Especially if you subscribe to the Blair/Broder/Bush  argument that our way of life in on the eve of destruction, you must condemn the cowardice of all three of them.   Blair is the longest serving P.M. in British history. He has chosen not to fight to continue in his job and is instead ceding it to a man who he knows will begin removing British troops from Iraq as soon as he can. What bravery is here? During WWII, would Churchill have decided that it was time for him to go, and then turn over his post to a Hitler appeaser?

Aside from subjecting himself to a "rude" reporter asking why the Conservative leader in England did not want to be seen with him, I see no courage on Bush's part.  He risks none of his own treasure, nor the blood of any who really matter to him. Rather than confronting and dealing with the disaster that he has created, he clearly intends to leave it to his successor.

The problem with Broder is that he acts as if he has written a great new symphony, when in fact he's just a two year old banging away at the piano.

(h/t the memeorandum )

Rich on Bush

True, I've marveled and been impressed at the hoops through which the pundit class has learned to pass in order to avoid the "L" word when describing the deceitfulness of this administration.

But today I confess my absolute delight at Frank Rich, in today's N.Y. Times:

"President Bush threw any remaining caution to the winds during his news conference on the Rose Garden that same morning. Almost everything he said was patently misleading or an outright lie.

Lie. As in Lying Liars. Their only hope for holding onto their 28% is to deceive them.

Rich's apt use of the word is cleansing. 

 

Stupid England, Bloody Stupid

While bloggers like Captains Quarters and Riehl World View choose to focus on the weakness shown by our allies in the Britain/Iran imbroglio (although I thought that describing how weak our team is only gave aid and comfort to the enemy), I am more concerned by the apparent stupidity displayed by the Brits.

Their confident self-righteousness oozing forth,  those who support confrontation insist that the British ship was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters.  They argue that a 1976 treaty signed by the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein clearly defines the maritime border. Even I know that there is nothing in that part of the world that is "clearly defined." After the Iranian revolution in 1979, it was pretty obvious that Khomeni did not feel a whole lot of obligation to abide by agreements signed by the Shah - especially ones with Iraq, who in 1980 invaded Iran. This war cost Iran an estimated one million casualties. Border disputes were cited as it's cause.

It just seems pretty damned stupid to me to fool around within a couple of miles of some technical border that exists on paper only, especially when you're talking about Iraq and Iran.

But it may even be stupider than that. Read this:

Former Head of the Maritime Section at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Craig Murray, has written that an agreed Iran/Iraq maritime boundary, as shown on the British government provided map, does not exist. He also noted that the location of the incident given by the Ministry of Defence is closer to Iranian than Iraqi land."

And this:

Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King's College London, stated "Iran and Iraq have never agreed to a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab.

When I opened by commenting on some of wingnuttia's talk of the weakness of our allies, I wasn't just speaking of the Britain is Toast argument of Dan Riehl. The entire European Union is being described as weak and dysfunctional because it is not immediately ready to declare war. It's a bit unfair to blame the E.U. for the mess  Britain got itself into, when they so clearly warned the U.K. that it was only going to get itself into a mess.

The [European] Council simply expressed its "grave concern" and generally weakened the strong message the British wanted. Perhaps memories on the Council of the invasion of Iraq (without which the naval party would not of course have been there) played a part here. (emphasis added) (link)

Following our lead, Britain has been behaving stupidly in the Middle East, and the repercussions it is now experiencing were only to be expected.

 

Tal Afar

In April, 2006, the New Yorker published a piece by George Packer, in which he quoted Bush:

Last month, in a speech in Cleveland, President Bush hailed the achievement in Tal Afar as evidence that Iraq is progressing toward a stable future. “Tal Afar shows that when Iraqis can count on a basic level of safety and security, they can live together peacefully,” he said. “The people of Tal Afar have shown why spreading liberty and democracy is at the heart of our strategy to defeat the terrorists.”

Yesterday in Tal Afar:

In Tuesday’s truck bombings in Tal Afar, one suicide bomber lured victims to buy wheat loaded on his truck in a Shiite neighborhood. A second truck bomb exploded in a used car lot. The attacks killed 63 people and wounded more than 150.

Early Wednesday

Meantime, police and hospital officials said off-duty Shiite policemen enraged by massive bombings in the northern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there on Wednesday, killing at least 45 men.

(More than just a h/t to Rising Hegemon = This is really just a shorter version)

"Talking About Israel"

There is much to appreciate in Nicholas Kristof's op-ed about Israel in today's N.Y. Times.  He correctly identifies a huge problem when he indicates that Mr. Bush's "embrace" is "crushing" Israel. He notes that:

There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians.

He describes the results of Bush's "crushing" perfectly:

Hard-line Israeli policies have profoundly harmed that country's long-term security by adding vulnerable settlements, radicalizing Young Palestinians, empowering Hamas and Hezbollah, isolating Israel in the world and nurturing another generation of terrorists in Lebanon. The Israeli right's aggressive approach has only hurt Israeli security, just as President Bush's invasion of Iraq has ended up harming U.S. interests.

But when Kristof offers his analysis of the cause for that lack of debate in the U.S., he can only display symptoms of the disease he would hope to cure.

He speculates that the silence of those who might criticize current policies could be caused by two reasons:

• "American politicians have learned to muzzle themselves." He points out how Dean four years ago, and Obama a few weeks ago, were "blasted for being hostile to Israel" when they made some pretty innocuous comments
• "A second reason may be that American politicians just don't get it", writes Kristof before explaining how important the Palestinian issue really is in the Arab world, and how miserable the Palestinians actually are.

But Kristof  knows full well that no American politician voluntarily muzzles himself, and most of them are smart enough to  get it.  They are actively silenced by being called anti-Israel and/or anti- Semitic. They can read the numbers of Palestinian dead as well as Kristof can.

Like Kristof, himself, the politicians are afraid of the organized outrage that will be choreographed by organizations and lobbyists such as the A.D.L. and A.I.P.A.C. over the slightest criticism of the Israeli government. The voices of the neo-cons added to traditional Zionists are pretty tough to shout over.

But kudos to Kristof for at least bringing the topic up.

Absurdity on Iraq

I must confess - there is a part of me that has Republican urges. I've suffered from the pull for a long time - at times it seemed that the Republican party was more reasonable about civil rights than the Democrats. That changed. It seemed that the Republicans might have been more fiscally responsible. That changed.

But I still get jealous at times. Only a Republican could get away with what the ranking minority member, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va, said today about financial malfeasance in Iraq during the tenure of L. Paul Bremer as Viceroy. The committee was examining how 363 tons of U.S. currency, in cash; 363,,, tons, , , of cash,,, - were disbursed from Baghdad.  Davis decried the questioning, saying in one breath that it was "old news" and in the next suggesting that the Democrats were making a "rush to judgment."

If only people were not dying in Iraq, it would be hilarious.

Retreat is the Only Option

By issuing a partisan attack piece on the morning of the State of the Union Address,The Bush administration reiterates it's position on Iraq: no matter what is said tonight, there will be no real change in strategy or policy. Bush will leave office to crawl back to Crawford with a full complement of troops fighting, and dying in Iraq, and he will do everything within his power to blame the next President for his failures.

Liz Cheney doesn't even bother to make effort to disguise her op-ed in the Washington Post as an analysis.  Instead, she makes it clear what she's about when she begins with a childish smear about Hillary Clinton's ambitions. The following is a slur, not an argument:

Anyone who has watched her [Clinton's] remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency."

Cheney (fille) then writes a lot of garbage that defies  both historical and current reality in Iraq. One of her more outrageous assertions is that we must stay to protect allies like Pakistan's  Pervez Musharraf. Based on a lot of recent reporting, the N.Y. Times wrote in an editorial today:

Pakistan is now the third-largest recipient of American foreign aid. Yet more than five years after 9/11, the Bush administration has still not been able to secure Pakistan’s active and consistent support against the Taliban. The very least Washington should be demanding of President Musharraf is that he enforce an immediate halt on Pakistani military support for the Taliban insurgents who are crossing the border and killing American troops.

Frankly, I don't want to see a single U.S. soldier die to protect Musharraf, and his "support... for ...insurgents... who are... killing American troops.

Cheney writes that the recent rout of Republicans in Congressional elections did not show that Americans:

want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations., They did not say that they would rather fight the terrorists here at home.

They also did not say that they want permanent war. What their votes did prove is that they no longer believe the lies of the Cheney/Bush team, nor do they accept the use by this administration of fear, of terror, as a campaign tool.

Although I have strongly opposed to this war since before it began, I am concerned about our responsibilty to Iraq for the evil we have unleashed in that  benighted land.  I would welcome serious analysis or suggestions on what we should do next - but there is no way that these will come from an administration that relies on Dick Cheney or  Karl Rove.

These guys are poison to our body politic. They insult us by continuing to use slurs, lies and fear in lieu of arguments which would sway us.

(Thanks [?] to memeorandum)

 

Snowjobs, Despite Global Warming

As it so often does, this administration, speaking through its mouthpiece Tony Snow, lied at today's press briefing. As it always does, the Bush team put its own self interest above the national interest.

Mr. Snow:I think the most important thing to realize is that Saddam Hussein was executed after a long trial, long and public trial that met international standards, an appeal that met international standards, under American -- he was in American custody for the vast majority of the time...And I think -- it's interesting because there seems to be a lot of concern about the last two minutes of Saddam Hussein's life and less about the first 69 in which he murdered hundreds of thousands of people. That's why he was executed

Mr. Snow: But the one thing you've got to keep in mind is he got justice. This is a man who killed hundreds of thousands and was executed for it, according to the laws of the country and in accordance with legal traditions that have met international scrutiny.

The White House Press Corps made no serious attempt to point out that this is a bald faced lie. Saddam Hussein was convicted of the deaths of 149 in the town of Dujail. Even this conviction did not meet the standard of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead a lesser standard, that  of the Court being "satisfied of his guilt," was met. There is no doubt that the court was biased, prejudiced and the antithesis of neutral.  Three of his defense attorneys were assassinated during the trial. Even our own Embassy had problems with the appeals process.

He was never convicted of the deaths of hundreds of thousands because we participated in making sure he could never be tried for such crimes.  A trial was begun in August, but his murder ends that. According to U.S. law the death of the accused voids charges against him or her.  (Even convictions are thrown out- think of Ken Lay's convictions being overturned as a result of his heart attack.) Reviewing the history of trials for war crimes shows that the accused is almost always tried for the crime that he is actually thought to have committed  - cute incarcerations of an Al Capone for tax evasion is not the same.

Snow's comment that Hussein was "executed" for killing "hundreds of thousands" in "accordance with legal traditions" is unadulterated crap. It was a silly show trial that would have embarrassed Stalin's Soviet Union.

I do believe that Hussein was guilty of war crimes, of crimes against humanity - and I believe that he should have been tried for them. But Bush wanted to time the verdict with the fall elections, and he did not want to deal with any thorny questions about U.S. support for Hussein over the years - and so he put on a show. If what motivated him was national interest, and not self-interest, there would have been a real trial.

It was also not an "execution" that met "international standards." Most civilized countries allow no executions, and this was more a vengeful lynching than anything else. The fact is that we delivered Hussein to thugs who were part of the Army of  Muqtada al-Sadr. They cheered "Muqtada" as they jeered and hung Hussein -  members of the same army that has at least twice attacked U.S. Forces in Iraq. Muqtada is directly responsible for roughly the same number of deaths as Hussein ever was. (including The Persian Gulf War of W.'s father)

The right compounds the basic dishonesty by childishly refusing to accept that we had anything to do with Hussein's murder: "It wasn't our operation, therefore what is the White House to criticize? Never mind Tony Snow's apparent boast that we held Hussein until we could turn him over to someone to kill him, the undeniable fact is that it is our puppet that is pulling the strings in Baghdad.  If we are not needed to keep the Iraqi government in power, why are we there? We are the occupiers of Iraq, and are responsible for what happens there.

In today's Wall Street Journal, W. cynically issued a call for bi-partisanship, ie. bi-partisan support for his proposed programs. Regarding Iraq, a true bi-partisan would write, as liberty street did, that:

it's reasonable to conclude that putting Saddam to death at this time, and in this manner, is going to create far more problems than it will resolve.

But this would demonstrate a level of reason and honesty to which our President has no aspirations.

 

 

 

Affirmative Action Beneficiary

Michael Barone wrote in the most recent:

U.S. News and World Report  that "Obama has the ability to be a strong candidate. But it's not clear, perhaps not even to himself, whether he has the capacity to be a strong and effective president."

Tragically, no one on the right raised this question about George W. Bush. At least Obama has had personal achievements, unlike Bush whose record was one of failed business after failed business.   Certainly, there are those on the right who will insinuate that Obama, because of his African ancestry on his father's side,  benefitted from affirmative action, and perhaps he did - but no where near to the extent that Bush benefitted from affirmative action. After all it was his ancestry that got him legacy admission to boarding school, college, and Texas politics.

But then fairness is not something that has ever been of interest to Michael Barone.