bustardblog

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.

 

Iraq; Destabilized

I get some sort of weird joy when this adminstration howls with outrage over anyone who might try in any way to destbilize Iraq:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A plan by the Bush administration to release detailed and possibly damning specific evidence linking the Iranian government to efforts to destabilize Iraq have been put on hold, U.S. officials told FOX News.

Link Search: Google, Ask, Technorati, Sphere, and IceRocket

Thanks to memeorandum

Bombs Over Iran

Thanks to TPM for providing us with a copy of Senator Jim Webb's letter to Condi. In it he repeated a request he had made a couple of weeks ago to Sect'y Rice. She had promised to get back to him with the administration's position on it's view of it'sauthority to bomb Iran.

Webb is absolutely right to go after Rice on this, but in fact the answer is not terribly important.  Even if Bush were to agree that he does not have the authority to do so, he would only have to continue letting Israel know that it is fine with the U.S. for it to bomb Iran, and it'll happen.

I stand by my previous post -our bombs will fall in Teheran before the end of 2007 -whether they are dropped by Israeli pilots, or by our own pilots, doesn't really make a hell of a lot of difference.

The Second Holocaust

According to the gospel of the right, a capitalist democracy is as close to Heaven as any of us earth bound types can hope for

It gets a little tricky when Old Testament capitalism and New Testament democracy come into conflict.

A cornerstone of the right's faith is that the old, "drive-by" media is controlled by liberals, and thus bitter complaints about a lack of fairness are an essential part of the gospel. In fact the media is owned by conglomerates like Disney, Time Warner, General Electric, and Viacom -Old Testament capitalist companies concerned only with making a buck. They are ruled by what is called the "almighty marketplace."

New Testament democracy teaches us that the voice of the people, each having an equal vote, is the cornerstone of good government. Individual people, not the power of the purse, should determine the rules and the rulers. A free press ensures an informed electorate, and thus the decisions of the public are righteous ones.

So what happens when all of this breaks down and the holy marketplace does not create the media that those on the right know is right? Then the ultra-orthodox, also known as the neo-conservatives, have no choice but to ignore the dictates of both the Old Testament marketplace, as well as those of the New Testament democracy. (which they never really believed in too much anyway.)

New media outlets are created. Investors knowingly disobey the biblical laws: they are well aware that they will lose money, and realize that their desire to exert undue influence is anti-democratic. They justify flouting these laws because the almighty marketplace has already provided them with the profit whose voice they hear telling them that their money proves they have been chosen to exercise extra power in ruling the people.

Thus neo-cons created Fox News, which has lost hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as  the Washington Times, and  New York's newspaper, "

.The Sun"  neither of which is ever expected to earn a dime, or show a prophet.

So instead of printing an honest article that might educate or inform the public, The Sun publishes an entirely dishonest piece entitled "The Second Holocaust," which Robert Farley correctly, albeit gently, summarized

If you oppose an Israeli nuclear or an American conventional strike on Iran, then you hate Jews and want them all to die.

Farley spent some effort parsing the article, but soon gave up in disgust. It is a fact-free diatribe essentially saying that unless you follow Cheney and Bush's instructions, you will cause a second holocaust. No paper responsible to either it's readership or it's bottom line would have published it.

(h/t memeorandum)

 

Carter on Israel

Like Israel, Jimmy Carter is a litmus test in the political world of the times. While it seems to me perfectly reasonable to question Carter's effectiveness and many of his decisions as President, the need to denigrate in the strongest possible terms any accomplishment of his is a sign of a closed, authoritarian mind. Similarly, those with a sealed like-mindedness cannot tolerate any questioning of any Israeli act.
So it is with considerable courage that Carter criticizes Israel, and it's powerful lobbying arm, AIPAC, in today's L.A. Times, writing  that: (h/t memeorandum)

For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

I have not yet read his new book on Israel, but if Alan Dershowitz hates it, it can't be all bad.

Before reading it, I hope to post some of my own thoughts on the unprecedented success of Israel's lobbying efforts in the U.S, and her enormous power in determining the narrative that dominates much of our foreign policy - whether it is how acts of civil disobedience become acts of terrorism when the Palestinians commit them, or how the likelihood of our meeting with Iran is influenced by Israeli self-interest; rather than our own interest in stopping the catastrophe of Iraq.

Baker-san

If James Baker were an honorable Japanese statesman, instead of a Texan, the floor at today's Press Conference would have been soaked in blood. He would have no choice but to commit seppuku or hara-kiri.

Baker is the man with the most individual responsibility for putting W into the White House. He is the one who handled the mess in Florida for Bush in 2000, and succeeded at getting his Boy George appointed President.

Today his commission, the Iraq Study Group came out with a report proving what a total fiasco Iraq is - and how much Bush is directly to blame for it.

One of the major emphases of the report was on the need for consensus and bi-partisanship if we are ever to have any chance of success.  Yet the boy-king anointed by Baker hired Karl Rove to say things like:

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw of the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. (6/22/05)

It's only a little over a month ago that Bush was saying that Democratic control of the House meant victory for the terrorists.

It was far more important for Bush to maintain power than it was for him to succeed in Iraq.  Instead of keeping the country united, as it so definitely was after 9/11, he chose to divide for partisan gain.

The ISG also underlined the importance of  progress in the Palestine/Israel dispute. Bush, and his Secretary of State, Condi Rice have done nothing to seek a resolution. Zip. Zero.

Syria and Iran were seen as potentially important players as we seek a peace in Iraq. But Condi and George won't talk to them. This administration thinks that the whole concept of diplomacy is a joke.

Can someone explain to me why Condi Rice is still on the public payroll after her deadly incompetence as National Security Adviser and her equally failed tenure at State?

Learning from Iraq

Bush is not capable of learning from Iraq, so we have to.

Tristero, over at Hullabaloo, clearly has a lot of admiration for Josh Marshall, as do I. But he speaks an absolutely essential truth when he insists that it is not sufficient to discuss the competency with which the war in Iraq was planned or fought. Whether or not more troops would have made a difference, whether the Army should have been disbanded, whether a larger coalition would have saved the day, etc., etc.,  - are entirely irrelevant arguments. The basic idea of invading Iraq was absolutely stupid and immoral.

After being so wrong on Bush/Iraq, a reluctant admission that if you want to be dogmatic about it then I side with the 'impossible' dogmatists, makes me fear that when Cheney and Bush start up in earnest over Iran, the same misjudgment will doom any attempt to oppose it. (Tristero)

And he gets full marks for saying "'when' Bush and Cheney start up in earnest over Iran."

As I tried to point out in a previous post, Bush will bomb Iran within the next two years. Those who argue that it will be done better this time, that there will be no occupation, that he has learned from his mistakes; are merely enablers for a mean old drunk.

There are some slight changes int he cast of characters: instead of Wolfowitz, this time it's Muravchich; the role played by Ahmed Chalabi, will now be taken by Amir Abbas Fakhavar. Featured players: Bush, Cheney, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, AIPAC, JINSA and the AEI remain the same.

Beirut

  Hezbollah's promised demonstrations in Beirut, designed to bring down a government that they consider Bush's puppet, has begun in Beirut.

So far I've seen one report saying that tens of thousands of protesters are already there.

Al-Jazzerah reported on the hopes that the demonstration will be peaceful, and quoted the President as saying that "The resistance (Hezbollah) is not going to shoot Lebanese people, and there will not be a civil war."

Der Spiegel's most recent reports indicates that the number of demonstrators is in the "hundreds of thousands." (It is their photo I reprinted above.

Credit for the  increased power of Hezbollah should probably be divided equally between Israel, Iran, America, and Syria - even though only two of the four hoped for the result achieved. Mazel Tov Mme Rice, Mr Bush, and Mr Olmert!

UPDATE:
Loyal commenter Rick admires how talented the Arab world is in orchestrating such huge demonstrations.  Perhaps he forgets the motivation that the people of Lebanon recently received. Since the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, 17 people have died, and 135 have been wounded by the explosion of cluster bombs left by Israel. Although Israel promised to provide maps to help the Lebanese find them, they have yet to do so. To add insult to injury, the vast majority of the approximately 60,000 cluster bombs were deployed as the cease fire began. ( NY Times )

The New Middle East

Juan Cole pointed me to an interview Der Spiegel held with Richard Haass, currently head of the Council on Foreign Relations. He also was appointed to top jobs at the State Department by both Presidents G.H.W. Bush and President G.W.Bush. He was asked about the future in the Mid-East.

 

Visions of a new Middle East that is peaceful, prosperous and democratic will not be realized. Much more likely is the emergence of a new Middle East that will cause great harm to itself and the world. Iran will be a powerful state in the region, a classical imperial power. No viable peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is likely for the foreseeable future. Militias will emerge throughout the region, terrorism will grow in sophistication, tensions between Sunni and Shia will increase, causing problems in countries with divided societies, such as Bahrain, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Islam will fill the political and intellectual vacuum. Iraq at best will remain messy for years to come, with a weak central government, a divided society and sectarian violence. At worst, it will become a failed state racked by all-out civil war that will draw in its neighbors.

G.H.W. must be terribly proud of his son's accomplishment.

 

9/12/2001

Yesterday I posted two photos which prove the lie of the Bush Administration's meme that the events yesterday were non-political. While the two Democratic Senators from New York were not invited to participate in Bush's charade in Manhattan, the two Republican Senators from Pennsylvania were invited to view the show in Shanksville. Republican Governor of New York was asked to participate, while the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania was not.

I received a comment from a reader, Farmer Mark. who wrote that he

found most of public commemorations to be inadequate ways to deal with the memorializing and processing functions necessary to such a recent, raw event and think someone should try to come up with a ritual that is appropriate, meaningful and unique to this occasion.

I happen to know that he personally was directly, seriously harmed by 9/11. I totally agree that the pompous rites engaged in by our political leaders were pathetic, even cynical, but what else can be expected from such "leadership?" Just as they used 9/11 as an excuse to act on their long held desire to invade Iraq, they once again tried to use yesterday to sell their misbegotten war.

On September 12 of 2001, I was still in shock, and very worried about the people that I loved in New York. I felt some first twinges of optimism in seeing initial reactions around the world. True, some residents of the occupied Palestinian territories were dancing in the street. But the Arab world was hugely united in condemning the terrorism, and especially unanimous when it came to the civilian casualties.

France's Le Monde ran the famous headline "Nous sommes tous Americains." Iran, for the first time in 22 years, was not saying "Death to America." A few days after 9/11, there was a moment of silence to honor our innocent dead in an international soccer game being played in Tehran. Newspapers throughout the country condemned the attacks, as they did throughout the Muslim world. Indonesia, like Jordan, froze bank accounts of those suspected of working with Al Qaeda. I could go on and on. The amount of goodwill Bush squandered is stupefying.

There was quite a small group of Muslims who did applaud the attacks - but the vast majority of this minority did so on the basis of our government's behavior. Primarily  they condemned our having a military base in Saudi Arabia (the holiest of their lands) and of our support for Israel. There were other reasons, but virtually no one supported the attacks because of our "lifestyle"- our acceptance of homosexuality, our treatment of women - or our freedom. It is only washed up wing-nuts like D'Souza, Hitchens, Falwell and Bush who speak such nonsense. The Arab world was amazingly unanimous in condemning the loss of civilian life: whatever the gender, race, religion or sexual identity of that life.

In looking at international reactions to the tragedy of 9/11, I came across a prescient response to Bush's speech of 9/20/2001. In that speech, Bush stated that "we will use every necessary weapon of war," that "Americans should... expect ... a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen," and he told "every nation" that "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

Parts of the response:

An objective and calm friend should advise the United States government against throwing the young American soldiers into an uncertain war in remote, isolated and inaccessible places, like a fight against ghosts, not knowing where they are or even if they exist or not, or whether the people they kill are or not responsible for the death of their innocent fellow countrymen killed in the United States.

...

After the shock and sincere sorrow felt by every people on Earth for the atrocious and insane terrorist attack that targeted the American people, the most extremist ideologists and the most belligerent hawks, already set in privileged power positions, have taken command of the most powerful country in the world whose military and technological capabilities would seem infinite. Actually, its capacity to destroy and kill is enormous while its inclination towards equanimity, serenity, thoughtfulness and restraint is minimal.

These were parts of a speech given in Havana by President Fidel Castro on September 22 ,2001.

If only we could expect a fraction of such wisdom from our own "leadership."