bustardblog

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.

 

 

 

Yellow Cheddar, Yellow Derbyshire.

With that smidgen of self-deprecating  humor that he hopes will transform him from pedant toad into charming curmudgeon, John Derbyshire, writes in the latest National Review of the difficulties of life on suburban Long Island. Were you to read it, you'd understand the significant sacrifices that the 101st Keyboarders make for us. Huntington or Basra? They're both damned scary.

It seems poor Mr Derbyshire has to paint his garage. Even worse -  the evil environmentalists want him to properly dispose of the chips of lead paint after  he removes them. 'The Derb' knows that calling lead dangerous is just liberal hysteria, and would happily feed it to his two children, but he is afraid of the New York Secret Police - they're not that different from Sadaam's Security Forces, after all. He then runs into the problem of actually painting the thing.

Operating in the free market seems to make this problematic - his choice is between hiring people he can afford (who won't speak English and who will do a terrible job while they play "Death Metal at you from the radio in a dilapidated, salacious-decal-festooned truck"), and a nice company, one which is way over his budget. Because he is a true conservative, not a Bush neo-con, he wants to stay under budget, while still not having a person of color on his land. (1/4 Acre) He thus comes to the conclusion that he must do it himself.

Then the temperature rears its ugly head - after all; the average daytime temp in Huntington last month was 52 degrees. Far too cold for 'The Derb.'  "I am not short of advice here, only of will, and of tolerance for outdoor work in midwinter."

Last year, I asked you to send additional armor to protect our soldiers in Iraq  This  year, please send 'The Derb' some warm socks. Please. He just can't tolerate it.

James Brown would undoubtedly have left 'The Derb' his cape, had he only understood.

Josh Errs

I'm a big fan of Josh Marshall, but yesterday he quoted a reader as follows:

It hit me the other day that what the surge is going to accomplish for Bush and Cheney is to take them through these next two years. By the time they can claim to have the extra troops in Bagdhad it's gonna be May or June. They'll be there a few months till everyone has to admit that it isn't working (though in the interim I would predict the first really horrendous event in which our troops suffer a big loss, like 200 men in one blast), then it will be the end of 2007 and...

The italics are mine, and indicate a part of the analysis that I find really gratuitous and off base.

 

Find the Farce

There's a lot of silly posturing and illogical punditing in Charles Krauthammer's piece today, "What did the Iraq Study Group tell us?"  There's nothing new in his doing that.

There's also nothing new in his acting as if he is considering all aspects of a situation, but not really doing so.

He writes that there is a "certain conventional wisdom that the war is already lost. And if that were true, we should indeed be retreating." But Krauthammer never actually addresses the point.  Is the war lost?  If not, he must provide some argument or evidence to support his position.  But in his arrogance, he feels no need to respond. By his dismissive suggestion that it's "conventional wisdom," he thinks he's dismissed the argument. But it's not the same.

Similarly, he asks: if Israel were to disappear tomorrow, "Does anyone imagine... that al-Qaeda stops killing Americans?" By demonstrating his disdain, he believes he has answered the question. In fact most Americans know that if Israel did not exist, and no U.S. bases were in Arab countries, Osama bin-Laden would not have led attacks on the U.S. This is not to say that we should close all of our bases or stop supporting Israel. It is to point out the dishonesty of Krauthammer's arguments.

By lying about al-Qaeda, he also makes it clear that fighting terrorism is not what this war is about.  In fact, almost no reasonable person believes that there can be long term peace in middle east without resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Krauthammer is wonderfully dismissive of the ISG members - a reminder that when push comes to shove, loyalty is a one-way street to the Bushies.  A recommendation by James Baker is responded to with some nasty sarcasm

"On the basis of what grand unifying vision? On the authority of what superior wisdom?  A10-person commission including such Middle East experts as Sandra Day O'Connor, Alan Simpson, and Vernon Jordan?"

Krauthammer himself is an authority on lots and lots of subjects. (North Korea, Steroids,
Immigration Policy, Failings of our Judicial System, Education and Evolution, History, and of course Polygamy, among others)

And even though Condi Rice had absolutely no Middle East experience when she decided that "Osama determined to Strike in the U.S.' was "historical," I never heard Krauthammer complain about her qualifications.

Krauthammer seeks to make a mockery of the commission's report, calling it a "widely-agreed-upon farce" which "has invited ridicule. Seventy nine- recommendations" echoing his earlier crack that it's a  "mishmash of 79 (no less) recommendations." The truth is that if this administration itself were not such an incompetent "widely-agreed-upon farce", 79 recommendations would not have been required.  It's as if team W had asked MapQuest for directions from the White House to the Capitol, and MapQuest, knowing who was asking, felt the need to begin it's instructions:

1. Open Car Door
2. Get Into Car
3. Insert Key into Ignition
4. Check position of mirrors
5. Check to see if Safety Brake is engaged
6. etc.
7. etc.

Clearly, and correctly, the ISG had no faith in the Bush Administration.  Read the report. Some of the recommendations include:

• That the U.S. stop it's "systematic" underrreporting of  "the violence in Iraq  in order to suit the Bush administration's  policy goals." 
  
  • "The panel pointed to one day last July when

    U.S.

    officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.
• "RECOMMENDATION 49: The administration, in full consultation with the relevant committees of Congress, should assess the full future budgetary impact of the war in

  Iraq

  and its potential impact on the future readiness of the force, etc etc

• Metering should be implemented at both ends of the supply line. This step would immediately improve accountability in the oil sector.

A Final Question: If a committee chaired by a longtime friend of the Bush family feels the need to recommend that the adminstration stop lying, start figuirng out the cost of the war, and install some oil meters, which is the "farce?" the adminisitration or the Iraq Study Group?

Hint: you might see if you find any farce in George Bush's leaving the White House to visit Condi at State AND leaving it to visit his boys in the Pentagon - you see, W is seriously reconsidering changing his policy

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.

Iraq and Israel: Where'sthe Pressure?

Atrios gets it right once again when he says that Bush intends to be in Iraq forever. (Although his complaint that no one listens to him is absolutely beyond me)

Still, my cock-eyed optimism allows me hope that some of the ideas being pushed by the Baker commission might have an impact.

A participant in the commission's debate is reported in Today's NY Times as saying that "unless the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki believed that Mr. Bush was under pressure to pull back troops in the near future, there will be zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached.'"

This will probably have no real effect on Bush's actions in Iraq, but it might wake up a few concerned about our relations with Israel. The U.S. has put minimal pressure on Israel to reach a negotiated settlement for decades. In the last six years there has been absolutely none - "there is zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached."  The benign neglect of the Bush administration is anything but benign.

The incredible influence of JINSA and AIPAC, as well as the heavily pro-Likud bias of many of the neo-cons at the top levels of this administration, has jeopardized the future of Israel.

Each skirmish with Hezbollah in Lebanon; each rocket exchange with Hamas, only aggravates the hatred of Israel by it's neighbors - hatred that is becoming increasingly  stronger and more radical every day. Considering the West Bank, Gaza and Israel as one entity, this year is one of the first in which the number of Jews and the number of Arabs living there are roughly equal -about 4,5 million of each. * The birthrate of the Arabs of course is much higher than it is for Jews, and the tipping point is past.  This does not include the tens of millions of Arabs in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc etc who have promised to destroy Israel.

With no pressure for peace, there will be no Israel.

*Inexact and disputed number make this unprecise analysis necessary, but the trends are not deniable.

Insanity and Hanson: What a Team!

(This post is still in draft form. Family health issues made me post it prematurely. (I'll clear it up tomorrow)

Reading Victor David Hanson's piece in the Journal today, as well as Dr. Sanity's rant in her blog, might surprise you. They don't really think that Al Qaeda is the big problem either.

They say it's us. Yup, we Democrats, we liberals, are very close to achieving our goal of destroying Western Civilization.

And it's not just Iraq, Lebanon,Israel, Afghanistan and Iran where we've done our damage - we're also to blame for what is happening in Zimbabwe, as well as a host of other countries.  The fact that the neo-cons have controlled all aspects of the U.S. government for the past six years does not mean that they are responsible for any of the world's ills. We're to blame.  Before asking to be incarcerated at Guantanamo, as I so richly deserve, I need a couple of questions answered.

First, I need them to answer how they came up with their definition of who we are. According to inSanity, we "swoon over despots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." When did Nancy Pelosi Swoon? I missed it.   One of Dr. Sanity's favored commenters is "White Ringer" (and I did not make that up.) In his comment he writes to the Dr.: "As you put it, Jefferson had slaves so therefore he is no different than Hitler."

Please give me the name of the leading Democrat or Liberal who equated Jefferson with Hitler. Her piece constantly suggests that Liberal are in fact socialists, or communists. Please give a name Dr Sanity.

Victor Davis Hanson lives in a similar fantasy world. He declares that "Dreaming of killing an elected President... is a new national pastime." What nation does he live in? There is an English, made for TV movie that does a treatment of possibilities that could attend an assassination. It in no way recommends it. It is hardly the talk of my liberal community. To call it "a new national pastime" is nothing more than a lie.

But lying is the one thing at which Sanity and Hanson excel. Their only other skill is the dishonest demonization of those who disagree with them.

The last thing our national conversation needs in the present crisis is their voice. It is one of hatred and dishonesty.