Let me get this straight

The Justice Department said Friday that it had opened a criminal investigation into the disclosure of classified information about a secret National Security Agency program under which President George W. Bush authorized eavesdropping on people in the United States without a court warrant.

In other words, instead of investigating the actual lawbreaking, these "law enforcement" agents are investigating the stool pigeons who informed the public about it.

Could we have better proof that gangsters are running the government?

Daily Show, now for Windoze only

We're sorry, but MotherLoad will only play on PCs with Windows XP or 2000/SP4+. Click below to make sure you launch our standard media player for video (except MotherLoad exclusives).

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_collection=23917

Yeah, I use Windows, too, but sometimes I like to use other OS's, and even RealPlayer.

Anybody got any ideas WHY they did this at Comedy Central?

Go figure

Is there nothing that will wake Americans up?!?

Early Iraq election results show Shi'ite strength
Monday 19 December 2005, 7:59am EST

"BAGHDAD, Dec 19 (Reuters) - Early results from the count of votes in more than half Iraq's regions, including Baghdad, confirmed a strong showing for the ruling Shi'ite Islamist Alliance, figures from the Electoral Commission showed on Monday."


Meanwhile back at Crawford Ranch:

Bush ratings rise on Iraq election, economy - poll
Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:38 AM GMT

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A successful Iraq election and an improved domestic economic outlook have lifted U.S. President George W. Bush's job-approval rating to its highest level since March, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Monday.

"Forty-seven percent of Americans now approve of Bush's job performance, up from Bush's all-time low approval rating of 39 percent in November and the president's best showing since March when it was 50 percent, ABC said."

Bush is handing Iraq over to pro-Iranian Shi'ite extremists who hate America, but know how to exploit the idiotic people who are running this administration

Bush on Constitution and warrants

Speaker: President George W. Bush
Title: President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Location: Buffalo, NY
Date: 04/20/2004
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York

9:49 A.M. EDT

. . .

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Wingnut for sale!

Doug Bandow, a Cato Institute senior fellow and columnist for Copley News Service took money from Jack Abramoff to write columns, Business Week reported.

In fact Bandow has rather obviously been without principles. His first reaction to the Miers nomination was that appointing someone unqualified wasn't enough, they should be even more unqualified than Miers. His second take, less than a fortnight later, was the opposite.

Now we know who's been pulling his strings.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel

Personally I'd love it if all the Israelis came to the United States. The US has done very well by its Jews (and of course vice versa) so I think if we got more that would be even better. The Middle East's loss would be our gain.

But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is wrong when he says that if others harmed the Jewish community and created problems for the Jewish community, they have to pay the price themselves because the US has discriminated far less against Jews than Iran and other Middle Eastern countries have. Sure, medieval Islam was very tolerant of Jews, arguably more tolerant than medieval Christian societies were. However, Jews need to ask Muslims today "What have you done for us lately?" There are a lot of Israelis, a lot, who are refugees from Muslim persecution, and Muslims cannot continue to say Christians are the only cause of the problem. There are statistically no Jews, NONE, who want to emigrate to Muslim countries. The United States continues to attract Jews, just as it attracts persecuted minorities from around the world. Far more Israelis become Americans than vice versa. How many countries can say that?

Come to think of it, if we can't have all the Jews, could we at least take the Palestinians? They are some of the best educated and most entrepreneurial of all Arabs, with the possible exception of the Lebanese. The United States has done well by its Lebanese and other Arab Americans. I think we could use some more. Send me your huddled masses in the refugee camps, please. I should like to lift my lamp beside the golden door again.

General Clark's latest prescription

His NYT op-ed

My response:

The perfect can be the enemy of the good, and especially in the Middle East you often have to look for a lesser evil. Lesser evilism is actually a major principle in Islamic law.

Here's the problem I see with this column's conclusion:

First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections. Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces. And the federal concept must be modified to preclude the creation of a Shiite autonomous region in the south.

Asking Iraqis to change their constitution is probably unrealistic., and I'm not sure how much attention they are going to pay to the Constitution anyway. Federalism is not well understood in the Arab world, their only word for it is a loan, and this so-called "federalism" may be only a prelude to partition. And what if you got a unitary state? It and its oil revenues would be dominated by the 60% Shi'ites anyway.

I see no good option here, nor much chance of getting influence. Our least bad option now may be handing over to a Shi'ite theocracy. This was our nightmare from Reagan through Clinton, but Bush II has balled things up, perhaps beyond retrieval.

Also, a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence within government institutions is long overdue.

That's been tried. It's called Ba'athism. It is totally discredited and didn't work very well at defusing sectarian tendencies. I think it's too late for us to try doing it now.

Maybe we should have tried to educate our Cold War clients, especially in the Islamic world, about American principles such as democracy, freedom of religion, and federalism. Maybe we should do that now. But we haven't. Secularism was associated with Saddam, just as multi-ethnicity in Yugoslavia was associated with Communism. Speaking of which, I'd be interested to hear your comparisons between Iraq and your experiences in the former Yugoslavia, general.

What's the least bad proposal for an American policy that I have seen yet? This column, even though I respectfully disagree with part of it. Thank you, sir, and I wish you were running American foreign policy, but right now I think our best option was our worst nightmare not long ago. The alternatives in Iraq seem to be civil war, or even a new Al-Qa'ida base. You're right that we can't just pull out, but we have to hand over to someone else, some kind of international force, that we can trust. And no one is going to help Bush out now.

Even worse, I don't see much chance of getting a change in US course before 2008.

When that time comes I'm ready to back you again.


His further discussion:

We have three interests in Iraq: preventing a "terrorist " claim of victory there, leaving behind a stable, integral and peaceful Iraq which doesn't threaten its neighbors, and dealing with other regional problems like Iran and Syria. A hasty pullout certainly will be cited by the terorists as a sign of their success. It will demoralize our friends and supercharge their recruiting. My OP-ED yesterday addresses the second interest. On the third, we need strength to deal with Syria and Iran. A pullout driven by cries of woe and partisanship at home just makes us weaker.

What I tried to say yesterday was that against the Sunnis we should be content to aim for reassimilation into society, rather than just killing them. If we continue to try to kill them we just make more enemies....


my comment:

Bush's classic tar baby policy #48157
Posted by Dan Juma on December 7, 2005 - 8:19pm.

We can't leave without making the situation worse, especially when there is no Iraqi security force to take over. What little there is seems to be Shi'ite militia in disguise.

Yet it is our presence which is inflaming the situation. We have to bring someone else into it, maybe Arab League, or UN, or international Muslim force. Yet the Republican administration will not even invite Democrats into a war cabinet the way FDR had Republicans in his WWII cabinet. Forget about anyone else.

The situation will continue to deteriorate until Bush is replaced. This policy proposal is the least bad option I have seen, and the best positioning for the 2006 and 2008 elections I have seen from a Democrat. Keep trying to explain the situation to people and especially keep trying to influence policy. Iraq is not Vietnam. Vietnam only involved Vietnamese nationalism, Iraq involves Arab and Islamic nationalisms.

Sure, we should try to bring the Sunnis into the society, but ultimately it is up to the Shi'ites to accept them. Can we make these people love each other? I don't think so.

What a crazy world this is

Some people throw away delicacies because they have too much food while others are starving. The Niger famine is particularly reprehensible because the world could see it coming. It is particularly strange because it seems to contradict Amartya Sen's claim that democracies don't have famines.

Most of all, What is to be done?

Find out what you can do.

Too much going on!

I'm working a job and a half, commuting two hours each way twice a week for one. Then my family lives three hours in the other direction, so I don't get to see them as much as I should. Now I understand now why people think bloggers don't have real jobs. A lot of them don't, I guess. Well, at least they're doing something useful, or at least some of them are.

Here's a roundup of stories I didn't have time to blog, but thought were important.

Here's testimony to the Bush administration's record of competence, brought home to the USA by FEMA this past hurricane season:

BBC: "Key Asia militant 'escaped jail'"

But did that guy really escape, or did they kill him and destroy the evidence? Americans don't do things like that? I remember when Americans didn't torture people to death. And I even remember when you could trust the president's word about something. Not every president, I do remember Nixon, but some of them.

Remember when we lived under a constitutional government?

Washington Post: "Rebellion against abuse"

LAST MONTH a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay military base excused himself from a conversation with his lawyer and stepped into a cell, where he slashed his arm and hung himself. This desperate attempted suicide by a detainee held for four years without charge, trial or any clear prospect of release was not isolated. At least 131 Guantanamo inmates began a hunger strike on Aug. 8 to protest their indefinite confinement, and more than two dozen are being kept alive only by force-feeding. No wonder Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has denied permission to U.N. human rights investigators to meet with detainees at Guantanamo: Their accounts would surely add to the discredit the United States has earned for its lawless treatment of foreign prisoners.

Guantanamo, however, is not the worst problem. As The Post's Dana Priest reported yesterday, the CIA maintains its own network of secret prisons, into which 100 or more terrorist suspects have "disappeared" as if they were victims of a Third World dictatorship. Some of the 30 most important prisoners are being held in secret facilities in Eastern European countries -- which should shame democratic governments that only recently dismantled Soviet-era secret police apparatuses. Held in dark underground cells, the prisoners have no legal rights, no visitors from outside the CIA and no checks on their treatment, even by the International Red Cross. President Bush has authorized interrogators to subject these men to "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment that is illegal in the United States and that is banned by a treaty ratified by the Senate. The governments that allow the CIA prisons on their territory violate this international law, if not their own laws.

More on CIA secret jails and the White House (non)response.

Meanwhile the Republican reaction:

GOP Congressional Leaders Seek Leak Probe

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 8, 2005; 7:50 PM

Congress's top Republican leaders today demanded an immediate joint House and Senate investigation into the disclosure of classified information to The Washington Post that detailed a web of secret prisons being used to house and interrogate terrorism suspects.

So where were these guys when the White House was outing CIA agent Valerie Plame?

At least the Democrats in the Senate are trying to get an investigation into real problems:

Christian Science Monitor: Senate to probe how case for war was made

Captain Ian Fishback's letter

has been taken down by the Washington Post, but it is available at Balkinization.

There is also some interesting discussion of it at the Wes Clark "Securing America" website. More here.

Why I'm a Clarkie

Top ten reasons why I supported Wes Clark for president in 2004 and will support him again in 2008 (crossposted at Clark Community Network)

10. He's got policies I agree with.
From affirmative action to the war in Iraq, General Clark articulates well the positions I hold dear, even when they are controversial. When other Democrats came out for a deadline for Iraqi withdrawal I had grave misgivings. I'm not a vet, but I know enough military history to know that setting a deadline for withdrawal is equivalent to handing the country over to civil war and/or terrorists. General Clark was able to explain that to other Democrats, and get them to accept it, much better than I could. And of course he was against the war to begin with, he's just savvy enough to realize that once the war starts the situation is different.

9. I trust him to handle novel situations.
Politics in a republic (and this is still a republic more than a democracy) is not so much about the people choosing the policies directly as it is about choosing office holders we trust to make the decisions for us. I trust General Clark to make those decisions far more than I trust any other Democrat likely to run for president. Bush isn't even in the running there.

8. He's a centrist
This may sound strange coming from a former DSA socialist, but times have changed. The country doesn't need another polarizing figure, from the left or the right, in the midst of two wars (one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq - don't buy that Bush bull about it being one big GWOT or G-SAVE or whatever they're calling it now). We need someone who can pull us together while we confront our enemies abroad.

7. He knows a lot about foreign affairs.
He's lived overseas, he's fought overseas, he's worked with foreign leaders. This is an exceptionally erudite presidential candidate with exceptional theoretical and practical grasp of foreign affairs. In today's increasingly interconnected, globalized world that's more important than most Americans realize. I live overseas and it's very important to me.

6. He understands long term issues like global warming.
He's not just narrowly focused on military or even diplomatic aspects of national security. He realizes that securing our life together on this planet concerns the environment just as much as it does our military. He's not afraid to pick the best minds in the world to get the best advice and he's got the brains to understand what the problems are and what the possible solutions are.

5. He's not afraid to dump his supporters if he has to.
This may sound strange coming from someone who put his name on the original Draft Clark website, but it didn't faze me that General Clark dumped the founders of the Draft Clark movement and picked up the best available advisers from the failed campaigns of other Democrat candidates, especially Bob Graham, A good leader needs to get the best people he can. I've had enough of loyalty and cronyism to last me a lifetime from the son-of-a-Bush administration occupying the White House now. Abe Lincoln appointed his Republican rivals to his cabinet, and even a Democrat as Secretary of War, because they were the best people he could get. I hope General Clark appoints his rivals, and even honest Republicans, to his cabinet. If he ever appoints me to anything I plan to ask him why he thinks I am qualified. He better have a convincing answer, but I'm sure he will. I trust him that much.

4. He's not a politician.
This is part of being a general, I suppose. They're the only other types we elect as presidents. Other politicians come out of state houses and make a big deal about not being Washington insiders, but they're local politicians just aching to get into the big leagues. They've been bought and are beholden to local special interests in a way real outsiders like General Clark are not.
The press jumped on a lot of General Clark's early misstatements in the 2004 presidential race, but to me they simply proved that he was really being honest and taking positions that he thought were best, consequences be damned. He's shown that same ability to learn quickly in his campaign, and overcame his rough start. In 2008 he'll be more than ready.

3. He's really smart.
Clark was a Rhodes scholar, and can think on his feet. He's obviously extremely intelligent, and his knowledge base isn't limited to military affairs. He's informed himself about economics, social policy and other matters, and what's most important in these changing times, he's shown that he is a very fast learner.

2. He's not afraid of people with brains.
This is a bit of a corollary with number 2, but it's not the same thing. Everyone thinks FDR was really smart because he had all these brilliant ideas. He didn't really come up with those ideas, though. He had a "brains trust" to feed him ideas. They were flattered to be around the president and he really enjoyed being around brilliant people and being stimulated by them. The results were great.
I am not one of those who thinks W is dumb. I think he's dyslexic. He can't read, so he is short on information. He knows people think he's dumb, so he resents well-read, intelligent people. His disdain for such people shows through. Anti-intellectuals love him for it, but he deprives himself of the best thinking in the nation and the world. Two heads are better than one, and there is no leader anywhere in the world or anywhere in history who doesn't need to get the best advice he can, from the best people available. Bush isn't getting it and I think Clark would.

and the number one reason I support Clark is:

1. He's a general.
I've been shouting for a general since getting sick of watching all the sleazy Republicans at the 1976 Republican national convention. "POLITICIANS ARE ALL CROOKS!" I shouted "WE SHOULD HAVE A MILITARY PRESIDENT!"
"Wha, what are you saying?" a friend gasped.
"OH SHUT UP!" I said "WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF MILITARY PRESIDENTS, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON TO DWIGHT DAVID EISENHOWER! AND SOME OF 'EM WERE PRETTY GOOD!"
"Hey, what's the matter with you?" other friends chimed in "What? Are you against Andy Jackson now?"
"Oh." the guy calmed down. "Oh yeah. What about Grant?"
Well, he had us there. Being a general doesn't always guarantee a great president, but that just brings us back to all the other points.

So what am I hoping to get out of a Clark administration? More funding for foreign language and area studies for one thing. Even Republicans in the military have been in favor of that. The military were the only thing that saved NDEA Title VI FLAS funding during the Reagan years, and McCain was the only one of the final four in the 2000 race who talked about "English plus" (one of my pet issues.) I expect even more support for it from President Clark when he moves into the White House in 2009.

St. Vladimir Lenin

Why won't Lenin rot? The Bolsheviks wouldn't let him.

Russians Divided on Lenin Burial — Poll

Part of Russia's "dual faith" (the syncretic survivals of paganism in the Russian Orthodox Church) has been belief in the uncorruptibility of the relics of saints. In other words, the remains of truly holy people can't rot.

The Bolsheviki pickled Lenin by some still secret techniques, put his corpse on display, then ordered Russians to file slowly past his remains. This would convince Russians that Lenin was in fact the most holy of holy men that Holy Mother Russia had ever produced. So much for scientific socialism!

Isn't it time for everyone to admit that Lenin was neither saint nor devil incarnate, but simply another human being, who had his faults and his virtues, who shuffled off this mortal coil as we all have or will? He is not here in the flesh anymore. Maybe he has ceased to exist, maybe he is in a place of reward or punishment, but the conspicuous display of his pickled corpse does not serve any purpose, useful or not, in the 21st century.

At the very least, the Communist Party should stop trying to exploit ignorant superstitious Russians. As education spreads there should be fewer and fewer of them in the future.

Everyone who loves America

should listen to this talk now!

Colin Powell's former chief of staff at the State Department, a man of impeccable experience in the military, diplomatic and academic worlds, analyzes what is going wrong with US national security policy and what we have to do to fix it. Everyone should listen to this man, because he has some extremely important things to say.

Islamic Puritanism

I'm not going to get involved in the argument over whether the latest Al-Qa'ida letter is fake. I am going to use the opportunity to point out a strong similarity between so-called "Islamic Fundamentalism" and Puritanism.

from Reuters:

"Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and critic of the U.S. war against terrorism, also said the letter appeared authentic.

"Scheuer said the letter's admission of setbacks were typical of al Qaeda. "They have always been almost puritanical in talking about setbacks.""

Nowadays Americans tend to think of "Puritan" as a synonym for prude, and focus on such negative aspects of the movement as witchcraft trials, but in fact the Puritans were heavily involved in the growth of Parliamentary supremacy and eventually democracy in the English speaking world.

What they didn't give us is the one positive tradition that most American history texts that students get attribute to them. I'm speaking of religious tolerance. It didn't come from Massachusetts. It came from Rhode Island, where refugees from Puritanism fled.

The parallels, for better or worse, between Puritanism and modern Islamic extremism could easily be stretched too far, but they do exist. Religious people, "people of faith" if you will, have been trying for centuries to come to terms with the modern world. It has been rough. Islamic civilization is starting, in its own way, to go through a process that western Christian civilization has been going through, too.

President violates Constitution

from the Washington Post:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 12: "President Bush sought again today to reassure conservatives about his Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, and he said that Ms. Miers's religion was pertinent to the overall discussion about her."

The US Constitution says (Article VI, Clause 3): The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]

Conservatives and Fundamentalists complained that liberals were trying to apply a religious litmus test against Roberts, and one Senator (anyone remember which one?) pointed out that they were accusing him of violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution. Now these same Conservatives and Fundamentalists are trying to apply a religious test for the civil office of the Supreme Court.

Personally, I think Jesus talked about hypocrites so much because he knew what his followers would turn into. Muhammad talked about them a lot, too. I don't consider myself a follower of Muhammad, and I don't know if he was just echoing Jesus on this, but both their religions are full of hypocrites. We just happen to have more "Christian" hypocrites in the United States.

John Conyers and Harper's magazine

"Preserving Democracy describes three phases of Republican chicanery: the run-up to the election, the election itself, and the post-election cover-up. The wrongs exposed are not mere dirty tricks (though Bush/Cheney also went in heavily for those) but specific violations of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act."

It's not paranoia, it's well documented in respectable, serious sources. Read about it here.

IMPEACH BUSH!

Finally it's starting to get some attention. Next we have to get some traction.

Who ARE these guys, anyway?

Here's an analysis from the BBC:


"The insurgency has no single spokesman, nor any shared long-term aim. Where some groups, for instance, are fighting for a Sunni Muslim caliphate, others foresee a Shia theocracy for Iraq."

European terrorists graduating from Iraq

From France's top antiterrorist Investigating Magistrate, Jean-Louis Bruguiere:

"Today, antiterrorist suspects are eyeing a new generation of radicals who have been born and bred in Europe -- or have spent a large part of their lives living on the continent."

"Islamic extremists are returning to France from Iraq's battlegrounds with the skills and desire to carry out attacks in Europe, a top anti-terror judge said Thursday - warning that Europe needs a better-coordinated effort to face the threat."

more here:

and here:

my conservative side

I am a liberal, ex-Socialist in fact, but I have always had a number of opinions that could better be described as conservative. Like most people, I have an individualistic mix of opinions that change over time.

I've been amused in the past few years at how many of my conservative ideas have become liberal. I believe in a balanced budget. Not each and every year, of course. I'm enough of a Keynesian (and was even as a Socialist) to know that counter-cyclical spending works both ways. You run a deficit to prime the pump in a recession, and you run a surplus in a boom, but if it doesn't balance out in the long run you have to print money to cover the defecit, and that causes inflation, or worse, stagflation. And I'm old enough to remember the curse of stagflation in the 1970's, and the misery index.

I believe in a strong defense, and I've always been anti-Communist (if you don't understand how a Socialist could be anti-Communist, please read about the Socialist International).

Now I find that the conservative Republican party activists don't believe in a balanced budget and think we can borrow money from the Red Chinese Communists finance their tax cuts. Think about this. Self-styled conservatives are mortgaging their own country to the Red Chinese Communists to buy votes. Well, some of these conservatives are really neo-Confederates who make little secret of their hatred for the United States, but most of them loudly criticize the patriotism of anyone who questions their suicidal fiscal and monetary policies, and their friendship with Communists who make no secret of the fact that they hate our system and our way of life. When Reagan was mortgaging the country to buy votes he at least borrowed the money from the Germans and the Japanese, democratic countries who are our friends.

And don't even get me started on how this Bush administration ignored the threat from bin Ladin, bungled (at best) the search for him and instead focused American anger and our military on an unrelated dictator who was no threat to us. But I've already written about that. And I'll write about it again. I just wanted to write about something else.

Jihad and Crusade

There's a long debate about the meaning of the Arabic word "jihad". Most of us know it as "holy war" although there are many other meanings.

Some have criticized those who want to put emphasis on the more nuanced, modernist, or Sufic meanings of the word. This is legitimate, but there are other meanings, and sometimes they can be more valid. I remember something Bernard Lewis wrote about an old Orientalist joke that all Arabic words have at least 5 meanings: a dictionary meaning, its opposite, a meaning to do with horses, a meaning to do with camels, and (what did the other meaning have to do with? sex maybe? - serves me right for trying to tell an old Orientalist joke on a blog. Never mind, sorry, let's just get back to my point.)

Anyway, the inherent vagueness of Arabic vocabulary, which makes the language so excellent for poetry, is a problem here. Arabic speakers are often expert at using deliberate ambiguity, and in fact that is easy to do in the language. What did any particular Arabic speaker mean by "jihad"? Perhaps they themselves weren't sure.

Another example would be the Qur'anic justification for jihad, the phrase "fitnah ashaddan min al-qatl" or "Fitna is worse than slaughter." What is fitnah? Some define it as dissent, and Muslim rulers have used this to justify capital punishment for dissidents. Other define it as oppression, and use it as a justification for social revolution. Others define it as intolerance, and combine it with the other Qur'anic phrase, "la ikrah fi'ddiin" (no compulsion in religion) as a call to religious tolerance. It may be damning with faint praise to call Islam one of the most tolerant religions of the Middle Ages, but it is still a historical fact that it was tolerant.

There are even Muslim pacifists who define fitna as nothing. I'm not a Muslim so I'm not going to tell them they are heretics. I do know enough Arabic to know that the problems inherent in semantics are doubly problematic in that language. It ain't easy learning Arabic, although I wish I had time to learn more these days.

A good parallel in English to the problem of defining "jihad" in Arabic would be the word "crusade". Historically, as with the historic meaning of the word "jihad", it meant "holy war", specifically a war called by the Pope to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims. Today it has a wider range of meanings, including calls for moral reform. The similar evolution of the word "jihad" should be apparent to anyone.

But this is not meant just to exonerate Muslims from their using a deliberate, sometimes disingenuous, ambiguity. It means they must themselves give understanding if they expect to get it. When President Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center in New York and called for a crusade against terror, Muslims and others jumped on him for insensitivity. Maybe so, and I certainly wouldn't want this interpreted as support of Bush, or even his faux pas, but if Muslims demand that others respect their ambiguity when they use the word "jihad" they must be prepared to extend a similar respect to the similar ambiguities in the word "crusade".

After all, Thomas Aquinas's theory of "just war" actually owed a lot to Muslim philosophers' theories of jihad. We all have more in common than many of us are inclined to believe, much less respect.

I've been away

and I've been thinking about this blog.

I've been a little taken aback at how monomaniacally it's been obsessed with security. Part of that may be that it's what I am least able to talk about under my name. I need this anonymity, and the chance to vent, if only to myself, about it. Furthermore, If I post about other topics there's more chance of outing me.

But it does give a sense of unbalance.

I will continue to post about security.

But I'll try to post more about other things, too.

spinning beyond paranoia

from the New York Times:

"Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00"

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: August 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 - "More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress."

read it and weep

Great post from Juan Cole

He really sums up the history of this war well:

"The Bush administration responded to these attacks [on September 11] by the former proteges of Ronald Reagan by putting the old Mujahideen warlords back in charge of Afghanistan's provinces, allowing Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to escape, declaring that Americans no longer needed a Bill of Rights, and suddenly invading another old Reagan protege, Saddam's Iraq, which had had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the US. The name given this bizarre set of actions by Bush was "the War on Terror.""

Bush in a box?

from The New York Times:


"But Bush's political opponents said the president is in a box. In their view, either Rove and Libby kept the president in the dark about their actions, making them appear evasive at a time Bush was demanding that his staff cooperate fully, or Rove and Libby had told the president and he was not forthcoming in his public statements about his knowledge of their roles."

Bush is either deliberately outing CIA agents or he's an idiot, or both.

Is this man a traitor? Or a fool?

MSM starts to get it!

"Why Iraq has made us less safe"

By DANIEL BENJAMIN
Monday, July 11, 2005; Posted: 4:10 p.m. EDT (20:10 GMT)

"The conflict between radical Islam and the West, like all ideological struggles, is about competing stories. The audience is the global community of Muslims.

"America portrays itself as a benign and tolerant force that, with its Western partners, holds the keys to progress and prosperity. Radical Islamists declare that the universe is governed by a war between believers and World Infidelity, which comes as an intruder into the realm of Islam wearing various masks: secularism, Zionism, capitalism, globalization.

"World Infidelity, they argue, is determined to occupy Muslim lands, usurp Muslims' wealth and destroy Islam.

"Invading Iraq, however noble the U.S. believed its intentions, provided the best possible confirmation of the jihadist claims and spurred many of Europe's alienated Muslims to adopt the Islamist cause as their own.

"The evidence is available in the elaborate underground railroad that has brought hundreds of European Muslims to the fight in Iraq. And the notion that the West would enhance its security by occupying Iraq has proved utterly illusory."

Finally!

It's starting to come out, how much these people work against America.

Here's what I'd like to see, but don't hold your breath:


Karl Rove, aka Bush's brain, has been caught outing a CIA agent for political revenge against someone who wasn't even in opposition to Bush, but who was just trying to do his non-political job for the US government.

Is there nothing these people won't stoop to?

Or are they really trying to destroy America?

Oh, GREAT!

CIA says Iraq is now a terrorist training ground

Wed Jun 22, 3:35 PM ET

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, officials said on Wednesday."

If you liked September 11, you'll LOVE Bush's second coming. :-(

and then they try to accuse the Democrats of what THEY THEMSELVES DO!

from the Washington Post:

"Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

"He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.""

WHAT CAN BE DONE?!?!?

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO MOVE AGAINST BIN LADIN.

THEN THEY ACCUSE DEMOCRATS OF BEING SOFT ON TERRORISM!

and there are Americans who actually believe them!

The don't even want anyone who COULD find bin Ladin

"When FBI counterterrorism managers were interviewed under oath, they said terrorism expertise wasn't important when promoting or hiring agents"

Wow!

Not only are they not going after bin Ladin, they don't want to hire anyone who COULD go after bin Ladin.

Feel safer after electing Bush, America?

"In sworn testimony that contrasts with their promises to the public, the FBI's top counterterrorism managers say Middle East and terrorism expertise wasn't important in choosing the agents they promoted after Sept. 11."

This whole story is just too unbelievable, that they are finally admitting, after the election, that they just don't give a fried flip about national security, they would rather abolish Social Security. What more do you need to impeach this administration?

They really DON'T want to catch bin Ladin!

"The director of the CIA says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the United States' respect for sovereign nations makes it more difficult to capture the al-Qaida chief."

Bush's incompetence in foreign policy was foreshadowed when he couldn't name the Pakistani president during the campaign.

Anyone else remember when Bush warned Syria not to allow any "Bathists" into the country? I mean he really did NOT know that Syria was under Ba'ath Party rule. As if his father had warned China not to allow any Communists into the country.

Under Bush pere and Clinton our worst nightmare in Iraq was a Shi'ite theocracy allied with Iran. Now under Bush fils it's our best option. Ayatollah Sistani plans on us handing Iraq over to him. What's the choice? Civil War with us in the middle? That's a real possibility now. Civil War without us? Great, then the alternative to Shi'ite theocracy is al-Qa'ida theocracy. Invading Iran? Please, we have enough problems with Iraq.

Not to mention the economy. The US is going down the tubes, and those of us who try to point it out and stop it are reviled as traitors. What a country!

They've given up finding bin Ladin!

The Bush administration is reviewing its anti-terror strategy with an eye on broadening its current focus from targeting Al-Qaeda leaders linked to the 9/11 attacks to "violent extremism" a leading American daily reported on Sunday, May 29.

"What we really want now is a strategic approach to defeat violent extremism," a senior administration official told the Washington Post on condition of anonymity.

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-05/29/article06.shtml

Top 10 Questions Progressives Should be Prepared to Answer

Questions from "Democracy Arsenal"

Answers from myself:

1. So? He wasn't a threat. Sure he's a nasty meany, but so are the guys who run Equatorial Guinea, Myanmar, North Korea and China. Get the Middle East moving? Where are they going? Besides, since when is Wilsonianism a Republican idea? Since it lost its mind?

2. Yes. The UN is what we make it. It's time the US led the world again, instead of going off on crazy crusades against it.

3. Work to get rid of EVERYONE's nuclear weapons, even our own. Good grief, the isolationists of the 1920s had the Washington Naval conference. What's wrong with today's unilateralists?

4. Yes, but you can't impose democracy on people. We never imposed it on Germany and Japan, we just gave it back to them. We could start at home by enforcing the 1965 Voting Rights Act and counting our own votes. PAPER BALLOTS!

5. How is it against our interests to be better liked? Most of the anti-Americanism I've experienced is so ignorant it's not funny. Let educate people overseas about American reality. More Fulbrights!

6. Most of the ones I've talked to actually think Saddam Hussein actually had something to do with 9/11. Way to go Faux News!

7. The track record. We haven't had a good foreign policy president since Kennedy, or maybe Carter. Reagan caused the end of Communism? Please, that's classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. Clinton? Didn't have a foreign policy, his Secretaries of State had them for him. Bush I? Hey, he got the world to go along with us. I thought you were implying in your questions that that was a bad idea. Face it, Bush II is blowing the war(s), not making hard choices, and not even understanding what the choices are.

8. As long as we are part of the equation, and the other countries involved are democracies, yes, I think the US should cooperate with the extension of international law.

9. The Kellog-Briant pact is still legally binding. Agressive war against a power that doesn't threaten you is against the law. Tojo got hanged for it.

10. For one thing we have a direct national interest in seeing to it that Mexico becomes developed before illegal aliens overwhelm us. Wingnuts like to organize vigilantes to keep the Mexicans out, but if they had good jobs at home they wouldn't come here. I'd also like to see something done about oppression of workers in China. How come wingnuts get so worked up about Saddam and ignore Red China?

Even FauXNews.com sees that the Downing Street Memo is Mostly Ignored in U.S.

FOXNews.com - Politics - Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in U.S.

"Led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the signatories are mostly representatives who opposed the war in Iraq and make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

"Conyers says the mainstream media have ignored the story and let President Bush off the hook. He noted that liberal blogs and alternative media have been keeping the story alive. "But these voices are too few and too diffuse to overcome the blatant biases of our cable channels and the negligence and neglect of our major newspapers," Conyers said in a recent statement.

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said there is "no need" to respond to the memos, the authenticity of which has not been denied."

Galloway's testimony

Simply Appalling has Galloway's testimony:

"[Note: While many copies of Mr. Galloway's opening statement are available on the Web, this is the only complete transcript of which I am aware. Unfortunately, the United States Senate has declined to make the transcript of Mr. Galloway's testimony available. Several readers have asked the source of the transcription. Aside from the opening statement, this transcription was done the hard way--by listening repeatedly to Norm Coleman mumble.]"

...

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.

"I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.

"I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.

"I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies."

Good for you Mr. Galloway!

Shame on you, Mr. Coleman!

Why tell W?

from the Louisville Courier-Journal


"When a small private plane entered restricted Washington airspace Wednesday, the ensuing evacuations at the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court were no drill."

. . .

"The President, who was exercising on his mountain bike in a Maryland wildlife park, was not briefed until well after the crisis had passed.

"Mr. Bush was not told of the incident until more than 50 minutes after two F-16 jets were scrambled to meet the intruder. He got the news more than 45 minutes after the evacuations began and the alert status was raised to red. In fact, he was clueless until after the small plane had landed."

. . .

"That is unacceptable. The President is in charge of the nation's security. If authorities believe the capital may be under attack, he must be told."

Does anyone really need evidence that Bush is losing the war?

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Anti-US protests spread to Kabul

According to the BBC, college students "chanted "Death to America!" and carried banners stating "Those who insult the Koran should be brought to justice.""

Lest you think that college students are necessarily out of touch with the population, "Similar protests took place in other parts of the country. In the town of Mohammed Agha, 40 kms south of Kabul, protesters ransacked government offices and the compounds of two Western aid agencies. A mobile phone mast was toppled.

"The BBC's Andrew North in Kabul says that the authorities are concerned that the demonstrations are being orchestrated.

"Our correspondent says that what may be significant is that so far all they have all happened in the east or south.

"This is where US forces are concentrated in their battle against the Taleban and other militants."

Way to win those hearts and minds, W! :-(

David Horowitz never stopped thinking like a Communist!

David Horowitz’s War on Rational Discourse

By Graham Larkin

" . . . L.A. tabloid editor David Horowitz, liar extraordinaire and author of the incomparable bullshitting manual The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits (Spence Publishing, 2000). This book, much applauded by Karl Rove, promulgates a political endgame in which brute force triumphs over any notions of intelligence, truth or fair play. The author contends that “[y]ou cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can only do it by following Lenin’s injunction: ‘In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent’s argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.’”

Al Qaeda's 'No. 3': The big catch that wasn't? | csmonitor.com

Al Qaeda's 'No. 3': The big catch that wasn't? | csmonitor.com

"The Sunday Times of London cites European intelligence experts as saying that Libbi "was not the terrorists' third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as 'among the flotsam and jetsam' of the organisation.""

How many number 3's have been caught by now?

Col. David. H. Hackworth, 1930-2005

Soldiers for the Truth:

"Washington, D.C., May 5, 2005 – Col. David H. Hackworth, the United States Army's legendary, highly decorated guerrilla fighter and lifelong champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and grunt, died Wednesday in Mexico. He was 74 years old. The cause of death was a form of cancer now appearing with increasing frequency among Vietnam veterans exposed to the defoliants called Agents Orange and Blue."

World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004 by U.S. Count

World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004 by U.S. Count:

"'What it effectively means is that the Bush administration and the CIA haven't been putting the staff resources necessary and have missed 80 percent of the world's terrorist incidents' in past years, said a Democratic congressional aide. 'How can you have an effective counterterrorism policy from that?'"

Who said the United States, under Bush, had an effective anti-terrorism policy? :-(

I just have to love Juan Cole

Informed Comment: "Matthew Haughey says he won't read our blogs if we use the term 'mainstream media' (a.k.a. MSM).

"A news flash for Matt: We don't care.

"We don't care if you read our web logs.

"The difference, Matt, is that we are independent actors, not part of a small set of multi-billion dollar corporations. The difference is that we are not under the constraints of making a 15% profit. The difference is that we are a distributed information system, whereas MSM is like a set of stand-alone mainframes. The difference is that we can say what we damn well please.

"If we were the mainstream media (perhaps better thought of as corporate media), we would care if you threatened to stop reading us. Because although we might be professional news people, we would have the misfortune to be working for corporations that are mainly be about making money."

FBI protects Osama bin Laden's privacy

Keep pushing this:

out-law.com - legal news and business guides: "The FBI has used privacy protection measures to withhold personal information about Osama bin Laden, leader of the al Qaeda terrorist group, according to US anti-corruption group Judicial Watch."

It's too outrageous to believe.

p.s. JW is not an "anti-corruption group". It was set up by Richard Mellon Scaife to push impeachment of Clinton.

Politics matter because life, death issues are invovled

The Ball State Daily News - SWIMMING IN BROKEN GLASS: Politics matter because life, death issues are invovled

"If Al Gore had been elected president, we would not have invaded Iraq. The neoconservative lust for Saddam Hussein would have had no influence in a Gore administration. It's that simple."

Heck if Al Gore had been elected there never would have been a 9/11. Even if there had, everyone would have been saying "Thank God we didn't elect that dummy W!"

20 Amazing Facts about Voting in the USA

20 Amazing Facts about Voting in the USA

" Did you know....
1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S."

and guess who they work for. :-(

Democracy: it was nice while it lasted

All the President's Votes?

"A Quiet Revolution is Taking Place in US Politics. By the Time It's Over, the Integrity of Elections Will be in the Unchallenged, Unscrutinized Control of a Few Large - and Pro-Republican - Corporations. Andrew Gumbel wonders if democracy in America can survive"

. . .

"John Zogby, arguably the most reliable pollster in the United States, who has freely admitted he "blew" last November's elections and does not exclude the possibility that foul play was one of the factors knocking his calculations off course."

Lies and the lying liars that tell them

Daily Kos :: Media Debating Whether To Ignore Frist's Lie

And as if that weren't bad enough. . .

Video on GOP filibuster of Supreme Court nominee shows how the Republicans, who now claim no one ever filibustered a judicial nominee in American history, themselves were mounting filibusters within the memories of most people alive today.

Do they think people are stupid, are they just stupid (or stoned?) themselves, or what?

Moussaoui: a window on terror trials

From the Christian Science Monitor (I love that newspaper):

Moussaoui: a window on terror trials | csmonitor.com: "For all the billions spent on investigations into the events of Sept. 11, one might reasonably have expected more results, says Mr. Hess. While Germany, and now Spain, have put accused terrorist logisticians and other figures in the dock for alleged crimes related to 9/11, the nation where they occurred has only Moussaoui to show for its efforts."

Where do I get the idea that Bush isn't interested in finding bin Ladin? Maybe it's because he's said he's not interested in finding bin Ladin. Did you know that presidents can be impeached for treason?

Bin Laden can still be found, Rice says

Bin Laden can still be found, Rice says:

"It is more than three-and-a-half years since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, which made bin Laden the world's most hunted man.

"Speaking to a conference of American newspaper editors in Washington, Dr Rice said she is confident that he will be captured."

Also, the Chinese trade deficit check is in the mail, and W will still respect us in the morning.

Why stop John Bolton?

Who Is John Bolton? - Center for American Progress: "Perhaps the most apt critique of his nomination to this post was offered by Sen. Joseph Biden who said, 'I have always voted against nominees who oppose the avowed purpose of the position for which they have been nominated.'"

Bush's nominees, with the partial exception of Gonzales, seem to make a habit and a strategy out of lying in hearings, pretending for a few hours that they no longer believe the positions they took all their lives. What hypocrisy!

Fukuyama’s moment: a neocon schism opens

I'm sorry I only found this now. It's from last October, just before the election. It's the best analysis of Francis Fukuyama's split with mainstream neoconservatism I've seen.

The only thing that would surprise me about Francis is if he ever stopped surprising people. He has this wonderful intellectual honesty and he's never been afraid to change his mind about things. There are not too many conservatives I can say that about these days.

Does anyone reading this know a good, more recent source of information about his new magazine, The American Interest?

Christian terrorist's manifesto

USATODAY.com - Excerpts from Eric Rudolph's statement: "I ask these peaceful Christian law-abiding Pro-Life citizens, is there any point at which all of the legal remedies will not suffice and you would fight to end the massacre of children?"

"You so-called 'Pro-Life,' 'good Christian people' who point your plastic fingers at me saying that I am a 'murderer,' that 'two wrongs don't make a right,' that even though 'abortion is murder, those who would use force to stop the murder are morally the same,' I say to you that your lies are transparent."

Just to remind us that there are Christian terrorists, too. Suicide bombing was pioneered by Hindu terrorists on Sri Lanka, and sarin gas was put on the Tokyo subway by Buddhist terrorists.

The only thing different about Muslim terrorists is that they are better at it, and Bush can't (or won't) catch them.

Should the US establish permanent military bases in Afghanistan?

CNN - Content

1. Yes
2. No
3. There is no such thing as "permanent". We should have them until they get bin Ladin.

Bin Laden Bribed Afghan Militias

Bin Laden Bribed Afghan Militias, German Officials Says: "Osama bin Laden had been able to elude capture after the American invasion of Afghanistan by paying bribes to the Afghan militias delegated the task of finding him."

And the US wouldn't (I would never say couldn't) put up more money? Shame on W!

Videos Challenge Accounts of Convention Unrest

Think you have a right to peacably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances? Think again:

Videos Challenge Accounts of Convention Unrest: "A videotape shot by a documentary filmmaker showed Mr. Kyne agitated but plainly walking under his own power down the library steps, contradicting the vivid account of Officer Wohl, who was nowhere to be seen in the pictures. Nor was the officer seen taking part in the arrests of four other people at the library against whom he signed complaints."

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -Juvenal
(Who will guard the guards themselves?)

Entertainment Weekly's EW.com | Interview: Jane Fonda on her politics

Jane Fonda on her politics:

"People don't realize, I don't think, that I had spent three years working with active-duty soldiers in the Army, in the Navy, in the Marines, and in the Air Force — all over this country. I put together an entertainment tour, with Donald Sutherland and others, that traveled to military bases throughout the United States and in the Philippines, Hawaii, and Okinawa. [We would] perform outside of military bases. I had spoken to hundreds and hundreds of soldiers. I heard their stories. I talked to their wives. It's what later informed Coming Home, which I made in order to help people understand what was happening to men who were coming back from Vietnam. So I had this history with soldiers. It was soldiers that brought me into the antiwar movement, and soldiers that taught me everything I knew about the war."

The New Pentagon Papers

The New Pentagon Papers: "From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. This seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it.

"I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies.

"I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.

"While this commandeering of a narrow segment of both intelligence production and American foreign policy matched closely with the well-published desires of the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, many of us in the Pentagon, conservatives and liberals alike, felt that this agenda, whatever its flaws or merits, had never been openly presented to the American people. Instead, the public story line was a fear-peddling and confusing set of messages, designed to take Congress and the country into a war of executive choice, a war based on false pretenses, and a war one year later Americans do not really understand. That is why I have gone public with my account."

Yahoo! News - Villagers Riot in China, 50 Police Said Injured

Hang in there, Nationalist China!

Yahoo! News - Villagers Riot in China, 50 Police Said Injured: "a string of outbreaks of rural violence as the world's most populous nation faces disgruntlement over a widening wealth gap and widespread corruption.

"The ruling Communist Party is keen to curb dissent and preserve social stability, but a spate of recent protests and their scale illustrate the extent of grievances in rural China."

When the Chinese economy inevitably tanks, maybe a democratic Republic of China can finally retake power on the mainland, if, that is, they can finally accept land reform for the inevitability it was.

Heck , if they promise the farmers their land they could really reverse the fortunes of the Communist Party!

Wes Clark's Iraq testimony before House Armed Services Committee | WesPAC

Wes Clark's Iraq testimony before House Armed Services Committee | WesPAC: "More fundamentally, with its armed occupation of Iraq, the Administration lost focus, and was substantially distracted from worldwide efforts against Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network are still at large, terrorist incidents have continued to take innocent life, and U.S. military actions in Iraq have provided a magnet for recruiting and training large numbers of extremist youth in continuing warfare. If Iraq is today the center of the war against terrorism, as some in the Administration have contended, it is not because the terrorists were there originally, but because they have been recruited there to the fight against us. Our military action in Iraq is more a catalyst for terrorists than a cure. Whatever results may ultimately come from removing Saddam Hussein from power, ending the terrorist threat against the United States of America is not likely to be one of them."

Winning Hearts and minds by cutting them out

A recent story/interview onThe Black Commentator - New Revelations about Racism in the Military - Issue 133 confirms what has been suspected all along. Too many in the military think we are at war with the entire Middle East, or Islam, which is not often well separated in even the best American minds.

Maybe this is worse in the reserves, which are less than professional about their military vocation anyway. But then maybe we shouldn't have sent the reserves there in the first place. Maybe we shouldn't have gone into Iraq at all, starting a second war before our first war, with al-Qa'ida, was finished.

The War on Judges

John Conyers, Jr. -- ConyersBlog has something important to say about the increasingly dangerous lawlessness of the religious right in the United States.

"My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop."

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Device lets you out-Fox your TV

The New device blocks Faux News!

"Formerly a registered Republican, even a precinct captain, Kimery became an independent in the 1990s when he said the state party stopped taking input from everyday members."

Why Should I Pay For Someone Else's Education? by Ernest Partridge - Democratic Underground

Why Should I Pay For Someone Else's Education? by Ernest Partridge - Democratic Underground

You have to pay for someone else's education so that instead of becoming criminals they will become tax-paying citizens, to support the system that defends your property.

The property tax is still used for it because "There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue."

"Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds;"

- "Agrarian Justice" by Tom Paine.

But in the 21st century it is rather anachronistic to pay for public schools with the property tax. Income tax would be better.

(More on Paine and agrarian justice)

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots, No. 192 - Democratic Underground

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots, No. 192 - Democratic Underground

Why stop at only ten?

"Since the Pope passed away on Saturday it seems there's been a complete blackout on any other news stories - but the Top 10 is here to remind you of the conservative idiots from last week that still deserve attention this week. Tom DeLay (1) was making threats, while the Power-Hungry Maniacs (2) were getting encouragement from his words. George W. Bush (3) and his administration were apparently not to blame for the war in Iraq, despite starting said war. And Jeff Gannon reared his ugly head once more, giving everyone an unpleasant case of Gannon Reflux (4). Meanwhile, Soggy Conservatives (5) had to ask for towels several times last week, Ann Coulter (6) was deputizing burly college boys, and Sean Hannity (7) was demonstrating how to remain polite in the face of rude liberals. Elsewhere, Condoleezza Rice (8) dabbled in a spot of projection, Jim Welker (9) was flogging bestiality, and Bay Buchanan (10) hates America. Enjoy, . . ."

UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

"General CLARK. There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. I was in the Joint Staff in October of 1994. I think the date was the 8th of October, Thursday morning. The intelligence officer walked in and said, ''Sir, you are not going to believe this. Here are the pictures. You can't believe that this is the Republican Guard. They are right back in the same attack positions that they occupied four years ago before they invaded Kuwait. And here are the two divisions, and there are signs of mobilization and concerns north, and we can't understand it.''"

Juan Cole and General Clark on Iraq

and a few other bloggers such as Armando at Daily Kos

Basie and

Juan Cole himself

It would be interesting, if premature, to speculate on Juan Cole's possible position in a Clark administration.

Clark Community Network || Broken Engagement by Wesley Clark

Clark Community Network || Broken Engagement by Wesley Clark

"a nine page essay from Wes -Washington Monthly May 2004"

"Advocates of the invasion are now down to their last argument: that transforming Iraq from brutal tyranny to stable democracy will spark a wave of democratic reform throughout the Middle East, thereby alleviating the conditions that give rise to terrorism. This argument is still standing because not enough time has elapsed to test it definitively--though events in the year since Baghdad's fall do not inspire confidence."

Daily Kos :: Good but unknown reason for Iraq invasion

Daily Kos :: Good but unknown reason for Iraq invasion: "Good but unknown reason for Iraq invasion"

It's long, but it got some interesting comments and recommendations.

Do security Democrats have to support the Iraq War?

It's a pickle, for sure.

The New Yorker interview with Joe Biden seems to think they do. But shouldn't we level with the American people about how Saddam had nothing to do with September 11, and about how the US presence in Iraq just makes things worse, without looking soft on terrorism?

Usama bin Ladin is our enemy. He got away. Democrats should chase him, nobody else. After all, how can the Republicans look tough on terror when they moved troops away from our enemy and attacked someone else?

From January 2004: U.S. military 'sure' of catching bin Laden this year

"The U.S. military is 'sure' it will catch Osama bin Laden this year, a spokesman said Thursday" but don't hold your breath. :-(

Here's another story about it.

The New York Sun is trying to say it is a "Lone Diplomat" but I don't buy it.

Bush Sr. lost his re-election because his war was over.

Bush Jr. cemented his re-election by making sure his war wasn't.

If Sherman hadn't captured Atlanta we would be reading about President McClellan in our history books. Why won't we read about Presiden Kerry?

Don't let Bush pass the buck to the CIA!

The Gorilla in the Room　has made an excellent point about the presidential commission to study intelligence failures: it "didn't look at the role of the Office of Special Plans or the Vice President's office" and that ain't telling the whole story.

Check it out! (before it sinks from sight).

As I was saying . . .

The Washington Times also thinks a civil war very possible, and Shi'ite theocracy the most likely alternative.

One correction to their story. I would have thought a FEDERAL, not unitary, Iraq was the US goal. Unfortunately, while Federalism is the obvious solution, it does not exist in the Arab world, and is beyond the political understanding of most Arabs. This is not to say they are stupid, just that federalism is no more part of their tradition than a unitary state is part of Americans' traditions. Most Americans don't know what a unitary state is, just as most Arabs don't know what federalism is.

Impolitically Correct

Paul Krugman has a nice article about what's going on right now in the United States.

"What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely defending their professional integrity?"

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for people of good will to do nothing.

That's what's happening. :-(

"Moveon.org" and the Iraq war

MoveOn.org: Making Peace With the War in Iraq correctly notes that MoveOn.org is downplaying the "out now" approach. But is that wrong?

Iraq was always a tar baby. Hit it and you're stuck. Even the UN won't toss us in the briar patch now.

Vietnam really had no dominoes. Iraq does. Which way are they going to tip? Probably to militant Islam. Shi'ites voted because their Ayatollah told them it was "wajib" (compulsory) to do so. Others voted to keep Shi'ites from taking over.

Right now the best the US can hope for is a Shi'ite theocracy. More likely is civil war.

Think about that. Bush turned our worst nightmare of a few years ago into the best we can hope for. If we are lucky, Iraq will become a militant Islamic theocracy allied to a nuclear armed Iran, where the hardliners will be strengthened.

Not turning Bush out in 2004 did enormous damage to the US, its national interest, and even its national security. Now there is nothing Americans can do about it. Even a Democrat president elected in 2008 will not be able to undo the damage being done now.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Ain't it the truth

It's Not Your Father's America Any More

Bush let bin Ladin get away

Chicago Sun-Times: "Pentagon: Bin Laden escaped us at Tora Bora"

CNN.com: "Document suggests bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora"

and we could still get him, if we didn't have all our troops tied down in Iraq :-(

Pakistan 'got close to' bin Laden

But Bush wanted Saddam instead!

Is it true most Bush voters thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11?

Finally! Wes Clark returns :-)

Wes Clark, the only Democrat contender other than Kerry and Edwards to win primaries, finally has his website up. It's got the same web savvy nature his campaign site did, and it's set up so all the old Clark Community can log on and continue the conversation we were having during the primaries.

We have to have leaders who can confront the enemy, not fools who ignore national security while they attack social security and regimes that don't threaten us.

No, they don't have any shame.

White House defends video news releases:

http://us.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/15/government.videos.ap/

Have they no shame?

"Tom has done so much fund raising," says Indiana Representative Mark Souder.

Yes, it's all about the money, not about how you get it.

Private investing, Bush go way back

Private investing and G. W. Bush go way back.

So do these ultra-right think tanks that still think FDR was a Communist, it seems.

Look, you are supposed to save for your retirement already. What nincompoop thinks Social Security is supposed to be all they have waiting for them when they get the gold watch and the boot?

Social Security is supposed to be the emergency funding there to keep you alive if your savings and investments go belly up, as almost everyone's did (through no fault of their own) in the 1930s.

If Bush wants to subsidize people to save money for their retirement, I have no problem (other than the fact that it might increase the deficit, but the real culprit there is his tax cuts.)

When he talks about putting part of the payroll tax into the stock market or other risky investments, he just means doing away with the Social Security program, an emergency backstop for the poor.

Bush may not understand it, but the New Deal saved capitalism. Do away with it and you will have very serious economic, and political, problems again.

Saddam Hussein's half-brother is captured (So?)

Saddam Hussein's HALF-BROTHER is captured?!?!?! Who gives a fried flip, or why should anyone? Those guys didn't attack the US of A. Usama bin Ladin did. That &%$#! bastard bin Ladin is going to die of old age before Bush gets him.

Moral: It's safer to attack the United States these days than to cross the Bush family. Togo is up in arms because the president's son succeeded him. Where is the American outrage about the Bush baby president? How could that guy be re-elected after blowing the war that badly?

Where is the outrage?!?! Where is the impeachment?

This administration is so determined to make short term profits for its investors (voters? we buy those as inputs) it doesn't mind destroying the United States to do it. These people are clearly guilty of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

So Hunter S. Thompson ends like this?

IHunter's death calls Hamlet to my mind. "Oh, that the Almighty had not raised his canons against self-slaughter!". Hunter didn't believe in the Almighty, of course, so he took his own way out.

I've always believed God in his mercy spared John Lennon and Dorothy Day the Reagan years. I'm sorry Hunter didn't have the strength to live through the second Bush administration. America could have used him. I don't know, but I don't think he was meant to die now.

"U.S. Officials Say a Theocratic Iraq Is Unlikely"

"U.S. Officials Say a Theocratic Iraq Is Unlikely"?!?!?!?!?


Aren't these the same guys who said we would be welcomed with flowers, that the occupation would be as peaceful as the occupation of Japan, that we wouldn't need 200,000 troops, that it was all over when the Iraqi army disappeared, or when Saddam was captured, or when . . . (the latest terminus is the elections).


It seems to me that a theocratic Iraq is the best the US can hope for, with an Iraqi Civil War more likely.


Think about that, what was our worst nightmare a few years ago, what we backed Saddam Hussein against Iran to prevent, has now become the best we can hope for. And the US administration that turned it around for us that fast has just been re-elected by the American people.


For the record, I do not think the majority of the American people are either stupid or evil. I do think, knowing so many of them as I do, that they are shockingly ignorant of the world beyond their shores, if not their borders. In many cases they don't even know other parts of their own country very well.


Richard Nixon once argued for continuing the Vietnam War lest the US turn into a "pitiful, helpless giant." It is frightening to contemplate that the giant has become pitiful and helpless because it is blind, lashing out in post 9/11 anger at the wrong targets, turning friends into enemies, and neutrals into foes.

Sunni regime?

Is no one else bothered by the way the media constantly portrays Saddam's regime as "Sunni dominated"? It was a secular regime with even Christians in the cabinet. Shi'ites were, on average, worse off because they had ben out of favor under the Ottomans for long centuries, and there was no affirmative action for them. Is that too complicated for the press to explain, or is bringing up affirmative action in a positive light politically incorrect now?

Why are people not afraid of Gonzales?

Impolitically CorrectThe man wrote that any president has the right to arrest American citizens and hold them incommunicado, indefinitely, and torture them! Now it's OK because he says it was a simple mistake and he didn't really mean it?

I guess what goes around comes around. Support those kinds of policies in Latin America and some people will think that's the American way. What an ironic twist to the Hispanicization of the US. ;-(

Enough with the exit polls, already!

Stop taking exit polls please! They are a bad idea.

1) Just wait for the votes to be counted. Can't you just wait and do it right? The votes in the booth are supposed to count, not the &%$#! polls. Don't make people think it's over when there are still votes being cast.

2) There are a lot of people who don't answer exit polls, at least not honestly.

Well why should they? What's the point of a secret ballot if you tell some stranger about it? They shouldn't even go around asking people whom they voted for, especially when there are so many nut cases around who think the United Nations is taking over the United States, when the UN is lucky to be running its own bureaucracy.

Seriously, by now there are a statistically significant proportion of people who honestly think that the American news media, with the possible exception of Fox News, is controlled by Satanist Communists, or Illuminati, or gnomes of Zurich, or maybe all three together. Jesse Helms pioneered this with his "stealth voters" who suddenly appeared from no where when the ballots were counted but didn't register in the polling statistics. These people will not answer polls because they think they are run by evil conspirators in black helicopters.

But I won't answer exit polls because it's none of your business. Just wait until the voting is over and count the ballots. Why does the press seem to think their exit polls are worth anything and why should someone even answer them.

I'll get back to that issue of physical ballots later.

Africa and a Marshall Plan

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1386173,00.html

Richard Dowden makes some good points that not enough people realize, such as that "The analogy between Europe in 1945 and Africa today is false. At the end of the war, Europe had peace and a highly skilled population. The job was rebuilding . . ." and that "Where rulers still pocket aid or spend it on guns, debt relief simply rewards bad government." and that "Ending agricultural subsidies, tariffs and import regulations in the rest of the world are key to Africa's economic success . . ." but he makes one big mistake in the article:

"The [African] ruling class has failed to create viable states . . . "

The African ruling class didn't create those states, colonialism did, and the borders of African "nations" are now far older than those of Europe. These African states are not just random lines on a map, they are deliberately designed to foster "divide and rule" strategies of outside control. Powerful states were divided by being attacked by several European colonizing powers at the same time. Traditional enemies were put together into the same "nations" as educational policies were put in place to make sure that some groups were more successful than others, and that every "tribe" would be suspicious of every other "tribe."

The result was to create unstable states that could not survive. Either they had to be combined into a Pan-African federation or they would collapse. The only surprise is that more of them haven't collapsed already.

Few of these states has been able to get more than minimum allegiance from their people, and in most cases the population is profoundly alienated. My guess is that many of them would support a United States of Africa, but that their leaders still just want to keep "borrowing" money on the national tab, putting it in Switzerland for their families.

GET BIN LADIN!

How did W get away with passing as tough on terrorism?

First of all, there is no war on terrorism, how can you have a war against a tactic? Are we attacking the IRA, or the LTTE in Sri Lanka? No, we were attacked by al-Qa'ida, and we should be going after them. Unfortunately the trail has gone cold, while the US military is bogged down in an irrelevant war against somebody who never attacked us and didn't have the power to. Meanwhile we have shown the Muslim world that they can attack us and get away with it, and that if they don't attack us we will attack them anyway.

Bush has blown the war big time, and anyone who cares about making America safe has to try to stop him, any (legal) way we can, and wake people up to the damage he is doing to national security.

The Republican Party is the party of National Security?

Please, don't take me for a fool.

When Bin Ladin attacked the US and Bill Clinton went after him a lot of Republicans insisted this was a "wag the dog" distraction from the real threat to the republic, Monica Lewinsky's mouth. Some of this is still up on the Internet:

World Net Daily

Cutting Edge

Free Republic (aka Freepers)

Salon.com

Marc Perkel Rantz

more Salon.com

(so much for liberal bias!)

more salon.com (and a few Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, did give Clinton the benefit of the doubt).

Worse than Wag the Dog?

CNN, if you don't believe the others

Some of them are still saying it!

Now they want to pretend that anyone who criticizes W is unpatriotic. How could anyone have voted for them. We have to wake people up!