While the world's been watching Mumbai (Nigeria report)

Crossposted (without the pictures) at Daily Kos.

It looks like even more people have died in clashes in Jos, Nigeria than died in Mumbai. But those people weren't wealthy and weren't western. Most of those killed by terrorists in Mumbai were either wealthy or western. Many were both. So the western media paid more attention to them. Let's look at what's going on in Jos. But first a little background.

Jos is the Capital of Plateau State. It's a colonial town, started around tin mines during the colonial period. It's on a high plateau (as the name of the state implies). Plateau State calls itself "The Home of Peace and Tourism" in Nigeria, and it is unique in Nigeria for many reasons. As an online travel guide says:

Jos is one of the nicest places to visit in Nigeria. It's the capital of the Plateau State and is located at an elevation of 1300 metres above sea level, which means that it is cooler here than anywhere else in the country most of the time.

The main attraction of the town is the Jos Museum Complex, which consists of four separate museums and a zoo. Skip the Railroad and the Tin Mining Museum and head for the Jos National Museum and the Traditional Nigerian Architecture Museum.

If you are spending a few days here you might consider paying a visit to the Rock Brewery. They have guided tours with an all you can drink buffet for reasonable prices.

Jos is surrounded by beautiful hills, the most welknown being the Shere Hills (1800m). Also the Jarawa hills, the Vom Hills and the Gana Wuri. Many tourists choose Jos for trekking and hiking.

Jos is an unusual city in many ways in Nigeria, not just for being a colonial city, when most of Nigeria's cities, except those established as capitals (e.g. Kaduna and Abuja) were already in existence before colonial times. It is perhaps the only predominately Christian city in the heavily Muslim north of Nigeria. The inhabitants of the plateau were largely minority groups chased into the hills by the expansion of first the Bornu Caliphate, then the Hausa states and the Sokoto Caliphate.

All these factors combined to make Jos a city not dominated by any particular ethnic group or religion (despite the preponderance of Christians, they themselves are more divided than Muslims in Nigeria) and people living there tended to adopt a "live and let live" attitude. It was also a very working class city, and one where most people had ties to rural areas elsewhere.

Only very recently has Jos begun having the clashes that other cities in Nigeria, especially in the north of the country, have had in recent years. Jos used to be a place where Nigerians from surrounding states came to take refuge from the violence. No longer is that the case.


Let's see what happened this time:

It's not easy to get accurate reports, and even much of the Nigerian press is either inflammatory or too politically correct to really say what's been going on in this situation. Let's start with the reports that are not much use. Scroll down to the Nigerian press section if you're pressed for time.

The Voice of America says

Gilbert da Costa has been monitoring developments from Abuja and filed this report for VOA.

Translation? "We don't know what's going on ourselves, but we do have someone in a nearby state (actually in the Federal Capital Territory) who's trying to sort out the rumors." It's like covering riots in Baltimore or Philadelphia from DC.

Agence France Press filed from even further away in Lagos, the financial capital of Nigeria. These people do try to get eyewitness accounts, but without actually going there it is difficult to know what's going on. Heck, even with actually going there it is difficult to know what's going on. Without going there it remains impossible. Al Jazeerah doesn't even provide a dateline.

Sheikh Khalid Abubakar, the imam at the mosque, claimed that more than 400 dead bodies were brought to the mosque.

It is also likely that the bodies of Christians killed in the riots were taken elsewhere, making the total number of dead uncertain.

But then neither does the BBC. At least they have good background and links to previous stories, something no other news source does. They even have a video, though without sound, that has scenes of the carnage.

Bloomberg's reporter covering the story is in Paris. :-(

Reports from Jos itself:

Reuters, the AP, and The NYT all have reports datelined Jos itself. Let's take those reports in order.

Reuters carried a report by a Muslim, with death toll figures from the mosque:

Hundreds of bodies were brought to the town's main mosque in preparation for a mass burial.

"I counted 218 dead bodies at Masalaci Jummaa. There are many other bodies in the streets," said a Red Cross official who asked not to be named.

That death toll did not include hospital figures, victims already buried, or those taken to other places of worship, meaning the final count could be much higher, officials said.

The reporter also spoke to the state government, the Nigerian Army, and "one resident" in compiling the report.

The AP also had a report from a Muslim. (I don't want to imply that these sources are necessarily biased, BTW. After all, in Nigeria almost any source that can write or speak English is either Muslim or Christian. This is just FYI, and in acknowledgment of the fact that we all, [you, me them] have biases.)

Sheikh Khalid Abubakar, the imam at the city's main mosque, said more than 300 dead bodies were brought there on Saturday alone and 183 could be seen laying near the building waiting to be interred.

Those killed in the Christian community would not likely be taken to the city mosque, raising the possibility that the total death toll could be much higher. The city morgue wasn't immediately accessible Saturday.

This reporter also spoke with a police spokesman and gave much important background. The story contained some material (background?) from another reporter in Abuja, the capital.

The New York Times is datelined Jos, but is wire service feed from Reuters, but says "from the Associated Press". Go figure. At least it is a different story from the other two. It seems the international news media is floundering.

What about the Nigeria press?!?!?

OK, OK, I'm getting to that.

The Nigerian press has traditionally been the freest in Africa. During periods of relative repression in Nigeria they have competition for that title, but even then they remain one of the freest presses on the continent of Africa.

But remember that free press only means market regulated press. You didn't find any Nigerian newspapers defending South Africa during the apartheid era, because such newspapers wouldn't have sold. What does sell in Nigeria? Sensationalism, scandal, sports, wild charges (sometimes one wonders if they even have libel laws in Nigeria.) The Nigerian press is generally the kind of press that gives yellow journalism a bad name. William Randolph Hearst could have taken lessons. As a matter of fact, Nigeria had its own W. R. Hearst in the person of Chief M.K.O. Abiola, the Pillar of Sports in Africa and last holder of the cursed title, Are Ona Kakonfa. You may know him as the winner of the June 12 presidential elections in Nigeria, who was placed under house arrest for declaring himself president.

But I digress. Just a little background before delving into the Nigerian press.

This Day actually admits its that reports are unconfirmed. They have two reporters, one in Jos and the other in Abuja. Their names are not clearly Christian or Muslim.

Eyewitnesses said supporters of the All Nigerian People’s Party (ANPP) allegedly became violent following speculations that their candidate, whom they said was leading the PDP candidate, was about to be “declared the loser.”
The ANPP protesters said they were not fighting people but fighting government “because of their action.” The results of the elections were still being collated when the crisis broke out.

The ANPP (in Jos at least) is the party of the Muslim Hausa, mostly from farther north, while the PDP is the party of the mostly Christian minority groups. Finally we find out what the clashes are actually about.

The Punch, a popular Lagos paper, has more information also from Jos:

Our correspondent gathered that trouble started when an agent of one of the political parties was killed at Kabong, where all the results for Jos North were being collated. The supporters of the All Nigeria Peoples Party candidate for Jos North Local Government, Mr. Aminu Baba, said they suspected that the election was about to be rigged in favour of the Peoples Democratic Party candidate, Mr. Timothy Buba.

According to the ANPP supporters, their candidate was said to be leading by about 57, 000 votes and the PDP was only expecting 10, 000 votes from the remaining areas where the votes had not been counted. As early as 5.30a.m. the ANPP supporters had allegedly poured into the streets, chanting war songs. In the ensuing confusion, churches were burnt around Sarkin Mangu, close to the old Jos North Local Government secretariat.

Reprisal attacks from the supporters of other political parties then spread to other areas. It first started in Gada Biu, a predominantly Christian settlement.

No sooner than this happened that the riot assumed a sectarian dimension as churches and mosques were being torched all over the city. Indeed, no fewer than five churches and five mosques were burnt in the ensuing melee, according to the police. Sporadic shots rented the air as street urchins, a.k.a almajiri, took over major streets.

Almajiri (singular, the plural is almajirai) are street youths who beg for a living. Technically they are supposed to be studying in Qur'anic schools, but the system has been much abused in recent decades, and many of them are only being exploited by their teachers, who live off the proceeds of their begging. The situation of these almajirai became really desperate under the Abacha government, but became much approved since democratic government has returned.

The Guardian, one of Nigeria's more respectable newspapers, also has two reporters contributing, one in Jos and another in Abuja. Like other Nigerian papers it is careful to point out that its sources remain questionable. It even quotes the international wire service reports above. But its more important information may be the actual words of the state governor imposing curfew:

Meanwhile, the Governor of Plateau State, Jonah Jang, while imposing the curfew in his broadcast, said:

"A few hours after close of election, a group of thugs took the law into their hands by attacking residences and destroying houses and property in some parts of Jos.

"The state security council met this morning and directed the police to respond accordingly.

"Unfortunately, reports got to me early this morning regarding the eruption of violence emanating from Ali Kazaure Street of Jos. I want all to note that this problem is restricted to Jos City only.
"I immediately summoned a Security Council meeting again this morning to appraise the situation. Preliminary reports indicated that the crisis was pre-planned, particularly as election results have not been announced."

He added: "Government, therefore, wishes to warn that any further disruption of the peace will be met with drastic action. The security details are under instruction to return fire- for-fire from any person/group disrupting the peace. Government will not allow a repeat of the disruption of peace witnessed in the state some years back.

"All law abiding citizens are assured that government is on top of the situation and should go about their normal lives.

"Government is, therefore, imposing a curfew in Jos, Bukuru and environs from 6 pm to 6 am. Government wishes to advise against any further attempt to test its will to maintain peace on the Plateau."

The Vanguard, another important Nigerian newspaper, has a four page story with comments below.

Two serving army generals, Maj. Gen. U. J. Uwuigbe and Nick Agbogun escaped death by the whiskers as they were shot by hoodlums while returning from Chief of Army Staff conference in Bauchi.

They were injured along with the driver of the Bauchi State Government vehicle detailed to take them to the Jos Airport and were rushed to the Jos University Teaching Hospital for treatment.

The Saturday Tribune carries a story from a reporter in Jos with an obviously Christian name (Nigerian names are often ambiguous.)

THE crisis over the local government election in Plateau state has assumed a religious dimension with several places of worship burnt down by protesters, including personal houses and vehicles while over thirty people were allegedly killed, including one policeman and a soldier.
Meanwhile, the state government has appealed for calm and imposed a curfew in Jos, Bukuru and environs from 6am to 6pm.

The unfortunate crisis started in the early hour of Friday when information filtered out that a particular political party had won in Jos North local government contrary to the expectation of supporters of opposing party.

It was learnt that as early as 5: 30 AM on Friday the inhabitants of the local government mobilised and trooped to the streets to protest the election accusing the state government and the State Independent Electoral Commission of rigging the election in favour of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

The protest suddenly turned violent at about 7:30 when the protesters armed with dangerous weapons started smashing vehicles, setting houses ablaze.

At about 9.30am, the crisis had engulfed the whole city of Jos and assumed religious dimension with reprisal attacks in various parts of the city. As at the last count, no fewer than 10 places of worship had been razed in various parts of Jos.

More details are in the article.

Let me know what else you can find out. I have friends in Jos and I am following this story in part because I am worried about them.

The next wacky Republican charge against Obama

The real reason Barack Hussein Obama wants to get into the White is because he's an Islamic suicide bomber who intends to get into the White House so that, after he is inaugurated, he can blow himself up, thus ASSASSINATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Well, it's no nuttier than any of the other stuff they come up with.

Socialist? Hey, the Labour Party in the UK is Socialist. Remember them, the best friend of Bush when he invaded Iraq to look for WMDs? When the financial crisis hit they just nationalized the banks. Unlike the Republicans who just wanted to hand hundreds of billions of $$$ (borrowed from China) to their Wall Street buddies.

The other charges? He's a Muslim. He's a radical Marxist. He's a black nationalist. He's a liberation theology Christian. He's . . .

PEOPLE! MAKE UP YOUR &%$#! MINDS!!! If you don't keep to one smear, NO ONE is going to believe you.

I sure don't.

Sarah Palin's real gaffe

Which was the biggest gaffe, in her ABC interview and elsewhere?

"Trip of a lifetime" to visit troops in Germany? Well, she certainly doesn't need to be president if that was the trip of her lifetime. She's definitely not ready.

Forgetting how to pronounce "nuclear" correctly? I wonder if Republicans will turn this into a shibboleth.

Was it her still thinking that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Even Bush had never said that.

Was it not having any idea what the "Bush doctrine" was? You're getting warm.

I think it was not realizing that the Constitution gives any state, even Alaska, the right to pre-emptive attacks on foreign countries. From the Constitution Center:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Did you get that? Let me quote the relevant part again:

or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

In other words, if Russia was massing an invasion force across the Bering Strait, Alaska would have the Constitutional right to take them out, without waiting for a permission slip from Congress.

Why do I bring this up? Not because I think Alaska should do this. We have telephones today, which they didn't in 1787 when the Constitution was written. I bring it up because Governor Palin of Alaska doesn't seem to have much grasp of the United States Constitution. That is shown by her belief that the United States is on a mission from God in Iraq. The Constitution was ordained and established by "We the People" for six specific reasons. It was not set up by "I, God Jehovah" to take out Islam.

I've met people in the service who have taken oaths to defend and protect the Constitution, but who haven't read it. They tried to convince me that God had created the United States to take out Islam. That's what they thought they were doing on their tours in Iraq. Personally, I wish God would make up his mind. I remember when He had supposedly created us to defeat Communism and the Muslims were helping us, because they believed in the same God. Before that, God had supposedly created us to destroy the Nazis and their Axis allies. The Communists were helping us in that.

It really goes back to the War of 1812, when our getting out intact seemed miraculous, but I don't have time for a lecture on that.

My point here is that Sarah Palin doesn't even know her powers as a state governor under the United States Constitution. The possibility of her becoming Commander in Chief and Chief Executive in charge of defending the Constitution that she doesn't understand is frightening. I urge everyone to make a Constitutional law professor president. We need someone who loves the Constitution enough to find out what it actually means to become president, especially after the last eight years.

Republicans attack Charlie Rangel!

Some of us remember that decorated Korean War veteran (Purple Heart, Bronze Star with Valor) Charlie Rangel was one of the first politicians to endorse General Clark for President. Republicans have never forgiven him for being as effective and outspoken a Democrat as he has been, and they are going after him again, this time for allegedly failing to report $100,000 in income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic. [Reuters]

Republicans are already out on the Internet commenting on this. Congressional Democrats are already hitting back on this. We need to help a friend of Wes when he needs it most. Please get out there and help someone who is not only a great Democrat but was an important supporter of Wes Clark for President in the 2004 race. Here's the Google News link for the story.

This doesn't surprise me

It's disturbing to me how many service members have not read the Constitution. I'm not just talking about the 1st Amendment here. The body of the Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Before someone signs a legally binding contract sworn by an oath they should read it.

I'll have more to say about this later.

The difference is clear!

It was one thing to drop the bombs in 1945, when nobody really knew what they would do, but today, now that their effects are known, there is no excuse for anyone wanting to own such weapons. That's why the very clear difference between Obama and McCain about this issue is very important.

OBAMA:

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

MCCAIN:

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

N.B. North Korea certainly does NOT "possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles" but they rather possess the ability to hit Japan and South Korea, as well as Vladivostok and parts of China.

And there are reports (I'm having trouble googling them just now) that the US military no longer wants nuclear weapons. They are too dangerous and serve no purpose. Nobody wants nuclear weapons detail, after that little incident of the lost nukes especially.

63 years and counting!

That's how long it's been since an atomic bomb has been dropped on human beings. Everyone seems to notice Hiroshima Day, and the first bomb. Few people seem to notice Nagasaki Day, the anniversary of the last atomic bomb ever dropped on human beings.

Here are some people who did:

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan marked the 63rd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki with a solemn ceremony on Saturday and a call for world powers to abandon their nuclear weapons.

Thousands of children, elderly survivors and dignitaries in the city's Peace Park bowed their heads in a minute of silence at 11:02 a.m. (3:02 a.m. British time), the time the bomb was dropped, to remember the tens of thousands who ultimately died from the blast.

"The United States and Russia must take the lead in striving to abolish nuclear weapons," Nagasaki mayor Tomihisa Taue said at the gathering, which included Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda.

Chris Lugo:

On August 9th, 1945 at 11:01am the United States of America dropped a nuclear bomb on a pre-designated city in Japan killing 80,000 people in the second of two nuclear attacks. This attack was the only time that nuclear weapons have been used as an instrument of war, and it could be the last, if we generate the political will to dismantle our weapons of mass destruction, abide by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and create a federal level department of peace.

The Mainichi Daily News:

NAGASAKI -- Thousands of people including atomic bomb survivors gathered in Nagasaki on Saturday in a ceremony to mark the 63rd anniversary of the Aug. 9, 1945 atomic bomb attack on the city.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Takashi Nagai (1908-1951), a physician who cared for wounded survivors, or hibakusha, in spite of his own injures. In a Peace Declaration during the ceremony at Nagasaki Peace Park, near ground zero, Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue quoted Nagai, saying, "There is no winning or losing in war; there is only ruin."

. . .

In a Peace Declaration read out at the ceremony Taue mentioned that people including former U.S. secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schulz had submitted an article on steps toward a nuclear free world, adding that the authors were promoting the United States ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The declaration pointed out that Russia and the United States are said to together possess 95 percent of the world's nuclear warheads and said these two countries "should begin implementing broad reductions of nuclear weapons."

Is there still a chance to get Wes for Veep?

Is there still a chance to get Wes for Veep?

Sign the petition!

Go do Daily Kos and recommend the diaries! HERE! HERE! and HERE!

Then write to the Obama campaign!

Tell your friends and neighbors who think Clark questioned McCain's service that anyone who thinks being shot down is a qualification for president must logically think that President Bush should be shot down, to make him a better president.

I sound too much like Barack Obama Sr.

"He was a brilliant guy," Obama told biographer David Mendell, "but in so many ways his life was a mess."

Despite his ambition and talent, the elder Obama's career disintegrated amid external forces and personal weaknesses, including the alcohol problem, which led to a string of car accidents. A crash in 1982 took his life.

Friends and family say his career imploded in part because of his brash personality and an idealistic belief, nurtured in America, that the best ideas and smartest people would always rise to the top. Confronted with the reality of corruption and cronyism in Kenya, Obama sank into disillusionment and despair.

All I can say is I don't drink and drive, and I try to take better care of myself than that guy did. He should have gone back to America and been an immigrant. I wouldn't mind going back there myself.

More here.

I'm losing TR status on D-Kos

over this? WTF? Too many responders don't bother to read what I said, they just react. Is that being reactionary?

To prosecute or not to prosecute?

President Bashir of Sudan is facing potential charges before the International Criminal Court. His government doesn't recognize the ICC's jurisdiction, but that doesn't seem to make a difference to the ICC. Does this remind you of a certain other head of state who's alleged to be guilty of war crimes but who doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC? It should.



Some say that would not be politic at the present moment in Sudan. I respect Alex de Waal very much for his knowledge of the area and his writings about it. Here's what Alex and Julie Flint said about it recently:

The chief prosecutor's timing could not be worse. There has been more movement on the north-south Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which provides a blueprint for the democratisation of Sudan, in the past two months than in the past three and a half years; a deal has been signed to end a dispute over the flashpoint oil-rich region of Abyei; and an election law has been passed. In the interests of the people of Sudan, Ocampo should reconsider. It is not too late.

Others are weighing in for various reasons. The AU

expressed its strong conviction that the search for justice should be pursued in a way that does not impede or jeopardise efforts aimed at promoting lasting peace"

but then they also

reiterated the AU's concern with the misuse of indictments against African leaders

so they could be dismissed as just another dictators' trade union, like the OAU.

Even worse, Bashir has asked the Arab League for support. Playing the ethnic card, effectively asking the Arab League to certify that genocide is OK (at least if Arabs do it - don't expect them to OK anything Israel does to the Palestinians) is a new low even for the Bashir regime. But since when has the Arab League even done anything about Moroccan occupation of the Western Sahara? Arab on Arab oppression they are silent about, Ajam (non-Arab) oppression of Arabs they can't stop talking about, but when Arabs oppress some other people? They're all for that! That's what the Arab League is all about, Arab ethnic nationalism, what other African peoples call "tribalism" - a sentiment that should have been left behind in the 20th century.

I would like to propose something that is uncharacteristically politic for me. I would like to propose dual indictments. If Bashir is guilty of breaking International Law, so is Bush. Bush doesn't recognize the ICC, but then neither does Bashir, so they're equally outlaw regimes. There should be dual indictments handed down. There is certainly growing support in the US for indicting Bush. It would put pressure on his domestic opposition to finally do something about him instead of just waiting out his term. This would take care of the Arab charge of double standard and conspiracy against the mythical Arab nation. It would end the charge of hypocrisy. It would kill two birds with one stone. And it might create a precedent for justice in the world. Not victors' justice, the complaint about Nuremburg. Not losers' justice, which has been slow in coming to the victims of the Bosnian Civil War. But justice for all. Which I always pledged allegiance to.

Why can't more people stand up for General Clark?

This was from someone who's known him for decades:

Europeans are startled that a man of such great distinction, who they know and worked with, would be left in the lurch by those who should be standing behind him. They see it as a character weakness on the part of Democrats that he is not being publicly supported, especially by those who aspire to positions of high leadership. "I find it a distressing sign of weakness that he was not supported by Senators Obama and Clinton, or by any leading Democrat for that matter," a European foreign minister said to me.

An appropriate response to his comments on McCain would have been: Clark has served our country for 45 years. He is a man with experience, with great character. Clark called McCain a great war hero -- a man to whom he and millions of soldiers look up to. I agree with Clark that McCain is a great war hero. I also agree that he does not have executive experience. Questioning McCain's executive experience does not diminish his war record. It is an appropriate question that should be asked. I stand by Clark, who has served our country with distinction.

If the Democrats won't stand by Clark, why should anyone stand by them?

Bush is NOT sending MORE troops to Afghanistan!

Read this crap:

Bush says US to send more troops to Afghanistan

He's extending the tours of American troops who are already there. Here's the real story:

Pentagon extends tour of Marines in Afghanistan

Instead of trying to get more troops, he's taking a military strained to the breaking point, and pushing them over the edge.

Why I love General Clark

He was wont to speak plain and to the purpose, like an honest man and a soldier;

He just said the truth, and despite all the shouting in the right wing blogosphere, General Clark spoke the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

He is the most impolitic, but correct, politician I can think of. Impolitically Correct salutes him.

Listen to this garbage:

Then go down and see what Clark really said.

Clark clarifies

It's so sad that the remark was taken out of context.

Talk about impolitically correct!

I have to hand it to General Clark. Again. He's just saying the truth. How the media spin it is up to them, but what he said was just the truth.

He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

Why Mugabe still has support and how to deal with him

(crossposted at Daily Kos)

Mugabe may be running one of the less effective dictatorships in the world today, but he does have more support among Zimbabweans today than Bush does among Americans. No, this is not some troll diary arguing that we shouldn't really oppose Mugabe because of all the things he and ZANU-PF did to liberate their country or because he is facing a western imperialist conspiracy against the African people. It's not an argument in favor of Mugabe at all. It's just an attempt to explain why he does still have support in Zimbabwe, who his supporters are, and how well-informed policy could more effectively remove him than the kind of ignorant, "speak loudly but carry a small stick" policy currently favored in Washington could. If you're interested in a little reality based background, read on.

Mugabe certainly gets some backing because of his role as leader of the major guerrilla group in the Chimurenga, the war for independence. That support has been eroded by the failure of his recent economic policies, of course, but why doesn't he change them, what is he getting at, and why do a minority of Zimbabweans continue to support him? That was then, this is now, and why does he seem to be such a different person?

First, you have to understand that the Chimurenga war against the Ian Smith led white oligarchy was not fought so much for independence or even an end to racial discrimination as it was fought over the land. Land is a sacred issue to many Africans, the Shona and Ndebele of Zimbabwe included. If you're Irish you may understand that. The Irish didn't have a concept of private land ownership, but they gave up everything (language, culture, everything that constitutes national identity to most nations) to take back their land. The Shona and the Ndebele felt and feel the same way. They may not have had to give up as much, or fight as long as the Irish did, but they still had to fight. Indeed, they were fighting among themselves over the land when Cecil Rhodes came in and changed its name to Southern Rhodesia.

Joshua Nkomo, head of ZAPU, the Zimbabwe African People's Union, who joined with Mugabe during the Chimurenga but fell out with him later, was once asked by a reporter if he intended to nationalize the land. He said that land belonged to society and everyone has a right to land. Confused, the reporter asked if that meant that he did intend to nationalize land. Nkomo replied (quoting from memory here)

You may call it "nationalization" if you wish, but land will be normalized.

Had he been asked the same question, Mugabe would probably have replied "Yes, we are Marxist-Leninist Communists and we intend to nationalize land." I remember watching an official ZANU-PF representative introducing a documentary about the Tanzam Railway to a Maoist group. He finished his introduction by claiming that "We also had this Marxism Leninism Mao Tse-Tung Thought before the Europeans came." I asked him later if he meant that the Shona way of life was based on principles of Dialectical Materialism. The ZANU-PF representative laughed at my question, which was more Socratic than serious, but he did say that the attitude toward land ownership was the same, that land should be the collective property of the community.

Why had I used the term "Shona way of life" in asking the question?

Because even Jesuit missionaries had trouble figuring out Shona religion, and reverted to teaching them "natural religion" before trying to convert them, it is common to refer to "the Shona way of life" rather than "Shona traditional religion."

from an art site:

The Shona way of life centers on the family and reflects profoundly spiritual and humanistic values.

from a religious site:

The Shona in large part do not display a sense of being overwhelmed by evil. They do not spend their time calculating the degree of evil in creation nor do they express anger at spiritual forces for permitting the world to crush them so. Rather they have developed a society that is based on values so foreign to our own Western thought that it raises the important issue of whether our Western based theodicies are irretrievably culture-bound. Where I began the study focusing on the inability of Western theodicies to account for the high incidence of evil in the third world, my focus was now changed to look at the irrelevance and incongruence of the values of Western theodicies in relation to the traditional cultures of southern Africa.

If you want to understand how people there feel about it, give up everything you thought you knew and try to look through other people's eyes. This is not a rational fight over economic policy. It is a sacred struggle over land. Mugabe and his backers still care about that, even if Tsvangirai and his mostly modern, urban, working class followers don't.

ZANU-PF was allied with Maoist China during the Chimurenga, and they were armed by the Chinese. This was partly convenience, but partly ideological, since both were peasant based movements. ZANU-PF had an ethnic base among the Shona, while ZAPU had an ethnic base in the Ndebele. Ethnicity is never the whole story in politics, Zimbabwean or American or elsewhere, but it can't be ignored anywhere, either. ZANU-PF was also peasant based, while ZAPU had a strong base in the urban proletariat. Joshua Nkomo was an old union leader of railway workers, and continued to get strong support from the working class, as well as arms and support from the Soviet Union.

Note to anyone who thinks that ZANU-PF was "pro-Chinese" while ZAPU was "pro-Soviet": you have it backwards. The Soviets were backing ZAPU while the Chinese were backing ZANU-PF. The Chimurenga wasn't started by outside Communist agitators. It was started by Africans for their own purposes.

ZANU-PF in power continued to be a peasant based party concerned primarily with the land issue. They ran the country well for the first several years of their rule, and the country developed so rapidly it was held out as proof that an African country didn't immediately collapse or stagnate just because Africans took over the government. Because of that the example of Zimbabwe was important in convincing the South African government to release Nelson Mandela from prison and negotiating an end to apartheid with him. Mandela has spoken out against what has been going on recently but he is refraining from criticizing Mugabe by name, and some interpret his remarks as even-handed criticism of both sides.

Mugabe's very success changed the political ground from under him. Mugabe and ZANU-PF's continued insistence on the centrality of the land issue and the confiscation of white farms was increasingly irrelevant to the urban proletariat that his successful development policies were creating. They didn't care about the land issue any more. They were more modern than that. Once again, Mugabe's main opponent was someone who came out of the union movement, in this case the miners' union. It has been from the working class that most of the support for his Movement for Democratic Change has come.

Mugabe's support still comes in strong in the villages. His party is well organized there and he has support from traditional rulers. Few people there care about the decline of the Zimbabwean dollar as long as they can feed themselves from the land, and international standards of democracy matter less than the Shona way of life that they see Mr. Mugabe defending. Things look very different than they do to a wage worker in a mine or a city. Wage workers in the cities, on the mines and in factories have a more modern, less traditional outlook. They are the ones feeling the brunt of Mugabe's repression and economic mismanagement and they are the ones who most desperately want to get rid of him.

I have read all kinds of conspiracy theories. One was that the Zimbabwe military is led by white generals who are afraid of war crimes trials for their actions during the Chimurenga wars and that they are holding Mugabe hostage. Others usually center around western plots to hold onto stolen land. Neither kind of conspiracy theory is convincing. What's obviously happening here, the simplest possible explanation, is that Zimbabwe is changing too fast for Mugabe and his aging Chimurenga leaders to comprehend. Those who were once tomorrow's people have become yesterday's.

I think it was President Kennedy who said that when we make non-violent change impossible we make violent change inevitable. That's what Mugabe has done, tried to prevent the normal processes of history from working the way they are supposed to. That's why he and his group, formerly progressive but now reactionary, will be swept aside by the forces of history. Marx (or at least the Marxists) may have been wrong about the proletariat bringing socialism, but he was certainly right that the process of economic development creates this working class that then becomes the dominant force in society.

But that sweeping aside of the old peasant-based ZANU-PF rule must not only be done by the Zimbabweans themselves, it must be SEEN to be done by the Zimbabweans themselves, not by Western or other international intervention. Not that the US military is in much condition to intervene anywhere right now. Not that Bush really cares about Zimbabwe any more than he cares about Darfur or Myanmar. They don't have enough oil and no one there tried to kill his daddy. Sanctions have done what they can, but where sanctions served notice on apartheid South Africa that it couldn't expect support from the west, they only convince Mugabe that the west never would let him take back land from the settlers. It seems only a political revolution can bring change to Zimbabwe. It can only be led by the working class. Only the working class has the power and the interest in bringing democracy to Zimbabwe. Only the people themselves can create democracy in a country. We couldn't export it to them even if we wanted to. Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed on a people. It must be learned.

Well, why shouldn't the working class lead the struggle against dictatorship in Zimbabwe? The working class led the collapse of Communism. It is unions that are taking the lead in toppling Mugabe. They have already taken the lead in seeing that he couldn't get more arms from China.

All praise to the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union, which for four days refused to unload a shipment of Chinese arms destined for landlocked Zimbabwe. That was long enough for a South African court to issue a judgment refusing to let the 77 tons of weapons be shipped across the country to Zimbabwe, despite the South African government’s unwillingness to intervene.

I almost forgot. There was a discussion on DemocracyNow.org you should consider. I particularly recommend the views of Horace Campbell in the discussion.

update on the DOJ scandal

from Veracifier:

When will this administration be called to account for its crimes?

from The Los Angeles Times:

Probe finds illegal hiring at Justice Department
Promising lawyers and law students were rejected because of their political and ideological views, internal investigators say.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 25, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Scores of highly credentialed young lawyers and law students were denied interviews for coveted positions at the Justice Department because of an illegal screening process that took political and ideological views and affiliations into account rather than merit, Justice Department investigators concluded in a report released Tuesday.

In 2006, some applicants for sought-after jobs in the department's honors and summer intern programs were rejected because they were members of the American Constitution Society or Planned Parenthood or because they expressed concern about gender discrimination in the military, the report says.

The Supreme Court and the Constitution

Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley famously noted that "No matter whether the country follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns." Well, Mr. Dooley never lived long enough to witness the Florida 2000 election. Furthermore, the public hasn't spoken yet about the detention of the prisoners called "unlawful enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We may hear from them in the next presidential election, though.

What's the issue here? The recent Supreme Court decision affirming that the Guantanamo detainees are entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus in civilian courts. Personally I can't even figure out why this is an uncertain point. The Constitution is quite specific about habeas corpus, even mentioning it before the Bill of Rights was added:

the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.

Article I Section 9

There's no rebellion. There hasn't been one, AFAIK, since the Green Corn Rebellion in 1917. There's no invasion either.

SO WTF? How do almost half of the SCOTUS justices justify suspending habeas corpus?

Well, former Attorney General Gonzales said it's a privilege, not a right. OK, that word "privilege" is the word used in the Constitution, but to distinguish privileges from rights is anachronistic. They didn't make that distinction in 1787, and we shouldn't read it back into the Constitution they wrote then. And AAMOF, the SCOTUS doesn't fall for that line of argument.

The dissenting court judges take a different tack. Roberts said it should be left to the legislature and executive. So why do we need courts at all? Scalia said the decision "breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad" as if either aliens have no rights or Guantanamo isn't under US control. Either position is risible. He also says that the ruling places undue burdens on the Commander in Chief, and that it will cause the death of more Americans.

In the decision, Justice Kennedy said:

Our opinion does not undermine the executive's powers as commander in chief. On the contrary, the exercise of those powers is vindicated, not eroded, when confirmed by the judicial branch. Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the executive to imprison a person.

I don't say the detainees should necessarily go free, but I do say that if there is a reason to hold them it should be produced in public so that we can all see it. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. I'm not saying that these people are necessarily innocent, much less that they are good guys. I am saying that they are entitled to a day in court. Civilian courts are not supposed to be suspended unless they are unable to operate.

If the Commonwealth of Virginia could give Nat Turner his day in court, with a lawyer, the United States can give the Guantanamo detainees their days in court, too. The slavocrats of southeast Virginia were surrounded and outnumbered by slaves who wanted to kill them. They had far more reason than we do to fear for their safety. If they didn't abandon the Constitution when it was only 50 years old, we have no reason to abandon it when it is over 200 years old.

Remember, this is not the Supreme Court that appointed Bush, it is that court amended by several justices whom Bush has appointed. If even this court rejects his arguments, I don't think they should be taken very seriously.

The Obama Veepwatch, Vol. 3: Wesley Clark

From Newsweek:

Odds: Strong--precisely because he's a Clinton loyalist. Actually, on paper Clark may be the only veep candidate who meets every single one of Obama's requirements--*UPDATE: or at least what experts say Obama needs, politically-speaking, in a second fiddle.* He's white. Check. He's Southern. Check. And he has the two kinds of experience Obama most desperately lacks: military and executive. A Vietnam war hero, McCain will hammer his Democratic rival on national security and insist that the Illinois senator, whose foreign policy resume is painfully short, doesn't have necessary gravitas to serve as Commander in Chief; Clark, who served for 34 years at the Department of Defense and retired as Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, provides Obama with an effective counterargument. What's more, while McCain fought in a war (and legislated his way through others), Clark boasts what some voters might see as a more relevant resume point given our current situation in Iraq: he actually ran one. (See: the highly effective U.S. intervention in Kosovo--not to mention the fact the Clark, a Rhodes Scholar, finished first in his class at West Point, and McCain finished fifth from last in his class at Annapolis.) In short, Clark would not only help Obama blunt McCain's major line of attack but also give him a leg up on some key military matters (while adding a dash of administrative competence to boot). And like Obama, Clark was against the Iraq war from the start.

More at the link above.

Clark for VEEP!

Wesley Clark is leading Jim Webb on the D-Kos poll!

Now, it's no secret that I'm a fan of Wes Clark, but why would he be a better choice?

Not just that he would be a better Veep, who could give Obama the kind of serious, useful foreign policy and military expertise that he needs and that General Clark gave Hillary when he was advising her. But because we can't afford to lose that Virginia Senate seat. We only just barely picked it up from Senator Macaca in 2006, when the entire Republican Party seemed to be in free fall. It was a cliff hanger of an election, only decided by overseas votes (which have finally become Democratic. It will likely go Republican again without Jim Webb to defend it. Obama doesn't need to start his first term losing that Senate seat.

Wes Clark's not doing anything that's not indispensable, or that someone else couldn't do just as well. Other than campaigning, that is, and he could do a lot more of that a lot better as a Vice Presidential Candidate. He was also early identified with Hillary and actively campaigned for her. His being on the ticket would not only bring the moderate Democrats and Republicans that Obama needs, it could help reconcile Hillary's supporters to her losing the nomination.

Wes Clark is the no-brainer choice for Obama's running mate. I hope he picks him.

The importance of the Vice Presidency, 2008

One of FDR's Vice Presidents, John Nance Garner, likened the Vice Presidency to a warm bucket of spit. It's not always the one way ticket to oblivion it is for most of those who've held the office, though. John Adams and George H. W. Bush rode it into the White House in the next election. Millard Fillmore, John Tyler, Calvin Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Johnson, and Lyndon Johnson (among others) rode their own Vice Presidencies straight to the White House without an intervening election. You never know what's going to happen.

But you can guess. Especially this time.

John McCain will be the oldest president ever inaugurated if he wins. The current holder of that title, Ronald Reagan, got through on a lot of sleep and a "hands off" attitude. One joke from the time went that Jimmy Carter proved anyone could be president and Ronald Reagan proved you didn't really need a president. John McCain isn't like that. He's hyper. He could drop dead or have a stroke any day, even during the campaign. It is unlikely that he could survive a four year term with two wars going on, a fractious country and Congress, and the mess that Bush has made of the world. John McCain's Vice President can't be impeachment insurance, the way Dan Quayle and Spiro Agnew were for George H. W. Bush or Richard Nixon respectively.

What about Obama? He's young, he's healthy, the contrast couldn't be clearer in terms of their likely ability to survive naturally for the next four or eight years. I'm not worried about his suddenly dropping dead in office as much as I am worried about his finding nothing to do after his presidency ends. And I'm even more worried, much more worried, about his not surviving because someone will assassinate him. Maybe I was just too traumatized by the assassinations of the 1960s, but it's always a possibility that any president will be assassinated, and an even greater possibility for the first black president of the United States. Obama's Vice Presidential running mate will be as serious and as important a choice as McCain's.

Back to the blogosphere!

I didn't realize things had gotten so crazy here. I go on the Clark Community Network and I get flamed as an alleged Obama troll. Now that he has the nomination I'll think about going back. Meanwhile, it's sad that some people have lost all perspective.

Meanwhile back on D-Kos, where there are a lot more people (and a lot more Obama supporters) than there are at the Clark Community, I get myself flamed as racist, but not before being told that I was "offensive" and "arrogant" and several other such epithets by someone who totally lost it. Well, he had reason to be upset, but that's an explanation, not an excuse. I really don't like being misrepresented. Not that he took much time to read what I had written before losing it totally. Oh, well. At least I have my TU status back.

I met these guys a long time ago.

and I think the world of both of them, but I never knew they were connected until now.

Ammon Hennacy and Utah Phillips

Ammon was a saint. My parents introduced me to him when I was too young to know who he was, but I could tell he was important by the way all the grownups revered him. Later I read some of his books and was very impressed by the way he thought and the way he really tried to put his ideals into practice.

I met Utah Phillips much later, through the Wobblies. Or was it at a demonstration in DC? I think it was both because I kept running into him all over the place. I loved his music even more than his politics. I'll miss him a lot.

If you never knew either of these fine gentlemen, I feel sorry for you. The world is poorer without them.

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Well, Hillary Clinton (and I) do remember. But a lot of Americans don't. Especially the ones who are voting for Hillary's opponent in the Democratic race.

Which highlights something about this race I haven't seen dealt with on the Internet.

Hillary is the last Baby Boomer standing. After 16 years of Baby Boomer hegemony half the people (all the non boomers?) are sick of Boomer rule. They're thinking either "hand it back to the grownups", or "move on to the next generation."

Our parents said boomers were only interested in three things: sex, drugs and rock & roll.

First we had the sex addict boomer president, who couldn't keep his pants zipped up.

Then we had the crackhead president, who kept hallucinating weapons of mass destruction and hearing voices.

I was hoping that we would get the Rock & Roll president next. But I'm not even sure which candidate that would have been.

If I can say anything here in defense of the baby boomers it would be that America's Greatest Generation was a hard act to follow. I just hope we won't go down in history as another "blundering generation".

Hood uh thunk it?

Remember when people were afraid that South African blacks would take revenge on the whites when they took power? Looks like they needn't have worried. Seems the black South Africans hate other African blacks more than they hate the whites in their own country.

Immigrants flee hate killings in South Africa

It seems race is less important than nationality here, and even ethnicity is less important than class in causing social conflicts. There are a lot of ways to analyze this, but those who believe in race warfare, or who think that race is the main factor dividing humans, should think long and hard about what's happening here.

That "quaint" Geneva Convention

Anyone who thinks Guantanamo,Abu Ghraib, etc. are not a break with American tradition should see this film. Abu Ghraib made Stalag 17 look like a Boy Scout Camp. We executed people after World War II for less than has been going on, and is still going on, in the United States' name today.

The two Democratic Parties

The Democratic Party has never been a coherent political party, at least not for long. It started out as an Andrew Jackson fan club, but couldn't hold together long after he died. That's how the Republican Party got the chance to elect Abe Lincoln. And the Democrats have had their share of splits since. 1968 wasn't the only time the police were called out on the floor of the national convention. 1924 had plenty of fights, too. Seems half the party couldn't reconcile themselves to the Catholic (Al Smith) that the other half of the party wanted to nominate. So they fell apart again until FDR put them back together, at least for a while. You get the idea. Falling apart over Civil Rights in the 1960s wasn't an aberration, it was par for the course.

The most interesting statistic about the 1994 election, when the Republicans took control of Congress back from the Democrats, is that people with high school or college educations were more likely to vote Republican. People who had less than a high school or more than a college education (i.e. advanced degrees) voted Democrat. Nearly half of the country was Democratic, but the two halves of the party couldn't, literally couldn't, talk to each other. They mostly never ran into each other in life.

This division is now reflected in the primary election results. Ironically, the candidate of the better educated is an African-American raised by a single mother, while the candidate who appeals to the less well educated is a conspicuously wealthy multi-millionaire. They both have plenty of education, though.

What's my take on all this? Heh! I'm in the 5% of Democrats who really doesn't care. All I care about is that the party gets its act together in time for the election. The only thing that scares me now is another Republican in the White House. Even John McCain. If there's any way to prevent that, I want to be part of it. I've had it with the Republican Party. Even John McCain. Would an Obama-Clinton ticket do it? I'd vote for it!

Where was I?

Don't ask. Workplace issues, family issues, another part-time job on top of the one I've already got. I even joined several of those high IQ societies. I know, I know. Believe me I know. High IQ societies are just for losers who have big brains, no real accomplishments and nothing better to do. I guess that's me. I also found out that a friend who keeps one of these things that he's a compulsive writer. I'm not. I am a compulsive reader, which keeps me well informed (I'd like to think) but writing doesn't come so easily to me. I'll try to keep this up better from now on, though.

It's more than just the other things keeping me busy, though. I've been depressed about the constant fighting among Democrats, and that McCain, who used to be my favorite Republican, has completely capitulated to the Bush line on just about everything from Social Security to National Security. America is going to hell, and it would be nice if we could all ride in a handbasket. More comfortable than the ride we're going to get, I'm afraid.

Now let me post something real.

Let's all support Joe Biden!

[crossposted at D-Kos]

I know he's not in the race for president anymore. As a big fan of his I'm happy about that. Joe is the chairperson of the very important Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, one of the most important jobs in the US government, especially now. The Senate of the United States has a special role in foreign policy, approving all treaties and ambassadors, and the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Relations, whether it is occupied by J. William Fulbright or Jesse Helms, has an important voice in foreign policy.

Joe Biden has that voice now. He is the most qualified American, not just the most qualified Democrat, to use it for good. Let's all encourage him to do it. Specific reasons and suggestions are welcomed in comments.

1. We need Fulbright hearings

Public opinion about the Vietnam War was heavily influenced by the informative hearings that Senator J. William Fulbright held into American foreign policy in southeast Asia. As Senator Fulbright himself said about the hearings he held:

Under our system Congress, and especially the Senate, shares responsibility with the President for making our Nation's foreign policy. This war, however, started and continues as a Presidential war in which the Congress, since the fraudulent Gulf of Tonkin episode, has not played a significant role. [...] The purpose of these hearings is to develop the best advice and greater public understanding of the policy alternatives available and positive congressional action to end American participation in the war.

If that was true about the Vietnam War, it is true exponentially now, during the even more fraudulent Iraq War, a war that has been even more damaging to American national interests than the Vietnam War ever could have been.

2. We were promised hearings

OK, OK, much as I support impeachment, I do remember that the Democrats who took over Congress in the last national elections did say that impeachment was "off the table." I can understand and respect that they want to keep their promise to the American public. It may be unusual in a politician, but it is not less, and probably more, laudable for being unusual.

I also remember that the Democrats who took over Congress promised us hearings. I thought that was OK, because I figured that if the truth came out about the W. Bush administration's lies and incompetence, then the American public would demand that W. Bush be impeached.

That didn't happen, because enough hearings weren't held. I do know that some hearings were held, but not enough to make an impact on public opinion. Most Americans didn't learn from Congress that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, because Congress didn't hold enough hearings. They learned about it because a reporter asked Bush, shortly before the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, what Iraq had to do with the attacks. "Nothing." Bush said, seemingly startled, perhaps because he had never said that Iraq did have anything to do with 9/11. Of course, when Helen Thomas asked Bush why we did invade Iraq he didn't have a coherent answer. However, the fact that Congressional hearings didn't inform the US public merits condemnation of Congress for dereliction of duty.

Isn't it about time that Congress ask why we invaded Iraq? Isn't it about time that Congress ask why our Middle East policy, indeed the entire foreign policy of the United States, is such a train wreck? The Annapolis peace process isn't even a policy, it's a Hail Mary pass. The Congress has subpoena powers. The Senate has a special role in foreign policy. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is the obvious committee to ask the hard questions that need to be asked so that the American people can finally find out and understand how our foreign policy became this balled up. We need to insist that they hold these hearings. Joe Biden is the person who must hold those hearings.

3. This is Joe Biden's real job

Joe Biden in the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Nobody else has that job. No one else has responsibility for Congressional oversight of foreign relations, except the corresponding chairperson of the House Committee, and the House does not have the powers in foreign affairs that the Senate of the United States does. It is Joe Biden's responsibility to hold these hearings. No one else can hold these hearings. If Joe Biden doesn't or can't see that we have to make him see it.

4. restore Constitutional balance

I know a lot of people here wanted Joe Biden to be president. Now some of them are saying he should be Secretary of State. I'm not saying he wouldn't be good in those positions, but putting him into the executive branch of government doesn't solve one of the most serious problems of the Bush administration: the growth of power of the "unitary executive" branch, and the damage it has done to the traditional American balance of powers.

This administration has concentrated too much power in the executive branch, going farther than Nixon did during Watergate toward a dictatorship, ignoring Congress and running the government by secrecy and signing statements. Even if the Democrats take over the executive branch that dangerous imbalance could persiste, and will persist unless the Congress itself acts to restore the balance. Impeachments would be a good way to start that, but impeachments are "off the table" according to Congressional leaders. The only alternative offered is investigations. Demand an investigation into Bush foreign policy. How did it go wrong and how can it be fixed. Such hearings will prove invaluable to whichever Democrat takes over the presidency next year. Even if some Republican takes the presidency (heaven forfend!) they will find it hard to ignore these hearings.

5. DEMAND HEARINGS NOW!

Please, everyone, write to Joe Biden and demand that he hold Fulbright style hearings about the train wreck of a foreign policy that got us into this counterproductive war in Iraq and which has poisoned our relations with nearly every other country on earth.

No one is as qualified as Joe Biden to hold those hearings. No one else is chairperson of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so no one else can hold those hearings. It's Joe Biden's job to hold those hearings. It is his destiny to become one of the greatest chairpersons of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in American history. If he can't see it we have to make him see it.

We were promised investigations in the 2006 elections. Joe Biden must hold those investigations. Please write him and convince him that he has to do it. He could be the greatest chairperson of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since Fulbright himself. Now he's no longer distracted by his Quixotic campaign for president, so that he can fulfill his destiny as one of the all time great senators of US history.

Please write and call Joe Biden at:

Senator Joseph Biden, Delaware, (Chairperson)
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6225

Phone: (202) 224-4651

Bhutto: two assassination plots?

Benazir Bhutto had no shortage of enemies. The strange nature of the assassination attempt(s) that succeeded suggest to me that there may have been two separate plots, either of which might have succeeded, at least one of which certainly did.

Look at this video. "Look, these are the three shots fired, and this is then the blast."



There is a gunman wearing sunglasses who shoots her, and a suicide bomber who then blows everyone up. Were their plots even related? Possibly but I doubt it. The MOs are too different. But maybe the bomber was just covering for the gunman. The whole thing should be investigated by some neutral body, whether Pakistani or international.

Meanwhile let's not forget that Pakistani Islamists blew up a suicide bomb and killed at least 48 people who were praying in a mosque on the Id festival. I don't usually make claims about who are really Muslims (I'll leave it to Muslims to argue about that) but I'll make an exception in this case. If praying in a mosque on the Id day is unbelief, what is Islam? These maniac Islamists cannot claim to be Muslims any more.