Glenn Beck\’s just Jealous of Keith

Beck goes after Olbermann. It\’s not a fair match, because Beck isn\’t armed. He\’s just jealous, because Rolling Stone didn\’t interview him.

An unfamiliar viewer tuning in to Keith Olbermann\’s prime-time news program on MSNBC, Countdown, might, at first glance, assume he was watching a highly traditional broadcaster. Olbermann has a long, sober face and trim hair that\’s going gray. With his glasses, he looks like a Fifties newsman — Clark Kent behind an anchor\’s desk — while his stentorian delivery can sound almost self-consciously retro, the sort of voice (of God or your high school principal) mocked nightly by Stephen Colbert. But there\’s a sharp contrast between the way Olbermann looks and sounds and what he\’s actually saying. After President Bush recently called for a troop escalation in Iraq, for example, Olbermann described the strategy as \”absurd\” and \”childish,\” then added, \”Mr. Bush, the question is no longer \’What are you thinking?\’ but rather \’Are you thinking at all?\’ \” He has described Fox News anchor Chris Wallace as \”a monkey posing as a newscaster\” and begged Rush Limbaugh to \”Please, go back on the drugs.\” His nightly \”Worst Person in the World\” feature has honored, among others, Dennis Miller, John McCain and former first lady Barbara Bush. Then there is Olbermann\’s favorite target, Bill O\’Reilly, known on Countdown as Bill-O, \”the Sisyphus of morons\” and \”the Big Giant Head.\” The persistent needling has so irked O\’Reilly (who refuses to mention Olbermann by name on his own show) that the Fox host regularly rants about the \”liberal bias\” at NBC and started a Web campaign to have Olbermann replaced with Phil Donahue. \”I\’m not declaring victory in that war,\” Olbermann tells me, \”but I think the point that Jonathan Alter of Newsweek made on the air the other day was pretty solid — that if my goal was to make O\’Reilly go nuts, I have succeeded.\” … .. The Most Honest Man in News

But at least Beck admits he\’s a dope before he took his swing at Keith… and missed, let me add.

Too bad the irony is lost on Mr. Beck, as well as Michelle Malkin\’s crew at
Hot Air (you can find the link on memeorandum if you really want it), who admit Beck is \”carrying a blade to a bazooka fight.\” The problem comes when Hot Air posits that Keith Olbermann \”can\’t handle stuff like this,\” meaning Beck\’s miny blast, because of his ego. Like Keith cares what some nat named Glenn Beck says about him. I mean, really.

The proof is in Keith\’s rants. Rolling Stone put up Keith\’s \”top five.\” Enjoy!

Share

A License to Kill
guest post by Mash

On April 16, 1993 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 819. In it the Security Council demanded:

…that all parties and others concerned treat Srebrenica and its surroundings as a safe area which should be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act

A safe area was created around Srebrenica, in the newly formed Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to protect the Bosnian Muslims from the heavily armed Bosnian Serbs that surrounded it. United Nations peacekeepers were deployed to the safe area to protect the unarmed Bosnian Muslims that had taken refuge there.

On July 6, 1995 Bosnian Serb forces under the leadership of Ratko Mladic laid siege to the town of Srebrenica. As the Serb forces began shelling the town, the residents of Srebrenica took refuge with the 600 lightly armed Dutch UN peacekeepers. The Dutch peacekeepers threatened to call in NATO air strikes against the Serb forces – however, after the Serb forces threatened to kill 30 Dutch soldiers they had taken hostage, the airstrikes were called off.

On July 11, 1995 Ratko Mladic and the Serb forces entered the town of Srebrenica. That evening Ratko Mladic and the Dutch commander, Colonel Ton Kerremans, shared a drink together.

The next day the Serb forces separated the women and children from the men. All men from the age of 12 to 77 were held for “interrogations”. The women and children, all 23,000 of them, were bussed out of Srebrenica.

On July 13, 1995 the Dutch peacekeepers handed over 5000 Bosnian Muslim men for 14 Dutch soldiers that were captured by the Serb forces. On that same day the killings began. By the time the Dutch were allowed to leave Srebrenica, the Bosnian Serb forces had massacred over 7000 unarmed men.

The Srebrenica massacre was the most prominent of many war crimes committed by the Army of Republica Srpska (the Bosnian Serb forces) during the Bosnian War. It was the worst act of genocide in Europe since World War II. It was genocide that occurred as the United Nations and the so-called international community literally stood idle by.

The Bosnian Serbs were supported, equipped and funded by the government of Serbia during the Bosnian War. It is widely accepted that the Bosnian Serb forces were a proxy army for Serbia and Serbia’s leader Slobodan Milosevic. In fact, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in its indictment of Slobodan Milosevic, called the Serbia-Bosnian Serb nexus a “joint criminal enterprise”:

6. Slobodan MILOSEVIC participated in the joint criminal enterprise as set out below. The purpose of this joint criminal enterprise was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs, principally Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, from large areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter referred to as “Bosnia and Herzegovina” ), through the commission of crimes which are in violation of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal. 7. The joint criminal enterprise was in existence by 1 August 1991 and continued until at least 31 December 1995. The individuals participating in this joint criminal enterprise included Slobodan MILOSEVIC, Radovan KARADZIC, Momcilo KRAJISNIK, Biljana PLAVSIC, General Ratko MLADIC, Borisav JOVIC, Branko KOSTIC, Veljko KADIJEVIC, Blagoje ADZIC, Milan MARTIC, Jovica STANISIC, Franko SIMATOVIC, also known as “Frenki,” Radovan STOJICIC, also known as “Badza,” Vojislav SESELJ, Zeljko RAZNATOVIC, also known as “Arkan,” and other known and unknown participants.

Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment against Milosevic were “Genocide” and “Complicity in Genocide” for crimes against Bosnian Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian War, specifically including the massacre in Srebrenica:

32. From on or about 1 March 1992 until 31 December 1995, Slobodan MILOSEVIC, acting alone or in concert with other members of the joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation and execution of the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such, in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, including: Bijeljina; Bosanski Novi; Bosanski Samac; Bratunac; Brcko; Doboj; Foca; Sarajevo (Ilijas); Kljuc; Kotor Varos; Sarajevo (Novi Grad); Prijedor; Rogatica; Sanski Most; Srebrenica; Visegrad; Vlasenica and Zvornik. The destruction of these groups was effected by: a) The widespread killing of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, during and after the take-over of territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those listed above, as specified in Schedule A to this indictment. In many of the territories, educated and leading members of these groups were specifically targeted for execution, often in accordance with pre-prepared lists. After the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, almost all captured Bosnian Muslim men and boys, altogether several thousands, were executed at the places where they had been captured or at sites to which they had been transported for execution. [Emphasis in last sentence added by me.]

However, on February 26, 2007, in a stunning decision, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide but the state of Serbia was not responsible:

In a 171-page ruling, the International Court of Justice said the massacre of thousands of Muslims by Bosnian Serb forces at the U.N.-protected Srebrenica enclave was an act of genocide. But the 15-judge panel rejected Bosnia’s claim that the Serbian state was responsible for the killing, saying it did not have effective control over the Bosnian Serb forces it had helped arm and finance. Instead, the judges ruled that Serbia stood by and allowed the massacre to happen.

In the first test of the Genocide Convention (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) since its inception, the international community failed to hold a state party accountable for the actions of its proxy force. The Convention, enacted in the aftermath of the Holocaust, was designed to prevent or punish precisely the kind of crimes that took place in Srebrenica. By failing to find Serbia guilty of genocide, the verdict has effectively sanctioned genocide by proxy.

The ICJ judgment sets a very high bar for state responsibility for genocide. The judgment states:

– The test of responsibility In order to ascertain whether the international responsibility of the Respondent can have been incurred, on whatever basis, in connection with the massacres committed in the Srebrenica area during the period in question, the Court must consider three questions in turn. First, it needs to be determined whether the acts of genocide could be attributed to the Respondent on the basis that those acts where committed by its organs or persons whose acts are attributable to it under customary rules of State Responsibility. Second, the Court needs to ascertain whether acts of the kind referred to in Article III, paragraphs (b) to (e), of the Convention, other than genocide itself, were committed by persons or organs whose conduct is attributable to the Respondent. Finally, it will be for the Court to rule on the issue as to whether the Respondent complied with its twofold obligation deriving from Article I of the Convention to prevent and punish genocide. - The question of attribution of the Srebrenica genocide to the Respondent on the basis of the conduct of its organs The first of these two questions relates to the well-established rule, one of the cornerstones of the law of State responsibility, that the conduct of any State organ is to be considered an act of the State under international law, and therefore gives rise to the responsibility of the State if it constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State. When applied to the present case, this rule first calls for a determination whether the acts of genocide committed in Srebrenica were perpetrated by “persons or entities” having the status of organs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (as the Respondent was known at the time) under its internal law, as then in force. According to the Court, it must be said that there is nothing which could justify an affirmative response to this question. It has not been shown that the FRY army took part in the massacres, nor that the political leaders of the FRY had a hand in preparing, planning or in any way carrying out the massacres. It is true that there is much evidence of direct or indirect participation by the official army of the FRY, along with the Bosnian Serb armed forces, in military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the years prior to the events at Srebrenica. That participation was repeatedly condemned by the political organs of the United Nations, which demanded that the FRY put an end to it. It has however not been shown that there was any such participation in relation to the massacres committed at Srebrenica. Further, neither the Republika Srpska, nor the VRS were de jure organs of the FRY, since none of them had the status of organ of that State under its internal law. With regard to the particular situation of General Mladić, the Court notes first that no evidence has been presented that either General Mladić or any of the other officers whose affairs were handled by the 30th Personnel Centre in Belgrade were, according to the internal law of the Respondent, officers of the army of the Respondent – a de jure organ of the Respondent. Nor has it been conclusively established that General Mladić was one of those officers; and even on the basis that he might have been, the Court does not consider that he would, for that reason alone, have to be treated as an organ of the FRY for the purposes of the application of the rules of State responsibility. There is no doubt that the FRY was providing substantial support, inter alia, financial support, to the Republika Srpska, and that one of the forms that support took was payment of salaries and other benefits to some officers of the VRS, but the Court considers that this did not automatically make them organs of the FRY. The particular situation of General Mladić, or of any other VRS officer present at Srebrenica who may have been being “administered” from Belgrade, is not such as to lead the Court to modify the conclusion reached in the previous paragraph. [Emphasis added by me.]

According to the judgment, even though the Bosnian Serb forces were financed by Serbia, to the point where their salaries were paid by Belgrade, they cannot be considered to be an organ of the Serbian state. Furthermore, even though it can be shown that the Serbian army has participated directly and indirectly in military operations in Bosnia, since they did not participate in the massacre at Srebrenica, Serbia cannot be held responsible.

The legacy of the ICJ verdict is that as long as a government can maintain plausible deniability, it cannot be held liable for genocide committed by proxy local forces that are on its payroll. Many governments who have been accused of genocide because their proxies carried out mass killings will no doubt breathe a sigh of relief. From the genocide in Bangladesh in 1971 by local collaborators of the Pakistani army to the Sabra and Shatila massacre carried out by Israel’s proxy force in Lebanon to the Darfur genocide carried out by the Sudanese government-backed Janjaweed militia, the search for justice just became exceedingly difficult.

The impact on future conflicts also promises to be great. In an age where conventional wars are being replaced by proxy confrontations, the international community’s ability to hold accountable the ultimate lords of war has now been compromised.

The law is the last recourse of the powerless. This week international law failed the victims of Bosnia and all powerless victims of the evils of state sponsored genocide and terror.

Share

Walter Reed to Wounded Soldiers: SHUT UP! –updated below–

That was a quick about face.

If you don\’t like the
press you\’re getting, muzzle the messenger.

Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media. “Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media,” one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. It is unusual for soldiers to have daily inspections after Basic Training. Soldiers say their sergeant major gathered troops at 6 p.m. Monday to tell them they must follow their chain of command when asking for help with their medical evaluation paperwork, or when they spot mold, mice or other problems in their quarters. They were also told they would be moving out of Building 18 to Building 14 within the next couple of weeks. Building 14 is a barracks that houses the administrative offices for the Medical Hold Unit and was renovated in 2006. It’s also located on the Walter Reed Campus, where reporters must be escorted by public affairs personnel. Building 18 is located just off campus and is easy to access. The soldiers said they were also told their first sergeant has been relieved of duty, and that all of their platoon sergeants have been moved to other positions at Walter Reed. And 120 permanent-duty soldiers are expected to arrive by mid-March to take control of the Medical Hold Unit, the soldiers said. As of Tuesday afternoon, Army public affairs did not respond to a request sent Sunday evening to verify the personnel changes. The Pentagon also clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities, to include suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel, saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: “It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,” referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed. ARMY TIMES: Walter Reed patients told to keep quiet

UPDATE (2:25 p.m.): It\’s not just at Walter Reed either.

Share

Paralyzed –updated below–
cross-posted on Huffington Post

Iraq
Bill Vexes Democrats?

It\’s hard not to quote an article with a title like this one, because unfortunately Congress\’s actions match the message. Putting Iraq war legislation on the table, fighting for and voting on it \”vexes\”
Democrats?

Awww.

Well then, I say we put uniforms on all members of Congress and ship their
sorry privileged butts off to Iraq to see how they like the reality. Maybe then the war won\’t
vex the poor babies anymore. I mean, reeally.

Democrats are acting like chickenhawk Republicans and I\’ve had enough of them
to last a lifetime. Why do they think the public threw them out of Congress last
November?

Now go back up to the link at the top of the page and get a load of Harry Reid
in the picture. It looks like he\’s actually sulking. Is this the majority leader
of the Senate? The man in charge of moving the agenda in the \”greatest
deliberative body\” on planet earth? Seriously, we need to put some hot
blood into the upper ranks of Congress, because these seasoned DC Democratic \”leaders\” are too
timid by half.

The Democrats have a majority of the American people behind them, but they
don\’t have the spine to move on Iraq. They don\’t even have the nerve to do a
pr offensive to explain and put pressure on Mr. Bush and the Republicans, utilizing
the voices of the American people. Instead, we get headlines like the one above,
with wingnut radio in ecstasy over the Democratic dithering. All because of what I\’ve
been saying all week: Democrats \”want to make sure this is still President
Bush\’s war. It\’s his war to manage, and it\’s his war to end.\” That\’s
Rep. Moran talking, but it might as well be a congressional chorus of eunuchs.

Members of Congress are not \”the only ones conflicted,\” said Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.). \”The country\’s conflicted. We don\’t want to do the same thing we\’ve been doing for 3 1/2 years that hasn\’t worked, but we don\’t want to pull the plug.\” In the Senate, the Iraq debate may be on hold for a week or longer while Democrats address concerns about a new effort to limit Bush\’s war authority. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) had said that Iraq-related amendments may be considered on a homeland-security bill now before the Senate. But families of Sept. 11 victims fanned out across the Capitol yesterday, saying that a war debate could slow progress on the legislation, which would enact security recommendations by the bipartisan commission that studied the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. … Iraq Bill Vexes Democrats Leaders Struggle to Craft Measure That Can Unite Party

With due respect to the 9/11 victims\’ families, there is a war in Iraq going
on that is putting this country in danger every day, with soldiers dying every
day, while our military collapses further every day. Congress certainly must
address the security recommendations from the 9/11 Commission, but not at the
expense of Iraq. There is no issue more pressing than Iraq. Period. It does us no good to enact the security recommendations while
our country bleeds dry in Iraq, with our national guard stretched further and
further, as the coming Afghanistan offensive by the Taliban looms large in the
very near future. What is Reid thinking?

The good news is that nobody trusts the Republicans on Iraq, for good reason. They don\’t know anything about the military, except how to use them, and they\’re completely incompetent on managing anything governmental.

The bad news is that Democrats aren\’t leading and every week that passes without concrete action on Iraq, they are losing the faith of the American people.

Playing for time on escalation failing sooner rather than later is a big gamble.
Everyone should also remember that we\’re not playing with chips. The payment is made in lives.

UPDATE (1:40 p.m.): Okay, so I\’m hearing a lot from people on this post. Below is one email, to which I will reply afterwards, because it will answer the other comments I am receiving all at once.

How can you blame the democrats when they don\’t have enough votes in the Senate to place a meaure on the floor for a vote? The same Repugs who demanded an up-or down vote are now using the filibuster they claimed was undemocratic when they maintained a small majority in the Senate. You surely remember the phrase \”America deserves an up or down vote!\” It seems to me that you are falling for the GOP tactic of blocking votes and then demeaning and blaming the Democrats for not getting anything done. The mainstrem media supports this GOP crap. I would hope you would be more clear on this issue. Nothing the Dems do can overcome a presidential veto. Nothing the Senate Dems try can get enough republican support to actually go to a vote. It is up to the people to march (literally and figuratively) on Washington. Perhaps after Bush Nukes Iran? – TS

I don\’t expect Democrats to win or to have a veto-proof majority. But I sure as hell expect them to mount a knock down drag out fight on the House and Senate floors about ending the Iraq war. I also don\’t expect the 9/11 families and homeland security, both of which matter, to take first priority over the Iraq war. Iraq comes first. Period. I expect Reid to act accordingly. I also don\’t expect all Democrats to vote as a unit. Hell would freeze first. But I expect Mr. Reid to do something besides wring his hands, as other Democrats whine about being caught between losing a vote, not being able to get a vote going, and standing up for what\’s right, which is to get out of Iraq. What I don\’t want is a bunch of pontificating gas bags and weak kneed politicians unable to craft legislation that will at least represent most Americans\’ wishes, and when the GOP doesn\’t let it get to the floor, actually do something about it, besides pout. GOP talking points? Are you kidding me? The Democrats deserve the press they\’re getting, because they\’re losing the pr war badly. It gives me no pleasure to say so, but this is a WAR we\’re talking about, not some political football. I will not coddle and cover for Democrats when they\’re behavior is irresponsible and impossible to defend.

Share

Bush Recession Looming –updated below–

Danger signs everywhere. Biggest slam since 9/11. Trading curbs were in place today.

Dow plummets 416 points on huge China sell-off.

Shares of Chinese Internet stocks plunged Tuesday amid market declines around the world, over concerns about economic slowdowns in China and the U.S. Chinese stocks tumbled nearly 9 percent earlier in the day, followed by widespread losses in U.S. The Shanghai Composite Index saw its largest fall since the death of Communist Party elder Deng Xiaoping a decade ago. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had warned Monday that the U.S. economy may be headed for a recession… Business Week

More available on Bonddad\’s blog.

To update, Bonddad will be on my radio show tomorrow to discuss the Dow plummet and what\’s happening on the money front. We need to start talking about the looming Bush recession today, which Democrats will inherit. It will be too late in \’08.

UPDATE (6:05 p.m.): Tokyo markets opens sharly lower.

Share

Tap Dancing into Talks

As Afghanistan gets more
dangerous, Kissinger\’s influence is felt.

The Bush administration has agreed to sit around a negotiating table with official representatives of Iran and Syria next month — as part of a planned regional conference in Baghdad to discuss ways to stabilize Iraq. In joining the Baghdad conference, the administration is tiptoeing into what has become one of the most contentious issues in the roiling Iraq debate. Critics for months have been urging the administration to end its diplomatic isolation of Iran and Syria and begin a constructive dialogue with them about how to stabilize Iraq. Even former secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who has generally supported administration policy on Iraq, argued in an op-ed piece last weekend that it’s time to end the diplomatic quarantine and convene an international conference on Iraq. The Iraqi government is expected to announce the regional conference as early as Tuesday.The government will invite representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States — in addition to all of its Mideast neighbors. Though it will bring together American, Syrian and Iranian representatives, the Baghdad meeting doesn’t signal a direct U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran and Syria. A senior State Department official said Monday night that it wasn’t likely there would be separate bilateral meetings with Iran or Syria. Rather, the planned Baghdad meeting is an extension of the administration’s current policy of using the Iraqi government as the channel for discussions with Iran and Syria about Iraqi security. … … U.S. Agrees to Meeting with Iran and Syria

Share

Harry\’s Huddle

People need to quit referring to Joe Lieberman as a \”Democratic
hawk.\” He\’s simply a stubborn jackass who can\’t admit the plan for
Iraq is wrong. Period. Just because you won\’t turn away from a war dragging
your country down doesn\’t make you a \”hawk.\” It just makes you dumber
than dirt. James Webb is a hawk. Joe Lieberman is a chickenhawk. You don\’t get
points for following your convictions into the crapper. You earn your hawk status
by actually knowing something about the military, which is careening into the
desert quicksand, as Lieberman, Bush, et al. try to save face.

I know this is the ever swiftboating AP, which has been after Senator Reid
for a very long time, but this stance is untenable if true.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq. Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission. Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate, cited pressure from victims\’ families for quick action on the Sept. 11 bill as the reason for doing so. \”Iraq is going to be there — it\’s just a question of when we get back to it,\” Reid said, predicting it would be \”days, not weeks\” before the Senate returned to the issue. The war reauthorization legislation also appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to pass the Senate. … .. Democrats back away from Iraq plan

\”Iraq is going to be there\”?

Yes and so will our soldiers.

But citing the 9/11 victims\’ families?

There are so many things in this AP article that sent my alarms ringing, it\’s
hard to know where to start. But that quote from Harry Reid is as good a place
as any. I hope to have verification that he said that by morning for you. It\’s
all I can do to keep from screaming for now, but I don\’t trust the AP, especially when it comes to Reid, so I\’m holding my rhetoric in check.

But let\’s just say that the Democrats are \”backing away\” from the
2002 war authorization repeal, in order to \”huddle\” and decide what\’s
next. Exactly what to the Democrats think should be next? Is there actually
any question about it at this point? Isn\’t it important enough to at least take the stand and make the push to end the Iraq war, regardless of Lieberman, Bush et al.?

The bottom line is this. D.C. Democrats don\’t want to do anything that leaves them with the responsibility
for the Iraq war. They want to walk into \’08 being able to say it\’s Bush\’s war,
without having any association with the coming carnage. Then they shouldn\’t have voted for it in \’02. They also want to wait out and force Bush
to redeploy troops if the blood letting continues, again so Bush takes the blame
he so surely deserves. So there\’s the reality that if the Democrats put forth
a plan like repealing the 2002 authorization that doesn\’t pass, they\’ll look
weak, with Reid not wanting to take ownership of the war, and nervous the repeal measure won\’t pass. Unfortunately, Levin and Biden have been announcing the plan for days, so it\’s a little too late for Reid to back off. Levin didn\’t vote for the war, and Biden wants a partition. What does Reid want? He better figure it out soon and lead the Democrats and this country forward or the price we\’ll pay will be enormous.

Meanwhile, we get \”Democratic hawk\” labels about Lieberman from Politico.com,
along with \”Iraq is going to be there\” from the AP, and I haven\’t
even gotten to the Pelosi teaser in the piece.

All targets are aimed at the Democrats. Time to return fire.

Now read the \”bottom line\” in that paragraph above again. Get the feeling we\’re going in circles? Get the feeling Reid doesn\’t know how to get out of it?

It\’s always easier to plunge troops into a war than it is getting them out. You\’d think people would learn that by now. Too bad our politicians were more interested in preening like chickenhawks in 2002, because they were frightened of being called soft. It takes courage to step in and end a war. That\’s why it\’s still raging.

Share

Disgruntled America

There\’s this
poll out today showing that the majority of Americans think Mr. Bush\’s
leadership on Iraq just plain stinks, with 53% wanting a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

But an article earlier this morning on WashingtonPost.com offered a cold reality
for Democrats as well, especially those leading us in Congress.

With Bush\’s approval ratings mired by the unpopular war, Americans trust congressional Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq by a margin of 54 percent to 34 percent. That is down from a 27-point gap before the president\’s address last month. Since that time, trust in the Democrats on the issue has slipped six points. That has not been matched by increasing confidence in Bush, but by a five-point rise in the number who trust neither the Democrats in Congress nor the president on the issue. There has also been an eight-point decline in the Democrats\’ advantage among independents. … Most Americans Trust Congress Over Bush On Iraq

The link to the Washington Post piece I had earlier now
takes you to the new poll, but it\’s the above information everyone should pay close attention to. Even memeorandum has the original title of the piece still up, which I cite above. I can\’t find the text of the first piece on the Post any longer,
which I find curious, but it\’s elsewhere so you still get the data. I covered
it on my show, reading it from the first Post story. Anyway, odd, but these things happen with the corporate sites on The Tubes.

But because of Congress\’s dithering and doing nothing on Iraq,
5% of Americans have lost faith in their government all together, walking away
from both parties. Not surprising that cynicism rises when Congress fails to
engage their collective spine. However, that independents have walked away,
at least in the short term, from the Democratic Party is illustrative of just
how poorly the Senate handled this affair and how damaging this whole thing
could be in the long term.

Of course, it\’s not even election season yet, but it sure didn\’t
take long for 5-6% of the people to walk away from Democrats. No Democratic
member of Congress should think this isn\’t a sign, especially if they continue
to do nothing on the Iraq war. Talk is fine, but at some point action has to
meet up with rhetoric.

The American people want out of Iraq. American\’s voted in the last election. The progressive blogs led the way and the majority of America followed our lead. We can\’t do much more than that, because it\’s Congress\’s job now. I hope this isn\’t a news flash to the DC Democrats, but it doesn\’t do any good for Americans to vote, fax, call, email senators and their representatives if none of them are going to carry out the people\’s will. A new course on Iraq doesn\’t mean escalation either. Get the message? Now Congress needs to act.

Share

A Case for Withdrawal from Iraq –bumped–
guest post by Mash

The Bush Administration has been very successful in controlling the debate on the Iraq war. In a remarkable bit of political jujitsu the Administration pivoted from the findings of the Iraq Study Group that the United States should withdraw from Iraq to a debate on whether to escalate the war or not. By introducing the \”surge\” into the debate the Administration effectively tied the Democrats in a knot. Instead of debating the withdrawal from Iraq, the Democrats in both the House and the Senate have been debating whether to \”surge\” or not to \”surge\” – the withdrawal question was buried deep while the Democrats looked for a politically safe position against an escalation in Iraq. The Democrats have been embarrassingly outmaneuvered. It is time to put the political mathematics aside and debate the national interest. It is time to shift the debate back to the question of withdrawal from Iraq.

There is a strong argument to be made that an withdrawal from Iraq is the best strategic option available to the United States. I contend that the United States is the major destabilizing force in Iraq. I further contend that the longer the United States remains in Iraq, the more unstable Iraq will become. Iraq cannot begin the process of stabilizing until the United States withdraws from Iraq. Finally, the consequences of an American withdrawal from Iraq will not be chaos (as the Administration contends), but a more stable Iraq.

It is time to make the case for a strategic withdrawal from Iraq.

Yesterday in the Washington Post, Toby Dodge, formerly of SOAS, presented a cautionary tale about the British experience in Mesopotamia. He argued that the Bush Administration is reliving the sad history of the British in Iraq:

At the center of Baghdad\’s neglected North Gate War Cemetery, near the edge of the old city walls, stands an imposing grave. Sheltered from the weather by a grandiose red sandstone cupola, it is the final resting place of a man from whom George W. Bush could have learned a great deal about the perils of intervening in Iraq. Lt. Gen. Sir Frederick Stanley Maude was head of the British army in Mesopotamia when he marched into Baghdad on a hot, dusty day in March 1917. Soon thereafter, he issued the British government\’s \”Proclamation to the People of Baghdad,\” which eerily foreshadowed sentiments that Bush and his administration would express 86 years later: British forces, Maude declared, had entered the city not as conquerors, but as liberators. … Maude did not live to see the failure of his efforts to rally the people of Iraq to the British occupation. He died eight months later, having contracted cholera from a glass of milk. … In an echo of what is happening under the U.S. occupation, hopes for a joint Anglo-Iraqi pact to rebuild the country were dashed by a violent uprising. On July 2, 1920, a revolt, or thawra, broke out along the lower Euphrates, fueled by popular resentment of Britain\’s heavy-handed behavior in Iraq. The British army had set about taxing the population to pay for the building of the Iraqi state, while British civil servants running the administration refused to consult Iraqi politicians, judging them too inexperienced to play a role in the new government.

Dodge goes on to chronicle the failure of the British to stabilize Iraq. Ultimately, after the loss of much \”blood and treasure\” and loss of popular support at home, the British government belatedly declared \”victory\” and withdrew from Iraq. They left behind a legacy that resulted in the reign of Saddam Hussein and the intervention of George W Bush.

Toby Dodge describes what I have often called the logic of occupation. Failure is preordained because ultimately the invader will go home. That inescapable end is always futilely resisted by the occupier – the result is instability and loss of blood and treasure. Dodge describes the three phases of this collapse:

Where does this leave U.S. policy toward Iraq? Historical studies often divide military interventions into three general phases. The first phase, the initial decision to invade, is shaped by common misperceptions that the conflict will be short and that military force can be used to achieve political objectives. World War I began with an assumption that British troops would be home by Christmas; Bush declared \”mission accomplished\” after three weeks. The second phase is marked by a slow realization that both these assumptions are wrong. The policy failure leads to increasingly desperate attempts to stay the course, to pour in ever greater numbers of troops, gambling on a resurrection of the initial policy. This middle stage comes to an end with the decision to disengage. Interestingly, this choice — admitting defeat and going home — is usually taken by a new government. [Emphasis added by me.]

Mr. Bush is a victim of forces he has unleashed and he is faithfully playing his time-worn yet ultimately disastrous role as the occupier.

If we are to stop the logic of occupation before it reaches its bitter end, it is time for an intervention – not in Iraq, but regarding Mr. Bush.

General William Odom made the case a few weeks ago for a new strategy in Iraq. In his op-ed entitled \”Victory Is Not an Option\”, he argued in the Washington Post that withdrawal is a precondition for stability and a new strategic direction:

The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to collaborate with us in Iraq and the region. Second, we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East. Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening \”regime change,\” using the hysterical rhetoric of the \”global war on terrorism\” — all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East. Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our military operations so they enhance rather than undermine stability. We can write off the war as a \”tactical draw\” and make \”regional stability\” our measure of \”victory.\” That single step would dramatically realign the opposing forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even many in the angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities against the United States want predictable order, albeit on better social and economic terms than they now have. Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to achieve order will hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies and gain us new and important allies. This cannot happen, however, until our forces are moving out of Iraq. Why should Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond? Withdrawal will awaken most leaders in the region to their own need for U.S.-led diplomacy to stabilize their neighborhood.

General Odom has been consistent and consistently right on Iraq. I wrote in March 2006 about his article in Nieman Watchdog where he described the quagmire in Iraq and argued that the precondition for international support and stability in Iraq was an American withdrawal. He was right then, he is right now.

Shortly before the Iraq Study Group released its report, I wrote a post entitled \”The Way Forward in Iraq\” (please note that I coined \”The Way Forward\” before both the ISG and Mr. Bush!) where I argued that a post-withdrawal Iraq will not lead to chaos but is more likely to lead to stability. This is what I wrote then and I think it still holds true today:

I think there is a strong case to be made that the American presence in Iraq is fueling the civil war by delaying its resolution. That is not to say that the United States has effective control of the situation on the ground – it does not, but the presence of American troops gives the respective parties cover to arm and consolidate control of areas of the country. Without a doubt, the American presence guarantees that the Kurds in the north are able to consolidate their hold on Kirkuk and beef up the peshmerga. The American presence also allows the Shia factions to consolidate power in the various arms of the government, especially the security forces. The American forces also act as a buffer between the Shia and the Sunni by providing some measure of protection to the Sunni community to arm and consolidate their power in the western parts of Iraq. The American presence has also allowed the systematic ethnic cleansing of Iraq by Shia, Sunni and the Kurds. The ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods in Baghdad and other parts of the country has now effectively drawn geographical battle lines in Iraq’s civil war. The American presence also holds together a fractious Shia coalition that would otherwise collapse, and probably needs to if Iraq is to survive as a nation. It seems to me that it is essential that the United States pull out of Iraq. After an American pullout, the Iraqi civil war may start to resolve itself. The Iraqi civil war has regional implications. Those regional forces can, without the constraints of American occupation, begin to pull Iraq toward a resolution. As cited above, one possible outcome is military victory by one warring side. The conventional wisdom is that if the Americans leave the Shia will prevail in a civil war by virtue of their majority. I do not believe that is likely to occur for three reasons. First, the Sunni Arab countries of the region would see a Shia victory in Iraq as an expansion of Iranian hegemony into Arab territory. Without an American presence, the Sunni Arabs are likely to get significant support from regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria. The risk of a regional conflagration is likely to dampen any hopes of a Shia military victory in Iraq. Second, the Shia in Iraq are fractured between pro-Iranian groups such as SCIRI and more nationalistic Shia such as the Sadrists. Moqtada al-Sadr, like his father the Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, represents an Iraqi nationalist Shia movement. Sadr’s Shia movement and the Mahdi Army are likely to come into open conflict with the Iranian backed SCIRI and the Badr Brigade when the American occupation ends. Al Maliki’s Dawa Party sits in the uncomfortable middle between Sadr and SCIRI while being at the mercy of both. With an American exit, the Dawa Party is likely to see its fortunes dwindle. Lastly, the Shia cannot prevail over both the Sunni and the Kurds. Any military victory by the Shia would have to accept an independent state in the Kurdish north. The other possible outcome of a civil war is partition. However, any partition of Iraq that leaves the Kurds with an oil-rich independent country in the north of Iraq will be fiercely opposed by Turkey, and to a lesser extent by Iran and Syria. Turkey has between 25 to 30 millions Kurds who have been long persecuted. Any Kurdish country to Turkey’s east will endanger Turkish territorial integrity and will be a non-starter. The Sunnis in the west and center of Iraq also cannot form a viable country without having access to the oil rich north and south of Iraq. There is no three country map that can be carved out of Iraq that does not deny one of the group’s much needed oil revenue. The only remaining outcome for Iraq is then a negotiated settlement. The negotiated settlement may however come after an attempt at all out military victory is fought to a stalemate. The negotiated settlement will happen not because it is the preferred outcome, but because it is the only viable outcome. A negotiated settlement will certainly have to include the major regional players such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. The negotiated settlement will come after realization by the Arab states, and acceptance by Iran, that Iraq is, and historically has been, the Arab bulwark against Persian influence. Iran will find once again that the Iraqi Shia are not Iran’s fifth column in Iraq. An American departure from Iraq will eventually lead to a restoration of the balance of power in the region between the Arabs and the Iranians. The Kurds of Iraq will once again be denied an independent homeland. But that denial will likely come at a price for Turkey. Turkey may be forced to give autonomy to its Kurds as a condition for Kurdish guarantee of Iraq’s territorial integrity. The Iraq that is likely to emerge through the meat grinder of civil war will owe its stability to a regional need for stability, not to some gift of freedom given by George W Bush. Ironically, Mr. Bush is likely to see this precarious yet stable Iraq emerge from the ashes of his failed policy. Yet, it will emerge because Mr. Bush will finally have left it alone, and not because of his efforts at playing puppet master to the Arabs.

The above is my case for an American withdrawal from Iraq. I think the above scenario is far more likely than the doom and gloom predictions of the Bush Administration.

Now, to borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton, let the conversation on the American withdrawal from Iraq begin.

 

Share

Record Defense Spending, Less Security
Expert guest post by Charles V. Peña
Straus Military
Reform Project Adviser

As many have expected, President George W. Bush has asked Congress for an additional
$93 billion in supplemental funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
for this fiscal year, on top of the $70 billion already approved. The Department
of Defense proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 is $481 billion plus another
$142 billion in projected war costs, equaling a whopping $643 billion. But such
record spending (U.S. military expenditures now exceed the rest of the world
combined) is not necessary for American security.

The United States is in a unique geostrategic position with friendly neighbors
to the north and south, and vast moats to the east and west. With the demise
of the Soviet Union, the United States no longer faces a serious military challenger
or global hegemonic threat. Given that no other country in the world has significant
global power projection capability, America is relatively safe from a military
invasion. And the vast U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal is a powerful deterrent
against any country with nuclear weapons – even against so-called rogue
states if they eventually acquire long-range ballistic missiles.

So, the United States can afford to spend less on defense and still be secure.
A smaller U.S. military would be highly capable relative to the other militaries
of the world. And downsizing the military does not mean that the United States
would be retreating into a shell and adopting an isolationist posture. Even
if U.S. forces were pulled back from their current forward deployments, the
United States would still be able to project power if vital U.S. security interests
were at risk. Although it is counterintuitive, forward deployment does not significantly
enhance the U.S. military’s ability to fight wars. The comparative advantage
that the U.S. military possesses is airpower, which can be dispatched relatively
quickly and at very long ranges. Indeed, during Operation Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan, the U.S. Air Force was able to fly missions from Whiteman Air Force
Base in Missouri to Afghanistan and back. It is also worth noting that the U.S.
military had neither troops nor bases adjacent to Afghanistan – yet military
operations commenced less than a month after the Sept. 11 attacks.

More importantly, the real threat to the United States no longer consists of
nation states, but the terrorist threat represented by al-Qaida, which is relatively
undeterred by the U.S. military. Indeed, an expansive defense perimeter and
forward deployed forces did not stop 19 hijackers from attacking the United
States on Sept. 11, 2001. And U.S. forces abroad – particularly those
deployed in Muslim countries – do more to exacerbate the terrorist threat
than diminish it. We know, for example, that the presence of 5,000 U.S. troops
in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War was the basis of Osama bin Laden’s
hatred of the United States and one of his consistently stated reasons for engaging
in terrorism, including the Sept. 11 attacks. Scaling back the unnecessary U.S.
military presence around the world – particularly in the Middle East –
is likely to do more to reduce America’s profile as a target for terrorism.

Moreover, the shorthand phrase \”war on terrorism\” is misleading because
the term \”war\” implies the use of military force as the primary instrument
of policy for waging the fight against terrorism. But traditional military operations
will be the exception rather than the rule in the conflict with al-Qaida because
our adversary is not a military force to be confronted by massive firepower.
Rather, it is a loosely connected and decentralized network with cells and operatives
in 60 countries around the world. The reality is that the arduous task of dismantling
and degrading the network will largely be the task of unprecedented international
intelligence and law enforcement cooperation, which means the military aspects
of the war on terrorism will largely be the work of special forces in discrete
operations against specific targets rather than large-scale military operations.

Ultimately, larger defense budgets are both unnecessary and unwise because they
do not target the al-Qaida terrorist threat. Most current defense spending continues
to fund a large U.S. military presence deployed to all four corners of the globe,
including the U.S. occupation of Iraq that is a rallying cry for jihad –
much the same as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was in the 1980s. But
having such a large military results in the Madeleine Albright syndrome: \”What\’s
the point of having this superb military that you\’re always talking about if
we can\’t use it?\” In other words, it tempts policymakers to engage in unnecessary
military interventions and deployments, which in turn are a source of the terrorist
threat to the United States.

Charles V. Peña is an adviser to the Center for Defense Information’s
Straus Military Reform Project, senior fellow with the Independent Institute
and Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, military analyst for MSNBC television,
and author of Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism (Potomac
Books).

Share

The New Sunni-Shiite Cold War

VIDEO of Hersh on Iran

We can only hope it\’s a cold war.

Think Iraq, only imagine the religious, tribal and sectarian carnage expanded
throughout the Middle East. Got that picture? Welcome to Mr. Bush\’s long-term
plan for the Middle East, pitting Sunnis and Shia in the hopes of allying the former with Israel to contain the latter.

Today on CNN, Seymour Hersh talked about Iran and his new piece just out on
the realities we\’re currently facing. He talked about a plan wherein Mr. Bush
will decide to strike Iran and get the job done in what is called a \”24 hour
package.\” The strike would be decided, launched and completed within 24
hours. They\’re cocked and loaded and ready to pull the trigger. Shhhh. Don\’t tell Congress. As Hersh also
said, \”I\’ve been writing the same story for a year. …\” That\’s
true, but this latest story from Hersh and The New Yorker has a whole
different expanse and complexity to it.

After the revolution of 1979 brought a religious government to power, the United States broke with Iran and cultivated closer relations with the leaders of Sunni Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That calculation became more complex after the September 11th attacks, especially with regard to the Saudis. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and many of its operatives came from extremist religious circles inside Saudi Arabia. Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, Administration officials, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, assumed that a Shiite government there could provide a pro-American balance to Sunni extremists, since Iraq’s Shiite majority had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They ignored warnings from the intelligence community about the ties between Iraqi Shiite leaders and Iran, where some had lived in exile for years. Now, to the distress of the White House, Iran has forged a close relationship with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.” The Redirection, by Seymour Hersh

Throughout his piece, which is a must read, Mr. Hersh neglects one important Iraqi actor, which Mash
talked about yesterday: al-Hakim.
Interesting that this central figure goes silent here. Hersh is no dummy so it\’s got to be by design rather than omission. I guess \”stay tuned\” is about all we can take from it for now.

Now, about our friends the Saudis.

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. (Cheney’s office and the White House declined to comment for this story; the Pentagon did not respond to specific queries but said, “The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.”) The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations. The new strategy “is a major shift in American policy—it’s a sea change,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. The Sunni states “were petrified of a Shiite resurgence, and there was growing resentment with our gambling on the moderate Shiites in Iraq,” he said. “We cannot reverse the Shiite gain in Iraq, but we can contain it.” (snip) Martin Indyk, a senior State Department official in the Clinton Administration who also served as Ambassador to Israel, said that “the Middle East is heading into a serious Sunni-Shiite Cold War.” Indyk, who is the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, added that, in his opinion, it was not clear whether the White House was fully aware of the strategic implications of its new policy. “The White House is not just doubling the bet in Iraq,” he said. “It’s doubling the bet across the region. This could get very complicated. Everything is upside down.”

The issues swirling around Lebanon are what I\’ve been hinting about recently,
especially on radio, because there has been a \”fitna\” or civil war
brewing since Olmert screwed up his over the top bombing of Lebanon, and did
it so poorly that it not only emboldened Hezbollah, but left the entire region
believing that Israel has a baffoon at the top. Olmert proved that not only
was he incapable of understand military issues, but he didn\’t have the spine
to back down once his blunder was exposed. This has left Lebanon vulnerable
to all sorts of realities. More from Hersh:

In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict.” (skip forward) Nasrallah accused the Bush Administration of working with Israel to deliberately instigate fitna, an Arabic word that is used to mean “insurrection and fragmentation within Islam.” “In my opinion, there is a huge campaign through the media throughout the world to put each side up against the other,” he said. “I believe that all this is being run by American and Israeli intelligence.” (He did not provide any specific evidence for this.) He said that the U.S. war in Iraq had increased sectarian tensions, but argued that Hezbollah had tried to prevent them from spreading into Lebanon. (Sunni-Shiite confrontations increased, along with violence, in the weeks after we talked.)

Americans need to read up. This is getting very confusing for your average
citizen, even for those who follow these things. The players are planning
on the run to solidify turf, coupling with anything but the usual suspects, as they play with regional dynamite. It\’s one thing
to want to move players around when enjoying a game of Risk, ala Dick Cheney. It\’s quite another
to do it by throwing Israel and the Saudis together while Iraq is on boil.

So here is where we stand today. Iraq is in play, with the Saudis freaked out about ethnic cleansing and a Shia crescent, while the U.S. ratchets up tensions with Iran, who is linked in a swath of power from Iran to Lebanon, with Israel getting more nervous by the day and the Saudis offering up all the cash they\’ve got to make certain that the Shia power is balanced with Sunni force, actually dipping their diplomatic toes into a relationship with Israel, all the while the United States agitates the situation, even though our influence in the region has plummeted, giving the Shia and the Iranians a leg up. Got that? …and that\’s only the short version.

Now, getting out of Iraq won\’t begin to solve the challenges Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney have put into motion. The Sunni-Shiite cold war is on, but it\’s doubtful that any of these players will blink.

Share

Bush and al-Hakim: Master Slave Dialectic
guest post by Mash

Iraq is being torn apart while George W Bush and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim enable each other. As the Hadley memo points out, Mr. Bush is counting on Mr. Hakim to deliver an Iraq that can \”govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.\” Mr. Hakim, for his part, is in the enviable position of being able to use the leader of the free world to pursue his goal of bringing about an Islamic revolution in Iraq. The dialectic between Mr. Bush and Mr. Hakim became abundantly clear yesterday.

Yesterday the US military detained Ammar al-Hakim, the eldest son of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, as he returned to Iraq from Iran:

U.S. forces detained the son of one of Iraq\’s most prominent Shiite politicians for several hours Friday, a spokesman for the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq said. The convoy of Amar al-Hakim, one of the sons of party leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, was stopped as Amar was returning from a trip to Iran, Haitham al-Husseini said. The senior Hakim, whose party controls the largest number of seats in the Iraqi parliament and who met with President Bush during a visit to Washington in December, spent many years in exile in Iran and has close ties to that country. U.S. officials have said Iran has supplied weapons to militias targeting American forces in Iraq.

The younger al-Hakim, however, was released, with an apology from the American ambassador, after some high level intervention:

State-run television said Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite who depends on Mr. Hakim’s support, intervened to help release the son, Amar Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. … The American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said he was “sorry” for the detention. The son is himself a senior official in Mr. Hakim’s political movement and has often taken a leading role in building support for his father’s political efforts throughout Shiite-dominated southern Iraq. A Hakim aide suggested that the son was being groomed to take control of the family’s political dynasty. … He also said that United States military officers whom he would not identify had contacted aides to Mr. Hakim and apologized for the detention. Mr. Khalilzad, the American ambassador, was quoted by news agencies as saying that he regretted the episode and that “we do not mean any disrespect” to the Hakim family. [Emphasis added by me.]

It appears that the Bush Administration knows who the real masters are in Iraq. An administration that famously does not say \”sorry\” for launching wars without justification or killing innocents in Iraq was bending over backwards to not show \”disrespect\” to the Hakim family.

Ammar al-Hakim is not only the son of Mr. Bush\’s man in Iraq, he is also a major political force and power broker in Iraq in his own right. The younger al-Hakim is the second in command, after his father, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and he is the point man for SCIRI\’s push to create a separate Shia state in the south of Iraq.

One of the strongest advocates of a federal state in the south is Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, SCIRI, one of the major Shia partners in the UIA bloc. He says federalism is a “constitutional right” not only for the Kurds but also for the people of central and southern Iraq. “Federalism does not mean splitting the country. It is a hope for the future of Iraq, and it is a demand by the masses,” he said recently in Najaf. Hakim has commissioned his son, Ammar al-Hakim, head of the Shahid al-Mihrab Institute, a SCIRI establishment that promotes Islam in southern Iraq, to mobilise popular support for the federalism project.

In addition to his leading role in advocating for a separate Shia homeland in the Iraqi south, Ammar al-Hakim is very well known in Iraq and has often been the spokesman for SCIRI since the beginning of the Iraq invasion. The major force that stands in opposition to the Hakim family\’s plan to create an Iranian proxy state in Iraq is Moqtada al-Sadr. In Mr. Bush\’s attempt at isolating Mr. al-Sadr he is handing Iraq over to the Iranian-backed and financed SCIRI and the Iranian-groomed Hakim family.

While Mr. Bush complains about Iranian influence in Iraq, he continues to back the Iranian-supported SCIRI in Iraq. One is forced to ask whether Mr. Bush understands that his actions and alliances in Iraq are undermining Iraq\’s territorial integrity. One is forced to ask whether Mr. Bush understands that his actions and alliances in Iraq are giving aid and comfort to Mr. Bush\’s stated adversary in Iraq, that is, Iran.

There can only be two possible answers to Mr. Bush\’s puzzling dalliance with SCIRI and the Hakim clan. One possibility is that Mr. Bush is ignorant of the complexities in the Iraqi political landscape and does not understand how his actions contribute to Iraqi instability. The other possibility is that Mr. Bush understands fully that his actions in Iraq are empowering Iran. If the latter is the case, then one is forced to ask why Mr. Bush would want to empower Iran in Iraq. It may be that by empowering Iran in Iraq, the only Iraq exit strategy left on the table for Mr. Bush is to strike Iran in order to counter Iran\’s increased influence. Recent saber-rattling by the Bush Administration against Iran does not bode well for the future.

Meanwhile, the president of the United States hosts a death squad leader (Abdul Aziz al-Hakim) in the White House and calls him \”Your Eminence\” and the American ambassador to Iraq is forced to apologize to the death squad leader\’s son in case any disrespect was caused by American soldiers.

 

Share

Fear & Loathing in the Las Vegas Political Jungle –updated–
a guest post by citizen activist and Nevadan, veteran Johnathan
L. Abbinett

FoxAttacks BEWARE! There’s danger and political duplicity in the desert.

There is a new urban jungle political war being waged in Nevada,
largely in Las Vegas and Clark County and political animals of every type are
actively seeking to build alliances, destroy their old and new enemies, gain
new territories and consolidate their personal power; sadly, regardless of the
real needs of the common citizens.

Recently, the Nevada State Democratic Party got caught by surprise in the national spotlight and the sights of the netroots activists over the
Party’s
decision to “partner” with the FOX News, the infamous faux Republican
political propaganda media machine. This quickly led to many progressives on
DailyKOS
(and other well known websites)
to ask “Is
the Nevada State Democratic Party NUTS?“

While there are, in fact, a few nut cases in the NSDP (Nevada State Democratic
Party), most have been totally marginalized to include the old far left hippie
era loony tunes of yesteryear. But this is not your mom’s or
dad’s Democratic Party. Nevada is very unique. At the core of the population
is a long, strong, very independent, conservative base that has been fully infiltrated
by Republican Lite types and traitor D.I.N.O.’s (Democrats in name only) masquerading as true blue
Democrats. Many of these people have worked their way up through the ranks of the Party
for decades and are now deeply entrenched, broadly supported and well financed. They are nothing short of traitors to the Democratic Party and the greatest
threat to democracy in Nevada and the common people.

After the netroots fire storm, the NSDP
State Chairman Tom Collins announced he will not run for re-election. That’s
good news, and a step in the right direction. But this was after
he was publicly
outed by me for being a bully, sexist and a homophobe that does not believe
in the separation of church & state doctrine.

… Here’s the back story to why I’ve abdicated and become a Non-Partisan/Independent… During the last NSDP Convention, Tom Collins barely won the election to the State Chairmanship. Tom Collins actually walked into the GLBT Caucus and insulted everyone by saying they had victumized themselves by choosing their deviant life-style! When asked about separation of Church and State, Collins openly admitted “he follows his church!” Then, he had the audacity to say “that the reason the Democratic Party became divided and destroyed was because of the women and their ERA movement!” How Bad is the Nevada Democratic Party?

However, the Party also announced that Collins will continue to serve
as chair to the Nevada ’08 Presidential Caucus and they have no
intention of dropping FOX news as their partner. That is really bad news,
as Nevada and the Western
Majority Project deserves a real leader that embraces both contemporary
and progressive Democratic values. It is also just nuts to give FOX
news an exclusive in any forum. This is just another factual example that the corrupt leadership inside the NSDP does not even give a damn about what the average all American Nevada Democrat thinks, let alone the non-partisans, independents or Greens. It’s all
about personal power.

I’m not talking about Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) or our great and favorite Congresswoman
Shelley Berkley, nor our internationally famous Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman.
These three are the biggest gorillas in the political jungle in Nevada and they
don’t need the state Party to win election after election overwhelmingly.
I’m talking about the inner circle of anonymous princes, princesses and
queens and kings that pull the strings and get a lot of wealthy people to write
really big checks and anoint the state Party chairs and the county chairs and
determine who will and will not be granted a coveted seat on the county central
committees and be empowered with a sacred vote on the unholy Nevada state central
committee.

As I’ve said before, if you’re not on the NSDP State Central Committee
then you’re just another jack ass that thinks it’s a true blue Democratic
donkey.

To make matters worse, the NSDP state central committee list has just been scrubbed again of most of the supposedly disloyal dissenters and political progressives by Clark County
chairwoman Liz Foley. Now there are only about 150 registered Nevada Democrats
designated as royalty with the right to vote. It’s a monarchy at best and a dictatorship at worst.

It is not just about getting into the room or getting a chair at the
table of power. No one’s voice really matters if he or she cannot raise their
hand, be duly recognized, allowed to participate in debate and cast a vote.
The sad reality is the Nevada “Democratic” Party is an illusion.
It’s a political sham and a shame to democracy everywhere.

I know what I’m talking about. I was one of their loyal knights for years,
but was cast into political purgatory by Clark County chairwoman Liz Foley for
daring to do the right thing and stand up and fight to unite the north, south
and the rural regions and objecting when Democratic Women’s ERA support
was criticized and, as a person of faith, arguing that we must have a total
separation of church & state within the Party, as well as for relentlessly insisting
that the NSDP take a strong stand in opposition to the unjust war in Iraq, while
sincerely supporting our troops and veterans.

It’s past time for the progressives and moderates in the Nevada State
Democratic Party to rise up, organize and vote these traitors out of every leadership
position and chairmanship. It’s time the registered Democrats of Nevada
say enough is enough and we want change now in Nevada. I say, Viva la Revolution!
and viva Las Vegas, baby.

Share

Dick Cheney\’s Nerve

It takes some nerve to call Speaker Pelosi out, especially after the carnage Mr. Cheney leaves behind him. But that\’s what he did this week.

Vice President Cheney refused to back down yesterday from his assertion that the Democratic approach to Iraq would \”validate the al-Qaeda strategy,\” as he continued a transpacific war of words with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Speaking with ABC News during a visit to Australia, the vice president addressed the criticism of Pelosi, who earlier this week said that Cheney\’s remarks were \”beneath the dignity of the debate we\’re engaged in.\” She also spoke with White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten to register her complaint. \”She accused me of questioning her patriotism,\” Cheney said. \”I didn\’t question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment.\” … .. Cheney Remark Rankles Pelosi

\”Validate the al-Qaeda strategy\” he says. It was Dick Cheney
who helped turn our focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. I can\’t wait to see what
Dick Cheney has to say when the Taliban\’s spring offensive begins. It was Dick
Cheney who set Scooter loose on Valerie Plame, which has been conclusively proven,
even if Deadeye Dick called the shots out of reach of the law. It was Dick Cheney
who helped keep Donald Rumsfeld at the DoD while our brave soldiers died one
at a time, without body armor and in trucks that had less protection than some
of the stars showing up this Sunday at the Oscars. It was also Dick Cheney who
helped concoct a case for preemptive war out of whole cloth by using statements
that would have made a moral man ashamed. Unfortunately, Dick\’s favorite venue, Tim Russert\’s \”Meet the Press\” was more than willing to comply, but Russert has a lot of company among the corporate hack pack.

“…it’s been pretty well confirmed that (9/11 al-Qaeda hijacker Mohammed Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” – V.P. Cheney, “Meet the Press,” 12.9.01 But Tim Russert was just the kick off of the campaign, however, it wasn\’t a fluke that Dick started on MTP and took as many laps as he could on Timmy\’s Sunday version of \”The View.\” The list of verbal crimes is long for Deadeye Dick. “But we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons… Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.” – Vice President Cheney, Speech to VWF’s 103rd National Convention, 8.26.2002 \”Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.\” – Vice President Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002 “Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon … “Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitute as grave a threat as can be imagined.” -Vice President Dick Cheney on 8.26.02 Dick Cheney on “Meet the Press,” 9.8.02: “We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using hs procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.” (This reference is to aluminum tubes that were disputed by many intelligence analysts.) \”…And as the President said on Tuesday night, it would take just one vial, one canister, one crate to bring a day of horror to our nation unlike any we have known.\” – Vice President Dick Cheney, Remarks to the Conservative PAC, 1.30.03 \”… we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons… We know he\’s reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he\’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, included the al-Qaeda organization.\” – Vice President Dick Cheney, \”Meet the Press,\” 3.16.03 “And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 3.16.03

Validate al Qaeda, Cheney charges. However, no one is responsible for the terrorist
explosion around the world or making us more vulnerable to future attacks more
than Dick Cheney; him and his incompetent pal, our president. So if we\’re
talking about validating al Qaeda, let\’s say that Dick Cheney has not only validated
al Qaeda, but inspired them to new heights of villiany.

Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, the scene of almost half the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks. But even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan—the other current jihadist hot spot—there has been a 35 percent rise in the number of attacks, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities. … .. The Iraq Effect: War has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide

I don\’t just question Dick Cheney\’s judgment. I don\’t trust any decision he makes. Mr.
Cheney has lied, manipulated and schemed against the American people, demanding
loyalty and secrecy from his staff in a country that once prided itself on integrity, honor and at least a modicum of transparency. He has championed torture and made diabolical dissembling in our democratic republic into a political art form.
He is quite simply a baffoon of a man who has made a mockery of everything decent
in this country, while using human lives to justify his horrendous appetite for power in a region he doesn\’t begin to understand. This isn\’t mere conjecture. It is now a part of history.

But Speaker Pelosi shouldn\’t be calling the president to complain. She should be calling Dick Cheney out.

Share

What the Dems Said this Week –updated–

The Democrats had a lot to say this week, though conservatives have only the Obama – Hillary feud on their minds. And speaking of conservatives, I almost forgot… I don\’t listen to Hannity radio very often, but today I listened in because I knew he\’d likely cover the Obama-Hillary flap. Well, I got a surprise. Straight off the top, Hannity brought up this post that is cross-posted on Huffington Post, which is how he (or his staff) found it. He quoted this part: \”It\’s time to let Joe go. Don\’t feel beholden, babe. Take the leap. You\’re most of the way there anyway, especially on foreign policy. … … Joe Lieberman is just another chickenhawk who no longer belongs in the Democratic Party.\” He then talked about it being from Taylor Marsh, though he\’d \”never heard of this person.\” Of course, Sean wouldn\’t dare quote the rest of my piece, because it\’s too damning for Joe, especially the James Webb Democrat and the JFK lines.

Now to the subject at hand.

I thought I\’d share the video above, if only to give some of my wingnut fans
a fine target. It was recorded after a very long 36 hours for me, but I never
turn down a chance to work with David Grossman\’s PoliticsTV. I appreciate it
whenever they ask me on.

Below is some audio I recorded of the AFSCME Democratic forum, plus some video that\’s now available on YouTube. Some of the audio clips are short, with sound being as good as it can be, considering I was in another room for some of it. The media room audio is better, though
the candidates had to compete with a lot of noise, so keep that in mind when
you listen. Enjoy.

Bill
Richardson\’s opening statement to AFSCME. I wasn\’t able to tape the media
room event, but I am working on getting an interview with the governor within
the next couple of months. Another video here.

Edwards intro.
(in front of AFSCME)

Edwards
on Clinton\’s position on Iraq. (in front of AFSCME)

Edwards
taking questions from the media.

Edwards YouTube clips of the event are here and here.

Biden on Iraq.
(media room)

Biden on Iraq
and the political solution urgently needed.

Biden promises
not to \”go negative.\” (media room) But as I told both the senator and his sister, there\’s a difference in going negative and simply putting forward
serious policy differences that need to be discussed.

Biden responds
to my question. (media room) He chose to \”comment generically,\”
instead of specifically to my question about Hillary wanting to cut off funds
from the Iraqis and their forces.

Chris Dodd intro. YouTube here and here.
(in front of AFSCME)

Kucinich short. YouTube of the event is here and here.
(in front of AFSCME)

Mike Gravel I didn\’t catch, but these
speech highlights give you an idea of the man.

Clinton intro.
(in front of AFSCME)

Clinton on Iraq and that \”m\” word.
(in front of AFSCME)

Clinton
on the Obama – Geffen – Bubba dust up. (in front of AFSCME)

Tom Vilsack has dropped out, which is too bad. I interviewed him and he\’s a very solid man. I encourage everyone to read this post on Huffington: Vilsack\’s Departure Is a Loss for Progressives. It\’s important.

There was no audio of Clinton in the media room, because she ducked out.

Barack Obama isn\’t included, because he skipped the event for Iowa.

And that, in Oscar terms, is a wrap.

NOTE: Coverage of the Carson City Democratic forum earlier this week was sponsored by AFSCME.

Share

The New Republic Gasps for Relevancy

Drowned out by new media.

As goes Joe, so goes the New Republic. When I read this earlier today,
the inevitability of it seemed to be lost on everyone associated with TNR. Not
that I\’m happy about anyone in the political biz losing steam or their jobs,
but I mean really. No one has been more obtuse about the modern progressive
movement than Mr. Peretz & Co.

Franklin Foer, who was named editor of the magazine a year ago, said that he has been spending much of his tenure mulling “how to revise the magazine’s identity for the age of the blog,” and now plans to reinvigorate the publication and its Web site with a deeper commitment from Mr. Asper. His goal, Mr. Foer said, is for the magazine to “transcend ideology” and to become what he calls The New Yorker of politics. “There’s a massive vacuum in political journalism when it comes to magazines writing about politics, the culture of Washington and presidential politics,” he said. Starting March 19, the magazine will publish fortnightly and will double in size to about 80 pages from the current 40, Mr. Foer said. It will be printed on heavier paper stock, and will be redesigned to include more original photographs, cartoons and other graphic elements. “It’s hard to be less visual than we are now,” Mr. Foer said. The New Republic’s circulation, which was about 101,000 in 2000, has slipped to slightly more than 60,000 now. Mr. Foer attributed the decline in part to an intentional culling of subscriptions sold at reduced rates, a move that has helped save costs. Since then, he said, with the help of “buzzy” articles, “we’ve been growing at a slow but steady clip,” and circulation last year within Washington grew by 30 percent. “We’re within striking distance of being profitable,” he said. … New Republic to Cut Back Publication Schedule

Now the goal is to become The New Yorker of politics? Good luck with that one. Wow, they haven\’t learned a thing, have they.

Peretz goes on to say something in the article that had me laughing out loud.

Mr. Peretz, 67, has himself become a blogger. He said he was “not enjoying it exactly,” but that he had found it addictive. “When I used to see something irritating, I would typically call a friend,” he said. “Now I just go to the blog.” He said he is often surprised at how quickly readers will post a response. “It’s as if they’re waiting for something,” he said. “Then they say, ‘Ah, here he is. I’m going to pounce.’ “

Why am I not surprised that Marty isn\’t \”enjoying it exactly,\” meaning
being a blogger. The last thing these old media types want is immediate push
back from readers, whom they consider inconvenient rabble. That is until 54%
of their subscription base fled to the web and the progressive blogs, which
are beating the old media types on every story that\’s relevant and matters,
starting with the Iraq war.

Joe\’s hinting at becoming a Republican.

TNR is changing it\’s very business model to try and compete and stay relevant.

Once again, Joe and TNR are finding themselves left in the dust by progressives,
as well as the majority of the American public, Democrats and Republicans,
who long ago left the Iraq war and the bad judgment of the TNR crew, wanting something that resembles sanity in a
Bush & Joe world gone mad.

It\’s now a game of follow the leaders and those people would be us.

Share

Malkin Gets a Show –updated below–

Michelle Malkin and the female version of Alan Colmes, Kirsten Powers, though
she\’s a lot better looking, are teaming up on FNC to target the blogosphere.

Fox News Channel is testing another pilot on Sunday that will air following its experiment in news satire, \”The ½ Hour News Hour.\” \”It\’s Out There,\” a half-hour of stories derived from blogs, will get a half-hour test run following Joel Surnow\’s satirical take on news. Show, fronted by conservative blogger-columnist Michele Malkin and former Clinton administration operative Kirsten Powers, will take on political and cultural issues enflaming the blogosphere. … Fox News jogs its blogs

If you\’ve watched Laura
Schwartz in action, then you likely also heard Powers
on Fox \”News,\” too, giving out her brand of 20th century Democratic
wisdom. Of course, they\’re both blondes, because blondes just look great on camera.
Fox also can\’t have anyone who who could go straight at Malkin. That\’s not
what Fox \”News\” does. Interesting, however, that both Schwartz and
Powers worked in the Clinton administration. Murdoch has a thing about the Clintons,
I guess. (Update… Here\’s another video from C&L: Powers v. Coulter.)

But at least it\’s one more Democrat on Fox, right?

The Democratic Party is making peace with FNC, or a pact with the devil, whatever you want to call it. Fox is hosting the Nevada debate later this year, with everyone wondering Why? As I wrote yesterday,
if you asked our candidates for \’08 if they wanted the Fox audience I\’d bet
they\’d say YES! Anyone wanting to win in \’08 wants the biggest
audience possible, which means Fox has to be considered. However, that doesn\’t
mean it will end well for the Dems, though I hope our candidates show the wingnut
Fox crowd what real national security, coupled with diplomacy, looks like. I
would rather any network but Fox host the debate, but I think it just might
give the wingnut crowd a real shock. When they actually see how good our candidates
are…. Nah. Scratch that, I caught the Fox fever for a moment.

As for the Malkin – Powers half hour show called \”It\’s Out There,\”
it sure is, out there, that is. They\’re also launching on Oscar night, so lots of luck. However, I\’m really hoping they pull it off. Yes, you read that right.
Frankly, it\’s good to see two women headlining a TV show on cable. You don\’t
see that on CNN or MSNBC, for sure. Russert never invites women on his version
of \”The View.\” So I say good for Fox. Though to be clear, they\’re putting together a woman who believes internment is constitutional, and who also makes stories up out of whole cloth, with a woman who is still living in the 20th century, as far as progressive politics is concerned. So what we\’ll be getting on \”It\’s Out There\” are two women with regressive viewpoints, neither of whom have actually entered the modern era, let alone the modern media world. It\’s likely not good news for the blogs.

It\’s a show with two women who haven\’t said anything positive about
the blogosphere since they started testing their team with Bill O\’Reilly. If Powers does for Democrats what Alan Colmes has done, we\’re screwed. We\’ll
have to see if it\’s a serious effort by these Fox gals, or if it\’s just another
hit against the new media that is beating everyone, especially Fox, at the game.

Share