Just a Thought...
Published by BG on Saturday, May 19, 2007 at 5:49 PM."Sicko" | Salon Arts & Entertainment
When Moore interviews Tony Benn, a leading figure on the British left, his larger concerns come into focus. Benn argues that for-profit healthcare and the other instruments of the corporate state, like student loans and bottomless credit-card debt, perform a crucial function for that state. They undermine democracy by creating a docile and hardworking population that is addicted to constant debt and an essentially unsustainable lifestyle, that literally cannot afford to quit jobs or take time off, that is more interested in maintaining high incomes than in social or political change.
Maybe I'll try to make sense of this later, but it's an interesting take on things. Corporations are enormous economies all on their own, and certainly do what they can to lobby for laws that make their access to the market as free as possible. There are those that don't believe this is a good thing, and this gentleman obviously takes that a step further.
I think maybe HH might find this an interesting enough topic to run with...
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ What An Asshole -- The more things change... Edition
Published by Luckbox on Friday, May 18, 2007 at 4:45 PM.
(Check the byline... this one is from The Luckbox)
In case you forgot (and it's kinda easy to forget considering we're talking about Democrats), Nancy Pelosi, et al, came into power promising change. Our Congress would no longer be full of the pork-barrell spending that plagued the Republican Congress for years. Of course, the promise will never be fulfilled. Democrats like pork-barrell spending like fat kids like candy.
If you haven't been following, Rep. John Murtha (Pelosi's personal henchman) tried to shove through $23 million in funding for a pet project in his home district. The pork-barrell spending would be attached to the House Intelligence Act. Rep. Mike Rogers, who spent six years in the FBI fighting public corruption, tried to strip the funding from the bill. Of course, with Democrats in charge, the funding stayed.
Following Rogers efforts, Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on defense, said something to the effect of, "You'll never get an earmark again."
Rogers said, "That's not the way we do things here."
To which Murtha responded, "That's the way I do things."
Now THAT's the kind of leader we need in Washington! Thankfully, Rogers isn't going to let Murtha slide on his clear violation of House rules. The House code of conduct says that a Congressman "may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark … on any vote cast by another member." Rogers plans to seek a formal reprimand. It won't pass, because Democrats aren't interested in any semblance of integrity, but it's nice to see a Congressman standing up for what's right.
ABC News provides us with dueling statements on the matter:
Rep. Murtha: "The committee and staff give every Democrat and Republican the same consideration. We have extensive hearings and every request is given careful consideration. We will continue to do just that."
House Minority Leader John Boehner: "Mike Rogers knows public corruption, and he knows about threats and intimidation. For five years as an FBI special agent, it was Rogers' job to go after those who abused the public's trust and to stare down mobsters. No member of Congress should be threatened or intimidated because of his or her efforts to crack down on wasteful spending and protect the interests of taxpayers."
In case you forgot (and it's kinda easy to forget considering we're talking about Democrats), Nancy Pelosi, et al, came into power promising change. Our Congress would no longer be full of the pork-barrell spending that plagued the Republican Congress for years. Of course, the promise will never be fulfilled. Democrats like pork-barrell spending like fat kids like candy.
If you haven't been following, Rep. John Murtha (Pelosi's personal henchman) tried to shove through $23 million in funding for a pet project in his home district. The pork-barrell spending would be attached to the House Intelligence Act. Rep. Mike Rogers, who spent six years in the FBI fighting public corruption, tried to strip the funding from the bill. Of course, with Democrats in charge, the funding stayed.
Following Rogers efforts, Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on defense, said something to the effect of, "You'll never get an earmark again."
Rogers said, "That's not the way we do things here."
To which Murtha responded, "That's the way I do things."
Now THAT's the kind of leader we need in Washington! Thankfully, Rogers isn't going to let Murtha slide on his clear violation of House rules. The House code of conduct says that a Congressman "may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark … on any vote cast by another member." Rogers plans to seek a formal reprimand. It won't pass, because Democrats aren't interested in any semblance of integrity, but it's nice to see a Congressman standing up for what's right.
ABC News provides us with dueling statements on the matter:
Rep. Murtha: "The committee and staff give every Democrat and Republican the same consideration. We have extensive hearings and every request is given careful consideration. We will continue to do just that."
House Minority Leader John Boehner: "Mike Rogers knows public corruption, and he knows about threats and intimidation. For five years as an FBI special agent, it was Rogers' job to go after those who abused the public's trust and to stare down mobsters. No member of Congress should be threatened or intimidated because of his or her efforts to crack down on wasteful spending and protect the interests of taxpayers."
A Quickie on Warrantless Wiretapping and the Comey Testimony
Published by BG on at 1:40 PM.Instapundit.com -
Orin Kerr comments:
In my view, Kmiec is plainly right that nothing in Comey's testimony suggests anything like another Watergate. Consider how little we know about the facts. We don't know what the program was that Comey and Ashcroft wouldn't authorize, or why they wouldn't authorize it. And as far as I can tell, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the President intentionally violated a known legal duty...
I'm legitimately looking for help on making this work in my head, because I can't seem to agree with what he's saying here. Glenn Reynolds, however, is a law professor, so for this to be posted as truth without comment strikes me as an endorsement.
Here's what we know:
1) This surrounds warrantless wiretapping with at least one end of the conversation residing in the United States. This has been covered for 30 years by FISA law.
2) The President claims Article II authority to be unencumbered by the law while performing his "Commander-in-Chief" duties. It is irrelevant to this question whether or not that claim is legitimate or constitutional.
3) Warrantless wiretapping has occurred. This has been acknowledged by the administration directly.
Regardless of whether or not the President believes a law applies to him while carrying out these duties, he had to know he was violating a "known legal duty" here, correct? It is his belief he is justified in doing so, but that does not mean that the legal duty does not exist. It just means he claims an exemption due to his inherent Article II powers, right?
If it was intentional to wiretap without warrants, and if it was intentional to apply Article II justification to the program to circumvent FISA, it was therefore intentional to circumvent the FISA courts, whose warrants are required by law, right?
Whether you think the Article II justification is appropriate or not, whether you think that warrantless wiretapping is an honest program only targeting terrorists or not, where am I not making a connection between "intentionally violated a known legal duty" and what the President chose to do in this situation?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Links to a Thorough Analysis of the Presidential Candidates
Published by BG on at 1:09 PM.McSweeney's Internet Tendency: Pros and Cons of the Top 20 Democratic Presidential Candidates.
7. OPTIMUS PRIME
Pro: Size; power; ability to emit short-range optic blasts.
Con: Potential attack ad: "Sometimes Optimus Prime is a robot, other times a truck. Which is it, Mr. Prime? America deserves a leader that doesn't transform whenever it's convenient."
McSweeney's Internet Tendency: Pros and Cons of the Top 20 Republican Presidential Candidates.
4. ZOMBIE RONALD REAGAN
Pro: Probably the most Reaganesque candidate available; if stoked with the brains of the living, should operate in an acceptable fashion.
Con: Long-dead eyes lack that magic twinkle; inhuman groans negatively impact "Great Communicator" status.
Powered by ScribeFire.
This Begs The Question...
Published by BG on at 12:15 PM.Fingerprint expert takes stand in Padilla trial - Los Angeles Times
By Carol J. Williams, Times Staff Writer
May 18, 2007
MIAMI — A former FBI fingerprint specialist testified Thursday that terrorism suspect Jose Padilla's fingerprints match at least seven of 45 latent prints found on an alleged application for Al Qaeda holy war training.
Wait, so if al Qaeda requires that you fill out a form to join the team, then presumably they have someone on staff to process these forms, right?
So why are we spending so much time chasing terrorists through the mountains when we can just go after their HR Department instead? If they can't process the forms, they can't bring aboard new terrorists, right?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ, What an Asshole - Friday Ethics Committee Edition
Published by BG on at 10:51 AM.TPMmuckraker May 18, 2007 10:07 AM
Wow.
From Roll Call (sub. req.):
The House ethics committee has declared that an earmark requested by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) to build a commuter transit center near a handful of properties he owns would not be an impermissible financial conflict because any benefit to Calvert would be shared by other similarly situated landowners.
Wow.
Just let that sit a little bit. Calvert used his power as a lawmaker to appropriate $5.6 million in taxpayer dollars to build a transit center that's within walking distance of seven of his properties (ranging from office and/or retail buildings to a storage facility). But there's no conflict there, mostly because any financial benefit Calvert achieved “would be experienced as a member of a class of landholders in the vicinity of the transit Center.”
Powered by ScribeFire.
Even The Well-Intended Actions Of The Righteous, If You'd Like To See Our World That Way...
Published by BG on at 9:02 AM.Crooks and Liars » ‘Torture Betrays Us’
(Quoting a Washington Post Op-Ed):
Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its “recuperative power.”
The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.
I don't profess to know what the "right" answer is, nor am I advocating a viewpoint in either direction. Let's take this point-by-point instead:
Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question.
If you're taking the assertions of the administration at face value, we are fighting "terrorists" and "terrorism" in this war. They are constantly referred to as "insurgents" as well, which is meant to define the group as ideological in nature, as opposed to state-sponsored (if we were fighting the Iraqi army, the enemy would be "troops").
Since we are attempting to quell violence from insurgents/terrorists whose ideology is their motivation, some significant part of any definition of success must be to address the ideology and prevent it from taking further root in the culture. Ostensibly, this is what our installation of "democracy" is/was supposed to do.
Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its “recuperative power.”
In other words, you can kill an insurgent with a bullet, but a bullet cannot kill an idea. True victory against an ideology comes when the society which the ideology is trying to infiltrate rejects it outright on its merits. The ideology withers and dies on its own, and society is freed from its poisonous propaganda.
The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy.
Obviously, this is the first arguable point. The GOP debate this week featured a line of candidates falling all over themselves to advocate torture based on a "ticking time bomb" scenario, which I'm not sure is even an opposable policy. Then again, I'd make you a bet that once those guys were on those airplanes on 9/11 that there weren't more than five people worldwide who had all the operational details (roster, assignments, flight numbers) of the total strike. In other words, the scenario where the FBI or CIA yanks some terrorist off the street who knows the specific details of everything that's about to happen is fanciful, at best.
That being said, if beating the ever loving hell out of the guy is going to stop a ticking time bomb, go right ahead.
That's not the kind of torture we're talking about though. The pictures from Abu Ghraib probably did more to recruit for insurgent ideologies than our enforcement of a no-fly zone or bombing of a suspected WMD facility ever did. At a base level, it "proved" to people who were predisposed to dislike us already that Americans saw Arabs as sub-human animals. We can spin and justify that with words all we'd like on our airwaves, but when they've heard chirpings from al Qaeda that speak of the righteous Muslim and the oppressive pagan American occupation forces, then they see those pictures?
Every picture from Abu Ghraib, every fifth-hand story about some guy's cousin's friend's uncle having ribs broken by cruel American military jailers, and every story about the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Gitmo serve to support one side of the story over another.
You can argue all day long about the necessity of shaking down terrorists/insurgents - ticking time bomb or not - but it's indisputable that when an occupying force is perceived to be treating the occupied peoples without respect, there are consequences to that perception.
This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy.
I'm not sure this is an arguable point. It's insane to think we can rid the world of terrorism on a five year plan, especially one in which the military takes the point position. However, even if you do believe that if we seed democracy in places of questionable ideology that freedom will grow, as will an appreciation of Western values? That's going to take some time.
A victory in the so-called Great War on Terror comes when there are no more terrorists, right? There's not a person on the planet who'd tell you that could be accomplished in total in less than a couple generations.
If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy.
I've got a lot of problems with this sentence, starting with the assumption that American values are noble. I'd argue that there's very little in the way of nobility that is brokered through the business end of a bullet, but that's just me. War can be a necessity, however, and that's an ugly truth. Whether the propogation of this one is/was a necessity is an even uglier one.
The second problem with this is that there's a further assumption that the pass/fail on renegotiating our values in a situationally specific way is when we're faced with "grave or imminent danger." Again, I'd like to believe that it is only the "ticking time bomb" situation that causes us to reluctantly torture, but I don't believe that to be true. Nor do I believe the idea that there are "undecideds" in this situation, because that frames the conversation into "people who respect and admire America" versus "people who wish to do us harm." I think it's a lot more grey than that, and there's not a distinct tipping point that casts an "undecided into the arms of the enemy." For some it's likely Israel, for others the installation of a puppet government, others still the pillaging of their natural resources to an occupying force.
Obviously though, the respect that we choose to pay to a citizenry in the name of freedom is probably pretty important to the trust being there when it comes time for that citizenry to choose the ideas that are going to carry them forward. If we want them to agree with our interpretation of freedom and democracy, it helps to set a good example up front.
This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.
"Well, we're only torturing al Qaeda terrorists, and Iraq never supported al Qaeda, right?"
I'm going to say that doesn't matter. It must be difficult for Iraqis to make moral sense of what's going on at times. I think your average Iraqi who owns a shop or works in a mill wants peace and doesn't care if his neighbor is Sunni, Shia or Kurd. That same Iraqi likely abhors a car bomb or suicide bomber disrupting his every day life, no matter who's behind it.
But at the same time, when word spreads through the neighborhood that the Americans are stripping Arab prisoners naked in front of women and treating them like dogs, it likely doesn't matter much to them that it's "the bad guys" who are getting this treatment. Maybe some average Iraqis can and do make this distinction, but if even one person is swayed by this to ally with terrorist ideologies, that's one new terrorist and one more step we are from marginalizing and eliminating the ideology as a whole.
As with anything in this world, it's a more complicated issue than activists, the media and politicians would have you believe. While it absolutely disgusts me to watch a GOP debate audience lustily cheer "enhanced interrogation techniques," I'm not so much of a pacifist to believe in an absolute never either. But even the well intended actions of the righteous, if you'd like to see our world that way, have consequences that may be less than ideal.
I believe it's never an exercise in futility to attempt to make sense of the world around you, even if you're less than comfortable with the conclusions.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Bush/Kennedy
Published by BG on at 6:53 AM.Michelle Malkin: Poll results on Bush/Kennedy amnesty;
Mitt Romney:"I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S."
Check out the Michelle Malkin poll results below:
Does this strike anyone else as the administration throwing the GOP Presidential candidates something they can be against so they can speak out against Bush? Obviously, they can't tie themselves to His Royal TwentyEightPercent and hope to win, so does this give the GOP candidates triangulation space?
That being said, this doesn't appear to be an inconsistent stand for the administration on immigration...
Powered by ScribeFire.
It's All About The Scary Brown People
Published by BG on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 7:09 PM.Apparently, through a combination of "the media" and "the Netroots," the Executive branch's authority is now perilously weak.
Uh huh. Tell that to Captain I-Don't-Have-To-Answer-That and his sidekick Lieutenant Above-The-Law.
Anyway, the argument goes like this: The President doesn't have the ear of the people anymore, but the Netroots do. Democratic Congresspeople are frightened of the all-powerful propaganda arm of the Netroots, and therefore pander to them by pushing legislation they know will never pass instead of real bills that can get things done. Beyond that, the propaganda machine on the left is so strong that it cannot be countered by the right (which, I think, presumably doesn't include Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly or Hannity, among others), and people have been pussified into thinking things like human rights and collateral damage matter in war, instead of Glorious Triumph At Any Cost To The Iraqi People. Basically that all of this has come together and made people not only think instead of blindly trust, but erroneously think themselves to the wrong conclusion.
Oy.
Via InstaPundit:
Villainous Company: The Hypothetical Government
Translation:
"The Democrats were easier to defeat when they were a fractured and disconnected bunch of single-issue idealogues. It's not fair that they're better at this grass-roots Internet thing than we are! James Madison said partisanship was worrisome, so why can't it be us against them, them, them, them, and all those groups over there like it used to be?"
Translation:
"Not only do the Netroots have the audacity to organize online, but they're speaking out too. Oh, for the good ol' days where we could just accuse them of being Communist or something and just make their side of the story go away! And the sick thing? We can't even PAY reporters and news stations to lie for us!"
Translation:
"It's tragic that voters form their own opinions and don't blindly trust those figures of authority who are carrying out their orders from above. I mean, do they expect war to be perfect? Who does? I don't want to talk about how the motivations for this war were flawed and based on lies, or how bad the war has gone before our New and Glorious Plan for Victory, because all that's in the past. Let's focus on the scary people who want to do us harm instead, because your Democrat Congress would rather play politics with the lives of our Noble Soldiers than focus on the True Enemy who wants to kill your mother."
Points to the blogger for at least attempting to maintain a scholarly approach to this, even if she's effectively taking free speech, free thought, and noble moral opposition to government policy and promoting that we'd be better off with blind fealty to our Commander In Chief instead.
Scary brown people, doncha know.
Uh huh. Tell that to Captain I-Don't-Have-To-Answer-That and his sidekick Lieutenant Above-The-Law.
Anyway, the argument goes like this: The President doesn't have the ear of the people anymore, but the Netroots do. Democratic Congresspeople are frightened of the all-powerful propaganda arm of the Netroots, and therefore pander to them by pushing legislation they know will never pass instead of real bills that can get things done. Beyond that, the propaganda machine on the left is so strong that it cannot be countered by the right (which, I think, presumably doesn't include Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly or Hannity, among others), and people have been pussified into thinking things like human rights and collateral damage matter in war, instead of Glorious Triumph At Any Cost To The Iraqi People. Basically that all of this has come together and made people not only think instead of blindly trust, but erroneously think themselves to the wrong conclusion.
Oy.
Via InstaPundit:
Villainous Company: The Hypothetical Government
The power of the Internet, both as a message machine and a fundraising organ for the Democratic party, is enormous. And it is, quite literally, amplifying the voice of the common man by making it easier for like minded people to pool their resources and organize into pressure groups: the partisan factions James Madison feared so greatly in his Federalist #10. Technology has erased many of the barriers that kept one group from dominating the political scene; therefore, even fringe groups which may not technically be in the majority, when given the ability to organize via the Internet, to pool their voices and their dollars, become a virtual majority with the ability to drive policy on Capitol Hill.
Translation:
"The Democrats were easier to defeat when they were a fractured and disconnected bunch of single-issue idealogues. It's not fair that they're better at this grass-roots Internet thing than we are! James Madison said partisanship was worrisome, so why can't it be us against them, them, them, them, and all those groups over there like it used to be?"
Due to the bullying power of the mass media, government possesses no "message machine" with which to counter either propaganda churned out by the Netroots or that generated by our enemies in wartime. It cannot silence opposition from within, any efforts to pay for favorable opinion coverage or placement of positive news stories highlighting our successes (surely acceptable in a capitalist economy where news organizations are for-profit ventures) are quickly cast by a hostile media as unacceptable corruption of the free press.
Translation:
"Not only do the Netroots have the audacity to organize online, but they're speaking out too. Oh, for the good ol' days where we could just accuse them of being Communist or something and just make their side of the story go away! And the sick thing? We can't even PAY reporters and news stations to lie for us!"
As I observed earlier today, like those who govern us most voters have no direct contact with those who protect us, the police and the military. We endlessly second guess even the legitimate use of force to uphold the laws which keep us safe. A dangerous moral confusion has crept into the discourse of war; an inherently silly bleating in which even those who were once warriors themselves argue that only a perfect war in which no mistakes are ever made will satisfy them. And as we all know, there is no such thing as a perfect war, fought with no innocent loss of life. There can never be such a war, except in a hypothetical universe filled with latter-day Pontius Pilates who govern by symbolic votes and non-binding resolutions while our troops face a determined and deadly enemy in a world where the consequences of their refusal to act are most decidedly real.
Translation:
"It's tragic that voters form their own opinions and don't blindly trust those figures of authority who are carrying out their orders from above. I mean, do they expect war to be perfect? Who does? I don't want to talk about how the motivations for this war were flawed and based on lies, or how bad the war has gone before our New and Glorious Plan for Victory, because all that's in the past. Let's focus on the scary people who want to do us harm instead, because your Democrat Congress would rather play politics with the lives of our Noble Soldiers than focus on the True Enemy who wants to kill your mother."
Points to the blogger for at least attempting to maintain a scholarly approach to this, even if she's effectively taking free speech, free thought, and noble moral opposition to government policy and promoting that we'd be better off with blind fealty to our Commander In Chief instead.
Scary brown people, doncha know.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Above the Law!
Published by BG on at 6:03 PM.TPMmuckraker May 17, 2007 04:53 PM
Surprise, surprise. From The Washington Post:
Attorneys for Vice President Cheney and top White House officials told a federal judge today they cannot be held liable for anything they disclosed to reporters about covert CIA officer Valerie Plame or her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV....
Attorneys for Cheney and the other officials said any conversations they had about Plame with each other and reporters were part of their normal job duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging in an appropriate "policy dispute." Cheney's attorney went farther, arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role, and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ, What an Asshole - Progressive Thursday Edition
Published by BG on at 4:09 PM.Hullabaloo - Sadists R Us
After seeing the allegedly deeply religious South Carolina Republicans lustily cheer the cross-dressing, pro-choice New Yorker and the abortion flip-flopping, Taxachusetts pretty boy at that debate when they proclaimed their macho bonafides I am more convinced than ever that the Republican base is nothing more than hypocritical bullies whose dedication to blastocysts and fetuses is solely due to their primitive need to dominate women (or force other women to be dominated as they are.) Not that I didn't always suspect it. After all, they love that screeching harpy Ann Coulter and the drug addled Rush Limbaugh too, both of whom are malignant monsters whose idea of compassion is to provide a blindfold at the executions. (That is unless it is they who are in trouble with the law, of course...)
Digby, my good man, Rush kicked that hillbilly heroin at least three months ago, so to call him "drug addled" would be erroneous. Can we agree to replace that term with "portly hatemonger?" Please and thank you.
For your errors, I'm pleased to award you Thursday's prize. Hee hee.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Counter-Counter-Point
Published by BG on at 12:52 PM.From the comments on this post:
Conservatives live in reality. We don't need to live a life of guilt and draw ridiculous conclusions to support elitist attitudes. Why else would someone take a Blame America stand?
Who's blaming America again? What's elitist about saying "this nutball says he attacked us for this reason," and then pointing you to his words directly? By no means am I suggesting his logic is sound or his motives righteous.
And just so we're clear, the purpose of my post, and ostensibly this comment is to discuss the notion that our foreign policy in the Middle East has SOMETHING to do with the attacks on 9/11, right?
Is it so wrong to stop a madman like Hussein from invading countries, supporting terrorism, and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Do we not, as a powerful nation, have a morale (sic) obligation to step in and stop it?
Had you actually read the post instead of assuming you knew where it was going, you'd note that I specifically stated "...no one is saying that because of 9/11 we should change our foreign policy approach or else more 9/11s." It's asinine to claim on one hand that we're a shining city on a hill, a moral beacon willing to right the wrongs of the world - but then on the other hand make our foreign policy decisions based on the worldview of some illogical nutball who lives in a cave.
Let me state this clearly: There are plenty of good reasons to change our approach to foreign policy. The fervor of Islamic fundamentalists preaching a radical agenda and utilizing terror techniques is not a good reason.
Also, my use of the word "change" above is purposefully nebulous. Foreign policy is a living, breathing set of ideals that need to be agile to deal with the economic and social realities of the countries with whom we're dealing. Nowhere in these last three paragraphs can you honestly assign any statements as to what *I* think our foreign policy in regards to the Middle East should be, other than we shouldn't let terrorists dictate what we can and can't do with our friendships with Israel and Saudi Arabia (as an example).
Apparently you think the American public is stupid. You claim that terrorism needs to be sold, that the public cannot draw their own conclusions from what they see or read.
The American public is stupid, and that's entirely purposeful. Terrorism doesn't need to be sold, but the fear of terrorism and the heavy-handed paternal politics we've seen since 9/11 (warrantless wiretapping, the "quaint" nature of the Geneva Convention, the Patriot Act) are part and parcel with one another, and that's not accidental - it's marketing. Americans want to have an opinion about everything, but don't want to spend more than fourteen seconds formulating that opinion, so we're given something easier to understand than 50+ years of American/Israeli cooperation and how the continued economic disenfranchisement of Arabic men requires the Sheikhs and Emirs who control the wealth to actively fund and encourage this political hatred in order to keep their prideful male population focused on perceived problems they can't control. Life is more complicated than people want to hear, and I guarantee you that this administration does not want to honestly address how our intervention - militarily and politically - in the Middle East over the last fifty years is causing radical Islamic fundamentalist clerics to rally their followers and encourage holy war.
Find me evidence that supports your view on this that doesn't come from the keyboard of a white guy in Washington, and I'll be happy to consider
You do a great job of selling it yourself. I may begin to keep a count on how many times you can you "mongering" in these posts.
Gee, thanks. I'm flattered. I guess if I don't blindly agree with the administration's view on everything, I'm on their side? That's an intellectual argument.
You fail to acknowledge the jihadis want to destroy our civilization and install Islamic rule.
I'm sorry, hang on... Show of hands - who really believes this to be a remote possibility? Do Islamic Fundamentalists have the manpower and the infrastructure, let alone the military might to engage the rest of the world to establish an Earthly Caliphate? These guys are dangerous, but they're not capable of installing a Caliphate in the Western hemisphere. This isn't even an argument worth countering.
It is not just AQ we are engaging in Iraq, but Islamic extremists. Yes, they do hate the American lifestyle. And they would like to stop it by whatever means. Whether it be flying airplanes into buildings, bombing dance clubs, or beheading innocent girls, they have chosen a violent path to achieve their goals.
Who says they hate the American lifestyle? Please provide proof of this, in their own words please. I had the courtesy of supporting my arguments with actual evidence from a source with whom I virulently disagree. But still, I managed to use logic and reasoning to look at those words and draw an indisputable conclusion from the paragraphs - OBL said...
No one expects you to agree with why he's saying what he is, but let's not go around assigning al Qaeda (which is who we're talking about here - we're talking about 9/11 and al Qaeda, not Islamic fundamentalism as an abstract concept that threatens to maybe someday become a full-fledged unified movement) motivations for their 9/11 attacks that they aren't directly claiming in their own words. Until and unless I see or hear OBL's or KSM's or Atta's words that specifically state otherwise, I'm going to take the evidence I have at hand and use that to assign motivation.
I don't see why this is such a leap for you to make.
Because I choose to operate with the information I can gather and process, instead of inventing a non-factual solution that allows me to blissfully ignore the white noise of reality.
Conservatives live in reality. We don't need to live a life of guilt and draw ridiculous conclusions to support elitist attitudes. Why else would someone take a Blame America stand?
Who's blaming America again? What's elitist about saying "this nutball says he attacked us for this reason," and then pointing you to his words directly? By no means am I suggesting his logic is sound or his motives righteous.
And just so we're clear, the purpose of my post, and ostensibly this comment is to discuss the notion that our foreign policy in the Middle East has SOMETHING to do with the attacks on 9/11, right?
Is it so wrong to stop a madman like Hussein from invading countries, supporting terrorism, and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Do we not, as a powerful nation, have a morale (sic) obligation to step in and stop it?
Had you actually read the post instead of assuming you knew where it was going, you'd note that I specifically stated "...no one is saying that because of 9/11 we should change our foreign policy approach or else more 9/11s." It's asinine to claim on one hand that we're a shining city on a hill, a moral beacon willing to right the wrongs of the world - but then on the other hand make our foreign policy decisions based on the worldview of some illogical nutball who lives in a cave.
Let me state this clearly: There are plenty of good reasons to change our approach to foreign policy. The fervor of Islamic fundamentalists preaching a radical agenda and utilizing terror techniques is not a good reason.
Also, my use of the word "change" above is purposefully nebulous. Foreign policy is a living, breathing set of ideals that need to be agile to deal with the economic and social realities of the countries with whom we're dealing. Nowhere in these last three paragraphs can you honestly assign any statements as to what *I* think our foreign policy in regards to the Middle East should be, other than we shouldn't let terrorists dictate what we can and can't do with our friendships with Israel and Saudi Arabia (as an example).
Apparently you think the American public is stupid. You claim that terrorism needs to be sold, that the public cannot draw their own conclusions from what they see or read.
The American public is stupid, and that's entirely purposeful. Terrorism doesn't need to be sold, but the fear of terrorism and the heavy-handed paternal politics we've seen since 9/11 (warrantless wiretapping, the "quaint" nature of the Geneva Convention, the Patriot Act) are part and parcel with one another, and that's not accidental - it's marketing. Americans want to have an opinion about everything, but don't want to spend more than fourteen seconds formulating that opinion, so we're given something easier to understand than 50+ years of American/Israeli cooperation and how the continued economic disenfranchisement of Arabic men requires the Sheikhs and Emirs who control the wealth to actively fund and encourage this political hatred in order to keep their prideful male population focused on perceived problems they can't control. Life is more complicated than people want to hear, and I guarantee you that this administration does not want to honestly address how our intervention - militarily and politically - in the Middle East over the last fifty years is causing radical Islamic fundamentalist clerics to rally their followers and encourage holy war.
Find me evidence that supports your view on this that doesn't come from the keyboard of a white guy in Washington, and I'll be happy to consider
You do a great job of selling it yourself. I may begin to keep a count on how many times you can you "mongering" in these posts.
Gee, thanks. I'm flattered. I guess if I don't blindly agree with the administration's view on everything, I'm on their side? That's an intellectual argument.
You fail to acknowledge the jihadis want to destroy our civilization and install Islamic rule.
I'm sorry, hang on... Show of hands - who really believes this to be a remote possibility? Do Islamic Fundamentalists have the manpower and the infrastructure, let alone the military might to engage the rest of the world to establish an Earthly Caliphate? These guys are dangerous, but they're not capable of installing a Caliphate in the Western hemisphere. This isn't even an argument worth countering.
It is not just AQ we are engaging in Iraq, but Islamic extremists. Yes, they do hate the American lifestyle. And they would like to stop it by whatever means. Whether it be flying airplanes into buildings, bombing dance clubs, or beheading innocent girls, they have chosen a violent path to achieve their goals.
Who says they hate the American lifestyle? Please provide proof of this, in their own words please. I had the courtesy of supporting my arguments with actual evidence from a source with whom I virulently disagree. But still, I managed to use logic and reasoning to look at those words and draw an indisputable conclusion from the paragraphs - OBL said...
No one expects you to agree with why he's saying what he is, but let's not go around assigning al Qaeda (which is who we're talking about here - we're talking about 9/11 and al Qaeda, not Islamic fundamentalism as an abstract concept that threatens to maybe someday become a full-fledged unified movement) motivations for their 9/11 attacks that they aren't directly claiming in their own words. Until and unless I see or hear OBL's or KSM's or Atta's words that specifically state otherwise, I'm going to take the evidence I have at hand and use that to assign motivation.
I don't see why this is such a leap for you to make.
Because I choose to operate with the information I can gather and process, instead of inventing a non-factual solution that allows me to blissfully ignore the white noise of reality.
Powered by ScribeFire.
On Warrantless Wiretapping - More...
Published by BG on at 12:08 PM.TPMmuckraker May 17, 2007 10:50 AM
What to make of this long narrative?
Simply this. The warantless wiretap surveillance program stank. For two and a half years, Ashcroft signed off on the program every forty-five days without any real knowledge of what it entailed. In his defense, the advisors who were supposed to review such things on his behalf were denied access; to his everlasting shame, he did not press hard enough to have that corrected.
When Comey came on board, he insisted on being granted access, and had Goldsmith review the program. What they found was so repugnant to any notion of constitutional liberties that even Ashcroft, once briefed, was willing to resign rather than sign off again.
The entire article is well worth reading, as it sketches out the timeline for what happened.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Ron Paul and the FOX "debate"
Published by Human Head on at 11:22 AM.Marvel at the courage and strength of these “marquee” candidates. McCain, being as out of the picture as one can be as he descends into the depths of dementia, merits little comment. He is now simply the media whipping boy for the purpose of saying “Look at how uncomfortably erratic he is. You should probably vote for Nosferatu or Lord Romulous as they are much more likely to be effective saviours as we prepare for decade #2 in The Great 100 Years War with the Terrorists.”
And how marvelous they are, standing there, preening and saying very tough things as they examine the “fiction” (wink wink nod nod) of 24. There’s nothing like a good scary scenario straight from the plot of a fictional terrorist drama to get the sissified electorate whipped into a fearful frenzy and beg to be subjugated. “BUT IT”S VERY REAL” you say, “WE ARE INFORMED OF THIS THROUGH ANONYMOUS HIGH LEVEL GOVERNMENT SOURCES.” You speak these things, either out loud or in your head, very authoritatively. You are now feeling just as manly as they because the prevailing wisdom (fiction or no) is always correct.
What strikes me every time, though, is the fact that these candidates, so obviously tough and righteously correct, can’t seem to get the word “waterboarding” to escape their lips. Why? Because it is torture and it is illegal. But we don’t torture, and no upstanding, up and coming Father of The Glorious Homeland would advocate anything illegal. We have “enhanced interrogation”. Ahhhh, feel better now? I know I do. Now, if someone gets stabbed we will no longer use such clunky and crude language. In the 21st century it will be modernized along with everything else, transforming itself into “enhanced poking.”
Lord Romulous also did a fantastic job of one-upping and smacking down (Tim Russert’s favorite street brawler) Nosferatu by declaring that Guantanamo’s size be doubled. That’s straight-up leadership, folks, you can’t go to school for that. Such wisdom could only come from an experienced corporatist—the Olympic Saviour of yesterday is going to be America’s Saviour tomorrow. The real genius of this plan lies not only in the effectiveness of the “offshoring” business philosophy (which has helped not only millions in this country, but millions worldwide) applied to detention, but a good CYA legal maneuver so that it can always be said, “We don’t unjustly imprison people on our soil.”
No sir. We bring freedom to the world, except where it’s more convenient not to.
There’s really only one question to ask here. How far down the drain would this country be without the inherent honesty and informed dialogue of Sean Hannity? It is his whipsaw intellect that keeps us on the straight and narrow in our Glorious Fight. Only a guy that smart would know to ignore the irrelevant information coming out of the mouth of the uppity (and entirely too big for his veteran Congressman britches) Ron Paul, such as his references to Pol Pot, our decades of support for cruel dictators worldwide, and the fact that we supplied the gas that Saddam used (which was seriously convenient in activating our Worldwide Moral Obligation…a few years later). Sean was right to immediately start over-talking and interrupting because such information is irrelevant to the simpleton parameters of the righteous yes/no question.
Like Most People, I doubt such things are even true. And even if they are true, they’re not nearly as true as 24, watched by Real and Patriotic Americans who recognize the urgent need to have armies of Jack Bauer running around “enhancedly interrogating” people.
And just so everyone knows. The distinguished Wolf Blitzer was not being dishonest at all when he spoke of Ron Paul being “the long shot” that “did his best” in the face of the blazing “front-runner” Ghouliani without mentioning that Ron Paul beat him in the FOX poll (and many, many other polls as well--Here is a current one from MSNBC, surely more l337 H@X0rs). That’s because Wolf, like the rest of the media, knows that (even though the FOX poll was a text message poll and not on the intertubes) Ron Paul’s cadre of l337 h@X0rs was gaming the process again. Real Homeland Loving Americans know that constant war and invasion (aka enhanced aggressive leadership) is the only way to fight the nasty terrorists who are going to set off a nuke any day now. Jesus, it’s like Ron Paul doesn’t even know what 24 is, for Christ’s sake.
He probably spends more time reading things from that Chinese commie, Sun Tzu.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” [emphasis added]Good thing we’ve never lost any battles. If we had, that Chinese guy and Ron Paul might be worth listening to.
On Warrantless Wiretapping
Published by BG on at 9:42 AM.The testimony by former Assistant Attorney General James Comey on Tuesday revealed some pretty amazing information on the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens in which the administration had been engaging since October 2001. I'm going to link a couple of articles below, but here's a quick rundown on the issue to get you started:
1) 30 years ago (post-Nixon), Congress passed a law that said that all wiretapping with one end or more of the conversation originating in the USA needed to be approved with a warrant. There's a secret court that has this oversight - FISA.
2) In October 2001 the Bush administration began a program of warrantless wiretapping (i.e., no FISA warrants requested, even though FISA has been essentially a rubber-stamp oversight body since its inception). The White House Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that cited Article II of the Constitution to establish the President's ability to operate unrestrained by law or oversight (i.e., time of war commander-in-chief cannot be encumbered by Congress or the law when it comes to carrying out those duties). It bears mentioning that a Federal court has ruled that this interpretation of authority has been ruled illegal and unconstitutional in the specific case we're discussing here.
3) In early 2004 the Office of Legal Counsel reversed its stand on the Article II justification, and the DOJ refused to certify the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program. This necessarily means that the wiretapping program had been operating extra-legally for more than two years.
4) In late 2004, the administration agreed to work with the DOJ to make changes so that the DOJ could certify legality*. They apparently changed the program to fit it under the Authorization for the Utilization of Military Force against Iraq and al-Qaeda, which necessarily means that an UNCHANGED program DID NOT fit under the AUMF. In other words, this warrantless wiretapping only became DOJ certified when the administration agreed that they should, going forward, discontinue use of the program against non-AUMF named entities. Logically, this infers that the version of the program the DOJ refused to certify was wiretapping American citizens who were not talking to al Qaeda or Iraq.
*Don't miss the dramatic Ashcroft/Comey/Mueller/Card/Gonzales hospital bedside drama that occurred around the topic of certification. Greenwald discusses it at some length.
I can't encourage you strongly enough to read these articles (in this order, the second is a little more dense), and click through some of the links that take you to other parts of the story. Of particular interest is the case the ACLU brought against the government on this program in 2006 in Federal court. How the administration chose to defend itself is unbelieveably interesting, considering the theories this administration has on unitary executive authority.
Glenn Greenwald - Salon
Balkinization
1) 30 years ago (post-Nixon), Congress passed a law that said that all wiretapping with one end or more of the conversation originating in the USA needed to be approved with a warrant. There's a secret court that has this oversight - FISA.
2) In October 2001 the Bush administration began a program of warrantless wiretapping (i.e., no FISA warrants requested, even though FISA has been essentially a rubber-stamp oversight body since its inception). The White House Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that cited Article II of the Constitution to establish the President's ability to operate unrestrained by law or oversight (i.e., time of war commander-in-chief cannot be encumbered by Congress or the law when it comes to carrying out those duties). It bears mentioning that a Federal court has ruled that this interpretation of authority has been ruled illegal and unconstitutional in the specific case we're discussing here.
3) In early 2004 the Office of Legal Counsel reversed its stand on the Article II justification, and the DOJ refused to certify the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program. This necessarily means that the wiretapping program had been operating extra-legally for more than two years.
4) In late 2004, the administration agreed to work with the DOJ to make changes so that the DOJ could certify legality*. They apparently changed the program to fit it under the Authorization for the Utilization of Military Force against Iraq and al-Qaeda, which necessarily means that an UNCHANGED program DID NOT fit under the AUMF. In other words, this warrantless wiretapping only became DOJ certified when the administration agreed that they should, going forward, discontinue use of the program against non-AUMF named entities. Logically, this infers that the version of the program the DOJ refused to certify was wiretapping American citizens who were not talking to al Qaeda or Iraq.
*Don't miss the dramatic Ashcroft/Comey/Mueller/Card/Gonzales hospital bedside drama that occurred around the topic of certification. Greenwald discusses it at some length.
I can't encourage you strongly enough to read these articles (in this order, the second is a little more dense), and click through some of the links that take you to other parts of the story. Of particular interest is the case the ACLU brought against the government on this program in 2006 in Federal court. How the administration chose to defend itself is unbelieveably interesting, considering the theories this administration has on unitary executive authority.
Glenn Greenwald - Salon
President Bush ordered the NSA to engage in warrantless eavesdropping back in October 2001. The incidents which Comey described yesterday -- whereby the DOJ refused to certify the program's legality -- occurred in March, 2004, two-and-a-half years later. Since the NSA was spying on Americans outside of FISA the entire time, what prompted the DOJ suddenly to "reexamine" the legality of the program after all that time?
Balkinization
In light of all these considerations, just try to imagine how legally dubious the Yoo justification must have been that John Ashcroft was so profoundly committed to its repudiation.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Blame America? Empty Argument.
Published by BG on at 8:40 AM.Yes, let's blame America.
It's our fault that al Qaida murdered 3000+ innocent Americans on 9/11.
Blame America first.
So yesterday I posted an argument that stated that one of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11 was due to our intervention in the Middle East. CJ disagrees with the notion entirely, and instead believes that al Qaeda Islamic fundamentalists hate us because of "our values" - i.e., democracy, women's rights, ability to worship whatever god we choose to, Melrose Place...
(Why I'm talking about this as if someone besides CJ is reading, I have no idea...)
I don't pretend to be an expert in foreign policy, but I do try to listen to more people than politicians and pundits to try to see the issue clearly. I quoted the February 1998 fatwa issued by OBL his damn self, which states in no uncertain terms that the occupation of the "lands of Islam" by the United States, our aggression towards Iraq* and our support of Israel are the "crimes" on which the violence he advocates is licensed.
*In an effort to short-circuit the "al Qaeda hates Iraq, you liberals can't have it both ways" argument, allow me to present exhibit A, that shows al Qaeda had been working in vain to ally with Iraq through the 90s:
You know, I don't know why I'm arguing against a baseless assertion when the three key players from al Qaeda (OBL, KSM, Atta) were all quoted as saying foreign policy and Israel were their motivations, not mini-skirts, Mapplethorpe, or McDonald's. My evidence is there, and I'm choosing to take it at face value. What evidence is there that al Qaeda exists because of Jesus and Cinemax anyway?
But this "blame America" bullshit... You know, OBL can "blame" America for al Qaeda's irrational rage. He said so himself. We continue to tell Arab governments how to behave, and we continue to support Israel with nearly unconditional fervor. Even if our goals are the most noble goals possible, is it entirely beyond belief that the most potent recruiting tool al Qaeda could have would be the interference of a pagan government in Islamic matters, justifying in their fundamentalist rhetoric a necessary war to drive the infidels out of their land?
The idea of "blame" is crap, however. It's empty rhetoric meant to shift an empty argument from reality to some abstract concept of patriotism, and on top of that it's purely dishonest. I said, "this is what Osama bin Laden, the idealogue behind the 9/11 attacks has said about the United States." You take that and accuse me of "blaming" America. How is that not dishonest? I give you facts, you accuse me of being unpatriotic. How is that not dishonest?
Osama bin Laden blamed America for 9/11. You'd agree on that statement, right? It was something about us that prompted the terrorist attacks, correct?
Why is it disagreeable for me to point to his fatwa on America to attempt to show you where their irrational leap in logic came from?
I don't understand this head-in-the-sand approach at all. See, no one is saying that because of 9/11 we should change our foreign policy approach or else more 9/11s. There are probably fantastic reasons to change our foreign policy in the Middle East, but kowtowing to the irrational rhetoric of a lanky cleric who lives in a cave is certainly not one of them.
What this becomes is a house of cards for the rhetorical arguments made by this administration that we should or shouldn't do something because of the terrorists. Don't appease, don't embolden, don't withdraw... The problem with our government acknowledging that (say) our enforcement of the no-fly zone in Iraq back in 1995 is why al Qaeda hates us, or that our support of Israel is why al Qaeda hates us, is that those policies then enter the discussion with the added weight of the threat of terrorism.
To be clear, Saddam was a bad guy and the no-fly zone survived three Presidents across two parties, so it was probably a good idea. Also, our relationship with Israel, while certainly more complicated and fraught with consequences than we generally acknowledge, is a strong relationship with a long-time friend that carries value.
So the same administration that suggests that "we're fighting them there so they don't follow us home" and warns that they believe the warning sign "might be a mushroom cloud" over a US city cannot allow the decisions of our government to enter into the argument about preventing terrorism.
The fearmongering that has done since 2001 will absolutely backfire on the government if the people begin to believe that something as simple as pulling troops out of the Middle East will prevent al Qaeda from attacking. For the sake of clarity, I don't believe that to be true, as our relationship with Israel is not something that can be realistically dissolved, and that's probably a bigger part of the problem in their eyes than Iraq anyway.
Point being, terrorism is an easier sell to the public if they feel the illogical irrationality of the terrorists is due to an abstraction and not a reality. You can "fix" our involvement in Iraq (again CJ, I don't think this solves the al Qaeda problem either), but dammit, we won't "fix" freedom. As long as people believe that we don't have to fix a goddamn thing about ourselves to address this problem, the government continues to keep the support of the people to "solve" terrorism without coming to terms with the base motivations that spark their insurgency.
I don't see why this is such a leap in logic for conservatives to make.
It's our fault that al Qaida murdered 3000+ innocent Americans on 9/11.
Blame America first.
So yesterday I posted an argument that stated that one of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11 was due to our intervention in the Middle East. CJ disagrees with the notion entirely, and instead believes that al Qaeda Islamic fundamentalists hate us because of "our values" - i.e., democracy, women's rights, ability to worship whatever god we choose to, Melrose Place...
(Why I'm talking about this as if someone besides CJ is reading, I have no idea...)
I don't pretend to be an expert in foreign policy, but I do try to listen to more people than politicians and pundits to try to see the issue clearly. I quoted the February 1998 fatwa issued by OBL his damn self, which states in no uncertain terms that the occupation of the "lands of Islam" by the United States, our aggression towards Iraq* and our support of Israel are the "crimes" on which the violence he advocates is licensed.
*In an effort to short-circuit the "al Qaeda hates Iraq, you liberals can't have it both ways" argument, allow me to present exhibit A, that shows al Qaeda had been working in vain to ally with Iraq through the 90s:
The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994.
You know, I don't know why I'm arguing against a baseless assertion when the three key players from al Qaeda (OBL, KSM, Atta) were all quoted as saying foreign policy and Israel were their motivations, not mini-skirts, Mapplethorpe, or McDonald's. My evidence is there, and I'm choosing to take it at face value. What evidence is there that al Qaeda exists because of Jesus and Cinemax anyway?
But this "blame America" bullshit... You know, OBL can "blame" America for al Qaeda's irrational rage. He said so himself. We continue to tell Arab governments how to behave, and we continue to support Israel with nearly unconditional fervor. Even if our goals are the most noble goals possible, is it entirely beyond belief that the most potent recruiting tool al Qaeda could have would be the interference of a pagan government in Islamic matters, justifying in their fundamentalist rhetoric a necessary war to drive the infidels out of their land?
The idea of "blame" is crap, however. It's empty rhetoric meant to shift an empty argument from reality to some abstract concept of patriotism, and on top of that it's purely dishonest. I said, "this is what Osama bin Laden, the idealogue behind the 9/11 attacks has said about the United States." You take that and accuse me of "blaming" America. How is that not dishonest? I give you facts, you accuse me of being unpatriotic. How is that not dishonest?
Osama bin Laden blamed America for 9/11. You'd agree on that statement, right? It was something about us that prompted the terrorist attacks, correct?
Why is it disagreeable for me to point to his fatwa on America to attempt to show you where their irrational leap in logic came from?
I don't understand this head-in-the-sand approach at all. See, no one is saying that because of 9/11 we should change our foreign policy approach or else more 9/11s. There are probably fantastic reasons to change our foreign policy in the Middle East, but kowtowing to the irrational rhetoric of a lanky cleric who lives in a cave is certainly not one of them.
What this becomes is a house of cards for the rhetorical arguments made by this administration that we should or shouldn't do something because of the terrorists. Don't appease, don't embolden, don't withdraw... The problem with our government acknowledging that (say) our enforcement of the no-fly zone in Iraq back in 1995 is why al Qaeda hates us, or that our support of Israel is why al Qaeda hates us, is that those policies then enter the discussion with the added weight of the threat of terrorism.
To be clear, Saddam was a bad guy and the no-fly zone survived three Presidents across two parties, so it was probably a good idea. Also, our relationship with Israel, while certainly more complicated and fraught with consequences than we generally acknowledge, is a strong relationship with a long-time friend that carries value.
So the same administration that suggests that "we're fighting them there so they don't follow us home" and warns that they believe the warning sign "might be a mushroom cloud" over a US city cannot allow the decisions of our government to enter into the argument about preventing terrorism.
The fearmongering that has done since 2001 will absolutely backfire on the government if the people begin to believe that something as simple as pulling troops out of the Middle East will prevent al Qaeda from attacking. For the sake of clarity, I don't believe that to be true, as our relationship with Israel is not something that can be realistically dissolved, and that's probably a bigger part of the problem in their eyes than Iraq anyway.
Point being, terrorism is an easier sell to the public if they feel the illogical irrationality of the terrorists is due to an abstraction and not a reality. You can "fix" our involvement in Iraq (again CJ, I don't think this solves the al Qaeda problem either), but dammit, we won't "fix" freedom. As long as people believe that we don't have to fix a goddamn thing about ourselves to address this problem, the government continues to keep the support of the people to "solve" terrorism without coming to terms with the base motivations that spark their insurgency.
I don't see why this is such a leap in logic for conservatives to make.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Not THE Reason... But a Reason Nonetheless
Published by BG on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 6:55 PM.Former Ron Paul Campaign Coordinator Declares Against Him - Latest Politics Blog
I have spent the early morning scanning the major political blogs, and news sites. It's unanimous. Ron Paul got slammed by Rudy Giuliani last night for suggesting that we - the United States of America - are to blame for the attacks on 9/11. He even had the audacity to cite Osama bin Laden.
Because, you know, god forbid we actually take the words of the guy who orchestrated the attacks into consideration when it comes time to assign the motivation for said attacks. Such audacity! Here, let me be audacious:
Online NewsHour: Al Qaeda's 1998 Fatwa
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Our foreign policy is a reason we were attacked on 9/11. Not the reason, necessarily, but a reason. Why are Republicans in denial about this simple fact?
Because it repudiates aggressive neoconservative foreign policy theory, that's why. There's a voting bloc in this country that's susceptible to fear and propaganda, and god forbid these people begin to think isolationism is a better policy than "sowing the seeds of democracy." It pays for Republicans to continue to focus on military solutions, which is good for business in the military-industrial complex and to secure both that voting bloc, as well as the active military personnel conditioned to believe Democrats are bad for their funding.
Well, and then there's the oil companies, where it pays to propagate puppet governments in an attempt to secure oil rights where none existed before.
Our "values" probably do enter into the equation, and are "a" reason that al Qaeda attacked. But to disregard entirely our foreign policy when it comes to al Qaeda's motivation is deluded at best, and ridiculous at worst.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Newsbusters, FTW! (On a Technicality)
Published by BG on at 11:00 AM.MSM's Entry Into Blogosphere Shows Its Leftward Tilt | NewsBusters.org
Another totally false "fact" that the MSM is endlessly repeating is that President Bush declared "mission accomplished" while on an aircraft carrier following the cessation of major combat operations in Iraq.
The fact is that Bush did say the phrase at a later date (with several qualifications that rebuilding Iraq was going to be tough) but he never said it onboard any ship. In fact, then-secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld said he made sure "mission accomplished" was removed from the speech Bush gave March 1, 2003 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment -- yet, it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it.
Okay, okay... you got us. He didn't say the word "mission," followed immediately by the word "accomplished." Hooray for revisionist history!
Powered by ScribeFire.
Funniest Thing You'll Read All Day
Published by BG on at 9:19 AM.Bemoaning the Commoners at Club Fed - washingtonpost.com
Country club prisons just aren't the same since they started letting the riffraff in.
Back in the good old days, when a nice, respectable white-collar criminal went to federal prison, he could do his time playing tennis with crooked pols, embezzling bankers, book-cooking accountants and other high-class folks. Not anymore. Now, Club Fed admits all kinds of lowlifes.
"Despite widespread perceptions to the contrary, minimum security prison camps are not reserved for former congressmen and CEOs," writes Luke Mullins in the May-June issue of the American magazine. Now, these once-prestigious country club prisons are places "where the nation's elite -- professionals, politicians, corporate executives -- live alongside the indigent foot soldiers of the drug trade."
The folks at the American seem saddened by this egalitarian trend, but that's not surprising. The American is published by the American Enterprise Institute, the famous Washington-based right-wing think tank. In a perverse way, it's heartwarming to know that the AEI's devotion to the welfare of the rich does not stop when the rich are convicted of multiple felonies and shipped to the slammer.
Mullins paints a delightfully nostalgic portrait of "the good old days of the 1970s" at Lompoc, a country club prison in California that served as a comfortable home away from home for several Watergate conspirators and other elite felons.
"Back then inmates would order expensive chili from the legendary Chasen's restaurant in Beverly Hills, or maybe shoot a few holes of golf at a neighboring course," he writes. "Occasionally, an inmate would even sneak out for a late-night visit to the prostitutes who were huddled in the back of a Winnebago parked nearby."
Ah, those were the days!
Read the whole thing, it's pretty amusing...
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ, What an Asshole - Wednesday Edition
Published by BG on at 8:52 AM.FOXNews.com - GOP Candidates Go for the Jugular in Feisty Primary Debate - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
WASHINGTON — Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani won the strongest applause at Tuesday night's first-in-the-South Republican primary debate when he lashed out at Texas Rep. Ron Paul for suggesting that the United States' non-interventionist policy invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Okay, take that at face value for a second. I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with Ron Paul's position or Rudy's, but look at how it's being spun. Fox News columnist/journalist Sharon Kehnemui Liss states that Ron Paul asserted that our non-interventionist policy is what invoked 9/11.
Non-interventionist. That is, "the US not intervening in the Middle East." The very next paragraphs of the article continue:
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... We've been in the Middle East," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq. "Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.
"They are delighted that we're over there because Usama bin Laden has said, 'I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time they've killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary," he continued.
What part of what Ron Paul is saying smacks of non-interventionist policy? That sounds entirely like Paul is suggesting the exact opposite, that it is our footprints in so-called Muslim lands that was (and is) the problem. This isn't a blog post, it's a news article that presumably goes through at least one layer of quality control between Kehnemui Liss' keyboard and the eyeballs of the nation. Not only that, but if you were to ask anyone who's watched fifteen minutes of news coverage since 1030PM EST last night what the biggest story of the debate was, this would be the easy answer.
So, we're supposed to believe Fox News made an error that stands uncorrected at this point on an article detailing the biggest national political story from last night? Hardly. This is a lie, plain and simple, that is meant to perpetuate the notion that the only acceptable foreign policy strategy is the aggressive hegemony this administration has pushed, and many of last night's candidates continue to support.
Sharon Kehnemui Liss, her fact-checkers, her editors, and everyone at Fox News? What a bunch of assholes.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ, What an Asshole - Tuesday Edition
Published by BG on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 7:46 PM.TPMmuckraker May 15, 2007 03:31 PM
Comey testified that the late night effort by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and White House chief of staff Andrew Card to get Ashcroft to sign the order was a plan to "take advantage of a sick man."
But Tony Snow doesn't see what the big deal is: "Because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work?" (Yes, he got the organ wrong.)
Powered by ScribeFire.
DeLay Fairly Screams "Rat"
Published by BG on at 8:36 AM.Tom DeLay: Bush needs GOP revival - Politico.com
The Democrat takeover in Congress provides the president with an opportunity to recover his standing with the American people and his command over the national agenda.
The Democrat overreach has already begun. In their first four months in control of Congress, Democrat leaders have taken no fewer than three separate positions on the war.
I don't care if it is an op-ed, if you fancy yourself a journalistic operation of any sort, you take care to make sure that what you print is, at bare minimum, grammatically sound. Of course Tom DeLay is going to be biased, that's not the point. It's letting him make his arguments using intentionally incorrect grammar designed to be subtly degrading to the opposition that's irritating.
The “Ic” Factor: The New Yorker
The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun “Democratic Party” as “One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828.” (It defines “Democrat n” as “A Democratic Party member” and “Democratic adj” as “Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party,” but gives no definition for—indeed, makes no mention of—“Democrat Party n” or “Democrat adj”.)
[snip]
There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.
I'd expect the usage of "Democrat Party" and "Democrat Congress" on Redstate.com or Drudge. The Politico was supposed to be something different, however, and I'm disappointed in the editorial staff for allowing DeLay his third-grader taunts in what is supposed to be a journalistic endeavor:
The Politico's Mission Statement - Politico.com
There is a difference, however, between voice and advocacy. That's one traditional journalism ideal we fully embrace. There is more need than ever for reporting that presents the news fairly, not through an ideological prism. One of the most distressing features of public life recently has been the demise of shared facts. Warring partisans -- many of whom take their news from sources that cater to and amplify their existing opinions -- live in separate zones of reality. In such a climate, every news story is viewed as either weapon or shield in a nonstop ideological war. Our answer to this will be journalism that insists on the primacy of facts over ideology.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ, What An Asshole - Monday Edition
Published by BG on Monday, May 14, 2007 at 11:10 AM.They all go to eleven - right across the board. Eleven, eleven, eleven...
War Room - Salon.com
War Room - Salon.com
Number of moderate Republicans who met with the president this week to give him a "blunt warning" about the need to change course in Iraq: 11
Number of those moderate Republicans who voted Thursday in favor of a bill that would require the president to show progress in the war before getting more funding for it: 0.
Powered by ScribeFire.
This Season, On "Cheaters..."
Published by BG on at 9:12 AM.Rock-Ribbed Freddie Dances Around Specifics
Published by BG on at 9:00 AM.Stealth candidate ramps up game - Politico.com
Friends of Thompson said he would probably announce whether he’ll run for president in June or July.
In making that decision, he must determine if the opening for a rock-ribbed conservative is clear enough to make up for his deficit in fund-raising, organizing in early states, and recruiting of staff and supporters.
Five days after the first fawning will-he-or-won't-he Freddie foxtrot, the Politico pushes another profile of Thompson's pre-campaign campaign in glowing terms.
Politico is run by a former Reagan operative, so it's really not surprising that the coverage is slanted in Thompson's favor. He is, after all, the physical model of the so-called "rock-ribbed conservative" at this point of the campaign. What does that mean anyway?
"Firm and unyielding, especially with regard to one's principles, loyalties, or beliefs." [The Free Dictionary]
Thompson absolutely is the "stealth" candidate at this point, and he's benefitting from staying outside the fray. The dissatisfaction felt in conservative circles over Giuliani, McCain and Romney allows Thompson to both look like a potential savior, as well as giving him the benefit of a few months of conservative pining and projection to construct the framework around what direction to take his campaign.
He'd be stupid not to take another 30-60 days to let op-ed pieces and polling data accumulate to tell him which way the wind is blowing, but does that sound like someone who's "firm and unyielding" in his beliefs, or someone who's waiting to see who everyone else wants him to be?
If we acknowledge that Thompson has had two politically important pre-campaign campaign stops in the last two weeks, and if we acknowledge that sourcing The Politico means we're getting reports on these speeches that are neutral-to-favorable as far as their bias is concerned, here's what we know about the guy so far:
Fred Thompson takes O.C. star turn - May 5, 2007
He didn’t detail exactly how a President Thompson – or even a candidate Thompson – would repair the discourse and set about getting things done, but he offered reassuring, optimistic rhetoric that what may seem like steep challenges can be overcome they way they’ve always been.
“We’ve been there before,” Thompson noted, reminding the crowd about problems the nation has faced in its history.
“This is not our first rodeo,” he added to laughs from a crowd more familiar with riding BMWs than bulls.
As broad as his well-received speech was, Thompson did hint at some topics he may return to in a presidential bid.
It wasn't an empty speech, exactly, but free trade (lowering trade barriers) and border security (to a SoCal audience filled with the white elite) aren't the types of issues that are going to set him apart from the rest of the pack. Point is, he's walking the middle ground here, saying just enough to be taken seriously, but not so much that he's in danger of outlining what he believes in.
By the way, note that The Politico called his speech "well-received" on May 5, and the whole of the article was genuinely positive ("The only question now is whether Thompson sticks to playing the hero in make-believe, like John Wayne, or if -- like Ronald Reagan -- he tries out for the role in real life."). Contrast that with this clip from a May 8 post:
F. Thompson sharpens strategy - May 8, 2007
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson acknowledges his coming-out speech in California last weekend didn't live up to expectations, advisers say, and he is planning a tighter and sharper message dubbed "Stump Speech 2.0" for a Saturday night event to be attended by key conservative leaders.
Good to see the pre-campaign campaign acknowledging that there needs to be more meat and less filler in front of the Saturday night crowd. So how'd he do?
Stealth candidate ramps up game
“Some of your friends, knowing that you are thinking about running for president, urge you to give a rousing campaign speech,” the potential candidate said of his preparations for the speech.
But instead, he said, he chose to discuss his “first principles,” focusing on one that he’s associated with through his television appearances: “the rule of law.”
“It is a sad irony that a nation that is so dedicated to the rule of law is doing so much to undermine the respect for it,” Thompson said.
Thompson said his cues in public life come from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
“They include a recognition of God and the fact there are certain rights that come from Him and not the government,” he said.
“They are based upon a respect for the wisdom of the ages, and a belief that human beings are prone to err -- that too much power must never rest in too few hands.”
More generally empty platitudes. The invocation of "values" and "rule of law," combined with the "recognition of God" (ostensibly to pander to Dobson after the "not a Christian" crack) are all inherently meaningless statements, and are so by design. Alberto Gonzales uses the phrase "rule of law," and he's the same guy that called the Geneva Convention's laws on torture "quaint." So, really, Thompson isn't outlining policy and stating what it is he's for, except in the most generic of all terms.
It's smart. Why give pundits a chance to pick apart your beliefs, when instead you can figure out what the people tell you that you should be for, and find a way to come to them rather than making them take or leave you on your own terms? In the interim, however, let's not start tagging Freddie as "rock-ribbed," until we know what those ribs are made of.
*By the way, after his seemingly non-ironic exaltation of the "rule of law," he called for the pardon of Scooter Libby, saying, "When you rectify an injustice under the law, just as when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it." Of course, he's simply referring to laws and rulings with which he disagrees, like when an important conservative is convicted by a jury of lying under oath. When it's a liberal, let's look for consistency.
Oh wait (read the last paragraph).
Powered by ScribeFire.
Heckuva Job Brownback
Published by BG on Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 8:56 PM.Crooks and Liars » Brownback Blows Sports Analogy, Disses Favre in WI, Gets Booed
AP Via Yahoo:
Note to Sen. Sam Brownback: In Packerland, it's not cool to diss Brett Favre.
The GOP presidential hopeful drew boos and groans Friday at the Wisconsin Republican Party convention when he used a football analogy to talk about the need to focus on families.
"This is fundamental blocking and tackling," he said. "This is your line in football. If you don't have a line, how many passes can Peyton Manning complete? Greatest quarterback, maybe, in NFL history."
Oops, wrong team to mention in Wisconsin, once described by Gov. Tommy Thompson as the place "where eagles soar, Harleys roar and Packers score."
Realizing what he had said, the Kansas Republican slumped at the podium and put his head in his hands.
"I'm not sure how I recover from this," Brownback said. "My point is we've got to rebuild the family. I'll get off this.
My favorite part was when he tried to apply the analogy to Favre and asked the crowd how many passes they think he could complete without an offensive line, only to have multiple voices from the crowd yell back, "All of them!"
Screw the evolution question, can you really trust a President that believes Peyton Manning might be the greatest quarterback in NFL history?
Powered by ScribeFire.
American Islamic Fundamentalists Advocate Overthrowing The Government
Published by BG on at 8:44 PM.
I've got my own problems with religious fundamentalism, but I think we can all agree on how to feel about this:
In May 2003 - two months after the beginning of the Iraq War - the main organ for the American Islamic advocacy, the Center for American Islamic Relations' journal, Action