Thanks to Information Clearing House for this great article William Rivers Pitt: Falluja, Najaf and the First Law of Holes
Pitt writes "Anyone who thinks Iraq is a bad situation now should reserve judgment until the end of this week. George W. Bush and his crew have clearly forgotten the First Law of Holes: When you find yourself deep in a hole, stop digging. If this is what Bush meant when he talked about 'changing the world' in his recent prime-time press conference, we are all in a great deal of trouble."
Monday, April 26, 2004
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Fantasy world
As referenced by TPM, Juan Cole writes about the recent poll which found that 57 out of 100 Americans believe Hussein and Bin Laden were allies, and 45 out of 100 still believe that Hussein had WMDs before the war.
Why would so many Americans cling to patently false beliefs? One can only speculate of course. But I would suggest that the two-party system in the US has produced a two-party epistemology. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. If it were accepted that Saddam had virtually nothing to do with al-Qaeda, that he had no weapons of mass destruction (nor any significant programs for producing them), and that no evidence for such things has been uncovered after the US and its allies have had a year to comb through Baath documents-- if all that is accepted, then President Bush's credibility would suffer. For his partisans, it is absolutely crucial that the president retain his credibility. Therefore, rather than face reality, they re-jigger it to create a fantasy world in which Saddam and Usamah are buddies . . . and in which David Kay . . . never recanted his earlier belief that the WMD was there somewhere. Of those who maintain that Iraq actually did have WMD, 72% say they are going to vote for Bush.
So no wonder Bush refuses to admit making any mistakes, when so many people still believe that such a straight-talking President would tell them only the truth.
Why would so many Americans cling to patently false beliefs? One can only speculate of course. But I would suggest that the two-party system in the US has produced a two-party epistemology. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. If it were accepted that Saddam had virtually nothing to do with al-Qaeda, that he had no weapons of mass destruction (nor any significant programs for producing them), and that no evidence for such things has been uncovered after the US and its allies have had a year to comb through Baath documents-- if all that is accepted, then President Bush's credibility would suffer. For his partisans, it is absolutely crucial that the president retain his credibility. Therefore, rather than face reality, they re-jigger it to create a fantasy world in which Saddam and Usamah are buddies . . . and in which David Kay . . . never recanted his earlier belief that the WMD was there somewhere. Of those who maintain that Iraq actually did have WMD, 72% say they are going to vote for Bush.
So no wonder Bush refuses to admit making any mistakes, when so many people still believe that such a straight-talking President would tell them only the truth.
US has shot itself in the foot, internationally-speaking
Peter Galbraith's article How to Get Out of Iraq points out how a three-state federal system in Iraq is likely the only workable form of government for this country (as I talked about a couple of weeks ago, too.) Galbraith goes on to talk about the importance of internationalizing the effort.
Only with his conclusion do I have a problem. He writes thatIraq demonstrates all too clearly the folly of the preventive war doctrine and of unilateralism. Of course the United States must reserve the right to act alone when the country is under attack or in imminent danger of attack. But these are also precisely the circumstances when the United States does not need to act alone and he goes on to talk about the continuing worldwide support for the war in Afganistan.
But Afganistan was before Iraq, and before a host of other American foreign-policy blunders -- ham-handed favouritsm for Sharon, self-serving tolerance for Pakistan's nuclear proliferation, clumsy feints with North Korea, confusion over Taiwan/China issues, and stunningly poor WMD intellegence. No other nation now would actually believe any claim by the Bush Administration about an imminent threat, nor would we trust the US to lead any international effort again. So the US is truely on its own now.
Only with his conclusion do I have a problem. He writes thatIraq demonstrates all too clearly the folly of the preventive war doctrine and of unilateralism. Of course the United States must reserve the right to act alone when the country is under attack or in imminent danger of attack. But these are also precisely the circumstances when the United States does not need to act alone and he goes on to talk about the continuing worldwide support for the war in Afganistan.
But Afganistan was before Iraq, and before a host of other American foreign-policy blunders -- ham-handed favouritsm for Sharon, self-serving tolerance for Pakistan's nuclear proliferation, clumsy feints with North Korea, confusion over Taiwan/China issues, and stunningly poor WMD intellegence. No other nation now would actually believe any claim by the Bush Administration about an imminent threat, nor would we trust the US to lead any international effort again. So the US is truely on its own now.
Crazy like a fox
Buzzflash thinks Kerry should take the offensive on the smear campaign Editorial: Galling smears But I think Kerry is running a Matrix campaign -- he is letting his opponents exhaust themselves, and, by their increasingly bizarre smear campaigns, make themselves look ridiculous. I think Kerry knows its a long, long time to November, and the majority of the American public won't really be paying a lot of attention to politics until mid-September.
By then, I think it is likely that Bush will be defeating himself:
- the situation in Iraq will likely have continued to deteriorate, with another 200 to 300 soldiers dead, more cities declaring themselves "free", more car bombs, more pipeline fires, more talk of a military draft, etc, and Bush will have been forced to go to Congress for more money for Iraq and Afganistan
- the 9/11 Commission report will produce a public howl for high-profile resignations at the FBI and the CIA
- the Phlame investigation will do likewise to Cheney's staff
- interest rates will have risen enough to endanger any economic recovery, there will be another few million unemployed, and the housing market in the States will begin a freefall.
- the lack of progress on any of the Bush "initiatives" like the gay marriage amendment, the Mexican immigration plan, the trip to Mars etc will be even more glaringly obvious
- And Bush will continue to try to run as the "war president", a position which may become increasingly hollow when he is no longer technically "in charge" in Iraq. And I'll bet Kerry is hoping that Bush succeeds in capturing Bin Laden, which would further undercut the "war president" image -- the public will ask who he is still "at war" against once Bin Laden is gone.
By then, I think it is likely that Bush will be defeating himself:
- the situation in Iraq will likely have continued to deteriorate, with another 200 to 300 soldiers dead, more cities declaring themselves "free", more car bombs, more pipeline fires, more talk of a military draft, etc, and Bush will have been forced to go to Congress for more money for Iraq and Afganistan
- the 9/11 Commission report will produce a public howl for high-profile resignations at the FBI and the CIA
- the Phlame investigation will do likewise to Cheney's staff
- interest rates will have risen enough to endanger any economic recovery, there will be another few million unemployed, and the housing market in the States will begin a freefall.
- the lack of progress on any of the Bush "initiatives" like the gay marriage amendment, the Mexican immigration plan, the trip to Mars etc will be even more glaringly obvious
- And Bush will continue to try to run as the "war president", a position which may become increasingly hollow when he is no longer technically "in charge" in Iraq. And I'll bet Kerry is hoping that Bush succeeds in capturing Bin Laden, which would further undercut the "war president" image -- the public will ask who he is still "at war" against once Bin Laden is gone.
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Blame the victim
Bush's Decision on Possible Attack on Falluja Seems Near
This worries me -- "Mr. Bremer . . . [warned] on Friday that 'Iraq faces a choice.' His message was that the country could miss its best chance to establish a democratic government, and he used a starkly grimmer tone than his usual upbeat message about life returning to normal."
Does this foreshadow a new talking point, that the bloody mess in Fallujah and the subsequent failure to establish a democracy in Iraq is going to be blamed on Iraqis, rather than on the Bush administration?
This worries me -- "Mr. Bremer . . . [warned] on Friday that 'Iraq faces a choice.' His message was that the country could miss its best chance to establish a democratic government, and he used a starkly grimmer tone than his usual upbeat message about life returning to normal."
Does this foreshadow a new talking point, that the bloody mess in Fallujah and the subsequent failure to establish a democracy in Iraq is going to be blamed on Iraqis, rather than on the Bush administration?
Don't hold your breath
U.S., U.N. Seek New Leaders For Iraq: "The United States and the top U.N. envoy to Iraq have decided to exclude the majority of the Iraqi politicians the U.S.-led coalition has relied on over the past year when they select an Iraqi government to assume power on June 30, U.S. and U.N. officials said yesterday. "
Unless these unnamed officials were from the Pentagon, I predict this will not happen.
People have been predicting Chalabi's demise for the last year, and he's still there because the Pentagon, namely Wolfie, wants him. He's the only politician in Iraq who can be relied on to support the US, provided the bribe is high enough.
Unless these unnamed officials were from the Pentagon, I predict this will not happen.
People have been predicting Chalabi's demise for the last year, and he's still there because the Pentagon, namely Wolfie, wants him. He's the only politician in Iraq who can be relied on to support the US, provided the bribe is high enough.
Friday, April 23, 2004
Guite knifes Martin
Martin's office tried to influence contracts: Guité So first we have this big story going on and on about how Paul Martin's office wanted research company Ernscliffe to get a chance to bid on a contract.
Finally, in the 32nd paragraph of this big story, we find this sentence: "Both inside and outside the committee meeting, MPs said they doubted much of what Mr. Guite was telling them." Well, duh!
This is Chretien-serving BS. The only improper phone calls Guite can remember are the ones nine years ago from Paul Martin's office? The bile and guile of the Chretien loyalists is amazing -- they won't be satisfied until Paul Martin looses the next election. This, they think, would force him to resign, so that they can belly up to the trough again.
Finally, in the 32nd paragraph of this big story, we find this sentence: "Both inside and outside the committee meeting, MPs said they doubted much of what Mr. Guite was telling them." Well, duh!
This is Chretien-serving BS. The only improper phone calls Guite can remember are the ones nine years ago from Paul Martin's office? The bile and guile of the Chretien loyalists is amazing -- they won't be satisfied until Paul Martin looses the next election. This, they think, would force him to resign, so that they can belly up to the trough again.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
The "loser" is not quitting in Iraq
A war is not over until the loser quits Terrific summary by Jack MaAndrew on Rabble.ca
"It is predicted by some experts that the United States and Great Britain will soon be left to soldier on alone in their battle to force democracy on the citizens of Iraq -- the war and the peace both lost to history, the "war on terror" having been hi-jacked to satisfy the inexplicable needs of Empire America. "
"It is predicted by some experts that the United States and Great Britain will soon be left to soldier on alone in their battle to force democracy on the citizens of Iraq -- the war and the peace both lost to history, the "war on terror" having been hi-jacked to satisfy the inexplicable needs of Empire America. "
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Neo-fascism defined
Canuckistan - Bush: Neo-Fascist?: On Canukistan, Ian Gillespie writes a very insightful piece about the new style of fascism in the US.
I too have found it hard to define what is happening down there. Gillespie explains that the old definition of fascism doesn't exactly fit the Bush neo-conservatives. Instead, they are creating a new, faith-based definition:
"Movement conservatives are creating a manifest reality. Believing their ascent to be a triumph of virtue, they utilize their power to create a reality in which their ideals are indeed virtuous. They do so regardless of facts, regardless of whether their ideals were virtuous to begin with. Neo-conservatives don't believe that might makes right. They believe that the fact they have acquired might is a validation of the underlying righteousness of their beliefs -- and mandate to enforce them. They believe that ideology, with power, can forge reality."
I too have found it hard to define what is happening down there. Gillespie explains that the old definition of fascism doesn't exactly fit the Bush neo-conservatives. Instead, they are creating a new, faith-based definition:
"Movement conservatives are creating a manifest reality. Believing their ascent to be a triumph of virtue, they utilize their power to create a reality in which their ideals are indeed virtuous. They do so regardless of facts, regardless of whether their ideals were virtuous to begin with. Neo-conservatives don't believe that might makes right. They believe that the fact they have acquired might is a validation of the underlying righteousness of their beliefs -- and mandate to enforce them. They believe that ideology, with power, can forge reality."
The most important court case this Supreme Court will ever hear
MSNBC - Testy high court hearing on Guantanamo case
If the Supreme Court lets the president win on this one, they will not only doom the Guantanamo detainees and all future prisoners there to legally-sanctioned oblivion but they will also undermine US Constitution. The point, Justice Scalia, isn't whether Congress can enact a law changing the meaning of habeas corpus, but that the constitution imposes an obligation on government regardless of whether Congress chooses to act or not. It goes to the very heart of the role of the US Constitution in American democracy.
And that Bush let it get to this -- to the point where his cruel and unconscionable treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners has resulted in such a court case -- is a damning inditement of his leadership and his fitness to serve as a president.
If the Supreme Court lets the president win on this one, they will not only doom the Guantanamo detainees and all future prisoners there to legally-sanctioned oblivion but they will also undermine US Constitution. The point, Justice Scalia, isn't whether Congress can enact a law changing the meaning of habeas corpus, but that the constitution imposes an obligation on government regardless of whether Congress chooses to act or not. It goes to the very heart of the role of the US Constitution in American democracy.
And that Bush let it get to this -- to the point where his cruel and unconscionable treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners has resulted in such a court case -- is a damning inditement of his leadership and his fitness to serve as a president.
Another insurgency victory in Najaf
United Press International: U.S. pulls troops back from brink in Najaf: "U.S. troops began to withdraw from a base near the city of Najaf Monday, signaling an unwillingness to enter the Shiite holy city in pursuit of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, whose militia the U.S.-led coalition has vowed to crush..."
Insurgents appear to have won in Fallujah
Yahoo! News - US seals Fallujah deal...:
"After two weeks of fierce fighting around Fallujah, west of Baghdad, the US-led coalition said an agreement with local leaders allowed for joint patrols with Iraqi security forces, an amnesty for those who turned in heavy weapons and shorter curfew hours ... both sides promised to take steps toward a 'full and unbroken' ceasefire ...The US Marines announced a draft plan for more than 77 million dollars in US aid for Fallujah once the fighting draws to an end. About 500,000 dollars would be spent in the first 30 days after peace is restored..."
Hmmm - basically they're buying peace in Fallujah without capturing any of the people who killed the contractors, they're accepting that the city is not really under their control, and they're patrolling jointly in the hopes that insurgents will not continue to shoot at them.
"After two weeks of fierce fighting around Fallujah, west of Baghdad, the US-led coalition said an agreement with local leaders allowed for joint patrols with Iraqi security forces, an amnesty for those who turned in heavy weapons and shorter curfew hours ... both sides promised to take steps toward a 'full and unbroken' ceasefire ...The US Marines announced a draft plan for more than 77 million dollars in US aid for Fallujah once the fighting draws to an end. About 500,000 dollars would be spent in the first 30 days after peace is restored..."
Hmmm - basically they're buying peace in Fallujah without capturing any of the people who killed the contractors, they're accepting that the city is not really under their control, and they're patrolling jointly in the hopes that insurgents will not continue to shoot at them.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Apologies matter
I have seen and heard several comments like this one -- Calgary Sun Columnist - Ezra Levant: Don't cry for Svend -- in the last several days. Not only dissing Svend and his apology, they also take the opportunity to slam "the liberal press" for supporting him. Levant compares the sympathy for Svend with the media's "contemptuous glee upon discovering Reform MP Jack Ramsay's criminal charges, or upon learning of George W. Bush's 20-year-old drunk driving charge."
The differences, folks, are two:
First, Svend stepped up -- he called a press conference and admitted his guilt and apologized, before the RCMP could bring any charges. Now, he may have been only hours ahead of them, but he admitted what he did it all the same, and didn't wait for a charge and a media circus and a trial before starting to talk about stress. Ramsay never admitted any guilt (though, in fact, there is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case, but it was the prosecutor's decision to lay charges, not the media) and Bush certainly has not been particularly straightforward about his past or present mistakes.
Second, Svend has never pretended to be a poster boy for "Christian values", the kind of politician who parades himself as God's avenger on Earth against all corruption, lewedness, pornography, thievery, fornication, etc. Both the Alliance here and the Republicans in the US have deliberately adopted this persona, and they have used their so-called moral purity to convince sincere Christians to vote for them. So when one of their poster boys screws up, its news.
The differences, folks, are two:
First, Svend stepped up -- he called a press conference and admitted his guilt and apologized, before the RCMP could bring any charges. Now, he may have been only hours ahead of them, but he admitted what he did it all the same, and didn't wait for a charge and a media circus and a trial before starting to talk about stress. Ramsay never admitted any guilt (though, in fact, there is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case, but it was the prosecutor's decision to lay charges, not the media) and Bush certainly has not been particularly straightforward about his past or present mistakes.
Second, Svend has never pretended to be a poster boy for "Christian values", the kind of politician who parades himself as God's avenger on Earth against all corruption, lewedness, pornography, thievery, fornication, etc. Both the Alliance here and the Republicans in the US have deliberately adopted this persona, and they have used their so-called moral purity to convince sincere Christians to vote for them. So when one of their poster boys screws up, its news.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
"You will have to live with that decision"
washingtonpost.com: Behind Diplomatic Moves, Military Plan Was Launched This excerpt from Woodward's new book is curiously flat -- it shows Bush in January 13 and 14, 2003 in a series of high-toned conversations, informing Rice, Powell, Rove, the Saudis and the Polish PM that he is intent on war with Iraq -- there is a lot of grave babble about "the inspections aren't working" and "we're going to have to go to war" and "we're with you, Mr. President". Bush is calm and resolute, the advisors are calm and wise, the foreign leaders are calm and supportive. Were these the words actually spoken by human beings or are we reading what people would have liked to have said? In either case, the kind of war described here is an abstraction, where the key decision point appears to be the importance of "American credibility" and the discussions are all about Bush's feelings. The priceless quote of the piece is Rice supposedly saying to Bush "If you're going to carry out coercive diplomacy, you have to live with that decision" -- so Bush has to live with it, but more than 600 Americans have died with it.
Meanwhile, in other news NOT mentioned in any of these conversations, Ari Fleischer was lying to reporters about American intentions in Iraq. And apparently no one was factoring in the impact of North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which had been announced three days before, nor was anyone even discussing whether the IAEA report questioning American claims on Iraq nuclear capabilities, also of three days before, should be part of the Iraq decision.
Meanwhile, in other news NOT mentioned in any of these conversations, Ari Fleischer was lying to reporters about American intentions in Iraq. And apparently no one was factoring in the impact of North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which had been announced three days before, nor was anyone even discussing whether the IAEA report questioning American claims on Iraq nuclear capabilities, also of three days before, should be part of the Iraq decision.
Which is the lion and which the lamb?
Yahoo! News - Jackson Asked to Help Free U.S. Captive I guess politics makes for strange bedfellows -- "U.S. Sen. Trent Lott said Friday at a news conference in Tupelo he had talked with [Jesse] Jackson and helped the longtime civil rights advocate contact the Hamill family. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)