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.
Saturday, April 24, 2004
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. "
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Declaring victory and leaving
This is interesting -- No way out
International affairs writer Doug Saunders argues that Bush has already actually admitted defeat. He describes the press conference:
For the next hour, George W. Bush gave one of the strangest and most opaque performances of his presidential career. At the time, for those of us watching, it seemed that he was stubbornly, blindly sticking to his guns, refusing to change his Iraq plans by an angstrom despite terrible failures on the ground. Since then, it has become apparent that something entirely different had happened: The speech was a complete reversal and admission of defeat.
Saunders argues that the most important news at the press conference was Bush's willingness to let the UN handle the post-June 30 government, and the reference to NATO sending troops. Not only that, but the number of American troops is also inreasing.
This is the pinch Mr. Bush finds himself in: The semi-autonomy of June 30 will be possible only if he accedes to both a humiliating handover of U.S. authority to those hated international bodies, and a dramatic increase in U.S troops, spending and deaths -- all only 18 weeks from election day.
International affairs writer Doug Saunders argues that Bush has already actually admitted defeat. He describes the press conference:
For the next hour, George W. Bush gave one of the strangest and most opaque performances of his presidential career. At the time, for those of us watching, it seemed that he was stubbornly, blindly sticking to his guns, refusing to change his Iraq plans by an angstrom despite terrible failures on the ground. Since then, it has become apparent that something entirely different had happened: The speech was a complete reversal and admission of defeat.
Saunders argues that the most important news at the press conference was Bush's willingness to let the UN handle the post-June 30 government, and the reference to NATO sending troops. Not only that, but the number of American troops is also inreasing.
This is the pinch Mr. Bush finds himself in: The semi-autonomy of June 30 will be possible only if he accedes to both a humiliating handover of U.S. authority to those hated international bodies, and a dramatic increase in U.S troops, spending and deaths -- all only 18 weeks from election day.
Maybe its nothing, but...
I'm starting to wonder if something is medically wrong with Bush - garrulousness, grandiosity, sometimes anger . . .
Today I read this in Peggy Noonan's column:
I noticed once again at the news conference that Mr. Bush has turned garrulous. He has taken to speaking at great length in venues of his choosing, and more and more he chooses. A week ago I took part in a seminar on book writing at a gathering of Republicans in Georgia. The president spoke to the gathering later that night, at an informal dinner for a few hundred, and I stayed on to watch. Everyone knew his remarks would be brief, but they were not. After an hour the governor of Florida, sitting behind him on the small stage, shifted like someone who knew big brother was going on too long, and finally threw a dinner roll at his back to make the point. I made the last part up, but Jeb Bush looked like someone trying to throw his voice: Wrap it up, buddy. Eventually the president did, with what seemed reluctance, after an hour and 20 minutes of a tour of his horizons, a personal and at times startlingly blunt appraisal of other leaders and the realities they face. When I mentioned to a friend that I'd never heard of Mr. Bush speaking so long, the friend, who sees him often, said the president had recently spoken for more than an hour at a lunch, to the startlement of listeners who wound up furtively checking their watches. Another Washington denizen shared a similar story. This is unlike our president. I don't know what it means. She goes on to talk about how he is choosing the speaking venues where he is stongest etc etc.
But I wonder.
A few weeks ago, I posted some other stuff about odd behaviour:
'Dana Milbank's White House Notebook has an item about Bush's "pothole" joke, which he apparently uses every time he talks to a mayor.
Then there is the odd You remind me of my mother joke at a Texas fundraiser.
And his apparent slapping down of an AP reporter who addressed him as "sir" rather than "Mr. President"
And the "looking for WMD" banquet joke.
Today I read this in Peggy Noonan's column:
I noticed once again at the news conference that Mr. Bush has turned garrulous. He has taken to speaking at great length in venues of his choosing, and more and more he chooses. A week ago I took part in a seminar on book writing at a gathering of Republicans in Georgia. The president spoke to the gathering later that night, at an informal dinner for a few hundred, and I stayed on to watch. Everyone knew his remarks would be brief, but they were not. After an hour the governor of Florida, sitting behind him on the small stage, shifted like someone who knew big brother was going on too long, and finally threw a dinner roll at his back to make the point. I made the last part up, but Jeb Bush looked like someone trying to throw his voice: Wrap it up, buddy. Eventually the president did, with what seemed reluctance, after an hour and 20 minutes of a tour of his horizons, a personal and at times startlingly blunt appraisal of other leaders and the realities they face. When I mentioned to a friend that I'd never heard of Mr. Bush speaking so long, the friend, who sees him often, said the president had recently spoken for more than an hour at a lunch, to the startlement of listeners who wound up furtively checking their watches. Another Washington denizen shared a similar story. This is unlike our president. I don't know what it means. She goes on to talk about how he is choosing the speaking venues where he is stongest etc etc.
But I wonder.
A few weeks ago, I posted some other stuff about odd behaviour:
'Dana Milbank's White House Notebook has an item about Bush's "pothole" joke, which he apparently uses every time he talks to a mayor.
Then there is the odd You remind me of my mother joke at a Texas fundraiser.
And his apparent slapping down of an AP reporter who addressed him as "sir" rather than "Mr. President"
And the "looking for WMD" banquet joke.
Tweety-bird's revenge
Cat survives monthlong crate trip That will teach the cat to leap into the birdcage crate! I'm a sucker for stories like this about extraordinary animals. But I wonder what happened to the second cat?
An apology, at last!
MSNBC - Rove regrets usingbanner declaring "Mission Accomplished"
Well, its a beginning -- at least SOMEONE in the Bush Administration has finally admitted regret about SOMETHING to do with the war in Iraq.
Well, its a beginning -- at least SOMEONE in the Bush Administration has finally admitted regret about SOMETHING to do with the war in Iraq.
Shorter Fred Thompson
Campaigning on Defeat (washingtonpost.com) If we lose in Iraq, it will be because the war's opponents didn't develop a strategy to win the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)