Month: March 2006

The Iraq Document Dump

by tristero

Shorter Peter Bergen: There is no credible evidence in the Iraqi document dump of a Saddam/Qaeda link beyond the most desultory of contacts, as the 9/11 Commission, et al. has already concluded.

And before taking a quick squint, finding something ambiguous and shrieking, “Smoking gun, smoking gun!” I’d like to remind our rabid friends on the right that, as the introduction to the documents clearly states: “The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.” That should be taken as a very strong hint to be very skeptical about what you think you’ve found.

Of course, it would be outrageous to accuse the Bush administration of salting the document dump with deliberate forgeries. Completely outrageous.

It would also be outrageous to accuse the Bush administration of witholding documents that would tend to make their justifications for the war look even more specious than they already do. Completely outrageous.

I urge everyone on the right to drop everything they are doing for the next few years and carefully, carefully study this archive. And be sure to triple-check what you find. Studying this material with the detail it deserves will require your full, undivided attention.

Take your time, boys and girls, as much as you need. I can wait.

More Pretexts

by digby

In reference to my post below about Bush and Blair casually throwing around possible pretexts for the war, Jonathan at A Tiny Revolution pointed me to a post he wrote almost a year ago in which he showed that this was openly discussed at the time by none other than the likes of liberal hawk hero, Kenneth Pollack:

…The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack was the book all good liberal hawks claimed had convinced them we just HAD to invade Iraq. And Pollack spoke about this strategy quite openly.

And yet as far as I can tell not a single member of the media pointed out how weird this was. (Of course, it’s likely most of the people touting The Threatening Storm never bothered to read it.)

Specifically, Pollack writes about this in the “Case for an Invasion” chapter. He explains we have to invade Iraq because of Saddam’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, other countries refuse to recognize this grave, grave danger. So in order to build as large a coalition as possible, we need some help from Iraq:

Click the link to see Pollacks explicit advice that the government use covert action provoke Saddam into retaliation so that we might invent a cassus belli. Pollack patiently explains,however, that even if we are unable to manufacture a proper pretext, we must invade anyway.

This was the reasonable liberal position, you’ll recall. Those of us who were against the war because it made no sense were so beyond the pale that we didn’t even merit a mention. Those who argued that invasion was unnecessary to contain the threat were relegated to obscure foreign policy journals. Those who said that it was counterproductive were called appeasers. Kenneth Pollack represented the “respectable” liberal position — and he argued quite openly that the government should invent a pretext to invade Iraq — and if that proved impossible we had to invade anyway.

And nobody said a word. Of course, his book was nearly hysterical in its threat assessment, so the idea of having to create a pretext to invade another nation seemed a small thing to some, I suppose. (The NYRB didn’t mention it.) But why did no one note that the fact the US could not make its case straightforwardly may just have meant that it didn’t actually … have a case?

After excerpting Pollack’s blithe list of potential phony pretexts, Jonathan concludes with this observation — one that really takes the cake and shows how intellectually bankrupt the liberal hawks were:

The best part is that later ON THE SAME PAGE Pollack piously explains “the administration needs to do an honest job explaining to the American people… why the United States needs to undertake this effort.”

So, there you have it: we’re going to invade no matter what, but we should try to come up with some pretext, all the while being honest about why we’re invading. If you’re capable of believing that makes any sense whatsoever, you’ll be a welcome member of the US foreign policy establishment.

9/11 changed everything. It made people stupid.

.

The Lowest of The Low

by digby

Andrew Sullivan has been writing about discrimination against atheists lately. Today’s post on the subject is particularly interesting:

Eugene Volokh has just written a law article (PDF file here) on how atheist fathers and mothers are routinely discriminated against in child custody cases. He cites over 70 recent cases across the country – and these were only the ones which were appealed, so they probably represent a fraction of the actual cases. Volokh recalls how Percy Byshe Shelley was the first father to be denied custody because of his atheism – but his dilemma doesn’t belong to a different time and place

The post goes on to show that this is actually fairly common. Frankly, I’m not surprised at all. Despite the ridiculous hype to the contrary, our society dictates that religion is required to be a decent person. If you can’t get elected to office as an atheist, why would a court grant you the right to raise children?

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Sullivan, in an earlier post on the subject, points out the obvious:

A government that screws with the rights of atheists is screwing with the rights of believers as well.

True, but then religious freedom isn’t really the point for most theocrats, is it?

.

The Liberal Clergy Gets Serious

by digby

We’ve had quite a few discussions about religion on this blog lately, which led me to believe that there is a serious need for the religious left to assert itself and make a case for Democratic religiosity. The Republicans simply do not own the church and they have no right to claim they do.

But I, being a non-believer, cannot make that case effectively. I can’t even discuss it in terms other than dry pragmatic political language. So, I’m thrilled to read through Street Prophets that the United Church of Christ has teamed up with Media Matters to “fight the pronounced tilt toward the Religious Right in mainstream media news.” Pastordan writes:

The conclusion is hard to escape: unless you’re Jesse Jackson (and it’s before 2001), if you’re on Sunday morning television to talk religion and politics, you’re almost certainly white, male and conservative, and you probably don’t represent anyone other than your own advocacy group. Is it any wonder that public discourse about religion has become so distorted in the past few years? The news shows have stopped talking to people who do religion in favor of people who talk about “religious values,” and usually from a particular perspective.

That’s a real filter, and it doesn’t just hurt faithful progressives. It hurts our churches, temples and mosques as well, by buying into the spin that conservative activists – who can give great soundbite on politics – represent the true face of faith in America. For that matter, it hurts all denominations, who are usually more interested in doing good than playing political footsie with the Republican party.

So thank God there’s a way to fight back. The first action is a letter/e-mail campaign to ask ABC why it is there’s such an imbalance on their news shows. Drop them a line, and let’s get this party started. It really has been too long that we’ve allowed the hucksters and bigots to speak for us.

And the UCC will be running a new ad soon as well, if the networks will play them. Today’s New York Times reports:

The church will return on April 3 with a second commercial, also from Gotham, titled “Ejector Pew.” The spot depicts a smug, traditional-looking family looking askance as they are joined inside a church by worshipers who are significantly different from them.

Suddenly, the worshipers who are disabled or elderly, or who appear to be gay, Hispanic or of Middle Eastern origin, are forcibly ejected from their seats. “God doesn’t reject people,” the commercial says. “Neither do we.”

This time, the campaign, with a budget estimated at $1.5 million, extends well beyond television. The intent is to stimulate conversation and debate with so-called viral efforts that are to include a substantial online presence, on Web sites and blogs; chain letters, in the form of e-mail messages; audio podcasts; posters; events at local churches; and even merchandise like decals, tote bags, pens and golf balls bearing the phrase “God is still speaking,” which is the campaign’s theme.

Smart stuff.

Click over to Street Prophets for links to the ad.

.

Fresh Blood In The White House

by tristero

As Bush’s poll numbers cluster down around a still-phenomenally-too-high-to-believe-there-are-that-many-clueless-people-left-in-the-country 33%, one would think he’d start to reach out for bipartisan support before he runs the country entirely onto the rocks. Y’know, like fire the morons around him and hire some people with at least half an ounce of common sense.

One would think Bush might start behaving like a real grownup instead of a spoiled rich bastard, but one would be wrong. Guess who’s been spending more quality time with the president of the United States than ever?

Grover Norquist. That’s right. Grover Norquist who, The Carpetbagger reminds us is:

a guy who believes the Estate Tax is morally equivalent to the Nazi Holocaust, calls WWII veterans “anti-American,” and believes “bipartisanship is another name for date rape.” This is the guy the White House turns to for policy briefings?

Moreover, there’s Norquist’s recent corruption scandals.

As in Abramoff scandals. Oh, and this is the very same Grover who wanted to drown government in a bathtub (unfortunate metaphor post-Katrina). The very same Grover who said:

Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are very unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don’t go around peeing on the furniture and such.

And once again, we will hear from Bush about how important it is to have a non-partisan, “respectful” debate.

Grover Norquist, a major adviser to the most powerful man in the world. What next? He’ll sit down to get advice from Pat “assasinate Chavez” Robertson? Hahahahahah! Oh, wait…

Click This Link

by digby

If you haven’t already heard, Redd Hedd has a little project for you today:

.

Small Stupid Men

by digby

Here is more proof that the president lied repeatedly to take this nation to war. Undoubtedly this is completely lawful since the Infallible Republican President Doctrine asserts that the president can do anything he chooses. Still, it’s unpleasantly discomfiting to see proof that the president and his number one ally casually strategized which lies and provocations they could come up with to justify their decision to invade a country that presented no threat.

Just last week President Bush said this:

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it’s just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We — when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I’m never going to forget it. And I’m never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that’s why I went into Iraq — hold on for a second —

Q They didn’t do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look — excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That’s where al Qaeda trained —

Q I’m talking about Iraq —

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That’s where — Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That’s where they trained. That’s where they plotted. That’s where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That’s why I went to the Security Council; that’s why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences —

Q — go to war —

THE PRESIDENT: — and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

That is a bald-faced lie. He had made the decisions to invade, come what may, long before and it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention at the time. And the world most certainly is not safer for it — there’s now a hot civil war taking place in the middle east, the entire region is destabilized and we’re right in the middle of it.

If there is any proof needed of what we saw with our own eyes just three years ago, the NY Times reports (linked above) that they have seen a copy of the memo (the existence of which which was revealed a couple of months ago in “Lawless World”) showing that on January 31, 2003, Bush and Blair discussed ways to provoke Saddam into giving them an excuse to invade on the predetermined date of March 10th 2003.

Stamped “extremely sensitive,” the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair’s most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book “Lawless World,” which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president’s sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was “unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups.” Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

[…]

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.

“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,” the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”

It also described the president as saying, “The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam’s W.M.D,” referring to weapons of mass destruction.

A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.

They knew there were no WMD at this point. They knew they wouldn’t find any. But that lying sack of GOP talking points, George W. Bush, mused casually that they could possibly “bring out” a US defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam’s WMD.

And they still expect us to believe that they didn’t cook the intelligence. (Hey, where’s that phase two report, anyway?)

I suspect the country’s still a bit blinded by the hail of bullshit that the Republicans threw out during that period, but the light is beginning to shine through. People know they heard something about smoking guns and mushroom clouds and they know that they were lied to. They haven’t completely absorbed the full degree of this president’s mendacity and maybe they never will — it is hard to believe. But it’s indisputable: George W. Bush, and his lapdog Blair, are being revealed in their own time as among the most destructive leaders their countries have ever produced.

The picture of these two democratic leaders sitting around a table casually tossing out possible lies to delude their respective populations into supporting a war which they otherwise wouldn’t is sickening. And they are being studied by despots and tyrants around the world who see the utility of using the “loopholes of democracy” they’ve exposed. (See this fascinating post by Steve Clemons about military conman Khadaffi’s co-opting of the language of democracy for his own purposes.)

So please let’s can the talk once and for all about how the invasion was a good idea that was just badly executed. It was a terrible idea, as all such ideas hatched by small, stupid men with big ambitions must be. If we ever hope to regain our credibility we need to seriously contemplate plans to bring about a reckoning.

Update: E&P has the transcript of Bush and Blair’s short press conference after the meeting in which they discussed how to better provoke Saddam into starting the war so they didn’t have to. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to find out that they lied.

.

Try Decaf

by digby

Somebody needs to tell CNN’s Kelli Arena to lay off the coffee. Her reports on the Moussaoui trial today are hysterical. She’s shocked, SHOCKED, that Moussaoui took the stand and admitted to knowing about the 9/11 plot beforehand and being part of it. She’s pulling faces, acting out the body language of those in the courtroom and dancing around like a marionette, she’s so excited. It’s a good thing she didn’t cover the OJ trial — she would have had a heart attack on the day the “glove didn’t fit.” Talk about an audible gasp in the courtroom.

This is exciting testimony, I’m sure, but not all that shocking. The defense tried mightily to keep him off the stand because they knew that he would do this — something Kelli appeared not to realize as she went on and on about how the defense was slaughtered by this testimony. He is an admitted al Qaeda member with an agenda and they knew he would use the opportunity to expound on his crime. (What else has he got?) And he’s not all that bright, obviously. Indeed, he said that he and the shoe bomber were supposed to fly a plane into the white house. There’s a brain trust for you. How surprising they were both caught.

.

Tony Flips A Bird And A Jeffy

by tristero

Check it out:

Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.

“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.

“That’s Sicilian,” the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the “Sopranos” challenged.

I think we got a Jeffy, boys and girls. Yes, many have questioned Tony’s partiality on church/state rulings and for very good reasons: he’s told the world in his writings that he is prepared deliberately to misread the Declaration of Independence to establish his religious beliefs. In particular, Tony wrote that it is a mistake to think that, in his words, ” a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens [sick]”* has any moral power that does not derive directly from the authority of God. And since that belief is downright anti-American and theocratic, it’s no wonder Tony has alarmed so many patriots who question his ability to judge objectively when it comes to church/state issues.

But has anyone, anywhere, anytime ever criticized Tony, or any other Catholic politician or judge, merely for celebrating Mass in public and for no other reason? And not because of their extra-religious political views?

Not likely. And so we have today’s first official Jeffy.

*Note to the humor challenged: That was not a typo. Not “sic” but “sick,” as in a mistakenly sick thing to believe. Get it? No? Oh, well, never mind.

[Update: The question the reporter asked doesn’t count. It was a question, not a criticism.]

[Update: Scalia seems to be losing it. Understandable given that he’s apparently got a son in harm’s way in the Bush/Iraq war. Who could possibly be objective about war tribunals given how hysterical and irrational Tony sounds about it? He has to recuse himself.

What The Middle East Believes About Bush/Iraq

by tristero

Recently, Anne-Marie Slaughter was asked by Time Magazine her opinion of the question, “Was the War Worth It?” Here, she reports that three Middle-Easterners say, “Yes.” This drives her to this remarkably illogical conclusiont:

For those of us who increasingly think that the balance sheet of the war is almost entirely negative (in my case because of the way it has been fought more than its undertaking in the first place) — which describes virtually every American queried, the gap between our perceptions and the perceptions of those actually in the region should give us pause.

By the way, that is not taken out of context. That is her entire comment on the quotes she provides. A few comments:

1. It is impossible to find anyone in the United States who has even the slightest standing in the discussion on Bush/Iraq who also believes that Saddam was a nice, fluffy, warm-hearted kind of a guy who’d gotten a bum rap.

2. If she thinks the views here are at variance with the opinion of many Americans, there’s a protein wisdom I’d like to sell her. But hell, why pick on poor Jeff (besides the fact that it’s incredibly easy, as Wolcott would say)? In today’s NY Times there’s a nifty graphic you can click on where you’ll learn that 69% of all Republicans think the American military effort in Iraq is still going very well or fairly well. Dollars to donuts most would agree the war was worth it for, among other reasons, precisely the reason her Middle East commenters give.

3. Not only are the people she quotes not even crudely representative of Middle East opinion because they are all male, but they are also middle class or upper middle class. They do not begin to represent the huge populaton of Middle Eastern Arabs whose income falls far below any rational level of poverty.

4. I do not, as Anne-Marie writes, “increasingly think” the balance sheet of the war is almost completely negative. I’ve consistently thought so since I first heard that pre-emptive unilateral war against Iraq was being planned by the Bush administration. Following her logic – not mine – I therefore find nothing in the comments she quotes to give me the slightest pause. That Saddam’s regime would last more than 30 years? Who knows? That you can’t negotiate with these dictatorships for reform but you can now? Oh? Well, I guess the president of the United States holding hands with a Saudi oil bigwig is kind of, sort of, a negotiaton for genuine reform if I squint at the video just right.

Bush/Iraq has proven an all-but-umitigated disaster, plain and simple, for Iraq and the US. The proof is in the chaos, the deaths and mutilations, and the descent into a state of anarchy and/or civil war. Its effect on the rest of the region can hardly be said to be positive. Witness, for example, the election of Hamas, to name the first of many disasters that come to mind.

And in truth, the full effect of the Bush/Iraq has not yet been felt. For that we will have to wait for the children, whose fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and friends and lovers have been blasted to kingdom come by American action, to grow up.