Skip to content

Month: January 2008

Close The Cage Doors

by digby

C&L has been following the story about the Kansas Republican chairman who boasted publicly and proudly that he’s been “caging” voters and makes a good observation:

All kidding aside, what has become of Kobach’s admission to caging “more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years“? The blogs and even the media seem to have done their part. So, what happens next? Did it go unnoticed because the story broke during the holidays? We’ve yet to hear from Kansas Governor Sebelius or any of the Democrats running in ‘08 who could be most affected by any GOP election trickery, Rep. Nancy Boyda or Senate challenger Greg Orman (who is going up against Bush lackey Sen, Pat Roberts), what they think or whether anyone is going to dig deeper to find out just what the Kansas GOP’s voter caging scheme is all about.

This seems like a no-brainer to me. A Republican operative says out loud that he’s caging voters and the Demcoratic establishment says nothing? What’s wrong with them?

This issue is going to be huge in the fall. Between the Supreme Court’s likely backing of voter ID in Indiana and a strong push to suppress the Latino vote (along with GOP desperation) voting rights should be front and center for Democrats everywhere in the country. If it isn’t they are going to be sorry. We all are.

I wrote about this story on The CAF Blog a while back. In light of the aristocracy’s view that American’s don’t actually have a right to vote, I have long been in favor of Jesse Jackson Jr’s call for a constitutional amendment which makes it clear even to royalists like Scalia and Roberts that whether they like it or not, democracy requires that the government protect and expand the franchise not obstruct it.

.

Our Man In Baghdad

by dday

Earlier today I wrote about the comments from the Iraqi defense minister Abdul Qadir, who claimed that a US presence would be needed in Iraq until 2018 at the earliest. Swopa informs us that Qadir is a kind of the “player to be named later” in the Iraqi government:

A quick Googling expedition reveals that the minister’s full name is Abdul Qadir Muhammed Jasim (why the NYT refers to him only by the first half of his name, I don’t know), and he was appointed defense minister at the end of the wrangling over security ministries between the Bushites and Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government in 2006.

The odds are good that Jasim was imposed on Team Shiite in much the same manner as the U.S. has kept its preferred intelligence chief in place for the past couple of years, viewing the position as too important to let the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government control it. Of course, in the case of the intelligence director, the Iraqi government simply developed a separate spy service to circumvent him.

Swopa seems to be saying that nothing Abdul Qadir says should be believed, and his influence in the Iraqi government is minimal at best. However, it’s undeniable that the US is negotiating a status of forces agreement with the Iraqis, and the defense ministry would conceivably have something to do with that. And we know that the Administration desires to cut the Congress out of the deal. And unless there’s a separate Army we don’t know about, Qadir at least will have some say in that agreement. Being a virtual puppet of the Americans probably smooths the negotiations, too.

A lot of people in the comments questioned whether or not Bush could lock in a permanent military presence in Iraq through such an agreement. One thing I know for sure is that these bills, which would “require the administration to consult with Congress on the agreement and withhold funds for the agreement if it did not come in the form of a formal treaty,” aren’t likely to help. Bush wouldn’t sign anything that would give up his own power, so obviously this would require Republican support. And these are the people who obstructed S-CHIP, I don’t think they’ll bat an eyelash obstructing this one.

Funding for permanent military bases in Iraq was banned by the Congress… in the defense authorization bill that Bush pocket-vetoed in late December. Eventually a defense authorization bill needs to be passed; Nancy Pelosi should simply seek to override it, since Bush’s pocket veto wasn’t an actual pocket veto. Watch and see if that rider suddenly flies the coop. If you want to stop a permanent military presence in Iraq, banning the funding would be the best way to do it.

The Right Thing

by digby

For several years, I featured a 1998 speech by Bill Clinton to commemorate Martin Luther King Day. In 2005, I wrote this, and in the spirit of Democratic unity I’ll humbly offer it up today on the occasion of King’s real birthday in the hopes that it might remind us a little bit of who we are:

The Heart Of The Democratic Party

I posted this speech once before but I think it’s worth a rerun. In the summer of 1998 Bill Clinton was slowly being assassinated by the death of a thousand cuts. The press was as bloodthirsty as I’ve ever seen it. It’s hard to remember now, but the feeding frenzy was overwhelming. I can still see the looks on their faces as night after night the media held their witch burning tribunal, cackling madly as they picked over the “evidence” with prurient delight. It was a very sick time.

On the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have A Dream Speech” Bill Clinton gave the following unprepared speech. It was the most heartfelt speech I ever heard him give.

August 28, 1998

The summer of 1963 was a very eventful one for me: the summer I turned 17.

What most people know about it now is the famous picture of me shaking hands with President Kennedy in July. It was a great moment. But I think the moment we commemorate today, a moment I experienced all alone, had a more profound impact on my life.

Most of us who are old enough remember exactly where we were on Aug. 28, 1963. I was in my living room in Hot Springs, Ark.

I remember the chair I was sitting in. I remember exactly where it was in the room. I remember exactly the position of the chair when I sat and watched on national television the great March on Washington unfold.

I remember weeping uncontrollably during Martin Luther King’s speech. And I remember thinking, when it was over, my country would never be the same and neither would I.

There are people all across this country who made a more intense commitment to the idea of racial equality and justice that day than they had ever made before. And so in very personal ways, all of us became better and bigger because of the work of those who brought that great day about. There are millions of people who John Lewis will never meet who are better and bigger because of what that day meant.

And the words continue to echo down to the present day, spoken to us today by children who were not even alive then. And, God willing, their grandchildren will also be inspired and moved and become better and bigger because of what happened on that increasingly distant summer day.

What I’d like to ask you to think about a little today, and to share with you — and I’ll try to do it without taking my spectacles out, but I don’t write very well and I don’t read too well as I get older — is what I think this means for us today. I was trying to think about what John and Dr. King and others did and how they did it, and how it informs what I do and how I think about other things today.

And I want to ask, you all need to think about three things . . . .

No. 1, Dr. King used to speak about how we were all bound together in a “web of mutuality,” which was an elegant way of saying, whether we like it or not, we’re all in this life together. We are interdependent. Well, what does that mean? Well, let me give you a specific example: We had some good news today. Incomes in America went up 5 percent last year. That’s a big bump in a year. We have got the best economy in a generation. That’s the good news.

But we are mutually interdependent with people far beyond our borders. Yesterday, there was some more news that was troubling out of Russia, some rumor, some fact about the decline in the economy. Our stock market dropped over 350 points. And in Latin America, our most fast-growing market for American exports, all the markets went down even though, as far as we know, most of those countries are doing everything right. Why? Because we’re in a tighter and tighter and tighter web of mutuality.

Asia has these economic troubles. So even though we have got the best economy in a generation, our farm exports to Asia are down 30 percent from last year. And we have states in this country where farmers, the hardest-working people in this country, can’t make their mortgage payments because of things that happened half a world away they didn’t have any direct influence on at all. This world is being bound together more closely.

So what is the lesson from that? Well, I should go to Russia because, as John said, anybody can come see you when you’re doing well. I should go there.

And we should tell them that if they’ll be strong and do the disciplined, hard things they have to do to reform their country, their economy, and get through this dark night, that we’ll stick with them. . . .

The second thing.

Even if you’re not a pacifist, whenever possible, peace and nonviolence is always the right thing to do.

I remember so vividly in 1994 . . .I was trying to pass this crime bill, and all of the opposition to the crime bill that was in the newspapers, all the intense opposition was coming from the N.R.A. and the others that did not want us to ban assault weapons, didn’t believe that we ought to have more community policemen walking the streets, and conservatives who thought we should just punish people more and not spend more money trying to keep kids out of trouble in the first place. And it was a huge fight.

And so they came to see me, and he said, “Well, John Lewis is not going to vote for this bill.” And I said, “Why?” and they said, “Because it increases the number of crimes subject to the Federal death penalty and he’s not for it. And he’s not in bed with all those other people, he thinks they’re wrong, but he can’t vote for it.” And I said, “Well, let him alone. There’s no point in calling him” because he’s lived a lifetime dedicated to an idea and while I may not be a pacifist, whenever possible, it’s always the right thing to do to try to be peaceable and nonviolent.

What does that mean for today? Well, there’s a lot of good news. It’s like the economy: the crime rate’s at a 25-year low, juvenile crime’s finally coming down. . . .

Half a world away, terrorists trying to hurt Americans blow up two embassies in Africa, and they killed some of our people, some of our best people — of, I might add, very many different racial and ethnic backgrounds, American citizens, including a distinguished career African-American diplomat and his son — but they also killed almost 300 Africans and wounded 5,000 others.

We see their pictures in the morning paper, two of them who did that. We were bringing them home. And they look like active, confident young people. What happened inside them that made them feel so much hatred toward us that they could justify not only an act of violence against innocent diplomats and other public servants, but the collateral consequences to Africans whom they would never know? They had children, too.

So it is always best to remember that we have to try to work for peace in the Middle East, for peace in Northern Ireland, for an end to terrorism, for protections against biological and chemical weapons being used in the first place.

The night before we took action against the terrorist operations in Afghanistan and Sudan, I was here on this island up till 2:30 in the morning trying to make absolutely sure that at that chemical plant there was no night shift. I believed I had to take the action I did, but I didn’t want some person who was a nobody to me, but who may have a family to feed and a life to live, and probably had no earthly idea what else was going on there, to die needlessly. I learned that, and it’s another reason we ought to pay our debt to the United Nations, because if we can work together, together we can find more peaceful solutions. Now I didn’t learn that when I became President; I learned it from John Lewis and the civil rights movement a long time ago.

And the last thing I learned from them on which all these other things depend, without which we cannot build a world of peace or one America in an increasingly peaceful world bound together in this web of mutuality, is that you can’t get there unless you’re willing to forgive your enemies. I never will forget one of the most — I don’t think I have ever spoken about this in public before — but one of the most meaningful personal moments I have had as President was a conversation I had with Nelson Mandela.

And I said to him — I said: “You know, I have read your book, and I have heard you speak.

And you spent time with my wife and daughter, and you have talked about inviting your jailers to your inauguration.” And I said, “It’s very moving.” And I said: “You’re a shrewd as well as a great man. But come on now, how did you really do that? You can’t make me believe you didn’t hate those people who did that to you for 27 years?”

He said, “I did hate them for quite a long time. After all, they abused me physically and emotionally. They separated me from my wife, and it eventually broke my family up. They kept me from seeing my children grow up.” He said, “For quite a long time, I hated them.”

And then he said: “I realized one day, breaking rocks, that they could take everything away from me, everything, but my mind and heart. Now, those things I would have to give away, and I simply decided I would not give them away.”

So as you look around the world, you see — how do you explain these three children who were killed in Ireland or all the people who were killed in the square when the people were told to leave the City Hall, there was a bomb there, and then they walked out toward the bomb?

What about all those families in Africa? I don’t know. I can’t pick up the telephone and call them and say, “I am so sorry this happened.” How do we find that spirit?

All of you know I’m having to become quite an expert in this business of asking for forgiveness. And I —-. It gets a little easier the more you do it. And if you have a family, an Administration, a Congress and a whole country to ask, you’re going to get a lot of practice.

But I have to tell that in these last days it has come home to me again, something I first learned as President, but it wasn’t burned in my bones — and that is that in order to get it, you have to be willing to give it. And all of us — the anger, the resentment, the bitterness, the desire for recrimination against people you believe have wronged you — they harden the heart and deaden the spirit and lead to self-inflicted wounds.

And so it is important that we are able to forgive those we believe have wronged us, even as we ask for forgiveness from people we have wronged.

And I heard that first — first — in the civil rights movement. “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

I never doubted Clinton’s sincere commitment to racial justice, but that speech illuminated something for me that I’d never quite understood before. The Democratic party is dysfunctional in so many ways, and it makes me crazy with its lack of discipline. (Just as Clinton did.) But, considering this country’s sordid racial history, being the party of African Americans is the heart of what we stand for. It’s what gives us our soul.

We like to think that we are about reason and rationality while the other side is all hot emotionality. But, we are all humans blessed with the full spectrum of human attributes. The difference, it seems to me, is which human qualities lead us and where they take us.

The civil rights movement gives us the perfect window. Democrats led with their hearts on that issue. Although they knew it was politically dangerous, they did it anyway because they were moved as human beings to do the right thing against their own political best interests.

Immediately, the Republicans coolly and methodically set out to take advantage of the opening. The party of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had no personal stake in the issue of racial justice. The Republican party had, since Lincoln, been the African Americans’ home. Both of those men were from California, so they also had no regional attachment to the “southern culture” that would have made them nostalgic for the old ways. Their Southern Strategy was pure, cold political calculation and it served them very well. A look at the 2004 electoral map confirms it.

We led with our hearts on civil rights and they led with their heads. And we were right. I believed Bill Clinton when he said that he’d cried when he heard the “I have A Dream Speech.” Many, many people did. That moment symbolized the crucible of American racial culture. It challenged us to rise above the original sin of slavery and do the right thing. The people who heard that call were the people who formed the heart of the modern Democratic Party.

And when we hear some of our own complain about the Congressional Black Caucus “mau-mauing” somebody or say derisively that the African American constituency should be less race based and more class based, we need to remember that the congressional black caucus is also the fighting liberal caucus. (They were the first and loudest to protest the bogus impeachment, a fact which Clinton knew that day very well.) They are Democrats because the Democratic Party invited them in and asked them to sit at the table when it was politically difficult to do. They knew that Bill Clinton, for all his foibles, understood that and appreciated what that meant. And they stood by him when he was being persecuted by the other side. If there is today a more reliable constituency of authentic courageous liberal Democrats, I don’t know what it is.

Martin Luther King was murdered before his dream could be realized. But it’s getting better — slowly but surely. There will be no going back. It’s an enormous achievement for a screwed up country like ours that we’ve finally managed to make progress in spite of the huge structural and cultural obstacles that were virtually built into our political system from the very beginning.

Democrats led the way on civil rights and paid a huge political price. For all the talk of spinelessness and weakness that you hear out there today (and not without reason), when the chips were down, the Democratic Party showed then that it would stand up for what was right.

There is no doubt which party Martin Luther King would choose today.

I’m not evolved enough, I’m afraid, to be forgiving for what the Republicans have done to this country these last few years. I’ll need some time to come to that. But, I appreciate the notion that we can’t let them sour us and turn inward. Nothing will ever change if we do that. And no matter what, I figure as long as African Americans are in our party fighting the good fight, the least I can do is stand beside them.

I was talking to a friend yesterday about the fact that once again, Democrats are taking the rougher road for the right reasons. They are in the strongest position they’ve been in in years to become a real governing majority. The Republicans are dazed and bloated from their gluttonous binge on tax dollars and war and now there is another window for the Democrats for the first time in decades. And yet, rather than play it safe with a possibly comfortable victory in sight, they are using this singular moment of opportunity to break down the barriers to women and African Americans that have existed forever in our political system.

Regardless of the recent ugliness (and that which is bound to come when the Republicans finally engage) that fact makes me proud to be a Democrat and honored to support any of the candidates, all of whom have been brave enough to run in an historic campaign at a time when the Party could have hoarded its “political capital” and won easily. It’s pretty idealistic stuff in a time of great cynicism and I don’t think we appreciate that as we should.

Update: This is the smartest blog post I’ve read about the historical dynamics we are seeing played out in this race.

.

Iraq 3000

by dday

I’m sorry, the Iraqi defense minister is shooting low. Surely we can spend the whole millennium kicking down doors in Baghdad if we just put our minds to it?

The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.

Those comments from the minister, Abdul Qadir, were among the most specific public projections of a timeline for the American commitment in Iraq by officials in either Washington or Baghdad. And they suggested a longer commitment than either government had previously indicated.

Pentagon officials expressed no surprise at Qadir’s projections, which were even less optimistic than those he made last year.

Now, if Qadir and his successors just continue to get less optimistic year over year, I just know we can get to 1,000 years in Iraq! After all, we’re a can-do people!

This isn’t going to be based on just the Iraqis crying out for a need, by the way. It’s going to be based on Bush locking in a status of forces agreement.

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: “We’re putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington,” he told reporters. “The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process.” The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush’s Iraq coordinator in the White House—in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.

This has been Bush’s stated goal for quite some time: to create a situation where his successor would have to stay in Iraq. In fact, staying has become the goal. By building this army corps of 70,000 Sunnis that the Shiites have continually resisted folding into their security forces, which commanders on the ground are literally using as a threat to get the factions to reconcile, with little progress. What’s more likely is that the US will be needed to keep paying the Sunni citizen groups, and to act as a buffer. That’s a recipe for endless occupation.

And let’s be clear what the consequences are. Ten more years in Iraq means ten more years of the heightened possibility of nuclear war.

If the U.S. were to face a new conventional threat, its military could not respond effectively without turning to air power, officials and analysts say.

That is the ultimate upshot of the war in Iraq: a response elsewhere would consist largely of U.S. fighters and bombers — even, perhaps, some degree of nuclear strike — because so many ground troops are tied up in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Ten more years in Iraq means ten more years of dehumanizing soldiers who then come back without the resources or the mental health to be equipped for civilian life.

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving.

About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, among them 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father slammed her against a wall when he was recuperating in Texas from a bombing near Falluja that blew off his foot and shook up his brain.

We’re not just stuck in Iraq, we’re creating a culture of Iraq, a living history of how this occupation is impacting our lives and our decisions. The politics of the conflict are shattered, with nobody even willing to offer a critique. We are living in a time when children born during the Bush-Gore recount in 2000 may be putting on the uniform and going off to fight in Bush’s war in 2018.

.

Bogus Neutrality

by tristero

There are times when neutrality is reasonable. And neutrality does not necessarily imply a lack of judgment or indecision. And sometimes, neutrality is appropriate in the face of complex controversies. Take string theory, for example. Even the most ardent partisans among physicists admit that there are at least a few points in the other side’s favor.

Now, as an often bewildered outsider, I may like the interplay of weird ideas or think they sound preposterous. But I’m in no position to take a side as to whether or not they could be scientifically valid. Besides, the most qualified authorities who grasp the details are themselves divided. Neutrality in the face of this controversy strikes me as the only sensible position.

Then again:

There are times when “neutrality” isn’t neutral, when a desire to appear unbiased betrays a bias. The Texas Education Agency’s reluctance to appear biased in favor of evolution and against intelligent design (ID) creationism is one of those times.

In November 2007, officials at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) forced the resignation of TEA Director of Science Christina Castillo Comer, who had held that position for nine years after having been a Texas science teacher for twenty-seven years. The offense that prompted this turn of events was Comer’s forwarding an e-mail about a November 2, 2007, lecture that I was scheduled to give in Austin, TX. Entitled “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse: A Closer Look at Intelligent Design,” the talk was sponsored by the Austin chapter of the Center for Inquiry. This lecture, one of many such presentations I have given all over the country, condensed into fifty minutes almost a decade of scholarly research about the ID creationist movement. (A version of the lecture is online. See also my July 2007 Center for Inquiry paper about the ID movement.)The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), where I serve on the board of directors, had sent an announcement of the lecture to Austin-area NCSE members and a few others, including Comer. Adding nothing more than an “FYI,” Comer sent it along to a few people who might be interested, as she had done with many prior announcements. However, this time she was placed on leave and given an ultimatum: resign or be fired. She resigned on November 7 after supervisor Monica Martinez wrote a November 5 memo recommending her termination. (See my statement in response to Comer’s termination here and a second statement here.)

Full disclosure: Barbara Forrest is a friend of mine. I am honored to know her. She has not only taken a principled stand but been extremely effective in the war – no other word- with the Christian Right. Anyone who wishes to understand what the issues are in the fight to oppose “intelligent design” creationism should read her book, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design

Stopping The Train

by digby

Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are taking a step back from the brink this evening. (More Obama, here.) This has the strong feel of a negotiated truce. I noticed some serious walk back from campaign spokespeople all day.

Good for the campaigns for taking a breather. (Let’s hope the surrogates all get the message and keep their yaps shut for a while.)

Matthews floated an interesting idea today — it may be necessary to put both of them on the ticket, no matter which one wins, in order to bring the party back together. Isn’t that an intriguing thought?

I have to say I will make a video of myself singing Kumbaaya on the Venice Beach Walk and put it on YouTube if that happens, but still — it would be lovely.

Update: Jane at FDL has more on how the press is fanning the flames on this stuff.

Don’t listen, campaigns. They only want to hurt the ball club.

.

The Not-So-Innocent Abroad

by dday

With the “Filipino Monkey” story starting to hit the major press, the Administration’s credibility on this Straits of Hormuz incident is lessening even further. It’s very clear that the audio threats, which set this apart from more routine incidents in the Straits, bore little relation to the incident itself and was likely to be essentially a crank call. And Cernig notes that the other threatening aspect of the early reports, those mysterious white boxes that the Iranians tossed in the water, were pretty much… white boxes.

The small, boxlike objects dropped in the water by Iranian boats as they approached U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf on Sunday posed no threat to the American vessels, U.S. officials said yesterday, even as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff charged that the incident reflects Iran’s new tactics of asymmetric warfare.

After passing the white objects, commanders on the USS Port Royal and its accompanying destroyer and frigate decided there was so little danger from the objects that they did not bother to radio other ships to warn them, the officials said.

“The concern was that there was a boat in front of them putting these objects in the path of our ships. When they passed, the ships saw that they were floating and light, that they were not heavy or something that would have caused damage,” such as a mine, said Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, a spokeswoman for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in the Gulf.

The Navy ships in the water appeared to take this incident in stride. Somebody in the upper echelons saw an opening and leaked this to the press, and blew it up out of proportion. When you have people like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen saying he’s never seen such a provocative incident but then admitting he never saw the video, the suspicions grow. And the fact that it occurred at precisely the time when Bush was headed to the region with the intent of threatening Iran is no accident. If the dynamic between the US and Iraq was changed by the release of last year’s NIE, Bush hasn’t gotten the memo.

President Bush on Sunday called Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terror” and sought to shore up opposition to the government in Tehran throughout the Middle East.

But even as he criticized Iranian leaders, saying they were seeking to repress their citizens and cow neighboring countries, Bush appealed to U.S. allies in the region to open up their own political and economic systems to greater democracy.

Spotlighting a swath of the globe where U.S. diplomacy is built around seeking help for the administration’s anti-terrorism effort, the president criticized only Iran by name. He avoided mentioning Egypt, his final stop on a six-nation Middle East trip, despite its long record of human rights abuses, limited political rights and economic disparity. Nor did he cite other nations across the region with similarly troubled histories.

Kind of a delicate subject in the Middle East, and the emirs didn’t take kindly to it.

Even political analysts here who share Bush’s democratic vision said that his speech painted over the daily reality for most inhabitants of the Middle East, an oil-rich region where power is largely inherited and human rights violations abound.

Whether chastising Iran or praising Palestinian elections, analysts said, Bush left out key facts that would have offered a messier — and more true-to-life — portrait of the modern Middle East.

“Iran is a neighbor, we have to deal with that,” said Ambassador Ibrahim Mohieldin, director of the Arab League’s Americas department. “The U.S. is thousands of miles away from Iran – it’s OUR national security that will be affected” if leaders agree to keep Tehran isolated at Washington’s request.

This is the result of an incurious man who is given a script without checking the facts. Bush can talk about democracy promotion, but when it comes down to it a substantial portion of US aid goes to undemocratic regimes, and little goes to actually strengthening the building blocks of democracy. Bush can praise the United Arab Emirates (!) as a model society because to him, it is; an obscenely wealthy oligarchy that practically enslaves immigrant labor to construct their opulent palaces. Bush can caution for stability in the region while selling $20 billion in arms to the Saudis, clearly as a counter-balance to Iran, which may increase tensions rather than diffuse them (Congress, by the way, has the ability to, and should, outright reject these sales). Bush can call for an end to the occupation of Palestine while failing to understand or even engage with the dynamics of the debate, seven years after ignoring the peace process and making the problem significantly more protracted. This is the “Innocent Abroad,” only he’s not so innocent.

In private meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week, Newsweek reports that President Bush disowned the U.S. intelligence community’s judgments:

“But in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week, the president all but disowned the document, said a senior administration official who accompanied Bush on his six-nation trip to the Mideast. “He told the Israelis that he can’t control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE’s] conclusions don’t reflect his own views” about Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, said the official, who would discuss intelligence matters only on the condition of anonymity.”

This incident in the Straits was very orchestrated and very timed. Career staffers in the intelligence apparatus won the first round in the effort to halt a march to war with Iran, but that was only a round (that WSJ piece is really interesting, by the way, have a read). We have a President that is visiting the Middle East, while at the same time he is ignoring their wishes and making their region significantly less livable through saber-rattling and falsification.

.

There’s More Than The Big Show

by digby

Jane says, “raise your hand if you’re sick of the presidentials” and offers up some positive political action we can all take:


Markos has announced an ambitious goal of 5,000 donors for Pera this week. Americablog is also joining in. We’ll need about 2700 to get there. Blue America has 170 donors so far for Pera, and I think if we can get to 300 we can have some sort of “Pera Primary Party” on the blog. Dunno quite what that means, but suggestions gladly taken in the comments. For those who have had a bellyfull of race and gender baiting, implausable denials and “Democrats for a day,” here’s your opportunity to do something positive. It’s also a really nice opportunity to stick it to the DC Dems, who seem dead set on shoving corporate cons like Al Wynn down our throats. Remember — a donation is a donation, so even $5 or $10 counts. You can go “Pera Positive” here.

We are deep into ugly primary season and we can spend all of our time wringing our hands over things we can’t control or we can do something politically positive. Send Pera five bucks and feel clean again.

And then have a long walk and a stiff shot of tequila.

.

More and Better Democrats

by dday

Two very big Congressional primaries on the Democratic side are happening in the next few weeks, and the progressive movement should arguably be more concerned with them than the Presidential primary. The leverage that progressives can have in setting the national agenda is directly tied to their ability to punish those wayward Democrats who undermine core values and principles through their votes and their behavior.

In MD-04, Rep. Al Wynn is holding one corporate fundraiser after another in an effort to keep his seat against grassroots progressive Donna Edwards. The latest includes practically every telecom and cable interest in America, at a time when they’re all trying to get amnesty for breaking the law and spying on American citizens. Earlier he held one for energy lobbyists. Wynn’s constituency is clearly the kind of powerful interests that have attempted to buy government over the last couple decades. Donna Edwards represents a step back from the brink.

In IL-03, Mark Pera is challenging Bush Dog Dan Lipinski, and Pera schooled Lipinski in a recent debate.

Speaking on the issue of energy and the environment, Pera said he would never have voted for the 2005 Bush energy bills, which gave big oil and energy companies $22 billion in tax breaks and allowed for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary Lipinski said he voted against drilling in ANWR and has resisted pressure from the Bush Administration to pass legislation that included tax breaks for big oil.

Pera said Lipinski had misrepresented his record to the voting public.

“I can’t believe what I am hearing,” Pera said. “Congressman Lipinski voted to open up [ANWR] for drilling. Congressman Lipinski voted for $8 billion in tax cuts for big oil. Now that he has a challenger like me, he’s having an election year conversion.”

Lipinski later admitted to voting twice in 2005 for the Bush energy bill (HR 6) in 2005, calling both votes a “tough choice.”

The Pera-Lipinski primary is February 5. The Wynn-Edwards race is February 12. Both are crucial to the furthering of the progressive movement. You can donate to both of them at Blue America.

UPDATE: Let me add a third race, also in Illinois, the primary to compete in the open seat vacated by Denny Hastert. Union carpenter John Laesch is a progressive fighter, going up against the Rahm Emanuel-backed Bill Foster. You know what to do.

.

Bothersome Intel on Iran | Newsweek Periscope | Newsweek.com

Lame Ducks Can Still Quack

by tristero

And they do a lot of serious harm to the world:

“‘[Bush] told the Israelis that he can’t control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE’s] conclusions don’t reflect his own views’ about Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, said the official, who would discuss intelligence matters only on the condition of anonymity.

Bush’s behind-the-scenes assurances may help to quiet a rising chorus of voices inside Israel’s defense community that are calling for unilateral military action against Iran. Olmert, asked by NEWSWEEK after Bush’s departure on Friday whether he felt reassured, replied: ‘I am very happy.’

Hold on to your hats, kids.