Can I just say that watching Arnold Schwarzenneger on crutches being sworn in to the sound of (badly played) trumpets in a huge auditorium is one of the weirdest damned things I’ve ever seen? (Jesus — after he took the oath a choir started singing “Hallelujah!” like the angels are celebrating or something.)
It’s still disconcerting to me to see this bizarre looking and sounding fellow as a serious leader. I want to giggle everytime I see him. But there he is.
That “American-born president” provision in the constitution may be an anachronism, but the country should be very glad of it. At least we Californians won’t be able to foist this Republican on the rest of the America. Hallelujah, indeed.
Back in the prehistoric era, BB (before blogs) there were very few witty, liberal political observers with a public platform. One of the few was the great strip, Tom Tomorrow, which I used to look forward to (and still do) like a five year old on Christmas. It was one of the things that kept me sane and is still the sharpest, most precise rendering of the current political scene around.
The Village Voice, which has recently been taken over by cretins, has decided not to carry Tom Tomorrow anymore in the print version, which is ridiculous.
“Tom” is collecting signatures on a petition to try to get the Voice to reinstate his strip. I urge you to sign it. If Tom Tomorrow isn’t in the Village Voice, the terrorists have won.
And does this perhaps get us toward an answer to our earlier question, Why the Rush? We know that Maliki is highly dependent on al Sadr and the Mahdi Army (the folks the ‘surge’ is supposed to crush). If it’s really true that Saddam was handed over to MA fighters to be executed rather than Interior Ministry officials, was that the rush? Did al Sadr and Co. make Maliki an offer he couldn’t refuse? Did they demand that Saddam be turned over to them — and now — for execution? Was that why he was pulling so many strings and cutting so many corners?
In my earlier post I quoted a passage from Juan Cole’s analysis which makes me think that Maliki wasn’t exactly coerced.
Here’s my question. If that’s the case, and The McCain Republicans and Connecticuts for Lieberman’s are going to send in 20,000 more troops to “secure” the country, doesn’t that mean Americans will be fighting the personal army of the prime minister of Iraq? The same prime minister who was duly elected with all those fabulous purple fingers?
I hate to get all literal about this and upset Tony Blankley, but shouldn’t we at least know whether this escalation is designed to kill insurgents/terrorists/extremists or make war on the current government of Iraq? And is there any difference?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Congresswoman Northup, you most recently left the Congress. You were there just until, what, a few days ago, literally. Do you see it that way? I mean, as somebody who’s served in this modern Congress, if you will, and yet a Congress that was seen as so bitterly divided along partisan lines?
FORMER REP. ANNE NORTHUP (R), Kentucky: It is bitterly divided, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be changes. It doesn’t mean that people can’t work in a more open system and more straightforward system, a system where people can work across the aisle, express their differences and their commonalities, and come to a conclusion.
I do worry that the last two years there was a lot of feeling among the Republican majority that everything the other side did was set to set a stage in order to put the Republicans on the defensive, and so there’s a lot of bitterness, underlying bitterness about the last two years that are left that could come and haunt that effort, but I’m hopeful that people who love this country will all come to the conclusion that we can work together and find better solutions.
You see, the Republicans had no choice but to treat the Democrats like garbage. The Democratic minority kept putting them on the defensive. And the Republicans are understandably still upset about it.
I have been watching this theme emerge for days now and it’s starting to crystalize: apparently the Democrats have been keeping the Republicans down for years (since at least the 50’s!)and the Republicans are very bitter about it. The overwhelming issue in the November election was the deep desire out in the country for the congress to work tegether. That’s why they voted for divided government.
Who put the acid in the DC water supply?
Update: Jonathan at A Tiny Revolution points out that Anne Northrup has some serious issues.
Why I Am A Liberal And A Progressive And A Democrat
by digby
I am a liberal because it is the political philosophy of freedom and equality. And I am a progressive because it is the political path to a better future. And I am a Democrat because it is the political party that believes in freedom, equality and progress.
This is what freedom, equality and progress look like:
Congratulations America.
It may have taken 230 years, but you finally got here. By hook or by crook, and the prodding and pushing of liberals and progressives, you always do.
By the way — Nancy Pelosi wore purple today for a specific reason. It’s the color of the suffragettes movement:
“This is an historic moment – for the Congress, and for the women of this country. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren’t just waiting; women were working. Never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal. For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling. Nancy Pelosi
All those purple wearing women who came before would be proud today.
I hate to step on all the good feelings of brotherly and sisterly love we all feel today, but when I hear the new Minority Leader John Boehner call us the “Democrat party” in the same speech in which he is calling for civility, I can’t help but wonder whether he knows what that means.
You see, it actually isn’t very civil at all to change the name of someone’s else’s political party against their will. In fact, it’s universally considered rude and cretinous not to call people by the names and designations by which they wish to be called.
Just a thought, in case anyone on the Republican side wonders why so many people think they are unctuous hypocrites. (Yeah, I know.)
Update: Oh, and perhaps this is normal, but I just heard that Mitt Romney stayed home rather than attend the swearing in of the new Governor of Massachusetts. Seems a bit uncivil, if you ask me.
And Ana Marie Wonkette just explained that Pelosi is running as fast as she can from the fact that she’s from San Francisco because she can’t have anyone thinking she isn’t a moderate. I’m just curious. How come nobody ever said such things about Trent Lott or Mitch McConnell?
I had originally rejected Tom Schaller’s idea that Democrats should demonize South Carolina or Alabama the way the Republicans (with the help of alleged liberals like Ana Marie) have demonized San Francisco and Massachusetts. But I’m beginning to see that it may actually be a necessary thing. Plus, I’m getting mighty sick of this shit — particularly with the endless lectures about civility and all.
MATTHEWS: Why does he still suggest—as our country western music did for all those years—that the people who attacked us on 9/11 — you know, bin Laden‘s crowd, al Qaeda, which we know exactly who the people were who attacked us, none of them were Iraqi—why the president continue to insists, again in the “Wall Street Journal” today we‘re fighting the same terrorists we fought on 9/11, who killed us on 9/11? Why does he keep doing that?
BLANKLEY: Look, I mean, what he said in the “Wall Street Journal” today, I think the language was careful. He is not saying the same individuals.
MATTHEWS: He is implying it‘s the same enemy.
BLANKLEY: The same radical Islam, but there were different radical Islamists who attacked us then and who were fighting there. But it‘s all part—as he‘s describing it. And I generally agree…
MATTHEWS: We got the radical Islamists on our side. We got Muqtada al Sadr as part of our hanging party. Why do you say we are fighting the guy? He‘s in the room, practically, with the hanging.
BLANKLEY: Look. You understand what the—you‘re being literal about it. The president is talking about the general threat from radical Islam around the world. And, as a lot of experts have pointed out, including critics of the war, if we skedaddle out of Iraq, that will encourage other radical Islamists to attack us.
I hate it when people get too literal about who the enemy really is, don’t you?
President Bush plans to order extra U.S. troops to Iraq as part of a new push to secure Baghdad, but in smaller numbers than previously reported, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
The president, who is completing a lengthy review of Iraq policy, is considering dispatching three to four U.S. combat brigades to Iraq, or no more than 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops, the officials said. Bush is expected to announce his decision next week.
This is nothing but flim flam. They first raised the number to 30,000 or more so the pundits would excalim that he was not really escalating when he “only” raised the troop level 20,000. But that number comes right out of the McCain Doctrine:
October 27, 2006
Republican Sen. John McCain, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, said Friday the United States should send another 20,000 troops to Iraq.
A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain said increasing U.S. forces would require expanding the standing Army and Marine Corps – a step the Bush administration has resisted. He also reiterated his opposition to a hasty U.S. withdrawal.
“If we leave … the fighting will evolve into chaos there,” McCain told reporters after speaking at an event for local Republican candidates.
Reporters asked him to elaborate on his statement last week in Iowa that more combat troops are needed in Iraq to quell a “classic insurgency.”
“Another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and the Marine Corps,” he said.
“It’s not just a set number.”
Bush is escalating the war exactly as St. John says he should. He’s agreed to expand the military and send in 20,000 more troops right away. It appears to me that John McCain is now in charge of Iraq policy.
As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.
[…]
The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the new party in power. The Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve the nation’s problems.
Really? I remember the Democrats’ campaign pledges to restore openness, although I think they were mostly discussing the need to shed light on the most secretive administration in American history. But I honestly don’t remember them running on restoring bipartisanship and working with Republicans to solve the nation’s problems.
This is a nasty little trap and it reminds me of the way the press falsely characterized Clinton’s campaign in 1992 as being something entirely different than it was and then accusing him of violating his promises. What I remember this time (just two months ago!) is a bunch of pro-forma happy horseshit after the election as everybody politely pretended that they didn’t hate each others’ guts as a matter of protocol. It was most assuredly not a campaign promise. The Democrats were being “polite” and “civil” in victory, which is apparently the only thing anyone cares about in Washington right now.
The Dems ran on a platform to stop the Republican insanity, not to “work with them” and I think those of us in the Democratic base might have noticed if they did that. The only person in the country who ran explicitly on his bipartisan credentials was Joe Lieberman and he was running against a Democrat.
The people who voted for the Dems are a little less concerned with that right now than ending the war in Iraq, overseeing the executive branch and restoring the constitution. Restoring civility is out of the Democrats’ hands — the Republicans are free to start behaving decently any time they choose. Meanwhile, somebody has to start thinking about the needs of the American people.
I have written before about this amazing essay, with which many of you are no doubt familiar. It was written in December 2005, by former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who knows a lot about its subject — torture.
Bukovsky was a very brave dissident and was widely touted as a potential leader of the new democratic Russia. (He declined.) He is a fierce critic of Putin today. But he first gained international attention in 1971 for smuggling proof of certain totalitarian practices:
The information galvanized human rights activists worldwide (including inside the country) and was a pretext for his subsequent arrest in January 1972, officially for contacts with foreign journalists and possession and distribution of samizdat (Article 70-1, 7 years of imprisonment plus 5 years in exile).
Which brings me to this sickening story which lays out in even more detail than we saw earlier, the treatment Jose Padilla has received while he’s been in custody:
According to court papers filed by Padilla’s lawyers, for the first two years of his confinement, Padilla was held in total isolation. He heard no voice except his interrogator’s. His 9-by-7 foot cell had nothing in it: no window even to the corridor, no clock or watch to orient him in time.
Padilla’s meals were delivered through a slot in the door. He was either in bright light for days on end or in total darkness. He had no mattress or pillow on his steel pallet; loud noises interrupted his attempts to sleep.
Sometimes it was very cold, sometimes hot. He had nothing to read or to look at. Even a mirror was taken away. When he was transported, he was blindfolded and his ears were covered with headphones to screen out all sound. In short, Padilla experienced total sensory deprivation.
During length interrogations, his lawyers allege, Padilla was forced to sit or stand for long periods in stress positions. They say he was hooded and threatened with death. The isolation was so extreme that, according to court papers, even military personnel at the prison expressed great concern about Padilla’s mental status.
The government maintains that whatever happened to Padilla during his detention is irrelevant, since no information obtained during that time is being used in the criminal case against him.[!!!]
Padilla’s lawyer, Andrew Patel, rejects that premise. The assumption, says Patel, is that the U.S. government can do anything it wants to an American citizen as long as it does not use any information it extracts in a court of law.
[…]
Even at this late stage, after dozens of meetings with his lawyers, Padilla suspects that they are government agents, says Andrew Patel, who is on the legal team. Padilla may believe that the lawyers assigned to represent him are in fact “part of a continuing interrogation program.”
The situation has become impossible, defense lawyers say; they’ve hired two psychiatric experts to examine Padilla. Both have often testified for the prosecution in criminal cases. This time they have sided with the defense.
After spending more than 25 hours with Padilla, both psychiatric experts have concluded that his isolation and interrogation have resulted in so much mental damage that he is incompetent to stand trial.
[…]
Both Hegarty and Zapf administered a variety of objective tests to evaluate Padilla. While they found that he is able to understand the basic charges against him, he is “unable to assist” his attorneys because of his mental condition and the “paranoia” resulting from his treatment during two years of total isolation, followed by an additional year and a half of similar treatment. Zapf also suggested that Padilla may have suffered “brain injury.” Both doctors noted his tics and spasmodic body responses.
The government adamantly denies mistreating Padilla, though it does not dispute the particulars cited in Padilla’s legal papers. Rather, the government says its treatment of Padilla was humane and notes that it provided medical treatment when necessary. The government agreed to the additional psychiatric evaluation that has now been ordered by the judge.
They seem to have tortured the man until he lost his mind. It’s horrible, the stuff of nightmares. Everytime I read about this I can hardly believe that the American government is not only doing it, but is openly defending the practice. It’s chilling.
But this may be the most chilling thing I’ve heard yet:
Indeed, there are even some within the government who think it might be best if Padilla were declared incompetent and sent to a psychiatric prison facility. As one high-ranking official put it, “the objective of the government always has been to incapacitate this person.”
Some of you may have clicked on the title of this post to see what the hell it means by now, (if you didn’t already know.) It is a Russian slang word for “psychiatric hospital.” What Vladimir Bukovsky smuggled out of Russia in those 150 pages was proof that the Soviets had used their psychiatric system to not only break prisoners’ will and minds, but also to warehouse and torture political prisoners.
Oh, and in case anyone’s wondering about why we would need to “incapacitate” this monster Padilla, soviet style:
Even former Justice Department spokesman Corallo concedes that in hindsight, Padilla was a bit player. Corallo says the government faces a problem over its ever-changing claims about what Padilla did and whether he could be prosecuted in a civilian court.
Yes, it would probably be best for everyone if this bit-player were sentenced to a psychiatric prison now that they’ve broken his mind and run out of reasons to keep him on ice.
The article says that Padilla has a case of Stockholm Syndrome, which I don’t doubt. But so do the Republican anti-communist zealots who are willingly becoming the enemy they reviled. But then, we should have known that all their highminded talk about democracy and freedom was crap. What they didn’t like about communism was the economic system. The totalitarian governing philosophy was something they evidently really believed was quite useful.
Update: Michael Froomkin has an interesting LTE published in the New Yorker on the habeas portion of the military commissions bill.
Update II: Mary Ratliff wrote a very interesting post from a couple of weeks ago about the disintigration of personality that applies to what they’ve done to Padilla. It’s stomach churning.
