ARCHIVES
|
SUNDAY
04.25.04 / 3:44
PM / LINK
The war we're losing
Terrorist expert Richard Clarke makes a strong argument here for the adoption of
ideas as well as the military solution the Bush administration
has come to rely so heavily upon to deal with what they call
the "war on terror". But ideas other than that of belligerence
do not appear to come easy to the Bush bunch.
Clarke says,
"One lesson is that even though we are the world's only
remaining superpower — as we were before Sept. 11, 2001
— we are seriously threatened by an ideological war within
Islam. It is a civil war in which a radical Islamist faction
is striking out at the West and at moderate Muslims. Once we
recognize that the struggle within Islam — not a 'clash
of civilizations' between East and West — is the phenomenon
with which we must grapple, we can begin to develop a strategy
and tactics for doing so. It is a battle not only of bombs and
bullets, but chiefly of ideas. It is a war that we are
losing, as more and more of the Islamic world develops antipathy
toward the United States and some even develop a respect for
the jihadist movement."
TOP
04.25.04 / 3:44 PM / LINK
Living in la-la land
I'm not a Maureen Dowd fan, but she's put together a pretty
comprehensive list here.
TOP
04.25.04 / 3:16 PM / LINK
A criminally negligent Department of Defense
Now here's
something.
Columnist Thomas Friedman, who has always been aboard the Iraq
war bandwagon, talking about the possibility of success there,
said, "...the only chance we have of (success) is if we
look at our situation, and the real nature of Iraq, right in
the eye — something that the Bush Pentagon has been criminally
negligent in doing. (This is the real intelligence failure
in Iraq — a failure of common sense.)"
Them's strong
words for a war supporter.
TOP
04.25.04 / 3:16 PM / LINK
Republican Big Government gets an earful
and a mallful from women
At today's
reproduction rights rally
on the
Washington mall activist Gloria Steinem said, "The desire
to control reproduction is the mark of authoritarian governments
around the world and, unfortunately, it's ours, as well."
TOP
04.25.04 / 3:01 PM / LINK
Will we soon split into increasingly warring
blue and red factions?
Here's a worrisome article
by Washington Post staff writer, David Von Drehle, that delves
into what we've done to ourselves as a nation over the past few
decades.
Brings to mind Abraham
Lincoln's address
to the Republican convention accepting his party's nomination
for U.S. Senate from Illinois in June of 1858. " 'A house
divided against itself cannot stand,' " he said, and continued,
"I believe this government cannot endure permanently half
blue and half red."
I'm kidding --but
it's gallows humor. Lincoln actually said, "I believe this
government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."
But it makes my point. With chronic division such as this we
have more than suicide murderers to worry about.
TOP
04.25.04
/ 6:55 AM / LINK
When up is down, black is white, and right
is wrong
Being
at loggerheads with reality is Bushian policy.
Molly
Ivins 4/25/04:
"There was the president at his news conference, looking
just like a turtle on a fence post.
" 'They
[weapons of mass destruction] could still be there. They could
be hidden.' Saddam Hussein is still an 'ally' of the 9-11 terrorists.
He was still 'a direct threat' to America. Oy."
And
4/18/04:
"There are always moments of cognitive dissonance in listening
to Bush, when you realize that what he is saying simply does
not accord with any known version of reality."
TOP
04.25.04
/ 6:44 AM / LINK
More than an ill wind
 In the current convergence of
religion and politics that threatens one of the things the founders
were trying to avoid big time, it seems the Pope is telling John
Kerry through emmissaries that he'll be cut
off from communion unless he changes his ways. Depending upon your
world view, this is either a good or a bad thing.
Everyone (so far) has had their own opinions about these things,
and the Pope, for one, obviously feels John Kerry, as a good
Catholic, should think otherwise about abortion. So do American
evangelicals. This is the religious side of the right wing argument.
The rub is that at this historical moment the secular side (the
political right) happens to agree.
...a cyclone
about to mate with a typhoon
As a weatherman might observe, this is akin to the confluence
of separate but similar systems like the ones which produced
the
perfect storm
that sent George Clooney's Andrea Gail to the bottom without
a trace. But as we've been told before, we don't need a weatherman
to know which way the wind blows. All it takes is a little common
sense to know that when a cyclone teams up with a typhoon there'll
be no distinguishing between them --not that it'll matter when
you're being blown to kingdom come. In fact there's very little
difference these days between "right wing politics"
and "religion". Once they intertwine, religious belief
and political ideology tend to become a singularity. And, as
any physicist will tell you, a black hole is impossible to resist
once you've crossed the event threshold.
In fact, there's a kind of righteous fervor in the atmosphere
that smells suspiciously like an ill wind. It's absolutely clear
the political right has no problem with fighting pre-emptive
wars. And we know from current and ancient history that religion
has no problem with jihads or  inquisitions. With the Commander-in-Chief
invoking god & war in the same breath it could be more than
an ill wind we're in for. Think of the Iraq invasion as a personally
engraved declaration from the dogmatically inclined that they
are now in control and will have the world adjusted to Procrustes' bed before you can say,
"What happened to the constitution?".
These are times that try mean's souls. If we're out fighting
global thugs it doesn't help to act like one. We'd better understand
that those willing to suspend the rule of law in certain international
situations simply don't believe law is ultimately the final arbitor.
Power trumps law every time. That's their position. And if power
trumps law internationally, why shouldn't it trump law in domestic
situations as well?
Following the Bush trajectory it will.
TOP
FRIDAY
04.23.04 / 6:32
AM / LINK
An unusually smart move
In what
seems to be an unusually smart move, it seems we're about to
oust Ahmed Chalabi, the Embezzler, from his position as a prime
Self-Server in the Iraq Provisional Authority.
Good news. But the real
question,
says Josh Marshall, "...is whether we should take this man
into custody now, while we are still the sovereign authority
in the country, to ensure that he can be held to account for
pocketing US taxpayer dollars and helping bamboozle the country
into war with his phony intelligence findings."
TOP
04.23.04
/ 6:32 AM / LINK
The biggest difference may be the color
of the uniforms
The same
self-destructive mind-set that gave us Vietnam is serving up
a replay in Iraq. There are differences of course --there are
no jungles in Iraq, and the enemy is not Asian, for instance.
But the administration's upbeat press-releases sound like warmed-over
Lyndon Johnson and Bob McNamara.
As Paul Krugman says, "There's a growing
sense of foreboding, even panic, about Iraq among national security
experts. 'This is an extremely uncertain struggle,' says (Anthony)
Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
who, to his credit, also says the unsayable: we may not be able
to 'stay the course.' But yesterday Condoleezza Rice gave Republican
lawmakers what Senator Rick Santorum called 'a very upbeat report.'
"
Krugman's column reminds us of how we got where we are in Iraq
on stepping stones of Bushian mistakes. And the litany is longer
than the Latin drone at a solemn high mass:
- permitting postwar looting
- disbanding the Iraqi Army
- canceling local elections
- appointing an interim council
dominated by exiles with no political base and excluding important
domestic groups
- failure to allot enough money
for security
- under-manning the post-war phase
- allowing ideology to co-opt
policy (privitazation, over early elections)
- no-bid reconstruction contracting
- hiding the need for more money
for election-year political gain
- allowing Governing Councel members
to enrich themselves
|
It may not be Vietnam, but it looks like as big a mistake.
TOP
WEDNESDAY
04.21.04 / 6:37
AM / LINK
The "No Law" Zone
Arguing
for the Guantanamo bay detainees before the Supreme Court, their
lawer, John J. Gibbons, said:
"Cuban law has never had any application inside (Guantanamo).
A stamp with Fidel Castro's picture on it wouldn't get a letter
off the base."
He added: "It's so totally
artificial to say that because of this provision in the lease
(that Cuba retains its soverienty over the base), the executive
branch can create a `no law' zone where it is not accountable
to any judiciary anywhere."
What is being argued before the court is that the Guantanamo
detainees have a right to a hearing to determine if they can
be legally held the way they're being held by the executive,
which is indefinitely and without right to counsel. No law
zones and unaccountability would seem to be antithetical
to American ideals and the constitution.
NY Times article here.
TOP
MONDAY
04.19.04 / 6:33
AM / LINK
Remember the Hessians?
Hessianization
has clearly found it's way into the military kit bag of the U.S.A.
The Petagon is relying in a big way on private security companies
to bolster our presence in Iraq. Soon, maybe, we'll just rent
and army when we want to be pre-emptive. What could possibly
be bad about that?
Maybe wars will even come with money-back guarantees and delayed
interest payment plans. Delayed payment is something this administration
knows a little about.
Capitalism
uber alles.
TOP
04.19.04 / 6:04 AM / LINK
Maybe this is not such a good idea, Mr.
President...
The supposition is that
Colin Powell won't be George Bush's Secretary of Defense if Bush
(actually) gets elected this time. This is not exactly a new
supposition, but it's strengthened by the publication of Bob
Woodward's new Book "Plan of Attack". The book is apparently
less flattering to George Bush than Woodward's last, and contains
a detailed look at Powell's reservations regarding the war.
Article here.
TOP
SATURDAY
04.17.04 / 6:04
AM / LINK
Our Name is not Ishmael
Before 9/11, before Afghanistan,
before the Iraq war, there was this idea bouncing around
in and between some very big heads. And it was this idea,
not WMDs, immanent threats, or the intent to democratize Iraq
that lead us into pre-emptive invasion and the whirlwind we and
the world are now reaping. The idea was to radically "change
the world". The impetus of the idea can be summed up in
this quote by American author Herman Melville made in 1850: ""We
are the peculiar chosen people - the Israel of our time. We bear
the ark of the liberties of the world."
 We know the world
has been changed by bad ideas before so we have precedent; but
if this sorry salve comforts us we're more far-gone than Ahab
was, and more mesmerized by the trappings of authority than his
crew. And remember shipmates, our
name is not Ishmael.
As columnist Peter Hartcher observes,
"Since the end of the Cold War, a group of Republican ideologues
(like as Richard
Perle, et al.) has been developing a theory ... and practice
of (U.S.) hegemony.
Labeled ... neo-conservatives, or neo-cons
for short, these people are the bearers of the doctrine of American
exceptionalism." These people are also the fascist-bible
thumpers of our time. The radical revivalists. The false Elijahs.
False prophets have stalked hapless humans since time immemorial.
They've been motivated by greed and power, or fear and delusion
, or by a host of other diabolical instruments. And, by the same
means, they've swayed and motivated others in turn. But false
prophets are never motivated by God, and always lead their flocks
to perdition. Remember what the false prophet of German hegemony
did for his people and the world just over sixty years ago?
Unfortunately bad ideas such as Aryan supremacy and one nation
dominance, never completely fade away. Like viruses they transmute
a little and pop up later looking like the Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
According to author William Rivers Pitt, The PNAC, a Washington-based
think tank created in 1997, above all else desires and demands
the establishment of a global American empire to bend the will
of all nations. The founders
and members of the PNAC such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz would force the rest of the
world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.
With them being the pox.
It turns out 9/11
was their moment. As Pitt says, "When Bush assumed the
Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams
of PNAC
became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and
the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at
long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive
policy. But the PNAC's wheels were turning well before those
two jumbo-jet opportunities hit the towers.
Citing George Bush's charge to the Pentagon to rewrite the National
Security Strategy soon after being "elected", Hartcher
suggests Bush was donning his jump suit and off on his flight
path to Baghdad almost immediately.
The two key concepts enshrined
in the Bush Pentagon's new strategy look like dead ringers for
the core concepts of the New American Century Project. Writes
Hartcher, "...(they) are pre-emption, and hegemony.
The US will pre-empt threats to preserve hegemony. And hegemony
is a nice way of saying preponderant and unchallengeable global
domination. Iraq was destined to be the test bed for the new
doctrine as the Bush Administration set out to recast the world
in its own interests."
Just for the record (as if it matters) recasting the world
in our own interests by force, is an anti-democratic ideal.
Carpe deum was apparently the prime concept of the 9/11 moment
in the Bush White House. And it was similarly expressed on separate
occasions by Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice
and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Rice said, "This is a period of ... enormous opportunity
(for the U.S.) ... a period akin to 1945 to 1947, when American
leadership expanded the number of free and democratic states
- Japan and Germany among the great powers - to create a new
balance of power that favored freedom". Rumsfeld meanwhile
(quickly grasping to possibilities of the catastrophe) said that
day created "the kind of opportunities that World War II
offered, to refashion the world".
What both Rice and Rumsfeld neglected to note is that the period
from 1945 to 1947 was an aftermath of pre-emptive wars and invasions
perpetrated by others. Being a perpetrator, or not, changes
the equation --at least in the traditional American democratic-republic
calculus. But this is exactly the calculus that's being challenged
by Bush's radical neoconservative administration. It's a funny thing about
ideas: they seep. Undermine
the levy to allow a flood of unilateral pre-emptive methods of
international control, and in seeps unilateral pre-emptive methods
of domestic control. The force propelling the war in Iraq is
the same force behind the U.S.A. Patriot Act.
In the face of his administration's uncanny ability to do the
wrong thing; looking down the neocon gun barrel of George Bush's
stubborn PNAC determination to change the world, wouldn't it
be better if he started out small? It might be globally beneficial
if he would simply change his attitude.
TOP
|
|
