George W. Bush threw the world -- and the media -- a curveball during his U.N. speech this past week when he suddenly developed an interest in Myanmar (formerly Burma) and the violent reaction of the military junta there to pro-democracy demonstrations. The media dutifully has picked up the story, serving its now routine purpose of stenographing the White House's desires.
Of course, my first question upon learning that Myanmar is supposed to be important to me, was whether Myanmar has any oil. They must, otherwise, the Bush administration would have no interest in them, or in their need for "democracy."
But let's back up a bit.
First, here's Wikipedia's rundown on Myanmar, as well as a map. (Short version: Myanmar is in east Asia, east of India, between Bangladesh, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and China.)
And here's CNN's latest update on the violence that's taking place there (short version: Myanmar is ruled by a military junta. Pro-democracy groups, and even monks, have been demonstrating, and the government has been cracking down on them violently.)
Just last Sunday Indian Oil Minister Murli Deora was in Myanmar's capital for the signing of oil and gas exploration contracts between state-controlled ONGC Videsh Ltd. and Myanmar's military rulers.
The signing ceremony, which coincided with marches led by Buddhist monks that drew thousands in Myanmar's biggest cities, was an example of how important Myanmar's oil and gas resources have become in an energy-hungry world. Even as Myanmar's junta intensifies its crackdown on pro-democracy protests, oil companies are jostling for access to the country's largely untapped natural gas and oil fields that activists say are funding a repressive regime.
China -- Myanmar's staunchest diplomatic protector and largest trading partner -- is particularly keen on investing in the country because of its strategic location for pipelines to feed the Chinese economy's growing thirst for oil and gas.
Companies from South Korea, Thailand and elsewhere also are looking to exploit the energy resources of the desperately poor Southeast Asian country.
France's Total SA and Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Bhd., or Petronas, pump gas from fields off Myanmar's coast through a pipeline to Thailand, which takes 90 percent of Myanmar's gas output, according to Thailand's PTT Exploration & Production PLC.
The American media sniffs at Iranian executions, while ignoring our own ... meanwhile the Supreme Court takes up the question of whether the method of U.S. killings -- not the fact of them -- is unconstitutional. So what's the point? Lethal injection is just high tech hanging, isn't it? Arguing over the method is silly if we agree with the Iranians on the notion of putting criminals to death.
Now they're gonna have to pass a resolution condemning that conservative magazine Pat Buchanan works for...
In fact, American Conservative magazine, which has been 100 percent right on the war and on George Bush's neocon Mideast policy, is taking aim at General Petraeus, just like MoveOn.org. The title of October's cover says it all:
A clip:
In common parlance, the phrase “political general” is an epithet, the inverse of the warrior or frontline soldier. In any serious war, with big issues at stake, to assign command to a political general is to court disaster—so at least most Americans believe. But in fact, at the highest levels, successful command requires a sophisticated grasp of politics. At the summit, war and politics merge and become inextricably intertwined. A general in chief not fully attuned to the latter will not master the former.
George Washington, U.S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower were all “political generals” in the very best sense of the term. Their claims to immortality rest not on their battlefield exploits—Washington actually won few battles, and Grant achieved his victories through brute force rather than finesse, while Ike hardly qualifies as a field commander at all—but on the skill they demonstrated in translating military power into political advantage. Each of these three genuinely great soldiers possessed a sophisticated appreciation for war’s political dimension.
David Petraeus is a political general. Yet in presenting his recent assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the “way forward,” Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes. ...
...From the very beginning of the Iraq War, such harmony has been absent. The war’s military and political aspects have been badly out of synch. (In this regard, the hackneyed comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are tragically apt.) The failure to plan for an occupation, the wildly inflated expectations of Iraq’s rapid transformation into a liberal democracy, Donald Rumsfeld’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the insurgency’s existence until long after it had begun, the deeply flawed kick-down-the-door campaign that ensued once Rumsfeld could no longer deny reality: all of these meant that from the outset, the exertions of U.S. troops, however great, tended to be at odds with our stated political intentions. Our actions were counterproductive.
The Petraeus-Crocker hearings found Petraeus in a position to resolve that problem. Over the previous eight months, a discredited president had effectively abdicated responsibility for managing the war. “I trust David Petraeus” became George W. Bush’s mantra, suggesting an astonishing level of presidential deference. Sometime in early 2007, the task of formulating basic strategy for Iraq had effectively migrated from Washington to Baghdad, passing from the office of the commander in chief to the headquarters of the senior field commander. The president made it clear that he intended to takes his cues from his general. Military judgment would inform, even determine, political decisions. ...
...A political general in the mold of Washington or Grant would have taken a different course, using his moment in the spotlight not to minimize consternation but to stir it up to the maximum extent. He would have capitalized on his status as man of the hour to oblige civilian leaders, both in Congress and in the executive branch, to do what they have not done since the Iraq War began—namely, their jobs. He would have insisted upon the president and the Congress making decisions that wartime summons them—and not military commanders—to make. Instead, Petraeus issued everyone a pass.
The article then goes on to explain that Petraeus' optimism about the progress of the surge makes his recommendation that we draw down troops, rather than lay the pressure on even more ridiculous, concluding that:
If Petraeus actually believes that he can salvage something akin to success in Iraq and if he agrees with President Bush about the consequences of failure —genocidal violence, Iraq becoming a launching pad for terrorist attacks directed against the United States, the Middle East descending into chaos that consumes Israel, the oil-dependent global economy shattered beyond repair, all of this culminating in the emergence of a new Caliphate bent on destroying the West—then surely this moment of (supposed) promise is not a time for scrimping. Rather, now is the time to go all out—to insist upon a maximum effort.
There is only one plausible explanation for Petraeus’s terminating a surge that has (he says) enabled coalition forces, however tentatively, to gain the upper hand. That explanation is politics—of the wrong kind.
Given the current situation as Petraeus describes it, an incremental reduction in U.S. troop strength makes sense only in one regard: it serves to placate each of the various Washington constituencies that Petraeus has a political interest in pleasing
...A modest drawdown responds to the concerns of Petraeus’s fellow four stars, especially the Joint Chiefs, who view the stress being imposed on U.S. forces as intolerable. Ending the surge provides the Army and the Marine Corps with a modicum of relief.
A modest drawdown also comes as welcome news for moderate Republicans in Congress. Nervously eyeing the forthcoming elections, they have wanted to go before the electorate with something to offer other than being identified with Bush’s disastrous war. Now they can point to signs of change—indeed, Petraeus’s proposed withdrawal of one brigade before Christmas coincides precisely with a suggestion made just weeks ago by Sen. John Warner, the influential Republican from Virginia.
Although they won’t say so openly, a modest drawdown comes as good news to Democrats as well. Accused with considerable justification of having done nothing to end the war since taking control of the Congress in January, they can now point to the drawdown as evidence that they are making headway. As Newsweek’s Michael Hirsch observed, Petraeus “delivered an early Christmas present” to congressional Democrats.
Above all, a modest drawdown pleases President Bush. It gives him breathing room to continue the conflict in which he has so much invested. It all but guarantees that Iraq will be the principal gift that Bush bestows upon his successor when he leaves office in January 2009. Bush’s war will outlive Bush: for reasons difficult to fathom, this has become an important goal for the president and his dwindling band of loyalists.
Granted, no one is completely happy. Yet neither does anyone go away empty-handed. The Petraeus plan offers a little something for everyone, not least of all for Petraeus himself, who takes back to Baghdad a smidgen of additional time (his next report is not due for another six months), lots more money (at least $3 billion per week), and assurances that his tenure in command has been extended.
This outcome reflects the handiwork of someone skilled in the ways of Washington. Yet the ultimate result is to allow the contradiction between our military efforts in Iraq and our professed political purposes there to persist.
The article ends with a damning conclusion:
The president has made no serious effort to mobilize the wherewithal that his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan require. The Congress, liberal Democrats voting aye, has made itself complicit in this shameful policy by obligingly appropriating whatever sums of money the president has requested, all, of course, in the name of “supporting the troops.”
Petraeus has now given this charade a further lease on life. In effect, he is allowing the president and the Congress to continue dodging the main issue, which comes down to this: if the civilian leadership wants to wage a global war on terror and if that war entails pacifying Iraq, then let’s get serious about providing what’s needed to complete the mission—starting with lots more soldiers. Rather than curtailing the ostensibly successful surge, Petraeus should broaden and deepen it. That means sending more troops to Iraq, not bringing them home. And that probably implies doubling or tripling the size of the United States Army on a crash basis.
If the civilian leadership is unwilling to provide what’s needed, then all of the talk about waging a global war on terror—talk heard not only from the president but from most of those jockeying to replace him—amounts to so much hot air. Critics who think the concept of the global war on terror is fundamentally flawed will see this as a positive development. Once we recognize the global war on terror for the fraudulent enterprise that it has become, then we can get serious about designing a strategy to address the threat that we actually face, which is not terrorism but violent Islamic radicalism. The antidote to Islamic radicalism, if there is one, won’t involve invading and occupying places like Iraq.
This defines Petraeus’s failure. Instead of obliging the president and the Congress to confront this fundamental contradiction—are we or are we not at war?—he chose instead to let them off the hook.
Of course, if he had done otherwise—if he had asked, say, to expand the surge by adding yet another 50,000 troops—he would have distressed just about everyone back in Washington. He might have paid a considerable price career-wise. Certainly, he would have angered the JCS, antiwar Democrats, and waffling Republicans who want the war to go away. Even the president, Petraeus’s number-one fan, would have been surprised and embarrassed by such a request.
Yet the anger and embarrassment would have been salutary. A great political general doesn’t tell his masters what they want to hear. He tells them what they need to hear, thereby nudging them to make decisions that must be made if the nation’s interests are to be served. In this instance, Petraeus provided cover for them to evade their responsibilities.
Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. ...
President Bush has a bad habit of using (and using up) the credibility of generals. He did it to Collin Powell, and he is doing it to Petraeus. That these men are willing to be so used is perhaps the saddest thing of all. Petraeus should know from having watched the Bushes use up and wring out formerly solid military men, including Powell, Ricardo Sanchez and Anthony Zinni, that the future for him is either bitterness or infamy. Or both.
I won't hold my breath waiting for the frighty Congress, let alone the right wing nut-0-shere, to condemn draft dodger and theoretical troop supporter Rush Limbaugh for branding soldiers who question the rationale of the Iraq war "phony soldiers," any more than I'd expect them to attack the first person to come up with the term "General Betray-us" -- no, not Moveon.org, and not Keith Olbermann -- rather, a commenter called Brad R. Torgerson, who coined the phrase in a posting on the blog belonging to conservative milblogger Blackfive (who apparently doesn't see the irony in filing an FEC complaint over an ad for which one of his posters essentially wrote the headline.)
Here's Blackfive's post, dated November 19, 2005 and titled "Generals of yesterday and today" (hat tip to Democratic Underground, though the poster there copied the wrong commenter's handle):
Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen November 17, 2005 at 07:23 PM
I don't know GEN Petraeus personally...but when I was in the "Devil Brigade" folks called him "Colonel Betrayus". He came up with things like the "Devil button" (button your BDU collar up to the top when on jumps) and the "Devil grip" (special name for keeping your trigger finger out of the trigger well) which sounded hokey to most of the troops at the time.Can any other All American paratroopers out there expand on my comment?Posted by: TBone November 19, 2005 at 10:52 AM
Torgersen was participating in a thread comparing the relative greatness of past era generals like Patton to the modern ilk. The exchange started when another poster, "IRR Soldier", posted a positie review of then Lt. Gen. Petraeus:
Posted by: IRR Soldier... November 17, 2005 at 06:09 PM
LTG Petraeus. When I arrived to my battalion in the 82nd Airborne as a private, he was leaving the battalion as it's commander. The troops loved him, and would have followed him without question.
To which Torgersen responded:
Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen November 18, 2005 at 08:07 AM
Petraeus may have been loved by his troops but his officers hated him. He was a pompous, "mine is bigger than yours" kind of guy. However, he is one of the most brilliant men I have ever met or worked for.
My vote goes to BG Bill Mayville. He was my BC in the 82nd before leading the 173d into Iraq. Hard as woodpecker lips, tough, but fair.
Then further down the thread, Torgersen posts the "Betray-us" line.
So doesn't that mean that when Congress condemned the Move-on ad, they were really condemning the Devil Brigade???
Could the Iraq disaster, with its cost careening toward $700 billion, and estimated to ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers $2 trillion ... have been avoided for a measly $1 billion? A newspaper story out of Spain has some revealing allegations:
Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.
Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).
The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.
The White House refused to comment on the report last night.
But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.
Only yesterday, the Bush administration asked Congress for another £100billion to finance the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The total war bill for British taxpayers is expected to reach £7billion by next year.
The newspaper account of the conversation between Mr. Bush and Mr. Asnar, which reportedly took place on February 22, 2003 at Bush's Crawford ranch -- at a time when Bush was publicly telling the American people (and the world) that he was still hoping diplomacy would work to bring Iraq to heel, paints a now familiar portrait of a president who was outright lying -- he had every intention of invading Iraq, no matter what.
Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."
But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."
We invaded Iraq on March 19th. The conversation with Jose Maria Asnar was said to have been recorded by a diplomat who attended the meeting. Other revelations:
Mr Bush was dismissive of the then French President Jacques Chirac, saying he "thinks he's Mr Arab".
Referring to his relationship with Downing Street, he said: "I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop."
The President added: "Saddam won't change and he'll keep on playing games.
"The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is."
Days before the invasion began on March 22, 2003, the United Arab Emirates proposed to a summit of Arab leaders that Saddam and his henchmen should go into exile.
It was the first time the plan had been officially voiced but it was drowned out in the drumbeat of war.
A spokesman for Mr Aznar's foundation had no comment on its authenticity.
Saved for posterity: Our childrens really IS learning...
Damn, I'm gonna miss this guy... By the way, the White House press team has returned the transcripts to their original Bushism form, having previously cleaned up the "childrens" for public viewing. Yeesh. Will these clods ever learn?
The widely villified district attorney for LaSalle Parish, Louisiana pens an op-ed in the New York Times, explaining why he didn't charge the students who hung three nooses from a tree in Jena, Louisiana with a crime, and why he felt that the attack on white student Justin Barker, who he claims had nothing to do with the noose incident, was a case of attempted murder. Walters writes that the hanging of nooses broke no law under the Louisiana criminal code. And he quotes the African-American U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana in stating that it did not qualify as a hate crime, and that furthermore, no stand-alone hate crim law exists under Louisiana law. Fair enough. He then adds this:
Last week, a reporter asked me whether, if I had it to do over, I would do anything differently. I didn’t think of it at the time, but the answer is yes. I would have done a better job of explaining that the offenses of Dec. 4, 2006, did not stem from a “schoolyard fight” as it has been commonly described in the news media and by critics.
Conjure the image of schoolboys fighting: they exchange words, clench fists, throw punches, wrestle in the dirt until classmates or teachers pull them apart. Of course that would not be aggravated second-degree battery, which is what the attackers are now charged with. (Five of the defendants were originally charged with attempted second-degree murder.) But that’s not what happened at Jena High School.
The victim in this crime, who has been all but forgotten amid the focus on the defendants, was a young man named Justin Barker, who was not involved in the nooses incident three months earlier. According to all the credible evidence I am aware of, after lunch, he walked to his next class. As he passed through the gymnasium door to the outside, he was blindsided and knocked unconscious by a vicious blow to the head thrown by Mychal Bell. While lying on the ground unaware of what was happening to him, he was brutally kicked by at least six people.
Imagine you were walking down a city street, and someone leapt from behind a tree and hit you so hard that you fell to the sidewalk unconscious. Would you later describe that as a fight?
Uh-huh ... Walters also takes the opportunity to play down the recent protests in Jena, undercutting even the low-balled Associated Press count by stating that "10,000 people" came to his "little town" of Jena on September 20th. And his column, while dripping with sympatico for Justin Barker, fails to answer some important questions:
What did Justin Barker say to Robert Bailey Jr. before he was attacked, initially by Mychael Bell according to prosecutors?) According to eyewitnesses, Barker mocked Bailey for having been beaten, and hit in the head with a bottle, by a white man named Justin Sloan the Friday before at a place called the Fair Barn. (Barker denies it). Sloan, by the way, was charged only with simple battery -- not attempted murder. In his op-ed, Walters didn't even mention the Fair Barn incident.
What about the incident which occured on Saturday, December 2nd, 2006, the day after the Fair Barn attack on Bailey, in which Bailey and several friends were encountered by a white student from their high school, who pulled a shotgun. In that incident, Bailey and his friends wrestled the gun away, and then THEY were charged with theft of a firearm, second degree robbery and distubing the peace, while the white student wasn't charged with anything -- nothing -- nada. Can Mr. Walters imagine going to a convenience store and having a gun pulled on him, wrestling that gun away and then being charged with stealing it? That's not disturbing the peace, it's just disturbing.
If Justin Barker was nearly killed, why was he never admitted to the hospital? Barker was treated and released after two hours in the emergency room. And while Barker testified at Bell's trial that his eye was swollen shut and he had pain and loss of vision, no medical evidence has ever been produced that verifies that he had anything other than the kinds of injuries you'd expect to see in a fight -- namely a swollen eye and injuries to his hands.
Why wasn't Coach Benjy Lewis, who was the only adult to witness the attack on Barker, called in Michael Bells' case? Lewis told police it wasn't Bell who initiated the attack -- and that Bell wasn't even on the scene. Instead, Lewis identified another student, Malcolm Shaw, as the initial attacker.
And last, but certainly not least, why did Walters feel it appropriate to go the Jena High School and announce to the African-American students who were still enraged about the noose incident and subsequent violence against them in Jena -- and before any charges had been filed -- that he could "end their lives with a stroke of a pen?" In hindsight, would he make that statement again?
Mr. Walters' op-ed was disengenuous and trite. He trivializes the attacks on Robert Bailey, and quite frankly, his failure to prosecute the people who attacked him will go down in history, along with his over-prosecution of the Jena 6, as a low point in American juris-prudence.
Update: Gov. Blanco has announced that Walters has agreed not to appeal the ruling overturning Mychal Bell's adult conviction. The case will now be tried in juvenile court.
Update 2: Mychal Bell is now free on bail. He was released today (Thursday afternoon). Here's video of him walking out of the courthouse into the arms of happy family members and supporters, along with Rev. Al Sharpton and Martin Luther King III.
Watch video of Walters' press conference, in which he continues to stump for his case, here. And note the comment that "had it not been for law enforcement, and God, there would have been major trouble in Jena during last Thursday's march. And where would you get that idea from, Mr. Attorney General? Does that many Black people in one place scare you?
While you were choking on that $190 BILLION supplemental war request by the Pentagon, several chess pieces moved in the endless global war today. Here are three:
The Knight: An amendment (#3017) to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, authored by uber-neocon Joe Lieberman and Arizona Republican John Kyl, passed the Senate with 76 votes to 22 against (Biden and Dodd voted against it, as did military vets Chuck Hagel and Jim Web; Hillary "Margaret Thatcher" Clinton voted in favor, and Barack failed to show...) The admendment is tantamount to a soft declaration of war, even with the more egregious portions stripped out, and the technically non-binding nature of the measure. Recall that this is the same Joe Lieberman who was the AUTHOR of the legislation that gave George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. The resolution designates Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and decrees:
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
Read the full text here (do a search on the page for 3017 to jump right to it). One wonders if a major branch of the military establishment of a sovereign country has ever been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States.
The Bishop: An amendment (#2997) authored by Joe Biden passed the Senate, also by a wide margin (75 to 23,) advocating a plan of "soft partition" -- something Biden has been pushing for some time -- which would turn Iraq into a loose republic. Clearly, the idea of the United States Congress voting to change the form of government in a supposedly sovereign country is bordering on scary, but then again, this is America. We tend to do that sort of thing. (full text here, again, search for 2997). In fact, the Biden amendment is largely an exercise in wishful thinking. It reads in part:
(1) the United States should actively support a political settlement among Iraq's major factions based upon the provisions of the Constitution of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation of federal regions;
(2) the active support referred to in paragraph (1) should include--
(A) calling on the international community, including countries with troops in Iraq, the permanent 5 members of the United Nations Security Council, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and Iraq's neighbors--
(i) to support an Iraqi political settlement based on federalism;
(ii) to acknowledge the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq; and
(iii) to fulfill commitments for the urgent delivery of significant assistance and debt relief to Iraq, especially those made by the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council;
(B) further calling on Iraq's neighbors to pledge not to intervene in or destabilize Iraq and to agree to related verification mechanisms; and
(C) convening a conference for Iraqis to reach an agreement on a comprehensive political settlement based on the creation of federal regions within a united Iraq;
(3) the United States should urge the Government of Iraq to quickly agree upon and implement a law providing for the equitable distribution of oil revenues, which is a critical component of a comprehensive political settlement based upon federalism; and
(4) the steps described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) could lead to an Iraq that is stable, not a haven for terrorists, and not a threat to its neighbors.
The Rook: On the domestic front, a federal judge has struck down two the many egregious portions of the Patriot Act, in a case stemming from a chilling incident for anyone who believes in the basic civil liberties and freedoms promised by the Constitution:
Federal district court judge Ann Aiken struck down the government's ability to get orders from the secret spy court for anything other than acquiring foreign intelligence activities, saying that using that court and its lowered standards -- instead of getting a traditional criminal wiretap order -- violates the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling applies to Patriot Act changes to wiretapping laws and to so-called sneak-and-peak searches, where the government can search someone's home secretly and never have to disclose the search to the individual.
The ruling comes out of a lawsuit brought by Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield, who was arrested by the FBI shortly after train bombings in Madrid, Spain. The FBI publicly said Mayfield's prints matched the bomb, though Mayfield had no passport and the Spanish police told the FBI they did not believe the print was a match. The government approached the secret spying court, saying that Mayfield was an "agent of a foreign power" which allowed the government to get warrants to secretly search his home and office, as well as bug his house and eavesdrop on him, for use in a criminal court. Prior to the Patriot Act, searches authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had to have a primary purpose of gathering foreign intelligence, rather than prosecuting a person.
Mayfield, a practicing Muslim who argues he was targeted by the FBI because of his religion, was later exonerated of all charges.
Mayfield and the government settled his lawsuit, with the exception of his challenge to the changes to the Patriot Act that allowed the government to use secret spying orders, rather than traditional wiretaps, for criminal cases.
It's a chilling incident, but a heart warming result.
The score for today: one down, one neutral, one up.
The U.S. delegation walks out before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's U.N. speech, but he gives it nonetheless:
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Tuesday that Iran's disputed nuclear program is closed as a political issue and said Tehran will ignore a U.N. Security Council demand imposed by "arrogant powers" to curb its nuclear program.
Instead, he told world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly that Iran has decided to pursue the monitoring of its nuclear program "through its appropriate legal path," the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.
When Ahmadinejad was ushered to the podium, the U.S. delegation walked out, leaving only a low-ranking note-taker to listen to his speech, which indirectly accused the United States and Israel of major human rights violations. State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said the U.S. wanted "to send him a powerful message."
The Iranian president spoke hours after French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned the assembly that allowing Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons would be an "unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world." In her talk, German Chancellor Angela Merkel threatened tougher sanctions against Iran.
Iran insists the program is purely peaceful, aimed solely at using nuclear reactors to generate electricity. But the United States and key European nations believe the program is a cover for an Iranian attempt to produce nuclear weapons.
Just ask Columbia University president Lee Bollinger, who managed to draw frowns from as anti-Iran a publication as the Jerusalem Post for his insulting, silly performance ahead of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech -- at Bollinger's invitation -- yesterday.
The right and its media handmaidens have been foaming at the mouth since before the Iranian leader set foot in the U.S., even stammering implausibly that were he to visit Ground Zero while in New York to address the United Nations, it would be an ourage upon the dignity of 9/11 (how, I'm not sure, since Iran not only had no part in 9/11, it couldn't have, since the Taliban and al-Qaida are just as much Tehran's enemies as they are ours, and since Iran cooperated with the U.S. against the Taliban after the attacks...) No matter, the right must have its boogeymen, and for now, Mahmoud is it. Even Congressional Democrats couldn't resist getting in on the action. (Soon, Iran will be as isolated and battered by U.S. aprobrium as Myanmar!)
Anyway, in his way too long introduction, Bollinger sought to squirm out from under the ridiculous criticism of his university's decision to invite the Iranian leader -- to allow him to partake of the precious freedom of expression we really don't much believe in here in the land of the free and the home of the brave ... His back-peddling had all the subtlety of a brick to the head -- the head being Ahmadinejad's... (video here)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was taken to task Monday for casting doubt on the Holocaust, during a forum at Columbia University in New York.
Columbia president Lee Bollinger told the Iranian leader he exhibited "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," to enthusiastic applause from the audience.
He then said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust came across as foolish in front of an audience of students and teachers.
"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," said Bollinger. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."
Well, actually, it's simply ridiculous to invite the man and then say he's ridiculous for showing up... next, it was Ahmadinejad's turn (audio):
... Ahmadinejad replied that Bollinger's words were "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here."
He accused Bollinger of being influenced by U.S. politicians and biased news agencies.
"I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment," he said.
Ahmadinejad quoted extensively from the Koran during his appearance, expounded on the relationship between science and enlightenment, and claimed Iran itself was a victim of U.S.-supported terrorists.
He said members of the Iranian government had been killed in an attack by U.S.-supported terrorists, though he didn't name the alleged attackers or provide other details.
He also spoke out against governments that "tap telephones" and was critical of what he described as governments that unleash an "onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations."
Ahmadinejad didn't directly answer a questions about whether he sought the destruction of Israel, but instead discussed the plight of the Palestinian people. He received loud cheers from the packed auditorium when he demanded whether or not the Palestinian situation was an important global issue.
Ahmadinejad also claimed European academics have been put in prison for "approaching the Holocaust from a different perspective," and defended Iran's nuclear ambitions. He said Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology and has never intended to use it for violence, nor has it hid anything from international inspectors.
At another point, Ahmadinejad denied that any homosexuals lived in Iran -- a comment that prompted derisive laughter from the audience.
Unfazed, Ahmadinejad persisted: "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."
He spoke to The Associated Press prior to delivering the speech at Columbia and a scheduled address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.
"Iran will not attack any country," he told AP in an interview.
Bollinger's stunt made Ahmadinejad -- who is hardly a dictator since he was elected to his position in Iran -- despite the U.S. supporting his rival, Mr. Khatami -- appear sympathetic, almost a victim. He came across as the man seeking a way around war, while American freedom of speech looked like a greeting card lie we feed to the Third Worlders before we take over their countries and install a new government.
Pathetic. Sad. Frankly, ridiculous.
That said, I cannot help but wonder if very many Americans even know why they hate Iran. I mean, we used to arm that country... remember Iran Contra? Remember the deals the Reagan-Bush administration cut with the Ayatollah to delay the release of our hostages in return for brand new American F15s for the Iranian Air Force?
On the flip side, remember the gassing of Iranian citizens by Iraq, back when we liked, and armed, Saddam Hussein? What about our takeover of that government in 1953 via a CIA overthrow the then-democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossedeq in order to halt the nationalization of Iranian oil? It was that takeover, and our subsequent installation of a phony king -- the Shah -- on a phony Peacock Throne WE MADE UP -- that set the stage for the student revolution of 1979, and the coming to power of the mullahs, whom we now hate.
In other words, there's plenty of water under the bridge between the U.S. and Iran, but I'll wager that very few Americans can articulate why they are salivating for war with a country that they know nothing about.
As for Iraq, sure Iran is meddling. They're doing what WE did in Afghanistan during that country's war with the Soviet Union. And my dears, they're mostly meddling ON THE SAME SIDE THAT WE'RE ON in Iraq -- the side of the shaky, but very Shiite, al-Maliki government. The Dawa Party, to which Mr. Maliki belongs, is closely aligned with Tehran, as it is with the "rebel" cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who only answers to one man: Grand Ayatola Ali al-Sistani -- an IRANIAN born mullah who wields some of the only real power in that broken country. All of these players have a foothold in Iran, with the mullahs who are the REAL dictators of Iran. Mr. Ahmadinejad is the face, but not the body, of that country. He is an academic, a soccer fan, and compared to Lee Bollinger, a rather temperate sounding guy.
The truth of the matter is that most Americans who loathe Iran do so because they have been told to, and for little reason beyond that. Iran is the new boogeyman, meant to replace Iraq in our endless resource wars in the Middle East. Americans say "Iran hates America" with absolutely no evidence of that. To be sure, Iranians appear to hate George W. Bush, but then, so do a majority of the British... care to bunker buster nuke them, mates?
As for the real reason most Americans hate Iran -- Ahmadinejad's attitude toward Israel, I submit that his personal feelings about a country that is not, nor has it ever been, a part of the United States, is utterly irrelevant to you as an American. The Iranian president's rhetoric on Israel is mostly meant for consumption around the Arab world, where such imflamatory rhetoric is a necessary precursor to claiming a mantle of leadership (Iran seeks to be the savior of the Mideast...) And if Ahmadinejad truly believes the Holocaust didn't happen (something he hasn't really said -- rather he's said that since the Palestinians didn't perpetrate it, they shouldn't be the ones paying for it with their land...) then how does his ignorance harm you? Will Iran attack Israel? Please. Israel has nuclear weapons and would wipe Iran off the map.
In fact, Iran is literally surrounded by nuclear powers, including Pakistan and India, and it's sitting next door to a collapsing country called Afghanistan. No wonder they want to be nuclear armed, assuming you don't believe Ahmadinejad's protests to the contrary, again, because the media tells you you shouldn't...
At the end of the day, I don't see how the U.S. can purport to tell any country what they can and cannot do in the interests of their own security. Iran hasn't got the missile capacity or range to threaten us, any more than Iraq did, even if Saddam did have nuclear weapons. The country they threaten -- assuming, again, that the mullahs are suicidal -- is Israel, a country that can more than take care of itself.
The next argument I'll hear is that Iran "supports terrorists" -- ok, which ones? Not al-Qaida, of course. They're the wrong sect. Hezbollah? They killed hundreds of Americans in the 1980s, and Ronald Reagan didn't do a damned thing about it. In fact, he turned around and kept right on doing business with Iran, as did Richard Cheney, through his notorious company, Halliburton. So if we want to punish Iran for those past wrongs, we're about 20 years too late and more than a dollar short. And are they fomenting terrorism today? If so, tell me where, and against whom. Lebanon? That's an internal struggle akin to a civil war. America isn't threatened there. And again, any rockets being lobbed by terror groups funded by Iran are headed Israel's way. So unless you're saying that Israel's interests are always and necessarily our interests, you must admit that the U.S. has no DIRECT reason to hate Iran, or to feel threatened by it. On the contrary, we have a vested interest in getting that country's cooperation, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Is Iran a bad actor? On human rights, certainly. But then, we aren't doing great shakes in that arena either. And we do business with country's that are as bad, or worse (Egypt, Saudi Arabia and China come to mind...)
But that only counts if you aren't gung-ho determined to go to war.
And I hate to say it, but I think the American people are fully capable of being fooled again.
Is George W. Bush offering free advice to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on how, if either becomes president, they can help us stay in Iraq? (And isn't that rather like Adolph Hitler advising Moshe Dyan?) I'd almost prefer to believe that Bush is devious enough to be trying to poison the waters for the Democratic front runners with their base by making it appear that they're on his side when it comes to keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for years to come ... but that's not our President Bush, is it?
Our president Bush is delusional, and apparently quite insane. He's like a little Nero fiddling away, unaware that the city is in flames.
Bill O'Reilly is shocked ... SHOCKED! ... that an upscale soul food restaurant in Harlem isn't a scene out of a BET music video! Said Orally:
"I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming 'M-Fer -- I want more iced tea.' " Oh, my God.
What's worse, Orally made the comments while talking with Juan Williams, an otherwise perfectly respectable commentator. ... yeesh...
Now that Bill is reaping the whirllwind for his stupid comments, he's not getting mad, he's getting FURIOUS ... at Media Matters...
Maybe next time, Juan should take Bill-o on a field trip to see some Black children playing ... he'll be pleasantly surprised to find they're not playing tag with AK's...!
Florida's Democratic Party isn't backing down in the battle over our primary date, which the GOP-led state legislature has set for January 29. The DNC -- led by the thoroughly misguided Dr. Dean (and Donna Brazille, surprisingly) -- has seen fit to punish Florida by threatening to disenfranchise 4.2 million Democratic voters, by taking away 100 percent of our delegates to the Denver convention. (The RNC is threatening to take away half of the GOP delegates as punishment.)
The issue here is whether Iowa and New Hampshire have some God-given right to decide who the Democratic and Republican nominees for president. Where this right comes from, and why it was afforded to two of the least diverse states in the country, I'll never know.
But I do know this. The Democratic Party had better pray that this doesn't come down to a showdown. They will lose.
For now, it appears the Florida Democratic Party will sue the DNC over the disenfranchisement threats.
PEMBROKE PINES - Florida Democratic party leaders on Sunday dared their national party to disenfranchise millions of voters next summer when their delegates meet in Denver to nominate their candidate for president.
Their dare, they added, might be bolstered by a lawsuit contending that "four rogue states" are conspiring to violate the civil rights of minorities in Florida by getting the Democratic National Committee to ignore the results of Florida's Jan. 29 party primary.
"For God's sake, this is the state where the election was stolen from in 2000," state party Vice Chairman Luis Garcia said at a news conference held in Broward because it is the most heavily Democratic county in the state.
At stake are the 210 delegates that Florida Democrats plan to send to the Democratic National Convention in Colorado. The national party in August threatened not to seat those delegates unless Florida delays its primary at least a week so New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina can pick their nominees for president.
"Four rogue states took action against the state of Florida," said Sen. Steve Geller of Cooper City, the Senate's Democratic leader.
Florida Democrats said it wasn't their fault the date was set for Jan. 29; the Republican-controlled Legislature did it. But Democratic leaders said they ruled out other options, such as holding a Democratic-only primary, a caucus or a mail-in vote.
"We looked at other alternatives and some looked serious and some not so serious, but at the end of the day we came down to the primary on Jan. 29 as the only way to have a fair and independent election," said party Chairwoman Karen Thurman.
The problem, she said, is that municipalities throughout Florida moved their elections to Jan. 29 and the state set the same date for Floridians to vote on a constitutional amendment for a "super" homestead exemption. This was done because presidential primaries attract people to the polls and without Democratic candidates on the ballot, Democratic voters might not show up to vote on the other issues.
"So there are a lot of reasons we stand together today to say to voters of the state to vote on Jan. 29 and to be assured their vote will count," she said.
Thurman said the national party isn't likely to carry out its threat to ignore the delegates selected by Florida Democrats.
"I believe they have to seat Florida's delegates," she said. "Florida is part of the United States."
Added Geller: "There is no question that in Denver our delegates will be seated, no question about it." ...
Get 'em, Florida.
... Geller said it might take a lawsuit to force the party to seat Florida delegates. He predicted one will be filed contending that the national party, by ordering Florida to move the date, is violating the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965
The suit will be brought, he said, by a minority resident of Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough or Monroe County and contend that the four early voting states are "conspiring amongst each other to intimidate the presidential candidates, telling them that if they come down to Florida, they will be blackballed in the state."
According to Geller, the civil rights violation is that moving the primary date would force minority voters in the five counties to pay to see presidential candidates in person, something they could do for free if the candidates stumped in Florida for the scheduled Jan. 29 primary.
Because candidates would fear being blackballed, he said, their only appearances in Florida would be at fund-raisers open to those who pay. Without the fear of being blackballed, they would come to Florida and make traditional, free campaign appearances.
The suit would have to come from one of the five counties because they are being monitored by the U.S. Department of Justice for violations of minority voting rights.
Go ahead and try and disenfranchise Florida, Dems. I double, triple dare you.
The following comment was posted in response to my post of yesterday:
Be assured -- I am neither underground nor in danger of arrest. One site is just changing servers, but we're still up in a dozen other places, like overthrow88.blogspot.com
This isn't the first time we've done this, and it won't be the laST.
We killed Lefkow, we kidnapped Wiesel, and we can take care of a few ghetto niggers as well. Bill White Homepage 09.23.07 - 4:54 pm #
I'll be forwarding the post to the FBI. If that really is Bill White, I'll wager he's pretty tough from the anonymity of his pajamas, but I'd like to see him come down here and run his mouth in Liberty City.
On his blog for the Atlantic Monthly, Andrew Sullivan writes today:
Bill Kristol knows that the current strategy in Iraq will not work as it was designed to do. He's not crazy. The chances of national reconciliation in Iraq have gone backward, not forward, this past year, and the U.S.'s empowerment of anti-Shiite propaganda in Anbar will only isolate Maliki further. The best that can happen is an indefinite occupation of a dismembered Iraq to slow down genocide and make ethnic cleansing more orderly. But even that is a very risky proposition. And the events of last week mean that the Republican party now owns the Iraq occupation more exclusively and deeply than they ever had - and indeed intend to maintain it for another decade.
So what to do? Remember that Kristol's loyalty to the Republicans often trumps national security. How else to explain his support for the GOP last November, even though a Republican victory would have prevented the surge in the first place and kept Rumsfeld in the Pentagon? One option: Change the subject by launching wars against Syria and Iran, and so polarize the country that the choice is framed as: MoveOn or America? That's much better than having, you know, an actual debate about the merits of the war in Iraq and the war against Islamist terror. On that, Republicans lose. If the war is far wider and more terrifying, if the enemies can be multiplied and amplified, then the dynamic plays to the advantage of the GOP. It's for us or against us again.
Remember it doesn't matter to the current Bush Republicans if they cannot persuade a majority of thie necessity of extending the war to Iran and Syria. They have dropped attempting to persuade a majority on the war. They are concerned only with shoring up their own party, which can enable them to launch new wars before the current presidency ends. ...
That being the case, Sullivan reports, via Kristol, that the president must now move to put down potential rebellions against his policy from within the military, from generals who may be "jealous of Petraeus" (whatever that means -- could one possibly be jealous of the military man placed in the service of presidential P.R.?) or who otherwise oppose Bush on the subject of expanding the war to Syria and Iran, in order to prevent them from underminig the neocon project in Iraq.
But not all of the military is in need of "putting down."
The Times of London reports, also today, on a secret Air Force unit already planning for war against Tehran:
THE United States Air Force has set up a highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with “fighting the next war” as tensions rise with Iran.
Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign, was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon in June.
It reports directly to General Michael Moseley, the US Air Force chief, and consists of 20-30 top air force officers and defence and cyberspace experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA and other intelligence agencies.
Detailed contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran has been carried out for more than two years by Centcom (US central command), according to defence sources.
Checkmate’s job is to add a dash of brilliance to Air Force thinking by countering the military’s tendency to “fight the last war” and by providing innovative strategies for warfighting and assessing future needs for air, space and cyberwarfare.
It is led by Brigadier-General Lawrence “Stutz” Stutzriem, who is considered one of the brightest air force generals. He is assisted by Dr Lani Kass, a former Israeli military officer and expert on cyberwarfare.
The Israeli connection is alarming, given the myriad signals that the U.S. policy in Iran is heavily influenced by the desires of the Likud government -- which badly wants President Bush to rid Israel of its chief enemies: Iran and Syria, before Mr. Bush leaves office, Saddam Hussein already having been taken care of.
It's not just those on the left who fear that Mr. Bush will launch yet another war on his way out the door. Pat Buchanan and other true conservatives believe as much as well, as do leading journalists like Seymour Hersh.
The question remains, however, whether Congress will sit still for yet another war, and whether Senate Democrats can successfully stop neocons and deocons like Joe Lieberman, from aiding the Bush administration in forcing upon this country a foreign policy that is not in the best interests of the United States.
... in the Broward Times. I "Face Off" against conservative operative Barbara Howard each week on various issues. Here are my first column, Barbara's, and the reader poll.
I by no means think that most White Americans are racists. In fact, I would guess that the majority of White folks are embarassed by the kind of throw-back, red-neck, bigotry that is on display in LaSalle Parish, Louisiana. I say this, despite the fact that I truly believe that most Whites, while not actively racist, harbor an inherent sense of privilege, which is inculcated in them almost from toddler-hood; a notion that they have ownership and dominion over this country, its resources and benefits, and that they have an inherent right to judge and exert authority over other nations (like Iraq for instance), other people, other ethnic groups, and other value systems. On that, I don't hate the players, but I definitely hate the game...
That said, there are some Whites who are so unreconstructed and backward on the issue of race, that I puzzle at how they manage to get up in the morning, knowing that they live in a world where every facet of life, every job category, every major sport (save hockey and NASCAR, and even that is changing...) every form of entertainment, and damned near every other aspect of life is infused with people of color. How do these throwbacks manage to turn on a TV set without recoiling in abject horror?
So now, we have a few troglodites who have come out of the woodwork, not to merely hang nooses, with the implied threat of lynching, but to actually call for the lynching of the Jena 6, and to go a step further: a neo-Nazi outfit has published the addresses of the Jena 6 families on its web-ste (the site has been down this morning, so I'm assuming the ISP took action, due to the criminal probe now under way...) The organization behind the posting is the National Socialist Movement -- a Hitlerian operation fronted by a guy, aptly called Bill White -- has gone underground since CNN broke the story of the postings, and White himself may face criminal charges, if the federal and state authorities can manage to get their acts together on such a clear hate crime. One hopes that the FBI's level of urgency on this matter will be an improvement upon the flat-footed, slack-jawed reactions to the original nooses hung under the "Jena tree" by the district attorney, Reed Walters, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana Donald "See no hate crime" Washington, and by the babbling, useless governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Babineau Blanco.
Rev. Al Sharpton and others have called for federal marshals to be sent to LaSalle Parish to protect the Jena 6 families. At the least, the state should provide for, and pay for, round the clock protection (Blanco has pledged to have state authorities "investigate" -- not good enough, dear, but then again, that phrase seems increasingly to apply to everything you do...) These families
