360-Degrees: "Alternatives other than Democracy"

Three years ago, before this Iraq business finally hit the fan, I told friends of mine that President Bush's proposed action in Iraq had only two possible outcomes. The first possibility being that the US actually allows the true democratic will of the Iraqi people to rule the day. Under that scenario I envisioned the people using that power to enshrine Iraq as a Shiite Islamist state aligned with Iran. The second possibility was the opposite, that the US would deny true democracy to Iraq in order prevent scenario one from coming to fruition. This option would require a crackdown on dissent reminiscent of the regime they were there to topple. Neither outcome is one which most Americans would deem worthy of the sacrifice required to acheive it.

I had to sit back and tolerate a lot of bloviating condemnation for that position. But time, she is bitch, isn't she? And she's on my side.

Via David Sirota comes this gem, this pearl, this ultimate expression of Bush administration policy in action. Intentionally hidden deep within a New York Times story entitled, "Bombs Aimed at G.I.’s in Iraq Are Increasing" is the following revelation that I just find infinitely fascinating and, frankly, a bigger news story than the headline:

“Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,” said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.

Alternatives other than democracy! I suppose it should come as no surprise. It's clear they've more than considered these same alternatives for the US itself. Why not Iraq too? So we have come full-circle. We are swiftly approaching the point at which the United States of America has sacrificed over 2,600 of its sons and daughters, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, all of it's built-up international goodwill and credibility and, when it's all said and done, over $1-trillion of the national treasury on a project to replace a secular, bloodthirsty dictator with ties to western governments with another secular, bloodthristy dictator(s) with ties to western governments. But it's OK because it's necessary due to WMD, ties to Al Qaeda, freedom, ____________ (insert new rationale here).

So in the end it seems we're planning on giving them exactly what they had before, plus depleted uranium and a nation littered with corpses. It is now official. They really were better off with Saddam. Who knew?

Read more...

Has anyone been charged yet?

In a post several days ago I made a brief reference to my general misgivings about any new announcements regarding terror plots due to the long list of cynical, government-sponsored hoaxes to which we've already been subjected. Indeed the war on terror appears more and more to be a war of pseudo-terror waged against you and I. But, in the interest of moderation I decided withhold judgement of the recent arrests in Britain until more facts came to light. The problem is, very few facts are coming to light.

With that in mind I feel it's important to note that today is August 19th, which means it has been 9 days since the disruption by British authorities of the alleged plot to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale". The British investigation has led to the arrests of 24 individuals. So detailed was the evidence against these individuals that authorities were able to assure us that the execution of this plot would have been comparable in scale to the attack of 9/11 and that it's execution was "very near", dare I say, "imminent". They even knew about a "dry run" that was alledgedly scheduled for that same week. We were told it had "all the marks" of an Al Qaeda plot and later that it had indeed been approved by Al Qaeda. Thankfully, because of cracker-jack electronic surveillance this dispicable scheme was discovered and routed, they said. That was on August 10th.

To this date not one of these individuals has been charged with a crime dispite what we are told is convincing recorded evidence of their conspiracy. A selected quote from shortly after the arrests:

"It was not just a speculative exercise, by any stretch of the imagination," Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson of the Homeland Security Department said in a telephone interview...

He sounds pretty certain, doesn't he? But then, Colin Powell sounded pretty certain at the UN in February 2003 and we all know how that turned out. Despite this certainty, already one of the individuals, the 24th arrested, has been released unconditionally.

Now, does any of this constitute "smoking-gun" evidence of another hoax? Of course not. The plot may still turn out to be legitimate. But color me suspicious.

Read more...

BTW, The US Has a Constitution

I'm very late posting this but it's worthwhile nevertheless. A judge in Michigan ruled the Bush administration's warrentless wiretapping unconstitutional. A true sign that our politics have gone completely off the rails is the fact that such a ruling, reiterating the basic 4th Amendment standard that wiretaps in the United States require a warrant, is actually considered "controversial".

WASHINGTON -- A federal district judge yesterday ruled that President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program is illegal and ordered the National Security Agency to shut it down, issuing a sweeping rebuke of the once-secret domestic-surveillance effort the White House authorized following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

[Snip]

The administration has acknowledged that the program violates a 1978 law that requires the government to obtain warrants to wiretap Americans, but has argued that the president has the wartime authority to override the law.

In a 43-page opinion, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan rejected that argument. She said Bush violated federal statutes and constitutional protections for privacy and free speech when he authorized the military to wiretap Americans' international calls and e-mails without court oversight, overstepping the limits of his executive power.

"It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," Taylor wrote, later adding, "There are no hereditary kings in America."

Amen.

It should be noted that since this ruling was handed down, conservative commentators have attempted to make an issue of the judge's use of language in the ruling along with some thinly veiled attacks on her intellect. Glenn Greenwald described this line attack in a recent blog post:

But at long last, the Post Editorial Board has finally found something to be outraged about -- the fact that the judicial opinion issued by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor yesterday isn't scholarly and "complex" enough for the intellectual tastes of Fred Hiatt. What really matters, says the Post in its unbelievably petty editorial, is not the profound constitutional crisis we face by virtue of a President who believes he has the power to act outside of the law and has been exercising that power aggressively and enthusiastically in numerous ways over five years. No, that is merely a fascinating intellectual puzzle, something for super-smart experts to resolve with great civility and high-minded, complex discussions as they ponder what the Post calls the "complicated, difficult issues" raised by the administration's lawlessness.

Indeed. I would add to that this simple rejoinder as well. The ruling was written without complexity because the question at issue is without complexity. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in its entirety, as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What part of that is complex? If the above is the supreme law of the land there isn't much left for the good judge to write about.

Read more...

Israeli raid prompts warning from Lebanese Army

A friend with some ties to the Lebanese-American community recently told me that people inside of Lebanon are telling their contacts in the US that, contrary to the reporting on the recent ceasefire, Israel's attacks inside of Lebanon have not stopped. I don't know how much stock to put into that, having received the information 3rd-hand, but this story would seem to support it.

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that killed one Israeli. Lebanon called the raid a "flagrant violation" of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire, while Israel said it was aimed at disrupting arms shipments from Iran and Syria.

Witnesses said Israeli missiles also destroyed a bridge during the raid in what would be the first such airstrike since the cease-fire took effect Monday, ending 34 days of warfare between the two sides.

The fighting did not appear to be escalating, but it highlighted the fragility of the truce as the United Nations pleaded for nations to contribute to an international peacekeeping force due to patrol southern Lebanon.

More:

Israel Carries Out Raid in Lebanon (AFP)
Villagers Cheer as Lebanese Army Marches South (NY Times)

Background:

UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1701
HTML (Abridged by MSNBC) - PDF (Full text from UNSC)

UPDATE 8/20/2006: At the UN, Kofi Annan has said that the raid conducted by Israeli soldiers in Beirut does indeed violate the terms of the ceasefire:

Israel said the raid was launched to stop arms smuggling from Iran and Syria to the militant Shiite fighters. An Israeli officer was killed during the raid, and two soldiers were wounded, one seriously.

There were no signs of further clashes, but the flare-up underlined worries about the fragility of the cease-fire as the U.N. pleaded for nations to send troops to an international force in southern Lebanon that is to separate Israeli and Hezbollah fighters.

The office of Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a statement later Saturday labeling the operation a violation of the U.N. truce.

[Snip]

A statement issued by Annan's spokesman later Saturday said that the U.N. chief spoke with both Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Olmert about the fighting. "The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities," it said.

"All such violations of Security Council Resolution 1701 endanger the fragile calm that was reached after much negotiation," said the statement, issued by spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

It may not be significant but I can't help but take note of the curious structure of the above news item. It carries a headline that reads, "Annan: Israeli Raid Violates Cease-Fire". Yet there is no reference to Annan's statements until the 4th paragraph where you find a single sentence quoted above. After that, the statement isn't mentioned again until the 7th paragraph of the second page (egro the "snip" employed above). In the interim we are fully informed of the intimate details of Isreal's rationale for the raid. Hey, maybe it's nothing. But it sure does look strange.

Read more...

Hugo Chavez and "The Opposition"

Much is said about the Presidency of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez suggesting that his tenure has been an "undemocratic" threat to "stability". In the US media much weight and credibility is given to the democratic credentials groups inside Venezuela usually referred to rather vaguely as "the opposition". Meanwhile the democratic credentials of the party that keeps winning elections, Chavez' "Bolivarian" movement, is questioned in the US even as we live under a President who rose to power illegally (reference is made to the incompatibility of stone-throwing and glass houses).

Joshua Holland has very illuminating article up on AlterNet about just who these darlings of the American media, the Venezuelan "opposition, are.

Venezuela's hyperpolarized politics have bled into our own ugly discourse and, as usual, progressives are reacting to the messaging on the right; they say Chávez is a tyrant, he hates democracy, he killed Santa -- and we dutifully debunk the charges.

But when it's all about Hugo Chávez, it puts the burden on his supporters; they have to explain every hyperbolic phrase that passes his lips and every move he makes to advance what is in fact a dramatic -- and predictably painful for some -- social and economic restructuring of Venezuelan society.

It's tiresome and it puts those who don't automatically hate him on the defensive. That's why, as we edge closer to December's Venezuelan elections, it's time to start talking about Venezuelan politics in the same way we talk about politics in Canada or Europe or anywhere else. There are always at least two sides in democratic contests, and there are policy differences that get voters' attention. But we never hear about those things in relation to Venezuela -- it's like Chávez is governing in a vacuum.

The most obvious thing missing from the mainstream discourse is the Venezuelan opposition. But its members deserve some attention because while they're portrayed generically as members of "civil society" -- and often as champions of democracy -- in fact they're a deeply unpopular group of plutocrats with very little support among the majority of the Venezuelan population.

A recent poll -- an opposition poll conducted by Hinterlaces (translation courtesy of Oilwars) -- showed that 55 percent of the population plans to vote for Chávez in the upcoming elections, a number consistent with the 55-60 percent of the vote he's gotten in his previous three contests.

It's tempting to focus on that number, but look at some other numbers in the poll -- the numbers on Chávez's top challengers among Venezuela's opposition.

The candidate that came in second in the poll was Zulia state Gov. Manuel Rosales, with 7 percent -- an eighth of Chávez's support. Broadcaster Julio Borges came in third with 5 percent, and businessman Roberto Smith with 2 percent. Every one of the opposition candidates was beaten by "someone new" (17 percent) and "none of the above" (10 percent).

So the top three candidates after Chávez, combined, have the support of 14 percent of the electorate -- about a quarter of Hugo Chávez's popular support. (Another recent poll, by Datanalisis, had Chávez at 59 percent, Rosales at 9 percent and Borges at 8 percent.)

Does this not say it all? In sane world, approval like that would be seen as the very expression of democracy with an emerging sense of stability, not a threat to it. But it seems it all comes down to what is meant by certain people when they use those words. "Stability for whom," is the question.

Read more...

"Iran is not a crisis"

A group of 21 retired US generals, diplomats and national security officials have will release a letter today arguing that the Bush administration's hard line on Iran is counterproductive and harmful to national security. One of the letter's signatories, Lt. General Robert G. Gard, stated his belief that the current US policy is serving as a prelude to military action in Iran as opposed to a means to spur negotiation, a sentiment you may have heard expressed before.

Here's a report on this group from yesterday's Los Angeles Times:

Seeking to counter the White House's depiction of its Middle East policies as crucial to the prevention of terrorist attacks at home, 21 former generals, diplomats and national security officials will release an open letter tomorrow arguing that the administration's "hard line" has actually undermined U.S. security.

[Snip]

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, one of the letter's signers and a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara in the 1960s, said the group was particularly concerned about administration policies toward Iran, believing them to be a possible prelude to a military attack on suspected nuclear sites in that country.

[Snip]

"It's not a crisis," Gard said in a telephone interview. "To call the Iranian situation a 'crisis' connotes you have to do something right now, like bomb them."

[Snip]

He noted that the Bush administration's unabashedly pro-Israel stance during the recent conflict with Hezbollah was an indication that the White House may accede to such assessments.

"This administration is clearly so beholden to Israel that it raises the concern we might go along" with a military strike, Gard said.

I suppose Bush's apologists will tell us that this group of former high level Pentagon and foreign service officials "hate America" or some other such insult to our intelligence. That's pretty much to be expected at this point. They, and apparently over 60% of the US public, are "with the terrorists", right?

Read more...

Israel's Verdict: "We Lost the War"

From The Independent (UK) yesterday:

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was obliged to admit "shortcomings" in the 34-day-old conflict in Lebanon yesterday as he launched what may prove a protracted fight for his own political survival.

Mr Olmert's admission in a stormy Knesset session came in the face of devastating poll figures showing a majority of the Israeli public believes none or only a very small part of the goals of the war had been achieved.

Adding insult to injury, the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, crowed on television that his guerrillas had achieved a "strategic historic victory" over Israel.

The Prime Minister, who was repeatedly heckled by opposition MPs during his address, insisted the international commitments in Friday night's UN resolution would "change fundamentally" the balance of forces on the country's northern border.

Good luck selling that one. It's not often you see a head of state, victorious in a foreign war for the survival of his country, put under investigation for it by his grateful public. Does any of this sound familiar?

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz on Wednesday created a committee to investigate Israel's conduct during the 34 day fight against Hezbollah guerrillas, senior defense officials said.

The committee, made up of business executives and retired generals, will be led by a former army chief and will look into the army's preparedness ahead of the fighting, the officials said.

The formation of the committee was a step toward addressing criticism over the handling of the crisis but fell short of meeting growing demands for the creation of an independent commission of inquiry to investigate both the government's and the military's performance.

The announcment came as demands mounted for the military chief's resignation, and the government came under increasing criticism over how the war against Hezbollah was waged.

Newspapers and radio shows were filled with outrage over army chief Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz's decision to sell off his stock portfolio just hours before launching Israel's biggest military operation since its 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the boarder here is how the Lebanese residents, returning to their homes in the war zone, are mourning their "defeat" at the hands of Israel:

Returning to their devastated homes, the people of Lebanon claim victory

Declan Walsh in Aitta Shaab
Tuesday August 15, 2006
The Guardian



A Lebanese boy waves a Hizbullah flag as a stream of returning
refugees heads back to the city of Tyre. Photograph: Sean Smith


The war started in Aitta Shaab, where Hizbullah fighters stole across the border and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers one month ago. When it ended at 8am yesterday morning - and not a minute earlier - the tiny town bore fearful testament to Israel's wrath.

The town centre was utterly destroyed, reduced to a line of disembowelled buildings cloaked in ashen dust. Gigantic craters pitted the roads. Scorched vehicles slouched in the gutters.

Yet for the townspeople who slowly trickled home, many to decimated homes, the bombs had failed to obliterate one thing - a defiant sense of victory.

"I feel joy," said Ibrahim Awada, whose grocery store had been flattened, house destroyed and three neighbours killed. "These buildings can be rebuilt. All I care is that Hizbullah defeats Israel."

Police officer Sameeh Srur embraced Hizbullah fighters, kissing them on both cheeks. "Yes, it looks like Leningrad," he said, referring to the Soviet city that braved the brutal German siege during the second world war. "But we brought the Israelis to their knees here. This shows that Hizbullah is the strongest army in the Middle East."

It all keeps coming back that poll. Because of the Israeli attacks, Hezbollah enjoys an over 80% approval rating among Lebanese of all religious persuasions. Even the Christians approve of their actions by over 80%. This cannot be dismissed as a quirk peculiar to muslim extremists and their "totalitarian ideology". It turns out once again, despite our many efforts to convice ourselves otherwise, that people don't like being bombed, not even for "freedom", not even for "a new middle-east".

It is a shame that such a thing actually needs to be explained.

Read more...

Skeletor Chertoff Mouths More Nonsense

He's back and he's whack! I may have to make this a regular series on this page if he keeps up this pace. Election season is truly terror season.

The Boston Globe has recorded the following comments from the US Department of Homeland [In]Security chief, Michael Chertoff:

Homeland security chief Michael Chertoff called yesterday for a review of domestic antiterrorism laws, saying the United States might benefit from the more aggressive surveillance and arrest powers used by British authorities last week to thwart an alleged plot to bomb airliners.

Let's review those extra powers the British used on super-secret-background to such wonderful effect.

As Glenn Greenwald explains, the surveillance leading to the recent arrests in Britain was authorized by warrant as REQUIRED under British law.

And how did British authorities know who to target with their legally authorized cracker-jack surveillance powers? Was it a government program to designed to target the entire citizenr in total secrecy? Did they sift through every citizens garbage and conduct secret physical searches until they found this diabolical plot? Did the covertly read read everyones credit card receipts, library records, interent communications. Did they tap each and every land line, cell phone, tin cup and string in the United Kingdom? Mmmmmm, not exactly.

It all began with a tip: In the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, suicide bombings on London's transit system, British authorities received a call from a worried member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance.

That's right. There was no investigation at all, no hint, not a clue until the suspects Muslim neighbors approached British authorities and told them what was going on. So the question that now begs to be asked is, "Don't our law enforcement officials already have the power to receive tips from concerned citizens?"

Maybe Chertoff means we should bring these particular Muslims over and buy them houses in every city. We may never know for sure. What we do know is that this hardly seems like a reasonable example to cite in order justify giving the the government even greater power to act without checks and balances. In fact, it seem to have quite the opposite effect from where I'm standing. It makes one wonder why it is necessary for Americans abandon our civil rights and our checks and balances while the British can catch terrorists without that sacrifice. Aren't we supposed to more free than they are?

Read more...

Election Season is Terror Season

I mentioned in a previous post that I might post a timeline on the many bogus terror warnings that have been foisted upon us over the last 5 years. Well, mid-way through compiling the data I saw on Crooks & Liars that Keith Olberman of MSNBC's Countdown has beaten me to the punch.



Damning stuff. I may still post some other egregious the examples Olberman omitted in the near future. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Here's the latest. These young men were featured in a high-profile story about their supposed plot to blow up the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan with a diabolical stash of cell phones. The only evidence collected against these two was their posession of cash and cell phones. Yet, by the time the story reached the news, they had a full-fledged plot and an intended target. As reported by CNN:

Three men authorities said were found with about 1,000 untraceable cell phones were arraigned Saturday on terror-related charges, and were believed to have been targeting a Michigan bridge, a prosecutor said.

"The targeted issue in this case was the Mackinac Bridge. That is what we have information on," Tuscola County prosecutor Mark Reene said.

The bridge is 5 miles long and connects Michigan's upper and lower peninsulas.

Police in Caro, Michigan, said the men were arrested early Friday and were being held on charges of "providing material support for terrorism and obtaining information of a vulnerable target for the purposes of terrorism."

[Snip]

"Based on information received from a variety of agencies, we're developing how the actual telephones were sold and revenue was passed from one location to the next, and obviously it's fairly complex," Reene said.

[Snip]

Authorities believe the men were either selling the phones to make money for terrorism or using them for explosives, WEYI reported.

Amazing how it works, isn't it? They find two guys with cell phones and cash and in short order they are able to tell you with certainty that the men are involved in a complex plot detonate a bomb on a specific bridge using 1,000 cell phones sd detonators OR as a revenue sources in support of the same. Dazzling police work.

Then you find out it's all false. So where did these conclusions come from in the first place?

Read more...

Use Your Delusion

Bush declares victory for Israel:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday that Israel defeated Hezbollah's guerrillas in the monthlong Mideast war and that the Islamic militants were to blame for the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians.

Bush admonished Iran and Syria for backing Hezbollah, which captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12 igniting the conflict. Both sides claimed victory Monday, hours after a U.N.-brokered cease-fire took effect, while Bush said Israel prevailed.

"Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis," the president said at the State Department after a day of meetings with his top defense, diplomatic and national security advisers.

[Snip]

The president portrayed the war, which killed about 790 Lebanese and 155 Israelis, as part of a broader struggle between freedom and terrorism. He said one can only imagine how much more dangerous such a conflict would be if Iran possessed nuclear weapons.

Bush said Hezbollah lost, though Israel didn't knock out the guerrillas.

[Snip]

"Hezbollah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine, and they're claiming victories," Bush said. "But how can you claim victory when, at one time, you were a state within a state, safe within southern Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by a Lebanese army and an international force?"

This man is a whole new kind of fool. At the beginning of this campaign Israel announced that its intention was to destroy Hezbollah once for all. One month later Hezbollah is still there and its supporters are celebrating. Israel claims to have destroyed most of Hezbollah's arsenal but on the last day before the ceasefire was to start Hezbollah rained over 250 rockets on Israel, the highest single-day total of the entire 34 days of conflict so far. In Israel, the Haaretz newspapers says, "We blew it" , most Israelis agree and Olmert's government faces intense opposition in parliament because of its actions.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has never been so popular in Lebanon. As mentioned here earlier , polls taken since the start of Israel's offensive show a 29% spike in support for Hezbollah in it's battle with Israel. Those numbers feature approvals in the 80% among Shia, Sunnis, Druze and Christians alike. Israeli invasions breathe life into that movement. Some victory.

Read more...