Harsh Words from Robert Scheer.

Alternet has this piece from Robert Scheer. It's basically on overview of the relationship between the CIA and interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. To me, this sort of stuff just really illustrates that this interim government is really nothing more than a puppet government (as if anyone had any doubts). Also, I think this is just great:

"A show trial under Allawi would be designed to get Hussein out of the way as quickly and quietly as possible, which might save the U.S. some embarrassment. After all, in an open, unbiased trial the old dictator, if he still has his wits about him, could talk about his cooperation with the Reagan and Bush administrations during the 1980s, when he committed many of the alleged crimes – including the use of poison gas – for which he will be brought to trial. He might even discuss his two visits back then with Donald H. Rumsfeld. But even though a fair public trial might prove uncomfortable for our government, Hussein is a prisoner of war captured by the United States, and Washington is responsible for his treatment under international standards. We have no right to turn him over to the tender mercies of a former CIA-financed archrival. That is simply an abdication of responsibility that violates international law.

There is no good argument for not trying Hussein under international law, as has been done with former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. A fair public trial would reveal the crimes of Hussein as well as the machinations of those U.S. officials and agencies that aided him".

Only in America...Land of the Free

This New York Times article is just a heartbreaker. Here's a small sample:

"Mr. Bajracharya was finally returned to Nepal on Jan. 13, 2002. By then he had spent almost three months in a 6-by-9-foot cell kept lighted 24 hours a day. The unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn where he was kept has become notorious for the abuses documented there by the Justice Department's own inspector general, who found a pattern of physical and mental mistreatment of post-9/11 detainees. Videotapes showed officers slamming detainees into walls, mocking them during unnecessary strip-searches, and secretly taping their conversations with lawyers".

And:

"Back in Nepal, which is riven by civil war, Mr. Bajracharya said he would be willing to testify against those who mistreated him if he were asked, though he fears what the government would do to him if he did so".

But still:

"What happened to me could have been an isolated incident," he said. "I still believe the American government is the best in the world."

Behind the scenes at the O'Liely Factor

Check this out from Media Matters for America. Surprise, Surprise...Bill's a bid'ol liar. Here's a sample:

COLE: Right -- the chairman of the 9-11 Commission, and he plays Kean's quote in which he says something like: "There is -- we have found no evidence whatsoever that there is any link between Saddam Hussein and any attacks on the United States including 9-11, however we have found some contacts between the two." And, you know, originally I think, well maybe what Al Franken said about Bill O'Reilly is false, because here he is, he's playing a balanced quote. But he immediately interrupts and says, "We can't have that quote, we've got to redo this whole thing." And two minutes later, he re-records the whole thing, and this time, when he gets to the Kean part, he doesn't play the soundbite, and instead he says, "And Governor Kean over the weekend, head of the 9-11 Commission, said there's definitely a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

But at Least They Have Full (limited) Sovereignty

The GAO says that Iraq is, in many ways, worse now than pre-war. I wonder if this will make Sean Hannity stop saying that Iraqis are better off now that Hussien is out of power. I doubt it. The problem with people like Hannity is that they just fail to understand nuance. For them, it seems, they are just incapable of engaging in the type of critical thinking necessary to assess whether the ends justify the means. All that matters is that a tyrant is out of power. I think Clinton phrased the situation well in a recent interview. In it, he basically stated that the war would only be a good thing if a stable democratic government can emerge in the reason. That's a big if, and I think it presents far too many alternate scenarios to consider for Hannity and the like. For example, if someone like Sadr is able to seize control in the region (and it looks like this is entirely possible), then I think that we would be reluctant to say that the war was a success.

New Poll Numbers

The New York Times has some new poll numbers on a laundry list of issues related to the election. Generally, things aren't looking too good for Bush. For example:

"As he heads into the fall election, Mr. Bush appears to have much riding on the transfer of power in Baghdad yesterday. The 42 percent of Americans who say they approve of the way Mr. Bush is handling his job is the lowest such figure in a Times/CBS News survey since the beginning of Mr. Bush's presidency in January 2001; 51 percent say they disapprove".

"Overall, the poll's findings left little doubt about the extent to which Mr. Bush's decision to go to war is proving to be perhaps the most fateful of his presidency. About 60 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, while just over 50 percent said they disapproved of his foreign policy. Those disapproval figures are the highest measured in his presidency on those subjects".

"Respondents said that Mr. Bush's policies in Iraq were having the effect of creating terrorists and of increasing the chances of another terrorist attack at home. Concerns about the war appear to undercut what has long been one of Mr. Bush's strong suits, his handling of the fight against terrorism. Fifty-two percent of Americans now say they approve of the way Mr. Bush is conducting that fight, down from 90 percent in December 2001".

"In what could prove to be a particularly far-reaching development for Mr. Bush — especially because he and his campaign have sought to undercut Mr. Kerry's credibility —nearly 60 percent said he was not being entirely truthful when talking about Iraq. Similarly, just 15 percent said the administration had told the entire truth when it came to abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison".

"On the issue of the economy, even though job-creation numbers have been rising over the past few months, 45 percent of Americans say that the Bush administration has been responsible for a decline in jobs, compared with 24 percent who say it has brought an increase".

Let Freedom Reign...My Ass!

Alternet has a piece on the rush to transfer "sovereignty" and even faster depature by L. Paul Bremmer. For those of you, like me, that have wondered what "full sovereignty--with limits" actually means, here's a small sample:

"Before flying off into the sunset, Bremer "issued a raft of edicts revising Iraq's legal code." The new rules -- which will be difficult, if not impossible, to overturn -- will "restrict the power of the interim government, and impose U.S.-crafted rules for the country's democratic transition." Controversially, Bremer empowered an appointed electoral commission to "eliminate political parties or candidates." Another last minute edict gave "U.S. and other Western civilian contractors immunity from Iraqi law while performing their jobs in Iraq" -- a provision that outraged many Iraqis because it "allows foreigners to act with impunity even after the occupation." Bremer also capped the tax rate at 15 percent, amended an industrial-design law to protect microchip designs, and stipulated the use of car horns be permitted in "emergency conditions only.""

Bush administration won't Negotiate with Terrorists, but US Appointed Interim Government Will.

I'm sure you all have heard Bush make comments like this: "There's no negotiations with these terrorists. These are not the kind of people you sit down and you negotiate with. You don't sign a treaty with people who don't believe in rules, people who don't have a conscience".
Today, however,"Iraq's interim Prime Minister is offering amnesty to his countrymen who have resisted the US occupation out of a sense of indignation, not destabilisation".
Both this development and the sneaky way "sovereignty" was transferred just strike me as incredible signs of weakness on the part of the Administration.

I'll Bet They Didn't See This One Coming.

Guess what. Full sovereignty has been transferred to the Iraqi Interim government a full two days ahead of schedule, "...in an apparent bid to surprise insurgents who may have tried to sabotage the step toward self rule". This certainly is a brilliant strategy. I guess the whole idea is to keep the insurgents from derailing the transfer by sneaking it in under the radar. I suppose the insurgents will just throw up their hands in confusion and stop all the fussin' and the fuedin'. Seriously, this is silliest thing I've seen in quite a while. Do they really think that this will bring an end the violence? Do they really think that this will create the perception that things are actually going so well over there that they're able to get things done ahead of schedule? I certainly hope not, because, truth be told, this is largely ceremonial.
The second silliest thing that I've seen in quite a while, however, is this gem taken from the above referenced article: "Although the interim government will have full sovereignty, it will operate under major restrictions - some of them imposed at the urging of the influential Shiite clergy which sought to limit the powers of an un-elected administration". Yes, the whole full sovereignty with limits thing again. It's sort of like a two serving limit at an all-you-can-eat buffet, or maybe an all access pass to certain areas only.
Yes, this truly is a historic day. How often do we get to see a horse and pony show play out on the world's stage?

Newsweek Debunks Major administration Claim About Extent of Iraqi- Al Qaeda Relationship

This article states that just about the only piece of evidence that would even remotely suggest any sort of collaborative relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq has been blown out of the water. Specifically, the administration has been claiming that "...Iraq had provided training in "poisons and deadly gases" for Al Qaeda" But their source for this claim, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a onetime member of bin Laden's inner circle, has since recanted this statement, possibly because, as some officials speculate, "... that al-Libi, facing aggressive interrogation techniques, had previously said what U.S. officials wanted to hear".
Interestingly, I was watching a FOX News interview with Condi Rice this afternoon, and she argued that Iraq providing bomb making training to Al Qaeda was evidence of a collaborative relationship. I'm not sure if Condi is referring to the same thing (I suspect she is, but I'd have to have a look at the transcript before I'm sure), but if she is, then its just plain shameful because either she's lying, or because Newsweek managed to find out that this claim was bogus before out National Security advisor did.

Taliban Resurgence and the Upcoming Afghan Election

In my previous post I take on Chris Hitchens' review of F9/11. Well, here's yet another example of how much worse the situation is in Afghanistan than Hitchens would have us believe.
By the way, does anyone else think that Hitchens just uses a bunch of 10-cent words and dense prose to mask what a dumbass he really is?
Anyway, its stuff like this that Chris fails to mention:

Blast Kills 2 Afghan Women on Election Workers' Bus
By CARLOTTA GALL

Published: June 27, 2004


KABUL, Afghanistan, June 26 - Two Afghan women were killed, and at least 11 more people were wounded Saturday morning when a bomb ripped through a bus carrying women working as election registration workers in the eastern city of Jalalabad. A 5-year-old girl was among the wounded.

It was the most serious attack to date on Afghan election workers who are seeking to register millions of people across the country for September's elections.

A Taliban spokesman immediately claimed responsibility for the attack in a phone call to Reuters, saying the Taliban had warned people not to take part in an election process intended to strengthen the American-backed government.

But we should be fair...they're going to have a highway soon, and then I'm sure things will be a lot better.

Moore distorts the facts with facts, says conservative dunce.

The Guardian has a story on Fahrenheit 9/11 that contains this brilliant quote from David Hardy, co-author of a forthcoming book that aims to debunk much of Moore's work: "'He creates a false impression without ever uttering a word that is untrue,' said Hardy, adding that Moore was guilty of serial mendacity".
So I suppose that all the fuss about Moore isn't about his credibility or handling of the facts, but just his method of presentation. This strikes me as a major concession by the right insofar as it as it gives Moore a free pass on pretty much every point of fact. Instead, it seems that their criticism will look much like recent criticism of media coverage of the war. That is to say, they are creating the perception that this whole thing is screwed up because they are just showing all of the bad stuff and ignoring the good. Take this gem from Christopher Hitchens:

"If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar-an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building-is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left,like the parties of the Iraqi secular left, are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal".

First, Hitchens is absolutely guilty of doing exactly what he admonishes Moore for doing. Based strictly on Hitchens' presentation of the situation in Afghanistan we might be persuaded to conclude that everything is going great, but Hitchens fails to mention that, for example, Opium production has increased considerably post-Taliban or that the Taliban is making a comeback and President Hamid Karzai's government is totally impotent (that is, unable to control much of anything beyond the Capitol, include mal-treatment of women, access to schools and participation in that big election that Hitchens holds so dear). Since Hitchens seems to absolutely hate hypocrisy so much, but at the same time can't seem to resist it, maybe we ought to just ignore him; for now, lets just bracket that whole question and get back to the point at hand. Nothing mentioned above "contradicts" what Hitchens has said, but it certainly adds a new dimension to the picture. Anyway, I suppose it is this sort of cherry picking that Hitchens thinks makes Moore's film so bad, and to an extent, I think that this is a valid point. Lets take a look at the facts that I pointed to in response to Hitchens's facts; again, they don't contradict each other, so lets call them competing facts. Still, even though the evidence that I pointed to doesn't directly contradict Hitchens' claims, I would say that they definitelytely outweigh his claims in the sense that if we were to evaluate the situation in Afghanistan taking into account both his evidence and mine, I think that we would generally come to the conclusion that things are not going very well.
Again, I think that criticism of Fahrenheit 9/11 will take on pretty much the same form, and folks will scream and yell that Moore isn't showing buildings being repaired or whatever. But, I think that the obvious response to this sort of criticism would also take on the same form. That is, when we take the evidence of little kids getting school books and the like and weigh it against over 800 dead U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqis (not to mentioned the wounded)or the major destabilizing effect that this war has created, I think we would generally come to the conclusion that the situation over there is generally FUBAR.

Alternet on the White House's recent 'document dump

Alternet has the following article on the recent White House document dump:AlterNet: War on Iraq: Document Dump Deception. The article raises two very interesting points. First, "In the memo Bush says that detainees should be treated consistent with the Geneva conventions only "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity." The "military necessity" exception is so broad and vague it effectively allows the protections of the Geneva convention to be ignored at will". I think this analysis is right on the money. The entire concept of "military necessity" is totally up in the air, and I think that the recent debate on the issue really illustrates this. For example, we have folks suggesting that torture would be justified is it could prevent a major attack or whatever. If this "end-justify-the-means" type of example rises to the level "military necessity" then what happened at Abu Ghraib would not contradict what was set out in the memo. The second interesting point is the whole timeline question: Although the administration released a February 2002 memo by President Bush addressing the treatment of prisoners it didn't address the critical question: "Did the President sign any directive regarding the treatment or interrogation of detainees after February 7, 2002?" And although the last document released was dated April 16, 2003 the worst abuses are known to have occurred months later". I think this is particularly important simply because is Sy Hersh's article taught us anything, the interrogation policies were not standing policies, but were instead developed over time in response to problems occuring in Iraq.