Google
 
Web my-twocents.blogspot.com

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Scientist Find Way to Seperate HIV virus from Infected Cells

Perhaps a potential cure in the future? (Raw Story)

The scientists engineered an enzyme which attacks the DNA of the HIV virus and cuts it out of the infected cell, according to the study published in Science magazine.

The enzyme is still far from being ready to use as a treatment, the authors warned, but it offers a glimmer of hope for the more than 40 million people infected worldwide.

"A customized enzyme that effectively excises integrated HIV-1 from infected cells in vitro might one day help to eradicate (the) virus from AIDS patients," Alan Engelman, of Harvard University's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, wrote in an article accompanying the study. (snip)...

That enzyme was able to eliminate the HIV virus from infected human cells in about three months in the laboratory.

Hopefully, these scientists will be able to perfect it soon.

--------

In the mood for a little silliness but still would like to learn something? Well I got something for you.....Jon Stewart of the Daily Show.

Highlighting the demonizing, slightly racist, and often false rhetoric coming out of the Nativist side of the immigration debate. I like this one

""Simple, pure hope that one day these tubercular, leprous, molesting immigrants can repeat the uniquely American journey of the fiendish, green-blooded Irish, from unwanted immigrants to not wanting immigrants."" Oh, they are good.

Mexican Standoff (Daily Show)
- video at bottom

-------

A hat tip to Atrios of Eschaton for pointing out how rare and gratifying it is to see actual journalism the way it is supposed to be.

Article in question comes from McClatchy's Washington Bureau

Long Excerpt

Facing eroding support for his Iraq policy, even among Republicans, President Bush on Thursday called al Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, an assertion rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts.

The reference, in a major speech at the Naval War College that referred to al Qaida at least 27 times, seemed calculated to use lingering outrage over the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bolster support for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite evidence that sending more troops hasn't reduced the violence or sped Iraqi government action on key issues.

Bush called al Qaida in Iraq the perpetrator of the worst violence racking that country and said it was the same group that had carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.

"Al Qaida is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni and Kurds alike," Bush asserted. "Al Qaida's responsible for the most sensational killings in Iraq. They're responsible for the sensational killings on U.S. soil."

U.S. military and intelligence officials, however, say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides.

Bush's references to al Qaida came just days after Republican Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and George Voinovich of Ohio broke with Bush over his Iraq strategy and joined calls to begin an American withdrawal.

"The only way they think they can rally people is by blaming al Qaida," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center who's critical of the administration's strategy.

Next month, the Senate is expected to debate the Iraq issue as it considers a Pentagon spending bill. Democrats are planning to offer at least three amendments that seek to change Iraq strategy, including revoking the 2002 resolution that authorized Bush to use force in Iraq and mandating that a withdrawal of troops begin within 120 days.

Bush's use of al Qaida in his speech had strong echoes of the strategy the administration had used to whip up public support for the Iraq invasion by accusing the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of cooperating with bin Laden and implying that he'd played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Administration officials have since acknowledged that Saddam had no ties to bin Laden or 9-11....(snip)

In his speech, Bush made other questionable assertions.

He claimed that U.S. troops were fighting "block by block" in Baqouba, a city northeast of Baghdad, as part of an offensive to clear out al Qaida fighters.

But Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said earlier this month that 80 percent of the insurgents American troops expected to encounter in Baqouba had fled before the operation began, including much of the insurgent leadership. (snip)

I know I know, that was a very long excerpt but it was necessary in order to better show how good this journalism is, and how unlike it is to what passes for journalism.

The problem with much of newspaper and Television journalism is that they mistakenly see its way of keeping balance is to run the claims of both sides of an issue, but do not take any steps itself to analyze or check if one or both sides claim are correct.

Often you see: Administration claims X, critics claim Y. And sometimes they do not even add the critics. That is NOT balance because in this manner it gives equal credence and equal status to the validity of both sides statement without doing the paper doing any work itself and seeing if perhaps one side is more correct or one side is lying or otherwise provide no additional information that helps the public better know which one is correct.

In this McClathcy article the author takes on a more traditional journalistic role.

The article itself doesn't simply report both sides account, it made a judgement about which side is more likely given the information based on the facts. And you get that sense from the article.

This is above and beyond what passes for journalism these days: In fact, as is often the case, the administration claim would have been dutifully passes along without any serious rebuttal.

McClatchy (formerly Knight-Ridder) News is one of those Mainstream news services that has had a very good track record for good journalism. Prior to the Iraq war they were one of the few news services who did their journalistic jobs and truly looked into how valid and invalid the administration claims where in its case for war. They were no stenographers (look it up).

And their coverage has been above par since then as well. They truly have a differing concept as a news service that hearkens back to the traditional role that media is supposed to serve: as a check on government power.

This journalistic ethos is in plain view if one looks at the new tagline/cathphrase for its news service: "Truth to Power"

A very bold tagline, and one of the few media organizations in which it is genuinely appropriate.

Keep on the good work McClatchy...

PS: Normally I have one blog post on any given day but today will likely produce two. So look out for number 2

Thursday, June 28, 2007

"Fourthbrach" Cheney backs down from "outside the executive branch" argument.

Well Cheney - who we lovingly now call "fourthbranch" for obvious reasons - and his lawyers seemed to have backed down. They will not put forward their ridiculous argument of being outside the executive branch in order to avoid oversight from the National Archives watchdogs.

That is certainly a good thing yet they still refuse to subject themselves to oversight on different grounds. Namely that:

The executive order on classified national security information -- Executive Order 12958 as amended in 2003 -- makes it clear that the Vice President is treated like the President and distinguishes the two of them from "agencies." The executive order gives the ISOO, under the supervision of the Archivist of the United States, responsibility to oversee certain activities of "agencies," but not of the Vice President or the President.
Which is patently false. As Spencer Ackerman notes in the above link, and as I noted in my previous post, the Executive Order mentions "agencies" as subject to the order, and defines "agencies" to also mean "entities" within the executive branch that handle classified material. i.e. The President and Vice President.

Public Pressure, along with criticism and incredulity from the media and even normally reliable conservative commentators no doubt pressured the Vice President to give up its first argument. The Vice President hates to bring attention on himself and his office and the hubub over this argument was bringing a lot of it his way from the media.

Yet his second (and hopefully final) argument holds no water under even the most basic scrutiny.

For the love of God, just allow the ISOO (The National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office) to do their damn job!!

Roundup

My roundups have tended to be pretty long lately. Long as in way too much comment attached. Kind of defeats the purpose of it being a roundup (which are meant to be short).

With this in mind, I will try and keep it short and sweet....unless I really have to add something! lol

- Less than a day after Republican Senator Dick Lugar breaks ranks with the President over Iraq, another Republican signals his call for a change in Iraq strategy

He feels we do more harm with our presence than good, and that we withdraw troops 'gradually' and 'responsibly.' What exactly does he mean by gradually and responsibly? It's vague enough to encompass a long time...He needs to clear this up more. For now I say: Good. But I am a little weary.

- Bush cites Israel as model for Iraq

*sigh* There is sooo much wrong with that statement....

First, don't hold the nation most Arabs (including Iraqis) see as an enemy and oppressor of Palestinians as a model for an Arab nation. Yeah I wonder how that one will fly in Iraq and in the middle east.

Second...well is Israel really what "success" would look like?

President Bush held up Israel as a model for defining success in Iraq, saying Thursday the U.S. goal there is not to eliminate attacks but to enable a democracy that can function despite violence.


I guess it is. Lowering the bar would be an understatement!!

- New Fox News poll finds that American would trust Democrats more than Republicans in case of WWIII

Jeez what a silly, transparently jingoistic question meant to elicit a strong response for the Republicans (only on Fox News...), yet it backfired hard! The GOP should see ill omens from this poll. Plus...How stupid is this question!! One more time: Only Fox News.

- Global poll finds deepening distrust of the United States

Jeez, I wonder why?.......What has been going on the past 6 years....I dunnno.

- A poll with good news (finally). Polls show Liberal ideas gaining with young people

Get the young people now and you have a good lock on most of them for the rest of their political lives. Along with already having a good lock on the African American vote, and consolidating it's appeal to Latinos for at least a generation....

Well the Democrats are on the road to consolidating itself once again as the majority party in the US for at least a generation. To be clear, Hispanics have been a lot more willing
than others to vote for the GOP: 40% voted for Bush last election!! (a high)

But you have to understand: When loud and powerful elements in the GOP are regularly on TV blasting immigrants, blasting your culture and people, demonizing them, assigning the ills of society on the backs of people you still feel a close affinity to...well, you are going to remember it and you are going to turn away from the party that demonizes you, and go to the party that embraces you.

The GOP is sealing its electoral fate with its demonization efforts. The Latino population is the fastest growing...we will be an ever increasing force to be contended with and the GOP is bending over backwards pushing Latinos into the arms of Democrats. That's what happens when you allow bigots and racist to define your party and lead its direction.


- Speaking of Racism Among Republicans and Conservatives -

What many conservatives say on the records (in some cases) or when they think they are among like-minded folks.

Scary. And infuriating.

Choice Excerpt:


The conversation ebbs back to friendly chit-chat. So, you're a European, one of the Park Avenue ladies says, before offering witty commentaries on the cities she's visited. Her companion adds, "I went to Paris, and it was so lovely." Her face darkens: "But then you think--it's surrounded by Muslims." The first lady nods: "They're out there, and they're coming." Emboldened, the bearded Floridian wags a finger and says, "Down the line, we're not going to bail out the French again." He mimes picking up a phone and shouts into it, "I can't hear you, Jacques! What's that? The Muslims are doing what to you? I can't hear you!"


That's not even the worst of it.


- Stealth racism stalks the Deep South

It's always infuriating to come upon people who delude themselves into thinking that all racism is essentially over (I had a Republican roommate once so I know from personal experience that the delusion exists). The reasons are transparently self-serving: Acknowlege that racism is still a significant problem in America and all the sudden it's a little harder to bash minorities. It's harder to argue that: "Hey, slaves have been free for a long time, and the Civil Rights Act was passed a few decades ago...And they still haven't progressed. It's all their fault."

As we know, the world is a little more...hostile.... than the utopia they have in their minds that is present day American. Things have improved a lot, but come on, get real.

- A former speech writer and aide to JFK pens his "dream speech" for a Democratic candidate for President

A very moving "speech." Very uplifting. JFK was considered a great orator, and this was one of the men behind many of those great words.

No joke, I actually choked up at certain points and especially at the end of the speech. (Not an easy task).

When reading it, it's best to imagine your favorite candidate speaking it: Imagine his or her mannerisms, his/her voice, even imagine the reactions of the audience at certain points (applause), in order to better read it.

Personally, when I read it, I imagined the great orator himself - JFK - speaking those words.

...Though I may seem a cynic at times. At heart, I am an optimist. I have hope for the future and truly want to contribute to that better world.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Lets Defund the Vice Presidents Office!!

My previous post made mention of a hilarious and absurd claim the vice president is making in order to keep from following executive orders demanding he open himself and his classification procedures for review (in secret of course).

In order to get around this requirement the vice president has put forward the argument that in fact he isn't really part of the Executive Branch due to his duties as President of the Senate.

It's laughably absurd an argument on its merits, yet the real funny part is that the Vice President argued when it was convenient in order to maintain his secrecy, that his energy task force meetings and notes were classified because of his executive privilege. The rationale being that members of the Executive Branch can receive advice without having to divulge it to the legislature.

.....In other words, he can keep it secret because he is in the Executive Branch.....

Do you see how absurd this is now?

The common theme present in both situations is this: Secrecy. And using any means and rationale possible to maintain that secrecy over anything, no matter how trivial. [And I do mean trivial. No one outside the WH knows who works IN the VP's office!!]

They'll put forward any argument to uphold their wall of secrecy, even if it means contradicting the hell out of itself.

Yesterday, I also noted that Democratic Representative Rahm Emmanual proposed adding an amendment to the bill funding the Executive and Judicial Branches and agencies. It stipulates that the VP's offices funding will be consistent with his legal arguments:

In other words: If he claims he is not in the executive branch, his part of the bill funding the executive branch will be removed....Defunding the Vice President's office so that it cannot operate.

The idea is getting a very warm reception among top Democrats

A top House Democrat has announced his intention to offer an amendment to strip funding from the yearly budget for the Office of the Vice President.

"On the Hill, there's an overwhelmingly positive reaction," a spokesman for Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) told RAW STORY Monday afternoon.

He went on, "This is an important amendment and question, and it's a choice that the Vice President should make. He cannot be allowed to accept executive branch funding and not adhere to executive branch rules. There is no fourth branch of government."


Senator Feinstein seemed positive on the idea. It could get some support on the Senate side too. Of course, it risks being vetoed by the President but....well, the funding bill he would veto is the funding bill that funds the Office of the President...as well as the Executive Branch agencies...and of the Judiciary...well you get my point.

Will the President truly take a stand - risking funding for his own office and many important parts of government - just to allow his Vice President to make dubious claims of NOT being in the Executive Branch. Do they value their secrecy that much? We'll see soon enough...

Blogger Todd Gitlin issues a call to action to help support the amendment over at TPMCafe

Take a look, contact your representative and urge them to support the coming amendment to strip the VP's funding.
-----

The Immigration Reform Bill

Admittedly, I haven't mentioned the immigration reform bill much in the blog outside of the politics of it, but...honestly there is a lot to dislike about the bill.

It's such a centrist mushy compromise that no side - left or right - is really happy with it.

The conservatives draw the line at the 'pathway to citizenship' that the bill allows for any illegal immigrant that could prove residency in the US for at least 2 years. And us progressives see that very provision as one of the only good parts of the bill.

I had hoped for better from the Democrats - especially given the fact that majorities in the US support the Progressives stance on Immigration Reform and on Illegal Immigrants living in the US. I can't say I'm very enthused about the bill that has been resurrected recently from sure death.

I urge you to give Trapper John - a diarist at DailyKos - a read as he makes the case:

"The Progressive Case Against the Immigration Bill"


We haven't discussed the "grand compromise" immigration bill all that much around here -- and when we have, it's been primarily to examine the political toxicity of the xenophobia oozing out of the Republican body politic as they oppose any reform, however mild, that gives undocumented immigrants a chance to normalize their status. And, yeah, I'll grant you that it's fun to watch the Republicans implode and poison themselves for decades with the most rapidly growing sector of the electorate. But the fact that Tancredo and the Minutemen oppose this bill doesn't make it something worth supporting. It's not. And when you look at it closely, it's a bill that progressives ought to vigorously oppose.

In fact, this immigration bill is an historically bad bill, one that will undermine wage markets and which will permanently cripple skills training in vital sectors of the economy. And -- contrary to Lou Dobbs and the nativists -- the critical problem with the bill has nothing to do with the path to citizenship provided therein. Hell, everyone this side of the Minutemen agrees that there needs to be a humane path to citizenship for those undocumented workers who are living, working, and contributing in the United States. The fact that this bill provides a version of that path is about the only positive aspect of the legislation. No, the fatal flaw in this bill isn't "amnesty" -- it's the euphemistically termed "temporary worker program."


Here is his arguments against the guest worker program:

But the temporary worker program has nothing to do with building American families and American dreams. Under the program, 400,000-600,000 guest workers would enter the country every year on two-year visas. Although the visas can be renewed twice, recipients would be denied any path to permanent residency or citizenship. In fact, the guest workers would be precluded from even applying for permanent residency while here on temporary visas.

In short, the "temporary workers" will be just that -- "temporary," and "workers." Not "immigrants." And they can never be "Americans." Instead, we will have created a permanent caste of non-citizens with no hope of ever becoming citizens. A class of over half-a-million workers without a voice in the political process, here at the sole sufferance of their employers.

And those employers won't have to pay their new indentured servants any more than the minimum wage. See, unlike the existing H-2B visa -- the visa that governs most "unskilled" temporary workers in the US today -- the proposed temporary worker program contains no requirements that employers pay their temporary help the federally determined "prevailing wage" for their occupation and the geographic area


In other words: We create an underclass of workers with no prospect of EVER becoming legal and no voice in the political process, plus the new law will enable those workers to be paid the least possible, as opposed to the "prevailing wage."


Some of his concluding words:

There's no question that we need immigration reform in this country. We need to find a way to bring the millions of immigrants laboring in the shadows into the light, and into our American family. And to the extent that we have bona fide labor shortages in this country, we need to address them through an expansion of legal immigration. But the price of immigration reform cannot be a temporary worker program that exploits foreign workers, limits real immigration, and guts wages for American workers. (snip)

Tancredo and his ilk are plainly wrong about immigration. Immigration is a fact of life, and immigrant workers who are extended the right to organize and the right to become citizens will fight for better wages and conditions alongside their native-born co-workers. Immigration, you could say, is good for America. But this bill isn't just about immigration, and we ought not support it simply because the bad guys oppose it. This is not a progressive bill. And if we can't get a progressive bill now, it would be better to wait till January 2009 to try again than to pass a bad bill now.


Give the whole thing a read!
-------

Finally!! Someone gives Democrats the credit they deserve.

FIRST GUN CONTROL, now fuel economy. Congressional Democrats still have a lot of work ahead to get their groundbreaking bills past both houses and the president's desk, but you can't say they're not leading a radical change in direction.

On June 13, the House passed what could become the first major gun-control law in a decade, a bill aimed at strengthening a federal database used in background checks for gun buyers. A week later, the Senate approved an energy bill that would improve mileage for the nation's automotive fleet for the first time in nearly 20 years. Democrats still haven't forced a troop reduction in Iraq or put their stamp on the nation's backward immigration policies, but their surprising success in other areas is worthy of praise.


But the LA Times Editorial correctly notes that Democrats have yet to force the President to bring the troops home. This is a serious failing, and one the main reasons that poll respondents have given for their disapproval of this Democratic-led Congress.

Congress will have another shot at reducing troop levels in Iraq after the July 4th weekend and after passage (or not) of the Immigration Bill.

If the Democrats do not stand firm against the President on Iraq this time around...It will (deservedly) be a very difficult case to make to the American people that Democrats should keep their majority. I suspect that Democrats will keep it even if they cave (again!), but they will lose a lot of respect from me.
-----

Bush and Iraq

High School Presidential Scholars urge Bush to ban use of torture


President Bush was presented with a letter Monday signed by 50 high school seniors in the Presidential Scholars program urging a halt to "violations of the human rights" of terror suspects held by the United States.

The White House said Bush had not expected the letter but took a moment to read it and talk with a young woman who handed it to him.

"The president enjoyed a visit with the students, accepted the letter and upon reading it let the student know that the United States does not torture and that we value human rights," deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

ouch

Key Republican publicly breaks with President over Iraq policy - Good of him but...where was Senator Luger's voice (and vote for that matter) during the important Iraq funding standoff a few weeks back? Still, good for him.

Center for American Progress Report: Stop training Iraq security forces and redeploy US forces out of Iraq.

But Strategic Reset charts a new course, arguing that this approach is actually contributing to the violence in Iraq:

First, the United States is arming up different sides in multiple civil wars that could turn even more vicious in the coming years. Second (and more important to America’s strategic interests) billions of dollars of U.S. military assistance is going to some of the closest allies of America’s greatest rival in the Middle East — Iran. The Shi’a-dominated Iraqi national army and security forces could quite quickly turn their weapons against American troops and allies in the region. […]

Training and skill-building are not crucial for Iraq’s security forces. In fact many of them have more training than hundreds of U.S. soldiers being deployed as part of this surge. Rather, the Iraqi forces’ problems are related to motivation and allegiance. In the past three years, the size of Iraq’s security forces and the levels of violence have both grown steadily, even as the U.S. troop presence remained constant.


I haven't read the whole report myself...but I will after I'm done here.
------

Atrios and Mathew Yglesias on egos of old elites and the refusal to consider leaving Iraq

------

An excellent discussion
in TPMCafe Book Club over the book Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power is Transforming the World

In the book, Kurlantzick argues that China has been quietly building it's international prestige by building relationships around the world with soft power. He argues that unless this "charm offensive" is noted and responded to, China will become an international power to rival the U.S. in relative short order.


In my view China poses little threat militarily and the threat of its economic power is way overblown. Viewing China as a "threat" is a problem in itself in that it may lead to policies that make both nations strategic adversaries (ie self-fulfilling prophecy).

Of course, it would be foolish us to ignore that the US does stand to lose its influence in various regions given China's increasing and sophisticated use of soft-power. The problem isn't so much that China is getting so good at its "charm offensive" but that the US has seemingly forgot what charm even means anymore.

A big gap in US foreign policy these past 7 years has been the large decline and deterioration of US soft power, and the increase of its hard military power. Both which have helped turn many nations around the world increasingly away from the US. Iraq, Abu Ghraib, its warmongering rhetoric towards Iran, it's tendency to ignore and overlook regions like Southeast Asia and Latin America, all have contributed to a steady decline in US prestige and influence in many regions of the globe.

The author I believe is correct to note this failure on the part of the US. The US would indeed be well served to acknowledge China's new "charm offensive," and to undertake policies to improve its own image and prestige globally. The US used to be the master of soft-power...it needs to relearn those lessons.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Bush and Cheney: Above Even Their Own Rules

I haven't posted in quite a few days so it's no surprise that I have compiled a very large collection of articles for the Roundup. In fact, it would have been larger still had my computer not shut down with a lot of open windows yesterday - I couldn't find all the articles (or remember what they were all about).

It's Sunday, I got some Frosted Flakes by my side...I'm ready to begin the latest roundup.

The LA Times revealed Saturday morning that President Bush is claiming that he and the Vice President are both exempted from following their own Executive Order that requires an independent federal watchdog groups to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

You remember that executive order that Cheney's office said didn't apply to him, because he wasn't really in the executive branch, since he was also President of the Senate? It's in the news again.

But not just because Cheney conitnues to make that ridiculous claim. No, today it's in the news because Bush is making a claim equally stupid. Possibly even more stupid:

Bush claims oversight exemption too
The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's.

By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer
June 23, 2007

WASHINGTON — The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

Does anyone else find it extraordinarily dangerous that both the President and the Vice President say they don't have to comply with their own orders regarding the tracking of classification and declassification of information that passes through their hands?


They have balls, I'll give them that. And it really must take some 20 pound ones in order to lack the shame in putting forward an argument stating that: Well, the Vice President is NOT in the Executive Branch of government because the Vice President also has a role as President of the Senate.

Yeah, let that marinate for a minute............more..............a little more.......OK.

Lets put aside that for the 200+ years of our Republic it has been universally accepted that the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch.


No, what Vice President Cheney is essentially arguing is that he is not a part of ANY of the 3 established Branches of Government, almost that he is a Branch unto himself because it does not fit anywhere. Its funny how often new powers and privileges this vice president has "newly" discovered (it seems all the other VP's just didn't realize?).

Another argument is that Executive Order is only meant to be applied to Executive "Agencies" and not to them specifically.

But the Executive Order itself mentions itself that:
"Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any "Military department" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.
Any other "entity within the executive branch" clearly references not only departments but individuals with who come into possession of classified documents - which both the President and Vice President do (as do many others)

In fact, the Executive order makes specific mention of the VP and President (its rights, its duties and responsibilities etc regarding classified material) no less that 30 times. They simply cannot argue that the Executive Order somehow does not apply to them when it specifically refers to them so many times.

The White House Press Secretary even tried to lie to reporters
who questioned this supposed exemption for the Vice President: (Think Progress)

Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended Dick Cheney’s claim of existing outside the Executive Order (EO) that governs the preservation of classified data, a directive which applies to all Executive Branch officials.

Dismissing the topic as “a little bit of a nonissue,” Perino said President Bush “gets to decide whether or not [Cheney] should be treated separately, and he’s decided that he should.” She then suggested there was textual evidence in the 2003 Executive Order to support the claim that it was not applicable to Cheney:

PERINO: If you look on page 18 of the EO, when you have a chance, there’s a distinction regarding the Vice President versus what is an agency. And the President also, as the author of an EO, and the person responsible for interpreting the EO, did not intend for the Vice President to be treated as an agency, and that’s clear.

Last night, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann reported that his staff fact-checked Perino’s claim, looked at page 18 of the order, and found Perino’s claim to be false:

OLBERMANN: No exemption at all for the Vice President on page 18. So we emailed the White House, which referred us to section 1.3 — which is about something else altogether — and 5.2 — which makes no mention of the Vice President. In fact, there is no exemption for the President or the Vice President when it comes to reporting on classified material.

What the hell!? Did they honestly believe they could simply lie to reporters? That someone wouldn't go back and fact check them? Do they even care? The gall...

They want to maintain the ability to destroy or entirely keep secret, classified materials - the Exec Order orders its preservation (even if in secret). Cheney and Bush would rather they be able to destroy what they want when they want.

And why wouldn't they? When you have many potential classified bombshells, some that I imagine may allude to illegal activities...You can understand why they prefer not to preserve their records for the independent watchdog agency. Keeping secrets even from those tasked with keeping secrets. Classic.

Of course, the Democrats hit back with a very clever idea


Washington, D.C. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue to pursue this measure in the coming days."


Hahaha!! Very clever indeed Mr. Emanuel!! Your move Mr. Cheney...

The Roundup

Case Studies: Neoconservative Psychopaths

Neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz, his psychopathic outlook, and his quest for war in Iran

Neoconservative icon Norman Podhoretz followed up his Commentary article titled "The case for bombing Iran" -- excerpts of which were re-published in The Wall St. Journal -- with an interview elaborating on why he "hopes and prays" that we bomb Iran and how he envisions the bombings. Though he generously acknowledges that such an action would likely "unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest" -- consequences to which he is transparently (and revealingly) indifferent -- he goes on to suggest that Europeans and even the Muslim world might be grateful for our attack; the bombs will be greeted as Bombs of Liberation and Protection:

Gleen Greenwald proceeds to quote Podhoretz to that effect.

'Europeans and even many in the Muslim world will be grateful for our attack'

Sound familiar?

Will this be the same 'gratitude' that these same neoconservatives predicted would welcome the US when it invaded Iraq. It seems to me that neoconservatives have refused to learn any of the lessons from their mistakes and flawed assumptions regarding Iraq.

Instead they are engaged in pushing a policy based on assumptions that are just as fault, and a action itself that promises to be just as much a failure as Iraq, and also just as counterproductive.

Normal people faced with this situation would have modified their beliefs and policy prescriptions...these guys think more of the same will work this time.

What is it that they say about people who do the same exact thing and expect different results....

As Think Progress notes, not only would a bombing campaign fail to stop the Iranian nuclear program, it would be far more likely to accelerate it, just as the Israeli attack on the Iraqi program did. And a military bombing campaign, guaranteed to kill untold numbers of Iranian civilians, would obviously unite Iranians in anti-American hatred and generate unified support for the most militant political elements in that country.

But beyond those rather obvious points, just contemplate the level of bombing and slaughter that would be required merely to have a chance of fulfilling Podhoretz's goal of "entirely depriv[ing Iran] of the capability to build nuclear weapons, or at least have that ability retarded for five or 10 years or more." How would that be remotely possible without bombing them until Podhoretz's real goal -- regime change -- were achieved, a goal which, if achievable at all, would require bombing so widespread and brutal that it ought to be unthinkable. Yet Podhoretz sits there, in the most smug and casual manner, and blithely "hopes and prays" that we do it.

The chances of successfully eliminating its nuclear program are extremely low, and as the Carnegie Endowment study argues, the most likely result of such an attack will be a substantial increase in the speed of its development.

The reasons for this are simple: Nuclear weapons are developed by nations in no small part to act as a deterrent to interference or attacks from other nations (especially those who are larger and more powerful militarily). To put it in street terms:

You don't fuck with somebody with a nuke or you can get your ass nuked.

To strike Iran would only validate and strengthen that defensive sentiment and that perceived need for a "deterance." The point I and many others (like in the article) make is that a strike will also unite the Iranian people behind its leadership, an outcome that is counterproductive to neoconservative goals of regime change in Iran.

So, why? Because they are hawkish idiots who put too much faith in the use of the military in furthering its goal of permanent (and increased) US Hegemony through the 21st century. And no I didn't make that up! lol

Need more proof about the moral wasteland that is a neoconservative brain?

Norman Podhoretz son, John Podhoretz wondered why the US didn't commit quasi-genocide in Iraq:

What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?

If you can't imagine George W. Bush issuing such an order, is there any American leader you could imagine doing so?

And if America can't do it, can Israel? Could Israel - even hardy, strong, universally conscripted Israel - possibly stomach the bloodshed that would accompany the total destruction of Hezbollah?[emphasis added]


Basically: The US should have decimated the 15 - 35 year old Sunni population of Iraq early on in order to 'make them so afraid of us, they'd do anything with us' and to rob Iraq of the prime demographic necessary in the rise of the insurgency.

They talk about quasi-genocide of such a scale as if they were talking about last weeks football game. Scary isn't it?


Need even more proof of Neoconservative craziness?


Happy to oblige...

Palestine

Hamas Calls for Talks With Abbas (Reuters)

Not likely.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister of the Palestinian government dismissed by President Mahmoud Abbas, called for power-sharing talks on Saturday with Fatah rivals routed from the Gaza Strip.

"There will be no dialogue with Hamas," responded Hussein al-Sheikh, a senior Fatah official in the West Bank.

I found this except from the article illuminating because it gives us a glimpse into the difficulties that Mahmoud Abbas will have even from those in his own Fatah faction.

In Gaza, a Fatah official who has broken ranks with Abbas warned Israel not to expect any help from the emergency government which the Palestinian president established a week ago, and said militants in the coastal strip could retaliate.

"More pressure and more closures will explode in (Israel's) faces. The government which is collaborating with the occupation (Israel) will not be able to bring them security," Khaled Abu Hilal said. "Remember that we are ready to do all we can to preserve our dignity and we will race for martyrdom."

Abbas' government has to tread a very fine line between receiving some assistance from Israel and the West and being seen as collaborators with Israel.

Israel has to tread carefully and not push the Palestinians (even Hamas) to hard with its road closures etc...Fatah cannot be seen as callaborators. And elements inside Fatah will rebel as well.


Iraq

Gen. Petraeus' Report Will Have Competition (New York Times)

Last month, Congress set a deadline for the American commander in Iraq, declaring that by Sept. 15 he would have to assess progress there before billions more dollars are approved to finance the military effort to stabilize the country. The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, said in recent days that his report would be only a snapshot of trends, strongly suggesting he will be asking for more time.

Last month, Congress set a deadline for the American commander in Iraq, declaring that by Sept. 15 he would have to assess progress there before billions more dollars are approved to finance the military effort to stabilize the country. The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, said in recent days that his report would be only a snapshot of trends, strongly suggesting he will be asking for more time.
It appears that there will be many reports out there: From Gen. Petraeus, from Congress, the Pentagon (surprisingly outsourced to Center for Strategic and International Studies).

Some good discussion about the political dimensions and effects these reports could have on the Iraq withdrawal debate.

Odierno Denies, Gates and Pace Confirm (DailyKos)


When the Commanding General of the multinational corps in Baghdad contradicts the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who should we believe? Yesterday, Lt. General Ray Odierno:

...denied reports the U.S. is arming Sunni insurgent groups to help in the fight against al-Qaida. [...]

Odierno also said that while coalition forces are cooperating with some Sunni militants, they are not arming them — something observers caution could come back to haunt U.S. troops later.

"I want to make one thing very clear: We are not arming these groups," Odierno said.

But two days ago, during a joint press conference, Robert Gates and Peter Pace were telling a different story:

SEC. GATES: ...And I think I have to defer to the judgment of those on the ground -- and after all, we also are working with the Iraqi government in all of this -- in terms of making the decision of deciding whether to work with these people and whether to arm them. After all, it's a strategy that has worked extraordinarily well in Al Anbar province in terms of working with the local tribes, and so on.

And so I think this is -- trying to get more of the people who have been shooting to stop shooting and work with us I think is really the pathway forward in terms of accomplishing our objective and getting them to work with the Iraqi government. [...]

GEN. PACE: All I would add to that is that in addition to Al Anbar, you also have about 130 sheikhs in the Tikrit area who have banded together to fight against al Qaeda.

So, is there risk involved with arming groups with whom you've been fighting before? Yes. But I think the greater risk is in not seizing the opportunities as they become available, and as individuals and groups determine that they are willing to team with the Iraqi central government, that they no longer want to be cowered by the al Qaeda, for example, that we should seize those opportunities and work with them and try to get the Iraqi family to pull together.

So, the reports that Odierno was denying were from the head of the Defense Department and the highest ranking military officer of the United States? It seems that it is becoming more and more difficult for this administration and their enablers to keep their stories straight.

And what about the concerns that this policy could "come back to haunt U.S. troops later"? Well, it's a good thing that Odierno made it clear that the reports weren't true, eh?

Wierd...

House Democrats Skelton and Conyers Introduce Major New Habeas Reform (reinstitution) Bill

Today, House chairmen Ike Skelton (D-MS) of the Armed Services Committee and John Conyers (D-MI) of the Judiciary Committee announced legislation that would finally restore habeas corpus rights to U.S. detainees being imprisoned indefinitely without trial. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed habeas legislation earlier this month.

In a statement, Skelton said the legislation takes aim at the “seriously flawed” provision in the Military Commissions Act that stripped detainees of their habeas rights. The support of Skelton, considered a leading moderate in the House, suggests the bill will have broad-based support. Conyers added:

Habeas Corpus is one of the fundamental touchstones of our constitutional democracy. We cannot preach freedom abroad if we are not willing to give prisoners the ability to establish their innocence; and, we cannot advance the cause of fighting terrorism at home if our government takes constitutionally dubious short cuts.

Rock on...

Read Josh Marshall of TPM. He write, you listen.

Adding that this dishonest conservative-hawk flak he references - Col. Buzz Paterson - is the same Col. Buzz Paterson who said this in July of 2005:

"The war is being won, if not already won, I think," Patterson, who is retired from the U.S. Air Force, said. "[Iraq] is stabilized and we want the soldiers themselves to tell the story."
The war has gone shitty and now this lame-ass wants to blame our failure on the one group who had no power over the policy and execution of the Iraq strategy: The Left, liberals, progressives, and the anti-war crowd. (Read the Talking Points Memo link for proof).

It's funny how the "personal responsibility" crowd always likes to blame everyone but themselves for the shit holes and failures they create.

And sad, considering the consequences of those policies...




Monday, June 18, 2007

Like White on Rice...

Get me started on a subject (in this case subjects) and I'll be stuck on it like...well, you know.

By now you guys are like: Iraq and Palestine? Again?

Then I'll say: Uhm...shut up! ( So I'm not very quick on my feet)

It just so happens that the big news coming out has to do with Iraq and Palestine.

Well, yesterday Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas swore in his new emergency cabinet (effectively the government) made up completely of Fatah officials.

Under the circumstances, the swearing-in ceremony in Ramallah was a somber affair. Salam Fayyad, an internationally respected economist, will serve as prime minister as well as finance and foreign minister in the 12-member cabinet.

Most of the ministers, like Mr. Fayyad, are political independents and technocrats, with the exception of the interior minister, Abd al-Razzaq al-Yihya, a veteran Fatah figure and retired general with a reputation for toughness, who will be responsible for security forces. He held the same post under
Yasir Arafat.

Mr. Abbas issued decrees outlawing the armed militias of Hamas and suspending clauses in the Palestinian Basic Law, which effectively serves as a constitution, that call for parliamentary approval of the new government. Hamas has a firm majority in the 132-seat Palestinian parliament, though 40 of its legislators are currently in Israeli jails.


The article mentions that Hamas is unhappy about the new government and still claims that the previous unity government in which it had the majority is the legitimate government. First, its claims to democratic legitimacy read like a mugger complaining to the person robbed. Second, it is within the power of the President to dissolve the previous government and install a new one...and justified in this case.

A 24 year old Palestinian lawyer sums up well how the it will be in the future for the 2 different Palestinian regions:

“Things will be very good in the West Bank and very bad in Gaza.”


Although good may be something more relative than anything else...


The New York Times has a good piece that serves as a backgrounder into why the 2 different Palestinian territories differ in the ways they do. Answers why they developed the way they did and why the cultures of the two regions differ. Read if interested to know a little more background on the Territories.

A teaser:

But Palestinian society is not so simple. There are many historical, economic and tribal loyalties that bind it together, and many of those cross, rather than coincide with, the frontiers of the two territories.

In addition, there are compelling reasons why the two communities need unity.

A look at the history of these territories, how they developed differently over time, and what their populations still share, shows why they are at odds now but also why it might be too early to write off the possibility that this breach can be
bridged.


Go ahead...

And this is a doozy:

Israel plans attack on Gaza

ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there.

According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.

The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings.

Barak, who is expected to become defence minister tomorrow, has already demanded detailed plans to deploy two armoured divisions and an infantry division, accompanied by assault drones and F-16 jets, against Hamas...(snip)


A source close to Barak said that Israel could not tolerate an aggressive “Hamastan” on its border and an attack seemed unavoidable.

“The question is not if but how and when,” he said.



An attack would likely succeed in weakening Hamas in Gaza, but I honestly cannot tell you what the repercussions and long-term impact of such an incursion would be...I'm racking my brain for some answers, but my first instinct is always to caution on the side against force being used hastily. I'll give it some more thought, and in the meantime I'll try and see what the true expert voices on the region are saying about any potential Israeli incursion.



Iraq

There seems to be alot of warnings and misgivings being sounded about US policy in Iraq

Foreign policy and national security experts are sounding off warnings against the dangers of a the new US policy of arming their former enemies in the Sunni insurgency.

A U.S. program to combat al-Qaida in Iraq by arming Sunni Muslims undercuts the Iraqi government and years of U.S. policy, and is a tacit acknowledgment that the country's violence is really a civil war, some U.S. military officials in Washington and foreign policy experts say.

The program, which Bush administration officials have hailed as a sign of progress
in Iraq, has sparked heated debate among military and foreign policy analysts.

It is opposed by the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki...(snip)


But others contend the program has long-term repercussions that can only be guessed at now. By giving weapons and training to Sunnis in Anbar and Baghdad who've been previously associated with Sunni insurgent groups, the program endorses unofficial armed groups over official Iraqi forces as guarantors of Iraqi security, military officers who oppose the program say.

Those officers also say it abandons the long-stated U.S. goal of disarming militias and reinforces the idea that U.S.-trained Iraqi forces cannot control their country.

At the Pentagon, at least six officers who served in Iraq shook their heads when asked about the idea of arming the Sunnis. They said they had little faith in a Sunni community that was aggressively killing their comrades just months ago.

"Why did we spend all that capital disarming them last year?" asked one military officer who served in Iraq last year under former Iraq commander Gen. George Casey. "As a military man, I cannot fathom the logic of putting more weapons out there."

The officer declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak about the matter.


The article also notes that it is next to impossible to now expect the Iraqi government (that is Shia dominated) to try and and persuade the Shia militias to disarm if on the other hand the US is seen as actively arming the Sunni factions.

Yet, the strategy is also being questioned by the other groups in Iraq

The Shia and Kurds (including many Shia in the Iraqi government) are concerned about the US arming groups who take up those arms against their own people.

Shiite and Kurdish officials expressed deep reservations on Sunday about the new U.S. military strategy to partner with Sunni Arab groups to help defeat the militant organization al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"They are trusting terrorists," said Ali al-Adeeb, a prominent Shiite lawmaker who was among many to question the loyalty of the Sunni groups.

"They are trusting people who have previously attacked American forces and innocent people. They are trusting people who are loyal to the regime of
Saddam Hussein."


And this

In an interview Friday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Newsweek magazine that some American field commanders "make mistakes since they do not know the facts about the people they deal with."

Maliki went on to say that arming the tribes is appropriate in certain circumstances "but on the condition that we should be well aware of the tribe's
background and sure that it is not connected with terror."

Other Shiite politicians are openly opposing the strategy.

"We cannot take weapons from certain insurgents and militias and then create other militias," said Abbas Bayati, a Turkmen Shiite lawmaker who is part of the majority bloc in parliament. "You need to open recruiting centers and provide training; now what is going on is giving weapons and money to the tribes and individuals."

Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish legislator, acknowledged the potential benefits of reducing the strength of al-Qaeda in Iraq but said of Sunni Arab groups: "They take arms, they take money, and in the future they will be a problem. Politically, they are still against the Americans and the Iraqi government."


Even the top commander in Iraq - General Petraeus - is sounding his concerns about the US arming Sunni insurgents

Although he is still for it, he just seems to admit that there is some risk involved. He seeks to dismiss concerns about the strategy by assuring us that they are taking "precautions."

Somehow that doesn't exactly inspire too much confidence in me...


In other Iraq news:

The PKK commander warns Turkey of 'military disaster' if troops cross into Iraq

A senior commander of the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) warned the Turkish government against sending its military forces into northern Iraq, in an interview published Monday.

Speaking to The Guardian daily from a hideout in the Qandil mountains on the Iraq-Iran border, Cemil Bayik said that while his units were not seeking a fight, the Turkish army faced "a political and military disaster" if it crosses into Iraq as part of an offensive against the PKK.

A Turkish incursion into Iraq could become "a quagmire for them (the Turkish army) and create space for Iran to interfere in Iraq also," Bayik told the newspaper.

And in Iraq News as it relates to the investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib:

How the General in charge of investigating the scandal was punished by the former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for doing a genuine investigation into Abu Ghraib.

Nice article by excellent investigative reporter Seymour Hersh (New Yorker).

I'll admit I haven't tackled the whole article myself yet (Hersh's articles are usually pretty thick).

See that wasn't so bad was it? See ya in a couple days - unless something big pops up tomorrow.

Friday, June 15, 2007

The problems in Palestine get worse






Very bad news coming out of the Middle East and the Palestinian Territories in particular...


As mentioned in yesterday's post - Hamas militants have established complete control over the Gaza strip. Sacking important Fatah facilities and institutions. For those not too familiar with the Palestinian Territories (and where they lay in relation to the state of Israel) I provided a little map above: The Gaza Strip is the small orange strip on the left, the West Bank (where Fatah still holds sway) is the larger piece to the right, and Israel is inbetween.


Hamas has pretty much consolidated it's sole dominance in the Gaza strip and it hasn't wasted any time...enjoying it (for lack of a better word).





Hamas both mocked and reached out to its defeated Fatah rivals on its first day in full control of Gaza, offering them amnesty Friday but also rifling through President Mahmoud Abbas' bedroom, stripping a former Gaza strongman's home down to the flowerpots and throwing a Fatah gunman off a rooftop.

Safe in the West Bank, Abbas moved quickly to cement his rule there, after losing control in Gaza in a five-day Hamas assault on his forces.

He replaced the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, with Finance Minister
Salam Fayyad, a respected economist, as part of a new moderate government.

Hamas, overwhelmingly elected in a 2006 parliament vote, denounced Abbas' moves as a coup. Hamas' supreme leader, Syrian-based Khaled Mashaal, later said Abbas has legitimacy as an elected president and promised to cooperate, but warned Fatah against going after Hamas supporters in the West Bank.

The sparring made little difference on the ground: the Palestinian territories, on either side of Israel, are now separate entities with two governments — one run by Hamas and backed by radical Islamic states, and the other controlled by the Western-supported Fatah.


President Mahmoud Abbas (also popularly called 'Abu Mazen') - in the wake of the attacks and using the powers vested him as President - dissolved the troubled unity government (Hamas/Fatah) and created a new one made completely of Fatah officials.


Hamas had the gall to protest this act as a 'coup,' to which I reply: WTF!? Didn't you just get done with a 5 day campaign against Fatah in Gaza that ended with you completely usurping control of a very important part of the Palestinian territories?



Abbas received immediate pledges of support from Israel, the U.S., Egypt, Jordan, the U.N. and Saudi Arabia. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak by phone that he would take steps to bolster Abbas. Officials in Olmert's office said he will consider releasing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax funds that was frozen after Hamas came to power.

Though the moderate government Abbas plans to appoint will have no say in Gaza, it stands a stronger chance than the Hamas-Fatah coalition it replaces of restoring foreign aid to the West Bank.

And this reveals one of the most frustruating parts in the US and Europes relations with the (then unified) Palestinian Authority.
They (Israel) will now consider unfreezing tax money (due the PA) frozen after Hamas came to power, they (foreign nations) will now restore foreign aid to the West Bank.
I was in Washington when Hamas was elected to power, and that was over a year ago.
In the interim what happened?
The PA was strapped for money, and its security forces (dominated by Fatah) were going unpaid, making for unhappy and sometimes non-working forces. Hamas certaintly didn't have that problem.
In addition our attempts to 'hurt' the Hamas-led PA has pushed the Palestinian people further into the embrace of Hamas and away from Fatah (who they increasingly see as corrupt). The US and Europe pushed the Palestinians (against President Abbas's wishes) continually for elections in the Palestinians, and it happened...Hamas won. And after having pushed hard for democratic elections, when the West didn't like the result it decided to punish, boycott, and withhold aid to the Palestinians unless Hamas agreed to concede to demands that it knew they would never agree to.
I am by no means an expert in the issues of Palestine. At most I am someone who just happens to follow it better than the typical person. So I defer the deeper and hevier analysis to others.
Hamas wins! Thanks to Us (M.J. Rosenberg on TPMCafe)

There is, no doubt, a whole lot of celebrating going on. For those more afraid of negotiations than of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or any of that violent crew, a collapsing Palestinian Authority with Gaza in absolute chaos with Mahmoud Abbas weakened almost to irrelevancy is a dream come true.

Gaza has fallen to Hamas. Abu Mazen's Fatah is on the run. Unless a United Nations force (like UNIFIL) steps in, a sliver of territory with a population of 1.4 million, a short drive from Tel Aviv will become a dagger aimed at Israel's heart and perhaps even an Al Qaeda staging ground. A humanitarian crisis of horrific
proportions is a certainty.
He's perhaps overblowing the "al-qaeda base" aspect as Hamas isn't too keen on al-Qaeda, but the rest is pretty insightful.

And he is right about who 'wins,' and about who is the happiest to see this turn of events.
The ones happiest to see Hamas take Gaza and essentially split the Palestinian Authority are those who would rather take a five foot suppository up their rear than have to negotiate with the PA.

These are the right-wing hawks in Israel and the right-wing neoconservative hawks in the US who dislike it when there is a moderate that appears to be a legitimate partner for peace (Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas - President of the now disunified PA). The hawks prefer military solutions and it is harder to get away with if presented with what is seen as a modertate partner for peace. But...now that there is no unified voice of the Palestinians, and Hamas is not seen as a good partner for peace. The hawks are very happy with that outcome.

So who does M.J. Rosenberg see as at fault for the current state of affairs?
The Palestinians, of course. But hardly theirs alone. As Nahum Barnea, Israel's finest journalist, put it today in Yediot Achronoth, "The US and Israel had a decisive contribution to this failure. The Americans, in their lack of understanding for the processes of Islamization in the territories, pressured to hold democratic elections and brought Hamas to power with their own hands….

Since the elections, Israel, like the US, declared over and over that "Abu Mazen must be strengthened," but in practice, zero was done for this to happen. The
meetings with him turned into an Israeli political tool, and Olmert's kisses and
backslapping turned Abu Mazen into a collaborator and a source of jokes on the
Palestinian street."

The failures to which Barnea refers didn't start with the Palestinian elections either, not by a long shot. Back when Hamas was just a gleam in Sheik Ahmad Yassin’s blind eye, Israeli right-ringers were implementing a strategy to eliminate the authority of Palestinian moderates by building up religious extremists. These Israelis (some very high in Likud governments) believed that only supplanting Arafat’s Fatah with Islamic fundamentalists would prevent a situation under which Israel would be forced to negotiate with moderates.
I bet not many of you guys knew that the power of the Islamic relgious movements of Palestine (like Hamas) where vitaly built up with the help of Israel, who saw it as a way to not only counter secular and moderating Fatah who was pushing for negotiations. But soon those groups they fostered got very powerfull and began to cause a lot of death and mayhem in Israel itself.

The Israeli people, and the Palestinians are still feelings the ill effects caused by Israeli aid to the relgious extremists during the 80's (and its brought us to where we are today). But it did end up giving those hawks a bonus: Islamic radicals who it could plausibly say 'could not be talked to'

One wonders what kind of progress could have been made had Hamas never made it's entrace (or atleast wasn't as big a player as it has become).

I'll add that like there are Israeli hard-liners and (I would call them) radicals, Hamas reflects the hardline stance in the other camp. Like its counterparts among the Israeli hawks, Hamas is heavilly biased against any negotiations, prefering to 'push Israel into the Mediterrenean' and completely eliminiate it. That is why they too actively try and sabotage things when there seems to be a chance for negotiations to work.

It is certainly no coincidence that - historically - when progress is being made and negotiations are moving forward in a promising direction, the suicide bombings and rocket attacks all the sudden skyrocket. Which causes the desired effect: An Israeli crackdown that leads to tit-for-tat violence.

Progress is stalled, talks are sabotaged...

Association, or Mujama. The roots of this Islamist group were in the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an offshoot, and it soon
was flush with funding and political support. The right-wing strategists devised
the theory of creating Hamas as an alternative to Fatah because they believed
that Muslim Brotherhood types would devote themselves to charity and religious
study and passively accept the occupation. They certainly would never put Israel on the spot by offering to negotiate.

Likud governments even deported Palestinian advocates of non-violent resistance (most notably, the Ghandian, Mubarak Awad) at the same time that it was doing everything it could to build the street cred of fanatics who, a few years later, would proclaim themselves Hamas, dedicated to Israel’s elimination.

The pro-Hamas tilt accelerated in 1988 when Yasir Arafat himself announced that he favored the two-state solution and that previous PLO demands that Israel be replaced by Palestine were, in his words “caduq” (inoperative).

An Arafat committed to two-states struck terror in the hearts of the settlers and their allies who were and are determined to hold on to the West Bank forever. Their worst fears were realized when Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres repudiated this craziness and decided to engage with the PLO in order to strengthen it vis a vis Hamas, which was by the time Rabin came to office exceedingly powerful thanks in large part to the Israeli right’s support.
On how we pushed the Palestinian people towards Hamas:
There was another way we might have gone. We could have welcomed Hamas’s participation in the election as a sign that Hamas was implicitly accepting the
Oslo framework (which it was), insisted on the complete cessation of violence,
and then used carrots and sticks to encourage the Hamas-run Palestinian
Authority to mend its ways. But we offered no carrots, just sticks. And we
didn’t even make much of an effort to strengthen Hamas’s arch-enemy, President Mahmoud Abbas, with Congress hastening to impose redundant and insulting conditions even on aid that was to be sent through him.

It was all fun and games, politics as usual. Meanwhile, Hamas looked better and better to a people whose salaries were not being paid, thanks to the US sponsored international boycott of the PA, and whose schools and hospitals were collapsing.

Today it is almost amusing to contemplate the professions of horror on the part of
right-wing Israelis (and their neocon friends) who scream “bloody murder” about
an outcome they helped effect and actually welcome.

The name of their game was, is, and always will be making sure that Israel has “no partner” with whom to negotiate. Their worst fear is of Palestinians like Mahmoud Abbas who is a credible negotiating partner.

Indeed. I've alredy quoted his piece a little too much, so I'll end with that and urge you to give the whole post a read if this issue really interests you.

A good piece that details how things went wrong:

The takeover this week of the Gaza Strip by the Hamas militant group dedicated to the elimination of Israel demonstrates how much that vision has failed to materialize, in part because of actions taken by the administration.

The United States championed Israel's departure from the Gaza Strip as a first
step toward peace and then pressed both Israelis and Palestinians to schedule
legislative elections, which Hamas unexpectedly won. Now Hamas is the
unchallenged power in Gaza.

After his reelection in 2004, Bush said he would
use his "political capital" to help create a Palestinian state by the end of his second term. In his final 18 months as president, he faces the prospect of a shattered Palestinian Authority, a radical Islamic state on Israel's border and increasingly dwindling options to turn the tide against Hamas and create a functioning Palestinian state.

"The two-state vision is dead. It really is," said Edward G. Abington Jr., a former State Department official who was once an adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.


A good read.

RoundUp

Another article about the internal debates ongoing between those proposing negotiations with Iran as the only solution, and the hawks pusing for military solutions. Lets hope the sane people prevail this time...

Juan Cole gives a good roundup of his own that serves to highlight how messed up things are right now throughout the Islamic world. Not much to be happy about for the US...A lot of anger being fomented and directed at us. Some of it unjustified but there are always those who play on dislike for America and a predisposition to believe the worst about it, to pass on false propaganda.

But people believe it because we have such a bad image over there.

Some Funny

Top Ten President Bush Global Warming Solutions

10) Instead of "Partly sunny," have weatherman say "Partly cloudy"

9) Stop using Air Force One for Texas barbecue runs

8) Replace dangerous CO2 in the atmosphere with more eco-friendly CO1

7) Encourage people to walk more by distributing free Dr. Scholl massaging gel inserts. Are you gellin'?

6) Watch Al Gore movie one of these nights instead of "Dukes of Hazzard"

5) Bob Barker's free. Get him workin' on it

4) Send more troops to Iraq

3) I dunno, tax cuts for the rich?

2) Reduce hot air emissions by cancelling "The View"

1) Resign


The Late Show with David Letterman

I'm partial to number 1 haha!!
OK then, that's all for today. Go out and do something already!...Why you still reading?........Leave!!













Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Damn, where's the good news at?

Pretty busy newsday today though my comments will be short.

Iran

State Department and Defense Department differ on how 'irrefutable' proof of Iranian involvement in arming Taliban is

State Dept.'s Nick Burns: "Irrefutable evidence" Iran is arming the Taliban.
Sec. Def. Bob Gates: Iran
kinda maybe arming the Taliban.
-- Josh Marshall


For what its worth I've come to accept that its possible for Iran to arm its former enemy (the Taliban) and - possibly - Sunni insurgents. Why? The preponderance of 'the enemy of my enemy' calculations of late leads me to believe that it's not just the US foolishly arming former enemies (who are now enemies and will likely return to being enemies pretty soon).

The US doesn't own the market in policies that will blowback in their face pretty soon...

So...what if the US does have a case that Iran is helping American enemies? Does that justify war? Does it necessitate war?

The calculus involved in whether to engage in a conflict is several fold. To summarize and simplify for the purposes of this post:

1) Is it justified?
2) Is this a wise policy?

number 2 can be subdivided into: Can we actually accomplish our goals + will our actions make the situation better or worse

As is often the case (Iraq war excepted), action is often justified but its rarely wise. We stand to lose a lot from strikes. In the case of Iran, it's unlikely that we will achieve or objectives of either stopping arms shipments to Iraq, nor stopping its nuclear weapons program. Strikes are more likely to force the Iranian leadership to increase the speed of its development, to strike US and European interests globally (unconventionally and conventionally), and it will only strengthen the hold and popularity of the Iranian regime, who's presidential popularity has been lagging.

One of the first lessons we were taught in our counterterror classes was: ALL action and potential action must be weighed against the damage, repercussions, and fallout that would result from the action. You have to determine whether an action is worth it. Whether doing something does more harm than good. Unfortunately hawks rarely think beyond "hit them now and who gives a fuck," which is why they often lead the US into bad situations.

Iraq

According to the Pentagon, the 'Surge' isn't doing to well so far

Suicide and other bombings have climbed throughout Iraq since the start of the U.S.-led security crackdown in Baghdad, driving civilian casualties to their highest mark since 2004, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

The number of attacks using explosively formed projectiles -- armor-penetrating advanced bomb technology Washington pins on Iran -- also hit an all-time high in April, according to the Defense Department's quarterly report on Iraq to the U.S.
Congress....


But Wednesday's report to Congress offered little evidence that violence was easing since the start of new security operations in February. Suicide attacks across Iraq, for example, rose from 26 in January to 58 in March and 58 in April, the report said.

Explosively formed projectile attacks hit an all-time high in April, the report said without providing specific data. U.S. officials have said Iran is providing that type of deadly technology to Iraqi insurgents, an accusation Tehran denies.

Average daily casualties continued to climb, according to the report, hitting more than 100 civilians per day during the security crackdown compared with less than 60 per day a year ago.

IRAQI PROMISES

The Pentagon said it was too early to assess results of the so-called "surge," but its report showed the Iraqi government was failing to deliver on a key element of the crackdown -- an Iraqi promise to curb political interference in security operations...


"Militia influence impacts every component of the (Interior Ministry), particularly in Baghdad and several other key cities," it said. "Militia infiltration of local police remains a significant problem."


There was an initial slowdown in violence at the start of the surge (at least in Baghdad) as the groups laid low to observe the new tactics. They shifted their violence to areas outside Baghdad (increasing violence in those areas). But the violence in Baghdad is back with a vengeance and the violence outside Baghdad is also increasing. Those are very bad signs...
-----

The recent explosion of the holy Mosque in Samara has many suspecting an 'inside job'

It certainly makes sense given the fact that it was so well protected. By Iraq security and US forces.

This is one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam and its destruction has the potential to cause an even increased firestorm of Sunni v. Shia sectarian violence. It was the successful explosion by the Sunni al-Qaeda group of the very same mosque in 2006 that helped to instigate the ongoing sectarian conflicts we see today.

Al-Qaeda despises Shias and sees it in their interest to stir up as much sectarian conflict as possible in order to make Iraq hell for the US and its attempts to stabilize the country and to stir up fellow Sunnis into slaughtering Shias they see as heathen. They usually succeed.

This is perhaps one of the reasons many Sunni insurgent groups want to temporarily join with the US to get rid of al-Qaeda. They are seen as to violent and damaging to Iraq and its well-being (look at the chaos al-Qaeda stirs), but best believe the US will be sorry for arming its new "allies of convenience" when those very same Sunni groups that used to be our enemies will resume being out enemies in short order unless we withdraw.

But we will not...

Here is Kevin Drum echoing the same point I made in previous posts that not only are we going to feel sorry when those arms we supplied to the Sunnis comes to haunt us, but that reducing our troop presence (if it happens as they say - which is also unlikely by next year) will not mollify those Sunnis into not attacking us


As the 2004 handover demonstrated, Iraqis are unlikely to be fooled into thinking 40,000-plus US forces stationed indefinitely in the country represents an end to the US presence. Worse, if the idea is to either protect Iraqis from a slide into chaos or safeguard enduring US interests — be it preventing genocide or fighting al-Qaida or keeping the oil flowing — then keeping only 40,000 troops in Iraq is senseless. As Major General Joseph Fil commented to [Thomas] Ricks: "My nightmare — the thing that keeps me up at night — is a failure of Iraqi security forces, somehow, catastrophically, mixed with a major Samarra mosque-type catastrophe."

Leaving the Iraqi security forces aside, another huge sectarian provocation is guaranteed. In 2009, US commanders of a post-occupation force will find themselves powerless to deal with it. At that point, US troops will be little more than a constabulary force to keep the Iraqi politicians who failed to avert the crisis — and probably contributed to it — alive.


Exactly right. The Sunni insurgents want us out, and a drawdown to 40,000 troops won't mollify them. At the same time, it's nowhere near enough to deal with any kind of serious violence. It's the worst kind of limbo. At the same time, it's nowhere near enough to deal with any kind of serious violence. It's the worst kind of limbo.



The only real solution is a complete withdrawal from Iraq, and to forget about this foolish idea of leaving any residual force in Iraq. Maintaining any force there will continue to provoke the Sunni insurgent nationalist and then some more problems.

Israel/Palestine

Hamas pushes offensive against Fatah in Gaza

Its increasingly looking like civil war in the Palestinian territories. Islamic Hamas is in bitter fighting with the secular Fatah group. It's getting pretty ugly there and the stability of the PA is in serious doubt. I'll continue to watch as this develops...

US Politics and Society

The US is a Majority Progressive Nation - Putting the lie to the myth (and conventional wisdom) that the US is a majority conservative nation

The link above is to the full 31 page report but here is the gist of it. Despite conventional wisdom that the US is a 'conservative nation,' when people are actually asked about specific policies, specific ideologies, and specific outlooks on the proper role of government and its foreign policy, econ policy (etc...)

...Well, it seems the majority of America closely mirrors the progressives and liberals.

Here is the summary for those who don't want to wade through 31 pages of polls spanning decades, and on various issues.

On issues from the role of government, to taxes, environmental policy, foreign policy, income distribution, and immigration, health care, homosexuality, abortion, and "values"...The polls show that, at heart, the majority of the American people closely mirror in beliefs and values us Progressives and Liberals. We are truly a Progressive Majority nation.

From the Executive Summary:

Conventional wisdom says that the American public is fundamentally conservative - hostile to government, in favor of unregulated markets, at peace with inequality, wanting a foreign policy based on the projection of military power, and traditional in its social values.

But as this report demonstrates, that picture is fundamentally false. Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time.


This report gathers together years of public opinion data from unimpeachably nonpartisan sources to show that on issue after issue, the majority of Americans hold progressive positions. And this is true not only of specific policy proposals, but of the fundamental perspectives and approaches that Americans bring to bear on issues.

Nor is the progressive majority merely a product of the current political moment. On a broad array of issues, particularly social issues, American opinion has grown more and more progressive over the past few decades. In contrast, it is difficult to find an issue on which the public has grown steadily more conservative over the last 10, 20, or 30 years.

The issues covered in this report include the following:

The role of government - Americans support an active government that tackles problems, provides services, and aids those in need.

The economy - Americans support increasing the minimum wage and strong unions, and believe the wealthy and corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes.

Social issues - Americans support legal abortion and embryonic stem cell research; opinions on equal rights for women and gay Americans have grown dramatically more progressive in recent years.

Security - Americans support a progressive approach to national security, emphasizing strong alliances and diplomacy over the indiscriminate use of military force. On domestic security issues, progressive approaches to crime and gun control enjoy wide support.

The environment - By enormous margins, Americans favor strong environmental protections, a core progressive belief.

Energy - Americans support energy conservation and the development of alternative fuels.

Health care - Americans clearly favor universal coverage and are more than comfortable with government solutions to the health care problem.




I encourage all to read the report and see the actual data. Those who do not normally pay as much attention to politics as people like me do may find themselves surprised at the findings.

Goodnight.