Conservatives jumping ship

It's always a little scary to have people who you've always disagreed with start agreeing with you, but that's what is happening with our policy in Iraq. It has become such an obvious disaster that even conservatives are jumping ship - and that's happening with increasing frequency.

The latest is Bruce Fein who not only agrees with me, he even used the exact words I did the other day to describe Bush’s speech: “Fairy Tales.”

Here’s some tidbits:

The flagrant illegitimacy of Mr. Brahimi's appointees will push Iraq into upheaval and civil war on June 30, making chimerical the unprecedented elections planned for next January.
    Mr. Bush lamely argued democracy will flower in post-June 30 Iraq because full sovereignty "will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government. Iraqis will know that when they build a school or repair a bridge, they're not working for the Coalition Provisional Authority, they are working for themselves."
    The post-June 30 government of Iraq, however, will be Mr. Brahimi's government, not a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Iraqis will no more be working for themselves under the Brahimi regime than do Myanmar's forced labor battalions or Fidel Castro's sugar brigades toil for themselves. Iraqis who will risk that last full measure of devotion to defend the post-June 30 appointees can be counted on one hand with fingers left over.

    Building nations and architecting limited and representative governments are exceptionally complex and baffling arts. To believe headway is made by simple-minded celebrations of freedom and denunciations of tyranny is to believe in fairy tales.

More US Heavy-handedness

Many of the reports coming out today are about continuing heavy-handedness of US actions with the IGC and the resulting lack of credibility it will have with the Iraqi people.

Many Iraqis are beginning to look at the new council the same way as the old council – as a tool of the US – and the reason for this, says the Times is “the unexpected assertiveness of American officials and their allies on the Iraqi Governing Council, coupled with Mr. Brahimi's surprising passivity, after he was expected to have a free hand.”

“The danger, some of these Iraqis say, is that the new government could end up looking too much like the old one, an American-appointed council that never gained the acceptance of the people. If that proves true once the appointees are officially announced, they said, the new government could lack the credibility it needs to carry the country through the turbulent period leading to nationwide elections next year. Already, a three-day cease-fire appeared to be unraveling in the south.”

Ayad Alawi, is still perceived as a man from that council who is best known for his connections to the Central Intelligence Agency. “One person with knowledge of the negotiations said Mr. Brahimi had been pushed by the Americans into accepting Dr. Alawi, who was not his first choice.”

"The Americans are trying to impose these decisions on us, and we are trying to reject them," said Mahmood Othman, a council member who has been critical of both Mr. Bremer and Mr. Brahimi. "And they talk about sovereignty."

“One person conversant with the negotiations said Mr. Brahimi was presented with "a fait accompli" after President Bush's envoy to Iraq, Robert D. Blackwill, "railroaded" the Governing Council into coalescing around him.”

So as this report suggests, “After the decision, Mr. Brahimi declined to comment in detail about the selection, but suggested, for the first time, that his role here was far more limited than originally thought.”

And if that wasn’t bad enough, “Opinion polls of Iraqis show that the council has been viewed as little more than a mouthpiece for the United States.”

According to the Iraqis, Mr. Bremer told the Governing Council it had to get behind Mr. Pachachi and it “was that kind of heavy-handedness, some Iraqis say, that was supposed to be missing from the new government — and which many had expected Mr. Brahimi to cure.”

"It doesn't fit what Bush says," said Mr. Othman, the council member. "He said Iraqis are free."

So, in a word, this administration can’t stop being a bully and the end result of this behavior will be the total loss of credibility for the new “council” which is supposed to have “full sovereignty.”

The gang who can’t shoot straight continues to misfire.

al Qaeda as a role model

To follow up on the previous post about Abu Ghraib, there is a very scary editiorial in the Wall Street Journal by law professor John Yoo, who argues that: Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights

He takes on my viewpoint ( and Frank Rich’s view) that “that abuses of Iraqi prisoners are being produced by a climate of disregard for the laws of war.” He writes:

Human-rights advocates, for example, claim that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is of a piece with President Bush's 2002 decision to deny al Qaeda and Taliban fighters the legal status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Critics, no doubt, will soon demand that reforms include an extension of Geneva standards to interrogations at Guantanamo Bay.

... al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001--violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians for destruction.

While this may make sense on the face of it, in reality it is sometimes very difficult to tell who is actually al Qaeda and who are actually innocents who got caught up in an insurgency. And then we have the case of Brandon Mayfield the American who the FBI was “100%” sure that his fingerprints matched those responsible for the terrorism in Spain – he would thus be labeled a “terrorist” and according to Yoo, could be tortured.

Or as he puts it, “We obey the Geneva Conventions because our opponent does the same with American POWs. That is impossible with al Qaeda. It has never demonstrated any desire to provide humane treatment to captured Americans.”

So if al Qaeda does it, well then, that makes it okay for us to do it too, right. Ah, yes, al Qaeda as a role model.

He then writes, “It is also worth asking whether the strict limitations of Geneva make sense in a war against terrorists.”

Maybe he should direct that question to Brandon Mayfield, who was completely innocent.

The "blame the culture" crowd

New York Times Columnist Frank Rich has really been on a roll. In today’s column he takes on people like Charles Colson and Robert Knight, who are trying to blame recent abuses in Abu Ghraib on our “steady diet of MTV and pornography.” That’s right, it’s all Janet Jackson’s and Jenna Jameson’s fault.

Rich rips the “blame the culture” crowd a new one.

He points out that “Mel Gibson's relentlessly violent, distinctly American take on Jesus' martyrdom is a more exact fit for what's been acted out in Abu Ghraib than the flouncings of any cheesy porn-video dominatrix.”

And he goes on to point out the historical precedents of these photographs from Abu Ghraib, which “themselves have a nearly exact historical antecedent in those touristy snapshots of shameless Americans posing underneath the victims of lynchings for decades after the Civil War. The horrific photos were sent around as postcards in the same insouciant spirit that moved Abu Ghraib guards to e-mail their torture pictures or turn them into screensavers — even though the reigning mass-culture pin-ups of the time were Mary Pickford and Shirley Temple rather than Janet Jackson or Britney Spears”.

Yes, Bush’s sneering contempt for International Law is the problem, not anything Britney Spears has done. As Rich puts it, maybe these “blame the culture” critics should explain, how “White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, came to write a January 2002 memo that labeled the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete" for dealing with prisoners in the war on terrorism (of which Iraq, we're told, is a part).”

“ The dissemination of that memo's legal wisdom through the Defense Department and the military command over the past 26 months may tell us more about what led to Abu Ghraib than anything else we've heard so far from the administration, let alone any Heritage Foundation press release that finds the genesis of torture in the sexual innuendos of prime-time television.”

While MTV can be blamed for a lot of things, what happened at Abu Ghraib is not one of them. And it shows just how desparate conservatives are in trying to keep the blame away from this administration where it properly belongs.

Foget the U.N.

Nothing I find on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal should surprise me, but today they are very critical of Bush’s speech on Monday, and the reason is his reliance on the U.N.

This editorial basically holds that we should forget about the U.N. and do everything ourselves – the go it alone approach which is surely doomed to failure. But this of course doesn’t stop the Journal from advocating it:

Unfortunately, this progress hasn't been matched on the political side, where Mr. Bush has ceded control over events to our friends at the United Nations. In going back to that body, Mr. Bush no doubt hopes to placate his critics and gain international cover for the U.S. presence in Iraq. But the cost in lost American leverage will be high, and perhaps dangerously so.

To head off that possibility, Mr. Bush would be wise to politely but firmly inform everyone involved that the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is indeed up to that country's interim government, but it is a take it or leave it offer not subject to case-by-case veto. A genuine status-of-forces pact can be negotiated later with an elected government.

To head off that possibility, Mr. Bush would be wise to politely but firmly inform everyone involved that the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is indeed up to that country's interim government, but it is a take it or leave it offer not subject to case-by-case veto. A genuine status-of-forces pact can be negotiated later with an elected government.

Of course, what the Journal is saying is that Iraq shouldn’t have real sovereignty – they have no right to oversee the occupying troops in their own country – the US should be free to launch offensive raids against Iraqis without consulting the “Governing Council.”

What better way to keep the hatred against us high and create more insurgents? A recipe for Quagmire indeed.

Allawi

The rather rushed selection of Allawi points to not only problems with his selection, but problems with the relationship of the U.N. envoy Brahimi to the IGC and the Bush administration.

This decision was rushed for Bush’s upcoming speeches, and his continuing insistence that Iraq will have “full sovereignty.” But, unfortunately, the Iraqis are not buying into this charade at all, and even moderate Shiites were condemning the selection and claims of sovereignty.

The Chicago Tribune reported today that With anti-American sentiments intensifying, Allawi's association with the U.S. government may make it difficult for him to win support among ordinary Iraqis who yearn for greater sovereignty but doubt that a U.S.-backed government will be independent.

"Whether rightly or wrongly, most people in Iraq consider him a party to the American war in Iraq," said Wamid Nadhmi, a political scientist at Baghdad University. "Unfortunately, with due respect to him as a person, I don't think he will have credibility."
The manner of Allawi's appointment, which was apparently pushed ahead of the UN process by U.S. authorities, will also cast doubt on his leadership, he said.

"Whether rightly or wrongly, most people in Iraq consider him a party to the American war in Iraq," said Wamid Nadhmi, a political scientist at Baghdad University. "Unfortunately, with due respect to him as a person, I don't think he will have credibility."
The manner of Allawi's appointment, which was apparently pushed ahead of the UN process by U.S. authorities, will also cast doubt on his leadership, he said.

We have also learned that Allawi was involved in misrepresenting evidence about Sadaam Hussien’s involvement with al Queda, the claim of being able to have biological weapons ready in 45 minutes and the “Niger” statement.

The Telegraph reports:

The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.

Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

Allawi is certainly off to a shaky start.

Negroponte and the puppets

There is a very good article in Salon today about John Negroponte our new "viceroy" in Iraq.

Salon.com | Bush's see-no-evil man in Baghdad

For people like me who suspect that the neo-cons are still searching for ways to set up a puppet government, here’s the best quotes:

For ideologues like Abrams, operators like Negroponte and Chalabi are essential. They can actually do the dirty work of dealing with tyrants and torturers face to face. The Negropontes of the world, of course, are not torturers themselves; they do not have to be. Their history is to protect and reassure with respectable political cover the people who are.

Why has the notorious Central America A-team been reassembled 20 years later to oversee the pacification and supposed transfer of sovereignty in Iraq? Before the revelations of the abuses in Abu Ghraib prison, no one in the mainstream U.S. media would have dared raise -- and most would not even have dreamed of -- the possibility that behind the rhetoric of turning Iraq into a shining city on a hill for the rest of the Middle East, some U.S. policymakers and their think-tank acolytes might be prepared to unleash policies that would not be for the squeamish, to put it mildly.

Even now, it is probably a safe bet that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others are still hoping to come up with some plausible and presentable strongman for Iraq, convinced that if he is given a free hand to do the dirty work he deems necessary, the tidal waves of Sunni and Shiite rage alike will soon be made to go away.

The dirty war of Abu Ghraib is out of the bottle, and Abrams and Negroponte will not be able to provide the kind of politically acceptable cover for tough measures they specialized in long ago, which the practitioners of the Central American model were confident would also pacify Iraq. Negroponte will head to Baghdad come July as an enabler without, for once, having a strongman to enable -- and without the reliable Honduran Army to do the dirty work. But those methods could only work in the shadows, not in unrelenting light. He arrives at his post in Baghdad with the whole world watching.

Kerry's "security" speech

As long as I've been focusing on speeches lately, Kerry gave a good one yesterday on security.

Saying he wanted to "respond with overwhelming and devastating force" if the nation were attacked with weapons of mass destruction during his presidency. I think that will hit just the right tone with voters who could go either way.

He then went on to say this, "They've looked to force before exhausting diplomacy," Kerry said. "They bullied when they should have persuaded. They've gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team. They have hoped for the best when they should have prepared for the worst. They've made America less safe than we should be in a dangerous world. In short, they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership."

He said the world yearns for "an America that listens and leads again," a nation "that is respected, not just feared and mistrusted."

That's not bad. In fact, it was good enough to get immediately denounced by Republicans.
That's always a good sign.

~Zwiseguy

Gore's "reality" speech

Although I didn’t see the actual speech, I did read the transcript and found it to be one of the best things Gore ever said. [1]

No wonder conservatives are beside themselves. “Unhinged” read the link on Drudge.

On Scarborough on MSNBC whenever the speech was on the words at the bottom read “Blame America First.” That seems to be the new mantra whenever there is strong criticism of Bush, it happened with Pelosi and now Gore and we can expect it again and again.

Rather than respond to anything in the speech, conservatives just says he’s “crazy.” That way they don’t have to deal with what he said, which they obviously found very disturbing.

In the New York Post, John Podhoretz set the tone for most the right’s take on the speech: “I was wrong. There is no way of knowing how he would have responded, because it is now clear that Al Gore is insane.”

“I don't mean that his policy ideas are insane, though many of them are. I mean that based on his behavior, conduct, mien and tone over the past two days, there is every reason to believe that Albert Gore Jr., desperately needs help. I think he needs medication, and I think that if he is already on medication, his doctors need to adjust it or change it entirely.” [2]

Is that the best they can do? Apparently. At least that way they get to ignore the substance of the speech.

Bush's "fairy tale" speech

I would like to point out what I consider to be the "fairy tale" qualities of Bush's last speech.

Even honest conservatives are now admitting that the “five point” plan is “riddled with holes.” Jed Babbin, a National Review contributor, described a couple of these contradictions:

“The first is that the president insisted that the 'turnover' of Iraqi sovereignty would be complete. But how can that be when, as he said, 138,000 American troops will remain there as long as necessary, under American command? If they are not subjected to the law and authority of the new Iraq provisional government, how can they be anything other than an occupation force? Though the 'Coalition Provisional Authority' will cease to exist on June 30, changing the sign over the door but leaving American troops there under American command (the only way they could possibly stay) continues the occupation." [1]

In other words, when the administration says, “the occupation will end” - it won’t; when they say “full sovereignty” - it isn’t; and when they claim Iraq will have “democracy” - it will initially be a system where the Iraqi people have nothing to do with the choice of their president, vice presidents or members of their government – those people will be chosen by the CPA, the very people the administration promises will no longer exist. Yeah right. There are several Alice in Wonderland aspects to these policies, and I doubt they will lead to a happy ending.

Already, Tony Blair has put a damper on this tea party by saying that the Iraqis should have final say over any major military operations. [2] Nonsense says the US, they may have “full sovereignty” but that doesn’t mean they can control military operations within their country.......The Mad Hatter, wearing an American flag on his lapel, has spoken. And the Red Queen, who already seems to be in charge of Gitmoizing our policies, will no doubt have the final say, "sentence first, then the verdict!" Yes, it’s quite obvious, we’ve fallen down the Rabbit Hole.

These illusions are not for the Iraqis, they aren’t fooled one bit. "Bush is a scorpion. He is a liar. He is sneaky, making all kinds of promises when he just wants to control Iraq," said Ayman Haidar, a policeman on duty in Baghdad. [3]

No, these fairy tales are solely for domestic US politics. First, they will allow Bush to use appealing terms in his speeches - “democracy” “full sovereignty” “the occupation has ended” etc. etc. etc.

Secondly, and Dan Senor hinted at this in a recent interview, is that after June 30, the Iraqis (not the US) will be responsible for the problems in Iraq. After that magical day, if we criticize events in Iraq, we are actually criticizing the Iraqis. Bush will no longer be responsible for events there. He will not be accountable for anything that happens. Well, isn’t that convenient.

And what about Bush’s critics, who will point to deteriorating conditions in Iraq? Well, we will suddenly hear a chorus of charges of “racism” from Bush supporters: the president’s critics are “racist” because they think the Iraqis can’t control their own government – it is condescending to the Iraqis, it is elitist etc. etc.

Get ready, we’re going to hear a lot more of that kind of nonsense. It is, after all, an election year.