test post

this is a test.

It's the torture, stupid!

Sometimes you just want to scream, and that was the case when I read

Jeremy Scahill’s takedown of CNN on the subject of the Abu Ghraib photos. In a word, what’s in the photos was not the problem, but that the photos were taken and published.

Ahhhhhh. We’ve seen this with all the abuses of the Bush Administration. The problems wasn’t our secret prisons, it was that someone leaked that we have secret prisons and are kidnapping people to put in them.

The problem wasn’t that lawless wiretaps were conducted, but that they were leaked to the press.

Here’s Schhill on CNN’s coverage of the photos:

February 16, 2006
CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr should be given some kind of award for the most outrageously off-target reporting on the newly released photos and videos of U.S. torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In her numerous appearances during the morning news cycle on CNN after the images were first broadcast on Australia's SBS television, Starr described what she saw as the "root of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal" as such:

"Let's start by reminding everybody that under U.S. military law and practice, the only photographs that can be taken are official photographs for documentation purposes about the status of prisoners when they are in military detention. That's it. Anything else is not acceptable. And of course, that is what the Abu Ghraib prison scandal is all about."


"As we look at a couple of the photographs, let's remind people that why these are so inappropriate. Under U.S. military law and practice and procedure, you simply cannot take photographs – as we're going to show you some of them right now. You cannot take photographs of people in detention, in humiliating positions, positions that are abusive in any way, shape or form. The only pictures that are ever allowed of people in U.S. military detention would be pictures for documentation purposes. And, clearly, these pictures are not that. That is the whole issue that has been at the root of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, that it was abusive, the practices in which soldiers engaged in."

Forget the abuse, it’s those darn photos.

Insurgents Winning?

Via Juan Cole comes this Reuters report that Abu Ghriab prison has become sort of a university for terrorists, but the last conclusions really caught my eye.

The insurgency is increasingly optimistic about victory. Such self-confidence was not there when the war was conceived as an open-ended jihad against an occupier they believed was determined to stay. Optimism stems from a conviction the legitimacy of jihad is now beyond doubt, institutions established under the occupation are fragile and irreparably illegitimate, and the war of attrition against U.S. forces is succeeding. '

That can’t be good.

Crazy Bloggers - Not dead yet!

Steve Soto has an interesting take on the NSA scandal and the netroots of the Democratic party, and he is basically accepting defeat on this issue:

There has been a lot of gnashing of teeth in the center-left blogosphere of late about the perceived timidity of Beltway Democrats in taking principled stands against Bush and the GOP in another election year. But this has been accompanied recently by a sustained attack from the corporate media and now the right wing blogs and punditocracy against the center-left blogs, by branding us as angry extremists that the Democratic Party needs to stay away from. There is a method to the GOP’s madness here, in that the GOP is trying to marginalize the center-left blogosphere and separate the power of the netroots from the usual crew of risk adverse Beltway Democrats, and it is working……

Digby’s point was that the reason why voters haven’t thrown more support to Democrats is because of precisely a situation like this: voters have no idea what the hell the party stands for anymore, and would rather see us take a stand on a clear cut issue of constitutional liberties and executive branch oversight and lose, than roll over and say “me too, Mr. President” once again. Digby of course is correct, and this mirrors what we have been saying for several years here as well. But even though Digby is correct, we are deluding ourselves that any of this will happen anytime soon.

He concludes: “Let it go. Waging war on our own Senators and representatives between now and November is just what the GOP wants.”

Sorry, but this issue is too important to let it go. We need to pursue this issue, but do it without waging war on our own representatives. It isn’t a either or choice here.

Capitulation is what the GOP wants, and I’m not ready to oblige.

Where's the media on this big question?

Tom Englehart raises a very interesting question: why is the media afraid to talk about the building of permanent bases in Iraq?

Why isn’t this a story? Larry Diamond has been harping on this point whenever he can, but the media is silent. Why?

Assuming, then, a near year to come of withdrawal buzz, speculation and even a media blitz of withdrawal announcements, the question is: How can anybody tell if the Bush administration is actually withdrawing from Iraq? Sometimes, when trying to cut through a veritable fog of misinformation and disinformation, it helps to focus on something concrete. In the case of Iraq, nothing could be more concrete -- though less generally discussed in our media -- than the set of enormous bases the Pentagon has long been building in that country. Quite literally multibillions of dollars have gone into them. In a prestigious engineering magazine in late 2003, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq, was already speaking proudly of several billion dollars being sunk into base construction ("the numbers are staggering"). Since then, the base building has been massive and ongoing. …

There are at least four such "super-bases" in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with "withdrawal" from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and military commanders say -- and they always deny that we seek "permanent" bases in Iraq -- facts on the ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream "permanency."
1

Unfortunately, there's a problem here. American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words "permanent," "bases" and "Iraq" should never be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in fact, not even in the same news report….

Nonetheless, the thought of permanency matters. Since the invasion of Saddam's Iraq, those bases -- call them what you will -- have been at the heart of the Bush administration's "reconstruction" of the country. To this day, those Little Americas, with their KBR-lands, their Pizza Huts, their stop signs, and their miniature golf courses remain at the secret heart of Bush administration "reconstruction" policy. As long as KBR keeps building them, making their facilities ever more enduring (and ever more valuable), there can be no genuine "withdrawal" from Iraq, nor even an intention of doing so. Right now, despite the recent visits of a couple of reporters, those super-bases remain enswathed in a kind of policy silence.

No genuine withdrawal. Hello? Given the polls on Iraq, why isn’t this a huge issue?

Fox Facts on NSA

While Glenn Greenwald cites CNN, USA and other polls to support the view that Americans are actually opposed to Bush policies, I’m afraid that Bush supporters with the help of Fox News have their very poll that – or so they claim – proves just the opposite.

This Fox poll is being cited as showing that “By 58 percent to 36 percent, Americans think the president should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States. Furthermore, six in 10 say they are personally okay with the NSA monitoring their international telephone calls.”

AJ Strata has a round up of right-wing thought on this phenomenon, and dishonestly concludes, “As it became clear FISA was stonewalling the same kinds of leads that would have prevented 9-11, any politician worth their salt was not going to stand against Bush’s decision. The media was played by PR experts - and duped.”

This is why the moderate Republicans are caving to Cheney on this issue, says the right-wing meme, it had nothing to do with the heavy-handed tactics or threats to withhold campaign funding etc. No, it’s because the American people want to reward Cheney by giving them legal carte blanche to do whatever they want.

Of course, there is no evidence that allowing warrantless wiretapping would have prevented 9/11, we don’t have the capabilities to translate all the calls we monitor – that has been proven in the investigation.

And if a poll was conducted regarding the issue of “breaking the law” the results would be quite different.

Yet, opinion is now a “fact” or at least a Fox Fact – and this is a huge problem. It used to be that political opponents argued their positions from the same facts. Now the authoritarian cult has its own facts, and absolutely no qualms about being totally dishonest.

These distortions have been intentional and very effective. And, quite frankly, I don’t have a clue how to deal with this phenomenon. I wish I did.

No wonder Cheney says:

"It's easy to complain about the press -- I've been doing it for a good part of my career," Cheney said. "It's part of what goes with a free society. What I do is try to focus upon those elements of the press that I think do an effective job and try to be accurate in their portrayal of events. For example, I end up spending a lot of time watching Fox News, because they're more accurate in my experience, in those events that I'm personally involved in, than many of the other outlets."

An Arrogance of Power

In today’s Washington Post David Ingnatius attributes Bush and Cheney’s “arrogance of power” to a bunker mentatlity.

He writes:

Bush and Cheney are in the bunker. That's the only way I can make sense of their actions. They are steaming in a broth of daily intelligence reports that highlight the grim terrorist threats facing America. They have sworn blood oaths that they will defend the United States from its adversaries -- no matter what . They have blown past the usual rules and restraints into territory where few presidents have ventured -- a region where the president conducts warrantless wiretaps against Americans in violation of a federal statute, where he authorizes harsh interrogation methods that amount to torture.

When critics question the legality of the administration's actions, Bush and Cheney assert the commander in chief's power under Article II of the Constitution. When Congress passes a law forbidding torture, the White House appends a signing statement insisting that Article II -- the power of the commander in chief -- trumps everything else. When the administration's Republican friends suggest amending the wiretapping law to make its program legal, the administration refuses. Let's say it plainly: This is the arrogance of power, and it has gone too far in the Bush White House.

Yes, it’s an arrogance of power, but it’s not because of a “bunker mentality” it’s from the basic viewpoint that Cheney has had since Nixon’s days – that of a “all-powerful” chief executive. We are just seeing that theory come into fruition with basic contempt for checks and balances and the rule of law.

This was planned, it didn’t come about because of 9/11 or the failures in Iraq, Katrina, etc. etc. This is the basic viewpoint of government long held by Cheney going all the way back to his stint in the Nixon administration.

It has been made possible by the rise of the religious right, the development of a right-wing media (and intimidation of the mainstream media) and the cultivation of extremist views within the Republican Party.

Yes, it’s an arrogance of power, and that, I’m afraid, was the goal.

Coulter, Malkin and racism

Glenn Greenwald goes after Ann Coulter for her racists remarks today and the result was more panic on the right. Malkin while condemning Coulter still used a double standard in her comments.
Michelle Malkin
has her own double standard on this issue and Ann’s comments as well.

A few readers are comparing Ann's "raghead" comment to the Jyllands-Posten's publication of the 12 Mohammed cartoons. That's absolutely the wrong analogy. The Jyllands-Posten's purpose was to make a profound statement about the chilling effect of Islamism on Danish artists. Ann's purpose, clearly, was to do nothing more than get a cheap laugh.

Yes, and a “nigger” comment will get you a big laugh at a Klan rally too. That’s the point, slurs like this only get laughs when they are delivered to a racist audience and only a racist audience.

In Malkin’s mind, Islam was having a chilling effect on poor Danish Artists. And, I guess, that means that it’s having the same effect on U.S. artists too. She warns that Ann’s comments “distract from the far more important global battle being waged by enemies who will exploit comments like Ann's to call for greater "tolerance"--and move us toward dhimmitude.”

Right, so if we don’t offend our Muslim communities with offensive images and cartoons then we will become subservient to Islam. Is she serious? She doesn’t seem to be joking.

Is greater tolerance toward those of other religions really a threat to our country?

Some of those cartoons are meant to offend all Muslims, not just the radical ones. And that’s why it’s similar to Ann’s comment which didn’t distinguish between moderate Muslims and the tiny minority that has resorted to violence and terrorism – all Muslims were labeled “ragheads.”

A cheap laugh? Only for racists.

Cheney holds a news conference

.

Well maybe not.

Where's Cheney

.

Could he have handled this any worse?

I don't think so.

Warmongers?

I don’t know if this story is true, it has not been confirmed by anyone other than Raw Story, so that leaves it, at least in my mind, still in the category of speculation. But if Plame was indeed working on Iran, the implications are huge.

Juan Cole has some thoughts.

If she was working specifically on Iran, this theory becomes more plausible. We know that Cheney, the Neocons and other factions in the Bush administration desperately wanted to get up a war against Iran so as to overthrow its government.

If the CIA was successful in a measurable way in preventing proliferation to Iran of technology required for making a nuclear weapon, and could certify as much to Congress, that very success would make it harder to justify a war on Iran.

So between disrupting the work of Plame Wilson's unit at the CIA and letting the Iranians know about the broken codes, the pro-war party managed to make Iran's actual progress on nuclear research opaque to the US government. It was necessary that it be opaque if there was to be a war. Iran is actually a decade or two away from having a bomb even if everything went well.

For warmongers, good intelligence on the enemy's capabilities is undesirable if that intelligence would get in the way of launching a war.

If true, this means that outing Plame not only helped obfuscate intelligence on Iraq, but also on Iran – the next war. Incredible.

American TV

One of Juan Cole’s posts really got me wondering about TV or at least American Television. He asks why can’t we get BBC over here? With all our channels we seem to be limited to extent we see what the rest of the world sees. It would be great to have a channel or two devoted to what the rest of the world sees.

But that would mean Americans would be exposed to things outside their bubble and would be dangerous for this administration.

Here’s a part of Cole’s post:

Fine reporters such as Nic Roberts at CNN will set up brief clips of a Jaafari press conference or a short Q & A on a particular issue with an Iraqi official. But on the hour-long t.v. news magazines, or even just with the anchors during the day, we never see so much as an extended interview with Ibrahim Jaafari. Isn't that weird? The real UK BBC will do an hour-long interview with an Iraqi cabinet minister like Ali Allawi. But our television news almost never talks to anyone among important Iraqi politicians, with the possible exception of the Kurdish politician Jalal Talabani, the mostly ceremonial president of Iraq. Aren't the Iraqi politicians who have come to power in the celebrated purple-thumb Iraqi elections worth talking to? Don't Americans care what they think? Or are they just a blank set of canvases on which Kansas gets to paint its own preconceptions and prejudices (a process made all the easier if real Iraqis are not allowed to speak on camera to Americans)? And, with all these cable channels and satellite capabilities, why can't we see the real BBC in America? I mean, I can watch French and Italian and Egyptian and Lebanese channels. I'm not even being offered by my satellite company the possibility of the real BBC. Isn't that weird? There are so many weird things. The upshot is that if you don't have Joe Scarborough's profile, you don't get seen or hea

Americanists?

Regarding the controversy started by Glenn Greenwald about the cultish nature of Bush supporters, I suggested

We need a shorthand name for this authoritarian cult. Perhaps -- Americanists?

Definition: Americanists were a powerful authoritarian cult that achieved their pinnacle under the presidency of George W. Bush. This cult combined hatred, fear, intolerance, racism (against Arabs/Islam), militarism, patriotism and authoritarian religion with the belief in the infallibility of all action taken by their leaders and their country. Although they were a minority, they dominated the popular media and defined themselves as “America” thereby enabling them to accuse anyone who disagreed with them into the category of “anti-American.”

Nurse Charged with Sedition. Huh?

Nurse Investigated for 'Sedition' After Writing Letter to Editor

This is a very disturbing story.

Merely opposing government policies and expressing a desire to change course "does not provide reason to believe that a person is involved in illegal subversive activity," he said.
Bingaman said such investigations raise "a very real possibility of chilling legitimate political speech."

Although it may be permissible to implement restrictions regarding a government employee's political activities during work hours or on government premises, such employees do not surrender their right to freedom of speech when they enlist in government service."

Berg signed the letter as a private citizen, and the V.A. had no reason to suspect she used government resources to write it..

Then why was she charged with “sedition”????

There’s something about this that I don’t understand.

Moderate Muslims: leave it alone

The Chicago Tribune had a very interesting article about something we’re not hearing much of these days: moderate Muslims.

"Our duty is not to go out and scream and burn buildings," Busool told worshipers at the American Legion Memorial Civic Center, where prayers were held while the Morton Grove mosque is under construction. "We can talk to them in a nice manner about what our prophet means to us."

In stark contrast to angry protests by Muslims worldwide, imams throughout the Chicago area have echoed Busool's words, extolling the Muslim community to respond to ridicule with respect and to educate non-Muslims about Islam.

Muslims attribute the peaceful response to the Danish cartoons to their position as assimilated American citizens whose leaders have developed peaceful channels to fight for the rights of their community. Despite isolated incidents of bigotry, Muslims here say they don't feel the same degree of discrimination as their peers in countries such as Denmark and France.

And unlike Muslims in countries across Asia, American Muslims aren't harboring frustrations against repressive and undemocratic regimes, they say.
… In Chicago, Muslim leaders plan to hold a town hall meeting next week to talk about Islam's view of the prophets, including Jesus and Moses, who are also revered in Islam, and what Muhammad means to Muslims and why Islam prohibits depicting him.
"You want to pick on something, pick on something else," said Musa Qutub, the imam of the Islamic Information Center of America in Prospect Heights. "Don't pick on [God's] messengers."
In Europe, they felt frustrated at being treated as second-class citizens.
Madhat Darwish, 47, said he understood the violent protests in Asian countries, , but he felt that Muslims would have been better off ignoring the Danish cartoons.
"If you leave it alone, the issue will die," he said.

Yes, please, let’s leave this alone. That includes radical Muslims abroad and radical Islamophobes and racists in the U.S. too.

Authoritarian Cultists

Today Glenn Greenwald used that term to describe what has become of a good chunk of the GOP

They are authoritarian cultists.

I’m so glad he used that term, because I was just re-thinking my use of term “Cult of Bush” because it’s much bigger than him or anyone person and can be transferred to whoever succeeds him – with all those implications.

It is a cult of power and authoritarianism, and this cult will do anything to keep that power.

Chris Floyd had some interesting observations on the “blind faith” in government that you talked about and he quoted from that Suskind article about the Bushies “creating their own reality.”

Suskind quoted a Bush supporter, "I just believe God controls everything, and God uses the president to keep evil down…God gave us this president to be the man to protect the nation at this time." And Floyd made these observations:

God appointed Bush; thus Bush's acts are Godly. It's a circular, self-confirming mindset that can't be penetrated by reason or facts, can't be shaken by crimes and scandals. That's why Bush's core support – comprising almost half of the electorate – stays rock-solid, despite the manifest failures of his administration. It's based on blind faith, on poisonous fantasy: simple, flattering ("We're uniquely good, we're God's special nation!"), comforting, complete – so unlike the harsh, bewildering, splintered shards of real life.

There's never been anything like it in American life before: a messianic cult backed by vast corporate power, a massive cadre of religious zealots, a highly disciplined party, an overwhelming media machine and the mammoth force of history's most powerful government – all led by men who "create new realities" out of lies, blood, theft and torment.

I think that’s an important point. The idea that the U.S. is “uniquely good and God’s special nation” is also part of this cult, thereby wrapping it up not only in patriotism but Christianity (or at least the cult’s version of it).

It is an American cult of power and authoritarianism.

They write letters

They write letters

Here’s a couple good ones in the New York Times:

The battle over protecting classified information has been fought throughout our history, most notably in New York Times v. United States, the Pentagon Papers case.

Concurring with the Supreme Court's majority opinion in that case, Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry — in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government."

That sounds like a battle worth fighting.


And this:

You're either with us or against us. You either fight terrorism or follow the law. You either trust us or the terrorists. You either support the war or the insurgents. You either support your country or you don't.

To defend freedom, you must relinquish it. To have peace, you must have war. To end terror, you must inflict it. To feel safe, you must blindly trust.

How many more of these false choices will "we the people" accept?



Yes, how much longer will this go on?

Winds of Change on NSA

EJ Dionne has an excellent observation about the “Winds of Change”

But for the past five years, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove have been willing to put the national unity required to fight terrorism in second place behind their goals of aggrandizing presidential power and winning elections. Can you get more pre-Sept. 11 than that?

Instead of seeking broad agreement on the measures required for our nation's safety, they preferred to pick fights designed to make the Democrats look soft and to claim the president could do pretty much anything he wanted.


And this..



Focus for a moment on Graham's reference to "any other president." It's instructive to imagine what Republicans in Congress (let alone Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly) would say if a President Hillary Rodham Clinton were to claim the far-reaching authority Bush and Cheney say they have. Is there any doubt that the entire Republican Party would - to cite a recent comment by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman - "have a lot of anger" and denounce Clinton for arrogance, overreaching and power lust?

"The president should have all the tools he needs to fight terrorism," Specter said, "but we also want to maintain our civil liberties." Now there is a perfect expression of patriotic, post-Sept. 11 thinking.



So what’s it going to be?

Will Republicans attack thier own?

Will Republicans attack their own?

With Republicans also now saying that Bush’s NSA program “appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance” and calling for the overhaul oft he FISA law that’s a very real question.

You have Graham in one corner.

"This is sort of a Marbury v. Madison moment between the executive and the legislative branch," Mr. Graham said in a reference to the 1803 Supreme Court decision in which the court granted itself the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

"I think there's two things going on," said Mr. Graham, a Judiciary Committee member. "There's an abandonment of you-broke-the-law rhetoric by the Democrats and a more questioning attitude about what the law should be by the Republicans. And that merges for a very healthy debate."


And Melman
Melman (with Cheney, Rove etc.) in the other saying Democrats who have condemned the Bush administration's controversial eavesdropping program may not be suited to safeguard Americans against terror attacks.


But Ken, does that mean that Republicans Linsey Graham, Brownback etc. are also not “suited to safeguard America. You say you are not attacking Democrats patriotism by this, but I wonder how Graham would feel about your accusation?

If Cheney and Rove are serious about attacking Republicans who don’t bow to Bush, we may soon have an answer to that question.