ok ok what's all this then
I am lazy and I suck at blogging. And sometimes, there's just too much going wrong for me to even get angry and rant about it. Oh well...so I just read over my last few posts, some interesting things have happened since. FISA - today's actually the day for Dodd to attempt the filibuster. Harry Reid has once again played the weakest strategy possible, and put the worst of all available bills up for debate, while shooting down one which had been vetted by the Justice Dept. Brilliant. God I hate him. Here's what
an actual Democrat has to say about the situation, should you want to read.
The Iran thing - luckily, what I was hoping would happen on this issue is pretty much exactly what did happen, a few posts ago when I pleaded out loud to myself that prominent people would start calling the bogus info out without hiding anonymously in a way that would make them easy to immediately dismiss. The U.S. of course had exactly NO dirt on Iran, and in the face of the latest NIE, the bloodthirsty among our leaders and Presidential candidates had to shut the fuck up with their nonsense about this 4th-rate "power" being a threat to us.
This is a fun link in relation to all that blather.
Also, it used to be the case that I simply accused the Dems in the House and Senate of colluding with the Repbulicans on issues such as torture and domestic spying with no proof other than the
obvious appearance that this was what had happened.
Well, now we know that is exactly what happened, and that explains why it all looked like that was what had happened. Even Nancy Freakin' Pelosi was briefed about waterboarding and more extreme techniques. Nobody objected. Nobody questioned it. One anonymous fucktard had the gaul to ask simply if we were being "hard enough" on those we interrogated. And completely lost in this whole argument is the fact that no matter how many times the more mentally ill among us try to bring up the whole 'Jack Bauer and the ticking time bomb' scenario to justify their crimes - 9 times out of 10 the person we've captured and are torturing /sexually humiliating is a random, innocent person we rounded up for the sake of increasing the numbers attached to our casualty counts. As if we just landed in Afghanistan or Iraq and knew right off the bat who was who. We grabbed people, stuffed them into cages, and had to torture them in the first place to even figure out if they were important enough to torture further! It would take too long to describe how wrong it all is, but bottom line - the Democratic party has failed in the most grave manner I've been around to witness, ever in my lifetime, on this issue. Nobody who was actually briefed about this should be keeping their job. They should all go home and tell their mothers that they have failed at life.
Hm, what else?? Here is a link to the
one and only Daily Kos diary I've written. And here is a link to a diary written
about that diary (thanks Pontificator!). I've been barely writing about the Presidential campaign, other than to praise Dodd a while back for actually doing something useful. Well, he proceeded to lose my support by being nearly xenophobic about immigration and surrounding issues. Plus his stance against youth voters caucusing in Iowa was weird and troubling as well. Funniest thing I've learned about any of the candidates in the past week - in college people knew Barack Obama as "Barry" - according to Eugene Washington of the WPost. Hehe, Barry. Yeah...maybe now that I've summarized all of this crap I'll actually feel like posting regularly again. Weee!
Shut the Fuck Up!
Charles Schumer, New York's Senior Senator, has a shameful,
doo-doo-riddled Op-Ed in the NYTimes today. For the counterpoint to Schumer's idiocy,
see here. Atrios' description of Schumer, et al's logic being overly simplified in the sense that "...it's as if they thought they were playing tic tac toe instead of chess" is absolutely correct. Schumer "hopes" that a law will be passed declaring waterboarding to be illegal. Well, guess what? It won't. Why? Because half of you IDIOTS who were around in 2002-2003 AGREED to this shit and simply can't come out against it now without being trashed by Bush & his sycophants who have the dirt on you. There is NO OTHER valid explanation for this offense. Great, I now want to see Charles Schumer primaried. How stupid does he think his constituents are? Mukasey's refusal to categorize waterboarding as 'torture' by definition is "unsatisfactory" to Schumer, but he thinks that we are worse off now because -
There is virtually universal agreement, even from those who oppose Judge Mukasey, that he would do a good job in turning the department around. My colleagues who oppose his confirmation have gone out of their way to praise his character and qualifications. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, for one, commended Judge Mukasey as “a brilliant lawyer, a distinguished jurist and by all accounts a good man.
This is the best he can come up with? That Sheldon (and think about the name Sheldon, for a minute...) Whitehouse (and think about the last name Whitehouse, for a minute...) says he's a "brilliant lawyer", and - ??? Great. What the fuck does it matter how "brilliant" he is if all that's going to happen is that he is going to put his brilliance to work in the service of the wants and perceived needs of George Bush? If this guy won't go on record stating that he knows what the technique involves, and that it is most certainly a method of torture, then stick a fucking fork in him already. Do we really want a "brilliant lawyer" who refuses to set a legal definition of torture for himself and thus the Justice Department he would control, out there doing everything they can on behalf of George Bush? I hope that Schumer and Diane Feinstein pay a serious price for this strategic error. This issue exemplifies why the country hates the current Congress. They act like they're in the minority and simply can't stand up to the President. Bull fucking shit. There are simply too many of them who were briefed on this and said "OK" for them to stand up to it all, EVEN NOW. And, as soon as we find out exactly who they are, present topical company included, real progressives must do what they can to exact some revenge. Support for giving George Bush the OK to torture is not OK.
Oh well
Stephen Colbert's
run for the Presidency of South Carolina has ended, with a shameful 13-3 vote against him by the people who decide stuff like that there. The S.C. Democratic party, to name names. Wusses couldn't handle the sheer heroism / hubris. The article describes this historic campaign as merely a promotion to sell more copies of "I Am America; And So Can You", but it was far more diabolical in nature. The whole point for Colbert was to win at least one delegate in the state so that he could lord this technicality over the Democratic convention in Boulder. Which would, of course, have been awesome. He could have told them to eat it the way he did to the D.C. press corps back in '06. Sigh.
Iran isn't trying to make nuclear weapons fever - catch it!
Good. Jeez, this really is scary. Prominent experts who know that Iran is not engaged in an attempt to make nukes feel the need to remain anonymous when discussing the subject. Here we go again. That means that people's livelihoods are being threatened again if they dare speak out against Bush and Cheney. At least they are doing so in some capacity, but this is not going to be nearly enough to stop the war machine. Real people with recognizable names HAVE to step forward and call the White House out on being a bunch of crazy people. Only real humans can stop this, anonymous quotes, no matter how accurate, cannot do what needs to be done.
What a guy!
Jon Stewart will
pay his writers' salaries (and those of the Colbert Report) while they are on strike. That way they can lobby for more pay, work and make money, and absolutely bury everyone else ratings-wise since they will be pretty much alone in producing new material - all in one go. Brilliant move on Stewart's part!
Chris Dodd YAY! Harry Reid BOOOO. BOO HISS.
This could be very exciting, if you're into this type of thing...which I am, so shut up, okay? With this 'hold' on the FISA "reform" bill that's sliming its way through the Senate, Dodd has become my official favorite Presidential candidate. Except for Colbert, of course. Favorite of the Dems. I had been into Barack, and I do still like the guy. Tavis Smiley did a great interview with him last night that I was quite happy to watch. But he's done a few things I can't get over. 1) He refused to pledge that we'd be out of Iraq by the end of his first term, if he were President. WHY did he say this? Dear God, what a stupid thing to say. 2) He wants to leave troops in Iraq, to do...um, something. Stupid. Don't leave a few thousand people in a hostile, seething Iraq set to explode like a powder keg on steroid-laced crack. That is the most sure-fire way to get us re-involved in the war after we've pulled out. Dodd this whole time has kind of been in the background as the sort of candidate who doesn't really stand out right away. He's funny looking, serious, kinda old, etc. But his every vote and action in the Senate during this campaign has been dead right, and he is taking that to another level by personally putting himself on the line to prevent a bill passing into law which would immunize Telecoms which colluded with the fascists in the Bush administration to spy on American citizens without a warrant or proper legal authorization. OF COURSE these bastards should be punished with mammoth fines, and crashing stock prices. As should anyone and everyone in the Bush admin who furthered this idiotic, unnecessary venture into big-brotherhood.
And, if you read the link above, you'll notice that Harry Reid seems intent on trying to break Dodd's hold on the bill so that it can move forward. IDIOT!! I want to punch his old face. Seriously, I read some SHIT like that and it makes me just plain straight up hate the guy. What a useless old sack. I hate him. But, Dodd has also pledged to filibuster, should Reid break the hold. Dodd is becoming my political hero really quickly here. He seems to be the only candidate aware that people HATE George Bush, and only HATE Congress as much as they do because they are so craven and cowardly, basically refusing to stop or stand up to him. Dodd is leading by example, so he gets my support.
Just to continue with the Iran theme
I
linky now to Maureen Dowd for the first time in like, forever omygod. She's particularly and notoriously dangerous in presidential elections and as much as I find about 90% of what she writes to be superficial crap with a slightly late-to-the-party flavor, this column about the folly of Hillary Clinton's 'yes' vote on the Kyl-Lieberman bill to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization", and more importantly, linking them with attacks against US soldiers/interests in Iraq, is spot-on. Remarkably few media figures have been willing to go after Hillary for this, simply noting Edwards' and Obama's criticisms of her.
Of course, the bill is ridiculous on its face, but not nearly so much as Hillary's pathetic excuse that "labeling them a terrorist organization gives us the authority to impose sanctions on their leadership. ...I consider that part of a very robust diplomatic effort.” Diplomatic. Yeah, you freakin' idiot, that's diplomacy Bush/Cheney-style. Glad to know you plan to continue down this blind alley towards more violence and war. And for once, I applaud Dowd's stereotyping in calling Hillary out on trying to be "manly" with her votes and rhetoric. She thinks supporting Jim Webb's amendment which would demand Congressional authorization for any and all attacks on Iran will save her from this terrible decision, but it won't. In Bush and Cheney's minds, they already had justification based on the original Iraq war authorization. The language they constantly employ about Iran directly attacking US troops is no joke. Well its a joke in a sense, but they are not joking and they use this terminology very specifically for real reasons. For Hillary to vote for a bill not only declaring Iran's military to be "terrorists" but which ties an officially commissioned part of the Iranian government to our list of "enemies" in Iraq was absolutely deplorable. An unqualified abomination.
Considering the rationale she gives now for her vote in favor of war with Iraq; "If I had only known..." blah di blah, Dowd rightly brings in John Edwards stating, "...six months from now if [Bush] goes to war in Iran, are we going to hear her once again say if only I had known then what I know now?”
Unfortunately, it turns out that Barack Obama
sponsored a bill labeling the RG as "terrorists" back in April. Now this is sketchy to me, because I've been following the guy's campaign pretty closely and never even heard of this. HOWEVER, it leaves out the language tying the RG to attacks in Iraq, which is significant because those are specifically the grounds that Bush and Cheney will cite as their justification for a new war, should they possess the required level of mania to actually go that route. So, while this was an unfortunate attempt to out-maneuver the Republicans on Obama's part, he wouldn't have done quite as much damage. But still, not a good sign. Obama was right in his statements about Afghanistan and Pakistan as they relate to Al Qaeda in the past, but trying to mimic the Repugs here was a big mistake. The Iran issue is just as manufactured as the Iraq issue was back in late 2002 and early 2003. Plain and simple, its bullshit.
By now, there is not a Dem. candidate for President that I'm not annoyed with. I had higher hopes for Obama, and I'm still watching, but I don't want to support someone who is making more of an effort in this day and age to be a reconciler than they are at stringing these bastards up in the public square. And no one is doing that. I don't believe in letting the past be the past. The past as its interpreted affects the future in innumerable ways. I want George Bush and Dick Cheney and EVERY SINGLE PERSON who helped them do what they have done to all of us to stand trial and hopefully, go to jail. I'm sick of this shit. Sick to death.
And as things stand now, it looks like Mrs. Clinton will be the next president. I hope there is someone who wants it bad enough to get in her way. And as long as its not Joe Biden, I'm cool with it.
Idiocy abounds on Iran
It really feels as though the 'product roll-out' of conflict with Iran is reaching a crescendo, becoming increasingly fevered and irrational as a consequence, or more likely, by design. First of all, the idea that Ahmadinejad should be barred from speaking here, that Universities should feel morally ashamed to have him speak, is the most collectively childish position the US media and body politic have offered up with such force in quite a while. As Josh Marshall said, "
Grow Up." This 'debate' is just plain embarrassing.
We are about to, possibly, declare war on Iran, with somehow
even less evidence of wrongdoing on Iran's part or justification for our position than there was with Iraq! Escalation of tensions with Iran has been a predictable, self-fulfilling prophecy as a consequence of the invasion of occupation of Iraq. To my mind, this is most blatantly evidenced by the fact that anyone who didn't want such a thing to happen, and who had their mind set on invading Iraq, would have been simply nuts to fail to initiate immediate, improved relations and increased aid with a neighboring government which would inevitably become the ally of Iraq's new government once the Shia majority voted. The only reason not to take action to secure improved relations with Iran, regardless of who was in charge of what there was the lunatic hope of the NeoCons, based on their wholesale misunderstanding of Islamic culture and regional political, social and ethnic matters, that a US - friendly Iraq would immediately destabilize Iran. It should be noted that Ahmadinejad
is not in charge of Iran's military forces, and despite Columbia University President Lee Bollinger referring to him as having "...all the signs of being a petty and cruel dictator" (certainly true at times, but so does our President), he is the democratically elected President of Iran - his political rule is not questionable in the sense that Saddam Hussein's was. Or any of the (Sunni) Saudi government, for that matter. I just mention them since there is
actual proof that Saudis [1] support the (Sunni) insurgents in Iraq with money and weaponry. As opposed to (Shia) Iran who have relations with some (Shia) groups in Iraq including Muqtada Al-Sadr's Madhi Army - who are not as easily classified as "the enemy" (since they are friendly with the government we support and prop up there!) as the insurgents - who are not Al-Qaeda but rather the remnants of the disbanded Iraqi army and a large range of Sunnis sympathetic to the Baath party which the US removed from power.
That's all kind of jumbled, but I'll summarize: we're accusing Iran of assisting the Iraqi "terrorists" in attacking US troops. We have no tangible evidence of this, every so-called 'smoking gun' in this vein of reporting has turned out to be crap. We know that the government of Iran is not allied with Iraq's Sunni insurgency, while we also know that they have received at least some amount of aid by individuals from Saudi Arabia who are not, as far as I can tell, being rounded up by their own government and prosecuted. What am I missing here? Other than the creepily cozy relationship between the Bush royal family and the Saudi royal family? Wait, nothing? Oh, ok. Not to say that certain Iranians haven't ever done anything nasty in Iraq, I'm sure there have been isolated incidents, as there have been with individuals from many different nations. Iraq has truly drawn in a lot of foreign fighters, but analysis consistently shows they are a majority of Saudis. But we never hear an ominous word about them on the nightly news. We're worried about Iran befriending the new Iraqi government on the one hand, while we want to turn around and also claim that increasingly normalized relations between the two are progress and a sign that things are going better. Amazing.
As far as the argument that Iran is seeking to make nuclear weapons, I covered that largely in my last post, but since I've heard this repeated today, at least 500 times while watching coverage of Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia on MSNBC, there's simply no evidence, again. "Experts" on the news keep claiming, year after year, that Iran is several years off from being able to make a weapon, but that they are a dire threat now who must be confronted. Nonsense! Ridiculous. As far as the data at
this link from my post below shows, Iran has for around a year now, had the capacity to produce weapons, but according to IAEA inspections, has done no such thing. It is complete nonsense when some "expert" goes on TV and says that Iran can't yet make nukes but has shown intention to develop and use them. They could have already, but haven't - bottom line.
This leaves us on the brink of war with a country because of Iran's sponsorship of "terrorism", and because one of their more significant public spokesmen has made confusing and ill-advised comments about the holocaust in combination with his attempts to discuss the Israel / Palestine conflict. It is alleged that Ahmadinejad has said that Israel should by "...wiped off the map", but this
turns out to be a case of selective translation and confusion of metaphors. Obviously, Ahmadinejad is not an ally of the right-wing Israeli government and its policies regarding the occupied territories. Few in the Muslim world are, no matter what sect or ethnicity. Then there is the allegation that Ahmadinejad has denied that the holocaust took place. Whether he has said exactly that or things which imply it or rely on the truth thereof to reinforce subsequent points, it is true that he does seem genuinely sympathetic to the point of view that the holocaust has been greatly historically exaggerated, at least. And this is certainly a contemptible, awful view for such a powerful person to hold. Today at Columbia, he stated that "given that" the holocaust happened, it happened in Europe, so why are Palestinians paying for Europeans' slaughter of the Jewish people? Which is subsequently quite a difficult point to argue, regardless of what ignorant, ahistorical views he might hold.
As far as terrorism, it is difficult to truly analyze. The global weapons trade on the whole is a strange example of the entire world, pretty much, coming together; democracy or dictatorship, rich or poor, and terrorizing ourselves and each other for the profit of a very small few, at the expense of millions of lives per year all across the globe. There are no glass houses here, and no perfect throwers of righteous stones. I'm sure Iran does business of all kinds with Hezbullah for various purposes, some nefarious and some not at all. I'm sure they fund terrorists in the occupied territories, and do all kinds of shady stuff. Most of the local governments do. But Iran has never invaded another country, and has at least 20,000 Jewish citizens who are represented in the government. The idea that an Iranian-led slaughter of Jews is at hand is insanely hyperbolic. No such thing is happening or is about to happen.
A large part of the US media narrative about why Ahmadinejad, and subsequently Iran, is so dangerous is the conflation of the two above-mentioned points of view, with alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. One of these claims (that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map") is demonstrably untrue ('wiped off the map' is simply not an operative metaphor in Persian), and that the holocaust is "a myth" which he has actually suggested. The argument is that he is developing nuclear weapons (which Iran is demonstrably not currently doing, despite their capacity to do so) in order to "wipe Israel off the map" (which he never said) because their country was placed over top of Palestine as a result of the "mythical" holocaust. It adds up to a terrifying scenario if you take each point and simply believe it in the most non-analytical manner possible, but it doesn't hold up as a cohesive whole under scrutiny.
So the argument for war with Iran boils down to - they support Hezbullah, and their President, who isn't in charge of their military, takes seriously the idea that the holocaust either didn't take place or has been exaggerated. Do we strategically think Iran is worse for supporting Hezbullah and being friends with their natural allies in now Shia-ruled Iraq than we think Saudi Arabia is for at least their passive support of the Sunni insurgents who are the actual "enemy" in Iraq? Why? What the hell does Hezbullah have to do with the war in Iraq? As far as Iran supplying weapons to the Madhi army - well that's the fucking free market at work, isn't it? Entirely predictable. Free trade, motherfuckers. Besides, however many weapons Iran has sold to various Shia militias, it still can't be nearly as many as we've simply lost or
failed to secure in the first place. We have a
larger role (just one example) in supplying the insurgency with the ability to kill our troops than Iran has had. The US seems to not understand that we have no business being in Iraq, let alone threatening Iran or others for their handling of the disastrous outgrowths of our bad foreign policy decisions.
[1] So far limited to "private citizens" - and while this CS Monitor article doesn't apparently research whether any of those citizens have significant ties to either the government or terrorist networks, it does restate Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal's pledge to intervene in Iraq on behalf of the Sunnis should the US withdraw and ethnic cleansing begin
France talking war with Iran???
Ugh, how annoying it is to have a genuine right wing government in France now! A French foreign minister is
warning the world at large, one can only assume at the behest of
Nicolas Sarkozy, to "prepare for the worst, and the worst is war."
Come on, y'all. The whole 'starting senseless wars in the middle east' thing has worked out unbelievably well for US, true, but don't be caught out trying so hard to be like us. Its very unbecoming. Let's see what countries, exactly, despite this guy's mentioning of "Our good friends, the Germans..." are on board for a war with Iran. Even with US Naval and Air Force support. What the hell are they hoping to accomplish? You could pay them off for so much less! Don't be like
Joe Lieberman.
This article is very optimistic, from Iran's point of view, about how long it would take Iran to create a viable nuclear weapon, and how many they could make with what they already have. And while the info within seems alarming, they have apparently had the ability to build several bombs per year for about a year now but have not in fact done so. Why all the alarm now? They are signatories of the Nonproliferation Treaty, if they were serious about a program that they knew couldn't avoid detection, which almost no effective program really can, they would publicly withdraw. And as loony as he may be, the president of Iran was democratically elected. You can't even pretend to make the 'spreading Democracy' argument here. Do France and Germany know something the rest of the world doesn't know?
War with Iran would be all about preventing them, through increasingly restrictive measures, from doing something they've had the ability to do for a while now but haven't, with nothing in particular offered in return. NeoCons simply do not know how to haggle. I can't wait until smirking, playground-bully antagonism is no longer an accurate description of anyone's foreign policy views about legitimate problems of security and diplomacy.
