rssMust be something in the water at those conservative round-table meetings. Bill Safire's gone all Peggy Noonan. After all, it's soooo much easier to put words into someone's mouth after they're fucking dead!.
Mullah Mustafa Barzani was a leader of the 20 million Kurdish people the world's largest nation without a country through much of the 20th century. Betrayed in the 1970's by the Shah of Iran and the U.S. ("covert action should not be confused with missionary work"), the dying warrior was brought to a C.I.A. safe house in Virginia, where we had long talks before his death.
Because Iraqi Kurds under belated U.S. air protection have developed a democracy that will be a model for post-Saddam Iraq, my friend Mullah Mustafa granted me this interview from the Great Beyond.
From the introduction, it sounds to me like the US was complicit in his betrayal - which makes Safire's using his name in this way extraordinarily offensive and tasteless.
Obviously Tom Friedman got the memo mentioning that the president is "bold". Check out his current piece:
It's something that can only be accomplished by building a different model in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. No, you don't see this every day. This is really bold.
...
My dilemma is that while I believe in such a bold project, I fear that Mr. Bush has failed to create a context for his boldness to succeed, a context that could maximize support for his vision support vital to seeing it through. He and his team are the only people who would ever have conceived this project, but they may be the worst people to implement it. The only place they've been bold is in their military preparations (which have at least gotten Saddam to begin disarming).
...
So here's how I feel: I feel as if the president is presenting us with a beautiful carved mahogany table a big, bold, gutsy vision. But if you look underneath, you discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas. And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won't be able to do it right.
So... being bold means "smart", right? Not "stupid"? Cos from here "bold" looks a lot like "reckless".
Robert Parry at Consortium News on the missing US-Iraq history. Lots of background on US backing for Iraq in the years 1980-1991.
Bill Maher on Larry King. Good to see he's back on TV in the US - with the disgraceful MSNBC swapping out Donahue for foul-mouthed bigot Michael Savage, I'd say US television needs all the help it can get.
The second edition of Greg Palast's book "Best democracy money can buy" has a bunch more stuff in it. The section on the US and the Saudis and how it killed investigations into Bin Laden before 9/11 has been excerpted at TomPaine.com, and it's not pretty reading, for backers of either side of politics.
Finally, from the blog "hard to find articles", this piece, from the 1991 Washington Post: Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets.
The worst civilian suffering, senior officers say, has resulted not from bombs that went astray but from precision-guided weapons that hit exactly where they were aimed - at electrical plants, oil refineries and transportation networks. Each of these targets was acknowledged during the war, but all the purposes and consequences of their destruction were not divulged.
Among the justifications offered now, particularly by the Air Force in recent briefings, is that Iraqi civilians were not blameless for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. "The definition of innocents gets to be a little bit unclear," said a senior Air Force officer, noting that many Iraqis supported the invasion of Kuwait. "They do live there, and ultimately the people have some control over what goes on in their country."
See? It's those durned Iraqi citizen's fault. If only they'd rise up against Saddam - oh wait. Bush 41 urged them to do that, then walked away and let them get slaughtered.
Oh good. I see that we're going to be joining the Imperial Overlords as loyal lackeys in their jolly little wars.
Australia's Defence Force will be transformed into a mobile, flexible force to fight alongside the United States in conflicts across the globe, according to a new review.
The Howard Government is even considering joining the US program to create a defensive shield against ballistic missile attack, a successor of its "star wars" plans.
The changes are mapped out in the national security review released yesterday by Defence Minister Robert Hill, responding to the dramatic impact of terrorism on the "strategic landscape".
This feels so... odd. It feels like we're 90 years ago, with the conservative side of politics oh so eager to send Australians to help the British with their wars. I wonder when we'll get our next "noble" Gallipoli-like event, with Australian soldiers dying for no purpose to anyone, because the Empire considered them "more expendable".
Today's Krugman:
Obviously the ban on calling Bush a liar is still in force at the "left-wing" NYT. But really, how far can you stretch the language? "the honesty thing", "betrayed", "mendacity", "honoring promises", "telling the truth", "unfounded claims"... simply state it, f'r chrissakes: They're a pack of liars. They seem to find it completely impossible to actually tell the fucking truth, in even the most minor matters.
The Age, with a piece from the Telegraph:
Drawing on the inspiration of loaves, fishes, water and wine, a Florida doctor has published a self-help manual, What Would Jesus Eat?, and a companion volume, the What Would Jesus Eat Cook Book.
Don Colbert said he wrote the book after realising that many of the fattest Americans were also dedicated Christian fundamentalists.
Gee, I dunno. Could it be because it seems like the central tenet of much Christian fundamentalism in the US is "it's not my fault - it's those damned libruls/clinton/enemy of the week"? Could it be because they seem to have no interest in promoting piety, meekness, and generally treading lightly on the earth? On the other hand, maybe this is a new approach, and maybe it will work (although given the outraged responses to the "What Would Jesus Drive?" attempt to get merkins to cut down on their fuel consumption, I doubt it).
On the other hand, maybe a stronger worded approach is needed:
- "Which Bit Of 'Greed = Deadly Sin' Are You Unclear About?"
- "Where Exactly In The Bible Does It Say: Thou Shalt Super-Size All Meals?"
- "Jesus says: You Fat, You Go To Hell."
- "Why Overweight Gluttons Will Be Left Behind When The Rapture Comes: God Doesn't Want To Have To Lift Your Bloated Carcasses To Heaven."
So, aside from the Bush: "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over" piece from January 2001 that just gets creepier and creepier as time goes by, Slate's "Today's Papers" today notes that The Onion and the news are syncing up again:
aaargh. reality and satire... blurring together...
Via The Sideshow, this poll data.
Increasing support among Americans not registered to vote is holding George W. Bush's overall job approval rating steady while Democrats and Independents are increasingly more likely to say they disapprove both of the way Bush is handling his job and the economy according to the latest survey by the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 56% say they approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 38% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, support among adults not registered to vote softens, with 49% of all Americans saying they disapprove and 40% saying they approve.
Among Americans registered to vote, 47% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 45% approve. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 51% of registered voters disapprove and 38% approve. More Democrats now disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy (91%) than Republicans approve of the way Bush is handling the economy (78%). These job approval ratings are in an environment where 56% of all Americans say the national economy is getting worse.
See, this poll data (56% approve, 38% disapprove) is in line with most others that have been published. But surely the only number that's actually useful is the registered voters number? If you can't be bothered registering to vote, then who the hell cares what you think? You're not likely to have any say in the future government, so why bother polling them?
Boing Boing points to this piece on the complete and utter failure of Nauru. The island nation is cut off, and no-one knows what's going on there. What about the refugees that we dumped there?
The island has also begun interning asylum seekers while their applications to live in Australia are processed, in return for aid from Canberra.
However this appears to have gone badly wrong.
Late last year, Australian immigration officials admitted that the asylum seekers, mainly Iraqis, had been running their own detention centre since officials abandoned the site following a riot.
"Effectively you could call it a self-managed centre," a senior Australian immigration official told an inquiry.
This is... well, I hesitate to re-use the word "disgusting", but at the same time, it's the only one that comes to mind. We dumped a bunch of refugees onto a barren rock, then washed our hands of the matter. And the only response to a breakdown of order is a glib "call it a self-managed centre"??? Aargghh. So exactly how is it that this is no longer our problem?
As an indication of how unknown the situation is: the US, UK, and Australian governments still have no information about any problems for travellers. For instance, the one-line summary from the UK F&CO is:
SUMMARY
The vast majority of visits to Nauru are trouble-free. The risk of terrorism in Nauru is low.
Body and Soul with an update on the situation in Afghanistan (summary: not that good, not getting better)
Wacky Neighbour's Ashcroft Alert Status:
Hesiod asks "What would David Hasselhoff Do?" after reading of a police SUV that chased robbery suspects onto a beach and ran over some sunbathers, killing one. (Imagine that - people actually sunbathing, on a beach. That's just crazy talk).
Many many many many more parodies of the awful Ready.gov site. The bad images really do look like a low-rent version of the emergency cards you get in the airline seat pockets. I want to see a TV ad of Tom Ridge showing everyone how to apply duct tape in case of emergencies, complete with the over-exaggerated hand gestures.
When you hear nice words about "collateral damage" from the "shock and awe" plan of the US military, and "it's Saddam's fault, anyway", this might be a useful site to remind yourself of what's being talked about. That's right. Heavily armed military, with overwhelming force, killing civilians.
Of course, My Lai could never happen again, after all, the US military are the good guys now. And, of course, even if it did, there's no chance the US media would actually be allowed anywhere near the scene - they'll be off watching nice little staged photo-ops for the Pentagon. And even if, by some chance, Bad Things happen, and are reported, what are the chances of the US media printing it? Just like they printed all the details from the 8000 censored pages of the Iraqi weapons dossier.
Pointer to My Lai site from Tim.
It sure is tough to find willing allies these days. I mean, for a war that's so just and pure, the US sure seems like it's having to buy a lot of friends. Of course, they didn't need to offer little Johnny anything for Australia's support, so we can expect to get shafted again as soon as it suits the US.
Amusing sidenote is that apparently the Turks didn't trust Bush's word on an agreed bribe, and insisted that it be in writing. I'm sure I can't think of why anyone would consider the Bushies to be a pack of lying double crossers.
This post at Stand Down details how the US/UK "no fly zone" over Iraq apparently doesn't apply to the Turkish Air Force when they feel the need to go bomb some Kurds in Northern Iraq. I do believe that's a new one for the list.
Seems that being a paid-up member of the (cue spooky music) Axis Of Evil doesn't mean that you're a complete pariah. Via Buzzflash, it turns out that US Defense Secretary "Strangelove" Rumsfeld was on the board of swiss based ABB at the time that they got a US$200M contract from North Korea to build a couple of nuclear power plants. These would be the two light-water reactors from the 1994 agreement that Clinton negotiated with North Korea. You know, the agreement that the current mob considered to be sooo disgusting and awful. Not awful enough to avoid participating in the feeding frenzy, I guess.
Also from Buzzflash, the stunning and suprising news that the largest manufacturer of duct tape in the US is, ta da! a major contributor to the Republicans. Apparently US$100K is enough to get the hapless (and hopeless) Tom Ridge on all the US media pushing your product. That's one hell of a cheap product endorsement campaign - Nike and Reebok must be so pissed that they're spending millions on product endorsements.
On the subject of Ridge, make sure you check out this parody of the truly awful (but funny) Ready.gov. As Mo-Do puts it in this column:
What Mr. Ridge is supposed to be doing is getting the best scientific and technical expertise, as it relates to all threats, and developing concrete plans and suggestions for every possible contingency.
He's not supposed to be selling security, or spinning it; he's supposed to be providing it.
He doesn't need to make security more alluring to us. We already find it absolutely alluring. We'd just like to get some more of it.
Donald Johnson, in the comments section of this post at Eschaton, tries to count the number of times the US has shafted the Kurds.
I tried counting the number of times the US has betrayed the Kurds and if you count what seems likely to happen now, I come up with five.
1. Early to mid 70's -- The US and the Shah of Iran encourage the Kurds to revolt against Iraq. The Shah changes his mind and the Kurds are left hanging. (Probably literally.) Some American official, probably Kissinger, says "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
2. The Reagan Administration sticks with Saddam even when he launches his genocidal campaign against the Kurds. (late 80's) People say the US had to side with Iraq against Iran, but obviously no one really saw Iran as a huge threat. The Reaganites gave them weapons and while people acted outraged, no one said they should have been shot for treason. Besides Iran and Iraq fought an eight year war to a standstill--the US did slightly better in 1991.
One shouldn't be too hard on Reagan in this case--at least he didn't give personal compliments to Saddam, as he did with genocidal thugs like Rios Montt and Jonas Savimbi.
3. Bush I encourages the Kurds to revolt in 1991. He then abandons them. To be fair, due to public pressure the US gives support to Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq.
4. All this time, the US supports Turkey as it crushes its own Kurds. As outlined in the Human Rights Watch report, Clinton gives them weapons which they use to bomb villages. (mid 90's)
5. And look what's happening now.
Donald Johnson | 02.21.03 - 7:28 am |
By this logic:
...
"People who demonstrate and who give comfort to Saddam Hussein must understand that and must realise that it's a factor in making it that much more difficult to get united world opinion on this issue, which in the end is the best guarantee there is of finding a peaceful solution."
... it's quite reasonable to state that Howard is providing aid and comfort to Osama Bin Laden (you remember the guy - ranting psycopath, some issues with US Air Traffic Control, ... ?) Bin Laden will gain so many more converts to his cause if/when the US and the "coalition of the bullied" bomb the shit out of Iraq.
Now I'm not actually saying that this is a deliberate cause/effect thing, but by the logic of Glorious Leader, this doesn't matter.
Nice to see the grown-ups are still in charge:
Threats by Republicans to cut the General Accounting Office (GAO) budget influenced its decision to abandon a lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney, The Hill has learned.
Sources familiar with high-level discussions at the GAO said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, met with GAO Comptroller General David Walker earlier this year and unambiguously pressured him to drop the suit or face cuts in his $440 million budget.
To all those nice people that thought that the Bushies would be "good for Iraqis", and decided to hold their nose and support the war because it would end up making life better for the Iraqis: suckers.
Kurdish autonomy? Suckers. Jeanne D'Arc at Body and Soul has a nice rundown on how badly the Kurds are going to get screwed. Nathan Newman points out that Blair's also sold out the Kurds.
A nice "model democracy" for the Middle East (paging Tom Friedman): Suckers. The Bushies have no interest in a genuine democracy in Iraq - if the Kurds got more autonomy, Turkey would have a fit, and if the Shia gained power, they'd lose the nice Sunni counter-balance to Iran. If you want to know what sort of government the US has planned, check out some of the client regimes they've been installed throughout Central and South America for the last 50 years. Only this time they're not even bothering to hide it - they're just going to be stuffing americans at the top of the existing power structure. Rest assured that the massive security apparatus which Hussein has built will be, at best, only marginally improved - the secret police will remain, but will be reporting to new bosses.
It's not about money: Suckers. Iraqis get to "pay" for their own reconstruction, after the US bombs the crap out of it. In case you're not sure what that means: It means great big juicy contracts with obscene profit margins get dished out to major US campaign contributors (Halliburton, &c). Other countries (even those that supported the Bushies) will get either diddly squat, or a couple of token carrots. The poor bloody Iraqis get shafted.
When will people get a clue. If you think you've got a "partnership" with the Bushies, chances are you'll get screwed over whenever it suits them. There's an interesting issue there if they do get a second term - at the current rate that they're shafting potential allies (both domestically and internationally) it may make it difficult for them to get anything done.
Digby has a strongly worded response to Tom Friedman's recent Tell the Truth column, which can be basically summed up as "hey, dickhead, NOW you figure it out?"
Via Ted Barlow, this essay in the pro-war New Republic is starting to realise that, hey, they're playing us for fools.
From the ABC news website - "twenty dead in subway fire" next to "women's ashes" special site. Nicely done.
I tried to restrain myself, but Lex Loser's speech last night has so many dubious leaps of logic that I can't resist. The non-sequiters are almost dizzying.
Firstly, let's note the importance Lex attaches to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; he mentions his "strong responses" to India and Pakistan going nuclear, and to France lifting the testing moratorium. Yet there's no mention of the elephant in the corner - the United States continued refusal to ratify this treaty.
"We worked tirelessly to promote a verification mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention" -- again, ignore the yankee elephant in the corner.
We'll also pass over the way that North Korea is almost ignored in the speech - except to note that a new justification for bombing Iraq further into the stone age is to act as a deterrent to North Korea. Exactly what sort of deterrent is that? North Korea has already called the US's bluff with respect to military action - they know that in case of military action, they can inflict utterly unacceptable losses on South Korea, Japan, and US forces in the area. So how exactly is attacking Iraq going to act as a further deterrent to North Korea?
Apparently Australia has been concerned about Iraq's pursuit of NBC weapons for almost 20 years. I can well remember the way we stood up to the US and Europe in the 80s and told them to rein in their companies that were providing Iraq with these weapons. Oh no, wait, hang on. That would be in that alternate reality.
Oh, and Lex? If Iraq's links with Al-Qaeda are so clear to you, I'm sure Powell &c in Washington would appreciate a memo explaining it - because they've made a complete hash of showing any link so far.