August 23, 2006

It's All About Iraq, Tony

Tony Blair has done what few people thought possible: he has raised the opposition UK Conservatives from the dead and transformed them into clear favourites at the next elections. This is really damning stuff... Tories open nine-point lead as Labour drops to 19-year low:
72%, including 65% of Labour voters, think government policy has made Britain more of a target for terrorists. Only 1% of voters believe the government's foreign policy has made Britain safer, a devastating finding given that action in Iraq and Afghanistan has been justified in part to defeat Islamist terrorism...

The findings will shock many at Westminster who had expected Labour to gain ground following John Reid's high-profile handling of the alleged plot against transatlantic airlines. Carried out over the past weekend, following the series of terror arrests, the poll shows voters do not believe the government is giving an honest account of the threat facing Britain. Only 20% of all voters, and 26% of Labour voters, say they think the government is telling the truth about the threat, while 21% of voters think the government has actively exaggerated the danger.

A majority, 51%, say the government is not giving the full truth and may be telling less than it knows.
The Liberal Democrats also climbed 5 points after their leader publicly criticized Blair's close allegiance to Bush.
The voting figures, if repeated at a general election, would send Mr Cameron to Downing Street with a majority of around 10 - although that could climb if Liberal Democrat discontent with the government costs Labour tactical votes in marginal seats.
While Bush currently holds a 57% disapproval rate, the UK polls indicate that most Brits are more well-informed and sceptical than their US counterparts. A pity we have almost zero debate on these important issues here in Australia.

UPDATE: UK may cut Iraq force in half by mid-2007:
"We anticipate there is not going to be a political appetite to saying 'alright, we're done' while there is still unfinished business in the center of the country," the commander said.
Gandhi Museum Goes Hi-Tech

But you plebs can't touch the buttons! Gandhi's hands-on, high-tech message for a new generation:
"Gandhian values of nonviolence and truth are relevant for all times. But the challenge was to get this message across to the younger generation. So we used the medium of technology that they are so fascinated with," says Savita Singh, the director of the Eternal Gandhi museum and memorial.

The $2.8 million exhibition, which opened last year, is an expansion of an older, more solemn memorial, the sprawling colonial-style house where Gandhi spent the last 144 days of his life. It was in its grounds in 1948 that Gandhi, walking to a daily prayer meeting, was shot dead by a Hindu radical.

August 22, 2006

Buy The Shirt

Stewart/Colbert 2008!!!
Deconstructing Reconstruction

Ted Rall:
Hours after a ceasefire halted a five-week war between Israel and Iranian-backed Islamic militias in Lebanon, reported the New York Times, "hundreds of Hezbollah members spread over dozens of villages across southern Lebanon began cleaning, organizing and surveying damage. Men on bulldozers were busy cutting lanes through giant piles of rubble. Roads blocked with the remnants of buildings are now, just a day after a ceasefire began, fully passable." Who cares if Hezbollah is a State Department-designated terrorist organization? Unlike our worthless government, it gets things done!
This reminds me of an early Baghdad Burning post, comparing the rapid Iraqi reconstruction of their country after the Iran-Iraq war to the dismally slow US reconstruction efforts (hampered by ridiculous security concernes due to the fact that everybody there hates the USA and therefore nobody can be trusted unless they are a foreign security contractor with bodyguards, and bodyguards to guard the bodyguards...).
I See A Bad Moon Rising

It's looking more and more as if Bush and Rove want to make the November elections a referendum on the Iraq War. Now why would they do such a stupid, stupid thing? What do they know that we don't? What are the REAL terrorists planning next?
The Bell Tolls

From the Nation:
The war in Iraq has lasted three days longer than US involvement in World War II.

Germany declared war on the US on December, 11, 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor. The US announced victory in Europe on May 8, 1945. That's one thousand, two hundred and forty-four days.

We've been in Iraq one thousand, two hundred and forty-seven days---and still the Administration has no exit strategy, no plan for victory and no clue what it is doing. In case you'd forgotten, George W. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" aboard an aircraft carrier over three years ago.
Nothing To Fear But ...

Yes, it has come to this:
A flight from Malaga to Manchester was delayed this weekend because passengers refused to travel with people they regarded as behaving suspiciously.

A passenger on the flight, Heath Schofield, explained the suspicions. "It was a return holiday flight, full of people in flip-flops and shorts. There were just two people in the whole crowd who looked like they didn't belong there."
Err, sorry? Can you provide a bit more detail?
"Our daughter noticed a couple of guys that were perhaps acting a bit strange. They went to the front of the queue, went to the back of the queue, and then they went and sat down by themselves."

...

His wife said: "We still don't know what was said, or whether it was anything to be alarmed about."

She said: "A lot of mums were trying to calm the children down - they were getting quite panicky because of what they'd seen on the telly.

"It became apparent that the reason that some of the people didn't board the plane was because somebody had overheard the gentlemen in question speaking - I think it was Arabic."
Josh Marshall:
In the Israeli daily Ha'aretz tonight, military affairs writer Ze'ev Schiff says that the main conclusion that will be drawn from the IDF's disappointing performance in the Lebanon war will be that the army's fighting capacity and edge has been blunted by years of policing duties in the territories...

Occupation degrades a fighting force -- a reality the Israelis need to confront right now and we Americans need to come to grips with as well. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is something Israel really cannot afford now as it becomes more clear that she is in renewed need of a very potent fighting army.

But, of course, this goes beyond the military sphere. Or rather the military sphere is revealing a deeper reality. The occupation itself is corrupting Israeli society just as it seems to have corrupted (remember that in its original and deep meaning, 'corruption' means 'decay', 'rot') the IDF. And here too, can we not see the echoes for ourselves?

As Amos Oz, the great Israeli novelist, wrote just after the Six Day War, in his first foray into public letters. “Even unavoidable occupation is a corrupting occupation."

The occupation has become Israel's weakness, not it's strength. True friends of Israel realize this.
Lessons of History

Lasting Pain, Minimal Punishment:
"It became as dark as night. My tears overflowed in both eyes," said Huynh, now 77. "I rushed back and informed the community here. I was running back, crying all the way. My eyes were full of tears, so I could not see my way."
A Tortured Past:
"If they'd really taken action about the bad apples and been honest about it … then they wouldn't be arguing about Abu Ghraib and different places today."
"Why do they hate us?"

Hiroshima?
Nagasaki?
Overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1952?
The installation of the murderous Shah of Iran, 'King of Kings' and 'Light of the Aryans'?
The brutishly savage 'SAVAK' secret police, American trained?
The 'School of the Americas' Coup and Torture College?
Vietnam?
Cambodia?
Laos?
Operation Phoenix (25000-50000 murdered)?
Nixon/Kissinger coup against democratically elected government of Chile?
Nixon/Kissinger assistance to Greek junta?
Invasion of Grenada?
Invasion of Panama?
Iran-Contra fiasco? Dirty war against Guatemala?
Dirty war against Nicaragua?
Reagan's nun-butchering 'Freedom Fighters' of Nicaragua?
Dirty war in El Salvador?
Reagan's good friendship with the likes of President 'Blowtorch Bob' of El Salvador? Gulf War I?
Depleted Uranium?
George H.W. Bush's 'Highway of Death'?
Invasion of Afghanistan?
Destruction of infrastructure in Afghanistan?
Bagram?
Gulf War II?
The vilification of Islam? Shock and Awe?
The destruction of infrastructure in Iraq?
The use of cluster bombs?
500 pound bombs?
The use of white phosphorus?
The bombing of ambulances and hospitals?
50-100,000 dead Iraqi civilians?
Abu Ghraib?
Secret prisons?
Extraordinary renditions?
Torture?
Virtual suspension of the American Constitution?
The imposition of American economic policies on third-world countries?
Abrogation of international treaties governing nuclear non-proliferation, first strike use, etc.?
Rampant American triumphalism, racism, ignorance and arrogance?
Blatant hypocrisy regarding non-existent American 'values' of freedom and democracy ?
Waiting For The Next Excuse

First we had the "Saddam's WMDs" excuse, then the "links to terrorists" threat. When both these rationales fell apart, we were told (after the invasion) that it was all about bringing Democracy to the people of Iraq. So this shift away from Bush's "democracy-building" excuse is worth noting:
Bush administration officials now admit that Iraqi government’s original plan to rein in the violence in Baghdad, announced in June, has failed. The Pentagon has decided to rush more American troops into the capital, and the new military operation to restore security there is expected to begin in earnest next month.

Yet some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq’s democratically elected government might not survive.

“Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,” said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.

“Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect,” the expert said, “but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”
As one wry commenter at RTS says, Bush & Co have actually been exploring such "alternatives" for a long time:
That’s how Bush became president in the first place.
It is easy to get swept up in the whirlwind of spin that constantly insists we are in Iraq to "spread Democracy", even though the opaque farce on offer in Baghdad has always been far from a true Democracy. So it is worthwhile reiterating that "spreading Democracy" was never a primary goal of the invasion, it was just a convenient post-facto excuse.

It may be that full-blown US military control of Iraq will prove the best way for Bush & Co to (a) minimise the ongoing violence and (b) finally get some revenue out of Iraq's oil fields. But then what excuses are left for the occupation? Expect to see a few quotes like the following:
"Iraqis were not ready for Democracy."

"We can't leave now because things will fall apart again."

"We are setting up education programs which should lead to a new round of democratic elections in the next ten years or so..."
UPDATE: TomDispatch says:
As long as Americans believe that Iraq is some kind of imperial Rubik's cube, where what's at stake is hitting on just the right combination of tactics, plans, and political mix inside Baghdad's Green Zone, as long as we believe that we are indeed part of the solution, not part of the problem, matters will only continue to worsen.
Tom's links to a Michael Schwartz article, which provides evidence to support the following hard facts:
1. The Iraqi Government Is Little More Than a Group of "Talking Heads"

2. There Is No Iraqi Army

3. The Recent Decline in American Casualties Is Not a Result of Less Fighting (and Anyway, It's Probably Ending)

4. Most Iraqi Cities Have Active and Often Viable Local Governments

5. Outside Baghdad, Violence Arrives with the Occupation Army

6. There Is a Growing Resistance Movement in the Shia Areas of Iraq

7. There Are Three Distinct Types of Terrorism in Iraq, All Directly or Indirectly Connected to the Occupation
Housing crash: what goes up...
The mansions being snapped up by the ever-richer CEO class aren't part of the same world as the people falling into negative equity in the mortgage belt.
Working Assets Slogan Contest - What's the Bush Plan for Iraq?
Three Simple Questions

1. Why did WaPo edit Bush's comments on Iraq, removing his admission: "Sometimes I'm happy"?
O'DONNELL: But are you frustrated, sir?

BUSH: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see havoc wrought by terrorists.
2. What on earth has Bush got to be happy about in Iraq?

3. Could it be that Bush is happy about the ongoing violence, chaos and disorder because it provides the perfect excuse for US forces to remain in Iraq?
A Paid Propagandist Talks

Willem Marx has written a piece in the latest edition of Harper's magazine called "Misinformation Intern: My Summer as a Military Propagandist in Iraq." He talks to Democracy Now about working for the Lincoln Group:
I carried a gun very often with me when I traveled outside of the Green Zone, a small sort of Glock revolver, and carried it in my belt, and as I sat down to talk to this man, after a few moments, I realized that the revolver was very uncomfortably placed inside my belt. And as I started asking these very accusatory questions, I pulled the gun out of my belt and put it on the table between the two of us and suddenly realized that was a horrifically threatening motion. And I was really quite disgusted with myself, and the man left. He ran away out of the office when I was questioning someone else.

The two men who had been sent to help me put pressure, along with my own translator friend, to help me put pressure on these employees were former Mukhabarat officers, part of Saddam's intelligence service, and they told me the best approach would be to sort of threaten this guy with a CIA investigation, telling me that those three letters were the most threatening three letters to any Iraqi. And once I had learned that the man I’d probably gone on, as it were, had left the building, I decided, you know, it was getting dark, and I needed to get the hell out of there, and this was not at all the sort of thing I should be spending my time doing if I wanted to be a journalist...
NeoCons are investing in Europe, and buying second houses too.

August 21, 2006

Stretching Credibility

Saddam gets set to face yet another new trial (this one for genocide against the Kurds) , as the Australian government starts blaming the US government for delays in the David Hicks case.
Idle Moments?

Kevin Drum has fun with the Random Quotes Generator. Here's a hum-dinger:
If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.

- Donald H. Rumsfeld (1932 - ), Secretary of Defense
And another:
Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty.

- Simone Weil (1909 - 1943), Gravity and Grace, 1947
AP Asks: Who's to Blame for Slow New Orleans Recovery?
Piles of debris and wrecked cars are everywhere, and astonishingly, searchers were still finding bodies in ruined homes just weeks ago.
CIA's secret UK bank trawl may be illegal under British and European law:
But concerns over the potential for abuse were heightened when the US Treasury later admitted that at least one search had been carried out "inappropriately". "The person who conducted that search is no longer allowed to work on this programme," a spokesman said.
USA Now Powerless In Iraq

Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst, looks at the rising casualty rates in Iraq. From Asia Times:
Before the Lebanon war started, it seemed that Iraq was already on the verge of civil war, due to the brutality of death squads and the visible helplessness of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

A month later, Iraq is at civil war. Just look at the figures...

These numbers mean many things. First, it is clear evidence that the Baghdad Security Plan of the Iraqi prime minister (started on June 14) has completely failed. It was a plan much trumpeted by Bush and Maliki because it called for the creation of more Iraq-run checkpoints to search for arms, explosives and gunmen.

Second, the staggering Iraqi death toll means that the Sunni insurgency has not been broken - or even weakened - by the death of its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

And third, the transfer of full responsibility for security to the Iraqi government seems as far away as it has ever been since the invasion of 2003.
The author says a Hezbolla-style power play by Muqtada al Sadr would put the USA in a lose-lose position:
If it happens, and Muqtada decides to end all restraint, he could immediately bring down the Maliki cabinet. Or he could withdraw his ministers from the government and replace them with non-entities, and transform the cabinet into a political dwarf unable to make any real decisions. In this event, what would govern the state of affairs under Muqtada would be the power of the sword on the Iraqi street...

... with Iraq in such civil strife, it could in all likelihood become a battleground for the entire Persian and Arab neighborhood. The Saudis would support the Sunnis. Iran - and Lebanon's Hezbollah - would support the Shi'ites.

The United States would be trapped in the middle. It would be unable to side with any one party against the other. Supporting the Sunnis would mean supporting former Ba'athists. Supporting the Shi'ites would mean allying with Iran...

The United States stands in a helpless situation.
Juan Cole reaches the same conclusion, after reporting the slaughter of Shi'ite pilgrims in the midst of a supposed security crackdown in Baghdad:
What Shiites will willingly disarm after today? And if they don't neither will the Sunni Arabs. The armed faction fighting will go on. The US appears powerless.
Even GOP Senator Chuck Hagel is reaching the same conclusion:
"We've got a very unstable Middle East, I think the most unstable Middle East we've seen since 1948, and you can measure that any way you want. The fact is the future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people, just like it was in Vietnam. The answer, in my opinion, is not to just keep feeding more American troops into it"...

"We, in fact, are in probably in a low-grade, perhaps very defined civil war. You've got corruption, everywhere, as bad as it's ever been. You've got uncontrolables that we can't control, we can't deal with. Iran probably has more influence in Iraq than we do"...
Hagel also says the GOP has lost it's way.
Yo Want Another 50 Years Of This Crap?

I sure don't! Australia's wannabe PM gently introduces the nation to the Orwellian language of US wingnuts:
Mr Costello said a free society must be prepared to defend itself against the threat of terrorism.

"There are, unfortunately, terrorists who would rather see Australia as some kind of islamo-fascist state," he said. "They are prepared to do us ill. These people do not always come from overseas. There are people that are born in Australia who, for whatever reason, have been infected with terrorist ideology; who have trained to give themselves the capacity to do us and our society ill."

People who came to Australia should show their loyalty by respecting the rights of others, showing tolerance to others and by respecting Australian law he said.
By his own criteria, his government is miserably un-Australian. If Costello, Howard and their fellow Liberal elites are not prepared to "share our values" then they should do exactly what they always tell others to do - leave Australia!

Meanwhile, Howard says blames rising interest rates on petrol prices, but then refuses to blame the Iraq War debacle for the rising petrol prices. Then he says rising interest rates are not to blame for the housing bubble - the left-wing state governments are to blame for not releasing more land to developers! You can't have it both ways - unless you can.
A Thousand Pardons?

The Phoenix:
Prediction: Before leaving office, President Bush will issue a shockingly large number of presidential pardons to operatives who, with the administration’s blessing, ventured far outside the law to wage Bush’s “war on terror.” Bush may even owe some of his underlings use of the pardon pen, since they relied in good faith on radical legal opinions crafted by White House lawyers to justify an “anything goes” response to enemies real and imagined.
You Wanna "Road Map"???

Redrawing The Middle East Map.
Bush's Poodle Starts Barking

Blair 'feels betrayed by Bush on Lebanon':
The alliance between George Bush and Tony Blair is in danger after it was revealed that the Prime Minister believes the President has 'let him down badly' over the Middle East crisis.

A senior Downing Street source said that, privately, Mr Blair broadly agrees with John Prescott, who said Mr Bush's record on the issue was 'crap'.

The source said: "We all feel badly let down by Bush. We thought we had persuaded him to take the Israel-Palestine situation seriously, but we were wrong. How can anyone have faith in a man of such low intellect?"

The disclosure comes ahead of a mini recall of Parliament to allow MPs to vent their fury over Mr Blair's handling of Israel's war with Hezbollah and whether the recent terror plot in Britain was affected by his role in the Iraq war.
And this should be good:
It is understood Mr Blair hopes to undertake a highly controversial one-man mission to the Middle East when he returns from his holiday, including a trip to war-torn Lebanon.
Desperate times...
Tony Blair's Terror Hoaxes

Craig Murray follows up his previous story:
In the UK, at least, the more serious wing of the mainstream media is beginning to catch up with the idea that all is not well here.

Still, after eight days of detention, nobody has been charged with any crime. For there to be no clear evidence yet on something that was "imminent" and "Mass murder on an unbelievable scale" is, to say the least, rather peculiar. The 24th person, who was arrested amid much fanfare yesterday, has been quietly released without charge today. Breaking news, another "suspect" has just been released too.

The drip, drip of information to the media from the security services has rather dried-up. The last item of any significance was that they had found a handgun and a rifle--neither of which could have been in any use in the alleged plot. If you were smuggling undetectable liquid explosive onto a plane, you would be unlikely to give the game away by tucking a rifle into your hand baggage...

As the Police immediately told the press about the guns, it is a reasonable deduction that it remains true that they still have found no bombs or detonators, or they would have told us, particularly as they haven't charged anyone yet. They must be getting pretty desperate to announce some actual evidence by now.

This brings us to one particuarly sinister aspect of the allegations--that the bombs were to be made on the plane.

The idea that high explosive can be made quickly in a plane toilet by mixing at room temperature some nail polish remover, bleach, and Red Bull and giving it a quick stir, is nonsense. Yes, liquid explosives exist and are highly dangerous and yes, airports are ill equipped to detect them at present. Yes, it is true they have been used on planes before by terrorists. But can they be quickly manufactured on the plane? No.

The sinister aspect is not that this is a real new threat. It is that the allegation may have been concocted in order to prepare us for arresting people without any actual bombs.

Let me fess up here. I have just checked, and our flat contains nail polish remover, sports drinks, and a variety of household cleaning products. Also MP3 players and mobile phones. So the authorities could announce--as they have whispered to the media in this case--that potential ingredients of a liquid bomb, and potential timing devices, have been discovered. It rather lowers the bar, doesn't it?
As one wry commenter at Smirkys says:
God help us if they found a vibrator ( detonating device ) and some "personal lubricant"...
Backdoor Draft

Troops long out-of-uniform sent to Iraq:
Jason Mulligan, 28, of Ridgefield, Conn., left the army back in 2002 after two years in the infantry. He was working as a painting contractor while studying wildlife conservation when he received his letter last fall alerting him that he'd been mobilized.

The letter was followed up by another warning to Mulligan that if he didn't comply, the government would prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.

"My family and my fiancee were telling me 'Don't' report. Don't show up,' said Mulligan, who also serves with a New Jersey National Guard unit as a gunner on a Humvee helping patrol the territory around Camp Anaconda, a base about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "And I thought, 'Well I got that nasty letter saying they were going to put me in jail if I don't show up.'"
The world needs more people like this:
Interviewed in St Petersburg last week, Dr Perelman insisted he was unworthy of all the attention, and was uninterested in his windfall. "I do not think anything that I say can be of the slightest public interest," he said.

"I am not saying that because I value my privacy, or that I am doing anything I want to hide. There are no top-secret projects going on here. I just believe the public has no interest in me."

Dr Perelman also said he had no interest in self promotion. "I do not regard it as a positive thing. I realised this a long time ago and nobody is going to change my mind," he said.

"Newspapers should be more discerning over who they write about. They should have more taste. As far as I am concerned I can't offer anything for their readers."
A good post from Talking Points Memo:
A good rundown on where things in Iraq are now and where they are headed:
For all the recent attention on the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, far more people died in Iraq over the past month than in Israel and Lebanon, and tens of thousands have been killed from the fighting and criminal activity since the U.S. occupation began. Additional signs of civil war abound. Refugees and displaced people number in the hundreds of thousands. Militias continue to proliferate. The sense of being an "Iraqi" is evaporating.

Considering how many mistakes the United States has made in Iraq, how much time has been squandered, and how difficult the task is, even a serious course correction in Washington and Baghdad may only postpone the inevitable.
Events on the ground are outpacing the debate here at home. From a political standpoint, the decision to invade Iraq and the incompetence demonstrated in the execution of that decision are fair game in congressional elections. From a policy standpoint though, the debate is--or should be--how do we prepare for, respond to, and ameliorate the looming consequences of the invasion on the region as a whole.

In that regard, debating whether to keep the troops in Iraq or bring them home is, at a certain level, starting to seem quaint. It is another sign, one of many, of the dysfunction in the U.S. policy-making apparatus that no provision is being made for the "spillover" effect. Of course, that would require first acknowledging that the strategic objectives of the Iraq invasion have not been, and cannot now be, achieved.

August 19, 2006

John Bolton: Hip Swinger or Cruel Pervert?

In case you missed it...

Larry Flynt says Bush's UN nominee won't answer questions about forced sex:
"Corroborated allegations that Mr. Bolton's first wife, Christina Bolton, was forced to engage in group sex have not been refuted by the State Department despite inquires posed by Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt concerning the allegations. Mr. Flynt has obtained information from numerous sources that Mr. Bolton participated in paid visits to Plato's Retreat, the popular swingers club that operated in New York City in the late 1970s and early 1980s...

August 18, 2006

US Prestige? Respect?

A massive 80 percent of Brits want their country to break away from Bush's misguided "war on (ahem)"!

British Labour MPs agree that Bush really IS CRAP.

And a Chinese envoy tells the U.S.A. to 'shut up':
Sha Zukang, China's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, told British Broadcasting Corp. radio that American concerns about his country's growing military might were misguided.

"It's better for the U.S. to shut up," Sha said. "Keep quiet. It's much, much better."
More embarrassing AWB Email s:
A confidential email reveals the Australian embassy in Jordan offered to act as a matchmaker between AWB and a member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle nine months before allied troops invaded Iraq.
Even More On Bush And Camus

The Daily Show's John Stewart on Bush and Camus (YouTube video).

And more commentary compiled by Adam Christian at Slate. One reader speculates that W.'s choice may have been inspired by mention of the novel in Talladega Nights, a new NASCAR comedy.

This interpretation is good:
The most interesting aspect of the novel is why Mersault is put to death. It isn't because he killed Arabs, which was rarely met with the death penalty. Rather it was his lack of compassion and explanation of his motives to the demanding public. Ultimately he was killed because he showed no sadness for the death of his mother. The public viewed him as inhuman. Bush is persecuted like Mersault not because he is a "remorseless killer of Arabs", but because he doesn't engage the public to explain himself. Bill Clinton also killed Arabs (e.g. bombing a "chemical weapons" plant/hospital in the Sudan) during his last year in office. However, he was an excellent communicator of emotions- he felt my pain. Of course, Bill would find more literary parallels with Willy Loman than Mersault.

Mersault is perhaps one of the most complex characters in modern literature, but to the mob that shouted for his death he would have been viewed as a Bush-like moron.
But then the writer suggests that MAYBE "behind Bush's façade is a deeper, stoic intellectual who connects with a character publicly persecuted for his taciturn nature." Naahhh! Sorry, dude - you haven't been paying attention!

Also at Slate, John Dickerson urges Tony Snow to be more forthcoming about Bush's reading matter:
This is no time to be vague. The president uttered the word "crusade" a single time when talking about fighting terrorists and critics in Europe and the Middle East still use it as proof that his war aims are motivated by 11th-century wide-eyed religious zealotry. Surely someone is going to think that Bush read the book because he identifies with Meursault. There's got to be another explanation. Does his experience in Iraq push him to read works replete with themes of angst, anxiety, and dread? Was the president trying to gain insight into the thinking of Europeans who are skeptical of his plan for democracy in the Middle East, founded as it is on the idea of a universal rational essence that existentialists reject? Did he just want to read something short for his truncated vacation? This may be the first time that national security demands an official version of literary criticism. We want a book report!
See my original prize-winning post here.

UPDATE: Here is the angle on the Talladega Nights connection:
In short, [Ricky Bobby is] a blown-up version of NASCAR’s mentality, and, by extension, red-state America’s, and the movie manages to point out his foibles without losing its affection for him. Satire like this is hard to do without coming off as shrill or mean. This movie pulls it off in style, with Ferrell’s brilliance and charm leading the way.

Nowhere is this clearer than when Ricky Bobby is brought low by Jean Girard (Sacha Baron Cohen, a.k.a. Ali G), a gay French driver who has made the switch from Formula One racing to NASCAR for the express purpose of beating the American, which he proceeds to do in humiliating fashion. Everything about Jean is calculated to affront Ricky Bobby and what he stands for; the Frenchman listens to opera, drinks espresso macchiato, and reads Albert Camus — all while he’s racing! Ridiculous and effeminate, Jean is nevertheless a worthy match for Ricky Bobby, both as a driver and a trash-talker. “What has America given ze world besides George Bush and Cheerios?” he sniffs. “[The French] have given ze world democracy, existentialism, and ze ménage à trois.”
Dishonest Times

We live in dark, dishonest times. Our leaders tell lies to win elections, yet we re-elect them anyway. Our leaders tell lies that lead us to war, to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, to the wholesale destuction of country after country. Yet still we re-elect them. Why?

Our leaders break laws and lie about it. Our leaders tear down noble treaties that have stood for generations. They ignore real perils like global warming while terrifying us with hoaxes manufactured for political gain. And yet, goaded by ideologues pushing pro-business agendas, they strut the media stage as if they were the very embodiment of our collective virtue. How have we come to this?

Wise men long ago counselled that leaders who wish peace and prosperity for their people should begin by setting an example:
Chi K'ang asked Confucius about government, saying, "What do you say to killing the unprincipled for the good of the principled?" Confucius replied, "Sir, in carrying on your government, why should you use killing at all? Let your evinced desires be for what is good, and the people will be good. The relation between superiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and the grass. The grass must bend, when the wind blows across it."
If our leaders will not display morality and virtue, why should we? And yet, if we ourselves are lacking in morality and virtue, is it any wonder we have such leaders?
No Idea

Tom Lasseter:
"All the American policies have failed because the American analysis of the situation is wrong; it is not related to reality," Saghir said. "The slaughtered Iraqi man on the street conveys the best explanation."

Some U.S. soldiers in Iraq reluctantly agree.

"As an intelligence officer ... I have had the chance to move around Baghdad on mounted and dismounted patrols and see the city and violence from the ground," wrote a U.S. military officer, whose name is being withheld to protect him from possible reprimand.

"I think that the greatest problem that we deal with (besides the insurgents and militia) is that our leadership has no real comprehension of the ground truth. I wish that I could offer a solution, but I can't."
Via Rafael Estrella.
Where There's Smoke...

Say g'day to Bush's new man in Australia:
Today Robert McCallum arrives as the representative of the most unconvincing US president in living memory. His old Yale pal George Bush inveigled him out of the Atlanta law firm Alston & Bird and invited him to take a political position at the Department of Justice in Washington, where eventually he became third-most senior officer. Now it's Canberra.

In his wake in Washington there is a small lake of unresolved litigation that has its source in the lengthy and expensive case that the Department of Justice started (in Bill Clinton's era) against the big cigarette manufacturers - USA v Philip Morris et al.

This was a huge action, in which the government alleged that the tobacco companies knew of the lethal consequences of their trade and yet not only sought to cover that up but to fraudulently entice young people into the habit. Originally the department sought a penalty of $US130 billion payable at $US5.2 billion a year over 24 years. The idea was that this would fund a nationwide "quit smoking" program.

At the eleventh hour, the Justice Department lawyers were instructed to ask the court for a penalty of $US10 billion at a rate of $US2 billion a year for five years.

The person who gave that instruction is America's new boy in Canberra, Robert McCallum. He has argued ever since that his intervention was not political and that his relationship with the White House and the fact that his old law firm acted for tobacco interests had nothing to do with it...
And just by coincidence, McCallum arrives on our shores just as that judgement is handed down:
A US federal judge ruled that cigarette makers were liable for a decades-long conspiracy to hide the dangers of smoking but declined to impose financial penalties on the industry.

US District Judge Gladys Kessler found that the government had proved its case that accused cigarette makers of a decades-long conspiracy to hide the dangers of smoking.

But Kessler said a previous ruling by an appeals court prevented her from slapping the companies with monetary penalties such as funding a large anti-smoking campaign, as the government had sought...

Several tobacco stocks rose in extended trading after the ruling came out.

"Although they lost, they won. It's a victory for the tobacco companies," said Tim Ghriskey, chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management.
McCallum replaces the previous US Ambassador, Tom Schieffer, an old chum of Bush and Texas Rangers baseball team colleague, who is primarily remembered for interfering in Australian domestic politics when the Labour Party suggested withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Hang Up The Phone, George

It's not every day you break two US Constitutional Amendments in one go:
A federal judge in Detroit ruled today that the Bush administration’s eavesdropping program is illegal and unconstitutional, and she ordered that it cease at once.

District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor found that President Bush exceeded his proper authority and that the eavesdropping without warrants violated the First and Fourth Amendment protections of free speech and privacy.

“It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” she wrote.
New York Times has the full story.

August 17, 2006

Dowd On Bush And Camus

Maureen Dowd writes in the NYT today about Bush reading Camus.

Here's the full transcript from way behind the $$$ NYT firewall (get real, Sulzberger!):
Camus Comes to Crawford
By Maureen Dowd

Strangely enough, we find two famous men reading Albert Camus’s “The Stranger” this summer.

One is Jean Girard, the villainous gay French race car driver hilariously played by Sacha Baron Cohen (a k a Ali G and Borat) — the sinuous rival to Will Ferrell’s stocky Ricky Bobby in “Talladega Nights.”

Girard, a jazz-loving, white-silk-scarf-wearing, America-disdaining Formula Un driver sponsored by Perrier, is so smooth he can sip macchiato from a china cup, smoke Gitanes and read “L’Etranger” behind the wheel and still lead the Nascar pack.

Frenchie contemptuously informs “cowboy” Bobby that America merely gave the world George Bush, Cheerios and the ThighMaster while France invented democracy, existentialism and the ménage à trois.

The other guy kindling to Camus is none other than the aforementioned George Bush, who read “The Stranger” in English on his Crawford vacation and, Tony Snow told me, “liked it.” Name-dropping existentialists is good for picking up girls, as Woody Allen’s schlemiels found, or getting through the clove-cigarette fog of Humanities 101. But it does seem odd that W., who once mocked NBC’s David Gregory as “intercontinental” for posing a question in French to the French president in France, would choose Camus over Grisham.

Camus is not beach reading — or brush reading. How on earth did this book make it into the hands of our proudly anti-intellectual president?

“I don’t know how ‘L’Etranger’ made it onto his list,” Mr. Snow said. “I must confess, I read ‘L’Etranger’ 25 years ago.” The rest of W.’s reading list was presidentially correct: two books on Lincoln and the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Polio: An American Story,” by David Oshinsky. (Not a word by Merleau-Ponty.)

Debunking the theory that W. had a sports section or Mad magazine’s “Spy vs. Spy” tucked inside the 1946 classic of angst, Mr. Snow noted that he and the president had “a brief conversation on the origins of French existentialism, Camus and Sartre.” Pressed for more details by an astonished columnist having trouble envisioning Waco as the Left Bank, the press secretary laughed. “Confidential conversation,” he said, extending the administration’s lack of transparency to literature.

He brushed off suggestions that the supremely unself-reflective W. was going through a Carteresque malaise-in-the-gorge moment: “He doesn’t feel like an existentialist trapped in Algeria during the unpleasantness.”

It takes a while to adjust to the idea of W., who has created chaos trying to impose moral order on the globe, perusing Camus, who wrote about the eternal frustration of moral order in human affairs. What does W., the archenemy of absurdity as a view of life, kindle to in C., the apostle of absurdity as a view of life? What can W., the born-again monogamist, spark to in C., the amorous atheist? In some ways, Mr. Bush is supremely not a Camus man. Camus hated the blindness caused by ideology, and Mr. Bush wallows in it. Camus celebrated lucidity while the president keeps seeing only what he wants to see.

Mr. Bush’s life has been premised on his confidence that he will always be insulated from the consequences and the cruelties of existence, unlike Meursault. W. or his people always work to change fate, whether it’s an election or the Middle East.

If you think about it long enough, though, it begins to make a sort of wacky sense.

“The Stranger” is about the emotionally detached Meursault, who makes a lot of bad decisions and pre-emptively kills an Arab in the sand. Get it? Camus’s protagonist moves through an opaque, obscure and violent world that is indifferent to his beliefs and desires. Get it?

If there was ever a moment when this president could regard the unanticipated consequences of his actions, behold the world littered with the very opposite of what he intended for it and appreciate the gritty stoicism of the philosophy of absurdism, this is it. Iraq in civil war. Al Qaeda metastasizing and plotting. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria knitting closer, celebrating a “victory” in standing up to Israel, the U.S. and Britain, and mocking W.’s plan for a “new Middle East.” The North Koreans luxuriating in their nuclear capability. Chávez becoming the new Castro on a global scale.

Maybe next the president should pick up Camus’s other classic, “The Myth of Sisyphus.” Was there ever a national enterprise more Sisyphean than the war in Iraq?

If there was ever a confirmation of Camus’s sense of the absurdity of life, it’s that the president is reading him.
OY! Dowd is not in top form here. My take (here) is infinitely better, and more well-informed. So where are my 500,000+ hits? C'mon!!!
THE TRUTH? PRICELESS!

From the UK Independent :
[British Deputy PM] John Prescott has given vent to his private feelings about the Bush presidency, summing up George Bush's administration in a single word: crap...

"He was talking in the context of the 'road map' in the Middle East. He said he only gave support to the war on Iraq because they were promised the road map. But he said the Bush administration had been crap on that. We all laughed and he said to an official, 'Don't minute that'." Mr Cohen added: "We also had a laugh when he said old Bush is just a cowboy with his Stetson on. But then he said, 'I can hardly talk about that can I?'
Fools Stranded In Willful Ignorance

Bush cannot understand why Iraqis don't love the USA.

Meanwhile, John Howard cannot understand why Australian's don't follow his official narrative of post-WWII history.
110 Killed Every Day

July deadliest month in Iraq. Freedom is on the march. Whoo hoo.
Bush Is A Lying Idiot

Funny. (Via Atrios via Juan Cole via MaxSpeak...)
What We Know: Hitting The Wall

Paul Craig Roberts looks at What we know and don’t know about 9/11:
We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.

We also know for a fact that the Air Force somehow inexplicably failed to intercept the alleged hijacked airliners despite the fact that the Air Force can launch jet fighters to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes. We also know that the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have just written a book that reveals that the US military lied to the Commission about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
MUST READ

Craig Murray - The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?
I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

So this, I believe, is the true story...
Craig Murray, Britain's former Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, helped expose human rights abuses by the US-funded regime of Islam Karimov. He is now a prominent critic of Western policy in the region.

August 15, 2006

An Evil Symbiosis

From AlterNet:
Bush desperately needs the terrorists. They are his last frail hope for political survival. They divert public attention, at least momentarily, from his disastrous war in Iraq and his shameful abuses of the Constitution. The "news" of terror -- whether real or fantasized -- reduces American politics to its most primitive impulses, the realm of fear-and-smear where George Bush is at his best...

Wake up, folks, and recognize how stupid and wimpish you look. I wrote the following two years ago during a similar episode of red alerts: "Bush's 'war on terrorism' is a political slogan -- not a coherent strategy for national defense -- and it succeeds brillantly only as politics. For everything else, it is quite illogical."
Hicks Home For Christmas?

Suddenly Philip Ruddock is saying that Hicks could be home soon.
Mr Ruddock said the Australian government wanted a US military tribunal to prosecute Hicks and fresh charges to be in place by November.

"It should happen as quickly as possible," he told the newspaper. "Were that not to be the case, we would be seeking his return in the same way we did with Mamdouh Habib.

"I would never benchmark myself, but I do note that the United States wants to have the matters that Congress has to deal with resolved before it rises for the mid-term election, which suggests November."
Andrew Bosworth gives a lesson on 'Neo-Fascism 101'.
Economic fascism is based a merger of big business and big government. Sometimes, a formal corporatism emerges; other times, the private sector (monopolies and oligopolies) simply pass over into the public sector (as in the US), capturing the state and using it to wage that most profitable of activities: war. This later scenario is what happened in the United States, and the incestuous relationship between Big Business and Big Government ushered in a new Gilded Age of cronyism and corruption. Benito Mussolini was clear: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

For the Middle East, the preconditions of mature capitalism (and thus fascism) simply do not exist.
Dan Froomkin says Cheney may have crossed the line that separates legitimate political discourse from hysteria.

August 14, 2006

Killing Arabs: Bush, Camus and the Politics Of The Absurd

Oh. My. God. Bush has been reading Camus:
Bush puts down his summer reading -- including Albert Camus' "The Stranger," and two books on Civil War President Abraham Lincoln -- in favor of presidential briefing books.
I find this particularly disgusting because L’Etranger (The Stranger) is my favourite Camus book.

For those not familiar with the name, Albert Camus was a famous French-Algerian writer whose work is synonymous with the concept of absurdity.
”At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face.” - Camus
Along with Jean-Paul Sartre and other intellectuals, Camus developed a school of thought known as Existentialism. Adherents simply refused to believe anything that could not be universally proven to be true. And what can be proven to be true, other than the simple fact that we exist? As Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” All else is conjecture.

Stripped to such bare bones, even the basic concept of life itself becomes absurd. Most of us find such a stark reality unpalatable. We lean on various psychological props – religion, wealth, fantasy - to help us ignore this core dilemma of existence. But Camus and his fellow Existentialists bravely embraced such absurdity as the foundation for an ultimately life-affirming philosophy.
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” - Camus
For a telling recent example of the absurd, nothing can match the Bush administration's Weapons of Mass Destruction ruse. Bush sent a team of men scouring the desert sands of Iraq for more than a year, searching in vain for Saddam’s “elusive” WMDs. And yet at least some of the senior figures in the Bush administration knew those WMDs did not exist – because they themselves had set up a secretive Office Of Special Plans to help fabricate the WMD ruse. As a metaphor for man’s life on earth, Camus cited the eternal task of Sisyphus: repeatedly pushing a rock to the top of a mountain, only to watch it roll down the other side. The mission of Charles Deulfer’s Iraq Survey Group was no less absurd.
”The only real progress lies in learning to be wrong all alone.“ – Camus
To fully appreciate Camus, it is important to distinguish between absurdity and similar concepts such as irony and ridiculousness. For example, it is ridiculous that an intellectual lightweight like George W. Bush ever became President of the USA. It’s ironic that the man who holds probably the most powerful office in the history of our planet is a shallow, easily manipulated fool. But we begin to approach the absurd when we realize that, after half a decade of death, war, stuff-ups, and cover-ups, millions of people across the USA still do not know, or refuse to acknowledge, how criminally incompetent Bush truly is.

Some, including top politicians and government officials, refuse to acknowledge this harsh truth because they do not want to consciously have to deal with it. Others, even as they are forced to acknowledge the truth, willfully refuse to learn the lessons implicit in the unfolding disaster. Such self-constructed fantasies help us all deal with forces - including wars and hurricanes, terror and absurdity - which are seemingly beyond our ability to influence.
”Ah, mon cher, for anyone who is alone, without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful.” - Camus
Camus’ writing is marked by an intellectual rigor that shines like a bright light through all his work. By contrast, Bush cannot even be bothered to analyze complex issues in anything more than a superficial way.
“What they need to do is get Syria to get Hizbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over.” – G. W. Bush
L'Etranger, the book that Bush has (we are told) been reading (did he understand it?) makes repeated use of the scorching Algerian sun as a metaphor for the glaring illumination of objective truth in our lives. Bathed in this white-hot glow, the absurdity of our petty human follies becomes all the more obvious...
President Bush on Tuesday dismissed a human rights report as "absurd " for its harsh criticism of U.S. treatment of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the allegations were made by prisoners "who hate America."

"It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world," Bush said of the Amnesty International report that compared Guantanamo to a Soviet-era gulag...

Standing in the sun, sweat beading on his forehead, Bush said the job of the U.S. forces in Iraq is to help train the nation's own forces to defeat insurgents.

"I think the Iraqi people dealt the insurgents a serious blow when we had the elections," Bush said. "In other words, what the insurgents fear is democracy because democracy is the opposition of their vision."
Bush actually quoted Camus once, at the start of his second term, when he was visiting Brussels and desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to mend fences with “Old Europe” :
”We know there are many obstacles, and we know the road is long. Albert Camus said that, "Freedom is a long-distance race." We're in that race for the duration -- and there is reason for optimism. Oppression is not the wave of the future; it is the desperate tactic of a few backward-looking men. Democratic nations grow in strength because they reward and respect the creative gifts of their people. And freedom is the direction of history, because freedom is the permanent hope of humanity.” - George W. Bush, February 22, 2005
However well-intentioned the gesture may have been, the Camus quote was generally not well received. Gary Leupp’s reaction spoke for many of us:
For Bush, a cocksure man full of worthless certainties, who seeks to impose fundamentalist Christian morality, sideline science and actually diminish freedom in the name of the "war on terror," to invoke Camus is an outrage. Surely some in the Brussels audience wanted to puke.
To make matters worse, Bush’s speech-writers had actually taken Camus out of context. A careful reading reveals that Camus was being sarcastic:
The paragraph from which the president quoted begins by having Clamence extolling slavery, as Camus believed Sartre had done by aligning himself with the French Communist Party. Then Camus has Clamence condemn himself of hypocrisy, for which Camus criticized Sartre in his journal, by saying that that he "was always talking of freedom. At breakfast I used to spread it on my toast, I used to chew it all day long, and in company my breath was delightfully redolent of freedom. With that key word I would bludgeon whoever contradicted me; I made it serve my desires and my power."
Ah, yes! Freedom, one of George W. Bush’s favourite words!
“When a war breaks out, people say: "It's too stupid, it can't last long." But though a war may be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent its lasting. “ – Camus
Fear and terror. Politics and war. Democracy and Dictatorship. These arenas illustrate the awful differences between an obfuscator like Bush and a man of real moral clarity, like Camus.
“Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear.” – Camus
Camus was born in the dying days of the French Empire, in a colony that became synonymous with militant Islamic fundamentalism before the World Trade Centre had even been built:
Born November 7th, 1913 in Algeria son of French 'pied-noir' settlers Camus grew up in poverty in the proletarian neighbourhood of Belcourt in Algiers. Camus's mother, Catherine Hélène Sintés, was an illiterate cleaning woman. She came from a family of Spanish origin. Lucien Auguste Camus, his father, was an itinerant agricultural laborer. He died of his wounds in 1914 after the Battle of the Marne - Camus was less than a year old at that time.
In his early twenties, Camus was expelled from the Algerian Communist Party because he supported the nationalist aspirations of down-trodden native Algerians. At the same age, George W. Bush was busy going AWOL from the National Guard.

In his early thirties, Camus wrote and edited Combat, the underground newspaper of the French Resistance in WWII. By this time, Camus was already becoming famous beyond the intellectual classes. At the same age, George W. Bush was busy snorting cocaine and being arrested for DUI.

In his early forties, during the Algerian War of Independence, Camus argued for peaceful coexistence and called for a truce to spare civilians, which both warring sides regarded as foolish. He worked clandestinely for imprisoned Algerians facing the death penalty.
”There will be no lasting peace either in the heart of individuals or in social customs until death is outlawed.” – Camus
At the same age, George W. Bush was just embarking on his political career, helping his father win the US Presidency before successfully running for Governor of Texas. As governor, Bush sent a record 150 prison inmates to their deaths. As President, he has blithely overseen the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans and (more recently) Lebanese.

Camus was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957. Three years later, he died in a car accident.

Bush is still alive and dangerous, with a further two years to run on his Presidency. He remains surrounded by people with no more intellectual capacity or moral clarity than himself.
“I don't know anybody who has even talked or contemplated the prospect of a nuclear strike in Iran and that would be absolutely absurd." - Tony Blair


“Blair and Bush are now alone in their own theatre of the absurd.” - Alan Simpson, a UK MP.


* * *

Selected quotes from Albert Camus:
There are already too many dead on the field, and we cannot be generous with any but our own blood.

If there is sin against life, it consists… in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.

Don't wait for the last judgment - it takes place every day.

By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more.

The modern mind is in complete disarray. Knowledge has stretched itself to the point where neither the world nor our intelligence can find any foot-hold. It is a fact that we are suffering from nihilism.

The myth of unlimited production brings war in its train as inevitably as clouds announce a storm.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.

A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.

A guilty conscience needs to confess. A work of art is a confession.

A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.

A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened.

After all manner of professors have done their best for us, the place we are to get knowledge is in books. The true university of these days is a collection of books.

After all, every murderer when he kills runs the risk of the most dreadful of deaths, whereas those who kill him risk nothing except promotion.

Alas, after a certain age every man is responsible for his face.

To assert in any case that a man must be absolutely cut off from society because he is absolutely evil amounts to saying that society is absolutely good, and no-one in his right mind will believe this today.

To insure the adoration of a theorem for any length of time, faith is not enough, a police force is needed as well.

Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principle of evil.

We call first truths those we discover after all the others.

What the world requires of the Christians is that they should continue to be Christians.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.

We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives...inside ourselves.
UPDATE: Apparently Bush found L'Etranger "a quick read"...
He was reading Richard Carwardine's biography of Abraham Lincoln, another president whose tenure was dominated by a morally difficult war, and who was willing to test the boundaries of presidential power at a time of war.

However, it was another book that offered a more revealing glimpse into the mind of the vacationing president.

He read Albert Camus's The Stranger, triggering a discussion about existentialism with his aides. "He found it an interesting book and a quick read," said Mr Snow. "I don't want to go too deep into it, but we discussed the origins of existentialism."

For a man whose defining philosophy during his tenure has been a policy of pre-emptive action against terror threats, his interest in a philosophy emphasising that meaning is not provided by the natural order but can be created by human action, seems apt.
ePluribus Media has some more thoughtful analysis. Bush may have read the book because both Blair and Olhmert have been calling Iran "an existential threat to Israel". This is actually quite a different meaning for the word "existentialist" (i.e. threatening the existence of) compared to the philosophy of Existentialism (i.e. based on pure existence). ePluribus Media also cites some interesting parallels between Bush and Camus' book which (dare we hope?) could give a glimpse into Bush's future:
1. Fight with Arabs
2. Pre-Emptive Strike; Disproportionate Use of Force: Go to Jail
3. The Trial: The Whole World is Watching
4. A Media Circus
5. His Character on Trial: Betrayed by his intimate friend
6. Exposed in Court as An Apathetic Monster
7. Convicted of Premeditated Murder, Sentenced to Death
8. Time in Prison to Ruminate Over His Life and Actions
9. There Is No God
9.5 Protagonist Comes to Awareness
10. Excited about the day of his execution, he hopes everyone cheers for his death


UPDATE NNN: Why does Maureen Dowd get paid for writing about this in the NYT, when my well-informed take can't even get 500,000+ hits?

UPDATE 200,435 (cubed): Even more here.
Max Hastings: Bush's belief in a worldwide Islamist conspiracy is foolish and dangerous.
In the eyes of many Muslims, the actions of Bush and Blair have promoted and legitimised al-Qaida in a fashion even its founder could hardly have anticipated a decade ago.

Bush has chosen to lump together all violent Muslim opposition to what he perceives as western interests everywhere in the world, as part of a single conspiracy. He is indifferent to the huge variance of interests that drives the Taliban in Afghanistan, insurgents in Iraq, Hamas and Hizbullah fighting the Israelis. He simply identifies them as common enemies of the United States.

Almost three years ago he contemptuously challenged the Iraqi insurgents to defy American will: "My answer is - bring 'em on." Today he has widened this bold defiance to embrace a vastly more ambitious range of foes: "He who has one enemy will meet him everywhere."

Far from acknowledging that any successful strategy for addressing Muslim radicalism must include a just outcome for the Palestinians, he endorses Israel's attempt to crush them and their supporters by force of arms alone, together with Israeli expansion on the West Bank. The west faces the probable defeat of its efforts to stabilise Afghanistan, a worthy objective, because of the likely failure of its campaign in Iraq, which began on false pretexts.

There is no chance that the west will get anywhere with the Muslim world until the US government is willing to disassemble a spread of grievances in widely diverse societies, examine them as separate components, and treat each on its merits. America cannot prevail through the mere deployment of superior wealth and military power, the failure of which is manifest. Judicious and discriminatory political judgments are fundamental, and today quite lacking.

The madness of Bush's policy is that he has made a wilful choice to amalgamate the grossly irrational, totalitarian and homicidal objectives of al-Qaida with the just claims of Palestinians and grievances of Iraqis. His remarks on Saturday invite Muslims who sympathise with Hamas or reject Iraq's occupation or merely aspire to grow opium in Afghanistan to make common cause with Bin Laden.

If the United States insists upon regarding all Muslim opponents of its foreign policies as a homogeneous enemy then that is what they become. The Muslim radicals' "single narrative" portrays the entire course of history as a Christian and Jewish plot against Islam.

It is widely agreed among western governments and intelligence agencies that, in order to defeat the pernicious spread of such nonsense, a convincing counter-narrative is needed. Yet it becomes a trifle difficult to compose this when the US president promulgates his own single narrative, almost as ridiculous as that of al-Qaida.
We live in a world where most human beings never make a phone call and live on less than two dollars a day, where 6,000 children die every day from diarrhea because most have no access to clean water. WHY?
Bush's Democracy: Only Sticks, No Carrots

More from that Sy Hersh piece in the The New Yorker (see post below). Hersh says Israeli intelligence had unscrambled "bellicose intercepts" between Hamas and Hezbollah:
For almost a year before its victory in the Palestinian elections in January, Hamas had curtailed its terrorist activities. In the late May intercepted conversation, the consultant told me, the Hamas leadership said that “they got no benefit from it, and were losing standing among the Palestinian population.” The conclusion, he said, was “ ‘Let’s go back into the terror business and then try and wrestle concessions from the Israeli government.’
Here we have a group which renounced terrorism in favour of Democracy, won a Democratic election, but ultimately concluded there was no future in it for them. This is as damning an indictment of the Bush administration as anything I have read.

It also hints at a broader war, where Arab nations are united against Israel and the USA. Many Arabs already view the situation this way.

Then there's this little passage, which belies who is really in charge in Washington:
Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, “to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear.” The consultant added, “Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council.” After that, “persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board,” the consultant said.
Hersh indicates the Israeli targetting of civilians was indeed premeditated, for the bizarrely illogical aim of turning civilians against Hezbollah:
Israel believed that, by targeting Lebanon’s infrastructure, including highways, fuel depots, and even the civilian runways at the main Beirut airport, it could persuade Lebanon’s large Christian and Sunni populations to turn against Hezbollah, according to the former senior intelligence official.
And this was “the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran”! Have any of these neocons noticed that people in Iraq are STILL not throwing rose petals at the feet of the occupying troops?

Seriously, these guys are nucking futs:
Cheney’s office supported the Israeli plan, as did Elliott Abrams, a deputy national-security adviser, according to several former and current officials. (A spokesman for the N.S.C. denied that Abrams had done so.) They believed that Israel should move quickly in its air war against Hezbollah. A former intelligence officer said, “We told Israel, ‘Look, if you guys have to go, we’re behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later — the longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office.’ ”

Cheney’s point, the former senior intelligence official said, was “What if the Israelis execute their part of this first, and it’s really successful? It’d be great. We can learn what to do in Iran by watching what the Israelis do in Lebanon.”

The Pentagon consultant told me that intelligence about Hezbollah and Iran is being mishandled by the White House the same way intelligence had been when, in 2002 and early 2003, the Administration was making the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “The big complaint now in the intelligence community is that all of the important stuff is being sent directly to the top—at the insistence of the White House—and not being analyzed at all, or scarcely,” he said. “It’s an awful policy and violates all of the N.S.A.’s strictures, and if you complain about it you’re out,” he said. “Cheney had a strong hand in this.”
Hersh's sources say the Bush administration's long-term goal was to set up a Sunni Arab coalition — including countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt — that would join the United States and Europe to pressure the ruling Shiite mullahs in Iran. But the autocratic leaders of these nations (who were all presumably in on the plot) were quickly forced to change their "no ceasefire needed" positions due to massive anti-Israeli public protests across the Middle East. So much for spreading anything that can remotely be called "Democracy", hunh?

So basically, if the Israeli attack had been more successful, Bush would be using it as the blueprint for an attack on Iran right about now. But in reality, the Israeli attack has been a disaster, right? ... Right? Err... Whose "reality" are we talking about?
“There is no way that Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this,” he said. “When the smoke clears, they’ll say it was a success, and they’ll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.”

In the White House, especially in the Vice-President’s office, many officials believe that the military campaign against Hezbollah is working and should be carried forward.
What can you say? Hersh's closing quote is a doozey:
"The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result."
Hersh: Bush Was Going After Iran

“It’s a moment of clarification. It’s now become clear why we don’t have peace in the Middle East.

- George W. Bush at the G-8 summit on July 16th, 2006.
Sy Hersh has another big article in The New Yorker. He says the Bush Administration was "closely involved" in the planning of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon. The idea, as many suspected, was to soften things up for an attack on Iran:
President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah’s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel’s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground...

According to a Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli and the U.S. governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah—and shared it with Bush Administration officials—well before the July 12th kidnappings. “It’s not that the Israelis had a trap that Hezbollah walked into,” he said, “but there was a strong feeling in the White House that sooner or later the Israelis were going to do it.”

... He went on, “The White House was more focussed on stripping Hezbollah of its missiles, because, if there was to be a military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush wanted both. Bush was going after Iran, as part of the Axis of Evil, and its nuclear sites, and he was interested in going after Hezbollah as part of his interest in democratization, with Lebanon as one of the crown jewels of Middle East democracy.”

Administration officials denied that they knew of Israel’s plan for the air war. The White House did not respond to a detailed list of questions.

August 13, 2006

Oy vey...!

After a month of murderous violence, the Antiwar Camp in Israel finally speaks up:
"The use of more force now is not in Israel's best interests," [author Amos] Oz told reporters before the rally in front of the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv. "The time has come to resolve this through diplomatic means."
Meanwhile, Israel has agreed to a UN resolution to halt the violence and will cease attacks... on Monday.

UPDATE: Don't expect much on Monday 0500:
Israeli officials said Israel believed it would be entitled to use force to prevent Hizbollah from rearming and to clear guerrilla positions out of southern Lebanon after the truce took effect. They said such "defensive" operations were permissible under the U.N. resolution to end the fighting.

Western diplomats and U.N. officials said they feared Israel's broad definition of "defensive" actions could lead to a resurgence in large-scale fighting and prevent the swift deployment of international troops meant to monitor a ceasefire.

"It will be a fragile truce," said a Western diplomat involved in the deliberations.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni repeated Israel's position that its troops would only pull out when a peacekeeping force arrived -- which the U.N. says could take up to 10 days.

Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Saturday his guerrillas would observe a truce once it began but reserved the right to fight Israeli soldiers still on Lebanese soil.
Media Ignores Cheerleader-in-Chief

WaPo says Increasingly, Bush Escapes the Media Pack:
The idea that Bush could travel across the country without a full contingent of reporters, especially in the middle of a war, highlights a major cultural shift in the presidency and the news media. In the four decades since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, presidents traditionally have taken journalists with them wherever they traveled on the theory that when it comes to the most powerful leader on the planet, anything can happen at any time.

But increasingly in recent months, Bush has left town without a chartered press plane, often to receptions where he talks to donors chipping in hundreds of thousands of dollars with no cameras or tapes to record his words for the public. Barred from such events, most news organizations will not pay to travel with him. And so a White House policy inclined to secrecy has combined with escalating costs for the strapped news media to let Bush fly under the radar in a way his predecessors could not.
On the other hand:
The advent of instant video feeds, cable television, the Internet, e-mail and transcripts of the president's every public word has made it possible to cover Bush without being anywhere near him.
But:
"There's going to be a time when something's going to happen and the major national media's not going to be there," Lockhart said. "They're going to have to rely on technology. Will this have a major impact on our democracy? Smarter people than me will have to answer that."
Rest assured, folks: the blogggers will always be there! Where are YOU getting YOUR quality news analysis?

August 12, 2006

Hey Jew! Where You Going With That Gun In Your Hand?

John Safran:
HEY Jew! Sure, it was fun being part of the Tribe when it was associated with blintzes and bagels and Woody and wit. But now when your workmates spot the Star of David necklace they're thinking rubble and bombs and babies from the night before. You're kind of complicit, in their eyes at least. When they read those Mel Gibson quotes, they don't say it, but they don't entirely disagree. Cross-pollinate an '80s Afrikaner with a '90s Serb and you're not even getting close. Even Leunig hates you.

It's going to be tough sticking it out with the Zionists, so what if you want to cut loose? What do you do if you want to parachute from the zeppelin of Zion but still maintain a Jewish identity? Can you bale on Israel without baling on Judaism? Here are some non-Zionist Jewish identities for your consideration...
Glenn Greenwald:
Given the grand pronouncements with which this war began -- that Hezbollah would be destroyed, that it was the start of the epic war of civilizations -- any honest person (and even many who are not honest) would acknowledge that this is a defeat for Israel and for neoconservative dreams of a wider war. As a result, many in Israel are predicting, and vigorously calling for, the resignation of Israel's Prime Minister.

The disappointment and anger of neoconservatives over this ignominious end must be severe, and it is almost certain to be a source of very intense conflict between them and the Bush administration...

Watching Fox News right now discussing this is like being at a wake. Paul at Powerline is calling for the downfall of the Bush administration. The neoconservative dream for broader war, at least for the moment, has collapsed on its shattered foundations.
I hope his expectations for an end to the war are not premature: the ball is in Hezbollah's court at the moment, it seems. But the reported cycle of recriminations among the hawkish neocons is not unexpected: these are the same people who believe that Vietnam could have been won, if only the USA had used even more overwhelming force.

It's a great trick for those who refuse to ever admit they were wrong: just keep pushing for more and more force, regardless of the consequences, until either you are proven right or the whole world explodes and nobody cares anymore.

Jim Lobe has more detailed analysis of the neocon feeding frenzy.
10,000 Protesters to Encircle White House tomorrow.
Reality Be Damned!

FT.com story is revealing.The opening para sets the scene as a battle between ideology and reality:
Washington’s foreign policy elite is engaged in a bitter tussle between “neoconservatives” and “realists” seeking to influence George W. Bush’s stance on the Israel-Lebanon crisis. The neocons increasingly have the upper hand.

Former and current administration officials say that George W. Bush feels more strongly and is more engaged in support of Israel’s military assault on Hizbollah than on any other question. They say Mr Bush feels passionately that the US should support Israel in what he sees as the frontline in the global battle between democracy and terrorism.
The author, Edward Luce, notes how Bush’s language now includes the terms “Islamic fascists” and “Islamofascism” – terms long in currency among neoconservatives.

Luce says Bush believes that the fighting between Israel and Hizbollah is a proxy war between the US and Iran. He notes that the US has not produced any evidence of a link between Hizbollah and Iran, despite all the rumours.

There there is this disturbing quote:
“We get clear indications the Bush administration sees this crisis in black and white terms,” said a senior European diplomat who is closely involved in the UN negotiations. “There is a widespread view that US diplomacy is a prisoner of its own starkly moral framework.”
So what's going on?
Meanwhile, Washington’s increasingly marginalised foreign policy “realists” claim – without substantiation – that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, was overruled by Mr Bush last month when she argued for an earlier ceasefire by Israel.

Backed by ex-colleagues of former president George H.W. Bush, such as Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, they argue the US should talk to Syria – which also backs Hizbollah – to help defuse the crisis.

Mr Bush dismissed that advice this week. “Syria knows what we think,” he said. “They know exactly what our position is.” Republican critics of Mr Bush say he is risking a broader war because of his refusal to consider talking to unfriendly regimes.

“There was no suggestion Mr Bush wanted to know what Syria thinks,” said John Hulsman, a foreign policy analyst who left the conservative Heritage foundation last month. “This administration continues to believe talking is a sign of weakness. In spite of Iraq, the neocons are still in charge.”
Suddenly, I'm an 'Islamic Fascist' by Jonathan Cook.
As we approach the fifth official anniversary of the "war on terror," the foiled UK "terror plot" has neatly provided George W. Bush, the "leader of the free world," with a chance to remind us of our fight against the "Islamic fascists." But what if the war on terror is not really about separating the good guys from the bad guys, but about deciding what a good guy can be allowed to say and think?

What if the "Islamic fascism" President Bush warns us of is not just the terrorism associated with Osama bin Laden and his elusive al-Qaeda network but a set of views that many Arabs, Muslims, and Pakistanis – even the odd humanist – consider normal, even enlightened? What if the war on "Islamic fascism" is less about fighting terrorism and more about silencing those who dissent from the West's endless wars against the Middle East?

...

This month it is Lebanon. Next month it will probably be Iran. Then maybe it will be back to Baghdad or the Palestinians. The horror stories sound so much less significant, the need for action so less pressing, when each is unrelated to the next. Were we to watch the Arab channels, where all the blood and suffering blends into a single terrible Middle Eastern epic, we might start to make connections, and maybe suspect that none of this happens by accident.

But my Arab friends and High Wycombe's Pakistanis have longer memories. Their attention span lasts longer than a single atrocity. They understand that those numbers – 151 killed in Gaza, and in a single incident 33 blown up in a market in Najaf, Iraq, and at least 28 crushed by rubble from an Israeli attack on Qana in Lebanon – are people, flesh and blood just like them. They can make out, in all the pain and death currently being inflicted on Arabs and Muslims, the echoes of events stretching back years and decades. They see patterns, they make connections, and maybe discern a plan. Unlike us, they do not sigh, they burn with fury.

This is something President Bush and his obedient serf in Britain, Tony Blair, need to learn. But of course, they do not want to understand because they, and their predecessors, are responsible for creating those patterns and for writing that epic tale in blood. Bush and Blair and their advisers know that the plan is far more important than the rage, the "red" alert levels at airports, or even planes crashing into buildings and plunging out of the sky.

And to protect that plan – to preserve the Middle East as a giant oil pump, cheaply feeding our industries and our privileged lifestyles – those who care about the suffering, the deaths, and the wars must be silenced. Their voices must not be heard, their loyalty must be questioned, their reason must be put in doubt. They must be dismissed as "Islamic fascists."

Pages

Blog Archive