Who gave Gaza to Hamas? Bush, Cheney and the NeoCons are largely at fault.

One of the most significant events in the Palestine/Israel situation has just occurred. The results of the election which the Palestinian government of Fatah was forced into have come to fruit. Fatah has been kicked out of Gaza and the extremist Islamic Iranian-backed Hamas has taken over. As M. J. Rosenberg describes the situation:

Gaza has fallen to Hamas. Abu Mazen's Fatah is on the run. Unless a United Nations force (like UNIFIL) steps in, a sliver of territory with a population of 1.4 million, a short drive from Tel Aviv will become a dagger aimed at Israel's heart and perhaps even an Al Qaeda staging ground. A humanitarian crisis of horrific proportions is a certainty.

Yep. No one needs to negotiate with the Islamists or their Iranian and Syrian backers, and the Palestinians are their own worst enemies, so just fence then away and every time one of them gets out of like and bombs those he considers the oppressors, just oppress them harder. Then just ignore the nasty beggars. They'll go away. Don't believe that? Continue reading Rosenberg's excellent analysis of what happened. Here is a key point he makes:

...it is not difficult understanding how Hamas won the legislative elections in 2006. This is another ugly part of the story. First we demanded that the Palestinians hold elections (Abbas didn’t want them), then we dispatched monitors to certify sure they were “free and fair” which they were, but when we didn’t like the election results we rejected them and promised that the Palestinians would “pay.” Almost immediately Members of Congress rushed to stop almost all forms of aid not just to Hamas-run institutions but to the Palestinian people at large.

There was another way we might have gone. We could have welcomed Hamas’s participation in the election as a sign that Hamas was implicitly accepting the Oslo framework (which it was), insisted on the complete cessation of violence, and then used carrots and sticks to encourage the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority to mend its ways. But we offered no carrots, just sticks. And we didn’t even make much of an effort to strengthen Hamas’s arch-enemy, President Mahmoud Abbas, with Congress hastening to impose redundant and insulting conditions even on aid that was to be sent through him.

It was all fun and games, politics as usual. Meanwhile, Hamas looked better and better to a people whose salaries were not being paid, thanks to the US sponsored international boycott of the PA, and whose schools and hospitals were collapsing.

Today it is almost amusing to contemplate the professions of horror on the part of right-wing Israelis (and their neocon friends) who scream “bloody murder” about an outcome they helped effect and actually welcome.

The name of their game was, is, and always will be making sure that Israel has “no partner” with whom to negotiate. Their worst fear is of Palestinians like Mahmoud Abbas who is a credible negotiating partner.

Sure has worked well, hasn't it? I'm sure that the NeoCons and Dick Cheney are delighted, while I wonder if anyone has bothered to mention the bad news to Bush. Bush gets testy with underlings who dare give him bad news, and it's really not like Bush has a clue regarding what to do. Does he dare create an Israel - Palestinian Czar to turn it over to as he has just done the Iraq - Afghanistan twin disasters with "Czar" Lute? Might not be all that bad an idea, but how much of the Presidency can Bush offload onto other people because he can't figure out what to do? At some point it becomes logical to simply bring in a real President who is up to the job himself.

But anyway, the question is still on the table? Who lost Gaza? Whose fault is THIS disaster?

The Palestinians, of course. But hardly theirs alone. As Nahum Barnea, Israel's finest journalist, put it today in Yediot Achronoth, "The US and Israel had a decisive contribution to this failure. The Americans, in their lack of understanding for the processes of Islamization in the territories, pressured to hold democratic elections and brought Hamas to power with their own hands…. Since the elections, Israel, like the US, declared over and over that "Abu Mazen must be strengthened," but in practice, zero was done for this to happen. The meetings with him turned into an Israeli political tool, and Olmert's kisses and backslapping turned Abu Mazen into a collaborator and a source of jokes on the Palestinian street."

The failures to which Barnea refers didn't start with the Palestinian elections either, not by a long shot. Back when Hamas was just a gleam in Sheik Ahmad Yassin’s blind eye, Israeli right-ringers were implementing a strategy to eliminate the authority of Palestinian moderates by building up religious extremists. These Israelis (some very high in Likud governments) believed that only supplanting Arafat’s Fatah with Islamic fundamentalists would prevent a situation under which Israel would be forced to negotiate with moderates.

M. J. Rosenberg continues with his excellent analysis, which you should go read.

Remember that time seven years ago when then-President Bill Clinton was able to get the Israelis and Fatah to sit down together and nearly agree to settle the Israeli - Palestinian problem? It was torpedoed by one man, Yassir Arafat. With a solution that close, Arafat could have been dealt with but it was time for Bush to take over the Presidency.

Bush and the NeoCons wanted much grander solutions, which included invading Iraq and setting up a demonstration state that showed how free elections (the form is what democracy is all about, isn't that so? Rule of Law? Traditions? Unimportant!) and a free-market small-government economy could bring the Muslims out of the Dark Ages and into the Modern World.

So the Bush administration dropped the ball on things that Clinton considered important and workable, like resolving the Israeli - Palestinian conflict and preparing to prevent terrorist incidents, and instead embarked on what is now clearly known to be the most disastrous series of foreign policy blunders in all of America's history. So we got 9/11, the occupation of Iraq, and now the total collapse of rational Palestinian government. Oh, yeah. We also got an expensive and still non-working white elephant called the Missile Defense System.

When you combine the idiocies of conservative free-market ideology with the ignorance of and refusal to learn about the cultures you intend to transform, then you ignore the experience of the Generals who tell you how things work while you go off headlong into an unneeded and unwinnable war, and give this entire witches-brew over to the tender mercies of the extremist wings of the Republican Party to finance and steal money from, the makings of the current disasters in American domestic policies, economic, taxation and the almost entirely Bush-made disaster that has overtaken the Middle East become clear. This mess that the Republicans have created will take generations to recover from, and historians will be looking back in horror for centuries.

It has been an educational period of time. After Nixon - Agnew - Kissinger I thought I understood how bad the Republican Party could be if placed in power. This administration has shown me that my imagination just couldn't reach the depths of depravity and ignorance the Republicans have gone to in reality. And just think. A lot of us have been permitted to watch the Republican train-wreck unfold, live and in color.

I think I would have preferred to go to Cleveland, thank you. Or gone to see a slasher movie that I could have walked out on.

The silent civilian surge in Iraq

As the U.S. military conduct their "surge" by bringing in replacement troops early and delaying the departure of others, there is a second surge going on, mostly unreported on. Here, from MSNBC is part of this otherwise untold story:

There are more that 100 security companies operate in Iraq, not under Iraqi law. The U.S. military uses between 20,000 to 30,000 security contractors to offset chronic troop shortages. “Armed contractors protect all convoys transporting reconstruction materiel, including vehicles, weapons and ammunition for the Iraqi army and police. They guard key U.S. military installations and provide personal security for at least three commanding generals, including Air Force Maj. Gen. Darryl A. Scott, who oversees U.S. military contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. [Snip]

The military plans to outsource at least $1.5 billion in security operations this year, including the three largest security contracts in Iraq: a "theaterwide" contract to protect U.S. bases that is worth up to $480 million, according to Scott; a contract for up to $475 million to provide intelligence for the Army and personal security for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and a contract for up to $450 million to protect reconstruction convoys. The Army has also tested a plan to use private security on military convoys for the first time, a shift that would significantly increase the presence of armed contractors on Iraq's dangerous roads.”

One in seven supply convoys protected by private forces has come under attack this year. One security company reported nearly 300 "hostile actions" in the first four months of 2007. The logistics directorate, after much prodding to include the civilian figures with those of the military, reported that 132 security contractors and truck drivers had been killed and 416 wounded since fall 2004. Four security contractors and a truck driver remained missing, and 208 vehicles were destroyed. Only convoys registered with the logistics directorate are counted in the statistics, and the total number of casualties is believed to be higher.

“Sharon, 61, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., is rail thin with a weathered, intelligent face shaped by chain-smoking and four decades of military work. He works out of a small office that is also his bedroom. A humidor sits on his desk. A U.S. flag covers his window. Cartons of Marlboro Reds are stacked behind him near a leather-bound copy of the Koran.
Sharon called Falcon Security a "private military company."
"When you have this many men, you don't manage it as you do a corporation. You manage it very much in the military style," he said. "My men aren't carrying potatoes; they're carrying AK-47s. It's not pilferage we're worried about. It's people storming the walls."
Falcon performs "a military-like role" in Iraq, he said, "with one key exception: We do not, and have no desire to, conduct offensive operations."
But even behind the blast walls, the private and public wars collide, Sharon said. Last year, insurgents attacked a passing U.S. military convoy on a highway outside the gates. Kurdish guards in one of the towers opened fire, killing two insurgents. "The Americans were thrilled," he said.
"All of the work that's being conducted here in Iraq by private security companies would have to be conducted by somebody, and that somebody is U.S. military personnel," he said. "If you had 500 soldiers here, that's 500 less soldiers that you have on the battlefield. And this isn't the only site. There are hundreds of sites around Iraq where you have private security. Where are you going to get this personnel?"

This is something which has grown, unplanned, to try to compensate for the incompetence with which the Bush administration has tried to fight the unnecessary and unprovoked war in Iraq.

But ignore, for the moment, the simple sheer idiocy that has taken the American military into the Middle Eastern desert where it has no function other than to be chewed to bit. This entire superstructure of security forces has been built to compensate for the utterly idiotic decision implemented by Jerry Bremer to disband the Iraqi military and refuse to rehire any Iraqi who had belonged to the Baath Party. No doubt this monumental act of stupidity was a solid conservative Republican follow on to the world class foreign policy blunder of invading Iraq in the first place. This series of government decisions by the Re[publican administration of George bush is a disaster unmatched in sheer stupidity since Hitler invaded the USSR.

Since the U.S. military is not large enough to do what remains to be done as long as the Republican stupidity in Iraq continues, and since there is no political support for a draft to maintain the stupidity called "Iraq," the solution is to throw tons of money at the problem and create a massive mercenary army to support the American military.

The creation of these mercenary outfits is just another small disaster stacked on top of the massive disaster that is the Republican war in Iraq.

Iraq is not an American War. It is a useless war started by and continued by the Republican Party and permitted by careerist senior military officers like Richard Myers and Peter Pace. It is a distraction from the efforts needed to make America more secure.

Somehow the Republicans have worked to give the idea that criticizing the military for poor performance is failure to support the troops in combat. First, these troops are fighting and dying for the Republican Party, not for America. Second, look at the mercenaries who are also fighting and dying in this ridiculous excuse for a botched occupation. Who are they dying for? Their corporate masters? At least in their case the Republicans have removed the fiction that they, at least, are getting killed for their country. Because they aren't. The mercenaries are dying and being wounded purely for a buck. And it's not worth it.

OK. So Nifong is going to resign.

But he still needs to lose his law license. An Assistant District Attorney might just get a five year (or whatever is appropriate) suspension, but Mike Nifong is the guy elected to be responsible for such decisions. Even if he had had the inklings of a case, he still stepped far, far over the line with his efforts to try the case in the media. He blew it really badly, and should never again be an attorney. In addition, civil lawsuits are certain. But they will never be enough.

In addition, there needs to be a really good study to determine why the most significant actions were performed. What decisions by what people determined each major action, and why were those decisions so far from the ones that would have been ethical?

Yeah, I admit it. I'd swap my soul to be part of the team doing that study. The psychology and sociology of that kind of decision-making and its implementation fascinate me.

Don't know what I am talking about? Go read the story at Talkleft.

New name, same magazine

The new name

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot? - over

is the phonetic alphabet for WTF - over. This is an expression that is often heard over military radios, either as the initials, here, or when someone is really surprised it may just be "What the Fuck? Over." What I find really fascinating is that proper radio procedure is always used - ending a transmission with "over".

It also seems to be a really appropriate name for a web magazine like this, in which I am continually trying to find out "WTF" and understand it. I don't have the answers here, I often don't even come very close to the questions. But with luck, I'll get closer. I will keep trying. This name seems to me to be a better approximation of what this process is all about.

I didn't like "Politics Plus Stuff" much as a name when I chose it, but nothing better seemed to strike me. That was September 2004. It's lasted a lot longer than I ever expected, and it still could stand as a subtitle. If I had the room for a subtitle.

So, here is is. New name, same location, same subjects, same treatments. I hope my regular readers like it. Both of you.

Interesting - the blogger spell-checker recognizes the spelling of "fuck." I find that somehow reassuring. The word as used here is an interjection, not a description of sexual practice. Anyone with an adequate education can pick that up from the context. You remember what interjections are, don't you? You had that in English classes in grades 4, 5, 6 and/or 7.

Also, this new name gives an interesting double meaning to my occasional interpolation in a quote where I will point out "Bolding mine - Editor WTF." :-}

Interesting - is the conservative - liberal split world-wide?

Does every democracy tend to break down into two parties, one that belongs to the wealthy elites who fear loss of what they have and think that government exists to protect their property, and the other that thinks government has a responsibility to coordinate activities in the national interest not well dealt with by the market (like health care) and provide a real safety net for those who have the bad luck not to be part of the elites?

Matthew Yglesias has the discussion going over at his place.

If this is a widespread phenomenon, (and I suspect that is) then my bet is that it will center on whether people in one group or the other base their world-view mostly on fear or on empathy.

Republicans in DoJ still working to suppress votes

The major reason why the Pearl Harbor Day eight were fired was that many of them would not go along with the DoJ in attempting to bring spurious charges of voter fraud in efforts to cause large numbers of Democratic-leaning voters to avoid registering or voting their own interests.

Here is the latest, from the Charlotte Observer.

State, feds say rolls out of date, push changes; official says no need

DAVID INGRAM
dingram@charlotteobserver.com

RALEIGH --
State and federal officials are mounting two broad challenges to the way North Carolina maintains its voter rolls, charging widespread irregularities that include votes cast under the names of dead people.

The accusations attempt to call into question the accuracy of registration records and election returns from 2004 to the present.

So far, though, the officials have not made public any evidence of irregularities, and N.C. election officials argue that the state's maintenance of voter rolls is among the most careful and comprehensive programs in the country.

The dispute comes amid growing national attention to suspected voter fraud. The U.S. Justice Department has devoted more resources to that area -- a decision that voting advocates say could disproportionately affect minorities and the poor ahead of the 2008 election.

In a letter two months ago, the Justice Department said it was reviewing North Carolina's voter rolls and that it found irregularities in the number of people registered to vote. Similar reviews have led to lawsuits against election officials in seven other states, including Georgia.

The second broad challenge is from State Auditor Les Merritt, whose office began a review of the state's voter rolls in January.

His staff presented preliminary findings to the State Board of Elections last week. According to the board, Merritt's staff cited 24,821 invalid driver's license numbers in the voter registration database, 380 people who appear to have voted after their dates of death and others who were under age 18 when they voted.

Gary Bartlett, executive director of the elections board, responded Wednesday with a stinging 10-page letter declaring many of the findings invalid. He accused Merritt's office of misleading the elections board and of rejecting its help.

"(Y)our office appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the data that was reviewed or about the federal and State laws governing the voter registration process," Bartlett wrote in the letter, which he provided to lawmakers Thursday.

For example, Bartlett said, many of the people who appear to have voted after their dates of death voted absentee and then died prior to Election Day. At least some people under 18 who voted did so legally, Bartlett said, because state law allows 17-year-olds to vote in a primary election if they will be 18 the day of the general election.

Sort of like stove piping Intelligence data. All you have to do is cherry-pick the data that supports what you want everyone to believe while suppressing all data that shows that there is no real problem. This is clear Republican practice, and they sure haven't stopped.

Who are the honest conservatives? Rick Perlstein provides a metric.

From Brad Delong we get (by way of Rick Perlstein)

Here, he quotes the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek who speaks of "a witty formula of life under a hard Communist regime: Of the three features—personal honesty, sincere support of the regime and intelligence—it was possible to combine only two, never all three. If one was honest and supportive, one was not very bright; if one was bright and supportive, one was not honest; if one was honest and bright, one was not supportive. The problem with Dreyman is that he does combine all three features."

And here he reflects that the old Eastern Bloc jape " applies just as well to the Bush regime. Sincere conservative supporters are not bright. Bright conservative supporters are not honest. Bright and honest conservatives are not supporters...."

He proposes, thereby, a taxonomy. You might find it handy, too. I leave out the names. The names are not important.

Class of 2000: People who in 2000 said, "George W. Bush is not qualified to be president, and we should be really worried about this."

Class of 2001: People who in 2001 said, "I supported Bush in 2000, but George W. Bush is not listening to his honest conservative policy advisers, and we should be really worried about this."

Class of 2002: People who in 2002 said, "I supported Bush in 2000 and 2001, but 911 has unhinged the administration; it's detention and other policies are counterproductive; it needs to be opposed."

Class of 2003: People who in 2003 said, "I supported Bush over 2000-2002, but enough is enough. That's it. I supported the invasion of Iraq because I was certain there was evidence of an advanced nuclear weapons program--otherwise invading Iraq was just stupid. Well, there was no advanced nuclear weapons program. Invading Iraq was just stupid. Plus there's the Medicare drug benefit. These people need to be evicted from power."

Class of 2004: People who in 2004 said, "I've been a Bush supporter. I'm a Republican and a conservative, but I've had enough: I'm voting for Kerry."

Class of 2005: People who in 2005 said, "I voted for Bush in 2004. But I made a mistake. A big mistake."

Class of 2006: People who in 2006 said, "I know I supported Bush up to last year, but that shows I'm not the brightest light on the clued-in tree."

The class of 2007--people who are now opposed to Bush only because they think Bush will drag the Republicans down in 2008--doesn't count. Dead-enders who are still claiming that Bush is Teddy Roosevelt don't count. They aren't honest conservatives. They are only worth scorn, and fit objects for nothing but mockery. One just doesn't joust with them in honorable intellectual combat. It's not done.

I say divide "honest conservatives" into the classes of 2000 to 2006, rank them by seniority according to the date of their public honesty, and use that as a ranking for who to read, who to respect, and who to promote as worthy intellectual adversaries. Refer to them using this citation form:

Brent Scowcroft, Honest Conservative Class of 2004...

Of course, Krauthamer and Krystol are dead-enders. I'm not sure where I would put Pat Buchanan (but the shock of realizing that he is saying stuff that I agree with has not yet totally receded.)

Of course, while I find this interesting, I am not sure how useful it is. I don't really see that even the very best of the so-called "honest conservatives" has any greater value than the dead-ender anti-Castro Cubans in South Florida. Or even the value that Ex-rep and current felon Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Or for that matter, Jerry Falwell or James Dobson.

Qualified Republican Presidential nominees "Well, does Fred Thompson at least smell manly?"

TRex over at Firedoglake points to Chris Matthews' comments regarding the potential Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson. Poor Chris. He is reduced to asking if Fred at least "smells manly." (Crooks and Liars has the video.) Give Chris credit. When there's not much to work with, Chris will work with what he has. That's what a good public relations flack does.

So Chris Matthews is reduced to trying to push Fred Thompson's Presidential candidacy based on the manliness of his smell, we viewers might well suspect that the FOX/MSNBC Republican machine (and its associated political party) has hit a spot of trouble in politics. Ya think?

Well, let's look at the situation.

The Republicans have a bench of potential nominees that even the Republicans can't stomach. Everyone is looking at Romni, Guilliani and McCain in incredulity, with Democrats saying "Thank you, God." and Republicans saying "Oh. My. God!"

When the best person on stage is an ancient crackpot Obstetrician (from the Texas District next to that of the disgraced Tom DeLay) whose claim to fame is a strong following among anti-government Libertarians and who is famous for regularly voting against the entire House of Representatives on basic things like the military budget, the phrase “Houston, we have a problem.” takes on all new level of meaning to Republicans.

But all is not lost. There is, somewhere deep in the Tennessee woods, a lobbyist, actor, one-term do-nothing ex-Senator with no significant credentials or accomplishments beyond appearing old and gruff. He is not known for standing for anything of any kind politically, and beyond being elected to the Senate during the Republican landslide of 1994, has zero political accomplishments. OK. Positive side – think “Political blank slate”. And he does have that tiny, perky little trophy wife about half his age with the cute giggle. Compared to the current potential Republican dwarfs, that's a real positive.

Of course, he makes depressed basset hounds look positively attractive, but who else is there? How do the Republican flacks repackage this utter political do-nothing vacuum into someone who desperate Republicans can vote for??

Well, how does he smell? Is it manly enough? That's what Chris Mathews is trying out. And why shouldn't he? Matthews has no reputation to protect, and he is as desperate as the rest of the Republicans to find someone or something better than the current crop of potential nominees.

If FOX and MSNBC can't somehow use the do-nothing cradle robbing ex-Senator lobbyist into a viable candidate who makes Republicans' hearts go pitty-pat -

(NO! Keep him away from Dick Cheney until after his surgery for his new defibrillator battery next Summer! What if the build-up works? Some people's hearts just can't DEAL with pitty-pat!)

- they may be forced to pull a wooden or fiberglass puppet out of the closet from somewhere. (Wooden IS preferred. It has to appeal to conservatives, after all.) Then Chris Matthews will be lauding the beauty of this new candidates' hinges while his handlers whisper urgently into his ear mike (Chris - don't talk about the strong, pretty strings!)

The lobbyist-actor Thompson with the remarkably unmanly name "Fred" is really the best they have. Expect to see the Wurlitzer to push him as hard as they can.

[ h/t to Glenn Greewald]

Libby to go to prison, not pass Go but he will collect millions in wingnut welfare.

As expected, Judge Walton denied Libby's request that his entry into the federal prison system be delayed until Bush feels he can Pardon him with relatively little political damage ///uh... I mean until Libby's appeals are denied.

Digby lists some of the more prominent forms of planned wingnut public grief.

Pushback. The commonality of the current civil wars in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq

Daniel Levy (bio) writes a really interesting analysis over at TPM Cafe of why Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq are all undergoing major internal sectarian warfare. He starts thus:

Gaza seems to be descending towards a civil war, Lebanon lurched closer to conflict with the killing today of MP Walid Eido and ongoing clashes at the Nahr El-Bared camp, and the Iraqi civil war, already long underway, took another desperate turn with the re-bombing of the Shia mosque at Samarra.

Each of these situations has its own complex circumstances and particular set of actors, causes, and dynamics. They cannot be neatly filed under one common rubric -- say extremists vs. moderates, or Iran vs. the US. Yet it is possible, perhaps, to discern at least one unifying theme: each of these conflicts is, in part, the pushback against the neocon transformationalist agenda for the Middle East. I am not suggesting that the US is solely responsible for the woeful state of the region, but the contribution of a mistaken and rigid ideological dogma applied to the region has been dramatic and devastating. [Highlighting is mine - Editor PPS]

I strongly recommend reading this. The comments are nearly as informative as the article itself.

The article essentially documents how a large number of people in the Middle East have reacted to the Bush/Cheney attitude which can be briefly characterized as: "You are doing it all wrong, and we have the right way. You will do it the way we demand or we will invade your countries militarily and force you to do what we demand. Oh, and no back-talk. We don't care what you have to say or why you are resisting."

What does pushback really mean? Let me offer a personal example. I have exactly the same reaction when some religious cultist demands that I mouth their creed of "I will accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior." I can guarantee that if anyone ever hears me saying that, then they need to call the cops fast. I have been kidnapped and someone crazy is holding a gun to my head. My religion is my business, most religious evangelists are bigots and fools, and no one is going to force me to adopt their idiocy under any circumstances short of torture or threat of death - in which case I will say it all with my fingers crossed while I determine how to screw the evangelists over as soon as I get a chance. And no, I am not an Atheist. Atheism is another false faith-based religion evangelized by mentally ill people. It depends on knowing as a certainty things that cannot be known, and acting as though that certainty is true, is worth forcing on other people, and is valid reason to ignore what others want for themselves.

The real relevance of my example above is not that I am right and the evangelistic idiots are wrong, or vice versa. The key is that I am primed to react negatively to any form of evangelism that tries to force me to do or to believe something without considering my knowledge, experience or goals. Try pushing me, and anyone who knows me even just a little will know to expect a pushback, perhaps even a disproportionate pushback.

People who know the Middle East understood that Cheney's NeoCon fantasy of imposing a western style society on the Islamic Middle East was going to result in a pushback. Can anyone doubt that there has been such a reaction?

I suspect that western globalization is causing much the same reaction. The winners from expanded international free trade can be expected to be bought off. But what about the losers? They are forced to change by an uncaring outsider - generally a foreigner or group of foreigners, who do not know their culture, is working to destroy that culture, and doesn't care what the losers want. Again, pushback is to be expected.

Reacting to (the easily anticipated) pushback with increased force will be more likely to increase the pushback than to resolve it.

But don't bother telling that to the NeoCons. They have their perfect conservative ideology, and all pushback is, by definition, wrong. So is listening to any objection to the prescriptions of the perfect conservative ideology. Those who object to the perfect conservative ideology are are just haters, and according to the perfect conservative ideology, haters are to be ignored and forced into compliance using any power tools (military, police, authoritarianism, etc.) available.

Why did the Soviet Union fall?

I stumbled [H/T to Kevin Drum.] across this article at Marginal Revolution and found it remarkably informative. True? Let's say that I suspect there is a lot of truth in it.

---

In a simplified way, the story of the collapse of the Soviet Union could be told as a story about grain and oil.

That is from Yegor Gaidar. In the 1980s it was necessary to import more and more grain, and Saudi Arabia was no longer supporting oil prices. It worked like this:

The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.

As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive. The Soviet leadership was confronted with a difficult decision on how to adjust. There were three options--or a combination of three options--available to the Soviet leadership.

First, dissolve the Eastern European empire and effectively stop barter trade in oil and gas with the Socialist bloc countries, and start charging hard currency for the hydrocarbons. This choice, however, involved convincing the Soviet leadership in 1985 to negate completely the results of World War II. In reality, the leader who proposed this idea at the CPSU Central Committee meeting at that time risked losing his position as general secretary.

Second, drastically reduce Soviet food imports by $20 billion, the amount the Soviet Union lost when oil prices collapsed. But in practical terms, this option meant the introduction of food rationing at rates similar to those used during World War II. The Soviet leadership understood the consequences: the Soviet system would not survive for even one month. This idea was never seriously discussed.

Third, implement radical cuts in the military-industrial complex. With this option, however, the Soviet leadership risked serious conflict with regional and industrial elites, since a large number of Soviet cities depended solely on the military-industrial complex. This choice was also never seriously considered.

Unable to realize any of the above solutions, the Soviet leadership decided to adopt a policy of effectively disregarding the problem in hopes that it would somehow wither away. Instead of implementing actual reforms, the Soviet Union started to borrow money from abroad while its international credit rating was still strong. It borrowed heavily from 1985 to 1988, but in 1989 the Soviet economy stalled completely...

The money was suddenly gone. The Soviet Union tried to create a consortium of 300 banks to provide a large loan for the Soviet Union in 1989, but was informed that only five of them would participate and, as a result, the loan would be twenty times smaller than needed. The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits.

In 1985 the idea that the Soviet Union would begin bargaining for money in exchange for political concessions would have sounded absolutely preposterous to the Soviet leadership. In 1989 it became a reality, and Gorbachev understood the need for at least $100 billion from the West to prop up the oil-dependent Soviet economy.

Here is the full article.

---

Here's why I suspect there is a lot of truth in this.

An interesting tale told me by one of those great fiction artists, an academic Economist, shed some light on the collapse of the economy of the USSR.

It was a planned economy, one in which markets did not provide price the signals an individual business needed in order to plan and function over a period of time. The end of the planned economy was brought about using what was called "Shock therapy" by Economists like Jeffery Sax. Suddenly, bad as it had frequently been under central planning, individual businesses had no idea where to get their raw materials nor did that know what they would be likely to cost. Most of the businesses that did survive this period were large, raw material-based industries run as monopolies. They were large enough to internalize the central planning process that was abandoned by Moscow. Most of the rest of the economy simply didn't survive the change-over.

In the meantime, government was getting out of the business of providing housing, health care and such basic amenities to the population.

For a little over half a decade, the manufactured output of the entire economy of the USSR had a market value that was significantly less than what could have been obtained simply by selling the raw materials used by the economy on the world market. This is fascinating. The entire economy of the USSR actually created a net reduction of the value of the raw materials it had to work with. If this has ever happened over a lengthy period of time to any other economy in the world I certainly have not learned of it.

Given that amazing ~negative~ economic output, the Russian government had to borrow money internationally just to allow a larger percentage of the population to survive. As it is, the reduction in life spans clearly shows what a strain the entire economy was under. A reduction in military spending or in corruption (alternative proposed reasons for the economic problems of the USSR) would have only the effect of limiting distribution of income.

Given these economic circumstances, this story makes a lot of sense. Victor Putin's recent international aggressiveness towards the U.S. rather suggests that the Russian economy has recovered a great deal from the late 80's and early 90's. Putin's nasty tone towards Bush is probably more of a distraction for his population than a real threat towards the U.S., since life spans and general quality of life are recovering slowly.

Any agreements or disagreements?

Only a minority of Americans hold conservative beliefs

The majority of Americans hold progressive views. From "Our future":

This report by the Campaign for America’s Future and Media Matters for America shows that in study after study, solid majorities of Americans take progressive stands on a full spectrum of issues, from bread-and-butter economics to the so-called “values” issues where conservatives claim preeminence.

So go read the report (.pdf)

Subpoenas sent to White House aides

The House Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and the Senate Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to former top Karl Rove aide Sara Taylor. Think Progress provides the details.

CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin reports, “The White House has made clear it will cite executive privilege for conversations that took place within the White House on the U.S. attorney matter, and if the people with those conversations happen to have subsequently left the White House, that doesn’t matter. They’re still going to cite executive privilege, and these people are not going to be allowed to testify anytime soon, it appears, if the White House remains as it has been. … Even if they want to testify.”

This should be very interesting. Does Executive Privilege, something not even mentioned in the Constitution, extend this far?

Not if America is to continue as something resembling a democratic nation it sure doesn't.

I am quite disgusted at the attempts to protect Libby

Scooter Libby may normally be a really fine person. At least when dealing with others of his own class. But this time he screwed up. He lied to the FBI and he lied to the grand Jury. Those are serious federal felonies. Digby points out just how out of line and low-class the various right-wing protectors and pundits have been as they have tried to get him off from the utterly inadequate sentence that Judge Walton has imposed. Here is, I think, Digby's best paragraph on the subject:

My advice for Scooter is to tell all these crybabies to back off and take a lesson from Martha Stewart, who showed twice the class and three times the grit he has. Shut up, suck it up and do your time. It won't be the end of the world --- he'll have a lifetime of wingnut welfare waiting for him when he gets out and the GOP mafia will take care of his family while he's in the joint. Let's face it, his career in government was over anyway --- anyone closely associated with Dick Cheney now has the mark of the kevorka. No president will ever trust him again. So, show some class and take it like a man. It's not such a bad fate for a man who helped bring misery, heartache and death to hundreds of thousands of people.

What it comes down to is that Scooter is "One of them." and their shit don't stink. If he committed a crime, then it is not a crime because he is "One of them."

Well, the jury did what the evidence told them they had to do, and they convicted him. Scooter's utter lack of remorse for his criminal behavior rather certainly did not help him in sentencing. The Bush-appointed, Republican Senate approved federal Judge, Judge Walton, made especially sure that there were no apparent valid grounds for an appeal, so Libby has no valid reason not to start his sentence in prison immediately.

Will someone tell these criminal-coddlers that the rule of law applies to Republicans as well as to illegal immigrants?

But Scooter has one last chance. Bush might Pardon him. Of course, Libby does not meet the normal requirements for a Pardon, such as having served his sentence, shown remorse, and turned his life around from a life of crime, but just maybe Bush will Pardon Libby.

It should be kept in mind that Bush does not appear to understand empathy. He is also the President in the last century who has given the fewest Pardons, by far. Cheney might convince Bush to present a Pardon, but indications are that Bush and Cheney are not especially close these days. Besides, if all of America is very, very lucky, Cheney will not be able to return to work after he undergoes surgery next July to change out the built in defibrillator that Cheney uses as a substitute for a heart.

There is hope, America. While Scooter is clearly a criminal, convicted and judged, he is a Washington insider and high-ranking Republican. But this one criminal, at least, may actually pay a small price for his crimes. I know, I know, we may all be forced to watch as Republicans and Washington pundits swoon at such an injustice to one of their own. The rest of us should just remain surprised that the Republicans and conservatives have not yet totally destroyed America's justice system. Maybe there are even a few others who will get what they deserve.

There is hope. This is still America, not yet Republicanstan.

Some things just bear repeating purely for the pleasure of it

Rep.Barney Franks was asked which was the real Mitt Romney, the "pro-gay-rights Massachusetts candidate or the anti-gay-rights national Republican candidate." Barney responded:

Neither of the above. The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics. [From Mark Kleiman]

I'm glad Barney said that, because every time I have seen Romney on TV I have felt like I was watching a less scrupulous Richard Nixon with a better shave and more expensive suit. It's nice to have my opinion validated that way.

Mark also pointed out this from Harry Reid on the current Republican field of Presidential candidates:

I’ve learned one thing in listening to all the debates and reading about all these people running for office, and the one fact I’ve learned, I can’t get out of my mind, is that Rudy Giuliani has been married more times than Mitt Romney’s been hunting.

Now if I can just find some similarly accurate and witty comments on Fred Thompson (the basset hound with a law degree and a trophy bimbo half his age) and Newt Gingrich, I'll enjoy this election season a bit more.

The plot thickens....

More emails dumped on the Department of Justice scandal. This time they have Sara Taylor, one of Karl Rove's top aides, strategizing on how to get back at the Republicans who spoke homnestly to the Senators in the Senate Hearings on the U.S. Attorney purge.

These emails come from the RNC accounts used by top White House personnel to avoid leaving records that could be used against them. Guess that didn't work so well, did it?

It appears that Ms. Taylor was unhappy that many of the Republican witnesses at the Hearings were unwilling to pull a "Scooter" Libby and lie, committing Obstruction of Justice.

---

This is interesting. EmptyWheel discusses WHY these documents were dumped at this time.

The source of the failure of the American political dialogue is exposed - again.

Al Gore recently published his new book, The Assault on Reason. Needless to say, the Murdoch-owned "American Standard" felt that it was not that good a book. Unsurprising, since Al was directly attacking the media that operated like the (gulp) American Standard and Fox News, both owned by Rupert Murdoch.

So naturally, Andrew Ferguson (who is an editor at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard) wrote a closely reasoned and extremely logical fact-based review that demonstrated how Al Gore had missed the mark. And if you believe that then you are planning your for your next vacation in the thriving metropolis of Baghdad, to be followed by a tour of the completely recovered New Orleans that Bush promised he would cause to happen.

Ferguson starts his review with a lie that demonstrates that he can't be bothered to read the material that criticizes his lie-based fantasy world. Go read the description provided by Media Matters.

Am I imaging it, or is the Politico a totally inaccurate lying dishonest disaster?

Melissa McEwan exposes Ben Smith's wankerhood at the Politico.

Authors of "The Italian Letter" to guest blog at TPM this week.

For those of you still trying to separate the Bush administration lies from the truth about whether Iraq was a danger to the United Stated, the best single book I have yet found has been The Italian Letter.

The authors, Peter Eisner and Knut Royce, will be guest blogging today and this week at TPM's Table for One. This should be quite fascinating.

I have previously discussed this book and its findings here:

• New story in WaPo re: Niger Forgeries
  4/3/07 and


• Why no investigation of Niger Forgeries by the FBI?
  5/1/07

Also you will find this books advertisement listed on the left side of Politics Plus Stuff, with the (implied) recommendation that you should buy and read it.

This book, "The Italian Letter", is also my source for the suspicions I voiced in my article Run! Hide! Sky is Falling! Iranians training Terrorists! Run! Run! Hide!! Kill Someone!! that the NeoCon Michael Ledeen was involved in the creation and/or transmission of the Niger forgeries.

---

This is what they have posted

• Forget the Truth
  by Peter Eisner and Knut Royce - June 11, 2007
  
  WMD were not part of the reason why the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq. That decision was made for other reasons, but those other reasons were not reasons that the White House Iraq Group felt could be used as the anchor for the Public Relations effort needed to "sell" going to war. The pre-war talk of Iraqi doomsday weapons were nothing more than a killer sales pitch to sell the single most disastrous foreign policy decision ever made by any American administration. There was no acceptable rational reason to invade Iraq, so the Bush administration had to gin up a really scary threat - one that did not exist.

---

• The Bush administration should have known.
  by Peter Eisner and Knut Royce - June 12, 2007
  
  The Bush administration recognizes now that many mistakes were made in the decision to go to war in Iraq, but they blame those mistakes on "bad" Intelligence they were given, not on their own incompetence. Eisner and Royce make the point that what the Bush administration needed to know was given to them, but that they intentionally buried or ignored it. They knew they were spouting bad Intelligence to justify the disastrous war they started.

---

• Condi: Casting Assertions
  by Peter Eisner and Knut Royce - June 13, 2007
  
  Eisner and Royce admit surprise that Tenet, in his book, clearly describes that Condi Rice did not understand how to read an Intelligence assessment and could not properly interpret what the Intelligence community was trying to tell her.

---

• Our Sources, On The Record
  by Peter Eisner and Knut Royce - June 14, 2007
  
  Eisner and Royce get four of their sources, former CIA analysts Mel Goodman and Larry Johnson; W. Patrick Lang, who ran the Middle East section for the Defense Intelligence Agency; and retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, to expand on what they wrote in "The Italian Letter. None of the four are particularly happy with the way Dick Cheney started the Iraq War. A few other culprits are also named.
  
• Intelligence and Pressure Politics
  by Peter Eisner and Knut Royce - June 15, 2007
  
  How is a modern intelligence agency insulated from politics? Eisner and Royce discuss how the American Intelligence agancies failed to be insulated, and what can be done about that problem.
  

---

Kevin Drum on income inequality and excessive CEO Pay

Kevin Drum addresses several economic issues of interest to almost all of us.

• Personal income of the top 1% has sharply increased recently.
• Public policies have been responsible for the increased income inequality.
  
• The people who are getting the greatest increases in personal income say this is the way the economy is supposed to work and that nothing else is workable.
  
• The LA Times has started reporting the percentage of company profits which CEO pay has cost the companies with the 100 highest paid CEOs in California. Apparently CEO pay is now so high that it is dragging down corporate profits. (Kevin then suggests that this be reported for the top dozen or so executives, and sit back and watch the as the shock runs through shareholders.)

I'd like to see that last bullet-point made part of the mandatory SEC reporting by all public companies, and by all companies operating in the United States including foreign and non-public ones if that is possible.

It would also be very interesting to see if the figures could be compared across nations. I don't think very many non-executives understand how much American executives are overpaid.

Run! Hide! Sky is Falling! Iranians training Terrorists! Run! Run! Hide!! Kill Someone!!

Independent senator Joe Lieberman just told Bob Schieffer today on "Face the Nation" that the Iranians are training Iraqi terrorists to kill Americans at a location in Iraq. Joe made it sound like the Iranians are training al Qaeda and that we have to take out the training location as a part of the Global War on Terror. Bob responded to Joe's assertion by saying "I think you have made some news here today."

I find several things wrong with this. First, Joe Lieberman seems to be a strange person to provide this information to the public. I would have expected something like this to come from the White House, or at the lowest level, from the Pentagon. Why would the administration give this story to Joe Lieberman to put out on Sunday Morning, particularly a Sunday Morning in which Tony Snow has been on the talk show circuit? Second, I don't really trust Joe Lieberman. If he says it is raining, I'm going to walk to the window and look outside, and if it looks like rain, I'm going to double-check to see if it is really wet.

So I decided to check this story out on the Internet.

First Story: From today's The Independent we get a reprint of a story written by Phil Sands in Baghdad and originally published April 15, 2007. It is entitled "Iran trains 'thousands' of Iraqi insurgents.

Thousands of Iraqi Shias are being trained in advanced guerrilla warfare tactics at a secret camp near the Iranian capital, according to militants who say they have spent time there.

Through an Iraqi intermediary who also went to Iran, The Independent on Sunday spoke to two seasoned guerrilla fighters. They said large numbers of Mahdi Army volunteers loyal to the maverick Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr had gone to the base in Jalil Azad, near Tehran, for instruction.

Abu Amer, a 39-year-old Mahdi Army fighter who asked that his full name not be used, said he had been trained by instructors he believed were from Iran's Revolutionary Guard. "Shia fighters are being trained in modern fighting methods, such as use of powerful explosives and bringing down helicopters," he told the IoS. [Note: IoS is "Independent on Sunday."]

So it is an old story, and it involves an assertion that the Iranian Shia Revolutionary Guard is training members of Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's militia in terrorist methods of fighting.

Besides being an old story, what is the surprise? The Mahdi Army is the major Iraqi Shia militia, is a well-known ally of the Iranian Shias, and has coordinated with the Iraqi government very little. The Mahdi Army is also a major opponent of the Sunni insurgents and can be expected to be fighting the Sunni militias as soon as the U.S. military stops fighting them. If there is any significant connection between al Qaeda, al Qaeda-in-Iraq, or any of the terrorists who have been involved in 9/11 or in the terrorist incidents in Europe it certainly has not been reported in the news. The Mahdi Army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are long-time allies. This support for the Mahdi Army is no surprise, and no significant threat to America.

Second story: On April 11, 2007 FOX News published an AP story entitled "U.S. Military: Iran Training Iraqi Insurgents in Using Roadside Bombs."

BAGHDAD — Iran has been training Iraqi fighters in Iran on the assembly of deadly roadside bombs known as EFPs, the U.S. military spokesman said on Wednesday.

"We know that they are being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country, and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to assemble them and how to employ them. We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees debriefs," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the U.S. military spokesman, said at a weekly briefing.

EFP stands for explosively formed penetrator, deadly roadside bombs that hurl a fist-size lump of molten copper capable of piercing armor.

In January, U.S. officials said at least 170 U.S. soldiers had been killed by EFPs.

Caldwell also said on Wednesday that the U.S. military had evidence that Iranian intelligence agents were active in Iraq in funding, training and arming Shiite militia fighters.

OK. EFPs. There has been a consistent stream of misinformation in the American Press (and especially pushed by FOX) that has tried to claim that Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP's) are so sophisticated that they can only come from Iran. I have previously debunked this at:

• How close are we now to war with Iran now?,
• Remember those EFPs that could only come from Iran?,
• Anyone can make an EFP and
• Are the EFP's actually from Iran? Or is it another Bush effort to start a new war?.

Third story, this time from CNN published April 12, 2007. The title is "Iraqi insurgents being trained in Iran, U.S. says."

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi insurgents are being trained in Iran to assemble weapons and Iranian-made weapons are still turning up in Iraq, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

The statement comes two months after the United States said it had asked Tehran to stop the flow of weapons into Iraq.

Coalition forces found a cache of Iranian rockets and grenade launchers in Baghdad on Tuesday, spokesman U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Wednesday.

What can I say? This is more of the same effort to whip up war hysteria in the U.S. against Iran. First - rockets and grenade launchers are ubiquitous around the world. Like EFPs, any partially industrialized nation can make them. It is rarely necessary because the two largest arms suppliers in the world (the U.S. and Russia) are always ready to supply one side or the other of every conflict. When one of those two aren't ready to send out new weapons, the supply of used small arms that hangs over the market is tremendous. Every temporary peace treaty or armistice adds to it.

Second - Iran is sitting on the extremely long border of an unstable nation that is being pressured by its occupier and most significant enemy to become a base for an attack on Iran. Any nation that wanted to survive would be arming, training and supporting its allies in Iraq. That's exactly the same as our training and arming of the military and police in Mexico, Colombia, Haiti, and dozens of other states. The purpose of that effort is to make the supported nations more stable and less of a threat to the defending nation. Iran is one of the longest existing civilizations on Earth, and is not run by fools. They will take the necessary actions to defend themselves. The same is true for Moqtada al-Sadr. al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is the necessary militia intended to defend a minority Shia sect in an unstable, probably failed, nation state. The Mahdi Army needs to take its allies where it can find them, and the U.S. need not apply for ally status. Not that the Bush administration ever would. But the thing is, the actions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are defensive, as are the actions of Mogtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. They and their small arms are not threats to the American Homeland, and wouldn't bother the U.S. military if we didn't have them in Iraq for the purpose of threatening Iran.

I'm not saying that Iran could not be a real threat to the United States, though I really doubt that Iran would ever be as big a threat as North Korea (which can't currently effectively attack the U.S. due to distance) or Pakistan, or Libya, or India for that matter. I am saying that the propaganda being pushed on the American public to allow military strikes against Iran do not address that possibility of a threat in any way.

That the Revolutionary Guard might train Mahdi Army members is no surprise and no real danger to the American Homeland, and for all the scary headings, this is all the reports have to offer. Iranians providing low-level military training to their Iraqi co-religionists. The same Mahdi Militia members could get the same training (and on much the same equipment, interestingly enough) from the U.S. military if they joined the Iraqi Army or Iraqi Police Forces, and many of them do exactly that. The only likely difference is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards probably don't need to offer as much training on defusing EFPs as the Americans do. Just building them.

Other related stories: Additional similar stories can be found at Google, but they are all older than the ones from April 2007 or from the same time and repeat the same material.

My conclusion

I don't think that Joe Lieberman did make any real news today. He seems to be attempting to recycle the anti-Iranian propaganda stories that popped up in the American Press last April. So the question is why is he attempting to recycle the old stories? [Note: this may be the first of several efforts to recycle the old stories. That's how I would manage this kind of propaganda operation. Sourcing it with Sen. Lieberman makes me suspicious that there is no new Intelligence being marketed and will be none.]

My best guess is that Joe is practicing as the Independent Senator from Connecticut and from Israel. He wants the U.S. to attack Iran because Iran is the direct source of much of the Middle East threat to Israel. While I don't think Iran is a really significant threat to the U.S., it is a major source of danger to Israel. Israelis have a really good reason to fear Iran, and if they can get someone to take Iran on they at least feel safer. As a result, I suspect that someone handed Joe the previous stories from April and has been trying to get him to recycle them. Joe's motivation is very similar to that of the NeoCons in general (or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) who really believed that if America were to attack and occupy the clearly weak nation of Iraq then America could put long-term military pressure on Iran and keep Iran bottled up as a threat to its neighbors.

Widespread public fear tends to bring right-wing militarists to the surface in politics. Those same right-wing militarists do not want interference from others who would sacrifice some of the ability to conduct military activities in order to reduce tensions between opposing nations. Iran has been supporting Hamas and increasing the fear in Israel, and the Israeli militarists have found allies in the American militarists who were surfaced by the attack on 9/11.

Joe Lieberman has found a home in the right-wing militarist elements of both America and Israel, (as have the American NeoCons) and I doubt that he sees much Joe sees much distinction between the two nations.

That's why Joe dropped his (dated) so-called Intelligence on "Face the Nation" today. That's also why we can safely ignore it.

---

Addendum June 11, 2007 8:13 AM CDT
Here is a report from "The Newshoggers" about The Sen. from Israel's ridiculous statement on "Face the Nation" yesterday. In it Cernig points to the new article at NRO by the well-known NeoCon, Michael Ledeen, advocating an American attack on Iran in support of Israel. [Note: this is the same NeoCon "Michael Ledeen" who has long-term close connections with Italian Intelligence services as well as with Dick Cheney and is suspected of connection with the forged "Niger Letters" used by the Bush administration as justification for the peremptory invasion of Iraq.]

The speed with which Ledeen got his article out in support of Joe Lieberman demonstrates the fact that Lieberman's statement on FtN yesterday really was the opening salvo of a propaganda effort to get America to attack Israel's enemy, Iran.

Glenn Greenwald also identified the sources of Lieberman's propaganda effort. What I found particularly interesting was these quotations:

"Israeli Minister Avigdor Lieberman (whose duties include strategic affairs and Iran) visited the U.S. earlier this year, and gave an interview to The New York Times in which he said this:

"Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem," which he called "the biggest threat facing the Jewish people since the Second World War.” [Minister] Lieberman insisted that negotiations with Iran were worthless: "The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea."

The same month, the current Israeli Prime Minister echoed those sentiments:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday compared Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel with the policies of Nazi Germany and criticized world leaders who maintain relations with Iran's president. . . .

Israel has identified Iran as the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israel's concerns have heightened since the election of Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and has questioned whether the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews took place.

It should be clear that the panicky propaganda of the Israeli right-wing militarists do not really create a problem that the U.S. needs to go to war with Iran to solve. In fact, the opposite is much more likely to be the case. The militaristic panic out of the Israeli right-wing extremists and their American fellow-travelers is very likely the source of many of the problems America is facing, and much of the solution will involve getting those right-wingers out of American decision-making and expose their propaganda every time they surface.

The PR case for and against Libby debunked

Carol D. Leonnig, reporter for the Washington Post, has today published an article debunking five myths about the exposure of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert CIA officer. This is a shocking publication. Doesn't Ms. Leonnig understand that mere reporters of the mainstream media (her own Washington Post foremost among them) exist only to publish the spin of powerful political players and must never, never, never commit the gaffe of (shudder) debunking the spin their betters at public relations firms? It makes you wonder if she shouldn't turn in her communications degree in journalism.

In any case, here are five myths that have been repeatedly spread since "Scooter" Libby was convicted. Ms. Leonnig is much to polite to call them what they are - lies and bamboozlements:

1. Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.
   
   
2. Karl Rove would have been indicted in the Plame case if it hadn't been for all the destroyed evidence.
   
   
3. Libby didn't leak Plame's identity.
   
   
4. Bad press doesn't get under Cheney's skin.
   
   
5. The White House would fire any administration official who leaked classified information about Plame.

When you read those bamboozlements, go read the explanation for each that Ms. Leonnig has published. Each is quite revealing, and each fits with the real evidence that has been published - mostly in the back of newspapers where no one will see it. You know, some page like, Oh, maybe Page B-03. Somewhere in the guts of the paper and out of sight. Just a number I chose at random as an example - or maybe the page this article was published on this morning.

I can't help but wonder if either the misplaced Fred Hiatt (Editor - Editorial Page) or the similarly misplaced Debra Howell (Omsbudsman) at the Washington Post have read her article. It certainly doesn't support the obfuscations they have been publishing in the same newspaper. I suspect she waited until they had each left the building before submitting this article for publication.

39 individuals the Bush administration have "disappeared" in violation of the rule of law.

Six human rights organizations have published This report (.pdf) about 39 individuals who cannot be located and who appear to have been "disappeared" by the U.S. government. This is exactly the way the Argentine Generals who started the Falklands War to distract the public from their misrule treated their citizens. Here is the Executive Summary of the report:

On September 6, 2006, President George W. Bush revealed that the United States runs a system of secret detention in the “War on Terror,” but he did not disclose how many individuals were secretly detained. While only the U.S. government knows exactly who remains missing, Off the Record provides the most comprehensive list of these individuals, who are believed to have been subject to an enforced disappearance for which the United States bears responsibility.

Based on research by six major human rights groups—Amnesty International, Cageprisoners, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law, Human Rights Watch and Reprieve—Off the Record identifies individuals believed to have been held at some point by the United States in secret sites, all of whom remain missing.

Off the Record provides new information about detainees already identified as “disappeared” (for example, Ali Abdul-Hamid al-Fakhiri, commonly known as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi) and names four missing detainees for the first time. It reveals the extent to which the United States illegally uses “proxy detention” to empty its secret sites and demonstrates that far from targeting the “worst of the worst,” the system sweeps up low-level detainees and even involves the detention of the wives and children of the “disappeared,” in violation of their human rights. Off the Record also documents allegations concerning the treatment of detainees while in secret detention, including torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The briefing paper reports on the following individuals:

Individuals whose detention by the United States has been officially acknowledged and whose fate and whereabouts remain unknown:

1. Hassan Ghul
2. Ali Abd al-Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghamdi (Abu Bakr al Azdi)
3. Ali Abdul-Hamid al-Fakhiri (Ali Abd-al-Hamid al-Fakhiri, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi)

Individuals about whom there is strong evidence, including witness testimony, of secret detention by the United States and whose fate and whereabouts remain unknown:

4. Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (Abu Musab al-Suri, Umar Abd al-Hakim)
5.&6. Two, possibly three, Somalis* [Names Unknown] (one of whom is either Shoeab as-Somali or Rethwan as-Somali)
7. Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan (Abu Talha, Talaha)
8. Abdul Basit
9. Adnan [Last Name Unknown]
10. Hudaifa
11. Mohammed [Last Name Unknown] (Mohammed al-Afghani)
12. Khalid al-Zawahiri
13. Ayoub al-Libi
14. Abu Naseem
15. Suleiman Abdalla Salim (Suleiman Abdalla, Suleiman Abdalla Salim Hemed, Suleiman Ahmed Hemed Salim, Issa Tanzania)
16. Yassir al-Jazeeri (Yasser al-Jaziri, Abu Yasir al-Jaziri, Abu Yassir Al Jazeeri, Yasser al-Jazeeri)
17. Mohammed Omar Abdel-Rahman (Asadallah)
18. Majid [Last Name Unknown] (Adnan al-Libi, Abu Yasser)*
19. Hassan [Last Name Unknown] (Raba’i)*
20. [First Name Unknown] al-Mahdi-Jawdeh (Abu Ayoub, Ayoub al-Libi)*
21. Khaled al-Sharif (Abu Hazem)*

Individuals about whom there is some evidence of secret detention by the United States and whose fate and whereabouts remain unknown:

22. Osama bin Yousaf (Usama Bin Yussaf, Usama bin Yusuf, Usamah bin-Yusuf)
23. Osama Nazir
24. Sharif al-Masri (Abd-al-Sattar Sharif al-Masri)
25. Qari Saifullah Akhtar (Amir Harkat-ul-Ansar Qari Saifullah)
26. Mustafa Mohammed Fadhil (Moustafa Ali Elbishy, Hussein, Hassan Ali, Khalid, Abu Jihad)
27. Musaab Aruchi (Mosabir Aroochi, Masoob Aroochi, Abu Mosa'ab al-Balochi, Abu Mosa'ab Aroochi, Musaad Aruchi, al-Baluchi)
28. Ibad Al Yaquti al Sheikh al Sufiyan
29. Walid bin Azmi
30. Amir Hussein Abdullah al-Misri (Fazal Mohammad Abdullah al-Misri)
31. Safwan al-Hasham (Haffan al-Hasham)
32. Jawad al-Bashar
33. Aafia Siddiqui
34. Saif al Islam el Masry
35. Sheikh Ahmed Salim
36. Retha al-Tunisi
37. Anas al-Libi (Anas al-Sabai, Nazih al-Raghie, Nazih Abdul Hamed al-Raghie)
38. [First Name Unknown] al-Rubaia
39. Speen Ghul

* Individuals publicly identified as missing for the first time by human rights groups are indicated by an asterisk. Note that while the detention of two Somali nationals has been previously reported, the possibility that a third Somali national was held in a secret U.S. detention facility has not been explicitly stated.

There is no valid reason for the secrecy with which these individuals are being treated. One of the great advances of civilization occurred in 1215 when King John of England was forced by his Barons to sign the Magna Carta, a document which gave individuals the right to not belong as property to their own government. That document and the efforts to enforce it led to the ideas and institutions of a nation ruled under the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Men The American Constitution enshrined these ideas and built institutions to enforce them, and this was a major element in the extablishement of the United Nations.

The Bush administration would throw this eight hundred years of the advance of civilization away in a fit of fear, anger and pique, without knowing what it is doing. Nothing bin Laden and his al Qaeda could possible do would ever be as destructive of American and Western values and civilization as this set of actions by the conservatives and the Bush Administration.

Bin Laden and al Qaeda are not nearly the dangers to America that Bush, Cheney, and the NeoCons are. Anyone who believes otherwise need only consider the case of Jose Padilla.

---

See also

• M. Romney - "Habeas Corpus? Probably not if I am President.
  April 01, 2007
  

  ---

• The Bush administration is concealing evidence from the courts
  March 11, 2007
  

  ---

• The on-going tyranny and criminality of the Bush administration
  December 05, 2006
  

  ---

McKlatchy reports that the "Surge" is failing.

McKlatchy News presents an analysis of the last, final and most significant effort to "win" the Iraq War. To no one's surprise, the same old problems that were there before the "Surge" remain.

• Violence is on the rise,
  
• Iraqi troops aren't showing up to secure neighborhoods,
  
• U.S. troops are having to revisit neighborhoods they'd already cleared, and
  
• Iraq's politicians haven't met any of their benchmarks.

Surprise, surprise...

The current surge, which President Bush announced on Jan. 10, was to be different. U.S. forces in Baghdad were to increase by at least 17,000, bringing the total U.S. force in Baghdad to more than 30,000. The troops were to work alongside 30,000 Iraqi army and national police forces and 21,000 policemen to secure neighborhoods. U.S. forces would be stationed in neighborhoods in newly built mini-bases and patrol with their Iraqi counterparts.
That hasn't happened as rapidly as U.S. commanders had hoped. In an assessment completed at the end of May, one U.S. division found that U.S. and Iraqi forces control only 146 of 457 Baghdad neighborhoods. [Snip]

Last October, ... Casey [Then U.S. military ground commander in Iraq] said then that the Iraqi forces were improving and that the plan was having a "dampening effect" on sectarian violence, in spite of statistics that suggested otherwise.

"We are about 75 percent of the way through a three-step process in building those forces," Casey said of the Iraqi army. "Their leaders are feeling more responsible for the security of Iraq, and they want to take the reins, and I think we need to do that."

Four days later, the U.S. announced the end of its security plan, conceding that violence had reached unprecedented levels.

McKlatchy Newspapers also points out [elsewhere] that the Secretary of Defense will not let the McKlatchy reporters on the Press plane with the rest of the Press Corps.

With honest reporting going on by McKlatchy reporters, is that any surprise that the DoD and Bob Gates don't want them around in this, the final collapse of the failed and unnecessary war in Iraq? Their motivation is clear. The real question is what the rest of the Press Corps is suppressing in order to get those free plane trips? Are they getting anything else for not doing their jobs? Because whatever their price has been, the U.S. Press Corps has sold out and done so way too cheaply.

But why should that matter to TV, the New York Times and the Washington Post? They still have Paris Hilton to report on, don't they? I'm sure Katie Couric is pleased at the exchange. Of course the real journalists who originally had souls and have had to give them up may feel the loss a bit more than the CBS blond bimbo does.

We need to all applaud the American military people who, in spite of the failed political and careerist leadership both inside the military and from the American politicians go forward day in and day out to risk their lives (and often lose them) to do the useless jobs they have been assigned to do. But more than applaud, the Veteran's Administration needs to be properly funded and restructured so that it gives back a little for the sacrifices so many have made in this stupid Republican War.
Oh, wait. that would require leadership in the military and in the White House, wouldn't it? I guess sacking Don Rumsfeld and Peter Pace is a start, but it is damned sure too little and too late.

"We didn't have this kind of biography in the year 2000"

Carl Bernstein is out pimping his new book on Hillary Clinton. Here, from Media Matters of America, we get a few of his comments as he tries to get people to buy his screed.

"We didn't have this kind of biography in the year 2000, and the country has suffered catastrophically, because they didn't know who or what they were voting for in some instances."
-- Carl Bernstein, Paula Zahn Now, 6/7/06

BILL O'REILLY: I have to tell you, I still don't know what to make of the woman even after -- even after reading the book. That's how complicated this woman is.

CARL BERNSTEIN: That's terrific.
-- The O'Reilly Factor, 6/5/07

Gee. Do you think that Carl will publish a similar set of books on Rudi Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and/or John McCain?

My bet is he won't. Not that the subjects wouldn't be at least as interesting, and certainly are not as well-known, but he probably can't find a wealthy right-wing angel to pay him to write it, pay to get it published (Regnery Press? Knopf Publishing?) and then to buy his books by the gross so that they can give them to the shredders their friends.

When more voters vote, fewer Republicans are elected. Solution? Stop people from voting. Ask Republicans.

Republicans can't win elections unless they suppress voter turn-out. Don't take my word for it. Here is Paul Weyrich, father of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups saying exactly that. Go on over to Crooks and Liars and listen to him.

That's what the entire business of politicizing the Department of Justice has been about.

[ h/t to Digby.]

Reasons for Gen. Paces' early deperture from Chair fo the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I can't say that Marine Gen. Peter Pace every impressed me as particularly worthy of the top military job in the Department of Defense. But what do I know? Still, he was Rumsfeld's choice during the period when no military flag-rank officer was promoted unless his political views were approved by Rumsfeld, and the stories in the press were that Pace was a great deal more adept at brown-nosing than most officers of his rank were. That he brown-nosed Rumsfeld was demonstrated by the fact that he was promoted at all. That he was promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff merely demonstrated that he was the best of the crew all trying to do the same thing.

Can you say "Careerism?"

Still, I have been curious as to exactly what his real sins were. Well, there are a few answers out now. First, there is this from Larry Johnson at "No Quarter." Here is Larry's key statement:

Let there be no doubt--Perfect Peter Pace has been shown the door because of his letter to Judge Walton pleading on behalf of Scooter Libby. That letter was the final straw demonstrating his incompetence and political tin ear as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. How can you call call upon troops to conduct themselves with honor and integrity when you make lame excuses for the conduct of a convicted perjurer and obstructer of justice like Scooter Libby? Pace's Libby letter was the tipping point. His status, already shaky with the debacle of Iraq and a six year record of failure, became toxic with that letter. [Snip]

I believe that Perfect Peter has dishonored himself and dishonored the Marine Corps by his conduct--his weak, vacillating leadership and his craven pandering to political masters. Pace's nickname, "Perfect Peter", is not a term of endearment. It is an acknowledgment that Peter has been more willing than others to sell his soul for political expediency. He leaves in September. Good riddance.

But Larry is retired military, someone that many Americans do not really understand or trust. He can probably be dismissed as being "Crusty" and "Opinionated." [I don't buy that, but what do I know? I'm retired military myself and feel like I understand where he is coming from, at least a little.]

So, OK. Here is the story from the rather clearly non-military Steve Clemons at HIS blog, The Washington Note.

Pete Pace is out, and it's good for the country.
This is not quite on the same par as Truman firing MacArthur, but a civilian leader firing a general now and then can be healthy -- particularly when that General -- America's top general -- ventures into political matters that have absolutely nothing to do with his responsibilities as he did in writing a character commendation to the judge before Scooter Libby's recent sentencing. [Snip]

Pete Pace was brown-nosing the President (he thought) in his condemnation of homosexuals as immoral. Again, this is another political issue [Besides "Scooter" Libby's legal problems. Editor - PPS] he should have remained out of -- but given his responsibilities in managing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, there is reason why he might have commented to some degree.

But Pace's comments weren't structural -- weren't designed to affirm "don't ask, don't tell." They were political and denigrated a group of Americans currently serving in the military with honor -- at exactly the same time he has allowed the issuance of over 125,000 "moral waivers" in the case of other Americans entering the military with serious criminal violations on their record.

What really drove Pace's comments is he thought they would put him in a better place with the White House and the President himself.

What the General just didn't get is that despite the grand theater of social conservatism and near constant flirtation with James Dobson by the White House, the fact is neither the President nor the Vice President want to talk about or hear about the "gay issue." Bush rejected former Senator Dan Coats as Secretary of Defense when he was the front-runner for the job because Coats wanted to reverse Don't Ask, and Don't Tell with "Ask, Investigate, and Prosecute" as well as to get women as far out of military roles as possible. Bush dropped Coats fast.

Another bizarre thing I learned about Peter Pace recently -- both from an old girlfriend of his who lives in Chestertown, Maryland as well as former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson -- is the guy manages the truth pretty flexibly.

When Wilkerson blasted the White House and the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" with his famous speech of October 19, 2005, Rumsfeld was eventually asked what he thought of Wilkerson and his views. Rumsfeld decided to stick it to Col. Wilkerson by pretending he didn't even know who the 16-year long close aide to Colin Powell was. But at one press conference, Rumsfeld turned to Peter Pace and asked if he knew Wilkerson -- and Pace denied even knowing him.

What I know is that Wilkerson once reported to Pace -- but it wasn't expeditious at that moment for Pace to recall he was Wilkerson's overseer when Wilkerson was succeeding a Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College who had been diagnosed with a fast-moving cancer and Pace and another set of generals had rigged things so that the ailing War College director would "die on duty" rather than be put on disability as the benefits to his family would be different. Wilkerson, Pace and others helped organize the funeral and honors for the deceased Director, and Wilkerson succeeded him in that role."

So it appears that the immediate reasons for Pace's dismissal were:

• his inappropriate and clearly political brown-nosing with the White House by sending a letter to Judge Walton in support of letting "Scooter" Libby avoid punishment for the crimes the jury determined that he committed.
• His similarly politically-motivated pandering the the Christian Right as he tried to throw honorably serving homosexual members of the military under the bus in order to advance his own career - this along with his tin ear for politics.
• His obvious lack of any connection with the truth when brown-nosing can be practiced, and
• His close association with the Rumsfeld regime and his apparent ability to bend whichever way he thinks the winds are blowing rather than acting as a professional military person.

Pace is a poster-boy for military careerism, something which our military has suffered from badly in recent years. If I were back on active duty I would not trust Pace to consider my life significant any time he thought about his career. He has clearly demonstrated (repeatedly) his inability to lead military people which makes him incompetent to remain in his job. He should never have gotten the job, and his departure is long overdue.

Sounds a lot like the chicken-hawks in the White House, doesn't it? People who don't want to bother with the risk, discomforts, hard work and sacrifice actually involved in being in the military, but who are perfectly willing to send military people out and get them killed just to advance their own careers. Examples are George W. Bush who could not be bothered to complete his commitment to the military once it was no longer needed to keep him out of Viet Nam, and Dick Cheney who did not serve in the military during war time because "He had other priorities." but certainly doesn't let his own reticence to perform military duty stop him from refusing to call for a draft to support his idiotic war of choice in Iraq.

Pace has gotten what he deserved from the government. Out. Bush and Cheney should also follow his lead. America and America's military will both be much better off for their absence.

What gives with Lt. Gen. Lute, the War Czar?

What is up with the Bush administration and the War Czar, Lt. Gen. Lute? As I wrote previously, the position is totally unprecedented in American history. Here is Laura Rozen's comment on the situation:

Is the Lute appointment about the administration shrugging off the legacy of Iraq to the uniformed military? A correspondent writes, "There was this hilarious skit on the Daily Show about exactly this when the czar position was announced. They showed a vin diagram with three overlapping circles, one labeled the White House, the other DoD, and the third the Joint Chiefs -- the 'czar' was supposed to operate at the intersection of the three areas of responsibility. John Stewart asked what that intersection was called, and his 'correspondent' dead-panned: 'The Blame' (which popped up on the screen in bold letters at the intersection of the 3 circles). Brilliant."

What is happening is that George W. bush is bringing in an Army three-star General, assigning him a desk in the National Security Council but making him answerable to Bush alone. The National Security Adviser, Stephan Hadley, is out of the loop. Lute will be giving instructions to the Secretary of Defense and to the Secretary of State.

The fiction is that Lute will be answering to President Bush and will be speaking for President Bush to the Departments of Defense and State. But that is a fiction. Bush has no clue how to deal with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his record shows it. Those wars will belong to Lute.

But not the blame. The fiction is that Bush is responsible, and so Bush cannot blame his telephone for the messages passed to the Secretaries of State and Defense. The fiction is that Lute is a telephone. The reality is that he has to make the decisions.

Once again Bush proves that there is nothing he can get right. His only hope is to pass the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off to the Democrats in 2008 and set things up so that the Republicans can blame the Democrats. Wait for it. In 2009 the cry will start up "The Democrats lost Iraq to the terrorists!"

Finally! AT and T gave me my DSL back.

Unbelievable. We've had a lot of rain here recently (still haven't made up for the drought over the last two years, though.) With rain came bugs. Ants. Flies. Mosquitoes. Roaches. Republicans. (Sorry. Can't blame the rain for them.)

But I never connected it to the inability of my DSL to connect to the Domain Name Server. The computer was sending and receiving packets. But it couldn't find any websites. Then my dial tone went out. Related? Yeah, but it took a while to find that out.

The service tech finally called and told me I had a dial tone back (well, duh. He was on the phone, right?) He also said that my DSL was back. So I asked what had happened.

Ants.

Ants in a junction box a block away from me. He had to isolate the problem, kill the ants and clean them out, then fix the wires.

That's Texas, I guess.

Good News for America! Rep. Jerry Lewis will NOT run for reelection in 2008!

America and California have been given some good news by the American traitor [*] Bob Novak! California Rep. Jerry Lewis will not run for reelection for a 16th term.

Lewis is one of at least six Republican House members from California who have faced ethical scrutiny, beginning when Duke Cunningham was sent to prison. Most recently, Rep. Ken Calvert, who was sponsored by Lewis for a coveted Appropriations Committee seat, is under attack. He replaced Rep. John Doolittle, another Californian who resigned from the committee because the Justice Department was investigating him.

Rep. Jerry Lewis was under investigation in the Abramoff scandal when the U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles who was investigating Rep. Lewis decided that the private sector paid better than working for the government. Ms. Yang received a really good offer from the Law Firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in their Los Angeles office.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is the law firm defending Rep. Jerry Lewis, the very Congressman Debra Yang was investigating for corruption. The job offer came with an upfront signing bonus of $1.5 million for Ms. Yang, who otherwise was on the Department of Justice firing list. Ms. Yang took the job in late November of 2004, somehow missing being fired during the Pearl Harbor Day U.S. Attorney mass firing which happened three weeks later.

---

[*] Bob Novak is the treasonous reporter who published CIA officer Valerie Plame's name and CIA affiliation in order to punish her husband Joe Wilson for daring to make George W. Bush admit that he was lying in the 2003 State of the Union Address when he stated that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow cake Uranium ore from Niger. [Bush's statement that he "should not have included that incident in the speech.] is political-speak for "I was lying and you caught me. Shame on you."

Rove nearly locked up US for Repubs - until the Iraq War interfered in Nov. 2006

Digby describes how Karl Rove was building a national political machine that would permanently give control of America to the conservative extremists. It involved depowering the Democrats completely, running a one-party government, fixing most close elections so that the Republicans stole them, using the Department of Justice to fix court case outcomes in cases of election fraud when Republicans got caught while at the same time bringing indictments against strong Democratic politicians just before elections, and using the power of the government to control what the press reported about government and elections.

It nearly worked, but the lack of success in the war in Iraq sidetracked the 2006 election. Since then the Congressional Hearings have begun to surface how crooked the Republicans have been. Still, most of Rove's crooked politics is still in place.

This article by Digby is especially worth reading.