May 31, 2005
Just Another Day In The Empire
Tuesday brought one of the more entertaining newsreading days in quite some time.
Remember Muhsin Abdul Hameed? ... For those who have forgotten, Abdul Hameed was chosen as one of the rotating presidents back in 2003. Mohsin was actually, er, Mr. February 2004, if you will. [...]
We woke up this morning to the interesting news that Muhsin Abdul Hameed had also been detained! [...]
The Americans are saying Muhsin was "detained and interviewed", which makes one think his car was gently pulled over and he was asked a few questions. What actually happened was that his house was raided early morning, doors broken down, windows shattered; and he and his three sons had bags placed over their heads, and were dragged away. They showed the house, and his wife, today on Arabiya; and the house was a disaster. The cabinets were broken, tables overturned, books and papers scattered, etc.. An outraged Muhsin was on TV a few minutes ago talking about how the troops pushed him to the floor, and how he had an American boot on his neck for twenty minutes.
The vice president said he expected the war would end during President Bush's second term, which ends in 2009.
"I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
"Clearly"?! What the fuck "clearly"?! The only thing "clear", to me, is that I'm just about ready to put my shoe a little more than half-way up your fucking cornhole, Dick. And what the fuck kind of logic is he using? Two years in to the occupation, four years to go, and the resistance is in its "last throes". What is he, trying out for Monty Python or something?
The son of a bitch was on a roll, too:
One Guantanamo prisoner told a military panel that American troops beat him so badly he wets his pants now. Another detainee claimed U.S. troops stripped prisoners in Afghanistan and intimidated them with dogs so they would admit to militant activity. Tales of alleged abuse and forced confessions are among some 1,000 pages of tribunal transcripts the U.S. government released to The Associated Press under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit -- the second batch of documents the AP has received in 10 days.
But...
"For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously."
And, well, Dick Cheney's track record is so much more reliable than Amnesty's... (Actually, it might be interesting to see how often Cheney has referenced Amnesty with regard to Saddam's crimes.) And, er, Amnesty didn't suggest that the U.S. is a human rights violator (perish the thought!). Rather, it suggested that Guantanamo is the "gulag of our time" -- rather a more damning suggestion than Cheney is even willing to acknowledge.
But, maybe ol' Dick had read an advance copy of to-day's Christian Science Monitor:
That decision is part of an increasingly strident joint U.S.-Iraqi effort to limit Iraqi abuse of detainees that -- amid the heat of a vicious insurgency -- threatens to undermine the rule of law.
But a generation of extrajudicial abuse under Saddam Hussein means that many street-level members of the Iraqi forces still resort to violence. [...]
"[Prisoner abuse] is not something we see every day, but [weekly] we see a prisoner come in, and someone has gone too far," says U.S. Army Col. Ronnie Johnson, deputy commander of the 256th Brigade Combat Team, which fields advisory teams for Iraqi units.
In the past two weeks, US forces have stepped up their intervention in such cases, and sought to make rudimentary detention centers more humane. [...]
"It's ingrained in this culture to be brutal to your enemy," says Colonel Johnson, from Baton Rouge, La. "They look at us and wonder why we worry about such things. At the soldier level, they just have a different concept. We tell them: 'There is no correlation between beating someone [hard], and getting good information.'"
What is he, trying out for the George Orwell Olympics? If so, he'll have to compete with this guy:
The International Committee of the Red Cross "has been at Guantanamo since day one," Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. "It is essentially a model facility."
Quoting letters of the fallen from the war in Iraq, President Bush vowed Monday to a Memorial Day audience of military families and soldiers in uniform that the nation will honor its dead by striving for peace and democracy, no matter the cost. [...]
Bush's nine-minute address was punctuated eight times by applause from a crowd of military families, some of whom were accompanied by soldiers in wheelchairs recovering from their wounds.
One can imagine that Dick Cheney, sitting at Mission Control, was whispering into Bush's earpiece something along the lines of the following: "And for God's sake, don't say the part about all the costs being borne by the niggers and the wetbacks...that part is just between you and me."
Two days after winning re-election last fall, President Bush declared that he had earned plenty of "political capital and now I intend to spend it." Six months later, according to Republicans and Democrats alike, his bank account has been significantly drained. [...]
"There is a growing sense of frustration with the president and the White House, quite frankly," said an influential GOP member of Congress. "The term I hear most often is, 'Tin ear,'" especially when it comes to pushing Social Security so aggressively at a time when the public is worried more about jobs and gas prices. "We could not have a worse message at a worse time." [...]
In recent meetings, House Republicans have discussed putting more pressure on the White House to move beyond Social Security and talk up different issues such as health care and tax reform, according to Republican officials who asked not to be named to avoid angering Bush's team. [Pace Condoleezza Rice: "It is a wonderful thing that people can speak their minds. Yes, ladies and gentlemen; in Baghdad and Kabul and soon in Beirut, they too will be able to speak their minds. What a wonderful thing democracy is."] [...]
Bush has had a hard time persuading Congress to go along with his agenda, in part, because surveys show much of the public has soured on him and his priorities. [...]
Such weakness has unleashed the first mutterings of those dreaded second-term words, lame duck, however premature it might be with 3˝ years left in his tenure.
And that brings us to the most entertaining quote of this most entertaining newsday, from Reagan-era Chief-of-Staff Kenneth Duberstein: "The president needs to define victories in ways that he can achieve them."
Like, instead of "spreading freedom" to the entire world, we can maybe just start with one city (viz., Baghdad). Oops, even that is too much to ask:
"Getting control of a city of 5 million is not an easy proposition," said a senior U.S. official who asked not to be identified.
Perhaps, then, we could start with successfully eating a pretzel while watching Monday Night Football; and once we've mastered that task, move on to bigger and better things.
And that's the way it was.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:38 PM
| Comments (1)
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday strongly defended the military's treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, calling the prison, which has been harshly criticized by human-rights organizations and others, a "model facility".
* * *
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview, brushed off growing calls for an independent investigation of conditions at the Guantanamo Bay detention center and labeled as "absurd" a new Amnesty International report equating the facility with Soviet-era gulags.
She said an outside investigation of the facility at the U.S. naval base in Cuba was not necessary.
May 30, 2005
Trust Us: We're The Government
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday strongly defended the military's treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, calling the prison, which has been harshly criticized by human-rights organizations and others, a "model facility".
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview, brushed off growing calls for an independent investigation of conditions at the Guantanamo Bay detention center and labeled as "absurd" a new Amnesty International report equating the facility with Soviet-era gulags.
She said an outside investigation of the facility at the U.S. naval base in Cuba was not necessary.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:20 AM
| Comments (0)
"Precision", like as in the 100,000 civilians killed in the first eighteen months of war, mostly women and children, mostly killed by American bombs and guns? "Can't just roll people up", like as in the thousands of "suspected insurgents" sitting in Iraqi jails?
Okay, thanks for the tip.
Did He Really Say That?
"One thing we've stressed with them is the need for precision," a senior U.S. military official said of the raids. "You can't just roll people up. It alienates them."
"Precision", like as in the 100,000 civilians killed in the first eighteen months of war, mostly women and children, mostly killed by American bombs and guns? "Can't just roll people up", like as in the thousands of "suspected insurgents" sitting in Iraqi jails?
Okay, thanks for the tip.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:14 AM
| Comments (0)
We know that members of al Qaeda are trained to mislead and to provide false reports. We know that's one of their tactics that they use.
May 26, 2005
Quote Of The Moment #0097
We know that members of al Qaeda are trained to mislead and to provide false reports. We know that's one of their tactics that they use.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:13 PM
| Comments (0)
Yours truly had been planning to comment upon last week's New York Times piece concerning the militarisation of outer space.
But Tom Engelhardt has already done so, saying pretty much everything I had intended to say -- only with much less profanity.
Recommended.
Boondoggles From God
Yours truly had been planning to comment upon last week's New York Times piece concerning the militarisation of outer space.
But Tom Engelhardt has already done so, saying pretty much everything I had intended to say -- only with much less profanity.
Recommended.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:42 AM
| Comments (0)
So we've got "young and poorly trained" soldiers committing the same sorts of atrocities in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- yet somehow it's the perpetrators, but not the trainers, who are to be held responsible.
That's George Bush's America. But, anybody wanna hazard a guess as to what the "young and poorly trained soldiers" would have been doing in the following cases had they been properly trained?
I mean, that's some training gone seriously awry, isn't it?
May 25, 2005
Bad Apples
A confidential U.S. Army report contains graphic details of widespread abuse of detainees in Afghanistan in 2002 carried out by "young and poorly trained soldiers" The New York Times reported on Friday.
So we've got "young and poorly trained" soldiers committing the same sorts of atrocities in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- yet somehow it's the perpetrators, but not the trainers, who are to be held responsible.
That's George Bush's America. But, anybody wanna hazard a guess as to what the "young and poorly trained soldiers" would have been doing in the following cases had they been properly trained?
In sworn statements to Army investigators, soldiers described mistreatment ranging from a female interrogator stepping on a detainee's neck and kicking another in the genitals to a shackled prisoner being made to kiss the boots of interrogators as he rolled back and forth on the floor of a cell, according to the newspaper.
Another prisoner was made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum filled with a mixture of excrement and water to soften him up for interrogation, the report said.
I mean, that's some training gone seriously awry, isn't it?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:11 PM
| Comments (1)
Defying President Bush's threat to impose his first veto, 50 House Republicans joined an overwhelming number of Democrats yesterday to repeal his restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Fucking Liberal Republicans
Defying President Bush's threat to impose his first veto, 50 House Republicans joined an overwhelming number of Democrats yesterday to repeal his restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:25 PM
| Comments (2)
If we prefer our axes to be comprised of threesomes, maybe George Lucas could be added to the Axis Of Subversion.
May 23, 2005
Holy Shit! Another Axis Has Formed!
"Chávez sees Castro as a father figure," says Otto Reich, former undersecretary of State for Latin America in the Bush administration, "an anti-American precursor whose footsteps he can follow, and whose built-in network of supporters around the hemisphere he can take over when Castro passes on." Reich calls the Castro-Chávez relationship an "axis of subversion".
If we prefer our axes to be comprised of threesomes, maybe George Lucas could be added to the Axis Of Subversion.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:32 PM
| Comments (0)
"The President, tonight, is going to be talking about how the Republican Party is the party of ideas." -- Scott McClellan (who else?)
Yours truly was not present at the meeting, but one presumes it went something like the following:
"Hey, I've got an idea! Let's bomb the niggers!"
"Yes, but which ones?"
"Uhhm...Iran?"
"Good show!"
* * *
"Hey, I've got an idea! Let's re-instate the draft!"
"But that would mean that our children could be required to serve."
"Oh...hey, I've got an idea! Let's re-instate the draft -- but only for niggers!"
"Too right!"
May 18, 2005
"The Party Of Ideas"
"The President, tonight, is going to be talking about how the Republican Party is the party of ideas." -- Scott McClellan (who else?)
Yours truly was not present at the meeting, but one presumes it went something like the following:
"Hey, I've got an idea! Let's bomb the niggers!"
"Yes, but which ones?"
"Uhhm...Iran?"
"Good show!"
"Hey, I've got an idea! Let's re-instate the draft!"
"But that would mean that our children could be required to serve."
"Oh...hey, I've got an idea! Let's re-instate the draft -- but only for niggers!"
"Too right!"
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:19 PM
| Comments (0)
I was ten years old, and remember it as though it had happened yesterday.
My grandmother had been visiting, and was heading south on Interstate 5. The bridge over the Toutle River would soon be washed out, and hers was one of the last cars to make it through. She said that she was doing 80 mph and the State Patrol was motioning for her to go faster.
This has been an unsolicited walk down memory lane.
It Was Twenty-Five Years Ago To-Day
I was ten years old, and remember it as though it had happened yesterday.
My grandmother had been visiting, and was heading south on Interstate 5. The bridge over the Toutle River would soon be washed out, and hers was one of the last cars to make it through. She said that she was doing 80 mph and the State Patrol was motioning for her to go faster.
This has been an unsolicited walk down memory lane.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:58 PM
| Comments (0)
Now, how would the "senior U.S. military officer" know this? If the "Multinational Force" had infiltrated Zarqawi's organisation, right? If so, it'd also, presumably, know specific details regarding when and where such attacks would be employed. Yet it was still unable to prevent them?
So, the "Multinational Force" can bomb away at houses containing "suspected terrorists", but it can't prevent known terrorists, with known plans from carrying out acts of terrorism.
It follows either that the "senior U.S. military officer" is lying, or that the U.S. military for some reason wants the attacks to take place. Given the level of incompetence of every single element of the liberators' "Operation", one suspects the former. But the latter wouldn't be all that surprising, either.
Anti-Iraqi Forces
An upsurge in car bomb attacks in Iraq in recent weeks was ordered by al Qaeda's leader in the country, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, at a meeting of insurgents in Syria, a senior U.S. military officer said on Wednesday.
The shift toward more car bomb attacks is part of a wave of violence that has killed more than 400 Iraqis in the past three weeks and marks a change in tactics by an ever adapting insurgency, the officer said.
Zarqawi "wasn't happy with how the insurgency was going," he told reporters, adding that the Jordanian militant had ordered greater use of vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), the U.S. military acronym for car bombs.
"Zarqawi directed that people start using more VBIEDs and to use them more in everyday operations," the officer said.
Now, how would the "senior U.S. military officer" know this? If the "Multinational Force" had infiltrated Zarqawi's organisation, right? If so, it'd also, presumably, know specific details regarding when and where such attacks would be employed. Yet it was still unable to prevent them?
So, the "Multinational Force" can bomb away at houses containing "suspected terrorists", but it can't prevent known terrorists, with known plans from carrying out acts of terrorism.
It follows either that the "senior U.S. military officer" is lying, or that the U.S. military for some reason wants the attacks to take place. Given the level of incompetence of every single element of the liberators' "Operation", one suspects the former. But the latter wouldn't be all that surprising, either.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:21 AM
| Comments (1)
I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
Quote Of The Moment #0096
I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:58 AM
| Comments (0)
Difficult to believe McClellan's insistence, given that:
The official British reaction to the "Downing Street Memo" was that the its contents were "nothing new".
The White House's initial response was to not comment. Apparently it expected the media's tepid response to the memo's leaking indicated that the story would die a quick death. Or, perhaps it -- much like the British government -- didn't see anything shocking or revealing in the memo's contents. There's some merit for this line of thinking, really: for those that've been paying attention, the memo is merely the confirmation of what we've known since Andy Card "rolled out" the Iraq War "product" in September of 2002 (or even, really, since Dubya declared the "Axis Of Evil" in early 2002).
The memo corroborates similar revelations from Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke.
"...a former senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it 'an absolutely accurate description of what transpired'."
A look at the Administration's actions leading up to the invasion are enough to confirm that what was patently obvious to everyone else (viz., that Iraq had no WMD or facilities in which to create them, and that any minimal stocks that it might have retained since 1998 would have long-since passed their shelf-life) was also patently obvious to the Bush Administration.
So, McClellan is lying. No news there: McClellan lies more frequently than he does any other thing. But it's kind of an interesting lie. Sort of.
In lying to cover his President's ass, he tells such a blatant whopper that no media outlet will probably even bother to comment. To wit, he claims that Saddam "chose continued defiance" -- months after the Administration has officially called off the search for any hint of a trace of WMD stocks, programmes, or facilities; coming up empty-handed, save for the assertion that it was Saddam's "intent" to at some future date re-start his banned weapons programmes.
So, in denying that the White House planned to "fix" reality around its goals, McClellan is, in essence, arguing that WMD actually were found in Iraq -- but if that were the case, there would, of course, be no need to deny the memo's contents.
And the sonofabitch is not going to be called upon it by a single reporter! Sometimes, you've got to hand it to the motherfucker.
May 17, 2005
Concentric Lies
Claims in a recently uncovered British memo that intelligence was "being fixed" to support the Iraq war as early as mid-2002 are "flat out wrong", White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday.
McClellan insisted the process leading up to the decision to go to war was "very public" -- and that the decision to invade in March 2003 was taken only after Iraq refused to comply with its "international obligations".
"The president of the United States, in a very public way, reached out to people across the world, went to the United Nations and tried to resolve this in a diplomatic manner," McClellan said.
"Saddam Hussein was the one, in the end, who chose continued defiance. And only then was the decision made, as a last resort, to go into Iraq."
Difficult to believe McClellan's insistence, given that:
The official British reaction to the "Downing Street Memo" was that the its contents were "nothing new".
The White House's initial response was to not comment. Apparently it expected the media's tepid response to the memo's leaking indicated that the story would die a quick death. Or, perhaps it -- much like the British government -- didn't see anything shocking or revealing in the memo's contents. There's some merit for this line of thinking, really: for those that've been paying attention, the memo is merely the confirmation of what we've known since Andy Card "rolled out" the Iraq War "product" in September of 2002 (or even, really, since Dubya declared the "Axis Of Evil" in early 2002).
The memo corroborates similar revelations from Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke.
"...a former senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it 'an absolutely accurate description of what transpired'."
A look at the Administration's actions leading up to the invasion are enough to confirm that what was patently obvious to everyone else (viz., that Iraq had no WMD or facilities in which to create them, and that any minimal stocks that it might have retained since 1998 would have long-since passed their shelf-life) was also patently obvious to the Bush Administration.
So, McClellan is lying. No news there: McClellan lies more frequently than he does any other thing. But it's kind of an interesting lie. Sort of.
In lying to cover his President's ass, he tells such a blatant whopper that no media outlet will probably even bother to comment. To wit, he claims that Saddam "chose continued defiance" -- months after the Administration has officially called off the search for any hint of a trace of WMD stocks, programmes, or facilities; coming up empty-handed, save for the assertion that it was Saddam's "intent" to at some future date re-start his banned weapons programmes.
So, in denying that the White House planned to "fix" reality around its goals, McClellan is, in essence, arguing that WMD actually were found in Iraq -- but if that were the case, there would, of course, be no need to deny the memo's contents.
And the sonofabitch is not going to be called upon it by a single reporter! Sometimes, you've got to hand it to the motherfucker.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:05 PM
| Comments (0)
Venezuela's booming oil wealth is bankrolling its most ambitious effort in decades to help the poor, an integral part of President Hugo Chávez's "social revolution" that is drawing both praise and skepticism while he strengthens ties with Cuba and increasingly clashes with the United States. [...]
Under Chávez, the state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA spent more than $3.7 billion last year on social and agricultural programs, housing and other public projects -- about a third of its earnings.
* * *
The Bush administration is seeking a South American country to sponsor an OAS resolution condemning the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez, but has come up empty-handed after two high-profile visits to the region. [...]
A Bush administration official, speaking on background two weeks ahead of Mr. Rumsfeld's March 23 visit, told Brazilian reporters about the administration's goal to see Mr. Chavez admonished at the Organization of American States. Three of five reporters who attended the briefing said the Americans wanted to see Venezuela criticized for "failing in its commitment to democracy," the core mission for all 34 OAS member states.
* * *
The Senate gave final passage yesterday to an $82 billion emergency war spending bill, sending President Bush a measure that will push the cost of the Iraq invasion well past $200 billion.
Even with such massive expenditures, Army officials and congressional aides say more money will be needed as early as October. Army Materiel Command, the Army's main logistical branch, has put Congress on notice that it will need at least two more emergency "supplemental" bills just to finance repair and replacement of Army equipment.
By 2010, war costs are likely to exceed a half-trillion dollars, say congressional researchers.
* * *
President Bush plans to unveil a $2.5 trillion budget today eliminating dozens of politically sensitive domestic programs, including funding for education, environmental protection and business development, while proposing significant increases for the military and international spending, according to White House documents.
Overall, discretionary spending other than defense and homeland security would fall by nearly 1 percent, the first time in many years that funding for the major part of the budget controlled by Congress would actually go down in real terms, according to officials with access to the budget. The cuts are scattered across a wide swath of the government, affecting a cross-section of constituents, from migrant workers to train passengers to local police departments, according to officials who read portions of the documents to The Washington Post.
About 150 programs in all would be shuttered or radically cut back to help meet Bush's goal of shaving the budget deficit in half by 2009. One out of every three of the targeted programs concerns education. Medicaid funding would be reduced significantly and even major military weapons programs would be scrapped to make more resources available for the war in Iraq.
May 16, 2005
A Tale Of Two Democracies
Venezuela's booming oil wealth is bankrolling its most ambitious effort in decades to help the poor, an integral part of President Hugo Chávez's "social revolution" that is drawing both praise and skepticism while he strengthens ties with Cuba and increasingly clashes with the United States. [...]
Under Chávez, the state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA spent more than $3.7 billion last year on social and agricultural programs, housing and other public projects -- about a third of its earnings.
The Bush administration is seeking a South American country to sponsor an OAS resolution condemning the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez, but has come up empty-handed after two high-profile visits to the region. [...]
A Bush administration official, speaking on background two weeks ahead of Mr. Rumsfeld's March 23 visit, told Brazilian reporters about the administration's goal to see Mr. Chavez admonished at the Organization of American States. Three of five reporters who attended the briefing said the Americans wanted to see Venezuela criticized for "failing in its commitment to democracy," the core mission for all 34 OAS member states.
The Senate gave final passage yesterday to an $82 billion emergency war spending bill, sending President Bush a measure that will push the cost of the Iraq invasion well past $200 billion.
Even with such massive expenditures, Army officials and congressional aides say more money will be needed as early as October. Army Materiel Command, the Army's main logistical branch, has put Congress on notice that it will need at least two more emergency "supplemental" bills just to finance repair and replacement of Army equipment.
By 2010, war costs are likely to exceed a half-trillion dollars, say congressional researchers.
President Bush plans to unveil a $2.5 trillion budget today eliminating dozens of politically sensitive domestic programs, including funding for education, environmental protection and business development, while proposing significant increases for the military and international spending, according to White House documents.
Overall, discretionary spending other than defense and homeland security would fall by nearly 1 percent, the first time in many years that funding for the major part of the budget controlled by Congress would actually go down in real terms, according to officials with access to the budget. The cuts are scattered across a wide swath of the government, affecting a cross-section of constituents, from migrant workers to train passengers to local police departments, according to officials who read portions of the documents to The Washington Post.
About 150 programs in all would be shuttered or radically cut back to help meet Bush's goal of shaving the budget deficit in half by 2009. One out of every three of the targeted programs concerns education. Medicaid funding would be reduced significantly and even major military weapons programs would be scrapped to make more resources available for the war in Iraq.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:43 PM
| Comments (0)
AKA: "The State giveth, and the State taketh away."
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Welcome. Thank you very much for coming today. Today we take an important action to strengthen -- to continue strengthening our nation's economy. The bipartisan bill I'm about to sign makes common-sense reforms to our bankruptcy laws. By restoring integrity to the bankruptcy process, this law will make our financial system stronger and better.
* * *
Bankruptcy reform has been a top priority of banks, credit-card companies, and retailers for the past decade. The credit card industry has given $25 million to federal candidates and the political parties since 1999 and commercial banks have given $76.2 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group.
* * *
A federal bankruptcy judge approved United Airlines' plan to terminate its employees' pension plans yesterday, clearing the way for the largest corporate-pension default in American history.
The ruling, which carries broad implications for U.S. airlines and their workers, shifts responsibility for United's four defined-benefit plans to the government's pension agency.
That will save cash-strapped United an estimated $645 million a year, part of the $2 billion in annual savings it says it needs to line up enough financing to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy as soon as this fall.
But the cost will be painful to its employees, who stand to lose thousands of dollars annually off their pensions when they are assumed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
Free Market Miracle #0021
AKA: "The State giveth, and the State taketh away."
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Welcome. Thank you very much for coming today. Today we take an important action to strengthen -- to continue strengthening our nation's economy. The bipartisan bill I'm about to sign makes common-sense reforms to our bankruptcy laws. By restoring integrity to the bankruptcy process, this law will make our financial system stronger and better.
Bankruptcy reform has been a top priority of banks, credit-card companies, and retailers for the past decade. The credit card industry has given $25 million to federal candidates and the political parties since 1999 and commercial banks have given $76.2 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group.
A federal bankruptcy judge approved United Airlines' plan to terminate its employees' pension plans yesterday, clearing the way for the largest corporate-pension default in American history.
The ruling, which carries broad implications for U.S. airlines and their workers, shifts responsibility for United's four defined-benefit plans to the government's pension agency.
That will save cash-strapped United an estimated $645 million a year, part of the $2 billion in annual savings it says it needs to line up enough financing to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy as soon as this fall.
But the cost will be painful to its employees, who stand to lose thousands of dollars annually off their pensions when they are assumed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:26 PM
| Comments (0)
The White House on Wednesday disputed former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge's assertion that administration officials were too quick to put the nation on increased terrorist threat levels.
Ridge, at a forum in Washington on Tuesday, said that he and other administration officials often disagreed on threat-level decisions.
"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," he said of his agency. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on [alert].
"There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it and we said, 'For that?'" Ridge said.
Fucking Liberal Republicans
The White House on Wednesday disputed former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge's assertion that administration officials were too quick to put the nation on increased terrorist threat levels.
Ridge, at a forum in Washington on Tuesday, said that he and other administration officials often disagreed on threat-level decisions.
"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," he said of his agency. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on [alert].
"There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it and we said, 'For that?'" Ridge said.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:09 PM
| Comments (0)
Was he an al-Qaeda operative? If so, had he committed a crime? If so, had he committed a crime on U.S. soil? If so, do we have any evidence?
None of it matters, because
This is known in the literature as "spreading freedom". Essentially, it is an exact counterpart to bin Laden's call for jihad against any American citizens.
That incident was the impetus for the founding of this-here blog (in case you were curious).
Another Victory For Due Process
An al Qaeda figure killed last week by a missile from a CIA-operated unmanned aerial drone had been under surveillance for more than a week by U.S. intelligence and military personnel working along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, a U.S. official and two counterterrorism experts said yesterday. [...]
Al-Yemeni's importance in the al Qaeda organization could not be learned yesterday. He is not listed by that name in either the FBI or Pakistani "Most Wanted" list, but the active surveillance of him suggests his importance.
The CIA declined comment. Pakistan's information minister denied that any such incident, which was first reported by ABC News, even happened. "No such incident took place near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border," Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told the Associated Press yesterday.
Was he an al-Qaeda operative? If so, had he committed a crime? If so, had he committed a crime on U.S. soil? If so, do we have any evidence?
None of it matters, because
The CIA is permitted to operate the lethal Predator under presidential authority promulgated after the Sept. 11 attacks. Shortly after the attacks, Bush approved a "presidential finding" that allowed the CIA to write a set of highly classified rules describing which individuals could be killed by CIA officers. Such killings were defined as self-defense in a global war against al Qaeda terrorists.
This is known in the literature as "spreading freedom". Essentially, it is an exact counterpart to bin Laden's call for jihad against any American citizens.
Al-Yemeni's death is one of only a handful of known incidents in which the CIA has fired the remote-controlled, missile-equipped Predator to kill an al Qaeda member. In November 2002, the CIA used a Predator fitted with a five-foot-long Hellfire missile to kill a senior al Qaeda leader, Abu Ali al-Harithi, as he was riding in a car in the Yemeni desert. Also killed with Harithi, who was suspected of masterminding the October 2000 attack on the destroyer USS Cole, was a naturalized U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish.
That incident was the impetus for the founding of this-here blog (in case you were curious).
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:01 PM
| Comments (0)
Banding together to undercut the international influence of the United States, South American and Arab leaders yesterday opened their first summit on political and economic cooperation.
With 9,000 soldiers posted in the Brazilian capital and helicopters flying overhead, 15 heads of state and top officials from 34 South American, Middle Eastern and North African nations converged for the first Summit of South American-Arab Countries.
"We are facing a historic opportunity to build the foundation for a bridge of solid cooperation between South America and the Arab world," Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said.
May 12, 2005
"You Are Either With Us, Or With The Terrorists"
Banding together to undercut the international influence of the United States, South American and Arab leaders yesterday opened their first summit on political and economic cooperation.
With 9,000 soldiers posted in the Brazilian capital and helicopters flying overhead, 15 heads of state and top officials from 34 South American, Middle Eastern and North African nations converged for the first Summit of South American-Arab Countries.
"We are facing a historic opportunity to build the foundation for a bridge of solid cooperation between South America and the Arab world," Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:29 AM
| Comments (0)
* * *
May 09, 2005
Same World, Different Universe
President Bush, right, takes the wheel yesterday as he and Russian President Vladimir Putin take a ride in a Soviet-era sedan, a 1956 Volga, at Putin's country estate outside Moscow.
Shiite family members grieve next to the coffin of their killed brother during a funeral ceremony in Sadr City, Baghdad, Monday.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:22 PM
| Comments (0)
If true (which seems doubtful), it's yet another reason why the Democratic party can go fuck itself. Oh yeah, here's another reason:
Don't forget to tune in next week, as Goofus and Gallant unite to make the case that the Civil Rights movement was a big mistake, and so niggers ought not be allowed to vote.
May 06, 2005
Fuck You, Assholes
U.S. Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he believes it's a mistake for the Massachusetts Democratic Party to include a plank in its official platform in support of same-sex marriage, saying that such a statement does not conform with the broad views of party members.
If true (which seems doubtful), it's yet another reason why the Democratic party can go fuck itself. Oh yeah, here's another reason:
Howard Dean came to Minnesota Wednesday evening without the scream that ended his 2004 presidential campaign, or the anti-Iraq war rhetoric that started it.
"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," he told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."
Don't forget to tune in next week, as Goofus and Gallant unite to make the case that the Civil Rights movement was a big mistake, and so niggers ought not be allowed to vote.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:06 PM
| Comments (3)
"The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
This blog has argued many times before now that the Bush and Blair Administrations were fully aware that WMD would not be found in Iraq. Before the leaking of this report, though, it was conceivable (however unlikely) that rather than outright lying, the Administrations were willfully blind to facts that were glaringly obvious to 90% of the World's population.
The leaked memo puts the kibosh on that possibility. Crucially, the memo "hasn't been disavowed by the British government", and while the White House "won't comment", "a former senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it 'an absolutely accurate description of what transpired'."
Now, all doubts having been removed, for what reason can the responsible parties possibly hope to escape being tried for the commission of War Crimes? Oh, yeah: the powerful don't have to pay consequences for their actions, no matter how despicable.
May 05, 2005
We Create The Reality, You Pay For It
"The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
This blog has argued many times before now that the Bush and Blair Administrations were fully aware that WMD would not be found in Iraq. Before the leaking of this report, though, it was conceivable (however unlikely) that rather than outright lying, the Administrations were willfully blind to facts that were glaringly obvious to 90% of the World's population.
The leaked memo puts the kibosh on that possibility. Crucially, the memo "hasn't been disavowed by the British government", and while the White House "won't comment", "a former senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it 'an absolutely accurate description of what transpired'."
Now, all doubts having been removed, for what reason can the responsible parties possibly hope to escape being tried for the commission of War Crimes? Oh, yeah: the powerful don't have to pay consequences for their actions, no matter how despicable.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:15 PM
| Comments (0)
Lord Goldsmith's leaked March 7, 2003 advice to Tony "I have never told a lie" Blair regarding the legality of waging war upon Iraq, while interesting, is actually not so damning as the legal case put forth in the document made public one week later.
The leaked Goldsmith document summarily dispensed with arguments that the war could legally be waged based upon self-defense or "to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe"; following which Goldsmith spent near-to thirteen pages of pained wrangling in attempting to give Blair what he so desparately wanted: a legal excuse to lay waste to Iraq.
To begin with, Goldsmith notes that:
Goldsmith continues that it is up to UNMOVIC and the IAEA to report "any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including the obligations regarding inspections under resolution 1441"; but that whether the Security Council must then re-convene to determine whether such interferences amounted to a breach of 1441, and if so, what to do next, had been left ambiguous (so that there were circulating two contrasting interpretations).
Goldsmith then, in "discussion" of the merits of these two competing interpretations, concedes that:
Moving right along, if the Security Council were to then "fail to act", "The clear U.S. view is that, whatever the reason for the Council's failure to act, the determination of material breach in OPs 1 and 4 would remain valid, thus authorising the use of force without a further decision."
Goldsmith's personal opinion was that "there would be good grounds for relying on the existing resolution as the legal basis for any subsequent military action," if the Council were more less unanimously in agreement that a serious breach had been committed, but that, "The more difficult scenario is if the views of Council members are divided and a further resolution is not adopted either because it fails to attract 9 votes or because it is vetoed."
After some more discussion Goldsmith concludes that "the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides," and that, "In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force."
Goldsmith further concedes, however, that a "reasonable case can be made" to the contrary, but that:
Goldsmith adds that "there are no grounds for arguing that an 'unreasonable veto' would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as 'unreasonable'," before setting forth some possible consequences of undertaking the war illegally, and finally noting that:
A week later, on the eve of war, came the public document, a condensation of the initial Goldsmith document's line of reasoning for the "good grounds" interpretation of going to war in the form of an easy-to-follow nine-step process. The new document, natch, left out not only Goldsmith's discussion of the counter-interpretation, but even mention that such a presentation existed. It also failed to notice Goldsmith's "proportionality" warning.
But here's the kicker, in Point 7:
Uh, "plain" to whom (or, perhaps better stated, "plain" upon whose authority)?
(Bush, in announcing, on the same day, his intention to let fly the missiles, was equally matter of fact: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," and, "Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed.")
Goldsmith, on three separate occasions, stressed that while the authority to hold Iraq in material breach was open for interpretation, that it could only be triggered pursuant to an IAEA or UNMOVIC report to the effect that Saddam was not cooperating with inspectors (or, of course, the turning up of a "smoking gun").
In fact (and as Goldsmith notes), the most recent reports from the inspectors had not only done nothing of the sort, they'd done completely the opposite. So not only was Iraq's "failure" to disarm not "plain" to the two bodies that had authority to rule on the matter, but no evidence demonstrating as much was ever offered by the Blair Administration (and the "evidence" offered by the Bush Administration, in the form of Colin Powell's "presentation" to the world's tee-vee viewing audience was roundly disputed, if not outright ridiculed). For those that may be interested, this blogger has taken up the matter of Iraq's supposed weapons programmes in a previous post -- arguing that Bush and Blair knew full-well that neither weapons nor programmes would be found.
So even on its own heavily skewed terms, Blair's March 17 document fails miserably -- which doesn't prevent it, in a final fuck-you to the World, from concluding in Point 9 that, "Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended."
All of which should have been entirely meaningless. There should never have been any legal wrangling. It was well-known that Saddam had long-sinced disarmed (and conceded by Goldsmith at the outset of his March 7 document that Saddam did not pose any sort of imminent threat).
This blogger has argued on many occasions that we don't need the UN Charter, or the Geneva Conventions, or the Nuremberg Principles, or a host of Security Council Resolutions to determine when it is appropriate to wage aggressive war. We know -- if we know right from wrong, and if we choose not to hold double-standards -- that it is never appropriate.
The war was undertaken with the full knowledge that it was expected to create a humanitarian catastrophe (and did in fact do so -- a catastrophe which persists to this day). Among others, Medact, UNICEF, Oxfam, CARE, and the International Rescue Agency issued dire warnings regarding potential casualties, refugee flows, and outbreaks of hunger and disease -- which would fall most onerously upon women, children, and the elderly.
Tony Blair knew this before he saw Goldsmith's document -- yet proceeded to lean on his team of lawyers to produce the miserable nine-point justification for war which was released to the public on March 17.
Not only did Tony "I have never told a lie" Blair repeatedly lie through his teeth, he did so in the service of undertaking a war which he had every reason to believe would result in many thousands of casualties to a population which had already suffered under a decade of history's most punitive economic sanctions, and that would cause irreperable environmental damage.
That's your fucking legacy, Tony. Whether it lands you in hot water with international judicial bodies, or proves a "damp squib" come election day, is beside the point.
May 02, 2005
The Politics Of Mass Murder
Lord Goldsmith's leaked March 7, 2003 advice to Tony "I have never told a lie" Blair regarding the legality of waging war upon Iraq, while interesting, is actually not so damning as the legal case put forth in the document made public one week later.
The leaked Goldsmith document summarily dispensed with arguments that the war could legally be waged based upon self-defense or "to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe"; following which Goldsmith spent near-to thirteen pages of pained wrangling in attempting to give Blair what he so desparately wanted: a legal excuse to lay waste to Iraq.
To begin with, Goldsmith notes that:
Notwithstanding the determination of material breach in OP1 of resolution 1441, it is clear that the Council did not intend that the authorisation in resolution 678 should revive immediately following the adoption of resolution 1441, since OP2 of the resolution affords Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with its disarmament obligations under previous resolutions by co-operating with the enhanced inspection regime described in OPs 3 and 5-9.
Goldsmith continues that it is up to UNMOVIC and the IAEA to report "any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including the obligations regarding inspections under resolution 1441"; but that whether the Security Council must then re-convene to determine whether such interferences amounted to a breach of 1441, and if so, what to do next, had been left ambiguous (so that there were circulating two contrasting interpretations).
Goldsmith then, in "discussion" of the merits of these two competing interpretations, concedes that:
It is clear from a comparison of the wording of paragraphs 4 and 11 that any Iraqi conduct which would be sufficient to trigger a report from the inspectors under OP11 would also amount to a failure to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution and would thus also be covered by OP4.
In addition, the reference to paragraph 11 in OP4 cannot be ignored. It is not entirely clear what this means, but the most convincing explanation seems to be that it is a recognition that an OP11 inspectors' report would also constitute a report of further material breach within the meaning of OP4 and would thus be assessed by the Council under OP12. [Emphases added.]
Moving right along, if the Security Council were to then "fail to act", "The clear U.S. view is that, whatever the reason for the Council's failure to act, the determination of material breach in OPs 1 and 4 would remain valid, thus authorising the use of force without a further decision."
Goldsmith's personal opinion was that "there would be good grounds for relying on the existing resolution as the legal basis for any subsequent military action," if the Council were more less unanimously in agreement that a serious breach had been committed, but that, "The more difficult scenario is if the views of Council members are divided and a further resolution is not adopted either because it fails to attract 9 votes or because it is vetoed."
After some more discussion Goldsmith concludes that "the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides," and that, "In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force."
Goldsmith further concedes, however, that a "reasonable case can be made" to the contrary, but that:
the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider extremely carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity. [Emphasis added.]
Goldsmith adds that "there are no grounds for arguing that an 'unreasonable veto' would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as 'unreasonable'," before setting forth some possible consequences of undertaking the war illegally, and finally noting that:
Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):
ˇ must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions; ˇ be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and ˇ must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.
A week later, on the eve of war, came the public document, a condensation of the initial Goldsmith document's line of reasoning for the "good grounds" interpretation of going to war in the form of an easy-to-follow nine-step process. The new document, natch, left out not only Goldsmith's discussion of the counter-interpretation, but even mention that such a presentation existed. It also failed to notice Goldsmith's "proportionality" warning.
But here's the kicker, in Point 7:
It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of Resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.
Uh, "plain" to whom (or, perhaps better stated, "plain" upon whose authority)?
(Bush, in announcing, on the same day, his intention to let fly the missiles, was equally matter of fact: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," and, "Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed.")
Goldsmith, on three separate occasions, stressed that while the authority to hold Iraq in material breach was open for interpretation, that it could only be triggered pursuant to an IAEA or UNMOVIC report to the effect that Saddam was not cooperating with inspectors (or, of course, the turning up of a "smoking gun").
In fact (and as Goldsmith notes), the most recent reports from the inspectors had not only done nothing of the sort, they'd done completely the opposite. So not only was Iraq's "failure" to disarm not "plain" to the two bodies that had authority to rule on the matter, but no evidence demonstrating as much was ever offered by the Blair Administration (and the "evidence" offered by the Bush Administration, in the form of Colin Powell's "presentation" to the world's tee-vee viewing audience was roundly disputed, if not outright ridiculed). For those that may be interested, this blogger has taken up the matter of Iraq's supposed weapons programmes in a previous post -- arguing that Bush and Blair knew full-well that neither weapons nor programmes would be found.
So even on its own heavily skewed terms, Blair's March 17 document fails miserably -- which doesn't prevent it, in a final fuck-you to the World, from concluding in Point 9 that, "Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended."
All of which should have been entirely meaningless. There should never have been any legal wrangling. It was well-known that Saddam had long-sinced disarmed (and conceded by Goldsmith at the outset of his March 7 document that Saddam did not pose any sort of imminent threat).
This blogger has argued on many occasions that we don't need the UN Charter, or the Geneva Conventions, or the Nuremberg Principles, or a host of Security Council Resolutions to determine when it is appropriate to wage aggressive war. We know -- if we know right from wrong, and if we choose not to hold double-standards -- that it is never appropriate.
The war was undertaken with the full knowledge that it was expected to create a humanitarian catastrophe (and did in fact do so -- a catastrophe which persists to this day). Among others, Medact, UNICEF, Oxfam, CARE, and the International Rescue Agency issued dire warnings regarding potential casualties, refugee flows, and outbreaks of hunger and disease -- which would fall most onerously upon women, children, and the elderly.
Tony Blair knew this before he saw Goldsmith's document -- yet proceeded to lean on his team of lawyers to produce the miserable nine-point justification for war which was released to the public on March 17.
Not only did Tony "I have never told a lie" Blair repeatedly lie through his teeth, he did so in the service of undertaking a war which he had every reason to believe would result in many thousands of casualties to a population which had already suffered under a decade of history's most punitive economic sanctions, and that would cause irreperable environmental damage.
That's your fucking legacy, Tony. Whether it lands you in hot water with international judicial bodies, or proves a "damp squib" come election day, is beside the point.