WWJBD: What Would Jack Bauer Do?

.com/24It's good to know that Justice Scalia is on the case whenever a "strict constructionist" issue like terrorism or torture is on the plate. Just take a look at some of his recent comments endorsing Jack Bauer Justice.

Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge's passing remark - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' " - got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking.

The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."

Essentially Scalia is advocating jury nullification here, because there are any number of crimes that Jack Bauer has commited including murder, hijacking, torture, armed robbery, kidnapping, and instigating a jailbreak for a federal prisoner all in the name of exediency not "Justice".

There's never enough time for a pesky Warrant (or even probable cause for the type of 3 day after the fact warrants that are available under the patriot act). There's never enough to time to find out if you actually have the correct house, the correct suspect or are even pursuing the correct crime on that show.

For those who think Jack is a "hero" consider this - he single handedly hijacked Marine One, then kidnapped and tortured the President - who by the way didn't talk. Who could ever do that and not wind up somewhere under Leavenworth? He's tortured his own brother nearly to death, and then was so incompetent as to leave him unprotected when their father came in to finish the job to keep him quiet. In this latest season, people could say that he helped avert a shooting war between America and the Soviets, except for the fact that the piece of Russian technology that they were arguing over was stolen by Jack in the first place in order for him to try and pull off an exchange with the Chinese to save his ex-girlfriend. An exchange that went completely awry of course.

This "ends justifies the means" crap is how we get people like Tim Griffin Caging the Votes of African American Soldiers and then having a crying jag about how persecuted he's been. It's how we get people like David Safavian, and Claude Allen working the White House or Monica Goodling and Brad Schlozman at the DOJ. It's how we wound up in the middle of a Civil War Genocide in Iraq.

Jack Bauer is a Criminal. He should be tried and convicted for his crimes. Afterward, when he's done some jail time, he (like Scooter Libby if one were to actually follow the Justice Dept. Guidelines) might be reasonably eligible for a Presidential Pardon for his service to his country, but not before. Failing to address his lawlessness with legal sanctions has simply allowed it to grow more and more egregious. Now he's become a total loose cannon, who is on the run from the government for his variuos actions of insubordination as of the end of the latest season.

Oh by the way, I hear the department of Homeland Security is upping the threat level because they've heard that Snidley Whiplash is on the loose and plans to stur up trouble as soon as he hooks up with Natasha and Boris Badinov.

That's right after the terrorists attacks against President Harrison Ford on Air Force One and the Nakitomi Plaza Incident - we have to be all the more vigilant against these animals, and be ready to use any and all means neccesary to combat them.

Hello! It's a fricking TV SHOW!

It's bad enough that our troops and west point cadets already seem to be taking hints from Jack Bauer on morality and the law rather than from thier own instructors now we have this.

But just remember kids, even though "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles", Buffy Summers saved the Whole World - A Lot.

Vyan

Don't. Panic!

The late Douglas Adams, in his seminal comedic work, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" wrote these words to help calm the character Arthur Dent as his world was literally ripped asunder and he was thrown into an entirely alien environment with little more than pajamas, slippers, a bathrobe, and an all important towel.

Today following the passage of the New Iraq Supplemental Bill, the one without timelines and with only optional benchmarks I repeat these words to my fellow Democrats and fellow Americans with emphasis.

Don't Panic.

This is the way it had to be - for now. Because right now - We don't have the votes.

But buck up - this ride only goes until September. Then we reset and ride again, only next time - we'll have more vote than this time. I promise.

Let me begin with a sports metaphor. Although this may be the 4th Quarter of Bush's Presidency, all he got was possesion of the ball. We were at 4th and 20 - so we punted. We had to. Sure, it's his ball now, but that doesn't mean the game is over, it just means that now we go on defense for a little while, and most people in sports know that good defense makes for great offense.

Also - We didn't have the Votes

Let me just say that I for one love the Keith Olbermann, he's been a great cheerleader through the last couple quarters of this game - but somebody needs to remind him, this shit ain't over yet.

I know a lot of us are bitter. Many of us feel betrayed, and are enraged. I get that.

But - Don't Panic!

You see, the one thing we need to end this war we simply don't have yet -- psst, I'll let you know what it is.

(We Need Republican Votes!)

Now is not the time for us to be eating our young new Congress after roasting them on a spit. To paraphrase Patton, we need to make those poor sons-a-bitches eat their no-account dim-bulb decider-er President alive - for their country.

You see, I've long felt and said that neo-conism is a disease much like other compulsive-addictive disorders. Like an alcoholic or other addict, they've got to hit bottom - hard - before they begin to look up and realize it's time to put down the shovel and stop digging. A lot of us on this side of the aisle bottomed-out on Bush's bullshit a long time ago.

Maybe it was after he sat there paralyzed for 7 minutes staring at "My Pet Goat" while the Towers I and II burned.

Maybe it was when he decided to pull resources out of Afghanistan, allowing bin Laden to escape in Tora Bora and instead attacked a country that had nothing to do with us.

Maybe it was after the cheesy flight-suit with the cod-piece and the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Maybe it was after Abu Ghraib.

Maybe it was after Katrina and the video of Bush being specifically told about the danger to the levees.

Maybe it was after the number of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq surpassed the number of dead U.S. citizens on 9/11.

Maybe it was after Walter Reed, where we saw just how our wounded we're being supported by this Administration.

Dems are at 88% dispproval for Bush and 93% disapproval for this war, and I'm pretty sure Congress knows that. Our numbers can't go much higher unless Joe Liebermann finally returns from the Cheney Side of the force.

The problem though is that although this war remains at a 23% approval rating overall, it's still remains at 54% approval among Republicans. Let that sink in for a bit, the slim majority of Republicans still support this fracking disaster.

However the trend line is what's important, and it shows that this approval has been gradually going down bit by bit. This past January 60% of Republicans supported Bush's then proposed "Surge". Last May the percentage of Republicans who thought invading Iraq was "right" was 75%.

The President's support for this War, even though he still retains a majority of Republicans - is soft. It's weakening. Next time we address this question, and that won't be very long from now, it'll be even weaker still.

It's only a matter of time before a majority of Republicans are against the war, and that Veto overrides start to look possible. But not now.

Although we might not be at that point by September, we might have enough Republican support by then to make the Benchmarks "Real", and that's progress. Step by step. Inch by Inch - we'll get there.

Just Don't Panic!

I know that we voted in November to end this war, and send a message to the President. Yeah well, we all should know damn well that he's not a reader by now. The ones who need to receive the message are Republicans who continue to support this President. But here's the thing, even we had done has Sen. Edwards suggested and sent the exact same bill with timelines back to the Bush again and again - it doesn't mean that he would have to stop the war.

Y'see - back in 1993 when the Republican Congress tried to shove a bunch of budget-busting tax cuts down the throat of President Clinton he vetoed them. He even vetoed the Defense Appropriations Bill. From Clinton's "My Life" page #690

After breaking for Christmas, I vetoed one more budget bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. This one was tough because the legislation included a miltary pay increase and a larger military housing allowance, both of which I strongly supported. Neverthelesss, I felt I had to do it because the bill also mandated the complete deployment of a national missile defense system by 2003, well before a workable system could be developed or would be needed moreover, such action would violate our commitments under the ABM Treaty and jeopardize Russian's implementation of STARTI and it's ratification of START II. The bill also restricted the President's ability to commit troops in emergencies and interfered too much with important management prerogatives of the Defense Department, including its actions to redress the threat of weapons of mass destruction under the Nunn-Lugar program. No responsible President, Republican or Democrat, could have allowed that defense bill to become law.

At this point the Government had been almost completely shut-down. Nothing on but the emergency lights. But here's the thing, look what Clinton did almost immediately after Vetoing the Defense Bill.

During the last three days of the year our forces deployed to Bosnia....

Somehow, somewhere - thanks to some very creative financing by the Treasury department - he got the money to do what he needed to do. I have little doubt that Bush in a similar situation, would do exactly the same thing.

So Democrats who worked out this deal with Republicans and the President have not capitulated, they have not caved, they have not cut-and-run out on us. They've simply reset the game clock.

As it stands now, time is on our side. Although Gen. Petreaus says they won't know anything definitive about how badly the surge is failing by September - I think we'll have a pretty good idea.

Brit Hume thinks all this September talk is just giving the enemy (whoever that is) a chance to setup a "Tet Offensive" Brit (can I call you Brit?) I think you saying that probably has more to do with them getting that idea than John The "Town-Cryer" Bone-er saying

"By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s Plan B."

There is no "Plan B" John. It's just Plan A: Add Softener, Rinse and Repeat. or in other words to simply use our troops as Cannon-Fodder until the Insurgents and the Militias and the Death-Squads get tired of killing them over there, so they don't have to bother coming over here - or something.

The only good plan is for our troops to leave by transitioning the peace-keeping role over to the Iraqis themselves. It's their Civil War - let them fight it out. Iraqi troops should be moving to the front-lines while ours move to the rear. We can still provide air-support for when they have a legitimate al-Qaeda target, we can supply some troops to support that mission, but our primary mission IS DONE.

And if the Saudi's want to get involved and prevent a Sunni Genocide - Let 'em. That's just one fresh new member to the coalition of the willing which has been bleedings constituents for years now.

I actually agree with Hume, and other Conservative who claim that the enemy can "wait us out" or whatever if we give them a specific time-table, but - big but - all we have to do before that point is ensure that whether our troops are there or not Iraq can defend itself. That should be our sole mission in the region, and you know what - chances are once we are finally leave - so will most of the violence.

All we need are the Votes - and there's only one place to get them from.

So don't call your Democratic Representative or your Senator and bitch them out for cutting this deal -- call the Republicans and tell them Every Additional Soldier that Dies between Now and September is ON THEIR HEADS because they failed to support the Veto Override.

Make those S.O.B's do the sweating - our team did good folks, we didn't get a touchdown, but we picked up some yardage - let 'em hit the showers until next round.

Vyan

Fox Beltway Boy proposes "Final Solution" for Iraq

Following the recent discussion from House Minority Leader asking what would be "Plan B" if the surge fails (Whattayamean "If"? It already has!) Mort Kondracke of Roll Cal l and Fux News Beltway Boys has propose that Plan B should be something he calls "Winning Dirty" aka "The 80 Percent Solution". The rest of us might be more familiar with the old school term for it from back in the 90's - Ethnic Cleansing.

Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows.

Whaddayamean "Will Be" - there already is!

October 2006.

In Baghdad’s violent Washash neighborhood, which is predominantly Shiite with pockets of Sunni residents, U.S. troops suspect "that Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army are conducting what amounts to an ethnic cleansing campaign."

March 2007.

The U.N. refugee agency says "there has been an ‘abject denial‘ around the world of the humanitarian impact of invading Iraq." The agency estimates that the "number of Iraqis living beyond the country’s borders as refugees stands at two million and a further 1.7 million live within the borders as displaced people."

Oh, and just since I think it needs to be mentioned, Sunni's aren't the only ones are grave risk here - Iraq Christians are in danger as well.

"Christians are fleeing in droves from the southern Baghdad district of Dora after Sunni insurgents told them they would be killed unless they converted to Islam or left," marking "the first apparent attempt to empty an entire Baghdad neighborhood of Christians, the Christians say."

More from Thinkprogress:

Kondracke says it’s understandable that Sunnis suffer because "so far they’ve refused to accept that they’re a minority. They will have to do so eventually, one way or another." After all, he says, "Civil wars do end. The losers lose and have to knuckle under."

Oh, so his view is that minorities should "knuckle under" to the will of the majority in all things? What about "All Men Were Created Equal" and stuff? What about what our own founding fathers described the dangers inherent in the Tyranny of the Majority

In any institution in which a majority of citizens or members can pass laws or rules that apply, not just to themselves, but to all members of the group, judgment is required to distinguish potential laws which are reasonable and fair from those which are tyrannical because they are unnecessary, unfair, and justifiably intolerable to the minority that opposed them. And formal mechanisms need to be in place, wherever feasible, to prevent tyrannical laws from being passed by those whose judgment in such matters might fail.

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51:

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

What Madison and others describe here isn't simply a potential problem with our own government, it's a problem for all governments. In our case we established a Senate which has an equal level of representation from each State region, giving them all an equal voice and influence regardless of how many populace that state might be. In this way California isn't able to completely override the issues and concerns of Rhode Island. Somewhere between the idea of split Iraq into three distinct states ala Biden, or even into 18 states other legislators have suggested, what is needed may be a secondary Senate-like body to equally represent all of the various regions and factions and protect the rights of the minority from potential tyranny.

Whether this is a viable solution or not, the real way to end this way is to get some negotiations going between these various factions - just as the Iraq Study Group Suggested - and begin building the confidence of all the Iraqi people, Shiite, Sunni, Kurd and Christian, in thier own country and their own government.

As far as Kondracke's "Plan B" all we have to do for that to occur - IS LEAVE because frankly, it's already occuring and we're just getting in the way.

But then if (and when) we do leave, it's clear that before the bloodshed ends - the Saudi's are bound to get involved to help protect their fellow Sunni's from being completely wiped out , which is what they told Dick Cheney at his "command performance" before the Saudi Crown Prince.

As reported by CNN.

ROBERTS (voice-over): The debate over pulling American troops out of Iraq hit a solid nerve in Saudi Arabia. U.S. officials say King Abdullah read Vice President Cheney the riot act during his recent visit. The warning, if Iraq Sunni minorities are left to suffer at the hands of ruling Shiites, Saudi Arabia may have to step in.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: If the American troop presence were not there to mitigate the war, the Sunni Arabs with the smaller forces and smaller numbers would almost certainly lose decisively, there could be substantial genocide in the process.

ROBERTS: While Saudi officials acknowledge there have been discussions about supporting Sunnis in the event of a withdrawal and civil war in Iraq, they insist it's only talk at this point, not official policy by a long shot. It's no surprise to Middle East experts that the Saudis would fund the insurgency. They say it's already happening, though perhaps not on an official level.

All we have to do to "win dirty" - is leave.

As always, it's seems that the true last resort in all cases with the Bush Administration seems to be that one thing they simply refuse to do - Diplomacy.

Vyan

Serving the President's Pleasure

Last Sunday during the penultimate episode of this season of Battlestar Galactica a prosecutor uttered the following phrase when asked by the Colonial President to persue Genocide charges against her predecessor based largely on a fleeting glimpse of of him during a hazy recovered memory.

I plan to prosecute on charges I can prove. But of course you can always fire me and have me replaced since I do serve at the pleasure of the President

The irony of that statement coming out at that particular moment in time by a prosecutor to the President - in the midst of Gonzales-Gate - to me was like a lightening bolt hitting the White House porch.

Was it just a coincidence, or were the people at BSG up to a little subversive mischief with a particular partisan bent?

To answer that question I reached out to a contact I had made on the show last year at an SC film festival and asked about the scene. He emailed me back and said:

That scene was shot in early December. It has to be a coincidence, right?

Yeah, ok fine. Gotta be.

From it's inception this show has been re-conceived from it's cheesy 70's origins into a provacative (and only slightly distorted) mirror of our own struggles with issues in the aftermath of a catastraphic mass murder such as 9/11. Just what barriers do you cross in persuit of the survival of your way of life? Do you use torture? Kangaroo Courts? Retaliatory Genocide? Rigged Elections? In the past my contact has told me how the shows producers take delicious glee in placing the words of George W Bush into the mouth of President Laura Roslyn knowing that the actress Mary McDonnel is an extreme "ultra liberal" who would freak if she realized what she was really saying.

Still in this case one conspiracy theory by Hollywood was shot down in flames, IMO it really was just a coincidence, maybe a slight flicker of the show "West Wing" which used that phrase quite often, not a wry indictment of the Bush Administration.

But then again as I look at today's New York Times it seem another conspiracy is growing by leaps and bounds.

WASHINGTON, March 24 — An accumulating body of evidence is at odds with the statements of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that he played little role in the deliberations over the dismissal of eight United States attorneys.

Mr. Gonzales has said he did not take part in any discussions of the dismissal effort, and left the planning and execution of the removals up to D. Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff.

But e-mail messages and other documents released by the Justice Department in recent days suggest that Mr. Gonzales was told of the dismissal plan on at least two occasions, in 2005 when the plan was devised and again in late 2006 shortly before the firings were carried out.

Oops. Was that a little white-lie Mr. G? Didn't take part in any discussions? How about two discussions Mr. Attorney General, hm?

But what's even more interesting is that Gonzo (aka Fredo) might just be pulling a Libby and falling on the sword for ole Turdblossom.

The conflicts between the documentary record and Mr. Gonzales’s version of events have contributed to an erosion of support for him in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties have called for him to step down. They have also fed suspicions by some Democrats that the ousters, from the start, may have been orchestrated by the White House, and most particularly, by Karl Rove, the White House political adviser.

Although many of the right such as Tom Delay and Fred Barnes have claimed that this is a "Made up partisan scandal" - there is the very real possibiilty that a series of crimes may have indeed been committed as Adam Cohen outlined this week.

First there's Lying to Congress.

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to "impede" it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

Second, Obstructing Justice.

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so," including U.S. attorney investigations.

David Iglesias, the New Mexico United States attorney, says Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, called him and asked whether he intended to bring indictments in a corruption case against Democrats before last November’s election. Mr. Iglesias said he "felt pressured" by the call. If members of Congress try to get a United States attorney to indict people he wasn’t certain he wanted to indict, or try to affect the timing of an indictment, they may be violating the law.

Hmm.. shades of President Roslyn?

Third - Tampering with Witnesses.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.

And Congress should also open an investigation...

The forth crime, is the juciest. It's the one that puts the lie to Tony Snow-job's "Serving at the Pleasure" canard. You see, the President can't improperly fire a U.S. Attorney for just any willy nilly reason - not if that firing is done to impeded an ongoing investigation.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam." He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement.

Also...

Congress has also started investigating the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law.

Just to put this in perspective, besides the fact the Scooter Libby was just convicted for Obstruction of Justice and False Statements - if we jump in the way-back machine and remember almost ten years ago, Four of the Eleven Allegations made by Ken Starr against President Bill Clinton recommending his impeachment were for - wait for it - Obstruction of Justice and a fifth was for Witness Tampering.

With this in mind, and with connections growing stronger between these firings and the White House (despite their quaasi-legal attempts to hide their email trail on non-government servers and the odd 18-day gap) President Bush just might come to regret one particular statement he made this week as much as Clinton regrets saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

However, in Bush's case he didn't deny involvement - he actually endorsed the firings.

Mr. Bush, in his Saturday radio address, again came to the defense of Mr. Gonzales, his longtime friend and legal adviser. "I strongly support the attorney general in this decision" to remove the United States attorneys, President Bush said.

If these firings were engineered specifically as a result of attempts to improperly influence the U.S. Attorneys into questionable prosecutions against Democrats and to halt ongoing legitimate prosecutions against Republicans A Crime was Commited and the President may have just admitted Complicity in that Crime.

If so, the dueling House and Senate "Show Trials" which are begining to shape up just might rival Ringing Bros as one of the Greatest On Earth, as well as the ignoble end of the Bush Administration.

Vyan

P.S. Battlestar Galactica's Season finale airs tonight on Sci Fi (10pm), and it just might have a few more interestingly ironic nuggets for us neo-conspiracy buffs.

D'Souza : Cultural Left Responsible for 9-11

Dinesh D'Souza, author of "Illiberal Education" and "The End of Racism" has decided to set us all straight and let the world know that the "Cultural Left" are the true culprits responsible for 9-11 in his new book "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" (Random House).

From Newsmax

Although it has been officially embargoed before its release on Tuesday, January 16, it is already drawing some heavy gunfire from the left.

Their anger begins with D'Souza's own words: "In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11."

For sure, even some conservatives may do a double-take on that charge.

Would they? Obviously not Chris Wallace.

Newsmax continued...

But before every liberal in America blows a collective gasket, the term "cultural left" to D'Souza doesn't refer to the Democratic Party, or to all liberals. Nor is he saying that anyone on the cultural left actually attacked us on 9/11. And the book avoids much of the strident rhetoric seen in other "liberal-bashing" books.

Oh really? Count me among the skeptical on that point...

Despite the protestations of Newsmax, this argument is far from unfamiliar coming from the Right.

They still blame the Hippies for much of what is "Wrong" in America.

America won't win another war until the 1960s flower children are pushing up petunias.

Radicalized, the flower children morphed into lefty loonies who now masquerade as social progressives. No matter what they rename themselves, however, their agenda hasn't changed.

And that agenda would be what - Peace and Freedom in our Lifetime? Those Bastards.

However Dinesh's book apparently attempts to make a somewhat different point.

"I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world," explains D'Souza.

These are the true "root causes" liberals are always looking for, but seem to always miss or get wrong.

What he means by this is that the secular progressive left during the past few decades, with its focus on promoting and even glorifying (at home and abroad) what most of the world's more traditional societies see as depravity and atheism, has provoked a backlash among traditional, moderate Muslims who see their religious and moral values threatened by an aggressive, immoral, anti-religious crusade.

That's right boy and girls - it's the War on Christmas Gambit again.

Secular-Progressives (Or "S-P's" as Bully O'Lielly likes to say) have been waging a veritable jihad against religion and morallity - and that is the reason and "root cause" for the anti-American violence we've seen over last half-decade.

If Liberals have their way it'll be Gays and Straights Living Together, Chaos in the streets... and true religious traditionalist simply aren't having that, ok?

Gee, where have I heard that idea before? Hm, could it possibly Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who on September 13, 2001 said...

FALWELL: And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil, first time, and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters; the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats, what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, if in fact God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.

Yep, I was right. And did Pat Robertson step up and knock down this ridiculous fantasy? Er, not so much.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

JERRY FALWELL: Amen. Pat, did you notice yesterday? The ACLU, and all the Christ-haters, the People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang 'God Bless America' and said 'let the ACLU be hanged'. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time- calling upon God.

Call me silly if you will (just not to my face please), but I think I see a similarity between the Falwell/Robertson view - which was ginned up just two days after the tragedy and long before any specific culprit had been identified - and D'Souza's.

In a sense, he says, Muslims are right: The West (led by the American left) is waging a war against Islam, just as it is waging a war against traditional Christianity.

Muslims are not enraged by our political freedom or democracy, but by the left's abuse of that freedom, specifically the excessive sexualization of our society.

This decadence repulses most of the world's traditional and religious societies, just as it repulses and angers religious conservatives at home. D'Souza argues that American Christians and traditionalists have more in common with moderate traditional Muslims than they may realize. Ultimately, we should make common political cause with them to fight the cultural radicals, says D'Souza.

So let me get this one straight, Christian Conservatives have a lot in common with the Taliban (a point on which I happen to concur) and therefore should find common-cause with them against the left and their abuse of "freedom"?

Hmmm...

The battle we fight with Radical Extremists has nothing to do with the application of U.S. Foreign Policy, it's simply all 'dem Libruls fault? That's a great theory, too bad that isn't what Bin Laden says (From Imperial Hubris Page 129)

For God's sake, what are the documents that incriminate the Palestinian people that warrant the massacres against them, which have been going on for more than five decades at the hands of the Crusaders and the Jews. What is the evidence against the people of Iraq to warrant their blockade and being killed in away that in unprecedented in history. What documents incriminated the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina and warranted the Western Crusaders, with the United States at their head, to unleash their Serb ally to annihilate and displace the Muslim people in the region under UN cover. What is the crime of the Kashmiri people and what documents do the worshippers of cows possess to make them sanction their blood for more than fifty years. What have Muslims in Chechnya, Afghanistan, and the Central Asian republics committed to warrant being invaded by the brutal Soviet military regime and after it communisim's killing, annihilating, and displacing tens of millions of them. What evidence did the United States have the day it destroyed Afghanistan and killed and displaced the Muslims there. It even launched prior to that the unfair blockade of [the Afghans] under UN cover. Under the same cover indonesia was ripped apart; Muslims were forced to leave Timor... Under the UN cover too, it intervened in Somalia, killing and desecrating the land of Islam there. It is even the first to urge the Crusader ruler in the Philippines to annihilate our Muslim brothers there.

There are many other countless issues.

We say that all the Muslims that the international Crusader-Zionist machine is annihilating have not committed any crime other than to say God is our Allah.

Bin Laden sees what he is doing a defensive war against not just the social and cultural attacks of the west that D'Souza describes but also the physical and murderous attacks against Muslims by Christians and Jews in many parts in the world as a result of the actions and often inaction of the U.S. Government.

But let's be frank for moment, Bin Ladin is full of shit. It was America - and specifically Bill Clinton - who made going into Bosnia and ending the ethnic cleansing and genocide that was taking place against Muslims and Serb alike, a priority. Al-Qaeda tried to disrupt our efforts and were thwarted. We aren't responsible for what Russia did in Afghanistan, nor are we responsible for what is currently happening in Chechnya. It's not like Putin is really listening to us these days is it? We do not support Bush's hands-off response to the Israels aggressive policies with Palestine and Lebanon. The Left is not in accordance with Bin Laden's view of American foreign policy.

Yet there is one small glimmer of truth to Dinesh's argument in that Bin Laden does not want to conquer us - he wants to find common cause with us, only not exactly on D'souza's terms. In fact, he practically sounds like a dirty-hippie Liberal with his anti-materialism talk. Hubris Page 154.

A message to the American people: Peace be upon those who follow the right path. I aman honest adviser to you, I urge you to seek the joy of life and after life and to ridyourself of your dry, miserable and spiretless materialistic existence. I urge you to become Muslims, for Islam calls for the principle of "there is no God but Allah," and for justice and forbids injustice and criminality. I call on you to understand the lesson of the New York and Washington raids, which came in response to some of your previous crimes. The aggressor deserves punishment.

We call you to Islam; the last religion that has replaced all previous religions; the religion of good manners, sincerity, mercy, fear of Allah, kindness to others, justice between people, giving the rights to the people who deserve them, protection of people from oppressors and unjust acts; the religion which calls upon it followers to amr bi maroof (enjoin the good) and nahi an al-munkar (forbid the evil) with hand, tongue, and heart.

With this book D'Souza is yet again playing the blame the Liberals card that was his stock in trade a decade ago when he wrote "Racism" and "Illiberal Education" before that. Way back then I happened to write a detailed rebutal to "Racism" which is still comes up as the number 2 selection on Google beneath his own listing on Amazon.com. A rebutal which pointed out that that book nothing more than a 500 page long screed against Liberalism filled with false assertions and faulty logic - and that went it finally concluded exactly how racism could be "Ended" presented the completly laughable conclusion.

Back then on my rusty old geocities page I said...

And the "End" is what?

In the final chapters of his book D'souza claims that the solution to racism in this country is to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and replace it with a new law that expressly prohibits ANY recognition of race within the government, but allows ABSOLUTE freedom of use of race by private industry in determining how it should operate (pg. 544). He claims that the only racists of any worth any serious danger in America today are black (pg. 412) - this contrary to the evidence that racial violence against blacks and other minorities persons is increasing, and he continues to absolve all (what I tend to call "unconscious" bigots) such as cab drivers from any and all responsibility to even OBEY the law (they are specifically prohibited from discriminating against their fares), let alone curb their discrimination against blacks (pg. 252) when they refuse to serve them for fear that they will be "robbed" by "young black thugs". This is considered "acceptable" to D'souza even though these people are criminals for this behavior. D'souza would make anyone who attempted to stop this activity - a criminal.

Dinesh would essentially have us make discrimination legal in order to cure racism. It's not the racist or discriminators fault...it's those pesky laws against discrimination and racism.

Yeah, Right.

Just where was that Zen mantra of the modern Conservative - "Personal Responsibility" - hiding when he thought of this?

This is his idea of the "End of Racism", to cripple government and law enforcement from any realistic preventative or even punitive measures, and to allow any and all types of discrimination by private industry as if market forces alone will be able to succeed when nearly 400 years of prior experience with those same forces show us just how likely that is.

I expect this new book with be nothing but more of the same, another screed on the "evils" of Liberal/Secular-Progressive thinking -- and how everything that has ever gone wrong on the face of this earth stems from such wrong-headedness.

This is a view that flies directly in the face of history and fact (Not that has stopped very many Conservatives in the past) as John Dean notes in his own book "Conservatives without Conscience" (Page 15)

In their efforts to present conservatism as an Ameican tradition, conservatives have also reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. One of the key elements of the Constitution is the establishment of a unique republic, in that a federal system would coexist with state and local governments. Before it was ratified many opponents attacked its progressive and innovative nature, for far from representing teh status quo, the Constitution was dramatically liberal.

James Madison defended it in The Federalist Papers by explaining that the founders "have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom" but rather employed "numerous innovations... in favor of private rights and public happiness." Madison sid that "precden could no be discovered," for there was no other government" on the face of the globe" that provided a model. Madison, the father of the Constitution, clearly saw his work as the opposite of conseratism.

I'm certain Dean would see D'souza as a Right-Wing Authoritian. A Follower. A Brown-Shirt. One who would be ...

"especially submissive to established authority"; as showing "general aggressiveness toward others when such behavior "is perceived to be sactioned" by established authorities, and as highly compliant with "social conventions" endorsed by society and established authoritees.

Or to put it another way - a Boot-licking Neo-Con Attact Dog. But then again, what kind of behavior would you expect from Laura Ingraham's ex-boyfriend at Dartmouth? (According to David Brock's "Blinded by the Right" page 255)

Like Brock himself in his former life as a Right-Wing Attack Dog for the American Spectator who only wished to "Take A Scalp" and make a name for himself while "getting those dirty Liberals". For D'Souza it's not about elevating the discourse of society, or possibly truly looking at the schism between liberlisms demands for ever increasing personal freedom and gratification vs the need to maintain our communal bounds through the excersize of personal and public responsibility.

Actually having a serious review of both liberalism and conservatisms relative advantages and flaws are not on D'souza's plate.

It never has been and it isn't now.

Vyan

The "Last Throes" of the Bush War

After losing the election, losing Osama bin Laden, losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, losing control of it's government to Moqtada al-Sadr and turning Saddam Hussein into a Sunni Martyr - just what do you think the Redstaters are thinking of now?

They're upset that Bush's little Police Action in Iraq seems to be in it's last throes.

There is some alarming rhetoric in the press surrounding the President's "new-way-forward-in-Iraq" speech that will take place on Wednesday. Mr. Bush has been crafting a revitalized Iraq policy over the last two months; he's made some tough decisions and brought in a new team. Some of what he's considering looks promising, and there are some impressive new eyes on the job. But the entire effort may be doomed before he even opens his mouth by the way it's being framed in the media:

This is our "last try" in Iraq. (see here, here, here and here for examples).

Actually, they don't call it our last try in Iraq--it's Mr. Bush's last try, but for a moment let us entertain the fantasy that we're in this together as a nation.

Yes, that is indeed a fantasy - especially since anyone who told you people this was a bad idea was called a traitor and appeaser by the Bush Administration -- but please go on and tell us were all "in this together" - I'm all ears.

As a nation, we need to recognize that defining the current strategic shift in Iraq as some sort of last gasp is insane, not to mention self defeating.

But we don't have to defeat ourselves, the insurgents, the Sunni and the Shi'a Militia have already done that for us.

It's just like the "timetables" people keep arguing about--we might as well rent billboards all over Baghdad telling insurgents that if they just keep their heads down for the brief period that we're sending in the additional 10,000 troops or whatever the number will be, they'll be fine. Because this is it. The last try. There won't be any more attempts to move them after this.

There won't be anymore from President Bush after this - because he doesn't have enough time left in his Administration to pull anymore rabbits out of his hat. In fact, it's pretty clear that all he's trying to do is run out the clock - assuming of course that he doesn't get benched first.

But wait, didn't Gen Abizaid say that there were only 1000 members of al-Qaida in Iraq? Why - yes, he did. Meanwhile we've already trained nearly 300,000 Iraqi troops - so exactly why should another 10-20,000 American forces make any difference this time, especially when the last surge was such a spectacular failure in Baghdad?

From Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid:

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military lead>ers, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

Most of the insurgents (which total about 30-40,000) are not Al-Qaeda. They are disaffected Iraqis, Sunni and Shia, not foreign fighters. How exactly do we "defeat" them? Which side do we take?

Back to Redstate:

Such billboards might come as a relief to a war-weary public as well. Let's wrap this up, and go back to raising the minimum wage and taxes on "the rich" to assuage our consciences as the stock market goes ever higher. Let's not bother with that messy business so far away. It's such a downer. We'll give it one last try, and then pull the plug.

Yeah, yeah - all they have to do is wait for us to leave and then do their worst as if they've been saving it all up or something.

The myopia of this argument is the presumption that this is purely a military problem, with a military solution. Iraq is in the full-on throes of a Civil War, sparky, we don't have a dog in that hunt.

The only solution to this - short of the complete genocide of the Sunni's that is feared by the Saudis - is diplomacy. The various Iraqi Factions need a renegotiation, they need to rework the terms of the deal that was establish by the fantastically incompetant Coalition Provisional Authority. They need to amend their constitution and call for "Neutral Corners", split the nation into semi-autonomous sectarian states each with their own local government and militia with the ability to negotiate and stike a balance with the national goverment.

Y'know - kinda like our country. Here's more from Joe Biden.

No number of troops can solve this problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully and to forge a sustainable political settlement. Unfortunately, this administration does not have a coherent plan or any discernible strategy for success in Iraq. Its strategy is to prevent defeat and hand the problem off when it leaves office.

Meanwhile, more and more Americans, understandably frustrated, support an immediate withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war.

Both are bad alternatives. The five-point plan Les Gelb and I laid out offers a better way.

First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.

Unfortunately this - which would ironically achieve everyones goals of establishing a peaceful Iraq - is the last thing that Bush is likely to suggest since it is a Democrat[sic] plan, instead he perpetrates this ridiculous "Surge , Accelerate and Sacrifice" dog and pony show on us all. Pathetic.

Yes, Mr. Bush has played into this meme by making his protracted deliberations so very public, which has fostered the image of a rudderless administration casting about for a magic-bullet solution--and so allowed the press to cast this as a sort of Custer-at-Little-Big-Horn style last stand. And you may argue that in the world of the newly-Democrat congress, this is Mr. Bush's final practical opportunity to act in Iraq before the close the purse strings on him. Fine. Let them try. And if the President allows this to happen his legacy will take the beating it deserves, as will his country. He is, after all, still president, and it is beholden on him to keep trying.

Yes, that's right - any second now the wall he's been beating our collective heads into will just fall away an crumble. Speaking of "insane" what was that old definition for repeating a failed strategy and expecting a different result again?

Oh yeah.

Look - let's take a flight of fancy and presume that we could ever throw enough troops to completely quell the violence in Iraq (ala McCain and the Snake-Talk Express he's been riding lately). That would require Gen Shinseki's long ignored force of 400-500,000 people. We don't HAVE the manpower for that. Not unless we implement Charlie Rangel's Draft. You up for that sparky?

Didn't think so.

As citizen of this country, win lose or draw on this particular effort in this particular front of the war, I can only pray that it is not our "last try." I for one hope that Mr. Bush will be successful with this strategy--but even so, casting it as a "last try" is delusional. Because even if we succeed here and drive them out of Iraq, the enemy will not stop trying. And in this context, our "last try" will be followed by only one thing. The end.

Drive who out of Iraq - the Sunni or the Shi'a? The Kurds maybe? Speaking of "delusional".

If Mr. Bush does implement a surge - (or will it be a bump? Possibly a mole-hile? Maybe a hitch in our git-along?) - it won't be short term, it's likely to last as much as 18 months, and even more likely to fail. Our Redfaced friend is correct, this is indeed an "end game" strategy and not a winning one. Like this poster, Bush will not be diverted from his disasterous course. Like the moth and flame - failure is their fate.

The sad reality is that Mr. Bush is very likely just a deluded as this poster - and we all remain yoked to their fate until the next Presidency (which with luck could come much sooner rather than later for our troops who are on an endless treadmill leading to both PTSD and increasing incidents of Suicide as a result of Bush's disasterous posturing).

Yes, one way or another, this is "The End". Heaven help us all.

Vyan

The Trail of Premeditated War

The Iraq War - Music by Edwin Starr



Many of us already know this story and know it well. But a new article on CommonDreams.org by Dr. Richard Behan amazingly pulls together all the strands which succinctly explain the behavior of the Bush Administration and it's deliberate, headlong, relenteless march into war with Afghanistan and Iraq.

The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were not simply justified and honorable retaliations to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They couldn’t possibly have been that, because both of them were premeditated—conceived, planned, and prepared long before September 11, 2001.

A bold claim, but not one made without ample evidence...

Behan notes correctly that Iraq and Afghanistan are far from the first premeditated war engaged by the United States. There have been many others, from Panama, Granada to Kosovo, but rarely have the true rationale and justifications for a War been to heavily cloaked, and the public so deliberately and viciously misled into War.

To best tell this story, let begin - at the beginning.

The opening chapter of the story reveals a photograph dating to the Reagan years of Donald Rumsfeld cordially shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. We supported Saddam in his war with Iran. But history convulses: on January 26, 1998, Mr. Rumsfeld and 17 others, members of the Project for a New American Century, wrote a letter to President Clinton, urging the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. If we fail to do so, they were candid in asserting, “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will be put at hazard.

(In addition to Mr. Rumsfeld, 10 others of the [PNAC] signatories would serve in the Bush Administration: Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, William Schneider, Jr., Robert Zoellick, and Paul Wolfowitz.)

This desire to set our national and foreign policy based on access and control of larger and larger portions of the worlds oil supply became a defining mantra of the Bush Administration, brought about in no small part by the top heavy representation of U.S. Oil executives among high ranking positions within the Bush Administration.

When George W. Bush took office, a concern for the “significant portion of the world’s oil supply” was never far from view, because the Administration’s personal linkages to the oil industry were intimate, historic, and numerous. The president and vice president were just the first examples: eight cabinet secretaries and the national security advisor were recruited directly from the oil industry, and so were 32 others in the secretariats of Defense, State, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget.

From his very second week in office, Bush's focus on Energy Policy was evident as Dick Cheney chaired his secret "Energy Task Force" (the full meeting minutes and attendee list is still clouded in secrecy, but we do know that the late Enron Felon Kenneth Lay was in attendence).

One this is known at this point, the task force focused heavily on Oil reserves available in Iraq and proceeded to carve up it's oil fields like a Thanksgiving Turkey, and examine all "foreign suitors" for harvesting that oil.

Not a single U.S. oil company, however, was among the “suitors,” and that was intolerable. Mr. Cheney’s task force concluded, “By any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.”

Condoleezza Rice’s National Security Council, meanwhile, was directed by a top secret memo to “cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered melding two seemingly unrelated areas of policy.” The NSC was ordered to support “the review of operational policies towards rogue states such as Iraq and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

As 2001 rolled forward and the California rolling blackouts - engineered by Bush's Top Fundraiser Ken Lay on Enron while the Bush Administration itself sat on it's hands - would throw that state into a $Billion debt which would sweep their Democratic Governor Gray Davis from office mid-term to be replace by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Energy Policy devised by Lay and Cheney would dovetail directly into National Security under former Oil executive Condoleeza Rice.

Condoleezza Rice’s National Security Council, meanwhile, was directed by a top secret memo to “cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered melding two seemingly unrelated areas of policy.” The NSC was ordered to support “the review of operational policies towards rogue states such as Iraq and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

But then there was one little roadblock to this plan to "capture Iraqi Oil Fiends", international Law regarding the declarations of War. How would Bush navigate this -- let us again return to the writings of the PNAC as they described in 1997 the process by which our Military Infrastructure could be rebuilt and transformed (PDF)...

Indeed, Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Simultaneous to Bush's aims for Iraq Oil, was a parrallel track happening regarding Afghanistan dating back to a little known pipeline contract between the Taliban and an Argentinian Oil company named Bridas.

The strategic location of Afghanistan can scarcely be overstated. The Caspian Basin contains some $16 trillion worth of oil and gas resources, and the most direct pipeline route to the richest markets is through Afghanistan.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the first western oil company to express interest and take action in the Basin was the Bridas Corporation of Argentina. It acquired production leases and exploration contracts in the region, and by November of 1997 had signed an agreement with General Dostum of the Northern Alliance and with the Taliban to build a pipeline across Afghanistan.

Not to be outdone, the American company Unocal fought Bridas at every turn, even spurning an invitation from Bridas to join an international consortium in the Basin. Unocal wanted exclusive control of the trans-Afghan pipeline, and hired a number of consultants in its conflict with Bridas: Henry Kissinger, Richard Armitage (now Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush Administration), Zalmay Khalilzad (a signer of the PNAC letter to President Clinton) and Hamid Karzai. (Eventually Bridas sued Unocal in the U.S. courts, and won.)

The goal was to break the Bridas contract with the Taliban and ensure Unocal's exclusive control of the pipeline. Many meetings between Taliban leaders were held at Unocal headquarters in Texas.

Unocal and the Clinton Administration hoped to have the Taliban cancel the Bridas contract, but were getting nowhere. Mr. John J. Maresca, a Unocal Vice President, testified to a House Committee of International Relations on February 12, 1998, asking politely to have the Taliban removed and a stable government inserted.

The East Africa Bombings attributed to Osama Bin Laden in 1998 led to the Clinton Administrations retaliatory cruise missle attack on Afghanistan, but also to an executive order freezing all trade with the Taliban and effectively putting a hold on Unocal's attempt to cancel the Bridas contract. This changed as soon as Bush came into office in 2001.

Immediately on taking office, the new Bush Administration actively took up negotiating with the Taliban once more, seeking still to have the Bridas contract vacated in favor of Unocal. The parties met three times, in Washington, Berlin, and Islamablad, but the Taliban wouldn’t budge.

Behind the negotiations, however, planning was underway to take military action against the Taliban. The State Department sought and gained concurrence from both India and Pakistan to do so, and in July of 2001 three American officials met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence people to inform them of planned military strikes against Afghanistan the following October.

State Department official Christina Rocca told the Taliban, at their last pipeline negotiation in August of 2001, just five weeks before 9/11, “Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”

In this context, Condolezza Rice's blowing off George Tenet in mid 2001 as he urgently attempted to indicate grave warnings concerning al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladin begin not to look like simple ignorance, but instead deliberate negligence as part of larger National Security Strategy to foster a "New Pearl Harbor" as an excuse to roll out the "Carpet of Bombs".

When President Bush assumed office three other members of the Project for a New American Century joined his administration: Richard Cheney, Douglas Feith, and Lewis Libby. Pre-emptive, premeditated war was formally adopted when the President signed the National Security Strategy early in his tenure.

Yes, it was in all likelyhood, Premediated War.

Look at the facts:

George Bush's responding to the August 6th PDB with "Now you've covered your ass" begin to ring more ominously. His sitting and staring at "My pet goat" when he was told, "The Nation is under attack" - seems far more disturbing.

The Bush Administartion did not even try to stop 9-11, yet less than one week after it finally occured... they were looking at taking control of Iraq's Oil fields.

In the first hours of frenetic response, fully aware of al Qaeda’s culpability, both President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld seek frantically to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks, we know from on site-witnesses. They are anxious to proceed with their planned invasion. And less than a week later, at a meeting of the National Security Council, President Bush ordered the Defense Department to be ready to handle Iraq, “possibly occupying Iraqi oil fields.”

We now have the Senate Intelligence Committee report which has clearly revealed that Bush Manipulated the Facts surrounding our involvement in the Iraq war. We also have Col Lawrence Wilkerson who saw the efforts to maniplate reasons to invade Iraq as a "Cabal" (between PNAC Signatory) Cheney and Rumsfeld. Fixing the Facts to Fit the Policy is never just a misnomer over the British definition fo "Fixed".

The march to war was clearly inevitable, not as noble cause to spread peace and democracy or to combat global terrorism, but as a cover to gain control of Iraqi Oil and access to the Caspian Sea energy reserves via Afghanistan - it's also clear just how much the Bush Family and many of his cronies now in our Government have to gain from such a plan.

Also common to both lines of dots [linking Iraq, Afghanistan and U.S. Foreign Policy], and integral to the overall story, is the historic, intimate, and profitable relationship across several generations between the Bush family and the royal family of Saudi Arabia. It can be seen today in the Carlyle Group, a Washington-based investment company focused primarily in the arms, security, and energy industries. Both George H.W. and George W. Bush have been deeply involved in Carlyle, and so have a number of the Saudi royalty. (And so, incidentally, has the family of Osama Bin Laden.)

Talk about playing both sides against the middle.

Carlyle has profited immensely from the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars. Its legal matters are handled by Baker, Botts—James Baker’s law firm in Texas. Mr. Baker also has a personal interest in Carlyle, amounting to some $180 million. (Baker, Botts defended Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Defense Minister of Saudi Arabia, who was sued by the families of Trade Tower victims for alleged complicity in the attacks.) Another client of Baker, Botts is Exxon-Mobil.

So let me get this straight, the guy who is currently co-chairing the Iraq Survey Group - whose recommendations on Iraq are due tommorrow - has direct financial ties to an oil, energy and weapons investment group which has raked in $Billions as a result of this War? Conflict of Interest much?

But Baker certainly isn't the only one who stands to gain enormous riches as the spoils of war.

the two “seemingly unrelated areas of policy” had been “melded,” so here was an epic opportunity to bait-and-switch--and the opportunity was not missed for a moment. Conjoining the terrorist and the state that harbored him made a “war” plausible: it would be necessary to overthrow the Taliban as well as to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. (As it turned out, of course, the Taliban was overthrown instead of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice, but the energy policy goal was achieved, at least. And years later President Bush was astonishing in his candor, when he admitted “Osama bin Laden isn’t important.”)

Of course he isn't, bin laden and ending terrorism has never been the goal - they have only been an excuse. If bin Laden actually were caught or killed, as he should have been at Tora Bora, and al-Qaeda truly dismantled the excuse for all Bush done to amass power onto himself and riches onto the Oil Industry, would soon fade.

The first monstrous and intentional deception—the declaration of a “war on terror”—took place. There was no talk of contracts, pipelines, or Argentinian oil companies. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were cleverly, ingeniously conflated, and there was only talk of war.

On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy—Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)

The Afghanistan President, and both the Afghan and Iraqi Ambassadors - all former Unocal Consultants. Coincidince? I think not.

With the Taliban banished and the Bridas contract moot, Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal once more.

Mission Accomplished!

Now is all of this nothing more than speculation, a mere connecting of truly unrelated dots which have led us to the near genocide we are currently experiencing in Iraq, while the Taliban resurface in Afghanstan?

Time will tell.

The story told here has to be considered “circumstantial.” None of it results from testimony under oath, none of it has been admitted as legal evidence in a jurisprudential undertaking, and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven remains axiomatic. And we might well reiterate the humane and civil plea, heard frequently after 9/11: what we need is justice, not vengeance.

We should not proceed directly to impeachment. At the very least, however, the story of George Bush’s premeditated wars raises questions of presidential dereliction as grave as any in our history.

We need to know the truth and all the truth. The time has come, as well as the opportunity, for formal, Congressional investigations, based on subpoenas, sworn testimony, and direct evidence about 9/11 and about the created reality of the “war on terror.”

Indeed, this story needs to unravelled fully and told succinctly to the American People. They need to understand exactly what has taken place and why. And in this case, as in so many others - much can be learned by simply following the money.

Vyan

Crossroads for America:To Torture or Not

We live in interesting times. The center of a watershed moment where America will either stand true to it's own core values, or slide down the slippery slope toward torture and totalitarianism that the President desperately desires.

With little time left before a very likely Democratic Congress and Senate come into power - the President's desperation to avoid culpability for his own War Crimes grows more palpable.

As I outlined on July 1st, the Hamdan decision has effectively sealed this President's fate and legacy as a War Criminal, his last gasp is to end-run Common Article 3, if he can.

To this end the President has pursued the enactment of New Detainee Torture Act, which would effectively make the treatment they've already been using, essentially legal.

Q Thank you very much, sir. What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings? And Senator McCain says your plan will put U.S. troops at risk. What do you think about that?

THE PRESIDENT: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. You know, it's -- and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.

Vague? Vague?!! Common Article III has been in existence for 50 years and this is the first time that I know of that someone has claimed it is - Vague! "No" means "NO" Asshole! Zero. None. Zilch. That statment is not open to interpretation, it's pretty clear and obvious. Those who oppose the Administration on this point, such as Colin Powell are not "confused", they are not "appeasers" -- or let's be honest because we know what they're really thinking - they are not "girly men".

Even Tony Snow has sheepishly begun to admit that he'd gone over the line (via Glenn Greenwald) when he reflexively bashed Powell.

Tony Snow yesterday had to retract his statement calling Colin Powell "confused" all because Gen. Powell thinks the U.S. should continue to abide by the Geneva Conventions, and as part of that retraction, Snow oh-so-generously added: "I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists, too." They exploit terrorism for political gain so reflexively that accusations of being sympathetic to terrorists just comes pouring out of their character-smearing mouths even when the targets are individuals who have devoted their adult lives to service in the American military.

More from Yesterday's Rose Garden Press Conference:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.

Bush may find it "Unacceptable" - but thinking that the United States has an obligation and a duty to abide by it's own law and it's own treaties - is exactly what much of the world thinks. This line of arguement by Bush effectively ducked the question - and follows the path the Administration has been following for quite some time -- attack the critic, not the argument.

Four years ago, then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales urged the President to deny Geneva protections to terrorist detainees, not because they didn't deserve them - but because he expected that doing so would leave The President Vulnerable to War Crimes Prosecution Under U.S. Law

When the President talks now about "providing clarity" such as in this passage:

...the Court said that you've got to live under Article III of the Geneva Convention, and the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law. These are decent, honorable citizens who are on the front line of protecting the American people, and they expect our government to give them clarity about what is right and what is wrong in the law. And that's what we have asked to do.

The truth is - that HE doesn't want to be tried for War Crimes because the President, after denying Geneva, has long ago authorized measures which clearly violate the "human dignity" of detainees, and he knows this.

As I stated in July the ACLU has found a paper trail leading directly from Bush to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

In January 2002 Gonzales argues that Geneva shouldn't apply to "Enemy Combatants" because it would make "U.S. Officials" vulnerable to Federal War Crimes violations.

In February, the Administration announces that al Qaeda and Taliban are "not included" in Geneva (although they conduct no tribunal as required by Geneva to determine this).

In August of that same year the Bybee memo is written which redefines what "Torture" is.

In October 2002 Gitmo commanders request "that additional techniques beyond those in the field manual be approved for use.""

In December of 2002 SecDef Rumsfeld allows for "stress positions," hooding, 20-hour interrogations, removal of clothing, exploiting phobias to induce stress (e.g., fear of dogs), prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation, and forced grooming. These techniques soon spread to Afghanistan and later to Iraq." according to documents obtain by the ACLU.

Also in December the FBI begins complaining to the Defense Department about the conditions at Gitmo, and in Afghanistan some detainees are "killed during interrogation" at Bagram AFB.

To date we have had 26 Deaths-in-Custody, which have been ruled as "Homocide" due to mistreatment. Those deaths, as well as those of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, lay directly at the feet of George W. Bush.

Everything he is doing right now - trying to push the Geneva redefinition through Congress - is meant to do nothing more than cover his ass, Period.

If he fails, and I'm certain he doesn't intend to fail - he can't afford too - he will face a Democratic Congress with subpeona power and one John Conyers as head of the Impeachment Committee - Judiciary. A man who has already called for Special Prosecutor to investigate War Crimes by the Bush Administration. If that call is ever answered in the wake of Hamdan, Bush is Doomed.

This is his last chance, and I for one expect to see him pull out all stops.

But he MUST. NOT. SUCCEED.

America can not openly go down the road he is headed. We can not turn our backs on Geneva, and begin to play around with the margins human decency, pretending that the use of extreme cold and/or loud music is an acceptable method of treatment - whether you like Red Hot Chili Peppers or not - these can never acceptable methods for how we treat people who haven't been put on trial yet.

Never mind Geneva, the 4th and 8th Amendments makes this clear.

It's not just a matter of protecting American soldiers who may be captured, there is also a military case for this. During WWII many Italian and Germany soldiers surrendered to U.S. - rather than the Russians - because they knew they would be well treated.

The Germans committed Genocide, but not only that they commited War Crimes against American soldiers at Malmedy. U.S. soldiers held by the Japanese were regularly tortured, starved and murdered. Geneva was intended to put an end to this, and the U.S. was at the forefront of creating Geneva.

Even during the first Gulf War, Iraqi military units were very willing to surrender when outmatched rather than fight to the death -- and thus the bloodshed was minimized and victory achieved in a fairly short time. Colin Powell, who command our troops during Gulf War I understands this - George Bush who protected the Texas Skies from the Vietcong - doesn't.

And so came Abu Ghraib.

After which we suddenly we faced an enemy - actually several enemies - that would absolutely do anything - but surrender.

Since then we've had Task Force 6-26 a U.S. Special Forces Unit who used Saddam's old torture chambers to continue the exact same work, Haditha (where 24 civilians were gunned down in cold blood), Fallajah where the U.S. used chemical warfare on the population and the rape and murder of a teenage Iraqi girl and her entire family by U.S. soldiers.

Clearly, we're sliding down the slope - not climbing upwards. Meanwhile, the insurgency and impending Civil War in Iraq continues to get stronger. Going the way we have been - even if we do achieve "Victory", capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden and break up the Al Qaeda Network, we will still have lost and disgarded far more than we will have gained.

This is what Human Rights Watch has to say about it.

Following the terrorist attacks [of September 11], many Americans understandably wanted their government to do anything possible that might protect them from terrorism. The Bush administration exploited that fear to push through various measures with scant regard to international human rights standards. Systematic prisoner abuse, widespread detention without trial, and proposed kangaroo courts were the result. Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and secret CIA prisons became the unfortunate symbols of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Even within the United States, the rights of many Muslim men were compromised through the misuse of laws such as those on detaining immigrants and "material witnesses." Governments around the world, in turn, exploited the U.S. government's example to launch or defend repression of their own.

These abuses are wrong as a matter of fundamental rights. Though done in the name of protection from terrorism, they are also counterproductive. Fighting terrorism effectively requires not just stopping existing terrorists but also preventing the generation of new ones. By all accounts, U.S. abuses in the name of fighting terrorism have been a boon to terrorist recruiters. The loss of the moral high ground has made it harder to dissuade angry young men from resorting to the deliberate killing of civilians.

This Country has to make a choice: Will we honor the sacrifices made to fight fascism and totalitarianism made by our forefathers by remaining true to the ideals of the 8th Amendment and Bill of Rights -- or will we fail them?

Bush has made it clear which way he intends to go, and it's also clear that this path has made us less safe, not moreso.

Contact your Senators and Congressmen at let them know which fork in the road to take. Congressional Operator Toll Free: 888-355-3588

Vyan

WWDD: What would a Democrat Do?

As we look forward to November we have a burning question still ahead of us as Democrats. What exactly will we do with reigns of power in Congress?

Beyond the obvious issues of actually having some genuine investigations of the Iraq WMD Intelligence Manipulation, the Renditions and Secret Prison Program, the links between the Bybee Memo, Don Rumsfeld's revised Gitmo Policy to Detainee Torture around the Globe, and of course the legality of the NSA Spying program. What is it that Democrats hope to accomplish and what do they stand for?

Will Democrats implement an Impeachment Agenda that will polarize the nation in much the same way that the Whitewater and Lewinsky Scandals paralyzed the Government while bin Laden was bombing our embassies in East Africa and subsequently made President Clinton's almost immediate response look like nothing more than an attempt to "Wag the Dog"?

I don't think the answer to that question is exactly clear.

Unlike the GOPers we can at the very least we can expect them not to be regularly indicted for Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Bribery and involvement with a Prostitution at the Watergate Hotel. At least not usually or frequently. Democrats generally aren't so repulsive that they need to pay for it! Clinton certainly didn't (Odd that only as of today does that seem like a compliment in comparison to the GOP).

But with Democrats in power, will they force the President to implement a rapid withdrawal of our forces from Iraq by voting to nullify the Iraq Force Resolution recinding his authority to deploy troops?

But there are some breadcrumb indications that have cropped up recently.

We've had the Real Security Proposal where Democrats outlined a five point strategy to protect our troops and refocus our efforts on al Qaeda in the War against Terrorism. (As opposed to the GOP's War on a Feeling - Cue the Boston background music!)

We've had brave Senators like Russ Feingold put forth his Censure Resolution to hold the President at least rhetorically accountable for his legal mis-steps.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has posted a litany of actions taken by Democrats:

• Yesterday we've had Six Democratic Congressmen who were voluntarily arrested for protesting the Genocide in Darfur. Would that they have the ability to more than make symbolic gestures.

• Rep Louis Slaughter has posted about the efforts to implement lobbying reform with teeth.

• Rep. Ed Markley offered up the Net Neutrality Amendment.

• Rep John Conyers has sued the President for signing a bill into "law", without the prior approval of both houses of Congress.

But is this enough? Isn't fighting back against the corruption and bullying of GOPThugs exactly what we expect from Congressmen and Senators of both parties (as Mary Scott O'Connor so eloqently pointed out on Faux News?

Shouldn't we expect from our elected leaders a bold vision of how we can realize the promise of American liberty, ingenuity and hard work?

Shouldn't we insist on a Marshall Plan for Energy Independance?

Shouldn't we insist that not only should check and balances be restored, but also the ability for Majority Party in Congress to muzzle the minority be forever limited with permenent rules changes granting them subpeona power?

Shouldn't we insist that disasters such as the ongoing Katrina Aftermath never happen on our shores again?

Shouldn't we insist on genuine voter accuracy and security?

Shouldn't we insist that Presidents can never start Wars without justification?

Shouldn't we insist on a real plan to lower costs and increase access to Health Care Coverage for all Americans?

Is it enough for us to sit back and expect them to pick of the slack - aren't they our representatives? Instead of the Prez and his special "Free Speech Zones" aren't we supposed to tell them where to go?

They represent US - they are not our overlords or Kings as Little Boy George would like to pretend.

Maybe we, Democrats among the Netroots (and uh, Snailroots), need to step forward and put forth the agenda ourselves - then rate and promote candidates who sign on to accomplishing that agenda. (Just like much of the GOP does!)

So, what would/should your Democratic (Representative) Do?

Vyan