GOP Debate: These Guys are Scary - UPDATED

Last night the GOP had their debate on - you guessed it - FoxNews. A couple of downright frightening quotes:

MITT ROMNEY: I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.

Candidates were asked whether they would support the use of waterboarding — a technique, defined as torture by the Justice Department. Two said they would.

Rudy Giuliani: "every method [interrogators] could think of and I would support them in doing it."

Tom Tancredo: "I'm looking for Jack Bauer"

ThinkProgress has video of the applause those comments drew.

And these guys want to run our country.

UPDATE: Youtube Video

The Washington Post has a pretty decent run-down of the inter-candidate goings on at the debate.

Republican Debate Guantanamo Mitt Romney Tortue Rudy Giuliani

NRA: Picking & Chosing from the Bill of Rights

From the AP:

The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

The NRA doesn't seem to care that arbitrary denial of constitutional liberties based on suspicions already includes your ability to fly on a plane, do business with financial institutions, expect privacy in your library habits or your phone conversations. 'Suspicion' is all that's needed for Bush's government to pick you up, take you to Gitmo, hold you indefinitely without charges, access to a lawyer, or due process to challenge your imprisonment.

But I guess those 'civil rights' aren't really all that important to the NRA.

NRA Civil Rights Guns Terrorists War on Terror

Ok, Now I'm Really Back

After having been sick for a while (I don't think I've been sick for this many days in a row 'since elementary school when I had the Chicken Pox.) I'm back, and with a bit of luck, we be posting with some regularity.

First post back? We'll use that one for good news.

Bush's Approval Rating for Iraq is below, BELOW, 30%.

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Support for President Bush's management of the war in Iraq has dropped to a new low as he ponders a change in the U.S. strategy there, according to a CNN poll released Monday.

The survey, conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corporation, found Bush's overall job approval at 36 percent -- little changed from the last CNN poll, taken Dec. 5-7. Sixty-two percent said they disapproved of his performance in office, up from 57 percent in the previous poll.

But support for his management of the war in Iraq dropped considerably, from 34 percent earlier this month to 28 percent in Monday's poll. And a record 70 percent said they disapproved of his handling of the nearly 4-year-old war.

Ouch. I'm guessing that's pretty much rock bottom.

Worse yet for Bush, his approval ratings for the "Global War on Terror^tm" has fallen to just 42%. A new record high percentage of Americans disapprove of the President's anti-terrorism efforts - 55%.

They say that 'you can't fool all the people all the time.' We'll, the Bush Administration's time limit has officially run out. And it seems that when the American people realized what they'd been fooled into, they weren't too pleased.

George W. Bush Approval Rating War in Iraq War on Terror

Iraq - A Small Part of a Generational War

I'm always hesitant to agree with things I find in the Washington Times, but this article is useful. While I don't agree with all the points made by Gen. Schissler, his premise, that we will be fighting violent Islamist extremists for the rest of my lifetime, is useful. From the Washington Times:

The American people need to prepare for a long-duration war against radical Muslims who are set to fight for 50 to 100 years to create an Islamist state in the region, a top Pentagon strategist in the war on terror says.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler said in an interview that the current strategy for fighting Islamists includes both military and ideological components that make it similar to the 40-year Cold War against communism.

"We're in a generational war. You can try and fight the enemy where they are and where they're attacking you, or prevent them and defend your own homeland," said Gen. Schissler, deputy director for the war on terrorism within the strategic plans office of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

"But that's not enough to stop it. We've got to break the chain, and that's ... the ideology. We really need to show the errors in Islamist extremist thinking."

Gen. Schissler said he is concerned that Washington politics is weakening the will of the nation.

"I don't care about the politics. I care about people understanding the facts of what's our enemy is thinking about, what's our strategy to defeat them, and for [Americans] to understand that it will take a long fight, mostly because our enemy is committed to the long fight," he said. "They're absolutely committed to the 50-, 100-year plan."

And that is precisely the reason that we need to get out of Iraq now - even if it leaves something less than a moderate, pro-America, secular, democratic government.

If we're going to offer the Muslim World a better vision of the future, not being seen as the foreign occupier of a Muslim Nation would go a long way to making our case.

If we extricate ourselves from Iraq now, any negatives outweigh the positives of staying when viewed through a 50-100 year lens. If America were to exit Iraq by the end of 2008, by 2010 our military would be a far more effective deterrent, our standing with our allies would vastly improve, and we would have more 'room to maneuver' in the middle east.

If this is a War of Ideas, why are we fighting it with boots and rifles? If Gen. Schissler is going to compare the War against Islamic Fundamentalism (which he didn't call the "War on Terror") to the Cold War let's take it to the logical conclusion: Containment.

Invading countries is going to make more extremists, not less.

War in Iraq General Schissler Generational War

People are Idiots - UPDATE

From the AP:

DENVER (AP) - A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.


The subdivision's rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee.

Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members.

This is a 200 home subdivision and 'three or four' people have complained. And what sort of idiot doesn't know that the peace sign has nothing to do with Satan? (Actually, what sort of twisted Christianist rhetoric produces people that equate war and violence with Jesus Christ, the 'Prince of Peace' and peace with the work of the devil?

UPDATE: 11.29.2006

It seems that Bob Kearns underestimated the amount of fight in peace activists. From the New York Times:

Last week, a couple were threatened with fines of $25 a day by their homeowners’ association unless they removed a four-foot wreath shaped like a peace symbol from the front of their house.

The fines have been dropped, and the three-member board of the association has resigned, according to an e-mail message sent to residents on Monday.

[...]

Mr. Trimarco said he put up the wreath as a general symbol of peace on earth, not as a commentary on the Iraq war or another political statement.

In any case, there are now more peace symbols in Pagosa Springs, a town of 1,700 people 200 miles southwest of Denver, than probably ever in its history.

On Tuesday morning, 20 people marched through the center carrying peace signs and then stomped a giant peace sign in the snow perhaps 300 feet across on a soccer field, where it could be easily seen.

"There's quite a few now in our subdivision in a show of support," Mr. Trimarco said.

A former president of the Loma Linda community, where Mr. Trimarco lives, said Tuesday that he had stepped in to help form an interim homeowners’ association.

The former president, Farrell C. Trask, described himself in a telephone interview as a military veteran who would fight for anyone’s right to free speech, peace symbols included.

Town Manager Mark Garcia said Pagosa Springs was building its own peace wreath, too. Mr. Garcia said it would be finished by late Tuesday and installed on a bell tower in the center of town.

Sometimes this work out the way the should...

Bob Kearns Lisa Jensen Peace Sign Colorado

AP Photo/provided by Lisa Jensen

Cracks Starting to Show...

Via the International Herald Tribune:

WASHINGTON: The Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged for the first time the existence of two classified documents, including one signed by President George W. Bush, that have guided the agency's interrogation and detention of terror suspects.

The CIA disclosed the existence of the documents in a letter Friday sent from the agency's associate general counsel, John McPherson, to lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The contents of the documents were not revealed, but one document, as described by the ACLU, is "a directive signed by President Bush granting the CIA the authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees."

The second document, according to the group is a Justice Department legal analysis "specifying interrogation methods that the CIA may use against top Al Qaeda members."

We all know that "We Don't Torture." I guess we'll soon find out what - exactly - we are doing at detention facilities spread around the globe, out of the eye of American citizens and beyond the reach of the American Judicial system.

The ACLU hopes to make these documents public. A Democratic House and Senate will do much to encourage that, I would think.

If I were BushCo. I'd be scared shitless.

George W. Bush Torture War on Terror CIA Prisons

Things that Make You Go 'Hmmmm...' UPDATE

From Time Magazine:

As if the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal weren't bad enough for America's image in the Middle East, now it may appear to much of the world that one of the men implicated in the scandal is returning to the scene of the crime.

The U.S. military tells TIME that one of the soldiers convicted for his role in Abu Ghraib, having served his sentence, has just been sent back to serve in Iraq.

Sgt. Santos Cardona, 32, a military policeman from Fullerton, Calif., served in 2003 and 2004 at Abu Ghraib as a military dog handler. After pictures of Cardona using the animal to threaten Iraqis were made public, he was convicted in May of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault, the equivalent of a felony in the U.S. civilian justice system. The prosecution demanded prison time, but a military judge instead imposed a fine and reduction in rank. Though Cardona was not put behind bars, he was also required to serve 90 days of hard labor at Ft. Bragg, N.C.

Before Cardona boarded a plane at Pope Air Force Base this week for the long flight to his unit's Kuwait staging area, he told close friends and family that he dreaded returning to Iraq. One family member described him as "depressed," though stoic about his fate. According to a close friend with whom Cardona spoke just before his departure, the soldier is fearful that he remains a marked man, forever linked to the horrors of Abu Ghraib — he appears in at least one al-Qaeda propaganda video depicting the abuse — and that he and comrades serving with him in Iraq could become targets for terrorists. To make matters worse, his 23rd MP Company has been selected to train Iraqi police, which have been the target of frequent assassination attempts and, according to US intelligence are heavily infiltrated by insurgents. Attempts to reach Cardona directly were unsuccessful.

The outrages here are many. First, one of the people for the travesties at Abu Ghraib is already released. Second, his crimes didn't result in his being kicked out of our military. Third, somebody convicted of dereliction of duty and assault is going to be training the Police. And finally, I'm a little bit outraged that the U.S. military would send a soldier into a situation where his safety is endangered beyond what is to be expected as a soldier in a war zone.

Redeploying a soldier that was convicted in connection to Abu Ghraib is bound to bring those attrocities back to the front of people's minds. There's an election right around the corner! Surely somebody had to say, do we want this soldier sent back to Iraq? If I were in charge of that particular unit, I'd kick that decision up the chain of command.

The most alarming thing about the P.R. disaster is that it was completely avoidable. I'm sure that the Army isn't so desperate that it couldn't find one soldier to replace Sgt. Cordona.

This will not be missed by anti-American elements in Iraq and across the Muslim world. Sending Sgt. Cordona back to Iraq will only make a bad situation worse.

UPDATE: 12:28 pm - Time now reports that now that 'After TIME reports that a military dog handler, convicted for his role in the prisoner abuse scandal, has been ordered back to Iraq, the Pentagon says the transfer is being "evaluated"'

Santos Cardona War in Iraq Abu Ghraib

Why Isn't This News?

From McClatchy:

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed that U.S. interrogators subjected captured senior al-Qaida suspects to a controversial interrogation technique called "water-boarding," which creates a sensation of drowning.

Cheney indicated that the Bush administration doesn't regard water-boarding as torture and allows the CIA to use it. "It's a no-brainer for me," Cheney said at one point in an interview.

Cheney's comments, in a White House interview on Tuesday with a conservative radio talk show host, appeared to reflect the Bush administration's view that the president has the constitutional power to do whatever he deems necessary to fight terrorism.

I won't hold my breath waiting for this to end up on the 11 o'clock news. Or for that matter, even on the 24 hour news channels.

There is a record of a sitting Vice President admitting that the United States of America engages in torture - but nobody cares.

Lee Ann McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, denied that Cheney confirmed that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding or endorsed the technique.

"What the vice president was referring to was an interrogation program without torture," she said. "The vice president never goes into what may or may not be techniques or methods of questioning."

The White House's official transcript seems to indicate otherwise:

Q [Scott Hennen] I've heard from a lot of listeners -- that's what we do for a living, talk to good folks in the Heartland every day -- and I've talked to as many who want an increased military presence in Iraq as want us out, which seems to be the larger debate, at least coming from the left -- cut and run, get out of there. One fax said, when you talk to the Vice President, ask him when shock and awe is coming back to Iraq. Let's finish the job once and for all.

And terrorist interrogations and that debate is another example. And I've had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation. [Emphasis mine.]

Disambiguation:

Scott: Our listeners like water boarding, do you?

VP: Yes. "That's been a very important tool that we've had."

Think about that. They're doing this in your name.

Alexis de Tocqueville said "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Dick Cheney probably prides himself on never listening to Frenchmen, but the Bush/Cheney prosecution of the Global War on Terror^tm has done more to destroy America's 'Soft Power' and weaken our standing in the world than anything in the last 50 years. Even Vietnam was less damaging, if only because our power was seen as opposed to the Soviet Union.

My Grandparent's generation fought World War II and earned America her place atop the world's power structure. It took 405,399 American deaths and 671,846 wounded to earn the world's trust. It won't be regained in my life time. All so that BushCo and the Republicans can play 'tough guy' for political gain.

Dick Cheney Torture War on Terror

Just Trust the President!

What could possibly go wrong?

John Ashcroft Military Commission Act Enemy Combatants Military Tribunals George W. Bush

In Case You Were Distracted

The International Herald Tribune:

At least 75 corpses have been found in the Baghdad area since Monday morning, the authorities said Tuesday, with most of the bodies bound, riddled with bullets and showing signs of torture.

The grim discoveries reflected a familiar pattern of death-squad killings and sectarian violence in the Iraqi capital. An Interior Ministry spokesman said that 60 of the bodies had been found in Baghdad in the 24-hour period that ended Tuesday morning, while 15 more were discovered during the day.

In addition, at least five bombs exploded in the capital area, killing at least 14 civilians and 6 policemen, and wounding 23 people, the ministry and police sources said.

The discovery of the bodies recalled a day nearly two weeks ago when as many as 60 corpses were found in the capital, many of them apparently shot in the head at close range after being tortured. Major General William Caldwell IV, a U.S. military spokesman, said at the time that such killings and other murders continued to claim more people in Baghdad than suicide bombings did.

The flashing lights of the Foley Scandal and the mushroom cloud over North Korea wrested my attention away from the Disaster in Iraq then you come across something like this... Certainly makes 'Stay the Course!' seem a little silly.

The 'Axis of Evil' Problem

The problem with identifying an 'Axis of Evil' that must be confronted is that, well, people start keeping score.

Axis of Evil:

• Iran - Rising Regional Hegemon with a Nuclear Weapons Program. Untouchable due to Iran's agreements with China and Russia plus economic risks of Oil Embargo. Outlook: A nation that has publicly funded rallies where 'Death to America, Death to Israel' is chanted by thousands of people will soon have the bomb and there's nothing we can do about it. Score: +1
  

• North Korea - Newest member of the Nuclear Nations club. Defied world opinion and detonated a nuclear weapon in an underground test despite best efforts of U.S. at six way talks. Has long range missiles. Makes neighbors (China, South Korea, Japan) REALLY nervous. Outlook: Sanctions would do no good because the leadership doesn't care if millions die and illicit arms trade brings in millions. Score: +2
  

• Iraq - The disastrous War in Iraq is what makes confronting the other two members of the Axis of Evil nearly impossible. Shiite Militias, Insurgents, Sunnis, Kurds... all tying down the majority of American Military power at a time when it might be best used elsewhere. Outlook: The Civil War nobody's talking about. Score: 0
  

• Afghanistan (Honorary Member) - Slowly drifting back towards chaos. Central government in Kabul not able to prevent terrorist activities in outlying areas. NATO facing stiff resistance in areas already 'controlled.' Outlook: At the tipping point. As likely to be terrorist haven as democracy in 24 months. Score: +0.5
  

USA / Free World / Other

• U.S.A. - Military power stretched to breaking. Unable to threaten meaningful military against Iran or North Korea. Strongly disliked by both foreign governments and foreign populations. Facing political upheaval at home. Outlook: Well, that's the question, isn't it? Score: -2
  

• Coalition of the Willing - Slowly dwindling. 2006 saw the withdrawal of Canadian, Italian, and Japanese troops. 2005 saw the withdrawal of Portuguese, Dutch, Ukrainian and Bulgarian forces. Outlook: At this point only the UK, Poland, Australia, Romania, and Denmark, have over 500 troops on the ground. Score: -1
  

• Other - Hugo Chavez thinks we're the devil. Everybody else just thinks we're imperialistic, war mongering hypocrites talking about freedom and democracy while torturing prisoners, bringing war and death to millions around the world, to busy ignoring the U.N. and the world community to realize that we've squandered our standing in the world. Outlook: We will never be as respected as we were before George W. Bush became President. Score: -1
  

Damn. That's pretty one-sided. And the GOP wants to run on National Security? I guess having the media in your pocket helps.

For all the reports in the MSM about how GOoPers are screaming about how terrible it would be to have Democrats running our Foreign Policy, I'd like to see one, just one examination of where six years of Republican Foreign Policy has gotten us.

Iran Iraq North Korea Axis of Evil Republican Foreign Policy Media

No Shit, Sherlock.

Via Editor & Publisher:

NEW YORK Appearing with Larry King on his CNN show Monday night, Bob Woodward repeated much of what has already come out from his new book "State of Denial," but also added new information and commentary.

Highlighting why he feels so strongly about the book, he said the alternate title for it was, "Crisis." He explained: "This is a big war. Henry Kissinger said this is more important that Vietnam." Woodward said of the war: "It's going south."

Perhaps my view here is a bit skewed (Vietnam was over before I was born) but one would think that you don't need Henry Kissinger to tell you that the War in Iraq is more important than Vietnam.

Le me be the first to say that the most important war is the one you're currently fighting - especially for the people doing the fighting, Vietnam vets or those serving right now in Iraq.

That said, the major reason that Iraq is more important is that Vietnam was an unimportant piece of realastate. Granted, Vietnam was seen as part of a larger conflict, the 'Global War on Communism' if you will. But failure in Vietnam didn't mean the loss of any vital resources. While a Communist victory in Vietnam may have been a propaganda victory for the Soviets, they would have little of strategic value to show for the victory.

Vietnam didn't sit on top of 15% of the world's known oil reserves. Vietnam didn't share a border with an emerging world power as Iraq does with Iran. Vietnam wasn't smack in the middle of one of the most volatile and important regions in the world. Vietnam didn't have a Kurdish population antagonizing an E.U. state which shares a 220 mile border.

Most importantly, Vietnam wasn't a training ground for young men determined to spread anti-American and anti-Western violence around the globe. The Vietnam conflict was contained. The War in Iraq exports violence around the region, around the globe, and has made life on American soil more dangerous.

War in Iraq Vietnam Henry Kissinger Bob Woodward

Bookstore Diplomacy

Ok, this is the last post (for today) on an article in the Washington Post:

Punch Lines for Pakistan's President
Jon Stewart Laughs It Up With Musharraf

By Libby Copeland
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page C01

The president of Pakistan has been in the United States lately to discuss matters of global importance and -- in his spare time -- to flog a memoir. Last night he appeared on Comedy Central's "Daily Show" with Jon Stewart, where he demonstrated both a sense of humor and a deep desire to sell "In the Line of Fire," which, incidentally, is now available on Amazon.com for the low, low price of $16.80, plus shipping and handling.

[...]

Has it really come to this? In recent days, Musharraf has promoted his memoir, published Monday, on "Hannity & Colmes," "Today," "60 Minutes" and "Charlie Rose." He has engaged in long discussions of his country's foreign policy and endured the occasional moment of awkwardness in service to the greater good of book sales.

[...]

Book tours can benefit greatly from juicy details released in advance of publication, and this has proved no less true for Musharraf's book. Last week, it came to light that Musharraf claimed that former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage threatened to bomb his country "back to the Stone Age" if Pakistan did not cooperate in the war on terror. (Armitage has since denied making such a threat.)

Asked about the "Stone Age" quote at a news conference with Bush on Friday, the Pakistani president said he could not discuss his book before it came out, citing an agreement with his publisher.

"In other words, buy the book is what he's saying," Bush said.

Is there any publicity better than that? Of course -- Oprah.

I saw President Musharraf on the Daily Show last night. I thought he came off as very reasoned and very personable. He was a persuasive ambassador for his country.

With an eye to 'ping-pong diplomacy' in the past, I think we are entering a new era of direct diplomacy, with important officials from other countries bypassing (more accurately augmenting) traditional methods of building international relations via government institutions with direct appeals to populations outside of 'government' channels. Formal 'speeches' with flags and podiums and honored guests will still be important, but guest appearances on TV shows will be the new best way to reach people.

And why shouldn't nations appeal directly to the population, both of America and the world? Governments aren't the only institutions making investments in other countries. Either in the form of business ventures or as tourists, private citizens can have very profound impacts on nations, especially ones that may need to rework their images.

I realize that President Musharraf came to power in a coup d'état. I realize that what elections have been held have been widely boycotted and that General Musharraf is advancing an agenda. I realize that his power has been enabled by exiling dissidents, critical newspaper editors, and uncooperative Supreme Court Justices. I'm interested in reading his book to see how much of that appears in its pages.

This is a beginning. I expect to see more appearances by diplomats, ambassadors, and even heads of state on American TV. Their books will appear on bookstore selves. I think it's a good thing. The more international views and opinions expressed the better. It is, however, important to remember that these new authors and guests are no different from government officials here in America. They're working their agenda and as media consumers we must be careful to realize that and take it into account when forming opinions.

Bookstore Diplomacy Pervez Musharraf Pakistan

The MSM Missed This...

The AP via MSNBC.com:

U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from Sept. 11
Military deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan reach 2,974

Updated: 10:44 p.m. ET Sept. 22, 2006

WASHINGTON - Now the death toll is 9/11 times two.

U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now surpass those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America’s history, the trigger for what came next.

The latest milestone for a country at war came Friday without commemoration. It came without the precision of knowing who was the 2,974th to die in conflict. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

An Associated Press count of the U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 2,696. Combined with 278 U.S. deaths in and around Afghanistan, the 9/11 toll was reached, then topped, the same day. The Pentagon reported Friday the latest death from Iraq, an as-yet unidentified soldier killed a day earlier after his vehicle was hit by a roadside bombing in eastern Baghdad.

And we're no safer than we were on September 10th, 2001. In fact we're in less safe. Grand.

War in Iraq War in Afghanistan War on Terror September 11th

Bush Intelligence Estimate (No, not His Intelligence)

Haven't we been saying this for over a year? From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

Here's what George W. Bush had to say to Wolf Blitzer on "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" the day after the NYT released their story. C&L has the video, here's the transcript:

BLITZER: Let's move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war, if not already a civil war…. We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.

BUSH: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people…. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there's a strong will for democracy. (emphasis mine)

Interesting riff on the Evangelical phrase "Don't see a period where God put a comma."

When will the chasm between Bush's rhetoric and reality become to wide to cross? I guess we'll wait and see...

George W. Bush War on Terror War in Iraq National Intelligence Estimate

Hypocritical Mother F*ckers.

From the Washington Post:

President Bush's supporters in the House narrowly defeated yesterday efforts to sidetrack his proposal for questioning and prosecuting terrorism suspects, but the issue continues to divide Congress in its final workdays before the November elections.

In an afternoon animated by switched votes, parliamentary gymnastics and protest cries from Democrats, the House Judiciary Committee barely managed to reject a rival proposal and endorse the administration's version of the legislation. Even if the chamber takes up the bill next week -- its last scheduled period of action before the elections -- the matter remains mired in the Senate, where a majority opposes the White House approach.

Ok, all well and good. Political maneuvering on a bill that won't pass anyway. Business as usual for the 'Do Nothing Congress.'

Even if the full House passes the measure next week, it may prove difficult or impossible to reconcile matters with the Senate. Warner and his allies pushed their bill through the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, and they are backed by a majority of senators. But they apparently lack the votes to fend off a threatened filibuster by pro-Bush forces, including Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

What? A FILIBUSTER? What happened to 'an up or down vote' you disingenuous halfwits? Did you not expect us to notice that a number of months ago you were telling us that filibusters were unConstitutional and that they were tearing our Republic apart so rapidly that only gay people might do it first?

And don't give me that 'we only meant it for judges' cow flop. You're just breathless opportunists. There are rules for everybody else, but you just do what comes natural.

And let me get this straight: You're going to filibuster a bill saying that the U.S. should NOT engage in torture. You're filibustering IN FAVOR of torture. I'm absolutely sure this won't end up looking like Strom Thurmond filibustering in favor of segregation. Really, I'm sure that in 20 years people will look back and say, 'Thank god those principled men stood up for our right to pull people's fingernails off with pliers and attach electrodes to their testicles.' Really. You should be proud of yourselves, groveling at the feet of the President.

I defer to Jon Stewart. I hope that your filibuster actually requires you to talk for hours on end and I hope that you fill that time describing, in detail, exactly what you think is appropriate for the United States to do to prisoners. Just describe water boarding. And stress positions. Tell us exactly how the CIA operations will go about causing agony 'short of organ failure' to make us safe.

If you want us to be the good-guys in the world - if you want the rest of the world to acknowledge us as the good-guys and treat us as the good-guys - you have to ACT LIKE FUCKING THE GOOD-GUYS!

Republicans Torture War on Terror Filibuster

Who Are These People?

I'd like to know when being against torture became a political liability.

From the Washington Post:

Sen. John McCain's bid to position himself as the natural heir to President Bush as a wartime commander in chief and to court conservative leaders in advance of his likely 2008 presidential campaign has threatened to run aground in recent days, as the two men clash over how to detain and try terrorism suspects.

For months, McCain has been wooing Bush's donors, hiring his former advisers and standing by him in the Iraq debate. But the fragile rapprochement between two men who were once bitter rivals for the presidency is facing a sharp new test over McCain's rejection of Bush's pleas to let the administration interpret the Geneva Conventions as it sees fit.

The impasse, which has preoccupied Congress this month, is likely to be settled within a few days but could remain hanging when lawmakers adjourn in a few days. Either way, it is likely to carry a long echo -- especially if the senator from Arizona forces Bush to back down.

[...]

...some prominent conservatives are branding him a disloyal Republican and an unreliable conservative because of his assertiveness on the detainee issue.

How is one an unreliable conservative because one thinks that torturing people is something only the bad guys do? And who would have the audacity to criticize the only member of the Senate who has actually been tortured about his stance on torture? Who are these people?

John McCain Torture War on Terror Republicans

You're Wrong, Mr. Bush

From the Washington Post:

"The most important job of government is to protect the homeland, and yesterday they advanced an important piece of legislation to do just that," Bush told reporters. "I'll continue to work with members of the Congress to get good legislation so we can do our duty."

No, Mr. President, you're wrong. The government's most important job is to uphold the Constitution. That's what you and the members of Congress swear to uphold.

Oh, and that 'legislation' you're talking about? You want there to be no limits on how terror suspects can be questioned and immunity from war crimes charges in court?

I'm just a regular Joe, but I'm going to take that to mean you aren't going to sit down and play 'good cop, bad cop' with them.

This is the United States of America, the greatest force for democracy and human rights the world has ever seen. This is MY country. Stop dragging its good name through the mud (anymore than you've already done.) All the good that America has done in the past, all the good will after winning World War II and staring down the Soviets, has evaporated in the last six years, all because of you, Mr. President.

But I'm sure you're proud of what you've done. You've settled old family scores. Never mind that you've sent thousands of Americans to their deaths in Iraq while Afghanistan's Taliban, the people responsible for the deadliest terror attack on American soil slowly regain control of their country.

You're bankrupting our government, bleeding our military dry and draining what's left of the world's good will towards America. But corporate profits are up, so I'm sure you're thrilled! Never mind that unemployment is up, wages are down, and less Americans have health insurance.

The only thorn in your side is that those uppity women still have the ability to control what happens to their own bodies. But I'm sure you're working to make sure that doesn't last very long...

George W. Bush War on Terror Torture

Juxtaposition

Today's Washington Post covers both what Republicans want you to think because it's untrue and what Republicans don't want you to think because it is true.

First, the falsities the Right Wing desperately wants you to internalize, covered in Ruth Marcus' column:

Does it matter that ABC invented and distorted history in its "warning: this is not a documentary" docudrama, "The Path to 9/11"? After all, the first night of the faux drama was trounced by the brother-against-brother actual drama of "Sunday Night Football."

But consider: The gripping final report of the Sept. 11 commission (budget: $13.5 million) became a surprise bestseller at 1.5 million copies. The not-so-gripping, not-so-accurate ABC production (budget: $40 million) was seen by about 13 million viewers on the first night.

Ms. Marcus goes on to outline some of the more blatant inaccuracies, both what's included and excluded, pointing out that one of the foremost experts on the Clinton Administration's counter-terrorism efforts, Richard Clarke, now works for ABC.

So the Right Wing is attempting, through their media proxies, to falsify Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts. Nobody's pointing out that all the shock around the whole "Path to 9/11" thing is that ABC went along with it, not that various 'Wingers are trying to slander a former President.

The other thing nobody's pointing out is that the current President's counter terrorism efforts have garnered this:

BAGHDAD, Sept. 13--Nearly 100 people were killed or found dead in a series of bloody incidents throughout the Iraqi capital over the past 24 hours, authorities said.

At least 62 unidentified bullet-riddled corpses--all bearing signs of torture--have been found throughout the city since last night, said Brig. Gen. Abdullah Mahmood of the Interior Ministry.

Some of the bodies had been beheaded. Attacks on police patrols killed an additional 27 people this morning, officials said.

Oh, and the military announced that two more Americans have been killed too. That brings the total to 2672 killed and 19910 wounded. As of July 18, the U.N. puts the number of dead Iraqis at 14,000 for the first half of 2006 alone.

And Osama bin Laden is still. not. captured.

We have the luxury of having the truth bear out the failures of the Republican's Global War on Terror^tm. We are NOT safer. The war in Iraq has allowed Afghanistan to drift slowly back towards Taliban control. Iraq is drifting quickly towards a civil war. Iran is building nukes. North Korea already has a bunch. The Islamic world is watching the violence and, rightly or wrongly, becoming ever more radicalized. Leaders, even pro-U.S. leaders, are forced to make concessions.

And, lest we forget, the U.S. government can listen in on your call to Aunt Maria in Italy without a warrant, hold U.S. citizens without charge or access to counsel, hold indefinitely any person they declare to be an 'enemy combatant' and torture people because it gives certain people in certain places a hard on.

Where is our response to "Path to 9/11"? We don't even need to lie! Why no docu-drama depicting the myriad of failures that the Republicans President and his Republican rubber-stamp congress have caused, to the shame of every American?

And then there are the disasters at home. I posit "Path to Katrina" as a possible response. We can even use actual footage of Bush ignoring warnings, then claiming nobody ever warned him...

War in Iraq War in Afghanistan War on Terror Path to 9/11 Terrorism Lost Freedoms Democrats Republicans

Kool-Aid Consumption?

The Wall Street Journal reports on the Terror Divide:

Americans feel somewhat safer five years after the 9/11 attacks, credit President Bush’s administration with helping deter further attacks at home, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll shows. But they give only mixed marks to the overall war on terrorism.

A 42% plurality describes the country as safer than before 9/11, up from 31% a year ago and 38% in September 2002; another 32% calls the U.S. “about as safe” as before.

Fewer than one in four describes the U.S. as “less safe.”

[...]

Republicans are far more likely to describe Americans as safer and credit Bush, which means that invocation of anti-terror may rally the party’s base. Fully two-thirds of Republicans describe the war on terrorism as a success, compared to just 23% of Democrats and 30% of independents.

23% versus 66%? That's a pretty wide gap. I'd bet that the 66% of Republicans are the same ones that think WMD were actually found in Iraq. And that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

As a side note, the Wall Street Journal uses 'less than one in four' which sounds like a lot less than 25% especially when the 'about as safe' was 31% and 'safer' was only 42%.

As for the two out of three Republicans that think we're safer, it amazes me that people can go through life without any sort of critical thinking skills.

Oh, wait. It doesn't.

They're the sheeple. They think what their handlers, either Rush Limbaugh (or similar) or their Evangelical 'ministers' tell them to think. If they actually thought for themselves... Well, let's just say that the Republican Party doesn't want that to happen.

"You're frightened, let us worry about all that safety stuff. You're just simple folk. Leave all the heavy thinkin' to us. Besides, real 'Mericans aren't Lib'rul Elite college professors sitting around, eating cheese and thinkin' all the time. Real 'Mericans have lots of work to do to stay self reliant and independent! You're real 'Mericans. You work real hard to pay your bills."

Ever wonder why you have to work so hard?

Republicans Democrats War on Terror Security 9/11 George W. Bush