I think you’re wrong. I think you’re right.

The interrogation “techniques” the CIA wants legalized evidently are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; the “attention grab” (grabbing the detainee’s shirt); the “attention slap”; the “belly slap”; sound and light manipulation. I’m actually surprised for some reason that direct physical assaults are listed.

Fred Barnes provides a few more details of Bush’s get-together with conservative pundits last week. He said, “I’ve never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions.” Isn’t it cute how he still thinks that his refusal to admit mistakes will convince other people that he hasn’t made any?

He said, “It’s impossible for someone to have grown up in the 50s and 60s to envision a conflict with people that just kill mercilessly, using techniques that are kind of foreign to modern warfare. But it’s real. I’m telling you, it’s real.” Yes, we all got lulled into a false belief in the gentleness of humankind by the Nazis and so forth during the mid-20th century’s golden age of peace and love.

He said that when people wanted him to ask for the American people to make sacrifices in The War Against Terror (TWAT), what those cynical bastards really meant was tax increases. “That’s what that means as far as I’m concerned.”

Bush insisted that he does not live in a bubble. “I listen to a lot of people. I’ve got smart people around me.” Name one. “And they can march right in here – this Oval Office can be slightly intimidating, but I’ve got people here who can fight through the aura and say, ‘I think you’re wrong. I think you’re right.’” That’s just how they say it too: they say the first sentence, then see Cheney pointing the shotgun at their face...

They probably are required to march when they enter the Oval Office, too.

And Maureen Dowd, who I assume was not invited, reports that Bush blamed American impatience on there being too many tv channels.

Until there’s an all-Simpsons channel, there are not too many channels.

A simple “no” would have sufficed

From Reuters: “Rebels unleashed a wave of deadly bomb attacks in Iraq’s ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk on Sunday, including a huge suicide truck bomb, a day after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki urged Iraqis to embrace reconciliation.”

Going beyond dissent

Holy Joe Lieberman quote: “It is wrong for some on the left who go beyond dissent and demonize the president and impugn the motives of all those who support him. Like it or not, we are in this war against terror, and we are in it together.”


I’m not quite sure what it means to go “beyond dissent” or why the motives of Bushites can’t be impugned (a word defined by my computer’s dictionary as “dispute the truth, validity, or honesty of”). But it’s that phrase “like it or not” that I enjoyed.

Which brings us to today’s poll (I need to test out a different poll service):

Like being in this war against terror? Or not? Like it. Not so much.    Free polls from Pollhost.com

Of tools and professionals

In his radio address, Bush says of the Detainee Detention Act (as I shall henceforth call it), “I have one test for this legislation: The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue.” This is a variant on his assertions that the decisions about the timing of troop withdrawals from Iraq and the number of troops deployed in the first place, are made entirely by the generals, the professional soldiers, and therefore Congress should just butt out. Since that line has been pretty successful in intimidating Congress, not wanting to be accused of playing, gasp, politics, into passivity, Bush is using it as a template, except that in this case the “professionals” he keeps talking about (professional what, he never says) are not generals but shadowy spooks whose names and track records we are not permitted to know (like bloggers, only with more people tied up in their basements), but who we are expected to trust to determine what tools they need.


Speaking of tools, today’s must-read is the Rajiv Chandrasekaran piece in the WaPo previewing his book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone (isn’t that a good title?), about how the Bush administration sent a bunch of inexperienced ideologues, party donors, and media to handle the reconstruction of Iraq and how, surprisingly, it did not work. We’ve seen much of this before in dribs and drabs, but put together in a single narrative, it’s rather more powerful.

Detaining detainees in detention

The International Astronomical Union may have made the right if unpopular decision in de-planetizing Pluto, but this time they’ve gone too far (about 13 light hours), renaming planet Xena “Eris.”

In my last post I quoted but forgot to make fun of Bush referring to something called the “Detainee Detention Act.” A slip of the tongue, but revealing, I thought, of Bushian logic at its Bushianest. Just as elsewhere in the press conference he said that “one of the reasons [Saddam Hussein] was declared a state sponsor of terror was because that’s what he was,” so “Detainee Detention Act” implies that the reason these people must be detained is that they are, in fact, detainees. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Earlier this week Sikhs held a procession in Amritsar to celebrate “dignity and sanctity of the Turban.”

Bush press conference: They don’t want to be tried as war criminals

I actually saw this one, though not from the beginning. So I’m using my own notes rather than a transcript. I can use my own punctuation, as when he said of the terrorists, “They are comin’ again.” Although I occasionally got caught up with things like trying to figure out if he’d said that Iraqi had a “uni government.”


Our various enemies all have a common ideology, he said. He also doesn’t like Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions. Or the House of Commons. Or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

He doesn’t like Common Article III because it outlaws “outrages upon the human dignity” of prisoners. “That’s very vague,” he complained. “What does it mean?” He didn’t say which word he didn’t understand: outrage, human, or dignity. All three I’m guessing.

He says without “clarity,” CIA torturers, who he called “our professionals” and “decent citizens,” won’t want to go to work in the morning, won’t “step up unless there’s clarity in the law.” Because CIA torturers are all about the clarity in the law. He added, “They don’t want to be tried as war criminals.” You know how not to be tried as war criminals? As Baretta used to say, don’t do the war crime if you can’t do the war time. He even said (Bush, not Baretta) that without the “clarification” he wants (which he says is based on the McCain Act, you know the one he added a signing statement to saying he’d follow it only if he felt like it), the program of interrogations at secret prisons is “just not gonna go forward.” Don’t make me turn this waterboard around! He said if international courts are allowed to determine “how we protect ourselves,” it would “ruin” the program of secret CIA inquisitions.


He was asked (by NBC’s David Gregory) whether it would bother him if countries like Iran or North Korea did to captured American soldiers what he does, roughing prisoners up according to their own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and putting them on trial with secret evidence. He said that was okay with him (if they “adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better”). When Gregory tried to follow up, Bush told him he’d taken too long to ask his question.


The CNN scroll is just never at the right place when you need it, is it? When Bush was denying that Iraq is in a civil war, it would have been appropriate if it repeated the story about 30 more dead bodies being found in Iraq with signs of torture. I forget what it actually was, probably something about spinach being bad for you.

Asked the difference between Republican and Democratic economic policies, he said it was all about... wait for it... tax cuts. Tax cuts, he added, determine elections, and we have a history of that in our family. Did he mean to make fun of his father’s “Read my lips” line?

Asked about whether it would be a good idea to send in special forces to capture bin Laden, he said that Pakistan was a sovereign nation and we “have to be invited.” This will come as a surprise to Afghanistan. He said that “the Paks” are in the lead. He said that the idea that he had eased off the hunt for bin Laden was an “urban myth.”

Asked about his claim that there may be a third Awakening in America, he said that was based on the number of people who come up to him on rope lines and say they’re praying for him.

Then he was struck by lightning, proving the power of prayer.

Comfortable

Bush says the purpose of the proposed legislation (which looks today to be in trouble) to legalize (retroactively) “tough interrogations” of suspected terrorists is to “provide legal clarity so that our professionals will feel comfortable about going forward with the program”. Because it’s all about whether the CIA’s... professionals... feel comfortable.

That was at a photo op with the South Korean president, who brought along a translator, who unfortunately made the mistake of translating from Korean into English, a language Bush does not speak.



Earlier in the day he met privately with the House Republican Conference. The meeting went smoothly until someone tried to eat a potato chip that Dennis Hastert had his eye on. In the resulting fight, the holographic equipment that has projected the image of Dick Cheney since his death in 2002 was damaged, resulting in the blurring you see here.


Really came a long way for a rather weak joke, didn’t I? I am so off my game today.

Quote of the week: Israeli Prime Minister Olmert: “Half Lebanon is destroyed. Is that a loss?”

Terrific tribunals for terrible terrorists

The R’s have started calling the military commissions Bush wants “terrorist tribunals.” Subtle, huh? And alliterative. But appropriate: the phrase presumes guilt just like the commissions will.

I’m taking bets on how long it takes for Joe Lieberman to start using this Republican rhetorical device.

It occurs to me that I don’t know where people actually convicted by these kangaroo courts (that’s also alliterative) would be sent to serve their sentences. Back to Gitmo? Military prisons in the US?

Compliance and colonoscopies in Guantanamo

Long article in next Sunday’s NYT Magazine on Guantanamo, a narrative history of relations between the detainees and the prison authorities – well, the guards rather than the interrogators, the interrogations aren’t really covered. It gives the longest account I’ve seen of the abortive attempt last summer to establish a prisoners’ council. The author, Tim Golden, is as reasonable and even-handed as he can be under the circumstances, which is also the impression the article gives of the military authorities, who were obviously (and unavoidably) his main sources. But in a place like Guantanamo, doing the job that Guantanamo does, reasonable and even-handed are traits that are irrelevant, even obscene. The authorities were willing, indeed eager, to negotiate about details like bottled versus tap water or not blasting the Star-Spangled Banner during the call to prayer (or, as Gen. Craddock once said, the color of the feeding tubes inserted into the noses of hunger-strikers), in an effort to achieve “compliance,” so long as larger issues like the prisoners being held indefinitely were not broached.

Indeed today Bill “Kitty Killer” Frist commented that the Guantanamo detainees are getting “24/7 medical care - better than many Americans”. Why, 16 colonoscopies have been performed there, he marveled.

Frist’s other priority in The War Against Terror this week is tacking onto the bill authorizing military operations a provision against paying off internet gambling debts with credit cards.

You’re still waiting for me to say something about the colonoscopies, aren’t you? I have way too much class for that.

Stifling

Gen. Richard Zilmer, the US commander in western Iraq, insists that we haven’t “lost” Anbar province and that we are “stifling” the rebels. Call it the Archie Bunker approach to counter-dingbatteryinsurgency.


Here’s Condi meeting with South Korean President Roh today. Not sure which one of them needs the really large spittoon.


And here’s Condi meeting with one of those creepy (and evidently tiny) Polish twins. In a scintillating exchange of dialogue, he said, “It is true I’m visiting the U.S.” You can see why he’s the prime minister.

To arms! (two arms good, four arms bad)

Headline of the day, from the WaPo: “Four Armed Men Attack U.S. Embassy in Damascus.” Now what we need to know is whether the terrorists are recruiting people who were born with extra appendages, or if they’re somehow attaching extraneous limbs to their existing recruits. We could be in an... please forgive me... arms race, people! Well, forewarned is... ok, I’ll stop now.

Invigorating

All day bloggers have been pointing out that George Allen’s campaign website has pictures of Allen meeting Saturday with members of the Macacan-American community at an “ethnic rally.” Many of those bloggers took screen shots under the mistaken impression that Allen’s people would be embarrassed by the ridicule into taking them down. But maybe Allen’s people all have Confederate paraphernalia and nooses in their offices too, cuz it’s all still up there. At the Ethnic Rally, Allen declared it to be “invigorating to be here with people from all sorts of different and diverse backgrounds”.

Doesn’t he look invigorated?

Speaking of invigorated, Condi Rice is pursuing America’s foreign-policy goals in a place I’m told is not part of the United States, some place the natives call Canada (I’m not sure what we call it in English). The Toronto Star has a slide show of “Condi’s Canadian adventure,” including this photo of her sampling the exotic local cuisine.


A Virginia woman who smoked pot with her 13-year old son as a reward when he finished his homework is facing charges of being the coolest mom ever.

Where are the mothers organizing against terrorism?

In an editorial in USA Today, Karen Hughes asks why there isn’t more “concerted moral outrage of everyday citizens” against terrorism. “[W]here are the mothers organizing against terrorism as American mothers did against drunken driving? Where are the fathers promising to teach their sons to choose to live rather than choose to die?” She wants there to be a “terrorism is bad” movement, with petition drives and bake sales and the like, modeled after the abolitionist movement.

On the off-chance that this isn’t just a parody that didn’t make it into The Onion, I’d like to help. Contest time! Yay! Provide a slogan, motto, bumper sticker or chant for Mothers Against Terrorism (MAT) (or a better name for the organization). “Hey hey, ho ho, the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes, has got to go!” “Friends don’t let friends drive explosive-laden cars into the American embassy.”

Bush 9/11 speech: leading the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty

Even if you think that war is the appropriate response to 9/11, was it in good taste for Bush to make a broadcast on its anniversary entirely oriented towards war? But of course this was not a commemoration of 9/11, but of the start of The War Against Terror (TWAT).

Evidently it’s not a clash of civilizations, it’s a struggle for civilization. Which is us, I guess. Maybe that’s just a piece of rhetoric, but it sounds to me like a rejection of pluralism and a denial of Muslim civilization. Elsewhere in the speech he said that the response of people who tried to rescue the victims of the 9/11 attacks was “distinctly American.” Presumably anyone not an American would just start going through the victims’ pockets for loose change.


If the speech was ethnocentric, it was also Christian-centric, like that bit about how they brought America to its knees, but “united in prayer.” Uh, dude, you do know that some religions expressly forbid kneeling when praying?

Terrorists, he felt the need to say in various ways over and over, are bad. We “saw the face of evil,” they “kill without mercy,” blah blah blah. And they are still “determined to attack America”. Funny, where have I heard that phrase before? Let’s see: “bin Laden determined to attack...”


The people of the Middle East “have one question of us: Do we have the confidence to do in the Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe and Asia?” Um, incinerate their cities?

I thought, personally, he had to go to the bathroom

Cheney at the Pentagon: “Nine-eleven is a day of national unity. The memories stay with all of us because the attack was directed at all of us.” Obviously if it had been directed against brown-skinned people somewhere, we... or at least Cheney... would have forgotten all about it by now. “We were meant to take it personally, and we still do take it personally.” Yes, it’s all about us. Everything is always all about us.


“We have learned that there is a certain kind of enemy whose ambitions have no limits, and whose cruelty is only fed by the grief of others.” Cheney has met the enemy, and it is him.

“Yet in the conduct of this war the world has seen the best that is in our country.” I would really like to think that the “best that is in our country” has nothing to do with how we fight wars.


AP looks at the children in that Florida classroom, five years later. “[Bush’s] face just started to turn red,” says Tyler Radkey. “I thought, personally, he had to go to the bathroom.”

“Not any more ah don’t.”

President Poopy Pants was interviewed by Matt Lauer (no transcript, and the video seems only to be playable in Internet Explorer). Nothing new, although the 11-minute interview was conducted standing, about a foot apart. Lauer asked Bush, who kept talking about fighting terrorism “within the law,” about secret CIA prisons. Bush, in pissed-off mode: “So what? Why is that not within the law?” He also tells us that he’s been “assured by our Justice Department that we were not torturing.”

There are intelligence reports and conflicting intelligence reports all the time

I skipped “The Path to 9/11” (which isn’t quite the same thing as skipping down the path to 9/11), because life is too short and, you know, The Simpsons was on. I will also skip most of Monday’s coverage, with the mournful music and slow motion footage of the towers falling and whatnot, and you probably should too. Feeling sad about a tragedy is not obligatory because the calendar tells you that today is the day to feel sad about it. And you’re unlikely to hear anything that will make you a wiser or better person, just as 9/11 did not make us a wiser or a better nation.

5 months after 9/11, Bush was so embarrassed about not having captured bin Laden that he never spoke the man’s name. For some reason, 5 years of failure is less embarrassing than 5 months, and Bush has taken to quoting him in every speech. I suppose he’ll do it again today, but one could wish that he’d quote Jefferson or Paine, one of the idealists who helped create that freedom for which they, you know, hate us. Making us secure at any price is not the high moral calling Bush seems to believe it to be.

Condi went on no fewer than three talk shows this morning. She came close to admitting that the intel on WMDs in Iraq was wrong, but “once you’re in Iraq you can learn things that you could not possibly know before you were in Iraq.” Have to invade a country to learn whether it was worth invading. Asked on a different program about a 2002 CIA report that Iraq was not supplying chemical or biological weapons or training to Al Qaida, she said, “There are intelligence reports and conflicting intelligence reports all the time.”

And she insisted, contrary to Friday’s Senate committee report, that there were “multiple contacts going back a decade between Osama bin Laden and Iraq.” And when asked what about all the countries that sponsor terrorists who we haven’t invaded, she offered this: “Well, but Saddam Hussein was special in this case. This is somebody against whom we went to war in 1991.” Um, so?


Really, for someone with a doctorate, you have to wonder about her inability to use facts to support a thesis. Here’s how she responds to a rather apposite question (but with no follow-through) from Chris Wallace:

Q: Secretary Rice, what evidence do you have that the homegrown Sunnis and Shia fighting each other in Iraq, and of course that at this point is the vast majority of the violence, that they have any interest in attacking the U.S.?

RICE: Well, clearly the person who set off much of the sectarian violence, who plotted the notion that Shias should go after Sunnis and you should try and spark civil conflict, actually was the al-Qaida leader at the time, Zarqawi, who we later killed.

Q: But he’s gone.

RICE: Well, but it was his strategy and we know that, to try and set off sectarian violence.

Back to Saddam: “We were still at war with him in 1998 when we used American forces to try and disable his weapons of mass destruction.” We did what now?

Validating the strategy of the terrorists

The WaPo, in a long story about why we still haven’t found bin Laden (short answer: Pakistan isn’t helping, and the US has starved the mission of resources), has an anecdote that if properly sourced should by yet another reason why Rumsfeld has to go: in November 2002, after the CIA assassinated an Al Qaida leader in Yemen, Rumsfeld was livid that it wasn’t the military that had done it, and ordered NSA head Michael Hayden to stop sharing intel with the CIA of the sort that had made it possible. The article says that Hayden claims not to recall the conversation, which is funny because you’d think that would have been an important one to remember. The Post doesn’t seem to have asked Rummy for his recollections. And while the paper is evidently sure enough of its source’s accuracy to put Rummy’s words in quotation marks, its failure to name that source renders the story merely interesting rather than usable (that is, you can’t demand Rummy’s resignation on the basis of this sort of hearsay).

I wonder if the 9/11 tv programs will rerun footage of the many times Bush said that bin Laden “can run but he cannot hide”?

The LAT has an analysis piece that starts by saying that the US military won’t say how it came up with that figure of a 50% reduction in sectarian deaths in Baghdad because, shh, it’s a secret.

During weekly news briefings deep inside barricaded compounds, commanders regularly display slick charts, multicolored bar graphs and PowerPoint presentations, all heralding good news.

“One more indicator that operations are in fact reducing the amount of attacks on civilians is shown here on this graph,” Caldwell assured reporters the other day, pointing to a bar chart dutifully placed on an easel by a stone-faced uniformed subordinate. But all the numbers had been carefully scrubbed. They were classified.

The Iraqi government’s contribution to opacity: the Baghdad morgue has just been banned from releasing death figures, which will now come from the Shiite-dominated Health Ministry, and “Morgue officials who previously provided details have abruptly ‘retired’ or left the country.”

The article also discusses the recent use of the term “death squads” by the Pentagon to describe the groups responsible: “By unmooring death squads from the context of government-backed Shiite militias, U.S. officials have redefined the problem — and avoided a direct confrontation with the U.S.-backed Iraqi leadership.” Now that you mention it, the US used that term in the 1980s to deflect blame from the Central American governments backed by Reagan, applying it to those killing leftists in El Salvador, where the death squads were closely linked to the military, and Honduras, where the death squads were the military.

On the talk show circuit today, Condi and Cheney both denied the Senate report (which Cheney said he hadn’t read) that Saddam Hussein had no connection to Al Qaida.

Cheney also hadn’t read the WaPo article on the hunt for bin Laden. Or the NYT story saying that his ascendancy over the White House is weakening. Evidently he didn’t think he’d be asked about any of this on Meet the Press on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, although he was prepared to discuss current cinema – “‘Snakes on a Plane’ was a real hoot, Tim, a real hoot.”

What else did Cheney, wielding his Index Finger of Doom, have to say? Well, as always he supported a free and open discussion of American foreign policy: “And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we’ve had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists.”


He refused to say whether there are more or fewer terrorists now than there were 5 years ago.


He claimed that everything he ever said was correct, that we were in fact greeted as liberators, and that when he said the war would be over quickly, “that’s true within the context of the battle against the Saddam Hussein regime and his forces. That went very quickly.” And the “last throes” thing, that was also true, I forget how, but it was true, goddamit!


The Shiite-Sunni “strife,” he said, is entirely the fault of Zarqawi and the mosque bombing.

In an interesting slip when defending Maliki’s visit to Iran (“It also visits the Saudis”), he admitted, “the new government in Iraq. It is a Shia government, no question about it.”


On the Iranian nuclear program, Cheney cited information from the International Atomic Energy Agency, “an international body that I think most people wouldn’t question.” Russert reminded him that he did in fact question the IAEA during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: I asked you on this very program...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: That’s correct.

MR. RUSSERT: ...about ElBaradei and you said he’s wrong.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. It wasn’t consistent with our report.

MR. RUSSERT: But he was right about Iraq.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I haven’t, I haven’t looked at it. I’d have to go back and look at it again.

You do that.

They’re violent in Iraq for a reason

The Republicans have put out what purports to be a newspaper from 2007 showing what would happen if, heaven forfend, the Democrats win the 2006 elections. Bush impeached! Star Wars dismantled! Tax cuts for the rich repealed! Michael Moore eating! Universal health care! Don’t miss the horoscopes.

Bush gave an interview to ABC’s Charles Gibson. Here are some quotes, taken out of context, just because I feel like it:

“You know, when you have Republicans hugging Democrats, it really does inspire the nation.”

“No question the Iraq War has been a divisive, you know, war”.

“Some say, ‘Well, it’s impossible for democracy to take hold in the Middle East.’ Well, that’s true if we leave.”

“We have learned since that [Saddam] did not use them, but he had the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction.”

“No question they’re violent in Iraq, but they’re violent in Iraq for a reason”.

“The short term objective is to understand the stakes in this war against extremists. The long term objective is to ... win the ideological struggle.”

I mean, they are all very hot

The LAT got hold of a recording of Gov. Schwarzenegger with his advisers, speculating about the ethnicity of a state legislator (“She maybe is Puerto Rican or the same thing as Cuban. I mean, they are all very hot. They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it.”). His people are claiming it was a joke. No one mentioned that other Austrian who had theories about the blood of different races. But the best part of the story was when the LAT set the scene for us:

The meeting probably took place in the Ronald Reagan Cabinet Room, the governor’s de facto office that adjoins his smaller official quarters. The conference room faces east toward lush Capitol Park and has a long conference table that serves as a giant desk. The sword from Schwarzenegger’s movie “Conan the Barbarian” rests on a nearby table.

I don’t see dead people

So the Pentagon touted an astounding 50% drop in civil war-related deaths in Baghdad, thanks to Operation Forward Together, but then the Iraqi Health Ministry revised its figures up drastically, showing the number of deaths basically the same. Not that the Pentagon is admitting it, as shown by that hapless general on McNeil-Lehrer yesterday, still saying “well that’s not what our numbers show.” Dude, their numbers come from the Baghdad morgue. They get dead bodies, they count dead bodies. You’re not disputing numbers, you’re disputing the existence of 750 corpses you evidently didn’t know about. So the next question is: we’re occupying their country, we have responsibility for security, we’re running a major operation to reduce sectarian violence in the capital... and we don’t know how many fatalities there are in the capital to within plus or minus 50%? We had no one on the ground with enough of a sense of the overall picture to realize that the claim that deaths were down 50% did not accord with that overall picture?

Best line in the WaPo story: the Health Ministry is planning to build some more morgues, get more refrigeration units and hire more personnel to cope with the influx of dead bodies, but said it had “nothing to do with the violence and killing.”