Protecting the rights of terrorists

Denny Hastert said about the vote on warrantless wiretapping: “For the second time in just two days, House Democrats have voted to protect the rights of terrorists.” There are two problems with that statement: 1) the assumption of guilt, 2) he could have just said that D’s voted to protect terrorists, but instead went out of his way to denigrate the whole concept of “rights.” These people are less interested in attacking terrorists than in attacking rights. Indeed “rights” is a nastier word in their vocabulary than “terrorist.”

Bush welcomed to the White House “president” Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, which he called “a free nation.” The CIA World Factbook calls it a republic with “authoritarian presidential rule, with little power outside the executive branch.”


Earlier this morning, Bush spoke to the Reserve Officers Association, saying that “Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us. ... They can’t stand the thought that people can go into the public square in America and express their differences with government.” Yes, terrorists hate the fact that we can disagree with George Bush.

They must love Kazakhstan, where people who criticize the government have been known to, for example, commit suicide by shooting themselves repeatedly in the chest and head.

They all look the same to me

It’s the pretense of pragmatism that irritates me. The pro-war spin on the semi-declassified NIE focuses on the sentence, “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.” I’ll concede that premise, which seems common sensical enough, but, even putting aside the countervailing number of jihadists created every day the war continues, how does this add up to a case for continuing the war to make us safer from terrorism? Have they never heard of cost-benefit analysis? Let’s say that pulling out of Iraq would mean 1,000 fighters “inspired to carry on the fight.” Hell, let’s say 10,000. If we dealt with them through traditional means – intelligence, security, phone-tapping, satellites, etc – we could spend $100 million to combat each fighter, and still come out ahead.

At a fundraiser today, Bush said that the war is not increasing the risk of terrorism. “History tells us that logic is false.” How come he gets to invoke History on the same day Congress is doing his bidding in undoing centuries of legal protections on the grounds that history is irrelevant because we are fighting a totally new type of war against a totally new type of enemy?

This morning, Bush met with Republican senators. He said of the meeting, “I’m impressed by the caliber of people that serve our country.” One such person is Sen. Trent Lott, who again demonstrated his caliber by shooting himself in the foot. Several times. Asked by reporters afterwards if any of the senators had brought up the subject of Iraq with the chimperor, Lott said, “You’re the only ones who obsess on that. We don’t and the real people out in the real world don’t for the most part.” He said of the Iraqis, “It’s hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what’s wrong with these people... Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me.”

So if they didn’t talk about Iraq or have a seminar on Sunni-Shiite differences, what did they discuss? According to Bush, “Our most solemn job is the security of this country. People shouldn’t forget there’s still an enemy out there that wants to do harm to the United States. And therefore a lot of my discussion with the members of the Senate was to remind them of this solemn responsibility.” So another productive and informative meeting, then.

I think we spent about half a minute on this issue

Condi Rice was interviewed a few days ago by the editorial board of the NYT.

She set out a goal for Lebanon: “transport moderation with a coalition of states that might be - might have great interest in doing that.” I don’t know what that means either, or whether bubble wrap is involved.

On why the invasion of Iraq did not create terrorists: “They attacked us on September 11th before anybody had even thought of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.” Before anybody had even thought...? Ever heard of the first Gulf War, Condi? Ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Condi? Ever heard of the Project for the New American Century, Condi?

She laid out a standard for success in Iraq: “And I think they’re going to be able to move to a place where they continue to have violence, but it doesn’t threaten the stability of the government.” Always the dreamer, is our Condi.

This sentence I like because it has a verb I haven’t heard before: “Hezbollah lives among the population and can easily human shield anything that you go after.”

Are torture and secret prisons hurting America’s reputation? “I can tell you I just spent a whole lot of time with Europeans. I think we spent about half a minute on this issue.”


Caption contest:

Let’s bring justice before the eyes of the children and widows of Sept. 11

I’ve commented on Bush’s recent use of the term “extremists” to describe The Enemy, but I think I missed the point, which is actually the other half of the dyad, “moderate.” In a week when General Musharraf (did anyone else notice how Jon Stewart called him “president” when they were together, and “general” after he left?) and Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayev are being welcomed to the White House, he needed a term for the Good Guys that didn’t involve, you know, democracy. Thus, moderates, or even “the moderate world.”

Sillier than the NYT article on Rumsfeld’s squash game? Lawrence Di Rita’s letter in rebuttal.

I think it was when Alberto Gonzales’ nomination vote was being described as a referendum on torture that I said I’d be really curious what the outcome of an actual Congressional vote on torture would be. 253-168: sorry I asked. It wasn’t even close. And the Democrats’ wussiness on the issue suggests that they either believe in torture, indefinite detention on presidential orders, etc or they think that the voters believe in those things. Greg Saunders asks, “Is it really worth all this effort to replace people who support torture with people who tolerate torture?” The British journalist Henry Nevinson said in 1921, à propos the actions of the Black and Tans in Ireland, “It is a terrible thing to feel ashamed of the country one loves. It is like coming home and finding one’s mother drunk upon the floor.”

Molly Ivins points out that the language requiring a defendant to be able to “examine and respond to” the evidence against him has been changed: he won’t be able to how what it is, but he can still respond to it. So that’s okay then.

On denying detainees the right of habeas corpus, James Sensenbrenner: “Let’s bring justice before the eyes of the children and widows of Sept. 11.” A few days I was complaining when Rumsfeld spoke as if the 9/11 victims were all Americans. It seems revealing, though I’m not sure of what, that Sensenbrenner talks as if only husbands and not wives were killed.

London Times: “Hungary’s beleaguered Prime Minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, apologised yesterday for his speech in which he admitted lying to the nation.”

“Tokyo Rose” has died, at 90.

The US military wants to hire a company to poll Iraqis “to assess the effectiveness of operations as they relate to gaining and maintaining popular support”. The interviewers would have to disguise who they were working for, in order not to be killed. You know, once you admit that that is the case, maybe you know all you really need to know about gaining and maintaining popular support, and can just skip the waste of taxpayer dollars, to say nothing of risking the lives of some poor schmucks with clip-boards?

That article also says that the Lincoln Group, last spotted paying to plant stories in the Iraqi press, has just been given another contract, for $12.4 million, to do... exactly the same thing.

US military types have been bad-mouthing Iraq’s prime minister and blowhard-in-chief Maliki for not having the will to take on Shiite militias (the WaPo and NYT don’t say it, but they’re frustrated because the Iraqis have recently cancelled several planned operations). The WaPo says, “The questions about Maliki are being posed only privately”. That is, if you consider page A19 of the Washington Post to be private.

Russia may reintroduce a tax on couples who don’t have children. Says the deputy head of the Duma’s health committee, “If people don’t want to think about their debt to the motherland, they must pay.” According to the Guardian, Putin “has announced a 10-year plan to tackle the crisis.” Possibly involving actual tackling.

Tony Blair: without mercy or limit

Follow-up: the guy Bush attacked as an “obscure” spokesman for an “obscure organization” turns out to be Gijs de Vries, the counter-terrorism coordinator for that obscure organization, the European Union. Still not sure what it was he said Tuesday.

Condi claimed today, “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight Al Qaida. For instance, big pieces were missing, like an approach to Pakistan that might work”. They had to come up with the idea of threatening to bomb Pakistan into the Stone Age all by themselves. (Also, Condi is lying, as Raw Story proves, just in case you didn’t already assume Condi is lying, or know that she’d made this claim before and been shot down before; it’s bad enough that she’s portraying the Clinton admin as being as incompetent and ill-prepared as she is, but that she assumes we are too).

Divine retribution of the day: “A man who bred fighting cocks died after contracting the H5N1 bird flu virus, bringing the human death toll in Thailand to 17.” (AP)

The WaPo is late posting Wednesday’s A Section, so I’m still seeing yesterday’s top story, “Detainee Measure to Have Less Restrictions.” Fewer, goddammit, the correct word is fewer! I blame it on Bush, the man who doesn’t know a comma from a quagmire. He just lowers lingual standards for the entire nation. In 2008, we need to make all presidential candidates pass a strict test on grammar. Of grammar? Oh dear God it’s getting to me now! Or is it “its getting too me now”? Aaaaaayyyyy!!!!!

In truth, there isn’t much more meaning in a Blair speech (yesterday he gave his very last address as party leader to a Labour party conference) than in a Bush one, it’s just that his nothing is better expressed than Bush’s nothing. “But believe me there are no half-hearted allies of America today”. I believe you, I just don’t know what you’re talking about.


He also said, “We can only protect liberty by making it relevant to the modern world. ... Let Liberty stand up for the law-abiding.” His idea of liberty: identity cards with biometric technology and a national DNA database, which I believe John Stuart Mill called for in chapter 23 of On Liberty.


“The new anxiety is the global struggle against terrorism without mercy or limit.” Notice how it isn’t quite clear which side he’s saying is without mercy or limit.


He said that looking for any explanation for terrorism other than that they hate us for our freedom is “wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy... This terrorism isn’t our fault, we didn’t cause it. It’s not the consequence of foreign policy, it’s an attack on our way of life.” Yes, they’re definitely more concerned with what we eat and watch on tv than with our support of Israel and military invasion of their countries.

Speaking of our way of life, he said that Labour must tailor its policies for the “Google generation.” (There wasn’t any reason for that hyperlink; I just thought it was amusingly meta.)

Blair: “I know I look a lot older. That’s what being leader of the Labour Party does to you. Actually, looking round some of you look a lot older. That’s what having me as leader of the Labour Party does to you.”

Actually, it’s worse than that. In this picture, doesn’t he look a lot like Bush, sort of the way dogs and their masters start to look alike?

Bush and Karzai: I don’t have enough time to finger-point

Bush had a photo op & press conference with Karzai today.

He told Karzai, “I know there’s some in your country who wonder or not -- whether or not America has got the will to do the hard work necessary to help you succeed. We have got that will, and we’re proud of you as a partner.” Karzai replied, “Wonderful. Great,” because he had to say something, but it was an odd sort of statement to have to formulate a response to.


“We discussed different agencies in your government and how best to make them accountable to the people. We’re going to help you build roads.” Er, accountable roads?

“The President gave me a very direct assessment of successes in eradicating poppies and failures in eradicating poppies.” Guess which part was longer?


Bush said he will have dinner Wednesday with Karzai and Musharraf, which he says is “going to be an interesting discussion amongst three allies”. Considering all the sniping between Karzai and Musharraf recently about bin Laden and intelligence-sharing, it should indeed be “interesting”: “Pass the rolls, please.” “I would be delighted to pass the rolls, but you have yet to tell me where I might find the rolls.” “I told you exactly where the rolls are.” “Ah, but that is where the rolls were ten minutes ago. How am I to know where the rolls are now? Why, they might not even be on my side of the table...” Etcetera.


Karzai said of an American soldier he’d just met, a woman with six children, “There’s nothing more that any nation can do for another country, to send a woman with children to Afghanistan to help.” Um, right.

Bush says, contrary to the NIE, that the Iraq war isn’t fueling terrorist growth: “My judgment is, if we weren’t in Iraq, they’d find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.” “They’ve used all kinds of excuses,” he says, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Funny, I thought just a few days ago we were supposed to be taking the words of the terrorists seriously. “We’re not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. ... We’re not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.”


He adds that the NIE is old news, and has the nerve to suggest that it was leaked just now to affect the elections, “to create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it.”



A Reuters reporter asked if Clinton was right that the Bush administration had no meetings on bin Laden for the 9 months before 9/11. With a near certainty that he would be asked that very question, this is how well prepared he was:

You know, look, Caren, I’ve watched all this finger-pointing and naming of names, and all that stuff. Our objective is to secure the country. And we’ve had investigations, we had the 9/11 Commission, we had the look back this, we’ve had the look back that. The American people need to know that we spend all our time doing everything that we can to protect them. So I’m not going to comment on other comments. But I will comment on this -- that we’re on the offense against an enemy that wants to do us harm. And we must have the tools necessary to protect our country. On the one hand, if al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates are calling somebody in the country, we need to know why....

And so on.

“I don’t have enough time to finger-point,” he added. Because of all the, you know, terrorists he has to deal with: “They’re out there, they’re mean, and they need to be brought to justice.”


Stupid reporter meets stupid preznident:

Q If I may, Mr. President, do you agree with the analysis from the counter chief European -- counterterrorism chief European spokesman who said today that the international support for terrorism has receded. ...

PRESIDENT BUSH: It’s a four-part question. First of all, I didn’t -- what was this person a spokesman for?

Q Counterterrorism chief in Europe.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Some obscure spokesman?

Q No, actually, he has a name.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay, he’s a got a name. (Laughter.) Well, no, I don’t agree with the spokesman for the obscure organization that said that the international commitment to fighting terror is declining.

I’ve googled, and I still don’t know what the reporter was talking about, but then neither did the reporter and neither did Bush, and Bush completely misinterpreted what the reporter said the guy said, but it didn’t stop him getting pretty darned belligerent.

Then Bush started talking again about that dinner (which I read after I wrote my little dinner roll sketch above): “It will be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are.”

Venezuelan street theater review

John Bolton calls the Venezuelan foreign minister’s protests at attempts by airport security people to frisk him “Venezuelan street theater,” saying, “He did not request the courtesies we would have extended to get him through the airport. He purchased his ticket at a time and in a manner and with funding such that he was asked to go to secondary screening and he objected to that. And the first thing he did was call the press and speak to them in Spanish, so this is propaganda.” Yes, if it’s in Spanish, it must be propaganda. I had to read that quote a second time before I realized that Bolton was accusing Maduro of deliberately behaving suspiciously (paying cash for a one-way ticket) in order to provoke an international incident. A cunning plan indeed.

Well, that’s a lie

The British Labour party is having its annual conference. Gordon Brown gave a speech today, and just as he was saying what a privilege it’s been to work with Tony Blair, Cherie Blair was overheard commenting, “Well, that’s a lie.” So that’s all the British newspapers are talking about today. Cherie, by the way, denies having said anything of the kind, and the Labour party machinery suggested that she’d actually said macaca “I need to get by.” No one believes the denials, but no one believes Brown’s praise of Tony Blair either.

I’m not sure how many Americans know that Cherie Blair’s father Tony Booth, a lefty actor along Rob Reiner lines, played the long-haired lefty son-in-law of a cockney bigot in the tv show that was adapted in America as All in the Family. And that the Booths are an old acting family, one of whose members once intervened rather significantly in American politics.

At a press conference with visiting Afghan puppet Karzai (who failed to bring any of his nation’s journalists with him), Rumsfeld was asked whether he would resign, as three retired generals (all of whom served in Iraq) have been calling for:

Q Are you considering resigning at all --

SEC. RUMSFELD: No.

Q -- and if so, why not?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I’m not.

And about the Army chief, Gen. Schoomaker’s, refusal to submit a budget because he is not being given enough money to do the job, the Pentagon transcript quotes Rumsfeld thusly: “(Inaudible) -- the Army for some weeks. (Inaudible) -- the Army -- (inaudible) -- it will continue -- (inaudible) -- if not, the budget will then go to the president, and then the president will send it to Congress and -- (inaudible).” How an inaudible bill becomes an inaudible law, Rummy-style.

Reset

The Lebanese are saved! Rescue is at hand! Well, for Lebanese puppy dogs, anyway. Lebanese humans are still screwed.

Thailand’s Gen. Thawip, spokesmodel for the coup leaders (who are calling themselves the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy in the hope that they’ll be mistaken for Swedes), explains the necessity for the military overthrow of the elected government: “Just like when your computer is hung and you cannot do anything about it, what you’re going to do is push the reset button or unplug it and that’s the only way to solve it.”

Nodding their heads and voting with their feet

Rumsfeld on why it’s entirely coincidental that the current civil war in Iraq followed the American invasion and occupation: “Now, we talk about the violence that’s going on in that country, and there is violence in that country; let there be no doubt....” Was someone doubting that? “...But there was violence before. I mean, there are -- hundred thousands of people are in mass graves all over that country. Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, his own people, as well as his neighbors. So violence is not something that’s new to Iraq. Indeed, it’s a pattern in that country.” A pattern. He makes it sound like wallpaper. I’m not sure what sort of a “pattern” it is that encompasses both the repressive violence of a dictator and a sectarian civil war. They seem to me to be quite distinctive phenomena, having in common only a “pattern” of a high body count. Or possibly he’s saying Iraqis are just inherently violent.


Rummy adds that the war won’t be won militarily (on that much we can agree), but on the “political front and the governance front... when people say, ‘Okay, it’s going to make it,’ and they start nodding their heads, and they vote with their feet, and the economic circumstance improves.” I’m a little unclear on whether they’ll be nodding their heads at the same time as they vote with their feet, or they’ll nod and then voting with their feet, but I’ll definitely keep an eye out for the nodding and the foot-voting.

Pulp fiction

In his weekly radio address, Bush praises Pakistan’s “President” Musharraf for “working to build modern democratic institutions that could provide an alternative to radicalism.” Yeah, Musharraf is all about the building of modern democratic institutions.

It may not mean anything, but in his most recent speeches, Bush has been backing away from describing the enemy as Islamofascist or indeed as Islamic anything, in favor of the more generic, basically content-free term “extremist.” In today’s five-minute address, he referred to “extremism” twice and “extremists” five times. Extremists are the bad guys in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq. “All civilized nations, especially those in the Muslim world, are bound together in this struggle between moderation and extremism.”

Note that in that version of reality, Bush is a moderate.

Metaphor of the day, from Capt. Phil Waddingham of the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants at Guantanamo, about the possibility of releasing detainees: “I think what we have here is an orange. What we’re doing is squeezing out the juice and what we’re left with at the end of the day is pulp that will just stay here.”

A deserved rest

Honestly, I feel like I’m more worked up about the state of democracy in Thailand than Thailand’s deposed prime minister, whose reaction to the coup is to take a “deserved rest.” I wasn’t expecting him to go into the jungle and lead a rag-tag but plucky resistance, but c’mon. Meanwhile, the king has finally given his public blessing to the coup, and the coup leader Generalissimo Sonthi Boonyaratglin had some sort of ceremony kneeling in front of a framed photo of the king.



In Amsterdam, an artist has put a car on stilts and replaced its back seat with a mattress, and couples can spend the night in it if they write him an essay explaining why they want to.

Bush & Mush: He understands it just about as good as anybody in the world

Bush met Pakistan’s Generalissimo Musharraf today and praised him for his commitment to education, which is as good an excuse as any for me to make fun of Chimpy’s command of the English language: “The governor of the areas are with us here”; “He understands that we are in a struggle against extremists who will use terror as a weapon. He understands it just about as good as anybody in the world”.


Bush claims that he never heard that Armitage threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age until he read it in the newspaper today. Yeah, that’s believable: like Bush would ever read a newspaper. “You know, I was -- I guess I was taken aback by the harshness of the words.” Mush (as I believe Bush calls him in private) said he couldn’t say any more about the incident because he has a book coming out... (Armitage, by the way, denies having made any military threats. Tony Snow says “US policy was not to issue bombing threats” and suggests the whole thing was “a classic failure to communicate”. Bomb. Stone Age. Sounds like pretty clear communication to me.)

Musharraf insisted that his deal with the Waziristan tribes is actually a deal to fight the Taliban, not a deal with the Taliban. Just a big misunderstanding, he says. It is a “holistic approach that we are taking to fighting terrorism”. And Bush said, “When the President looks me in the eye and says, the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people, and that there won’t be a Taliban and won’t be al Qaeda, I believe him, you know?” Looked into his soul, did you, George?


Neither would say whether American forces would enter Pakistan to capture Osama bin Laden.

Bush said the “Kashmir issue will be solved when two leaders decide to solve it.” As ever, the views of any actual Kashmiris are irrelevant. Also, Pakistan is a military dictatorship, but aren’t decisions in India supposed to be made by more than one person?

Bush said “the free world and the moderate world must stand up to these extremists”. Of course I’ve heard the expression “the free world” before, but I didn’t know there was also a moderate world.

Violence

AP headline: “Indonesian Executions Lead to Violence.” Dude, executions are violence. By definition. In this particular case, a firing squad was involved.

A very rude remark

On the Detainee Detention Bill “compromise”: what Digby said.

It includes retroactive immunity for past violations of the Geneva Conventions. Of course nothing was stopping Bush from using his pardon power. And when Congress votes on this, it will have no idea exactly what past acts it will be granting immunity to. This isn’t just legal immunity, it’s an act of willful ignorance about what was done in our names.

Only Bush can interpret the Geneva Conventions.

Evidence obtained through torture will be allowed.

OK, I’m going to stop listing the defects in this deal, or we’ll be here all night. There may be something good in it, but don’t see it. Can anyone else?

BBC headline: “Palestinians Split on Unity Plan.”

Pakistani Prez Musharraf says Richard Armitage’s 2001 threat to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age was “a very rude remark.” Quite.

Lord Holy Joe of Stamford

Here’s a Joe Lieberman ad which suggests that you should never elect someone to the Senate who is not already a senator. “We definitely don’t need someone who needs to be tutored in how to be a senator.” Clearly, election should be for life, not a mere six years. I don’t know what the Founding Fathers were thinking in failing to have a House of Lords.



The Financial Times is reporting that the reason detainees were moved from secret CIA prisons to Guantanamo was that CIA interrogators downed tools and “refused to continue their work until the legal situation was clarified.” Yes, a torturers’ strike. And that’s one union you do not want to mess with.

Caption contest:

Angelina Shrugged

About the Thai coup: there’s been a lot of talk in the news coverage in the West about the shortcomings of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra – power-hungry, somewhat corrupt, not obsequious enough towards the king, and so on. I don’t know enough to judge the charges, but they’re really more or less irrelevant, like asking if a rape victim was dressed too sluttily. Also, the thing these stories leave out is that the military also dissolved the government, the parliament, and the Constitutional Court.

Still, sometimes the people just don’t know what they want until it’s given to them by benevolent despots. For example, Hollywood has decreed that what the world needs is a film of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged starring Angelina Jolie.

Jon Carroll offers a platform we can all vote for: a right-click universe.

Hmm, what would happen if I right clicked on Angelina Jolie?

Of the devil, the Terminator, and the choir boy

Hugo Chávez, in a speech to the UN, called Bush “the devil.” And your point is?

Wolf Blitzer interviewed the devil today. The horned one reversed his position, I guess, about whether we would send troops into Pakistan if we knew where Osama bin Laden was, without the “invitation” he said just a couple of days ago that Pakistan as a “sovereign country” would have to issue before we’d do that. Musharraf has voiced some objections. (Update: ah, Georgia10 at Daily Kos asks the question I was wondering: how is it after five years there isn’t some sort of agreement about what happens if bin Laden is found?)

Wolfie asked Chimpy if Iran would nuke Israel if it had nukes. Bush responded that he believes everything that everyone tells him without reservation, which is why he has the world’s largest collection of magic beans:

Wolf, my judgment is you’ve got to take everybody’s word seriously in this world. Again, you can’t just hope for the best. You’ve got to assume that the leader, when he says that he would like to destroy Israel means what he says. If you take -- if you say, well, gosh, maybe he doesn’t mean it, and you turn out to be wrong, you have not done your duty as a world leader.

Now you know what the duty of a world leader is.

Here in California, inept gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides is running this inept ad every 12 minutes on every channel against inept governator Ahnuuuld. Governor Terminator’s policies are almost uniformly opposed by the California voters, but the only thing Angelides is calling him out for is chanting “George W. Bush” while wearing an ugly green tie.



British Home Secretary John Reid imparted some helpful advice to Muslim parents: check your children for the “tell-tale signs” of brainwashing.

The official US response to the Thai coup is to say that coups are bad, and to ask that “democratic elections be held as soon as possible, which is a commitment military officials have made.” To call for elections but not for the return of the elected prime minister is to give de facto support to the coup. The State Dept spokesmodel kept repeating that the coup leaders should live up to their commitments to restore democracy, but this formulation suggests that they have some sort of right to make any commitment about the form of government of Thailand, that they are legitimate actors, which they are not.

The British soldier convicted of a war crime in Iraq (Corporal Payne, can’t make this shit up) punched civilians in different body parts to elicit screams and groans. He called this his “choir,” and played it for anyone who visited the detention center, including total strangers. His confidence in his impunity might have been correct, had he not beaten a prisoner to death as well.

Connecting the dots

You’ll remember Ron Suskind’s explication of Cheney’s “one percent doctrine,” by which we have to act on vanishingly unlikely doomsday scenarios as if they were real. The equivalent to that in the debates on violent interrogations, warrantless eavesdropping etc is the metaphor that “we have to connect all the dots.” So while Rep. Peter King of NY, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said last week that “If we capture bin Laden tomorrow and we have to hold his head under water to find out when the next attack is going to happen, we ought to be able to do it” (did I mention this thug is the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee?), he’s missing the point: we have to listen in on every phone call, read every email message, and hold every head under water which might provide us, not with the location of a ticking bomb, but with any minuscule “dot,” some trivial piece of information that might possibly, when combined with dozens or hundreds of other dots extracted by similar means, add up to the location of a ticking bomb.

Thinking about them

Bush met with Iraqi President Talibani yesterday.


He said, “I spoke today at the United Nations, and in my speech I spoke directly to the people of Iraq. I wanted them to know that we’re thinking about them during this difficult period of time.”

Since that sounded exactly like a sympathy card, I went to the Hallmark website to see if there was anything I could appropriate for this post, but just got too creeped out. Yick.

Still, I’m sure the people of Iraq are just so very grateful to hear that we’re thinking about them during this difficult period of time.


And today Bush met with Palestinian President Abbas, and welcomed him to Washington, D.C. They were, of course, in New York.