The president obviously was just stunned

Trent Lott told CNN that it’s only people in the media who are asking whether rescue efforts were hampered by all the National Guard units being in Iraq. Anderson Cooper, doing a quieter version of his Howard Beale moment yesterday with Mary Landrieu, said no, there’s a guy down the street here who just said that to me.

Lott said of Bush’s tour of the wreckage: “The president obviously was just stunned”. Uh no, that’s his normal expression.

The BBC showed a large group of stranded refugees (and I honestly don’t understand the problem black leaders seem to have with that term) in New Orleans, getting no help at all from the authorities, then pulled the camera back to show 20 cops a block away, all focusing their attention on a single looter.

If somebody would like terms about which to get pissy when applied to American cities, how about “shoot to kill policy” and “urban warfare” (the latter being the conditions under which FEMA is operating, according to its head, Michael Brown). Or the commander of the National Guard promising to “put down” violence “in a quick and efficient manner,” using guard troops back from Iraq and “highly proficient in the use of lethal force.”

I’m not satisfied with all the results

Bush clarifies the “not acceptable” comment: “I am satisfied with the response. I’m not satisfied with all the results.” The operation was successful, but the city died.

Bush: “You know, there’s a lot of sadness, of course. But there’s also a spirit here in Mississippi that is uplifting.” So that’s all right then.

We’re not into the blame game

New Orleans asks, “Is Dennis Hastert worth reclaiming?”

LA. Governor Blanco, asked by Diane Sawyer how many people died because of the incompetent governmental response: “We’re not into the blame game.”

Bush: “A lot of people are working hard to help those who have been affected, and I want to thank the people for their efforts. The results are not acceptable.”

Bush is going on a tour, but promises not to enjoy it: “I’m not looking forward to this trip. ... It’s as if the entire Gulf Coast were obliterated by the worst kind of weapon you can imagine”. Stupidity?

(Update: Dennis Kucinich: “Indifference is a weapon of mass destruction.”)

The war comes home

Iraq is now truly liberated and free: it resumed executing people today, three of them.

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco:

“Three hundred of the Arkansas National Guard have landed in the city of New Orleans. These troops are fresh back from Iraq, well trained, experienced, battle tested and under my orders to restore order in the streets. They have M-16s and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.”

See what’s going on here? She’s telling the Guards that the “looters” (who are distinguishable by their skin color) are sub-humans who need to be shot down in the streets like dogs or Iraqis. At the same time she’s telling the residents of New Orleans they’d better behave because the Guards she’s sicced on them are animals, I mean have you seen the things they did in Iraq? and they like to kill (what else does “more than willing” mean?) so don’t fuck with them.

Divide and rule the under-class, the first rule of governance since time immemorial.

New Orleans = Fallujah

Bionic Octopus has it exactly right: they’re focusing on the criminal acts of a few of the people in New Orleans who might just feel that they’re being left to starve to death, as an excuse for their failure to bring in the relief they promised or carry out the evacuation in a competent and timely fashion. If this sounds eerily familiar, it’s because this is the excuse we’ve been hearing for two years now for the failed reconstruction in Iraq. They’re trying to make us think of the “looters” as the equivalent, or at least lesser versions of, Iraqi guerillas.
(Update: And just as unworthy of life. Via Media Matters, Peggy Noonan wrote today: “I hope the looters are shot.” Bitch.)

Those looters, those people who refused to evacuate their homes, why do they hate America?

Bush and Katrina: The devastation I saw was very emotional

Bush can no longer, if he ever could, distinguish between the real world and what goes on inside his chimp-like head: “The devastation I saw was very emotional. It is so devastating it is hard to describe it.”

He said, “I just can’t imagine waving a sign that says ‘Come and get me now.’” Well he doesn’t need to: every time he gets that little pouty look like he’s about to cry, Dick Cheney comes running up to get him.

He wants “zero tolerance” for looting and insurance fraud, and suggests that citizens “take personal responsibility [advice from the master of personal responsibility] and assume a kind of a civic sense of responsibility so that the situation doesn’t get out of hand, so people don’t exploit the vulnerable.” Like Wal-Mart. So he wants vigilantism now. “Zero tolerance” (including the shifting of New Orleans police from rescue operations to anti-looting) privileges property over people.

(Update: a reporter asked McClellan if zero tolerance applies to the many people who have received no aid and are “looting” food and water. Scotty says yes, because he insists the relief effort is perfectly adequate and “There are ways for them to get that help. Looting is not the way for them to do it.” Basically, they’re too lazy to make their way to wherever the aid is and are just taking the easy way out, just like they were too lazy or stupid or stubborn to evacuate. Fucker.)

Or possibly the vulnerable person Bush didn’t want exploited was himself, as he fashioned the disaster into another shield behind which to hide from criticism: “I hope people don’t play politics at this time of a natural disaster”. Yes, let’s not mention the National Guard units sent to Iraq or the money shifted away from flood control projects to, again, Iraq, or the complete falsity of his claim that “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees” (a sentence that would have been completely truthful had he just stopped after the third word). “And what we need to do as a nation is come together to solve the problem and not play politics. There’ll be ample time for politics.” Yeah and he’ll be sure to tell us when that time comes and it is okay to criticize him again.

Also, this is not a “problem” that can be “solved.” That phrasing suggests yet again Bush’s short attention span. He thinks this can be solved so he can move on to something else.

Showing a keen understanding and that incisive grasp of events that we all know and love, he points out, “Nine-eleven was a manmade attack, this was a natural disaster.” But he loves all his criticism-deflecting catastrophes equally.

Posada update

The Dept of Heimat Security prosecutor, who is supposed to be trying to get Luis Posada Carriles deported to Venezuela (note, by the way: deported, not extradited, although Venezuela has demanded his extradition), instead more or less backed up his assertion that he would be tortured in Venezuela, even though Venezuela does not (at least not under the current government) torture people, nor would it be likely to torture an old man with a high profile if it did. Said the alleged prosecutor: “We have serious concerns about Mr. Posada’s claim to torture in Venezuela,” but helpfully added, “we have no opinion” about the claim. With the government not trying to deny the claim, the judge is forced to follow the only “evidence” that’s been presented, which was a statement, without supporting evidence, from one of Posada’s old cronies. Posada hopes to have his deportation deferred indefinitely, in which case he could actually be released. He plans to apply for US citizenship. (My sources: AP, the Miami Herald, Narcosphere.)

Independent and unbiased

Netanyahu, running against Sharon on a pro-settler, Palestinian-bashing platform, refers to Palestinians living in Jerusalem as a “siege.” “Who will overcome? It’s either them or us.”

Wales in a bottle.

A Reuters cameraman is consigned to 6 months in Abu Ghraib after a secret hearing in which he was unrepresented held by what the US military laughingly describes as “an independent and unbiased board and consists of nine members: six representatives of the Iraqi government ... and three senior multinational forces officers”. Independent. Unbiased. He was evidently arrested by Marines after they looked at the pictures he’d taken. Everyone’s a critic. This is a different Reuters cameraman than the one arrested a few days ago by the Marines who had just shot the soundman he worked with.

Varied origins and predilections

The (gay) mayor of Berlin is being criticized by some for sending a message of greeting to the second annual leather and fetish festival: “We are proud that people of varied origins and predilections feel at home in our city and celebrate together.”

Canada recognizes gay adultery (a woman has been allowed to divorce her husband on the grounds of adultery with another man), which I guess is progress of a sort. Is gay adultery legally recognized anywhere in the US?

Is it my imagination, or has the US really stepped up the use of aerial bombardment in Iraq?

The BBC World News reports that the people in Louisiana are now “waiting for Deliverance.” Great, after what they’ve been through, now they’re gonna have to squeal like a pig.

Synthesis

The selling of the Iraqi constitution to the American people continues apace. On Meet the Press Sunday, Ambassador Khalizad was asked if 1,800 Americans had really died to create an Islamic republic and replied, “The words that you read are exactly the same words that were in the constitution of Afghanistan which we celebrated.” So that’s okay then. Evidently this constitution is “a new synthesis between the universal principles of democracy and human rights and traditions in Islam.” Ohhhh, we thought there might be some contradiction there, but it’s a synthesis, why didn’t you say so before.

And the grubbier and messier events on the ground are, the more elevated Bush’s rhetoric becomes. Today:

We will prevail because this generation is determined to meet the threats of our time. We will prevail because this generation wants to leave a more hopeful world for our children and grandchildren. We will prevail because the desire to live in freedom is embedded in the soul of every man, woman and child on this Earth. And we will prevail because our freedom is defended by the greatest force for liberation that humankind has ever known, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

From the BBC:

Families of Israeli Arabs shot dead on a bus in Galilee are not considered terrorism victims because their killer was Jewish, the defence ministry says.

Under Israeli law, only attacks by "enemies of Israel" are considered terrorism, the ministry said.

The ruling means families of the four victims will not be entitled to the lifelong monthly payments given to Israeli victims of Palestinian attacks. ...

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, called the shooting "a despicable act by a bloodthirsty terrorist".

Pakistan requires candidates for election to public office to have a 10th-grade education, and has just decided that being educated in madrassas which are not regulated by the state doesn’t count.

I’m going to give the Palestinians a chance to develop a democracy

Must-read George Monbiot article on why the Iraqi referendum on the draft constitution will be a meaningless exercise and how the Iraqi people might have been involved in the process, making the final product their own rather than the result of haggling behind doors which are not only closed, but guarded by the troops of an occupying army.

Still, there must have been some real compromise to produce what demonstrators in Tikrit today called a “Zionist-American-Iranian constitution.”

Bush today: “I hope you’ve watched what has happened in the Holy Land. [Does he have to use that term?] Prime Minister Sharon made a courageous decision to remove settlements out of Gaza. He said to the world, I’m going to give the Palestinians a chance to develop a democracy.” Yes, because Ariel Sharon is all about spreadin’ democracy, just like George!

And he describes the Iraqi draft constitution thus: “This constitution is one that honors women’s rights, and freedom of religion.” Well, freedom of one religion, anyway, and how many religions do you really need?

And finally, a caption contest.


1) What are these two laughing about? (And for extra points, what might the cropped-off parts of that banner say?)
(Update: oh dear, he really was promoting his Medicare drug benefit at... El Mirage, Arizona.)


2) That’s McCain’s birthday cake. Tell us what he’s thinking/saying, and/or what’s written on the cake.

Get well soon, Vice President al-Yawer

From the Guardian:

The country’s Sunni vice president, Ghazi al-Yawer, did not show up at a Sunday ceremony marking completion of the document. When President Jalal Talabani said that al-Yawer was ill, senior government officials including Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi howled with laughter.

The WaPo reports on the increasing number of state measures imposing burdens on women seeking abortions and raising the legal status of fetuses. South Dakota even passed a law that would go into effect if Roe v Wade were overturned, because they don’t want to wait even a single day (although surely passing an unconstitutional law is just a little bit unconstitutional itself). This country still has a pro-choice majority, but legislatures are acting as if supporters of abortion rights will not exact a price from legislators who nibble away at those rights. Hopefully they’re wrong. D’s are increasingly acting as if the whole issue is toxic and they wish it would go away, which doesn’t bode well for their willingness to fight the right-to-lifers if Roe is reversed.

And perhaps some Kurds who are concerned about the constitution

BBC headline: “UN Shocked by Kosovo Serb Deaths.” Yes, violence in the former Yugoslavia, shocking. That peaceful land has lost its innocence.

I know I’ve been commenting about headlines a lot, but I do read the stories too, honest.

Bush, in a statement oddly juxtaposing storm relief and patting himself on the back for the wondrous events going on in the Iraq that exists only inside his chimp-like head, does admit there might be some friendly differences of opinion: “And I suspect that when you get down to it, you’ll find a Shiia who disagrees with the constitution and Shiia who support the constitution, and perhaps some Kurds who are concerned about the constitution.” Yeah I suspect that perhaps that’s the case too.

Sunni buy-in

BBC headline: “Underground Chinese Bishop Dies.” Well that’s convenient.

Sunday Telegraph headline that I just can’t tell if they realized how tasteless it was: “British Diplomat Extends Helping Hand to Europe’s Last Leper Colony.” In Romania, if you were wondering.

The WaPo has a story sub-headlined “Iraqi Draft Fails To Win Support of All Sunni Delegates.” Which under-states it just a bit, since the article fails to name a single Sunni supporter. Yesterday Chalabi, no, it was an aide to Chalabi, was asked to name one; he cited the speaker of the National Assembly, who denied it. (The LAT, however, quotes the defense minister, who it describes as a “secular Sunni Arab,” whatever that means, attacking the Sunnis on the constitutional committee because one is a truck driver and the other, he says, was an intelligence officer under Saddam Hussein.) US Ambassador Khalilzad is quoted twice by the WaPo on the need for a “Sunni buy-in,” a phrase not exactly redolent of Jeffersonian idealism. The document that will be rammed through the Nat. Assembly later today is not really a constitution, since it leaves fundamental questions, like the mechanisms of federalism, to be decided later by a simple majority of the parliament. The reason you have a separate body write a constitution is that 1) a body such as the next parliament shouldn’t decide on its own powers, 2) voters shouldn’t have to vote for people whose powers have not yet been determined.

And over in Afghanistan, things aren’t going so well either, but there aren’t enough American casualties for anybody to be asking whether there’s an exit strategy there. Well ok, they may be asking that in Afghanistan, but here, not so much. The WaPo notes about next month’s elections, “candidates who are suspected of involvement in atrocities can only be barred from running if they were convicted of an offense. But there have been no war crimes trials to date, and many former militia commanders were given posts in the transitional post-Taliban government in an attempt to win their support for democracy.” All this time there has been only one branch of government in Afghanistan, the executive, and Karzai has imposed an electoral system for the parliamentary elections which I’ve never heard of before, in which voters have only one vote in multi-seat constituencies. This will produce a fractious, disorganized and unrepresentative parliament too weak to challenge Karzai, whose power would therefore continue to be that of a dictator, if it operated beyond a few square blocs of Kabul.

We don’t accept that a non-Iraqi should try to enforce his control over Iraqis

Guerilla porn: separatist rebels in Tripura, India, are raising money by producing pornographic films, using kidnapped women (and, to a lesser extent, men).

Bush today: “the Iraqis are grappling with difficult issues, such as the role of the federal government. What is important is that Iraqis are now addressing these issues through debate and discussion -- not at the barrel of a gun.” Is there maybe another entirely different Iraq?

Here’s something that happened in the Good Universe Iraq, according to Bush:

We saw that unity earlier this month when followers of the terrorist Zarqawi tried to force Shiite Muslims to leave the Iraqi city of Ramadi. Sunni Muslims in that city came to the defense of their Shiite neighbors. As one Sunni leader put it, “We have had enough of Zarqawi’s nonsense. We don’t accept that a non-Iraqi should try to enforce his control over Iraqis.”

Yes... a non-Iraqi... trying to enforce his control over Iraqis... that would be bad.

Of course to Chimpy, “chutzpah” probably sounds French

Bush’s argument for continuing the war to honor the (American) dead, it occurs to me, is rather like the classic definition of chutzpah, someone who kills his parents and asks for lenience because he is an orphan.

The University of California system is being sued by religious schools for a new admissions policy I didn’t know about, not certifying high school science courses that teach creationism, as well as other overly religious courses.

Our troops overwhelmingly want reassurance

General Richard Myers, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is finally at long last thinking ahead about Iraq. He is planning strategically to assign blame for that clusterfuck and, surprise surprise, it’s the old stab-in-the-back theory (Dolchstoß in the original German, and most recently seen in the smearing of John Kerry for undermining the national will to win in Vietnam). The soldiers are all great and “want to finish the job at hand” and don’t think they’re losing at all, says Myers, but “Our troops overwhelmingly want reassurance that they will be allowed to finish what we began four years ago.” Really, that’s what the troops want, reassurance that they can stay in Iraq waiting for victory, or an IED as the case might be? “This military can do anything as long as they have the will and resolve of the American people.” No it can’t. It can’t turn another country into a liberal, democratic, peaceful state by military means, and your failure to understand that is an ongoing problem. Stop blaming the media for not showing all the good news. Stop talking about our nation’s “will and resolve,” because closing our eyes and wishing really hard will not actually change the facts on the ground in Iraq.

This sort of talk is no longer about trying to silence the war critics. The US has already lost and I think Myers, if not Bush and Rumsfeld, knows this. It’s about explaining why it wasn’t his fault. Good luck with that, Myers, you’ll need it.

Boyo

The juxtaposition of three stories in the UK news section of the Indy shows that Britain has its priorities well and truly straight; it 1) deported a mother and her 4 children to Malawi, despite protests from their neighbors, 2) is about to deport Iraqis back to the, you know, safe parts of Iraq, despite protests by the UN High Commissioner on Refugees, 3) fined a local councillor in South Lanarkshire (Scotland) £750 for a “racially aggravated breach of the peace” for calling a Welshman “boyo.”

Home Secretary Charles Clarke reacted to the UN criticism of his plan to deport any wogs foreigners for a long list of “unacceptable behaviours” by accusing the UN of coddling terrorists: “The human rights of those people who were blown up on the Tube in London on July 7, are, to be quite frank, more important than the human rights on the people who committed those acts.” Clarke gets it entirely wrong in a way that demonstrates his failure to understand the concept of human rights, which is worrying but not uncommon in a home secretary. Human rights are by definition rights which accrue to humans. Those of some humans are not less important than those of other humans, because all humans are in fact human. Stop me if this is too fucking complicated.

The Times says “The Home Office says that Muslim leaders helped them to identify these undesirables, but officials refuse to name the Islamic groups involved.” The largest Muslim groups deny having named names. What the HO is doing here, claiming Muslims are finking for them but we can’t say who, is a blatant, indeed astoundingly blatant, divide-and-conquer tactic to make Muslims suspicious of each other. And its blatancy won’t make it less effective.

A member of Thailand’s cabinet, a woman involved in a lawsuit has disclosed, had silicone injected into his penis. But which one? Which member, not which penis. Oh dear, I said member, didn’t I?

A library in the Netherlands will start loaning out human beings. You can check out a homosexual (so to speak), a Gypsy, a drug addict, etc, and ask them about their lives for an hour.

And from the Guardian: “Belarus retaliated against Lithuania’s decision to build a radioactive waste dump close to their shared border by announcing plans to put two giant pig farms in sniffing distance of its neighbour.”

‘Take him out’ can be a number of things

Normally I’d invite you to provide captions for this picture,

and you may still do so, but I need to identify the woman for you. Bush’s people found themselves an anti-Cindy Sheehan, a Stakhanovite military mother, Tammy Pruett (even the name is over-the-top homespun) who has not one, not two, not three, but four sons in the military in Iraq. Come back with your hillbilly armor or on it, she told them.

Bush said, at that event in Idaho, that after 9/11, “We faced a clear choice. We could hunker down, retreating behind a false sense of security, or we could bring the war to the terrorists, striking them before they could kill more of our people.” I’m sorry, that was the choice? First, putting aside the whole “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside America” thing, who had a false sense of security after 9/11? So that’s obviously not actually a choice at all (the word “false” was kind of a clue), and what he’s saying is that there was only one choice, doing exactly what he did.

He says of the “Terrorists [who] have converged on Iraq” (he’s still pretending that only non-Iraqis are fighting us; I think he secretly believes that the Iraqis actually did dance in the streets and throw rose petals in our path) that they “lack popular support so they’re targeting innocent Iraqis with car bombs and suicide attacks.” As opposed to the smart bombs and depleted uranium shells we used?

Pat Robertson takes back, sorta, the whole hey-I-know-let’s-assassinate-Hugo-Chavez thing, saying, “I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.” I’ve read that sentence several times now, and I can only think that by “accommodate,” he means “not assassinate.” And then he compared Chavez to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, so it wasn’t really much of an apology. When I first wrote about this, I didn’t include a joke I decided was a bit weak, that Robertson wasn’t advocating breaking any commandments because it says Do Not Kill, not Do Not “Take Out.” But today Robertson himself gave a variant of that joke, saying his comments had been taken out of context: “I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ [Actually, he did] I said our special forces should ‘take him out.’ And ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him.” And you could have meant “take him out to dinner and a movie,” but you didn’t. You could have meant “take him out to the ball game, take him out with the crowd, buy him some peanuts and Cracker Jacks, I don’t care if he ever gets back, wink wink,” but again, you didn’t.

Checking back through my old notes (which are archived dating back to 1986, links on the right, I pause to remind you), I find that Robertson said in February 1988 (when he was running for president) that he would have had Qadaffi offed (and that he wanted Ollie North as his veep; I’d forgotten that). And he sent money to the Contras and RENAMO.

Honoring the dead

20 months ago, the WaPo reports, the Pentagon decided that 15 Chinese Muslims, Uighurs, being held at Guantanamo had either done nothing wrong, at least not to us. They haven’t been released because they can’t be sent back to China. My favorite detail: nobody bothered telling them for some months that they had been cleared. My favorite new piece of military jargon: the Justice Dept says it has the right to hand on to them under its “wind-up power,” the power to hold onto POWs for a while at the end of a war while making arrangements to return them.

The Post also has a lively story about a near major prison break by Iraqis held by the US, who dug a 357-foot tunnel, involving the removal of 100 tons of dirt. Full of great details. Only took 5 months for anybody to tell us about it.

Bush has responded to Cindy Sheehan after all, by a slight change in rhetoric. Seeing that the death of her son gave her so much moral authority, he has taken to trying to give himself stature by standing on top of his much higher stack of corpses, even going so far Monday as to say out loud for the first time the number of dead. Suddenly they’re useful to him, even Casey Sheehan, as the basis for an argument that the dead need to be “honored” by continuing the war. “We will finish the task that they gave their lives for. We will honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive against the terrorists etc etc”. We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here...