Soft on Terror.

Rushing off a cliff:

Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

…We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.
The New York Times may not blame Democrats for being frightened, but I do. In fact, their willingness to betray American principles out of the fear that doing the right thing will come back to haunt them in elections makes that oft-repeated claim of conservatives right: The Democrats really are soft on terror.

Not the terror that exists outwith our borders, but the terror that rules within. The Bush administration has spent every day since September 11, 2001 making sure that we are a phobic nation, paralyzed with fear and thusly complacent and compliant. They terrorized us into supporting an unnecessary war with mendacious imagery of mushroom clouds and dirty bombs, terrorized us into reelecting them with politically-timed terror warnings, terrorized us into going along with whatever subversion of our Constitution the Bush administration suggests is necessary to protect us.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of the administration’s most reliable fearmongers during his tenure, gravely warned opponents of their terror strategy in December 2001, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.” It was the first step in marglinzalizing dissenters as traitors and terrorist sympathizers—a page right out of Third Reich second-in-command Hermann Göring’s playbook: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

And so it has worked here.

The Bush administration has wrought a reign of terror used to coerce the American people into giving up their rights and freedoms, and confer upon the executive branch an unprecedented centralization of power. And fear of losing elections, of being seen as “soft on terror,” has made most Democrats go along with this effective coup nearly every step of the way. In the end, they have shown themselves to be what they most fear being seen as—unwilling and unable to stare terror in the face and stop it in its tracks. I’ve no doubt that a Democratic leadership would be better for fighting the brand of terrorism incessantly invoked by the Bush administration to cow us, the kind that induces in a cringing and teeth-chattering electorate images of swarthy men in turbans with bombs strapped to their chests. But the Dems have proven themselves patently incapable of fighting the brand of terrorism that haunts us at home, that emanates from the top levels of our government and wrenches from our hands the liberty and principles that Bush’s “war on terror” is meant to defend.

Too much time worrying about perceptions of their support for the War on Terror has left the Democrats hopelessly inept in fighting the War of Terror that’s being waged in America. And, quite frankly, being capable of fighting terror from foreign enemies is of no use if they’re incapable of saving us from the domestic terrorists who will destroy everything that was ever worth protecting.

Open Wide...

Weren't You Supposed to be Greeting Us With Flowers or Something?

Iraqis Back Attacks on US Troops

WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.

The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.

The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:

_Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

_About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.

_An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

_Three-fourths say they think the United States plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

_A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case.

This is how much I care.

Open Wide...

Uh, Good Effort, I Guess...

Crooks & Liars has the video and rough transcript of Barak Obama's speech on the floor from yesterday:

Obama.. that’s a quote. we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detaineeed in New York, sent to Syria a rendition agreement, tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. In this war where terrorists can plot undetected from within our borders, it is absolutely vital that our law enforcement agencies are able to detain and interrogate whoever they believe to be a suspect and so it is understandable that mistakes will be made, and identities will be confused.

I don’t blame the government for that. this is an extraordinarily difficult war that we’re prosecuting against terrorists. and there are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person, but what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes mistakes. by giving suspects a chance, even one chance ngs , to challenge the terms of their denengs in court, to — detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the government has detained the right person, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.
I'm really not sure how I feel about this. As a Chicago resident that voted for Obama, I've got to say I've been a little underwhelmed by his performance so far. (Yes, I realize he's a freshman senator.) Frankly, for an issue this important, I want a little more fire at the podium; not "mistakes will be made." And unless you're saying "fillibuster," this is all smoke and mirrors. This is a time for action. Stop being afraid of looking "soft on terror."

Then again, I suppose I should be glad that a Democrat is willing to speak about this at all.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Small Wonder

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Someone has offered to purchase you a one-way ticket anywhere in the world, wherever you want to go, and set you up with a decent job and legal residency status. Where do you go? Or do you stay where you are?

Open Wide...

Crabtastical

Fuck, I'm pissed off today.

ARGH.

Open Wide...

Secure This

Feel the economy, as it swells and throbs with awesomeness, fuck you straight up the ass:

The average cost of a family insurance plan that Americans get through their jobs has risen another 7.7 percent this year, to $11,500, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In only seven years, the cost has doubled, while incomes and company revenue, which pay for health insurance, haven’t risen nearly as much.
In fact, incomes are down—and wages “make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, although corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s.”

All we ever hear from the Bush administration and the GOP is how they’re making us safer. But all they’re talking about (and speciously, at that) is safety from terrorism. There are all kinds of ways in which many Americans are much less safe than they were four years ago—and the rising cost and decreasing availabiliy of healthcare is one of them. Without healthcare, or shitty coverage that leaves you gravely exposed financially should disaster strike, you’re not safe, your savings aren’t safe, your house isn’t safe (and less safe than ever, thanks to the ass-sucking bankruptcy bill), and your dependents aren’t safe.

Fuck national security. How’s your domestic security, America? Is your job secure? Do you have guaranteed and affordable healthcare? Do you feel like you’ve got a safety net, or are you living on a precipice with nothing below but an abyss waiting to envelope you with a single misstep?

How about it, Security Moms? Does voting Republican ostensibly to keep your kids safe from terrorism even fucking matter if you can’t afford their bloody innoculations?!

Fuck!

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo



"I’m gonna fuck the shit outta that thing."

President George W. Bush and Laura Bush view the U.S. Constitution with National Archivist John Carlin, second on left, and Senior Curator Stacy Bredhoff, second on right, while touring the National Archives in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Eric Draper.)

Open Wide...

I’m Sorry, Minnesotans

Republicans will hold their 2008 presidential convention in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Open Wide...

FYI

I just saw this at MetaFilter:

Feeling sick and thinking of buying over-the-counter cold medicine like Sudafed or Claritin-D? Be prepared to wait in line at the pharmacy counter, show a photo ID, and sign a log book. The nationwide restriction of medication containing pseudoephedrine or ephedrine begins this weekend. Why? Those 2 ingredients are used to make meth. (NPR audio piece).
And here’s a little extra doubleplusgoodness for you. The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which is part of the Patriot Act not only “bans over-the-counter sales of cold medicines that contain the ingredient pseudoephedrine” and limits the “amount of pseudoephedrine that an individual can purchase each month,” but also requires stores “to keep personal information about purchasers for at least two years.

Yay!

Open Wide...

Nice

Page Six: “MSNBC loudmouth Keith Olbermann flipped out when he opened his home mail yesterday. The acerbic host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was terrified when he opened a suspicious-looking letter with a California postmark and a batch of white powder poured out. A note inside warned Olbermann, who's a frequent critic of President Bush's policies, that it was payback for some of his on-air shtick. The caustic commentator panicked and frantically called 911 at about 12:30 a.m., sources told The Post's Philip Messing. An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to Olbermann's pad on Central Park South, but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn't enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup. He asked to be taken to St. Luke's Hospital, where doctors looked him over and sent him home. Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn't known. Olbermann had no comment.”

Yeah, what a nut for wanting to get checked out at a hospital. Do you think the Rupert Murdoch-owned Post would be quite so sassy if it were one of the hosts of a show at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News that received a threatening letter with faux-anthrax? Something tells me if it were Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity who’d gone through this scare, we wouldn’t be hearing about lollipops, but musing about how the dirty liberal traitors in this country were becoming terrorists.

Yo, Hillary—do you think you can stop gallivanting at fundraisers with Rupert Murdoch now?

Meanwhile, David Neiwert reminds The Post that this horseshit is a federal crime.

Open Wide...

Wit’s End

Balkin:

If the Democrats do not stand up to the President on this bill, if they refuse to filibuster it or even threaten to filibuster it, they do not deserve to win any additional seats in the House or in the Senate. They will have delivered a grievous blow to our system of checks and balances, stained America's reputation around the world, and allowed an obscenity to disfigure the American system of law and justice. Far worse than a misguided zealot is the moral coward who says nothing and allows that zealotry to do real harm.
What do we do? The GOP is on a crash course toward a fascist dictatorship, the Dems are happy to carry their luggage, the media is useless, most of the American people can’t even be bothered to pay attention to what’s going on, no less care, and those of us who do are screaming until we’re blue in the faces to no avail. Blogging about it, talking about it, writing our Senators and Representatives about it isn’t doing jack shit. So what do we do?

I don’t want to go down as a moral coward who did nothing, but I don’t know what to do. March on Washington? (Can we get there in time? Will the media cover it? Would it even make a difference?) Storm the local media? Leave the country?

I’m at a loss. I’m out of ideas.

All I know is that is it impossible for me to resign myself to this madness.

Open Wide...

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing


So, the big retailers got their way, and today, the first Chicago Wal-Mart opened on the west side. (Bolds mine)

CHICAGO -- Self-professed "shopaholic" Julie Edwards arrived at Chicago's first Wal-Mart store two hours before its grand opening Wednesday -- and she wasn't alone.

Lines snaked around the mega-retailer's West Side building long before it opened, filled with residents excited to welcome the store, its bargains and its jobs to the area.

"I love this store," Edwards said. "It's about time we get nice stores in this neighborhood."

Bringing Wal-Mart to Chicago was a four-year journey that pitted unions and small business owners against politicians and activists eager to bring jobs to the city's economically depressed West Side.

More than 15,000 people applied for the 400 jobs at the new store, where an estimated 98 percent of workers live in the neighborhood, said store manager Ed Smith.

So, 98 percent of the workers come from an economically depressed area. And really, I'm trying not to be a complete cynic. That does mean that there are 400 jobs in the area that weren't there before. But, I'm afraid I do have to do a little balloon bursting.
The store's opening comes two weeks to the day after aldermen failed to override Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's veto of the city's so-called "big-box ordinance."

The measure would have required large stores like Wal-Mart to pay workers at least $10 an hour -- plus $3 in fringe benefits -- by mid-2010. The rules would have applied only to companies with more than $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet.

At the time, Wal-Mart officials cheered the measure's defeat, saying the aldermen who voted against it were supporting "valuable job opportunities and increased savings for the working families of Chicago."

On Wednesday, Smith said the lowest paid person at the store makes $7.25 an hour, and only two workers make that.
Aside from the fact that Wal-Mart could well afford to pay their employees the wages and benefits that would have been guaranteed to them by the above measure, this "lowest wage" dancing doesn't answer important questions. What does the average person at the store make? Eight dollars? Nine? $7.45? Does anyone make ten dollars an hour, regardless of the measure's defeat?

And do they have benefits?

Well, not so much, anymore.
Among the most striking findings outlined in Wal-Mart’s 2007 benefits booklet is the substantial health care cost a low-paid Wal-Mart worker would be forced to pay under the so-called ‘Value’ plan. A typical individual Wal-Mart worker who enrolls in the Value Plan will face high upfront costs because of a series of high deductibles, including a minimum $1,000 deductible for individual coverage, a $1,000 in-patient deductible per visit, a $500 out-patient surgical deductible per visit, a $300 pharmacy deductible, and a maximum out of pocket expense of $5,000 for an individual per year.

In total, when factoring the maximum out-of-pocket expense and the cost of the yearly premium ($598 a year for an individual under the Value Plan), a typical full-time worker (defined by Wal-Mart as 34 hours) who earns 10.11 an hour or $17,874 a year, would have pay nearly 30 percent of their total income for health care costs alone.

Incredibly, the health care cost burden actually worsens should an uninsured Wal-Mart worker enroll their family under the Value Plan. Again, because of multiple deductibles for each family member, and when factoring in the cost of the medical premium ($780) and maximum out-of-pocket expense ($10,000), a Wal-Mart worker whose family is insured under the “Value Plan” could pay as much as 60 percent of their total income towards health care costs under Wal-Mart’s most “affordable “health care” plan.
Thirty percent of their total income. And that's if they make 10.11 an hour, which we know is what Wal-Mart was fighting against. As if that wasn't bad enough, how could anyone making under 20K a year afford to give away sixty percent of their total income for health care costs?

Well, I suppose you do without it.

As Ezra says:
More worryingly, Target has promised the same move. Which'll mean that the two largest retailers will both eschew traditional health care plans for low-cost (to the company), high-risk (to the employee), astonishingly stingy offerings. Now, of course, any retailers who seek to compete with them -- and that includes supermarkets, clothing outlets, and all the rest -- will be at a competitive disadvantage if they fund traditional health care plans for their employees. It also means producers will be under added pressure by Wal-Mart and Target to make the same shift in order to lower their labor costs and, thus, prices. If the producers refuse, Wal-Mart can simply replace them with their in-house brands. This is how a race to the bottom starts. This is how employer-based health security dies.
It's also how sick employees die. And keep in mind, this new standard applies to new Wal-Mart employees. Like the ones at this new Wal-Mart that apparently, Chicago couldn't do without. 98 percent of them. All from a disadvantaged area.

I kind of got taken to task by some people for grousing about the "big box ordinance;" many people shared the opinion of the woman in the first article: "I want to see them make $10 an hour, but if they can't, at least they can make something," Edwards said. "They're creating jobs for our community."

And that is true. Jobs in the community have been created. And yes, at least they're making something.

But keep this in mind: It's very expensive to be poor.
There are other tolls along the road well-traveled by the working poor. If your credit is lousy, which it is likely to be, you'll pay a higher deposit for a phone. If you don't have health insurance, you may end taking that feverish child to an emergency room, and please don't think of ER's as socialized medicine for the poor. The average cost of a visit is over $1,000, which is over ten times more than what a clinic pediatrician would charge. Or you neglect that hypertension, diabetes or mystery lump until you end up with a $100,000 problem on your hands.

So let's have a little less talk about how the poor should learn to manage their money, and a little more attention to all the ways that money is being systematically siphoned off. Yes, certain kinds of advice would be helpful: skip the pay-day loans and rent-to-pay furniture, for example. But we need laws in more states to stop predatory practices like $50 charges for check cashing. Also, think what some microcredit could do to move families from motels and shelters to apartments. And did I mention a living wage?
If Wal-Mart can come into an economically depressed area, the least they can do is offer a living wage, and provide a fair benefits package to the employees that work hard in their stores. However, they apparently are still too stingy to do this. As a result, although people will be making some money, the actual funds they are able to keep for living expenses, gas, food and health care will be whittled down to almost nothing.
For resident Donna Johnson, who used to travel to suburban Forest Park to shop at Wal-Mart, the West Side store represented unprecedented convenience.

"I think it'll make the neighborhood much, much better," she said. "People have to go so far out to shop. There's never been a store that has everything."
This is exactly how Wal-Mart works. By offering convenience, and the illusion of low prices, the inclusion of a big box store may seem to be, on the surface, a blessing for an economically disadvantaged community. I think opinions may change once local businesses begin to close, and workers realize they'll never be able to afford their health care costs. "Bargains" aren't going to change that.

All of the "benefits" of this store's opening go to Wal-Mart.

(Cross-posts are frequently, secretly fond of each other...)

Open Wide...

Banned Books Week


So this week is BBW, sponsored by the American Library Association for the 25th year. From the ALA:

BBW celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them. After all, intellectual freedom can exist only where these two essential conditions are met.


In 2005, the most challenged book was: It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health by Robie Harris. Unsurprisingly, it was challenged due to "sexual content". Actually, if you read the Amazon reviews, you can see one person call it "too graphic" and that kids "don't need to know everything before they're teenagers". I'm guessing that person doesn't have a copy of Harris' other book, It's So Amazing! A Book About Eggs, Sperm, Birth, Babies, and Families, which also made it into the Top 10 of challenged books (BTW, we own this one and it is a wonderful book if anyone is looking for this kind of book for their family).

The Top 10 List of Challenged Books for 2005 are:

* It's Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris (for homosexuality, nudity, sex education, religious viewpoint, abortion and being unsuited to age group);
* Forever by Judy Blume (for sexual content and offensive language);
* The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger (for sexual content, offensive language and being unsuited to age group);
* The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier (for sexual content and offensive language);
* Whale Talk by Chris Crutcher (for racism and offensive language);
* Detour for Emmy by Marilyn Reynolds (for sexual content);
* What My Mother Doesn't Know by Sonya Sones (for sexual content and being unsuited to age group);
* Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey (for anti-family content, being unsuited to age group and violence);
* Crazy Lady! by Jane Leslie Conly (for offensive languag); and
* It's So Amazing! A Book about Eggs, Sperm, Birth, Babies, and Families by Robie Harris (for sex education and sexual content).

We also have many of the Captain Underpants books thanks to our six-year-old and, well, I find them goofy but anti-family? WTF? And, of course, we also have the books that hold the top spot for the Top 10 Challenged of the 21st Century: the Harry Potter series.

Google has a banned books page set up within their book search feature: Celebrate Your Freedom to Read. Also, go here to vote for your favorite banned book.

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

Open Wide...

Ode to McCain

Inspired by PSoTD’s suggestion that some “enterprising liberal superblogger—one with the resources for such a project—should begin to compile every available photo of Bush and McCain together that is out there.” That’s all I needed to hear.


(You’ll have to turn it up because it’s kind of quiet, and sorry for the dead space at the end. The only software I have to do this suckzzz ass.)

Related reading: Brad Plumer. “Back at my old job, in the course of doing research on the defense budget, I came across a few congressional staffers who mentioned that John McCain would often rail loudly and stridently for hours and hours against all the waste and fraud in the annual defense bills, but when it came time to do something about it, he'd usually just sit back and fold his hands… Bloviate and do nothing. He's a real man of ‘principle,’ you see.”

Open Wide...

A Perfect Example

Crooks and Liars has posted a video showing Paul Waldman picking up bullshit artist John Stossel by the collar and giving him a good shaking. As entertaining as this is (his facial expressions are priceless... what an intelligent, mature way to debate a topic), and as entertaining as the smack in the puss Stossel gets from a pro wrestler in the video add-on at the end, I think this is an excellent example of how to deal with these liars on the right. As we have seen time and again, when they make ridiculous assertions, any direct confrontation demanding proof is met with stammers and excuses. "I'd have to look it up" is bullshit; if someone was smearing and slandering me, you can bet I'd know exactly what it was they were saying. And if this so-called "smear site" has referenced you fourteen times, you'd think he'd be able to remember one of them.

Anyway, this is schadenfreude, but if Stossel were to accuse me of that, I'd be more than happy to admit to it.

Now go away, Stossel, before I taunt you a second time.


(My baby takes the morning cross-post...)

Open Wide...

The Benefits of Living in Fantasyland

August reports back from his evening with the collective heads of knuckle known as Pajamas Media.

So I’m at a panel-slash-conservative happy hour hosted and attended by the A-list of DC’s right-wing blogosphere, and the first person I see as I walk in the door is Jeff Gannon. Awesome; six seconds in and I’ve met my first porn star.
Take a little trip and witness the clueless.

Open Wide...

Public Predations

Old Standards, New Words PR
Internal memo, re: The “Captain”


Let’s get the elephant (ha-ha) in the room out of the way. Obviously, this is a huge project we’ve been assigned, and one that’s going to be top priority for the entire firm. I’m tremendously excited about the opportunities here, real groundbreaking opportunities to change the way we as an industry and the public at large define “Public relations.” I’ve been getting a sense of that excitement in the halls- nice job on the banners, Debbie- and while, yes, we have lost a few members of the firm who weren’t entirely on board for our new direction, I like to think of it as winnowing away the dross. Or something to that effect. Regardless, best of luck to Mohammed, Terrance, and Ceila.

Before I continue, a big thank you to Larry Hardman, and an even bigger thank you to Larry’s dad, Elroy. If it wasn’t for the senior Hardman’s commitment to Halliburton, the “Captain” and his “crew” might have passed us over entirely. (Note: our new client is very concerned with secrecy, a concern I expect every employee to respect and keep in consideration. Whoever’s been whistling “Hail to the Chief” over the intercom the past few days needs to stop.)

The basic problem, as I see it, is perception. Like many of our previous clients, the “Captain” has made a number of difficult, high profile decisions in the past few years, and through no fault of his own, those decisions have tainted him in the eyes of the public. It’s one of the tragedies of our modern media age; good men are ruined by their past mistakes. Which, again, were probably not mistakes to begin with.

Our job here is to avoid direct debate over the hot-button topics (Iraq, wire-tapping, bigotry, conspiracy, fraud, brush-clearing)- we can’t get dragged into petty squabbles, we need to focus on the big picture, and we need to change that big picture until its something that the majority people can support without getting worked up that some stranger is getting his teeth bashed in some country none of them can spell.

To that effect, here are a few ideas we’ve spit-balled up in the main office:

1. FREE ICE CREAM- It’s simple, it’s direct, and all it requires is a small investment in setting up special goodwill parlors in major cities across the country. Everybody likes free things, everybody likes ice cream (there might be some fall out from diabetics and dentists, but nobody likes them anyway), and each free cup will have a picture of the “Captain”’s smiling face, with the logo, “This One’s On Me.” We’re aiming for sort of a Mark Twain/God image, without all the bothersome bitterness/Old Testament crap.

2. JESUS! JESUS! PUPPIES! AND JESUS!- Clearly, we can’t provide Jesus and puppies to more than few hundred citizens, but this is more of a poster campaign. The “Captain” is in favor of both of Jesus and puppies, and that people have forgotten this fact is a sad statement about American and world politics in general. I’m thinking we do some photo-ops with the dogs (and possibly Jesus, or perhaps an actor playing Jesus? Get that Cavaziel guy, everyone recognizes him), we remind folks that the “Captain” is gregarious and warm-hearted, and we indicate- without ever coming out and saying it- that anyone who disagrees with him is against Jesus, puppies and basic human decency.

3. WELL, YOU’RE NOT DEAD YET, SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST SHUT UP- Torture is, clearly, the trickiest issue we have to deal with. At least, it’s the trickiest issue that we’re willing to deal with. (There should be no references to “Iraq” or “the war” in any part of this campaign, unless in the context of a humorous pun, ala “I’m stuck between Iraq and a hard place!”) The crucial aspect here is reminding Americans that, in general, they aren’t the one’s being tortured, so why are they so worked up about it? The people they see on the news are, essentially, as fictional as the people they see in the movies, and I heard Hostel did decent box office. There have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, and so logically, that means the torture has been working. (Note: we need a more image-positive term here, like “physical interrogation enhancement.”) Also, anyone who gets tortured deserves it, because they have information we need, or else why would we be torturing them in the first place?

These are just some basic starting points. I’d like teams working on the implementation of each specific concept, as well as some general brainstorming from everyone on the best ways to approach re-aligning the world with the “Captain”’s particular vision. I see great things in the coming months.

Sincerely,
Alistair P. Husingbottoms

Ps. Should you wake up in the night in the next few weeks to find strange men going through your house, my advice is just to ignore them. I assume they’ll leave eventually; and even if they don’t, you’ll be amazed at how easy it is to get used to them.

Open Wide...

Oh, Great...

This is definitely not the first thing I needed to read this morning. (Bolds mine)

Bush to referee Karzai, Musharraf Dinner

WASHINGTON - President Bush jokes that he'll study the body language of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf at the dinner table on Wednesday to see how far their relationship has frayed.
Well, considering that Bush is The King of Obvious Body Language, one would hope that would be easy for him. Except that, you know, he's got no control over his own, so I don't know how the hell he'd expect to be able to read the body language of any intelligent beings.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting to the point that when Bush is about to enter into a very serious global diplomatic situation, and he's joking about it like it's Thanksgiving dinner, I get really twitchy and nervous.
Karzai respectfully calls Musharraf "my friend" and "my brother," yet the two are like sibling rivals when it comes to how to deal with Islamic extremists. Over dinner, Bush will play referee.
This is what it's come down to, folks. In one of the most dangerous parts of the world, George W. Bush has become important enough (in reality and in his own fevered mind) that he's involved in just about every diplomatic situation over there. A guy that probably couldn't even pronounce Karzai and Musharraf's names if it wasn't written out phonetically by Karl Rove is going to be their friggin' "referee," whatever the hell that means.

I've always said that we, as progressives, sometimes "misunderestimate" Bush. Sure, he's an idiot, but he's not stupid. He can be crafty, manipulative, clever, and he's never at a loss for ideas on how to really fuck other people over. That said, I also believe that Bush has no idea how to handle any global situations. This is all still just a big game of war in the sandbox to him; they're all toy soldiers that he's sending to be blown up.
Afghan officials allege that Pakistan is letting Taliban militants hide out and launch attacks into Afghanistan. Pakistan bristles at such charges. Without the United States playing mediator, the relationship between the two U.S. allies would be tense at best.

"We're kind of the glue that helps cement the two of them," said Peter Brookes, a foreign policy and national security expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Oh, Christ. If that's the case, can we please send someone to negotiate that won't try a sneak shoulder massage, or suddenly blurt out a fart joke? Don't send Cletus to defuse a bomb.
The White House dinner comes at a time of rising violence in Afghanistan. This month, a suicide bomber assassinated a provincial governor, a close associate of Karzai's. On Monday, Safia Ama Jan, a women's rights advocate who ran an underground school for girls during Taliban rule, was assassinated. The killing underscored the increasingly brazen attacks by militants on government officials and schools in Afghanistan.

Another spat between the neighbors focuses on the whereabouts of Taliban chief Mullah Omar and al-Qaida's Osama bin Laden.

Karzai said Omar is "for sure" in Pakistan. Musharraf says he's in Afghanistan.

On bin Laden, Karzai says: "If I told you he was in Pakistan, President Musharraf, my friend, would be mad at me. But if I said he was in Afghanistan, that would not be true."

Bush remains hopeful. His three-way dinner party, just weeks before the November congressional elections, comes as he is working to convince voters that Republicans are best able to guide the U.S.-led war against terrorism.
Ahhh, so that's why he's really going to be there. I'm shocked and amazed... it all has to do with votes. Yeah, well, good luck with that, Dingus.
"It's in President Karzai's interest to see (Osama) bin Laden brought to justice," Bush said Tuesday. "It is in President Musharraf's interest to see bin Laden brought to justice. Our interests coincide. It will be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are."
"Hoo doggie, I hope they get in a fight!" Good lord. I'll be so fucking glad when Bush is finally out of office, just so we won't hear this "I'll find this interesting" stupidity that he loves to burble at times like this. I'm amazed he didn't throw a "I'm looking forward to it" in there.
Barnett Rubin, director of studies and senior fellow at New York University's Center on International Cooperation, said he hopes Wednesday's dinner meeting will yield more than new talk of cooperation and how they're all "brothers in the war on terror."

If the three discuss real cooperation in ending Taliban command and control in Pakistan, or agree on a way to monitor border issues involving the Taliban, that would be a step forward, Rubin said. He said the three also should agree to have future trilateral meetings among themselves or their advisers.

Rubin says he'll also be watching Karzai's body language to get a clue about what happens at dinner.

"If he's mad, you'll probably be able to see it," Rubin said. "That'll mean that Musharraf is just stonewalling."
What the fuck is up with all of this body language reading? I mean, I know it's important to communication, but criminy, shouldn't everyone be more concerned with their plans and suggestions for negotiations than wondering if Karzai is going to scratch his nose in frustration at a key point? Of course you'll be able to see if he's mad, you lunatic... the point is, what are you going to do about it if he is?
Bush feels it's better to have half an ally in Pakistan in the form of Musharraf than none at all," said Husain Haqqani, director of the center for international relations at Boston University and a former adviser to several Pakistani prime ministers.

"Karzai will probably be told to tone down his rhetoric against Pakistan," he said. "But, in the end, will it really change the one-the-ground situation? I don't think so."
Great. So you're basically admitting that you're going to get together in a room, eat a cheese danish, dick around for a little while and accomplish nothing. And Bush will be in the center of everything, watchin' that there body language.

As Opus would say, if you need me, I'll be in the tub.

(Watchin' all my cross-posts... go swingin' down the drain...)

Open Wide...

Fuck

Rush to Error:

AFTER BARELY three weeks of debate, the Senate today will take up a momentous piece of legislation that would set new legal rules for the detention, interrogation and trial of accused terrorists. …Yet rather than carefully weigh the issues, Congress has allowed itself to be stampeded into a vote on hastily written but far-reaching legal provisions, in a preelection climate in which dissenters risk being labeled as soft on terrorism.

…What's important is that any legal system approved by Congress pass the tests set by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) months ago: that the United States can be proud of it, that the world will see it as fair and humane, and that the Supreme Court can uphold it.

The compromise legislation cobbled together in the past week by administration officials and a group of Republican senators, including Mr. Warner, doesn't pass those tests… Senators -- and this includes Democrats who have been largely and cravenly absent from this month's debate -- would do best to postpone action on the bill. Failing that, they should support amendments to correct the worst problems.
And there are some very serious problems.

1. The legislation attempts “to prevent U.S. courts from ruling on the treatment of prisoners in the future, including any procedures the Bush administration might adopt for interrogations… Normally the courts would provide a check on administration policies, but the bill would prevent this by banning prisoners from bringing lawsuits over their detention and treatment.”

2. The legislation allows “foreign civilians in the United States or even U.S. citizens” to be deemed enemy combatants and thusly “arrested and held without charge indefinitely on grounds that they supported hostilities against the United States.… Endorsement of this standard by Congress would give extraordinary power to the Defense Department to arrest and hold foreigners and Americans without charge.”

With the president’s “with us or against us” rhetoric, and the repeated insistence by members of the Bush administration and their media shills to refer to dissenters as “traitors” and “terrorist sympathizers,” the possibility that a line will be drawn from principled opposition to “supporting hostilities against the US” is chilling. What does it mean for someone with a blog who regularly criticizes the administration’s strategy against terror? What does it mean for peace activists? What does it mean for protestors? What does it mean for elected members of the opposition party who dare to speak out against the war? This is scary stuff—and the Democrats are sealing their own fates and ours if they don’t do everything in their power to prevent this bill from becoming law.

Unfortunately, the NY Times reports:

Democrats, who have found themselves on the losing end of the national security debate the past two national elections, said the changes to the bill had not yet reached a level that would cause them to try to block it altogether.

“We want to do this,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. “And we want to do it in compliance with the direction from the Supreme Court. We want to do it in compliance with the Constitution.”
Deplorable. The Bush administration is eagerly trying to “give extraordinary power to the Defense Department to arrest and hold foreigners and Americans without charge,” and the Dems feel that isn’t enough to warrant a filibuster. Unbelievable.

Glenn Greenwald says: “It has been painfully obvious ever since the torture ‘compromise’ was announced that Democrats would not get near a real filibuster, but are we really going to have to be subjected to large numbers of Democratic Senators actually voting for this atrocity and even cheering it on? It looks that way.”

It certainly does. And over the next two years, if and when this legislation is used in nefarious ways we have yet begun to imagine (Susie Madrak points out “this would probably mean suspending habeas corpus for accused American drug dealers, since they have previously been designated as ‘supporting the war on terror’ by BushCo”), the Democratic nominees in 2008 will be dancing around trying to justify this vote, just like they’ve had to do for their war authorization. And their ridiculous dissembling, as they try to distance themselves from giving bipartisan cover to one of the grossest assaults on American principles ever legislated, will usher in another Republican administration, so the slow decline of a once-great nation can continue unabated.

Open Wide...