Month: July 2005

I think we know what happened. It’s slowly coming into view. During the Clinton administration we orchestrated a disinformation campaign about Saddam Hussein and Iraq in order to justify our continued presence in the Gulf, and to justify the interminable sanctions regime.

Policy makers were divided over what to do about Iraq. After all, Bill Clinton didn’t launch the Persian Gulf War, and most Democrats voted against it. Clinton inherited an intractable problem, and one that caused ever increasing international tensions.

It appears that sometime around 1996 the CIA was tasked with fomenting an internal coup, but the coup attempt was either compromised or called off at the last minute.

By 1998, Clinton was embroiled in scandal, bin-Laden attacked our African embassies, and our foreign policy became confused and unfocused. Acting on Clinton’s weakness, a bi-partisan group of energy hawks forced through the Iraq Liberation Act which stated:

On Halloween, 1998, Clinton signed the act into law.

In spite of this, Clinton never seriously contemplated regime change after 1996. At least internally, the CIA gave honest intelligence assessments. In December 2000, “the intelligence agencies issued a classified assessment stating that Iraq did not appear to have taken significant steps toward the reconstitution of the [nuclear] program, according to the presidential commission report concerning illicit weapons.” link

Early on in the Bush presidency we heard some moments of truth. For example, on February 24th, 2001, Colin Powell was in Egypt where he talked about Iraq:

On May 15th, 2001, Powell testified before Congress:

Both Clinton and Bush found it useful to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein. We were under pressure to lift the sanctions on Iraq, and that was not something we were inclined to do. It was necessary for both domestic consumption and for international relations, therefore, for us to constantly keep the nastiness of Saddam’s regime in the public eye.

But sometime in 2001, our policy changed. Perhaps it was before 9/11, perhaps 9/11 changed the equation. But it is now clear that sometime in 2001 the CIA changed course from giving an honest assessment of Iraqi intentions and capabilities, to giving a false one. They didn’t do it all at once. In fact, the White House waged a semi-public feud with the CIA, essentially calling them pussies for failing to back up worst-case scenarios.

It is also now clear that the CIA did the White House’s bidding quite reluctantly, and they did not appreciate being blamed for the intelligence failure when no WMD turned up after the invasion. The latest NY Times article is just more evidence of this:

Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Weeks before Joseph Wilson penned his July 6, 2003 op-ed column for The New York Times

Today’s new story in Time (sub. only) — “When They Knew” — states that “[t]he previously undisclosed fact gathering began in the first week of June 2003 at the CIA, when its public-affairs office received an inquiry about Wilson’s trip to Africa from veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus.”

Check out Current.tv’s site and the Assignment Desk where you can sign up to create content for Al Gore’s baby.

Looks like, so far, Current is carried on DirecTV (366, 103 on NYC’s Time Warner) and San Francisco’s Comcast (125). I can’t tell if we can watch via its Web site. Sign up for the newsletter in the top right corner.

That’s right. The trials are a sham. And this isn’t Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter or some other punching bag for the Right making this charge. These claims come directly from emails written by two former military prosecutors at GITMO to their superiors complaining of a process they considered both unethical and Unamerican:

Leaked emails from two former prosecutors claim the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused.

Two emails, which have been obtained by the ABC, were sent to supervisors in the Office of Military Commissions in March of last year – three months before Australian detainee David Hicks was charged and five months before his trial began.

More after the break . . .

Update [2005-7-31 23:42:31 by Steven D]: Link to NY Times story courtesy of muledriver.

Update [2005-8-1 0:14:5 by Steven D]: Link to affidavit of David Hicks, the Australian detainee mentioned in the above quoted story. The affidavit alleges he experienced torture at GITMO.

Update [2005-8-1 7:42:7 by Steven D]: More links here, here, here and here.

The first email is from prosecutor Major Robert Preston to his supervisor.

Maj Preston writes that the process is perpetrating a fraud on the American people, and that the cases being pursued are marginal.

“I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people,” Maj Preston wrote.

. . . Maj Preston says he cannot continue to work on a process he considers morally, ethically and professionally intolerable.

“I lie awake worrying about this every night,” he wrote.

. . . “After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don’t really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer.”

Major Preston was transferred from the Commission preparing these hearings within a month after sending this email.  The other officer who complained to his superior, Captain John Carr, had this to say:

“When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused,” he wrote.

“Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged.”

. . . “You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel,” he said.

That this doesn’t surprise me says more about how far my expectations of legal and moral conduct have been lowered by the Bush administration than anything else.  Clearly this is outrageous.  It is also a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s order in the Hamdi case where Justice O’Connor stated that detainees must be given “a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.“

What these emails show is that clearly two military lawyers did not feel these tribunals provided a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.  Quite the contrary, they make it clear that they had been advised, in advance, that the outcomes were already determined:

Capt Carr says that the prosecutors have been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgment on the cases would be handpicked to ensure convictions.

“You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel,” he said.

“We only need to worry about building a record for the review panel”.  Think about that tonight, lying in your bed before going to sleep.  We now live in a country where the Executive branch and the Pentagon actively conspired to suborn the lawful orders of the Supreme Court.

If that doesn’t call for an investigation into possible offenses justifying impeachment, I don’t know what does.  This, folks, is what is known as a Constitutional Crisis

HBO’s SIX FEET UNDER
Episode 60: “Ecotone”
9 pm Sunday

“In an all-new episode, Nate brings the family together against their will.”

It was bizarre at the astonishing end of last week’s episode that there was no preview. Talk about being left hanging! Is Nate alive or not? Will Brenda find out where Nate was? AFTER THE EPISODE, let’s DISCUSS AWAY below:
IMAGE ABOVE: Claire’s car.

NATE FISHER, played by Peter Krause (pronounced Krau-sa):

A native of Minneapolis, Minnesota, Peter Krause can be seen weekly starring as “Nate Fisher” on HBO’s acclaimed drama, Six Feet Under.

Peter began to act in high school and although he began college as a Pre-Med student at Gustavus Aldophus College in St. Peter, Minnesota, he graduated with a B.A. in English Literature. He then decided to pursue acting and received an M.F.A. from New York University, where he starred in productions of Macbeth, Uncle Vanya, and Arms and the Man.

Two months after graduation, Peter made his television debut as a regular on Carol Burnett’s hit variety show, Carol and Company, followed by a stint on the hit series Cybill. He was previously best known for his role of “Casey McCall” on the critically acclaimed series, Sports Night.

Peter has been nominated for 2 Emmy® Awards, 2 Golden Globe® Awards, and 2 SAG Awards for his performance on Six Feet Under. He has received 2 SAG Awards as part of the Six Feet Under ensemble.

Peter will next be seen starring opposite Naomi Watts and Mark Ruffalo in We Don’t Live Here Anymore and will make his Broadway debut this summer starring in Arthur Miller’s After The Fall for director Michael Mayer.

Cast & Crew

I’ve made it two weeks sans any news except the NYTs.  Sure, there has been a headline or two that has leaked through my guard unintentionally.  Seeing MSNBC scrolling along at the pub, misinforming the patrons, in my humble view.  But, by and large, my world view for the last two weeks has been shaped entirely be the NYTs.  No blog reading or writing (except, as those of you who have been following my experience know – I am reading the comments to my diaries, so long as they don’t mention breaking news – but no interaction from me allowed).

How is it going?  From my point of view, I feel like a total nitwit.  I feel completely dumbed down as far as current events go.  Objectively, I don’t think I am completely stupid.  I still read the Times, and a good book here or there.  I carried on an intelligent conversation at a cook-out yesterday.  However, as far as current events, I feel like a shell of my former blog reading self.  So that is two weeks down and August to go.
I am still having a great deal of difficulty slogging through all the news that’s fit to print.  I feel like I have been eating nothing but oatmeal for a month.  So, if I just can’t take it, I flip through.  Read headlines and leads until I find something I like.  Kind of the way I used to browse the blogs for news.  Just a lot more boring.

There are scarcely any articles that seem worth mentioning to let you know what the Times is saying.  Many of you probably read it already, and those of you who don’t still probably get the good articles linked and analyzed for you on BMT and dKos.

What caught my eye toward the close of my second week of becoming an American zombie?  Page one on Saturday – Bolton lied about speaking to Inspector General.  Says he forgot.  But, President is still likely to give him a recess appointment.  That is democracy in action.  Advice to Bolton, in the unlikely event that he reads these blogs, or someone passes information from the blogs on to him: John, you are neither the egg man, nor the walrus.  So shave the fucking creepy moustache for starters.  The only contemporary American who can get away with anything like that rag doll you wear on your face and still look anything like cool is Sam Elliott, and I think that is mostly because he frequently plays characters set in the 1800s, and because he IS cool.  So just lose the fucking ‘stache Mr. Number One Diplomat to Be at the U.N.  I am pretty sure about this.  Also, stop yelling at your subordinates you dick.  And, stop criticizing the function of the work environment of the place where you are about to be employed.  Complete tool.

Cafta (the Times writes it like that – why not CAFTA???).  Makes me sick.  Cynical political manipulation.  I can practically imagine you all pounding away on your keyboards on vote day.  Lobbying against the turncoat Democrats and yellow Republicans from working neighborhoods who supported the stupid bill.  I read about it at least 24 hours after it happened.

The USA Patriot Act mostly made permanent.  The story was so bad, I am not even sure what happened to the library search and roving wire tap provisions.  But, it seems that they were extended for four years.  This is completely scary shit to me, and one of the overarching themes to my first novel coming out in the fall.  Scared Americans rallying around taking their own rights away.  Line-up for the searches now and smile.  I am sickened.  It is bi-partisan support for crap like this that truly makes me want to walk away from this stupid country, if any other nation would have me.  Also, there is a quote from an ACLU source in the article that says the changes made make the new USA Patriot Act a lot better.  It sounded like a quote of support, and that smelled way fishy to me.  Didn’t that Jason Blair guy leave the NYTs?

Iraq War.  Mostly a footnote.  On most days there is one headline story buried on the back pages.  Sometimes page one, but I would say no more than two or three times a week.  At least that is how it seems.  And, the one or two stories that are on the war always have multiple news stories in them.  You can read about the really awful shit, usually in paragraph 34.  It is absolutely insane.  I threw a War, and no one from America’s supposed number one newspaper bothered to show up.  At least not with the kind of war coverage that I think probably existed in America’s other bloody little wars of empire in decades past.  Appalling.  At least to me.

And finally, the NYTs Book Review had a cover article about the crisis in the news media.  By Richard Posner.  His analysis of how the media really is too liberal, and too conservative, all at the same time.  Funny, I didn’t read anywhere in his article how a major corporation owns every broadcast television network in the United States.  I hated it.  But, he did have some kind of backhanded compliments to the blogs.  How they are free-er to print the news fast, without the fear of getting every detail wrong.  And, how the dynamics of blogs tend to operate as a better fact checking service than the MSM.  He called CNN the lefty network though, a yin to Faux News’s yang.  I’m not buying what he is selling.  We are living in Corporate America.  From the products to the ideas we consume, I don’t think most of us are getting anything that the corporations don’t want us to get, unless we are really working our asses off to get the alternative message.  That’s just my view.  I could be wrong.  Because, I am just an idiot.  At least that’s how I feel.

See you in a month.

(Cross-posted at DailyKos and MyLeftWing)

Researchers have found that fishing has diminished the diversity of fish in the oceans based upon the records of Japanese fishing fleets.  As a result the ocean ecosystems are more vulnerable to climate
changes.  The findings are reported in the Journal Science.Link  
The Japanese records cover 15 species of fish over 50 years of fishing.  These have been cross-referemced with records of American and Australian government agencies of 140 species.  

Boris Worm  (Yes, his real name)  of Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, lead author of the paper:

“The oceans have been drained of species, basically.” He said that more must be done to protect areas where diversity persists.

In 2003, Worm revealed the results of another Dalhousie study and reported that large predatory fish populations had been reduced by 90%.  Some areas have had diversity reduced by 50% since the 1950’s.  The less diverse ecosystems will have greater difficulty responding to climate change.

Lack of species diversity is a problem, Worm said, because ecosystems with fewer species are less robust in the face of environmental disruptions like climate change.

 For example, he said, the world’s tuna fishery today is largely a matter of yellowfin and skipjack tuna because bluefin, albacore and other species rarely appear on fishermen’s lines.  

“If the ocean changes in a way that doesn’t favor these two species any more, we have very little to fall back on,” he said. “If you have a rich portfolio of species, it’s like a diverse stock portfolio. You are better off.“

The researchers have identified 5 areas where large and diverse populations remain.  They urge protection of these.

The researchers said that five good-sized diversity hot spots remain. Two of them — the area off the east coast of Florida and the area south of the Hawaiian Islands — are in U.S. waters. The
others are off the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, in the central southeast Pacific north of Easter Island and in the Indian Ocean near Sri Lanka.

“These areas should be protected,” D’Hondt (unidentified) said. “They are important, not just for fish, but for everyone.”

Hmm, two areas in US waters.  Prior Bushco practice would suggest that the administration will be putting a fishing industry veteran in charge and opening up those areas to industry exploitation.  Let us hope not.  

[Cross-posted at Schweitzer for President and elsewhere.]

The most common comment we get at Schweitzer for President goes something like this: “Why draft a candidate who doesn’t want to run, who has no record yet, who isn’t experienced, when there are so many good candidates to choose from?”  For me, the answer is simple: not only do I not like any of the candidates that are likely to run, I don’t think a single one of them can win in 2008.

I’ll explain why, and why drafting Schweitzer is not without precedent, on the flip.
Well, okay, I lied.  I do like Russ Feingold; if he runs and Schweitzer doesn’t, I’ll support him enthusiastically.  And I don’t think the poor guy’s divorce has a thing to do with his viability as a Presidential candidate.  On the other hand, I think Feingold’s reputation as a political loner, as Mr. 99-1 in the Senate, will play exceedingly poorly in a country that elected a guy because he said he was “a uniter, not a divider.”  I think Feingold would be a wonderful standard-bearer for the Democratic brand, and I think he’d go down to tremendous defeat in 2008.

I also like Wes Clark, sort of.  I like the way he frames Democratic issues and talks tough to the Bush administration.  However, he still has NO political experience (worse than Schweitzer, no?) and, if we are to judge by his disastrous 2004 campaign, the political sense of an amoeba.  Also, the military top-down method of command strikes me as unsuited for civilian leadership, as evidenced by the mealy Eisenhower administration.  Again, as with Feingold, I’m open to being convinced here — but as of now, I just don’t see Clark as being viable.

John Kerry — what more need be said.  The guy’s lack of spine and conviction cost America much in 2004, and I’m not about to let him get another chance in 2008.  John Edwards is somewhat better, but all I can think of when I hear him speak is oily, slick, slimy.  Even if it’s not true, he EXUDES it, and this will hurt him.  Joe Biden plagiarized a speech and is beholden to credit-card companies and has publicly attacked the leader of his party.  Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Phil Bredesen, and Mark Warner are DLC hacks and do not believe in reclaiming the Democratic Party for the American people.

The others on Tynan’s list — like Rod Blagojevich, Mike Easley, Jennifer Granholm, Kathleen Sebelius, Ed Rendell, Bob Kerrey, Howard Dean, and Al Gore — as well as others he doesn’t mention — Dave Freudenthal, Janet Napolitano, Dick Gephardt, Ted Kulongoski — aren’t running.

Which leaves Hillary, whom Kevin has discussed better than I ever could here.  But I would go farther than Kevin and state unequivocally that Hillary has no political principles, no spine, and no character, and that like her friends at the DLC (Bayh, Richardson, Vilsack, Bredesen, and Warner) she is unfit for the office of President of the United States.

So we’re left with a draft candidate.  But why Schweitzer, of all possible candidates?  Because there are several important movements that form the future of the Democratic Party, and they all intersect in Brian Schweitzer.  There’s the Western Democrat ideal of the straight-talking, no-nonsense Dem with spurs and a cowboy hat; the Democracy for America notion of the party with guts and spine, unafraid to stand up for what it believes; and the Daily Kos concept of the empowered foot-soldiers using the Internet to take back America.  Schweitzer fits all three of those molds perfectly; I challenge you to find any other Democratic politician who does.

So we’re drafting Schweitzer, frankly, because we need him.  And there IS precedent for a Democratic Party, bereft of any experienced leaders with ability, to draft a newly-minted governor into the Presidential race.  The Democrats did it in 1912.  The result?  President Woodrow Wilson.

It’s wonderful to find a good news story out of Iraq:

“Ninety percent of the people in my area are shepherds or simple townspeople,” said Horn.

“They simply want to find a decent job to make enough money to provide food and a stable place for their people to live.” …

To Horn’s commanders, his success justifies his unorthodox approach: no rockets have hit their base in the last half year. …

“He has developed a great relationship with local leaders,” said Lt. Col. Bradley Becker, who commands the 2nd Battalion, 8th Field Artillery Regiment. “They love him. They’re not going to let anyone shoot at Sheik Horn.” …

He has even won occasional exemption from the military dress code — villagers provide a changing room where he can change from desert camouflage to robes upon arrival. […]

Mohammed, Horn’s mentor and known for his dry sense of humor, eventually suggested during a meeting of village leaders that Horn be named a sheik. The sheiks approved by voice vote, Horn said.

Some sheiks later gave him five sheep and a postage stamp of land, fulfilling some of the requirements for sheikdom. Others encouraged him to start looking for a second wife, which Horn’s spouse back in Florida immediately vetoed.

But what may have originally started as a joke among crusty village elders has sprouted into something serious enough for 100 to 200 village leaders to meet with Horn each month to discuss security issues.

“Iraq Citizens Deem U.S. Soldier As Sheik” (AP/Yahoo News) … MORE BELOW:

Horn, 25, a native of Fort Walton Beach, Fla., acknowledges he had little interest in the region before coming here. But a local sheik friendly to U.S. forces, Dr. Mohammed Ismail Ahmed, explained the inner workings of rural Iraqi society on one of Horn’s first Humvee patrols.

Horn says he was intrigued, and started making a point of stopping by all the villages, all but one dominated by Sunni Arabs, to talk to people about their life and security problems.

Moreover, he pressed for development projects in the area: he now boasts that he helped funnel $136,000 worth of aid into the area. Part of that paid for delivery of clean water to 30 villages during the broiling summer months.

“They saw that we were interested in them, instead of just taking care of the bases,” Horn said.

[…..]

And Horn doesn’t take his responsibilities lightly. He lately has been prodding the Iraqi Education Ministry to pay local teachers, and he closely follows a water pipeline project that he hopes will ensure the steady flow of clean water to his villages. …

“Iraq Citizens Deem U.S. Soldier As Sheik” (AP/Yahoo News)

Thanks to Mike K. for e-mailing me this story.

with admiration from Liberal Street Fighter

The splash on the homepage for The Carter Center conveys President Carter’s mission since he left the White House with Ted Kennedy’s knives still sticking out his back:

waging peace, fighting disease, and building hope

Yesterday,  at the Baptist World Alliance’s centenary conference in Birmingham, central England, President Carter was trying to wage peace, to speak out against injustice, in a voice that echoes the America I love, rather than the belligerent holler that too often echoes around the globe from a pig farm in Texas:

“What has happened at Guantanamo Bay … does not represent the will of the American people,” Carter said. “I’m embarrassed about it, I think it’s wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people.”

Carter continued, criticizing the Iraq war, as he’s done in since Bush launched this criminal war:

“I thought then, and I think now, that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjust. And I think the premises on which it was launched were false,”

What will it take for the DC Dems to speak so clearly about the wrongs committed by this criminal administration?

photo via Spiegel Online