Negroponte to the State Department

It looks like David Corn will need to resurrect his old Negroponte article at least one more time.

The New York Times reports that Negroponte appears set to take the number two job at the State Department. Another shift of the deck chairs on the ever-sinking Titanic where he will have a closer hand at formulating Iraq war policy and, as Corn reminds us, Negroponte's past must once again be taken into consideration if that move is made although it is highly unlikely that even a Democratic-controlled confirmation process will cause even the slighest headache for him once again.

Not only has Negroponte declined to acknowledge the obvious; when he was ambassador, the State Department rigged its Honduras human rights reports to Congress. As a 1995 Baltimore Sun series noted, "A comparison of the annual human rights reports prepared while Negroponte was ambassador with the facts as they were then known shows that Congress was deliberately misled." The Sun reported, "Time and again...Negroponte was confronted with evidence that a Honduran army intelligence unit, trained by the CIA, was stalking, kidnapping, torturing and killing suspected subversives." But this didn't make it into State Department reports. Had Honduras been found to be engaging in systematic abuses, it could have lost its US aid--thwarting the Reagan Administration's use of Honduras to support the contras.

Negroponte has claimed "there was no effort to soft pedal" abuses in Honduras. Yet in public statements he repeatedly conveyed a misleading appearance, and in the years since he has held tight--in the face of compelling evidence--to the view that the abuses that did occur were merely unfortunate exceptions.

It's clear that Negroponte is shifted around to different administration positions when there's a need for his neocon perspective, although he certainly didn't get much practice at that as director of national intelligence. It seems he'd be a bit more comfortable back in the role of globetrotter:

On many a workday lunchtime, the nominal boss of U.S. intelligence, John D. Negroponte, can be found at a private club in downtown Washington, getting a massage, taking a swim, and having lunch, followed by a good cigar and a perusal of the daily papers in the club’s library.

“He spends three hours there [every] Monday through Friday,” gripes a senior counterterrorism official, noting that the former ambassador has a security detail sitting outside all that time in chase cars. Others say they’ve seen the Director of National Intelligence at the University Club, a 100-year-old mansion-like redoubt of dark oak panels and high ceilings a few blocks from the White House, only “several” times a week.

Negroponte is one work horse who should have been put out to pasture years ago.

Related: SourceWatch backgrounder on Negroponte.

al-Maliki: 'I wish my term was over'

Asked whether he would accept a second term in office, Mr Maliki replied: "Impossible.

"I wish I could be done with it even before the end of this term. I would like to serve my people from outside the circle of senior officials, maybe through the parliament or through working directly with the people," he said.

"I didn’t want to take this position. I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again."

Those admissions are sure to evoke accusations of 'weakness' from Washington but perhaps al-Maliki has finally accepted the fact that he is nothing but a puppet who has no control over what happens in his country as he was very publicly reminded by the recent leak of the Hadley memo that was highly critical of the prime minister.

Quote du Jour: On Killing Afghan Civilians

Speaking in the capital, Kabul, Nato spokesman Brigadier Richard Nugee said the alliance was working to change its tactics in 2007 - and civilian casualties were the number one issue to be addressed.

"I believe the single thing that we have done wrong and we are striving extremely hard to improve on is killing innocent civilians," he said.

So, is he saying that NATO is going to improve on how they kill innocent civilians or that it will try not to?

(kidding)

There is no doubt that winning the whole 'hearts and minds' thing involves admitting your mistakes and then trying to do better. NATO could improve that situation by being honest when its troops do kill civilians instead of issuing standard denials that are the stock in trade of military aggressors who believe they somehow maintain the moral high ground by dismissing accounts of civilian deaths from area residents. There have been too many such instances where Afghans (and Iraqis) have been made to look like liars when they decry these deaths and are struck by the almighty hand of the military in an insulting and degrading way for simply trying to get the truth out.

Karzai has repeatedly warned the forces in his country to use extreme caution as he has publicly excoriated the coalition for being careless to the point of callousness at times when civilians have been killed. But, there is nothing he can do to change what's happening.

The war being waged in Afghanistan still follows Rumsfeld's rule of using a stealth force to tackle a hugely complicated situation. Everyone has paid for that and will continue to do so now that the NATO allies are not only overstretched but also weary of that war. History has shown how difficult it is to deal with a country like Afghanistan and that is being borne out to this day. NATO won't be able to kill its way out of this one. It's time for a sharper focus on political solutions involving all of the players in the region - most particularly Pakistan.

Malkin Takes the Easy Way Out

Back in December, Michelle Malkin accepted Eason Jordan's invitation to go to Iraq and track down the now controversial AP source Captain Jamil Hussein. She, Jordan and Mr Flopping Aces blog planned to get at the bottom of whether Mr Hussein really exists.

Today, however, Malkin announced a change of plans after realizing that Jordan's investigation to this point proved absolutely nothing. He writes, 'Inquiries by others point to there being no Captain Jamil Hussein, although there is no proof of that'.

One would think that would only strengthen Malkin's resolve to get over to Iraq with Jordan to investigate further but, having seen that she won't be able to get what she wants ie. confirmation that Jamil Hussein doesn't exist to use as ammo towards the Associated Press, she's announced that she's going to Iraq an an embedded reporter instead. So much for investigative reporting. There's nothing like being spoon-fed by the US military (which she has willingly been from day one) to give her fans a real picture of what's going on over there, right?

Malkin writes:

I am very heartened by Eason Jordan's post yesterday challenging the Associated Press's credibility, but am puzzled that his own crew in Baghdad still has nothing new to report more than a month after bloggers first started raising questions. I hope Jordan follows up on the most recent investigative developments in the blogosphere.

In other words, it's a lost cause and she knows it. The Associated Press has no responsibility to Malkin, Jordan or the rest of CSI: Bloggerville to produce Captain Hussein since his life may be placed in jeopardy if his face is publicly revealed. That, however, is of no concern to those who are continuing this fight with the Associated Press. They've whined about the 'enemy' press and they demand action.

Malkin seems to think she'll still be able to investigate the AP while she's embedded. I highly doubt that coalition troops will volunteer to be her babysitter in order to do that. That isn't their job. But Malkin has to make herself look good somehow and I'm sure many of her fans will actually believe that she'll have the freedom to roam around Iraq playing Nancy Drew. Cognitive dissonance is an art form on the right.

Fact-Free Bill O'Reilly

Last Friday, Bill O'Reilly rewrote history in this Talking Points column about Saddam's execution:

Again, America has no right to tell Iraq how to deal with Saddam. In our own country we executed terrorist Tim McVeigh for killing hundreds in Oklahoma City and that was justice according to our system.

No wonder truth is such a rare commodity on the right. Who cares about giving the correct number of victims (168) when you're trying to make a point? No wonder so many of his listeners are so confused about reality.

He also wrote this in that article:

If the Iraqi people had rallied to the cause of freedom and unification, America would have been seen as a great victor. Instead we are bogged down in an awful situation that continues to cost American lives.

So summing up, Saddam Hussein will soon feel a noose tightening around his neck. It would not have happened except for the USA, but Iraq is a complicated, emotional and dangerous situation that will continue to cause pain long after Saddam is gone.

So, even though he's using the same old 'if only the Iraqis were grateful, then everything would be fine there' card, he admits that he understands the complexity of the situation, but that's not what he told PJ Crowley:


He had to feign complete ignorance so he could also blame the so-called hatred of America on the 'left-wing media' and pretended to be totally ignorant (or maybe he just is) about why Osama bin Laden and Iran's government would be glad to see Saddam go as well. Anyone with Google and 2 minutes can figure that out. Not O'Reilly though. In his simple 'you're either with us or against us' mind, it's just not possible for this US 'victory' to be shared by others who despised Hussein.

O'Reilly: I really don't understand the growing anti-Americanism in the Middle East. I don't get this at all. And I don't even know if it's true. I think it may be a fabrication of the left-wing media but I don't want to be paranoid.

You know, if you have a choice between the United States and Britain and Saddam controlling your country, I think any sane person takes the United States and Britain, do they not?

You'll also note that O'Reilly repeatedly claims Saddam had about one million victims during his conversation with Crowley. Yet, when the Bush administration reviewed his crimes, the number they used was 'many hundreds of thousands'. This was also repeated by the Bush administration's Regime Crimes Liason Christopher Reid in 2005. What is with this need of O'Reilly's to inflate the number of victims in Oklahoma City and Iraq? As if 168 and 'hundreds of thousands' of victims weren't bad enough.

Then there's this from that 2003 White House report:

The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."

Some things never change.

O'Reilly goes on to pimp Bush's greatest gift, in his mind, to the Iraqi people: the fact that they had elections (how's that working out so far?) and thinks that should be good enough for the Iraqis to all live happily ever after. And, never one to miss a chance to attack who he views as the so-called 'Bush-haters', he then lumps in al Qaeda sympathizers with the so-called (yet to be identified but no doubt a part of the vast left-wing conspiracy) 'left-wing media' and when Crowley makes the point that the Iraqis feel oppressed, O'Reilly has to ask: 'Oppressed by whom'? 'Who's oppressing them? We're not. We're basically trying to have the oil flow to the world uninterrupted. Iran is the threat.'

As far as O'Reilly's concerned, the Arab and Muslim point of view Crowley tried to explain to him is 'irrational' and 'crazy'. Well, yes it is if you haven't been paying attention to what's actually gone on in Iraq the past 3 years.

Yes Bill, they should just all be thankful and stop killing each other because now they can vote.

Life should be that simple (and people who don't understand history shouldn't be prominent right-wing mouthpieces. Then again, I think that's actually what it takes to be one.)

Related: The US Ambassador for War Crimes in 2000, David Scheffer, outlined the war crimes case against Saddam Hussein at that time and, as he noted, it was almost impossible to know how many victims there were because human rights monitoring groups were not allowed into the country to get anything like an accurate count, unfortunately. Had the current Iraq government not been in such a rush to hang Saddam and had at least let the Kurds have their day in court, it's possible more evidence would have been made public so that all of his victims could have been accounted for and found some measure of justice - although as we've seen, that was sorely lacking in the legal system this Iraqi government set up and which the US government endorsed. We'll never know the exact extent of his crimes. So, while O'Reilly's number may be correct, it appears there is not enough evidence to confirm it at this point.

See also: The latest Angus Reid poll.

90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.

No doubt, Bill O'Reilly's head just exploded.

Cabinet Shuffle Rumours

Steve has reportedly told his cabinet to 'stay close to their phones and Black Berries' and:

...he has imposed travel restrictions on his ministers beginning next week.

Ministers have been asked to stay within easy flying range of Ottawa, again fuelling the rumour mill about a shuffle.

The only really satisfying shuffle will be the one that sees every last one of them relegated back to the opposition benches this coming year.

Ambrose's head is rightly on the chopping block with Jim Prentice possibly set to come in as her replacement. And what exactly has Prentice done in his role as Indian Affairs minister? Nothing. I'm surprised Steve hasn't just turfed that ministry since he doesn't seem to have any real plans to deal with aboriginal problems in this country. When he ditched the Kelowna accord, he made his non-agenda quite obvious so no matter who might replace Prentice don't expect anything resembling anything like action on that file any time soon.

The National Post threw out this tidbit as well:

Elsewhere, questions circulate around the heads of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mac- Kay [sic], Health Minister Tony Clement and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn.

Ousting or shuffling O'Connor and MacKay would no doubt cause huge ripples since they both have toed the warmongering party line. I can't see them going anywhere any time soon though. Clement and Lunn are just 2 more useless ministers. Come to think of it, have any of these tory cabinet ministers actually done much of anything since they got their portfolios? You'd be hard-pressed to answer that affirmatively except to note what a lousy job they've done in the scheme of things. They are, as one pundit described them, just 'potted plants'. It's been almost 1 year of tory governance and they sure don't have much to show for it.

It looks like the completely incompetent Stockwell Day will be getting another free pass but the rumours surrounding Baird seem to be a bit mixed.

The National Post reports:

there appear to be no question marks over the heads of Finance Minister James Flaherty, who is preparing a budget for as early as February, Treasury Board President James Baird or Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

But, the Globe and Mail says:

However, there is some speculation that Mr. Baird, who is bilingual, an aggressive performer in Question Period and a good communicator, could be moved to a portfolio that needs a greater profile.

Pitbull Baird is bound to stick around since he is the biggest damn loudmouth in the tory party with a 'take no prisoners' attitude that makes him look like an absolute asshole to everyone but the tories who always need some tough guy front man to distract from how weak they really are. He's a bullying menace who makes for good political theater if you're into watching bozo mafia soldier types who seem like they're ready to snap at any given moment and often do.

It doesn't matter how Steve shuffles his minions. He'll still retain complete control of everything they say and do while trying to make it look like he actually cares about federal governance because, as Scott points out, his commitment to that principle is highly questionable.

Election 2007. Show up.

Quote du Jour

Mr. Bush still insists on talking about victory, even if his own advisers differ about how to define it. “It’s a word the American people understand,” he told members of the Iraq Study Group who came to see him at the White House in November, according to two commission members who attended. “And if I start to change it, it will look like I’m beginning to change my policy.”

And the tribe member voted out at this week's tribal council on Survivor: Iraq War is General George Casey who will now join the others on the jury.

Top Canadian News Story of 2006: The Afghanistan War

It's rather sad, in more ways than one, that the Afghanistan war is the Canadian news story of the year five years after it began.

Images of Maple Leaf-draped coffins returning home became crimson staples for front pages and newscasts, and delivered the reality of war to millions of Canadians.

As historian and author Serge Durflinger put it, “nothing can bring it home like the faces of the dead.”

Jim Poling, managing editor of the Hamilton Spectator, said debate over the nation's role in war was “no longer theoretical.”

“We are no longer debating U.S. foreign policy from afar. This year Canadians witnessed and wept as coffins bearing the remains of Canadian soldiers landed on tarmacs across the country. Life and death and war is again a reality for Canadians and the divisions emanating from the conflict are real,” he said.

Had the Canadian public been paying more attention all this time and not just when the number of casualties had increased dramatically, there is a good chance our troops may have been withdrawn by now. But, in the early days before we signed onto the more aggressive NATO fighting mission, we still lived under the illusion that we would be peacekeepers and rebuilders in the country as long as we remained there.

That bubble burst in 2006.

And, now we have the tory PM and the new Liberal leader (who doesn't want to 'dishonour' the troops by bringing them home) firmly committing our soldiers for at least the next 2 years, if not longer. Meanwhile, a common New Year's resolution amongst Canadian soldiers is just to 'make it home safe'. While the fighting may have abated slightly for the cruel winter season in Afghanistan, we're left wondering exactly how many of them actually will make it home safe in 2007 when the battles heat up once again.

Modern war time for North Americans is far different than it was during the days of the major world wars. Very few are actually called to sacrifice much of anything. There is no rationing, no war bond drive, no getting a job at the rivets factory. In fact, we simply relish in our prosperity and try to catch the news once a nite in between trips to work and Wal-Mart or whatever else it is that we are keeping busy with. And war news gets old fast when wars go on year after year - except when there are more casualties. And, in 2006, those we did lose caused more Canadians to actually be touched in a more personal way just as the fact that the US military was losing the war in Iraq finally brought it home for Americans (who still aren't really following what's going on in Afghanistan, unfortunately).

So, the Afghanistan war goes on. A 'long, hard slog' as Rumsfeld characterizes these things. And the average Canadian really doesn't have much of a reason to keep up with what's going on 'over there' because...well...it's just not sensational enough. Not like, say, who's in the [insert sports genre here] playoffs or Peter MacKay referring to Belinda Stronach as a dog. I suppose it should provide some comfort that the war was chosen as the top story of the year. Then again, that was the result of an 'annual poll of newspaper editors and broadcasters'. Does that reflect what a majority of Canadians would have picked?

Saddam's Execution: Damage Control

It's important to remember while reading this New York Times article about Saddam's execution that the US military had possession of him prior to the hanging and could have held off turning him over to the Iraqi government until it was certain the sentence would be carried out according to the rule of law. It didn't and no amount of trying to convince the world now that the Bush administration had really 'questioned' the rush to kill Hussein in any way that actually meant anything is simply an attempt to propagandize its way out of what was clearly a mockery of justice.

Had the leaked cellphone video of the hanging not been distributed far and wide, the press wouldn't even be running the story of all of this supposed anguish now. There were no public expressions of official US government concern just prior to the hanging and once it was done, Bush proudly stated that it had been carried out following a 'fair trial' which had brought 'justice' to his victims. If what is contained in that New York Times article is a true account of what happened in the quick run up to the execution, it is clear that right up until the last minute, nothing resembling 'justice' actually occured.

Iraqi and American officials who have discussed the intrigue and confusion that preceded the decision late on Friday to rush Mr. Hussein to the gallows have said that it was the Americans who questioned the political wisdom — and justice — of expediting the execution, in ways that required Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to override constitutional and religious precepts that might have assured Mr. Hussein a more dignified passage to his end.

Are we to assume that there was no one in the Iraqi government who was concerned about these hugely important issues? That only those Americans present postured themselves on some pulpit of moral superiority in order to scold al-Maliki and caution him? That only the Americans were really concerned about the rule of law? That al-Maliki was acting like a tyrant who had to be tamed? Or was the Bush administration simply concerned about the political fallout it would receive as a result of this fiasco?

Have we not seen this game play out over and over during decades of American interference in and support for puppets they've installed who end up not obeying their American masters? And where, exactly, has this attitude gotten them in the past? Let's not forget who created Saddam in the first place.

American officials in Iraq have been reluctant to say much publicly about the pell-mell nature of the hanging, apparently fearful of provoking recriminations in Washington, where the Bush administration adopted a hands-off posture, saying the timing of the execution was Iraq’s to decide.

While privately incensed at the dead-of-night rush to the gallows, the Americans here have been caught in the double bind that has ensnared them over much else about the Maliki government — frustrated at what they call the government’s failure to recognize its destructive behavior, but reluctant to speak out, or sometimes to act, for fear of undermining Mr. Maliki and worsening the situation.

How can the situation possibly get much worse?

Will another US administration once again stand by while someone it has installed violates its country's laws and constitution with impunity while trying to convince the rest of the world that there is some hope for a fully functioning democracy in Iraq? Will the Bush administration truly get away with placing all of the blame for the way this execution was carried out on the Iraqi government officials when it could easily have kept him in custody until such time as all of the legalities were in order?

Have US governments learned nothing?

And just how naive do they think the rest of us really are? That question was answered when they illegally invaded Iraq in the first place. Yet, even though they have been held to the mat for all of their lies, they still seem to think that we can all be manipulated by their claims of innocence and 'distance' from the realities on the ground that they have wraught.

'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.'

Related:
Iraq to probe filming of Saddam hanging
Sunni party office hit in U.S. raid in Iraq
Crowds protest Saddam hanging in Iraq

Bush's New Year's Resolutions

Resolutions for 2007:

1. Uphold the constitution.
2. Don't break any laws.
3. Listen to the American people.
4. Close Gitmo.
5. Stop extraordinary renditions.
6. Don't allow torture.
7. Stop spying on innocent Americans.
8. Don't veto all Democratic bills.
9. Don't bomb Iran.
10. Push diplomacy.
11. Withdraw from Iraq.
12. Pay some attention to the Afghanistan war.
13. Find Osama bin Laden.
14. Stop lying.
15. Stop making resolutions.