Quote du Jour: Bush and Democracy

 

"Vladimir Putin will tell me that Russia is a democracy and that he's advancing democracy," Bush said. "We have got some questions about that, of course."
link

He has questions about what, exactly? How to be even more regressive just like Putin?

Or maybe Bush just wants to know what a "democracy" is. You never know...

I'm sure his soul mate can fill him in either way.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."
- George W Bush, after meeting with Putin in 2001

Made for each other...


 

Charges Dropped Against Omar Khadr

Via the Washington Post:

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba -- A military judge on Monday dismissed terrorism-related charges against a prisoner charged with killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, in a stunning reversal for the Bush administration's attempts to try Guantanamo detainees in military court.

The chief of military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay, Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, said the ruling in the case of Canadian detainee Omar Khadr could spell the end of the war-crimes trial system set up last year by Congress and President Bush after the Supreme Court threw out the previous system.

But Omar Khadr, who was 15 when he was captured after a deadly firefight in Afghanistan and who is now 20, will remain at the remote U.S. military base along with some 380 other men suspected of links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, said he had no choice but to throw the Khadr case out because he had been classified as an "enemy combatant" by a military panel years earlier _ and not as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant."

The Military Commissions Act, signed by Bush last year, specifically says that only those classified as "unlawful" enemy combatants can face war trials here, Brownback noted during the arraignment in a hilltop courtroom on this U.S. military base.

Sullivan said the dismissal of Khadr case has "huge" impact because none of the detainees held at this isolated military base in southeast Cuba has been found to be an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

"It is not just a technicality _ it's the latest demonstration that this newest system just does not work," Sullivan told journalists. "It is a system of justice that does not comport with American values."

So, if I'm reading this right (since I'm not a lawyer), Khadr's status is now similar to that of a POW - an "enemy" caught during war time whose actions cannot be deemed "illegal". I certainly agree with Sullivan then that this decision is "huge".

Khadr has been demonized over the years for the actions and political views of his family members and, as the New York Times' William Glaberson reported on Sunday, there has been a lot of controversy about Khadr's case because he was a child soldier at the time he was captured. And in Canada, the current Conservative government has been very notably silent and inactive when it came to pursuing justice for him - a very shameful reality.

It has been a long and frustrating road for Khadr, his family and anyone who's been concerned about his human rights, especially since he claimed that he was tortured - as this 2006 Rolling Stone story detailed.

What happens now to Khadr and others similarly charged in Gitmo will definitely be a matter of strenuous debate, considering that Bush and those who supported his administration's legal stance on this issue will now try to find seven ways from Sunday to justify the military tribunals process in order to defend its supposed legality. When the act was passed last fall, 34 Democratic senators voted for it as did 32 Democratic reps in the house - no doubt sold on the idea of the perpetual 'Global War on Terror' along with the idea that anyone captured by the US military deserves as few rights as possible.

Now that the Democratic party has majority congressional power, what will they do to right this wrong? Will they support Bush's philosophy that prisoners be held without end in Gitmo - considering that this so-called 'war on terror' will never be over? Is that justice? Is that the American way? Is that humane?

Khadr's fight isn't over. Will our federal government finally step up and do the right thing as well and demand that he be returned home - as other countries' governments with nationals in Gitmo have done? That remains to be seen.

Please contact your MP. Enough is enough.

h/t to Ali for letting me know about this huge development.
 

The (Continuing) Audacity of O'Connor and Hillier

When it comes to transparency with this current department of defence, the only area where it truly fits that bill is in its exercise of political propagandizing.

Following last week's hullabaloo surrounding accusations that O'Connor had not, in fact, had his department pay for full funeral expenses for all soldiers - as he said he had on the record in the house (ie. he lied, again) - it seems that the Cons' political advisers have decided to try to divert attention away from that ugly mess by now proclaiming 2007 to be 'the Year of the Military Family'. What a slap in the face. Count on them to act like an abusive spouse who thinks they can make it all better if they just bring home a bouquet of flowers the next day. That's what they do. They're opportunists and manipulators.

And to kick it off, who else but O'Connor's military chief of defence staff turned political sockpuppet, Rick Hillier?

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier says it's only fitting to celebrate the spouses, children and parents of people in uniform given the sacrifices that they make each day.

"They are the strength behind the uniform," Hillier said in a statement.

You just want to give Hillier the proverbial (and, of course, non-violent) smack upside the head, don't you?

As for the Dinning family, suddenly the money's on its way to cover their son's funeral costs (not that the public humiliation caused by this entire mess had anything to do with that development, of course):

On Thursday, the chief of military personnel phoned the parents of Cpl. Matthew Dinning to apologize a day after they held a press conference to plead their case.

Rear-Admiral Tyrone Pile called the corporal's father, Lincoln Dinning, and promised to send a cheque to cover the difference between what the funeral cost and what the military paid, as well as to pay for outstanding grief counselling bills.

"He apologized profusely for the situation and said it got stuck in the system and it shouldn't have," Dinning told CTV's Question Period co-host Craig Oliver on Sunday.

"And, as they say, the cheque is in the mail."

Right. And if you buy that excuse you're either a) a Conservative b) living in denial or c) both (the most likely answer).
 

Sunday Food for Thought: 'Nattering Nabobs of Negativism'

As much as I hate to borrow a phrase from a Spiro Agnew speech (written by right-wing propagandist William Safire), in this case, it truly fits.

Edward Wong writes in the NYT:

Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory

PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq’s history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.

The word is “sahel,” and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.

It is a word unique to Iraq, my friend Razzaq explained over tea one afternoon on my final tour. Throughout Iraq’s history, he said, power has changed hands only through extreme violence, when a leader was vanquished absolutely, and his destruction was put on display for all to see.

"Sahel" in Arabic means shore, border or coast of the Sahara desert) [and] is the boundary zone in Africa between the Sahara to the north and the more fertile region to the south, known as the Sudan (not to be confused with the country of the same name)." I wasn't able to find any online reference to it in relation to that purported Iraqi definition that Wong provides, so I guess I'll have to take him at his word.

Regardless, Wong then goes on to detail Iraq's history in a very abbreviated form to provide support for this conclusion:

“One day we’ll find that we’ve returned back to 1917,” said Sheik Muhammad Bakr Khamis al-Suhail, a respected Shiite neighborhood leader in Baghdad, referring to the installation here of a Sunni Arab monarchy by the British after World War I. “The pressure of the Arab countries on the American administration might push the Americans to choose the Sunni Arabs.”

Sitting in the cool recesses of his home, the white-robed sheik said he was a moderate, a supporter of democracy. It is for people like him that the Americans have fought this war. But the solution he proposes is not one the Americans would easily embrace.

“In the history of Iraq, more than 7,000 years, there have always been strong leaders,” he said. “We need strong rulers or dictators like Franco, Hitler, even Mubarak. We need a strong dictator, and a fair one at the same time, to kill all extremists, Sunni and Shiite.”

I was surprised to hear those words. But perhaps I was being naïve. Looking back on all I have seen of this war, it now seems that the Iraqis have been driving all along for the decisive victory, the act of sahel, the day the bodies will be dragged through the streets.

So, how do you think a blogger who labels himself as a progressive, liberal, Democrat would react to that idea?

Like this?

It gives me no pleasure to agree with this sheik. I wish it were not so that Iraq needs a ruthless leader, a Hitler or Franco or Muhbarak [sic], to restore order. But, it is either that, or it is this. And this isn't working.

And, as too many Democrats are prone to do these days, the hope falls on an imaginary scenario that is never going to happen:

We'll keep defeating politicians that support this war until there are no politicians that support this war left in office.

So, going back to the first choice which Booman thinks the Iraqis "need" : a strong-arm dictator who is supposedly going to bring order to Iraq by "killing all extremists". Well, that assumes numerous unsaid myths.

- that the Iraqis are completely incapable of fashioning their own peaceful, democratic state.
- that continued militarism is the solution.
- that Iraqis have absolutely no imagination, intelligence or hope and are people who must be ruled with an iron fist in order to be kept under control.
- that it's even possible to kill all extremists which, as we already know, is Bush's grand idea.
- that the solution to Iraq's current nightmare involves just Sunnis and Shiites. Kurds? Christians? Outside influences? What exactly would the new dictator do about them?
- that the US will actually leave Iraq at some point, physically or politically, leaving it to sort out its issues on its own. (One word: oil. The US isn't going anywhere until it bleeds the country dry.)

On it goes...

That attitude shouldn't be surprising though. Take a look at the top 3 Democrat candidates' foreign policy positions and their unflinching support of the military-industrial complex. They all prefer to see militarism as an Olympic sport: who can be better, stronger, faster.

John Edwards

Via Meet the Press, February 2007:

I had internal conflict because I was worried about what George Bush would do. I didn’t have—I didn’t have confidence about him doing the work that needed to be done with the international community, the lead-up to a potential invasion in Iraq.

I didn’t know, in fairness, that he would be as incompetent as he’s been in the administration of the war. But I had—there were at least two things going on. It wasn’t just the weapons of mass destruction I was wrong about. It’s become absolutely clear—and I’m very critical of myself for this—become absolutely clear, looking back, that I should not have given this president this authority.

Those 2 highlighted words are an extremely important clue to his thinking - not that Edwards hasn't been quite open about the fact that he supports military intervention.

Barack Obama. Just see if you can distinguish his position from Bush's.

And Hillary? Are you going to trust a politician who voted for the AUMF on Iraq when she didn't even read the NIE before she uttered her "yay" - sending over 100,000 American troops into harm's way - to be your next commander-in-chief?

Earlier this year, on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire, Clinton was confronted by a woman who had traveled from New York to ask her if she had read the intelligence report. According to Eloise Harper of ABC News, Clinton responded that she had been briefed on it.

“Did you read it?” the woman screamed.

Clinton replied that she had been briefed, though she did not say by whom.

The question of whether Clinton took the time to read the N.I.E. report is critically important. Indeed, one of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report.

Graham said he found that it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D. As a result, he listened to Bush’s claims more skeptically. “I was able to apply caveat emptor,” Graham, who has since left the Senate, observed in 2005.

Beyond what any of these Democratic candidates might actually do to end the Iraq war (and they rarely, if ever, speak about the Afghanistan war anymore - as if that's running itself) or to bring their troops home (which will not happen for many years to come with permanent bases established in Iraq), the truth is that the current top 3 picks can ensure their supporters of one thing: continued militarism or "New & Improved Militarism Lite".

Interventionism. Exceptionalism. Continued arms sales (overt and covert). Refusals to participate in international treaties or the ICC (International Criminal Court). Plundering of "American interests" (ie. oil) around the world. Extraordinary renditions, torture and kidnappings (do you really think they're going to end covert CIA programs?). Continued, unconditional support of Israel via money and arms. Supplying weapons to whichever government of the day is an ally against some perceived American "enemy". Proudly proclaiming supremacy from the mantle of "The Leader of the Free World" while further dismantling the civil, legal and human rights of their own citizens and others around the world that they deem to be "enemy combatants" or potential threats to US security while leaving open gaping holes in domestic security by not properly funding necessary protections (which enables whoever is in power to perpetuate the fear meme endlessly, thus always necessitating the need for a mythic saviour/hero/heroine in the form of "a strong leader").

"Nattering nabobs of negativism".

I see no hope or optimism in the idea that the disease of militarism can be cured by being even more or more efficiently militaristic and violent or in believing that some strong-armed dictator is going to save Iraq by killing more people.

There's a reason that people who are antiwar are seen as being on the fringe. That lesson was learned by the illumination of the fact that most Americans turned against the Iraq war because it wasn't 'winnable' - not out of any desire to reverse the damaging affront that US military might has wrought upon the world or to stem its future ambitions. The Democrats know that and they have no reason to change their stripes. They're just trying to come across as the kindler, gentler warmongers.

If Wong's interpretation of the word "sahel" is to be taken at face value, it certainly can't be seen as a concept that is in any way foreign to the United States military or its supporters. They may not literally drag their "kills" through the streets for all to see but they certainly do so metaphorically via gung-ho speeches and the dehumanization of the victims whom they can't even bring themselves to assign anything more than numbers too. And, as far as that's concerned, they can't even be honest about just how many corpses they're really claimed except to proclaim that at some future point "victory" will be at hand and this will all have been just a blib on the radar screen. There's always collateral damage, you see. How unfortunate.

I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma...
- George W Bush

The Democrats have had their chance to storm the gates of congress. They've failed. And it's not just because they hold a "fragile" majority in the senate. The real reason is that there just isn't much difference between the two major parties on foreign policy issues. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to think long and hard about that.

And when you have a so-called progressive, liberal, self-identified Democratic blogger caving to the defeatism that says that Iraqis are too weak to understand anything but more tyranny and killings, I think it's safe to say that he is probably speaking for perhaps millions of Americans who have just given up on either party being able to provide a rational outlook on the future of a country their president illegally invaded and turned into a rotting nightmare.

But, as far as I'm concerned, no American has the right or luxury to give up at this point. This war belongs to all of you.

Get your troops home, but don't abandon the spirit and will of the Iraqi people who stand for peace and justice. They deserve far more than that.

Iraq is not cursed to have a future of "extreme violence" and neither are its people.

h/t to Marisacat for her posts on Edwards and Hillary.
 

Saturday Nite Video Flashback: Subterranean Homesick Blues

Bush Restarts the Cold War

Because there just isn't enough tension in the world already:

Exclusive: Putin threatens to target Europe with missiles

In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to target Europe with missiles, including potentially nuclear weapons, in a dramatic escalation of his Cold War-style showdown with the United States.

Mr. Putin, in an interview at his country residence outside Moscow, said he considers U.S. plans to build an eastern European anti-missile site to shoot down Iranian missiles a provocation aimed at Russia.

Asked what he might do to retaliate, he said he would return Russia to the Cold War status where missiles were aimed at European targets.

"It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States is located in Europe, and according to our military experts will be threatening us, we will have to respond," he said.

"What kind of steps are we going to take in response? Of course, we are going to get new targets in Europe."

Read the full interview with the Russian President in Monday's Globe and Mail

Afghanistan war: check
Iraq war: check
Cold War: check
Iran war: pending

Looks like the upcoming G8 summit will be a lively one, not to mention what will now likely be a very uncomfortable little visit between Bush and Putin on July 1 in Kennebunkport, Maine since Bush has put Putin "on notice".
 

Sunny Saturday Open Thread

Van Gogh's Irises

So much violence in the news today:

4 suspects arrested in an alleged terrorism plot against JFK airport

Lebanon's army "pounds" the Palestinian refugee camp

Protesters, police clash after Rostock anti-G8 demo

2,000 Iraqi civilians died in May

Sometimes, you literally need to step outside and smell the roses or the irises or the lilacs to regain a sense of balance...so that's what I'm going to do.

Sad Update: Blogger Steve Gilliard has passed away at the age of 41. RIP.
 

Friday Nite Video: Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

Because it really was 40 years ago today... that Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play...

My favourite song from that album:

Random News & Views Roundup

- There's a good article in Adbusters about North American integration aka the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) – a plan critics have called “NAFTA on steroids.”" Check it out.

- If you're a fan of Dahr Jamil's MidEast Dispatches - real, unembedded reporting from Iraq - or even if you've never heard of him, you should listen to his interview on antiwar.com radio. Describing Baghdad as "hell" really is an understatement considering what's really going on there.

- Rice insists that Cheney backs diplomacy with Iran.

Rice was responding to remarks by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. ElBaradei had told BBC Radio that the world risked a war in Iran because of "new crazies who say, 'Let's go and bomb Iran.' "

Asked who the "new crazies" were, ElBaradei replied, "Those who have extreme views and say the only solution is to impose your will by force."

Cheney, a major advocate of war with Iraq, is regarded as a hawk on Iran and recently made a tough speech denouncing the Islamic republic from the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.

Who do you trust? Rice or ElBaradei?

Here's Cheney's definition of "diplomacy":

BRUSSELS, May 11 — Vice President Dick Cheney used the deck of an American aircraft carrier just 150 miles off Iran’s coast as the backdrop today to warn the country that the United States was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting off oil routes or “gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.”

By the way, Dahr Jamail also addresses the US policy towards Iran in the above linked radio interview.

- The video of heavy artillery fire and tanks storming the Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon on Friday is extremely depressing.

NAHR AL-BARED, Lebanon (Reuters) - Advancing under a blanket of artillery and tank fire, Lebanese troops overran positions held by al Qaeda-inspired militants at a Palestinian refugee camp on Friday and 19 people were killed.

Artillery and machinegun fire shook Nahr al-Bared camp in north Lebanon from early morning to well into the night. At times shells exploded at a rate of 10 a minute.

Security sources said at least 16 people were killed inside the camp, as well as three soldiers, after the fiercest fighting in two weeks.
[...]
At least 84 people -- 35 soldiers, 29 militants and 20 civilians -- had been killed before Friday.
[...]
More than 25,000 of Nahr al-Bared's 40,000 Palestinians have fled to the smaller Beddawi camp nearby.

Isn't there already enough death and destruction? Those Lebanese weapons are, of course, happily provided by the US government in this proxy war against Syria.

- Whose bright idea was this?"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. architectural firm posted drawings of the new U.S. Embassy being built in Baghdad on its Web site, prompting complaints from U.S. officials on Friday that their release could endanger U.S. personnel.

- How is Iraq's oil money, which is supposed to benefit the Iraqi people, being spent?

UNITED NATIONS -- More than four years after the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations is spending millions of dollars in Iraqi oil money to continue the hunt for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I should add that while the Bush administration is critical of the work this UN team is doing, it (obviously) has no moral high ground to stand on whatsoever (about anything) when it comes to complaining about money being wasted in Iraq. After all, they've sent billions of dollars in cash to Iraq via pallets on airplanes and lost some $8.8 billion in the process. It just really is all quite insane, isn't it?

- Canada is so special that it shouldn't have to do what other G8 countries do when it comes to dealing with that global warming stuff.

Liberal MP David McGuinty called Harper's plea for special consideration "theatre of the absurd."

"I've been doing this for 20 years and I have never heard anything as absurd – on the international diplomatic level, on this international environmental issue – anything as absurd as this. Ever.

"(Other countries) tell us they're paying the price and biting the bullet, and working feverishly hard to achieve their Kyoto targets. But they're not going out to the world and saying, 'We're special! We're sooo special!' "

Be prepared to be ridiculed by your government at yet another international meeting. You can start cringing and hiding under your desks now.
 

Friday Fun: The Absurdity of Stephen

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had enough. This has gone on long enough. The Minister of National Defence has misled this House too many times. He has shown how incompetent he is too many times.

Since the Prime Minister does not have the courage to ask him to do the honourable thing, will the Minister of National Defence do the honourable thing himself and resign?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Minister of National Defence is a veteran of the Canadian Forces. He has served this country courageously in uniform for 32 years. When the Leader of the Opposition is able to stand in uniform and serve his country, then I will care about his opinion of the performance of the Minister of National Defence.

* * *

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember the Prime Minister's service record.

On Sunday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs foolishly called for the Russians to return to Afghanistan. He is the one responsible for our diplomacy.

On Tuesday, the Minister of International Cooperation declared that the Afghan people do not eat flour. She is the woman responsible for development.

This week, the Minister of National Defence has stumbled from one mistake to the other. He is the man responsible for defence.

Is it not time that the Prime Minister brought this triple crown of incompetence to an end?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will just say that it is true I have never served in the armed forces. I consider that an experience that I have missed in my life, but I can say that I have always lived and worked and paid my taxes in this country.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. We seem to be having a lot of noise today. I would urge hon. members to restrain themselves. The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has the floor.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, we can all play these silly games about who is the better Canadian. If they seriously believe that someone who has contributed to this country outside and come back to Canada is less of a Canadian, they should get up and say that to two million Canadians who live and work overseas.

hansard link

Harper then donned his cowboy outfit and burst out into an extended version of the Village People's In the Navy. John Baird joined in too - wearing his biker dude leathers.