Be INFORMED

Saturday, April 07, 2007

British Told Bush To Stay Out Of Iran Dispute

   We learn today that the Bush war machine offered to use U.S. warplanes to fly over Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions in Iran after the Iranians detained 15 British sailors and marines who were caught ( allegedly ) in Iranian waters.

   It is reported that the Pentagon had offered a few various military options to the British but Tony Blair actually told Bush and company to stay out of the situation and to cut back on the rhetoric coming from Bushco. Britain also asked the U.S. to cut back on their military exercises in the Gulf so that things wouldn't appear to confrontational. Source

   This all started over a trespass by the British into Iranian territory, which the British have denied. They said that they were in international waters but that may not have been the case.

In the first days of the crisis, Iraqi officials also helped the British to identify the exact boundaries of Iraqi waters, the Guardian has learned, suggesting the British were not as certain of their case as they had publicly claimed.  The Guardian

   Anyway, I'm sure that Bush will now punish Tony Blair for not letting him start another war with Iran. My guess is that there will be no sex the next time that they meet!

   This was the golden opportunity for the Bush clan to attack Iran and he got bitch-slapped by Blair. Now Bush and the CIA and the military planners will have to come up with something different to get an excuse.

Tags:

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Christian Rights Lawyers Attacking the Constitution

The Original Article

ARMY OF GOD
The Legal Muscle Leading the Fight to End the Separation of Church and State
By Sarah Posner |  April 1, 2007  

n a dismal, rainy afternoon, over tea and Pepsi and a plate of fries at the Bob Evans restaurant in Cannonsburg, Kentucky, Bill Scaggs, a retired government and public-relations executive of ARMCO Steel, told me why he thinks that homosexuality is the greatest threat to America. "AIDS kills," was his circa 1984 answer, "and the most common way to pass that on of course is from homosexual contact." His voice cracking with indignation, Scaggs added that he refuses to use the word gay. "It's homosexual, or worse," he says. "Gay is in our Kentucky song! They took it away and trampled on it. We want it back."

Scaggs is a board member of Defenders Voice, a local organization formed two years ago by a group of ministers and their followers who fought the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) at Boyd County High School, just up the road from where we sat. Located on a stretch of state highway dotted with churches, dollar stores, payday lenders, and a drive-through cigarette store, the high school had become a place where anti-gay harassment had become an everyday occurrence.

Most of the time, student organizers of the Boyd County GSA said, the basis for the harassment was religious. One of the organizers, Libby Fugett, said that "most of the people at school, even the younger people, who would call us names at school, they would cuss at us; they would say, You f'ing fag, you're going to hell. . . . They just think it's excusable because their religion backs it up. And that was a really big part of it. It's okay for them to sin against us because we're sinners."

Leading the charge against the GSA were ministers, led by the Rev. Tim York, who said they "believe the Bible to be the word of God; we believe that homosexuality is a sin." (In 2004, York, who is now the pastor of a church in Nashville, ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Kentucky Senate on an anti-gay-marriage platform, with backing from the state and national Republican parties.) York and his followers exerted such intense pressure on school officials that it influenced their decision on the GSA, ultimately forcing the students to sue the school system in order have the GSA recognized.

To settle the case, the school district agreed to conduct mandatory anti-harassment training for all students. Although the training consisted of just a one-hour video once a year, York was intent on preventing students from seeing what he considered "indoctrination [into the] homosexual lifestyle . . . indoctrination to tear down the Christian view that homosexuality is wrong. It is reverse discrimination, is what it is." The minister-led group circulated opt-out forms in an effort to exempt students from watching the video, but the forms were not legally binding. York, his followers, and some parents wanted to exempt Christian students, legally, from watching the court-ordered anti-harassment video. To vindicate what he believed to be their legal rights, York knew exactly where to turn for help: the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).

THE O'REILLY FACTOR—If Bill O'Reilly had a hero other than himself, it would be ADF and its courtroom crusaders lined up to fight the ACLU, Nickelodeon's homosexual agenda, and heathens who are hell-bent on censoring the words "Merry Christmas." ADF's president, Alan Sears, a former Reagan administration prosecutor who, according to the ADF's website, "God uniquely prepared" for his lead role in the organization, admits to being inspired by the right-wing commentator O'Reilly—hardly known for his jurisprudential acuity—to write portions of his book, The ACLU vs. America.

In the first chapter, Sears maintains that "from the very start, the ACLU wanted to destroy from within the America our founders intended." As proof of the ACLU's supposed anti-American, anti-Christian agenda, Sears fingers ACLU founder Roger Baldwin as an "agnostic and socialist who demonstrated Communist leanings"; Baldwin was moreover a friend of birth control advocate Margaret Sanger, whom Sears calls a "eugenicist who . . . establish[ed] the early link between the ACLU and abortionists." Before the reader has turned even ten pages, Sears has established that only ADF's godly legal services can save the country from the havoc the ACLU has wreaked on its justice system and culture.

    While the ACLU gained its reputation by winning cases, ADF's reputation—and fund-raising spigot—preceded its first court case. Created just 13 years ago with the support of such Christian Right powerhouses as James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, and Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, it is today the nation's leading Christian Right legal organization. Through its National Litigation Academy, ADF has trained more than 900 lawyers, who commit themselves to performing 450 hours of pro bono legal work "on behalf of the body of Christ." It doles out millions of dollars a year to other Christian Right organizations—many of which are already well endowed—to cover attorneys' fees and costs.

Its three principal goals are protecting the "sanctity of human life" (through litigating cases relating to abortion and end-of-life issues); promoting the "traditional family" (via cases concerning gay marriage and adoption); and ensuring the "religious freedom" of Christians (by portraying them as victims of discrimination on the part of those who seek to silence their ability to "speak the Truth" by preaching the Gospel). Using the propaganda machinery of conservative media outlets and churches, ADF has created a zeitgeist of Christian victimhood among people like Rev. York, who believes Christian students are the victims in Boyd County, and who has long admired ADF's "fight with the ACLU to protect Christian freedom and Christian liberty."

Last year, ADF received over $21 million in individual and foundation funding. Some of the major donors include the Covenant Foundation, financed by the "Granddaddy" of the Texas Christian Right, business mogul James Leininger; various members of the Amway-Prince Automotive empire, including the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, whose vice president, Erik Prince (Edgar and Elsa's son, and brother of Betsy DeVos, wife of the Amway magnate, right-wing financier, and unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Richard DeVos), founded the Blackwater USA military-security firm; and the Bolthouse Foundation, which is underwritten chiefly with profits from Bolthouse Farms, a family-run California company whose products are often seen at organic markets and Whole Foods. Bolthouse requires recipients of its grants to pledge adherence to a statement of faith that includes the declaration that "man was created by a direct act of God in His image, not from previously existing creatures" and a belief in "the everlasting blessedness of the saved and the everlasting punishment of the lost."

SCHOOLHOUSE "DAYS"—Public high schools—where, as a result of a Vietnam-era case, public school officials can curtail student speech in the interest of preventing disturbances or infringement of the rights of other students—have become one of ADF's principal battlegrounds. Right now, it is gearing up for its annual Day of Truth, scheduled for April 19, which ADF has sponsored since 2005 in response to the nationwide Day of Silence, intended to promote tolerance of LGBT students at public high schools. Last year, ADF claimed that students at 700 high schools participated in its organized effort "to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective." Each year, only a handful of ADF's longed-for federal cases emerge. But when they do, ADF makes a public relations spectacle out of them.

ADF recognizes that sometimes strange bedfellows—even the ACLU—can help its divine cause on behalf of the free-speech rights of America's public high schoolers. It recently sided with its arch-enemy (and against the Bush administration) in a Supreme Court case in which an Alaska high school student charged that his First Amendment rights were violated when school officials forced him to take down a sign reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The student, Joseph Frederick, admitted that he designed the sign "to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on television" as the Olympic torch passed through his home town of Juneau in 2002. And even though Frederick's cause had nothing to do with Jesus (and even implicated the Savior in the defiled culture that ADF disdains), ADF has an interest in continuing to shape Supreme Court precedent, an effort it began with its first landmark case 12 years ago and that has been aided by a judiciary increasingly friendly to its views. ADF's legacy in these cases has been to elevate the First Amendment's free speech clause over its Establishment Clause, which separates church and state, and thereby to promote religious speech—even proselytizing speechin the nation's public schools.

In that first landmark case, Rosenberger vs. The Regents of the University of Virginia, ADF represented a student challenging the university's policy of not funding religious student groups through the same student activity fees that funded secular clubs. The Supreme Court deviated from its precedents and based its decision not on the Establishment Clause—which prohibits a state institution like the University of Virginia from endorsing or appearing to endorse a particular religion—but on ADF's theory of "viewpoint discrimination."

In other words, ADF convinced the Court that instead of determining whether the school's funding of religious clubs would be, or would appear to be, an endorsement of a particular religion, it should decide whether or not funding religious groups "discriminated" against them based on their religion. And discrimination is present, the Court reasoned, if the school funded secular clubs but not religious ones.

    Rosenberger, then, not only began to bring down the Christian Right's dreaded "wall of separation" between government and religious activities, but elevated ADF's mythology of the victimized Christian to a legal precedent. The case, says Marci Hamilton, professor of constitutional law at Cardozo Law School and author of the book God Versus the Gavel, represented a "fork in the road" in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. "When framed as a viewpoint discrimination issue," Hamilton adds, "it was going to be very hard for the university to win. . . . the word discrimination is so freighted in our culture with negatives that the minute that viewpoint discrimination was on the table, it was really the end."

The Court reiterated its reasoning and applied it to the nation's public elementary schools in a 2001 decision in an ADF-funded case, in which it forced the Milford Central School District in upstate New York to change its policy of prohibiting religious clubs from using its facilities for after-school meetings. Although the Good News Club, one of thousands sponsored nationwide by the Child Evangelism Fellowship, proselytizes to children, under Rosenberger, the school's denial of its use of school facilities to the religious clubs, when it allowed secular clubs to use them, again constituted "viewpoint discrimination." The Court rejected the school's claim that it had to exclude the religious club in order to comply with the Establishment Clause.

According to Hamilton, in "viewpoint discrimination" cases, the plaintiffs need only claim discrimination, without any actual proof, to prevail on their assertion that they were illegally prevented from using school resources for religious activities. Compared with other civil rights law, said Hamilton, "it's like living with Alice in Wonderland."

These cases have become not only the chief legal weapon in ADF's arsenal but also the organizing principle for all its fund-raising, public relations, and propaganda. ADF attorney Mike Johnson summed up his organization's position when he said, "What we're seeing in more and more cases is a discrimination against particular viewpoints, even outright hostility sometimes, against . . . kids who hold a Christian kind of world view who want to share Christian viewpoints or speech on campus, and they're being discriminated against because some people see that as intolerant, or however they characterize it."

"BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN IS IN"—Over the past several years, ADF has seized on "viewpoint discrimination" to put the gay rights movement in its cross hairs. Gay rights, in ADF's view, cannot coexist with its version of Christianity. Anti-harassment codes at schools and universities, gay rights events, and other expressions of freedom or equal rights for LGBT people, necessarily silence Christians, who, ADF insists, are biblically compelled to condemn homosexuality. The "homosexual agenda," then, is ipso facto anti-Christian. Alan Sears, ADF's president, told the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit last fall that "the homosexual agenda and religious freedom are on a collision course." He scoffed at what he called "propaganda about so-called oppression" of gays, countering that the "homosexual agenda" not only seeks to silence religious speech but it "probably includes the abolition of marriage."

Shortly before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, it had agreed to hear ADF's appeal of another case, one in which a San Diego student, Chase Harper, who participated in the first Day of Truth, claimed that his school prevented him from wearing a T-shirt that read "Be ashamed, our school has embraced what god has condemned" on the front, and "Homosexuality is shameful, Romans 1:27" on the back. After a federal appeals court for the Ninth Circuit (the Christian Right's bogeyman of the judiciary) ruled last year that the school could constitutionally restrain Harper from wearing the shirt in the interest of protecting the rights of other students, ADF issued a press release complaining that the opinion "implied that Brokeback Mountain is in, and the Bible is out."

Back in Boyd County, Kentucky, ADF lost its attempt to exempt its clients from the mandatory training, and is now appealing. Kevin Theriot, ADF's senior legal counsel, says the training video—which he hasn't seen—is trying "change the belief systems of religious students." In fact, the video, which is publicly available, acknowledges that "your religious beliefs are sacred and we're not trying to influence those," and "you have the right to express your beliefs" that "homosexuality is wrong" without harassing another student.

Despite ADF's ongoing litigation, the percentage of students viewing the video has steadily increased since 2004, when barely half the students watched it, to over 87 percent. But there is no longer a GSA at Boyd County High School, which to Bill Scaggs proves that it was just a "flash in the pan," failing to see that his organization intimidated the club out of existence. As William Carter, a Boyd County High School graduate whose efforts to start the GSA resulted in years of personal upheaval and entanglement in lawsuits, said, "Who wants to join a club where you would have to explain to your parents, you know, I'm going to be involved in a federal lawsuit because I'm going to be in a club or someone hit me in the head with a can of pop, or someone's going to kill me? No one's going to do that. It's high school."


Sarah Posner is an investigative journalist at work on a book about televangelist's in American politics, due out next year from PowerPoint Press. The Nation Institute Investigative Fund provided research support for this article.

 

Tags:   

A Fact For George Bush, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani

Bush in a speech to troops at California's Fort Irwin on Wednesday, "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here."

   We've heard that same old lame line in speech after speech from the Commander Moron and it is really getting tiresome.

Item

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

Foreign-born jihadists are present in Iraq, but they're believed to number only between 4 percent and 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgent fighters - 1,200 to 3,000 terrorists - according to the Defense Intelligence Agency and a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center-right research center.

"Attacks by terrorist groups account for only a fraction of insurgent violence," said a February DIA report.

While acknowledging that terrorists could commit a catastrophic act on U.S. soil at any time - whether U.S. forces are in Iraq or not - the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best, experts say.

Tags:

Giuliani Not Fit to Flip Burgers Much Less To Be President Of The U.S.

On April 7, 2007 - 12:05pm marcNYC said:

Greg, it's absurd that the media cedes Rudy the expertise on anything having to do with what it would take to run the White House. I've said this before, the media has conveniently forgotten that fact that on September 10, 2001 Rudy Giuliani had poll numbers that rivaled the current occupant of the White House.

The media also does not like to discuss that the reason he looked so heroic wandering around downtown Manhattan is that he had no place to go -- his emergenct response center was destroyed because he moved it into the world's biggest terroris target. He did this after ignoring the advice of every competent security person who looked at the issue. The media also gives him a pass on his insane attempt to alter the New York City Charter and appoint himself mayor beyond his term, even though he was legally barred from continuing in office. (I hope this doesn't give Carl Rove any ideas). And, let's not discuss his abuses of office while he was US Attorney.

Why does it seem like the MSM is afraid of him?    TPM

  This comment was in response to an article from TPM discussing what would appear to be Rudy Giuliani's ignorance in the difference between Sunni and Shiite groups in Iraq and whether he is fit to be a president.

   Since the MSM doesn't see fit to remember the bad side of dear old Rudy, maybe the blogoshpere should refresh their memory.

Tags:

George Bush's Greatest Hits

Albert Einstein was visited one day by one of his students. "The questions on this year's exam are the same as last year's!" the young man exclaimed. "Yes," Einstein replied, "but this year all the answers are different."

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. "H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

* * * *

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt

This is a short poem of actual quotations from George W. Bush. These have been arranged, only for aesthetic purposes, by Washington Post writer, Richard Thompson.
MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
And potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet
Become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being
And the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
Where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher!
Make the pie higher!

* * * *

Lionelonline

 

Tags:

New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Ugly Past before 9/11

   The following is a look at the Giuliani way of life before he became an over-rated 9/11 icon. This man could be an even more disastrous president than George Bush could ever hope to be.

From Human Rights Watch.

New York is enjoying a dramatic drop in violent crime, with some attributing it to the police department's emphasis on more minor, "quality of life," crimes, such as graffiti, squeegee windshield washing, and subway turnstile-jumping, pursued as a way to demonstrate control of the streets and to apprehend individuals who may have outstanding arrest warrants against them.

...

Police abuse experts have wondered why, if the police leadership is eager to stop crime by aggressively pursuing minor criminals and crimes, it is failing to demonstrate the same aggressiveness in dealing with officers before they commit more serious offenses.

   The rest of this is crossposted from Daily Kos and My Blog and Op-ed news.

In 1997 the Giuliani dichotomy of being tough on civilians who commit minor offense and light on police who abuse their authority gradually began to be exposed and led to several tragic incidents.  

First there was the wrongful arrest, torture and sexual abuse of Abner Louima by NYPD officers who mistakenly thought he had insulted one of them outside of a night club.  

A federal court jury in Brooklyn convicted three New York City cops March 6 of conspiring to cover up the 1997 station house torture of Haitian immigrant Abner Louima.  

Thomas Weise and Thomas Bruder each face five years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to obstruct a federal investigation into the savage assault on Louima. The third cop, Charles Schwarz, was convicted in a previous trial as an accomplice with Justin Volpe in torturing the immigrant worker inside the bathroom of the 70th Precinct in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn.  

Volpe, convicted of sodomizing Louima with a broken piece of a broomstick, tearing a one-inch hole in his rectum and bladder, was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Schwarz, who was found guilty of holding Louima down during the attack, faces up to a life sentence.  

The three cops greeted the verdict with disbelief and rage. "They're f—-ing liars; this is f—-ing bullshit," exclaimed Schwarz, who turned his wrath on his lawyer. As he was taken back into custody he slammed the wall and shouted out other obscenities.  

Let me point out again that Louima wasn't even the guy they were looking for in the first place!  This kind of brutality doesn't just happen, there has to be a permissive attitude in play at the department in order for anyone - let alone several officers - to believe that kidnapping and assaulting someone this way, not to mention intimidating witness and the victim to "keep quiet" could possibly work.  

And how did Rudy react at the time? (From Human Rights Watch)  

In August 1997, after the alleged torture of Haitian immigrant Abner Louima by police officers made national headlines and outraged city residents, the anti-crime record of the mayor and police department was tarnished. In uncharacteristic fashion, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Police Commissioner Howard Safir condemned the officers implicated in the incident as well as those who reportedly did nothing to stop it or report it.2 These were welcome condemnations, but conflicted with the mayor's persistent and seemingly automatic defense of officers accused of abusive treatment - even when he lacked a factual basis to do so - in his first term.  

So did Rudy then take decisive steps to correct the problem? Not really.  

Even when the mayor himself asked a task force to review police-community issues following the alleged beating and torture of Abner Louima, he immediately criticized the task force's majority report: "Some of the things [recommended] we've already done. Some of the things I've opposed in the past, I'll continue to oppose them. And some of the things are unrealistic and make very little sense."

Two years after Louima, another high profile police misconduct case landed on Rudy's lap - the murder of Amadou Diallo.

In February 1999, four New York City policemen searching for a rape suspect knocked on Amadou Diallo's door to question him. When he came to the door he reached inside his jacket, at which point the officers shot at him 41 times, hitting him with 19 bullets. The object Diallo was reaching for turned out to be his wallet.

Many New Yorkers were incensed and began to raise cries of W.W.B. - "Walking While Black!"  

In New York City under Rudy Giuliani, we have seen the terrible resurgence of officially condoned police racism. Not long ago, a black cast member of a Broadway play was arrested and held overnight, missing his performance. Like Diallo, his only "crime" was that of being a black man in his own building at a time when it came under police attention. Ask any young black man in New York City, neatly dressed teenager or even a computer consultant wearing a suit, how many times he has been stopped and harassed by the police.  

...  

Giuliani's first Mayoral campaign began in a police riot, which no-one today remembers. The cops were demonstrating in front of City Hall, then inhabited by a black mayor, David Dinkins. Giuliani stood on the steps and delivered a speech so incendiary that the cops, many of them already drunk, began beating journalists and blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge. It is heavily ironic that Giuliani no longer permits demonstrations on the steps of City Hall.  

After Diallo, there was also the case of shooting of Patrick Dorismond:  

On March 16, 2000, an undercover New York City narcotics officer approached Haitian-American Patrick Dorismond to solicit marijuana. Dorismond reportedly grew upset at officer's request, and scuffled with Detective Anthony Vasquez, who fatally shot Dorismond. Dorismond was later found to not have any drugs or weapons on him.

As he had done before, Giuliani blamed the victim.  

Before Patrick Dorismond's body was cold, the Giuliani administration launched an obscene campaign to vilify the dead security guard and all but portray him as someone who had a police bullet coming to him. Having little to work with, Giuliani ordered Police Commissioner Safir to unseal a juvenile record on the man, disclosing that he had been arrested for robbery and assault in 1987, when he was 13.  

The charge, reportedly stemming from a childhood fist fight over a quarter, was dropped and his record sealed because he was a child. But Giuliani's legal advisers took the position that once he was dead, Dorismond's right not to have police records from his childhood publicized by the mayor died with him. It allowed Giuliani to declare that Dorismond was no "altar boy" and that his previous brush with the police "may justify, more closely, what the police officer did."

As for the cop who shot the security guard, Giuliani praised him for his "distinguished" career as an undercover officer, declaring that in going out and shooting an innocent, unarmed man to death in the street he "put his life on the line in the middle of the night to protect the safety and security of this city."

But then 9/11 happened and washed all this away from our collective memories, remaking Rudy into a brand new Golden Boy ™ for the G.O.P.  

He became a key speaker at the G.O.P's 2004 Presidential Convention even while NYPD officers continued their suppression tactics and even engaged in political espionage.  Milking the situation for every ounce of juice Rudy wrote to the Republican faithful in an RNC mass-mailing on the eve of the 2004 elections repeating what he'd stated on the Convention floor.  

On September 11, our nation faced the worst attack in our history.  

On that day, we had to confront reality. Our people were brave in their response.  

At the time, we believed we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, "Thank God George Bush is our President." I've been saying that every day since.  

We needed George Bush then; we need him now; and we need him for four more years!  

That conversation has since been shown to have been a complete fabrication, while Bernard Kerik who Giuliani had been pushing as the new head of Homeland Security has since been unceremoniously tossed off the bus in the wake of ethics issues and alleged ties to organized crime.  

Skip forward to the here and now.  

I have recounted all the above in such detail in order to provide context for what may be some of the most chilling aspects of Rudy Giuliani radical authoritarianism to be yet revealed : His belief in absolute Presidential Authority.

From Glenn Greenwald.  

Rudy was asked about the Iraq supplemental. He said he finds it "irresponsible and dangerous." Then he began to muse about, after a veto, "would the president have the constitutional authority to support them [the troops], anyway?" He said he's a lawyer so he wouldn't offer an opinion "off the top of his head," then he proceeded to do just that.

He seemed to suggest that Bush could fund the Iraq war without Congress providing funding, but it was confusing. In an interview with a New Hampshire TV reporter after his remarks, he seemed more categorical and said, since the war had been authorized by Congress, the president has "the inherent authority to support the troops." But he added, "You have to ask a constitutional lawyer."  

Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional Lawyer, and he's not down with this.

Not only does Rudy believe that the President has some magic ability to fund a War on his own (ala Iran/Contra) but he also believes that the President has the authority to imprison American Citizens without charges, justification or review.  

This view flies totally in the fact of Hamdi v Rumsfeld which clearly called for Judicial Review in such cases:  

It would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.  

Following Hamdi the 109th Congress via the MCA effectively suspended the writ for foreign combatants - but it did not suspend habeas corpus for U.S. Citizens and the President certainly does not have that power independent of Congressional authority.  

Giuliani may simply be confused on this point - but I doubt it since also think the President has the inherent power to defy the will of Congress.  

In fact, it may well be this very long and clearly defined authoritarian streak of Giuliani's that is making him the darling of the Neo-Con Sect, causing them to brush aside his pro-abortion, pro-gay stances even among the deepest, darkest hearted of the red-staters. Especially among them.  

For you see, they love nothing so much as a whip-cracking, brutal authoritarian in those parts.  Just listen to what Katie O'Beirn and Rich Lowry have said about how Giuliani "women issues" have actually helped him.  Lowry via Greenwald...

Have been talking to some smart people today about Giuliani. Two of them said independently that the appeal of Giuliani is he'd be "a tough SOB -- for you," and that he'd be "a d*head -- for you." Another said . . . that a Giuliani supporter he knows considers the nasty divorce a kind of asset because it speaks to his toughness. . . .  

I think it's clear he'd be a "tough dickhead son of a bitch" for somebody - but there's no guarantee that it's going to you.  

Greenwald on O'Beirn:  

O'Beirne passed along an email from a friend which stated: "Contrary to popular speculation, the apparently brutal public dumping of Donna Hanover can only bolster the popularity of the man with conservatives." O'Beirne also suggested that an old Giuliani campaign ad showcasing his lovely family could be revised to say: "Don't worry. I dumped them all because I am that tough guy."  

The Past is Prologue.

If you look back, the signs are all there.  With a Giuliani Presidency we can not expect to see an actual moderate Republicanism, we will not see "Compassionate Conservative" finally realized, instead we can expect to see an even more extreme version of the Unitary Executive Theory than we have from John Yoo, more corruption and cronyism (Kerik), and even more excuses and justifications of racial profiling (against Muslims, Blacks and probably Latinos), illegal detainment of suspects and possibly even torture than we've seen so far from President Bush.  

And that's saying something.  

Even back in 1998 in response to Louima and Diallo - some New Yorkers saw it all clearly. He is George Bush Redux.  

The kind of mayor I want for my city would be deeply agitated by the killing of Amadou Diallo and would ask why he had such poorly trained, highly strung "heroes" patrolling in plainclothes. Giuliani, on television, merely seemed pained, as he always does. Undoubtedly he wishes it had not happened, but only because it is a nuisance to deal with ...

Yes, exactly how George Bush looked pained by the aftermath of Katrina - not because he was sorry that it had happened to all those who lost their lives and homes, but that it had happened to deeply embarrass his admistration.  

More from 1999:  

Rudy Giuliani is a dictator in waiting. He is self righteous, absolute, has no sense of humor, and will go to any lengths to punish his enemies. He is temperamentally completely unsuited to be senator [As he was vying at the time], as it is a job requiring negotiation, collegiality, and charm. I believe he is interested in the job for one reason only: as a stepping stone to the Presidency. If so, he would be the most dangerous president since Richard Nixon. In fact, I think he would be more dangerous: Nixon doubted himself and sometimes hesitated at the opportune moment; Giuliani feels no doubt and will not hesitate.

   Tags:

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Friday, April 06, 2007

John Edwards Pulls Out Of CBC/Fox News Debate

   Presidential hopeful John Kerry has pulled out of the Fox sponsored Congressional Black Caucus debate, once again beating the rest of the Democratic field to the punch.

    In an email to Talking Points Memo, deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince said,

"We just called the CBC to let them know that we're looking forward to their January debate with CNN but we're not going to participate in the proposed debate with Fox. The CBC champions critical issues that matter enormously to the future of our country, and we look forward to discussing them throughout this campaign and at their debate in January. But we believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective. If there was any uncertainty as to Fox's objectivity, it was put to rest when they attacked Democratic candidates, Democratic constituency groups, and the Nevada Democratic party when their last proposed debate was canceled for lack of support."

  Good for you Mr. Edwards! Maybe now the spineless wonders ( Clinton, Obama ) will follow your lead once again.

Tags:

Dave Obey On Bush's Press Conference

The Gavel

Chairman Obey on President Bush’s Press Conference

April 4th, 2007 by Jesse Lee

Today, Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey made the following remarks at a public forum at the University of Wisconsin in response to the President’s attack on Congressional Democrats yesterday:

“The President is crying crocodile tears about the fact that the Congress has not yet passed his take-it-or-leave-it spending request for the Iraq war. The President said we left Washington without finishing our work, complaining that it has taken us 57 days to process his ‘my way or no way’ request. Let me remind the President that last year, the Republican Congress took 118 days to pass his supplemental request. Further, let me remind the President that his Republican party in Congress left Washington for the year without finishing their work on the entire $463.5 billion domestic budget. If we had not had to spend the first month of this new session finishing the work they should have done last year, we might have had more time to turn to the President’s ‘my way or no way’ request, but we first had to clean up their last year’s leftovers.

“The President needs to stop his huffing and puffing and recognize that he is no longer dealing with a rubber stamp Congress. There must be compromise. We have already adjusted our proposal by giving him a waiver on troop readiness. When are we going to hear any talk of reasonable compromise from him?

“As usual the President is trying to govern by dividing rather than uniting. That is why his Presidency is in such disarray. When will he ever learn?

“The President is simply thrashing out as a diversionary tactic to obscure the fact that he has no viable policy in Iraq or in the entire Middle East for that matter. We need to come together to fashion such a policy.”

 

Tags:

John Murtha On Bush's Press Conference

Rep. Murtha on President Bush’s Press Conference

April 4th, 2007 by Jesse Lee

Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha:

“I have just been informed that the 4th Infantry Division is preparing to deploy to Iraq with only eight months at home and without the appropriate training. This is unacceptable.

“The stress on our military due to the manner in which the President has waged the war in Iraq is no longer tolerable. Due to continuous and extended deployments to Iraq, our military is running out of troops and equipment and is being forced to abandon its own rotation and deployment guidelines in order to sustain the President’s war plan.

“In short, our military has been forced to do too much with too little.

“Our military readiness has deteriorated to levels not seen since Vietnam and our ability to fight future threats is severely compromised. Yet the President refuses to address this most vital issue.

“In reaction to the disastrous manner in which the President has run the war, Congress passed the Iraq Accountability Act in both houses. This bill provides resources to address the readiness problem, puts the onus on the Iraqi Government to internally solve its own civil war and provides the beginnings of a safe and responsible return of our United States forces from Iraq.

“The Constitution expressly places the power ‘to raise and support Armies,’ and ‘to provide and maintain a Navy’ with Congress. It is, therefore, Congress’ responsibility to raise the revenues for our military and to determine in what manner and by what means they shall be spent.

“For four years, the President has been waging a war without end and without accountability. The Iraq Accountability Act expresses the sentiment of the Congress and the majority of the American people who say it’s time for a plan to safely and responsibly end the war.”

Tags:

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Fact: Bush Is Slowing War Funding

  Here's a bit on the Bush clans claim that the Democrats are slowing down the funding for the for the troops.

Analysis: Bush delays slowed war funding

UPI

Published: April 3, 2007 at 1:26 PM

By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON, April 4 (UPI) -- U.S. President George W. Bush is framing the standoff with Congress over funding the Iraq war as a matter of supporting the troops.

"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," he said Tuesday in a Rose garden press conference.

Four years of budget machinations on the war, however, show the White House's record is not as clean as it suggests.

The White House submits the annual Pentagon budget request in February -- 2008 is the latest -- six months prior to the start of the new fiscal year. That gives Congress six months to hold hearings, debate, and approve final legislation.

Since 2002, however, the White House has submitted the annual war funding request six months after the fiscal year has already started. This automatically puts the bill and Congress into crisis mode and ratchets up political pressure to approve the $100 billion requests quickly to demonstrate their support of the troops.

But with half the year elapsed already with no war funding, the military every year dips into its procurement accounts, delays training exercises and defers scheduled weapons and vehicle repair until the war money comes through.

By the time Congress finishes hearings and passes a war spending bill -- which is separate from the annual budget, and lags behind it by a year -- there are only a few months left to use the money and the artificial cycle of delay, crisis, and military budget machinations begins again.

To offset the delay in the White House supplemental request, Congress has annually appropriated a bridge war supplemental fund of more than $50 billion. But at a "burn rate" of more than $10 billion a month for Iraq and Afghanistan, that money runs out quickly.

Pentagon officials since 2001 have told reporters they did not want to submit imprecise war funding requests and so waited until the annual war costs were clear to ask Congress for them. They blamed Congress itself for this, pointing to Congress's refusal in 2001 to approve a vague $10 billion fund for the Pentagon to draw on as it saw fit.

Last fall, however, U.S. Army officials called the accounting bluff.

Lt. Gen. David Melcher, the deputy chief of staff for Army programming, materiel integration and management, told reporters on Oct. 10 the Army could easily submit the 2008 supplemental request in February 2007, rather than waiting until February 2008 to ask for the money.

"If there was a desire to submit that in February that could easily be done," Melcher told reporters at the Association of the U.S. Army conference in Washington.

"From the Army's perspective, I think it would make good sense to submit the president's budget and the entire '08 supplemental at the same time ... I think it would be good to have openness about that, and articulate the need up front," he said.

The Army got its way this year, certainly helped by a change in defense secretaries. Both the 2007 and the 2008 supplemental request went to Capitol Hill in February with the 2008 annual budget request for the Defense Department.

Congress has also been agitating for a change in defense budget practices, asking that the war costs be included in the annual budget since they are now quite predictable, albeit rising. Emergency appropriations bills, now topping $120 billion annually, are not counted into the national deficit although they add to the national debt.

President Bush Tuesday scolded the Democratic-controlled Congress for slowing funding for the troops but he left out his central role in the delay.

"If Democrat leaders in Congress are bent on making a political statement, then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back," he said. "I'll veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without delay."

 

Tags:

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Sam Fox and How To Get An Appointment When Nobody Likes You

   Just in the past few months the American public and the Congressmen along with the Senate and the rest of the world, have seen how immoral George Bush is and we have also seen what a liar and conniving son of a bitch he is.

    His recent nomination appointment of Sam Fox as the United States ambassador to Belgium flat out stinks!

   I'm not a legal expert on this political stuff, so I may be wrong here. I'm just wondering if it is legal to appoint someone that was officially withdrawn from the nomination in the first place?

   This recess appointment while the Congress is on Easter Vacation doesn't have any merit to it in the first place.

   This is how you get into politics if you are a big spending, Bush supporter. It's called buying the position. For example:

                                     THIS...

President Bush has rewarded 146 elite 2000 and 2004 donors (23 percent) by appointing them or their spouses to his 2000 transition team or to one or more federal posts. Of these 146 big-donor appointees, 99 (70 percent) were 2000 Pioneers who have had more time than the newcomers to score Bush appointments. Nonetheless there are 47 appointees who first became elite donors in Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign.

   * Bush appointed two elite donors as cabinet secretaries: Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. Commerce Secretary Don Evans and Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson took the Pioneer pledge in 2000 but were not recognized by the campaign for raising the full $100,000.   Source

           ...plus this...

Thirteen other families bred multiple elite Bush donors, with three trifecta families producing three Pioneers or Rangers. Mercer Reynolds, who once bought out George W. Bush's failing oil company, is Bush's ex-Swiss ambassador and current national finance chair. The grandfathers of Mercer and Pioneer cousin James Reynolds bought the "Cracker's Neck" wood pulp plantation outside Atlanta. Along with Pioneer--and apparent family member-- Harold Reynolds, their grandsons developed the land into Reynolds Plantation, a luxury development that was the site of major fundraisers for Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

<...>        ....and this...

Sam Fox is another Ranger father of two Ranger sons. The Fox family's Harbour Group specializes in takeovers of manufacturing companies and has major investments in China. Sam Fox ironically told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he got involved in politics in the 1980s out of concern over the huge federal deficit. He was among 22 wealthy business leaders whom the president, who calls this donor "Foxie," invited to a 2001 lunch to discuss  tax cuts for the rich.

The Pickens family of Dallas--which recently squabbled over its oil inheritance--had two members who raised more than $100,000 for Bush's campaigns. Three other family members took the 2000 Pioneer pledge but failed to reach their $100,000 target (John T., Michael K. and William C. Pickens). A T. Boone Pickens spokesperson says that he is not related to this Pickens family.   Source

                          equal this...

Fox nominated for Belgium ambassador
St. Louis Business Journal - December 7, 2006

Sam Fox, head of Clayton-based Harbour Group, has been nominated to be ambassador to Belgium. President George W. Bush announced the appointment Dec. 4, which is subject to Senate confirmation.

Fox, a significant contributor to the Republican Party and its candidates, is Harbour's chairman and chief executive.

He joins another area resident who already serves as an ambassador. Ann Wagner, former co-chair of the Republican National Committee and the Missouri Republican Party, has been ambassador to Luxembourg since August 2005.

Stephen Brauer, chairman and chief executive of St. Louis-based Hunter Engineering, served as ambassador to Belgium from June 2001 until September 2003. George Herbert "Bert" Walker III, who also lives in the St. Louis area, was ambassador to Hungary from 2003 until last July. He is a first cousin to the first President George H. W. Bush.  Source

   Any Questions?

   The American citizens have only themselves to blame for any of this since many of you voted for this reject as president a second time. All that you did was to allow a crook, liar, and fraud to continue to collect cash from his corporate friends and to appoint many unqualified friends of his to a few important positions that will end up hurting the country in the long run.

   You watched Fox News and read the banners under the reporters as they and the GOP spin machine spoke to you, and you became an ignorant, un-informed population.  Many of you are still listening to that White House propaganda spin machine and I feel really sorry for you. NOT! If you are to ignorant ( stupid ) to know what Bush is doing by now and to see the punk for what he really is, then you deserve everything else that this gutter garbage is going to do to you for " democracy."

  I see that I have gotten a little off target here, but I can do that. I'm not a professional  with a political science major and what have you. I'm just an regular United States citizen who was once proud to call this country my home.  Thanks to " the Dictator ", I find it hard to be proud of my home to the outside world. Bush has given us citizens nothing good to advertise to the other countries on why democracy is the better way as they have seen what democracy has /is doing to America. Most of the outside sees this country as becoming more communist-like everyday, and I agree. Those of you who voted for this scum and those of you ( 28% ) who still support this scum are as far down the ladder in morals as is our Idiot in Chief.

   For the fake feel of safety from terrorist, you have given up many of our rights and allowed the Bush clan to get by with various illegal activities.

   I wish that someone could explain to me how you can give up your Constitutional rights, along with your Bill of Rights, and then still be called a democracy. They do not mix in the same glass.

          IMPEACH! INDICT! IMPRISON!

Tags:  

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Cheney And Limbaugh Have Good Time With Democrat Bashing

   From  BarbinMD over at the Daily Kos, we get a look at the Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney comedy hour. Cheney was the guest on the Limbaugh communist radio show and they spoke of nothing other than the Democrats.

Cheney and Limbaugh

by BarbinMD
Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 04:12:09 PM PDT

When the Vice President of the United States sits down with radio host Rush Limbaugh, one would imagine that there would be a lot of common ground and interests that they could talk about, from avoiding Vietnam, to their brushes with the law, or even their mutual disdain for truth. But during today's one-on-one, they went with their common hatred for Democrats.  And while that hatred is evident throughout the interview, it is perhaps best encapsulated during two exchanges. First, while talking about the House and Senate supplemental spending bills:

LIMBAUGH:  Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion, or their seeming allegiance to the concept of U.S. defeat?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't.

After more than four years, hundreds of thousands of deaths and an Iraqi civil war, perhaps it would have been more helpful had they discussed their own devotion, their seeming allegiance, to the concept of fighting a war that has no military solution, but instead they moved on to the recess appointment of Sam Fox:

LIMBAUGH:  This is the kind of move that garners a lot of support from the people in the country. This shows the administration willing to engage these people and not allow them to get away with this kind of -- well, my term -- you don't have to accept it -- Stalinist behavior from these people on that committee.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, you're dead on.

Equating legitimate concerns about an ambassadorship with a policy that led to the deaths of untold millions?  Reprehensible.  At least that's how the White House described Dick Durbin's remarks in 2005, that likened the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay with Soviet gulags.  Back then Republicans and the White House demanded (and received) an apology for such a comparison.  But let's not hold our collective breath waiting for GOP outrage over Limbaugh's remarks or Cheney's agreement. As a matter of fact, Dick and Rush had a good laugh over the whole situation:

LIMBAUGH: You go on vacation, this is what happens to you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: If you're a Democrat. (Laughter.)

It's almost as funny as what happens when a Republican goes on vacation:

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in U.S.

 

Tags:

The Truth About The Supplemental Spending Bill

A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service makes clear that Bush’s deadline is completely fabricated. According to the CRS, "the Army has enough money in its existing budget to fund operations and maintenance through the end of May—about $52.6 billion. If additional transfer authority is tapped, subject to Congress approving a reprogramming request, the Army would have enough funds to make it through nearly two additional months, or toward the end of July." 

Conservatives are also claiming they oppose the emergency spending bill because it includes money for domestic priorities, including aide for veterans, children's health care funds, and housing assistance and reconstruction funds for the Gulf Coast. During his radio address Saturday, President Bush complained that the emergency bills were "loaded up...with billions of dollars in domestic spending completely unrelated to the war." This from the same President Bush who has engineered tens of millions of dollars in executive earmarks, and never once vetoed any of Congress’ previous pork-laden spending bills. Likewise, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) claimed he opposed the emergency spending bill because it "heap[s] pork on the backs of our men and women in uniform." This from the same Trent Lott who authored "the largest earmark ever," the $700 million "railroad to nowhere." The truth is that Bush and his conservative allies oppose this bill because it changes course in Iraq; they just don't want to make that their first argument, because they know it's so unpopular.

President Bush said on Saturday that the annual budget resolutions passed recently by the House and Senate "would raise taxes by a total of nearly $400 billion over the next five years," which he described as "the largest tax increase in our nation's history."   The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states, "charges that the plan requires multi-hundred-billion dollar tax increases are not correct." Likewise, the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates for "responsible fiscal policy," calls the new budget a "successful first test of how seriously [House leaders] plan to abide by [the PAYGO] rule, [assuming] no entitlement expansions or tax cuts that are not fully offset." Ironically, the tax cut expiration dates conservatives are now attacking are the same ones they wrote and supported in 2001 and 2003.

              From  American Progress Action

Tags:

On Issues Up For Vote, Clinton And Obama Agreed 94.2 Percent Of The Time

    According to CQ.com, presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have agreed with each other 94.2 per cent of the time according to recorded votes.

The highest rate of agreement was 98.7 percent, between Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware; the lowest rate was a still hefty 91.3 percent, between Dodd and Obama.

All four of presidential contenders were in attendance for 77 of the total 126 roll call votes. Clinton and Obama have the best attendance among the quartet, having each missed just three of 126 votes.

   I'll give both Clinton and Obama credit for their attendance when it is time to vote. Missing only three out of 126 votes is pretty impressive, to say the least. There are many more Senators on both sides of the fence who miss tons of votes because they have better things to do with their time instead of dong their jobs as we elected them to do.

 

Tags:

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Iraq,Iran,Bush,and The War Funding Debate

    Since Bush is now terrorizing the residents of Texas for the rest of the week, we have no White House briefing to poke fun of. all is not lost though as we have a press gaggle with the esteemed Gordon Johndroe.

Below are bits and pieces of the gaggle. What the hell is a press gaggle anyway?

Press Gaggle by Gordon Johndroe
Crawford Middle School
Crawford, Texas    April 5,2007     Entire Transcript

Q Gordon, Zebari says that Iraq has been -- Iraq's government has been asking the United States for quite some time to release the Iranians who are held in the raid a couple months ago -- said that the Americans are just not complying. If Iraq is a sovereign government and we're just there at their invitation, why aren't we releasing those Iranians at their request?

MR. JOHNDROE: We certainly work hand-in-hand with the Iraqis on the security issues in Iraq. Right now it's our position that those detained were there engaged in actions that led to the deaths of innocent Iraqis, as well as Americans. So that's an ongoing process. We'll continue our discussions with the Iraqis on that.

 Iraq is a sovereign government so long as it is in the best interest of the Bush administration. Otherwise, do as you are told.

Q What are the prospects for releasing those five Iranians being held by U.S. forces?

MR. JOHNDROE: Well, that's an ongoing process. We're going to work that with the Iraqis to see what the next steps are, determining what course of justice should be carried out to deal with -- to deal with, frankly, what we believe were activities harmful to innocent Iraqis, as well as coalition forces.

Q And they're believed to be responsible for supplying IEDs in Iraq? Or what charges are they being held under?

MR. JOHNDROE: You know, for any specifics like that I would have to refer you to -- multinational forces Iraq.

Q Thank you, Gordon. On Sam Fox, some Democrats are saying that he can be denied pay because it's a recess appointment. Is he prepared to do the job for free, or are you guys aware of that? What's your take?

MR. JOHNDROE: I think the State Department has something on that about his willingness to -- on his compensation. But I'd refer you to the State Department specifically, because they're the ones who handle that -- the finances of that position.

Q Gordon, does the President see recess appointments as a way of circumventing Senate opposition to his nominees?

MR. JOHNDROE: I think the President views recess appointments as an appropriate way to get people who are qualified into jobs that need to be filled. And it's a process that's been used many times over the years for people whose nominations have lingered or have been stopped for various reasons.

Q Is there any room for compromise on the issue of the war funding supplemental? They're pushing timetables, you're wanting maximum flexibility. Is there any language that can bridge the gap? And Harry Reid now seems to be saying, the President needs to give us his plan or his thinking on the subject. Is the President going to -- are you going to talk to him?

MR. JOHNDROE: I would say the President gave his plan and his thinking on the subject 59 days ago today, and then approximately four weeks ago made it very clear, as the Congress was moving in a direction to set arbitrary timetables and mandate failure, made it very clear about four weeks ago that he does not think we should handcuff our commanders and our troops on the ground with these timetables, with these funding restrictions.

And so I think the President's position is very clear. What the Democrats did for the last four weeks, instead of discussing with the President a way to make sure that funding gets to the troops, they spent the last four weeks cobbling together votes, adding an additional $24 billion in spending for spinach, and peanuts, and tropical birds, or fish, and shrimp, and things like that. So in this four-week period, where the President's position is well-known, instead of having a discussion, they just jammed straight ahead, postponed their vote in the House a day or two in order to cobble together this bare majority.

So instead of over this four-week period doing that, they could have been engaged in a discussion. The President's position is well-known and clear. His position is reiterated by the Iraq Study Group, as James Baker lays out today. I've heard some commanders on the ground say they have concerns with timetables. So the President's position is clear. He's stated why he thinks this is the best course of action. His position has been known for some time now. And the Democrats just seem to have ignored it, just flat out ignored it, and just pushed forward with their vote.

Tags:

Karl Rove's Dance Around The Issues

Original

Doin' the Karl Rove Dance

A Chorus Line of "Loyal Bushies"
By Elizabeth de la Vega    TomDispatch.com

Last week, Americans with access to YouTube were subjected to a once-in-a-lifetime performance by President Bush's senior political adviser Karl Rove. At least, I fervently hope that this event will only happen once in our lifetimes. Watching Rove, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, bobbing and weaving awkwardly in a pathetic parody of a rapper was painful. However, more excruciating than his routine -- "MC Rove: Doin' the Dance, the Karl Rove Dance" to lyrics supplied by comedian Brad Sherwood -- was the sight of the members of our so-called independent Washington press corps laughing amiably at the antics of a senior presidential aide whose conduct is so universally considered despicable that no one even flinches at ill-timed lines like: "Don't get the jitters/but MC Rove tears the head off of critters." That scene was the stuff of nightmares.

Rove's rap performance was disturbing, yes; but, in the end, it was also relatively brief and harmless. The same cannot be said of the danse macabre he has been directing since the Bush administration took over the White House. We know that Rove is a master of the quick-step and the hustle, but he almost never makes his moves in public. Instead, he has been directing the Bush production from the Office of Political Affairs whose purpose is, according to the White House website, to ensure "that the executive branch and the President are aware of the concerns of the American citizen."

Karl Rove has, for years, been choreographing an elaborate dance of death for the federal government designed to give life to the Republican Party, and yet the public remains largely ignorant of his activities because he so rarely takes the stage. That honor is reserved for an apparently infinite supply of young Republicans eager to dance their little hearts out for a chance to get plum appointments. In other words, the prerequisite for the success of the Bush administration's extravaganza -- whether in Washington, Iraq, or elsewhere -- has been a chorus line of "loyal Bushies."

Of course, the term "loyal Bushie" requires no definition, but one has recently been supplied by Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's former deputy chief of staff. Undoubtedly to his everlasting regret, Sampson, who resigned just prior to his testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, used this term to describe those United States Attorneys who should be retained by the White House because they had "managed well and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general." Those who "chafed against administration initiatives" were recommended for removal, according to Sampson; while the rest of the lot, including U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, were unranked.

I spent last Thursday watching Sampson testify about the White House choreographed firings of seven U.S. Attorneys who were chafers. I was compelled to watch, even though, having worked for more than 21 years as an Assistant United States Attorney myself, I considered the revelation of this latest outrage to be the least horrific of a long string of horrors carried out by the Bush administration in the name of the Department of Justice for the advancement of the Republican Party.

To satisfy the tobacco lobby, for instance, President Bush's Department of Justice (DOJ) appointees gutted the most significant case ever brought against the giant tobacco companies. To assuage the Republican base, Bush's DOJ brought an unprecedented number of civil rights cases on behalf of non-minorities, while drastically limiting its traditional affirmative-action lawsuits. In order to portray themselves as representatives of the party most likely to make the American people feel safe -- a cherished nugget of political wisdom from Karl Rove's constant polling activities -- Bush's Attorneys General have sanctioned, caused to be carried out, and/or turned a blind eye to the use of illegal spying on citizens, illegal detentions at Guantanamo and elsewhere, kidnappings and "extraordinary renditions" to countries which the State Department has classified as the most egregious of human rights violators and, worst of all, administration-sanctioned acts of torture.

It is these activities that, to adopt the words of a fellow former Assistant United States Attorney and lifelong Republican, "turn my stomach." Given that, under the stewardship of John Ashcroft and then Alberto Gonzales, the Department of Justice has consistently engaged in heinous criminal activity and blatant civil-rights violations around the world, I was finding it difficult to be as exercised as some about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. Certainly, there is abundant evidence that as many as seven U.S. Attorneys were removed for no other reason than to enable the administration to fill their positions with up-and-coming Republicans or, worse, to interfere with or influence the investigation of one or more cases for partisan political reasons -- a purpose that even Sampson acknowledged would be improper. But that didn't get to me. Nor was I particularly incensed by the fact that, as former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins of Little Rock, Arkansas commented on CBS's Face the Nation, the authority to make presidential appointments may possibly have been "delegated down through Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Judge Gonzales and all the way down to a bunch of 35-year-old-kids who -- who got in a room together and tried to decide who was the most loyal to the president." That story seemed to me to be less an accurate description of what happened than a blame-it-on-the-kids alibi offered on behalf of Bush, Rove, Miers, and Gonzales.

Listening to Sampson, however, and reading the careless, often juvenile emails he exchanged with fellow loyal Bushies, 33-year-old Monica Goodling (Gonzales' top aide, now on administrative leave because she pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before Congress) and Scott Jennings (another thirty-something aide to Karl Rove in the Office of Political Affairs), I felt my stomach beginning to roil again. In the end, what really got me was the realization that none of these Republican-politicians-in-training had any concept of public service. Worse, they were entirely contemptuous of the very government they had been entrusted to run.

I spent my entire career in federal service, starting with a stint as a clerk for a federal judge. Modest and self-effacing as he was, just like every other judge I've ever known, he had a fondness for dispensing homely wisdom to his clerks. One of his favorites -- "When in doubt, do right" -- always made me laugh. It was, for starters, ridiculously corny. I thought, what a no-brainer -- except in those agonizing situations where competing moral or ethical concerns caused uncertainty about what course of action to follow. If you knew what was right, of course you would do it.

It never occurred to me that anyone would behave otherwise, but then again, I was young -- and I hadn't been around Karl Rove. On the other hand, the judge, a Republican, had been around his share of rogues. Indeed, he had survived an administration that was remarkably similar to the one we have today. Years before I clerked for him, he had been appointed United States Attorney by President Richard Nixon. As his first official act, the judge had selected a trusted colleague to be his First Assistant and they both went about their business.

One day not long afterwards, however, the judge returned from lunch to find a member of Nixon's legal staff waiting for him: The man had traveled from Washington, D.C to tell him that he had to fire his First Assistant because he was a Democrat. What did the judge do? He told the lawyer to get out of his office -- politely, I would imagine -- and not come back. That was the end of the matter.

As it happens, the judge's homely advice to his clerks is almost exactly the title of the Department of Justice Ethics Rules provided to every new employee. They inform the ethics training that DOJ employees around the country receive once a year. The standards of conduct issued by Alberto Gonzales' own shop are called "Do it Right" and here is the introductory paragraph:

"You may have heard it said that ‘public service is a public trust.' This means that each Federal employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain. The public deserves and should expect no less."

Tragically, the public has been receiving so much less from the entire Bush administration. What would have happened to a Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney who engaged in the sort of brazen display of integrity I just described? We now know exactly what. Main Justice, as the DOJ's Washington, D. C. office is called, is well-staffed with "loyal Bushies" who will apparently carry out any tasks assigned, regardless of how unethical, illegal, or immoral they may be. The President is now trying to staff the U.S. Attorney's Offices throughout the country with the same feckless loyalists. If he is allowed to proceed unimpeded, those offices too will be run by United States Attorneys "Doin' the Karl Rove Dance."

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch.com. She is the author of United States v. George W. Bush et al., which has been optioned for a movie scheduled to begin production in the summer of 2007. She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.

 

Tags:   

Republicans Who Visited Syria

  We all know that three Republican congressmen went against Bush and that they met with Syrian leaders. They stated that the United States must keep up a dialogue with the country even though the White House claims that Syria sponsors terrorism.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.: "I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country. I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah." Source

  It's funny how Bush and the rest of the crime family had something to say about Pelosi going over and visiting the Syrians, but the Republicans have been quite about the trip by their own people.

GOP Rep. Robert Aderholt: "This is an area where we would disagree with the administration. None of us in the Congress work for the president. We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents. ... I think there's room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line."  The Article

 

Tags:

Brief History Of The Shiites And The Sunnis

   So why can't the Shiites and the Sunnis get along with each other?

   Maybe you should take a quick pop-quiz and then read the correct answer after you fail the test.

Published on Saturday, March 24, 2007 by Truthdig.com

Calling Out Idiot America

by Scott Ritter

The ongoing hand-wringing in Congress by the newly empowered Democrats over what to do about the war in Iraq speaks volumes about the level of concern (or lack thereof) these “representatives of the people” have toward the men and women who honor us all by serving in the armed forces of the United States of America. The inability to reach consensus concerning the level of funding required or how to exercise effective oversight of the war, both constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is more a reflection of congressional cowardice and impotence than a byproduct of any heartfelt introspection over troop welfare and national security.

The issues that prompt the congressional collective to behave in such an egregious manner have more to do with a reflexive tendency to avoid any controversy that might disrupt the status quo ante regarding representative-constituent relations (i.e., re-election) than with any intellectual debate about doing the right thing. This sickening trend is bipartisan in nature, but of particular shame to the Democrats, who obtained their majority from an electorate that expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of the war in Iraq through their votes, demanding that something be done.

Sadly, Congress’ smoke-and-mirrors approach to the Iraq war creates the impression of much activity while generating no result. Even more sadly, the majority of Americans are falling for the act, either by continuing their past trend of political disengagement or by thinking that the gesticulation and pontification taking place in Washington, D.C., actually translate into useful work. The fact is, most Americans are ill-placed intellectually, either through genuine ignorance, a lack of curiosity or a combination of both, to judge for themselves the efficacy of congressional behavior when it comes to Iraq. Congress claims to be searching for a solution to Iraq, and many Americans simply accept that this is this case.

The fact is one cannot begin to search for a solution to a problem that has yet to be accurately defined. We speak of “surges,” “stability” and “funding” as if these terms come close to addressing the real problems faced in Iraq. There is widespread recognition among members of Congress and the American people that there is civil unrest in Iraq today, with Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence tearing that country apart, but the depth of analysis rarely goes beyond that obvious statement of fact. Americans might be able to nod their heads knowingly if one utters the words Sunni, Shiite and Kurd, but very few could take the conversation much further down the path of genuine comprehension regarding the interrelationships among these three groups. And yet we, the people, are expected to be able to hold to account those whom we elected to represent us in higher office, those making the decisions regarding the war in Iraq. How can the ignorant accomplish this task? And ignorance is not something uniquely attached to the American public. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the newly appointed chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, infamously failed a pop quiz in which journalist Jeff Stein asked him to differentiate between Sunni and Shiite. Reyes has become the poster boy for congressional stupidity, but in truth he is not alone. Very few of his colleagues could pass the test, truth be told.

The task of holding Congress to account is a daunting one, and can be accomplished only if the citizenry that forms the respective constituencies of our ignorant congressional representatives are themselves able to operate at an intellectual capacity above that of those they are holding to account. So rather than issue “pop quizzes” to our elected representatives, I’ve designed one for us, the people. If the reader can fully answer the question raised, then he or she qualifies as one capable of pointing an accusatory finger at Congress as its members dither over what to do in Iraq. If the reader fails the quiz, then there should be an honest appraisal of the reality that we are in way over our heads regarding this war, and that it is irresponsible for anyone to make sweeping judgments about the ramifications of policy courses of action yet to be agreed upon. Claiming to be able to divine a solution to a problem improperly defined is not only ignorant but dangerously delusional.

So here is the quiz: Explain the relationship between the Iraqi cities of Karbala and Baghdad as they impact the coexistence of Iraq’s Shiite and Sunni populations.

Most respondents who have a basic understanding of Iraq will answer that Karbala is a city of significance to Iraq’s Shiite population. Baghdad is Iraq’s capital, with a mixed Sunni and Shiite population. If that is your answer, you fail.

Karbala is a holy city for the Shiites. Its status as such is based on the fact that Hussein, a grandson of the prophet Muhammad and son of Ali, the fourth caliph, was killed outside Karbala in a battle between Hussein’s followers and forces loyal to Yazid, son of Muawiyah, the fifth caliph. The two sides were fighting over the line of succession when it came to leading the Muslim faithful after the death of Muhammad in the year 632. Abu Bakr, a close colleague of Muhammad but not a member of Muhammad’s biological family, was elected as the first caliph after the prophet’s death, an act that many Muslims believed broke faith with a necessity for the successor of Muhammad to be from his family. Abu Bakr’s death brought about a quick succession of caliphs, all of whom met untimely deaths and none of whom were from the family line of Muhammad.

When Ali was elected as the fourth caliph, many Muslims believed that for the first time since the death of Muhammad the caliphate had been restored to one properly authorized in the eyes of God to lead the Muslim faith. In fact, upon Ali’s accession as caliph, one of his first acts was to seek to restore the Muslim faith to its puritanical origins, which Ali believed had been departed from by the merchant families closely allied with the third caliph, Othman. Ali’s efforts were bitterly resisted by merchant families in Damascus, which refused to recognize Ali as the caliph. The head of the Damascus rebels, Muawiyah, fought a bitter conflict with Ali, which weakened the caliphate and paved the way for Ali’s assassination.

Upon Ali’s death, the caliphate was transferred to his elder son, Hassan, but when this succession was challenged by Muawiyah, Hassan relented, transferring the caliphate to Muawiyah with the caveat that once Muawiyah died, the caliphate would be returned to the lineage of the prophet Muhammad. When Muawiyah died, the caliphate passed to his son, Yazid. This succession was challenged by Hussein, Hassan’s brother and Ali’s younger son, who believed that the succession, as dictated by Hassan when he abdicated, should have gone to someone within the direct line of the prophet Muhammad, namely Hussein. Yazid’s treacherous attack on Hussein and his followers, occurring as it did during prayer time, set the stage for the split in the Muslim faith between the Shiat Ali (Shia, or followers of Ali) and the Ahl-i Sunnah (Sunni, or the people who follow in the custom of the prophet Muhammad). Both Shiite and Sunni view one another as deviants from the pure form of Islam as taught by Muhammad, and as such functioning as apostates deserving death.

If you answered the quiz on Karbala in the above fashion, you would still be wrong. The split between Sunni and Shiite goes beyond simple hatred for one another. Not only did the religion split, but so too did the methodology of governance as well as the interrelationship between religion and politics.

There was a final chance at achieving unity within the Muslim world. In the year 750, at the battle of Zab in Egypt, nearly the entire aristocracy formed from the lineage of Muawiyah was annihilated when the Damascus-based caliphate clashed with predominantly Shiite rebels. Jaffar, a Shiite spiritual leader and the great-grandson of Hussein, was supposed to be elevated to the caliphate, thereby uniting the Muslim world, but was instead murdered by Al-Mansur, who established the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad. This final treachery created a permanent split between the Shiites and those who became known as Sunnis.

The Shiite faithful embraced rule by imams, infallible leaders who provide guidance over spiritual and political affairs. According to the majority of Shiites, there are 12 imams, originating with Ali. The 12th imam, also named Muhammad, is believed by many Shiites to be the Mahdi, or savior, who went into hiding at God’s command and will return at the end of days to bring salvation to the faithful. With the passing of the 12th imam, matters of spiritual and political concerns were dealt with by religious scholars, or the ulema. These scholars are products of religious academies, known as “hawza.” In Iraq, the city of Najaf is home to the most important hawza, the Hawza Ilmiya. Each hawza produces religious scholars, or “marjas,” who interpret religion and provide guidance over social matters to those who rally around their particular teachings.

The Najaf Hawza currently has four marjas, or grand ayatollahs, each of whom reigns supreme when it comes to matters of religion or state. The faithful look to their hawza for guidance in all they do, and the sermons given by the various marjas take on a significance little understood by those who aren’t born and bred into that society. To speak of creating a unified Iraqi state without factoring in the reality of the hawza and its competing marjas is tantamount to claiming one will seek to fly without factoring in the realities of lift and gravity.

So if you answered the question concerning the city of Karbala with anything remotely resembling an insight into not only the schism that exists between the Sunni and the Shiite but also how the development of the practice of the Shiite faith has led to an absolute insinuation of religious dogma into every aspect of social and political life in a manner that operates independently of any so-called central state authority, you would get a passing grade, enabling you to move on to the next city covered by the pop quiz: Baghdad.

It is not only the Shiites who are bound by religious ties seemingly indecipherable to the West. From the chaos that was created with the Islamic schism came a very fluid situation in the development of Sunni Islamic dogma, with the Sunnis embracing a notion of consensus among the historical Muslim community, a line of thinking that led to the creation of four so-called legal schools of Islamic thought (the Maliki, the Hannafi, the Hanbali and the Shafi’i). These schools produced Islamic scholars who in turn competed for a constituency of followers. While in theory Sunni scholars preached adherence to the customs of the prophet Muhammad, in practice the Sunni schools became intertwined in the affairs of state and business. This deviation from the pure practice of faith led to the growth of “mystic societies” known as Sufism. Sufi brotherhoods sprang up throughout the Muslim world, each preaching its own mystical path toward achieving personal growth through the teachings of the prophet Muhammad.

The Abbasid caliphate, which oversaw this period of religious “softening,” in which the pure practice of Islam gave way to a more secular tolerance of the baser concerns of man, was centered in Baghdad. It was the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in 1258 that signaled not only the end of the Abbasid caliph’s rule but the certification in the eyes of some Sunni faithful that Abbasid’s ruin was brought about by the lack of pure faith in Islam by those professing to be Muslim. One of the basic tenants of the Sunni faith was the notion of community consensus, or “taqlid.” Taqlid was actively practiced by three of the four “legal” schools of Sunni thought. The sole exception was the school of the Hanbali, which followed a stricter interpretation of the faith. A Hanbali religious jurist, Ibn Taymiya, rose to prominence in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion. He held not only that the Mongols were an enemy of Islam but that the Shiite Islamic state that emerged in Persia after the Mongol conquest was likewise anathema.

More important, Ibn Taymiya broke ranks with the rest of the Sunni community, especially those who practiced Sufism, declaring all to be an affront to God. Ibn Taymiya rejected the notion of community consensus represented in the taqlid and instead professed that a true Muslim state could exist only where the political leader governed as a partner with the religious leader, and was subordinated to the religious through strict adherence to the “sharia,” or religious law. The Muslim jurists, or “ulema,” held total sway over society, to the extent that even matters pertaining to war were reserved for the religious leader, or imam, who was the only person authorized to declare a jihad.

During the Abbysid caliph, the term jihad had taken on the connotation of inner struggle. This interpretation gained wide acceptance with the spread of the Sufi brotherhoods, which were all about inner discovery. Ibn Taymiya rejected this notion of jihad, instead proclaiming that true jihad involved a relentless struggle against the enemies of Islam. For a while his teachings were popular, especially when they were being used to encourage the forces of Sunni Islam confronting the infidel Mongol invaders. However, his strict interpretation of Hanbali tenets were rejected even by other Hanbali religious scholars, and Ibn Taymiya himself was branded a heretic.

The teachings of Ibn Taymiya continued to be taught in certain Hanbali circles, including those operating in the holy city of Medina. It was here, in the 18th century, that a Arab Bedouin from the Nejd desert, in what is today Saudi Arabia, named Muhammed al-Wahhab emerged to create a movement that not only embraced the teachings of Ibn Taymiya but took them even further, preaching a virulent form of Islam that claimed to seek to bring the faithful back to the religion as practiced by the prophet Muhammad himself. Wahhab’s movement, known as the Call to Unity, reflected his strict interpretation of Islam as set forth in his book Kitab al-Tawhid, or the Book of Unity.

At first Wahhab was rejected by the Sunni scholars, and he was hounded and finally forced to take refuge in the tiny village of Dariya. There Wahhab befriended the local governor, Muhammed Ibn Saud, initiating what was to become a partnership in which the Saud family took on the role of emir, or political leader, while Wahhab became imam, or religious leader. The team of Bedouin warrior and Islamic fanatic soon led to what would become known as the Wahhabi conquest, bringing much of what is now present-day Saudi Arabia under their strict religious rule. In 1802 a Wahhabi army attacked Karbala and sacked the sacred Shiite shrine to Hussein. In 1803 the Wahhabis sacked Mecca, laying waste to the most holy sites in the Islamic world, including the Great Mosque. In 1804 the Wahhabis captured Medina, looted the tomb of the prophet Muhammad and shut off the hajj, or pilgrimage, to all non-Wahhabis. The rise of the Wahhabi empire was seen as a threat to all Islam, and soon a massive counterattack was mounted by the caliphate in Egypt. By 1818 the Wahhabis had been destroyed in battle, and everyone professing Wahhabism was treated as an apostate and butchered. The head of the Saud tribe was captured and beheaded, along with many of his fellow tribesmen.

Deep in the Arab deserts, a small number of Saudi tribesmen, strict adherents to Wahhabism, survived the Egyptian onslaught and began the struggle to regain their lost power. By 1924 the Wahhabis once again controlled Mecca and Medina, and by 1932 a new nation, Saudi Arabia, emerged from the Arabian deserts, governed by the house of Saud and with religious affairs totally in the hands of the Wahhabis.

To the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia there were two great sources of religious heretics: the Shiites, who ruled in Iran and represented a majority population in several Arab nations, including Iraq, and worse still, the Sunni Arabs, who rejected the true path as represented by the teachings of Wahhab. The puritanical form of Islam pushed by the Wahhabis was difficult to export, however, until the oil crisis of 1973, after which the Saudi government was able to fund the printing of Wahhabi literature and training of Wahhabi missionaries. In Iraq, there was some attraction to the puritanical teachings of Wahhabism among the Bedouin of the western deserts. However, with the rise to power of Saddam Hussein, Wahhabism and those who proselytized in its name were treated as enemies of the state. Wahhabism was still practiced in the shadows of Sunni mosques throughout Iraq, but anyone caught doing so was immediately arrested and put to death.

Wahhabi concerns over the weakening of the Muslim world by those who practiced anything other than pure Islam were certified in the minds of the faithful when, in April 2003, American soldiers captured Baghdad in what many Wahhabis viewed as a repeat of the sack of the city at the hands of the Mongols in 1258. Adding insult to injury, the role of Iraq’s Shiites in aiding and abetting the American conquest was seen as proof positive that the only salvation for the faithful could come at the hands of a pure form of the Islamic faith, that of Wahhabism. As the American liberation dragged on into the American occupation, and the level of violence between the Shiites and Sunnis grew, the call of jihad as promulgated by the Wahhabis gained increasing credence among the tribes of western Iraq.

The longer the Americans remain in Iraq, the more violence the Americans bring down on Iraq, and the more the Americans are seen as facilitating the persecution of the Sunnis by the Shiites, the more legitimate the call of the Wahhabi fanatics become. While American strategists may speak of the rise of al-Qaida in Iraq, this is misrecognition of what is really happening. Rather than foreigners arriving and spreading Wahhabism in Iraq, the virulent sect of Islamic fundamentalism is spreading on its own volition, assisted by the incompetence and brutality of an American occupation completely ignorant of the reality of the land and people it occupies. This is the true significance of Baghdad, and any answer not reflecting this will be graded as failing.

A pop quiz, consisting of one question in two parts. Most readers might complain that it is not realistic to expect mainstream America to possess the knowledge necessary to achieve the level of comprehension required to pass this quiz. I agree. However, since the mission of the United States in Iraq has shifted from disarming Saddam to installing democracy to creating stability, I think it only fair that the American people be asked about those elements that are most relevant to the issue, namely the Shiite and Sunni faithful and how they interact with one another.

It is sadly misguided to believe that surging an additional 20,000 U.S. troops into Baghdad and western Iraq will even come close to redressing the issues raised in this article. And if you concur that the reality of Iraq is far too complicated to be understood by the average American, yet alone cured by the dispatch of additional troops, then we have a collective responsibility to ask what the hell we are doing in that country to begin with. If this doesn’t represent a clarion call for bringing our men and women home, nothing does.

Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) and “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006)

 

Tags: