December 31
I may have the answer to my question about the timing of Saddam's execution. According to Juan Cole, the reason was sectarian. This weekend is the holiday of Eid al-Adha, marking the day when Abraham nearly sacrificed his son, but was stopped by God and sacrificed a sheep instead. Iraqi law prohibits sacrifices on religious holidays. However, Shiites mark the day on Sunday, while Sunnis mark it Saturday. The execution was Saturday morning Iraqi time. It looks like the government opted to make a point to the Sunnis, that not only was their leader executed, but their holy day doesn't count. Maybe the decision to execute Saddam on that day was merely insensitive, but giving they could pick any day, I have to believe it was deliberate. And the reason for thinking this government can unite the country ever is...? Since the Bush administration went along with it, even though even they realize encouraging sectarian fighting is a bad thing, they probably had no idea it was a Muslim holiday. Can they even find Iraq on a map yet? Ironically, in the White House statement on the execution, the acting president said, "Today, Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial -- the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime," even though there are widespread doubts this was a fair trial (most importantly, doubted by Iraqis), and this is exactly the sort of justice he handed out to his victims.
John Dean has an interesting idea on impeachment. He suggests forgetting about impeaching Bush and Cheney because the GOP will never allow it and the public doesn't want it, which makes it lousy politics. Instead, he suggests going after lower officials, like cabinet members or deputy secretaries. These impeachments will be more politically possible, and these officials, unlike Bush and Cheney, will be showing up in future administrations and committing similar crimes. Impeachment will disqualify them from holding federal office in the future. Dean could have argued from his Nixon experience and subsequent scandals. The Watergate conspirators didn't come back. The lightly punished and unpunished Iran/Contra conspirators have come back into power under the acting president. With these two contrasting examples, we can tell that Bush's bastards will come back and do the same things or worse in the future if they aren't disqualified now.
I think Dean is right, that the point needs to be made with these lower officials, but I will also argue for not giving up hope of removing Bush and Cheney. We can follow the common prosecution strategy of going after lower level suspects with more easily proved accusations first, because they may spill what they know about the big guys, plus their convictions make it harder for the higher levels to deny the crimes occurred and that they knew. This was exactly the strategy in the Enron prosecutions. Not only did lower executives reveal damning information about Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, but those convictions were used to counter the arguments from Lay and Skilling that they didn't know the fraud was going on. So if we can impeach Alberto "Torture Boy" Gonzales and his equally noxious predecessor John Ashcroft, we can not only stop them coming back to the executive branch and committing torture or arbitrary arrest again, but maybe that will make it impossible to not go after Bush. Maybe this pursuit of the underlings is what it will take to find what will likely be required to get Democratic leaders to renounce their decision not to seek impeachment, new evidence that amounts to a smoking gun. Many of us think we already have smoking guns, but politically, new ones are required.
Yes, Bush has only two years left. Nonetheless, I can't help wondering if the invasion of another country on false pretenses could have happened if the Congress had gone after Reagan for Iran/Contra. Could Bush have killed 650,000 Iraqis if Reagan had been properly disgraced for all the Central American blood on his hands? Granted we'll never know, but we can't argue everything that could be done was done to deter future presidents. If Bush goes unpunished, why won't it happen again, and be worse?
It's particularly timely to ask this in light of the recent death of Gerald Ford, which has revived the debate over whether Nixon should have been pardoned. Clearly, my best guess is that a conviction on criminal charges would have had greater deterrent value, even if Nixon was pardoned afterwards. The pardon left on opening to think that Nixon merely committed a political offense rather than a crime in the usual sense, or even that he merely lost a fight with his political enemies, as apologists for overweaning executive power will still maintain. I also wonder what else Nixon knew, and what else might have come out. In retrospect, though joining the consensus that the pardon was a politically courageous decision, and admitting the correctness of Ford's decision isn't clear, it also seems political when a president uses the pardoning power to prevent a trial. That's certainly how it will appear to me if Bush uses that power to pardon members of his administration before they stand trial.
In terms of political courage, I wish Ford had spoken up about his objections to invading Iraq before the invasion instead of not letting his opinion become public until his death. Maybe he wouldn't have affected anything, in fact probably not given Bush's infamous propensity for listening only to yes men, but I have to think that objection from a former Republican president would have had a greater impact than the objections of those of us who did speak up.
December 29
I meant to write about Saddam Hussein's execution before it happened. Not that I'm under any illusion it would have made a difference. Saddam was executed around 9:30 PM Central time so it's after the fact, but what the hell. Even if you don't have a problem with capital punishment in general, you must share a big objection with me. He was tried for killing only 148 of his victims. His execution means the almost none of his victims will get their day in court. So what if trying him for everything would have taken years, even the rest of his life? The point was justice, right? So what would have been wrong with making him play the villain in trial after trial as victim after victim got to confront him? Sounds pretty punishing to me, and much more fair to the survivors of his crimes.
I'm trying to figure out the timing of executing him now. Yes, I'm cynical enough to disbelieve that this was just the best time for justice to be meted out. Remember that the announcement of the verdict was scheduled for just before the US midterm elections. Think about that. The announcement of a verdict scheduled rather than announced when it was decided --- scheduled weeks ahead of time --- right before an election where Iraq War II was destroying Republican support. Also there was a second trial in progress, and more trials expected, which means this was done in a rush. So you'll understand if I'm trying to figure out why the execution took place now. I've been typing and backspacing over reasons, but all I have is speculation with little confidence, so I'll forego for now giving the reason for the timing.
I won't forego some media commentary though. I saw some coverage on CNN and they were doing some background, reporting dribbles of details, and showing what ever Saddam footage they had. BBC World Service has been reporting on nothing else too, and as I write is broadcasting a biography. I also caught a bit of Fox News where Greta Van Susteren, showing the expertise required of a Fox host, expressed surprise that a hanging could go wrong. Her guest explained some of what could go wrong with a hanging, and Susteren expressed disbelief at the idea that an execution could be unnecessarily cruel. The concept apparently goes right by her. Someone's being executed, so whatever happens, it's all the same, isn't it? She and her guest, now matching her for ignorance, mentioned the current controversy over lethal injection and refusal to believe that ten minutes of pain was a problem. The controversy is over a half hour roughly of pain, but it's not like Fox requires anyone to be informed before spouting off.
On BBC World Service, they just said a White House statement called the execution an important milestone. Just like the trial and arrest, and the elections, and the new constitution, and .... oh right, none of those fixed a damn thing. Fox did show the marine putting the US flag over the face of Saddam's statue right after Baghdad fell. Yeah, that helped convince the rest of the world this was a liberation rather than a conquest.
On the web, it's interesting how predictably the delusional conservatives posting on the execution story on the Netscape portal spouted off about how liberals and Democrats must be disappointed that Saddam is dead, or saying once again that we don't get how bad he was (where were these self-righteous dolts when Amnesty International was raising a fuss about Saddam back in the 80's --- oh right, selling him arms). I wonder if it's something psychological, like they need to link all enemies --- terrorists, Saddam, and domestic political opponents --- into one group so they can hate liberals as much as Al Qaida; or maybe they're unable to make the separation, like if I consider them an enemy, and those don't agree with me on some maybe unrelated things, they must all be the same. And we wonder how our politics got so polarized. How do we talk to people who can't see a difference between Al Qaida and those who think the way of going after Al Qaida is stupid?
December 26
The accompanying photo of a US soldier giving the thumbs up to some Iraqi kids appeared in yesterday's printed Star Tribune, and struck me as a summing up of how Iraq has gone wrong. I'm interpreting body language here and if someone wants to interpret it differently they can I suppose --- and I also admit it was bigger and clearer in the newspaper than this web version I found. But for those of you who aren't delusion conservatives who see smiling children gleeful over a personal encounter with a liberating American hero ---
The soldier is trying to do some good. There's no reason to think he isn't completely sincere in trying to establish good relations on a personal level between Americans and Iraqis, and convince Iraqis we're there to help, just like so many other Americans have tried to do some good while in Iraq. But look at the face of the kid returning the thumbs up. He looks more scared than gleeful. He looks like someone who just hopes the American will be satisfied with a thumbs up and go away without doing any harm. The boy with his head down looks like he wishes he could disappear. We don't know what happened with those individuals right before the photo was taken. Maybe something bad or at least uncomfortable had just happened. However, the soldier doesn't look like a firefight or arrest had just occurred, and it seems odd an incident would be left out of the photo captions. I suspect the case is that this photo is a microcosm of the problem in Iraq. Many Americans are doing the! ir best to make things better, but all that has happened since the invasion makes for a context for those kids where there is nothing to be glad about in the appearance of a US soldier. They look like they hope the situation will pass them by without causing any harm.
Assuming the photo is as I describe it, it's anecdotal. Absolutely, it's one moment. For anyone to change their minds about Iraq based on it is ridiculous. But maybe to ask if the situation in Iraq is as bad as the news reports make it seem, as bad the attempts to quantity it in terms of mortality surveys and Iraqi opinion polls, that would be entirely reasonable. Why would Iraqi kids be so unhappy about the presence of an American? One hint: it's not because they've been getting their news from the "liberal" media.
December 21
The Dead Polar Bear Award is awarded to the Texas utility company TXU, which wants to build 18 new power plants, 17 coal and one petroleum/coke, using old technology. They claim these new plants will be cleaner in terms of mercury and sulfur pollution than their old plants, but will be no cleaner in terms of carbon dioxide. Last August, when the plan was for 11 new coal plants, the amount of CO2 emitted would double Texas' total emissions -- and this from a state with little regard for the environment and the second biggest population already. This much CO2 is like adding 14,000,000 more cars. The project has been fast tracked to avoid public comment by Gov. Rick Perry, who has received about $148,000 from TXU, including $2,000 the day he signed the order. Though TXU claims the reason for hurrying! to get these plants built is an urgent need for power, environmentalists suspect the real reason is to get the plants approved before CO2 gets regulated. That's right, CO2 emissions are still not regulated. The process might be as dirty as the emissions, but it looks to be perfectly legal for TXU to knowingly undo California's greenhouse gas reduction program by 2.6 times. Readers, you can do something about it.
While on the topic of global warming, something annoying about much of the news media is their practice of getting a quote from a global warming denier every time they produce a global warming story. Yes, there are real scientists who will deny that global warming is occurring, or that it's bad, or that it's man-made. These scientists must be one in a thousand among scientists by now, and good luck finding one who isn't directly or indirectly on an oil or coal company payroll. I was prompted to think about this by Iran's conference of holocaust deniers. There are real historians who deny the holocaust happened or that it was more than a fraction as bad as portrayed by the other 999 out of 1,000 historians. Does anyone feel like a news article referring to the holocaust must include a quote from a holocaust denier to provide balance? No. Even though the deniers include real historians, they're such proven kooks that the news can mention 6 million Jews killed or the gas chambers without getting David Irving's take for balance. The consensus on global warming is about that unanimous. The deniers should be portrayed as the paid special interest spinners they are and not treated seriously. Since the false idea of objectivity has left many news consumers with the mistaken belief there is real debate about whether global warming is happening or man-made, energy that should go into the solutions is going into proving there's a problem.
December 20
Bigots are usually good about making sure the audience is supportive before spewing their bigotry. You'd think they all would have been reminded of the necessity for that by George Allen's macacca problem, especially if those bigots are likewise form Virginia. You would be wrong, at least judging by a letter from Rep. Virgil Goode, R-VA 5, to hundreds of people, including one person who did not share his prejudices.
The inspiration for Goode's venom was the decision by my representative, Keith Ellison, to use a koran for his swearing in. Goode said he was responding to outraged constituents. In a screed reminiscent of the half-literate bile bigots sometimes leave on message boards, Goode told his constituents:
"I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."Speaking as one of those Minnesotans who voted for Ellison, I've already woken up, and when I voted for Ellison, as well as when I supported him in this blog and did GOTV doorknocking for him, I meant to strike a blow against the prejudice Goode so ably demonstrates. Goode makes clear in his letter that it isn't merely his expectation that a non-Christian should swear on a bible that fuels his fury, but the temerity of us heathen Minnesotans who would elect a Muslim at all. God (Allah?) forbid we judge a candidate as an individual.
But Goode wasn't done. Notice that right in the same sentence where he tells American citizens to wake up about a Muslim representative, he goes into immigration, and warns about more Muslims coming. That's actually common for conservatives ranting about a Muslim representative to move into ranting about immigration without missing a beat. Do they even know Ellison is not only a citizen, but native born? It's like ceasing to be a Christian suddenly makes someone a foreigner. And what's a "diversity visas policy?" There's no such thing as a "diversity visa"! For that matter, almost all illegal aliens come from Latin America, with the majority from Mexico. These are Christians entering the country illegally. Of course, they tend to be brown skinned, so they must be Muslims or something like that.
Goode has done something quite impressive in managing to combine in one letter bigotry against immigrants, non-whites, Muslims, non-Christians in general, and us native born white Minnesotans who apparently are asleep. Maybe Goode will feel better knowing our state also elected Michelle Bachmann. From one fifth district to another, aren't you embarrassed to have this guy as your representative, and if not, what's wrong with you?
In all seriousness, if you want a heartbreaking example of how religious bigotry can destroy the lives of people who aren't congressmen, or public figures at all, but just people trying to go about a normal life, listen to This American Life from December 15, "Shouting Across the Divide". The story comes a few minutes in. It's a story of how a fourth grader was tormented by classmates and her teacher because of her parents' beliefs. And no, "tormented" is not too strong a word. It led to the girl's depression, her family's breakup, and mostly involuntary relocation.
December 19
If the Daily Show web site posts tonight's interview with Bill Kristol, you will see maybe the best takedown in a political talk show a delusion neocon ever stumbled in to (plus I nominate Comedy Central for the best example of a good web site grotesquely screwed up in a redesign). Kristol defended the decision to invade Iraq on the grounds that the US hadn't been attacked. Jon Stewart asked if that didn't mean Clinton deserved credit for the US not being attacked from the first attack on the World Trade Center in March 1993 until 911. Kristol walked into it, pointing out that two of our embassies in Africa had been attacked. Stewart retorted that if overseas attacks count, there have been a great many since Iraq was invaded. Stewart seemed to be mentioning the obvious example of attacks since the invasion of Iraq --- Iraq --- when Kristol came back with, and this quote may not be exact, "It's a global war". So first invading Iraq prevented further attacks, and there's a good excuse for the constant attacks since the invasion. Neocons, if you're reading this, that's not your best defense. If you don't like that Clinton prevented jihadi attacks for nearly eight years, longer than Bush will be able to claim if he finishes his term (impeachment, resignation, I'm not picky), pointing out attacks on Americans overseas doesn't help when thanks to the acting president, Americans are attacked hundreds of times every week. A better defense might be just admitting you screwed up and being the ones who start the impeachment proceedings. If Republicans can learn to put country before party and remove the fools in the White House, I might even change my mind about you.
December 16
The UK newspaper The Independent has a story on new evidence that the Blair government (the British use the word "government" in the same sense we use the word "administration") knew before the invasion of Iraq that Iraq had no WMD. For an American, the immediate question is whether this indicates that Bush knew there were no WMD. The only indication in the article is that the British diplomat whose evidence was suppressed by the Official Secrets Act, Carne Ross, said British diplomats thought there were no WMD, and when they discussed this with the Americans, American diplomats had no disagreement. Since it appears US and UK diplomats were of the opinion Iraq had no WMD, just how high up did this opinion go, and did the higher-ups know this was what their diplomats thought. If Tony Blair is shown to have known Iraq had nothing, is it plausible that he didn't tell our acting president, or that Bush hadn't been told there was no evidence? Despite Nancy Pelosi's decision that the House won't pursue impeachment, those of us who see impeachment of Bush and Cheney as not only just, but necessary to stop similar abuses of power by future presidents, still have one hope: that new evidence will appear that is undeniable.
My hesitation about sending another 30,000 soldiers into Iraq is the thought of how awful that would be for the individuals who make up that 30,000. That's not a small hesitation. Yet, I can see a couple reasons to let Bush, McCain, and the neocons to have their 30,000 troops. Though it seems incredible that just 30,000 more troops will affect anything, if they're sent, we'll know for sure in a few months what effect they had. Whatever their effect, it will be tougher for conservatives to blame Democrats, liberals, or the media for losing the war, and harder for conservatives to deny they've been given every chance, after they got their 30,000 extra troops. By contrast, if they don't get extra troops, they'll try to hang their failure on that one point. I'm thinking long term both past and future in regards to how many Americans blamed defeat in Vietnam on protestors and the press, and of how the Democratic Party lost defense related issues for the next 30 years. This is the first time since the fall of Saigon when Democrats have had the edge on those issues, but this edge is so new that I can see the GOP propaganda machine convincing the public that the debacle was the fault of powerless opponents rather than the fault of the decision makers.
