January 14
Permit me to coin a new word, and mark that you heard it here first. I'm an obscure blogger and need my attention you know. OK, that's a bit snarky for a serious concept. The word is "theocleansing", which is the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing. I use it to describe the sectarian violence in Iraq and what I perceive to be the intentions of both the Sunni fundamentalists and the Shiite government. I did say "Shiite government", not "Iraqi government". It appears the government has no intention of building the pluralistic democracy that delusional American hawks seem to think they're building, if only we stick out the occupation longer. Nor do the Iraqi army, and even more so the police, appear to have any intention of being neutral keepers of the peace, but rather partisans of Shiism sticking it to the Sunnis.
In a recent interview on the Al Franken Show, Tom Ricks told of a report he heard while he was in the Green Zone covering Robert Gates' meeting with Prime Minister al-Maliki. Ricks was told, by a source he apparently finds credible, that Al-Maliki told Gates the government would prefer the US focus on the Sunni insurgents and leave central Baghdad to the Shiite militias, who would complete the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis. Ricks said "ethnic cleansing" was his term. Ricks is not the only one reporting that the US wants to go after the Shiite militias and the government objects, and that those militias are in fact the prime minister's power base. There are almost daily reports of people in army and police uniforms kidnapping people, usually Sunnis, who disappear or are among the corpses showing signs of torture. There have been repeated reports that the police especially have been infiltrated by militias to such an extent that they are little more than militias with uniforms.
We all praised the courage of Iraqis in showing up the polls, but only a few risked mass opprobrium by pointing out that the voting was along sectarian lines. Ricks mentioned, and again he's not the only one, that the Shiites feel they won and it's their time to rule. The many refugees who have fled to neighboring countries might be matched in number by internal refugees who fled areas where their sect is the minority. Hannah Allam has the best report I've seen on the sharpening of sectarian differences in everyday life though she's not the only one to report the frequency of moving vans hauling the stuff of families who face death threats in their old neighborhoods. The government has thus far shown little interest in paying more than lip service to compromise, as shown by the refusal to settle the sharing of oil revenues or address constitutional changes the Sunnis want, let alone provide protection in Sunni areas. They seem to be more interested in exacting revenge for Sunni domination and driving Sunnis from certain areas.
"Theocleansing" seems a fair word for what the government is doing, and such a government is not worth our support. Since the early days of the American republic, two mistakes occur frequently and without any evident learning by those in government. We keep thinking we can choose other people's leaders, and we keep backing governments that don't deserve our backing. We used to pick Indians who we would set up as chiefs and then try to negotiate with them, which never worked out well. Our government has orchestrated many coups, including in Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Nicaragua, and they've all worked out badly. Our government has repeatedly backed dictators despised by their own people, including Saddam back in the 80's, the objections of Amnesty International and peacenik liberals like me notwithstanding. The acting president has made both mistakes in Iraq. Those who heard his speech Wednesday heard him continue to indulge the delusion that this is a fight between those who want freedom versus terrorists. It is not. It is a conflict between factions seeking to impose their religion upon the other.
I wonder if the Iraqi government would be so cocky about theocleansing the Sunnis without the presence of US troops. I wonder if the offbeat concept of talking to the Sunni insurgents would accomplish more to stop the fighting than any "surge". So here's my plan, which could be called the "final offer", because it's failure to stop the fighting would result in the withdrawal of our forces, at least from th Sunni and Shiite regions. Our acting president should first admit the invasion was a dreadful mistake, and we've made many more mistakes since. Bush should tell the Iraqis that Americans care about what happens in Iraq after we leave, which I have no doubt is true of the vast majority of Americans. Tell them Americans want to prevent a civil war (putting aside the arguments over whether that's what Iraq has now) but are despairing of being able to do that. Reassure the Iraqis that we have no intention of staying in Iraq permanently (the fact Bush won't say this suggests to both Iraqis and Americans that he does plan a permanent presence of some sort). We are willing to keep our troops there some time longer as peacekeepers, but the Iraqis must provide a peace to keep. We won't remain as occupiers or as participants in a civil war. We will be willing to talk to all factions, not just the government. The factions must agree to an indefinite cease fire. US troops will then help provide basic law and order, and an atmosphere where the factions can seek a political settlement of their differences. We will stop trying to push Iraq towards any specific sort of government of specific settlement, but instead accept any settlement of theirs, provide they achieve it peacefully. Reconstruction aid will continue. If however the fighting does not subside, we will conclude the Iraqis are uninterested in a political solution, and for the safety of our own troops they will be withdrawn. We will give sanctuary to those who cooperated with us and may face retaliation, and take no other action regarding the civil war as long as Iraqis contain it within their own borders.
Yes, I know the odds of anything like that happening. Nor if such an announcement was made would I be optimistic the Iraqis would really stop fighting. We would however be able to say we admitted our mistakes (actually that Bush admitted his mistakes since I always thought the invasion was a dreadful idea and the occupation was handled stupidly, but for now...) and tried everything we could to leave Iraq better off than we found it. Such can hardly be said of Bush's plan for a wee bit more of the same failed policies, other than if it goes through, Republicans can't deny that they were given every resource and opportunity to make their ideas work. OK, they will deny it, but at least they'll be lying, and we'll know what they'll lie about in the next campaign.
January 11
The acting president just can't leave well enough alone. He has to poke his guns in where things seem to be going well. From the phrase "going well", you might rightly gather I'm not referring to his decision to "surge" more troops into Iraq. I'm referring to Somalia, where the Ethiopian army and the transitional Somalian government seemed to have the Islamists penned up against the Kenyan border, where the Kenyan army was sitting with no intention of letting the Islamists run for for shelter. So what does Bush do? Throw in American air power. Bush launched his own strikes against Somali Islamists suspected of harboring some al-Qaida. In exchange for some unidentified corpses (want to bet these include innocent civilians?), the fool has offered a rallying point to people we would hope to see defeated. Hasn't he figured out yet that American troops are an ideological lightning rod, or perhaps we should say theological lightning rod, since he has now provided Islamic fundamentalists another way to fight the infidel Americans. Moreover, he has given Somalis a new incentive to support the Islamists. At a time when our armed forces are stretched thin fighting two wars, he's getting us into a third --- and it isn't even Iran or Syria. Moreover, American intervention is going to make to harder for other governments to support the transitional government since doing so now looks like collaboration with us. I thought it was too good to be true that the Islamist militia had collapsed so completely, with the Ethiopians rolling over them and public support deserting them. Predictably, an insurgency is now starting. The Ethiopians have already said they can't afford to stay a long time, so guess who will have to step in and support the transitional government if it isn't to collapse as the fundamentalists take over? Here's war number three. Given how badly wars one and two have gotten, my lack of confidence should be understandable. Legally, does Bush even have the authority to intervene in Somalia?
That brings me to a thought I've had about impeachment. Though to me the legal case for removing Bush now is clear and compelling, the arguments of political expediency suggest impeachment isn't going to happen given what we know currently. I've been thinking ever since congressional Democratic leaders said impeachment won't be considered that it could only happen if something new happened, not merely more becoming known about the scandals and allegations already known when impeachment was ruled out. What new thing would be enough? I think one of two things could happen. One is Bush getting us into a new war like in Somalia, or perhaps the attack on Iran many suspect given the buildup of naval forces that are useless in Iraq but useful for strikes against Iran. The other circumstance that seems quite possible is that Congress will cut off funding for continuing Bush's strategy in Iraq, and Bush will ignore it. Given his record thus far and his assertions of executive authority in wartime, I can't see Bush abiding by Congress', but rather I expect him to reallocate funds from somewhere else and deny Congress has any authority to end a war once started, bringing on a constitutional crisis. Given how impeachment has been written off with arguments of political expediency having won, I feel sure something this big will have to happen for impeachment to follow.
Not that I want to discourage what has become an impeachment movement. Even with nothing new known, the need seems clear. The central argument has been the legal case versus the political risk and low likelihood of success. It seems to me however that this isn't just about Bush, but about future presidents. This dreadful presidency is going to be the benchmark for measuring future presidents. If Bush isn't impeached, or if Democrats don't at least try, future presidents will have to be worse than Bush to face impeachment. Do we really need to descend that far before future presidents can be held accountable? Even if the impeachment effort fails, the almost certain partisan cause of that failure will offer the argument that Bush survived only because the Republicans put party ahead of country, and therefore the precedent of impeaching presidents who abuse their authority in a similar manner to Bush will warrant impeachment. This isn't just about removing Bush, it's about restraining his successors.
If you don't know what this graphic refers to, read the New York Daily News story.
January 6
There's an interesting story about the limits of free speech, in no small part because the questionable speech is coming from the right. There are other aspects to the story too. I'm referring to the story about right wing talk radio host Hal Turner, who threatened violent action if the Democrats won the 2006 election, and is calling for the assassination of members of Congress if they vote for amnesty for illegal aliens. The story has been picked up on liberal talk radio and liberal blogs, all of which have linked to the story on Worldnet Daily. Turner's web site has been down for days, and the story has not been picked up on mainstream media that I've been able to find, so our only source is Worldnet Daily, which is a wacky conservative site which is a good place to look for potential Take the Red Pill Award winners. Look at the "Special Offers" ads at the bottom of the article.
There was a good debate on the story on the January 4th Young Turks show (get the podcasts on Air America Premium) about whether the threats made against congressmen by Hal Turner are free speech and how seriously they ought to be taken. I'm with Cenk Uygur on that one. If a liberal and/or Muslim talk radio host had said the same things, even someone as obscure as Turner, not only would that host be subjected to a long interview with law enforcement if not jail time, but that would be the big story all over conservative media, and even mainstream media would be picking up, not for ideological reasons probably, but because it's prominence on Fox News and talk radio would signal them that this story is "out there". That this story is found only on liberal talk radio and blogs, with links to the story on Worldnet Daily, does indeed show a double standard for threats from the right. Notice how Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are considered equivalent even though one calls for some people to be killed and the other calls for the killing to stop or, like Uygur mentioned, notice how Jose Padilla did less than Turner yet spends years in solitary.
This story reminds me of the political atmosphere in the 1990's, when conservative radio and political figures were routinely spewing hate against the government. Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, someone tried to crash a small plane into the White House, and there were at least two incidents of right wing lunatics trying to fire assault rifles at the White House. These incidents were regarded as odd, but not that serious. They were the reason I wrote a sketch at the time, The Bomber, where one of these hate-besotted lunatics wanted to blow up the White House and the White House guards found him nothing to take seriously. I thought I was just adding a comic twist to have the guy really have a bomb and blow up another building. The sketch was going to be read as part of a fundraiser for a local theatrical non-profit.
A few days before the event, Timothy McVeigh exploded his bomb.
I suppose I'm blowing my own horn that I sort of predicted it, but I'm also saying it was foreseeable in the atmosphere of the time, and it was people like Turner who created that atmosphere (the sketch was pulled from the reading, in case anyone was wondering -- it was competitive to get in, so I was bit disappointed, but I understood). That the bombing of government workers could be just coincidence when a daily dose of conservative media preached hatred of the government and its employees, and stoked anger over Waco, the assault weapons ban and so on, is too much to believe.
Where I'm going with this is people like Turner have to be taken seriously. I'm sure his audience is dinky, and filled with wannabe tough guys who would shut up if in danger of being identified, but Turner is also more blatant than talk show host leading up to Oklahoma City. If people like his can keep making threats, the odds grow that someone will act on them. Threats aren't protected speech. What Turner did is incitement and, even though he hasn't shot anyone yet, really a form of terrorism. Moreover, the conservatives I portrayed as snarling animals in the bomber's trunk in my sketch are still around, including Rush Limbaugh as influential as ever and Newt Gingrich considered a presidential candidate.
Maybe while we on the liberal side have been celebrating the political change, we should be aware that this was an earthquake to some people, and they may not be willing to accept it. I hesitate to predict the deaths of congressmen or anyone else, but it's possible we're in for right wing terrorism, especially if Democrats hold the Congress in 2008 and take the presidency too. In that circumstance, I would deem renewed right wing violence more likely than not.
January 5
Though Keith Ellison had the most covered swearing in of the day, reasonable for the controversy surrounding the first Muslim member of Congress and first non-white from Minnesota, his wasn't the only swearing in that represents an advance for equality. Deval Patrick became only the second black governor, first since 1990, the first for Massachusetts, but there are a couple less obvious aspects. Like Ellison, Patrick used an historic holy book, the bible the Amistad slaves gave to John Quincy Adams in gratitude for winning the court case that freed them. Under the last elected president, Patrick headed the Justice Department's civil rights division. The Chicago Defender article mentions that Patrick grew up poor in Chicago's south side. Add in that we tend to draw our president's from the ranks of governors, I'm guessing that just his election and life story have Patrick on the long list of vice presidential candidates. A successful first year and a half, at the risk of making a prediction, will put him on the short list. If he gets reelected in 2010, he will immediately become a contender for president in 2012, assuming no Democratic incumbent running for reelection.
Getting back to Ellison, he invited Virgil Goode to meet over coffee. This is consistent with Jesus' teachings about forgiveness and how to treat our enemies. Wouldn't it be ironic if Ellison is the best Christian in Congress?
January 4
Let's just admit the House Democrats made a mistake in making promises that turn out to be contradictory. They promised much greater minority party participation, and the 100 hours agenda, but it turns out full participation will make it impossible to get all the agenda items done in the first 100 hours, so one promise or the other has to be broken. What I would like to see them do is admit this was a mistake, that they can't keep both promises, and then explain how they decided which to keep. The argument that these bills have already been debated and made familiar to Congress and the public holds water only if there really isn't anything new. I can see not starting from scratch when there have been full hearings held already, but given that one of the abuses the Democrats want to fix is putting things in bills without time to study and debate them, this looks bad.
I advocate for keeping the 100 hours agenda. As I see it, until the rules get changed, they're operating under the rules the Republicans used, which makes what they're doing perfectly within the rules. Once they change the rules, and they should, they wont be able to do this again, but they then can implement full participation and still sort of keep that promise. Also, which is more important to voters, the items in the 100 hours agenda, or making the Republican happy? My guess is just like me, most people will say raise the minimum wage and reform lobbying.
And just to state the obvious, the first female Speaker of the House is a pretty big deal which has been buried in the story about the Democratic majority. It may not be as big as first female president, but it's arguably second.
Try to tell me these stories don't go together. A judge in Leon County, Florida, rejected the petition of Christine Jennings, the Democratic candidate in Florida's 13th district, to look at the software of the voting machines in Sarasota County which lost 18,000 votes. The reasoning was that she hadn't shown evidence the machines screwed up, even though what she asked for was access to where the evidence is to be found. He essentially refused to allow discovery of evidence because the evidence wasn't already discovered.
Meanwhile, the company that does most voting machine testing, Ciber Inc., has lost certification because of its quality control is lacking. Well, there's a shock. The article doesn't say if they tested the specific machines in question in Sarasota, but odds are they did. I don't understand why House Democrats aren't demanding a full investigation before seating the official winner. It's not like a funky election in Florida with Republican officials deciding in favor of the Republican is a new phenomenon. We also know Republicans would never allow the Democratic candidate to be seated in reverse circumstances. I don't suggest seating Jennings by majority fiat, but refusing to recognize the election result would force some sort of solution like looking at hte software, or how about a paper ballot and a special election in Sarasota County? Vern Buchanan can even start with his lead from the other counties. The low turnout of a special election would probably leave him the winner, but that would be a more legitimate result. The upside in any case is the Democrats have a bloody shirt to wave when they try to ban unauditable machines.
January 3
I may have found another explanation for the hurry to execute Saddam Hussein before he go go trough his other trials. A few days ago I passed the suggestion that the Iraqi government wanted to stick its finger in the eye of the Sunnis. Possibly, if Saddam had gone on to more trials and spilled what he knew, it could have embarrassed the US government. Remember the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand back in the early 80's? The Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations sold arms to Saddam, including the materials for chemical weapons. The Reagan administration took Iraq's side in the war with Iran, during which some of those weapons were used. Bush Sr. encouraged the Shiites and Kurds to rebel after Iraq War I, and then stood by as Saddam massacred them.
The difficulty I have with this explanation, while not dismissing it's possibility, is that there is a simpler one. Perhaps the Bush administration let the Iraqis exercise their sovereignty, and here's the part that makes this believable to me, they didn't know it was a big Muslim holiday and that the Sunnis marked on the day Saddam was scheduled to be executed while the Shiites marked it the next day. I would be quite surprised if anyone in the US government knew about that, considering Bush didn't even know there were two sects until right before invading, and members of the House Intelligence Committee didn't know recently which was which. So maybe they didn't know why the Iraqi government was in such a rush. After Bush popped in on Prime Minister Al Maliki with just five minutes notice, wouldn't it be ironic if things got even more screwed up because he finally recognized Iraqi sovereignty.
I don't believe Keith Ellison has the guile to have done this on purpose, but if he did, it was brilliant. The controversy over his intent to use a koran for his swearing-in has come back in the news because of today's revelation that he'll be using the koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson. Conservatives have themselves a new wedge issue over how a politician gets sworn in and obviously this riled up the Christian fundamentalists, but this is a wedge issue that works for liberals. It shows the religious right so clearly devoid of tolerance or common sense that it's bound to move moderates over to our side. I doubt I'm the only one with that opinion since I notice the left in general seems happy to keep talking about it. Now that the issue seems to have died down, it's back in the news, and in a way that must be tough for the right. When a founding father owned his own copy, they look like idiots for raising the issue and unless they want to accuse Jefferson of bing unamerican, I don't see where they go with the issue, except under a rock. Not only had the issue died down, but if Ellison let the news out on purpose, then he managed to wait for after the holiday news lull and hit the start of the main news season. The timing was perfect. Frankly, I hope conservatives keep trying to make an issue of it. The obvious silliness of requiring someone to swear on a book they don't believe in, and not permitting a book they do believe in, will parry all the nonsense about bibles being tradition.