May 30
It can be amazing how powerful yet subtle is the ability of language to form our frames of reference, which I suppose explains the whole point of pr and propaganda. I was reminded of this by a phrase that I doubt had any deliberateness to it at all, at least in terms of doing more than introducing today's editorial in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The editorial honored servicemen from Minnesota and Wisconsin killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, they didn't say "wars", they said "war", like it's the same war. Certainly Iraq was sold to us like it was the same war. It wasn't of course. We were attacked by Al Qaida, which had the run of Afghanistan thanks to the de facto government. Invading Afghanistan made sense. Iraq didn't. I even acknowledge that the west is in a long term ideological struggle with Islamic fundamentalism. Iraq wasn't part of that struggle. Not only do we now know there was no relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, the evidence presented before the invasion didn't hold up. For those who were wondering about this liberal dichotomy of supporting one invasion but not the other, that's what it is. Why didn't we succeed in stopping it? Mostly because the acting president doesn't listen, just sells. If he has to lie to do it, he does, and he's a master campaigner. He put it into the public mind that this was all one war. Obviously from the size of the opposition, a lot of the public never bought it. Some more have figured it out since. But not all. So it seems most likely whoever made "war" singular instead of plural did so not to make a subtle point, but because they bought a subtle point, probably without even realizing it is a point.
May 29
Miami-Dade County, Florida, looks likely to replace their touchscreen machines with optical scanners. Part of the reasoning is unexpectedly high costs to operate, and part is the lack of public confidence, which indicates success for those of us who have been trying to get the public to pay attention to these things and the chance for fraud. These touchscreens are in fact neck and neck with the long lines in Democratic precincts in the contest to cause suspicion of fraud last year. I've advocated optical scanners before, which we use in Minnesota. Maybe the trend has reversed.
May 27
Washington State Republican candidate for governor Dino Rossi has taken his dispute over his loss after the hand recount to court. He has every right to do so if he thinks he has a case. If anyone has been saying he should just accept the disputed result or just get over it, as Republicans keep saying when the circumstances are reversed and indeed did say when it appeared Rossi won, they shouldn't. If you've been following this blog you know I've devoted a lot of entries to election fraud. I'm not going to back off that when the other side claims fraud. If Rossi's claims are true, he should get the result reversed or get another election. If anyone on the Democratic side committed fraud, they should be punished. However Republicans, this support isn't free. In exchange, you must support investigation into our claims of fraud in the presidential race. I know it wasn't as narrow, but with fraud that doesn't matter, and the higher stakes than a gubernatorial election would seem to make an honest election even more important. Therefore, in exchange for support for full investigation of the Rossi/Gregoire race, we must have the presidential race investigated by someone with subpoena power. It's been investigated, but not with subpoena power. No one has yet compelled the touchscreen manufacturers to let an independent body inside the machines. No one has explained the long lines in Democratic precincts in Ohio under oath. Or how about an investigation of Florida, which escaped much scrutiny this time but had both long lines and touchscreens? Stop impeding investigations, and I'll not only back the investigation in Washington State, but I'll stop saying the 2004 election was stolen. Or you can keep acting like you have something to hide. Your choice, though you'll then pardon me if I keep referring to Bush as "the acting president".
May 26
There was a story the other day that reminded me of the current flap with Newsweek, as well as CBS' memos in the AWOL Bush story. US POWs from Vietnam are frequently contacted by the press to debunk accusations about Jane Fonda. There have been rumors flying around for years, usually via e-mail, about things Fonda didn't actually do when she visited North Vietnam during the war, which visit included meeting some POWs. The reporter interviewed Jerry Driscoll:
"Driscoll said he never met Fonda, as the e-mail claims - and therefore, never spit on her and didn't suffer permanent double vision from a subsequent beating. 'Totally false. It did not happen,' Driscoll said.Held almost seven years, Driscoll has negative feelings about Fonda because of her visit, but he wasn't beaten because of her and can see just fine. After all, he flies corporate jets now, after retiring as a pilot from the Air Force and later American Airlines."
'I don't know who came up with [my] name. The trouble that individual has caused me!' he said, referring to the time he has spent repeatedly denying the persistent myth."
Other POWs named in the false reports likewise deny the stories. If we were to apply the logic used by the right in the Newsweek and CBS reports, we might conclude the whole story about Fonda going to Vietnam is false, or at least see didn't see any POWs. The CBS memos were used to discredit a real story proven elsewhere, that Bush went AWOL and got away with it thanks to his connections. The Newsweek story has been used as proof nothing has been happening at US prisons, when in fact there have already been other stories about deliberate disrespect to Islam, let alone the use of torture. So should we use the false accusations against Fonda to say the accurate ones are likewise false? Can't have it both ways.
Speaking of that torture, Amnesty International has come out with a report far more critical than it has ever been of the US government. It has criticized the US before, almost always for the death penalty and the treatment of asylum seekers who are kept in jails and treated like criminals. Now they're warning the top of the Bush administration they could face arrest when traveling outside the country, like happened to Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. I can just imagine how the neocons, who claim to be the supporters of human rights while we liberals don't (at least not enough to invade another country and tens of thousands), are going to be tearing into Amnesty International. Keep one thing in mind: bending legalese to authorize torture is not consistent with respect for human rights. Torturers aren't champions of liberty. It's like considering Bush a champion of intellectual inquiry. It's like Tom DeLay becoming an ethicist.
May 24
Is it the Munich Agreement again? You might think so from some of the reaction to the filibuster compromise. As a Democratic partisan I worried that any compromise would be the Democrats would give up the right to filibuster in exchange for a promise not to use it, with the Republicans ready to go nuclear whenever they feel like it again. I heard Al Franken interview Mark Dayton today, and Dayton indicated that's what he thought happened. Some liberal talk show callers were quote angry. However, the Air America hosts at least seemed to be moderating as the day went on. The sense that we'd been run over faded as the day went on. Partly, cooler heads decided something was better than nothing. Also, and maybe this was the big thing, conservatives lacked the usual gloating. It turned out they were quite livid at the Republican senators. From what I heard on conservative talk radio and from pundits on TV, they thought principle had been thrown away. They seem to think their side surrendered when they had it won, though I theory among us liberals was that if they had the votes, they would have gone nuclear already.
I don't see this as a victory, but as dodging a bullet. I also see an opportunity. It's still possible of course the Republicans will get there three judges approved, and then threaten to go nuclear again. Conservatives think the Democrats will pull something similar, presumably finding lots of nominations to meet the definition of "extraordinary". However, what if both sides keep this agreement? It could go a long way towards rebuilding trust between the two parties, at least in the Senate. In the current bitter atmosphere, maybe it's worth trying. This isn't Nazi Germany after all. This isn't the Munich Agreement. If the honest people in each party can't find a way to compromise and get things done, we have a lot bigger problem than whether a judge gets approved.
That's the optimistic viewpoint, the one I prefer to hold, but there was a cautionary note already today when Bill Frist decided to rain on the non-victory parade. On the Senate floor, first thing in the morning on what he nearly made one of the most divided days in Congressional history, he cast blame on the Democrats for the whole dispute ever coming about and cast doubt on their willingness to keep the agreement. Maybe he's afraid he kissed fundamentalist ass for nothing. The Republicans really need to explain how they could pick a man like that for their leader.
May 21
The debate over the Republicans' "nuclear option" is bigger than the filibuster. Once it's used, effectively there are no rules anymore. Instead of going through the process for changing Senate rules, the Republicans can just have Cheney, or whoever in the future may be presiding over the Senate, rule that whatever they want to do is within the rules, and anything they dislike is against the rules. A simple majority will defeat an attempt to overrule the decision, and that's that. They not only can force judicial nominees through, they can do anything else. I would ask of those who defend this power abuse as upholding majority rule to likewise call for an end to two senators from each state, and make the Senate proportional. Maybe the right wing is right, and it is nuts that Wyoming's 600,000 people get as much to say as California's 30 million. Conservatives may not know that's what they're saying, but that's what strict majority rule would entail.
The BBC has posted video of George Galloway's entire testimony before Coleman's subcommittee, not just the opening statement that has garnered so much well-deserved attention. The most devastating hit on Coleman came in answer to a dumb question from Sen. Carl Levin, asking essentially if Galloway would be troubled to learn his friend doing business in Iraq gave a kickback to Saddam for an allocation of oil. Galloway appeared unwilling to dignify the question with a simple response, which unfortunately makes it look like he's dodging. He'd have been better off just saying, "of course I'd be troubled you git" with "git" being expressed in tone of voice rather than words. Nonetheless he found he laid into Coleman in a way not in any reports I saw. I wish the camera would have shown Coleman and not just Galloway, but I can guess Coleman was doing the conservative TV spokesman smirk. After Levin said he'd be delighted by a straight answer, Galloway said:
Here's my answer, and I hope it does delight you. I opposed the oil for food program with all my heart, not for the reasons that you are troubled by it, but because it was a program which saw the death, I'm talking about the death now, I'm talking about a mass grave of a million people, most of them children, in Iraq. The program gave 30 cents per day per Iraqi for the period of the oil for food program. 30 cents for all food, all medicine, all clothing, all schools, all hospitals, all public services. I believe that the United Nations had no right to starve Iraq's people because it had fallen out with Iraq's dictator. David Bonior, your former colleague Senator, whom I admire very much, a former chief whip here on the hill, described the sanctions policy as "infanticide masquerading as politics". Senator Coleman thinks that's funny. But I think it's the most profound description of that era that I have ever read, "infanticide masquerading as politics". So I opposed this program with all my heart not because Saddam was getting kickbacks from it, and I don't know when it's alleged these kickbacks started, not because some individuals were getting rich doing business with Iraq under it, but because it was a murderous policy of killing huge numbers of Iraqis. That's what troubles me. That's what troubles me. Now, if you're asking me is Mr. Zureikat in some difficulty like all the other companies that it would appear paid kickbacks to the Iraqi regime, no doubt he is. Although it appears he's quite small beer compared to the American companies who were involved in the same thing.I'd like to have seen what Coleman was doing when Galloway said that. Anyone know of any video? Or perhaps Coleman would like to explain just what about that was humorous?
This story about Dilawar, an innocent Afghan tortured to death in an American prison, explains why I'm furious at apologists for the Bush administration who want to use the Newsweek story as proof prisoners haven't been mistreated in American prisons. In a mountain of proof of Bush condoning torture, they want to look at one loose boulder. So Newsweek got a story wrong. Yippee. People are being imprisoned without charge in our name. People are being tortured in a our name. Prisoners are being murdered in our name. Am I the only one who thinks that's the bigger story? When you feel tempted to jump on Newsweek keep you eye on the ball. We are being governed by war criminals. They said the Geneva conventions and our own Constitution don't apply, and act innocent when awful things happened. That's the story here, not that Newsweek was wrong about which report contained two specific incidents. If Bush and the neocons want to keep making something of this story, then the press should give them their wish and say no more anonymous sources even when Bush officials insist on being deep background. Make them tell their lies with their names attached.
Tim Golden, who wrote the story about the Afghan prisoners for the New York Times, was interviewed on All Things Considered. He said no one above the rank of captain has been subject to much scrutiny.
And when the right tries to make Newsweek take all the blame for the riots, show them this quote from Laura Bush: "You can't excuse what they did because of the mistake -- you know, you can't blame it all on Newsweek". Or maybe this one from David Brooks: "Then I click my mouse over to the transcripts of administration statements and I can't believe what I'm seeing. We're in the middle of an ideological war against people who want to destroy us, and what have the most powerful people on earth become? Whining media bashers. They're attacking Newsweek while bending over backward to show sensitivity to the Afghans who just went on a murderous rampage."
May 18
Should Newsweek be blamed for the riots that followed their report on the Koran in a toilet? It seems the rioters ought to take the blame. No one told them to act violently. A bunch of religious fundamentalists riot over the mistreatment of a book when they wouldn't riot over their fellow Afghans and Muslims being detained without trial, tortured, and killed while detained in American prisons. I'm not excusing deliberate disrespect to someone else's religious texts, but come on. Their screwed up priorities are Newsweek's fault? What they got wrong was the incidents weren't in the report where their source thought, but the source says it was in a different report or another draft. Newsweek ran it by other Pentagon official. Until we know who those officials were, it's possible they did everything right. A question to be asked of the Pentagon and White House is why the story had instant credibility. It's already been revealed that deliberate disrespect of Islam was used a means of pressuring Guantanamo detainees, so it's hardly a leap to believe the Newsweek story. Indeed, since the part of the story that was wrong was which report contained the incidents, they might well be in another report, in which case those accusing Newsweek of lying might want to be more circumspect about the lying charge. So much else has come out, almost anything is believable, like torture by mock execution.
This leads to another example of how Republicans don't get irony. Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan lectured the press on using anonymous sources, which led to this exchange:
Q: In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you're giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.
Q: Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.
I suggest the press do as McClellan suggests, but for stories supporting the administration as well as exposing it. No more anonymous sources unless there's a very good reason, not as a routine matter. Hoist them with their own petard.
Not to miss the obvious, the denunciations are coming from the same people who took the country to war on entirely false pretenses, killing maybe 100,000 people, and haven't seen fit to accept responsibility in any form.
The thing that's suspicious is that the story came from a Pentagon source, got vetted by Pentagon officials, and went 11 days without comment by the Bush administration. Then administration spokesmen and ranting congressmen jump all over it, hurling the "lying" charge. Could it have been a set up? I doubt it, because I doubt the neocons are adept enough to have realized the story wold have this effect. It could turn out the Pentagon officials who reviewed the story before publication weren't in a position to know. Most likely, Newsweek got caught by a source's honest mistake and reviewers know the facts were right, if not the specific report which contained the facts. The right wing has jumped at a chance to discredit the mainstream press, and intimidate it into supporting conservative positions. I hope Newsweek heeds the advice of the Star Tribune editorial board: "Resist".
May 17
"Braveheart on Capitol Hill"? I didn't get to see Scottish MP (representing a district in London since the election earlier this month) George Galloway testify before Sen. Norm Coleman's subcommittee, but judging from Galloway's opening statement, he ripped Coleman a new one. After all those hearings where members of the Bush administration ducked questions, obfuscated, spun and lied, it was refreshing to see someone say the unvarnished truth. Maybe the defense Galloway made for himself was a pack of lies, but he was plain in his denials and denunciations of the evidence. No explaining the semantics later. On what he said about the war and the lead up to it, he was just as plain, and everyone not in denial knows he spoke the plain truth to people who have steadfastly avoided hearing it. What was Coleman thinking in letting him testify, that he would make excuses and trip himself up, giving credence to the charges? I hope to see or hear more of the hearing if it was as good as the opening, some of which will end up in the quotes over on the right. To clarify where he got that figure of 100,000 dead, The Lancet published a study that concluded the most likely figure for Iraqis who died as a consequence of the war was 98,000. They did a cluster study where they compared expected deaths to actual deaths in sample areas, and came up with a range of extra deaths since the invasion with 98,000 being the most likely number. They counted anyone who dies as a consequence of the war, not just combat deaths.
Speaking of numerous deaths, you may have heard a report of demonstrators being killed in Uzbekistan. You have to get past the headlines to discover that the regime being targeted by the demonstrators, or militants or rebels ---- whatever they were, it's tough to tell ---- is that this regime is one of the worst on the planet and a good buddy to our freedom loving acting president. Uzbekistan has allowed us to have a base since the build up to the invasion of Afghanistan, and it has received rendered prisoners. With a promise not to torture of course. This is one democracy movement (if that's what it is, and not an Islamist movement as claimed by the regime which might be right) that might not be terribly welcome to Bush.
Speaking of more Iraqi deaths, remember hearing about the large number of insurgents killed in the recent offensive on the Syrian border? Did it not have echoes of Vietnam, where there body count was always much higher on the other side? I saw echoes of earlier wars too, like when Americans made no distinction between hostile and non-hostile Indians, in an article published today by Knight-Ridder. It's quite the story. Iraqis fought the takeover of their towns by foreign jihadists and asked for American help. The Americans, the local Iraqis charge, made no distinction between insurgents and friendly locals, which makes one wonder just how many of those counted bodies weren't insurgents.
See the archives for earlier entries.
