Showing posts with label Administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Administration. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

Clutching at straws

The US has made a desperate attempt to divide and rule Iraqi Shias - but the White House is sorely mistaken if it thinks this will work.

Dilip Hiro

December 5, 2006 01:04 PM

President Bush's White House meeting with Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim stems from a recommendation in a memo sent to him on November 8 by his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley. The memo was published by the New York Times three weeks later.

The Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, should free himself from the present narrow reliance on such radical Shia groups as the one led by Muqtada al-Sadr, suggested Hadley. One way to weaken the troublesome Sadr's political clout would be to isolate him within the Shia camp by bolstering the comparatively moderate Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) led by Hakim.

The advocates of this strategy stress that Hakim and Sadr are intense rivals, and that this rivalry dates back to the time when their fathers (Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim and Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr) vied for influence among Shias during the Ba'athist era.

They also note that in the Shia-dominated southern Iraq, the militias of Hakim (called Badr Brigades) and Sadr (called Mahdi army) have clashed occasionally.

Despite these differences, however, Sciri and Sadrists remain part of the ruling Shia bloc called the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), which also includes al-Daawa al-Islamiya (The Islamic Call) to which Maliki and his predecessor Ibrahim Jaafari belong.

Unlike Sicri, established in Tehran in 1982, and the older al-Daawa - outlawed by the Ba'athist regime - whose leaders went into exile in Iran during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, the Mahdi army lacks any historical linkage with Iran.

After Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr and two of his sons were shot dead by government agents in February 1999, his youngest son, Muqtada, went underground. He resurfaced after the downfall of Saddam Hussein four years later when Saddam city - a district in Baghdad home to nearly 2 million Shias -was renamed Sadr city.

Sadr's faction has strong backing among young, underprivileged, urban Shias who form the bulk of the Mahdi army. It controls a bloc of 30 parliamentarians and six ministries. So it will be an uphill task to isolate Sadrists.

Overall, the UIA remains committed to establishing an Islamic regime and was instrumental in the adoption of article two in the Iraqi constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: no law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."

Moreover, the leaders of UIA constituents understand only too well that if they do not stay together they will end up suffering separately. In theological and hierarchical terms, Hakim, Sadr and other religious Shia leaders are duty bound to obey Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

In August 2004 there was a fortnight-long standoff between the 3,000 US marines and 1,500 Mahdi army militiamen when the marines tried to regain the Shia holy shrine of Imam Ali, where several hundred Mahdi militiamen were ensconced. It ended after a meeting between Sadr and Sistani on the latter's return from London following eye surgery. Sadr agreed to let Sistani's representatives take charge of the shrine while his militiamen and US marines left the city. (See page 547 of my book Secrets and Lies: the true story of the Iraq war.)

Following the parliamentary poll under the new constitution in December 2005, Jaafari was re-elected UIA leader, beating his rival by one vote. Even though he remained unacceptable to the Kurdish and Sunni MPs as well as Washington and London, he refused to step down. The ensuing crisis paralysed the government. Jaafari was unmoved. But when Sistani privately advised him to step down he did it instantly.

Sistani remains the single most important personality in Iraq today. He was the primary force behind the formation of the Shia-dominated UIA. And it was his endorsement of the UIA that gained it overwhelming popularity among Shias and turned it into the governing alliance.

Sistani refrains from interfering in day-to-day affairs of Iraq. Instead, he takes a public stand on such significant issues as the relationship with the occupying forces (he has refused to meet American or British officials), looting public and private property, and participating in elections and referendums.

"I want to see Iraq ruled by Iraqis and not by Americans," Sistani declared at the start of the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq. To achieve his aim, Sistani called on all believers to participate in the elections and referendums. Shias followed his call almost to the last voter. In the final analysis, therefore, it is Sistani, and Sistani alone, who counts. And he shows no sign of reversing his policy of rebuffing emissaries of the American or British government.

Democrat's Defacto Pardon Bush et al

Monday, December 04, 2006

In what will be seen as the greatest political crime in US history--the greatest miscarriage of justice in modern times far beyond Ford's pardoning Nixon--the Democrats will provide the members of the Bush administration--who've committed known, documented, most heinous crimes--a defacto pardon by their unwillingness to do their sworn constitutional duty of agressively investigating, impeaching, convicting, removing from office, and formally charging them with the multiple felonies and crimes against humanity they've so openly committed. It will be a defacto pardon because if they are allowed to leave office normally they will be able to use the assets of the US government to defend themselves from any civil or criminal charges they might face while retaining secret service protection and the massive pensions and perks. This act will essentially torch the Constitution.
On the face of it, this might seem surreal, until it is acknowledged that the Democrats are the other faction of our one Imperial Party and that they hoped Bush's Iraq project would succeed for the same reasons it was undertaken--maintaining Middle East hydrocarbon production within the dollar denominated "free market" exchange system and reduction of Iraq to a US dejure oil colony through the use of production sharing agreements that affectively cede all Iraqi hydrocarbon control to the US/UK oil majors--the so-called international oil companies as opposed to Iraq's state-owned or national oil company. [For a greater discussion of this, please read this item, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HK22Ag01.html ] Another piece of evidence for this is contained in Congressman Kucinich's observation regarding the lack of Democratic opposition to funding Bush's Iraq conquest, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1201-33.htm
The upshot is that Democrats want to maintain the institution of Presidential Impunity, which is totally opposite any principled stand on the bedrock of Law & Order. In fact, I would argue that by granting the Bush administration this defacto pardon for all practical purposes the Constitution will no longer exist, as the fundamental law consciously will not be upheld, all congresspeople who swore to uphold the Constitution will have consciously lied to Congress--a felony--which means that for all practical purposes our democratic/republic will cease to exist as the fundamental law no longer applies if its basic premises aren't upheld. The ground work for our current dilemma is from the pardoning of the Reagan administration for very similar crimes whose only difference is their lack of such great overtness. The only bond holding the country together is the old concept of Union; but we are beginning to see centrifugal forces driving states away from the federal organization due to the gross criminality centered in Washington and New York. There's only one remedy: The proper and immediate use of existing law while it still exists.

Truth, justice, and the un-American way

The Christian Science Monitor

By John Cavanagh Tue Dec 5, 3:00 AM ET

My organization, the Institute for Policy Studies, gave its annual human rights award this fall to Maher Arar, an innocent man the Bush administration falsely accused of being linked to Al Qaeda. His chilling case represents an opportunity for the new Democratic leadership in Congress to show the world that America has not entirely forgotten its proud history on human rights.

The general outline of Mr. Arar's story has been widely publicized. He is the joint Canadian-Syrian citizen who was detained at New York's JFK Airport in 2002 and "rendered" to Syria, a country the United States State Department accuses of routinely using torture. Syrian intelligence agents brutally tortured Arar - a fact confirmed by a Canadian inquiry - before releasing him nearly a year later without charging him.

Arar protested to the Canadian government and it conducted an in-depth inquiry into his case. When it declared him innocent of all terrorist ties in September, the Canadian House of Commons swiftly passed a unanimous motion apologizing to Arar. The head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which provided misleading evidence against Arar to US agents that led to his arrest, also apologized to him and his family.

The Bush administration refused to cooperate with that Canadian inquiry and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales continues to deny any wrongdoing. I sent Mr. Gonzales a letter in early October requesting that, at a minimum, he clear Arar's name and lift the ban on his entry to the United States so that he could attend the awards ceremony in Washington.

I never received a response, and Arar had to send a videotaped acceptance speech. The personal details in his account reduced many of the 500 people gathered at the ceremony at the National Press Club in Washington to tears: His description of the first time he saw his cell, a grave-sized hole, where he spent 10 months of his life. In his words, his first beating was "painful to the point that I forgot every moment I had ever enjoyed in my life."

The loudest gasp from the audience came when Arar recounted how a US immigration official in New York defended the decision to render him to Syria by explaining that the INS (now known as US Citizenship and Immigration Services) was not the agency that had signed the Geneva Convention against torture.

"For me, what that really meant is we will send you to torture and we don't care," Arar told the crowd.

I have been haunted by his story. The notion that my country, the nation that helped draft the Geneva Conventions, that spearheaded creation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, could be responsible for deliberately sending an innocent man to be tortured - well, it has been enough to keep me up at night.

What's worse is that I know Arar is only one of many victims, known and unknown, of this abhorrent policy of "extraordinary rendition," the post-9/11 practice of transferring detainees into the custody of foreign governments known for routinely practicing torture.

The Bush administration does not acknowledge that it knows the suspects are tortured. "We seek to satisfy ourselves that they will not be tortured," Gonzales said this year.

Because I believe that there is humanity in everyone, I believe that Bush administration officials involved in this tragedy will eventually be deeply affected by Arar's story, too.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently sent a letter to her Canadian counterpart about the Arar case. She refused to apologize to Arar, offering only to share information with her northern neighbor the next time the US considers sending a Canadian citizen to a third country. Does that decision ever keep Ms. Rice up at night?

A recently released transcript of a House Judiciary Committee hearing held in April of this year is revealing. In the transcript, which clearly refers to the Arar case, although he isn't mentioned by name, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record) (D) of New York asked the attorney general if the treatment of Arar was legal. Gonzales replied: "I don't know, but I would be happy to get back to you on that." As far as we know, he never did get back to anyone. Does that approach ever keep Gonzales up at night?

The new congressional leaders should take immediate action to right these wrongs. They should start by issuing a formal apology to Arar and his family. And then they should invite him to testify in hearings that could lead to a ban on extraordinary rendition.

It's too late to prevent the nightmare endured by this young man and his family. And yet even Arar, a man the US government sent to a Syrian dungeon, has not given up hope in the American people.

In accepting his award, he said it meant a tremendous amount to him because "it means that there are still Americans out there who value our struggle for justice. It means that there are Americans out there who are truly concerned about the future of America."

Leaders in Congress should keep that hope alive by refusing to stand by while the Bush administration continues a practice of outsourcing torture.

* John Cavanagh directs the Institute for Policy Studies.

Monday, December 4, 2006

The Road Less Traveled

December 3, 200

By Paul William Roberts

On Saturday, December 02, the Washington Post wrote:

"The emerging plan by the Iraq Study Group tries to find a middle road between President Bush's adamant refusal to leave Iraq until the job is done and Democratic demands to pull out U.S. troops. But in achieving unanimity among its Republican and Democratic members, the commission has outlined a strategy with its own political and military risks."

The reason this road is less traveled is that it just doesn’t exist.

One expected more from James Baker and his expensive commission, but perhaps we will yet have cause to thank him. For the uselessness of the ISG underscores a deeper uselessness in American politics generally when it comes foreign policies in which the public (read "the media") have developed a level of interest that already has, and will continue to cost votes. In managing to arrive at a "plan" upon which all its members could agree, the ISG has merely wasted paper – not to mention taxpayers’ money (a commodity more disposable than toilet paper in Washington). Like so much the long-suffering taxpayer finds himself and herself funding these days, this bi-partisan circle jerk can satisfy only the overpaid and bloated egos participating in the couple of long lunches that were surely all it took to assess the facts and then devise a course of action ignoring them. To the cash whores and corporate crooks whose fingers are always in the till and whose snouts rarely leave the Beltway trough, of course, this latest wasteful disgrace is just another drop of fecal matter in a septic tank the size of the Pacific Ocean.

It ought, however, to signify to the world that the US Government is no longer capable of running its own affairs. If the police were sent into East LA to arrest a few gang members yet succeeded only in sparking a full-scale three-way war which had entirely destroyed that part of town and was beginning to spill over into Beverly Hills, it is a good bet that after three years the mayor, or someone, would be able to conclude that the police had screwed up and should be replaced by some other force able to gain control over the situation. To expect common sense, let alone logic from politicians is, alas, more foolish than expecting compassion from sharks in a feeding frenzy. One wonders what it was that the Iraq Study Group studied, because it surely could not have been Iraq.

The truth that Iraq’s current state of appalling violence and hellish chaos is entirely the fault and responsibility of the US cannot be overstated. Since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in early 2003, Washington has been as responsible for Iraq as it is for Louisiana or California. If 33 percent of Iraqi children now suffer from malnutrition, Washington is at fault. If 20 percent of Iraqis do not have access to potable water, Washington is at fault. If most of Baghdad can only rely on 8-12 hours of electricity per day, Washington is at fault. If the majority of Iraq’s schools and colleges have closed down because it is too dangerous for students to attend them, Washington is at fault. If 85 percent of Iraqis have been unemployed since the invasion began, Washington is at fault. If 1000 Iraqis die each week in the civil war that dare not speak its name, Washington is at fault. This list could be extended indefinitely, and it would all be Washington’s fault.

Is this being unfair to the Bush administration or America? Am I merely – God forbid! – another anti-American bigot? No is the answer on both counts. I am simply stating facts of international law.

The Geneva Conventions – no matter what the war criminal Donald Rumsfeld thinks of them – govern all aspects of the behavior of modern nations engaged in war, and they state unequivocally that the invading army’s government assumes complete responsibility for the invaded country from the moment its incumbent regime collapses and thereafter, until a new regime is able to govern. Whether you regard the Iraqi government as legitimate and independent, or a quisling, no one disputes its inability to govern. Without raising the issue of changes made illegally by America to various aspects of Iraqi law relating to elections, the current regime in Baghdad cannot conduct even the most rudimentary form of governmental obligation, and indeed only remains in place through US support (read "troops"). Thus, legally, Washington is still the ultimate authority, the place where the buck stops.

When I left Baghdad three years ago, it seemed as if the anarchy and violence could get no worse. Since then, however, it has done nothing but worsen. My Iraqi friends still living there are now, for the first time, requesting their names not be cited in any quotation I may use from blogs or e-mails. For the first time, also, they are asking for help. They are truly scared. Up to this point, there were worrying moments, tragic incidents, frightening episodes, but I do not recall any of them admitting fear. These are not Westerners, who drop in and out of Iraq, generally never leaving the Green Zone, usually moving anywhere in heavily armed convoys, leaving when their nerves get too frayed. These are the people who do most of the real reporting for the Westerners, and do it mainly without recognition, for a fraction of what foreign correspondents earn, and without body armor, let alone the US Army to protect them. Every time they leave their homes – which are not of course in the Green Zone – there is a reasonable chance they will not return. A trip to the market, a visit to the mosque, any activity, every day has been potentially lethal for the last 40 months. They have all lost family and loved ones. They have all seen dozens of people killed right before their eyes, shot, blown up, crushed by armored vehicles, burned alive. Most have lost everything they ever had, except loved ones – and some have even lost those. They have all learned to fear everyone — Americans, Sunnis, Shia, neighbors, and often friends too. They have watched as the city they all loved fiercely disintegrated into stinking rat-infested rubble and they came to realize that a city is in fact its people not its buildings. Throughout all this, often without reason, they hoped. They hoped the future would be better. They hoped they would one day resume their lives. They hoped the nightmare would end.

For these people were once scholars, engineers, systems analysts, lovers, mothers or fathers. These people once had lives. Now they are "Iraqis", another term for the denizens of hell, the most wretched of the wretched. But for the first time in three years I do not hear hope any more. Those who dismissed the possibility of civil war by pointing out how many Sunnis were married to Shia – "I am going to wage war on my wife?" – are now telling me that Shia and Sunni clergy are declaring such marriages annulled, invalid, reprehensible, and families, or friends, or tribes are forcibly separating couples.

They all seem to feel the Apocalypse is coming, or rather will finally arrive quite soon. "What you have seen so far will be nothing in comparison," said one friend. "The Tigris will become a river of blood." Another told me Shia mobs had already been reported killing Sunni babies, swinging them by the ankles and dashing their skulls against walls. "They are animals," he said. "Once they smell blood they lose their minds." This was always the Sunni view of Iraqi Shia, whose pilgrimage to Karbala – long banned under Saddam – with its gory and downright disturbing orgy of self-mutilation, and its scenes of hysteria and mass-hypnosis around the tomb of Hussein, had so profoundly horrified them as they watched it live on television in 2003. "They are crazy…they are animals…" – these were and are common remarks. Few ever wondered if the Shia were like this because they had been treated like animals for so long under the Sunni oppression. It is now pointless to bring up such ancient history. No matter how they behaved to each other, recent grievances supersede everything. It is far too late for apologies. The Four Horsemen, and their fifteen million foot soldiers, are on the move. It is no coincidence that the only Iraqis I know in Iraq are Sunni or Christians. They were the artistic and academic elites, and every other elite. Now they are scared, they are pleading for help. Just reading their recent e-mails scares me.

The truly frightening thing is that the United States is supposed to be in charge of this particular moronic inferno, and, as we should have noticed by now, the convocation of thieves, clowns and dunces in Washington can barely control their own bowel movements, and couldn’t even respond adequately to a flood in New Orleans, so they can no more fulfill US responsibilities in Iraq than they could bale out the Atlantic with a sieve.

I have for some time been trying to interest governments and organizations in the plight of Iraq’s Christian community. You would think we would be more aware of this million-strong minority, wouldn’t you? If the Sunnis don’t have much resembling a future worth being alive in, Iraqi Christians have less than that. Rightly, they felt until recently that their claim on Iraqi turf was secure, dating back 800 years earlier than any Islamic claim. But they also remember the far greater antiquity of Baghdad’s once huge Jewish community, which today numbers about zero. Saddam celebrated his ascent to power by decorating Firdos Square with Jews hanging from piano wire – and made sure the corpses were left there for many malodorous weeks too. Long enough for the Chosen People to realize they’d been chosen again. As far as I know, none thought it worthwhile to point out for Saddam that the Jewish community dated back at least 2,500 years, nor that everyone’s patriarch, Abraham, was Iraqi, from Ur. Most moved West to the Promised Land.

I used to imagine that American Jews, and possibly even Christians, would have sentimental reasons to safeguard sites like Babylon and Ur. US tank treads and souvenir-hunting marines have obliterated the former; a couple of crunchy battles took care of the latter. The Walt Disney people will have to give Iraq back a few heritage sites for the tourists one day. Auschwitz doesn’t get that many visitors, though, so no one should expect an invasion even if, or when Mesopotamia is fit to receive visitors with passports and visas again.

While Jews are exceptionally good about helping other Jews in trouble, Christians don’t even seem to grasp the concept involved. I’m not sure why, but I will spare the specific Christian subdivisions I approached in Canada the embarrassment of naming them. After explaining to the bureaucrats of Jesus that Iraq’s Christians will almost certainly be slaughtered – indeed, are being slaughtered, as we speak – and that all churches and many governments need to be lobbied immediately to participate in a mass-evacuation, I found myself faced with, no, not exactly a clamoring for more details, facts, specifics. In fact, the two largest bodies had but one question – the same one: what made me think Iraqi Christians were needier than those in Rwanda?

I imagine it has been through such cunning masterpieces of sophistry as this that Christians have managed to get through two thousand years without being especially Christian in their deeds. They ought to be further shamed by finding out that the most enthusiastic response to my plea came from, no, not the Mormons, nor the Scientologists, but from CSIS, the kinder, gentler Canadian answer to the CIA. With CSIS, too, I felt I could cite more practical issues. Such as the fact that Iraq’s Christians are mainly all highly educated upper middle class professionals — an Immigration Minister’s wet dream, in fact. It would scarcely be a hardship at all for Canada to take in all million of them. They would be helping the rest of us bear the burden of the planet’s highest taxation in no time, and from the higher income level. The country would actually be better off, but we could still pretend to other nations to have made a superhuman sacrifice. We could probably milk the guilty for several billion to help us "resettle" our refugees too. I thought the scheme had much to be said for it — not least the saving of a million lives. It was even child’s play ensuring no Islamist psycho-bombers stowed away among the Christians: they all speak Athurian, the ancient Aramaic-rooted tongue that is still used for their liturgy. No Muslim speaks Athurian. Besides, Iraqi Christians can spot a Muslim at a thousand paces.

But, although it is one government body that actually isn’t a waste of tax-dollars, CSIS still has to deal with a Himalayan range of bureaucracies all dedicated to the fine art of doing nothing expensively, and all the good will on earth would barely hollow out a cave let alone undermine these. The Grand Evacuation is presumably stuffed beneath a foothill of turpitude somewhere by now.

And my friends in Baghdad — Sunni and Christian — are scared and asking for help, because the blood-dimmed tide is rising around them, and they know the killing will be cruel, long and on a scale not seen since the Nazi death camps.

We can see plainly that the US Government is incapable of repairing the damage for which it is entirely responsible. Assigning blame will not help those in desperate need of help, either. We know our own governments are similarly useless, too, besides being habitually unused to carrying out any wishes of the people they do not even like to think of themselves as serving. And we know, or ought to know, that such a situation is deeply, gravely wrong. We, as representatives of the world’s people, must either take this current crisis in hand or sit back and watch no one help as Iraq turns into a whirlpool of blood that will leave the desert orange for centuries to come, and pronounce judgment over our selfish inaction as we too face the hour of reckoning, when every soul knows precisely what it has done and what it has left undone.

I suggest that all those who have lost faith in governments, over this and every other issue in which their uselessness has been the only principal successfully put forth and firmly adhered to, demand immediate action to halt the bloodshed in Iraq and evacuate Iraqi Christians wishing to leave. If our demands are ignored, we must in all conscience cease paying taxes to these imposters who have usurped the position of public servants and refused to serve the public. It would be morally wrong to continue financing such imposters, thus we should cease immediately. If millions could be persuaded to follow the dictates of conscience in such a manner, throwing us all in jail would be impossible. Taking back our countries and our world would also become a very real possibility. That is all it would take, my friends. Who among us has the courage to fling the first stone?

Sunday, December 3, 2006

Andrew Sullivan on Iraq: 'It's over, guys. Your beloved Bush administration botched this so badly it's irrecoverable.'

Saturday, December 2, 2006

Denialists Dig In

02 Dec 2006 04:37 pm

Both National Review and the Weekly Standard aim for the Baker-Hamilton Group this week. But when you examine what the Kristol-Kagan team sees as the alternative to a gradual retreat from the South and Anbar into Kurdistan, you can't help wondering how serious they really are. Money quote:

We hope that he will now take the steps necessary to accomplish his stated objectives in Iraq, including a substantial increase in the number of U.S. forces in Baghdad and throughout the contested parts of the country, as well as a long overdue increase in the total size of American ground forces so that higher force levels in Iraq can be sustained.

How much higher would make a difference? At this point, close to 50,000 to 100,000 extra troops to halt the centrifugal force of societal disintegration in Iraq. Does the Weekly Standard seriously believe that is either politically or militarily possible with the urgency necessary? Of course not. Would, say, another 20,000 troops work in a pitched battle with Sadrite forces to retake parts of Baghdad? Unlikely - and with massive casualties probably prompting an uprising in the South. Anbar is all but gone. The South is a battleground for various Shiite militias and sending U.S. troops in to police the conflict is madness. But even if you reduced troops in the South and West, and focused on 20,000 more troops just for Baghdad, it's a stretch. As even Fred Kagan acknowledges:

It is certainly true that only the 20,000 or so troops now programmed to deploy to Iraq in the spring are ready to go. Others could be made ready only in months, and would require accelerated training schedules.

We need at least 50,000 NOW. The only way to do that is sending untrained and ill-prepared or exhausted forces into a combat zone as chaotic and as opaque and as deadly as urban warfare in Baghdad. it would mean re-taking Baghdad three years after we did the first time, with far fewer advantages. And the massive surge in U.S. casualties it would mean would provoke massive opposition at home. If Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush had done this three years ago, it might have had a chance. But they were too arrogant to do what was obviously needed when it mattered, and the window of opportunity is over. To ask for such a radical re-upping of the ante now - after the American public's patience has been exhausted and the Iraqi population has been massacred and thereby embittered on a large scale - is simply a non-starter.

The attempt to belittle the efforts of Baker-Hamilton is therefore pure positioning. In Margaret Thatcher's phrase, there is tragically no alternative to some sort of retrenchment and retreat right now. I agree we need an effort to expand the military by several divisions. That was Al Gore's position in 2000, by the way, the candidate the Weekly Standard hounded as insane and weak. It was Kerry's position in 2004, another candidate the WS smeared as Jane Fonda in drag. Maybe a period of retrenchment and rebuilding of US forces could mean a new offensive in a year or so. But the idea that it can be accomplished swiftly enough now to make a difference in a "country" that has already disintegrated into Hobbesian hell is pure fantasy and Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan must know it.

There is a mood on the right at this moment that is not entirely rational. They are lashing out at the people who can rescue them from the folly of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld policy in Iraq. They are viciously attacking those who have had the temerity to expain why they lost the last election. And they are throwing the vilest of epithets at James Baker. Please. This is not 1991. They are as graceless in defeat now as they were hubristic in premature victory three years ago. Or to put it more precisely, they are exactly what National Review accuses the Baker-Hamilton Commission of being: "driven by their own internal dynamics rather than by any connection to the real world."

It's over, guys. Your beloved Bush administration botched this so badly it's irrecoverable. You enabled them. You never fully took them on when it would have counted - and you trashed those of us who did. You knew this before the 2004 election and still cynically played the anti-Kerry card for all it was worth, telling yourselves you could sway Rummy after the election. Well, you couldn't and you didn't. Your policy was sabotaged by a defense secretary who never believed in it and by a president too weak and out-of-it to rein him in. Get over yourselves and recognize that this dream has died. And we have to fight the nightmare we now face rather than pretend your dream is still even on life-support. That's the patriotic responsibility at this point. And no, I'm not impugning your patriotism. I'm asking you to place it before your shattered dreams.

Permalink :: E-Mail This :: Trackback (0)

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7016233

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference

'Denialists Dig In'

from

Andrew Sullivan

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

CQ Analyst Suggests ‘Rumsfeld’s Leaving Is Just The Beginning,’ Cheney Might Be Next.

Appearing on MSNBC this afternoon, Congressional Quarterly political analyst Craig Crawford speculated that, as “neocons are heading for the hills,” Dick Cheney may be the next to leave the administration. He claimed the Vice President’s “authority is waning, if not gone.” “And my point is why would he want to stick around in this environment?” he asked. “All I’m seeing is a man getting isolated more and more.”

Transcript:
CRAWFORD: Again, I gotta ask, where does that leave Dick Cheney if the neocons are heading for the hills. Where does he end up in this administration?
MATTHEWS: I know what he does. He moves out to the eastern shore of Maryland and waits there like [indecipherable] with a gun. And he waits until the next administration comes into office. If it’s a Republican administration — like McCain — he has a lot of influence. If it’s a Democratic administration, he starts coming on programs like this. He won’t be on this show, but like this.
CRAWFORD: I still wonder if he stays in this administration for the full term here. I really wonder if Rumsfeld’s leaving is just the beginning.
MATTHEWS: Well, who is showing up with the Ryder truck at his home. Who’s gonna get him out?
CRAWFORD: He has to make the choice himself. He can’t be fired, technically, under the Constitution.
MATTHEWS: Why would he leave?
HARWOOD: As Bill Clinton once said, the Constitution makes him relevant for at least the two years. I don’t think he will go anywhere.
CRAWFORD: My point is I don’t know why he’d want to stick around.
MATTHEWS: He has assumed an awful lot of authority under this President.
CRAWFORD: I know, and that authority is waning, if not gone. And my point is why would he want to stick around in this environment? He might just choose to leave.
MATTHEWS: Let me check this. I rarely do this on the show. Are you teasing? Are you — do you actually think there’s a reasonable plausible case for this Vice President to give up all the power he enjoys as the President’s first counsel?
CRAWFORD: Not if he doesn’t enjoy it anymore. I mean all I’m seeing is the man getting isolated more and more. This seems to be his most vulnerable position in the entire Bush administration.

Filed under:
Posted by Faiz November 27, 2006 4:22 pm
Permalink Comment (68)

Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/crawford-on-cheney/

Monday, November 27, 2006

Impeachment Hearings for Bush & Co.? How about War Crimes Tribunals

Nov 27, 2996

By Heather Wokusch


While Bush administration members have made a sport of breaking the law, both domestically and internationally, their intransigence will come back to haunt - one way or another.

The Bush Doctrine of taking "the battle to the enemy," for example, is a direct repudiation of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of international force unless in self-defense (after an armed attack across an international border) or related to a UN Security Council decision. And that explains why Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy makes a point to "protect Americans" from "the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution" by the International Criminal Court "whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept."

The whole idea of the US being able to preemptively attack other nations was penned by White House lawyers two weeks after 9/11; former justice department lawyer John Yoo wrote memos for then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales arguing that "no limits" stood in the way of Bush's ability to take military action and that "the president's decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable."

But giving someone like Bush "unreviewable" and unlimited military powers is reckless; the man can barely construct a sentence, let alone articulate a humane and effective foreign policy.
Besides, a "no limits" approach to foreign policy can't coexist with rule of law, which explains why just last week, US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff accused the United Nations and other world bodies of using international law "as a rhetorical weapon against us." Chertoff co-authored the infamous Patriot Act but is best known for his stunning incompetence regarding Katrina. If only he had been as eager to protect Americans from hurricanes as he is to protect them from global treaties...

Chertoff's view of international law as a threat to the US is supported by Rumsfeld's 2005 National Defense Strategy, which notes: "Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes and terrorism.

In other words, the Pentagon links "judicial processes" with "terrorism," and sees "judicial processes" as weakening the US "nation state." What kind of nonsense is that?
Now that Rumsfeld has "resigned" and Bush and Co. face their lame-duck years watching the war on terror implode, it's worth considering the aftermath of World War II, when the International Military Tribunal indicted and tried over 20 Nazi leaders for war crimes ranging from waging a war of aggression, killing civilians, mistreating prisoners and plundering property. How eerily familiar those charges seem today.

And how ominous that only weeks ago, German prosecutors began pursuing a criminal investigation into the alleged role of Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and numerous other administration members regarding prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.

Rumsfeld will lose his legal immunity when he ceases to be Defense Secretary, a fact which must weigh heavily on Bush and others. Unsurprisingly, the administration has taken pre-emptive action against future war crimes charges, including pushing through the scandalous Military Commissions Act, which provides them retroactive domestic protection from prosecution regarding prisoner abuse cases.

On the world stage, the administration's primary battleground for immunity has been the International Criminal Court (ICC), set up in 2002 to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Roughly 100 countries have ratified the ICC Statute, and over 40 others have signed it, but the Bush administration renounced the treaty on grounds it could lead to "frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions."

The administration has done everything in its power to enervate the ICC, including setting up bilateral "Article 98" agreements which arm-twist other countries into not prosecuting US nationals or foreign nationals working for the US. Over 100 nations, mainly poor and dependent on foreign aid, have signed the agreements, but many others have stood firm and lost US aid as a result, including Brazil, Peru and South Africa.

But such bribery will only go so far. The administration's "no limits" approach to foreign policy has alienated global allies, and in many parts of the world, Bush is regarded as a greater danger to world peace than North Korea's Kim Jong-il or Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Continuing revelations of US war atrocities, such as the recent bombing of a Pakistani religious school in which 82 students died, only serve to fuel global outrage. It's hard to imagine administration members getting much sympathy in an international trial.

Bottom line, as calls for impeachment build at home, Bush might heed advice he once gave to Osama bin Laden: "you can run but you cannot hide."

Action Ideas:

1. A number of web sites provide information about human rights abuses linked to the so-called war on terror:

War Crimes Watch

Human Rights First

School of the Americas Watch

Cage Prisoners

2. As After Downing Street notes, this year a national coalition of organizations is making December 10 ''Human Rights and Impeachment Day.'' For related information on everything from Petitions to Dramatic Play Scripts and Yard Signs, check out the site's event resources.Note: Originally published: November 27, 2006

http://heatherwokusch.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=96

Friday, November 24, 2006

Rwanda recalls envoy to France over arrest warrants; Bush hindering prosecution


Rwanda recalls envoy to France over arrest warrants
Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:22 AM GMT

By Arthur Asiimwe


KIGALI (Reuters) - Rwanda recalled its ambassador from Paris on Friday after a French judge requested President Paul Kagame stand trial over the killing of a former leader which sparked a 1994 genocide.

The Rwandan foreign ministry issued a statement accusing France of trying to topple the Kagame government and said it might break off diplomatic ties with the French.

Thousands of Rwandans protested on Thursday in the capital Kigali after the anti-terrorism judge also issued arrest warrants for nine associates of Kagame over the shooting down of a plane carrying former President Juvenal Habyarimana.

The accusations have infuriated the Kagame government which calls them a cover-up for France's alleged role in training soldiers who carried out the genocide, now being probed in Rwanda.

"We have recalled our ambassador to France for consultations," Rwanda's Foreign Affairs Minister Charles Murigande told Reuters.

"Given the level of enmity as expressed by the latest move, we are beginning to question the need of maintaining diplomatic relations with such a country that is aggressive to us."

Rwanda said France was trying to bring down its government.

"For the last 12 years, France has waging both overt and covert war against the government of Rwanda hoping to overthrow it and re-instate to power allies and perpetrators of the genocide," a foreign ministry statement said.

France had no immediate comment. Rwanda was a Belgian colony until independence in 1962, but France maintained close links with the Francophone country from 1975 to 1994, providing financial and military support to Habyarimana's government.

There were three French crew members on the plane which was shot down.

IMMUNITY

Kagame has immunity under French law but Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere called for him to be tried by a U.N. court on what he said was evidence Kagame and his military staff devised the operation to shoot down Habyarimana's plane in April 1994.

The crash, which Hutu extremists blamed on Tutsis, was used to fan the flames of ethnic hatred and launch a slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis and moderates Hutus over 100 days.

Kagame is revered by many genocide survivors because it was his rebel army, the Rwandan Patriotic Front, that marched across Rwanda to defeat the Hutu extremists and seize control.

Rwanda last month launched a probe into France's role in the genocide. Rwanda accused France of backing Habyarimana's government and training soldiers it knew were plotting to commit genocide against Tutsis, among other charges Paris has denied.

In a demonstration on Thursday, 25,000 protesters including genocide survivors accused France of complicity in the killings and scoffed at the warrants.

Under French law the warrants, to be passed on by Interpol, mean the suspects have been placed under official investigation and now face questioning by the French judge.

The judge issued warrants for the Rwandan chief of general staff, the army chief of staff, Rwanda's ambassador to India, and retired and active members of Rwanda's security and intelligence apparatus.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?storyid=2006-11-24T112226Z_01_L24483870_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RWANDA-FRANCE.xml&type=worldNews&WTmodLoc=World-C3-More-7


November 22, 2006

Bush Administration Hindering Prosecution of Rwandan President for Fomenting Genocide

By Wayne Madsen



French anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere is expected to issue international arrest warrants for nine Rwandan government officials close to the pro-U.S. Rwandan President Paul Kagame for the 1994 missile attack on the presidential aircraft that killed the Rwandan and Burundian Presidents, members of their cabinets and staff, and the French crew.

Although Bruguiere also said Kagame should be brought to trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania on charges of ordering the attack on the aircraft, an act of international terrorism that resulted in the mostly Hutu on Tutsi genocide in Rwanda that led to the deaths of some 800,000 people. As a sitting head of state, Kagame has immunity from prosecution under French law, but he can be prosecuted by the ICTR under international law.

Kagame was trained by the US Army in 1990 and was a U.S. client when he executed the terrorist attack on the "Rwanda One" aircraft. Kagame has also been a frequent visitor to the Bush White House, a supporter of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, and has become a celebrity among certain sectors of the human rights community, having attended several Washington, DC events sponsored by non-profit think tanks and even the Holocaust Museum.

Unbelievably, at a 2005 appearance at a Woodrow Wilson Center function chaired by Lee Hamilton, an official of the Holocaust Museum actually praised Kagame, now a wanted international terrorist, as a man of vision.

Members of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), including their top operatives in Rwanda, Uganda, and the then-Zaire, were aware of the plans for the attack and actually helped train Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) forces in the use of Soviet-made SAM-16 missiles captured by US forces during Operation Desert Storm in the attack on the aircraft.

Bruguiere's determination that Kagame and his US-supported forces were responsible for the missile attack on the aircraft mirror the conclusions found in two books written by this editor: Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 and Jaded Tasks: Brass Plates, Black Ops & Big Oil.

The arrest warrants against Rwandan government officials include Rwandan Armed Forces Chief James Kaberebe (alias Kabare) and Army Chief of Staff Charles Kayonga. The editor has also testified before the US Congress on official US backing for Kagame and America's role in the terrorist attack on Rwanda One.

The Bush administration's special ambassador for war crimes, Richard Prosper, intervened twice with the ICTR to prevent the testimony of this editor on the US involvement in Kagame's RPF attack on Rwanda One. One cancellation came from Arusha as the editor was en route to Dulles International Airport and after being inoculated against cholera and yellow fever and being on anti-malaria medication for two weeks.

A third invitation to Arusha, one cleared by Prosper and the Bush State Department, was issued only after the editor's personal safety could not be guaranteed by the United Nations authorities in Tanzania.

Under pressure from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, the ICTR has avoided prosecuting the perpetrators of the attack on the Rwandan presidential plane. Successive ICTR chief judges, including Louise Arbour of Canada and Carla Del Ponte of Switzerland, under pressure from Washington and London, have maintained their mandates did not include investigating the attack on the Rwanda One aircraft.

Del Ponte regretted that she left "unfinished business" in Arusha. That "unfinished business" clearly included investigating Kagame and the current US-backed Rwandan government.

It was clear then and remains clear now that the Bush administration did not want the issue of US support for an act of international terrorism over the skies of Kigali on April 6, 1994 to be brought up before an international tribunal by this editor or any other special or expert witnesses.

In fact, Prosper and chief UN prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow of Gambia have been aided and abetted in their cover up of Kagame's crimes by US military Judge Advocate General lawyers seconded to the ICTR prosecutor's office in Arusha and on loan from the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague.

The actions Judge Bruguiere in prosecuting a US-client state for terrorism, especially after considering the same judge successfully prosecuted Carlos the Jackal and Corsican terrorists and investigated Muammar Qaddafi and Zacarias Moussaoui, point to the fact that the US government can now be counted among the other state sponsors of global international terrorism.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com