Conservative whining

Some conservative named Tim Graham who blogs with the neofascists at newsbusters dot org whined about Matt Lauer daring to ask Condi about a Code Pink member questioning her in public. Graham said, "imagine a conservative getting in Madeleine Albright's face ... and wonder if a Matt Lauer would ever ask them to describe their feelings about a conservative protester calling them a bloody-handed killer." Since Graham, as a news buster, has no news competence to research facts, he of course is unaware of Albright's notorious reply to questioning from Lesley Stahl in 1996. Quote from Wikipedia page on Albright:

In 1996, she made highly controversial remarks in an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS's 60 Minutes. Asked by Stahl with regards to effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?". Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

What else are they hiding?

Nuclear whistleblower's warning ignored.

Unpalatable Rice

Condi Rice got herself booked on Today with Matt Lauer. She said "The Iranians need to face an unpalatable choice."

My last post about Condi bemoaned the lack of diplomacy on Iran from Rice. Nothing has changed. Rice is playing lip service to negotiation, and engaging in demonization of Iran. Rice says, "We've offered a pathway of negotiations", if the Iranians acceed to all our demands first, of course. That is not much of a negotiation. Then we get, "the international community needs ... to get tough, to give the diplomacy some teeth." Then we have this gem:

LAUER: ... do you expect the Israelis to sit by and wait for more U.S. sanctions to take hold against Iran or do you expect them to use their military option inside Iran?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the very fact that we're asking that question shows the instability that would arise in the Middle East if Iran doesn't face consequences for its continued defiance of the international community.

Isn't she brilliant to just leave the threat of Israeli military action hanging there? Did she ever consider the instability that would arise in the Middle East from that non-answer? Did she say that Israel would face consequences for yet again attacking another Middle East country? Is she aware that some countries consider that the concept of facing consequences for continued defiance of the international community applies in spades to the United States? Especially when the defiance has had an enormously destabilizing effect on the Middle East? Even the most junior foreign service officer in Foggy Bottom can see these problems with her reply.

Further evidence of her incompetence is her attempt to spin Russia's Iran policy as supporting us. Rice says "Now the issue is we may have some tactical differences about timing, about how severe sanctions should be. " Newsweek quotes Putin as saying "Threats against Iran [are] harmful for international relations because dialogue with states ... is always more promising. It is a shorter route toward success than a policy of threats, sanctions and, even less so, armed pressure." Clearly we are looking at policy difference, not a tactical difference.

Stark apologizes

Stark has apologized for his comments about Bush, but he is still a great american. I won't apologize for praising Stark. It is an abomination that Stark apologized for his relatively mild comment before Bush apologized for starting the war.

Rubin on Zakaria

Barnett Rubin comments on Zakaria's Newsweek opinion on Iran. Rubin quotes Zakaria, "The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality." Read both articles.

Polarizing Cal

Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel wrote a column plugging their book, and calling for an end to polarizing politics and a return to common ground politics. They confessed their sins, "We have done our share to fan the flames of polarization."

Now Cal is back to his old tricks. He wrote a column in which he accuses the democratic leadership of wanting to defeat republicans in the next election, even at the cost of losing a war; and of being "invested in defeat." I suppose that by not actually using the fake word "defeatocrat" (and crossing his fingers) he is staying on the straight and narrow road to common ground.

Given that the democrats have rolled over for their master george at every war funding vote opportunity, I have big doubts about the accuracy of Cal's claim about the democrats. Even so, is Cal incapable of seeing that many people oppose the war because they see how it is harming the security of this country? I guess Cal is so "invested" in the macho bullshit "'win' at all costs" mentality that he would rather see more American boys die meaninglessly than admit that we would be better off walking away from Iraq.

Nut Job Central

I was thinking of writing a post about the regime change iran blog. I got as far as the title, when I remembered the correct location of the real nut job central.

Exhibit A: "The Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record."

Exhibit B: "The regime has passed up numerous opportunities to be a positive force in the Middle East."

Exhibit C: "Across the Middle East, further progress will depend on responsible conduct by regional governments; respect for the sovereignty of neighbors; compliance with international agreements; peaceful words, and peaceful actions."

Pete Stark is a Great American

In the heat of the moment after President Bush reneged on his promise of compassionate conservatism and veto SCHIP, Rep. Stark connected Bush's lack of compassion for U.S. children, and his lack of compassion for those subject to violence in Iraq. Bush started the Iraq war. His stated reasons for starting it were false, probably knowingly false. The war continues, with a lot of people, mostly Iraqi but a few U.S., dying violently for no reason. These facts are not going away.

So the gutless Republicans can't handle the truth, and go after one guy who dares to speak it.

Even one who thinks the war is wrong, might disagree that Bush started the killing just for his own amusement. But then, one recalls Bush making the video for the Press club dinner about looking for WMD. Or his notorious mocking of Karla Faye Tucker before her excecution. So the thought is not entirely implausible.

Slandering Erik Prince

In this week's Newsweek, Erik Prince accuses those who call his company, Blackwater, 'mercenaries', of slandering the company.

According to the International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing, and Training of Mercenaries, a mercenary is

Article 1

For the purposes of the present Convention,

1. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Article 2

Any person who recruits, uses, finances or trains mercenaries, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention.

Blackwater clearly meets four of the five conditions in Article 1, so the only thing keeping this definition from applying to Erik Prince's sorry ass is if his employees are all U.S. citizens or residents. Unfortunately for Prince, the Guardian reported years ago on his company's practice of recruiting, training, and using foreign nationals. The president of Blackwater, Gary Jackson, told the Guardian, "We scour the ends of the earth to find professionals". Recent events have shown what Blackwater means by the word "professional".

This Manila Times opinion piece mentions Blackwater's recruitment of Filipinos.

In an interview at R.J. Hillhouse's blog, Jackson says "Blackwater’s deploying professionals, both US and TCN, undergo extensive training in core values, leadership, and human rights before they deploy". ('TCN' means Third Country National).

So while not all Blackwater employees meet the definition of mercenary, Blackwater is involved in training mercenaries.

If one is going to use the common meaning of mercenary, instead of the technical definition from international law, then Blackwater qualifies under that criterion as well.

Blackwater also has an 'affiliate' called Greystone that markets military services internationally. If that is not mercenary then the term has no meaning.

Thanks to the Wikipedia page on Blackwater for reference to the Guardian article.

Saul Landau uses my line from here.

A few details

Iraqis assess the surge as overwhelmingly negative, according to a poll by ABC, BBC, and NHK. Most Iraqis, 80 percent, disapprove of the way the United States has performed in Iraq, and 79 percent want us to leave. Forty-one percent of Iraqis report unnecessary violence against Iraqi citizens by occupation forces.

The study by Burnham et. al. in The Lancet found that 31% of the violent deaths in their survey of excess mortality in Iraq in the post war period were due to coalition forces. If this proportion held among their estimated number of deaths, that would give 180,000 deaths due to the U.S. invasion and occupation forces. Further, they were not able to attribute many violent deaths to a specific party, so the number of deaths due to U.S. forces could be substantially higher.

Asia Times reported that the contractor building the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad abused workers, smuggled them into the country illegally, and took their passports.

From opendemocracy.net:

Moreover, a 2003 Human Rights Watch report said that civilian deaths in Iraq "reveal a pattern by U.S. forces of over-aggressive tactics, indiscriminate shooting in residential areas and a quick reliance on lethal forces." Such assessments are echoed in the comment of the new Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki after the exposure of Haditha that violence against civilians had become a "daily phenomenon" by many troops in the American-led coalition who "do not respect the Iraqi people" and "crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion."

The Ishaqi case has not received a lot of attention, but the CBC had this report last year.

The CESR reported in 2004 on U.S. war crimes in Iraq.

Here is a report on the August attack on Samarra.

From a report by Naveed Raja from June 2003:

‘American troops today admitted they routinely gun down Iraqi civilians - some of whom are entirely innocent. As distrust of the invading forces increases amongst the local population US soldiers said they have killed civilians without hesitation, shot injured opponents and abandoned them to die in agony. ... Specialist Corporal Michael Richardson added: "There was no dilemma when it came to shooting people who were not in uniform, I just pulled the trigger. "’

Well reported as they were, the U.S. has never atoned for what happened at Fallujah and Abu Ghraib.

Rampaging Mercenaries

After the Blackwater fiasco, another State Dept. contractor killed two Iraqi Christian women for 'Driving While Iraqi', in Iraq. Incidents like this show that the concept that 'if we leave there will be chaos/a bloodbath' is just a completely worthless excuse. The idea that our presence in Iraq is in any way oriented toward preventing violence is comparatively lacking in evidence, relative to the idea that our presence is contributing to the violence.

I will try to summarize the evidence in my next post.

liberty without equality

Seth Sandrosky reviews Samir Amin's book, The Liberal Virus. He quotes Amin, "liberty without equality is equal to barbarism."

In America, success is equated with making lots of money. How is a homemaker to be a success by this standard? We talk about a "successful businessman", but not about a "successful teacher" or a "successful welder." One can be a successful drug dealer, but not a successful policeman. Michael Milken was a success, at least until he went to jail.

Right wing polemicists call a graduated income tax "punishing success." As if the poor in our society need more punishment. I suppose all this goes back to the Puritan Taliban, who viewed worldly success as God's approval, and worldly woes as evidence of God's disapproval, thus justifying disdain towards ones lessers. The attitude lives on, even if its roots in the culture are obscured.

Which troops do you support?

Robert Parry has an article on murders by U.S. soldiers in Iraq. He provides historical context to U.S. training and support for death squads, Abu Ghraib, and out of control mercenaries.

So do you support the troops who commit murder? Is murder okay if George Bush says so? Or do you support the soldiers who upheld the law and reported the abuses at Abu Ghraib? Did you support William Calley or Hugh Thompson?

Why is Ann Coulter on the Today Show?

I cannot understand why the Today show would taint their reputation by putting the wraithlike bomb thrower Ann Coulter on their show. Oh, shes plugging her book. She wants to set an example for young fascists that you can say intolerant, outrageous crap and make millions. Also, she thinks she is funny.

If her stuff is worth millions, my rants must be worth, oh, $0.02. But then, I don't advocate genocide.

Embassy rips Senate resolution

The U.S. embassy in Iraq denounced the U.S Senate resolution calling for partition of Iraq. The AP story said that the statement was "highly unusual".

The statement said that "attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed." The U.S. embassy ought to be well aware of this. Good thing that they would never consider using "intimidation, force, or other means." They are dead set against "extraordinary suffering and bloodshed."

But what if partition was achieved as a result of a negotiated settlement? Is this what they mean by "other means"? Is it possible such an agreement would reduce the extraordinary suffering and bloodshed currently occuring in Iraq?

Oh, never mind. I should give the embassy a pass. They are probably just frothing this hypocritical drivel to appease the insurgents firing mortars at them every day. The Senate, on the other hand, is still rolling over and funding the hypocrite in chief's war, and passing resolutions for another disastrous war with Iran.

With the current administration, however, the "highly unusual" is usual. Maybe the statement is just plain obvious; after all, just about anything is likely to lead to (continuation of the ) extraordinary suffering and bloodshed (that has resulted from the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

It has been six months since Petraeus said there is no military solution in Iraq. So, beyond issuing press releases parroting Iraqi politicians, how are you embassy guys coming on that political solution?