The Seventh Sense

Yet Another Reason Why John Bolton Should Shut Up

So you may have heard that former President Bill Clinton went to North Korea today to negotiate the release of two American journalists being held by the North Koreans.

Arch-conservative and former U.N. Ambassador under Bush, John Bolton, wrote this morning:

Clinton’s Unwise Trip to North Korea

[...]

The point to be made on the Clinton visit is that the knee-jerk impulse for negotiations above all inevitably brings more costs than its advocates foresee. Negotiating from a position of strength, where the benefits to American interests will exceed the costs, is one thing. Negotiating merely for the sake of it, in the face of palpable recent failures, is something else indeed.

The results, this afternoon:

N. Korea Says Two U.S. Journalists Have Been Pardoned

North Korea announced Tuesday that it had pardoned two detained American journalists, hours after former president Bill Clinton met in Pyongyang with reclusive dictator Kim Jong Il as part of an unannounced and highly unusual diplomatic mission to win their freedom.

Kim issued an order “granting a special pardon to the two American journalists who had been sentenced to hard labour in accordance with Article 103 of the Socialist Constitution and releasing them,” the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.

Right, John.  Wasted trip.  Bad idea.

Avast Ye

American crewmen of the U.S.-flagged cargo ship have taken back control of the vessel from pirates.

No word as to whether the pirates are being made to walk the plank. [UPDATE: Hmmmm.  Maybe they did have to walk the plank.  One pirate was captured; the rest are reportedly "in the water"]

Diplomacy In Action

For those who ever doubted that effective diplomacy cannot lead to results, and that our new president is a skilled diplomat, read this:

According to sources inside the room, President Obama just played peacemaker in a spat between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China.

In the finaly plenary session among the G-20 leaders, Sarkozy and Hu were having a heated disagreement about tax havens.

***

The exchange between Sarkozy and Hu got so heated, said a source -- who is not a member of the Obama administration -- it was threatening the unity of the G-20 leaders' meeting.

Obama to the rescue:

But Mr. Obama, according to this account, stepped between the two men, urging them to try to find consensus, and giving them a "pep talk" about the importance of working together.

The senior adminstration official said that Mr. Obama pulled Mr. Sarkozy aside, took him to a corner, "and discussed possible alternatives," the senior official said.

Once they arrived at one, President Obama "sent a message to the Chinese" that a counter-offer was on the table. The Chinese spent some time considering the offer. But they took a few minutes.

So Mr. Obama, with the assistance of translators, suggested that he and Mr. Hu have a conversation as well. They, too went to the corner to talk. After a few minutes, Mr. Obama called upon Mr. Sarkozy to join them.

"Translators and sherpas in tow, they reached an agreement," the official said. "There was a multiple shaking of hands."

And that's how it's done.

Kim Il Jong: The Photoshopped Photo

I never have the patience to examine photos for fakeness.  Thank God others do.

North Korea release a photo of its dear leader, Kim Il Jong, to show the world that rumors of his illness or death are unsubstantiated.  The BBC, among others, saw the photo and cried "Photoshop!"

 

Yeah.  It looks like they're right.  Which only means that the dude really is ill or dead.

Hmmmm....

Since When Is Ignorance A Virtue?

So here's the latest scandal rocking the Obama campaign....

Last week, Obama said this:

Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they'll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], "Merci beaucoup." Right?

Obama was attacked for his statements by right wing radio talk shows and conservative bloggers. But in many cases he was not quoted correctly. For example, the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC took aim by claiming that "Barack Obama has stepped on a political land mine by stating that Americans should be forced to learn Spanish."

That is not what Obama said, of course. But for the conservatives, truth doesn't matter.

Commentary from the right went something like this:

Note that Obama isn't merely saying, "learning foreign languages is swell," or, "those who speak a second language deserve a pat on the back." He's saying that monolingualism or English-only is an insufficient condition for American citizens.

This is a very dramatic change from the position of American leaders for most of our history. It used to be, if you spoke a language besides English, a thriving life outside of immigrant enclaves would require effort to speak the mother tongue. American culture as a whole said to the immigrant, "You have to get with the program." Now, Obama is pointing to Americans who speak only English and saying, "Now you have to get with the program."

And soon came the inevitable "gotcha" game where it was revealed that Obama hmself isn't fluent in a language other than English!!!  Gee, but I thought Barrack Hussein Obama was a Muslim who was reared in medrassas.

Of course, responding to the (ridiculous) criticism, Obama answered smartly:

While the Obama campaign says that Obama speaks a little bit of Indonesian, Obama himself admits that he isn’t bilingual.

“I know because I don’t speak a foreign language. It’s embarrassing!” he said.

Indeed.  That's the kind of candidate he is.  He recognizes the flaws in him that come about from an inadequate education system.

What the hell is going on?  Is being uneducated supposed to be a virtue for this culture all of a sudden?  What Digby said:

There was a time when Obama's comment was considered completely mainstream. It's true that Americans have never learned new languages easily, but they respected the idea that kids should learn as much as possible so they could better themselves. Clearly Obama didn't get the memo that we have embraced cretinism and that all knowledge is suspect.

Ironically, this mini-brouhaha happened just as the military was complaining:

Every service member needs some minimum foreign language skills before deploying — but that capability could require an extensive change in language and cultural training that would have to start long before they enter the military, a House subcommittee was told Wednesday.

The House Armed Services oversight and investigations subcommittee, which has been looking at military programs for current and future operations, is now focused on language and cultural awareness training.

The Defense Department has been working for years to expand language capabilities, both by training people already in the service and recruiting people who are proficient in another language.

Bilingualism also helps American businesses compete in a global market.

It makes perfect sense, to anyone with a brain.  But no...... xenophobia rules some segments of society.  If it's fer-in, it ain't no good.

I'll leave you with the sentiments expressed at Sadly No:

Not to get all elitist or nothing, but our culture is fucking stupid. The fact that presidential campaigns gain advantage from attacking their opponents for sounding too smart is one of the most astounding traits of modern American politics. Maybe the Democrats should just nominate Larry the Cable Guy next time to avoid these sorts of controversies in the future.

Indeed.

The Obama Doctrine

Good article in TAP about "The Obama Doctrine".  While both Obama and Clinton appear to be similar on the Iraq War (they both want out), Obama seems to be going the extra mile in arguing that he wants to change the mindset that got us into Iraq in the first place.  The article looks at the Obama mindset on foreign policy and calls it "most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades".

Ezra Klein sums it up nicely:

The Bush administration has run a foreign policy utterly comfortable with implying that our allies and enemies alike are small, or powerless, or unworthy of respect. In other words, they've run a foreign policy comfortable with challenging our allies and enemies alike to prove to us that they are not small, and can in fact foil our initiatives, and they are not powerless, and can in fact hurt us quite badly, and are not unworthy of respect, and can in fact outmaneuver us diplomatically. A foreign policy based on a presumption of respect and an effort to use our power to confer dignity would be pretty appealing.

Respecting our enemies, and treating them as though have have a say, strikes me as a reasonable approach, if only because it is something we haven't tried before.  This does not mean we need to cave.  It just means that if we treat them like they have no reason to be heard, they will make themselves heard.  Just like 9/11.

Cuba And The Candidates

For those who think that all politicians are the same -- take a gander on the statements of Obama, Clinton, and McCain on Cuba, now that Castro has resigned.

In a nutshell, Obama wants to move toward normalizing relations, starting with allowing Cuban Americans to travel freely to Cuba and send money to their family members back there (Bush disallowed this practice a few years ago).  This would serve as a "test" to open up further inroads to Cuba and move it into the 21st century.

Clinton, on the other hand, would continue Bush's hard-line stance and does not believe in easing up travel restrictions.  She does, however, favor that Cuban exiles be allowed to send money back to their family in Cuba.

McCain, of course, has the hardest line of all against Cuba.  Basically, to keep sanctions against them until the become a democracy.  The same policy that hasn't worked in 45 years.

Bye Bye Castro

Well, it was to be expected I suppose.  Fifty years if a pretty good run.

What this means, or should mean, is that we get to visit the lovely island of Cuba (or, if you are JFK, "Cuber").  On this point, I think Steve Clemons is right:

Of all the low cost opportunities to demonstrate a new and different US style of engagement with the world, Cuba is at the top of the list. Opening family travel -- and frankly all travel -- between Cuba and the US, and ending the economic embargo will provide new encounters, new impressions, and the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that George W. Bush, John Bolton, Richard Cheney, and Jesse Helms run scared of.

This is a huge potential pivot point in US-Cuba relations. Will Hillary Clinton step up to the plate -- and will Obama move beyond the somewhat timid proposals he offered previously and go to the gold standard in US-Cuba relations articulated by Senator Chris Dodd?

By the way, many people know that Castro was a minor league ballplayer in the United States before he rose to political fame in his homeland of Cuba.  Did you also know he was a movie extra?  Here's his credits from IMDB.

The State Department Tries Blog Diplomacy

Something about this strikes me as rather silly.

Especially this quote from Duncan MacInnes of State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs:

"Because blogging tends to be a very informal, chatty way of working," MacInnes said, "it is actually very dangerous to blog."

Crackdown in Georgia

Youtube has the video as it happened:

Shorter Jonah Goldberg

"America, fuck yeah!"

UPDATE:  Sorry, I can't just leave it at that.  In this thinly-veiled "liberals hate America" article, Goldberg writes this:

The dirty, embarrassing secret is that this sort of multiculturalism has made Europe a wellspring of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, but America's Muslim community has remained overwhelmingly peaceful. Why? Well, if the answer doesn't lay in President Bush's "outreach" -- and few think it does -- or in Euro-style multicultural condescension, maybe it has something to do with the American "we" that Couric and so many others seem so embarrassed by.

This strikes me as totally, completely, utterly wrong.  The U.S. has been able to assimilate Muslim immigrants because it has a long tradition of accepting and ignoring cultural differences (despite the efforts of Goldberg and others).  In other words, America doesn't have the overpowering sense of ethnicity-based national culture that European countries tend to have. 

Look at multicultural Canada -- that's not exactly become a hotbed Islamic fundamentalism.  Now look at France which seems to takes strides to segregate minorities (particulary Muslims) from its culture, which causes the "wellspring" of Islamic discontent.  Or Germany.  Or even the Swiss.

UPDATE:  Ezra gets it...

I already said a bit about this bizarre Jonah Goldberg column at Tapped, but I hadn't yet seen this doozy of a concluding paragraph:

The dirty, embarrassing secret is that this sort of multiculturalism has made Europe a wellspring of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, but America's Muslim community has remained overwhelmingly peaceful. Why? Well, if the answer doesn't lay in President Bush's "outreach" -- and few think it does -- or in Euro-style multicultural condescension, maybe it has something to do with the American "we" that Couric and so many others seem so embarrassed by.

So the causal factor behind Islamic radicalism in Europe is...."multiculturalism." Namely, the type of multiculturalism that allows for hookah bars, the wearing of Muslim symbols to school, and honor killings. It is not, mind you, that immigrants have a much harder time economically integrating into European society, the consequence of post-World War II guest worker programs, or that Europe is much closer to Turkey, Algeria, and a host of other Muslim nations, and so receives poor, marginalized immigrants from Muslim nations, while America's distance prohibits all but highly skilled, relatively educated, Muslim immigrants from financing the trip over. Nope. It's hookah bars, which America totally doesn't have any of, at all.

Bloggers Defy Myanmar Blackout

Sometimes the best news can be found from the original sources.  If you have been following the terrible events In Myanmar in the mainstream media, you might want to check out these bloggers who are in the midst of it.

• http://soneseayar.blogspot.com/
• Mizzima News
• The Irawaddy
• Democratic Voice of Burma
• Justice & Injustice
• http://mmedwatch.blogspot.com/
• http://ko-htike.blogspot.com/
• http://mogokmedia.blogspot.com/

Many of these are not in English, but the pictures tell the story.

The junta government has cracked down on the Internet, but many of these intrepid bloggers are still posting, at risk of life and limb, and getting out the story that the Myanmar government is trying to purge.  In fact, the presence of "the western media" in Myanmar is almost non-existent, so it is bloggers and other "citizen journalists" (e.g., people text messaging with cellphones) who are bringing the story to the rest of the world.

The Cunning Use Of Flags

So Russia has laid claim to the land underneath the North Pole by submersing themselves down there and planting a flag?  Is that how it is done?  Planting a flag?  That's so ...17th century.

Right, Eddie?

Castro Death Watch

I think he'll last until Thursday.

Maybe Not The Best Example

Bush to the UN at roughly 11:30 EST:

We have seen the forces of freedom and moderation transform entire continents. ...Asia has seen freedom progress and hundreds of millions of people lifted out of desperate poverty.

Halfway around the word, at roughly the same time:

BREAKING NEWS: Thailand In Chaos After Coup; Tanks Roll Into Bangkok; Thailand's Constitution suspended; Thai Currency Fails

Red Sox Thrid Baseman Weighs In On Castro

"He killed my family" says Mike Lowell.

Then Again

The "Castro is dying/dead" rumors that I mentioned (and dismissed) here on July 11 might have a grain of truth to them:

News that Fidel Castro had ceded presidential powers to his brother Raul after undergoing surgery to stop internal bleeding ushered in a period of uncertainty at home and celebrations by his enemies abroad, while fueling speculation on the gravity of his illness.

The announcement on state television Monday night that Castro had been operated on to repair a "sharp intestinal crisis with sustained bleeding" shocked Cubans on the island and in exile, and marked the first time that Castro, two weeks away from 80th birthday, had relinquished power in 47 years of absolute rule.

Citizen Diplomacy

On September 12, 2001, the French newspaper La Monde headlined "We Are All Americans Today", or something like that.  That was certainly the global sentiment.  Everybody was united with us, and we Americans were united.

Incredible how five years of Bush policies have not only divided the country, but turned our longstanding friends and allies into rampant America-haters.  It's really isn't much of a surprise, given the whole "fuck you, world" dismissive attitude that's displayed by the present adminsitration and it's supporters.

Fortunately, someone is doing something about it:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With anti-American sentiment at unprecedented levels around the world, Americans worried about their country's low standing are pushing a grassroots campaign to change foreign perceptions of the United States "one handshake at a time."

The idea is to turn millions of Americans into "citizen diplomats" who use personal meetings with foreigners to counter the ugly image of the United States shown in a series of international public opinion polls. They show widespread negative attitudes not only toward U.S. policies but also toward the American people and, increasingly, even American products.

To stem the relentless decline of America's international standing -- a dramatic change from the almost universal sympathy for the country immediately after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington --leaders of more than 30 civic organizations formed a "Coalition for Citizen Diplomacy" two years ago.

The coalition, a loose alliance of national, state and community groups, held its first national summit in July in Washington, where speakers deplored the sorry state of the U.S. image but expressed hope that individual action and international people-to-people exchanges could go a long way toward improving things.

The powers behind this movement include major businesses, like Exxon and McDonalds, who realize that anti-American sentiment hurts business.  And their right.

"Blame Clinton" Days At The White House

Facing increasing criticism from the right and left about Bush's North Korea policy (or lack thereof) , White House Press Secretary Tony Snow (pictured uncomfortably here) lashed out at Clinton, accusing the Clinton Administration of going to North Korea with “flowers and chocolates.”

He said the Clinton strategy “failed” and President Bush had “learned from that mistake.”  (Watch the video)

Failed?  Mistake?  Hmmmm.  Well, the proof is in the pudding, as the say. 

So let's check out the stats, shall we?  How much plutonium has North Korea made during each of the last three administrations?

1. George H. W. Bush: one to two bombs’ worth of plutonium

2. Bill Clinton: zero plutonium

3. George W. Bush: 4-6 nuclear weapons’ worth of plutonium

[Source (PDF)]

Looks to me that the Clinton Administration's approach to North Korea was a lot better than the "strategy"* of Bush II.

* Ignore, except to engage in a lot of macho talk here at home....

UPDATE:  Josh Marshall has more to say:

Let's review a few salient, uncontested facts.

Back in 1994, the US came close to war over its nuclear activities and particularly the reactor complex at Yongbyon. War was averted with the so-called 'Agreed Framework' in which North Korea suspended its production of plutonium (and put the facility under international inspections) in exchange for assistance building light water nuclear reactors (the kind that don't help you make bombs) and fuel oil for energy generation.

There are all sorts of details to what was going to be in exchange for what, who exactly would be doing the giving, and lots of other details you can see here. But that is the essence of it. And it shut down the North Koreans' plutonium reprocessing activities for close to a decade.

The agreement began to come apart in 1998 when the North Koreans did an unnannounced test firing of one of their missiles, which went over Japan and crashed into the Pacific. There was also, by the end of the Clinton administration, evidence that the North Koreans were attempting to enrich uranium, something not explicitly covered in the Agreed Framework, but certainly a violation of the spirit of the agreement.

There's a fairly detailed explanation of the US reaction and the efforts to arrive at a new agreement during the late Clinton administration. It's a Times , oped written by two of the policy makers at the time, Bill Perry and Ashton Carter.

The Bush administration came to office convinced that this entire process was one of appeasement and set in motion of series of events that led to a complete breakdown of the initial agreement. In response, the North Koreans started reprocessing plutonium again.

Now, most agree, the North Koreans probably have enough for several nuclear warheads.

Now, the premise of the Bush administration's North Korea policy was that North Korea was a bad acting state that had to be dealt with through force, not negotiation. That didn't necessarily mean going to war. The goal was to intimidate the North Koreans into better behavior if possible and resort to force if necessary.

Yet, when the North Koreans called the White House's bluff and starting reprocessing plutonium, the White House's response was ... well, nothing.

That was three years ago.

Rather than talk softly and carry a big stick it was a policy of talk tough and do nothing.

The bomb making plutonium keeps coming of the conveyor belt. And the White House policy is to say they won't negotiate and also ask the Chinese to get the North Koreans to behave.

The remaining conceit of the Bush administration is that the Clintonites met with the North Koreans in bilateral talks while they insist on multilateral talks.

That's the policy, which is to say, they have no policy. The salient fact is that under Clinton plutonium reprocessing stopped and under Bush it restarted. The Bushies angle was that you don't coddle bad actors like the North Koreans. You deal with them in the language they understand: force. But the NKs called their bluff, they weren't prepared to use force. So they decided to forget about the whole thing.

That's the record. That's the policy. A total failure.

The Birds Are Fueled

Breaking news everywhere informs us that North Korea has just completed fueling of a long-range ballistic nuclear missile (one capable of being launched and striking anywhere in the United States on a moment's notice).

Kind of takes you back to Castro and Cuba, don't it?

Susie Madrak:

See how well it works out when Republicans are in charge?

Morons Can Use The Bible For Anything These Days

I recently had a discussion with a friend, a born again Christian, the other day.  She tried to convince me that the Bible is THE TRUTH.  You know, with a capital "T".  She couldn't say why it was THE TRUTH, because to question why is (apparently) some form of heresy.

Anyway, I came across this article which demonstrates (per my argument to her) that the Bible is full of metaphor, and can be interpreted to mean anything you want it to mean:

A Christian business consultant and writer in the Phoenix area has recently published some commentaries that deal with what the Bible says about illegal immigration and a nation's response to that. He says he has found in his study and research that it isn't just about compassion.

Steve Marr's online commentaries are called "Business Proverbs." His syndicated radio program by the same name is heard on 1,000 radio outlets worldwide. According to Marr, the Bible supports the idea that nations have the right and responsibility to secure their borders.

Marr says many Christians, when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration, argue that compassion should rule the day because those immigrants have come simply seeking a better life. But the former president and CEO of a large import-export firm says even illegal aliens who have been in the U.S. for years and have built otherwise productive lives are still illegal aliens.

"To me it's an issue of justice," Marr shares. "And if you break a law -- whether it's a drug law, whether it's an immigration law or whether it's robbing a bank -- if you get caught, whether it's in a day, a year or ten years, I think justice has to run it's course."

Now, the Bible really says NOTHING about illegal immigration specifically.  But this dude makes it out like it does, even concluding that compassion in the area of immigration is UNChristian.

His argument is simple: laws are laws, and the Bible commands justice, which means Christians should support laws -- including immigration laws.

Problem is, of course, that slavery was once the law, too.  Would this guy argue that Christianity supports slavery?

How To Pay For Border Guards

Buried deep in this Washington Post article (in fact, the last paragraph) is this tidbit of news:

The White House said the new budget request by Bush would cover the $750 million-plus Guard deployment, new agents, fences and barriers, five helicopters and two new unmanned surveillance aircraft. The money would be offset by delaying other military purchases, according to the White House.

"Other military purchases" could mean anything, but it's not hard to assume that some  of that $750 in military purchase would have benefitted our soldiers in Iraq (can you say "armor"?) or the over-all War Against Global Islamofascim (or whatever the White House is calling it these days).

So basically, we're taking money away from The Iraq War and putting it into the War Non-Militarized Thing Against Illegal Mexican Immigration.

It would be nice if we actually spent time and effort going after -- you know -- bin Laden.  But that's just me talkin'.

The More You Know...

Interesting.

A study done last year shows that the people more opposed to immigration are people who are least exposed to immigrants.  Conversely, people who live in areas with lots of immigrants are more positively disposed to them:

The simplest interpretation of this result is that people who rarely see an immigrant can easily scapegoat them for everything wrong in the world. Personal experience doesn't get in the way of fantasy. But people who actually see immigrants have trouble escaping the fact that immigrants do hard, dirty jobs that few Americans want - at a realistic wage, anyway.

Chertoff On Putting National Guard on The Borders

DHS head Michael Chertoff said that putting the National Guard on the U.S.-Mexico border would be "horribly over-expensive and very difficult".

That was six months ago, on O'Reilly's show.  I wonder if he would say the same thing today.

Bush's Immigration Speech

I didn't see it (the Bosox were playing on ESPN), but I read the transcript.  As Kevin Drum notes the main elements of the plan are to deploy the military to the border without calling it "militarizing the border," to launch a guest worker program without calling it a "guest worker program," and to offer amnesty to illegal immigrants without calling it "amnesty."  Fine.

Many on the right are not pleased.  Powerline's John Hindrocket says Bush "blew it"

As soon as he started talking about guest worker programs and the impossibility of deporting 11 million illegals, it was all over. President Bush keeps trying to find the middle ground, on this and many other issues. But sometimes, there isn't a viable middle ground. This is one of those instances.

Hindrocket also uses the "I met a cabbie which proves my point" rhetorical device, a favorite among right wing pundits.

Michelle Malkin liveblogged the speech, pointing to the exact minute that Bush "lost touch with reality" (it was 8:11).

That's only the tip of the enraged iceberg.  Glenn has many, many more exmaples.

But Hugh Hewitt thought it was a "good start" and Jonah Golberg thought it "sounded pretty reasonable".

Me, I can't get fired up about the whole issue.  Immigration is a problem, but unlike most on ther right, I don't think it is a matter of national security. 

Of course, if it was really about national security (i.e., al Qaeda), the right would want troops on the U.S.-Canada border, too, yes?  After all, that border is much longer, much more porous, and al Qaeda has already used it several times.

Of course, if it was really about national security, the right would have been all up in arms about Bush cutting border control agents (almost 10,000 of them).  But not a peep.

But you would think it's about national security, the way the right uses bellicose phrases like "foreign invaders" and "appeasement of Vincente Fox", like this is another war.  I think such hyperbolic language to be overdone, and the unhinged reaction to be based more on racism than reason.

UPDATE:  The rightosphere is eating itself.  After years of left-bashing, they are now bashing each other on the immigration issue.  Pass the popcorn.

"Impeach Bush!"

In case you haven't been paying attention, that's been the rally cry from the rightwing side of the blogosphere.

Why?

Because the Bush Administration reportedly has been shadowing the Minutemen (the group of private citizens monitoring the U.S.-Mexican border for illegal immigrants), and reporting information about Minutemen groups (including their locations) to the Mexican government.  Michelle Malkin started the fire going, and other right bloggers joined in:

Confederate Yankee: "I'll never support impeachment proceedings brought against President [Bush] for going to war with Iraq based on flawed intelligence. ... His resistance to protecting this nation's borders, however is another matter entirely. Bush refuses to protect the territorial integrity of the United States, leaving us exposed to an importation of poverty that strains our social welfare system and artificially depresses wages."

Riehl World View: "Maybe Bob's right and Bush should be impeached. He can always retire to Mexico."

Weapons of Mass Destruction: "It almost seems like the stuff of fiction. A government agency shadowing the actions of American citizens and then reporting their movements and actions to a foreign government. ...If a Republican President, Republican House, and Republican Senate is not enough to implement a sensible border policy in a post 9/11 era, then whats the point?"

RightWingNews: "Not only should Congress demand that the Border Patrol stop working with the Mexican government to circumvent our laws, they should launch an investigation in order to find out who signed off on this unconscionable outrage."

Bryan at Hot Air: "I've seen several administrations do a lot of outrageous things, but tipping a foreign government to the legal activities of American citizens just might be the most outrageous thing I've ever seen any American administration do."

Daily Pundit: "As for the treacherous Bush administration notifying a foreign power of the actions of homegrown patriots, that goes beyond despicable, and assures that the administration has no further claim on my support whatsoever. George W. Bush supports a foreign power engaged in fostering a criminal invasion of our country over the very Americans trying to stop that invasion!"

Tom N at Hot Air: "It surely could put the lives of the minutemen at risk, especially from drug runners..I've been a republican since Reagan and now IM getting worried about where the party is going..

The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol have denied the story, but many on the right aren't buying it.

Pass the popcorn.

UPDATE:  Wow.  Even the Corner's John Derbyshire has had enough:

I kept my mouth pretty well shut when the splendid whack-'em'upside-the-head assault on Iraq turned into a ludicrous and apologetic "nation-building" exercise.  I bellyached in a restrained fashion at the Harriet Miers farce.  I kept my grumbling over Medicaid, the budget bloat, and border security at a decently low volume.  This one, though, I can't take.

I can't think of a single thing to say in favor of the national Republican party, its senators, representatives, governors, and administration.  I can't think of a single reason why, right now, I should vote for any of them. 

Laura Bush Takes A Strong Principled Stand

Her views on the National Anthem in Spanish:

Asked her opinion on Wednesday in an interview with CNN's John King, Mrs. Bush said, "I don't think there's anything wrong with singing it in Spanish."

She noted that "we are a nation of many, many languages" and that the country has already heard many versions of the anthem "like at the Super Bowl."

"What people want is it to be sung in a way that respects the United States and our culture," she said.

Now, the punchline:

But when it was pointed out that this position differed from her husband's, Mrs. Bush had a different answer.

"Well, I think it should be sung in English, of course," she said.

So she was for the Spanish National Anthem before she was against it ... just seconds earlier.

UPDATE:  Think Progress says it's got be a record for flip-flops: only 25 seconds.

A Day Without Immigrants

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) imagines a country without illegal immigrants:

Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50 percent in many states...

Sure!  That's because there will be no Sharks -- just Jets!!

Not So Fast, Senator Alexander

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) proposed a Senate Resolution yesterday to the effect that the Star Spangled Banner should only be sung in English.  In his press release, Alexander stated:

That flag and that song are a part of our history and our national identity. It declares some of our national ideals, in being the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” That’s why in 1931 Congress declared the Star-Spangled Banner our national anthem.

That’s why we should always sing it in our common language, English.

Um, Senator?  On its website, the U.S. State Department has four versions of the Star-Spangled Banner in espanol. 

And in 1919, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned a Spanish version of the anthem.

But don't let facts get in the way of your xenophobia, Senator.

[H/T: Think Progress]

RELATED:  Bush also stated: "I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English. And they ought to learn to sing the anthem in English."

Sadly, this Bush family biography states:

When visiting cities like Chicago, Milwaukee or Philadelphia, in pivotal states, he would drop in at Hispanic festivals and parites, sometimes joining in singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in Spanish, sometimes partying with a "Viva Bush" mariachi band flown in from Texas.

LATE UPDATE:  I would say this pretty much ends the debate -- The National Anthem was sung in Spanish ...at Bush's First Inaugural.

The Cartoon Wars

Conservative bloggers have had their knickers in a twist the past few days about Danish and European newspapers that have published cartoons which, depending on your point of view, depict the Prophet Mohammad in an offensive and demeaning manner.

Generally speaking, the cartoons have caused angry (but so far peaceful) demonstrations from Europe's Muslim community.  Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are outraged that the European governments have condemned the cartoons.

Condi's State Department has now weighed in:

The United States blasted the publication by European newspapers of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed as unacceptable incitement to religious or ethnic hatred.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the beliefs of Muslims," State Department spokesman Justin Higgins said when queried about the furore sparked by the cartoons which first appeared in a Danish newspaper.

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility," Higgins told AFP.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

Neo-cons are predictably unhappy with the State Department right now.

Spread Of Democracy

The Hamas in Palestine is a "terrorist group" according to the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel, and its attacks targeting Israeli civilians and other human rights abuses have been condemned by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Now, there is an huge gap in my knowledge about Middle East politics, and I admit it.

But it seems to me that their rise from a terrorist fringe group to the victor in this week's Palestinian elections cannot be a good thing.  And it also seems to me that their rise might be due in part to an anti-U.S. sentiment because of our other actions in the Middle East.  Am I way off base in thinking this?

In Defense Of Canada

I've never quite understood why so-called patriotic conservative bloggers and pundits take swipes at Canada all the time:

Canada has been described lately by a conservative U.S. television host as "a stalker" and a "retarded cousin."

Another pundit recently asked if Canadians weren't getting "a little too big for their britches."

There's been a spate of Canada-bashing by right-wing media commentators in the United States ever since Prime Minister Paul Martin's complaints about lumber penalties and U.S. policy on climate change. His remarks prompted an unusual rebuke last week from the American ambassador.

The attacks on Canada have had web bloggers typing overtime and a non-profit group that's monitoring the trend, Media Matters for America, says it's disturbing.

***

Last week, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson, a well-known conservative pundit, let loose with a string of anti-Canada rants.

"Anybody with any ambition at all, or intelligence, has left Canada and is now living in New York," he said.

"Canada is a sweet country. It is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he's nice but you don't take him seriously. That's Canada."

Carlson also said it's pointless to tell Canada to stop criticizing the United States.

"It only eggs them on. Canada is essentially a stalker, stalking the United States, right? Canada has little pictures of us in its bedroom, right?"

What is this?  The "Bad Neighbor" policy?

Let's remember what Canada did on September 11, 2001.  Thousands of planes had to be landed immediately.  Our airports were overflowing, and the capacity to land planes was strained.  Flights were diverted to Canada.  Tens of thousands of commuters were stranded, and couldn't return to the United States since all flights were grounded.

What did Canadians do?  They opened the doors to their houses.  Their generosity was legion, inspiring -- among other things -- tribute websites.  And it wasn't the first time Canada provided assistance in America's time of crisis.

Sure, they gave us Celine Dion and Ann Murray, but for the most part, they've been a good and friendly neighbor to the North.   When conservative pundits criticize Canadians simply because Canada doesn't kiss American ass 24/7, it speaks ill of this country, not theirs.  And I wish they would shut up.

AIDS Relief in Africa: Strings Attached

AIDS in Africa could reach pandemic perportions:

The HIV/AIDS scourge on the African continent could worsen in 2006 if developed nations do not deliver on their financial pledges, the U.N.'s top AIDS official in Africa said on Monday.

Stephen Lewis, U.N. special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, said treatment, prevention and care programs on the continent will start losing out next year if rich nations do not release the money they have promised.

Quoting figures from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Lewis said it has only received $3.6 billion, half of what it needs to fund programs in 2006 and 2007.

"There's a steadily diminishing lack of commitment on the part of the world to release money for the Global Fund," said Lewis.

Africa is the worst-hit continent with an estimated 26 million people infected with HIV/AIDS.

Four million of the infected have been identified as needing urgent treatment, but so far only 10 percent of them have access to treatment, Lewis said.

Some of you may recall that in his 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush promised an initiative to send aid to help fight this problem.  In fact, the White House website highlights the problem and solution:

Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus – including three million children under the age of 15. There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection. More than four million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims are receiving the medicine they need.

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief will help the most afflicted countries in Africa and the Caribbean wage and win the war against HIV/AIDS, extending and saving lives. The following countries will be the focus of the initiative: Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.

But sadly, the Bush Administration is making it harder for relief to get to parts of Africa.  And why?  Because the Bush Administration doesn't approve of other peoples' behavior:

The Bush administration has extended its global gag rule to international AIDS prevention funding, according to the Maryland-based Center for Health and Gender Equity. The gag rule will affect a $193 million, five-year project for AIDS-HIV prevention programs in Kenya and requires organizations that seek funding to adhere to the administration's policy that the health organization not provide abortions, provide any information about safe abortions to women or lobby for change in their nation's abortion laws. In Kenya, complications from illegal abortions are a leading killer of married women in their 20s and 30s.

Family planning, maternal and child health programs are the "first responders" for women and girls who have HIV-AIDS, who make up 60 percent of infected cases in sub-Saharan Africa, said the center's executive director, Jodi Jacobson. "The administration has broken its own written commitment not to subject global AIDS funds to these onerous restrictions."

Evil.

RELATED:  The story of Jonah (from Sisyphus Shrugged)

U.S. Border Patrol Uniforms Are Made In Mexico

AP:

WASHINGTON -- The labels inside the U.S. Border Patrol uniforms have been making many federal agents feel uneasy. It's not the fit or feel of the olive-green shirts and pants, but what their labels read: "Made in Mexico."

"It's embarrassing to be protecting the U.S.-Mexico border and be wearing a uniform made in Mexico," says T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a 6,500-member union.

"Embarrassing"?  Try the word "ironic".

Science Fiction Double Feature?

As if this planet doesn't have enough problems already, we now have to contend with those damn aliens:

In Washington on Sunday night (registration required - but the "bugmenot" method works):

For a few seconds Sunday night, the dark, cloudless north state sky lit up. Not like a lightning strike. And not like a shooting star.

Like three seconds of daylight, said Dennis Weissenfluh, 41, of Washougal, Wash. He was southbound on Interstate 5 a few miles north of Weed when the mysterious light appeared.

It lit everything up from horizon to horizon as far as I could see," Weissenfluh said Monday.

Traffic on the citizens band radio picked up with drivers all wondering what they saw, he said.

"(It was) one of those unexplainable kind of things," Weissenfluh said.

Karin Hastings, 74, of Mountain Gate was walking her dog when a bright glow lit up everything around her.

"It was very unusual, and it was so amazing to have this light surround me," Hastings said.

She turned toward the northwest. A huge, oval-shaped object, gold in color, dropped out of the sky with what appeared to be smoke trailing behind, she said.

"It disappeared very quickly," Hastings said.

Sandy Lynch, 67, who lives off Placer Road near Centerville, said she was talking on the phone when she saw a sparkling object through her window.

It was brighter and whiter than the moon with a distinct trail that glowed orange.

"It was beautiful," Lynch said. "It kind of scared me, though."

All of these witnesses reported seeing the intense, glowing light between 7:10 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.

In Virginia on Monday:

Dana Coleman was anxious to know what was behind the "extraordinary bright light" seen last night in Richmond and as far away as Goochland and Dinwiddie counties.

"It was really, really strange," Coleman said, minutes after the sighting.

Coleman lives near Libbie and Grove avenues. She and three friends were chatting outside about 9:25 p.m. when "the whole backyard suddenly illuminated."

She said the bright blue light moved south with an orange and white streak. It then exploded and disappeared, she said.

"We weren't afraid," Coleman said. "We were more in awe."

Dealing With North Korea

It has not escaped me that North Korea is coming to the table, offering to give up its nuclear program.  It's not a perfect deal, but it is a step in the right direction.

Of course, it was not the threat of war that brought them there -- we have no troops (they are in Iraq and Louisiana).  It was the use of  John Kerry-like tactics of diplomacy, and having some flexibility.  Apparently, all the Bush successes, however modest, are based on liberal ideas.

Kevin Drum picks up my thoughts:

Yesterday I was wondering how the conservosphere would react to the recently announced progress in talks with North Korea. After all, the Bush administration pretty much agreed to the same thing Clinton agreed to in 1994, and that's bad. On the other hand, it's Bush, so that must be good. What to think?

Apparently it really is confusing: Instapundit and Power Line and Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt are mostly silent. That means we have to turn to Ed Morrissey to get our daily dose of hero worship. Here he takes the New York Times to task for not understanding the steely tactics that produced Monday's agreement:

If the New York Times wants to pretend it doesn't understand the purpose of our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Kim regime does not have that luxury. They understood that the Bush administration would not send Rice to Pyongyang to dance cheek to cheek with Kim, a la Madeline Albright, but to deliver an ultimatum that would result in his destruction. After testing the Bush administration several times and finding it unwilling to waver, even after a number of Bush's political opponents (such as John Kerry) fell for his tricks, Kim knows that Bush has him diplomatically isolated and left with no choice but compliance or war.

Italics mine. And now for the reality check. Here's what the news columns of the New York Times say about what really happened:

Several [Bush administration] officials, who would not allow their names to be used because they did not want to publicly discuss Mr. Bush's political challenges, noted that Mr. Bush is tied down in Iraq, consumed by Hurricane Katrina, and headed into another standoff over Iran's nuclear program. The agreement, they said, provides him with a way to forestall, at least for now, a confrontation with another member of what he once famously termed "the axis of evil."

...The debate over signing the agreement reflected the fact that the North Koreans drove a tough bargain. The agreement has the potential to generate good will for North Korea, increase the aid it receives and possibly reduce its incentive to dismantle its nuclear programs anytime soon.

....As this unfolded over the weekend, the Chinese increased pressure on the United States to sign — or take responsibility for a breakdown in the talks.

"At one point they told us that we were totally isolated on this and that they would go to the press," and explain that the United States sank the accord, the senior administration official said.

The North Koreans "drove a tough bargain." The Chinese told us to sign the agreement or "they would go to the press." Bush wasn't happy, but since he was bogged down with other problems he grabbed at the chance to "forestall, at least for now, a confrontation."

Yep, that's some steely negotiating. After all, the North Koreans got nothing out of this deal except for every single thing they've ever asked for.

Overall, I'm with Winston Churchill: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." Bush made the right decision to show some flexibility here, regardless of whether this agreement ultimately goes anywhere. But make no mistake: there was no ultimatum on our side. Quite the contrary.

View From Abroad

I was always amused by Clinton haters who decried his sexual misconduct by saying that it made America an embrassment to the world . . . as if Europeans have the same amount of prudishness as socially conservative Americans.  They don't.

But this article in The American Prospect indicates that we should be embarrassed by recent events.  An excerpt:

Europeans are appalled at the natural disaster and at George W. Bush, apparently in equal measure. A September 2 article for Belgium's major newspaper, Le Soir, says: "The richest country on the planet has left the destitute, poor, sick and old to fend for themselves in the face of a predictable and predicted disaster." And under the headline "The Americans stunned by the frailty of their power,” France’s Le Monde quotes several U.S. news sources expressing their disbelief that this is really America they're seeing on TV, claiming that it looks more like the Third World.

They have also zeroed in on Bush’s performance. A writer for the Spanish newspaper El Pais notes that "Bush seems mired in his own incompetence." The weekend edition of Britain’s Financial Times follows suit, with its main headline: "'Fix this goddam crisis,' Bush told by New Orleans mayor." The Guardian also focuses on the president, with a September 2 headline that reads "Bush under fire over hurricane aid."

Many Europeans lamented the U.S. government’s slow response to provide aid, with the British Daily Mail running a September 2 article headlined “The humbling of a Superpower.” "Here is a superpower that can crush at will a tinpot dictatorship -- but then becomes so bogged down in the grisly aftermath of war that it finds itself unable to respond anything like adequately to the plight of tens of thousands of its own citizens engulfed by a natural calamity,” writes a Daily Mail journalist.

Read the whole thing.

Bush's AIDS/Africa Policy

Bush likes to talk about how he is helping fight AIDS in Africa by, among other things, "build[ing] the health system capacity" there.

Yeah, right.

Bush's war against AIDS in Africa has a strong enemy: Bush himself.  Like his approach to terrorism, Bush's unreality-based views of the world are merely prolonging the problem he seeks to prevent:

A senior United Nations official has accused President George Bush of "doing damage to Africa" by cutting funding for condoms, a move which may jeopardise the successful fight against HIV/Aids in Uganda.

Stephen Lewis, the UN secretary general's special envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa, said US cuts in funding for condoms and an emphasis on promoting abstinence had contributed to a shortage of condoms in Uganda, one of the few African countries which has succeeded in reducing its infection rate.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by [US policies]," Mr Lewis said yesterday. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

The condom shortage has developed because both the Ugandan government and the US, which is the main donor for HIV/Aids prevention, have allowed supplies to dwindle, according to an American pressure group, the Centre for Health and Gender Equity (Change).

In 2003, President Bush declared he would spend $15bn on his emergency plan for Aids relief, but receiving aid under the programme has moral strings attached.

Recipient countries have to emphasise abstinence over condoms, and - under a congressional amendment - they must condemn prostitution.

Robertson Apologizes For Assassination Remark, Then Defends It

First he said it...

Then he lied about saying it (and blamed it on the media)...

Then he admitted saying it and apologized on TV...

Then he issued an "apology statement", where he apologizes once again... and then endorses assassination!

Pat, no kidding.  Shut up.

Pat Robertson Bears False Witness

UPDATE:  Later today, Pat admitted he called for Chavez' assassination and apologized.  It took 48 hours to get from A to Z, while taking a few lying diversions in between.  Now watch as the Christian Coalition falls all over itself to praise Pat as a stand-up guy.  And by the way, I find his excuse rather lame.

Let's look at what Pat Robertson said Monday, verbatim:

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Here's Pat's excuse lie:

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.'

Pat, you did say "assassination" AND "assassinate", and you said (immediately right after) that we "oughta go ahead and do it".   (Then, moments later, you mentioned "taking him out".  But you clearly talked about assassination.)  See, there's this new invention called videotape...

But then Pat make matters even worse:

"And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him.  I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time."

Pat doesn't explain what he actually meant by "take him out", only what he could have meant.  He's being cagy with us, or he thinks he is.   And of course, even though he admits he was using ambiguous language in part, it's the AP's fault for misinterpreting him!

What a wanker.

Upcoming:  While stealing his neighbor's garden shears, Pat see his neighbor's wife, and secretly desires her.  So he steals her mail.  On the sabbath.

UPDATE:  I hope Pat isn't planning on visiting England soon:

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has set out a list of "unacceptable behaviour" which could see extremists deported from Britain.

Fundamentalists who engage in the activities on the list could also be prevented from entering the country.

The types of conduct to be outlawed include inflammatory preaching and publishing views fostering hatred or fomenting terrorism.

The banned list applies to any non-UK citizen, either living in the country or abroad.

Fundamentalist?  Check.  Inflammatory preaching?  Check.  Publishing views fostering hatred?  Check.  Non-UK citizen living abroad?  Check.

Nice Going, Pat!

It must be nice to have your own ministry, and own your own television channel.  You get to say whatever batshit thing pops into your head.

But it porably sucks to advocate a position from the pulpit, with the result being that your mere words create the opposite result of what you seek.

Death Threat May Bolster Chavez's Popularity Before Election:

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez may see an increase in popularity because of the death threat leveled by a U.S. television evangelist, according to Datanalisis, the country's No. 1 polling company.

Television evangelist Pat Robertson's calls for the U.S. to "assassinate'' Chavez will lead more Venezuelans to believe his claims that the Bush administration is trying to kill him, said Luis Vicente Leon, director of Caracas-based Datanalisis. The additional support may help Chavez's ruling coalition extend its majority in congress in December elections.

"The evangelist's declarations are terrible for the U.S. in that they totally back up Chavez,'' Leon said in a telephone interview from Caracas.  "It is absolutely going to have the opposite effect on Chavez than the U.S. wants. It's something that resonates with the country's poor.''

Now, if we can only get Pat to call for the assassination of Democrats in the '06 elections...

Not Angry

In response to a comment on that his blog is "full of hatred and anger", Corrente not only denied the charge, but set out to compile a list of things he was not angry about, as well as things he doesn't hate. 

It's not only long, but a work-in-progress, so check out  Corrente's site for the latest revisions and updates:

1. We are not angry at Bush for his war of choice in Iraq.
   1. We are not angry at Bush because 2,000 Americans have died in Iraq, together with many thousands of Iraqis.
   2. We are not angry at Bush because in Iraq quot;the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
   3. Nor are we angry at Bush because the WMDs were not found.
      1. Nor angry that the aluminum tubes story was not true.
      2. Nor angry that the drones story was not true.
      3. Nor angry that the bioweapons story was not true.
      4. Nor angry that the "yellowcake uranium" story was not true.
   4. Nor are we angry at  Colin Powell because nothing he said in his UN speech to justify the war was true.
   5. Nor are we angry at Bush for claiming that Iraq and 9/11 were connected when they were not.
   6. Nor do we hate the members of the press who enabled Bush's war of choice.
      1. Especially we do not hate Judy Miller whose WMD reportage helped Bush "fix the facts"
         1. Nor her boss, Bill Keller.
            1. Nor his boss, Arthur Sulzberger.
   7. We are not angry at Donald Rumseld because his "Revolution in Military Affairs" resulted in sending our troops into urban warfare in Iraq without proper armor.
      1. Nor do we hate Donald Rumsfeld because after three years the problem is not yet corrected.
      2. Moreover, we do not hate Donald Rumsfeld for using an automatic signature machine to sign condolence letters to the parents of dead soldiers.
      3. And furthermore, we do not hate Donald Rumsfeld for taking souvenirs from the Pentagon site on 9/11, a felony.
   8. We are not angry at Alberto Gonzales for writing memos purporting to justify torture.
      1. Nor are we angry at the higherups who set up torture camps and then let their subordinates take the blame when the truth came out.
         1. Nor do we hate the higherups who got promotions after torture occured on their watch
      2. Neither do we hate the doctors and psychiatrists who violated their Hippocratic oaths by abetting torture at Gitmo.
      3. And if the torture techniques we have spread in Iraq are ever used in this country, we promise not to get angry about it.
   9. We are not angry at the Republicans for losing $8 billion dollars meant for Iraq.
   10. We are not angry that Iraq has become what it was not before the war, a training ground for terrorists.
   11. And we promise we will not get angry if Iraq ends up as an Islamic theocracy.
       1. And we further promise not to get angry that 2,000 Americans will have died to make that happen.
   12. And we promise never to hate the members of the White House Iraq Group (Hughes, Libby, Card, Matalin, Wilkinson, and Rove), who worked together to make it all possible.
       1. Even if Bush gave them all promotions. Every single one of them.
2. We are not angry at Bush for stealing election 2000 in Florida by using the "felon list."
   1. Nor do we hate those who helped him to do so.
      1. We do not hate Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris.
      2. We do not hate Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Bush's brother
      3. We do not hate the freepers who staged the "bourgeios riot" to intimidate the vote counters, not even Buckhead.
      4. We do not hate the majority in Bush v. Gore, not even Antonin Scalia
      5. We do not hate Al Gore for not getting all the votes counted.
   2. Nor are we angry at the Republicans for claiming a "Bush Mandate" in 2000.
   3. Neither are we are angry at the press for dropping the story.
3. We are not angry at Bush for stealing election 2004 in Ohio by preventing Democrats from voting
   1. Nor do we hate those who helped him to do it
      1. We do not hate Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell
      2. We do not hate any Republican election official
         1. We do not hate Tom Noe and his wife, Bernadette, even though they steered contracts to Diebold for machines that left no paper trial.
         2. We do not hate the Republicans in Warren County who closed their building during the count, claiming a terrorist threat when there was no threat
      3. Nor do we hate any of the electronic voting machine manufacturers
         1. We do not hate them, even though they are all Republican contributors
      4. Nor do we hate any of the authorities that certify electronic voting machines
         1. We do not hate them, even though they too are all Republican contributors
   2. Nor are we angry at the press for refusing to cover the story.
4. We are not angry at Bush for making all his appearances before screened audiences of Republicans only.
   1. We do not hate Bush for doing this during the campaign.
   2. We do not hate the Republicans for removing citizens who visibly did not support Bush from campaign events.
      1. We do not even hate the Republicans for removing schoolteachers and then stripsearching them.
   3. We do not hate Bush for doing the same thing during his Social Security barnstorming
      1. Nor are we angry because we, as taxpayers, must pay for events that we will never be allowed to attend.
   4. Nor are we angry because White House political operatives removed citizens from a barnstorming rally while impersonating Secret Service agents.
      1. Nor are we angry that the White House will not tell us the name of this operative.
5. Because we consider hypocrisy the tribute that vice plays to virtue, and a natural part of the human condition, we do not hate any Republican who exhibits it, not even those put forward to us as moral exemplars
   1. We do not hate Rush Limbaugh, even though he had a 30-a-day Oxycontin habit
      1. In fact, we do not even hate Rush Limbaugh because he got his housekeeper to buy his drugs for him.
   2. We do not hate Bill Bennett, even though he had a million-dollar gambling habit.
   3. We do not hate Bill O'Reilly, even though we can't forget the word "loofah."
   4. We do not hate Newt Gingrich for handing his wife the divorce papers when she was in a hospital bed recovering from cancer.
   5. We do not hate Henry Hyde for his "youthful indiscretions."
      1. Or Robert Livingstone
         1. Or Arnold
   6. Especially we are not angry at the Republicans for spending $70 million investigating a blowjob.
   7. We do not hate war-backers who do not or have not served their country in the military
      1. We do not hate any administration official who has not served the country in the military.
         1. Above all, we do not hate Dick Cheney for having "other priorities."
      2. Nor do we hate Bush, even though his missing year in TANG has never been explained.
      3. Nor do we hate those Republican war-backers who do not ask their eligible adult children to serve.
         1. Not even Bush.
      4. Especially we do not hate Jonah Goldberg, even though he says he can't serve because he has a job and kids.
   8. We do not hate gay Republicans who back a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
      1. Not even Ken Mehlman.
         1. Let alone "Jeff Gannon."
6. Nor are we angry that Bush used Homeland Security as a pork barrel in the red states while leaving blue state cities unprotected against nuclear attack.
7. We are never angry at Beltway Dems even when they are gutless and feckless.
   1. Especially we are not angry at John Kerry for taking the Swift Boat attacks lying down.
   2. Nor are we angry at John Kerry for not keeping the Ohio 2004 in the forefront of the public mind.
      1. Even though he solicited contributions for doing precisely that
   3. Nor are we angry at Tom Daschle for losing the 2002 mid-terms because he wouldn't confront Bush on the war.
   4. Nor are we angry when Joe Lieberman attacks other Democrats on FOX.
   5. Nor are we angry when the Democratic Leadership Council calls war opponents "anti-American."
      1. Not even when they don't call Republican war opponents, like Chuck Hagel, anti-American.
   6. Nor do we hate any Democrat who voted for Bush's war of choice in Iraq, not even John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Evan Bayh.
      1. Even though the Democratic netroots had Bush dead to rights on this one from the start.
   7. Nor are we angry at any Beltway consultant, not even eight-time-loser Washington General Robert Shrum.
8. We do not hate Rush Limbaugh, or any Republican, or any member of Little Green Footballs, even when they call us traitors and call for our exile or summary execution.
9. We do not hate any member of any Republican think tank, not even the Discovery Institute.
10. We do not hate the right wing for calling political operatives "scholars."
11. We do not hate any so-called Christian.
    1. Not the so-called Christians at the Air Force academy who called their fellow pilot a "filthy Jews."
    2. Nor Pat Robertonson, who supports assassination as a way to get rid of Hugo Chavez.
12. We are not angry at the billionaires who funded the right.
    1. We do not hate Richard Mellon Scaife, who funded the attacks on President Clinton.
    2. We do not hate R.J. Rushdooney, who funded the Dominionists
    3. Nor do we hate Koch, Olin, Coors, or Bradley
       1. Nor the Bush Rangers and Pioneers, even though many of them are criminals
13. We are not angry that 50 million Americans don't have health insurance.
14. We are not angry that the No Child Left Behind Act is designed to destroy public education by requiring tests but not funding the teaching for the tests.
15. We do not hate Doctor James Dobson, or any other theocrat, not even Reverend Moon, or Reverend Moon's backers on Capitol Hill.
16. Nor are we angry that Bush is trying to destroy Social Security.
17. Nor are do we hate the CEOs who make hundreds of millions of dollars while their companies fail and workers lose their jobs.
    1. In fact, we don't even hate Bush's top contributor, Enron's Ken Lay, who is not yet in jail.
       1. Even though Enron's market manipulation caused California Democrat Gray Davis to lose the governorship to a Republican.
18. Nor are we angry that ...

Church and State

The Los Angeles Times (subscription requied) reports that evangelical programs on Capitol Hill attempt "to mold a new generation of leaders who will answer not to voters, but to God":

"Nearly every Monday for six months, as many as a dozen congressional aides -- many of them aspiring politicians -- have gathered over takeout dinners to mine the Bible for ancient wisdom on modern policy debates about tax rates, foreign aid, education, cloning and the Central American Free Trade Agreement."

In related news, God told Pat Robertson to violate the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment.

UPDATE:  Ezra Klein defends Robertson, I think:

I mean, sure, it's not exactly neighborly to call for Hugo Chavez's assassination, but neither is it necessarily un-Christian. The Bible, after all, offers no shortage of grounds on which you can put a man to death. All we need to do is catch him on one.

Think he's ever masturbated? If so, Genesis 38:8 says he's finished. Exodus 12:12 lets us off him if he's ever struck another man with a deadly blow, a particularly helpful passage if we let Robertson do the deed himself with a blunt object -- they can exit stage left together. I don't know if Chavez ever hit his parents, but Exodus 21:15 finishes him if he did. Better yet, he sure seems like he was stubborn and rebellious as a kid, a juvenile heritage that we can stone him for (Deuteronomy 21:18). If Hugo's got any friends who pray to a God other than the fearsome overlord of the Bible, we can take him down for letting them live (Deuteronomy 13:6). But screw it, we can basically throw all this out and follow Titus 1:10 which says, in essence, that there are tons of talkers and deceivers, many though not all of them Jews, who we can silence for the good of the community. I'm sure Hugo fits in that category fairly neatly.

So enough of this pious squeamishness. Compared to the Bible, Tony Soprano is an all-too-merciful wimp. Chavez has had it coming to him for a long time. But then, so has Pat, George Dubya, any number of on-air evangelists and on-pulpit preachers, your humble host, and all you sinners reading along.

Unintentionally Ironic Funny Quote of the Day

Rice, in Egypt, said that the U.S. is no longer willing to tolerate repressive regimes to bolster regional stability. She flew next to Saudi Arabia.

-- from today’s WSJ, as reported here.

"Democracy Freedom blah blah blah"

Defense officials from Russia and the United States last week helped block a new demand for an international probe into the Uzbekistan government’s shooting of hundreds of protesters last month, according to U.S. and diplomatic officials.

British and other European officials had pushed to include language calling for an independent investigation in a communique issued by defense ministers of NATO countries and Russia after a daylong meeting in Brussels on Thursday. But the joint communique merely stated that "issues of security and stability in Central Asia, including Uzbekistan," had been discussed.

The Washington Post
U.S. Opposed Calls at NATO for Probe of Uzbek Killings
June 14, 2005

_______________________________

It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

George W. Bush
Second Inaugural Address
January 20, 2005

[Hat tip: Billmon]

Hiding The Truth

Why is the White House refusing to hand over NSA documents regarding Bolton, so that the Senate can confirm/deny him as UN Ambassador? 

Is it national security, or is someone’s ass being covered?

In tomorrow’s New York Times, an article will appear suggesting that the White House is holding the documents tight to the chest because they contain the names of individuals and companies who have violated export restriction bans on the shipment of dangerous weapons material to China, Libya, and even Iran.  The article is previewed here.

So which companies are Bush and Dick (Mr. Halliburton Doing Business with Saddam) Cheney trying to protect here, and how many of them are major Bush/Cheney campaign contributors?

Worse Than Appeasement

Not long ago, the right-wing blogosphere was chastizing the left because (supposedly) we all wanted to “appease” Saddam.  Of course, “appeasement” in our view meant inspections, fly-overs, sanctions and a whole host of other active efforts which—let’s be honest—are just the opposite of appeasement.

Today’s LA Times has a piece by former NSC director Steve Andreasen which takes Bush to task for his appeasement of North Korea and Iran.  He makes the distinction between active appeasement, which is bad enough, and passive appeasement, which characterizes the Bush policy:

No one can accuse the Bush administration of making an active effort to appease North Korea or Iran. In fact, the administration has gone to great lengths to avoid even the appearance of “giving in” to Pyongyang or Tehran, refusing to engage in direct negotiations regarding their nuclear programs. Without negotiations, the reasoning appears to be, there can be no concessions, no agreement and no appeasement.

Or can there be? The administration seems to have forgotten the part about meeting the aggressor head-on. Indeed, the administration’s approach might be called passive appeasement — and the absence of energetic diplomacy or credible military threat may be just as injurious to U.S. interests as an active agreement recognizing renegade nations as nuclear powers.

***

Because of a lack of assertive diplomacy, the most isolated, dangerous regime on the globe has been permitted to increase its nuclear inventory. Only now — when North Korea appears ready to stage a nuclear test — is the administration considering establishing its own red line, backed by threats of negative consequences. But bilateral negotiations with the North apparently remain off the table.

Read the whole thing, and ask yourself, where are the cries of “appeaser” now?

New Rule on Amnesty International

NEW RULE: Amnesty International is a legitimate source for human rights violations of other countries, but is an unreliable and irresponsible source for reporting on the U.S.

On March 27, 2003, Rumsfeld said:

We know that it’s a repressive regime…Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how the regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people…

The next day, Rumsfeld even cited his “careful reading” of Amnesty:

…[I]t seems to me a careful reading of Amnesty International or the record of Saddam Hussein, having used chemical weapons on his own people as well as his neighbors, and the viciousness of that regime, which is well known and documented by human rights organizations, ought not to be surprised.

And on April 1, 2003, Rumsfeld said once again:

[I]f you read the various human rights groups and Amnesty International’s description of what they know has gone on, it’s not a happy picture.

Quite a contrast to the present Amnesty International-bashing by the Administration lately.

The Man Who Saved The World

Incredible(!) story from The Moscow News about something that happened in 1983 that you didn't know about, because you were sleeping soundly in your bed.  I reprint it here in full:

The Man Who Saved the World Finally Recognized

Sirens blaring, warning lights flashing, computer screens showing nuclear missiles on their way, one man in charge of a red button labeled “START” - that’s start a retaliatory strike — and a roomful of people at their terminals and switchboards waiting for him to push it. Sound like a typical Hollywood Cold War cliffhanger?

It was indeed just like in the movies, says the man who was poised over the red button over twenty years ago, except “in the movies, Hollywood specialists and directors can stretch a little situation into half an hour. In our case, from the time I made the decision to when it was all over, it was five minutes max.”

Stanislav Petrov was a Soviet army officer monitoring the satellite system for signs of a U.S. attack, the year was 1983, and his instructions, if he detected missiles targeting the Soviet Union, were to push the button and launch a counter-offensive.

He didn’t. Minutes later, no missiles came; months later, the frightening data across his monitor was determined to have been a system glitch. Today, the Association of World Citizens is calling him “the forgotten hero of our time,” a title befitting the man whose responsibility had been to start World War III.

On the Spot

Half an hour past midnight on September 26, 1983, he saw the first apparent launch on his computer monitor in a glass-walled room on the top floor of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) command and control post.

“I was supposed to supervise the combat crew. When the first launch happened, everyone was stupefied. After the first launch, I started giving orders, because in the room below, where there were five switchboards, and all the operators jumped out of their seats to see what my reaction was. I can only imagine what went on at the other posts.”

The warning system was by now showing five missile launches in the U.S., headed toward the Soviet Union. The “START” command Petrov was expected to give would have started an irreversible chain reaction in a system geared to launch a counter-strike without human interference.

“The main computer wouldn’t ask me [what to do] — it was made so that it wouldn’t even ask. It was specially constructed in such a way that no one could affect the system’s operations.” All that was up to Petrov was analyzing the available information and either saying the alarm was false or giving the computer the go-ahead, as per the directive he himself wrote.

Why Didn’t He Do It?

All the data checked out, to all appearances, the system was right on target — or rather, the missiles it reported were. A couple of thoughts flashed past Petrov’s mind.

“I just couldn’t believe that just like that, all of a sudden, someone would hurl five missiles at us. Five missiles wouldn’t wipe us out. The U.S. had not five, but a thousand missiles in battle readiness.” It just didn’t seem like any scenario considered by military intelligence before.

The second thought on Petrov’s mind every time he was on duty was this:

“I imagined if I’d assume the responsibility for unleashing the third World War — and I said, no, I wouldn’t.”

The tension must have been overwhelming — did he really have the time to consider the global context of his actions?

“I always thought of it. Whenever I came on duty, I always refreshed it in my memory. At that moment, there was no time to think, I had to work, work, work.”

Petrov reported the alarm to his superiors and declared it false. Had he been mistaken, the mistake would have become obvious in minutes: the post’s detection system had a 15-minute advantage over the ground radars. No missiles rained on Soviet Union in a quarter hour; rather, in an hour, high command descended on the command post.

What Happened?

“It was a false alarm started aboard a satellite,” says retired General Yuri Votintsev, then the Commander of the Soviet Missile and Space Establishment. Votintsev raced to the command post and was the first to hear Petrov’s story after the incident.

“I noted Lieutenant Colonel Petrov’s correct actions, given the situation. Literally within a minute he informed all the command posts that the information about the launch of space vehicles is false. His actions were duly noted.”

Petrov himself tells a different story — although at first he was praised for his actions, he found himself slighted and picked on after the warning system was meticulously dissected and many bugs were found.

“When a lot of garbage was found in the way the system worked, it was uncomfortable for them to praise me — like they’re all horrible and I’m the only one who’s any good.”

Twenty-One Years Later

Several months later, Petrov retired from the army, exhausted by the stress. Twenty-one years later, Petrov, surviving on a tiny army pension in a small town outside of Moscow, is being honored for his decision by the San Francisco-based Association of World Citizens. On May 21, 2004 Colonel Petrov has joined the ranks of World Citizens and receive a financial award AWC raised for him through its website.

The director of Memorial, Russia’s historical heritage and human rights organization, Arseny Roginsky, congratulated Petrov on behalf of AWC in an awards ceremony that took place at Moscow News’ office. The only regret AWC had, he said, was that they hadn’t acknowledged Petrov’s heroic action years ago. “They believe, you see, that in this world, people who are capable of actions like that can be counted up on one hand.”

We So Crazy

57 per cent of Australians think US foreign policy to be as great a threat as that of Islamic fundamentalism.

Can't imagine why.  Unless you think about it.

I mean, of ALL the nations on this planet, which one has been involved in more wars and had more of its troops in other sovereign lands? 

Which nation invokes "pre-emption" as its preferred foreign policy (no, Nazi Germany doesn't count, since it no longer exists)? 

Which country is the only one to resolve a war through weapons of mass destruction? 

And which country directly mocks and ignores the sole international body created and designed to promote peace and dialogue among disagreeing nations?

Hint: it ain't Canada.

It doesn't assuage my concerns when I read stuff like this:

The White House says the F-16s are a reward to Islamabad for its help in disrupting terrorism networks, despite a decade of Pakistan’s strong support of Al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Yet Pakistan’s ruling generals could be excused for believing that Washington is not seriously concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. How else to explain invading a country — Iraq — that didn’t possess nukes, didn’t sell nuclear technology to unstable nations and didn’t maintain an unholy alliance with Al Qaeda — and then turning around and giving the plum prizes of U.S. military ingenuity to the country that did?

Oy vey.