A group of powerful Christian conservatives that calls itself the Council for National Policy is disappointed at the current slate of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. Their trained seal has less than two years remaining in office and they can't find another one with a weak mind and a strong back.
The council is a secretive organization whose members include James C. Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Grover Norquist. They recently had a closed-door meeting at Florida's Amelia Island. At the meeting they decided that McCain, Guilliani and even Romney weren't nearly far enough right for their liking. You have to be swinging from the end of the branch for these folks which is why they seem so very fond of our own Harpo. The New York Times reports these extremists are worried, very worried:
“'There is great anxiety,' said Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation. 'There is no outstanding conservative, and they are all looking for that.'
"Mr. Weyrich, a longtime member of the council, declined to discuss the group or its meetings. The council’s bylaws forbid members from publicly disclosing its membership or activities, and participants agreed to discuss the Amelia Island meeting only on the condition of anonymity.
"For eight years and four elections, President Bush forged a singular alliance with Christian conservatives — including dispatching administration officials and even cabinet members to address council meetings — that put them at the center of the Republican party.
"But in the aftermath of the stinging defeats in the midterm elections, and with discontent over the Iraq war weighing heavily on the public, some Christian conservatives worry that they may find themselves on the sidelines of the presidential race."
Gee, I can see their point. This could just lead to separation of state and religious fanaticism. Where would we be then?
Oh yeah, just a reminder. Harpo himself addressed the Council for Religious Extremism when they showed up in Montreal back in 1997. Here are a few things he told his American pals about us and about his movement:
On the Canadian people:
"It may not be true, but it's legendary that ifyou're like all Americans, you know almost nothing
except for your own country. Which makes youprobably knowledgeable about one more country
than most Canadians."
On the NDP:
"The NDP could be described as basically a partyof liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse thanthat, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again (about theological references), but the NDP is kind of proofthat the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men."
"Some people point out that there is a small element ofclergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergywho, while very commited to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology."
And then on to those Evil Papists:
"For historic reasons I won't get into, the Liberal party gets the votes of most Catholics in the country,including many practising Catholics. It does have a significant Catholic, social conservative element which occasionally disagrees with these kinds of policy directions. Although I caution you that even this Catholic social conservative element in the Liberal party
is often quite liberal on economic issues."
And a real big swipe at those pinko, Progressive Conservatives:
"...before the Reform Party really became a force in thelate '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially - what else can I say about
them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policiesin the constitution of the country."
And on his natural home, the Reform Party:
"The Reform party is very much a modern manifestationof the Republican movement in Western Canada, the U.S.Republicans started in the western United States."
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Harpo Called Out - By Suzuki
It's about time. Our Furious Leader has been called out into the street to defend his beloved tar sands and the notion that he's become an instant convert to environmentalism. David Suzuki yesterday told a gym full of Calgary elementary school kids and their parents that, when it comes to the environment, Harper is, well, a fraud.
The only thing he cares about is getting re-elected with a majority government," Suzuki said, adding any of the PM's pledges to preserve the environment are cynical ploys to that end.
"I don't believe there is a green bone in Harper's body - he has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment."
"Albertans have always had the highest standard of living in the country. Why do you need all this out-of-control expansion of the oilsands. It's insanity ... it's crazy."
The Athabasca Tar Sands (no, they're not "oil" sands) have been the 800 pound gorilla of Canadian politics. When it comes to pols, Libs included, there's a genuine reluctance to anger Alberta (and Washington) by pointing out the obvious.
I suspect Harpo will lay low on this one and wait for it to go away or hope that it grows into a Suzuki-Stelmach fight that he can duck until he sees his numbers in the next election. Either way, Harper has been tagged as a fraud and ducking this one is a clear admission of that.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Cheney - No Consensus on Man-Made Global Warming
I suppose from someone of the stature of Dick Cheney, it's all you could expect.
The Vice-President gave an interview today to ABC News, during which he expounded on his views of global warming:
"I think there's an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we're in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that's part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera.
"But I think we're going to see a big debate on it going forward. But it's not enough just to sort of run out and try to slap together some policy that's going to "solve" the problem."
Hey Dick. "Consensus" means general agreement and even someone as intellectually dishonest as you has to accept that there is indeed a consensus on the man-made, greenhouse gas questions. Even among your government's own scientists there is a clear consensus.
Can this guy ever tell the truth?
The Vice-President gave an interview today to ABC News, during which he expounded on his views of global warming:
"I think there's an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we're in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that's part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera.
"But I think we're going to see a big debate on it going forward. But it's not enough just to sort of run out and try to slap together some policy that's going to "solve" the problem."
Hey Dick. "Consensus" means general agreement and even someone as intellectually dishonest as you has to accept that there is indeed a consensus on the man-made, greenhouse gas questions. Even among your government's own scientists there is a clear consensus.
Can this guy ever tell the truth?
Rotten To The Core
As far as we're concerned, we wish it would just go away. Hamid Karzai's goverment is awash in war criminals. They're warlords who butchered tens of thousands of Afghan civilians in the course of that country's civil wars and who now sit in government voting for their own pardons.
Does anybody find it curious that we don't hear a peep about this from Bush or Cheney much less our Furious Leader, Harpo? Nope, nothing to see here, now move along. We might occasionally criticize the corrupt cops but all we have for Karzai and his parliament of cutthroats is praise.
Human Rights Watch has some eye-opening insights into the murderous thugs who've now morphed into Afghanistan's government:
While you're there, check out their video on cluster bombs. It too is an eye-opener:
It's hard not to feel some sympathy for Hamid Karzai. The US put him in power and then forgot about him. There was no one around to give him the muscle needed to keep the warlords at bay so that Afghanistan could have a decent parliament, one that could claim some legitimacy. We didn't so now it's much easier to pretend there is no problem, that Afghanistan has a government that will bring the country real democracy.
Another Thought on Cluster Bombs
The campaign to ban cluster bombs is long overdue. These weapons were developed to take out large enemy formations massed on battlefields. That sort of conventional war seems to have become a rarity, replaced by low-intensity wars, guerrilla war and insurgencies.
Cluster bombs have no place being used against small groups or dispersed targets in the midst of civilian areas. Aerial bombardment generally against civilian areas needs to be banned.
We've come to be a bit deluded about the notion of "precision guided munitions" and their vaunted surgical strikes. The only thing precise about a 2,000 lb. bomb with a laser guidance system is the guidance system. When that bomb hits, it is neither precise nor discriminate. Its blast wave will kill anyone within hundreds of feet, completely indifferent to age, gender or culpability. It also tends to transform the survivors into our avowed enemies.
Those who resort to using cluster bombs should be held accountable for going back in and clearing all the duds, the unexploded bomblets, when the fighting ends. Kids are still being blown to bits in Laos from cluster bomblets the Americans left behind after losing Vietnam. How can we call a country that will deliberately leave that mayhem in its wake to claim innocent lives for decades afterwards our ally, our friend? It is nothing short of monstrous.
Cluster bombs have no place being used against small groups or dispersed targets in the midst of civilian areas. Aerial bombardment generally against civilian areas needs to be banned.
We've come to be a bit deluded about the notion of "precision guided munitions" and their vaunted surgical strikes. The only thing precise about a 2,000 lb. bomb with a laser guidance system is the guidance system. When that bomb hits, it is neither precise nor discriminate. Its blast wave will kill anyone within hundreds of feet, completely indifferent to age, gender or culpability. It also tends to transform the survivors into our avowed enemies.
Those who resort to using cluster bombs should be held accountable for going back in and clearing all the duds, the unexploded bomblets, when the fighting ends. Kids are still being blown to bits in Laos from cluster bomblets the Americans left behind after losing Vietnam. How can we call a country that will deliberately leave that mayhem in its wake to claim innocent lives for decades afterwards our ally, our friend? It is nothing short of monstrous.
Fundamental Justice Rules, Sorry Harpo
9-zip. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, unanimously, against the government's claimed right to be able to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial. Sorry Harpo, but Canada isn't going to be reverting to medieval feudalism like your idols in the US.
The SCC suspended its judgment for a year in order to allow parliament to restructure the offending laws.
Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin said the security certificate regime offends the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a pronouncement that is sure to send hundreds of Canadian rednecks frothing at the mouth in inidignation. She upheld the quaint notion that, if the government wants to detain somebody for a lengthy period, it has to accord them a fair judicial process. Talk about a half-baked, pinko idea, eh?
The SCC suspended its judgment for a year in order to allow parliament to restructure the offending laws.
Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin said the security certificate regime offends the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a pronouncement that is sure to send hundreds of Canadian rednecks frothing at the mouth in inidignation. She upheld the quaint notion that, if the government wants to detain somebody for a lengthy period, it has to accord them a fair judicial process. Talk about a half-baked, pinko idea, eh?
Flying In The Face of Reality
Today's Guardian has a feature story, "Paving America", on the flood of Americans to Arizona. It protends an environmental calamity to come:
The state has the fastest growing population in the country, recently overtaking Nevada, which held the title for 19 years. In 1950 there were 750,000 Arizonans; in 2000 there were almost 5 million and in 2020 there are projected to be 7.4 million.
Phoenix, the state capital that lies about 50 miles east of the White Tank mountains, is the fastest growing city in America. It covered 17 square miles in 1950; now it sprawls over almost 500, an area larger than Los Angeles.
"Thousands descend every year on Arizona, led by baby-boomers reaching retirement. They come mainly from other parts of the US - from California where land is increasingly expensive, and the midwest, where the winters are severe. And each new arrival is looking to build a castle in the desert, the epitome of the detached, individualistic and car-dependent American dream.
"For residents ...the attractions are palpable: more space for their bucks, eternal summers and fulfilment of what remains of the west's original frontier spirit.
"But the costs are high too. Arizona's water table is being depleted as a result of homes being built on pristine desert rather than on agricultural land already used to grow thirsty crops such as cotton and alfalfa. Air quality is suffering from dust thrown up from developments and car exhausts, and highways are clogged with commuters travelling to and from the desert communities. In Phoenix, widening one of the main intersections to 24 lanes, 12 in each direction, has been mooted.
"'At what point do we just stand up and start screaming?' said Wellington Reiter, dean of Arizona State University's design college, who has been involved in creating a light rail system - a first step towards public transport.
"But he fears the pace of growth in the opposite direction, comparing the carbon footprint (the amount of greenhouse gas emissions caused by each person every year) of Phoenicians: 1,400kg, with that of the people of Hong Kong: 50kg.
"Environmentalists tried unsuccessfully to introduce tougher restrictions on development in Arizona in 2000. Sandy Bahr of the state's Sierra Club said the unlikely alliance between developers and farmers hoping to make a fortune by selling their land for housing complexes proved too powerful.
"'The policy-makers are burying their heads in the sand. Our whole economy is based not just on growth, but on rapid growth,' she said.
"With the American population passing 300 million, and projected to reach 400 million by mid-century, Arizona is the most extreme example of stresses being played out across the States. America is being paved over. Some estimates suggest that more than half of the built environment that will exist in the US in 2025 will have been constructed since 2000."
With peak summer temperatures that already reach 46C and are expected to climb higher yet simply surviving in this region is astonishingly energy intensive. Most of the year you don't need much in the way of heating but you do consume terrific amounts of energy for air conditioning, irrigation and transportation, all to live in a place which has no sustainable water supply.
The state has the fastest growing population in the country, recently overtaking Nevada, which held the title for 19 years. In 1950 there were 750,000 Arizonans; in 2000 there were almost 5 million and in 2020 there are projected to be 7.4 million.
Phoenix, the state capital that lies about 50 miles east of the White Tank mountains, is the fastest growing city in America. It covered 17 square miles in 1950; now it sprawls over almost 500, an area larger than Los Angeles.
"Thousands descend every year on Arizona, led by baby-boomers reaching retirement. They come mainly from other parts of the US - from California where land is increasingly expensive, and the midwest, where the winters are severe. And each new arrival is looking to build a castle in the desert, the epitome of the detached, individualistic and car-dependent American dream.
"For residents ...the attractions are palpable: more space for their bucks, eternal summers and fulfilment of what remains of the west's original frontier spirit.
"But the costs are high too. Arizona's water table is being depleted as a result of homes being built on pristine desert rather than on agricultural land already used to grow thirsty crops such as cotton and alfalfa. Air quality is suffering from dust thrown up from developments and car exhausts, and highways are clogged with commuters travelling to and from the desert communities. In Phoenix, widening one of the main intersections to 24 lanes, 12 in each direction, has been mooted.
"'At what point do we just stand up and start screaming?' said Wellington Reiter, dean of Arizona State University's design college, who has been involved in creating a light rail system - a first step towards public transport.
"But he fears the pace of growth in the opposite direction, comparing the carbon footprint (the amount of greenhouse gas emissions caused by each person every year) of Phoenicians: 1,400kg, with that of the people of Hong Kong: 50kg.
"Environmentalists tried unsuccessfully to introduce tougher restrictions on development in Arizona in 2000. Sandy Bahr of the state's Sierra Club said the unlikely alliance between developers and farmers hoping to make a fortune by selling their land for housing complexes proved too powerful.
"'The policy-makers are burying their heads in the sand. Our whole economy is based not just on growth, but on rapid growth,' she said.
"With the American population passing 300 million, and projected to reach 400 million by mid-century, Arizona is the most extreme example of stresses being played out across the States. America is being paved over. Some estimates suggest that more than half of the built environment that will exist in the US in 2025 will have been constructed since 2000."
With peak summer temperatures that already reach 46C and are expected to climb higher yet simply surviving in this region is astonishingly energy intensive. Most of the year you don't need much in the way of heating but you do consume terrific amounts of energy for air conditioning, irrigation and transportation, all to live in a place which has no sustainable water supply.
Fighting Cluster Bombs
Canada has joined 45-other nations in approving a declaration calling for a treaty by 2008 to ban the use of cluster bombs. Our representative joined it, it seems, because the Oslo meeting held no formal vote and the declaration basically has no teeth.
Now we should watch and see what Harpo does to stop these horribly misused weapons. Will he speak openly against them? Will he castigate countries that use them - far off nations like the US and Britain? Will he demand that the US clean up the millions of unexploded cluster bomblets that still litter the Laotian countryside? Or will he, once again, stay true to form as our Furious Leader and "arse-licker of Satan" and stay conveniently mute?
Still just joining in was a good, first step - if we mean it.
Now we should watch and see what Harpo does to stop these horribly misused weapons. Will he speak openly against them? Will he castigate countries that use them - far off nations like the US and Britain? Will he demand that the US clean up the millions of unexploded cluster bomblets that still litter the Laotian countryside? Or will he, once again, stay true to form as our Furious Leader and "arse-licker of Satan" and stay conveniently mute?
Still just joining in was a good, first step - if we mean it.
Stepping Back from War with Iran
There is great tension today over a looming, military showdown between America and Iran. The US is building up its naval forces in the Persian Gulf and prepping for a massive air war against Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure. Despite how incompetently he's managed both wars he's launched so far, Bush seems to have nothing in his playbook except more war. However, Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, believes the conditions are right for a peaceful resolution - if - the American people and their Congress can hold the Frat Boy in check:
"...what the unilateral and increasingly quixotic American embargo could not do in more than a decade, a limited United Nations resolution has accomplished in less than a month. And the resolution succeeded because few things frighten the mullahs more than the prospect of confronting a united front made up of the European Union, Russia, China and the United States. The resolution was a manifestation of just such a united front.
"While the combination of credible force, reduced oil prices and a United Nations resolution has worked to create the most favorable conditions yet for a negotiated solution to the nuclear crisis, any unilateral American attack on Iran is sure to backfire. It will break the international coalition against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear adventurism; it will allow China, Russia and even some countries in Europe to legitimately side with the mullahs; it will lead to higher oil prices and an increase in Iranian government revenues; and finally, it will help revive the waning power of the warmongers in Tehran.
"Those convinced that only the combination of credible might and diplomatic pressure will work worry rightly that the Bush administration, frustrated by its failures in Iraq and goaded by hawks in Washington, will do to Iran what it did to Iraq. In confronting Saddam Hussein and the threat of his weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration insisted that amassing an armada in the Persian Gulf was necessary to frighten Mr. Hussein into submission. But once the armada was in place, they used it to carry out a long-ago planned invasion of Iraq.
"Today, many worry that the plans for an invasion of Iran, too, were made long ago, and that the armada is there to make possible either another Gulf of Tonkin resolution or an Iranian act of provocation against American forces, which could then serve as an excuse for an attack on Iran.
"War and peace with Iran are both possible today. With prudence, backed by power but guided by the wisdom to recognize the new signals coming from Tehran, the United States can today achieve a principled solution to the nuclear crisis. Congress, vigilant American citizens and a resolute policy from America’s European allies can ensure that this principled peace is given a chance. "
"...what the unilateral and increasingly quixotic American embargo could not do in more than a decade, a limited United Nations resolution has accomplished in less than a month. And the resolution succeeded because few things frighten the mullahs more than the prospect of confronting a united front made up of the European Union, Russia, China and the United States. The resolution was a manifestation of just such a united front.
"While the combination of credible force, reduced oil prices and a United Nations resolution has worked to create the most favorable conditions yet for a negotiated solution to the nuclear crisis, any unilateral American attack on Iran is sure to backfire. It will break the international coalition against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear adventurism; it will allow China, Russia and even some countries in Europe to legitimately side with the mullahs; it will lead to higher oil prices and an increase in Iranian government revenues; and finally, it will help revive the waning power of the warmongers in Tehran.
"Those convinced that only the combination of credible might and diplomatic pressure will work worry rightly that the Bush administration, frustrated by its failures in Iraq and goaded by hawks in Washington, will do to Iran what it did to Iraq. In confronting Saddam Hussein and the threat of his weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration insisted that amassing an armada in the Persian Gulf was necessary to frighten Mr. Hussein into submission. But once the armada was in place, they used it to carry out a long-ago planned invasion of Iraq.
"Today, many worry that the plans for an invasion of Iran, too, were made long ago, and that the armada is there to make possible either another Gulf of Tonkin resolution or an Iranian act of provocation against American forces, which could then serve as an excuse for an attack on Iran.
"War and peace with Iran are both possible today. With prudence, backed by power but guided by the wisdom to recognize the new signals coming from Tehran, the United States can today achieve a principled solution to the nuclear crisis. Congress, vigilant American citizens and a resolute policy from America’s European allies can ensure that this principled peace is given a chance. "
This is Rich
Dick Cheney - in Australia - criticizing China's arms buildup and questioning China's peaceful intentions. Cheney has to have American Exceptionalism rammed pretty far up his ass to spew that sort of sanctimonious hypocrisy.
China's total military budget, even expanded as it is, comes out to a very small fraction of the increase in America's military spending under George Bush - a small fraction. Just where does this bald-headed, draft-dodging, war-mongering, lying and dissembling, piece of garbage get off? The world will be so much better off when we get this type of slime out of office.
By the Company We Keep
All of us are known by the company we keep. Our mothers teach us that when we're kids and then spend close to two decades trying to keep us out of the wrong company.
Nations, too, are known by the company they keep. Other nations in the world watch and form their own judgments of states based in part on their allegiences. That's a troubling aspect of George W. Bush's Global War Without End on Terrorism. We've signed on and, since then, we've remained utterly mute to our prime ally's excesses, its outrages and its crimes. It's no excuse that there are plenty of excesses, outrages and crimes on the other side. We hold ourselves to a higher standard but we're quite willing to look the other way when our key ally sullies those standards.
A trial begins later this month in a Miami courtroom. On trial is Jose Padilla arrested at Chicago's O'Hare airport in May, 2002, branded an "enemy combattant" and hauled off to endure four years of torture so vile that one of his guards now calls him "a piece of furniture."
The US government has predicatably objected strenuously to any evidence being presented of Padilla's torture but the judge has stood up to them and will allow it in. Naomi Klein writes about the upcoming trial in The Nation:
Nations, too, are known by the company they keep. Other nations in the world watch and form their own judgments of states based in part on their allegiences. That's a troubling aspect of George W. Bush's Global War Without End on Terrorism. We've signed on and, since then, we've remained utterly mute to our prime ally's excesses, its outrages and its crimes. It's no excuse that there are plenty of excesses, outrages and crimes on the other side. We hold ourselves to a higher standard but we're quite willing to look the other way when our key ally sullies those standards.
A trial begins later this month in a Miami courtroom. On trial is Jose Padilla arrested at Chicago's O'Hare airport in May, 2002, branded an "enemy combattant" and hauled off to endure four years of torture so vile that one of his guards now calls him "a piece of furniture."
The US government has predicatably objected strenuously to any evidence being presented of Padilla's torture but the judge has stood up to them and will allow it in. Naomi Klein writes about the upcoming trial in The Nation:
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Coalition Meltdown
The "coalition of the willing" that has aided the US in its occupation of Iraq is shrinking - rapidly. Britain is beginning the draw down of its forces that could lead to a complete withdrawal next year. Denmark is leaving, along with a number of others.
Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Japan and New Zealand have already withdrawn their troops. Poland is planning to leave and the withdrawal option is under review in Romainia.
South Korea is pulling half of its forces out by April and may withdraw the remainder by year's end.
Two other allies, Australia with 1,400 troops and Bulgaria with 155, intend to stay on for the time being at least.
Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Japan and New Zealand have already withdrawn their troops. Poland is planning to leave and the withdrawal option is under review in Romainia.
South Korea is pulling half of its forces out by April and may withdraw the remainder by year's end.
Two other allies, Australia with 1,400 troops and Bulgaria with 155, intend to stay on for the time being at least.
"An Eye the Size of a Dinner Plate"
It's not the elusive "giant squid" but at half-a-ton, the Colossal Squid specimen caught by New Zealand fishermen is plenty big in its own right.
Weighing in at 450 kg., the mature male easily outdistances the only other complete Colossal ever caught, a female that weighed only a third as much.
At the moment the squid is on ice as the fishermen head to Wellington where scientists will examine and preserve it.
Iraq's Dirty War
Jihadists using civilian women and children as human shields against US firepower:
" ...A woman and three small children emerge uncertainly from behind a building, little more than a shack. They stare at the approaching armour. After a few seconds they retreat from view; then the process is repeated. The third time they emerge, a fighter is crouching behind them with a rocket-propelled grenade aimed at Jankow's Bradley. The group disappears.
"There is a long pause, a moment of excruciating moral conflict for the soldiers and for the gunner in particular.
"Not to shoot would be to imperil their own lives or those of their colleagues, both American and Iraqi. To shoot would be to risk killing civilians who have been shoved in front of their guns to shield insurgent fighters.
"Suddenly, the decision is made, announced by the Bradley opening fire with four rounds from its 25mm gun, blasting a large hole in the corner of the building. Three bodies fall into view.
For a sickening few seconds it seems inconceivable that the woman and her children are not among the dead. A silence descends on the vehicle. But the bodies are those of men."
Read the entire Guardian story here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2018528,00.html
" ...A woman and three small children emerge uncertainly from behind a building, little more than a shack. They stare at the approaching armour. After a few seconds they retreat from view; then the process is repeated. The third time they emerge, a fighter is crouching behind them with a rocket-propelled grenade aimed at Jankow's Bradley. The group disappears.
"There is a long pause, a moment of excruciating moral conflict for the soldiers and for the gunner in particular.
"Not to shoot would be to imperil their own lives or those of their colleagues, both American and Iraqi. To shoot would be to risk killing civilians who have been shoved in front of their guns to shield insurgent fighters.
"Suddenly, the decision is made, announced by the Bradley opening fire with four rounds from its 25mm gun, blasting a large hole in the corner of the building. Three bodies fall into view.
For a sickening few seconds it seems inconceivable that the woman and her children are not among the dead. A silence descends on the vehicle. But the bodies are those of men."
Read the entire Guardian story here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2018528,00.html
They're At It Again - More Bogus Intelligence
It sounds like the same scam the US ran on the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq only this time the bogus intelligence is being fed to the IAEA inspectors in Iran.
The latest IAEA report on Iran reveals that the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be largely unfounded. Like their UNSCOM predecessors, the IAEA inspectors dutifully followed these leads to find out they led to nothing.
This is not to excuse Iran. The report clearly found Iran defiant of a UN Security Council ultimatum that it freeze its nuclear programme. However, Washington's marching orders are no longer being accepted unless it first passes a "credibility test."
The UN inspectors, however, have found plenty to report. From The Guardian:
"One of the "outstanding issues" listed in yesterday's report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake with a batch of unrelated paperwork in October 2005.
"That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document."
The latest IAEA report on Iran reveals that the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be largely unfounded. Like their UNSCOM predecessors, the IAEA inspectors dutifully followed these leads to find out they led to nothing.
This is not to excuse Iran. The report clearly found Iran defiant of a UN Security Council ultimatum that it freeze its nuclear programme. However, Washington's marching orders are no longer being accepted unless it first passes a "credibility test."
The UN inspectors, however, have found plenty to report. From The Guardian:
"One of the "outstanding issues" listed in yesterday's report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake with a batch of unrelated paperwork in October 2005.
"That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document."
The Musharraf Factor
In today's Christian Science Monitor, Brahma Chellenay, professor of strategic studies at the privately funded Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, argues that the fight against Islamic terrorism can't be won without first restoring democracy to Pakistan.
"The fight against international terrorism cannot be won without demilitarizing and deradicalizing Pakistan. That's what makes Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's latest move so worrisome.
"Now, without drawing international attention, Musharraf has unveiled a plan that will make Pakistan's greatly awaited elections a farce. Under this plan, the outgoing parliament and four provincial legislatures would "elect" him to a new five-year term as president in the fall, before he oversees national polls a few months later. Five years ago, Musharraf orchestrated another charade – a referendum – to extend his self-declared presidency.
"Musharraf's maneuver is the latest in a long series of broken promises to return his country to democracy. And it does not bode well for Pakistan's central challenge: moving away from militarism, extremism, and fundamentalism, and toward a stable, moderate state.
"Musharraf's sinking popularity has spurred speculation that he might declare a state of emergency to smother vocal opposition. But the more power he usurps, the more dependent he becomes on his military and intelligence. That limits his ability to sever their cozy ties with extremist and terrorist elements.
"A dictatorship that is part of the problem has ingeniously presented itself to the outside world as part of the solution. The scourge of Pakistani terrorism ema- nates not so much from the Islamist mullahs as from generals who reared the forces of jihad and fathered the Taliban and Al Qaeda-linked groups such as the Lashkar-i-Tayyaba. Yet by passing the blame for their disastrous jihad policy to their mullah puppets, Musharraf and his fellow generals have made many outsiders believe that the key is to contain the religious fringe, not the puppeteers.
"Musharraf perpetuates the self-serving myth that his rule helps prevent an Islamist takeover. But military rule would persist in the event of his sudden death.
"Until the military's viselike grip on power is broken and the rogue Inter-Services Intelligence agency is cut to size, Pakistan is likely to remain a common thread in the investigations of most acts of international terrorism.
"In the absence of open elections, military rule has created a pressure-cooker society. What Pakistan needs is a safety valve – true democratic participation that would empower the masses and decide issues at the ballot box.
"Jihad culture is now deeply woven into Pakistan's national fabric. Unraveling it won't be easy. But it is essential. Heavy-handed rule from Musharraf – or any other general – won't eliminate Pakistan's extremist elements. The development of a robust civil society – though painful in the short term – will aid democracy, marginalize radicals, and bring Pakistan back from the brink.
"Some may think that Musharraf's scheme to stay enthroned is a necessary evil in the service of a greater good. That's half right: It is evil, but it's not necessary. The West needs to exert pressure on him to show real courage – and to bring real reform – by holding himself accountable to voters and making coming elections an honest affair."
"The fight against international terrorism cannot be won without demilitarizing and deradicalizing Pakistan. That's what makes Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's latest move so worrisome.
"Now, without drawing international attention, Musharraf has unveiled a plan that will make Pakistan's greatly awaited elections a farce. Under this plan, the outgoing parliament and four provincial legislatures would "elect" him to a new five-year term as president in the fall, before he oversees national polls a few months later. Five years ago, Musharraf orchestrated another charade – a referendum – to extend his self-declared presidency.
"Musharraf's maneuver is the latest in a long series of broken promises to return his country to democracy. And it does not bode well for Pakistan's central challenge: moving away from militarism, extremism, and fundamentalism, and toward a stable, moderate state.
"Musharraf's sinking popularity has spurred speculation that he might declare a state of emergency to smother vocal opposition. But the more power he usurps, the more dependent he becomes on his military and intelligence. That limits his ability to sever their cozy ties with extremist and terrorist elements.
"A dictatorship that is part of the problem has ingeniously presented itself to the outside world as part of the solution. The scourge of Pakistani terrorism ema- nates not so much from the Islamist mullahs as from generals who reared the forces of jihad and fathered the Taliban and Al Qaeda-linked groups such as the Lashkar-i-Tayyaba. Yet by passing the blame for their disastrous jihad policy to their mullah puppets, Musharraf and his fellow generals have made many outsiders believe that the key is to contain the religious fringe, not the puppeteers.
"Musharraf perpetuates the self-serving myth that his rule helps prevent an Islamist takeover. But military rule would persist in the event of his sudden death.
"Until the military's viselike grip on power is broken and the rogue Inter-Services Intelligence agency is cut to size, Pakistan is likely to remain a common thread in the investigations of most acts of international terrorism.
"In the absence of open elections, military rule has created a pressure-cooker society. What Pakistan needs is a safety valve – true democratic participation that would empower the masses and decide issues at the ballot box.
"Jihad culture is now deeply woven into Pakistan's national fabric. Unraveling it won't be easy. But it is essential. Heavy-handed rule from Musharraf – or any other general – won't eliminate Pakistan's extremist elements. The development of a robust civil society – though painful in the short term – will aid democracy, marginalize radicals, and bring Pakistan back from the brink.
"Some may think that Musharraf's scheme to stay enthroned is a necessary evil in the service of a greater good. That's half right: It is evil, but it's not necessary. The West needs to exert pressure on him to show real courage – and to bring real reform – by holding himself accountable to voters and making coming elections an honest affair."
Sitting on the Fence on Cluster Bombs
This is what cluster bombs do to kids.In Oslo, Norway, 48 nations have signed a declaration calling for a total ban on cluster bomb munitions by 2008.
The resolution says that the bomblets dispersed by cluster bombs, which can litter a countryside for years, cause "unacceptable harm."
The U.S., China and Russia oppose the ban and did not send representatives to the meeting. Australia, Israel, India and Pakistan also did not attend. Foreign minister Peter MacKay indicated that Canada would send a representative as an observer only.
Canada is not believed to have joined as a signatory to the declaration, which would seem to be in keeping with our Furious Leader's global outlook.
Cluster bombs are essentially cannisters packed with hundreds of smaller bomblets which are dispersed over wide areas. It is estimated that between ten to thirty per cent fail to explode on contact and remain live and lethal for years afterward endangering civilians, too often children who step on them or pick them up.
Israel is known to have used cluster munitions against residential areas of Lebanon last year.
In Southeast Asia, it's estimated that 60% of cluster bomb victims are kids.
Learning to Live With Reality
It's only human nature for us to see places from a generational perspective. We adapt to places based on how they've been for the past generation or two.
Florida is a great example. It has a hurricane cycle. For a couple of decades the incidence of hurricanes diminishes. Then they return again, in full force. Florida's population has grown tremendously in recent decades, a period of hurricane retreat. That period seems to be ending. Now, houses are being damaged by hurricanes before they're completely rebuilt from a previous hurricane.
The reconstruction, of course, was funded by insurers who now refuse to write hurricane insurance. Governors or Washington can declare disaster zones and send some funds but not on a continual basis. Eventually places must become economically unviable places to live.
Even more devastating than hurricanes, however, are severe droughts. The American southwest has been experiencing a multi-year drought evident in the levels of the Colorado River. Lake Mead, pictured above, shows a "ring around the bathtub" effect from falling water levels. This has caused real alarm.
The Colorado River Compact, negotiated among several states in 1922, relied on water flow records going back about three decades. They assumed an annual flow of about 16.4 million acre-feet. Now it turns out the Colorado River's historic norm is closer to 13 million acre-feet per year and even less during sustained drought.
The Canadian prairie is also susceptible to severe drought. Here again we've taken a generational perspective on the region. The 20th century was unduly wet for the Canadian prairie, sort of a freak condition. However, it allowed a thriving agriculture to take hold and, along with it, settlement of villages, towns and cities.
We've already had droughts that caused Alberta ranchers to dispose of their herds, sometimes down to their breeding stock.
These areas have been settled on the assumption of a continuation of a status quo that never really was the status quo. This means new solutions must be found to counter the effect of drought on water resources. That's not easy to do.
When the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta settled the prairie lands no one had "mega-drought" in mind. Yet that region has been afflicted by these phenomenon regularly in the past. These are droughts that persist from 40-to 60-years at a stretch. There was a mega-drought in 1300 and another around 1600. What happens when the next one arrives, perhaps accelerated by global warming?
A drought of two or even three-generations in duration could easily undermine the viability of prairie habitation. Vast swathes of the prairie, including a number of cities, could become unlivable.
This isn't fantasy. It's a reality that led former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed to write a lengthy op-ed piece in the Globe & Mail a few years back urging that Canada not let the genie out of the bottle by permitting the sale of fresh water to the US. Lougheed argued that we're going to need that water for the survival of the prairie - Alberta and Saskatchewan. He envisioned a water transpotation grid, mainly canals, to feed water to the prairie by diverting it from running off into the oceans instead.
I think the global warming problem is going to teach us that, if our societies are going to survive, we're going to have to stop thinking generationally, accept the realities of nature and her cycles of storms, mega-droughts and massive earthquakes, and begin to adapt our lives for what will be needed in centuries to come, not merely a couple of generations.
Fealty or Stability - We Have to Choose
Iraq and Afghanistan have proven or are proving a fundamental flaw in American nation-building: unrealistic expectations.
It all began with the hubris on which the Project For The New American Century was constructed. P-NAC, the neo-con Montessori, had a vision of a world transformed by American economic and military might. It envisioned the creation of "wedge" nations in the Middle East, transformed into American mini-clones - secular, free enterprise, liberal democracies, with democratic constitutions and the rule of law, pro-West, and pro-Israel - little bastions among a sea of lesser nations by whose mere presence the others would, in turn, be transformed until the whole region was a shimmering mass of mirror-images of American democracy.
This philosophy became embedded in the Bush administration's approach to both Afghanistan and Iraq. It arrogantly assumed that the populations of these countries were ready and willing to adopt such sweeping reformation. This became Washington's delusion, one to which it still clings, the very essence of quagmire.
The Bush administration thought it merely had to topple the existing regime, pronounce the arrival of reformation and leave the details, the execution of the dream, to the locals. This was an assumption built on indifference, ignorance and the tragic belief in American exceptionalism.
Bush enabled the Northern Alliance to rout the Taliban. Then, his work done, he left a legion behind and prepared to move on to Iraq. Iraq was, likewise, supposed to be a hit-and-run, drive-by conquest. Defeat the Iraqi army, topple Saddam, put your own folks in power and split - six months at the outside. No need for 300,000 soldiers because there was to be no occupation. That wouldn't be necessary.
Five years after the 9/11 attacks Afghanistan is still unstable with an insurgency that now risks morphing into a civil war; Iraq is in the throes of civil war and at risk of partition; and al-Qaeda is resurgent and spreading with its leadership, notably bin Laden, still alive and well. This is more than a net sum loss.
It is the Bush administration's inability to shake its delusion that condemns these tragedies to continue, unresolved. The Bush/Cheney/neo-con cabal cannot and seemingly will not accept anything less than fealty from their doomed experiments. Stable governance and peace simply won't do, there isn't enough return in it.
The Bush regime is crippled by denial, still struggling for a goal beyond its reach while refusing to grasp accomplishments it can achieve. It's like a boy treading water while clutching a bag of gold that he refuses to let go. He can drop the gold and make it to the safety of the beach but he won't and so he sinks, winding up with neither the gold nor the beach.
Why should we care? Because the Western nations are all being dragged into this delusion, expected to play their part in one disaster or the other. We're constantly being hectored about carrying our weight as though we have some obligation to perpetuate this fantasy.
It would be terrific if this could all be turned around by adjusting expectations but it can't because the whole, miserable venture has been shaped by those very expectations and this state of denial has had too many years to take its toll. Are we to start again, sweep the slate clean? Do we invade Kabul, turf out Karzai and the warlords, arrest or destroy the corrupt security forces? That would seem to be child's play compared to the challenges of Baghdad.
No, we have to become realistic. There are too many forces in play in both of these countries that managing the overall conflicts is beyond our grasp. What is the purpose in fighting one war if everything we hope to achieve can be negated by other struggles beyond our influence? It is as purposeless as it seems.
Perhaps we should inventory our (Washington's) expectations and whittle them down to what can be achieved while having the courage to admit what is beyond our means and circumstances to achieve. Imagine what that would mean. It would mean giving up the idea of imposing secular democracy, of our concept of the rule of law, of the liberation of the peoples, especially their women, and the reversion of Afghanistan to medieval feudalism and Iraq to either tribal, mini-states or unified, strongman rule, out of which, eventually, they will find their own liberation.
What do we really need from these countries? I think we should be content with stability and effective governance. Modest as those goals sound, they're far ahead of where we are today. What's the point of having the people of Afghanistan vote for a government that is too often meaningless to them or even despised by them? How long can we allow the ongoing turmoil in Iraq to destabilize the entire Middle East? We've already wasted far too many years. It's time to set a new course, time to head for the safety of the beach.
It all began with the hubris on which the Project For The New American Century was constructed. P-NAC, the neo-con Montessori, had a vision of a world transformed by American economic and military might. It envisioned the creation of "wedge" nations in the Middle East, transformed into American mini-clones - secular, free enterprise, liberal democracies, with democratic constitutions and the rule of law, pro-West, and pro-Israel - little bastions among a sea of lesser nations by whose mere presence the others would, in turn, be transformed until the whole region was a shimmering mass of mirror-images of American democracy.
This philosophy became embedded in the Bush administration's approach to both Afghanistan and Iraq. It arrogantly assumed that the populations of these countries were ready and willing to adopt such sweeping reformation. This became Washington's delusion, one to which it still clings, the very essence of quagmire.
The Bush administration thought it merely had to topple the existing regime, pronounce the arrival of reformation and leave the details, the execution of the dream, to the locals. This was an assumption built on indifference, ignorance and the tragic belief in American exceptionalism.
Bush enabled the Northern Alliance to rout the Taliban. Then, his work done, he left a legion behind and prepared to move on to Iraq. Iraq was, likewise, supposed to be a hit-and-run, drive-by conquest. Defeat the Iraqi army, topple Saddam, put your own folks in power and split - six months at the outside. No need for 300,000 soldiers because there was to be no occupation. That wouldn't be necessary.
Five years after the 9/11 attacks Afghanistan is still unstable with an insurgency that now risks morphing into a civil war; Iraq is in the throes of civil war and at risk of partition; and al-Qaeda is resurgent and spreading with its leadership, notably bin Laden, still alive and well. This is more than a net sum loss.
It is the Bush administration's inability to shake its delusion that condemns these tragedies to continue, unresolved. The Bush/Cheney/neo-con cabal cannot and seemingly will not accept anything less than fealty from their doomed experiments. Stable governance and peace simply won't do, there isn't enough return in it.
The Bush regime is crippled by denial, still struggling for a goal beyond its reach while refusing to grasp accomplishments it can achieve. It's like a boy treading water while clutching a bag of gold that he refuses to let go. He can drop the gold and make it to the safety of the beach but he won't and so he sinks, winding up with neither the gold nor the beach.
Why should we care? Because the Western nations are all being dragged into this delusion, expected to play their part in one disaster or the other. We're constantly being hectored about carrying our weight as though we have some obligation to perpetuate this fantasy.
It would be terrific if this could all be turned around by adjusting expectations but it can't because the whole, miserable venture has been shaped by those very expectations and this state of denial has had too many years to take its toll. Are we to start again, sweep the slate clean? Do we invade Kabul, turf out Karzai and the warlords, arrest or destroy the corrupt security forces? That would seem to be child's play compared to the challenges of Baghdad.
No, we have to become realistic. There are too many forces in play in both of these countries that managing the overall conflicts is beyond our grasp. What is the purpose in fighting one war if everything we hope to achieve can be negated by other struggles beyond our influence? It is as purposeless as it seems.
Perhaps we should inventory our (Washington's) expectations and whittle them down to what can be achieved while having the courage to admit what is beyond our means and circumstances to achieve. Imagine what that would mean. It would mean giving up the idea of imposing secular democracy, of our concept of the rule of law, of the liberation of the peoples, especially their women, and the reversion of Afghanistan to medieval feudalism and Iraq to either tribal, mini-states or unified, strongman rule, out of which, eventually, they will find their own liberation.
What do we really need from these countries? I think we should be content with stability and effective governance. Modest as those goals sound, they're far ahead of where we are today. What's the point of having the people of Afghanistan vote for a government that is too often meaningless to them or even despised by them? How long can we allow the ongoing turmoil in Iraq to destabilize the entire Middle East? We've already wasted far too many years. It's time to set a new course, time to head for the safety of the beach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)