newsletter sign-up:



May 20, 2004
"Can't Afford to Fail" -- Wrong.
Posted by jbholston at 10:37 PM

We keep hearing from all sides of the Iraq debate that the U.S. 'can't afford to fail.'

I have two problems with that argument:

1. We've already failed. We've lost the goodwill of the Arab muslim world, Iraq has no chance to become a 'beacon of democracy' for the Middle East, and support at home is collapsing fast.

2. Why the heck can't we fail? Isn't that quintessentially American? We tried, we failed, we learned. And who, exactly, will be hurt by an earlier admission of this reality?

Consider the various constituencies;

1. Our own military. They will be gun-shy for another generation. But they will be so no matter how many more of them we lose or injure.

And how many have already lost the faith, due to Abu Ghraib and Fallujah?

Rumsfeld says today he didn't know about the raid on Chalabi. Powell is running for cover as fast as he can.

Our military has already been effectively abandoned by this administration.

2. The Arab Muslim world. What faith will we lose by withdrawal? It does depend on how we withdraw. But we haven't a clue as to how Iraq should be governed to avoid chaos, and I believe the Arab world knows this.

Will they blame us for cutting and running? Sure, but that's the outcome regardless.

And, the Arab world has a history of reviving the reputations of failed leaders and countries.

Look at Saddam.

3. Our allies. What allies?

4. Israel. Not clear. They have to be happier that Saddam is gone. I doubt theyhave illusions that we could ever have prevented a failed state as the outcome.

5. The American people. They're already losing it. It won't come back.

So what to do?

1. Press the UN and International community with all possible force, to join the next 24 months' peacekeeping effort in large numbers. Bush I did this; Clinton did it over Somalia.

2. Set a firm date by which we're out -- or down to (say) the same number of troops we have in Bosnia. Don't waver, regardless.

3. Follow through with turnover of power, elections, etc.

Bush misled us into the war on false pretenses. We've subsequently screwed it up. In the process, we've squandered 9/11 -- the most international goodwill this country has ever had. We've created a great diaspora of enemies.

Time to survive by moving on.

And, just read this from Kucinich, who thinks we can bring our troops home in 90 days......:

The U.S. military presence in Iraq is counterproductive. If we stay the course, it will damage America's security and lead to a longer war, more troop losses and civilian casualties, hundreds of billions of tax dollars wasted and, inevitably, a draft.

The U.S. invasion was based on lies: Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or with al-Qaeda's role in it. Iraq didn't have the intention or capability of attacking America. It did not try to get uranium from Niger. It had no weapons of mass destruction. It was wrong to go in. It is wrong to stay in.

This is the time for a peace plan for Iraq and an exit strategy for the U.S. The world community will not make a commitment absent a change of direction in U.S. policy.


Permalink | Comments (0)

Rate this post: (data provided from NewsGator Online)



May 17, 2004
Geneva Conventions; choose 'a' or 'b' ...
Posted by jbholston at 12:28 PM

Hersh in the New Yorker:

The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents. A key player was Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantánamo, who had been summoned to Baghdad in late August to review prison interrogation procedures. The internal Army report on the abuse charges, written by Major General Antonio Taguba in February, revealed that Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison. The report quoted Miller as recommending that “detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation.”

Miller’s concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to “Gitmoize” the prison system in Iraq—to make it more focussed on interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the interrogation methods used in Cuba—methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in “stress positions” for agonizing lengths of time. (The Bush Administration had unilaterally declared Al Qaeda and other captured members of international terrorist networks to be illegal combatants, and not eligible for the protection of the Geneva Conventions.)


Wall Street Journal editorial this morning:

If there's a silver lining to the 24/7 coverage over Abu Ghraib, it is that we are slowly learning that these abuses were in fact the fault of a few undisciplined, poorly led soldiers. The accusation that the practices were part of the "system," or resulted from Army or Pentagon rules, is also being exposed as a political slur.

...there's the fact that while the Sanchez standards did allow short-term sensory deprivation and stress positions with the specific approval of a commanding general in every instance, there is no indication that anyone intended them to be used together. As it happens, requests to use stress positions were made only three times -- and all three were denied. Only about 25 exceptional interrogation requests were made in total -- all for segregation.

Mr. Reed should have his staff get him the Geneva Conventions to read. What he'd learn is that the treatment in his hypothetical question would be barred because U.S. soldiers wearing the uniform would be classified as "prisoners of war." Even tempting detainees who are POWs with a candy bar to answer questions beyond name, rank and serial number violates the Third Geneva Convention. As for his hypothetical "American citizen," he or she might benefit from the civilian protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention depending on circumstances.

...apart from Iraqi soldiers detained in uniform and certain members of Saddam Hussein's chain of command -- most Iraqi detainees are arrested as civilians and fall under the protection not of the Third Geneva Convention but of the Fourth.


Permalink | Comments (0)

Rate this post: (data provided from NewsGator Online)



May 16, 2004
Influence today...
Posted by jbholston at 06:01 AM
As Bush "Pioneers" who had raised at least $100,000 each for the president's reelection campaign, or "Rangers" who had raised $200,000 each, the men and women who shot skeet with Cheney, played golf with pros Ben Crenshaw and Fuzzy Zoeller and laughed at the jokes of comedian Dennis Miller are the heart of the most successful political money operation in the nation's history. Since 1998, Bush has raised a record $296.3 million in campaign funds, giving him an overwhelming advantage in running against Vice President Al Gore and now Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). At least a third of the total -- many sources believe more than half -- was raised by 631 people.

...The Pioneers have evolved from an initial group of family, friends and associates willing to bet on putting another Bush in the White House into an extraordinarily organized and disciplined machine. It is now twice as big as it was in 2000 and fueled by the desire of corporate CEOs, Wall Street financial leaders, Washington lobbyists and Republican officials to outdo each other in demonstrating their support for Bush and his administration's pro-business policies.

Their real reward is entree to the White House and the upper levels of the administration.

Of the 246 fundraisers identified by The Post as Pioneers in the 2000 campaign, 104 -- or slightly more than 40 percent -- ended up in a job or an appointment. A study by The Washington Post, partly using information compiled by Texans for Public Justice, which is planning to release a separate study of the Pioneers this week, found that 23 Pioneers were named as ambassadors and three were named to the Cabinet: Donald L. Evans at the Commerce Department, Elaine L. Chao at Labor and Tom Ridge at Homeland Security. At least 37 Pioneers were named to postelection transition teams, which helped place political appointees into key regulatory positions affecting industry.

A more important reward than a job, perhaps, is access. For about one-fifth of the 2000 Pioneers, this is their business -- they are lobbyists whose livelihoods depend on the perception that they can get things done in the government. More than half the Pioneers are heads of companies -- chief executive officers, company founders or managing partners -- whose bottom lines are directly affected by a variety of government regulatory and tax decisions.

...Every fundraiser would be assigned his or her own four-digit tracking number. A Pioneer would get credit only for those checks that arrived with the correct tracking number clearly printed on them.

In addition, prospective Pioneers would have a direct line into the Bush campaign finance offices. There they could routinely find out where they stood, compared with the rest of the field. Every month, they would get printouts of donations. Everyone assigned a number could check regularly to see if their $1,000 pledges had been fulfilled.

...The Bush reelection campaign is currently riding a wave of Wall Street money and has consolidated the Republican establishment with the backing of prominent Washington lobbyists and trade association executives.

...Patronage decisions for Pioneers and other friends of the president are made largely by Rove, the White House senior political adviser, and Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff, in consultation with the Office of Presidential Personnel, which handles the vetting process, according to senior Republicans who would speak only on the condition of anonymity.

..."I can call Karl, and I can call about half of the Cabinet, and they will either take the call or call back," said one lobbyist Ranger, who described such access as "my bread and butter" and spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

Last month at the Ritz-Carlton Lodge on Lake Oconee, after the golf and the entertainment and a reception with Bush for the elite Rangers, the "appreciation" of the campaign's leading fundraisers gave way, inevitably, to a business meeting.

...There they learned that the Rangers would soon lose their top status, just as the Pioneers had before them. Raising $200,000 was a starting point, they were told. But to qualify as a "Super Ranger," they would have to raise an additional $300,000 for the Republican National Committee, where the individual contribution limit is $25,000.

...To reach the new goals, Travis Thomas, the Bush-Cheney finance director, explained to the gathered Rangers and Pioneers how they could hold fundraisers in their homes featuring an appearance by the president that would bring in $2 million to $3 million in bundled contributions. Private homes, he pointed out, are more comfortable for the president.

And, Thomas added, "If it is in a private residence, it can be closed to the press."


Read the whole Washington Post expose...

Or just donate $50 to the Kerry campaign...

Permalink | Comments (0)

Rate this post: (data provided from NewsGator Online)





« May 09, 2004 - May 15, 2004
Weblog Home
May 23, 2004 - May 29, 2004 »