“Surge” and Destroy

Well, it’s official: President Bush announced his obviously well-thought and popular plan to “surge” an additional 20,000+ soldiers to Iraq.

An interesting excerpt from last night’s speech:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

Oh, no he didn’t.

 

O’Reilly vs. Democratic Brains=Unintelligible Gibber Gabber

Democratic Strategist Paul Begala and the Rajun’ Cajun came to Clinton’s rescue on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show. O’Reilly, in his infinite wisdom, decided it would be an excellent idea to maintain Fox News’ newly found objective view of politics. The result: five minutes of quacking by very insistent ducks. Cynicism and doubt coupled with stubbornness usually produces senseless noise. This is probably why the majority of Americans are disgusted with politics: stupid things said by smart people are still stupid.

I’m reminded at this time of a very wise adage: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it’s probably a mother fucking duck.

If I have not made this clear yet, allow me to repeat myself in very simple terms: Fox News is a CONSERVATIVE news station. To those Conservatives in denial, I’ll concede that CNN and the New York Times are liberal news sources. We have ours. You have yours.

 

Clinton vs. Fox News

Fox News is a Conservative news station.  Period.  I didn’t need to remind you, nor does anyone for that matter.

Yet I simply cannot understand their insistence of maintaining a “neutral” approach to politics when their agenda is perfectly clear.  Proof came in the form of an interview gone sour with former President Clinton:

 

9/11: The Untold Story

Bloggers throughout the world, including myself, posted opinions and thoughts about the 5th anniversary of 9/11.  Muslim extremists in the Middle East did the same, offering a retort to the prevalent sentiment of the blogosphere.

Before my eyes is a veil that does not permit me to see those killed in the twin towers, nor to remember them on this day. Indeed, I don’t see those killed in the twin towers nor remember them on this day! Do you know why?

Because their fallen are not purer or better than our fallen. And because the blood of my Muslim brothers and that of my family in Palestine … and in Iraq and in Afghanistan and in every location in which Muslim blood is shed has blocked my vision …filled my retinas with black lines so that I can see only our martyrs and injured being slain by America’s weapons and its support …. Yes, Sept. 11 is the anniversary of the fall of American arrogance into history’s garbage dump, and of the rebellion against injustice.

History is never black and white; there are always multiple facets to the past.  Nevertheless this remains a disheartening view into the frustration experienced by part of the Muslim world, desperately perverting Islam to further it’s short-sighted agenda. 

 

9/11 Thoughts by Kos

From today’s Daily Kos:

Like Attaturk, I think this day belongs to New Yorkers and Washingtonians, who bore the brunt of the attack. It’s not about me, and it’s certainly not about Bush, who after his famous Pet Goat moment cowardly fled and hid out in Nebraska in fear — the same kind of abject fear they’d spend the next five years selling to the American people.

For me, the worst part of the day was telling my mother, who had called me singing “happy birthday”, to please stop and go turn on the television. It was a jarring moment. She thought I was telling her to stop because I felt too old at 30. In reality, I felt like throwing up because the world was changing overnight, and not for the best.

Yet in the years since, it has been the New Yorkers who have shown the most resilience and courage. This was their trauma, and they have worked to recover why conservatives around the country scream for war and piddle their pants in terror while cowering under their beds.

He goes on:

…the strategy of the terrorists is to sow terror….and if sowing terror is their goal, this administration has made the terrorists’ strategy a resounding success. We, as a nation, have evolved from Patrick Henry’s inspirational, “Give me liberty or give me death!”, to Bush’s “Give me your liberties or you’ll die.” We have even color-coded our fear.

Couldn’t have said it better. I’ve always found it sickly ironic when the administration fights “fascist extremism” bent on compromising our national liberties and freedom by…compromising liberty and freedom (see: Japanese Internment 1941-1945). 9/11 changed our world overnight (which I will comment on later), but instead of rallying around freedom and a newly-founded national spirit, we have descended into an Orwellian nightmare of executive abuse and political mishap.

I know it’s sadly overshadowed by today’s historical significance, but happy birthday Kos. And happy birthday Mom. Let’s not forget that before September 11th, there was still a September 11th. As long as we can remember that amidst the emotion and turmoil of this day, we might be able to start coping, and perhaps move ahead into a brighter future.

 

5 Years Later…

 

Torture? You be the Judge…

In response to questions about 14 prisoners secretly sent to Guantanamo Bay by the CIA, President Bush today reinforced his stance that America will not use torture in its war on terror.  As the big man said himself:

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it — and I will not authorize it.

Weird, because CIA officers explained the methods of “interrogation” to ABC news last night:

The officers told ABC News there was a list of six progressively harsher techniques that were authorized, with the prisoner always handcuffed.

The first — the attention grab, involving the rough shaking of a prisoner.

Second — the attention slap, an open-handed slap to the face.

Third — belly slap, meant to cause temporary pain, but no internal injuries.

Fourth — long-term standing and sleep deprivation, 40 hours at least, described as the most effective technique.

Fifth — the cold room. Prisoners left naked in cells kept in the 50s and frequently doused with cold water.

The CIA sources say the sixth, and harshest, technique  was called “water boarding,” in which a prisoner’s face  was covered with cellophane, and water is poured over it (pictured above) — meant to trigger an unbearable gag reflex.

If this isn’t torture, then I don’t know what is.  All I can say is if President Bush is in fact earnest in his statement, then he and I have stark, irreconcilable differences in our “values”.

 

Rumsfeld: F in History 101

With copious amounts of free time aboard the cruise ship in Alaska, I read several books, some of which I felt I should have read a long time ago, including 1984 and The Autobiography of Malcolm X. These are truly excellent works of literature and fodder for a future post, but I must comment on the third book I read.

Barbara Leaming’s biography Kennedy: The Education of a Statesman highlights John F. Kennedy’s life in terms of political influence, specifically resulting from his studies of English history and political thought coupled with his admiration for Winston Churchill. Specifically, Kennedy’s praise of Churchill’s audacious stance against 1930’s appeasement policy towards Nazi Germany influenced Kennedy’s 1960 containment policy towards the Soviet Union, especially in regards to Cuba and Vietnam. Kennedy was a true student of history and used lessons from the past to reinforce the decisions of the present.

Donald Rumsfeld tried to do the same with very poor results. Last week at the American Legion annual convention in Salt Lake City, Rumsfeld critically responding to Iraq War pundits by proclaiming that they “seemed not to have learned history’s lessons” and comparing terrorist groups with a “new form of fascism”. Rumsfeld commented:

With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?

Rumsfeld’s overly-simplistic hijack of history is indicative of the current administration’s bungling of the Iraq War and their simpleton rhetoric that has fueled its justification for years. Questioning the Iraq War is tantamount to anti-patriotic activity according to most prominent Republicans, and Rumsfeld’s allusion to Hitler and Nazi Germany is further evidence of polarizing association to further this national divide.

The differences between the 21st Century and the 20th Century are abundant, but a historically critical eye to the 20th Century can immediately see the errors of Rumsfeld’s logic. The bipolar world of the 1960s coupled with the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union paralleled the fragile status quo of the 1930s in the world, where fascist regimes in Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo threatened the stability of the free world. Appeasement of these governments was the result of globally collective fear of another world war, resulting in concessions and broken promises. Six years of war and 60 million people killed resulted in a new world order with two nuclear superpowers. Rinse and repeat. Kennedy understood the similar aspects of his time and actively pursued a direct agenda with his Communist adversaries. That’s why he, despite less than three full years in office, is considered one of the greatest presidents.

But this analogy is only applicable if the conditional restrictions are in tact, and today’s globalized unipolar (or multipolar, as some might argue) world lacks both the structure and the dynamics of the mid-20th Century. No longer do nation states, independent of economic and institutional obligations, pose legitimate threats to one another. Communication and information-sharing creates transparency in global politics, lowering the cost of diplomacy. There is no more room for Cold War political games a la Dr. Strangelove in the Google and Wikipedia age.

The true threat comes from rogue states and global terror networks that threaten the stability of free nations. Rumsfeld is correct in assessing the potential danger these organizations pose, but is incorrect in his method of response. Alienation of global allies, military aggression, and blatant disregard for international law is not the alternative to “appeasement”. The Republican administration needs to reassess their “war on terror” and the Iraq War, specifically in regards to their treatment of political opposition. It’s one thing to be critical of an issue out of hand, and it’s another to establish a witch hunt against pundits.

It’s strangely convenient that I finished the book a few days before Rumsfeld gave his speech. Knowing what I do now as a great admirer of both Kennedy and Churchill, I can certain affirm that Rumsfeld does not belong in such company.

 

Outright Tacky and Unrefined Commercial…

I hate the new Jetta commercials. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, I’m referring to the ones where the viewer is presented with a casual conversation between two passengers, horribly interrupted by a head-on collision. It’s shocking and unnecessary, something I get enough of watching the daily news.

But if you really want tasteless (and rather inane if you ask me), check this out.

 

Welcome to IAD: Please Dump Your Applesauce Before Boarding…

A week before I flew out here, US missiles sent Al-Zarqawi shuffling off this mortal coil, creating an uproar in the Middle East and the inevitable retaliatory remarks from Al-Qaeda. Just my luck, airport security was increased, and I had to get to SFO at 3:30 in the morning instead of 4:30 for a 6:15 flight. Wonderful.

How appropriate is it, then, that four days before I’m supposed to fly back, another event of historical significance alters my flight plans? Scotland Yard foiled a planned terrorist attack involving liquid explosives; now I’m not allowed to bring, as Washington Dulles has described on their website, “liquids or gels of any size at the security checkpoint or in the aircraft cabin-including beverages, shampoo, suntan lotion, toothpaste, hair gel, and other items of similar consistency.” I’m not even allowed to bring applesauce on board.

A thought: how is this going to factor into the decision airlines made a year or so ago to stop serving food on flights? If a sandwich can be construed as a weapon (which is scary but possible), is United going to provide me one? I know I get hungry on long flights, and the last thing I consider is buying one of those $8 snack packs with crackers and cheese. Peanuts and ginger ale simply won’t cut it.

What’s rather unsettling about all of this is how airports enact these huge changes after the fact. Terrorist number one tries to blow up a plane with a shoe-bomb, now all passengers need to take their shoes off at security points. Terrorist number two tries to detonate liquid explosives over the Atlantic, now I have to dump out my Nalgene bottle before I go on board. Thankfully none of these plots had unfolded to their fatal end, but it makes you wonder what they’ll come up with next…

 

Skewed Perceptions and Foiled Bombings in England

Josh Marshall commented on Bush’s assessment of today’s foiled terrorist attacks in England:

President Bush just said the events in London are “a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.”

Also a pretty stark reminder that President Bush’s War on Terror, the way he’s chosen to fight it, is at best irrelevant to combatting this sort of danger. These are homegrown Brits apparently trying to blow up planes over the Atlantic. Good thing we’ve got a 150,000 or so troops in Iraq to take the fight to them.

Good point. This “war on terror” we are supposedly fighting abroad defies both reality and definition; it assumes that terrorism is an external threat when it is, in fact, internal. While this seems obvious to me, it seems to be confusing the policy-makers of the current administration.

 

I Hate to Admit it…but Coulter is Right (Pun not intended)

Every Thursday I glibly read Ann Coulter’s weekly column, usually in a vain attempt to pick the brain of an aggressive uber-conservative dominatrix. However, today’s column struck me as somewhat profound, not the typical Coulterian fare of insults and banter.

As she describes:

Democrats can’t come out and admit that they refuse to fight any war in defense of America, so they utter the “Where’s Osama?” incantation to pretend that they’d be doing something. To wit: dedicating the entire resources of the U.S. military to locating Osama bin Laden.

After making the capture of Osama bin Laden their sole objective in the war on terrorism, now Democrats expect us to believe they would have been fighting every other Muslim jihadist on the planet like mad — just not one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Saddam Hussein.

Read the rest here.

Coulter is correct in saying that the search for Osama Bin-Forgotten is an overly-simplistic and political excuse to maintain credibility in the war on terror. Lets face it: Islamic fundamentalism might have a poster boy in Bin Laden, but it by no means will end with his capture or demise. It’s hard to believe, but this problem has plagued the world before September 11th; Coulter provides great historical background in her piece.

Democrats could ironically learn from this piece. Tangible goals in the war on terror need to be provided by the liberal camp if they wish to regain political power in this nation. The security threat of terrorism and the current wars in the Middle East are all linked to national interest, power politics, and historical humiliation. It hurts me to admit Coulter is right, much as Fonzie had a difficult time admitting that he himself was wrong, but her assessment of Kerry and the, to bring back an old term, “vanilla” democrats is right on the money: their foreign policy, much like the party leadership, is in need of a makeover.

America needs to remove the iingrained association between Bin Laden and Islamic Fundamentalism, for one is simly a moving part in a more complex, maniacal machine. If we truly want to address this issue and protect our nation security, then perhaps we should take a page out of Coulter’s book and look to the broader horizon with more resolve.

 

Middle Eastern Politics for Dummies

Great interactive chart for those of you who want clarification or want to learn more about the intricate web of alliances and enemies in the Middle East.

 

Timid Journalism and the Israeli-Lebanese Conflict

First, here’s a disheartening quote from Markos Moulitsas, the creator of The Daily Kos on the current crisis on the Israeli-Lebanese border:

I grew up in a war zone. And there was one clear lesson I learned — there will never be peace unless both sides get tired of the fighting and start seeking an alternative.

It’s clear that in the Middle East, no one is sick of the fighting. They have centuries of grudges to resolve, and will continue fighting until they can get over them. And considering that they obviously have no interest in “getting over them”, we’re stuck with a war that will not end in any foreseeable future. It doesn’t matter what we bloggers say. It doesn’t matter what the President of the United States says. Or the United Nations. Or the usual bloviating gasbag pundits.

Any learned person of history will concede that the infinite conflict in the Middle East transcends our modern time and scope, but there’s something troubling about what Moulitsas declares.

Perhaps it’s the idea that he’s a journalist, and a popular one at that. By declaring that he doesn’t want to “talk” about Israeli-Arab issues, is Moulitsas simply turning his head and tuning out the explosions and screams from the Holy Land? What kind of media would that be? The same kind that downplayed the Holocaust in the 1930s or the Cambodian Genocide in the 1970s. Just because an issue is frustrating or atrocious doesn’t mean journalists can and should sidestep them for more convenient or alternative stories.

The strife in the Middle East has lasted a millennium and “war fatigue”, as Moulitsas hopes, doesn’t seem to be taking any effect. This will not stop if we turn a blind eye to it, for the conflict involves us all. Hezbollah fires Iranian rockets into Israel, the Israelis respond by bombing the Beirut airport with US planes. This is not a regional conflict: this is a proxy global conflict over fundamental ideological differences.

It’s the duty of journalists to deliver the facts on an issue to ultimately foster discussion. Especially within the blogosphere, the role of journalist has become fused with the columnist: now, everyone has an opinion, and a popular one at that (especially if you run the most popular blog on the internet). For a journalist to concede an issue as too frustrating or too controversial is more than disappointing; it’s unequivocally dispiriting.

Journalists are those pesky bold souls who search for answers where nobody is talking, press questions to an angry mob, and interview the downtrodden, hopeless souls of the earth. They are our eyes and ears, our intellectual curiosity’s physical manifestation. And most importantly, they materialize the collective conscience of society, elaborating on the finer points of our identity. To say that the situation in the Mid-East is hopeless is depressing, for it is optimism that ultimately fuels the journalist’s desire to ask questions and provide answers, despite the adage “the only good news is bad news”.

Just because talks have failed in the past and we feel like we’re in a constant state of deja-vu every time we see Israeli troops crossing into Lebanon doesn’t mean this situation cannot be dealt with just like any other. Even President Bush, our eloquent Commander-in-Chief, prescribed a solution for the current crisis: “What they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over.” Well, it seems like Moulitsas is burying his head in the sand like an ostrich, shielding his eyes from the “shit” storm out of Beirut. That’s fine, nobody is making anyone cover or discuss the horrendous situation in the Mid-East; but that doesn’t mean the situation has or will disappear.

 

Ann Coulter: Death to the New York Times!

Ann Coulter is up to her usual polarizing shenanigans, this time targeting the New York Times and the recent criticism it has taken over the leak of a story dealing with excessive oversight into financial records. Some excerpts:

Today, Times editors and columnists are doing what liberals always do when they’re caught red-handed committing treason: They scream that they’re being “intimidated” before hurling more invective. This is getting to be like listening to the Soviet Union complaining about the intimidation coming from Finland.

Liberals are always play-acting that they are under some monstrous attack from the right wing as they insouciantly place all Americans in danger. Their default position is umbrage, bordering on high dudgeon.

We’ve had to listen to them whine for 50 years about the brute Joe McCarthy, whose name liberals blackened while sheltering Soviet spies.

I absolutely love how Ms. Coulter simply imagines liberals “screaming” about attacks upon our liberty while Republicans sit back and actively fight for our own security. And “whining” about Joe McCarthy? Since when did standing up for our rights amidst an encroaching overlord become “treason”? And who exactly is Ms. Coulter speaking on behalf of? Conservatives or neo-fascists? Coulter’s messages are unintelligible and alienating, even to the party she supposedly speaks for.

You can read the rest of her post here if you feel like it.

I know I’m not the only person who thinks this article, like the author, is demented. Extremism, I suppose, is like tequila: its good, but only in occasional small quantities and on the right occasion. If this is the case, then Ann Coulter is throwing a party and is taking body shots off of every person in the room.

Ann Coulter’s mouth (and its manifestation in text form) is an anus spitting out untold buckets of shit. The fact that she proposes the NY Times building should have been targeted by terrorists and her desire to “execute” traitors shows that in her pursuit of the destruction of liberalism she has lost what heart and soul she might have once had. She is the manifestation of what America should not become: loathing paranoid entities bent on establishing an illusion of security.

Her recent criticism of 9/11 widows and Arab-Americans simply reinforces a past point: just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you should exploit it for disgusting means.

Extremism is an inevitable result of passion, and no doubt Coulter is passionate. But her response is to instigate, not enlighten. She is quick to condemn, but seldomly prescribes any solutions. She’s like the ex-girlfriend we have all had: attractive (yes, I am strangely attracted to the anti-Christ in svelte female form, I do not know why nor can I help it) no doubt, but extraordinarily able to push every single button we have. Yet we constantly put up with her incessant ranting and absorb it with open ears. Why?

I’m convinced that she, like the aforementioned ex-girlfriend, gets a rise out of it. Well, congrats Ms. Coulter, because you once again succeeded at what you do best: piss me off.