So much for full disclosure

Remember during the hearings on the Abu Ghraib torture when the witnesses in the Bush administration said that "the difference between us other governments is that we disclose our faults and will chase all leads to find out who's at fault?" Remember that?
Well, here's what it's come down to. Standard stonewalling and politics.

I smell a rat

These two paragraphs appear at the end of an article in Middle East Online.

"Amid the unrest US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the key architects of the US-led invasion, and Kevin Tebbit, the permanent secretary at Britain's ministry of defence met Iraq's new prime minister and others in Baghdad to discuss their countries' future ties.

"The visits come as both the United States and Britain work to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the government, which is due to take limited power once the coalition hands back sovereignty at the end of the month."

A "Status of Forces Agreement" is the formal name for the contract with various nations under which the US operates it bases worldwide, including Japan, Germany, Kuwait and so forth. They are binding documents that by their terms last for decades and survive changes in government.

So--Wolfie and Rummie and Bush are trying to bamboozle Iraq (and the US and the world) into signing off on such a significant, long-term agreement as negotiated with the interim government (the one that's "completely sovereign," according to them, but not sovereign enough to take custody of Saddam, for example) before an elected government takes over, knowing that the interim government is a US stooge.

I'll check around to see if anybody else has noted this development and report back.

Update: This WaPo article says that because the interim government has agreed not to subject US troops to its local laws, a status of forces agreement isn't needed. So what's Wolfie doing in Baghdad?

Oops

Bremer funds a poll of Iraqis last month to learn what the "man in the street" thinks of us, specifically, whether they want us to leave or stay, and how they regard our troops, and so forth. It's so negative that Bremer has tried to hide the results, to no avail, however.

Never mind

If I were a member of the US military--the Marines in Fallujah, the Army in Najaf--I'd be mightily pissed off. Scores of soldiers were killed (not to mention Iraqis) from the invasions of those town, in Fallujah to capture those who killed and mutilated the four "civilian contractors," in Najaf to "capture or kill" al-Sadr for his alleged participation in the killing of a cleric. In both cases, however, the armed forces didn't complete their mission, handing responsibility over to the Iraqi "security forces" who, we're learning, aren't doing their job.

I'd hate to be the parent or kid or loved one of a soldier who lost his life or limb in those exercises, in view of the obvious fact that the incursions were called off because of the political exigencies of Bush's campaign director.

Sick, sick, sick

Language buried in the final resolution of the recent G-8 summit meeting, as it relates forgiveness of Iraq's indebtedness, contains the insidiously obtuse language quoted below. This is what it really means: We well-heeled nations will reduce portions of the debt (the debt having been incurred by Saddam, and long touted by Bush as an unfair, crippling burden on Iraq's citizens) if Iraq follows the previously-imposed "privatization" of its commerce, as called for by the International Monetary Fund; that it keeps up its payments (sustainability); and that these measures are effected by Iraq before the elected government is in place, i.e., "in 2004."

"Debt reduction is critical if the Iraqi people are to have the opportunity to build a free and prosperous nation. The reduction should be provided in connection with an IMF program, and sufficient to ensure sustainability taking into account the recent IMF analysis. We will work with each other, within the Paris Club, and with non-Paris Club creditors, to achieve that objective in 2004."

Site

Tipping point

The Carl Rove machine has adopted a prophylactic defense of the president in the face of the wave of lies, errors and outrages his administration has perpetrated on the US public and the world. Their method is simple: With the arising of each new revelation an immediate staunching counterattack is launched, as with the attacks on Treasury Secretary O'Neill, intelligence chief Clark, Ambassador Wilson and so forth. Rove knows that unless immediately righted by counterattack, his ship of state will sink.

To counter Rove's plan, the attacks on Bush's lies and misdeeds must become so pervasive, so overwhelming, that finally there are too many of them to allow righting, so that the ship becomes inalterably swamped. With the new revelations of miscalculation of terrorism attacks, the condemnation of Bush by past diplomats, the ongoing prisoner-abuse scandal, the continuing deaths in Iraq and the deterioration of the status in Afghanistan--at some time, these have to weigh too heavily on Bush to allow him, even with the compliant, correcting media, to bail himself out of his self-created political debacle.

Soldier Who Robbed Bank Receives Help

I've been saying since the first hours of shock and awe that our people are going to come home traumatized.

Link

Criminal Probes of Our Troops

Give me a break. We sent them over there to kill people. We knew darn well they'd become killers.

Top News Article | Reuters.com

Not Worth It!

I'll bet this is harder to swallow than that pretzel was ...

A majority of U.S. voters now say it was not worth going to war in Iraq and feel the United States is getting bogged down there, according to a Los Angeles Times poll published on Friday.

Top News Article | Reuters.com

Can't we plant this guy?

My God, how long must we endure these egregious eulogies, these silly ceremonies, this platitudinous speechifying on Ronnie's death? If you were alive and aware during his presidency, you'd be shocked at all this piffle over his passing. I'm sure Reagan--if he's the man all these speeches say he is--is appalled.

Never mind

The earlier report by the Bush administration that terrorism is abating is, quite simply, wrong, the product of cooked books.

I'm going fucking nuts

with the ceaseless commemoratives of Reagan. That's all I can find on the news channels--hour after hour of pulp banter about his fine qualities, ignoring Iran/Contra, the multiple scandals of his administration and his unstinting retribution against those less fortunate than he. The man was no saint. He wasn't even a good person. He was an actor, and not much of one at that, who stumbled through eight mediocre years as our chief executive.

So--I decided to tune to Turner Classic Movies channel, for a respite from all the mainstream mendacity. Guess what: A series of Reagan features in honor of his death.

I'm leaving America, no shit. Be back when Carter dies.

Meanwhile, back on the ground

The Security Council passed, unanimously, the US/UK resolution on the handover of authority in Iraq. The G-8 group passed, unanimously, the US-sponsored resolution concerning democratization of the Middle East. Bush, say some pundits, is soaring with these successes. Soaring, however, is not quite the proper word to apply to the situation in Iraq, where the reality is that the violence is unabated. Apparently, the Iraqis don't know how well off they are.

Indescribable

As a writer, I'm not pleased to admit that I can't find a word--can't even find an approximation--to capture the outrage I feel upon hearing BBC's radio broadcast a moment ago of several UN Security Council members' reaction to their passage of the mealy-tongued Iraq-"self-government" resolution yesterday. The diplomats used phrases like, "recognizing the new reality," "putting the past behind us," and "coming together in the interests of Iraq's future."
So--the US/UK are forgiven. Everything is coming up roses. The thousands of dead and maimed and tortured Iraqis are forgotten, as are the young American and British troops who gave their lives and limbs for this patent violation of the UN Charter and international law. The violence we've done to the tenets of world order by the lying and intimidation we used to invade Iraq is subsumed in the slime of realpolitik. All's well that ends well. The end justifies the means.
I'll never--never--accede to such a cynical view of human governance. It's not governance at all, but an exercise in facile fakery by which those in power maintain their positions, then attempt to justify our keeping them there.
The two-year debacle we've witnessed within the United Nations (and, chiefly, without it) shows me this: Nothing has changed in the world order, or in the conduct of human affairs. We are, at base, still animals. Might, as always, makes right.

Call me insensitive, call me crass

but I'm already bored blind by remembrances of Ronald Reagan on TV during this week of mourning--and it's only Tuesday!

Crunch time

The proposed US/UK Security Council resolution on Iraq has been revised by the US four times, each time ceding more authority to Iraq's interim government, including the power to tell the US military to leave the country. Of course the US knows that that won't happen, but what might happen is that there is a disagreement between the interim government and the US Army or Marines over various military actions in Iraq.

A typical example would be the Fallujah debacle, in which the maltreatment of four "civilian" workers (read, mercenaries) led to the Marines' assault on Fallujah with hundreds dead on both sides, eventually leading to a withdrawal by the US and Fallujah in the hands of Sunni sheiks and their minions. (BTW--We never caught the Iraqis--if they were Iraqis--who killed the contractors, just as the US is pulling out of the Shiite towns without "capturing or killing" al-Sadr, which was the reason we invaded those towns.)

So, what happens if some US general, or Rummie or someone decides to launch an invasion of some segment of Iraq, perhaps on "intelligence" that al-Qaeda is lodged there or that Iranians or Syrians are sneaking in and up to no good? And, let's say, the interim government fears that such an action might end up killing hundreds of its citizens, as it might well do?

Well, as of the latest draft, we don't know. The two entities are supposed to exercise "close coordination" of such exercises.

What does that mean? Does it sound like "full sovereignty" to you?

The US/UK wants a vote on this draft Tuesday. France and Algeria are resisting, unless the above question is clarified, giving the Iraqis the power to negate any US military action. Sounds right to me, but who knows how long they can hold out against pressure from the other Security Council members, who are less strident on the subject.

Of course my dream is that just such a situation as I've described above comes to pass. The US makes a military move over the objection of the interim government and refuses to desist. The interim government appeals to the UN and/or calls out its own soldiers and the US is shown to be the warmongers that it lately has become. On Bush's watch, of course.

He who lives by the media dies by the media

Whoever planned Bush's sojourn to Europe to grab media attention around D-Day's 60th anniversary must be miffed that Ronnie chose this weekend to die. Bush's PR folks couldn't plan for this, of course, but are learning that the media are such whores that they'll cover the latest video-worthy event no matter what it is, and "great man" attributions to Reagan, plus peals of memorials and remembrances trump time-worn D-Day anytime.

Kinda like how Bush benefited from the coverage of the violence he inflicted on Iraq. He's now suffering from the media's coverage of the violence of "reconstructed Iraq."

Whatever goes around comes around.

I have two reactions to Rummie's speech yesterday

the report of which is headlined in the Seattle Times as follows: "Rumsfeld Fears Losing War on Terrorism." Rummie was in Bangladesh seeking support for the war in Iraq, fretting that the terrorists are churning out recruits faster than we can kill them.

My first reaction is, Wow! What an admission. Wouldn't you think that might make the mass media?

My second reaction is: Duh. And so you want more bombing and killing?

What the hell...

Call me a gossip, a scandal monger, whatever. Long ago I blogged on the prospect of designating Bush crazy, somehow scaring the undecideds to his opponent. Well, I'll spread this report, just doing my part.

Drip, drip, drip

Tenet resigns (plus a deputy operative in the CIA) on the eve of a stinging report about the intelligence before 9/11. Drip. That report will be issued in a couple of weeks. Drip. It will be followed by a report on the intelligence that was used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. Drip. Bush hires a lawyer to deal with the Valerie Plame disclosure. Drip. Indictments in that matter are likely imminent. Drip. Afghanistan is seething before its national election in September. Drip. The turnover in Baghdad is problematical and may lead to further violence, possibly with tension between the "coalition" and the interim government. Drip. The prisoner-abuse trials and investigations are just getting started, with subpoenas being issued for higher-ups, including Rummie and Wolfowitz. Drip. And I haven't enumerated the bribery scandal over the passage of the Medicare drug bill, the investigation of which is still pending, nor the numerous investigations of Halliburton, B&R and others for larceny in the reconstruction of Iraq, nor the numerous other scandals among Bush-supporting businesses, including Enron and its boss, "Kenny-boy".
When the ground becomes saturated, the dripping will turn into a flood and will carry Bush out of office. Right?