Benazir Bhutto Plays A Cynical Hand After Karachi Bombing

Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf has intensified the military operation against militants in the northwest after the apparent suicide attack against Benazir Bhutto last week in Karachi which killed 138 people and injured 500 others (more or less; reports vary). The offensive is apparently aimed at the fundamentalist cleric Maulana Fazlullah [photo], known for his fiery radio speeches, who recently has been encouraging his followers to attack police and military targets.

According to one recent report, Pakistani troops have his compound surrounded and have been shelling the area. Meanwhile other reports indicate that he's probably not there, and that the shelling seems directed at the area, not the compound. On Thursday in Swat, an apparent suicide bomber struck a military truck loaded with ammunition, which detonated, and when the smoke had cleared, another 20 people were dead. Or 30, depending on whom you believe.

Meanwhile, in Karachi, police have released two photographs of reconstructed heads they say came from suicide bombers who attacked the procession of Benazir Bhutto.

Benazir Bhutto's family have a long and difficult history in Pakistani politics. Benazir herself has served as Prime Minister twice, returned after living abroad for eight years, apparently to avoid charges of corruption. But she had recently been granted amnesty and a chance to participate in the upcoming elections, in which she is expected to become Prime Minister once again.

This event-in-waiting combined with the presumed ratification by the Supreme Court of President General Musharraf's "election", would supposedly stabilize Pakistani politics. And when President General Musharraf resigns his commission as Army Chief of Staff, this will give Pakistan a "civilian democracy" according to Musharraf and Bhutto and their American "friends".

Even though the police have released photos of the men who allegedly the bombs last week, nobody seems to know anything about them. Who were they? Where did they come from? How were they connected? Or did they just happen to show up at the same time with the same idea?

The mystery has been treated as solved in the Western media; al Qaeda did it. Of course. And how do we know? The modus operandi was reminiscent of other al Qaeda incidents. Two bombs went off; multiple attack is a signature of al Qaeda, so therefore they did it. But two lines of questioning emerge.

First, if these are pictures of two different bombers why do they appear to show damage to the same parts of the face? News reports have made the point that one appears to be clean-shaven whereas the other does not. How hard would it be to take a picture, shave the face, and take another picture, with much different lighting? One cannot help but wonder.

And even more pertinent, perhaps: How hard would it be for another terrorist organization to arrange for two bombs to go off in rapid succession? Nobody even wants to ask that question, let alone answer it. But then again in the Western media nobody wants to admit that there are many terrorist groups in the world and al Qaeda isn't even the most dangerous of them.

For example, a terrorist group bombed an air force base recently. Bombed as in dropped a bomb from an airplane. Did you know that? It was in Sri Lanka and the bombers were Tamil Tigers, aka LTTE, not aka al Qaeda, so you probably didn't even hear about it, did you?

How about this? LTTE are not considered to be connected to al Qaeda but they have been supported by the ISI, Pakistan's notorious intelligence agency. ISI was established by CIA to run covert ops in Pakistan. ISI were sponsors of the Taliban, who allegedly protected al Qaeda. ISI is tightly connected to the Pakistani military and General Pervez Musharraf is Chief of Staff and President and an ally of the US in the Global War on Terror.

Benazir Bhutto, who was apparently the target of the apparent suicide attack, has been making vague accusations against certain elements within the Pakistani government, suggesting that friends of President General Musharraf may have been behind the attack. Benazir Bhutto is a very clever politician.

Others are suggesting that Ms. Bhutto herself was responsible for the carnage. And they do seem to have a point, in more ways than one. What a tangled web.

The attack came after midnight. The procession had been moving since early in the afternoon, and they were only about halfway to their destination. Bhutto, who says she received multiple threats of suicide bombings, was offered a helicopter ride from the airport, but she chose have hundreds of thousands of people walking across the city together for eighteen hours.

Her party, the PPP, had brought people in from elsewhere in the country, as reported by Andrew Buncombe in The Independent:

The crowds were large and enthusiastic. Having bussed in supporters from all parts of Pakistan, officials from Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party had ensured hundreds of thousands were waiting for her. Some might have been there simply because they were told to go, others simply because they were curious. Some had been paid £4 a day – a lot of money to a poor person in Pakistan – to attend. It did not matter. What was essential was that the television cameras that evening would reveal large, noisy crowds and a waving Ms Bhutto making her way through them.

The people were brought in to provide a show of support as well as "security", which not surprisingly turned into a human shield, and an ineffective one at that. Some observers have remarked that Bhutto didn't seem too worried about security. She was provided an armored truck, with a bulletproof shield on top. She had the shield removed and rode on top of the truck, with some of her supporters. Her security forces are said to have apprehended somebody with weapons and another somebody with a suicide vest; those stories have dropped from the horizon as far as I know.

Victoria Schofield was atop the truck when the explosions happened, and she wrote a piece for The Telegraph which begins like this:

It was just after midnight when the first explosion went off, with such force that I was blown out of my seat.

I had been dozing on the upper deck of Benazir Bhutto's open-air bus nine hours after it set off from Karachi's airport, images of the ecstatic crowds that had earlier greeted her in the heat of the day still flashing through my mind.

By now a half-moon was shining, but on the dimly lit streets the crowds roared with excitement as we approached.

Then came the bang. I opened my eyes to find I had been thrown to the floor, surrounded by a dozen others including some of Benazir's relatives, friends and party workers.

My first thought was that it had been an unusually large firework. But Benazir's cousin, just beside me, said: "No, that was a bomb." Our instinct was to get out of the vehicle but in the darkness another voice urged: "Wait, there could be another explosion."

Within the same breath, as we lay huddled together, another, more deafening blast shook the bus and we were showered with what felt like heavy rose petals. Then I realised the chilling truth: they were flakes of human flesh.

Some 139 people among the crowd had been killed, it emerged over the next few hours.

The common line -- delivered by everyone from Pervez Musharraf to Benazir Bhutto to Richard Boucher to John Negroponte to Condoleeza Rice to Dear Leader himself -- goes like this: It must have been fundamentalist Muslim extremist militants who did this because they hate hate hate women and they hate hate hate freedom and they hate hate hate democracy.

Aside from the standard Western line (al Qaeda did it), there's the alternative theory (the Taliban also hate hate hate democracy, you know!) and then perhaps once again the ISI might sneak into the picture, and then perhaps certain unnamed friends of President General Musharraf come into the picture, or at least that's the way Benazir Bhutto is trying to lead us. She's a very clever politician.

More from Victoria Schofield:

Benazir said that she did not believe that her political opponents in the immigrant MQM party were responsible. But she knows that she has other enemies: the religious Right who have never accepted a woman leading a Muslim state; al-Qaeda and Taliban supporters who oppose her Western liberal ideals; rogue elements of the intelligence agencies with no heed for government policy.

And yes, she reminded us, she had received a "friendly" warning that she should not return because an attack would be made. "It was the human shield of the boys walking by the side of the bus who protected us," she said. "And the fact that it was armour-plated. Otherwise we might all have died."

She told how she had managed to escape. Sitting at the back of the lower deck when the first explosion came, "I ducked because my husband had always told me if anything happens to duck."

She had also recalled that attacks often come in twos or threes, so only after the second explosion did she escape to the security Jeep trailing her.

Benazir Bhutto paints herself as a paragon of democracy. But the deal she made with Musharraf -- allowing her to return, probably to a position of power, and granting her amnesty -- is nothing if not anti-democratic. Bhutto always stood as an opponent of the military, but now she's joining with a General, in a "democratic election process" that excludes Nawaz Sharif, another former Prime Minister, who was arrested and deported immediately upon his attempted return to Pakistan in September. What a tangled web!

Benazir Bhutto continues to style herself the victim of the attack, despite the rather glaring fact that she retired from the roof and went inside the armored truck just a few minutes before the bombs went off. She was unhurt but her human shield suffered grievous damage -- the bloodiest terrorist attack in Pakistan's history, or "Pakistan's 9/11", as some have described it.

But "Benazir Bhutto, champion of democracy and victim of terror in Karachi" doesn't quite ring for her, and her support among the people of the country -- which some analysts thought would skyrocket in the aftermath of the attack -- has fallen.

The most cogent critics of Benazir Bhutto have been her neice Fatima and the former captain of the national cricket team, Imran Khan, who is now an opposition politician.

To introduce Imran Khan, here's a quick biography from Business Week: Keeping it Cricket

After a remarkable career as captain of Pakistan's national cricket team, Imran Khan parlayed his fame and fortune into a successful career as one of Pakistan's most prominent politicians.

Following his retirement from international cricket in 1992, Khan founded the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital & Research Center.

Four years later, Khan founded the Movement for Justice, a sociopolitical movement with the intent to expose the supposed corruption of Pakistan's ruling elite.

Khan eventually won a place in Parliament in 2002 and has been a popular, albeit controversial member ever since.

The piece from Business Week is a bit understated. Imran Khan was a fantastic cricketer. This matters more than you might think.

Here are some comments from Imran Khan regarding the Karachi bombings, from AFP : Bhutto 'to blame' for attack: Imran Khan

Former Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto has "only herself to blame" for the deadly suicide attack on her homecoming parade, opposition politician Imran Khan said.

The former Pakistan cricket captain said Bhutto had made herself an assassination target by striking a deal with President Pervez Musharraf which "deliberately sabotaged the democratic process."

"The bombing of Benazir Bhutto's cavalcade as she paraded through Karachi on Thursday night was a tragedy almost waiting to happen. You could argue it was inevitable," he wrote in the Sunday Telegraph.

"Everyone here knew there was going to be a huge crowd turning up to see her return after eight years in self-imposed exile. Everyone also knows that there has been a spate of suicide bombings in Pakistan lately."

"This may sound equally harsh, but she has only herself to blame," he said.

Bhutto has condemned the blasts, which killed 139 people Thursday night hours after Bhutto returned from eight years in self-imposed exile, as an "attack on democracy."

But Khan said Bhutto's deal with Musharraf, which gave her an amnesty from corruption charges, undermined democracy.

"The sad thing is, she didn't need to do it. Musharraf was sinking and isolated. He was on the point of declaring a state of emergency. Just when it looked as if he had no lifelines left, Benazir came back and bailed him out.

"Worse, by publicly siding with a dictator, she has deliberately sabotaged the democratic process.

Khan said Musharraf has "dismantled state institutions, such as an independent judiciary and an election commission, and has introduced a controlled assembly, a controlled prime minister and a controlled media.

"The polls show he can only win this next election if he massively rigs it. That is what he did in 2002, as confirmed by the EU monitoring team.

"Given the way that she has undermined democracy by siding with Musharraf, I don't know how Benazir has the nerve to say that the 130 people killed in those bomb blasts sacrificed their lives for the sake of democracy in Pakistan."

Benazir's neice Fatima has a slightly different understanding of the situation.

From Singapore's Electric New Paper : Bhutto vs Bhutto: Niece blames aunt for Pakistan suicide bomb deaths: 'They died for Benazir's grand show' (with my emphasis, here and elsewhere):

Ms Fatima, a 25-year-old poet and newspaper columnist, said the former Pakistan prime minister had endangered the victims for the sake of personal theatre.
...

She accused her aunt of protecting herself with an armoured truck, while bringing in hundreds of thousands of supporters by bus, despite warnings of an attack.

'They died for this personal theatre of hers, they died for this personal show,' she said.

Ms Fatima is the daughter of Ms Benazir's late brother, Murtaza, who was killed by police in Karachi in 1996 amid murky circumstances that led to the collapse of Benazir's second term in government.

Mr Murtaza led a left-wing extremist group after military ruler Zia-ul-Haq executed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1979 and then fell out with his sister over what he felt was her betrayal of their father's political legacy.

Ms Benazir has blamed Islamic extremists, possibly with links to rogue or former intelligence agents, for the attack.

Her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) dismissed Ms Fatima's accusation as 'senseless'.

Reacting to the comments made by Ms Benazir's enstranged niece, Ms Benazir's key aide, fellow PPP leader Sherry Rehman has angrily retorted to Fatima's comments dismissing them as 'inappropriate'.

She told a private television channel: 'Fatima Bhutto is young and emotional, she does not even know what she is saying and is also unaware of the reality and politics of the country.

On the contrary, clearly...

'Benazir Bhutto had come to Pakistan with a message of peace, and it is inappropriate for Fatima to give such a statement against her family.'

Authorities are questioning three people from the south of Punjab province over the attack.

Meanwhile, the PPP has also vowed to defy a planned ban on political rallies in the run-up to general elections. It is seen as a key step to restoring civilian rule here.

To clarify: it's the election that's seen -- by some -- as restoring civilian rule and democracy, not the ban on political rallies or the pledge to defy that ban, which now has apparently been canceled.

Others see through the subterfuge, of course, and of these people it is often said, "They don't understand..."

But this Radio Australia interview with Fatima Bhutto seems to belie that notion:

Barely a week back in Pakistan, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto continues to generate controversy with her decision to return from eight years of self-imposed exile. The government is now proposing banning large rallies ahead of January's parliamentary elections, to avoid a repeat of last week's deadly suicide bombings in Karachi, which killed 139 people. To discourage similar attacks, Ms Bhutto is now proposing taking her campaign online, after being accused by opponents and even members of her family, of ignoring death threats, putting her supporters at risk. Critics include Ms Bhutto's 25-year-old niece, Fatima Bhutto. Her father is Benazir's late brother Murtaza, who was killed in 1996 amid murky circumstances that led to the collapse of Ms Bhutto's second government.

BHUTTO: What I do feel, not as a niece, what a do feel as a member of the media in Pakistan, as a member of the press and as a citizen of Karachi. I think that the whole performance of her return was very dangerous to the city and to these people and she bears responsibility for these 140 lives that have been lost.

LOPRESTI: There has been a lot of talk about that homecoming parade last Thursday and the suicide bombings that ripped through the procession. So are you saying that you believe that she is to blame for that carnage, given that she was warned?

BHUTTO: Well, I'll tell you, there was a massive campaign on behalf of the party regarding her return. The first part of that was in the television spot every half-an-hour, full-page ads in newspapers and the second part is that every party officer, every party bearer, every member of assembly from a district level through a national level was told to fill buses, to fill trucks, to fill rickshaws, to fill taxis, and bring them to Karachi for her arrival, so they could create disruption at this time.

Now these 200,000 people that were bused, their transport was paid for by Benazir's party, their accommodation in Karachi was taken care of by Benazir's party and their meals were taken care of. They were here on her behalf at her invitation. And for her to come out after the fact and say I knew there was a danger of a suicide bombing and I was warned that an attack would take place - well, it's very irresponsible of her to place all these peoples' lives at risk, while she herself was very protected. She had a bulletproof car and she spoke behind fortified steel containers, but these people were out in the open.

LOPRESTI: Do you think she's an opportunist?

BHUTTO: Politically, Benazir is a machine that thrives on the fear of victimisation. The chaos that follows this kind of violence has always proved very, very convenient for her and she's always trying to portray herself as a prime minister wrongly accused on corruption charges, a former leader in exile. And that's what's she doing now as well, is that she's saying this attack was an attack on democracy. Absolutely not. We have been fighting for democracy for the last eight years, while she was in exile. This attack was not an attack on democracy, it was an attack on her.

LOPRESTI: Well, if I could just take up that point that you make about democracy in Pakistan. I mean she is able to return to Pakistan after General Musharraf dropped the corruption charges against her. In return, he has an ally and has secured his position for now. Given that she has effectively bailed President Musharraf out, because he was sinking politically and was on the verge of declaring a state of emergency, has she - in your view - derailed the democratic political process?

BHUTTO: Yes, absolutely. I'll tell you why. First of all, the deal under which she came back, the terms that were set, including Musharraf dropping her corruption charges, I mean this has proved very dangerous for this country, because first of all, not only will it wipe out 20 years' worth of corruption charges and violence from various politicians, bureaucrats and bankers, but it also includes a provision that will make it virtually impossible for citizens of this country to file charges against a sitting parliamentarian. These are very dangerous precedents first of all. And then secondly, Benazir's return and this violence that followed her has now led people to say well, we had been planning for elections for January 2008, but in light of this silence, maybe public rallies should be banned.

LOPRESTI: And she is saying she's suggesting to hold virtual rallies and campaign by telephone?

BHUTTO: Well, you know what, unfortunately for Ms Bhutto we live in a very poor country, we live in a developing country and the majority of our citizens do not have access to the internet, the majority of our citizens are illiterate, so how does she propose to embark on an internet campaign. That's ridiculous and it shows how out of touch she is with the political reality in Pakistan.

LOPRESTI: Do you think that Benazir Bhutto is also making herself a target for assassination, given that she is siding with the president, who is hugely unpopular in Pakistan and viewed as a stooge for the Americans?

BHUTTO: It's not allying herself with Musharraf that has caused this violence. The reason that there is a danger towards her life is because she's allied herself to neoconservatives in the Bush White House. For example before her return, she gave statements saying that once elected prime minister for the third time, which she assumes is going to be a given, she would then allow America to come in and hunt for Osama in Pakistan proper and bring the war to our cities, to Karachi, to Islamabad, to Lahore. Now this dug very sharply amongst Pakistanis for someone to come in and say almost giddily that they would allow American troops within our country. This is a great betrayal.

LOPRESTI: Are these the reasons why you've been quoted as saying I'm scared for what this means for the country, meaning her return. Is it repulsive?

BHUTTO: Absolutely, I mean first of all the ordinance that she's come back under is unbelievable. I mean it actively disempowers the people. Benazir herself is accused of taking an estimated amount of $US2.5 billion out of this country, and that's one person and to just give the general amnesty and wipe the slate clean, that is a very dangerous precedent for this country. And her alliance with the pro-neocon agenda is very frightening for us, because her advancement to power through the Bush White House and through these statements comes at the cost of our lives.

I disagree with Fatima Bhutto and Imran Khan to the extent that they disagree with each other. It's not a question of whether Benazir Bhutto has allied herself with Pervez Musharraf or George Bush or the neoconservatives in Washington. The combination is more powerful than any single issue, in my most humble estimation.

UPDATE: BBC News reports another public appearance by Benazir Bhutto, with much different security arrangements: Bhutto visits ancestral village

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has visited her ancestral village near Larkana in southern Sindh province, amid heavy security.

It was her first public trip outside Karachi since nearly 140 people were killed in an assassination attempt.
...

At her home village, Ms Bhutto prayed at the tomb of her executed father, former PM Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

At her home village of Garhi Khuda Baksh, Ms Bhutto was greeted by about 4,000 supporters who chanted "Long Live Bhutto" and cheered as Ms Bhutto arrived in a bullet-proof vehicle.

Earlier, her convoy to Karachi airport, from where she flew to Sukkur, had a strong police escort. Side roads along the route were sealed off.

"It's a long time since I've been here and I thank God for giving me the opportunity to put my feet on my homeland once again, to see the love of my people," Bhutto said aboard the plane before it landed in Sukkur, Reuters said.

"This has strengthened me to do what I can to save Pakistan by saving democracy, which is so essential to giving people safety, security and better prospects," she said.

Dozens of activists from the PPP, armed with AK-47s, have been guarding her father's tomb.

The activists cordoned off the area near the tomb and refused access even to police, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

The BBC has more but this is the gist of it, I think.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf granted Ms Bhutto an amnesty from corruption charges that allowed her to return to Pakistan.

She has been negotiating with Gen Musharraf over a possible power-sharing deal.
...

"People are just being butchered and it has to stop, somebody has to find a solution and my solution is let's restore democracy," she told a news conference before leaving Karachi.

Ah yes! What must the Pakistani people be thinking?

Ah yes! Lets work out another backroom deal to save Pakistan by restoring democracy! Maybe the Americans can help us. I hear they're trying to get rid of their democracy!

What a tangled web indeed.

Memo To Robert Gates From European Allies: The War In Afghanistan Is Lost

The war in Afghanistan -- never a true or noble cause -- is now being described by America's most important European allies as a lost cause as well. Unfortunately, "lost" in this sense does not mean "finished".

The repercussions from this failed war will be immense and very ugly -- especially because the Americans still can't see that it's lost.

The Telegraph : Afghanistan is lost, says Lord Ashdown

Nato has "lost in Afghanistan" and its failure to bring stability there could provoke a regional sectarian war "on a grand scale", according to Lord Ashdown.

The former United Nations High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina delivered his dire prediction after being proposed as a new "super envoy" role in Afghanistan.

Lord Ashdown said: "We have lost, I think, and success is now unlikely."
...

Lord Ashdown added: "I believe losing in Afghanistan is worse than losing in Iraq. It will mean that Pakistan will fall and it will have serious implications internally for the security of our own countries and will instigate a wider Shiite [Shia], Sunni regional war on a grand scale.

If there is any solution to be found, it lies mainly in the realm of politics.

This Is London : War with Taliban 'could last for years' warns defence chief

British troops could remain in Afghanistan for "decades", the head of the Armed Forces warned yesterday.

And even then the conflict will only be resolved by a political deal - after talks with Taliban leaders, said Sir Jock Stirrup.

In an interview, the Chief of Defence Staff said: 'In terms of bringing Afghanistan into its rightful place in the 21st century, that is an enormous project, that will engage the international community, frankly, for decades.

"There is a common misperception that the issues in Afghanistan, and indeed elsewhere around the world, can be dealt with by military means.

"That's a false perception. The military is a key, an essential element in dealing with those problems, but by and large these problems can only be resolved politically."

It's too bad the Americans don't understand any of this.

The Guardian : Gates Doubts Europeans' War Commitment

Defense Secretary Robert Gates [photo] on Thursday questioned the commitment of some NATO allies to winning in Afghanistan, saying the outcome there is at "real risk" because some European nations are unwilling to provide enough troops and resources to the mission.
...

"If an alliance of the world's greatest democracies cannot summon the will to get the job done in a mission that we agree is morally just and vital to our security," he told the European army generals, "then our citizens may begin to question both the worth of the mission and the utility of the 60-year-old trans-Atlantic security project itself," referring to NATO, which was created in 1949.

I have bad news for Robert Gates.

First, The "getting the job done" is a fantasy. The job itself is impossible. Nobody has ever conquered Afghanistan, and nobody ever will.

Second, we do not agree that the war is morally just. We remember the Taliban's offer to hand over Osama bin Laden if the Bush administration could provide evidence that he was responsible for 9/11. Six years later, even the FBI doesn't have such evidence. Thus, the assumptions on which the war is declared to be morally just and noble are incorrect -- perhaps intentionally misleading. Note that this applies not only to the war in Afghanistan but to the entire "war on terror".

Third, it would be a good thing if our citizens began to question the worth of the mission. Many of them are already doing so. It would be an even better thing if our citizens begin to question the worth of the politicians who sent us on that mission, and the false pretext on which that mission is based. And some of them are doing that as well.

On second thought, maybe none of this is news to Robert Gates. Maybe he knows all these things already. But clearly he cannot say them.

And that's why we have bloggers.

Condoleeza Rice Explains Why We're Fighting In Iraq

The war in Iraq has dragged on for so long, and the reasons for fighting there have changed so many times, that it has become difficult and somewhat boring to keep up with the shifting justifications.

Some people think we're there for the oil. Some think we're trying to make sure the terrorists don't hit us again, just like they did on September 11, 2001, only worse. Some think we're there to change the regime of Saddam Hussein. Some think it was just a big mistake and we would withdraw if we could.

But according to Condoleeza Rice,

We are fighting to help the Iraqis to develop a democratic government that can provide for its people.

So ...

that's why we set up the death squads ...

and that's why we use so much depleted uranium ...

and that's why we bomb civilians in residential neighborhoods ...

... to help the Iraqis develop a democratic government!

We should have known it all along; in fact, we are uniquely qualified to do this, since we have a formerly democratic government that doesn't give a damn about providing for its people.

I just thought you might like to know that.

US Imposes Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran; Nobody Listens

The Bush administration announced an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Iran today, including the long-awaited designations of its Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and of the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism.

The United States is the world's greatest exporter of weapons of mass destruction and a proud supporter of terrorism virtually everywhere. Thus the pot calls the kettle black.

But we're reading Robin Wright in the Washington Post, where none of this context is deemed fit to print. This is the liberal media we're talking about, after all.

The package, announced jointly by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., [photo, courtesy NYT] marks the first time that the United States has tried to isolate or punish another country's military. It is the broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, and included a call for other countries and firms to stop doing business with three major Iranian banks.

If the Iranians tried to persuade other countries and firms to stop doing business with American banks, it would be seen as an act of war, especially since the American economy is so tightly linked to its war machine.

The sanctions recognize that financing for groups like the Revolutionary Guard have become closely entwined with Iran's economy, making it difficult to disrupt the one without targeting the other.

The Revolutionary Guard "is so deeply entrenched in Iran's economy, that it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran you are doing business with the IRGC," Paulson said.

The hypocrisy is astonishing, or at least it would be if we hadn't seen so much of it lately.

But we still haven't seen any evidence of aggressive behavior from Iran. Such evidence may exist, but if so, where is it?

When was the last time Iran invaded a foreign country?

How many countries has the USA invaded since then? And how many times was it done on false pretexts?

As you can see, it is the Iranians who threaten world peace. Their nuclear "weapons" program could theoretically produce a bomb in another ten or twelve years, so they must be dangerous. Theoretically.

Helene Cooper and John H. Cushman Jr. wrote for the New York Times:

This is the first time that the United States has taken such steps against the armed forces of any sovereign government.

But this is not strictly true. As usual, the liberal media is leading us down the garden path. These sanctions are directed against the Iranian economy, that is to say they will hurt the Iranian people. The notion that they are "targeted" against the armed forces of Iraq is another pretext: How can these sanctions be bad if they are only directed against the terrorist-sponsors and the weapons-proliferators? That's how the sanctions are to be sold; what they will do is another matter entirely.

Mr. Paulson said that, in dealing with Iran, “it is nearly impossible to know one’s customer and be assured that one is not unwittingly facilitating the regime’s reckless behavior and conduct.”

“It is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran you are doing business” with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps,” Mr. Paulson said.

If taken seriously, and applied fairly, these arguments would justify an economic quarantine of the United States by the rest of the world, which -- by doing business as usual with the unelected government of a former democracy -- is unwittingly (or otherwise) facilitating the regime’s reckless behavior.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice crammed as many lies as possible into a single sentence:

While Washington is open to a diplomatic solution, Ms. Rice said, “Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map.”

It was not Iran but the United States which has spurned offers of negotiations. For more on this aspect of the multi-facted lie, see Esquire for John H. Richardson's "The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know" (excerpts to follow).

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has every right to pursue nuclear power, even though the technology could eventually lead to a nuclear weapon. So do all other signatories to the treaty, and that's why we have inspectors. Iran is currently unable to produce a nuclear weapon and nobody seriously imagines they could do so within the next ten years. So what's the problem?

And who put the United States in charge of deciding which countries are allowed to build ballistic missiles? Or is it all right for a country which uses such things to deny others the right to even possess them?

Iran has long been accused of supporting Shia militants in Iraq, but no hard proof has ever been offered; similarly we have seen no proof of Iran supporting militants or terrorists in other countries, such as Afghanistan or Lebanon or the Palestinian territories; on the other hand we have undeniable evidence that Americans and Israelis have been waging war against these countries, unprovoked or on manufactured "provocations". How quaint.

The threat to wipe Israel off the map has been shown to be bogus: it's a mistranslation -- probably a deliberate mistranslation -- of a statement by a figurehead who has no power.

Some writers have been trying to bring these truths to the people who lack them, and Chris Floyd has been among the best of them. In an excellent piece for Saloon yesterday, he wrote:

We'll let professor Juan Cole of the University of Reality handle the "stupid things" known as facts: "President Ahmadinejad, whose job is more or less ceremonial, is not the commander-in-chief of the Iranian armed forces. He has never advocated 'genocide,' and his expressed wish that the 'occupation regime over Jerusalem' (i.e., the Israeli government) eventually vanish has been mistranslated. As for the rest, the candidates simply assume that Iran has a nuclear weapons research program, which has not been proven. It certainly does not have a nuclear weapon at present, and the National Intelligence Estimate indicates that if it were trying to get one, it would take until at least 2016 -- and then only if the international environment were conducive to the needed high-tech imports. (Ahmadinejad, by the way, will not be in power in 2016.) Also, someone really needs to let the Republicans know that Iran is Shiite, meaning it abhors Sunni fundamentalists and rejects the caliphate."

But none of this matters, because -- just as in the case of Iraq -- there is no intelligence driving the policy. The policy is driving the intelligence. In other words. the decision to wage war on Iran has already been made, and this announcement -- in addition to the damage it will do to the Iranian people -- is yet another step in the propaganda campaign intended to "justify" such a war.

And what if the sanctions cause injury and death -- what if they destroy the lives of innocent people?

Don't worry about that. Just remember, "the price is worth it" -- as long as somebody else is paying that price!

~~~

Here, as promised, extended excerpts from "The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know"

In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.

"The hard-liners are upping the pressure on the State Department," says Leverett. "They're basically saying, 'You've been trying to engage Iran for more than a year now and what do you have to show for it? They keep building more centrifuges, they're sending this IED stuff over into Iraq that's killing American soldiers, the human-rights internal political situation has gotten more repressive -- what the hell do you have to show for this engagement strategy?' "

But the engagement strategy was never serious and was designed to fail, they say. Over the last year, Rice has begun saying she would talk to "anybody, anywhere, anytime," but not to the Iranians unless they stopped enriching uranium first. That's not a serious approach to diplomacy, Mann says. Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies. That's how wars are averted. You work up to the big things. And when U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had his much-publicized meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad this spring, he didn't even have permission from the White House to schedule a second meeting.

The most ominous new development is the Bush administration's push to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

And that was done earlier today ...

Months before September 11, Mann had been negotiating with the Iranian diplomat at the UN. After the attacks, the meetings continued, sometimes alone and sometimes with their Russian counterpart sitting in. Soon they traded the conference room for the Delegates' Lounge, an airy two-story bar with ashtrays for all the foreigners who were used to smoking indoors. One day, up on the second floor where the windows overlooked the East River, the diplomat told her that Iran was ready to cooperate unconditionally, a phrase that had seismic diplomatic implications. Unconditional talks are what the U.S. had been demanding as a precondition to any official diplomatic contact between the U.S. and Iran. And it would be the first chance since the Islamic revolution for any kind of rapprochement. "It was revolutionary," Mann says. "It could have changed the world."

A few weeks later, after signing on to Condoleezza Rice's staff as the new Iran expert in the National Security Council, Mann flew to Europe with Ryan Crocker -- then a deputy assistant secretary of state -- to hold talks with a team of Iranian diplomats. Meeting in a light-filled conference room at the old UN building in Geneva, they hammered out plans for Iranian help in the war against the Taliban. The Iranians agreed to provide assistance if any American was shot down near their territory, agreed to let the U.S. send food in through their border, and even agreed to restrain some "really bad Afghanis," like a rabidly anti-American warlord named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, quietly putting him under house arrest in Tehran. These were significant concessions.
...

Mann interrupts herself. "This is off the record," she says. "This is going to have to be on background."

She's not allowed to talk about confidential documents or intelligence matters, but the topic of her negotiations with the Iranians is especially touchy.

"As far as they're concerned, the whole idea that there were talks is something I shouldn't even be talking about," she says.

All ranks and ranking are out. "They don't want there to be anything about the level of the talks or who was involved."

"They won't even let us say something like 'senior' or 'important,' 'high-ranking,' or 'high-level,' " Leverett says.

But the important thing is that the Iranians agreed to talk unconditionally, Mann says. "They specifically told me time and again that they were doing this because they understood the impact of this attack on the U.S., and they thought that if they helped us unconditionally, that would be the way to change the dynamic for the first time in twenty-five years."
...

Three weeks later, it was time for [Bush's] 2002 State of the Union address.
...

That was the speech in which Bush linked Iran to Iraq and North Korea with a memorable phrase:

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."

The Iranians had been engaging in high-level diplomacy with the American government for more than a year, so the phrase was shocking and profound.
...

After that, the Iranian diplomats skipped the monthly meeting in Geneva. But they came again in March. And so did Mann. "They said they had put their necks out to talk to us and they were taking big risks with their careers and their families and their lives," Mann says.

The secret negotiations with Iran continued, every month for another year.

Leverett plunged right into a dramatic new peace proposal floated by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
...

But the White House wasn't interested. Sharon already rejected it, Rice told Leverett.

At the Arab League meeting, Abdullah got every Arab state to sign his proposal in a unanimous vote.

The White House still wasn't interested.
...

In April, Leverett accompanied Colin Powell on a tour that took them from Morocco to Egypt and Jordan and Lebanon and finally Israel. Twice they crossed the Israeli-army lines to visit Arafat under siege. Powell seemed to think he had authorization from the White House to explore what everyone was calling "political horizons," the safely vague shorthand for a peaceful future
...

Then the phone rang. It was Stephen Hadley on the phone from the White House. "Tell Powell he is not authorized to talk about a political horizon," he said. "Those are formal instructions."

"This is a bad idea," Leverett remembers saying. "It's bad policy and it's also humiliating for Powell, who has been talking to heads of state about this very issue for the last ten days."

"It doesn't matter," Hadley said. "There's too much resistance from Rumsfeld and the VP. Those are the instructions."
...

Then came the moment that would lead to an extraordinary battle with the Bush administration. It was an average morning in April [2003], about four weeks into the [Iraq] war. Mann picked up her daily folder and sat down at her desk, glancing at a fax cover page. The fax was from the Swiss ambassador to Iran, which wasn't unusual -- since the U.S. had no formal relationship with Iran, the Swiss ambassador represented American interests there and often faxed over updates on what he was doing. This time he'd met with Sa-deq Kharrazi, a well-connected Iranian who was the nephew of the foreign minister and son-in-law to the supreme leader. Amazingly, Kharrazi had presented the ambassador with a detailed proposal for peace in the Middle East, approved at the highest levels in Tehran.

A two-page summary was attached. Scanning it, Mann was startled by one dramatic concession after another -- "decisive action" against all terrorists in Iran, an end of support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, a promise to cease its nuclear program, and also an agreement to recognize Israel.

This was huge. Mann sat down and drafted a quick memo to her boss, Richard Haass. It was important to send a swift and positive response.

Then she heard that the White House had already made up its mind -- it was going to ignore the offer. Its only response was to lodge a formal complaint with the Swiss government about their ambassador's meddling.
...

In response to questions from Esquire, Colin Powell called Leverett "very able" and confirms much of what he says.
...

On the general subject of negotiations with Iran, he responded with pointed politesse. "We talked to the Iranians quietly up until 2003. The president chose not to continue that channel."

This is what the administration spokesmen mean when they say "Iran has refused to negotiate."

Can we get these guys impeached already? Maybe we could, if enough of us cared enough.

But on this occasion, Hillary Mann has the final word:

"We're tired," Mann says. "Nobody listens."

What Else Is New? More Slander From FOX News

John Gibson turns the FOX News slander machine against Tedd Rall:

Read today's column by uber-lefty Ted Rall who says he cheers the deaths of American soldiers because each death improves the overall IQ of America. In other words, soldiers are stupid.

It's shameful, but it's true.

Shameful? Absolutely! Especially because it's not true. It's not even close.

Ted Rall didn't publish a column today. He writes one column per week, and the most recent is dated October 23rd. We presume this is the column to which John Gibson refers.

In that column, Ted Rall said nothing of what John Gibson describes.

He didn't say he cheers the deaths of American soldiers.

He didn't say he cheers any death at all.

He didn't even use the word "death", although he did use the word "cheer", in this context:

Over and over since the war began, American troops have been seen on television applauding Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and others whose cynical recklessness have sent their buddies to their graves. Sailors cheered wildly when Bush staged his notorious "Mission Accomplished" photo op on an aircraft carrier. They swooned when he joined them for Thanksgiving dinner in Baghdad.

He didn't say soldiers are stupid.

He didn't say each soldier's death improves America's IQ.

He didn't even hint at anything of the sort.

He did say they were confused. And he explained why:

Over a year ago, in March 2006, the military newspaper Stars and Stripes published the results of a Zogby poll of troops serving in Iraq. 72 percent said U.S. forces should withdraw within a year. Twenty-five percent thought we should pull out right away. But 85 percent said a major reason they were there was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the September 11 attacks." These people are confused, to say the least.

He also said:

Hey, soldier, you volunteered. If not for you, there wouldn't be a war in the first place.

This sentiment may not be politically popular, especially in the cesspool inhabited by John Gibson, but it is absolutely true: if America had no volunteer soldiers, there would be no way an unelected president could wage an unprovoked war.

You can read the rest of Ted Rall's column here: Hey Soldiers: Quit Whining!

NBC Makes Up Arbitrary Rules To Bar Mike Gravel From October 30 Debate In Philadelphia

The news item excerpted below was published by the Associated Press on Friday, October 19, 2007, and would have been warmly received by Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and the people running their campaigns:

Gravel fails to meet rules for Democratic debate

Mike Gravel will not be part of the next Democratic presidential debate, Oct. 30 in Philadelphia.

The former Alaska senator did not meet fundraising and polling requirements for the forum, said NBC News political director Chuck Todd.

The two-hour debate, sponsored by NBC News and the Democratic National Committee, will be telecast on MSNBC. Brian Williams will moderate.

All the other Democratic candidates are expecting to participate, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd; former Sen. John Edwards; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

But it hasn't been warmly received by Mike Gravel. Here, via the Huffington Post, is his response:

Why NBC and the DNC Want Me Out of the Debates

In the past year, I have attended 11 national Democratic debates of which two were sponsored by corporate media giant NBC. However, last week, the network suddenly conjured up arbitrary polling and fundraising requirements specifically designed to exclude me. None of the previous debates I attended held such requirements.

When my staff called NBC directly to find out why I was now barred from attending, Chuck Todd, NBC news' political director, told us that there were three criteria we did not meet, namely that I had not campaigned in New Hampshire and/or Iowa at least 14 times in the past year, that I was not polling at 5% and that I hadn't raised $1 million.

It is abundantly clear that NBC just wants me out of the race. This was made evident by the fact that NBC did not even inform me of its arbitrary criteria before making the decision to stifle my campaign. NBC's Todd waited until 5 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 19, to inform my staff that I was not invited to the Oct. 30 debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Since I announced my candidacy for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States on April 17, 2006, I have certainly traveled to New Hampshire and Iowa at least 14 times. And, according to a recent CNN poll, I am tied with Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd.

NBC claims I haven't raised enough money to qualify. I'm proud of the fact that I don't collect millions from special interests (or fugitives like Norman Hsu). The reason why Senator Hillary Clinton seems to have a fundraising scandal every month is because money has corrupted our democracy. By stifling my voice on the basis of fundraising dollars, NBC is reinforcing the power of money over our national political discussion and our freedom.

But why has NBC suddenly come up with "requirements" designed to exclude me from the debate?

NBC's decision is proof that our corporate media do not want a genuine debate over our impending war with Iran. During the last debate I was the only one to aggressively confront Senator Clinton over her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Had I not brought up the subject, seasoned NBC commentator Tim Russert, the moderator of the Sept. 26 debate, would not have even asked about it.

Most Americans still don't appreciate the gravity of that vote and they don't understand that our government is intentionally raising roadblocks to diplomacy. Corporate media have once again failed to investigate how Bush and a compliant congress have set us on the warpath. Instead the media simply parrots the demonization of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the administration's unproven accusations against Iran. NBC and the other corporate media have jumped on the war bandwagon and they are determined to shut up anyone who tries to stop it.

The fact that NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the world's leading military contractors, is frightening and certainly smacks of censorship directed at the most outspoken critic of the influence that the military-industrial complex holds over this great nation. In the past decade, GE has benefited financially from the global war on terrorism and currently holds almost $2 billion in military contracts.

So I ask that anyone, who is as concerned as I am about the power of the mainstream media and the military-industrial complex, speak out in support of my campaign today. And, even if you support another candidate, surely you understand the implications of NBC's decision for our democracy and the future peace and security of our nation.

And since the powers that be now require that I raise $1 million in order to participate in the debates, please make a donation to my campaign. Unlike my fellow candidates, I am not focused on raising million of dollars; I am focused on fixing representative government. Help us reach that arbitrary threshold, and I will continue to fight for democracy and peace.

Senator Mike Gravel

Ain't that a kick?

Here, courtesy of Village Green, are some things you can do about it:

1. Sign the online petition to have Mike Gravel included in the debate!

2. Contact NBC and GE and tell them they are wrong for trying to stifle his campaign!

Here are the email addresses: you can copy and paste them into your "TO:" field of your email:

chuck.todd@nbcuni.com, viewerservices@msnbc.com, directors@corporate.ge.com, ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com, jeff.zucker@nbcuni.com, lynn.calpeter@nbcuni.com, steve.capus@nbcuni.com

3. Email the DNC and urge them to press NBC to allow Mike Gravel to participate in the debate.

Here's another idea:

4. Write to Dr. Constantine Papadakis, the President of Drexel University, and ask the same of him.

papadakis@drexel.edu

One final note: See what John Edwards has to say about this:

It is essential, in a Democracy, for all voices to be heard. We should continue to attempt to adhere to this Democratic ideal.

So please contact the DNC and MSNBC today about Mike Gravel's exclusion. And, please, spread the word about this.

Please note that this is the very same John Edwards who said in July:

"We should think about at some point ... maybe some time in the fall, we'll try to have a more serious debate with a smaller group of people."

What's the difference between then and now? He didn't know his mic was on then.

Bush Threatens To Bring 'Democracy' To Cuba

Fortunately, Cuba doesn't already have enough problems. Fortunately as well, neither does the United States. So president Bush on Wednesday started talking about regime change in Cuba, uttering new threats, inciting new fears, and increasing the old and pointless tension between the two countries.

According to Bush,

"For Cuba's ruling class, its grip on power is more important than the welfare of its people."

Fortunately, we don't have the same problem in the USA.

Speaking to Cuban military, police and government officials, the president said:

"Will you defend a disgraced and dying order by using force against your own people? Or will you embrace your people's desire for change?"

Fortunately as well, there is no need for the same sort of question in the US. Because our government only does what's best for our people, and there is no desire for change at all.

How fortunate can one nation get?

As Ben Feller of the AP notes:

The U.S. cut off diplomatic ties with Cuba in 1961, two years after Castro led an armed revolution that drove out U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. The U.S. deems Cuba to be a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to isolate it through trade and travel restrictions that Bush has intensified.

Does the president really want us thinking about state-sponsored terrorism?

Well then ... I'm game, and so is Bob Parry:

When the killers of civilians are on Bush’s side, they get the full panoply of legal protections – and every benefit of the doubt. Under this Bush double standard, therefore, right-wing Cuban terrorists Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, though implicated in a string of murderous attacks on civilians, get the see-no-evil treatment.

On April 19, the 79-year-old Posada was released on bail from federal custody for an immigration violation and allowed to fly to Miami where he will live at home while his case winds its way through the U.S. courts. Bosch, too, has been allowed to live out his golden years in south Florida with the help and protection of the Bush family.

But the evidence in U.S. government files is overwhelming that Posada and Bosch were the architects of the 1976 mid-air bombing of a civilian Cubana airliner, killing 73 people, including young members of the Cuban national fencing team.

Since the conspiracy was hatched in Caracas, Venezuela, where Posada worked as a Venezuelan intelligence officer, the Venezuelan government has sought Posada’s extradition. However, when a Posada friend testified at Posada’s immigration hearing that Venezuela practices torture, Bush administration lawyers let the unverified claim go unchallenged, leading the judge to forbid Posada’s deportation there.
...

The Bush administration also took no note a year ago when Bosch publicly justified the 1976 mid-air bombing. The stunning TV interview of Bosch by reporter Juan Manuel Cao on Miami’s Channel 41 was cited in articles on the Internet by José Pertierra, a lawyer for the Venezuelan government. But Bosch’s comments caused him no further difficulty.

We can see, quite easily, that this is not really about terrorism, or anything else that the Cuban state sponsors -- except the health and welfare of its citizens. Here's Ben Feller of the AP again:

Lawmakers of both parties have proposed easing the trade and travel restrictions, which they claim have done little good; Bush says doing so would only strengthen a dictatorship.

Over the years, the U.S. government has spent many millions of dollars to support Cuba's opposition, with much of the funds never directly reaching the dissidents on the island and instead winding up funding opposition support organizations in Miami and Washington.

Meanwhile, Castro has become a model for a growing left-wing movement in Latin America, most notably in Venezuela and Bolivia.

And this is exactly the point: Conservatives cannot abide a government which does more for its poor citizens than it does for its wealthy; they don't want to see anything like that in the United States and they don't want Americans seeing anything like that anywhere else either.

But for Cubans, the veiled threats were immediately obvious, as Reuters reported via the BBC:

Cuba on Wednesday accused U.S. President George W. Bush of encouraging violent uprising against its communist government with a speech in which Bush urged Cubans to push for democratic change.

"You will never force us to our knees," Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque said in response to Bush's speech, which came 15 months after ailing leader Fidel Castro handed over power to his brother.

Bush said he would maintain sanctions against Cuba and called on Cuban military and police officers to join efforts to open Cuba to multi-party democracy, saying liberty was more important tha[n] stability.

It takes a lot of nerve to say something like that. But the president certainly doesn't lack nerve.

To see the truth in what he was saying, consider Iraq, where the Americans have provided freedom but no stability. See how well it works there? Why not do the same elsewhere?

Who cares if the people are afraid to go to school? Who cares if they're afraid to go to work? Who cares if they're afraid to go to the markets? At least they're free to stay home and wait for their houses to be bombed.

On the other hand we can always look to Pakistan, where the US is pulling out all the stops to enforce "stability" at the cost of "liberty".

But then again, they call it "democracy", so maybe nobody will notice the difference.

Perez said that was an "invitation to violence" by Bush. "Cuba categorically rejects the stimulation of violence and the invocation of the use of force," he said at a news conference.

Bush's speech reflected frustration with his plan for "regime change" in Cuba as his presidential term nears its end, the minister said.

Perez called on the United States to stop interfering in Cuba's internal affairs and lift the U.S. trade embargo and travel restrictions, which date from the early 1960s.

He said Bush had no moral authority to demand changes in Cuba after bloodshed in Iraq.

"You are not a liberator, Mr. Bush. You are a brutal repressor. Your government has invaded, massacred and tortured in the name of liberty," Perez said.

He blamed "Bush tyranny" and not the American people for the U.S. government's hostility toward Cuba. "The day is coming when they will be free of him," he said.

We hope such a day is coming. But on the other hand it may be that we will soon be "massacred and tortured in the name of liberty" ... unless we choose to cower in our homes and wait ... for what's left of our country to be destroyed in the name of bringing "democracy" to others.

~~~

[see also]

Burn : George W. Bush's second inaugural address was an act of war.

Richard Griffin, State Department Official In Charge Of Diplomatic Security, Resigns

Richard J. Griffin, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, resigned suddenly yesterday.

According to John M. Broder of the New York Times:

The State Department official responsible for overseeing Blackwater USA and other private security contractors in Iraq resigned abruptly today.

Richard J. Griffin, who has been the director of the department’s diplomatic security bureau since June 2005, faced stiff criticism from Congress over his handling of a Sept. 16 shooting episode involving Blackwater that left 17 Iraqis dead and other acts of violence by the State Department’s security guards.

You can find much more about that incident here.

Griffin's resignation comes amid increasing criticism of the State Department and its relationships with "security contractors" such as Blackwater and DynCorp, as Paul Richter of the Los Angeles Times explains:

The State Department on Tuesday ordered additional revisions to the way it regulates its security contractors abroad after an expert panel issued a blistering report suggesting the current system was flawed and dangerous.

The changes are expected to be the basis for legislation governing overseas contractors, who are now beyond the reach of U.S. statutes, and will bring the contractors' looser rules on use of force into line with those of the military. The department will also speed up and improve investigations of incidents involving the use of force and will take steps to make the system for compensating victims more just.

The four-member panel's recommendations include cultural-sensitivity training for contractors and an effort by the State Department to boost the number of Arabic-speaking contractors in Middle Eastern countries.

The report also calls for the Iraqi government to improve the system for licensing contractors.

The recommendations stemmed from the involvement of guards from Blackwater USA, a private security firm that protects State Department personnel in Iraq, in the Sept. 16 shooting deaths of 17 Iraqis. The incident provoked an international outcry and generated huge pressure for change.

On Oct. 4, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ordered changes in the way contractors do business, including the installation of vehicle cameras to ensure that incidents are recorded to aid investigations.

The State Department initially rebuffed criticism of the contractor system that the Sept. 16 incident elicited. But with the report's findings, its leadership acknowledges that the major criticisms have merit.

Will this sudden resignation change anything? Only the names of the people at the top of the heap, as Griffin noted in his letter of resignation:

As I submit my resignation and move on to new challenges, I do so with the realization that the senior management team that is in place in DS is extremely well qualified to confront the many challenges which lie ahead.

In other words, as Reuters noted,

Griffin will be replaced by his deputy, Gregory Starr, who will assume his duties from Nov. 1, the spokesman said.

But as the BBC reports, we aren't supposed to notice that the policy is at fault, not the man.

It was September's incident in particular, and the questions it raised in Iraq and the US, which led to Mr Griffin's sudden departure after 36 years in government service, our correspondent says.

For its part, the state department will hope a change at the top will start to restore confidence in the way America carries out and supervises diplomatic protection in Iraq, he adds.

But the only way they can restore our confidence is to stop doing what they're doing. And that is the one thing they will never do.

Tom Toles: Immunity For What?

Shhhh!

Stark For A Day: I'm Dreadfully Sorry

California Congressman Pete Stark, whose "incendiary comments" last week "offended" supporters of the president, his war, and his health care policy, survived a censure motion yesterday in the House but gave a teary apology nonetheless.

It reminded me of 2005, when Dick Durbin apologized for his remarks about Gitmo. Durbin's remarks were called "reprehensible" by the White House and the media echoed the line -- without ever bothering to mention how reprehensible was the policy Durbin had criticized.

Pete Stark's inflammatory comments were not especially lucid in my opinion -- he said the president sent troops to Iraq to have their heads shot off for his amusement -- but most Americans didn't consider them criminal. In a CNN poll, 88% of the respondents said they didn't think Stark should apologize. But he did anyway. With tear ducts wide open.

“I want to apologize to my colleagues — many of whom I have offended — to the president and his family and to the troops,” Stark said. He added that he hoped the apology would allow him to “become as insignificant as I should be” as the House moves forward on critical, divisive issues.

Stark then left the podium, wiping away tears as Democratic colleagues surrounded him with supportive handshakes.

Thanks, Pete. Thanks for standing up for the people who supported you! What's the matter, 88% isn't good enough for you? What do you need? 90? 95?

Here's the speech Pete Stark should have delivered but didn't:

Dear Fascists:

You want me to apologize. You want to censure me. You want me to take my words back.

Go screw.

I said what I said. Why should I pretend I didn't? What good would that do?

If you were offended, good. You deserve to be offended. More than that, you deserve to be hanged. We all do.

In 2000, we got a serial failure for president, and he was never even legitimately elected. We all knew it. Everybody in politics knew it! But we played along as if everything was just fine.

Less than a year later, our unelected president sat and listened to little children reading a book about a goat while "terrorists" hijacked airplanes and attacked us. Then he awarded Medals of Freedom to the heads of the national security agencies that had failed to protect us. And we smiled and nodded.

The administration has claimed for the past six years that it must have everything it wants, including the power to wage offensive war anywhere in the world, and the power to disregard the Constitution that we are all sworn to protect. And the administration tells us it needs these things in order to protect us. But it has never been held to account for failing to protect us six years ago.

And in those six years we have unearthed irrefutable evidence, proving in a hundred different ways that the story we've been told about those attacks must be false. But not a single member of this chamber has the courage to stand up and say so. May God have mercy on our yellow souls.

Our cruel and stupid unelected president declared limitless, endless war on the rest of the world and we gave him the money to do it -- hundreds of billions of dollars at a time, whenever he asked for it. And what's worse, we pretended we had no choice.

In 2002, in 2004, and again in 2006, we saw convincing evidence that our elections had been rigged, but we never said a word. Instead we carried on -- to our great shame -- as if our government were legitimately elected. And we kept on giving this criminal administration whatever it wanted.

We authorized warrantless surveillance, to be used against anyone, anywhere, for any reason, and with virtually no Congressional oversight. We claimed we had no choice; we had to do it, otherwise he would have canceled our summer vacation, or called us "soft on terror", or some such thing. It didn't matter that nobody would have believed him. But it did matter that we didn't want to fight. So we didn't. We had an excuse, it was a good excuse, and we used it shamelessly.

We legalized a new "definition" of torture under which the unelected president himself gets to decide what the word means, and a new system of "justice" under which people can be incarcerated indefinitely without charge or hearing or even a right of appeal. The correct word for this is "treason". And we are all guilty.

We allowed the president to claim that he could designate anyone anywhere an "enemy combatant" and have that person killed without any due process whatsoever. And when the president announced that "terrorists" had been dealt with in this way, we stood and cheered. We deserve to be hanged by the neck until dead.

Fortunately for me on this fine Beltway day, my political opponents, though they consider me their enemy, are not asking for my neck. All they're asking for is an apology. And they shall have one!

To Nancy Pelosi: The last time I checked, I didn't work for you. I work for the people of my district and the people of my state and the people of the nation, in that order -- but I do not work for you. I frankly don't give a damn what you think about my remarks, or what you think about anything else, either.

We could have had this criminal administration impeached by now if it weren't for you and your bootlicking. And I'm sorry, but you're one of the people who should be apologizing.

To George Bush: I've heard you lie so often and so hatefully about so many things that I have begun to disbelieve every single thing you say. For a moment last week I did actually believe you wanted our soldiers to get their heads blown off just for your own amusement. It is, after all, the only justification you haven't used, and I naturally assumed it was the real reason for the war.

But I was wrong about that, as so many good American citizens have informed me over the past few days. It's not only for your amusement, sir. It's also for your enrichment. And that of your "base". I'm sorry I didn't mention that last week, sir. And I apologize.

To 88% of America and 99% of the world: I am truly sorry for what America has done, for what America has become, and for what the Congress -- including me, sad and sorry Pete Stark -- have allowed this unelected president to do to this once-proud country, and to the world.

There's no way around it. We all deserve to hang. And I, for one, am dreadfully sorry.

Bob Koehler: Pre-Existing Conditions

Bob Koehler's latest column is a really good one, even by his standards. It starts like this:

Pre-Existing Conditions: Pact with the devil comes wrapped in many gaudy causes

Deep in the heart of the postwar hell that awaits many injured and emotionally shattered vets lies a memo so toxic with cynical irony it deserves to be posted on americasarmy.com, the U.S. Army’s official teen-entrapment Web site.

“We can’t fix every Soldier. We have to hold Soldiers accountable for their behavior. Everyone in life beyond babies, the insane, and the demented and mentally retarded have to be held accountable for what they do in life.”

Got that, Soldier?

These are the words — first outed by NPR’s Daniel Zwerdling in May — of Col. Steven Knorr, a psychiatrist and chief of the Behavioral Health Unit at Fort Carson, Colo., to his staff. Knorr is the officer who oversaw the discharge of thousands of soldiers, many suffering brain damage and other IED-related physical and psychological injuries, on the specious diagnosis “personality disorder,” a “pre-existing condition” the Army shrinks pulled out of their hats, which meant the GIs weren’t qualified for disability pay or even medical care. Billions of taxpayer dollars were saved.

The irony is in the word “accountable,” a bully word in the hands of the U.S. military, which sees itself as a veritable accountability machine, imposing it on others — the enemy — with a righteous fury that acknowledges no overkill, and imposing it on its own rank and file once they are no longer useful to the cause.

One no-longer-useful soldier — among the 22,500 discharged in the last six years with a pre-existing personality disorder — is Army Spc. Jon Town, who, according to a recent investigative piece in The Nation and other media accounts, was knocked unconscious by a 107-millimeter rocket while serving in Iraq and was awarded a Purple Heart.

But the Army has ruled that the hearing loss and headaches he has suffered ever since were the result of a pre-existing personality disorder, a diagnosis, like most if not all other such diagnoses, divined without input from family members or anyone who knew Town before he enlisted and passed the Army physical. No need, see. These guys all had dormant conditions that family members wouldn’t have noticed anyway. Only trained Army docs can determine their existence, after which they have no choice but to deny the poor schnooks disability pay and medical care.

I think you should read the whole thing. But then I always say that about Bob Koehler.

And I'm reminded of Chris Floyd, who wrote:

This is a remarkable state of affairs: a militarist faction that doesn't even take care of its soldiers. Once again, we see a glaring example of the blind and brutal stupidity that is the hallmark of the Bush White House. (And this stinking fish most definitely rots from the head.) The early Caesars had the good sense to keep their legions sweet, especially the Praetorian Guard; even Saddam Hussein knew enough to take good care of his Republican Guard. But the Bushists merely chew up their soldiers and spit them out, like drunks heaving after a binge.

I continue to believe, more firmly than ever, that the destruction of the American military is going according to plan. The flip-side of that plan, of course, is the establishment of a loose network of private armies ... that just happen to be beyond the reach of the law.

[related links]

Speed Bump: Will Mass Murder In Nisoor Square Slow The Growth Of Blackwater?

Bush Hates America: US Troops Face 'A Circular Firing Squad' In Iraq

Bush Hates America: Iraqi Weapons Caches Are Still Open!

Still In Denial: Bob Woodward's Modified Limited Hangout