Headline of the Day

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's like a Twilight Zone episode:

Democracy stuns Polish coma man

Stunning, indeed. The guy also woke up to find he has eleven grandchildren. One wonders, however, how long his amazement at Poland's post-Communist consumer culture will last. Or what he'll make of the Teletubbies -- and of his country's "emerging climate of racist, xenophobic and homophobic intolerance".

The return of the Cold War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Escalation revisited:

In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to target Europe with missiles, including potentially nuclear weapons, in a dramatic escalation of his Cold War-style showdown with the United States.

Mr. Putin, in an interview at his country residence outside Moscow, said he considers U.S. plans to build an eastern European anti-missile site to shoot down Iranian missiles a provocation aimed at Russia.

Asked what he might do to retaliate, he said he would return Russia to the Cold War status where missiles were aimed at European targets.

"It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States is located in Europe, and according to our military experts will be threatening us, we will have to respond," he said.

"What kind of steps are we going to take in response? Of course, we are going to get new targets in Europe."

He suggested that this could include powerful nuclear-capable weapons.

I am not one to defend Putin. He has essentially turned into Vladimir the Terrible, suppressing dissent and opposition to his essentially tyrannical rule and otherwise preventing liberty and democracy from taking hold in Russia.

And I will certainly not defend him here.

But he is right that the U.S. bears much of the responsibility here. The U.S. -- at least the U.S. according to the neocons and their allies -- may believe in the concept of and project for benevolent American global hegemony, but much of the rest of the world is troubled by what it sees as America's malevolent neo-colonial aims -- what else is it to make of U.S. policy towards the Middle East, and particularly the Iraq War and its support for friendly dictators? It is not prepared to view American power as quintessentially benevolent, and rightly so. Whatever the universalist rhetoric, U.S. power supports U.S. national interests -- and this means not so much the extension of liberty and democracy around the world as the establishment of markets and, in this age of endless war on terror, as exploited by Bush and his allies, the establishment of an American military footprint, and a show of American military power, wherever possible.

The U.S. may not be targeting Russia, of course. Its primary focus now remains the Middle East, and particularly Iran. But Putin is right to concern himself with the extension of America's military presence more generally. Is the rest of the world -- is Russia, which was America's chief enemy and rival for so long -- simply to trust that the U.S. will act benevolently? Is it simply to trust that the U.S. will not seek to extend its military presence even further, that it won't seek to establish an even more prominent footprint? If it's Iran today, according to Putin's reasoning, it could be Russia tomorrow. And why not? The U.S. doesn't ask anyone's permission to pick its enemies. It doesn't ask for approval to act. It just does, according to its own national interests, or at least according to the reigning perceptions of its own national interests.

All Putin wants is balance, and who can blame him? The unbridled hegemony of the United States of America hardly inspires confidence or good feelings in Moscow or anywhere else.

If a second Cold War descends over Europe, or over the world generally, it will very much be a consequence of the misguided policies of the United States.

Fred Thompson -- savior or Satan?

By Libby Spencer

So far Freddy boy has been riding a wave of popularity based solely on his acting credits and charisma, but as the man starts to outline his positions, it becomes more and more apparent that the new idol of the GOP's red meat Republicans has feet of clay. His latest column at the neo-con's home base at Townhall.com makes clear that he intends to sell himself as the soul of Reagan, embodied in Bush's swaggering macho persona, only with much bigger balls.

I'll give the guy credit for understanding and knowing how to use the new media to his advantage. I think he has a damn good chance of walking away with a GOP nomination that depends on winning the rabid right fringe vote but the idea I've seen promulgated that he is going to appeal to centrists is laughable. If I didn't know the author, I would have supposed the column was written by Cheney. He disdains diplomacy, celebrates forceful interventions and proposes Madison Avenue style propaganda blitzes that assume the Arab Street is as clueless and manipuable as the average American consumer.

Me, I'm not buying a new and better Bush and I have to believe that neither will the 70% of Americans that are tired of the one we have. And those are just his ideological problems. It doesn't take much digging to discover the flaws in his record. Eli at FDL just scratches the surface and reveals Fred's aw-gosh pretensions are merely a cover for a political career spent firmly lodged in the pocket of big business interests. He pushed through the revolving door from the Senate into lobbyist row so fast, heads are still spinning on K Street.

But as I said, I think he might just win the nomination, especially since he's wooing Rove's star pupil in vote stealing, Tim Griffin, as his campaign guru. I kind hope he does. I think he'll be easier to beat in the general than Rudy would be, especially if Griffin is indicted by the time the election rolls around.

For an opposing view, see Michael van der Galien. He liked the column.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

The truth about Rudy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I think it's pretty clear that Bush is one of the worst presidents in history. But -- bear with me here -- could Giuliani, the current GOP frontrunner, actually be worse than Bush?

That's the case Matt Taibbi makes in a must-read article at Rolling Stone. Here's one of the key passages (but make sure to read it all):

Rudy giuliani is a true American hero, and we know this because he does all the things we expect of heroes these days -- like make $16 million a year, and lobby for Hugo Chávez and Rupert Murdoch, and promote wars without ever having served in the military, and hire a lawyer to call his second wife a "stuck pig," and organize absurd, grandstanding pogroms against minor foreign artists, and generally drift through life being a shameless opportunist with an outsize ego who doesn't even bother to conceal the fact that he's had a hard-on for the presidency since he was in diapers. In the media age, we can't have a hero humble enough to actually be one; what is needed is a tireless scoundrel, a cad willing to pose all day long for photos, who'll accept $100,000 to talk about heroism for an hour, who has the balls to take a $2.7 million advance to write a book about himself called Leadership. That's Rudy Giuliani. Our hero. And a perfect choice to uphold the legacy of George W. Bush.

It's an astonishing piece of biographical political analysis that cuts through the spin to get at the very core of a horrendous human being -- and, again, the GOP frontrunner.

The truth about Rudy is nothing if not ugly.

Headline of the Day

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's la dolce vita, baby:

Study Finds Cocaine, Pot in Rome's Air

In related news, Keith Richards has left the Eternal City after a three-week stay.

Now here they go again...

By Capt. Fogg

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the media's mad push to associate Fred Thompson with Ronald Reagan. Besides the basis for comparison being so tenuous that the bones of this contrivance show through its thin skin, I see Reagan as the origin of most of the United States' current problems which include the rise of anti-American terrorism, the dismantling of necessary government oversight and the increasing power of corporations to own and rule America. Another Reagan is the last thing we need.

Fred Thompson is an actor who plays a tough guy on TV. Ronald Reagan was a minor character actor as well; just good enough to create the presidential character he played on the screen. His diaries reveal, among other sad things, a man of limited ability who believed in astrology and was fairly sure Jesus was coming like Godzilla to stomp out the world any day now. He was a man who thought immoral and illegal deals were all right as long as they were kept secret. He was a man who thought corporate greed led to morality.

Do we really need another empty brown suit? Is the shameless promotion of Thompson an indicator of his ability to solve our desperate and extremely complex problems or is the scheme to give us another shuffling, "awe shucks" Howdy Doody with a reassuring voice to make us feel good while the Republicans continue to sell the furniture?

It isn't just CNN's Wolf Blitzer hawking this shoddy comparison; its all over every American paper. It's the BBC, It's the Australian media and as far as I can tell, the non- story of the day everywhere: Reagan's mantle, Reagan's footsteps, Reagan's legacy. Reagan with his childish notions about economics, the man who cut and ran in Lebanon and ran illegal wars and sold weapons to the Ayatollah and gave him 8 billion dollars to let the hostages go if only Iran would wait until after the election.

It's time this country had more than a chrome-plated hood ornament as president. We need someone really intelligent, really pragmatic, someone who has had long experience with foreign policy, economics, history, and government. Lets put the mantle back in the prop room and look for a real president rather than a president that looks real.

(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)

What Bush's "new framework on greenhouse gas emissions" is really all about

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It is being reported -- by the BBC, for example -- that President Bush, in advance of next week's G8 summit in Germany, has "urged countries to agree on long-term goals for greenhouse gas emissions". Given his, and his administration's, appalling record on the climate crisis -- I recently called him "an enabler of future genocide" and his inaction and opposition to action "the height of stupidity and irresponsibility" -- this would seem to be an encouraging sign of progress. Indeed, in a speech delivered in Washington yesterday, Bush even admitted that "global climate change" is a reality. He has admitted it before, but, again, given his appalling record, not to mention the even worse record of many Republicans and conservatives, even the repetition of this admission may be taken as a positive development. And his proposal was met with approval from at least two key European leaders. Tony Blair called it "a big step forward," while Angela Merkel found "common ground".

But what to make of the proposal? Is there reason to be optimistic? In a word, no:

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin says Mr Bush's speech was short on details, and White House aides have made clear Mr Bush will oppose demands for the US to cut emissions and join a global carbon trading system.

The US seems to be trying to set up a separate framework on climate change talks outside the G8, our correspondent says.

And that's just the start of it. For an excellent assessment of Bush's alternative "framework," see Gristmill, where David Roberts picks apart the framework and finds it not just hollow but counter-productive:

To give credit where it's due, there is considerable symbolic significance to the news that the U.S. is shifting from a stance of truculent foot-dragging to active engagement. Perhaps he's desperate for a PR boost, or perhaps he's just realized the pressure is too great to keep fighting directly, but for whatever reason, Bush's rhetorical shift sends a welcome if long overdue signal. Unfortunately, the shift is only rhetorical.

*****

[T]his announcement from Bush is not a genuine change of heart on climate change. The U.S. still will not agree to any emission reduction targets. It will not agree that the developed countries bear primary responsibility for climate change. It will not sign on to the growing consensus among developed nations about how to tackle the problem.

This announcement is an attempt to run out the clock on the Bush administration without committing to anything but sweetheart deals for corporate backers.

Same as it ever was.

Make sure to read the entire post. Under Bush's proposal, "[t]he meetings will be convened by the U.S. and held on U.S. territory; the U.S. will control the agenda." And, again, these would just be "talks," not "immediate action," which is what Blair, Merkel, and the others really want. As well, it may be worthwhile to include countries like China and India in developing a long-term strategy to deal with the climate crisis, but they, like the U.S., will likely oppose "any binding targets". In other words, the U.S. would include them in order to advance its own interests (and to thwart real progress).

The more the climate changes, the more Bush stays the same.

Breaking down "the white, Christian, male power structure"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

McCain on O'Reilly. An ugly exchange.

Discussing the (sensible, compromise) immigration bill, O'Reilly said this: "But do you understand what The New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number... But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it."

And McCain responded: "We do, we do. I agree with you."

O'Reilly and McCain -- defending "the white, Christian, male power structure". Which is to say -- promoting a racist, sexist theocracy.

Rarely are we provided with such insight into the conservative mind.

Steve Benen comments: "Think about it — if a KKK official appeared on Fox News, wouldn’t you expect him to make similar comments?" Yes, absolutely. And this is not just as offensive as what Don Imus said, it's far more serious. But why won't Bill O'Reilly be fired and, as justice would have it, consigned to irrelevance and obscurity, if not oblivion? Because of the ratings, because conservatives love him. Those who also desire a racist, sexist theocracy -- and America isn't one (anymore -- or yet), whatever the signs, even if he thinks (or hopes) it is -- will keep him right where he is, spewing his venom night after night.

Here's the YouTube clip (also at the Dems' website). The exchange quoted above comes near the end, but the entire clip is instructive:

Just another month in the life and death of Iraq V

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We haven't done one of these since last October, if I'm not mistaken. Why again now? May 2007 warrants the extra attention. The depressing facts, from Reuters (@ The Star):

The U.S. military reported three more deaths in Iraq today, taking the death toll to 122 for May, already the worst month for U.S. forces there in more than two years.

May is the third-worst month overall in the campaign for U.S. soldiers, behind November 2004, when 137 soldiers died, and April 2004, when 135 were killed.

A total of 3,473 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the start of the invasion in March 2003.

Add to the 122 dead the countless Iraqis and others who died violent deaths this month throughout the country. That's the human toll of this disastrous war.

And there is more to come -- much more -- even with the war over four years old and with success as it was originally understood essentially an impossibility. The warmonger-in-chief, who keeps redefining "success" to fit the failure of his misadventure, has predicted that the summer, and particularly August could be particularly bloody.

Consider what that might mean, given what has happened this May 2007.

Creature's Corner

By Creature

I am a 77 year-old man who works as a columnist for a major newspaper in Washington DC (some call me the "dean" of all DC columnists, go me!). I generally consider myself a serious person, but lately I've been finding myself searching for ponies in unlikely places. Yes, ponies. I never had a pony growing up, could this be the reason for my searching? Help me, Creature. I need to know if this is normal.

-Always Searching Somewhere

ASS, ASS, ASS, You need to get out more. While never having had a pony may cause one to search for ponies in unlikely places, this obsessive searching can be attributed more to the fact that your head is stuck so far up the collective asses of the DC establishment you simply can't see that there are no ponies and there never will be. You may think you are a serious person, ASS, but your pony search is downright silly.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

By Zeus, he's running!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Fred Thompson, that is. So says The Politico. And The Weekly Standard. And The Washington Post, which is reporting that this second coming of Ronald Reagan (or so his delusional admirers imagine him to be -- but, then, most admirers of Reagan are delusional, too) "will offer himself as a down-home antidote to Washington politics in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, running a campaign out of Nashville while promising leadership on a conservative agenda that will appeal to his party's base".

Can you feel the excitement? It's palpable. (Oh, wait, sorry. I was just sitting on a thumbtack.)

Well, the right is excited. How could it not be, what with Giuliani, McCain, and Romney running 1-2-3 in the polls, three rather undesirably candidates for GOP loyalists? See Ed Morrissey, for example, whose enthusiasm is at least admirably restrained.

Many others have responded to the news, too -- see Memeorandum -- but let me single out, as I often do, my friend Melissa McEwan, who put it so well: "While some might say that the GOP’s palpable desperation for an heir to Reagan’s throne became completely pathetic once they fixed their sights on another actor, I would argue that it’s always been completely pathetic, but now has simply just been taken to a riotous level of literalism." (Her post is hilarious, by the way.)

It's all a big fantasy, see, but it makes sense given that Republicans have made fantasyland their own. Thompson (Fred, not Tommy) is perhaps more likeable than any of the other GOP hopefuls, as Melissa suggests, but that's not saying much at all. What's all so laughable about this is that Republicans seem to be confusing the actor with the character (on Law & Order, if not in The Hunt for Red October and Die Hard 2). But who better to lead a party that lives in fantasyland than an actor?

I don't have much to add to what I've already said about Freddy T. in many, many previous posts -- see them all here, or go directly to these: The Fred Thompson romance, Politics and entertainment: The fact and fiction of Fred Thompson, Imaginary politics, and Too much like McCain? Suffice it to say that although he's been making an Oscar-caliber effort (at least by the rather low standards of Republican actors) to portray himself (as any actor might) as a Reagan conservative who is both social conservative and authoritarian warmonger -- that is, who is very much in line with the party base -- the record (i.e., the truth) is rather more nuanced than the performance would have the delusional gaping-mouthers on the right believe (because they oh-so want to believe, because they oh-so need to believe).

Fred Thompson may be sincere in his desire to seek the presidency, but nothing smacks of Republican desperation quite like the excitement his presumptive candidacy has generated.

Another neocon at The World Bank

By Michael J.W. Stickings

President Bush has tapped Robert Zoellick, Goldman Sachs executive and former deputy secretary of state, to head The World Bank. And because Bush says so, it's a go. It is the president of the United States who nominates the World Bank president -- and the position is always given to an American -- but any nomination is merely a formality. The banks's executive board will appoint Zoellick just as it appoints (i.e., rubber stamps) every other nominee.

There is no good reason for this to be the case. Why should the president of the United States be the one effectively to fill the position with his (or her) own nominee? Why should the position always go to an American? Why, more specifically, should the position always go to a partisan of the president?

Well, of course, because The World Bank is an instrument of American global hegemony. It always has been. That was the original intent, for all intents and purposes, and nothing has changed. If other countries approved of this, it was only because they approved of American global hegemony at least to some degree. This should change. China, Brazil, South Africa, India, and Russia, along with others, are right to call for a new and open process to select World Bank presidents. But the U.S. will refuse. Why would it agree to have its hegemonic position weakened? (It's already doing a stellar job weakening itself.)

For, though, it's Zoellick, and people seem to be happy with his nomination. He's no Wolfowitz, after all -- though, of course, pretty much anyone would have been an improvement over the outgoing president. And is there good reason for them to be happy? Perhaps. He seems to know where Africa is, which is good, and he has already presented himself as an internationalist. An American internationalist, but still. Even the European seem to like him.

BUT: Let's not give him a free pass just yet. He's a Wall Street insider whose emphasis may turn out to be on maximizing Wall Street profits. And there's more. He may be presenting himself as an internationalist, and he may be receiving a warm welcome because he's not Wolfowitz, but, like Wolfowitz, he's a committed neoconservative. (See here.)

He was, for example, one of the signatories to a now-infamous 1998 letter from the Project for the New American Century to President Clinton calling for "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power". The other signatories amounted to a who's-who of the neocon movement and Bush foreign policy team, including Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Richard Perle, and, yes, Paul Wolfowitz. Indeed, though he may very well be more of an internationalist than some of his nationalist neocon brethren, he has long been an enthusiastic supporter of the neocon movement and of Bush's foreign policy, including the Iraq War and the war on terror. His own writings show that he sounded a lot like Bush well before Bush himself ever did.

What this means is that whatever his commitment to international development, which may be genuine, and whatever his commitment to Wall Street, which may be profound, it is likely that Zoellick will use his position as World Bank president to advance what he perceives to be American national self-interest. Like other neocons, he is something of a neo-Wilsonian idealist, but, also like them, he is first and foremost an American nationalist who believes in American exceptionalism and the prospect of -- and (PNAC) project for -- American global hegemony. The neocons like to think of such hegemony as benevolent, but much of the rest of the world, and many Americans themselves, know that this is a sham.

Which is not to say that Zoellick's World Bank presidency will be overtly malevolent. It's just that in many important ways Zoellick is just like his soon-to-be predecessor. And that should be of serious concern not just to critics of neoconservatism, and there are many of us, but to everyone who desires a global community, and development within that community, that is not ultimately subservient to American nationalism.

New Zealand energy company shuts off power, woman dies

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Seriously:

A New Zealand woman on an oxygen machine died after an energy firm switched off her power supply because of unpaid bills, her family claims.

Folole Muliaga, a 44-year-old mother of four, died within two hours of the electricity being switched off at her home in the northern city of Auckland.

The company, Mercury Energy, claims not to have known about the machine. The woman's family claimed it told a company representative about the machine and what would happen if the electricity was shut off. One is tempted to believe the family, though of course the representative -- i.e., a technician -- was probably just doing his job. But who knows? Maybe the company, as it put it, was indeed "simply unaware that loss of electricity to the household was putting a vulnerable customer at risk". And since the woman, a schoolteacher, was on leave for medical reasons and behind on her bills (likely well behind on her bills), one wonders why she, or her family, didn't prepare for this possible eventuality with a back-up system.

Regardless of who knew what, it's a pretty awful story.

Bush, the Nazis, and torture

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Andrew Sullivan has an extremely important post up -- he put it up yesterday, but I'm just now getting back to blogging after a day off to rest -- on the similarities between the Nazis' interrogation techniques (or methods of examination) and those approved for use by Bush and his underlings (and approved, too, by many of his supporters). Make sure to read his entire post. Here are some comments:

The Germans call it verschärfte Vernehmung, which means "enhanced" or "intensified" or "sharpened" interrogation. Andrew includes a Gestapo directive that outlines when such interrogation may be use, on whom it may be used, why it may be used, and what methods may be applied. As Andrew explains, "[t]he methods... are indistinguishable from those described as 'enhanced interrogation techniques' by the president". But he also notes that Bush has gone even further than the Nazis: "Also: the use of hypothermia, authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld, was initially forbidden. 'Waterboarding' was forbidden too, unlike that authorized by Bush."

Of course, the Nazis went much further than this. The U.S. has, too, but not nearly as far, and so the comparison between Bush and the Nazis must be understood in context. Still, what Andrew shows is that "[t]he Nazi defense of the techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration," and he provides extensive evidence to show even more similarities, including the approved use of "stress positions," "repeated beatings," "[f]reezing prisoners to near-death," and the "withholding of medicine and leaving wounded or sick prisoners alone in cells for days on end".

The word "interrogation" is a euphemism. This is torture -- and nothing less. It's what went on in places like Dachau. More recently, it's what's been going on in U.S. detention facilities around the world as "authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld," not to mention Cheney, Gonzales, and other officials, elected and unelected alike, and as supported by many Republicans in Congress and many mainstream conservatives, including prominent pundits, bloggers, and media personalities like Charles Krauthammer, Glenn Reynolds, and Rush Limbaugh. Here's more from Andrew:

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture -- "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.

No, I'm not suggesting capital punishment (and Andrew isn't either, of course), which I'm against. But consider the historical context for what Bush is doing as president. That he has abused his authority to wield power like the Nazis, and with such arrogance and brutality, should be viewed as one of the defining elements of his presidency. If America is an empire in decline, and if there is, as I think there is, a sickness eating away at its soul, there can be little doubt that a symptom of that sickness and decline, one that is spreading the sickness and accelerating the decline, that is blocking any attempt at recovery and making everything so much worse, can be found at the very apex of government, in the White House and in the various corridors of power occupied by those who have turned Lincoln's last, best hope into a savage instrument of oppression.

The Korean model

By Creature

Reuters (via ThinkProgress):

President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.

The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.

Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea.

"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters.

Josh Marshall pokes all the appropriate holes in this disingenuous presidential desire -- mainly that we are protecting the South Koreans from the North, not from themselves -- however, Mr. Marshall calls the statement another example of how "the White House is seriously out of touch with both history and reality when it comes to Iraq." I would propose that this statement, linking Iraq to the successful long-term operation in South Korea, is not at all delusional. I would propose it's a very deliberate attempt at mischaracterizing the Iraq war to make our long term presence there a more palatable idea to the American people. After all, we don't have a chorus of Americans clamoring for us get out of South Korea.

So, yes, while the White House appears to be out-of-touch to those like Mr. Marshall, who know history and have been paying attention for the last few years, to a good number of Americans the administration's out-of-touch-ness is an attempt at muddying the argument for withdrawal and to confuse them just the same.

Besides incompetence, "muddying and confusing" is what this White House does best.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Heil Bush

By Creature

I can't break down the minutia of the Valerie Plame outing like some on the Interwebs can, but I can recognize denial when I see it, and today the Right side of the Sphere is in serious denial over the fact that Valerie Plame was indeed "covert" at the time of her outing and that the people deemed serious about national security are anything but. Their loyalty to all things Bush, over all things country, Constitution, and reason, is beyond disturbing.

Update: Glenn Greenwald chronicles the Wingnut "covert" denial.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Talking to Tehran

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, it's a start:

The United States and Iran held their first official high-level, face-to-face talks in almost 30 years Monday to discuss the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, and officials emerged generally upbeat about the renewed dialogue, suggesting additional meetings were likely.

In briefings to reporters afterward, the chief negotiators -- U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker and Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi Qomi -- said the talks focused solely on Iraq and did not stray into the contentious areas of Iran's nuclear program or the recent detentions of four Iranian American citizens by Tehran.

But there's the glaring problem: How is it possible to talk about Iraq without addressing Iran's nuclear program or U.S.-Iran relations more generally? Is it possible that the U.S. and Iran will find common ground with respect to Iraq? One wonders. As Yglesias puts it, "the Iranians are going to seek to thwart our goals," because "our goals in the Middle East include overthrowing the [Iranian] regime".

And so Cernig may be right with his skepticism: "Talking is almost always vastly preferable to bombing. However, I've a nasty feeling that these talks will, eventually, go nowhere -- and will then be held up as evidence of Iran's lack of amenability to diplomacy by pro-war Bush administration members and their enablers."

Somewhere, perhaps in some underground lair, Dick Cheney is smirking.

The Island goes Liberal

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you were wondering, the Liberals are back in power on Prince Edward Island. In yesterday's provincial election, they won 52.9 percent of the vote and 23 of the province's 27 districts to secure a solid majority in the legislature. The Progressive Conservatives, who were going for a fourth straight majority victory under Premier Pat Binns (first elected premier in 1996), were reduced to 41.4 percent of the vote and just four seats. The new premier will be Robert Ghiz. Voter turnout was 83.4 percent of registered voters.

Although the Conservatives looked unbeatable when the campaign kicked off, the Liberals ran a strong campaign, promising new spending on health care and education, a reduction in the gasoline tax, and a balanced budget. Meanwhile, the Conservatives made what were seen as desperate promises -- a new junior high school and health center in Stratford, as well as a new convention center in Charlottetown, without explaining where the money would come from. The province's main newspaper, The Guardian, had predicted a Liberal victory, but the magnitude of the victory comes as something of a surprise.

See The Guardian for more. As well, see Wikipedia (which includes the image below).

Tyranny of the airwaves

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may know, Venezuelan Tyrant Hugo Chavez has shut down Radio Caracas Television, calling it "subversive". This is what he does to his critics, and far worse. And those who are protesting this act of tyrannical censorship, this suppression of dissent, have been hit hard:

Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets Monday into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a television station critical of his leftist government off the air.

Police fired toward the crowd of up to 5,000 protesters from a raised highway, and protesters fled amid clouds of tear gas. They later regrouped in Caracas’ Plaza Brion chanting "freedom!" Some tossed rocks and bottles at police, prompting authorities to scatter demonstrators by firing more gas.

Freedom indeed. But what is freedom in Chavez's Venezuela?

Said RCTV talk show host Miguel Angel Rodriguez, "They will not silence us!" I hope he's right, but I'm afraid they will. Or, at leat, they'll try. This is how Chavez rules Venezuela.

Reuters has more here, as does CNN here, but make sure to check out Daniel's post at Venezuela News and Views here. He's my go-to blogger for all things Venezuelan, and he says this: "The distinction is important, a mangled freedom of expression still exists in Venezuela, but freedom of information is already lost." He predicts "violence ahead," with Chavez's opponents having no other outlet for their opposition. And this is precisely what Chavez wants, "excuses to tighten his grip and 'eliminate' those who oppose him. He already killed them with words this week, it is just a matter of time for him to act on his words."

Democracy, says Daniel, died in Venezuela a few years ago. What is left is the consolidation of Chavez's tyranny.

**********

Update: The BBC is reporting that Chavez is also going after another TV network, Globovision.

Headline of the Day

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's a good one:

Polish authorities probing if Teletubbies are gay

Here's the story:

Poland's child rights ombudsman said on Monday she was investigating whether "The Teletubbies," the British television show for infants, promotes homosexuality.

"It would be good for a group of psychologists to talk to children about this. We need to examine this. If inappropriate attitudes have been promoted, we need to react," said Ewa Sowinska.

In an interview with the weekly news magazine Wprost, Sowinska said the character Tinky Winky was in the spotlight.

The plump purple creature is considered male due to his relative height, but carries a handbag.

"I have heard that this could be a hidden homosexual insinuation," said Sowinska.

This begs certain questions: What exactly are "inappropriate attitudes"? What exactly needs to be examined? And what exactly would psychologists say to children about this "hidden homosexual insinuation"? Given "the emerging climate of racist, xenophobic and homophobic intolerance in Poland," as the European Parliament put it recently, one would be justified in thinking that no good will come of this.

**********

Update: BBC's headline -- Poland targets 'gay' Teletubbies.

Memorial Day YouTubery

By Jeffaclitus

There's really nothing about this video that makes it appropriate or remotely relevant to Memorial Day, but it will never be either of those things for any other day, either, so might as well post it today. Besides, maybe it will lift people's spirits as they watch the last few hours of their long weekend slip through their fingers (ah, YouTube... helps ease the pain). And maybe it ties in with Michael's post on Wolfowitz.

Okay, enough specious justifications. I'm posting this video because it's sweet. No, wait, it's suh-weet. Behold, the greatest moment in American music history, the video of Travis Tritt's "Here's a Quarter (Call Someone Who Cares)." He's got a feathered mullet. He appears to be wearing The Puffy Shirt. The video features a CGI quarter in the set-up. And I won't even try to do justice that that belt buckle jamboree he's rocking in the opening scene (or is that his guitar strap? -- look closely!). But perhaps the high point is when he executes a sweet guitar pick toss-and-catch whilst some dude porks his girlfriend outside the men's room.

I kind of think of Travis Tritt as the Waylon Jennings of his generation, just as I think of Toby Keith as the Travis Tritt of his. As you can see from that analogy/genealogy, if you buy it, country music has been all downhill since Roger Miller died (as if you didn't already know that). Except for Dwight Yoakam.

Okay, okay, enough jabbering. Enjoy.

Wolfie's blame game

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Because he's a Bushie, and because Bushies must be Bushies, and because Bushies avoid taking responsibility for anything and everything they do that fails, which is pretty much anything and everything, Paul Wolfowitz has come to the conclusion, the only conclusion that could make any real sense to him, the only conclusion that could allow him to avoid responsibility for his actions, that he did nothing wrong at The World Bank, nothing at all that would justify what has happened to him, namely, his resignation (i.e., firing).

Like the Bush Administration -- like Bush himself, who rallied to Wolfowitz's defence and, in so doing, protected one of his own even in the face of mounting international criticism -- Wolfowitz prefers to place the blame anywhere but on himself. And the scapegoat this time? The media:

The outgoing president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, has told the BBC an "overheated" atmosphere at the bank and in the media forced him to resign.

*****

Speaking to the BBC World Service, Mr Wolfowitz denied that his own actions were the root cause of his departure.

"I'm pleased that finally the board did accept that I acted in good faith and acted ethically," he said.

"I accept the fact that by the time we got around to that, emotions here were so overheated that I don't think I could have accomplished what I wanted to accomplish for the people I really care about."

Actually, though, a World Bank panel determined that Wolfowitz in fact "broke World Bank laws" and that there was a conflict of interest in his efforts to help his girlfriend, Shaha Riza. Indeed, the panel "ruled he had broken the bank's code of conduct and violated the terms of his contract". As to his claim that he acted "in good faith and acted ethically," the banks board of directors "accepted [his] assurances," according to the BBC, but nonetheless "acknowledged that a 'number of mistakes' had been made". The bank's staff association put it more bluntly: "He has damaged the institution and continues to damage it every day that he remains as its president."

Wolfowitz was given the opportunity to save face and resign rather than face being censured or fired. Essentially, he had no choice but to resign. And it wasn't because of a hostile media environment. He was shown the exit because he had irreparably damaged his credibility, acted unethically, violated the bank's own rules, and weakened the bank itself. Simply put, he could not be left in power.

Just as he once said that he could not imagine why more troops would be needed after the fall of Saddam's regime than for the invasion itself, that is, just as he could not imagine what could go wrong during the American occupation of post-Saddam Iraq, Wolfowitz cannot imagine that he did anything wrong at The World Bank. It is the sort of arrogance that cannot admit of failure. And it is the sort of hubris that characterizes Bushies everywhere and that has come to define the Bush presidency. He may be a scoundrel, but he is just like all the rest.

See Evil, Speak Evil, Do Evil

By Capt. Fogg

I remember standing outside the Federal Courthouse during the Chicago 7 trial and talking to another demonstrator who saw this whole movement as the wave of the future that would sweep away the war mongering and the anti-democratic and totalitarian evils that accompanied it. He was sure that in our children's time, it would be a brave new world. My reply was that no, they would simply go around us and propagandize our children and make us into the enemy and so they did. Now, in my grandchildren's time, I think I can say with sadness that not only did it work, but it still works and they're still doing it.

Behold the man. Dick Cheney, pictured with his arm raised like Hitler, addressing the graduating class of the United States Military Academy at West Point. While many have been concerned that the officers of tomorrow already take a dim view of the Geneva Conventions, Cheney chose to take the low road and make his appeal to the growing contempt for morality amongst the ever more radically fundamentalist military.

"Capture one of these killers" said the worm Cheney, assuming that everyone captured is a demon, " and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away."

Indeed, those whose country we occupy by force are not only the "enemy" but sub-human demons and that absolves us of being moral; that justifies any evil we might enjoy in the quest to bring American, Judeo-Christian traditions to the heathens.

"The terrorists know what they want and they will stop at nothing to get it. By force and intimidation, they seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man, woman, and child lives in total obedience to their ideology." And indeed that's just what they say about us and that's what Cheney wants of us.

And just who the hell is "they," Dick? would it be the civilians beaten, raped, tortured and killed in your dungeons and in their own homes? Would it be the victims of your shock and awe? Would it be the millions forced to flee and the millions living in fear and hunger and disease and heat and cold and poverty now that we have changed their regime? Is everyone objecting to your imperialist thievery a "terrorist?" and what the hell is the moral difference between a terrorist who tortures and kills and a sick, corrupt maggot like you who does the same thing in the name of "freedom?"

It's not often that I am a complete loss of adequate words to describe the moral abomination that is Dick Cheney and his gang of murderers, liars and barbarians. No biblical prophet ever execrated any man or act thoroughly enough to suit the crime of his very existence. No advocate of Satanism ever was more eloquent in setting forth his case than he.

I fear to live in a country whose Army is pressed into the same mold as Hitler's Waffen SS. I loathe living in a country where standing up for morality, ethics, decency, liberty, democracy and all I hold to be the foundations of civilization are considered by our leadership to be unpatriotic. Our constitution, our laws, our beliefs about the inherent rights of man; our traditional values, our aspirations to be moral leaders - none of these things mean anything but as objects of contempt for Cheney and not only is he the least moral of anyone pretending to be an American; not only is he the Devil's advocate and propagandist, he's guilty of more high crimes and misdemeanors against our laws then any loathsome invertibarate ever to hold public office.

Dick Cheney is a malignant and aggressive cancer that cannot be removed soon enough. Impeachment and a lengthy jail sentence in some filthy sewer of a prison would have been his fate years ago if this country were worthy of any of the things it still brags about being. Cheney must be impeached and removed from office or we have no reason to exist.

(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)

Headline of the Day

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's the headline:

Syrians vote for president in no-contest poll

Here's the story:

Syrians were voting on Sunday in a no-contest referendum which will give President Bashar al-Assad another seven years at the helm of a Middle East regional heavyweight.

With parliament unanimously approving the candidature of the 41-year-old president for a second term, and with vocal opponents of the regime locked up, the referendum will inevitably annoint Assad as president until the year 2014.

The ruling Baath party has called on voters to give a resounding "yes" to a new mandate for Assad, who it said "will express the hopes of the people and the expectations of the nation".

Right, sure, of course that's what it will express. Isn't Syrian democracy awesome?

Memorial Day and Iraq

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Reflect on this:

Americans have opened nearly 1,000 new graves to bury U.S. troops killed in Iraq since Memorial Day a year ago. The figure is telling — and expected to rise in coming months.

In the period from Memorial Day 2006 through Saturday, 980 soldiers and Marines died in Iraq, compared to 807 deaths in the previous year. And with the Baghdad security operation now 3 1/2 months old, even President Bush has predicted a difficult summer for U.S. forces.

"It could be a bloody — it could be a very difficult August," he said last week.

And all for what?

To be the target of Sunni-Shiite cooperation, as Moqtada al-Sadr suggested on Friday?

To support a government in Baghdad that is at best incompetent (and impotent) and at worst a vehicle for Shiite sectarianism?

To fight the terrorists -- namely, al Qaeda -- even though it is precisely America's presence in Iraq that is empowering them?

To build a stable and democratic Iraq, as if that were even possible now?

And yet the war goes on and on, the death toll rises, and even the delusional warmonger-in-chief anticipates the spilling of more blood.

Oh, what a lovely war this has become. Is Richard Attenborough available to direct the musical?