John McCain, hypocrite extraordinaire, freaks out over largely meaningless Obama-Castro handshake

By Michael J.W. Stickings

TPM:

President Obama's handshake with Cuban President Raul Castro on Tuesday was met with a mostly muted reaction from conservatives and Republicans. Invoking memories of the Munich Agreement, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) broke the right's silence with a harsh assessment of the gesture.

"It gives Raul some propaganda to continue to prop up his dictatorial, brutal regime, that's all," McCain said of the handshake between the two world leaders that took place at a memorial service for Nelson Mandela.

When asked if Obama should have extended his hand, McCain was quick to respond.

"Of course not," the senator said. "Why should you shake hands with somebody who's keeping Americans in prison? I mean, what's the point?"

Then, after a slight pause, McCain went there.

"Neville Chamberlain shook hands with Hitler," he added.

Seriously. A fucking handshake. At a memorial service. For Nelson Mandela. It was the mature thing to do, nothing like the childish impetuousness that characterizes Republicans' interactions with pretty much everyone and everything. Maybe it signified a willingness to engage Cuba as a way of opening that country to liberty and democracy (as opposed to isolating it and enabling its totalitarian regime, as Republicans prefer), but maybe it signified nothing. So there.

But while we're here, remind me again who sold arms to Iran, who cozied up to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, who propped up dictators like Pinochet, Noriega, and the Shah of Iran, who kissed and held hands with Saudi royals, and, oh, who tried to make nice with Gaddafi?

Fucking hypocrite.

Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his "ranch" in Libya - interesting meeting with an interesting man.
— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) August 15, 2009

Reality will never intrude on the deniers' views

By Comrade Misfit

There is yet again another study which shows that polar ice is melting at an accelerating rate.

Phil Plait seems to think that the global warming deniers will eventually come to grips with reality. I am not so optimistic. In a country were something like 46% of the population reject the theory of evolution in favor of the "majickal sky-fucker" belief and where a similar number reject geological evidence in favor of the "presto-chango, now there is Earth" belief, it doesn't matter how many scientific studies are done and how much data is presented. They will never be convinced. For they are immune to evidence.

And yet, the same people who deny the reality of evolution will then condemn the Taliban for burning down schools and condemn the Saudis for their extremely misogynistic society. And they will never entertain the thought that there is not very much difference between all of them.

You simply cannot fix stupidity that is driven by religion. 

(Cross-posted at Just an Earth-Bound Misfit, I.)

The Iranian nuclear talks, part 2: Back to the negotiating table

By Ali Ezzatyar

(For part 1, see here.)

Iran and the international community (read: U.S.) are set to retake their seats at the negotiation table next week in Baghdad. If these were real chairs, one would hope they were made of a durable mahogany, as they have been frequented for ten years by fidgety, tough-talking diplomats on both sides, and there is still no likelihood that they will be retired soon. The talks are seen by both sets of negotiators as a zero-sum game, where no confidence-inspiring measures have been seriously considered -- the other side's threat of force has been the bottom-line motivator for both. As an important diplomatic window opens again, America and the world need to seek a grand bargain with Iran instead of the same old course of action. Think three factors: Assets, Sanctions, and Enrichment.

I argued previously that Iran's nuclear ambitions, while scary to the West, are understandable. They are reasonable from an energy perspective, as Iran can diversify its energy composition for domestic use and boost sales to the outside world of its most valuable natural resource. The nuclear program also offers Iran, even if it fully abides by the legal requirements of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), dual-use capability that allows it to be a potential acquirer of nuclear arms, and hence to have a deterrent. This nuclear policy is supported by a vast majority of Iranian citizens, who otherwise (mostly) disagree with their government on most things.

So while the fundamental calculation for both sides to push full-steam for their objectives has not changed, the constantly changing threat of force from each respective side has colored the way in which negotiations have gone forward. From the U.S. perspective, Iran's temporary halting of uranium enrichment in 2003 was an exceptional step that was not adequately taken advantage of. In 2003, America's aggressiveness in the region was Iran's primary motivating factor to consider this concession. Later, as the U.S. position in Iraq deteriorated, Iran utilized its proxy groups and resources to drive America into an even more precarious position there; this distracted America's attention from Iran's nuclear program almost totally, and even lead to the U.S. asking Iran for help and cooperation in stabilizing Iraq. That was music to Iran's ears, and the death knell of a genuine nuclear diplomatic process as far as the Iranians were concerned.

Today, there is still no clear existential danger in the view of the Islamic Republic. Threats of attack from Israel fall short of a regime-change scenario; the regime is likely to survive even if sanctions continue or get worse; and the United States is largely viewed as being out of the regime-change game, in particular where such a campaign in Iran would make Iraq and Afghanistan seem almost effortless in hindsight. There is one very important consideration in Tehran, however, that in addition to the aggregate effect of the latter annoyances has convinced the Iranian regime to play peace-seeker again.

The on-and-off tinkering of the Syrian regime, the only true regional ally that the Islamic Republic has ever had, is probably the largest existential threat to the Islamic Republic as well. Iran has sacrificed resources, political capital, and even its revolutionary idealism in supporting Bashar al-Assad with his brutal crackdown. The Saudi regime, Iran's primary rival in the region, is seeking not only to oust Assad due to his faithfully anti-Saudi stance on all issues, but also as a blow to its main rival.

From the moment America began dedicating countless resources to preventing Iraq from spiraling into civil war, and its positions in Afghanistan and the region were similarly weakened, Iran has not had a series of pressures that have convinced it that it needs to negotiate. The current tenuousness of Iran's position presents an opportunity. As a result, both sides (but particularly the U.S.) must take the initiative in proposing solutions -- solutions that will be viewed by both sides as painful concessions at home. The reality is, the necessary compromises have been clear from the beginning.

Iran's billions of dollars in frozen assets residing in the U.S. or in U.S. financial institutions must be back on the table as an incentive. There were early discussions of an offer to unfreeze Iran's assets in 2002, but that was soon replaced by a more hawkish stance on the American side that basically only considered more or fewer sanctions as the two options for going forward. The U.S. needs to acknowledge that it doesn't have a kitchen sink to throw at Iran anymore militarily; it needs to offer to repair Iran's refrigerator instead. The partial unfreezing of sanctions needs to be the ultimate carrot, short of restoration of diplomatic relations, to motivate Iran. Talk of this possibility should be brought up early enough to have a fruitful bearing on the conversation, and the appearance of weakness should not be a preoccupation of the American position. 

Speaking of broken refrigerators, a genuine plan to quantifiably reduce or end sanctions against Iran must also be presented as a prize for Iranian cooperation. The sanctions have always had the wrong effect on Iran, preventing ordinary Iranians from procuring key supplies necessary for important medical research, spare parts for civilian aircraft, and other supplies, while actually strengthening the regime's hold on power. While the sanctions are just recently leading to Iranians holding their government responsible for the consequences of sanctions, the people and not the government continue to be the primary group affected by sanctions in Iran's autocracy. Scaling the sanctions back as good reward is a no-brainer.

Iran must be prepared, in return, to freeze its uranium enrichment once again. More importantly, it has to be willing to abide by one of the various plans that have been proposed historically that allow it to develop its technology unhindered, with checks against production of nuclear arms. Such a process might entail having weapons-grade uranium produced offshore and imported at no extra cost to Iran, and will most certainly necessitate frequent inspections by the IAEA that are to some extent a blow to Iran's sovereignty. But the trade-off could be immense, and could (for better or worse) guarantee survival of the Islamic regime while leading to greater prosperity in Iran.

If the U.S. makes the right promises, Iran should take an active step towards easing American fears of a weapons program. This must be reciprocated by a temporary rolling back of certain sanctions against the Iranian regime, while a final plan is worked out for a functioning Iranian nuclear program in line with the NPT. That is the chronology. Ultimately, a full proof process that is acceptable to the world, guaranteeing that Iran cannot develop nuclear arms in the short term, should be reciprocated with Iran's inclusion in the international community.

Surely, critics will say that such proposals are idealistic, technically incomplete and shabby, and naive. But no matter how these negotiations are analyzed, sanctions, assets, and weapons-grade uranium enrichment are the three main factors. Everything else -- accusations of support for terrorist groups in the region and threats against Israel on one side, regional imperialism and an anti-Muslim crusade on the other, will not derail the negotiations if genuine will exists as to those three points.

The Syrian uprising's interested onlookers: Iran, Israel, Russia, and Saudi Arabia

By Ali Ezzatyar

The Arab Awakening has a common denominator: the people want the downfall of the regime. It is a pretty good one, too. While it ensures nothing, it is the first, and perhaps the most difficult, of many steps before democracy.

Bashar al-Assad, Tyrant of Syria

It goes without saying that each Arab country, with all of its distinctions, will see its individual route meet special hurdles and circumstances. An unfortunate reality is that many of these obstacles have nothing to do with domestic considerations at all, but rather international ones. We knew this. It's the story of the modern Middle East. But what has become increasingly clear over the last 14 months is just how important one of these countries actually is to everyone else. We get some color on the American perspective by reading the paper. But this is how the other important players are looking at the biggest prize of the Arab dictatorship club, Syria:

Iran: The world's initial fears that the Arab Spring would play into the hands of the champion of anti-Americanism, Iran, seem unfounded at this juncture. Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, for all of their imperfections, have not turned into hotbeds of terror ripe for Iranian influence. Syria is the one country in the Arab dictator family that was traditionally pro-Iranian all along. It was the only Arab country that provided material assistance to Iran during its war with Iraq, and it is an important buffer and ally in Iran's support of anti-Israeli groups. Syria and Iran share a disdain for the Saudi royal family; they also have had poor, often adversarial relations, with the Arab world's West-friendly dictators past and present. So while Iran touts itself as the champion of populist and Muslim revolution, lauding Egyptian and Bahraini revolutionaries as the continuation of the struggle for justice, it has kept its hands muddy and bloody in assisting Syria's crackdown against its own people. For Iran, the survival of the Ba'ath regime is imperative; it is its only genuine ally in the region, and it will stop at nothing, including assisting in the crackdown against innocent civilians, to ensure that Syria does not become the Arab Awakening's next casualty.

Israel: Israel often distinguishes itself as a democracy in a sea of dictatorships, but it was horrified by the Arab Spring when it began. The reality was, most of the Arab dictatorships had cooperative relationships with Israel, and their powerful armies had a leash on the anti-Israeli sentiment that is rampant among their respective populations. There are even reports that Israel explored the idea of sabotaging the revolution in Egypt in its early days in Tahrir square. But for the same reason that Egypt was a potential nightmare, the Syrian revolution is viewed more positively in Israel. Syria is, by any account, Israel's real arch-nemesis. The two countries have been to war multiple times, and Israel occupies Syrian land in the Golan Heights. A more democratic regime, in Israel's view, is less likely to support terrorism, and is less likely to align itself with Iran. There does remain the danger, however, of a more legitimate Syrian regime being more successful in convincing the world that Golan should be returned. That is bad for Israel. On account of this uncertainly, Israel is watching developments very closely in Syria, with a preference for the ouster of the Assad regime, replaced by a weak, fragmented Syrian government incapable of challenging Israel or harnessing support for anti-Israel groups in Lebanon.

Russia: We can always count on Russia to pull no punches with respect to disregarding human rights in the interest of geopolitics. And they are putting on a master-class display in Syria. Since the days of Hafez al-Assad, Syria has been Russia's most important ally in the Middle East; it houses an important army base there and has billions of dollars worth of commerce with the Assad regime. In addition, Bashar is a key element of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus triangle, helping Russia compete with American dominance in regional affairs. For the same reason that Russia refuses to come down hard on Iran vis-à-vis its nuclear activity, it has singlehandedly (making use of its sizeable influence on China) paralyzed the international community's ability to institute a legal reprimand of the Assad regime. With Russia on the Security Council, thousands more can die in Syria without the United Nations getting involved in a meaningful way.

Saudi Arabia: The primary outside supporter of the Syrian uprising, Saudi Arabia is pouring cash and arms into the hands of anyone who will help hasten Bashar al-Assad's demise. It is the most worthy of missions, in the Saudi mindset, to eliminate Saudi Arabia's traditional Arab foe. Among the many proxy wars these two countries have fought against each other, including in Lebanon, the downfall of Syria helps further weaken Iran, the country that Saudi Arabia views as most dangerous to its survival. Iran has called the Saudi dictatorship the least legitimate of regimes, and dreams of the day Saudi Arabia's substantial Shi'ite population, which happens to be in one of the most oil-rich provinces of the country, will rise up against the Saudi regime. This is Saudi Arabia's doomsday scenario.

And the Arab world's longest-lasting uprising continues.

U.S. government alleges Iranian involvement in plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador. But something stinks.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you've likely heard by now, it is being reported that Iran has been implicated in an assassination plot in the U.S.:

FBI and DEA agents have disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States" tied to Iran, federal officials told ABC News today.

The officials said the plot included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were also discussed, according to the U.S. officials.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an announcement today that the plan was "conceived, sponsored and was directed from Iran" by a faction of the government and called it a "flagrant" violation of U.S. and international law.

"The U.S. is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions," Holder said. 

Wait... what? Really? Iran? Terrorism? Against a high-value Saudi target in the U.S.? Something doesn't seem right.

As Max Fisher asks at The Atlantic -- and more people need to be asking this -- "would Iran really want to blow up the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.?"

Assuming that Iran is thinking rationally, the answer is obvious: No.

If they would go through all the trouble to organize a bombing attack on U.S. soil -- no easy thing to do -- why target someone so low-level? For that matter, why launch an attack on U.S. soil at all, something Iran has never done in the tumultuous decade since September 11? Why now, as opposed to, for example, during the height of the Iraq war? Why incur the wrath of the U.S. now, so soon after releasing the U.S. hikers detained in Tehran? (Their release was a modest and long overdue concession, but one that suggests the path of Iranian diplomacy.)

And why get involved with Mexican drug cartels? Is that really someplace where Iran has good contacts these days? As Ken Gude of the Center for American Progress asked, "Wiring money into US? Talking about plot on phone? Does that sound like an intel service to you?"

All that said, it really is possible that this is exactly what Holder says it is. Stranger things have happened, and Iran may have simply made an enormous, if out-of-character and obviously self-hurting, blunder. It's also possible that the two Iranian men really were planning to bomb the ambassador, but are either rogue members of the Revolutionary Guards or not really members at all. Clearly, there is much more information in this story that has not yet been made public. Maybe that information, if it ever comes out, will back up the official U.S. version -- which the White House already says it will use to escalate sanctions -- and maybe it will tell a different story. But, either way, the story as we now know it would have been unlikely to persuade Iran's leaders that this was a good idea.

It's just not in Iran's interests to be involved with something like this. And, indeed, there's no evidence -- at least no evidence that has been released publicly -- that Iran's government was behind this alleged plot:

The Justice Department statement notes that two men "have been charged in New York for their alleged participation in a plot directed by elements of the Iranian government to murder the Saudi Ambassador to the United States with explosives while the Ambassador was in the United States."

But what elements? What does that even mean?

One of the men is an Iranian-American. The other is "an Iran-based member of Iran's Qods Force, which is a special operations unit of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that is said to sponsor and promote terrorist activities abroad." Okay, but does this mean the plot was officially sanctioned -- and that therefore Iran needs to be held accountable "for its actions," as Holder put it?

The statement notes that there are "Iran-based co-conspirators." Okay, maybe, but it seems far more likely that these two men and whatever shadowy co-conspirators they had in Iran had gone rogue, perhaps with rogue elements of Qods supporting them, than that this was some officially sanctioned operation. Indeed:

Senior Obama administration officials said the U.S. currently does not have any information indicating that either Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad necessarily knew about the assassination plot and said the U.S. will pursue a path of response that would not include the possibility of an armed conflict with Iran. 

So, then, what? Other countries with whom the U.S. has been on generally good terms (e.g., Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) have rogue elements operating within "the government." Iran just happens to be... well, not a friend, and so an easy target. (And let's not forget that the U.S. even kills its own citizens without anything resembling due process. President Obama has made assassination a core component of his ongoing war on terror.) 

As Steve Clemons writes, "[t]his alleged assassination plot simultaneously may indicate both the intensity of anti-Saudi passion among Iran's senior leaders and a greater aggressiveness by Iran against the U.S." But what if there's much less to it than Holder and the U.S. government would have us believe? Even it's not true that the story is pure fabrication, as Iran suggests -- there may very well have been some sort of plot, after all -- what if the allegations are being trumped up for political reasons? Bush-Cheney did that all the time. Do we really think Obama is above such things?

(What possible political reasons? To suck up to the Saudis? To suck up to Israel? -- especially important given 2012, and Obama has already vetoed Palestinian statehood. To vilify Iran even more? For Obama to show that he and his administration are tough on terrorism? Who knows.)

Think Progress has a couple of updates:

-- "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with the AP that the alleged terror plot, which she said 'crosses a line,' also 'creates a potential for international reaction that will further isolate Iran.' The U.S. is in discussions with other countries about potential diplomatic moves to hold Iran to account." 

But shouldn't there be more evidence to justify any such international moves?

-- "'One thing that's important to remember,... these are serious allegations but at this point they are just allegations,' said CNN's Reza Sayah, 'And if you look at this regime's history, it doesn't fit their M.O. Is it possible that they were involved? Certainly. Do these allegations need to be proven, do we need to see more details? I would say certainly before jumping to conclusions.'"

Yes, exactly, allegations. But jumping to conclusions is what people are doing, and how could they not? The Justice Department statement is somewhat qualified in its claims, but the public message is that Iran was directly behind the plot. And the media, needless to say, are running wild with it. Sexy stories like this don't come around every day, after all, and they're in the business of selling fear, not nuance, of engaging in idle speculation, not rational examination of the facts.

Look, I'm not saying there wasn't a plot, and, if there was, I'm not saying Iran wasn't involved in it. Maybe it was, if not officially at least through rogue elements with ties to terrorism, rogue elements either acting on their own or with the unofficial blessing of someone higher up the food chain.

But something stinks here, and it wouldn't surprise me if this just faded away, political points having been made.

Mobile email and its discontents

By Peter Henne

I had half-expected the UAE and Saudi ban on some BlackBerry services to be an esoteric topic; the details of telecommunications policy in Gulf states is hardly a regular conversation point. As a DC resident, however, I daily wade through seas of people made oblivious to the world around them by these devices. For better or worse, mobile access to the internet and email is the lifeblood of many, so this story is of concern to both the business and human rights communities.

Two aspects of the story stand out. The first is the rather technical justification put forward by Saudi and UAE authorities. The UAE has claimed they want only the "same regulatory compliance" that other states demand from telecommunications companies, while the Saudis talk of "regulatory requirements." Most agree this is blatant censorship, but it is useful to compare it to Pakistan's blasphemy-based justifications for recent limitations on internet access. This hardly endeared the Pakistani government to international opinion, but it did generate support among some religious conservatives. That the Gulf states--especially Saudi Arabia--seem to be avoiding religious appeals demonstrates the balancing act involved in their attempt to be an integral part of the global economy.

The second interesting element is how widespread moves to censor BlackBerry seem to be. Both India and Lebanon have been moving towards similar controls. And Indonesia apparently considered limitations on email access, but recently claimed there would be no ban on the services. That relatively open countries like India and Indonesia are concerned about BlackBerry access shows these policies are not tied to the peculiarities of the Gulf states.

The efforts to limit BlackBerry access are part of the tension between states benefiting from the free flow and ideas and resources in the modern international system, and their desire to limit their vulnerability from these flows. The problem is not that these states have a limited understanding of the Internet--as some have argued--but that they understand it all too well.

Top Ten Cloves: Reasons Dick Cheney was visiting Saudi Arabia

News Item: Why Was Cheney in Saudi Arabia?

10. Moonlighting for Fox News - Trying to get Saudis to say Oil Spill is Obama's fault

9. Picking up royalty check, for invading Iraq

8. Trying to give The Politico a scoop

7. Made a pit stop, after visiting Prince Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, in the UAE, who lined up someone for Cheney to beat and run over

6. Looking for a buyer - Wants to put his old Secret Bunker on the market, for big bucks

5. No here will go hunting with him any longer

  4. Saudis wanted to hear, first hand, the telling of the Leahy "Go-fuck-yourself" story

3. Felt he had to, personally, go over and explain his rabid, nitwit daughter Liz

2. Moonlighting as "Bag Man" for the Carlyle Group

1. Working out a "No Extradition" deal, in the event he gets prosecuted

A $1,300 car tax, oh my

By Creature

Improved CAFE standards should be a no-brainer. Even leaving aside the global warming argument, anything that limits our dependence on foreign oil is a good thing. Right? Wrong. For conservatives raising the standards is just another excuse to whip the base into an anti-tax frenzy. Please, it's not a tax, you'll get a savings in the long run, and, jeez, eventually it may put a terrorist supporting state like Saudi Arabia out of business. You'd figure the right would get this, but no.

Saudi ugly

By Michael J.W. Stickings

CNN: "A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes, four months imprisonment and deportation from the kingdom for having two unrelated men in her house, according to local media reports."

Lovely.

And why exactly do so many people -- like the Bushies -- consider Saudi Arabia such a close friend and ally?

Oh, right. Oil. I suppose that excuses all sorts of ugliness, nastiness, and brutality.

Right?

Rock on, Accolade!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Very busy day today, which explains a lack of posting on my part, but let me refer you to an interesing article in the Times:

As Taboos Ease, Saudi Girl Group Dares to Rock

It's about an all-girl rock group in a country that doesn't much care for girls or rock:

They cannot perform in public. They cannot pose for album cover photographs. Even their jam sessions are secret, for fear of offending the religious authorities in this ultraconservative kingdom.

But the members of Saudi Arabia's first all-girl rock band, the Accolade, are clearly not afraid of taboos.

The band's first single, "Pinocchio," has become an underground hit here, with hundreds of young Saudis downloading the song from the group's Web site. Now, the pioneering foursome, all of them college students, want to start playing regular gigs -- inside private compounds, of course -- and recording an album.

"In Saudi, yes, it's a challenge," said the group's lead singer, Lamia, who has piercings on her left eyebrow and beneath her bottom lip. (Like other band members, she gave only her first name.) "Maybe we're crazy. But we wanted to do something different."

No, you're not crazy, but you are courageous.

After all, freedom -- and what is rock music if not the music of freedom? -- is a wonderful thing. And Saudi Arabia could do with a lot more of it, most especially for women.

Maybe there's hope yet.

Pot to kettle: "You're black!"

By Carl

President Bush is in the Middle East to press Arab leaders to moderate their cultures: create economic reforms, increase opportunities for women, and embrace democracy.

Yea. Um. Hullo?

SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt — After a showy celebration of America’s close ties with Israel, President Bush was expected to present Arab leaders with a lengthy to-do list on Sunday, telling them that if Middle East peace is to become a reality, they must expand their economies, offer equal opportunity to women and embrace democracy.

Mr. Bush’s three-day stay in Jerusalem last week has drawn criticism from Arab leaders, including the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, who say he has been insensitive to the plight of Palestinians. He came to this Red Sea resort city to try to soften that impression and reassure regional leaders he is committed to their cause.

But in prepared remarks released ahead of a Sunday afternoon appearance at the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, a gathering of world leaders, diplomats and business executives, Mr. Bush seemed to chide as much as reassure.

“Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail,” Mr. Bush said in the address, adding, “The time has come for nations across the Middle East to abandon these practices, and treat their people with the dignity and respect they deserve.”

Now, granted, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton is in any danger of being thrown in the hoosegow -- although the Rezko trial ain't over yet -- but to say others must embrace democracy as we erode it away is a little like starting a land war in South Asia: idiotic.

The liberties we've given up, quietly, with little fanfare, are astounding. You can't travel anyplace out of the country without first being vetted. You can't open a bank account without proving every detail about your life, right down to your utility bill. You can't rent a movie or borrow a book from a library without some flunky at the DHS glancing at your activity.

You can't make a telephone call, cell or landline, without popping up on a list and god help you if that call is to a Muslim nation!

This is a democracy only in form and even there, with the imminent threat of stolen elections dangling over our heads, perhaps "name only" is a better way of putting it!

Similarly, "economic reforms" for Arab countries is code for "share the wealth". Emirs and sheiks control the lion's share of revenues flowing into nations from Saudi Arabia to Qatar.

For America, which now sees the largest single inequity in personal income since at least the Great Depression, to chide any other nation about its income structure is absurd, particularly as we worked hard these past seven years to institute a formal recognition that, indeed, the rich really DO get richer, off the backs of the working classes in this nation who create that wealth.

You know... Clinton voters.

A true acknowledgment of this terrible situation would see Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, sweeping to election in November. Clearly, the middle classes are terrified of this. After all, the middle class relies deeply on the rich to create the cushy middle management jobs upon which they rely on to work without getting their hands calloused and dirty. We survive and subsist on the scraps of the rich, but those scraps are just big enough to keep us complacent.

Nevermind that job security and company loyalty no longer work both ways.

And yes, let's focus on Bush's other point for a second: women.

It's great to see a woman actually contend for the highest office in the land and arguably the most powerful job in the world.

It's highly symbolic, at the same breath. Look at how many Obombers and McCainistas claim she got there by dint of her husband.

Neither Obama nor McCain has exactly made it on their own either. Cindy McCain was independently wealthy, freeing John to be a politico, and Michelle Obama appears to have a fair amount of money in her own right, seeing as all these shady real estate deals were done in her name only.

That would be an interesting sidelight to an Obama administration: can the First Lady be imprisoned?

And it is this perception, that a woman somehow need a magical "leg up" while men do not, despite the fact that the old boy's network has been up and running for hundreds of years in America, must change. It is this segregated thinking that marginalizes women...and yes, minorities, too. And while it's not as pervasive as blatant discrimination can be, it is nonetheless insidious and affective.

So, Dumbya? Clean your own house first before you go around talking about the trash in other people's kitchens.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Embracing tyranny

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As Fareed Zakaria put it on last night's Daily Show, the U.S., and the Bush Administration in particular, supports democratic reform only in "strategically insignificant" countries like Burma -- and not in, for example, Pakistan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, where U.S.- and Bush-friendly dictators, or seemingly friendly dictators (like Pakistan's Musharraf), accept U.S. aid in return for their compliance with U.S. interests, or seeming compliance with seeming U.S. interests. It's all about seeming, you see, which is to say, about appearance. In the end, for Bush and the Bushies, democracy means much less than whatever it is they can get out of their friendly dictators, like oil, which may be real, or support for Bush's war on terror, which may not be -- support in speech is not support in deed, something Bush has yet to figure out.

Billions to Pakistan -- for what? Billions to the Saudis -- for what? For a hug, for a photo-op, for empty promises, for nothing.

And now Bush is in the Middle East making nice with his dictator pals.

First photo below from The Globe and Mail: "U.S. President George W. Bush embraces Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah upon his arrival at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh."

Later, Bush announced that he was going ahead with the sale of sensitive military technology, specifically laser-guided bomb technology, to Saudi Arabia. In what is surely related news, Abdullah awarded Bush the Saudi Order of Merit. Second photo below from the BBC.

Stopping by a Middle East news stand

By Carol Gee

(image: sumeja @ StockXchng)

What is going on in the Middle East these days,
I asked myself. I confess that my ignorance about the region is a few weeks old. As I read to catch up with the latest from Aljazeera, I picked up a thread that ties all the stories together. What I learned is that factions of people are upset that certain people are not where they are supposed to be. Or, occasionally, others are pleased to see strangers where they usually have not been for some time. (All quotes are from Aljazeera):

Turkey and the Kurds -- shooting at each other has gone on for some time now. But the actions of Kurdish separatists, who would like to establish an intact and sovereign Kurdistan, are now being actively challenged by Turkey, with the help of the U.S. These new developments have proved to be a hornet's nest of complications for the United States diplomatic forces, trying to get the Iraqi government factions to reconcile and move forward. The headline says, "Turkish forces launch Iraq raid." To quote:

Some 300 Turkish troops have crossed over into northern Iraq in an overnight operation hunting Kurdish separatist fighters.

Reports on Tuesday said that the troops had already pulled out, but not before their presence overshadowed a surprise visit by the US secretary of state to Kirkuk in Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region.

Condoleezza Rice was snubbed by the president of the Iraqi Kurdistan region in protest against America's apparent helping role in the military action.

. . . Meanwhile, US military commanders and diplomats in Iraq said they did not know Turkey was sending warplanes to bomb in northern Iraq until the jets had already crossed the border.

Americans have been providing Turkey with intelligence to go after Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq.

The Haj in Saudi Arabia and Iran -- a Sunni country and a Shia country were at odds in the recent past. But they have been having more frequent interactions as part of a larger Middle East family of nations. And the President of Iran is now making his own pilgrimage to Mecca in the heart of Saudi Arabia. The headline is, "Ahmadinejad takes part in the Hajj;" and to quote:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, joined millions of Muslims on Mount Arafat, east of Mecca, to mark the spiritual high point of the Hajj. He is the first Iranian leader to take part in the annual Muslim pilgrimage. Ahmadinejad is attending the Hajj at the invitation of King Abdullah, the Saudi king.

. . . Last month, Ahmadinejad publicly rebuked King Abdullah for Saudi Arabia's participation in a meeting in the US city of Annapolis aimed at finding peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

But he also became the first president of Iran to attend the end-of-year annual summit of Gulf Arab leaders that was held in Qatar earlier this month.

Israel and Palestine -- continued killing and territorial conflict. Attacks by each side against the other, demands for recognition of rights, incursions into the other's territories, all continue to plague the peace process that has lagged behind for decades. "Hamas leader renews truce offer" is the headline. To quote from the story:

Islamic Jihad, a group much smaller than Hamas, has been responsible for most of the attacks since Hamas seized total control of Gaza last June from forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president and leader of Fatah party.

"We stand by our original offer for a truce based on reciprocation and an end to attacks by all sides," Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas spokesman, told Al Jazeera in a phone interview.

"Our position has not changed. We are ready to commit to a truce but Israel would also have to simultaneously commit to stopping its raids and assassinations against the Palestinians."

Earlier reports suggested that Ismail Haniya, prime minister of the Gaza-based Hamas government, made a new truce offer through the Israeli media in a telephone conversation with Suleiman al-Shafi, an Israeli journalist.

Palestinians and Israelis -- conflicted over settling Jerusalem. The so-called "two-state solution" still seems very far away. The factions have split into smaller and smaller groups, and small pieces of land are still in dispute. Neither side has been able to step back and see how their rigid stances are perceived by their opponents. Negotiators always seem bound by worries about being seen as not rigid enough by their own constituencies. The story is headlined, "Israel 'examines' new settlement." To quote:

Israel has said it is examining a plan to construct a new Jewish neighbourhood in occupied east Jerusalem, weeks after sparking criticism for expanding another settlement in the city.

. . . Two weeks ago, Israel invited bids for more than 300 new housing units in another settlement at Jebel Abu Ghneim in occupied and annexed east Jerusalem. Har Homa, as the settlement is known to Israelis, is built on land confiscated by Israel.

. . . Palestinians want the eastern part of Jerusalem, which Israel captured from Jordan in 1967 and later annexed, for the capital of a future state.

. . . In its 40 years of control over east Jerusalem, Israel has built new neighbourhoods there that are now home to 180,000 Israelis.

Update: The new headline, just in, reads, "Israel backs off on settlement plan." Good news! Tough choices need to be made by all of these conflicted parties in the Middle East.

The United States is also obliged to make tough choices. As long as our military forces occupy Iraq, the factions will not have incentive to work to reconcile themselves. We need to leave them to it. We need to begin talking to Iran in the process, who can be enlisted in solutions because of potential interest in a peaceful Iraq. And most of all, a strong, concerted and skillful U.S. initiative towards a peaceful settlement between Israel and Palestine will go a long way towards bringing peace to the entire region. The establishment of Palestinians in a contiguous area that can sustain a united population, and a peaceful settlement of Israelis in a secure area to which they have an acknowledged right, is the dreamed-for "two state solution." The U.S. owes such a big effort to the region. Goodness knows we have made such a mess. We really need to clean up after ourselves with more good offices than have been forthcoming so far. All this may have to wait for a new president. The current leopards are probably not going to change their spots.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest)

Bush, the Saudis, and the Iraqi insurgency

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It doesn't take a Michael Moore movie to work through the connections here:

Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.

Andrew Sullivan sums it up: "The Saudis, of course, are among the Bush family's closest friends, so we neither mention nor tackle this. The gulf between the reality in the Middle East and the president's account of it grows wider and wider."

See also Juan Cole, who reminds us that the vast majority of those fighting the U.S. in Iraq are... Iraqis, "nationalists of various stripes, whether religious or secular. They are Sunni. They haven't given fealty to Bin Laden and are not 'al-Qaeda.'"

(For more, see Taylor Marsh and the GTL.)