Perceiving the Mumbai attacks

updated

As we're all aware, Mumbai was victimized by some savage human behavior over the last week. The standoff was simultaneously gripping and painful to watch.

I was not glued to the couch or the internet all weekend, so I didn't not follow every single development as it unfolded. Rather, I checked in periodically. Five minutes here, twenty minutes there.

Is it inappropriate of me to suggest the US media coverage of Mumbai attacks was horrendous?

I haven't seen much discussion of this elsewhere.

I thought US coverage was dangerously sensational. I got the sense that they were reporting every last rumor they heard on the ground without getting any confirmation. I also sense a perverse enthusiasm for tying the attacks to the Pakistani government.

I know there are certain reasons this attack garnered so much attention compared to other terrorist attacks in the recent past but I'd just like to point out:

In 2004, Spain was rocked by an attack on a passenger train which killed 191 people and wounded an additional 1,775.

In 2006, attackers set off several bombs on a train in Mumbai, killing over 200 and wounding 700.

Since the start of our War in Iraq, attacks yielding similarly grisly death totals have occurred with tragic frequency.

In 2004, gunman killed over 1000 in Beslan, Russia, over the course of a three day standoff.

In Pakistan, an attack on Benazir Bhutto's motorcade, not long before her assassination, killed 140 and wounded several hundred.

Maybe I'm misremembering, and please correct me, but I do not recall media coverage for any of the above attacks being in the same ballpark as what we observed this past week. These recent Mumbai attacks yielded wall-to-wall live coverage on the cable news, including the preempting of late-night reruns of that prison lock down show they normally put on MSNBC.

There are a lot of reasons this recent attack resonated in the US. For one, its level of sophistication was out of the ordinary. Second, the attacks targeted cultural landmarks, the rich, and Westerners. Third, the attacks were drawn out over a few days.

There is some difference in the coverage of a bombing attack which is a singular brute event and an attack by gunmen, which requires a different breed of attacker and a more skillful police response.

We also know how volatile the region is, particularly when it became clear that Pakistan would have to provide some cooperation.

Nonetheless, I was still struck by how the attack made time stop for the US television media in the midst of a Presidential transition and a financial crisis. Someone I was talking to about this wondered if the Mumbia attacks garnered so much attention because it was a slow holiday news weekend. I considered this but it wouldn't explain why cable news networks would preempt previously scheduled programing. Nor does it make any sense given how the media has seemed to enjoy chewing over the 'team of rivals' thing. I could be wrong about that. Even my beloved Talking Points Memo unveiled the rarely used big headline format to announce the Mumbai attacks as the top story. I was surprised when I encountered this.

The other major thing I noticed was the brazen fashion in which many outlet reported on the attackers' "ties to Pakistan" when it was revealed that the attackers were from Pakistan. This observation may turn out to be moot, as there does seem to be some reasonable suspicions at this point. But I was really struck with the jump to conclusion. And yes, I am familiar with the US cable media.

Sorry that this has been a little disorganized. I don't have a thesis or a conclusion or anything. I'm just wondering if people perceived the coverage of the event similarly. I have come to expect sensational coverage of events out of the US media but I was surprised by the extent to which the Mumbai attacks dominated. Anybody else?

What am I missing?

Update:

This afternoon, NPR's Phillip Reeves delivered a great report from Mumbia that outlined the outrage of everyday Indians at their own government, not just for their response to these attacks, but for widespread failures. Protests are scheduled and word is spreading fast using the tools of new media.

It will be interesting to see how India's government responds to public pressures.

It is wise to be skeptical of India's actions during this crisis, including efforts to use the Pakistan boogieman to divert attention from homegrown shortcomings.

Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters

Richard Clarke is speaking right now and just rose a few interesting points in response to a question regarding the defense budget.

He emphasized that the defense budget is independent of funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is submitted to Congress after the fact as emergency spending bills. The defense budget has increased exorbitantly independent of the wars.

Clarke then suggested that the next President would be wise to entertain cuts to the defense budget. He then spoke very candidly about the physical size of our army. Clarke mentioned that both candidates currently favor expanding the size of the military. He, while reiterating his support for Barack Obama in spite of disagreements on some issues, questioned why it was we need to expand our fighting capability.

Clarke buttressed these points by citing defense spending on fighter jet technology to the tune of $1 billion per plane when we already have the most advanced jets in the world by far.

Very smart guy.

Richard Clarke and Rand Beers

Obama's International Popularity a Double-Edged Sword?

We're in an in-between period right now. There's a lull. Obama has just locked up the nomination, Clinton has just dropped out. McCain and Obama are now sniffing each other's butts before the general election spending really gets under way. They're baiting each other on different issues, trying out different talking points and lines of attack. They're seeing what's going to stick when the campaign goes into full swing.

In monitoring different stories, I'm beginning to fear that Republicans are testing the water for a full-fledged campaign to make Obama appear to be the candidate terrorists want to win.

The Lieberman attacks and the lines about being Hamas' preferred candidate merely represent trail runs of what will be a longer, more protracted campaign to frighten the American public by weaving together Obama's skin color, international heritage, and more diplomatic foreign policy approach.

The right is banking that they can claim an Obama Presidency is "what the terrorists/extremists want" and implicitly tie that to the malicious rumors about his commitment to Israel, his own religion, and his loyalty to the United States without actually having to answer for or defend the fringe whisper campaign.

We're already seeing media snipes of this nature during this lull period to a certain degree, but what I'm anticipating is that this strategy will become a daily staple of the McCain campaign. Obama will be explicitly attacked for being the "preferred candidate of terrorists and extremists" to the point where he'll have to answer the charges directly and repeatedly.

Given that McCain and the GOP are flailing so badly on all fronts, they're desperately searching for something, anything that they can use against Obama for the duration of the campaign. This is the only thing that I've thought of that truly worries me, if only because McCain will be effectively insulated potential tactical backlash.

See also Thomas Friedman's latest.

Meet Our Next Secretary of State

Joe Biden is the man.

I wish Democrats had been this straightforward about our President's "bullshit" beginning seven years ago. After the George the Disaster insinuated to the Israeli Knesset that Democrats and Obama were aiming to appease terrorists, Senator Joe Biden said the following:

“This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.

“He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something.”

Brilliant! Where've ya been at?

Also:

Seems John McCain has determined it prudent to defend George the Disaster's attempt to link Obama's pragmatic diplomatic approach to appeasers of Hitler. Obama=Hitler, y'all. See ya in 2012.

Tougher Than Hell

So I was watching the Daily Show the other day and caught an interesting interview with Fareed Zakaria, who writes for Newsweek. He'll also soon have a show on CNN. He's an interesting character politically. Some might say that he comes from a neoconservative background. He's a big supporter of free trade and globalization. Well, anyways, you can wikipedia him. Whether or not you disagree with some of the underlying ideological assumptions, he is incredibly learned and has a fascinating perspective.



Here, he discusses the decline of the United States as the world's sole economic superpower. Generally, Zakaria tends to paint a rosier picture of our overall outlook than that which seems to be depicted on the television but his characterization of our power sent chills down my spine.

We have the biggest military in the world, by far. One of the things I think has happened . . . is that we look at every problem now really through the prism of the military because we're so damn good at it. So you look at what's going on in Africa and you say 'there's Islamic extremism there.' So we say 'well, let's set up Africom. You know, a command center, US military, four-star general.'

Wait a minute, is the answer to the spread, the rise of Islamic fanaticism to set up a kind of US neocolonial military presence in these countries and start having American troops go around there beating people up? I'm not so sure.

*Note, Jon sort of gives the rub to Tulane University at the end of the interview

The biggest military in the world. Every problem through the prism of the military. A neocolonial military presence.

And Mr. Zakaria should know, because he was at least one meeting with Paul Wolfowitz in November of 2001.

Another person who should know is former Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who since leaving his post as commander of the coalition troops in Iraq, has roasted the Bush administration's reckless consideration of American and civilian lives and their constant nods to political considerations over military objectives:

Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez joined the White House videoconference on the second day of house-to-house fighting between 2,000 Marines and entrenched guerrillas in Fallujah.

Crafted in Washington as a brass-knuckles response to the gruesome deaths of four Blackwater security guards killed the week before and strung up on a bridge, the battle had the full support of President Bush.

Sanchez, in a memoir to be released Tuesday, said Bush “launched into what I considered a kind of confused pep talk” about the battle for Fallujah and an upcoming campaign to kill or capture radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and cripple his militia.

“Kick ass!” Bush said. “If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell!”

Fueled by images beamed by the Al-Jazeera television network, the administration quickly reversed course, stopping Operation Vigilant Resolve. Soon after, Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer dropped plans to capture or kill al-Sadr, even though the president had said during the April 7, 2003, meeting, “It is essential he be wiped out,” according to the memoir.

Kick ass. If someone tries to stop the march to democracy we will seek them out and kill them. That's the mindset. Real classy. Never mind the fact that the President withdrew the orders because he thought it might hurt his reelection campaign.

Meanwhile, let us travel to the present, to Red Square in Moscow, where new Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and new Russian President Vladmir Putin put on a display of military might not seen since the days of the USSR.

The Kremlin’s decision to parade its military hardware has been a subject of competing interpretations, viewed variously as symbolic confirmation of Russia’s pride, or aggressiveness, as a marketing show of Russian arms, and as a nationalistic festival ordered by Mr. Putin, for Mr. Putin.

Mr. Putin insisted earlier in the week that the parade should not be viewed as “saber rattling.” “It is not a warlike gesture,” he said. “Russia is not threatening anyone.”

But it followed a year during which the Kremlin asserted its case against what it regarded as reckless American foreign policies. Mr. Putin has strongly protested an American-led plan to install a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. As tensions rose, Russia’s aging strategic bombers conducted international patrols, entered British airspace and approached American carrier groups on the high seas.

The United States' response?

Let's just speculate for a moment before I share it with you.

Remember, President Bush was very close with President Putin, he explained that he trusted Mr. Putin not to entrench himself as an autocrat because he "looked the man in the eyes" and was able "to get a sense of the man's soul." So, though Bush likely doesn't appreciate Russia's opposition to the missile defense project or Russia's incursions into former Soviet republic elections, President Bush probably doesn't want to aggravate Russia further. The administration will probably want to through a wet blanket on media attempts to fan flames. The President's policy toward Mr. Putin already looks abominable, might as well minimize damage, play off the significance of the military demonstration by talking up US-Russian friendship.

Well, here is the US reaction:

“If they wish to take out their old equipment and take it for a spin and check it out,” said the spokesman, Geoff Morrell, “they’re more than welcome to do so.”

WOW!

So the official United States reaction to Soviet-style military escalation by the Russians is to backhand them in the face, insult their might, and challenge them to spend more money on their military.

You know, the Bush administration, for years, has insisted that we all have to adopt "a post-9/11 mindset." Reliance on diplomacy and the United Nations was naive in the face of the dangerous new world landscape. The United States needed to act more unilaterally to protect its interests, the argument was.

But, you know what, you know who never adopted a post-9/11 mindset?

The Bush administration.

Because they're still very clearly living in the midst of the Cold War.

We've dictated a foreign policy marinated in the same juices as the Domino Theory. If we can just use our guns and our planes to carve out spheres of influence in the Middle East, the terrorists and the unfriendly states will topple over in turn.

On the count of three, arms race: one.... two.....

Bush, Musharraf, and Bhutto

From Time Magazine:

Hussain Haqqani, a former top aide to Bhutto and now a professor at Boston University, thinks the U.S., which has counted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally against terrorism since 9/11, bears some of the responsibility. "Washington will have to answer a lot of questions, especially the Administration," he says. "People like me have been making specific requests to American officials to intervene and ask for particular security arrangements be made for her, and they have been constantly just trusting the Musharraf Administration." U.S. officials said they were leery of intervening in another nation's internal affairs, and didn't want to give Bhutto Washington's imprimatur.

Haqqani is not shy about pointing fingers. He blames Musharraf himself, above all, for Bhutto's death. "It's quite clear that Musharraf does not want an election — you can quote me — he is the one who has constantly wanted anybody who can threaten him or his power, out." Haqqani told Congress in October that U.S. aid for Pakistan has for too long been tilted toward the Pakistani military. "Since 1954 almost $21 billion had been given to Pakistan in aid," he told the House Armed Services Committee. "Of this, $17.7 billion were given under military rule, and only $3.4 billion was given to Pakistan and the civilian government."

This whole Pakistan thing might bump the younger Spears' pregnancy for awhile.

This stinks.

Update: There's more.

This is from Trudy Rubin, one of the wiser foreign affairs columnists I've read. She was supposed to interview Benazir Bhutto the night she was assassinated:

The mood here reminds me of the overwhelming grief, the clinging to family and television news, that followed John F. Kennedy's assassination. But there's a big difference: Pakistanis are angry at this murder, an anger that has already led to violence and could rock the country. And just about every Pakistani with whom I spoke blamed her death not on al-Qaeda, but on their own government - and the United States.

I'd be furious too. I don't know if urging them to stay calm (see: Bush, Musharraf) will satiate an outraged people's thirst for justice. I support the people of Pakistan. I hope they're in favor of having secure nuclear weapons even if there must be volatile mass mobilizations. Restraint would be a virtuous, given the potential global consequences of any more instability. I can't say I would be capable of demonstrating that type of wisdom in their shoes.

Everyone should pay attention now.

UPDATE II:

Because unfortunately, there is even more.

The top story at the Washington Post: "U.S. Brokered Bhutto's Return to Pakistan"

For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.
--
"The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability, but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact," said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

Simultaneously, the top story at CNN: "Bhutto said she'd blame Musharraf if killed"

Two months before her death, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto sent an e-mail to her U.S. adviser and longtime friend, saying that if she were killed, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would bear some of the blame.
--

"Nothing will, God willing happen," she wrote to Mark Siegel, her U.S. spokesman, lobbyist and friend.

"Just wanted u to know if it does in addition to the names in my letter to Musharaf of Oct 16nth, I wld hold Musharaf responsible. I have been made to feel insecure by his minions and there is no way what is happening in terms of stopping me from taking private cars or using tinted windows or giving jammers or four police mobiles to cover all sides cld happen without him."

I don't like this at all. Not one bit.
It's impossible not to feel utterly helpless on this one now. We're all just waiting for the immediate aftershocks of all this.

Go read excellent background and analysis from someone way smarter than me, his name is Juan Cole. Click it!Click it!

Consequences Become Glaringly Apparent: The Assissination of Benazir Bhutto

Shocking, they call it. They're all saying they're shocked and outraged and saddened.

But this is no shock. She knew she was a target, everyone knew she was a target.

In October, massive blasts killed over 130 people in a failed assassination attempt. People have wanted Benazir Bhutto dead since the moment she returned to Pakistan from exile.

From the NYT:

...Ms. Bhutto blamed extremist Islamic groups who she said wanted to take over the country for that attack, which narrowly missed her but killed 134 people. But she also complained that the government had taken insufficient steps to safeguard her parade.

The government has maintained that she ignored its warnings against such public gatherings and that holding them placed herself and her followers in unnecessary danger.

The assassination comes just days after Mr. Musharraf lifted a state of emergency in the country, which he had used to suspend the Constitution and arrest thousands of political opponents, and which he said he had imposed in part because of terrorist threats by extremists in Pakistan.

With frustration in Washington growing over Mr. Musharraf’s shortcomings, and his delays in returning the country to civilian rule, Ms. Bhutto had become an appealing solution for the country. She was openly critical of Mr. Musharraf’s ineffectiveness at dealing with Islamic militants and welcomed American involvement.

Bush administration officials began working behind the scenes over the summer to help Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Musharraf create a power-sharing deal to orchestrate a transition to democracy that would leave Mr. Musharraf in the presidency, while not making a mockery of President Bush’s attempts to push democracy in the Muslim world.

Interesting. I think most people would agree that President Bush's attempts to push democracy in the Muslim world have already been a mockery.

It is peculiar, given the suspicions that will arise as a result of the assassination, that Condoleezza Rice and President Bush pegged so much of their policy toward Pakistan on the ability to forge a reconciliation government in which power was shared between Bhutto and Musharraf. After the first assassination attempt on Bhutto, Musharraf's decision to declare emergency rule, Bhutto's public concerns over Musharraf's desire to provide her security, did the Bush administration not think it was necessary to intervene more aggressively on Bhutto's behalf? Did the Bush administration not consider Musharraf's lukewarm attempts to protect Bhutto, let alone include her in government, to represent an intentional resistance to US policy on Pakistan? (The same Pakistani policy that Bush badly needed so that his foreign policy would not be made into a mockery.)

Maybe this particular embarrassment wouldn't have come to pass had our President focused his War on Terror on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. His refusal to pursue bin Laden and to completely stabilize the democracy in Afghanistan is a primary reason for the political instability in Pakistan, now that the Taliban has regrouped and is starting to regain control of the tribal areas on the Pakistani-Afghani border.

Instead, we sent all of our military and diplomatic resources somewhere else.


We invaded Iraq.

...while not making a mockery of President Bush’s attempts to push democracy in the Muslim world.

Yup.

Now, the tenuous stability in Pakistan has been completely undermined.

Juan Cole:

The Pakistani authorities are blaming Muslim militants for the assassination. That is possible, but everyone in Pakistan remembers that it was the military intelligence, or Inter-Services Intelligence, that promoted Muslim militancy in the two decades before September 11 as a wedge against India in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) faithful will almost certainly blame Pervez Musharraf, and sentiment here is more important than reality, whatever the reality may be.

There are now reports of riots in various cities throughout Pakistan.

President Bush is on his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The first name that crossed my mind when I heard about Ms. Bhutto's assassination was Franz Ferdinand. Remember when the biggest story was a blow job? I miss that.

Tape Update

Democrats call for Inquiry in Destruction of Tapes by C.I.A.

Yesterday, I blasted Dems for letting this destruction occur in 2005 because CIA director Michael Hayden said in an internal email yesterday that he had informed the House and Senate Intelligence Committees about plans to destroy the tapes.

That story has developed thusly: (I've always wanted to use thusly in a sentence)

In his statement, General Hayden said leaders of Congressional oversight committees had been fully briefed about the existence of the tapes and told in advance of the decision to destroy them. But the two top members of the House Intelligence Committee in 2005 said Thursday that they had not been notified in advance of the decision to destroy the tapes.

A spokesman for Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, who was the committee’s chairman between 2004 and 2006, said that Mr. Hoekstra was “never briefed or advised that these tapes existed, or that they were going to be destroyed.”

The spokesman, Jamal Ware, also said that Mr. Hoekstra “absolutely believes that the full committee should have been informed and consulted before the C.I.A. did anything with the tapes.”

Representative Harman, the top Democrat on the committee between 2002 and 2006, said that she told C.I.A. officials several years ago that destroying any interrogation tapes would be a “bad idea.”

“How in the world could the C.I.A. claim that these tapes were not relevant to a legislative inquiry?” she said Thursday. “This episode reinforces my view that the C.I.A. should not be conducting a separate interrogations program.”

---

Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, has been pushing legislation in Congress to have all detainee interrogations videotaped so officials can refer to the tapes multiple times to glean better information.

Mr. Holt said he had been told many times that the C.I.A. did not record the interrogation of detainees. “When I would ask them whether they had reviewed the tapes to better understand the intelligence, they said, ‘What tapes?’,” he said.

Okay, who knew what when? People are mad about this one. This story will continue into the next media cycle, it would appear.

They Won't Fit in the Paper Shredder

They're video cassettes!

Way way back in 2005, the CIA possessed video tapes of some harsh interrogations of a couple of terrorists completed in 2002. They realized that the tapes might be released to the public and put the agency in a precarious legal bind over their methodology. 

So the tapes were destroyed.

Here's a link to the story.

The immediately shocking thing about this to me was that CIA director Michael Hayden informed members of the House and Senate intel committees about the existence of the tapes and the CIA's plans to destroy them. There were Democrats on those committees. Apparently, nobody lifted a finger.

This was in 2005, weeks before the Washington Post revealed the existence of the secret overseas prisons being used to rough up high profile detainees.

The Iraq War resolution mulligan request is one thing...

"if we knew then what we know now..."

We pay a price when the party supposedly representing progressive values totally sell out in order to not be called cowards or terrorist kissers or something... Why didn't they demand preservation of the tapes? Did they not ask questions as to the nature of the tapes? Or why they were being destroyed? I'm sure there's more to this story, right now the reports do not provide a whole lot of depth.

Boy, wouldn't the following Democrats in the Senate and House (respectively):

John Rockefeller IV (WV), Carl Levin (MI), Diane Fienstein (CA), Ron Wyden (OR), Evan Bayh (IN), Jon Corzine (NJ), and Barbara Mikulski (MD)

Jane Harman (CA), Alcee Hastings (FL), Silvestre Reyes (TX), Leonard Boswell (IA), Bud Cramer (AL), Anna Eshoo (CA), Rush Holt (NJ), Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), and John Tierney (MA)

like to have a time machine right now.

How could they have known that the CIA's interrogation tapes were to become extremely relevant in a debate over the morality and constitutionality of the Bush administration's interrogation policy?

I mean, this was way back in 2005. 

These reports from early 2005 and prior are TOTALLY UNRELATED: 

January 6, 2005: Terror Suspect Alleges Torture

October 27, 2004: Amnesty International: Torture and Accountability in the 'War on Terror'

May 21, 2004: Abu Ghraib Scandal

The Amnesty International link provides a detailed accounting of the Bush administration's record on torture to that point. It wouldn't exactly make one trustworthy of the CIA's decision to start destroying evidence. But how could we expect our elected officials to have read the report or to have had any insight on the matter? I mean that would be unfair.

Logical and Rational as Always

"Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to develop a nuclear weapon." - The George the W. Bush, December 4th, 2007

Dinosaurs were dangerous, dinosaurs are dangerous, and dinosaurs will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to revive and replicate their own DNA and/or travel in time.

We are safer, but we are not yet safe, and we won't be safe if we don't have the knowledge necessary to make opposing armies turn gay.

If you haven't supported the war, you don't support the troops, and you won't be supporting the troops until you have the knowledge necessary to develop a self-lobotomy kit.

Evolution was false, evolution is false and evolution will be false if it has the knowledge necessary to develop a nuclear weapon.

The levees were a failure, the levees are a failure and the levees will be a failure if they're previous failing are not investigated by an independent agency without the risk of sabotage or obstruction.

The disaster response was Bush's fault, the slow pace of recovery is Nagin's fault, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to develop a nuclear weapon.

Britney Spears was famous. Britney Spears is famous. Britney Spears will be famous if she has the knowledge necessary to listen to the people telling her what to do to remain famous.

I guess we'll always be fighting the terrorists because they'll become dangerous in the future if we don't fight them now. Something-something about catastrophe something-something apocalypse something-something. Sometimes I can't sleep, does that count?

National Reoccurring Nightmare

Iraq is a place where we are sending our young men and women to kill or be killed by other young men and women. I don't believe we are advancing any kind of freedom or democracy there. Instead, we are merely spending tax-payer money in order to prop up the profit forecasts of several well-connected corporations and industrial alliances. If we were truly concerned about fighting worldwide terrorism, we might have gone ahead and finished the job in Afghanistan, capturing that Osama guy when we had the chance. If we were truly concerned about the spread of Democracy, we might have kept a closer eye on our friends in Pakistan. If we were truly concerned about the sacrifices of our neighbors, we might be doing a better job taking care of them upon here at home.

Every day you can read a gut-wrenching, tear-jerking, or anger-inducing story about blatant incompetence and/or wanton unethical or even criminal behavior on the part of the United States government.

Here go some sparkling rays of sunshine in the news as we speak:

Let's start with blatant incompetence, although there is a lot of wanton criminal behavior involved as well...

Bernard Kerik, (a bff of Rudy Giuliani, former head of the NYPD, and nominee for head of the Dept. of Homeland Security) was indicted last week on a whole slate of charges that pretty much indicate that this guy had no regard for ethics and law. Today a former girlfriend and publisher under the Fox News Corp umbrella was told to lie to investigators about Kerik's behavior because Fox News wants Rudy to be the next President.

That's all just background information that seems to be relevant to me when also considering that Kerik WAS handed a job by the Bush administration before the whole Dept. of HL Security nomination debacle. Kerik was sent to Iraq in 2003 by Mr. The President The George W. Bush and charged with the task of training Iraqi police. Kerik (and Dick Polman does a great profile of this) did a heckuva job. Here's the good stuff from Mr. Polman:

...Kerik gets close scrutiny in Washington Post correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran's 2006 book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City. It's not a pretty picture. Kerik was barely off the plane, in that spring of 2003, when he told a State Department official that "the situation (in Iraq) is probably not as bad as people think it is."

The author recounts: "Kerik wasn't a details guy...Kerik's first order of business, less than a week after he arrived, was to give a slew of interviews saying the situation was improving. He told the Associated Press that security in Baghdad 'is not as bad as I thought. Are bad things going on? Yes. But is it out of control? No. Is it getting better? Yes.' He went on NBC's Today show to pronounce the situation 'better than I expected.'"

Kerik was so busy going out on late-night raids (which was not part of his job) that he couldn't function in daylight (when he was supposed to do his job). As the author writes, "the all nighters meant Kerik wasn't around to supervise the Interior Ministry during the day. He was sleeping."

More from the book: "Kerik held only two staff meetings while in Iraq, one when he arrived and the other when he was being shadowed by a New York Times reporter...Despite his White House connections, Kerik did not secure funding for the desperately needed police advisers...'He was the wrong guy at the wrong time,' (an American official) said later. 'Bernie didn't have the skills.'"

...By the way, there's a fitting epilogue to the Bernie adventure in Iraq. Upon his return to America after only three months, having done little to train anybody, he was warmly welcomed at the White House, on Oct. 3, 2003, with these words of presidential praise: "He showed up (in Iraq) at times of chaos and confusion. Because of his leadership, his knowledge, and his experience, he was able to stand up a police force in Baghdad in a very quick period of time...Bernie went there and made a big difference. And for that our nation is very grateful...We're making great progress...Bernie, you're a good man."

But of course, not only did Mr. Kerik get lauded for doing a terrible job, he was offered an extremely prestigious promotion.

Bush offers top law enforcement position to American Gangster

Now, let's move on to wanton criminal behavior (although there's a lot of incompetence involved)...

Blackwater, as if we didn't believe the other investigations and reports, has now been found to have killed civilians indiscriminately and without justification by our own FBI. Let us all take a moment to feel proud of ourselves that our tax money has gone to a private contract for these guys to act as a rogue agency answerable to nobody in particular.

Of course the murderers involved here may have blanket immunity for some reason. I heard from a little birdie that actually George Bush has decreed that Blackwater HQ be enshrined in gold for their service to Democracy...


----

Finally, remembering the accolades and benefits thrust upon men like Bernard Kerik, let us now move on to this story: (h/t: Attytood)

I don't feel comfortable chopping it up, here is a link to the full-text from the L.A. Times.

I implore you to read it.

Let's just say that guys like the man in this article are the only ones that have done what they were supposed to do over there. It's a shame that what they were supposed to do ultimately aided an asinine, unethical, and criminally naive foreign policy crafted and implemented by a serial rewarder of blatant incompetence (he's not just the founder of Incompetence Club for Men, he's a customer).

The most heartbreaking aspect of all this is that the real men and women making the real sacrifices get PTSD and a slap on the back while tough guys like Bernard Kerik got promotions, accolades, honors, power, respect, money, sex, and fame.

(Now, at least, he's going to rot in prison, I hope. Watch Bush pardon his ass and give him some candy. Next watch Giulini steal the election in 2008 and then give Bernard Kerik two tanks and the latest machine guns...)

Pakistan

An essential video is making the rounds... h/t to Attytood, who will provide this introduction:

This is a video of Imran Kahn, an opposition political leader and former cricket star in Pakistan -- filmed at an undisclosed location as he seeks to dodge arrest by the forces of his country's dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. I would encourage everyone interested in the crisis in this critical South Asian nation to take the three-and-a-half minutes or so to watch it -- it does the best job of laying out the issues in Musharraf's bogus state of emergency. (It's on a very useful Pakistani opposition blog with the strange name of Teeth Maestro -- that was linked in turn by the New York Times.)

He says the one thing he wants Westerners to know is this: ""He's not fighting a war on terror. All he's trying to do is prolong his dictatorial rule."

(Don't even say it...)

Ann Coulter, Islamo-Fascism, and YOU

THEY'RE COMING TO BURN OUR BABIES AND RAPE OUR SHOPPING MALLS!

It is time for everyone to be aware that the terrorists are coming to get us.
Here is your own student's guide to hosting Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week:

During the week of October 22-26, 2007, the nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever – Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses.

The purpose of this protest is as simple as it is crucial: to confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat. Nothing could be more politically incorrect than to point this out. But nothing could be more important for American students to hear. In the face of the greatest danger Americans have ever confronted, the academic left has mobilized to create sympathy for the enemy and to fight anyone who rallies Americans to defend themselves. According to the academic left, anyone who links Islamic radicalism to the war on terror is an "Islamophobe." According to the academic left, the Islamo-fascists hate us not because we are tolerant and free, but because we are "oppressors."

The Terrorism Awareness Project is an outgrowth of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. That organization was founded by conservative activists David Horowitz and Peter Collier. Founded in 1988, Horowitz's group sponsors a number of programs as a 501c(3) nonprofit group. Some of those programs include:

Students for Academic Freedom - a group created to fight for conservative academia with the motto "education, not indoctrination"

Discoverthenetworks.org - a website that provides "a model for understanding how the left operates in our society, and how the networks it has created have penetrated our philanthropic, educational, and religious institutions"

JihadWatch - a website run by Robert Spencer, I'll let him say it himself:

Why Jihad Watch? Because the West is facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world...

Wednesday Morning Club
- a weekly forum to introduce conservatism to Hollywood. Past speakers have included Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Dinesh D'Souza, Robert Bork, Trent Lott, George W. Bush (as governor), Bill Kristol, and probably any other famous conservative you care to think of.

The David Horowitz Freedom Center also publishes FrontPage Magazine, whose online store features several interesting titles:

The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America
By David Horowitz
David Horowitz reveals a shocking and perverse culture of academics who are poisoning the minds of today's college students.

Religion of Peace? Why Chrisianity Is and Islam Isn't by: Robert Spencer Christianity or Islam: which is the real "religion of peace"?

Unholy Alliance by David Horowitz Not all dissent is equal, and Americans whose actions are calculated to give aide and comfort to the butchers who murdered 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001 are not patriotic at all... they are, in fact, quite the opposite.

The Hate America Left by David Horowitz and Jamie Glazov This book blows the lid off the network of academics, lawyers, fundraisers and professional agitators providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Wow, that is a lot of required reading.

I wish that I could laugh off this whole thing as the product of a radical conservative fringe group that doesn't actually hold any sway. They do hold sway. They hold so much sway. The list of past speakers is frightening and upsetting. Their posters (see above image) are posted on Tulane's campus right now. Over 100 universities will be holding awareness events.

Ann Coulter will be speaking at Tulane University as part of Crazy-Crazy-Crazy week on October 22nd. Yes, THE Ann Coulter. Famous person, total hottie, lip gloss user, and jon-benet supporter. She's got it all.
Here she is calling John Edwards a bad word.



Here she is getting a pie thrown at her.


Is there a way to protest this without calling more attention to it? Should we ignore all this?
Why do so many people want to fight and argue and bomb Iran and call people faggots? Can't we just have some fucking healthcare instead of all that? I just want some healthcare.

I certainly don't think people on Tulane campus or anywhere in New Orleans need to be made more aware of terrorism. Has anyone SEEN New Orleans?

September Whatever

I was sad that day. So were my friends and my family. And so was everyone else I saw on the street whether were able to make eye contact or could only stare at the ground.

Also there was unity and togetherness and community. I remember sitting on my front stoop with my neighbors and a candle. I remember a Philadelphia Flyers exhibition was called off halfway through because the crowd was chanting to see the President's speech on the big screen instead of the game for which they bought tickets.

But now?

I don't care about September 11th anymore. I'm cynical. I observe no moment of silence.

Our government vowed to make them pay. Our government vowed to make us safe.

Yet here we are six years later. Are the revenge-seekers placated? Have they paid? There is not even a clear answer to the question of who it is we are seeking to exact revenge upon. I thought that this attack was perpetrated by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. By proxy, that meant the Taliban regime of Afghanistan that encouraged his operation.

Yet, we are told that bin Laden's al-Qaeda has regained strength.

And every time it is possible, there is an administration official or supporter telling us that while we are safer, "we are not yet safe." For example:

President Bush, May of 2007

President Bush, August of 2006

Vice President Cheney, May of 2005

Condoleezza Rice, July of 2004

The Democrats, for their part, can't decide to say if we're safer or not.

I do know that we are at war with Iraq, which had NO NO NO connection to the attacks of six years ago.

But we are not yet safe.

I do know that our nation's image has suffered abroad and that we garner little of the sympathy we did six years ago.

But we are not yet safe.

Yet, still, the war in Iraq is justified as part of the global war on terror.

Colin Powell, January of 2004

President Bush, October of 2005

Vice President Cheney, January of 2006

Vice President Cheney, June of 2007

Is it part of the global war on terror simply because we happen to have troops there?

Other terrible things are tools in the global war on terror too.

Domestic spying

Guantanamo Bay detentions

Expansion of executive

But we are not yet safe.

Over 70,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, not including those related to sectarian strife and declines in quality of life.
Over 3,700 dead coalition troops.
Over $450 billion of taxpayer money spent.

But we are not yet safe.

A nation deeply polarized politically.
A nation that doesn't trust its government.

But we are not yet safe.

So today is September Whatever, 2007. We are not yet safe. The crazies that crashed planes on purpose are still to blame for those terrible events.

They are already dead.

So who is really paying for it?

The US troops, Iraqi civilians, and the common taxpayers paying for the war on terror don't even get to be famous. We gave all that fame to bin Laden and groups of irrational fanatics all over the world. They're not hot. They can't sing and they can't dance. But boy do we do a great job getting their brand out there for them. They don't even have their own show but we can't stop talking about them about how scary and evil and threatening they are.

I'll tell you what, I'm not scared or threatened. I don't even think they're evil, I think they're irrational. And they're wasting my time.

In fact, I'm ready to stop talking about them. What if we said that they couldn't be famous anymore and our media outlets and elected officials stopped talking about them like they were celebrities all of the time? What if we stopped spending all this money on them and spent it on ourselves for once?

We sure could use some of that fame and fortune down here in New Orleans.
Mr. President, can we have some hospitals?