Skip to content

Iraq redux?

Monday, September 9, 2013

I prefer to stay away from conspiracy theories, and I admit that, though I have expressed a lot of disappointment with Obama, I've held on to a belief that he is qualitatively different than Bush. I have, in short, a tough time accepting that he, like Bush, would lie us into war, but alas I may be very wrong.

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, observing the time honored tradition of blaming the King's faults on his courtiers, have written to Obama, warning him that his advisers may be steering him wrong. I'd like to believe Obama is being poorly advised or actively misled, but…

Anyway, the VIPS wrote to Bush before the Iraq war telling him that his folks were lying us into a war, and now they've written to Obama:

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?

That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”

This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.”

via Consortium News

More here and here. This is truly depressing, particularly because the objective in this escapade continues to be undefined. At least with Bush we knew that the point was to take out Saddam so that Bush could say he was a better man than his Daddy, but the definition of victory in this war (and bombing a sovereign nation is an act of war) is still elusive, and, to anyone with half a brain that fact alone compels the conclusion that the outcome will be a disaster, as we seek some way to declare victory as things escalate out of control.

We can only hope that Obama will wake up and subdue his inner Bush. We thought, or hoped he was a better guy that this, but if he is in fact lying us into war (and claiming certainty without good evidence is lying) then he's no better than Spurious George. It is to be hoped that he and Kerry will take the face saving diplomatic approach currently on offer from Putin.

Filed in Empire, Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

Playing by Humpty Dumpty’s rules

Sunday, September 8, 2013

A few days ago I came across an article, in which the following paragraph appears.

The Obama administration is considering putting the Pentagon in charge of arming and training moderate rebel forces in Syria, a move that could help expand the effort significantly beyond the limited scope of the current Central Intelligence Agency program, U.S. officials said.

via Buzzflash, quoting the Wall Street Journal

I consider myself something of a student of history, and I think I can say with some assurance that moderates (most relevant definition from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: “Not extreme in opinion, not strongly partisan, designating or pertaining to any of various political or ecclesiastical parties avoiding extreme views”) rarely become rebels, and, in the event of a successful rebellion, moderates rarely run the show. One might argue that the American Revolution was an exception, but there's reason to argue that was not a true revolution, and in any event, if it's an exception, it proves the rule. Certainly Syria bids fair to emulate Iran (the “moderates” ended up in front of firing squads) rather than colonial America.

Of course language is an elastic thing. If it suits the administration to call people in rebellion “moderates” it will do so; the question is why the Wall Street Journal, or any newspaper, would simply accept the designation. But this misuse of language is ordinary operating procedure. Consider the use of the word “rebel”. It is rarely applied to those of whom we do not approve, for the word has a certain romantic cachet. If we do not approve, the “rebel” morphs into a “militant”. These words have not completely lost all meaning, but their use often tells us more about the person using them than the person(s) to whom they are applied.

Filed in Language | | Comments (0)

Good News Day

Friday, September 6, 2013

The week’s almost over, so I’ve got to get this in. No, Obama has not come to his senses and called off the humanitarian bombing, but this is still good news, if it’s true. This man from Japan has invented a process to turn plastic back to oil. I suppose there’s some questions not answered in the video, such as how much energy you need to burn to do the conversion, but it still looks good:

If this really works, and if the oil companies let it see a broader application, then maybe someone can make money cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Presumably it would disappear more quickly if we cleaned it up rather than if we wait for plastic eating fish to evolve.

Filed in Environment | | Comments (0)

Our guys vote right on Syria

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

This is not my “good news” post of the week, since it's weak tea, good news wise, but it is good news for the people of this state and this Congressional District that Chris Murphy voted against the Syria misadventure, and Joe Courtney has voiced his opposition.

For anyone looking for an education on this issue, this post by Juan Cole is a must read. No good can come of this.

Filed in Foreign Affairs, Good News | | Comments (0)

Founding Fondlers

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Lately our historically challenged right-wing brethren have, against all the evidence, taken to ascribing their own beliefs (or beliefs they pretend to hold) to our sainted Founding Fathers. If we are to believe them, our forefathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in religion, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, but some are created more equal than others. Today at Kos we get the latest example:

Oh, conservative crackpots, is there no conspiracy theory you can't duct-tape to the unwilling corpses of The Founding Fathers? Jerome Corsi, who is one of the battiest bats ever to fly from a cave, says that same-sex marriage is a plot to allow government to crack down on Christians. He knows this because America's founding fathers knew that sex is not supposed to be fun, or something.

“Our founding fathers knew that if we went this direction, there was no more moral compass and you won’t be able to explain to your children — you’ll have to face the fact that we lost holding the line on one of the most principle issues in the Bible, and that is sex is not about fun,” he remarked. “If you want to have fun, read a book, go to a movie. Sex is about the procreation of children. It’s a sacred responsibility that is meant by God to have men and women commit their lifetime to children.”

Well, one Founding Father that didn't get the message was one of my personal favorites, Ben Franklin. Ben is one of those guys high on the list of folks to whom I'd like to go back in time to meet. No one can deny him Founding Fatherhood, for in the case of the constitution, as opposed to his firstborn son, his fatherhood was entirely legitimate. Does this piece of poetry, authored by Ben at the mature age of 39, sound like the product of someone who thought sex was not about having fun?

“Fair Venus calls; her voice obey;
In Beauty’s arms spend night and day
The joys of love all joys excell
And loving’s certainly doing well.”

I won't vouch for the deathless quality of the poetry, but the meaning seems perfectly clear. And if he didn't have sex with half the women in France that he met, he certainly wanted people to think that he did, and if he thought sex was about having children why would he tout the advantages of an older mistress. After making the obligatory pitch for marriage he says (I've only reproduced the most salient parts):

But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:

..

Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc'd may be attended with much Inconvenience.

…
Because thro' more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin'd to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.

Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement. (Emphases added)

A good and healthy debate could be had about whether his advice was tongue in cheek or not (and whether we can forgive the sexism), but it's really hard to make the case that he thought sex was all about having kids.

And let's not even talk about Tom and Sally.

Filed in Crazies, History | | Comments (0)

Who cares what John McCain thinks?

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Depending on how you look at it, I am either blessed or cursed by the fact that I get three physical newspapers a day. This morning, two of them, the Day (too lazy to get a link) and the Times headlined the surprising fact that John McCain is backing Obama’s big mistake. This raises a question that has been asked by reasonable people across the nation ever since McCain burst onto the national scene in 2000, when he accomplished the amazing feet of looking good compared to George Bush, causing every Beltway pundit to fall in love with him and cursing the television watchers among us to seeing him blather virtually every Sunday morning. The question is this:

Who cares what John McCain thinks?

Can anyone think of anything McCain has ever been right about? When he comes close to being right (think McCain-Feingold) he quickly finds a way to disassociate himself from reason. Does he have a claim to being an expert on anything, other, perhaps, than self-promotion. When it comes to war…well, he’s never heard of a war he couldn’t support, and there’s never been a moment, at least since September of 2011, when he hasn’t been in favor of either endlessly fighting unnecessary wars he helped start, or starting unnecessary wars that will never end.

McCain is a favorite of beltway pundits because he’s like them: always wrong, and always rewarded for being wrong.

If Obama had any sense he’d start having second thoughts based on the identities of the people that are supporting him on Syria. If John McCain told me he agreed that the sky was blue, I’d have second thoughts on that. If John Boehner agreed with him, then I’d know the sky was anything but blue, no matter what my lying eyes might tell me.

Filed in Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

Where is this going?

Monday, September 2, 2013

A few weeks ago I noted in my good news feature that Obama did not appear anxious to get himself involved in Syria. That was then, and this is now, and all I can say is that I was acting on the basis of the intelligence I had then.

The monumental hypocrisy of our insistence on punishing Assad is, of course not lost on the world. Our war criminals go unpunished; in fact, some of their enablers are in the forefront of those demanding war now. The last I looked, torture was every bit as much a violation of international law as chemical weapons. Speaking of chemical weapons, I have a hard time understanding why killing people with chemicals is any worse than killing them with bombs, drones, napalm, or any of the other “legal” weapons that we use with such abandon.

I confess to being completely confused about this misadventure, which seems fated to occur, no matter the opposition in the country and in Congress. What puzzles me most is that we are being left completely in the dark as to what, if anything, will constitute success. We are not looking for regime change, according to Obama. Apparently we are trying to “punish” Assad for using chemical weapons. So, we will bomb other people, some tangentially involved, perhaps, but many, if history can be our guide, who were not. Assad himself is unlikely to be a victim. How do we declare victory? Will it be sufficient if Assad says a sincere act of contrition? We can only hope that some in Congress will demand an answer to this fairly fundamental question, but I don't see it happening.

Filed in Empire, Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

This week’s good news

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Well, I was pretty worried about getting a good news post this week, but, for once, Obama came through. He is actually going to follow the United States constitution and seek congressional approval for the humanitarian bombing of Syria.

Of course, no one should fool themselves into thinking that this has anything to do with constitutional scruples. Obama and his advisors can read polls, and they realize that it might not be good to go out on a limb, very much alone, on this one. Should something go wrong, the McCains and Grahams will grow silent, and, truth to tell, no one outside the Beltway listens to them anyway.

Still, good news. The Republic survives to die another day.

Filed in Good News | | Comments (1)

A helpful suggestion

Saturday, August 31, 2013

I read this story in the New London Day, but was unable to find a link there. It was these paragraphs that caught my attention:

ATTLEBORO, Mass. (AP) _ Massachusetts prosecutors in the Aaron Hernandez murder case said Friday there’s no truth to an allegation by lawyers for the former New England Patriot that investigators misled a potential witness.

The defense claimed in court papers filed last week that investigators visiting an inmate at a Connecticut prison in August told him they were there “to help Aaron out.” Hernandez’s attorneys said Everett Garcia told them that was the only reason he answered the officers’ questions.

Now, I'm willing to believe that in this particular case the prosecutors are telling the truth. But, in order to help them with their inquiries, and to help them avoid these types of claims in the future, I would like to inform them of a marvel of modern technology (it's barely seventy years old!) that would assure such claims are never made in the future. It's called a “tape recorder”. It's a nifty little gadget. Nowadays they make them small enough to carry around, and there are even apps for that. They take down every word that's said while they are running. Had the prosecutors been aware of the existence of such a device they could have used it while talking to Mr. Garcia and then we would all know whether they had misled him or not.

Being an expert on British police methods (I'm currently watching Season 10 of Midsomer Murders) I can report that British cops are already familiar with this astonishing device, and use it regularly while grilling suspicious characters.

Now, were this country still in the hands of an enlightened judiciary, it might occur to our Supreme Court to acknowledge the existence of this wondrous instrument, and wonder why it is not employed by the American constabulary. It might even occur to them to suggest, absent compelling evidence establishing the impossibility of using one during an interrogation, that no challenged statement should be admitted into evidence unless the forces of justice can provide a tape recording of the inquisition that led to the statement.

I understand that there are some machines that not only record sounds, but moving pictures right along with the sound. But it would probably be expecting too much to ask our protectors to consider using such a complicated device in the course of their investigations.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

We really have to teach the British about 21st century democracy

Thursday, August 29, 2013

How quaint.

In England the legislative body still actually has a say in whether the country goes to war. Where do they get such ideas? Well, maybe it’s not surprising in a country that has palace guards that wear silly hats. They really have a lot to learn about democracy from the former colonies.

Filed in Decline, Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)