FYI: Today's Senate Debate on Rumsfeld's Incompetence

The Democrats are presenting a non- confidence resolution against Rummy today. You can watch the debate online live on C-SPAN 2 right now or later once it's up in the archives.

Opposition Democrats in the U.S. Senate are set to try to present a resolution calling for the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday the Democrats hope to attach the no-confidence amendment to a defense appropriations bill that the Senate is discussing Wednesday.

Rumsfeld has been widely criticized by Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans for what they see as his mismanagement of the war in Iraq.

The measure is not expected to pass, even with the support of several Republican senators. Even if it did pass, its impact would be symbolic because Congress has no power to fire a Cabinet member.

But the resolution would force all senators to take a stand on the defense secretary's ability to do his job, ahead of mid-term congressional elections in November.

This debate also offers senators the opportunity to speak directly to what is cuurently happening in Iraq - the major sore point for congressional Republicans. Tune in and watch them squirm.

Bush, Torture, Secret Prisons and the GWOT

Following a litany of details about information supposedly obtained by high-profile detainees held in secret CIA prisons around the world, George Bush in a televised speech today stated emphatically that the US does not torture people. He also clearly said throughout his presentation that these 'alternate' CIA methods are 'safe' and 'legal' - as measured by the US Justice department and CIA lawyers. Yet, we also know that Bush issued a signing statement to override protections afforded to detainees from torture by the McCain amendment by allowing an exception for the CIA to continue to use torture and that government lawyers have done everything possible to work around US laws to make the use of torture 'legal'.

Bush's speech on Wednesday presents more questions than it answers. If, as he said, these interrogations have led to the exposure of conspiracies to commit terrorist acts why haven't those allegedly involved already been brought to justice through the legal system if the evidence is so solid? Why have these detainees been held at secret locations all of this time without any legal rights or exposure to human rights agencies like the Red Cross? Why is he only now moving 14 detainees from those secret prisons to Guantanamo Bay and why are they suddenly, supposedly being afforded rights via the Penatgon's new field training manual.

Interrogators may not force a detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner, and cannot place hoods or sacks over a detainee's head or use duct tape over his eyes. They cannot beat or electrically shock or burn a detainee or inflict other forms of physical pain.

They may not use "water boarding," a type of simulated drowning, or perform mock executions. They may not use treatment that would lead to heat injury or deprive detainees of the necessary food, water and medical care. And they may not use dogs in any aspect of interrogations.

That manual does not apply to the CIA however and today's announcements from the Pentagon and the president are not only meant to affect global opinion but to convince congress to pass legislation allowing for the military tribunals rejected by the Supreme Court which includes restrictions barring defendants from seeing all evidence against them - seriously limiting any possible defense. Bush also faces opposition from some GOP members who are opposed to Bush's proposals.

In his two most recent speeches, Bush has taken a calculated risk by racheting up the rhetoric about bin Laden (equating him with Hitler and Lenin - a tactic which he was warned against using long ago), reminding everyone that it's been 5 years since 9/11 and the al Qaeda leader is still on the loose, followed by Wednesday's speech which brings the issues of torture, extraordinary rendition, secret CIA prisons and detainee abuse to light once again. And that risk may certainly backfire as he reminds voters of the failures of his administration just prior to the crucial November elections.

Terrorism prosecutions are actually at pre-9/11 levels, despite all of the administration's blustering, Americans are angry, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, the situation in Afghanistan is worsening, congress has refused to provide funds to make the country safer, Rumsfeld refuses to resign and yet Bush is relying on Rove's strategy to highlight national security as the main pillar of the Republicans' campaign strategy. The more they do that, the larger their failures loom and all of the macho speeches by Bush are not going to change that.

That calculated risk is a failure and the blowback is already mounting against an administration desperate to save what's left of its reputation in America and around the world. If the Bush machine if unable to see that, at least some GOP members are willing to break ranks - hoping that they can save their congressional seats while fighting an uphill battle as their president continues to remind their constituents of their most obvious weakness: their inability and unwillingness to successfully fight the so-called war on terror.

So, let's hope they let Bush make such speeches each and every day until November. He'll preach to the choir (some of whom actually derive a perverted sexual satisfaction from his appearances) while providing more fodder for his opponents to use against him. It's a winning strategy - for the Democrats.

A Rough Day for Stephane Dion

The first rule in politics is simple: appearances are everything and, most times, explanations and reflections can do little to fix a damaged reputation. That's the spot Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion finds himself in today thanks to some sleuthing by a Conservative blogger who compared Dion's new environmental plan with the work of famous environmentalist David Suzuki and launched claims of plagairism which the Globe and Mail has now picked up on.

The official reaction from the Suzuki Foundation is that the lack of attribution to the good doctor's work is a 'non-issue' but once a politician and plagairism are tied together in a news story, that's the soundbite that resonates with many people despite the explanations.

It wasn't a good day at all for Mr Dion, afaic. During an interview with the CBC's Don Newman, Dion stated that since the Canadian government has now committed itself to an extended 2 year mission in Afghanistan via NATO, it should now basically stay the course and get the job done. In contrast, Ken Dryden, who followed (but missed) Dion's interview has called for a real debate about Canada's role, wisely stating that a military mission such as this must be continually reviewed and that decisions must be made according to the conditions on the ground - regardless of how the world community may measure Canada's committment by doing so. Dryden may not be one of the frontrunners, but he has a coherent plan on how to handle the Afghanistan mission - short of the pullout proposed by Layton, which I endorse.

It seems Dion's campaign has some explaining to do and although he was one of the top contenders on my list, his star appeal how now definitely slipped after these recent revelations. The upcoming debates should be interesting, although it would be more than beneficial for the candidates who have absolutely no chance of winning to drop out so the field could be thinned out a bit beforehand.

Blaming Clinton for 9/11 - Again

There's quite a storm brewing over an upcoming ABC docudrama (drama being the operative part) titled The Path to 9/11. One congressperson, Louise Slaughter (D-NY) - who doesn't shy away from controversies - has posted a statement on her site calling for ABC to 'come clean' about the film's historical innacuracies, dramatic license and the motives of the writer, conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh.

A FILM OF QUESTIONABLE INTEGRITY

* Director of The Path to 9/11, billed as "an objective telling of the events of 9/11," admits that film is "not a documentary": The director of the film, David Cunningham, posted on the show's official blog that his work was "not a documentary..." For unexplained reasons ABC has already taken down its blog promoting the show. [Think Progress, 9/2/06]

* the path to 9/11 makes numerous questionable claims - such as that the clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or capture bin laden - that have already drawn criticism: Reviews of the film have shown it to contain questionable claims. According the reviewers of the film, who include Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and now counterterrorism advisor to ABC, the film's distorted version of history is inconsistent with the 9/11 Commission Report, upon which it claims to be based. [Think Progress, 9/5/06]

* film's writer is a noted conservative activist: The writer of The Path to 9/11 is an unabashed conservative named Cyrus Nowrasteh. Last year, Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift." He has described Michael Moore as "an out of control socialist weasel," and conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag. [Think Progress, 9/1/06]

Slaughter wants disclaimers displayed throughout the film's broadcast to remind the viewing public that The Path to 9/11 is not a documentary.

Rep. Slaughter also expressed concern over the timing of the mini-series, as well as recent Republican rhetoric on the issue of national security and its connection to the war in Iraq.

"But what is far more important is the timing of this movie," Rep. Slaughter continued. "The anniversary of the attacks is an emotional time, and it is wrong for anyone to play on those emotions and use them to advance a political agenda."

I imagine that battle will go on ad infinitum.

In the meantime, you can use this page to contact ABC to ensure they a) stop advertising this docudrama by using the 9/11 Commission report as a prop; b) alert their viewers that this film is not entirely based on facts; and c) inform them you will boycott the advertisers if they don't.

Angry, Dissatisfied Americans

CNN released new poll numbers on Tuesday that show only 12% of those surveyed were satisfied with the job congress has done so far this year.

12%.

And yet, the Democrats are fighting a huge battle to take back the hosue and the senate. What exactly does it take to change the government in the United States?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With midterm elections little more than two months away, Americans are expressing overwhelming disapproval with Congress, incumbents and the way the country is being run, a CNN poll suggests.

Only 12 percent of those questioned said they are satisfied with what Congress has done so far this year, according to poll results released Tuesday.

Eighty-four percent said they wished Congress had done more.

Sixty-four percent of those questioned disapprove of the way congressional Republicans are handling their jobs, while 31 percent approve.

Democrats fared little better. Fifty-seven percent said they disapprove of how Democrats in Congress are doing, as opposed to 35 percent who approve of how Democrats are doing their jobs.

President Bush saw his approval rating hold steady. Forty-one percent approve of how he is running the country, while 55 percent disapproved. The president's approval rating in an August 21 CNN poll was 42 percent with a plus or minus 3 percentage-point margin of error

While Bush is out stumping -feverishly trying to maintain his macho Commander in Chief image - these are the issues that Americans are most concerned about:

The economy topped the list of respondents' concerns, with 28 percent calling it the most important issue when deciding how to cast their ballots. Coming second was Iraq at 25 percent, followed by terrorism (18 percent), moral issues (15 percent) and immigration (14 percent).

Karl Rove decided back in January that the meme to be pushed by Republicans during this election race was national security while the New York Times recently reported that many in the GOP have thrown him from the political train. Rove's miscalculations and failed ideas speak for themselves: No Child Left Behind, the social security issue, Harriet Mier's nomination, the Dubai ports deal, the now tabled proposed immigration reform legislation and on and on.

Too many Americans now realize that their national security, which the GOP have promised to protect since 9/11, is in the hands of politicians who would rather build bridges to nowhere and have emergency sessions about the fate of Terry Schiavo than to buckle down and do what they were elected for: taking responsibility for the state of their union.

According to the CNN poll, Democrats now have a 10 point lead in the run up to the election and they'd be wise to focus on the issues that Americans are most concerned about. Their recent light-bulb moment in reaction to Donald Rumsfeld's latest acidic speech about appeasers which has now - finally - resulted in a coordinated call for his resignation (which Rummy actually tried to lie his way out of) may simply be too little too late. Where were the Democrats when John Conyers called for Bush's impeachment? Where were they when Feingold called for the lesser method of censure? Where have they been since the Iraq war started - that it would take a rabid speech by Rumsfeld to push them to do what they should have done a long time ago: insist that he resign immediately?

And, if Americans are mainly concerned about the economy, why are the Democrats in a reactionary mode to the recent blusterings of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld about the war on terror/Iraq? Is their entire election platform being noticed or is it enough that Americans are so overwhelmingly angry that they'll simply vote for the Democrats out of spite?

The elections are two months away and the Democrats still have a tough job ahead of them in order to convince the public that their policies will actually have a direct impact on thier lives. It's time to stop playing defense. They need a well-coordinated offense if they are to take back congress and they must prove that they won't continue the Republican's lazy style of governing otherwise many Americans will just hold their collective noses and vote for the devil they know - if they actually get out to the polling stations at all. That's the curse that a do-nothing congress foists upon both political parties: a citizenry so angered by government ineptitude and inaction that participating in the election process at all is shunned by those who have surrendered to the belief that their vote won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Can you blame them?

The Dead

Canada

The United States
Any questions?

Bizarre Injuries in Gaza

This story in The Independent is deeply disturbing:

Doctors in Gaza are reporting what they say are unexplained injuries among the dead and wounded in operations by the Israeli military, which have killed more than 200 Palestinians in the past nine weeks.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is considering whether there is a case for an investigation into the injuries amid suspicions by the medics that the injuries were inflicted by what they claim may have been unidentified "non-conventional" weapons.

Beside especially severe burning "down to the bones", the doctors say that, in other cases, internal organs have been ruptured without any obvious sign of shrapnel wounds.

While a report from the Hamas-run Ministry of Health said the injuries raised the possibility Israel could be using "unprecedented" projectiles with "radiant" substances, the medics acknowledge that there is no proof so far of their claims. They also admit that the difficulty of establishing the exact cause of death is greatly exacerbated by the reluctance of most bereaved Palestinian families to allow autopsies.

Dr Juma al Saqqa, the director of public relations at Shifa Hospital, said the type of injuries presented by some victims were "very strange" and added: "We think this should be studied. In some cases we have opened the abdomen and found very fragmented organs." He said this was despite X-rays showing no shrapnel lodged in the patients' bodies. He said one, unsubstantiated suggestion by sympathetic doctors consulted in Italy was that some injuries might have been caused by phosphorus.

There had been reports that during the Israeli war against Lebanon white phosphorus had been used but those claims were either vastly underreported or balanced by news about Hezbollah's weaponry. The effects of the likely use of white phosphorus during that conflict was filmed by CNN when it covered the heartbreaking story of two young children who had suffered massive burns. One of the doctors involved in treating the children said the stench of their skin convinced him that Israel had used white phosphorus in its attacks on Lebanon.

Although the report in Monday's Independent is treated as news, Dr al Saqqa, who was interviewed for the piece raised these concerns almost two months ago in Gulf News. (caution: photos of injuries) That article decsribes two possible sources for these types of injuries: Hellfire missiles or:

One of several 'sensor fused' submunitions carried within a missile (formerly CBU-97) will project near molten copper at its target. The velocity is such that when the mass fragments, these will pass clean through the human body - obviously depending on distance travelled. The heat in them would certainly explain the widespread and deep tissue death. A version was used to 'great effect' in ''Operation Iraqi Freedom''. It should be straightforward to confirm the use of this weapon given the identity of the metal.

Further testing and an investigation ought to be able to determine exactly what caused these horrendous injuries and whether Israel has violated international law.

Iran, Secret Talks and Bushco Hypocrisy

In an attempt to ward off the mass hysteria over the supposed nuclear threat posed by Iran which is anywhere from 5-10 years off according to most experts, the ever level-headed Fareed Zakaria in a Newsweek article aptly titled, The Year of Living Fearfully, asks everyone to take a breath and settle down:

Sept. 11, 2006 issue - It's 1938, says the liberal columnist Richard Cohen, evoking images of Hitler's armies massing in the face of an appeasing West. No, no, says Newt Gingrich, the Third World War has already begun. Neoconservatives, who can be counted on to escalate, argue that we're actually in the thick of the Fourth World War. The historian Bernard Lewis warned a few weeks ago that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could be planning to annihilate Israel (and perhaps even the United States) on Aug. 22 because it was a significant day for Muslims.

Can everyone please take a deep breath?

To review a bit of history: in 1938, Adolf Hitler launched what became a world war not merely because he was evil but because he was in complete control of the strongest country on the planet. At the time, Germany had the world's second largest industrial base and its mightiest army. (The American economy was bigger, but in 1938 its army was smaller than that of Finland.) This is not remotely comparable with the situation today.

Iran does not even rank among the top 20 economies in the world. The Pentagon's budget this year is more than double Iran's total gross domestic product ($181 billion, in official exchange-rate terms). America's annual defense outlay is more than 100 times Iran's. Tehran's nuclear ambitions are real and dangerous, but its program is not nearly as advanced as is often implied. Most serious estimates suggest that Iran would need between five and 10 years to achieve even a modest, North Korea-type, nuclear capacity.

Washington has a long habit of painting its enemies 10 feet tall—and crazy. During the cold war, many hawks argued that the Soviet Union could not be deterred because the Kremlin was evil and irrational. The great debate in the 1970s was between the CIA's wimpy estimate of Soviet military power and the neoconservatives' more nightmarish scenario. The reality turned out to be that even the CIA's lowest estimates of Soviet power were a gross exaggeration. During the 1990s, influential commentators and politicians—most prominently the Cox Commission—doubled the estimates of China's military spending, using largely bogus calculations. And then there was the case of Saddam Hussein's capabilities. Saddam, we were assured in 2003, had nuclear weapons—and because he was a madman, he would use them.

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan reports that the Iranians still want to talk, despite being publicly rebuffed by the Bush administration. The Iranian government refuses to halt its nuclear enrichment programs in advance of those discussions but the EU's foreign policy chief is willing to meet with Iran's senior nuclear negotiator, regardless.

Senior negotiators of the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany are expected to convene in Berlin on Thursday to discuss the results of the Solana-Larijani meeting.
[...]
The U.S. and its allies are increasing pressure for punishing a defiant Iran. But they agreed last week to give the Solana-Larijani talks a chance in an attempt to mollify Russia and China, which are reluctant to endorse harsh and swift U.N. punishment for Iran, a major trade partner.

So, while Bush is busy pounding his chest publicly to make it appear that he's totally opposed to negotiating with evil Iran, his government has been supporting secret talks behind the scenes. Can we now accuse him of appeasing those who support terrorists since he's been reminding anyone who would listen since the Israel/Lebanon war that Iran was behind Hezbollah's success?

The Truth About Afghanistan

And now, some Good News™ from Afghanistan, courtesy of Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, Peter McKay.

McKay:

Because of the work of our Canadian Forces members, girls are now going to school in Afghanistan.

Fact: Taliban Use Beheadings and Beatings to Keep Afghanistan's Schools Closed

By the conservative estimate of the Afghan President Hamid Karzai, 100,000 students have been terrorised out of schools in the past year. The number is certainly far higher and many teachers have been murdered, some beheaded.

In the province of Zabul a teacher and female MP, Toor Peikai, said yesterday: "There are 47 schools in my province but only three are open." Only one teaches girls. It is 200 metres from a large US military base in the provincial capital.

Across the south, schools burn during the night. According to a bleak report released by Human Rights Watch today at least 200 have been destroyed in the past year and half. Their blackened shells, many of them new buildings constructed with foreign aid money, are visible from the ever more dangerous road south to Kandahar.

McKay:

Low-income farmers can get small loans to improve their crops. Families can get credit to open a small bakery, or a shoe repair shop, or a teahouse.

Fact: Poppy Cultivation is a major problem and Afghanistan accounts for 80-90% of Europe's opium traffic. How is NATO handing that situation?

"NATO-ISAF is not targeting farmers," he said. "We understand exactly that there must be other ways for them to make a living before we stop them -- if we ever got involved with it -- growing their poppy, because they have to feed their families in some way.

"We also know that, at the end of the day, narcotics has got to be eradicated from this country or there will never be the peace and stability in the long term," Richards added. "So [counternarcotics efforts are] there. But it is not our immediate agenda. And we have other things that we'd like to do to help people out of their predicament."
link

Fact: Another major issue in Afghanistan is the use of child labour:

·Child labourers in Afghanistan work for 9-15 hours per day in an average basis, It means that these children start work in the early morning (6 am) and finish at 6-8 pm.

·43% child labourers are under the age of 12 and 35% are aged 12-15.

·Only 35% child labourers attend school, whose education quality has been evaluated as too poor.

·Out of the child labourers who attend school, the majority must work to make such an attendance.

·85% child labourers are boys, but this figure does not include the uncounted number of girls who work in the house.

·96% child labourers stated economic problems as their main reason to work. But some families believed that work is useful for children.

·13.4% child labourers are engaged in pedlary and 8% in street labour including beggary.

·12.4% child labourers are engaged in factories and workshops.

·During the study, 1,414 child carpet-weavers were interviewed. The child interviewees were even 6 years old and must have worked for 12 hours per day.

McKay:

Afghans in Kabul now enjoy opportunities unheard of under Taliban rule. Almost 5 million children are now in school, learning to read and write.

Fact: Via UNICEF:

Although the war in Afghanistan is over, the humanitarian crisis is not. Millions of Afghans, many of them children, are still living in temporary camps or remote areas inaccessible by relief agencies. Many of them are at risk of disease.

Note: I have no idea why UNICEF thinks the war is 'over'.

McKay:

Afghan women now make up more than one in four of the elected members of parliament. Women now have the right to borrow money, thanks to a Canadian-backed micro-credit program helping them to set up small businesses.

Fact: Afghan women still face serious human and civil rights concerns, including human trafficking and forced marriages. Not much has changed for women since the Taliban ran the country and the possible resurgence of the outdated 'Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice' poses a serious threat to women's rights once again.

During the election process in September 2005. armed anti-government insurgents killed officials who registered women to vote, and confiscated voting cards forcibly. Women in Afghanistan continue to face severe violence both within and outside the home.

McKay:

Wells are being dug and pipes installed to bring water to villages. Roads are being resurfaced so that farmers can get their vegetables to market.

Fact: An expose of disappearing US aid funds in Afghanistan published today by the San Francisco Chronicle reveals some very distrubing realities about where reconstruction money is actually going. The following is an excerpt. Be sure to read the rest of the article to appreciate why this glowing picture presented by our Foreign Minister is such a farce.

The criteria for selection of contractors have little or nothing to do with conditions in the recipient country, and they are not exactly what you would call transparent.

Take, for example, the case of the Kabul-Kandahar Highway, featured on the USAID Web site as a proud accomplishment. (In five years, it's the only accomplishment in highway building in Afghanistan -- which is one better than the U.S. record building power stations, water systems, sewer systems or dams.) The highway was also featured in the Kabul Weekly newspaper in March 2005 under the headline, "Millions Wasted on Second-Rate Roads."

Afghan journalist Mirwais Harooni reported that even though other international companies had been ready to rebuild the highway for $250,000 per kilometer, the Louis Berger Group got the job at $700,000 per kilometer -- of which there are 389. Why? The standard American answer is that Americans do better work. (Though not Berger, which at the time was already years behind on another $665 million contract to build schools.)

Berger subcontracted Turkish and Indian companies to build the narrow two-lane, shoulderless highway at a final cost of about $1 million per mile; and anyone who travels it can see that it is already falling apart. (Former Minister of Planning Ramazan Bashardost complained that when it came to building roads, the Taliban did a better job.)

Now, in a move certain to tank President Hamid Karzai's approval ratings and further endanger U.S. and NATO troops in the area, the United States has pressured his government to turn this "gift of the people of the United States" into a toll road and collect $20 a month from Afghan drivers. In this way, according to U.S. experts providing highly paid technical assistance, Afghanistan can collect $30 million annually from its impoverished citizens and thereby decrease the foreign aid "burden" on the United States.

Is it any wonder that foreign aid seems to ordinary Afghans to be something only foreigners enjoy?

And, here is Peter McKay's Rumsfeldian moment:

Unfortunately, these images are not the ones most often seen on television. I saw first-hand how our presence is Afghanistan is helping improve the daily lives of Afghan citizens.

Fact: Canadians are regularly shown the work of the Canadian troops on television news broadcasts and via interviews with military officials. Any regular television news viewer can attest to that yet, here is our Foreign Affairs minister actually blaming our media for not providing enough Good News™ - the very same tactic used by Rumsfeld practically every time he has a microphone in front of him.

More Canadians than ever now oppose the mission in Afghanistan. On Sunday, we lost 4 more soldiers and today another one was killed by US 'friendly fire'. The majority of Canadians support military interventions that focus on peacekeeping efforts and many were actually led to believe that our troops would be involved in that type of mission in Afghanistan.

Canada takes charge of Afghanistan peacekeeping

Updated Thu. Jul. 17 2003 11:52 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Canada has taken command of the force of international peacekeepers in charge of maintaining security in Afghanistan's war-battered capital.

When the new Conservative government rushed MPs through a spring vote to 'extend the mission' without providing any details of the NATO mandate which had, indeed, changed from the traditional role of peacekeeping to that of a more aggressive military force Canadians were misinformed, misled and short-changed.

And now we have our Foreign Affairs minister lying to us again about the realities in Afghanistan. However, unlike the Americans who live under a political regime that is unlikely to affect change in Iraq any time soon, our Conservatives are in a minority government situation and if they continue down this track, they will not hold onto the fragile power they have right now for very long. Canadians will not be sold a bill of goods when it involves our soldiers perishing in a foreign country under a flawed mission while government officials try to paint a Rumsfeldian rosy picture and we, at least, have more power than our neighbours to the south to demand accountability and change with the realistic prospect of achieving both.

Further reading:
Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission
UNICEF - Afghanistan - Country in Crisis
Amnesty International - Afghanistan

Monty Python - Argument Clinic

For those who need some practice...