Yew will explowd in a few minutes

Brief update on this one. It turns out I'm not the only one who heard the "threat" broadcast to American warships in the Gulf of Tonkin... er… Straights of Hormuz this weekend and immediately thought "Prank Caller." Apparently the voice on the broadcast--whose "heavily accented English" sounds closer to Mr. Burns than farsi speaker--remains unidentified, but there's good reason to believe it was sent anonymously by someone in a remote location, broadcasting on the Bridge to Bridge channel without authorization: the fact that the voice sounds completely different from the Iranians who hailed the ship earlier, the lack of background noise from what is supposed to be a speedboat on the high seas, and just the overall stupidity of hailing a warship fifty times your size with a threat. The source was probably a heckler on a tanker somewhere (maybe one of the ships that appears on the horizon in the Pentagon video?) who heard U.S. warships warn off a bunch of small boats on the Bridge channel and decide to fuck with their heads.

In other news, President Bombsalot this week has once again demonstrated his endless capacity for cognitive dissonance:

In public, President Bush has been careful to reassure Israel and other allies that he still sees Iran as a threat, while not disavowing his administration's recent National Intelligence Estimate. That NIE, made public Dec. 3, embarrassed the administration by concluding that Tehran had halted its weapons program in 2003, which seemed to undermine years of bellicose rhetoric from Bush and other senior officials about Iran's nuclear ambitions. But in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week, the president all but disowned the document, said a senior administration official who accompanied Bush on his six-nation trip to the Mideast. "He told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views" about Iran's nuclear-weapons program, said the official, who would discuss intelligence matters only on the condition of anonymity.

I don't suppose this is particularly surprising seeing how "reality" has never been a particularly large component of Dubya's foreign policy. Well, for any of his policies come to think of it. What's worrisome is that although his "vision" for the world is based on menagerie of insipid fantasies, the bombs he drops on people because of those fantasies are all too real.

Maybe that radio heckler was onto something? Seems like we're basically just a few minutes away from Bush getting us all blown up.

The Surge is Working. We’re Kicking Ass. War is Peace.

Reflections on a Sick Puppet Show
What the hell kind of man did Diebold put into office? Everything he touches seems to blow up, fall apart, or otherwise disintegrate in a chorus of gnashing teeth. The Bush Effect seems to manifest in everything from the American economy to Wolf Blitzer’s manhood, and precious few things survive an encounter with this life-sucking black hole of a man who reaps misery and destruction everywhere he goes.

Seems somebody forgot to explain this fact to Shattar Abu Risha, who found out the hard way the price of making a Deal with the Dubya. The late puppet-warlord of the Anbar Salvation front was relatively unknown here in the United States, but was already a household name for Iraqis in Anbar Province (well, in the same sense that “Al Capone” is a household name for people in Chicago). But we also know that Dubya never meets in person with anyone who isn’t either in his pocket or somehow on board with his “vision” of the universe, so what exactly does that say about Abu Risha’s motives?

Well, before you answer that, what does everyone else say about Abu Risha?

According to Captain Martin Wohlgemuth:

“Sattar Abu Risha, a living legacy in his own right. He's probably better known as Lawrence of Arabia to the Americans. His legacy is what allowed this to happen in a lot of different places. And it’s happening in Amiriya, they've got freedom fighters. In Abu Ghraib, they’ve got some freedom fighters. And they all say it's generally because of that, because he was first one to really do it. The major sticking point is trying to get the government of Iraq to buy into groups of armed Sunnis so close to Baghdad.”

Yep, he’s the Uniter, the guy who brings all the freedom fighters together. Wonderful guy!

According to Yahoo news:

Abu Risha's killing — just 10 days after his meeting with Bush — dealt a blow to one of the few success stories in U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq. The tribal leader brought together Anbar sheiks into an alliance against extremists, after years of American failure to tame flash points such as Ramadi and fallujah.

I guess we’re lucky to have such a valuable ally.

Sort of. According to Time Magazine before his inevitable death:

So what sort of a deal could the U.S. strike? General Odierno, an Iraq veteran with a reputation for cold-eyed realism, has cited the military's partnership with formerly anti-American tribes in the restive Anbar promise. There, U.S. Marines have supported a coalition of tribes, known as the "Anbar Salvation Front," fighting al-Qaeda. The group's leader, Sheikh Sattar al-Risha, is ostensibly cooperating with the U.S. and Iraqi forces to drive out the foreign fighters who make up much al-Qaeda's ranks in Iraq. And since the alliance has been in effect, the number of attacks against U.S. forces in Anbar has halved.

But that's only part of the picture. Sheikh Sattar, whose tribe is notorious for highway banditry, is also building a personal militia, loyal not to the Iraqi government but only to him. Other tribes — even those who want no truck with terrorists — complain they are being forced to kowtow to him. Those who refuse risk being branded as friends of al-Qaeda and tossed in jail, or worse. In Baghdad, government delight at the Anbar Front's impact on al-Qaeda is tempered by concern that the Marines have unwittingly turned Sheikh Sattar into a warlord who will turn the province into his personal fiefdom.

Exactly the kind of person who deserves American tax dollars! Just ask Ali Suleiman from the Dulaim confederation (the largest tribal organization in Anbar), who described Abu Risha as a "traitor" who "sells his beliefs, his religion and his people for money," and suggested that Abu Risha is essentially a disaster-capitalist who specializes in highway robbery, oil smuggling, gun running, ransom kidnapping, blackmail... with a resume like this, Abu Risha might as well work for Halliburton.

Given his reputation, Sheikh/Warlord Abu Risha’s death is probably the least surprising thing that’s happened in Iraq in the past eighteen months. Almost as unsurprising is the fact that the Imperialist intelligentsia has already gone out of its way to blame it on Al Qaida. Apparently, the idea of America’s pet-gangster being bombed by his own men is an image that pokes too large a hole in the already-sinking ship of General Betrayus’ credibility. But then, when you think back to some of those one hundred and ninety thousand missing weapons the U.S. was supposed to give to the Iraqi Military... well, you get the idea.

And then the treasonous little kissass has the nerve to sit in front of congress and talk about the success of Dubya's "troop surge". How is this supposed to work, exactly? The Surge was supposed to create "breathing room" for the Iraqi Government to make adequate progress; instead, the al-Maliki Government met 7 out of 18 benchmarks. It was supposed to create room for a reconciliation process that could end (or at least reduce) sectarian violence; instead, the death toll has actually climbed every week since the Surge began. And for the icing on the cake: the most that General Betrayus has to show for the surge is having sold a bunch of weapons to a vicious Sunni gangster with delusions of grandeur, and even that dubious success has just come to a calamitous end.

Now the Iraqi People want our troops to leave (79% of them at last check), and wouldn't you know it, so do the American people in pretty much the same proportions. To most of us, it's plainly obvious what's going on here: Dubya's just gambled away our entire life savings at the blackjack table, and now he's about to bet the house and car. He says he's got a system now, he says he can turn it around with a couple more hands. Finally got a good deck, says Dubya, and tosses the car keys on the table.

No more bets, George. We've had enough for one century.

¥€$

YES or NO?

It was a simple question that deserves a simple answer. "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

A black man named Barrack Obama said "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward."

A white woman named Hillary Clinton said "Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy."

A lot of punditry has been devoted to analyzing these two questions. No doubt that Hillary, with her far more extensive corporate connections, is capable of buying more favorable media coverage of her answer than Obama. For the rest of us, though, it boils down to two things: "I will." And "I will not."

I can hear the pundits' stomachs churning already. "Yes or no" doesn't capture the nuances of Hillary Clinton's answer well enough; she isn't saying no, but she isn't saying yes either. She's saying she would open diplomatic relations using various tested and proven diplomatic methods. She would make sure to "test the waters" first using envoys, to determine the best way forward for diplomatic relations, and to make sure her meeting with other world leaders isn't being used for propaganda purposes. Of course, those of us who are used to getting jerked around by politicians know this is just a politically acceptable way of saying "No."

Obama didn't get into the nuances of the answer, because the question didn't ask how he would engage America's supposed enemies abroad. To that point, Obama understands that most of us don't really care how he does it, only that he makes a sincere effort to do it, and states that commitment openly for all of us to see. The American people are not interested in making war with the rest of the world; we don't want enemies, we don't want conflict, we don't want hatred or animosity between us and anyone else. And that being true, the Diplomacy Question really boils down to this:

"If you are elected, will your foreign policy reflect the desires of the American people?"

A black man named Obama answered, "Yes, because America wants peace."

A white woman named Clinton answered, "No, but I'll pretend to if it'll get me elected."

Obama is going to receive a lot of criticism for his honesty from the camp of those who still believe, on some level, that a meeting with the President of the United States is a reward and a privilege, while denial of such contact is some sort of punishment. Hillary and Edwards are going to receive a lot of praise from people--Democrats in particular--who think that "dictators and tyrants don't deserve diplomacy for nothing in return." But then, I don't really care what Imperialists think; peace, not dominance, is the highest goal of the American people. Creating peace and eliminating conflict, therefore, is one of the President's most important duties; if anything, he should spend more time talking directly with the Axis of Evil than the Gang of Eight (keep your friends close and your enemies closer).

Then I think to myself: if Barrack Obama is on the side of the American people, and Hillary Clinton disagrees with him, then exactly whose side is Hillary on?

Empire v. Democracy

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government —dem·o·crat·ic /"de-m&-'kra-tik/ adjective —dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly adverb

Democracy is what happens when a large group of people from all walks of life get together in a rational and intelligent matter and decide, amongst themselves, what course of action their society should take. The opposite of democracy is dictatorship; the father of democracy is reason; the child of democracy is progress, and the enemy of democracy is greed.

So what do you call an organization that takes extreme measures to suppress or compromise real democracy all over the world in order to further its own agenda? What do you call a political faction who, after watching their enemies win popular elections all over the world, intervene secretly to undermine the power of those enemies, drive them out of power and place their people under the rule of a "more moderate" faction? What do you call a group of political elites who ignore the wishes of their own people at every opportunity and force the creation of laws and military doctrines in and outside of their own borders that endanger and defame the dignity of those very same voters?

Organizations like this have existed under many names and labels: imperialists, fascists, juntas. Any of these three rightly applies to the Bush Administration, which has by and large proven itself one of the most anti-democratic governments in modern history. It's not hard to understand why either. The Bush Administration is full of people (Cheney et al) who are focused on so called "American global leadership" of the world. In short, it's a Neoconservative ethos that the United States has some sort of divine manifest destiny to dominate the rest of the world. The real obvious problem with that theory is that, frankly, most of the world has no desire to be dominated by the United States or anyone else; they have their own ideas about what's good for their society and their government, about how they want to live and what they want to believe, and their vision of an ideal society is considerably different from the vision of the Bushite Neocons.

That, you see, is where Democracy becomes a problem. You will not find any Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who haven't seen at least one family member arrested, beaten or blown up by the Israeli military. You'll find even fewer of them who have a particularly favorable opinion of the United States Government, whose spokescreatures say things like "Israel has a right to defend itself" or "A peaceful solution is available, but only if the Palestinians renounce violence." It's therefore not particularly hard to imagine why an organization like Hamas, who has a reputation for standing up to Israel and the United States, would be more popular among Palestinians. Add to that notorious corruption by the Fatah Party, plus (in the case of Abu Mazen) close diplomatic ties with--and even support from--Israel and the United states, then really, it shouldn't be at all surprising that Hamas swept the elections in 2006. The United States and Israel may be indifferent to Palestinian complaints; Hamas is not. The West may be in different to the disparity of power, resources and quality of life between the Palestinian territories and Israel; Hamas is not. Condi Rice may be indifferent to the fact that the Israeli military has killed more Palestinians in the last six years than all Palestinian groups combined in the last thirty; Hamas is not. People tend to be less supportive of a government that doesn't give a damn whether they live or die than they are of an organization that is fighting tooth and nail to keep them alive. The Palestinians know--or at least perceive--that their militant "fringe" will stand up for them no matter what Israel or even the Americans do. In short, since it has been American foreign policy for the past forty years to screw over the Palestinians whenever possible, Palestinians are not likely to vote for candidates who suck up to the West.

That's where Elliott Abrams comes in. Under the Reagan Administration, Abrams assembled a truly impressive résumé. During his tenure under Reagan, he helped to whitewash the depravity of Salvadoran Death Squads, who in fact were being funded, armed, trained and directed by the CIA. He denied the existence of the El Mozte Massacre which, it turned out, was a CIA-led operation designed to discredit the "communists." He later solicited money for the Nicaraguan Contras, who were also (illegally) being funded, armed, trained and directed by the CIA. When the State Department demanded Manuel Noriega to step down and create a "democratic government," there was Abrams again demanding a government free of corruption, maybe forgetting that Manuel Noriega had been installed in power by the CIA in the first place.

What would a man like Elliott Abrams do if he was appointed to a powerful and influential position like, say, Deputy National Security Advisor? I suppose, as soon as he realized that a large, well-armed political faction vehemently opposed to "U.S. Interests in the Region" was rapidly gaining popularity among the people, he would funnel huge amounts of money and weapons to U.S.-friendly "moderates" in the Palestinian camp--in this case, Fatah--and spearhead the creation of massive military organizations like the Preventive Security Force and the Presidential Guard. The Preventive Security Force, who just finished getting their asses handed to them in Gaza, are run by Mohammad Dahlan: head of the recently-appointed "Palestinian National Security Council" and has his own private militia trained by British and American "services". Unlike the Iran-Contra thing, these arms shipments to Fatah haven't been exactly secret, and really, neither has their purpose. The State Department's made no secret of the fact that it despises Hamas, that it wants to see Hamas destroyed by any neas neccesary, and that, despite being the democratically elected government of Palestine, it will not under any circumstances recognize its legitimacy unless it plays nice (like Fatah) and rolls over for the Israelis.

America's history of "Global Leadership" is a dismal one. The Contras failed to destroy the Sandinistas, the CIA-trained military death squads in El Salvador were finally destroyed by their moderate and leftist opponents. And as for Noriega, he wound up turning his back on American interests, which is the main reason why Bush Senior invaded Panama. Ngô Ðình Diệm--America's first puppet ruler of Vietnam--was assassinated by a military coup, and ten years later the replacement puppet, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, was forced to resign just before the Communists took over South Vietnam. Now, apparently, history is repeating itself, and what every minute is looking more and more like America's puppet government in Palestine (under "moderate" President Abu Mazen) is about to get ousted by a popular uprising.

Speaking of Vietnam, it occurs to me all of a sudden that in the 1950s, it was pretty well understood that Ngô Ðình Diệm had about a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hồ Chí Minh in a free democratic election. Instead of reuniting Vietnam under a single leader, elected by the Vietnamese people, the United States kept the country divided into North and South and rigged the election in the south to keep Diệm in power. Twenty years later, the Communists took over the South anyway; what should have taken two months and a national election instead took twenty years and cost over seven million lives.

I could be misunderstanding something, but isn't that the whole reason democracy was invented in the first place? So that all the people in a particular nation can get together and come up with a solution that meets most of their needs? So that, when a particular government is doing things that are dangerous or stupid (or both), the people affected can simply choose a new leader who won't cause such problems? At least we can say that Bush's rhetoric is more or less correct: democracy is the answer to most of the problems in the Middle East and around the world. Unfortunately, the Bushites need to get it through their heads one of these days that Democracy means a hell of a lot more than "a political contest between two or more pro-American candidates on the CIA payroll." If you keep sabotaging genuine democratic movements all over the world, people are going to notice; if the elections don't bring change, then an armed uprising will.