Peace Rant

Meanwhile, in liberated Afghanistan . . .

Here's a story that hasn't cracked the mainstream media wall in this country yet, probably because it goes against the conventional wisdom regarding the "good" war and occupation in liberated Afghanistan.  It's the story of a young man in Afghanistan who was recently sentenced to death for the crime of downloading an essay about women's rights under Islamic law.

According to a report in The Independent of London, which has launched a campaign to try to save this man's life (more on that below):

The fate of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has led to domestic and international protests, and deepening concern about erosion of civil liberties in Afghanistan. He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website which stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.

Mr Kambaksh, 23, distributed the tract to fellow students and teachers at Balkh University with the aim, he said, of provoking a debate on the matter. But a complaint was made against him and he was arrested, tried by religious judges without – say his friends and family – being allowed legal representation and sentenced to death.  [Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights, 1/31/08]

Disturbing as that is, it gets worse.  The Afghan Senate, practicing their US-imposed democratic freedoms, passed a resolution yesterday affirming the sentence and calling on the government to carry it out quickly, before international pressure builds.  (There has been an international outcry over the case, just not in this country.)  The sponsor of the Senate resolution is a key ally of President Hamid Karzai, America's green-robed water-carrier.

Or maybe Karzai is not so willing a water-carrier these days.  He is extremely unpopular at home and has been making moves to try to separate himself from his US and British patrons.  Karzai recently scuttled the appointment of a Brit as "special envoy" of the UN, saying that British troops had made things worse in Helmand province.  Karzai is due up for re-election next year.

I can find hardly any mention of this case in US media, just a couple of reports in local papers.  Certainly, the New York Times has not reported on it.  Nobody wants to report that the "good" war, the 9/11-justified war, is going south in a big way in a big hurry.

Just the other night, during his State of the Union speech, Bush lauded the progress in Afghanistan, to a standing ovation by Democrats and republicans alike:

We've seen Afghans emerge from the tyranny of the Taliban and choose a new president and a new parliament.

In Afghanistan, America, our 25 NATO allies, and 15 partner nations are helping the Afghan people defend their freedom and rebuild their country. Thanks to the courage of these military and civilian personnel, a nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaeda is now a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school, new roads and hospitals are being built, and people are looking to the future with new hope.

The only problem with that rosy picture is the fact that the President and Parliament are leaning toward imposing very Taliban-like rule.  And the boys and girls who are going to school run the risk of a death sentence should they actually choose to engage in intellectual debate.

The Independent newspaper is reporting this story heavily (it's their front page story today) and has started a petition campaign on behalf of Sayed.  Although the petition is directed to the British government, the form does ask what country you are from.  I signed it and I hope you will too.  Then we need to write to our own newspapers and elected representatives and get them to cover the story and bring pressure to stop this tragedy.

Here are a couple more links to Independent articles about the case:

A victim of Karzai's diplomatic game (1/31/08)

My country is using Islamic law to erode the rights of women  (1/30/08)

Update and correction:  I am told the New York Times has reported this story a couple of times.  My search of their archives still comes up empty, however.

Update:  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on Afghanistan yesterday.  It apparently wasn't a happy scene.

OK, I'll give this a try...

A blow-by-blow reaction to the State of the Union speech, just like real bloggers!  (Keep hitting your refresh button.)  [Note:  This post was written in installments, appearing bottom-to-top.  So if you want to read chronologically, go to the bottom and scroll up.]

7:03 pm -  And he closes with a dramatic spreading of the arms.  "Let us go forth..."  Total theater, as was the whole thing.  That's enough, this experiment is at an end.

7:00 pm -  How long can this go on?

6:59 pm -  From wars, real and threatened, he turns to international food aid.  "Because we're a compassionate people."  The American people are compassionate.  It's Bush's policies that lack compassion.  Or conscience.

6:55 pm -  Here's the FISA bill.  "If you don't act by Friday . . ."  Calling out Congress.  (More on FISA in a later posting -- interesting developments today.)

6:52 pm -  We got about 30 seconds on Israel-Palestine then it's right off to Iran.  And Iran.  And Iran.  Apparently, we have vital interests in their gulf.

6:43 pm -  We're winning in Iraq!  Predictably.

6:41 pm -  The surge worked.  Predictably.  Interestingly, the surge wasn't an escalation, it was America rushing additional help to the Iraqis.  Big of us.

6:36 pm -  9/11.  Be afraid, be very afraid.  "We will deliver justice to our enemies."

6:31 pm - OK, he's talking about faith-based intiatives, "armies of compassion" -- I'm going out for a smoke.

6:28 pm - Good lord, this is a boring speech.  Here's something, though.  Clinton has gotten two TV close-ups (by my count), Kennedy has one, and Obama has none, only a shared shot with Kennedy that came before the speech started.

6:20 pm -  Actually, Cheney looks bored, as well.  Probably anxious to get out of there and attack Iran.

6:19 pm - Hillary looks like she's bored.  She looks like she's trying hard to look bored.

6:16 pm - He's talking about the importance of a balanced budget.  This guy?  The same guy who's gotten us in debt up to our ears with his criminal war?

6:14 pm - W warns Congress not to "load up" the economic stimulus package.  Translation:  no extension of unemployment benefits or expansion of food stamps.

6:07 pm - Obama and Kennedy are sitting together!  How'd they arrange that?

6:05 pm - Elvis is in the House.

6:02 pm - Hoo boy.  This isn't going to be easy.  We haven't even started yet and Chris Matthews is talking about how much everyone likes Condi Rice and how she would be a great vice-presidential candidate.  I thought political analysts were supposed to be paying attention.

Statute of limitations on war crimes?

In an interview with National Journal magazine, John Negroponte -- currently Deputy Secretary of State and before that the first Director of National Intelligence and long before that a real slimeball in the US's covert operations against Central America -- said:

"We've taken steps to address the issue of interrogations, for instance, and waterboarding has not been used in years . . . It (waterboarding) wasn't used when I was director of national intelligence, nor even a few years before that.  I get concerned that we're too retrospective and tend to look in the rearview mirror too often at things that happened four or even six years ago." [Reuters story about the interview]

I never realized there was a statute of limitations on crimes against humanity.  In any event, we now have public confirmation (like we needed it) that US interrogators engaged in torture.  Can we prosecute someone now, like the President?

George's last SOTU

It's a very good thing that George Bush is giving his last State of the Union speech tonight.  At the rate he's been going, there won't be anything to report on in the very near future.

Advance notice of tonight's speech tells us that George will try to reassure Americans about the economy.  Here's what he had to say just one year ago during the SOTU:

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have.

What a difference a year can make, eh? That's very reassuring.

I'll tune and watch, of course.  Maybe I'll even rant along in real time.

Episode 17: It's the war economy, stupid! (1/27/08)

Episode 17: It's the war economy, stupid!

A billion here. A trillion there. Next thing you know, we're talking some real money. And some real messed up priorities.

Cooperation or co-optation?

The great economic stimulus package just agreed to by the administration and Democratic leaders of the House is being hailed, predictably, as a shining example of bipartisan cooperation.  It seems to me the Democrats allowed themselves to get co-opted yet again.

Despite the despicable Rahm Emmanuel's analysis that this was a "progressive" deal, Pelosi in fact tumbled on some of the most progressive -- and most necessary -- aspects of a stimulus package.  Namely, extending unemployment benefits and food stamps, and social investments in infrastructure.

How the Dems could fold their hand on increasing unemployment benefits and food stamps is just mind-boggling.  First and foremost, shifting money in that direction would help the people who need help the most.  Secondly, the entire emphasis has been on rapidly getting money into the economy.  The Congressional Budget Office and leading economists all agree that increases in these benefits would make their way into the broader economy much, much faster than the fixes being proposed:

At a Senate hearing on Thursday, Peter R. Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified that increases in food stamps and unemployment benefits would have more immediate economic effects than rebates.

“Food stamp and unemployment benefits can affect spending in two months,” Mr. Orszag said. “Rebates would affect spending at the end of 2008.” (NY Times, 1/25/08, Bush and House in Accord for $150 Billion Stimulus)

Government investments in infrastructure repairs and upgrades -- things like fixing bridges and repaving roads -- are nowhere to be found in the "bipartisan" bill. This White House is not interested in compromising on social investments. They'll have none of that, thank you.  And Pelosi seems uninterested in standing her ground on such a key issue.

The Times article says, "the deal came together because each side could walk away claiming victory."  I don't know about victory, but Pelosi certainly walked away.

(Paul Krugman has weighed in on the stimulus package in his usual insightful and explanatory way.  I'm sure he'll have more to say in the coming days and weeks.  He is, after all, an economist.  Be sure to check out today's piece, Stimulus Gone Bad.)

Oh, and by the way, the check is not in the mail:  In a small article hidden away in the Times, it is revealed that the IRS computers simply aren't up to the task of getting a bunch of checks in the mail to so many people.  So much for speed in a critical situation.  We're all going to be economic Katrina victims, waiting for a rowboat out of town that won't arrive until the financial floodwaters are in the attic.  Strains on the I.R.S. Could Delay Rebate Checks for Months (NY Times, 1/25/08)

Quantifiable mendaciousness: 935 lies

Statistics can be a bore--unless one is talking about baseball, of course--but sometimes they serve an important purpose.

Since the very outset of the administration's propaganda campaign to whip up support for an invasion of Iraq, critics have been saying, quite simply, they're lying.  It took until well into the occupation for that sentiment to become pretty much the accepted truth.  They lied.

Now, the depth of the administration's mendaciousness has been quantified.  They lied 935 times on 532 occasions, to be exact.

The figures come from a just-released study of administration statements about Iraq during the two-year period following 9/11.  The study was conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism.  You can read the full study and report, The War Card:  Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War, at CPI's website.

If I'm right that they lied is now the accepted wisdom, it may not seem important to put a number on their sanguinary deceitfulness.  There is the possibility that the release of this report, which I do think is important, will rekindle some of the debate over this administration's inherent dishonesty.

In any event, it is useful to have such a handy index to what was a very complex--and successful--campaign to manipulate public opinion.  It will make for an easy-to-understand chart at the impeachment hearings and later at the war crimes trial.

Some more links about the study:

AP Report 1/23/08 - Study: Bush, Other Officials Issued Hundreds of False Statements Before Iraq Invasion

NY Times 1/23/08 (A pathetically insufficient report - Website assembles?  What kind of verb is that for a headline?) - Web Site Assembles U.S. Prewar Claims

It's the war economy, stupid

The war in Iraq has dropped from the top of the issues list in the presidential campaign.  It has also disappeared from the front pages of newspapers.  The hot topic now is the economic mess we find ourselves in, thanks to Bush's reckless driving.  He has crashed the economy into a light pole.

Focusing on the economy is perfectly understandable, given the current state of financial affairs.  What isn't understandable to me is why the candidates--the Democratic candidates, in particular--aren't tying the two issues together.  The economic stimulus packages that the various candidates are touting all run up tabs of about $140 billion.  That is almost exactly how much we're going to spend in Iraq this year alone.

The total cost of the war to date is over half a trillion dollars.  That works out to over $4,000 per household.  How much more economic stimulus could the candidates want?

Let's take it beyond Iraq.  The House recently passed a so-called "defense" spending measure (on a consensus vote of 369 - 46) that sends $649 billion to the Pentagon.  Total military spending represents over half of the entire U.S. budget.  Even worse, our "defense" spending comes to more money than the rest of the world combined.  Just what or whom are we defending against?

Is there a candidate out there who is willing to talk about the incredibly backwards state of our national priorities?  Apparently not.

Start the countdown

One year from today, one year from right now, George Bush will no longer be in the White House.  That's the good news.

The bad news is that it may be a very long year.

Episode 16: Strait Talk (1/16/08)

Episode 16:  Strait Talk  (1/16/08)

The admirals prevaricate, the media equivocate, and George remains a reprobate.  It's all so crazy, it's a wonder we're not all hearing voices.

For higher quality video and the chance to browse all episodes, please visit our homebase at htt://orwellwasanoptimist.blip.tv.