Keep It To Yourself

Condoleezza Rice was playing it cool last night on The Tonight Show (if video doesn't show, click here):



For one tiny second I wanted to like her. After all, she's rejecting Dick Cheney's harsh words for Obama and basically telling the former VP to keep it to himself. But then I remember that this is the same woman who led the meetings with Rumsfeld and Ashcroft where they decided torture was legal. This is the same woman who was a complete failure as national security adviser. This is the same woman who went along with the charade to link Saddam Hussein to September 11, and then later denied it. No wonder she earned the nickname "kinda-lies-a-lot."

I was also irked by the whole "we did our best" shtick. It's not much different than Bush's petulant reminders that he made "tough decisions." Let's not forget that you only get the pat on the back when you make right decisions.

It's no surprise that Rice's interview was self-serving. She's trying to apply the soft focus lens to her career -- blurring the image and creating an aberration. We wouldn't put such a nice person in prison, would we?

Alternative News?

In between the banking crisis, presidential campaigns, and the world's obsession with Sarah Palin, other stuff is going on in the USA believe it or not.

From the New York Times:

Senior White House officials played a central role in deliberations in the spring of 2002 about whether the Central Intelligence Agency could legally use harsh interrogation techniques while questioning an operative of Al Qaeda, Abu Zubaydah, according to newly released documents.

In meetings during that period, the officials debated specific interrogation methods that the C.I.A. had proposed to use on Qaeda operatives held at secret C.I.A. prisons overseas, the documents show. The meetings were led by Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, and attended by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft and other top administration officials.

Why are we still using the phrase "harsh interrogation techniques" when we all know it's torture? I have no tolerance for euphemisms in these serious matters. But watching officials cover their asses is mildly amusing:

“I recall being told that U.S. military personnel were subjected in training to certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques and that these techniques had been deemed not to cause significant physical or psychological harm,” Ms. Rice, now secretary of state, wrote in response to one question.

I've never liked Rice because of her epic mistakes as national security adviser, but despite her screw-ups, she would have been a much better VP choice for McCain. It's sad that the Republicans got scared when they heard the rumors that Rice is a lesbian. It sure would have been an interesting election without the Christian conservatives on the Republican's side.

Anyway, maybe now that McCain and Obama have raced off to Washington to show us how they operate, they could also take a look at this whole torture issue. I'd like to know if we'll ever prosecute any high-level officials for these war crimes. We may never hold Bush or Cheney accountable, but maybe we can impeach Bybee?

And maybe we can find that $13 billion meant for reconstruction in Iraq. Seems the money has been wasted, stolen, and diverted to al-Qaeda.

Is it just a coincidence that these big stories are breaking during a week that the press is focused on the economy, the election, and Sarah Palin?

Seven Years Ago Today

"During the spring and summer of 2001, President Bush had on several occasions asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to the United States. Reflecting on these questions, the CIA decided to write a briefing article summarizing its understanding of this danger. Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious. The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled 'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.' It was the 36th PDB item briefed so far that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States." --The 9/11 Commission Report

Too bad Condoleezza Rice, then the National Security Adviser, didn't realize it was her job to make recommendations regarding these briefs. From The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon:

Domestic issues seemed to bore her. Her deputy, Stephen Hadley, had told the commission something remarkable in his private interview the month before: He and Rice had not seen themselves as responsible for co-ordinating the FBI and other domestic agencies about terrorism. But if they weren't responsible, who was? There was no separate domestic security adviser in the White House. They had just demoted Clarke.

Seven years later, Bush, Cheney, and Rice are still in the White House, and bin Laden is still free. Happy Anniversary.

My Suspicious Mind

I can't accept good news without feeling a bit suspicious. For example, today the Guardian reports that the US plans to station diplomats in Iran for the first time since 1979. This news is a remarkable shift from President Bush's attitude two months ago when he equated talking to Iran with appeasement.

But wait. What's Congress doing? Trying to pass a strongly worded piece of legislation (H.CON.RES.362) demanding that "the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by... prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

Despite the statement that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran", it could easily be confused for exactly that. After all, it calls for stringent inspection requirements which mean a naval blockade which would of course involve the use of force.

But wait. Now one of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Robert Wexler, is saying he made a mistake. He now plans to amend the bill adding language "highlighting a more effective American strategy that calls for direct engagement with Tehran for the purpose of thwarting Iran's nuclear weapons program and ending its support for international terrorism."

Wexler also states "I fully understand and share the American public's mistrust of President Bush and his administration, which has abused its executive powers, willfully misled this nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and disturbingly continues to beat the Iran war drum."

So I have to wonder why he sponsored the bill in the first place.

What also puzzles and surprises me is that Condoleezza Rice has been a major proponent of negotiations with Iran all along. Her push for diplomacy makes me hopeful that maybe she at least learned something from the Iraq war... But wait. No. She is still proud of the decision to invade Iraq. Yeah, it's a scary thought that Rice could be our last, best chance for peace.

Meanwhile, Dana Perino keeps repeating the same stuff about how Iran must do what we say before we will negotiate. Makes me wonder if she understands what the word "negotiate" means.

So forgive me if I'm suspicious of any good news.

That's What I Call Art!

In 2003, an unknown Bush administration official ordered historic diplomatic photographs removed from a State Department hall leading to the building's main cafeteria. They replaced them with huge color glossies documenting the diplomatic accomplishments of Bush, Cheney and Rice. Go figure. I didn't even know they made any accomplishments.

What were the original historic photos?

There was an original political cartoon from the Jefferson era showing Britain and France pick-pocketing the Americans; there were pictures of negotiations with Indian tribes over land; President Woodrow Wilson at Versailles; former secretary of state Elihu Root somewhere; Roosevelt and Churchill signing the Atlantic Charter; former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Soviet foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze in cowboy boots at Jackson Hole; a splendid shot of the old State Department building; and a photo of President Ronald Reagan at a meeting with a very young Colin L. Powell seated behind him.

But this is what makes true art: the Bush photos have recently been modified with some very cool mustaches. These artistic embellishments were quickly cleaned up, and the mustache artist is still unknown. I'm shocked that none of Bush's domestic surveillance programs caught the perpetrator!

Proxy Wars

We all know about the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, but exactly how many wars is the US really fighting? And how many are in the making? A proxy war is the war that results when two powers use third parties as substitutes for fighting each other directly.

For example, when President Bush traveled to Israel last January, Israeli security officials were anxious to brief Bush on their latest intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program - and how it could be destroyed. The London Times states "Many Israelis are eager to know whether America would give their country the green light to attack, as it did last September when Israel struck a mysterious nuclear site in Syria." Is this the start of a proxy war?

And in Lebanon, the recent political battle has become a proxy war with the US, Saudi Arabia and France backing the Lebanese government, and Iran and Syria backing Hizballah. Both sides are fighting to shape the Middle East. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice strongly reaffirmed US support for the pro-Western government:

We will stand by the Lebanese government and peaceful citizens of Lebanon through this crisis and provide the support they need to weather this storm.

As if the Middle East wasn't enough, the US government now has a renewed interest in South America. If there is proof that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been offering arms and other help to FARC (which has been trying to topple the government of Colombia for nearly a half-century), then Venezuela could be considered a terrorist nation. Will the US back Columbia's "final offensive" against Venezuela?

In Bolivia, a crucial vote could pave the way for secession of the resource-rich Santa Cruz region. Other oil-rich provinces may also vote for greater autonomy. Bolivian President Evo Morales has accused the US of backing the secessionists. Apparently the US does not like Morales's socialist agenda and his close ties to Venezuela and Cuba. According to CounterPunch, "In an effort to rollback social and political change in Bolivia, the U.S has funneled millions of dollars to opposition groups through USAID and The National Endowment for Democracy. What’s more, USAID explicitly supports demands of the right wing for greater regional autonomy in the east."

Does the US step into these situations to spread happiness and democracy, and is it just a coincidence that all these regions have oil? Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my little list of probable proxy wars. Did I forget any?