* * political doodle * *

Yeah, it's been a long time. . .

. . . but I had to post this as an addendum to my last post, where my counterpart insisted (in his comments) that the US never tortured. (See comments under Lucille: Another Terrorist Attack? January 24, 2009)

Back in February 2004, the International Committee of the Red Cross gave Bush administration officials a confidential report, in which they reported that US occupation forces subjected Iraqis (that they had arrested without good reason, according to the ICRC) to abuse and humiliation that sometimes was "tantamount to torture" in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Some of this excessive violence even led to 7 deaths, according to the report.

    "[...]persons deprived of their liberty under supervision of the Military Intelligence were at high risk of being subjected to a variety of harsh treatments ranging from insults, threats and humiliations to both physical and psychological coercion, which in some cases was tantamount to torture, in order to force cooperation with their interrogators."

So, John Ennis, I guess not EVERYBODY believed that the US didn't torture. And, since on January 15, 2004, Red Cross President Jakob Kellenberger expressed his concern to Secretary of State Colin Powell about this torture, he - as a member of the Administration - knew as well.

LUCILLE: Another Terrorist Attack?

"Another terrorist attack is going to happen. We feel certain of that." - Ret. General James P. Cullen

That's what retired General James P. Cullen believes. He and about 40 retired military people have been meeting since 2004 to discuss policies directed by the civilian leadership in this country. This group of rear admirals, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs and four-star generals are not likely to be accused of being soft on terrorists. It includes Gen. Harry E Soyster, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and Rear Adm. John D. Houston.

You'd be in good company if you thought this group has grave reservations about the new Obama presidency.

But you would be wrong.

According to Jim Dwyer in the New York Times, Gen. Cullen has spent the last four years trying to get the secret CIA prisons and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp closed and for the civilian leadership to ban the use of torture in "pursuit of intelligence."

What?

Back in early 2004, Cullen believed that the abuse in Iraq at Abu Ghraib was "the aberrant acts of a few twisted individuals, and a failure of their commanders." But he grew to believe that Dick Cheney's announcement that 9/11 would force the U.S to "work through, sort of the dark side, if you will" was the equivalent of a wink and a nod from the Administration to torture and humiliate at will.

""We knew this was not the military we left. . . people were in the services because they wanted. . . to better themselves and serve their country."

General Cullen and many of his fellow generals and admirals met with every candidate during the last election cycle, with a policy that they wouldn't make any endorsements or publicly support any candidate. Instead, they were determined to convince them that humane treatment of prisoners would not weaken our defense, "but strengthen it."  They know - as we would if the previous administration hadn't so blatantly lied to us - that a real terrorist in detention could quite easily mislead us with intentionally false information or, more likely, say anything under torture just to make it stop.

So, if Ret. General Cullen and his compatriots think another attack is inevitable, why are they against torture (and in favor of President Obama's ban)?

"Another terrorist attack is going to happen. We feel certain of that. It's not going to be because we ended torture. We will get better intelligence without it. And we keep our values."

Better intelligence. That's what we have to look forward to.

Amen to that.

LUCILLE: Honor and Integrity

Dear Lucille, For the last eight years, President Bush has led our country with firm determination and a steady hand in the face of numerous challenges and crises. He restored honor and integrity to the White House and protected America from another terrorist attack.

I just got this email - with a request for a donation "to keep the Party strong." (Yes, I'm on the GOP email list. It's really been amusing reading their messages throughout the campaign.) So, let's see: that's what we call lack of planning, stubborn dismisal of any facts that contradicted his barely-considered decisions, and abysmal response to the country's worst natural disaster in decades.

Restored honor and integrity? Ask Muhammad Saad Iqbal and the other tortured individuals how "honorable" they think the administration is. And, do they even know the definition of integrity? It's "adherence to moral and ethical principles."

Are they kidding?

Notice, they didn't say that he protected us from any terrorist attacks. If I remember, the US experienced the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil under his leadership. But, gee, give the guy a break.

Illinois Politicians First Giveth and Then Taketh Away [John Ennis]

One of the secondary story lines to emerge from Barack Obama's November victory was the increased likelihood of Chicago being awarded the 2016 Summer Olympics by an international community willing to forgive America's supposed moral failings during the Bush years.

Do the recent accusations of brazen corruption by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's now jeopardize the bid? Will the media successfully paint Blagojevich as a random rogue rather than a symptom of an inherently corrupt political environment? If they are unable to do the former, the International Olympic Committee (with its own history of ethical lapses) might be hesitant to become deeply associated with the latter, which a Chicago Olympics would necessitate. Observers of the Olympic movement haven't forgotten the shady dealings during the Salt Lake City bid.

Of course, a severe global economic downturn might make the point moot. An American city might be the only one who could realistically afford an Olympics when the 2016 games are awarded ten months from now. Two of the three remaining nominees (Rio de Janeiro and Madrid) reside in vulnerable economies, while the third (Tokyo) is on a continent that just hosted this year's games.

The best thing to happen to New York in the last five years was when it lost its bid for the 2012 games three summers ago. If it had won, its population would be in a panic right now over how to pay for the venues. I have a feeling there are voices in London currently expressing such sentiments.

Just Wondering [John Ennis]

On Election Day, I knew more about Sarah Palin's relationship with Wasilla's librarian than Senator Obama's relationship with Governor Blagojevich, whose campaign he helped run in 2002.

Why is that? Is it because, as the media explained at the time, Obama had already been vetted and Palin hadn't?

LUCILLE: Yoo hoo! Anybody there?

No, I'm not remarking on my absence on these pages of late. No real excuse except my real job and my Wii Fit.

I'm commenting instead on the conspicuous absence of late of our illustrius president, George W. Bush Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he still president until January 20? Where the hell is he?

The economy is tanking, the auto industry is going under, China could pull the pull the financial plug any minute and we're playing a game of "Where's George?" Financial institutions going under? There's George, traveling to South America to meet with leaders who know he'll be gone in less than 90 days. Auto industry screaming for assistance? There's George, clearing brush.

Okay, so maybe he wasn't exactly clearing brush, but has he simply given up on running the country? Of course, everytime he or Paulson do make some sort of public comments on the economy, the stock market takes another nosedive, so maybe we're better off not hearing from him.On second thought, its common knowledge that the only thing worse than a disengaged Bush is an engaged Bush. 

And this isn't the only time he's been accused of being out of touch or asleep at the wheel. Back in 2006 even the GOP was calling him disengaged. In Woodward's last book, he describes George as being completely out of touch about the war and detached; in fact, Bush actually told him that decisions on the war were the responsibility of  Steven Hadley. Imagine; an unelected political appointee with the fate of the Middle East on his hands. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Oh, and Bush's strategy on Iran? "They're assholes." No, really. That was what he told Woodward his "strategy" was.

On second thought, maybe the best we can hope for is that GWB sleeps through the rest of his term. At least then he can't start another war.

LUCILLE: The McCain Implosion

  By now it's evident to everyone (except maybe John Ennis) that the McCain campaign has been on self-destruct and is failing even in those "safe" GOP states. Not to say he might not win; after all, voter supression and voting machine shennanigans and malfunctions can change the entire landscape. But, I think - and here's my prediction - Obama will win handily, with electoral votes to spare.

But, the point of this post is about John McCain's obvious inablilty to control his own campaign. The manic hopping from one "solution" for the economic meltdown to another (questionable) one; the emphasis on attacking Obama's relationship to Ayers (is this the best he can come up with?) vs. actually telling voters what he'd do as President that differs from what Bush has been doing the last 7 years; the johnny-come-lately realization that the economy isn't "fundamentally sound" as he professed up until the stock market started crashing; the Palin situation - from spending $150,000 to dress their "Joe Six Pack" hockey mom in Paris Hilton attire to the $20,000+ spent in just two weeks to put lipstick on a . . . oh, you know - to her apparent decision to ignore the campaign's direction and take off on her own.

Oh - and the endorsement of McCain by Al Qaeda. Who needs Colin Powell?

Can anyone disagree - other than John - that things are out of control in McCain Land?

Palin Doesn't Need to Answer to the Press, Just Hitchens [John Ennis]

Slate columnist Christopher Hitchens really went after Sarah Palin yesterday. Here's one of his complaints:

At numerous rallies where the atmosphere has been, shall we say, a little uncivil, Gov. Palin has accused Sen. Obama of accusing our forces in Afghanistan of simply bombing villages. Only a moment's work is required to discover that the words complained of were never uttered in that form and that they occurred in a speech that stressed the need for more ground troops as opposed to more airstrikes (a recommendation, by the way, that begins to look more sapient each week, at least in respect of the airstrikes). Again, I have a question: Did Palin know that she was telling a lie? Or did her handlers simply assume that she would read anything that was put in front of her, however mendacious? And which would be worse? And when will she issue the needful retraction?

Hitchens does not supply a link to, or provide a quote of the objectionable comment made by Palin. Nor does he provide a link or a quote of what Obama said. Hitchens did have time to put in a total of ten links to other—more important—items, including an insinuation that Palin is a 'Manchurian candidate'.

In any case, it's hard to say he nailed Palin with his argument. The documentation of Palin's lie may be in Hitchens' head, but he has not enhanced the public record of her supposed transgression.

I would like to rely on his integrity as a journalist, and believe his assertion that Palin lied, but I've seen too much of his brethren's work from this campaign. As for Hitchens' work, here's a second dubious claim from the very subtitle of the aforementioned piece:

Stop covering Palin until she gives a press conference.

If Palin wants to be spared the wrath of Hitchens, I think the location of her press conferences is more important than whether they occur. Because if the press conference isn't in Hitchens' living room, he ain't going to know about it.

Palin holds press conferences with her beat writers on a somewhat frequent basis. They just happen to be occurring on the campaign trail—where Palin, the VP nominee, is, and where Hitchens, the Slate scribe, clearly is not. As CBS reports:

It was less than two weeks ago when Sarah Palin astonished her traveling press corps by lifting the curtain (literally) and journeying to the back of her campaign plane to answer reporters’ questions for the first time after 40 days on the campaign trail. But the candidate who has been criticized for having a bunker mentality when it came to the national media can now lay legitimate claim to being more accessible than either Joe Biden or Barack Obama.

In the past two days alone, Palin has answered questions from her national press corps on three separate occasions. On Saturday, she held another plane availability, and on Sunday, she offered an impromptu press conference on the tarmac upon landing in Colorado Springs. A few minutes later, she answered even more questions from reporters during an off-the-record stop at a local ice cream shop.

By contrast, Biden hasn’t held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn’t taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September.

Didn't Palin also do something a few weeks ago, where she answered questions for 90 minutes from a member of the press and from her opponent, Sen. Biden? I know we call them debates, not press conferences, but can we add that event to the tally too?

LUCILLE: People in Glass Mansions. . .

Boy, John is all over the map with his "Every Candidate is Allowed One Terrorist Pal" post. But I can understand. When your candidate - and your party - have nothing to add to the discussion of real issues, you are forced to bring up non-issues - and then meander into anything your stream of consciousness allows.

Let's start with terrorists, which is  ostensibly what your post is about.

What would you call a man who  used armed guerrilla tactics against a western country; say, the British, then launched an all out armed rebellion against them,  extorted money from them and ran bogus robbery scams? What if he even took part in the hanging of two British sergeants? And if MI5  placed a 'dead-or-alive' bounty of  10,000  pounds on his head after his group threatened 'a campaign of terror against British officials,' would you call him a terrorist and condemn anyone who befriended/worked with/officially recognized him?

Well, get ready to condemn the head of virtually every western government in the world, because the man I described is Manachem Begin, former Israeli Prime Minister and. . . terrorist/freedom fighter in the mid 1940's.

So, yes, John, people do get rehabilitated, even by the conservative/Republican Annenberg Foundation. Of course, Barack Obama has publicly condemned Ayers, so he may actually have done more to condemn terrorism than, say, Ronald Reagan.

Which brings me to my second issue -  John McCain's association with - nay, membership in  - an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. 

JOHN: For Richer or Poorer

As Washington and Wall Street start assigning blame for the subprime mortgage crisis, conservatives are beginning to lean toward risky borrowing to poor credit risks as the main culprit. If you are looking for a Leftist antidote to this growing conventional wisdom, Daniel Gross has posted a decent counter-argument.

First off, he clearly understands what conservatives are arguing. His rebuttals aren't all on point, but he does note some elements to the problem that are being neglected. For example, many conservatives are overlooking the fact that liberals didn't force "the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt." It is obvious that this was a contributor to the current problem. The credit rating agencies gave out high ratings because they wrongly assumed housing prices couldn't go down. If housing prices can't go down, and the borrower defaults, you still get the house and all of your principal back- so there's virtually no risk.

Obviously, this thinking was wrong.

But, Gross contradicts himself. He says the subprime debt shouldn't have been highly rated, but two paragraphs later, in his zeal to absolve lending to the poor, he notes that:

... lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at all.

So does that mean the credit-rating agencies were correct to rate the subprime debt as high grade?

Gross than goes after rich guys as an additional source to the problem and concludes:

Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly to rich people does.

Not quite. Let's amend that to: lending money poorly makes you poor.