Month: March 2004

The Almost Monster

by

One of the most difficult parts of assigning blame for terrorism is knowing where to draw the line. Do you hold only the person who commits the attack accountable? Most folks would say no. You also hold the planners, and the financiers, and the ideologues accountable. Others go even further and say you hold the … Read more

Well, I’m back.

by

And, upon looking at the umpteen million comments to a a zillion different posts*, I’m not gonna even try to catch up; I’m sure that I’ll be suitably apprised of anything absolutely vital for me to see. As usual, some excellent posts.

Expect to hear the solitary call of the right-winged, pink-nosed** blogger to start up again tomorrow. I’ve got a ton of mail to sort through, not to mention roughly half a week’s worth of various and sundry Internet comics.

Moe

UPDATE: OK, I understand that one of the advantages of a group blog is that people can take little breaks and everything without it affecting content, but this is just slapping me in the face with a halibut. 3,000+? Great googley moogley.

If I had a policy of using emoticons in my main posts, there’d be a smiley after the paragraph above.

Read more

And on a much lighter note

by

I’ve never attended the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association’s dinner in Washington, where the media and DC politicos mix and laugh it up, but I usually get a full report from a reporter friend, so I’ve always wished I could. Apparently it’s one of the best shows in town. The President always speaks and … Read more

Personal Concerns

by

Openly gay Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, made a highly personal appeal before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. “When I go home from today’s work and I choose, because of my nature, to associate with another man, how is that a problem for you?…How does that hurt you?” To gay Americans and many others … Read more

Wolfowitz and Pals

by

Richard Clarke writes in “Against All Enemies” that,

On the morning of the 12th D.O.D.’s focus was already beginning to shift from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. was explicit now that Al Qaeda was guilty of the attacks, but Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy, was not persuaded. It was too sophisticated and complicated an operation, he said, for a terrorist group to have pulled off by itself, without a state sponsor — Iraq must have been helping them.

I’ve been doing more Lexis-Nexis searches on the Pentagon hawks’ reaction to 9/11. Once again, they provide strong circumstantial evidence that Clarke is telling the truth.

Read more

One eye open.

by

Nine more Iraqi policemen were killed today. It’s really not news, and that’s a shame. Until Iraq’s police start policing (spending all your time investigating the mass-murder of your fellow officers and trying to stay alive yourself, btw, does not count) we haven’t yet won in Iraq. We promised the Iraqi people that we would … Read more

Lo and Behold, the Sky Is Not Falling

by

Via Tacitus. So Prime Minister-elect José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero does not seem to spell immediate doom for all of Spain, Europe, and the rest of the civilized world: Spain’s New Leader May Send More Troops to Afghanistan After all the “Spanish Flee” type libeling across the blogosphere the last few weeks, I think a particularly … Read more

One Nation, Under a Misconception

by

In his column today, New York Times columnist David Brooks argues that we should appreciate that the phrase “one nation under God” (which is, after 50 years, finally being challenged in the Supreme Court) is “not proselytizing; it’s citizenship.” To help us understand this, he offers the example of Martin Luther King, Jr. (via David … Read more

A longer stroll down memory lane

by

These are from Lexis Nexis searches, so I can’t provide links. Sorry about that.

These excerpts–and there are plenty more like them–leave little question that some of the hawks in the Bush administration wanted to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11. But the articles at the time suggest that they want to invade Iraq AND Afghanistan, not that they want to invade Iraq instead of Afghanistan. And when I re-read the Guardian article I linked to in the last post, that’s a perfectly plausible interpretation of the British ambassador’s remarks.

As far as timing–I’d say we had decided on war with Taliban (unless they unexpectedly turned on bin Laden) by September 20 at the absolute latest. That’s when Bush delivered his ultimatum in front of a joint session of Congress. And presumably they decided some time before he made his speech.

Blair also seems to have met with Bush on that date, so that’s probably when the conversation in which Bush promises to postpone Iraq “for another day” occurred.

Here goes:

Read more

The Sour Grapes of Wrath?

by

How do you discredit a former Administration insider who blasts the Administration after their departure? In the case of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill , it’s really quite easy to portray him as unable to reach those juicy grapes himself, leaving it to the public to imagine that’s why he considers them sour. But Clarke’s … Read more

Greetings from scenic Duck, NC…

by

…because travelblogging is the thing to do these days, it seems. It’s been very relaxing: I turn on the television, establish that the planet hasn’t blown up yet, turn it off and go look at another tourist attraction, of which North Carolina has a remarkable number. So far on this trip we’ve seen Yorktown (on … Read more

Corroboration of Clarke’s account

by

A trip down memory lane, from an April 4, 2003 Grauniad* article:

Tony Blair has frequently played a pivotal role in the infighting in the US administration over Iraq, according to the recently retired British ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.

Hawks in the Bush administration, mainly the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, pushed for an attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11.

Sir Christopher, in an interview with the US public broadcasting system last night, said that the prime minister, arriving in Washington the week after an inconclusive discussion between George Bush and his key advisers at Camp David, swung in behind the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, who saw Afghanistan as the prime target.

In the documentary Blair’s War, Sir Christopher, who returned to Britain last month, said that when Mr Blair met Mr Bush in the weeks after September 11, he urged him to deal first with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network and its protector – Afghanistan’s Taliban government – before tackling Iraq.

“Tony Blair’s view was, ‘Whatever you’re going to do about Iraq, you should concentrate on the job at hand’. And the job at hand was get al-Qaida, give the Taliban an ultimatum,” the former British ambassador said.

Sir Christopher added that Mr Bush took Mr Blair aside and promised he would keep Iraq “for another day”.

I remember my jaw dropping when I read this a year ago. But the U.S. press never picked it up, and I forgot about it until I saw Clarke’s interview.

Did anyone actually see that documentary? I haven’t, but assuming this is an accurate characterization–a few observations:

1. The retired British ambassador, and the retired terrorism advisor under four U.S. presidents, seem to be telling the same story, or at least quite consistent stories. One of them may tell the story under oath next week. If they’re not credible enough sources to at least take these charges seriously–who, exactly, would be?

2. A lot of people on the left gave up on Blair and Powell as moderating influences long ago–but if this is accurate, we have a lot of reason to be grateful to them. Fighting terrorism is fraught with uncertainty, but deep in the pit of my stomach I know that if we had attacked Iraq while bin Laden and the Taliban did as they pleased in Afghanistan–there would have been another attack on New York by now. And probably London too.

3. I wonder which side Cheney was on in this debate? And Rice?

4. One of the weirdest things about that Guardian article is the reference to Blair “arriving in Washington the week after an inconclusive discussion between George Bush and his key advisers at Camp David”. I remember being surprised that so much time passed between 9/11 and the first bombs falling on Afghanistan–was this really because we spent a full week deciding whether to bomb Afghanistan or Iraq? I find that bizarre beyond words, but it does seem possible.

5. Whether it was Blair or not, whether it was a close call or not–Bush did make the right decision that September. I suppose that should reassure me. But it doesn’t seem to have weakened the hawks in the administration at all, based on what’s happened since. It’s more like there was a grudging agreement that “we’ll give Tony and Colin this one, but then a next year it’s OUR turn and they have to support us.” And in the end, Iraq got more resources than Afghanistan ever did, by almost any measure.

UPDATE I’m doing some Lexis searches of news stories the weeks after 9/11. Briefly–it is very clear that the hawks in the Bush administration immediately wanted to go after Iraq. But it’s not clear that they wanted to go after Iraq instead of Afghanistan, rather than in addition to Afghanistan. The Guardian article strongly implies the former, but Meyer’s quotations could just as easily support the latter.

More on this…I don’t know exactly when. But soon.

Read more

Enough.

by

Ten days ago, I criticized a decision by Mr. Johnson (of Little Green Footballs) to insult and deride Spanish mourners of the terror attacks in Madrid. Mr. Johnson’s decision not only showed an astonishing lack of judgment, but (as Kevin Drum also notes) likely was counterproductive to our fight against terrorism.

This is not the first or last time that Mr. Johnson showed a lack of judgment in his posts. On Friday, for instance, Meteor Blades (of The Daily Kos) and Tacitus (of, erm, Tacitus) confronted a misleading entry by Mr. Johnson on the civil war in Sudan. In the process, they also corrected several factual misstatements by Mr. Johnson’s regular commentators.

Rather than attempt to defend his ground or correct his original post, Mr. Johnson responded with ad homs. He then blocked access from Tacitus. It is worth noting that this is not the first time Mr. Johnson has responded to criticism by blocking access to his website.

Supposedly, a key purpose of Mr. Johnson’s Little Green Footballs is to show the horrific nature of Islamic radicalism, and to point out the cowardice of non-radical Muslims who fail to speak up against such horrors. This is a noble and worthy purpose, and it could make for an interesting and relevant weblog.

Little Green Footballs, however, fails in its claimed purpose. It consistently gets the facts wrong; it frequently substitutes prejudice for reason[**]; and it breeds misdirected hate in its comment boards. LGF’s errors and distortions make it all the more difficult for thoughtful bloggers to criticize the actions of radical Muslims, for, if they do, they run the risk of being lumped in with the “wingnut LGF crowd” and ignored.

This must end. We are fighting a terrible enemy in Islamic terrorism. Whether we describe that fight as a war, or a law enforcement action, or (as I do) something else entirely is less important than whether we choose to confront our enemy with clear heads, deft hands, and, where necessary, ruthless action.

Mr. Johnson deserves no more free passes from the Blogosphere. It’s time to start calling him on his mistakes.

von

UPDATE 2: ** So we’re clear, the FrontPage Magazine Article that LGF excerpts (misleadingly, IMHO) is not the target of this criticism; LGF is. I do disagree with significant portions of the FrontPage article, however. See my discussion with the article’s author, Mr. Spencer, in comments for more.

Read more

Arar #23: More on Ahmad Abou El Maati

by

El-Maati is the truck driver who was stopped at the U.S. border & found with a map of Ottawa that raised customs officials’ suspicions, in August of 2001. He was watched by Canadian police for a few months after that. In November 2001 he traveled to Syria, where he was detained, allegedly tortured, and allegedly questioned about information that had to come from the Canadian police. This probably started the chain of events that ended in Maher Arar’s deportation and torture.

That’s as quick a summary as I can give–there’s much more in this post.

Anyway–El Maati is still in Egypt, but he and a friend of his described as “an Islamic religious leader in Toronto”, have recently talked to a few reporters. He is expected to return to Canada soon.

Here are the two articles I found:

1. From the Globe and Mail, 3/20/04:

The RCMP probe seems to have focused mostly on Mr. El-Maati, who has complained that spies were dogging him in Canada in the summer of 2001, especially after he was interrogated by U.S. border guards.

A map of Ottawa was discovered in the transport truck he was driving and appears to have caused concern that he planned to launch a terrorist strike there. He denied the map was his, and his employer drafted a letter saying that the truck’s previous driver had an Ottawa route.

Mr. El-Maati flew to Syria in the fall of 2001, where he was immediately arrested. He has since said he was tortured there by captors who asked questions that seemed to be based on information that first surfaced in North America.

Aly Hindy, an Islamic religious leader in Toronto, said his friend first came under suspicion because he was known to have spent time in Afghanistan. But the imam said that Mr. El-Maati was never part of any plot, though he was tortured into admitting as much.

“They tortured him until he told them, ‘What do you want me to say?’ Imam Hindy said in a recent interview. “. . . He said, ‘What if I used a truck?’ They said, ‘Okay, very good idea but which building are you going to hit?’

“. . .So he said, ‘How about the Parliament Buildings?’ They said, ‘Oh, it’s a very, very good idea.’

“So he wrote everything and signed, and after that they didn’t touch him and they sent him to Egypt,” Imam Hindy said.

2. From The Toronto Star, 2/25/04:

In his first interview since being released last month, Ahmed Abou-Elmaati said his bags are packed and as soon as he obtains travel documents he will leave Cairo.

Department of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Reynald Doiron confirmed yesterday that consular officials are working with Elmaati to help him obtain the required exit visa.

Elmaati, who spent more than two years behind bars, first in Syria, then in Egypt, wants more than anything to come home to tell his story.

“I need my file to be closed. I need to show my innocence and I think this will not happen unless I go back to Canada,” Elmaati said in a telephone interview yesterday.

The former Toronto resident, whose case may become a crucial link in determining why U.S. authorities deported Canadian Maher Arar to Syria, said he has been denied a consular escort and fears he may again be detained as he travels.

It’s believed Arar was deported in part because he knew Elmaati (who had been the focus of a Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation and interviewed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service) and Abdullah Almalki, an Ottawa resident who is still being held in Syria.

Born in Kuwait, Elmaati holds both Canadian and Egyptian citizenship. He said he hasn’t been threatened since being released last month but worries about his flight home.

“Actually, to tell you the truth, I’m very doubtful I would reach (Toronto) because I believe something will happen to me on the way back,” he said yesterday.

Scarborough imam Aly Hindy, who met with Elmaati when he was in Cairo earlier this month, said Elmaati was tortured, which included being stripped naked, drenched with water and then having live electrical wires placed on his body.

Hindy said it was this torture that prompted Elmaati to sign a confession about plotting to drive a bomb-laden truck into the Parliament buildings in Ottawa.

This tends to confirm my working hypothesis, but it’s not really detailed enough to make a real judgment or evaluate El Maati’s or Hindy’s credibility. If El Maati and Almalki actually make it back to Canada, and one or both of them talks to the press–El Maati definitely seems to want to–we’ll know more.

At any rate, with Almalki’s release one less person is being tortured. Which seems like an intrinsically good thing, even if the guy does turn out to be guilty of something.

I haven’t seen many stories generated by the inquiry itself yet. And U.S. press coverage has gone from pathetic to completely non-existent.

I don’t know the status of Arar’s lawsuit in the U.S., either. If I get a chance over spring break I may go to the district court in Brooklyn and try to view the file, if any of it’s publicly available. (I realize that’s the dorkiest use of spring break ever–don’t worry, I’ve got other plans as well.) But I don’t know if I’ll have time, as I’ll only be in New York for a few days.

Read more

Figures of Speech and Figures of War

by

Like him or not (and, for me, it’s trending not), but President Bush gave an exceptional speech today: There is no dividing line–there is a dividing line in our world, not between nations, and not between religions or cultures, but a dividing line separating two visions of justice and the value of life. On a … Read more

Terrorists on the Ballot

by

The election ballots in New York City have always confused me somewhat. For example, our current Mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, a previous Democrat who turned Republican to run for office, also appeared on the ballot under the Working Families Party (and probably a few others as well…I didn’t vote for him, so I didn’t pay … Read more

Abdullah Amalki released (Arar #22)

by

Abdullah Almalki, a key figure in the Maher Arar affair, has apparently been released from prison in Syria.

Almalki had been in prison for almost two years. According to his lawyer, he was released a week ago, but has not gotten out of Damascus yet–his parents flew there to meet him. His lawyer doesn’t want to say very much, and has asked the Canadian government not to comment, until they are safely out of Syria.

Read more

Karl-gate

by

Let’s just cut through all the mini-scandals and get right to “Karlgate,” shall we? I mean, we could spend years debating each of the following (and note the links are just overviews, not the definitive analysis on each): Medi-gate Hunting-gate (which is really Energy-gate, when you get right down to it). Enviro-gate WMD-gate Plame-gate Enron-et … Read more

Sheesh, I knew what that phrase meant…

by

…before I was out of high school: A dirty welcome ‘mat’ (scroll down). New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller had his boss, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., and media and literary grandees swearing like Russian sailors the other night – and they didn’t even know it. New Yorker magazine editor David Remnick threw a dinner for … Read more

I guess that we watch. And wait.

by

Something is going on in Pakistan regarding the pursuit of a high-level al Queda operative; possibly Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy of OBL. There’s an indication that he’s been tracked down and close to capture – which, if true, would be excellent news, not least because with him in Coalition hands we stand a much better chance … Read more

Meta-blog discussion.

by

‘Tis probably an undead thread, but I’m curious about something. I’ve noticed that some of the trackbacks to our posts are one-way (ie, there’s no link back to our original post at the article). Ignore? Delete? And why do people do it? It’s not that much trouble to link both ways, right?

Open Literary Thread

by

I’m posting this open literary thread for three reasons: 1) It amuses me to reinforce Short Hope Unfiltered’s Stephenson meme; 2) I think that this is the first time that this site got called a blog ‘of note’ (you’d think we’d get more trackbacks/links, though); 3) I’m going to take a mini-vacation to Kitty Hawk, … Read more

Well, there’s a relief.

by

I don’t know whether this was originally an incredibly stupid act of bigotry or just an incredibly stupid publicity stunt* – I tend towards the former, but a reading of the article gives some weight to the latter – but I’m sure that all of you will be happy to know that Rhea County has … Read more

GOP vs. GOP

by

So who you gonna believe? McCain: Asked on NBC’s “Today” if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: “No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He’s responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he’ll have to explain it. But, no, I … Read more

Shhh….the Park is Closed!

by

I think I can always be counted on to expect the worst of the Bush Administration, so I’ll admit I smelled a conspiracy when I first read: National parks told to cut services quietly Is this another attempt to hand public land over to Bush’s buddies? Are they gonna restrict entrance into the parks until … Read more

Culture Wars Cart before Horse

by

New Bush appointee Scott J. Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, whose mission it is to protect federal whistleblowers and government workers from retributions in the workplace, recently updated his Office’s website. The updates removed references about sexual orientation discrimination from a complaint form and an educational pamphlet for federal employees. Four … Read more

Don’t try this trick at home, kids.

by

Now, I freely admit that I default to cheering on the American in any international sports competition, but there are limits… Australia boxer Robbie “The Bomber” Peden lived up to his ring name with a ferocious, but bizarre, knockout victory in a world-title elimination bout in California on Sunday. Peden could not believe his eyes … Read more

Where did you want them to bring it, John?

by

I sincerely hope that all of you enjoyed Senator John Kerry’s pleasant idyll through Election 2004, because it’s officially over:

Senator Kerry’s voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let’s begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of ” shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden.” Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a “strong coalition,” and a model to be followed.

Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The Senator from Massachusetts said, quote, “Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.” He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have ” greater consequence.” In 1998, Senator Kerry indicated his support for regime change, with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when Congress voted in October of 2002, Senator Kerry voted to authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with U.N. demands.

A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Senator Kerry’s record, would assume that Senator Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The Senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, quote, “one of the anti-war candidates.” He replied, “I am.” He now says he was voting only to, quote, “threaten the use of force,” not actually to use force.

Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. (Laughter.)

Yup, Cheney’s speech. Damn feisty one, and from the accounts that I’ve heard so far from my fellow VRWCers, well presented, too. Now, I’m sure that a lot of you are prepared to spin, explain, redefine and (probably, in a couple of cases at least) correct Cheney’s comments… but I would seriously recommend against thinking that this was not bad mojo for Kerry, skillfully applied. I’m betting that this one is going to have an impact past the base (who will spread it far and wide; we’ve been chomping at the bit lately*), so watch out.

Of course, if you feel confident enough, you can ignore my advice completely. I have it on excellent authority that my side is all made up of dunderheaded poltroons.

Moe

Read more

Hibernating?

by

NZ Bear, that is: it’s been, like, two weeks since a post and at least one since the Ecosystem crashed. I’m all for letting people work through their blogging tech problems on their own, but I would’ve figured that somebody would have said something. Bear, if you’re reading, post somewhere so that we know that … Read more

Fear my Avenging Overdue Strike!

by

We have apparently entered into a surreal portion of Election 2004, so why not link to this Onion article? Rumsfeld Hosts No-Holds-Barred Martial Arts Tournament At Remote Island Fortress. FANG ISLAND—U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has opened his fortified island headquarters to participants in his second no-holds-barred martial arts tournament, the enigmatic mastermind announced … Read more

by

Murderous thugs say the darndest things: “Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.” “Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.” That’s it. I’m voting for Bush. I don’t truck … Read more

Translation: “Bring it on”

by

If at first your over-simplified arrogant taunts don’t succeed, try, try again: Terrorists are killing “innocent life in order to get the world to cower,” [Bush] said. “These are cold-blooded killers. They’ll kill innocent people to try to shake our will . . . They’ll never shake the will of the United States.” I know … Read more

Much ado about “All Forms of Terrorism”

by

Various other blogs (for one good example see Bird Dog’s essay on Tacitus) are debating whether Spain’s Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has already given the world a good indication that he’ll be soft on terrorists because he said: My immediate priority will be to fight all forms of terrorism. The exact phrase causing … Read more

For a Snowy St. Patrick’s Day

by

There’s been some general dislike of Jame Joyce expressed around these parts as of late, and although I fully support the freedom of expression it represents, I’d like to submit, on this snowy St. Patrick’s Day (in New York City, anyway), as evidence of why he’s considered the genius he is, this final passage from … Read more