In an obvious attempt to declare war on the Bush Administration, so as to sell more copies, the NY Slimes takes another shot....
You would think that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain would have learned by now that you cannot deal in good faith with a White House that does not act in good faith. Yet both men struck bargains intended to restore the rule of law to American prison camps. And President Bush tossed them aside at the first opportunity.
Mr. Bush made a grand show of inviting Mr. McCain into the Oval Office last month to announce his support for a bill to require humane treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and other prisons run by the American military and intelligence agencies. He seemed to have managed to get Vice President Dick Cheney to stop trying to kill the proposed Congressional ban on torture of prisoners.
The White House also endorsed a bargain between Mr. Levin and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, which tempered somewhat a noxious proposal by Mr. Graham to deny a court hearing to anyone the president declares to be an "unlawful enemy combatant." The bargain with Mr. Levin removed language that stripped away cases already before the courts, which would have been an egregious usurpation of power by one branch of government, and it made clear that those cases should remain in the courts.
Mr. Bush, however, seems to see no limit to his imperial presidency. First, he issued a constitutionally ludicrous "signing statement" on the McCain bill. The message: Whatever Congress intended the law to say, he intended to ignore it on the pretext the commander in chief is above the law. That twisted reasoning is what led to the legalized torture policies, not to mention the domestic spying program.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/15/2006 15:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
imagine! A media organization that uses its' influence to sell a book, regardless of the damage it exerts on the WOT and national security...and they have the chutzpah to talk about GOOD FAITH! F*&kers, bastards, traitors and cowards fit the NY Times and their ilk more likely than a "news" organization
*spit*
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/15/2006 20:39 Comments ||
Top||
On Beacon Hill last week, the big issue for Massachusetts lawmakers was whether tuition should be reduced for illegal aliens at the state's public colleges. On Capitol Hill, the senior senator from Massachusetts was busy implying that Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. is a racist and a liar. Is it such a stretch to imagine that an awful lot of Americans look at Massachusetts and think: How can people stand to live there? Or that a fair number of Massachusetts residents eventually decide that they can't stand to live here?
This is a state in which a tax cut can be decisively approved by the voters yet never go into effect. In which grocers can be prosecuted for pricing milk too low. In which archaic blue laws decree when shops may and may not open for business. In which a $2 billion Big Dig ends up costing $14 billion. In which Ted Kennedy keeps getting reelected.
Is it really any wonder so many people are fleeing Massachusetts? Maybe the real mystery is why so many of us stay.
#1
I live here, and I'm definitely making plans to leave. I just can't take the smug, patronizing politics any more - and that's the voters. The state govt. is beyond fixing.
#2
I grew up in california, but would never, and will never live there again. This is happening all over the country. You know the places, where leftwing elitists pontificate from their jeweled thrones and demand that you smile while they chisel away at your earned income and give it to illegals/welfare class/pointless social programs. All the while getting richer from their barely taxed passive income and at the same time bitching about the republicans cutting taxes for the rich.
Sure is getting complicated, isn't it?
#3
Heck haven't we come far. Back in the Middle Ages the ruling class looted the people to build great monuments called cathedrals while lining their pockets and increasing their power. Their same argument was to buy moral purity because those really working the fields didn't know how to run things and were convinced by their betters that they could buy God's grace by such displays of devotion. Now instead of a church they have the Holy Grace of the Victims a whole ideological structure no less damnedifying than the doctrines of the Medieval church on sin. See your more morally pure than those retches in the other state because you care. Of course you have far less means to create real wealth and employment because the state takes our earnings and property and is thus less efficient in creating new jobs, etc. However, youâre soul is saved. Now kiss my [Harvard] ring.
#1
Heh, Sea. I detect something of Joe M -- minus the unique shorthand. You could dazzle Bill with Betty Crockercrats and HillarySpetznaz. He'd be boggled... until he got the hang of it. A Joe M Dixionary... kinda like the APL of geopolitics. ;-)
#2
That's why I'm supporting Joe M's bid to become the next Secretary General of the United Nations. The diplomatic process would be *vastly* improved.
Niall Ferguson on the likelihood of conflict with Iran - its causes and its possible very bad outcome. Money quote:
Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened.
I always dislike these "history before the fact" pieces. They're invariably precious and they're invariably off the mark. Ferguson seems to be making the assumption that military and diplomatic measures are divorced from each other, if you go the diplo route then military action is ruled out. Yet when we look at history that's already happened, we see the continuous movement of big cheeses back and forth, from capital to capital, chat to chat, in the weeks and months leading up to real actions. There's always a background noise of such trips, but when they start coming together in clumps things are either happening or about to happen. But I don't think Ferguson's watching, probably because tracking it is boring.
#2
"End of the oil age," "twilight of the West," blah, blah, blah. I knew that there was a reason that I hadn't bothered to read any of Ferguson's books.
#3
The whole thing is a bit of a soup sandwich, and since Niall Ferguson is a Professor of History at Harvard University, some of this stuff he really ought to know.
The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted.
Except, of course, they're NOT being exhausted, rapidly or otherwise.
There are more known reserves of oil in production now than at any time in history - spurred on by the high oil prices and growing demand that Ferguson writes about fearfully.
The Canadian oil deposits, for instance, are the second-largest proven deposits in the world, they're currently producing crude for US$ 23/bbl, and they're ramping up production as fast as they physically can.
A second precondition of war was demographic. [...] [I]n Iran, the social conservatism of the 1979 Revolution - which had lowered the age of marriage and prohibited contraception - combined with [a post-Iran/Iraq War baby boom] to produce, by the first decade of the new century, a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007. This not only gave Islamic societies a youthful energy, [it] also signified a profound shift in the balance of world population. [...] By 1995, the population of Iran had overtaken that of Britain and was forecast to be 50 per cent higher by 2050. Yet people in the West struggled to grasp the implications of this shift. Subliminally, they still thought of the Middle East as a region they could lord it over, as they had in the mid-20th century.
Nor are they wrong to think so, since Iran has plenty of what's no longer important, and not much of what IS important, in the "Third Wave" 21st century.
An "extraordinary surplus of young men", "ready to fight" ?
So what ?
How is that going to help Iran stop anyone from bombing them, or help during a nuclear exchange ?
Unless Iran is planning on occupying some other nation, having an extra million young men isn't much help, militarily.
Now, if those million young men were hard at work building advanced aircraft, or ICBMs, then it might make a difference, and that brings up the next point.
"The population of Iran is forecast to be 50 per cent higher than that of Britain by 2050" ?
So what ?
In the first place, that projection is absolutely certain to be wrong, and in the second place, how will it help to have a huge population if they can't educate, employ, or even FEED most of 'em ?
Iran may have "a youthful energy", and the Eurozone may be dragging, but Iran also has high unemployment, especially among those teeming youths, and Iran lacks a dynamic economy.
There's just no way to put all of that youthful energy to productive use - it mostly gets wasted.
Hopefully it won't always be the case, but RIGHT NOW, that high fertility rate and swelling population are liabilitIes, NOT ASSETS.
Unless, of course, they're planning to do a pitchforks-and-torches, mass-human-wave attack on one of their neighbors.
The devastating nuclear exchange [...] marked the end of the oil age.
Please.
How, exactly? Because some oil in the Middle East was radioactive?
How will that affect the global use of the 99% of Earth's oil that wasn't radioactive ?
Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country...
How would the Shi'ites do THAT ?
They could martyr a few tens of thousands of themselves, but IEDs and small arms aren't what it will take to "overrun" American bases in hostile country.
...and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.
Oooooh, S*C*A*R*Y...
The U.S., and the West as a whole, CANNOT beat China, if we're talking about invading China.
However, China has VERY little force-projection capability, so China CANNOT currently beat anyone else in a conventional military struggle outside of China, including Taiwan. (Well, maybe China could beat North Korea, but that fight is extremely unlikely to happen).
So, either China would be talking about sticking up for Iran DIPLOMATICALLY, or saying that Iran would benefit from a single division of Chinese troops, and a few dozen advanced fighter aircraft, or saying that China would be willing to nuke someone on Iran's behalf.
The first two are laughable, and the last one would be bad news for someone on China's side of the world - but NOT for the U.S., not directly.
China's land-based ICBMs can't hit further into the U.S. than Los Angeles, and their submarine force is quite small.
Since U.S. missiles CAN strike anywhere in China, and since we have over 1,500 nuclear warheads, China going nuclear on the side of Iran would be an act of suicide.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen ||
01/15/2006 6:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
MH - Lots of prime Medium Rare meat to chew on and a fun read -- very nicely done! Thx!
#5
China's land-based ICBMs can't hit further into the U.S. than Los Angeles, and their submarine force is quite small.
Since U.S. missiles CAN strike anywhere in China, and since we have over 1,500 nuclear warheads, China going nuclear on the side of Iran would be an act of suicide.
Err, you may mean the North Koreans...
China has the proven ability to reach orbit and once you can do that you can put nukes anywhere...
Not that they will, but they could.
Posted by: DanNY ||
01/15/2006 8:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
So if we're going to be in the "What If.." mode.
Try this.
George Bush holding deeply held Christian beliefs of sacrifice for the greater good of humanity, decides that he and he alone should bear the consequences of saving large numbers of that humanity by doing that which everyone know has to be done. Without a chance to serve futher after his current elected term of office and seeking no personal gain, to forstall destruction upon many areas within the region, he directs the overwhelming application of force against the Iranian facilities and government. Iran as a organized nation ends requiring years of international assistance to recover, but all the other countries in the region and hemisphere are spared the scares of war. George after signing his letter of resignation, flies to the Hague to voluntarily stand before the 'World Court' to stand judgement for his act which he takes full and unchallenged responsibility for. He knows his fate, but he also understands that he has save the world from its own failures to do what was necessary.
#7
China has the proven ability to reach orbit and once you can do that you can put nukes anywhere...
An SLV is not an ICBM.
Say they took a long march heavy booster and modified the payload bus to deliver a warhead.
How many sites in China are equipped to assemble a long march rocket, fuel it and launch it ?
One ? The Chinese spaceport?
How long does it take to assemble a Long March ?
Two - three months?
So you have this clumsy converted missile, weighing 400 tons, that cannot be moved, that can be assembled and launched from only one spot in China and takes months to put together.
Hardly a militarily useful weapon...
Posted by: john ||
01/15/2006 9:47 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I posted this article because I think Ferguson is playing a deep and destructive game - consciously or not. On the one hand he all but says the only hope for the west is preemption on our part.
On the other hand, if we do that you can imagine - from this article's other paragraphs and his past record - just how vehemently he would criticize us afterwards. When he's safely protected in Cambridge MA.
MH's point about excess young adult males as a liability is a good one. If a country or society can't offer that huge cohort of young men reasonable prospects of jobs, families, economic well being and a role in running the place, then they are likely to turn aggression either on the existing government or - if the government can manipulate things successfully - outward against a demonized enemy.
Like, say, the Great Satan = U.S. and the Little Satan = Israel. Or is it the other way around? The rhetoric is so over the top I stopped listening a long time ago, except to keep track of things like Ahmadinejad's messianic fervor as a new political element.
#9
BTW the same point about a large cohort of young men affecting policies is true about China. The difference is that many Chinese are enthusiastically hopeful about their country's future. I see it in a lot of Chinese grad students I talk to here.
#10
"The population of Iran is forecast to be 50 per cent higher than that of Britain by 2050"
Hmmm... I'm thinking India, a hundred years ago. Not that I'm suggesting colonization.
lotp, it concerns me that you have Chinese grad students considering where you are. Do you mean Taiwanese?
#11
The funny thing is that he is not safely protected in Cambridge University. Not anymore. I'd like to think that the left is finally waking up to just how insane and dangerous Ahmadinejad is, but they'd rather go down with the ship.
#13
The thing about nuclear terrorism that bothers me is the abysmal state of civil defense preparedness in the US. Border security is a joke. A very few dirty bombs in some coastal cities would immobilize the US for years even if few people died as a direct result. The floundering and bickering going on between different levels of government before, during and after Katrina should be a lesson to us.
#14
The population of Iran is forecast to be 50 per cent higher than that of Britain by 2050
Right now in 2006, the populations of Bangladesh and Indonesia are several times that of the UK.
So what?
Posted by: john ||
01/15/2006 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I posted this article because I think Ferguson is playing a deep and destructive game - consciously or not. On the one hand he all but says the only hope for the west is preemption on our part.
On the other hand, if we do that you can imagine - from this article's other paragraphs and his past record - just how vehemently he would criticize us afterwards. When he's safely protected in Cambridge MA.
Ferguson has been critical of the U. S. to the extent it has failed to assume its responsibilities as global hegemon. He thinks we should get our fiscal house in order. He thinks we should be more assertive in establishing order in the world. If we were to take out Iranian nukes, I doubt he would be unhappy, though like any pundit, he would carp at the edges.
I read this article as an attempt to keep George from going wobbly, not an actual forecast. What is destructive about that? George needs all the support he can get right now.
#16
Darrell, the Chinese grad students aren't where I work, but at a large public university nearby.
You may be right about Ferguson, Nimble. I have mixed feelings about him - IIRC he's had some rather pungent criticisms of W and our work in Iraq and elsewhere, coming at times when I didn't find it helpful. But maybe I'm missing the bigger picture on him.
Even if Ahmadinejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, liberals would have said it was a CIA con-trick.
2 problems:
The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West.
Plenty of peroleum - its the cost of extraction the prevents its use now. Oil shales in Canada and the western US are enough to supply us for decades, as are sources on the continental shelf of the US that are now off limts due to environmentalists. Same goes for huge reserves in Alaska.
All we lack is the political will to tap most of them and the cost efficiency to develop rest of them (perhaps this is one place a government subsidy would be justified).
Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country
Shia overruning US bases? He's on crack. Especially given its an Islamic FIRST STRIKE on Israel that prompts the exchange - and its PERSIAN, not arabs that are dying, leaving the Iraqi Shia in charge of the "Holiest Sites For Shia" (tm).
Another point he overlooks that Iran would likely be throwing at most 2-3 effective nukes. Israel would retaliate with dozens. The loss of life would basically erase the Shia culture (indeed ANY culture) from Iran. Iran would be a radioactive wasteland with 10's of millions dead (think about the impact of 50 to 60 nuclear detonations on England -similar population area and concentrations).
Iraqis would be more concerned with dodging fallout than attacking Americans. And on top of that, they completely overestimate "uprisings" that tend to die when they get mowed down by bombs and automatic weapons. And he seems to forget completely about the Kurds who are our staunch ally (and also Shia), and that the Shia even now do not move as a "bloc" entity.
So take his analysis aitha very LARGE grain of salt.
The author is right about one thing: the sooner we act, and the harder we strike, the less painful the outcome will be in the long run for all concerned, especially the Iranians..
#18
The demographic issue is an interesting one. There are no reliable ethnic stats from Iran, but at the time of the fall of the Shah, ethnic Persians were a bare majority in Iran. With higher birthrates amongst various non-Persian ethnic groups, they may well be a minority today.
In the last 30 years, there have been two major redrawings of national boundaries, both of which almost no one predicted and both were a result of the dominant ethnic group losing control of areas populated by ethnic mimorities (the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia).
So I hearby predict the Iranian Civil War of 2007, which resulted in the formation of The Azerbaijan Union, The Federated Kurdish States. The Republic of Arabistan and The Indian Administered Baluchi Protectorate. The US occupied north shore of the Straits of Hormuz voted to join with Oman in a recent referendum.
#19
Is there any reason to believe there is a sea imbalance in Iran? It is hard to believe they have used abortion to get rid of the nasty girls. Or have they used more barbaric measures?
#20
BTW the same point about a large cohort of young men affecting policies is true about China. The difference is that many Chinese are enthusiastically hopeful about their country's future.
Another point about China is that its population control policies ensure that that nation's military is made up of sole surviving sons. Something to keep in mind when assessing them as a threat.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/15/2006 18:40 Comments ||
Top||
#22
In the case of Iran I'm not sure if there's a sex imbalance, just that I'm pretty sure I've seen figures that back up the idea of a demographic bulge in that late teens - early 20s there. Even if wives aren't an issue for the males, as they are in China, power and jobs certainly are.
#23
There isn't a big sex imbalance. The CIA factbook says there are 1.04 men for every 1.00 women (age 15-64), though it may well be out of balance when factoring in the near 1 million dead from the Iran-Iraq war. I'd say a bigger factor is the legalization of polygamy (and concubines) after the islamic revolution. I didn't find any statistics, only this CBS blurb, "There are no official statistics available on polygamy in Iran, but it is prevalent in many small cities and rural regions in Iran."
Posted by: ed ||
01/15/2006 21:47 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Fred, could you expand on that Chinese military - sole surviving sons bit? My first image is of sex starved young men who refuse to go where the bullets are, lest the family name be lost upon their deaths... which would be funny if it weren't so sad, and is surely much more simplistic that what you meant. Thanks!
#25
That's precisely what I meant. When Sonny goes, the family dies out with him. Doesn't have anything to do with them being sex-starved, though there have been stories on women being kidnapped as wives because of the shortage of the fair sex.
I wouldn't make it the top item in any kind of war planning with regard to the Chinese, but it should be a factor.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/15/2006 23:38 Comments ||
Top||
THERE IS ONE good thing about anti-Semitism: It lets you know who the bad guys are. Right, left, black, white, freak or straight, the minute someone starts rattling on about the evil Jews, you know your train just pulled into Slimeball Station.
All bigotry is wrong, of course, but there's something about this particular form of prejudice that is weirdly reliable as a sign of deeper wickedness. Perhaps it's because the Jews contributed so much to humanity's moral code that to hate them as a race is to despise the restraints of morality itself
Whatever the reason, true, virulent anti-Semitism is such a good indicator of the presence of evil that I'm tempted to believe that when God made the Jews his chosen people, this is what he chose them for: to be a sort of Villainy Early Detection System for everyone else.
Unfortunately, in his infinite love for his creation, I suspect the Big Guy may have overestimated our intelligence. Maybe he thought that after Hitler we'd just, you know, like, get it. Instead, we still see apparently intelligent people appeasing, making excuses for and even embracing the sorts of stinkers who ought to set off the Big Alarm.
That's why I think the system could use more bells and whistles â a loud honking noise perhaps, or even closed captioning for the morally impaired. Thus, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the Holocaust is a "myth" or that Israel "must be wiped off the map," you would hear a loud honk and words would appear in the air below his face: "Hello. I am an evil madman. Please stop negotiating with me now and proceed to cripple my nuclear capability by any means necessary."
Or how about when Venezuelan leader â and anti-American Iran ally â Hugo Chavez warns that "descendants of those who crucified Christ ⊠have grabbed all the world's riches for themselves"? Honk. His subtitle: "Hi. I know you lefties are still enamored of the idea of socialism â fine. But personally, I'm a jerk and a friend of tyranny. Oh, and Mr. Belafonte? Go home before you make an ass of yourself."
Now, I understand the situation in the Middle East is morally and politically complex, as is the situation in South America. I know that honorable people can hold conflicting opinions about the issues in these places. But when the entrenched misery of an area nearly as large as the United States is consistently blamed on 5 million people in a country the size of a shoebox, or when the ills of the world are loaded onto less than 1% of its population, I begin to become suspicious.
If it were only a matter of hating Jews, we could say: "Feel free, hate everyone, knock yourself out." The trouble is the suffering, the slaughter of innocents and indeed the destruction of entire nations that seems inevitably to follow when anti-Semitism is allowed to spread beyond the cesspool of the mind that contains it. History is too full of lowlifes who thought all their problems would be solved if they could just kill enough Jews â or thugs like Pontius Pilate who thought it was a matter of killing the right Jew â for us not to realize that their Final Solutions aren't final and are no solution. They are often the first, and sometimes the last, road sign pointing the way to an earthly hell.
So here's a plan. The next time you express an opinion on what's wrong with the world, take a look around to see who's nodding in agreement. If it's some clown who thinks the Jewish state should be pushed into the sea, or that the Jews killed Christ or are conspiring to subvert the world economy or the government or the media, I beg you to consider that you might be wrong. There is no shame in changing your opinion. Falling into step with wicked fools â that's shameful, and it's dangerous too. God gave you an early detection system. Use it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/15/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
For durability---the same way one chooses a punching bag.
#4
It is not only an indicator of evil, it is also an indicator of intellectual bankruptcy. Which is why it is so popular on Americaâs university campuses these days.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
