Watergate Redux
No, I'm not going to talk about the story that a GOP staffer seems to have hacked into Democrats' computers. This is a bigger deal than that.

Cliff Schecter reports at TomPaine.com that there have been two incidents in the past year of "'politically motivated investigations' and the questionable methods employed to conduct these investigations by two U.S. attorneys with strong Republican credentials."

More:

"In both Pennsylvania and Georgia, private computers and personal records have been confiscated from Democratic elected officials before charges have been issued. In two of the cases, the timing has been suspiciously close to important elections with national implications. And the refusal of FBI officials to publicly comment on the nature of these investigations has only fueled the fire of those who claim that political character assassination is the only motive.

(snip)

In light of the leak of a CIA agent's name as a political tactic by the White House, the bullying and redistricting mid-session in Texas and other very similar stories of politically motivated, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, the question many Democrats are asking themselves is what they will do in the face of what seems like an all-out assault intended to turn our country into a one-party state."

9:52 PM | Link

 
We Can't Even Trust the 'Good Guys'
There's a Boston Globe article republished today in Truthout (scroll down), in which a U.S. Lieutenant General stationed in Iraq makes a couple of interesting comments.

First, he tells us that "We still haven't conclusively established an al-Qaida operative in this country." Sure, there's every reason to believe that al-Qaida is behind at least some of the attacks on U.S. troops, but it's a bit unsettling that the military hasn't been able to conclusively prove that yet.

The more troubling revelation is that, apparently, some U.S.-trained Iraqi police and civilian informants appear to have conducted some of the attacks.

This seems to further corroborate my earlier conclusion that the United States has now irrefutably and irreversibly lost the peace in Iraq.
9:19 PM | Link

 
Of Course You've Heard of 'The Miami Model'
As usual, I'm amazed at the minimal press coverage of the FTAA protests in Miami and subsequent police abuse. A search in the 'liberal' Washington Post turns up nothing. A search in the 'liberal' New York Times turns up two articles, both buried.

A search in the Miami Herald turns up a few articles, but almost none of them discuss allegations of police abuse of authority. The one editorial which does discuss the issue makes two interesting statements. The opening sentence asserts "it's fair to say that the worst fears -- on both sides -- about protests during the conference didn't materialize," which suggests that both the police and the protestors were well-behaved. However, the fourth paragraph contains this: "It didn't seem to make much difference if you were a peaceful demonstrator, trouble-causing provocateur or a working member of the press. Your chances of getting shot with pepper balls or rubber bullets were about the same at times."

I guess he's right, though. Random people getting shot by pepper spray and rubber bullets for no discernible reason isn't the worst thing the police could do.

Apart from the few articles cited in the earlier post (from a British news source and a little-known leftist radio show, you'll notice), the only significant coverage is at Common Dreams, where a lot of folks sound off. Even in the blogosphere, there's little or no discussion about it.

Well, Instapundit mentions it in passing, but only to denigrate the protestors.
11:27 PM | Link

 
Forget the Patriot Act, We've got Bigger Problems
"Armed checkpoints, embedded reporters in flak jackets, brutal suppression of peaceful demonstrators. Baghdad? No, Miami." That was the tag line to an article published in The Guardian yesterday, concerning protests and the police response to them at the recent FTAA meeting in Miami. Among other things, protesters allege:

". . . police had fired on unarmed protesters with rubber bullets that left large welts, forced them to the ground and handcuffed them at gunpoint and used pepper spray on them. They said the police also stopped hundreds of people on the streets, searched them without cause and sometimes seized their possessions.

Dozens of protesters were jailed for hours or even a few days, and the coalition members said many had been denied water, food and, in some cases, medical treatment."

The allegations of abuse (which are quite credible, by the way) are disturbing enough. What's really frightening, though, is that there's every reason to think that, as the mayor of Miami put it, this will become 'a model for homeland defense'. After all, the Miami cops paid for their efforts using $8.5 million of the $87 billion earmarked for Iraq.

Bush's campaign ads insinuate that those who disagree with his policies are aiding the terrorists, but the events in Miami prove that he's not just running a smear campaign --- he really intends to treat the constitutionally protected right to dissent as an act of terrorism.

Read the Guardian piece and Jeremy Scahill's article on the Miami model to get a glimpse of the next phase in Bush's war on free speech. Next to this, the Patriot Act is small potatoes.
10:56 PM | Link

 
Mistakes were made
The Boston Globe has published an interview with former Iraqi administrator Jay Garner, in which he enumerates several mistakes the Pentagon made in post-war Iraq. While acknowledging that he made some mistakes during his tenure, he also criticizes his successor, Paul Bremer, for disbanding the Iraqi army. "You're talking about around a million or more people ... that are suffering because the head of the household's out of work."

Garner also gives some crucial insight into why it was that the Army had no plan for postwar Iraq. Apparently Powell had completed a 'study' for postwar Iraq, and Garner had brought in a senior State Department planner, Tom Warrick, to discuss the plans. But Rumsfeld insisted that Garner fire Warrick:

"Tom was just beginning to get started with us when one day I was in the office with the secretary of defense, and he said 'Jay, have you got a guy named Warrick on your team?' I said, `yes, I do.' He said, 'well, I've got to ask you to remove him.' I said, `I don't want to remove him; he's too valuable.'

But he said, 'This came to me from such a high level that I can't overturn it, and I've just got to ask you to remove Mr. Warrick.'"

I can only think of two possible 'higher levels' above Rumsfeld, so one has to ask: Didn't Bush or Cheney realize that by firing Warrick they were leaving the military hanging without a postwar strategy?

Garner also throws his support behind the 'flypaper' theory for the war on terror. Garner says about the fact that international terrorists appear to be swarming to Iraq to battle our troops: "That's not all bad. Bring 'em all in there, we'll kill 'em there." Lovely.

10:22 AM | Link

 
The most brutal attack on American soldiers?
In a follow-up to the previous post, I should mention that there are now conflicting accounts of exactly how brutal the recent attack in Mosul was. In a follow-up story on NPR, John Daniszewski reports that although all eyewitness accounts confirm that there was a mob attack, the Army reports that the only injuries to the soldiers were bullet wounds.

It's probably worth mentioning that the original report states that American soldiers seemed to believe the mob theory.

The Army has an obvious motive for wanting to dispel the notion that this was a mob attack; it's less clear why all Mosul eyewitnesses would want to exaggerate the seriousness of it. But even if the mob element of this story really is just a myth, the fact that so many people in Mosul want us to believe it was extremely brutal goes to show how deep the anti-American sentiment is among ordinary Iraqis.
11:06 PM | Link

 
It's Over, Guys (WARNING: Links to strong language)
There has been considerable comment sparked by a letter Salam Pax, the Iraqi blogger wrote to The Guardian (you can scroll down to see it, but it is reproduced in most of the other links referenced here). On the one side, we have James Lileks, who seems to have captured the essence of the war hawks' view, along with Glenn Reynolds, Roger Simon and N.Z. Bear. On the other side, we have Dan Drezner and others. Drezner does a good job of summarizing the whole exchange.

It seems to me that the hawks' argument boils down to this: Sure, Bush and co. have made some mistakes in Iraq, but our soldiers are dying out there trying to help the Iraqi people, so Pax shouldn't be so 'snarky' when he criticizes Bush. Lileks in particular seems offended that Pax is writing to Bush in a condescending tone when he and the Iraqi people 'owe' the U.S. for deposing Saddam.

Lileks' rage is understandable, but entirely beside the point. Without realizing it, N.Z. Bear highlighted the true relevance of Pax's remarks when he closed his rant by saying to Pax: ". . . realize that like it or not, you now speak for your whole country --- and what matters is not just what you say, but how you say it."

That's exactly right. Pax has eloquently summarized in just a few paragraphs the mood of most Iraqis, and instead of sitting over here and shouting obscenities at Pax through their blogs, it's time the pro-war crowd woke up and recognized that Pax's letter foreshadows an unprecedented depth and breadth of Iraqi hatred toward America which will mark the months to come. Of course the pro-war crowd doesn't like it. No one should like it, because it's going to get unspeakably ugly, but it's important to understand that Pax is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, and venting our spleen on Pax does nothing to address that problem.

The problem is, whether or not you supported the war, the United States has now irrefutably and irreversibly lost the peace in Iraq. 434 American casualties is nothing compared to what we're likely to see in the next 6 months.

You want proof? Three days after Salam's letter appeared, we saw what was probably the most brutal attack on American soldiers since 'major combat operations' ended. The Guardian description of events is less graphic than others I have heard or read, but should still make anyone's blood run cold: "Witnesses described seeing the gunmen shoot the soldiers before a crowd dragged their bodies out, beat them and stole their equipment."

Note that a crowd dragged the soldiers' bodies out of the car and beat them (with cinderblocks, I've heard). Sure, it was militants who shot and killed them, but everyday Mosul citizens who trashed the corpses.

As ugly as this incident was, is it perhaps the nadir of the post-war troubles? Not likely. NPR reports that the Coalition has only managed to stockpile about 20% of the heating oil necessary to get through the winter. Iraqis are likely to blow up American humvees and outposts just to stay warm.

So let's suck it up and get the UN and/or NATO in to help clean things up. If it means that Halliburton and Bechtel have to share some of their war profits with *gasp* foreign interests, who cares? It might save some lives.
10:45 PM | Link

 
Fiscal Conservatives
Via Calpundit, the House Democrats have produced a report which outlines how the number and overall cost of pet projects, known as "earmarks" have exploded since the Republicans took control of Congress.

You remember how the Republicans took control of Congress, with the infamous Contract With America. That's the contract where, among other things, the Republicans vowed to "restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress."
9:51 AM | Link

 
The Patriot Act
The Christian Science Monitor's 'Daily Update' today is about the Patriot Act, and how the feds are using it to investigate things other than terrorism.

This isn't new, but one quote caught my eye:

"The administration presented the Patriot Act to the Congress two years ago as a carefully tailored and limited piece of legislation specific to targeting terrorism. And now they're using it for purposes that are obviously and completely unrelated to terrorism."

And what treasonous, terrorist-loving liberal spewed forth this slander? None other than former Georgia congressman Bob Barr, co-author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and one of the first in Congress to call for Bill Clinton's impeachment.

If the conservative Christians Bush and Ashcroft are losing the support of even the ultraconservative Christian Barr, you know they're going too far.

Other intersting links from the daily update:

• The feds use the Patriot Act to investigate strip club owners in Las Vegas.
• The feds use the Patriot Act to investigate money laundering and other non-terrorism crimes.

4:04 PM | Link