Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Dr. Gill,

I should be careful when I step away (or get led away – courtesy of “chowk staff” (and their cohorts (hope YOU are not one of my “behind-the-scene” shady judges, if so, I am going to come around to “service” you presently!))).

What the heck is this – one week away from this site and you are ready to go put the bleep on the veep!

Gill sahib, hoash mein ayeeye – kuchh hone-wone ka nahin hai!

Yeh sub aapka vaham hai ya wishful thinking!

It is virtually impossible to prove that a person who revealed a CIA operative’s name was aware that the operative was “covert” and that such name-leaking would be “against the law”– therefore the threshold for indictment is quite unlikely to be crossed!

I have seen excitable hens act less excitable than you seem to be in this article – going so much ga-ga over gullible gossip!

Perhaps you need to switch to reading Washington Times and put the Post into the compost!

The above are my personal views, of course – I have no way of predicting the future. I base my guess on the fact that Bush’s thinking has always remained steady – as a rock! He always supports his people – and gives them the benefit of doubt – unless something clear-cut in the nature of proof shows up!

But one must marvel at the American system – no matter which way this camel turns –NOBODY can ever consider himself above the law!

Sincerely,
Beej.

Dr, Gill...
Thanks for posting this. I hope that Rove and Libby are indicted. It would only be sweet justice. Hubris before the fall. An indictment alone would be enough put an end to their sordid Washington careers. Cheney and Rice might well get burnt in the process. Those of us who remember Watergate will understand that a few apparently tenuous charges against aides and confidants can suddenly become cause for impeachment of a president. That may be too much to hope for in this case, but if a few of Dubya`s closest are outed in disgrace that would be some vindication for those of who opposed - still oppose - the unprovoked Iraq invasion and continuing bloody occupation.
mirmir

Re#2 MirMir

Dear MirMir,

Somehow your nickname reminds me of this old Lata (?) song:

“Mur-mur ke na dekh – mur-mur ke
Mur-mur ke na dekh – mur-mur ke
Jindganee ke safar mein
Tu akela hi nahin hai
Hum bhi tere sung mein hain….”

I have a feeling that you probably understand the words – anyone who is able to read Ghalib (I wish (sincerely) I had been able to) ought to understand a few of those words – or some volunteer here (Ana?) can perhaps translate it for you – perhaps even into Spanish – if not for any good purpose then at least to show-off!

By the same token, I hope you understood what I wrote to the Gillster in #1. Let me repeat:

“Gill sahib, hoash mein ayeeye – kuchh hone-wone ka nahin hai!
Yeh sub aapka vaham hai ya wishful thinking!”

If you did not understand – let me do a simple translation:

“Wake up little darling – wake-up! Stop the day-dreaming!”

Man, you are blinded with your deep “love” for our president. There were some really GOOD reasons which prompted US intervention into the Middle East! It was strictly in our national interest, and also in the interest of those Iraqis who value freedom – you certainly don’t seem to! The Gillster lets his passions rule his logic on issues related to this administration and sends common sense away to graze grass like a fat and lazy buffalo. You, the hot-blooded Mexicano – and a poet and an activist to boot – that ultimate lethal combination – are not to be left far behind!

I wonder if it is true what they say – that behind every such activist – if only one were to scratch a bit – an old commie sympathizer lurks. You guys make me scratch my head and say – wonders will never cease! The ultimate heart-warmer for the fake liberal crowds occupying every little nook and crevice of this rotten chowk furniture – hiding and hiding like khatmals and waiting for an opportunity to sneak up and do some serious damage – yet such extreme is that chicken-like valor and so totally incapable they are of facing the light of the day!

And while you take a pause from lecturing us regarding justice, when are you going to stop pumping those undocumented millions through our borders? Why can’t your compatriots come in with legal papers like everybody else – even the desi crowds? What the heck are you guys trying to do – swamp the whole land so the legals get kicked out, too?

Sincerely,
Beej.

{``...This whole issue emerged from the administration’s efforts to build a strong case for war against Iraq. The fundamental reason for invading Iraq was the allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (wmds), which Iraq denied all along. The United Nations weapon inspectors had failed to uncover any such weapons in Iraq in spite of their concerted and patient efforts. The White House did not buy the UN’s search results and defended its stance by assertions, which subsequently were proved wrong. ...}

George W. Bush saw an increase in his poll ratings coming. People love a “war” president, at least until they’ve lived through a real war. He relished the opportunity to put on a flight suit and land on a real U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, ostensibly to rally the troops, but more importantly to rally the gullible American public.

Like almost all great public spectacles, the war against Iraq was commenced on a fraud, played out as a farce, and now threatens to end in abject tragedy. Just as it should.

...SR

Re: # 5
I believe that a review of the Watergate saga wouldn`t support this contention. Didn`t we see several Nixon aides (government officials) who were involved in this scandal jailed? Even Bush and Cheney aren`t exempt from charge and prosecution for crimes committed in office, but it would be done by Congress, not by the courts.
mirmir

Re: # 5
There is a brief but succinct explanation of ``Sovereign Immunity`` at this site: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm.
As I understand it, the principle applies to the government, not to individuals (no matter how powerful they might be). Check with an attorney to be sure. mirmir

Re: # 5, # 8 and # 9

One great concept that the Founders of the U.S. wanted to make perfectly clear: No citizen is above the law, not even the president himself who remains accountable for (among other things) acts that might constitute a violation of Federal criminal law. The very limited and specific immunity that he enjoys is immunity for prosecution for acts committed in his official capacity. I can`t believe that any court would consider a criminal act by the president to be ``in his official capacity.`` The ``Sovereign Immunity`` principle deals with SUITS brought against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not suits or charges against individual officials of the government.

Watergate Convictions:

•one presidential resignation
•one vice-presidential resignation
•40 government officials indicted or jailed
•H.R. Haldeman & John Erlichman (White House staff) resigned 30April1973, subsequently jailed
•John Dean (White House legal counsel) sacked 30April1973, subsequently jailed
•John Mitchell, Attorney-General and Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President(CREEP) jailed
•Howard Hunt and G.Gordon Liddy (ex-White House staff), planned the Watergate break-in, both jailed
•Charles Colson, special counsel to the President jailed
•James McCord (Security Director of CREEP) jailed

Precedent for Immunizing Official, Presidential Acts -- BUT NO OTHERS.
The actual text of the Constitution does not grant immunity to a president, but the Supreme Court has declared that a president is absolutely immune from DAMAGES LIABILITY for his OFFICIAL, presidential acts. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). There is, however, no precedent for granting immunity to a president for alleged acts that
(1) cannot be official, presidential acts because they were committed before....election to the presidency,
(2) would not be official, presidential acts even if committed as alleged....after inauguration,
(3) would constitute an abuse of official power by a sitting president, and
(4) may constitute a violation of Federal criminal law.

mirmir

re: Mohammad Gill

There is a legal principle called ``sovereign immunity``, which will prevent Vice-President Chenny and anyone associated, with the Bush administration from being prosecuted.

The idea is a simple one and it was designed to protect the government and its officals from prosecution. The idea was to create an immunity, which would allow the government officals to conduct the affairs of the state, as they thought best, without the fear of legal accountibility.

In other words, Chenny et al have to agree to be charged, with a crime before they can be charged with a crime and tried under the due process of the law. The legalism of sovereign immunity says that the state must allow itself to charged, with a crime and since the state - Bush adminisration, will never agree to this proposition, no charges can be brought against any offical of the White House in pursuance of their offical duties.

Chenny et al, will never be implicated or tired in a court of law let alone being punished for an illegal act.

The most probable course seems to be that Bush will pardon Chenny`s conduct and once that happens, there will be no grounds to charge him, with any misdemeanor.

Ciao

Re: # 8

Dear Mohammad Gill Sahib,

If my memory serves me, I believe President Nixon was not impeached by Congress in the watergate cover. He resigned under the threat of impeachment and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford.

Respectfully submitted,

BBA

Re: # 8

The purpose of any government probe is never to punish any wrong doing, but to create the impression of a government`s resolve to be seen as upholding the law. The basic function of an investigating commission or an inquiry is to share credit equally by absolving everyone involved of any blame. The purpose of a government`s criminal investigation is never to punish the guilty, but to defend the principle of justice itself. In principle, the guilty should be punished, but in reality, the guilty are a part of the administration/government and to punish erring officals, in the actuality of the act, would be implying that governmental actions themselves are open to question. The purpose of an investigation is to deflect outside criticism and questions, by conducting the investigation ``in house`` so that its conclusions and findings can be contolled and tailored to the government`s own interest in escaping accountibility. Even before an investigation gets underway, its conclusions are already decided and the whole process is to convince the people that a given government/administration is responsive to their criticism and in principle, but though not in reality, holds itself accountible for its actions.

In principle, no US offical is above the law, but in reality US officals are answerable to their individual superiors and are supposed to implement the institutional policies of their respective departments. Therefore, if they make a mistake or break a law, there is a high probability that they will be dealt by, and with, the administrative laws, which govern each department and will not be judged in a open public court. The decision of the inter-departmental administrative courts is alway to make sure that the case is dismissed from the public knowledge and the public`s and the press` intrusions into the matter are ended through the mechanism of a probe, which in the principle is supposed to uphold accountibility to the people, but in reality is supposed to prevent accountibility to the people, by keeping them out of the process. Hence, though in theory, the US officals are not above the law and in principle, such might be the case; in reality, they have an offical immunity, which prevents them from being held accountable under the law.

The functions of the government are not supposed to make sense to the average person. The laws of the government, are not supposed to make sense, because if they made sense, the people would realize just how much the government lies to them. The function of the government, in principle is to serve the people, but in reality it is to complicate the goverance to such an extent that the people leave its implementation to the officals and do not judge the officals` expertise to govern them, because the complicated nature of government makes its functionings unfathomable to average citizen.

A president can pardon anyone in United States, but what is important in the United States` political architecture is not the personality of the president, but the institution of the presidency. It is the creditibility of the institution, which has to be protected and not of the president, which is the cause of concern in any investigating probe in the United States. A president, and in this case, President Bush, will never in principle undertake such an action for personal reasons and he will invoke such a right to prevent the presidency from being tarnished. He will undertake such an action to protect the powers of the presidency from being made accountable to the other two branches of the government; legislative or the judicary.

The president of the United States is also the head of the government and the bureaucracy of the United States, though in principle answers to the Congress, in reality works under the direction of the president of the United States. It is the job of the Congress, under the US constitution to make the law, and it is the job of the bureaucracy to implement such laws after the White House and the president approve of it. Being under the authority of the president, the American bureaucracy in principle is supposed to a apolitical, but given the political nature of the White House and the presidency itself and the fact that the president appoints his political suppoters or politically like minded people to head the various departments in the United States, the bureaucracy in the United States follows the political aims of the party, which occupies the White House and this makes the United States bureaucracy highly political in its outwards orientations towards policy objectives as defined by a political White House and a political president.

Another factor in this is the permanence of the bureaucracy itself vis-a-vis the political leadership in the White House. The politics of the White House and the presidency is such, that it will be in a constant mode of change, with administrations coming and going periodically. On the other hand, the bureaucrats, who serve the White House will stay and not change with new administrations and since their primary job is to implement the directives of their political masters, they will only do so if they are not made accountible for their actions. If the bureaucrats are made accountable and punished, then the whole system breaks down, because than the political policies of the presidency will never be carried out by bureaucrats, who will worried about their own security from prosecution.

Thus, in order to make the political directives of the White House and its political appointees are carried out, the bureaucracy has to be made immune from the consequences of such policies and has to be protected from prosecution in case the policies malfunction. A policy malfunction is does not mean that the policy does not work; it only means that the public has an awareness of such a policy in being existence, which makes the execution of such said policy problematic. Therefore, in order to avoid public oversight of such a policy, the governments create investigating commissions, whose sole purpose is prevent the truth from coming out, but it is never, under any consideration, to punish those officals, who might have broken the law.

Besides, even if a law was fractured, it can always be attributed to the ``Rhodesian solution`` and the crisis averted. :)

Ciao

ferozk:

If the legal principle of sovereign immunity as you`ve defined exists for protecting a government and its officials against misconduct and legal excesses, what was the purpose of starting this probe? I doubt if the U.S. government and its officials are beyond the reach of law otherwise how they can be held accountable.

I am not expert in legal matters but the sovereign immuinity principle as you`ve described doesn`t seem to make sense.

A president can pardon any official who might be indicted; that is the power that he has. But such an action, if taken by President Bush, will further erode the credibility of his administration. But such thoughts are still premature. The Special Prosecutor might not indict anyone.

President Ford had pardoned President Nixon after he was impeached in the Watergate cover up and resigned.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 9 HP {``...The problem that ails the US admin is rooted in the Iraq war. ... somehow mistakes were made... bush admin is incapable of correcting... I am one of those who supported the war. ...``}

A friend of mine sums it up best. He begins with mocking the monkey trial that started in Iraq last week.

What gives this court the authority to try me, asks Saddam Hussain? Good question, my friend comments. The answer is plain: only the force of U.S. arms...that is to say, only the brute power of an invading army. ``I am the only lawful president of Iraq,`` he quotes Saddam, ``not a puppet put in by the Americans.`` Again, Saddam has a point. He stole the job all by himself. Not as the puppet of some foreign invader. ``How dare you pass judgment on me,`` he further quotes the former Iraqi dictator.

It is merely the latest in a long chain of blunders, my wise friend adds.

We are witnessing something remarkable in modern world history. A Great Power is rolling over. There is hardly an error chronicled in any history of imperial wars, he claims, that American forces have not committed in Iraq.

One of the pleasures of being the world’s super-power, I agree with my historian friend, is that you get to cut off the heads of your enemies, and you never have to say you’re sorry. Helagu Khan was a master at it. He took Baghdad the proper way. Nobody asked him any questions afterwards. Caesar, Ghenghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Stalin...all conquerors made a point of punishing those who stood against them. But the trial of Saddam Hussain is a first. It is the first time the former ruler of a conquered nation has gone on television...so that he may rally his people against the invader!

U.S. soldiers might have done better to treat him as Genghis Khan treated one of his enemies: pouring molten silver in his ear. Then at least he would not be on television pointing out the obvious to his compatriots; he is only on trial because the country was over-run by foreign troops.

Once again, according to my learned friend, history’s most incompetent empire is a victim of its own humbug.

It may be true that many Iraqis welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussain because he ruined their lives. He started two disastrous wars, against Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. Hundreds of thousand of Iraqis were killed and wounded. The country’s oil wealth was spent on weapons. In the 1990s, U.N. sanctions impoverished the country. Iraqis should have been living like the Saudis but instead, they had the standard of living of Sudan. As U.S. tanks rolled in Baghdad, they hoped their lives would now get better. Instead they got even worse. Imagine that… , the Anglo-Saxon imperial overlords have miraculously accomplished what seemed impossible when the war began; they have made Saddam’s rule seem to many Iraqis like the “good old days.”

The billions supposedly spent by the U.S. - much of it Iraqi oil money - produced few benefits. The country became a feeding trough for politically well-connected U.S. companies and individuals. ...Even the corruption desensitised Iraqis were shocked to find that almost the entire $1.3 billion procurement budget of the defense ministry had disappeared...Much of the Iraqi government exists only on paper. It is more of a racket than an administration. Its officials turn up only on payday. Elaborate bureaucratic procedures exist simply so that a bribe has to be paid to avoid them.

My wise friend goes on to assert that the U.S. actions in Iraq are not an “error” from a historical perspective. They are a necessity. Every great empire must extinguish itself somehow. Otherwise, we would still be ruled by Assyrians or Romans or Mongols. What Anglo-American forces are doing is merely a form of “suicidal statecraft,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski has suggested; that’s it, it is a way of cutting their own heads off.

Somehow, I agree with my wise friend. We are witness to a remarkable turning point in modern history. The chickens are coming home. America was waiting for the cows to come home. They didn`t, instead the chickens did.

...SR

Re: # 9
HP

``The first and the biggest mistake was dismantling of the Iraqi army. The jobless army men provided the first wave of anti-US resistance and now it has been picked by several groups. ``


I really wonder how great of a job the originally iraqi army would have done. it was still Bathists/sunni dominated. what their attitude towards shiahs and kurds would been.

mistrust and sabotage would still be a part of daily operations.

The problem that ails the US admin is rooted in the Iraq war. Was the decision to go to war right or wrong? The entire USA is talking about it now. The homes, offices, and bars are abuzz with competing arguments and people are coming to a conclusion that somehow mistakes were made and maybe the bush admin is incapable of correcting those mistakes. The outing of Valerie Plame was part of the effort to cover up the administration’s embarrassment over the WMD nonsense.

I am one of those who supported the war. Not because I believed in the WMD hoax or the democracy BS. Anyone who has learned a little about realpolitik from the pros knows how to pull the wool over eyes. The Bush admin did the same thing but never had the guts to plant some WMD to justify its apparent reason for war. Now they are taking a beating about the WMD hoax.

There were two very important reasons for the US to go this war. First, it was clear that the Sanctions that destabilized and weakened Iraq, were collapsing and it appeared that they will not remain tenable for a long time.

But the second and the most important reason, the US admin never came out and made it in public, was the most compelling one for people who knew the stakes in Iraq. The problem was that this reason alone would not have met public approval that the urgency of the US action required.

A little background first.
Iraq and Saddam after the 1991 war were slowly crumbling. The sanctions were making it difficult for the Saddam regime to keep a firm control over the government in Iraq and it was quite clear to the US admin in 1998 that some way had to be found to stabilize Iraq. But the problem was Saddam Hussein and there was no way that the US public would have accepted stabilizing of the Saddam government even in 1998.

While all this was still at the diplomatic level, the bin Laden group had some great successes in the ME. That created another set of problems for the US and Europeans. A terrorist group in isolation can be dealt with but if that group happens to have protection from some state, dealing with it becomes extremely difficult. It was feared that since Saddam is weakening with every passing day and it was constantly in conflict with Saudi Arabia, he would end up making a deal with Anti Saudi terrorist led by Bin Laden to regain lost prestige and political stability. Once the terrorist had a state for support around Levant, both Saudi and Israeli would be under immediate threat.

European also agreed with the US but they decided to stabilize the Saddam regime by pressing to remove sanctions. Europeans did not believe that a regime change in Iraq was possible from the outside. Bill Clinton did make a decision to formulate some effort to change the Saddam regime.

While the European wanted to remove sanctions to stabilize Iraq, the US wanted him out first, install a new regime, and then provide support for stability. Clinton got caught up in the stained dress and in Bosnia and the sanctions in Iraq continued to erode the Iraq government stability.

The Bush admin knew that the stained dress had disabled the Clinton admin and it was unable to do anything about Terrorism and Iraq. It became Bush’s task number one to find a way to get to Iraq as soon as possible.

911 provided that opportunity.

Now it was just a matter of selling the war against Iraq to the US public. That is where the US admin bungled. Instead of trying to invent the reason for the war, they should have made a better attempt in linking Iraq with the terrorism. I can understand the admin’s dilemma. This linkage was impossible in the absence of any hard links between Iraq and Bin Laden, there was no way the US public would have bought a war based on some postulations how real they may be for the US admin. Though, this theme was softly peddled to the US Public.

On top of all that the admin miscalculated in Iraq. The first and the biggest mistake was dismantling of the Iraqi army. The jobless army men provided the first wave of anti-US resistance and now it has been picked by several groups. The Bush admin is having difficulty in providing justification to its continued stay in Iraq.

The Dems in the CIA and in the bureaucracy want a revenge for the destruction and impeachment of Clinton Admin by the Republicans.
Irony: the war in Iraq has also destabilized the Bush Admin.
The charade continues and will most like bring down some members of the admin.


mirmir, Feroz
Sovereign Immunity does not apply. The POTUS cannot be indicted, but the VP can be.

I just wanted to record my disgust on this board; otherwise, reading anything about these arrogant fukks and war criminals makes my skin crawl. ughhh.

Mr. behram:

You`re right. The impeachment was in progress and was predominantly against Nixon. Seeing the trend, he resigned. The day of the impeachment, I was in the U.S. on vacation and was flying out the same day.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 14
Pardesi...
You are absolutely correct in this. Thanks for the correction.
mirmir

#11 Mirmir

``Watergate Convictions: •one vice-presidential resignation ``

Minor correction:

Vice President Spiro Agnew`s resignation was not related to Watergate. He had taken some bribes while he was governor of Maryland and his indictment came while he was vice-president. Nixon took that as an opportunity to let him go so that he can appoint Ford as his vice-president. His logic was that people will not dare to impeach and remove him because of very low expectations from Ford.

The country survived. It only proves that if the institutions are strong and people are evolved, presidents can come and go and republics survive.

Dear Inter-actors:

The following story from Yahoo!News is appropriate to the subject matter of the article. It contains the latest speculations on the CIA leak. According to it, the main characters under probe can be indicted including Vice President Dick Cheney. Whether any of them would be indicted is another matter.


Yahoo! News
Legal Problems Dog Bush`s Inner Circle

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press WriterSat Oct 22,10:13 AM ET

It`s a nightmare prospect that Republicans have trouble fathoming: legal problems that could drive some of the president`s most powerful aides from office.

A special prosecutor and grand jury are closing in on a deadline to decide whether to lodge criminal complaints against presidential adviser Karl Rove and White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter`` Libby in the outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.

If it comes to pass, administration officials and GOP consultants expect President Bush to turn to a few individuals to fill any void in his inner circle.

Among the candidates are go-to Republicans whom Bush trusts, including Ed Gillespie, Ken Mehlman and Karen Hughes; former lawmakers Rob Portman and Vin Weber; and those who could be promoted from within, such as Dan Bartlett, Joshua Bolten and Joe Hagin.

It`s also possible the president could reach out to others in his Cabinet, among them Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez.

Republicans steadfastly cling to the belief that there will be no indictments, the issue will blow over and the speculation will amount to nothing more than idle chatter.

``I don`t think anybody`s leaving,`` said Charles Black, a veteran GOP strategist and close Bush ally.

But one White House official, noting that Bush`s senior staff is tired of the long hours and increasing pressure, has told colleagues it might be best if everyone closest to the president resign and clear the way for new blood and fresh perspectives.

White House chief of staff Andrew Card has been on the job since January 2001, a mark of longevity for Bush compared with Presidents Reagan and Clinton, who each had four chiefs of staff through two terms. Even Bush`s father, George H.W. Bush, had three chiefs of staff in four years as president.

If the unthinkable happens, Republicans know where Bush will look.

Rove has been labeled ``Bush`s brain`` by administration foes and the ``architect`` of Bush`s rise to power by the president`s backers. He is considered a White House adviser without peer. Conservative activist Grover Norquist finds it hard to imagine one person handling Rove`s job.

``Karl is sufficiently sui generis (unique), it would take two or three different people to replace him,`` Norquist said.

Among the possible replacements are Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee; current RNC chief Mehlman, or Hughes, a former White House political adviser to Bush now working in the State Department.

Hughes, whose title is Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, is trying to reverse anti-American sentiment around the world.

Black said he would be surprised if Hughes left that post because Bush ``believes he`s put Karen in the most important job in the government.`` Rather, the president would likely promote from within, and White House counselor Bartlett could get the call.

Kevin Spillane, a Republican consultant in California, said Gillespie and Hughes would be the most obvious candidates.

``Hughes is unique in selling policy and has the president`s trust,`` Spillane said. ``Gillespie can juggle policy and media.``

Although Rove is considered indispensable to Bush, the political landscape has changed with no presidential election for Bush on the horizon. Mehlman can handle the politics of the 2006 midterm elections and beyond, Norquist said.

As for Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney`s chief of staff and his assistant on national security affairs, his departure would leave Cheney with the option of bringing in a trusted adviser. That could be former aide Mary Matalin or a specialist in national security, such as Eric Edelman, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey.

Edelman was national security assistant to Cheney from February 2001 to June 2003.

Republicans close to senior administration officials say it is unlikely Card would leave, especially if the White House is in a lurch with a Rove indictment. But if Card does exit, Bush could tap Gillespie; turn to Portman, the former Ohio congressman now serving as U.S. trade representative; choose one of his Cabinet secretaries or promote Card`s deputy, Joe Hagin, or Bolten, the White House budget chief.

And what if the unthinkable happens and Cheney is indicted?

Cheney has said he is not interested in pursuing the Republican nomination for president in 2008. So Bush`s choice to replace his running mate would tip the president`s hand on his preference for 2008. Florida governor and first brother, Jeb Bush?

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 18 {``...Can you describe to me what scenario would be a “fair” trial for this type of character? (Chopping the head off is not an option.) ...``}

When American forces took Naples in 1943, General Mark Clark appointed New York Mafioso Lucky Luciano as his senior civilian advisor. While Clark dined on fish looted from the city aquarium, Luciano knew what to do with anyone who got out of line. But Paul Bremer and the rest of the bumblers appointed by the Bush administration were only good at pleasing their masters in Washington, not ruling their subjects. They quickly made a mess of it. And now, by putting Saddam on the stand, they offer the old man a chance to make his case. Yes, the nation was a hellhole when he ran the place, but at least it was a hellhole for the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people, and of the Iraqi people.

The noose is too good for Saddam. As I wrote in my earlier response: ``U.S. soldiers might have done better to treat him as Genghis Khan treated one of his enemies: pouring molten silver in his ear.`` Okay, I concede, maybe molten silver in the ears is going a bit too far. How about a lead slug an inch above the right ear? Is that allowed? It should be. After all that is how his sons were disposed off. The why not him? But no... no sir, the Anglo-Saxons have to appear to be civilized. What rubbish. Killing thousands of innocent bystanders in the process and shrugging it off as ``collateral damage`` is okay but one bullet in Saddam`s brain is not. This is absurd in the extreme.

The real problem for America is the problem of empire itself. It turns the imperial people into a race of “hollow dummies,” to use George Orwell’s phrase. They eventually come to believe what isn’t true and try to do what can’t be done. “Nation building” in Baghdad by an occupying army? You might as well try to get rich by borrowing money and increasing your spending.

The Anglo-Saxon Empire is, and always was, based on commerce. It succeeded by taking raw materials from the colonies, adding value by manufacturing, and reselling the products to the world. But the Aanglo-Saxons no longer make what the world wants to buy. Turn over any object at home or at the office and you are likely to find a “made in China,” or “made in Malaysia,” or “assembled in India,” notice. Increasingly, America’s old industries - such as G.M. and Kodak are going bust, unable to compete with Asian labor rates. America now has to borrow from foreigners to pay interest on the debt it owe`s.

The best way to win a war, said Sun Tzu, is to let your enemy defeat himself. That is roughly what U.S. forces are doing in Iraq. They are helping to destroy the great Anglo-Saxon commercial empire. And they are doing it in the predictable way. U.S. military power is now stretched out all over the globe. The flower of America’s high-tech puissance - the finest attack machine ever created - is now put to work guarding gas stations and ballot boxes. Meanwhile, the expense of maintaining global hegemony has risen so high the only way America can afford it is by borrowing money from the communists in China.

Re#16 SR

It is extremely off-the-mark to call Saddam’s trial a monkey trial. The fact that the US is trying to actually take him through the steps of facing up to what he has done (or at least parts of it, since the full enormity may never be known) ought to be considered a GOOD precedent and the fact that victors seldom do that (especially in THAT part of the world) ought to open some eyes around there and around here.

But it won’t, because this crowd is highly biased!

Can you describe to me what scenario would be a “fair” trial for this type of character? (Chopping the head off is not an option.)

The true answer is that no matter what the US does, it will be blamed by tons of Muslims all over the world – and the farther those Muslims are located from that scene of action – the more vociferously they would object – and the more jihadis they would dispatch!

The problem with the Gills and several others on this site is that they have convinced themselves of their own “wisdom”– through repeated talking to like-minded individuals – bogus ideas can indeed inbreed in the same manner as people can and the quality does not improve by doing that. They have fully detached themselves from realities – and not just the realities of today – even their sense of history is all distorted!

SR, before your bleeding heart goes completely ga-ga and mushy (like the rest of this crowd) over this dictator’s “courage” in saying “what gives this court the authority….” and all that other crap, please pause for a second and remember what he said when he was picked from his rat-hole – “I am Saddam Hussain, please don’t shoot!” These people can perform quite well on camera until the time to show some REAL courage comes around. The same is true of all dictators, be it Saddam, or Noriega, or Mushy! All their bravery is limited to crushing the weak. When the sawa-sher (one and quarter lion) shows up, they turn their tail into a u-shape faster than one can blink an eyelid!

Face it – most of the interactors here who are criticizing the US so vocally now were just FINE when Saddam was crushing his (majority) population. Whatever happened to the Gills of the world THEN – they were sniffing the snake?

Let’s not screw around – this screwed-up thing is all about religion – at least from THIS crowd. If there is a better explanation then that must be highly mysterious. The sad part is that this crowd is not able to swallow its own very evident religious bias!

And then of course there are the communist sympathizers like mirmirs who are fine with illegals breaking all rules of border crossings, who want the US to pump and pump money into the UN, who could NEVER run a democracy and a clean judiciary in their own countries themselves – but have the audacity to turn around and start bad-mouthing the US – simply because they can get away with it. It is not the first time I have seen such an utter lack of logic and common sense!

The bottom line is – Saddam got that country into the original lousy shape and the first war! Everything else followed. If the people of Iraq are suffering because they are being killed by the bomb-blasts and because infrastructure is being damaged – shouldn’t the logical conclusion be to blame the people who are doing the bomb blast and who are damaging the infrastructure? Then how come this crowd fails to do that?

Like the old saying goes – all thieves are cousins! I’m glad GWB has shown the guts to call their bluff.

Another advice – dump some of those “wise” friends of yours! Start with those located on this web site – if any! Good luck – I have not seen too many wise ones around here but I have been at it for only one year!

The real “turning point” needed is in your thought process – otherwise you are just taking turns and being a second fiddle at what the rest of this crowd is doing!

Sincerely,
Beej.

War in Iraq is irrelevant. Saddam is gone. Iraq will stay in one piece only if Shites, Sunnis and Kurds want it that way.

I doubt Cheney or GW Bush did anything illegal. Cheney is too smart. Bush is too dumb to think of anything devious.

Urstruly #10
`` I just wanted to record my disgust on this board; otherwise, reading anything about these arrogant fukks and war criminals makes my skin crawl. ughhh. ``

I am not a big fan of Bush. But he did kick out Saddam. I know you are a big fan of Osama/Mullah Omar brigade. Maybe you shouldn`t send planes flying into high-rises.

And indeed there will be time
To wonder, ``Do I dare?`` and, ``Do I dare?``
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair--
[They will say: ``How his hair is growing thin!``]
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin--
[They will say: ``But how his arms and legs are thin!``]
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.

t. s. eliot. ``the love song of j. alfred prufrock``

Re: # 21

romair:

``When the history of the Republican party is written, by Republican authors themselves, George Bush will be the person they will blame for their demise. ``

you are stating as if the republicans are going to be wiped off for good.

at the most because of these inquiries, some heads would roll, may be democracts would win the presidential election (because of GOP policies).

would all that mean republican party will be gone for good?

i don`t think so.

---

``The Republicans reached a point, through the social conservative revolution, where they controlled the House, the Senate, the Executive, and are about to control the Judiciary. Something unprecedented in the last century of the USA.

All they now needed was a President who did not mess anything up. He just had to be average. ``

Don`t you think that Bush`s policy regarding gay marriage, abortion and ``operation iraqi freedom`` propaganda had any influence in winning the House, senate majority?

---

regarding the conservative revolution, when bush won in 2004, the country was almost divided 50-50 hence i don`t think conservatives had an overwheming advantage. but with the iraq situation going nowhere more people are having doubts about his leadership.

When the history of the Republican party is written, by Republican authors themselves, George Bush will be the person they will blame for their demise.

The USA, over the past four decades has gone through a social revolution. It is the only influential country in the Western world that has gone from Liberalism to Conservatism, socially. It is the only influential country in the Western world, which has gone from being less religious to more religious. It is, infact, going against the trend of where the Western world is going. As an example, according to Pew, 45% of Americans now want religion in the State, i.e. they are against Secularism. While 35% of Britishers feel that David Beckham has more influence on their lives than God!

The conservative movement in the USA took a lot of effort, and reached its zenith during the Regan days, and took control of the Republican party. After which it was only matter of time, till it took over the USA. Five out of the last seven US Presidents have been Republican. And only a President of Clinton`s calibre was able to make a dent for the Demcrats.

23% of the voting population of the USA are Christian Evangelists. And 42% of the population consists of Christian Conservatives. Hence any Republican candidate only has to compete for approximately 66% of the vote, While the Democrats have to compete for nearly 100%.........

The Republicans reached a point, through the social conservative revolution, where they controlled the House, the Senate, the Executive, and are about to control the Judiciary. Something unprecedented in the last century of the USA.

All they now needed was a President who did not mess anything up. He just had to be average. Even slightly below average would have worked. Not make any stupid decisions, and just work 9-5. Like the Quarterback whose team is so powerful that it will win, even if he doesn`t do anything, other than not fumbling.......

That is when George W. Bush arrived......

In six quick years, he has undone forty long years of the conservative revolution, for the Republicans. He has fumbled at every step, even when it was impossible to fumble. This is despite the fact that he had the 9/11 tragedy, to give him a huge boost. He had to do nothing after that, and Republicans would still continue to win, forever........

There is an interesting anological comparison to Canada. In Canada, conservatives can never win. The Liberals always win. In the last election, the two conservative parties joined into one. The Liberal party had an internal coup, and broke up into two. The Finance minister kicked out his own Prime Minister, and two Deputy Prime Ministers. On top of that the USA put up sanctions on beef and lumber against Canada. If that wasn`t bad enough the Liberal party got caught in a huge financial corruption scandal. On top of that the separatist Quebec party won large gains in Quebec.

Yet the Liberals still won!! And will probably win again. Whatever seats they lost, were to the even more Liberal NDP.......

This is what the situation would and should have been in the USA for the Conservatives and Republicans. In a USA, where 2 out of every 3 citizens claims to be conservative, the Republican party should be undefeatable. However, Bush seems to have ruined it for them, in a quick 6 years.........

re: SR (various posts)

I agree, with your`s friend`s historic observations on the nature of the empires. Most empires, historically speaking, have collapsed from internal problems and not from external reasons. From Rome to Britain to now United States, this pattern will be the same.

As to the ``Big Z``, he is in my opinion, one of the most farsighted political analysts of US foreign policy. What makes his analysis and opinions carry so much weight is that they are always devoid of ideological blinkers. ``Big Z`` being the protege of Kissenger is a Realpolitiker and not a wishful personality as the cabal, which is influencing Bush foreign policy.

Ciao

#18 Beej

``The true answer is that no matter what the US does, it will be blamed by tons of Muslims all over the world – and the farther those Muslims are located from that scene of action – the more vociferously they would object – and the more jihadis they would dispatch!``

You are so right Beej. Not too much, if any, has been written on this site about:

- How did Syria manage to kill major Lebenese political figure? What were they afraid of? Is the UN report credible? And then, why was that prominant syrian minister eliminated by Assad? Why did he call a Lebenese radio station 2 hours befor he committed ``suicide``?

- What does the new Iraqi constitution mean for Kurds and Shias? Why are Sunnis killing tons of Shias every day? Why should Shias and Kurds continue to live under Iraq of Sunnis, for Sunnis and by Sunnis? Can 70% of non-Sunnis ask for their homeland?

These are non-kosher thoughts for this crowd. They are just having collective wet dreams that Bush will leave in disgrace because some one said this to that at a certain time. They love this lawful society as long as it helps getting rid of Bush and preserves their own well being here.

They have no use for this mumbo jumbo if it impacts Kurds, Lebenese, Shias or other minorities of their dream lands.

Re: # 28

Mohammad sahib, the case hinges on the legality of intent and as much as we may wish the legality away, it will only entrench itself. I need a second opinion on this, but my recollection is that it is a crime to identify a CIA operative, but it is not a crime to identify their family members. The law allows, indirectly, to name the operative without actually naming the operative and the law on this issue might be so construed as to offer a plausible deniability.

The second consideration is, what was the intention of the remark made, which identified Valerie Palmer. I do not think that there is sufficient evidence present to make the argument that the remark was made in bad faith to jeapordize Valerie Palmer`s cover on purpose. The point to remember is that Ms. Judith Miller was forced to make the confession on the identity of the person, who gave her Valerie Palmer`s name because of the laws passed by the Bush adminisration itself to force reporters to identify their sources if such sources provided material evidence in the successful prosecution of GWOT.

The basic issue, as you have stated, was if Karl Rove, ``Scooter`` Libby and other officials had crossed the legal boundaries by naming Valerie Plame. The evidence would suggest that they have not, because the law itself is murky on the issue. The law requires solid evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and not a presumption of guilt, as many seem to be hoping. I think that Karl Rove and ``Scooter`` Libby were well within the legal penumbera of the law and though they may have flexed the bounderies of the law; they did not breach such bounderies by their actions. The evidence or its lack thereof, would suggest that this was more a case of irregularity than mal-intentions on the part of Rove, Libby et al. The difference being that irregularity would suggest that the understanding on the confidentiality of the sources and the need to protect the identities of the government officals engaged in intelligence operations for the United States` government was compromised, but there was no criminal intent. Mal-intention would, on the other hand pre-suppose, a criminal intent and so far, to the best of my understanding, no criminal intent has been proven.

The basis of the case rests on the understanding of the law itself on the issue and such, that law being unclear, gives credence to the defense argument of Libby, Rove et al that there was no criminal intent in naming Valerie Palmer. Before we put on our masks of judge, jury and executioner on this issue, it would be wise to wait and see if the government actually has evidence to prove the existence of a mal-intent on part of the accused in this case. Chances are, that given the gravity of the situation, the accused will resign and will be pardoned by Bush, which will negate any future legal action against them.

Ciao

Ferozk:

My comments were in regards to your post #5 in which you said:

``There is a legal prionciple called `sovereign immunity,` which will prevent Vice President Dick Cheney and anyone associated with the Bush administration from being prosecuted.``

In my last post (#17) I reproduced a news story from Yahoo!News in which one of the observations was, ``And what if the unthinkable happens and Cheney is indicted?`` So indictment of Dick Cheney is not off the books and is a possibility.

Thanks for your long post (#26) but I was not really concerned with the niceties and fine points of law. I was a government (local government) official (apolitical) myself and knew I would be protected for my actions within the law and taken according to the departmental guidelines. On one occasion, I did very politely refuse to carry out a direct verbal order from my Deputy Director giving her my reasons for it. She understood and didn`t force me. She got the thing done some other way.

The intent of the article was not to raise a political discussion between pro and contra Muslims and their interests. Those who are writing on these issues have completely mis-read the article. The basic issue was if Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other officials had crossed the legal boundaries by outing Valerie Plame. In our boundless passion for our religious affiliations, we seem to have lost sight of objectivity. Every issue is not about ``us`` versus ``them.`` Particularly the issue highlighted in the article was not about it. It is about what a powerful administarator can and cannot legally do in the discharge of his/her duties.

For God`s sake, aren`t you guys tired of this meaningless debate pitting one religion against the other. Why don`t you grow up?

Mohammad Gill

Ref # 18...

``And then of course there are the communist sympathizers like mirmirs who are fine with illegals breaking all rules of border crossings, who want the US to pump and pump money into the UN, who could NEVER run a democracy and a clean judiciary in their own countries themselves – but have the audacity to turn around and start bad-mouthing the US – simply because they can get away with it. It is not the first time I have seen such an utter lack of logic and common sense!``

Say what???? Where do you get this stuff, Mr. (Bee)J. McCarthy? mirmir

Re: # 30
Ana...
Yes, people who use personal attacks rather than reason seem to pop up everywhere, but I honestly thought that McCarthyism was dead - apparently not. I finally figured out how to use the ``filter`` option (thanks to the Chowk staff for making this option available) that lets us block folks like the Beej out. The ``bee`` has flown from here as well. mirmir

mirmir:

do forgive beej. for a person who patronizes others in regards to their emotionalism, he certainly lets his own blind fervor get in the way of ``logic and common sense``.

--he tends to assume that activists are either communists or communist sympathizers indeed as you say in the vein of a mccarthy. he ignores the fact that martin luther king jR. was an activist AND a vociferous critic of communism. i am always amazed at the incredibly narrow definitions some folks have of being an ``act-iv-ist``

--his words would suggest a ``my country right or wrong`` attitude, and again he assumes that being critical of a country`s policies or president is indicative of a) a communist/communist sympathizer, or b) an anti-national. last i heard the united states had not made a full slide into fascism. last i heard, it was okay to raise questions in a democracy. and last i heard, it was okay to question policies of a neighboring country especially if those policies impacted them.

--judging from his thinly veiled stereotypical remarks here and on your board, he appears to be ignorant and have a low tolerance for mexicans/latinos/chicanos. i mean what are these ``hot-blooded`` mexican, and speedy gonzales allusions about?!

whatcha gonna do?!

oh, and one more thing, once the beej is disgusted with one`s stance on something, he tends to do something very closely approximating ``stalking`` that one on other boards with personal attacks. he`s already done that with certain writers and interactors. but so have other interactors as well. if all we can do is capitalize on personal attacks rather than arguing issues, then at some point one learns to ignore such attacks, kinda like a distant buzzing of a bee, or one doesn`t.

*this bee has flown*

Haroon on Saddam and Bush

As Iraq becomes Vietnam, he blames the seemingly unstoppable insurgency on Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants, whom he has just compared to Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. But his own analysts peg their number at only a few hundred out of an estimated 10,000 insurgents.

He blames Iran and Syria and won`t rule out waging war on either or both. Yet suspected foreign militants caught in Iraq since April add up to a grand total of 312. Of them, the highest number, 78, hail from Egypt, about which he remains silent, as also about the other American ally, Saudi Arabia, whose apprehended citizens outnumber Iran`s, 32 to 13.

He crows about bringing democracy to Iraq but plans to veto a U.S. Senate vote ordering him to bring Guantanamo Bay and similar other holding pens under the rule of law.

Re: # 33

Well said.

Re: # 33

HP:

I would disagree with you.

iraq under saddam had no chance to come under jihadis. Saddam ruled with an iron hand and didn`t tolerate muslim fundamentalism either. the country was weakened but the republican guards/iraqi army was capable of dealing with any jihadi. Only when this bulwark was demolished the jihadis now have a chance to usurp the state.

in afghanistan, al-qaida didn`t take advantage of taliban weakness, but the taliban themselves invited and tolerated them (as the ideologies were more or less the same). in case of saddam it would have never happened.

Hence bush continued to lie regarding 911 connection, WMD to the belt of democracy.

if iraq under saddam was going to come under jihadis then it would have made bush`s work simpler.

Re: # 33 HP {``...There is no way ... theories and quotes ... are to going to bring this modern Empire down from within, not in the next 300 years. ...``}

You make bold predictions. Theories and quotes never bring anything down, I agree. But theory or not, Great Powers have always peaked and fallen, and always will... unless, of course, you are willing to declare that the wheel of history has stopped turning.

Three centuries is a very long time. Perhaps you meant 30 years and mistakenly added another zero. If that`s the case, in the interest of harmony I will concede half of that to you, ie, 15 years. No doubt, it is highly unlikely that the empire will come totally unravelled within 15 years. But 30 years? I don`t know. I kinda doubt it.

It is quite possible that the Federal government of the United States may no longer be the unified central authority in three decades. The five federal districts may, by then, have become semi-autonomous federating blocks of their respective states.

The present incarnation of the US Dollar may no longer be the common currency of the realm in three decades. It might have joined its predecessor the Continental, or gone the way of 30 year Confederacy Bonds.

The bulk of the military establishment (particularly logistics, intelligence, communication), might no longer belong to the government but instead be fully privatized and thus beyond the scrutiny of ``elected`` public representatives.

Like I said, three decades is a long time.

Only 45 years ago the US was the world`s biggest creditor... 25 years ago it was still a net creditor... Today, the US needs to borrow money (by auctioning off its paper) to be able to pay interest on its accummulated debt.

Only sixty years ago the Third Reich was supposed to last for a thousand years.

Only 30 years ago Mao`s Cultural Revolution`s benefits were going to last for 10 thousand years.

So if I were you, I`d reconsider the predicted lifespan (300 years) you are so generously estimating for the US as the pre-eminent world super-power ... aka: Empire.

...SR

#16 and more by SR, Ferozk, mirmir,

I am afraid your historian friend is no political science expert so his conclusions are devoid of any reasonable argument about the current situation in Iraq. There is a difference in the perception and reality. Reality is that there was a legitimate concern in two successive US administrations and in Europe that Iraq under Saddam was a likely candidate to fall under the terrorist influence. I had tried to explain that in my post #9 but either I have not done a job of it or you are deliberately sidestepping the issue.

Let me try it again.
The world learns from experience. The fascist in the last century were just local goons until they were able to control two states in Europe and what happened afterwards is now history. The communists were a nuisance in Europe and only a handful of Bolshevik were not worth the second look by any country in world until they controlled a state, Russia. The first wave of Bolsheviks was a little closer to the ideology but the next was not any different than the emerging fascist states in Germany and Italy.

Those two ideological extremists consumed whopping resources of the world and eliminating them needed a large number of human as well as material sacrifices not to talk of wasted years that could have helped human development.

Islamic terrorism though has not reached that level but it sure is not due to lack of effort on their part. The terrorist groups were strengthened after they got hold of a state in Afghanistan. Check the number of terrorist attacks by Bin Laden group before and after they became a part of the Taliban regime.

The concern that Iraq may fall to terrorist was genuine and the impact of that would have been terrifying to the world.

There is no doubt that a preemptive action was required before Iraq was lost to the terrorists. We can argue that the Bush admin was inept in making its case and was grossly incompetent in managing the war in Iraq. We can also say that Bush is not the smartest pea in the pod and we can also say that Rummy is borderline crazy but we need to face the reality that Iraq in terrorist hand would have been something the world would have regretted for a long long time.

Remember the old saying: If you throw rocks into a pack of dogs, the dogs yelping the loudest are the ones that got hit.

Who is making more noises about Iraq? The Islamist fundamentalists!
It is strange that the liberals hiding behind their criticism of the conduct of war are tacitly supporting the Islamic fundamentalists’ argument against the US.

Let’s talk about the newly emerging pet leftist theory that the US Empire is about to implode out of its own contradictions.

The US Empire, and if it is an Empire at all, is only 60-70 years old. It is the most advanced, sophisticated, high tech and is built on some ideas that have been honed in years of knowledge and education. The level of sophistication the US state brings to the table is much larger than any Empire seen in the history of mankind. There is no way that the hollowed leftists theories and quotes from some ancient philosophers are to going to bring this modern Empire down from within, not in the next 300 years.

Re#29 MirMir

[``And then of course there are the communist sympathizers like mirmirs who are fine with illegals breaking all rules of border crossings, who want the US to pump and pump money into the UN, who could NEVER run a democracy and a clean judiciary in their own countries themselves – but have the audacity to turn around and start bad-mouthing the US – simply because they can get away with it. It is not the first time I have seen such an utter lack of logic and common sense!``
Say what???? Where do you get this stuff, Mr. (Bee)J. McCarthy?]

Dear sir, why don’t you go ahead and tell me your actual positions on those issues. I base my statements on reading of your stuff and I don’t see you denying what I say above – you seem to be just asking me how I got it.

(And just for information, I always LIKED Speedy Gonzales, so don’t take that as an affront!)

(Also, the word “adrak” has a special meaning according to certain interactors, which appears consistent with the frame of mind in which this article appears to have been written.)

(Also, it is utterly ludicrous that a criticism of illegal immigration should be taken either as a criticism of Spanish speakers generally or as a personal attack.)


Re#30 Ana

Ana, you are NOT being stalked – so stop flattering yourself!

And may I know which interact of mine on the Gandhi board got you so ticked off – since I see NO record of any interact from me to you on that board!

mirmir:

did you honestly think mccarthyism was dead? i suspect if you wear glasses or contacts they might have more than a slight tint of rose in them. :)

the application for citizenship still asks the question that used to be asked during those hearings that mccarthy was a part of. the end of the cold war has not meant an end to such -isms schisms. mccarthyism is just another in a long line of absolutist control techniques used throughout time, control via fear, by various groups including those like that committee in the 50`s, and those who are communists and fascists. (and i won`t talk about now)

here on chowk, people who are not strong nationalists, among other things, are referred to as ``pinkos`` and ``commies``. i guess this attitude is prevalent all around the world. i have heard it so much here in the US. my pakistani-american father referred to me as a communist because i was critical of american troops moving into grenada (remember that?). imagine that! i simply do not buy into this either or business.

i don`t know if you`ve ever seen ``a day without a mexican,`` this mockumentary by sergio arau, but he addresses various issues and stereotypes regarding the community. the movie doesn`t necessarily live up to its premise, but if you haven`t seen it already. . .

and i don`t know if you`re mexican, or mexican-american, you don`t state that and you don`t have to. i have lived in america practically all of my life, and i have heard such outbursts as those directed towards you from the mouths of racist jerks as well as seemingly benevolent and caring right leaning ``conservatives`` and left leaning ``liberals``. i didn`t know that you as a lone man had any control over who crosses over the border illegally. and i certainly had no idea that to show concern for undocumented folk was the equivalent of being a communist sympathizer. indeed that kind of language does approximate the fear that some used to ``rule`` over people in the `50`s. you cannot have been out of america so long to believe that some form of ``mccarthyism`` doesn`t exist?!

beej:

so in other words it is perfectly legit for you to use illegal immigration and associate it with communist sympathizer, but we should not think that being as critical as you are of illegal immigration has ANYTHING to do with prejudice and stereotypes.

yes, i do get the logic and common sense that guides you.

and actually one of your posts were directed towards me from the gandhi board, and an inference to me being some kind of liberal and i am not the only one who saw those so you cannot claim to have ever written them even if there is NO record of them. what makes you think it is what you`ve said on the gandhi board alone that has got me ``ticked off``? and ticked off?!

don`t flatter yourself by thinking i`m flattered, puhleeze. and really beej there is no need to be patronising by calling me a special interactor and telling me not to get all emotional about various interacts. i really don`t think you`re any more special than anyone else here, and judging from the few boards i have read and participated on you get pretty damn emotional yourself. so spare me the emotionalism and righteous indignation lectures from now on, thank you.

Re#38 by ana

You are getting too uptight and flushed over trivialities!

First, I have EVERY right to make fun of chowk staff for screwing up and deleting posts which had nothing to do with photographs of Mahatma Gandhi – but they deleted anyway in their zeal to teach a “lesson” to a certain gentle soul of an interactor!

I see no reason why you are so defensive of MirMir here who is fully capable of defending himself. And I doubt he needs assistance with the English language – therefore, what is the purpose of the Spanish translation – other than perhaps to show off your own acumen?

Besides:

I REPEAT – MIRMIR HIMSELF HAS NOT DENIED A SINGLE THING IN TERMS OF WHAT I ATTRIBUTED TO HIS POSITIONS!

Can you explain why?

I believe it is I who has been personally attacked – by both of you – using all kinds of names, including “McCarthy”! I don’t feel defensive since false labels don’t bother me.

Unlike some people – who get highly defensive – perhaps there are REASONS to get defensive!

Regarding the issue of illegal immigration, people who stand in line for anything lawfully have every right to demand that others follow the laws and NOT cut in!

This has NOTHING to do with McCarthyism – its called abiding by the law – a concept you MAY be familiar with!

It is absolutely simplistic to make judgment calls regarding the emotional state or maturity of individual interactors based on the interacts they post here – if that were the criterion, 99 percent of such interactors (and 100 percent of the writers) would be immediately committed to an asylum – and the longer they have been on this site, the more “committed” they would be considered!

Yeah!

Come on guys, cool it. Enough is enough. It`s better if you come back to the theme of the article, if you`ve any thing more to say about it. Don`t try to outdo insulting each other. One expects intellectual sophistication from guys like you.

Mohammad Gill

#40 FreeThinker

[....from guys like you]

Dr. Gill,

I think you should make it ``guys and gals``, or you will be accused of ....

accused of....

accused of .....

....of SOMETHING (perhaps being politically incorrect?), I`m sure!

Sincerely,
Beej.

Re: # 42

its good to know that there are muslims who still think that 911 was a jewish/american conspiracy.

``For yet another brief display of stupidity by someone in the admin, Atta`s passport was found somewhere in the Queens soon after the crashes. Go figure. ``

if you are travelling wihtin u.s. you don`t have to carry your passport with you. state issueed i.d. or drivers i.d. is good enough.

I share the author`s dismay that most of the interacters have missed the point and are debating pointlessly on something completely irrelevant.

Having said that, I think Mr. Gill should recognize that Iraq war is the most devastating consequence of the case you`re trying to have a debate about. Some would also argue that the V Plame outing is the consequence of the war plans. An Urdu proverb sums it well: ``kharbooza chhuri pe giray ya chhuri kharbooze pe, nateeja aik he hota hai`` (whether the melon falls on the knife or the knife falls on the melon, outcome is always the same). Thus, it would be unnatural, if not impossible, to not discuss the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Iraq war and Plame outing in the same discussion.

HP, with all due respect, may I please call you a jackass for the following reasons?

1. ``Check the number of terrorist attacks by Bin Laden group before and after they became a part of the Taliban regime.``

I`ve yet to have ONE political/security/terrorist `expert` explain what the HELL were US, English, French, Russian, Indian, and Iranian spy agencies (to name just the big dogs and bitches) doing when the Bin Laden group was becoming a part of Taliban, and the ISI was allegedly helping the Taliban to power.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that all these were freakin` ghoray gadhay baech k so rahay thay?

Open your mind, forget about your prejudices for a while, and connect the dot dude. It`s all part of a great big game that has the bookworm political scientists going crazy wetting their pants.

2. ``The concern that Iraq may fall to terrorist was genuine and the impact of that would have been terrifying to the world.``

Even if that was the case, the world was not at risk. ONLY Is-freakin`-rael was going to be in deep-bleeps. Thus, the so many hushed up Israeli/Jewish/Zionist controversies have erupted in the poet 9/11 USA. I`m sure you`re read about the Urban Moving compay in NJ; the israeli Students selling paintings in Federal bldgs; the recent AIPAC indictments; and numerous other unsolved myteries of the Israeli/American political twilight zone.

Considering the lies the current and so may previous US admins have fed the entire world, particularly to the Americans, I for one question the validity of any claim made by anyone in the US admin.

Just because the US govt and some of it`s bas-turdy Europeans and Puppet rulers across the Muslim countries say that the planes were hijacked by Muslims is not enough for any just person to swallow without proof. The people on the planes are dead. There`s no one to defend them.

Who is to know if there were Muslims on those planes? For yet another brief display of stupidity by someone in the admin, Atta`s passport was found somewhere in the Queens soon after the crashes. Go figure.

And if there were Muslims aboard those planes, who is to counter the argument that they were the culprits? Certainly they`re dead and are unable to defend themselves.

And if they were the culprits, then who is to say that they were Arabs? Just because OBL`s ghost appears in a video to corroborate the American propaganda? Everything OBL and his cohorts have done thus far has harmed the Muslims and helped the uniformed high-tech bandits of the West and Israel.

Such lies and unsubstantiated allegations of the stupidest proportions are feeding the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nurturing the anti-western sentiments in the entire world, particularly among Muslims. Just like most Iraqis did not support Saddam but they despise the western invaders even more so, most Muslims do not identify with OBL & CO for their dubious strategies and A/V tapes myteriously (read conveniently) appearing on Al Jazeera whenever Western offensives or elections are in the offing.

3. ``There is no doubt that a preemptive action was required before Iraq was lost to the terrorists. We can argue that the Bush admin was inept in making its case and was grossly incompetent in managing the war in Iraq. We can also say that Bush is not the smartest pea in the pod and we can also say that Rummy is borderline crazy but we need to face the reality that Iraq in terrorist hand would have been something the world would have regretted for a long long time.``

In case you haven`t noticed, today the world regrets the insurgents/terrorists anyway, in spite of the war that you seem to imply as ``just``. Americans regret it more so than others...did you notice the drop in Bush`s ratings to 37%? Only people who sympathize with Israeli Zionist agenda support the war and still think it`s just. So what has anyone achieved with this stupid war besides Halliburton et al?

Bush & Co could not make the case because there was no case to go to war. That`s why the admin has been changing it`s rationale ever since the first IED popped a GI on the Iraqi dirt road like a stray dog. That`s exactly why Plame was outed. That`s exactly why Powell didn`t continue in the 2nd term and now his close aide Col. Wilkerson is ripping Bush, Cheney, & Rummy threesome apart publicly. That`s exactly why Scowcroft is coming out with a scathing book on GWB`s faggotism with the neocons and Israelis. That`s why Sibel Edmonds was fired from FBI and became the most-gagged-person in the USA by the Ashcroft mafia. That`s why Scot Ritter, Semour Hersh, Paul O`Neil, Richard Clarke, and others have written books that dry up the American right wing wet dreams into nightmares instantly.

Same is the case with their exit strategy. Like Justin Riamondo said, there is no exit plan because they DON`T intend to exit from Iraq. Period.

BTW Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is the author of ``An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard`` (Prometheus Books, 2000). He is also the author of ``Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement`` (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan), (Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993), and ``Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans`` (1996).

He is a contributing editor for The American Conservative, a Senior Fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, and an Adjunct Scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.

So he`s certainly not a Nobody from the left ;-)~~

It always has been about O I L for Halliburton, Exxon, Boing, Lockheed Martin, The Carlyle Group, etc to lube the gullible tax-paying backsides of the American first and rest of the world subsequently. Israelis are making it happen for Dubya and Dickie and other demented characters on the American political stage to their ends, and you guys are liking it too...lol

4. ``Remember the old saying: If you throw rocks into a pack of dogs, the dogs yelping the loudest are the ones that got hit.

Who is making more noises about Iraq? The Islamist fundamentalists!
It is strange that the liberals hiding behind their criticism of the conduct of war are tacitly supporting the Islamic fundamentalists’ argument against the US.``

You sound like an incorrigible Republican of a worst redneck type. The above comment is usually uttered by the blot on the American landscape that ends up with his grandparents as in-laws everytime he gets married...and who`s got sh*t everywhere in his trailer home except for the toilet.

The loudest ``yelping noise`` right now is coming from an American woman by the name of Cindy Sheehan. Does it ring a bell? I guess not.

By the way, if you read their (leftist`s) essays, they don`t support the Islamic fundamentalism any more than the right wing zealots. They`ve simply made the neocons and caught their smitten Limbaughites red-handed while looting the American treasury and liberty. But like a fictitious col. famously said: ``you [simply] can`t handle the truth``, lest you naturalized citizenship is revoked beyond recognition...lol

5. ``Let’s talk about the newly emerging pet leftist theory that the US Empire is about to implode out of its own contradictions.

The US Empire, and if it is an Empire at all, is only 60-70 years old. It is the most advanced, sophisticated, high tech and is built on some ideas that have been honed in years of knowledge and education. The level of sophistication the US state brings to the table is much larger than any Empire seen in the history of mankind. There is no way that the hollowed leftists theories and quotes from some ancient philosophers are to going to bring this modern Empire down from within, not in the next 300 years.

Abay bhai, while you`ve been reading up on so many things, we`d all have been spared your defunct theory if you had read one simple reality...or may be two:

jub cheunti ki maut aati hai to uske per nikal aatay hain...it becomes more advanced than the other insects of its kind.

and

jub geedar ki maut aati hai to wo shehar ki taraf aata hai...goes up-town with misplaced hubris and gets plastered on the road by automobiles if it survives shootings, beatings, and plain old human stampede. All that humiliation in spite of the `advanced` hunting skills, deft sharpened fangs, and lethally dextrous claws.

As successful imperialists the French and the British were a thousand times more advanced and sophisticated than the peoples they had subjugated. Yet, ironically for you and your theory, these advanced masters were BOOTED out like pigs by the ``uncivilized and backward people`` within 100-150 yrs. Furthermore, the faster one rises, the harder he falls. USA is going to prove that one more time ;-)~~

Judging from your pseudo Americanism, you may not like the example of Vietnam and Korea, but these further discredit your theory.

The simple idea, my political scientist brother, is that the weaker party doesn`t have to floor the stronger party`s shoulders in order to win the battle. Just the fact that the former refuses to allow the latter to pin him to the ground makes it a winner and the other a loser. Even if the strong wins, the weak still doesn`t lose because it had already lost by virtue of the aggression against it. The humiliation alone, due to the failure to control a weakling, causes the Empire to implode; just so a freer, stronger, and cleansed nation could emerge from the ruins. So, ruins it must become first and foremost...for which the ball has started to roll, even if you prefer not to admit.

What is the gasoline price at these days in the US? How about the real estate market? Do the banks have enough consumers looking for cheap loans? No? How about the army recruitment going? Oops, I almost forgot, why the heck did Dubya have to create a special post for Karen Hughes? Is she having fun trotting about the Muslim world trying to change opinions? I guess not.

Nothing personal dude. It`s your opinions...they`re so irritatingly out-dated, narrow, and unrealistic. The PS buzzwords you inject in your posts become meaningless with your ill-logic. Sorry.

Ciao :-)~~

HP #33: ``There is There is no doubt that a preemptive action was required before Iraq was lost to the terrorists. . ``

How exactly have you come to this conclusion? ``No doubt?`` Those are strong words. No doubt in whose mind?

The Iraq war was opposed by the majority population of all the countries in the world, except two. The two were USA and Israel. Now even the majority population of the USA is against the Iraq war. So that leaves only one. Israel.

This was, infact, the most opposed war in world history!! Every single country that has been invaded by Iraq, was against the USA invasion of Iraq. Countries at hot and cold wars against each other, like India and Pakistan, both opposed it.

How can you so casually state that there, ``is no doubt that a preemptive action was required before Iraq was lost to the terrorists,`` when out of the 190 or so countries in the world, the majority population of 188 (now 189) is agaisnt this war?

There has to be more to the world than a US leadership getting up, claiming someone a terrorist, and then killing 100k of its citizens.

Re#42 by ntsyed

NTSyed sahib,

Since WE may not have interacted before, let me introduce myself – I am Beej – not to be confused with any other interactors who may have assumed similar sounding nicknames (some of them obviously quite devious people, since they appear to have done so even BEFORE me) just to confuse simple souls like you who so peacefully inhabit these premises and do minimal damage – with the possible exception of raising the blood pressure of certain other highly serious interactors!

(And unlike certain others, I think your emoticons are fine, JUST the way they are!)

I must respectfully disagree with you regarding the Iraq war. In this day and age, people have become so self-centered and countries so focused on their narrow interests, that they think of nobody but themselves. The USA is a true exception and therefore it stands out – baffling many “run of the mill” individuals and countries – and even you (Note: I’ll NEVER categorize you as “run of the mill” (nor “run of the mule” as some nasty interactors may suggest))!

The freedom of the Iraqi people from the oppressions of dictatorship is a noble objective – that the US gets some uninterrupted oil supplies in the process (and for which supplies we do PAY, mind you) is a mutual side benefit – for everybody.

The American people have been steadfast in their support of the US invasion of Iraq! Please do not go by the example of peaceniks and other outdated creatures who inhabit the crevices of this chowk cave and make dissenting noises in the wild!

Individuals like Dr. Gill (occasionally fondly referred as the “Gillster” – a term specifically designed for him to reflect his newly developed carefree personality and his retried attitude toward life!) are just as steadfastly opposed to the invasion!

Always were, always will be!

But they have no clout – because the American people wanted to go in! and the American people want to STAY in!

Always had, always will!

Therefore, having been beaten in their designs – such individuals try a sneak attack!

They try to trip the Veep over a trivial trip by a CIA hubby – and make the case file deliberately chubby!

They improvise, they devise, they surmise, and they romanticize, fantasize, supersize – all to get to their prize!

To prize the veep from his duties – such are our peace-loving beauties!

And they all synchronize – much more than ANY kharboozas ever could – or should!

Your consternation regarding the western intelligence not doing its job PRIOR to 9/11 is understandable (and contrary to what you imply – they usually do not hire sleeping donkeys and horses to those positions – the closest animal approximations are the K-9 officers) – and we have come up with a whole new cabinet agency to address that problem.

I think you should be especially commended for requesting individual interactors to eschew their deeply-rooted prejudices and for being concerned regarding the moisture contents of their undergarments!

Your extreme confidence in the abilities of Israelis is to be marveled at! As somebody who is absolutely enamored of what that tiny little country has been able to accomplish – and not just in the battlefield but also in such areas as science and technology (I am sure the Gillster’s earlier board explained that to you at length) – I must sincerely thank you! I have every confidence that your faith will continue to be justified down the road as that tiny country continues down that path of success and accomplishes all its objectives in the future, too.

Your lack of faith in government is shared by vast number of Americans who use the popular joke to ridicule – “I am from the government, and I am here to help you!”

NT Syed sahib, kindly consider our (US) efforts in Iraq as our very own little tribute – our heartfelt hands of help – coming to you and other such warm-hearted individuals who really NEED the help (alas many of you just don’t know about it yet – or are just too intimidated to admit it or ask for it openly – it can hurt the pride of many males in certain patriarchal societies– we understand!)

I could go on further – in considerable detail and address the many (alas so many) points that you have raised – but the lady of the house has asked me to procure some vegetables – and even though a case can be made that dipping into the vast chowk stock of interactors one could come up with quite a few of those – I am still required to head toward the local “sabji-mandi” which closes shortly!

Therefore, kindly accept this meager ration of my humble offerings until we have another opportunity to revisit some of these highly important topics of the world affairs!

May your beard continue to flow gracefully and to regale us with many, many stories down the road!

Sincerely,
Beej.

ntsyed,

I am glad that you got upset as what I wrote actually it hit some raw nerve there. Yelping part was not bad really as it got you doing your thing…yelping!

Now let me take all your point apart w/o going into the abuses that is a part of Islamic fundamentalists’ arguments and I know it pretty well as eik omr guzri hai iss dasht ki saiyahi mian.

1 and 2 is actually one long drivel without any substance to it. Actually you are saying two things there.

First, you are implying that it was the US itself that attacked its own country thru some proxies who may not be Muslims. If translated into political terms, it means that the US was fighting on the both sides of the fence. It attacked itself on 9/11 and then it attacked Afghanistan. I think that is a very “rational” approach and that’s why most of the Islamist believe in it. So hearing it from you doesn’t startle me a wee bit. I let you ponder on just one thing here. If 9/11 was planned by the US itself, how many Americans were part of that conspiracy that was pulled off so successfully. None of the American involved in killing 3000 American has squeaked yet out of guilt for killing his fellow citizens. Are you claiming that the US government employees are so unconscionable that they would murder their own fellow countrymen to get to some cavemen?

Next,

I like this part of your post even better. “Everything OBL and his cohorts have done thus far has harmed the Muslims and helped the uniformed high-tech bandits of the West and Israel.”

So now Muslim holy warriors are disowning OBL. Calling him a US shill and again implying that it was the US that attacked itself thru OBL and his followers.
You are saying that the US needed such an elaborate arrangement-getting OBL, getting Taliban to capture Afghanistan, then training some people, and then attacking the US mainland in the broad daylight- to get what—Afghanistan? Sir, is there any rational behind such an elaborated scenario?
Just sit back and think before you write anymore lyrical conspiracy theories.

3 and 4,
In my posts I pointed out the reason for the US attack on Iraq and I also mentioned that the war is badly conducted and I also believe to some extent, the US has lost its way in Iraq and it would be better to leave Iraq as soon as possible. So I agree with the anti-war crowd in a sense that the war in Iraq was badly conducted and the Bush admin perhaps is inept. My point that I think I made very clear was the fear that the Iraq would fall into the terrorist hands was valid and nowhere do I see you deny that. The whole anti-war crowd is talking about the conduct of the war and not the reason f