The Osterley Times

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Cheney on 4000 American Dead: “They Volunteered.”

He plays the 9-11 card, stating that many people volunteered in response to the events of that dreadful day, which sort of misses the point.

People who volunteered because of 9-11 did so, one can only presume, to fight the people who attacked the US on that day. They certainly can't be said to have volunteered to fight someone utterly unrelated to those events. And it's that fact which makes the 4,000 dead total so depressing.

CNN's Cafferty: Why didn't HRC tell truth about Bosnia trip?

Carville Stands By ‘Judas’ Remark

The sense of entitlement which surrounds the Clinton candidacy has been further highlighted by the reaction of some Clinton supporters to the decision of Gov. Bill Richardson to endorse Barack Obama. None more notably than Clinton political adviser, James Carville, who astonishingly gave this quote:

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Nor is he claiming that he was misquoted. Indeed, you'll see from the video (which is slightly shaky) that he is insistent that he was not misquoted and that he stands by what he said:

“I was quoted accurately and in context, and I was glad to give the quote and I was glad I gave it,” Mr. Carville said. “I’m not apologizing, I’m not resigning, I’m not doing anything.”

Now, one would expect other Clinton supporters to admit that he has perhaps gone too far and to attempt to pull him back from the precipice, but no. Taylor Marsh says the following:

Let's just say I've had issues with Carville before, but his latest rhetorical bomb was well aimed, as far as I'm concerned.

So let's just say Carville hitting him (Richardson) hard on this one doesn't bother me.

And why doesn't it bother her?

Superdelegates should vote their conscience.

Because she believes that the superdelegates should ignore the wishes of the voters and elect Hillary even if the majority of voters didn't choose her for the democratic nomination.

I have for many weeks now watched in astonishment as the Hillary campaign battles with what her supporters like to call the "maths problem", and the rest of the planet refers to as "losing the contest to be the democratic nominee".

The truth is that Hillary's campaign is over and she has lost and she knows it. There is no real plan for going forward from this point other than the vague hope that Barack Obama might implode or that the super delegates might decide to overturn the democratic process and simply hand the candidacy to Hillary because she's the one who really, really, really wants it. Neither option, at this point, looks remotely viable.

Indeed, with comments like this one from Carville - and the fact that people like Taylor Marsh are endorsing it - one gets the distinct feeling that it is Hillary's camp that are imploding under their own sense of entitlement and a childish feeling that "it's really not fair!" that Hillary is being denied what she has always wanted.

Richardson summed up what many of us have come to feel regarding the Hillary campaign when he stated:

"I'm not going to get into the gutter like that. And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton."

Don't get me wrong, neither candidate is running to be the local librarian, they are running for the most powerful office in the land, so we all expect the fight to be vigorous. However, when you find yourself stating that the Republican candidate is more fit for high office than your democratic rival then you have crossed too many lines for people to keep count of.

And when members of your staff start referring to people who vote for your rival as "Judas" then perhaps your campaign has lost it's way and you have simply lost the argument.

Indeed, despite people like Taylor Marsh applauding such a crass remark, even members of Clinton's own team are hinting that Carville really ought to withdraw what he said:

Given the media play and replay, a reporter this afternoon repeatedly asked Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, if Mr. Carville should apologize and if the Clinton campaign tolerated that sort of rhetoric.

At first Mr. Wolfson answered generally, saying that sort of language was not welcome, but in the end gave a fairly pointed answer.

“You’ll have to ask James if he wants to apologize,” he said. “If I had said it, I would apologize.”

The problem for Hillary is that her camp had no plans for anything other than winding up the campaign by Super Tuesday. When that failed to happen she was forced into the ludicrous position of declaring that all of Obama's victories somehow did not matter or were the wrong kind of victories. Indeed, only states which Hillary won were considered to have any importance.

I was not only astonished that Hillary would try to make such a weak argument - after all the Clinton's are supposed to be good at formulating sound political arguments - but I was even more flabbergasted at the amount of intelligent people who grabbed hold of that flawed logic and tried to run with it.

We've already witnessed the contradiction of Hillary insisting that the voters of Florida and Michigan not be "disenfranchised" whilst she simultaneously insists that super delegates must ignore the wishes of voters across the land (disenfranchise them) and vote according to their own conscience.

And now, having set her sights on the super delegates, we witness what will happen to super delegates whose conscience does not lead them to support Hillary. They will be branded as a "Judas". Because we all know that Hillary is Jesus and it's a form of blasphemy not to give her what she wants.

How in God's name (pun intended) did her campaign ever reduce itself to this?

Click title for full article.

New Pakistani prime minister frees judges

Throughout his presidency George Bush has never had a policy for dealing with Pakistan, he has had a policy for dealing with Musharraf. That policy now lies in tatters as Musharraf's lack of power is laid bare for all to see.

Pakistan's new prime minister ordered the release from house arrest of the country's former chief justice within minutes of coming to power yesterday, driving home how rapidly President Pervez Musharraf's authority is ebbing.

Shortly after he was elected by a thumping majority by the new parliament, Yousaf Raza Gilani ordered the release of about 10 judges, headed by Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who have been illegally detained at home since November 3.

The Islamabad police had already received the message and lifted the barbed wire from around the judges' homes less than a mile away. Activists flooded towards Chaudhry's house, some scaling the low walls of what had officially been termed a sub-jail less than an hour earlier. The judge stood at the balcony with his wife and three children and addressed the raucous crowd squeezed into his garden. "I do not have words to thank you all," he said as fistfuls of petals filled the air.

It was Chaudhry's first public appearance in almost five months. But he said the fight for a free judiciary was not over. "We must keep our efforts focused for a bright future for Pakistan for the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution," he said.

Supporters, many of whom have clashed with police armed with batons and tear gas over recent months, appeared dazed that their hero was finally free. "This is the victory of the people," declared Saeed Mehmood, a lawyer from nearby Rawalpindi. "I feel proud to be a Pakistani," said Athar Minallah, a confidant of the judge.

The government has promised to reinstate 60 judges fired by Musharraf, at least 10 of whom were under house arrest, within 30 days. A senior city administrator told state media that "all deposed judges are free to move".

It's the wonderful thing about elections, the people are free to elect representatives who will overturn decisions which they vehemently disagree with. Of course, Bush has been keen to have the Pakistan election count for nothing and has been badgering the Pakistanis to work with Musharraf.

The emotional scenes followed historic changes at the parliament where Gilani, an understated loyalist of the assassinated opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, was elected with 264 votes against 42 for Musharraf's man, Pervaiz Elahi.

"Democracy has been revived due to the sacrifice of Benazir Bhutto," he said in his first remarks as prime minister. Bhutto's son and political heir, 19-year-old Bilawal, watched from the visitor's gallery, wiping a tear from his eye.

Gilani's victory underlined the strength of the four-party coalition, which has the potential to become one of the most powerful civilian governments in Pakistan's history.
Musharraf's options look increasingly unappealing. The new government enjoys the two-thirds majority necessary to bring an impeachment motion against him. Even if he can stave off that prospect, Musharraf's powers are likely to be slashed by the government, reducing him to a largely symbolic role.

One can imagine similar scenes in the US when a new President closes Guantanamo Bay and restores Habeas Corpus. The feeling of a nightmare being over, of order and the rule of law being restored.

The Bush regime have acted consistently outside of the law, indeed, they operated at times outside of the law to such an extent that former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. and other senior Justice Department aides all threatened to resign unless Bush cease whatever it was that he was doing and return to the rule of law. And when one considers what a right wing figure Ashcroft was, one can only guess at what level of illegality would be needed to have him threaten to resign from a Republican administration.

So, when one watches these scenes being played out in Pakistan, these abuses of power being brought to an end by a democratic vote, one can't help but pray for the day that the same process takes place in the most powerful nation on Earth.

Musharraf's illegality affected most of us only as spectators, but Bush's illegality affected swathes of the planet, especially here in Europe, where we had to witness a British Attorney General declaring the Iraq war legal without a second resolution, when weeks earlier he had been arguing the very opposite. Indeed, the U-turn which the Attorney General made was so sudden that it prompted the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, who stated in her resignation letter:

My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)
I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.

But there was the feeling that the rules didn't matter and the law was whatever those in power decided it to be at any given moment.

The past eight years have been a very dark time in history and I honestly believe the Bush regime will be studied by future historians as a lesson to be learned about how the rule of law can be set aside by duplicitous politicians claiming to be acting for the good of all simply by citing national security.

But the sidelining of Musharraf reminds us all of the words of Gandhi:

"When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it, always."

And, as Musharraf is sidelined and rendered impotent, we must take heart and remember that one day soon the days of Bush will be over and the rule of law will be restored.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Musharraf, Pakistan, Chaudhry, judges released, Yousaf Raza Gilani, Bush, rule of law, democracy, legality

Monday, March 24, 2008

Chuck Todd: McCain Can Get Away With Lying

Todd engages in a rare moment of honesty, admitting that the press go easy on McCain and that had a Democrat made a similar mistake to the one McCain made - claiming that Iran are aiding al Qaeda - that the media would have played it endlessly "on a loop" to damage their campaign.

US military Iraq toll hits 4,000

The Iraq war chalked up it's latest grim milestone yesterday with the news that the US death toll has crossed the 4,000 mark.

The latest to die were four soldiers whose patrol vehicle was blown up by a bomb in southern Baghdad on Sunday.
The deaths bring the total to 4,000, according to the US military and independent monitoring groups.
Insurgent attacks and US military operations left at least 47 people dead across Iraq on Sunday.
Anticipating that the US death toll would rise to 4,000, a Pentagon spokesman earlier played down the significance of the figure.
"It is artificial in the sense that somehow the 4,000th tragic loss somehow will be different from the first," Rear Admiral Greg Smith told Reuters news agency.

And, of course, as the recent four deaths take the US total through the 4,000 mark, we can only guess at the number of Iraqis who have perished in this needless conflict. 47 dead on Sunday alone with a specific figure impossible to gauge as the US refuse to count the number of Iraqis they are killing even as they claim to be liberating them.

Of the 4,000 US dead, 97% of them have died since George Bush stood on the deck of that ship with a banner behind him declaring, "Mission Accomplished".

In Sunday's other violence:

Mortar and rocket fire killed at least 15 people in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone
A suicide bomber ploughed an explosives-laden tanker into an army base in Mosul, killing 13 Iraqi soldiers and injuring 40 people
US troops killed 12 men in a raid east of Baquba, saying that six of them were found to have shaved their bodies, suggesting they had been preparing for suicide operations
Gunmen travelling in three cars shot dead at least seven shoppers in a Baghdad market.

There's nothing really to say is there? Everything is now on hold until a Democrat can be elected to clear up the mess of this profoundly stupid and messianic little man.

Another four working class families will hear that their lives have been devastated by the death of a loved one.

Bush and the morons who continue to back his illegal invasion will still insist that they were right, because doing so costs them nothing. There is no sacrifice or price that they pay for insisting that this madness continue. They don't even contribute extra taxes as they have chosen to pass the cost for fighting their war of civilisation on to another generation. And they certainly don't pay in blood as their courage is mostly expressed through a keyboard.

I would find it easier to accept that these people really believe that they are in a fight for civilisation were it not for the fact that they insist on having tax cuts at the very time which they claim to be fighting for their existence. That strikes me as bizarre in the extreme and utterly contradictory.

But the 19% who continue to think that Bush is doing a good job have no such qualms. They bravely insist that the war must continue whilst steadfastly refusing to even pay for the war which they tell us is so vital. Hypocrisy on this scale is a rare commodity indeed.

Click title for full article.

Hamas and Fatah agree to hold talks

We already know from a recent article in Vanity Fair that it was Bush's spectacular incompetence - and complete inability to accept a democratic decision which he disagreed with - which resulted in Hamas seizing the Gaza Strip ahead of an attempt by Bush to prepare Fatah for civil war in the Palestinian territories.

Now, no doubt much to Bush's chagrin, Hamas and Fatah are said to be embracing a Yemeni sponsored deal to bring reconciliation between the two sides.

"We, the representatives of Fatah and Hamas, agree to the Yemeni initiative as a framework to resume dialogue between the two movements to return the Palestinians' situation to what it was before the Gaza incidents," their joint declaration said.

Within hours, however, the Fatah leadership had issued a statement saying it was not content simply to discuss the broader Yemeni initiative – which envisages new elections, the creation of a government of national unity and the reform of the Palestinian security forces along national rather than factional lines. "The points of the Yemeni initiative are very clear. We want to implement them, not dialogue about them," Fatah said.

Mr Abbas's chief negotiator, Saeb Erakat, was adamant that Hamas must agree to end its control of the Strip before any dialogue could take place. He said: "Article No 1 calls on Hamas to rescind its coup and accept its obligations to the Palestine Liberation Organisation. If Hamas accepts this, then we can talk about a new page. If Hamas does not accept this, there won't be talks."

Accepting obligations to the PLO means endorsing the 1993 Oslo accords and negotiating with Israel for a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem. Hamas, which views the whole of historic Palestine as a Muslim domain, has consistently refused to do anything of the kind, though it is hinting at a long-term cessation of violence if Israel reciprocates.

Hamas are demanding that any talks include the West Bank and not simply Gaza, as Hamas were the party who won the election which both Israel and the US refused to accept the result of.

I also note that Abbas is adopting the neo-con trick that your opponent must give up everything before negotiations can take place, which sort of renders the whole idea of negotiations as meaningless.

Hamas are insisting that Fatah reinstate the unity government which existed before Fatah's failed coup was preempted. This will put the cat amongst the pigeons as both Bush and Olmert have made clear that they have no intention of dealing with Hamas under any circumstances.

Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian commentator, welcomed the Sanaa agreement but cautioned against pinning any great hopes on it. He said: "The only significance is that it indicates that the two sides are willing to talk, to engage. This is new. But the differences are huge. It will take high-level involvement of Arab states to move things forward.

"I [hope] the Americans and the Israelis will stop vetoing a serious dialogue and the possible resumption of joint government."

Dick Cheney arrived in Ramallah yesterday and made very clear that the US has no intention of allowing Hamas to re-enter the Palestinian government.

Referring indirectly to Hamas, he added: "It also will require a determination to defeat those who are committed to violence and who refuse to accept the basic rights of the other side to exist."

Bush's pathetic road map to peace is dead on the floor. His Annapolis conference was no more than a photoshoot and his attempts to impose peace on the region without including the party which the Palestinian people chose as their democratic representatives says all that needs to be said about this man's supposed commitment to democracy.

Once again the Bush administration attempt to make progress, but only if all the players will agree to see the world as they would like it to be rather than as how it actually is. Eight years of this bullshit is enough already.

Both Hamas and Fatah know that this sad little man will soon be ushered from the world stage. They will simply wait him out.

Bush's plans for peace in the Middle East, like his plans for a newly democratic Afghanistan and Iraq, lie like ashes on the floor, as perfect examples of a failed presidency.

Click title for full article.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Well, this is a porkie and a half....

Sniper fire? No greeting ceremony? Running to her car? If that sounds unbelievable it's because it is...

Colbert: 'Handle Your Preacher As McCain Did'

Steven Colbert asks why there is outrage over Reverend Wright's comments and yet a total free pass is given to McCain aligning himself with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. After 9-11 the comments of Falwell and Robertson were just as foul as anything Wright came out with, and McCain recently said that he no longer even regards Falwell as an "agent of intolerance".

Why are the media giving McCain this free pass? And that's before we even start on Hagee's endorsement.

"So?" So.... This!

Oh, how marvellous. A 16 year Republican has finally found his voice as Dick Cheney says, "So?" when told the American people did not agree with the Iraq war.

I think it's fair to say that Cheney's comments have outraged him, and he certainly gives an answer that totally undermines all the claims that Bush and Cheney and their minions have been making since 9-11 regarding executive power and presidential powers at a time of warfare.

The decision to go to war...to send young Americans off to battle, knowing that some will die -- is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation's Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress.

Cheney told Raddatz that American war policy should not be affected by the views of the people. But that is precisely whose views should matter: It is the people who should decide whether the nation shall go to war. That is not a radical, or liberal, or unpatriotic idea. It is the very heart of America's constitutional system.

In Europe, before America's founding, there were rulers and their subjects. The Founders decided that in the United States there would be not subjects but citizens. Rulers tell their subjects what to do, but citizens tell their government what to do.

If Dick Cheney believes, as he obviously does, that the war in Iraq is vital to American interests, it is his job, and that of President Bush, to make the case with sufficient proof to win the necessary public support.

That is the difference between a strong president (one who leads) and a strong presidency (one in which ultimate power resides in the hands of a single person). Bush is officially America's "head of state," but he is not the head of government; he is the head of one branch of our government, and it's not the branch that decides on war and peace.

When the vice president dismisses public opposition to war with a simple "So?" he violates the single most important element in the American system of government: Here, the people rule.

This is the best argument I have heard to counter the astonishing arrogance behind Cheney's "So?" comment. But as I argued here, some people do seem to believe in the notion of electing a dictator every four years.

Hat tip to Newshoggers.

Richardson explains his Obama endorsement to Olbermann.

He doesn't like the fact that the campaign is getting nasty and personal. I think more and more super delegates will take this lead. Richardson is saying what many people think. As Richardson points out, Mark Penn's comment is "typical of many in that campaign".

The Ignorance of John McCain

Booman has a wonderful analogy concerning John McCain's supposed "slip of the tongue".

Imagine trying to understand the peace process in Ireland without understanding that the Irish are predominately Catholic, the Northern Irish are predominately protestant, and that England's sympathies tend mainly to their protestant brethren?
Imagine suggesting that the city of Boston was sending financial and material support to the protestants, or that MI5 and MI6 were providing targeting information to the Catholics?
That is akin to what John McCain has repeatedly asserted in saying that Iran is lending support to al-Qaeda. It's isn't some misstatement. It is either deliberate misinformation or a staggering display of ignorance that should disqualify him from consideration as commander in chief.

That really is the entire argument in a nut shell.

Click title for Booman's article.

It's Over. And the Clinton's Know It.

They've been hinting that they know this with where they have been choosing to focus their campaign, but now the Clinton camp are being much more specific: she CAN'T win the delegate count - and for the first time they are beginning to acknowledge this in their public utterances.

"If Sen. Obama wins the popular vote then the choice will be easier. But if Hillary wins the popular vote but can't quite catch up with the delegate votes, then you have to just ask yourself, 'Which is more important, and who is more likely to win in November?'” former President Bill Clinton told ABC earlier this week.

"Let's assume that Sen. Clinton goes ahead in the popular vote count," he said in a March 13 conference call with reporters. He then asked, “Which is more Democratic”: the measure of delegates won or of votes received.

Now, as Obama currently leads in the popular vote by more than 700,000 votes, Clinton's task is nigh impossible, as many commentators are starting to note.

Mark Halperin has written an article entitled, "Painful Things Hillary Knows - Or should Know".

1. She can’t win the nomination without overturning the will of the elected delegates, which will alienate many Democrats.

2. She can’t win the nomination without a bloody convention battle — after which, even if she won, history and many Democrats would cast her as a villain.

3. Catching up in the popular vote is not out of the question — but without re-votes in Florida and Michigan it will be almost as impossible as catching up in elected delegates.

4. Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress don’t think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile.

He lists 14 reasons why Hillary should give up and they are all equally as valid as the four that I have listed. But the important thing is that the press are, at last, starting to talk about this realistically. For weeks now we have had to listen to garbage about how both the candidates were essentially tied and this reached it's peak with the fevered reaction to Hillary's wins in Texas and Ohio when she was portrayed as "the Comeback Kid" despite the fact that the victory she had achieved was woefully short of what was actually required in order to reverse Obama's delegate lead. If the press were paying any attention to what was actually happening they would have written her obituary then.

However, now the stories are starting to circulate which more realistically tell the tale of Clinton's chances and even die in the wool Clinton fanatics like Taylor Marsh have started to admit that there is a "maths problem".

There is a "maths problem", she can't win the nomination, and the longer she stays in this race the more she hurts Barack Obama.

Jonathan Alter was writing about this even before the Texas and Ohio elections:

Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.

This has been over, as many of us said at the time, since March 5th. Hillary stumbles on, but to where?

Even Bill is now stating publicly that she can't win the delegate count and they are now hanging all their hopes on overturning Obama's massive 700,000 vote lead. With the Florida and Michigan recounts now seeming ever more remote, Hillary simply has no chance of being able to do that.

I've said it before, but it's long past the time when the men in grey suits need to sit Hillary down and explain to her that, this time, it really is over.

Do the decent thing and stand down.

UPDATE:

Ezra Klein also puts in his tuppence worth:

Let me second what Kevin Drum says here. I don't think you need to reach for far-out explanations to explain the continuation and ferocity of the Clinton Campaign. Rather, you just need an old political maxim: All campaigns look winnable to the people inside them. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich. Ask Steve Forbes, Pat Robertson, Elizabeth Dole, and Dan Quayle. And Clinton's star power, and her lead in Pennsylvania, and the videos of Wright, and all the other disparate data points that exist in an election this large mean there's more than enough information for her to construct a plausible internal narrative explaining how she wins this thing. And for a candidate who's come so far and gotten so close, admitting defeat requires a pretty enormous psychological shift.
Now, I think she's wrong. I think Obama's lead in pledged delegates and his lead in the popular vote effectively end her chances.

Obama Adviser Steps Up His Criticism of Bill Clinton

Now, whilst it's undeniably true that Bill doesn't mention Obama by name, it's very strange that, in the very week that the debate surrounding Reverend Wright's comments reaches it's peak, Bill should step forward and say this:

Mr. Clinton, in a speech to voters on Friday in North Carolina, said “it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country.”

It is simply unthinkable that a Democrat could be attacking another Democrat as lacking in patriotism, but that does appear to be the gist of what Bill is saying, it's certainly the inference that is being read into this by the Obama camp.

Retired Air Force general, Merrill A. McPeak, stood next to Obama in Medford, Oregon, and read the remarks out to an audience who gasped when they heard Clinton's words, obviously taking the words to be an attack on Obama's patriotism.

“Let me say first, we will have such an election this year because both Barack Obama and John McCain are great patriots who love this country and are devoted to it — so is Hillary Clinton,” said General McPeak, who is a co-chairman of Mr. Obama’s campaign. “Any suggestion to the contrary is flat wrong.”

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, did not address the comments from Mr. Clinton. He stood a few feet away as General McPeak made his remarks before a crowd of more than 1,500 people in a Medford community center.

“I’m saddened to see a president employ this kind of tactics,” said General McPeak, who served as Air Force chief of staff in the early years of the Clinton administration. “He of all people should know better because he was the target of exactly the same kind of tactic when he first ran 16 years ago.”

The Hillary camp have attacked McPeak as deliberately misreading what Clinton was saying. Which sort of begs the question, what the Hell was he saying?

Click title for full article.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Perino: We elect a dictator every four years. Until the next election, your opinion is worthless.

Cheney really is the most arrogant asshole, but Perino's argument appears to be that you elect a president every four years and until the next election, your opinion is simply worthless.

She tries to sell it as not yielding to opinion polls - somehow implying that the opinion of the public has no bearing in a democracy outside of the election cycle - but what she's really saying amounts to what Cheney is saying. "You don't like it?"

"So?"

HELEN THOMAS: The American people are being asked to die and pay for this. And you’re saying they have no say in this war?

PERINO: No, I didn’t say that Helen. But Helen, this president was elected…

THOMAS: But it amounts to it. You’re saying we have no input at all.

PERINO: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that’s the way our system is set up.

They can only behave in this way because spineless Republicans (and some equally spineless Democrats) could always be relied upon to back this regime no matter what they did. Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, secret rendition, illegal surveillance, indeed; they continued to support them even after they admitted that they had tortured people. There was simply nothing that would make them turn on Bush and Co. It is that knowledge which not only allows, but actively fosters, the arrogance that is on display here.

Huckabee defends Obama on Rev. Wright controversy

Chris Wallace takes Fox & Friends to task over "Obama Bashing".

I never thought I'd see Chris Wallace defend Obama, but apparently the Obama bashing got too much even for him.

An Iraq War Retrospective.

I am such a fan of John Cole and Balloon Juice. Today he talks of the recent media attention on how people got it so wrong before the Iraq war and offers a confession of his own.

I was wrong about the Doctrine of Pre-emptive warfare.
I was wrong about Iraq possessing WMD.
I was wrong about Scott Ritter and the inspections.
I was wrong about the UN involvement in weapons inspections.
I was wrong about the containment sanctions.
I was wrong about the broader impact of the war on the Middle East.
I was wrong about this making us more safe.
I was wrong about the number of troops needed to stabilize Iraq.
I was wrong when I stated this administration had a clear plan for the aftermath.
I was wrong about securing the ammunition dumps.
I was wrong about the ease of bringing democracy to the Middle East.
I was wrong about dissolving the Iraqi army.
I was wrong about the looting being unimportant.
I was wrong that Bush/Cheney were competent.
I was wrong that we would be greeted as liberators.
I was wrong to make fun of the anti-war protestors.
I was wrong not to trust the dirty smelly hippies.

It takes real balls to be so honest about where you have f#cked up and it's articles like this one which make John Cole an essential daily read.

If only the others who backed Bush's illegal adventure could bring themselves to have a modicum of such soul searching five years on.

Sadly, there are still people who still look at the unfolding disaster and insist against all common sense that it was right to invade Iraq and that removing Saddam was worth all that has followed.

Such people are beyond saving, they are simply blind ideologues who will argue that black is white rather than concede that they were wrong.

Cole is to be applauded for not being one of their number. But then, he is a former Republican who stated this:

Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? Permanent war, fear, the nanny state, big spending, torture, execution on demand, complete paranoia regarding the media, control over your body, denial of evolution and outright rejection of science, AND ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA MAKE US WEAR BURKHAS, all the while demanding that in order to be a good American I have to spend most of every damned day condemning half my fellow Americans as terrorist appeasers.

And that isn’t even getting into the COMPLETE and TOTAL corruption of our political processes at every level. The shit is really going to hit the fan after we vote these jackasses out of power in 2008.

Screw them. I got out. They can have their party. I will vote for Democrats and little L libertarians and isolationists until the crazy people aren’t running the GOP. The threat of higher taxes in the short term isn’t enough to keep me from voting out crazy people and voting for sane people with whom I merely disagree regarding policy. Hillarycare doesn’t scare me as much as Frank Gaffney having a line to the person with the nuclear football or Dobson and company crafting domestic policy.

That is why the Republican party is in shambles. The majority of us have decided that the movers and shakers in the GOP and the blogospheric right are certified lunatics who, in a decent and sane society, we would have in controlled environments in rocking chairs under shade trees for most of the day, wheeled in at night for tapioca pudding and some karaoke.

He's simply excellent. I recommend reading him daily.

UPDATE:

While I'm praising John for his honesty, it's also worth pointing out Andrew Sullivan's mea culpa over at the Daily Dish, especially for this line of reasoning:

I recall very clearly one night before the war began. I made myself write down the reasons for and against the war and realized that if there were question marks on both sides, the deciding factor for me in the end was that I could never be ashamed of removing someone as evil as Saddam from power. I became enamored of my own morality and this single moral act. And he was a monster, as we discovered. But what I failed to grasp is that war is also a monster, and that unless one weighs all the possibly evil consequences of an abstractly moral act, one hasn't really engaged in anything much but self-righteousness. I saw war's unknowable consequences far too glibly.

Amen to that.

Click title for full article.

Pelosi urges world to condemn China over crackdown

Nancy Pelosi has called on the world community to condemn China for the way it has crushed protests in Tibet, saying that the issue was a challenge for the "conscience of the world".

Nancy Pelosi, who leads the Democratic party in Congress, was the first foreign politician to meet the Dalai Lama since the bloody unrest spread across the roof of the world. Her appearance alongside the Tibetan spiritual leader at his home in the north Indian town of Dharamshala was condemned by Beijing, which accused her of meddling in China's internal affairs.

Pelosi's visit and strong language are the most serious breach in a western consensus that China's economic and strategic strength renders impossible any protest beyond verbal expressions of unease.

She did not call for an Olympic boycott, which the Dalai Lama has also opposed, but appeared to open the door to one if China maintained its crackdown in Tibet. She said the "world is watching" events there, and called for an international investigation into the violence, and access to the region for journalists and international human rights monitors.
Pelosi said it was incumbent on "freedom-loving people throughout the world" to speak out against China's "oppression". If they did not, "we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world".

With China so keen to have it's Olympics go well, there really has never been a better time to put pressure on the regime regarding Tibet.

George Bush has made it very clear that he intends to attend the opening of the Olympics and that he will not reconsider this. However, John McCain is speaking forcefully about this:

Yesterday, John McCain drew attention to Bush's caution on the subject, saying that Tibet was "one of the first things I would talk about if I were president of the United States today".

"The people there are being subjected to mistreatment that is not acceptable with the conduct of a world power, which China is," McCain said.

McCain does well to speak in this way, and he's certainly being more pro-active than Prime Minster Brown has been. The UK are anxious to maintain good relations with the world's latest emerging super power and have been largely silent on the issue of Tibet. Both McCain and Pelosi are to be applauded for having the courage to speak out when so many of their political counter parts are maintaining a diplomatic silence.

I understand that there is almost no chance of a boycott of the Olympics, or even of the opening ceremony, however at a time when the world's spotlight is on China, and at a time when China is so keen to be perceived in a good light, Pelosi and McCain are doing well to put pressure on the regime, to remind the Chinese that we can all see what they are doing and that - as a banner unfurled in Rome recently stated - "We are all Tibetans now".

Nor is it only western governments which are being slow to condemn the Chinese crackdown in Tibet:

The Chinese versions of the US-based websites MSN and Yahoo! have published a list of names and photographs of 24 Tibetans accused by the Chinese authorities of involvement in protests in Lhasa. The grainy pictures are apparently taken from video footage shot during the unrest. "It beggars belief that Yahoo! is acting as China's right-hand man in its brutal crackdown on Tibetan protesters," said Matt Whitticase, from the Free Tibet Campaign. "Yahoo! knows very well that these protesters will have no access to legal representation and that either execution or long prison sentences and torture awaits any protester arrested in Lhasa."

Pelosi and McCain may only have warm words to offer the Tibetans comfort, but that is a vast improvement on the silent complicity being offered by western governments.

Click title for full article.

Obama struggles to limit damage in pastor row as white voters slip away

The Guardian are leading today with a story which implies that the endless replaying of those speeches by Reverend Wright are having a terrible effect on the candidacy of Barack Obama.

"That minister, that was terrible, all his sayings. He's preaching hatred," Vento said. "The thing I didn't like about Obama; you're telling me for 20 years you been going to that church and you never heard that?"

Vento, 68, was speaking about Obama's former pastor and spiritual adviser, Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons have been aired repeatedly on US television denouncing the US as racist.

The clips have alienated the white voters, such as Vento, that Obama needs in his next contest with Hillary Clinton, to be held in Philadephia and the other towns and cities of Pennsylvania on April 22. But it goes further than that. The danger for Obama is not just that he could lose badly in Pennsylvania but that senior Democrats will wonder whether the loss of white votes could cost him the November general election.

Perhaps it's a slow news day and the Guardian are simply making too much out of this, but it is undeniable that this represents the darkest period in Obama's bid for the White House.

The latest poll in Pennsylvania by Public Policy Polling puts Clinton on 56% and Obama on 30%. The same polling organisation showed her having overtaken Obama in North Carolina, which is also still to hold its primary: she has 43% to his 42%.

Phil Singer, spokesman for Clinton, told reporters: "It's no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water."

It's worth bearing in mind that Obama was never, ever, going to win Pennsylvania, but the danger at this moment in time is that a result that most of us could have predicted starts to look as if it is happening because of Wright's comments.

That is certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters would like to foster.

The Guardian report implies that there might be enough discontent amongst super delegates that they would seriously consider giving their votes to Hillary, which is where I start to think that this must be a slow news day story, as it is to me unthinkable that the super delegates would ever behave in such an undemocratic fashion.

What is undoubtable is that Obama is being severely tested here and that these are the darkest days of this campaign.

In Chickie's and Pete's restaurant and sports bar in Philadelphia, John Fernandez, a chiropractor, said Obama must have known what Wright was preaching. "How can you be that tight and not know or share some of those opinions? I was leaning toward him a little bit, but that took it over the edge," Fernandez said, hollering to be heard over the din of the bar and televised basketball game. "You got to go to another church, or you share those opinions."

He described Obama's Tuesday speech as "great damage control" and "a beautiful rebuttal", but he was not won over. Fernandez said he wondered whether Obama shared the opinions Wright expressed.

No-one who has listened to Obama's speeches could ever believe that he shares the views of Reverend Wright, which is what makes the sudden media obsession with them so unfair.

American elections always appear to be fought on everything but the issues, and candidates are always eventually defined on ridiculous points such as whether or not they are "flip floppers" or whether or not Al Gore claimed that he invented "the internets".

We now find ourselves at one of those points, where people appear to be seriously considering whether or not Barack Obama is a racist who carries an abiding hatred of whites. Anyone who has been paying more than a milliseconds attention to this election will know that this is simply nonsense on it's face, but sadly that is what we are being told is disturbing certain voters in the US.

I feel sure that such stories are par for the course in an election that is dragging on because Hillary is not yet prepared to accept the numerical certainty of her loss. Indeed, she is dragging this on in the hope that scandals such as this one will deliver her the victory that the votes have so far been denying her.

American elections often turn on such nonsense. I really hope that this one doesn't. If the voters reject Obama as a dreamer/optimist who is unready for high office, that would be one thing, and one would have to accept that.

But to portray the man as a secret racist who hates whites would be simply too unfair for words. And yet that is what Hillary and her supporters are secretly hoping for.

One can only hope that Americans aren't stupid enough to fall for such an obvious caricature.

Click title for full article.