Stay Strong Obama

Today, a small bomb went off outside Upper East Side Starbucks. Last week, there were four arrested for trying to blow up a synagogue in the Bronx.

What is too easy to forget, from over here, is that these things can instill genuine fear in the people who are nearby - a sense of "Oh God that could've been me".

It appears that the politics of fear are returning to the US and the arch deacon of all fear mongers - Cheney - is openly out of the shadows and pitching his case.

Incredibly many Americans apparently find Cheney convincing. Obama responds, not very subtly giving his speech in the hall of the national archives with the "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" clearly behind him.

But sadly, it seems the substance of his policy in this regard is now only faintly different from the previous administration. Apart from reinstating military tribunals, keeping detainees 'indefinitely' he is even allegedly "reserving to himself the right to use "enhanced interrogation techniques". Well so Cheney said in his speech, a claim now being repeated as fact on last weekend's meet the press, and not clearly denied by Obama's senior adviser, Axelrod.

I don't want to play into Cheney's hands by repeating his slander, but certainly it is sad to see the once strong policy watered down so much.I think the forces behind this are very powerful, and unfortunately just as able to exert a strong influence in a democratic congress as a repubican one. These are very likely forces that within the Republican party are aligned with those that don't want to see themselves purged for war crimes and the past revisited. In 1953 Krucschev levered himself into power and others out in the post-stalin vacuum by using accusations of illegality and torture during Stalin's purges. That Kruschev himself was not totally distant from this was not relevant, it was a political tool. Similarly the 'Cheney' wing of the Republican party is very likely to fear such tactics from the Powell/McCain wing.

--

So?

Well I usually hesitate to forward things like this but Avaaz.org have had some interesting successes in the past, this looks worth supporting:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stay_strong_obama/

Maybe Hilary did not mis-speak - hey look over here

if you listen to Hilary Clinton's exact words, in this recent kerfuffle, she says..

"between my opponent.. and some in the media there has been this.. urgency to end this, and [y'know] historically that makes no sense... again I've been around long enough.

My husband did not wrap up [his nomination] till June.. we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.."

Maybe. Just maybe, she's actually saying "I've been around long enough to realise that there is a real risk of assasination to someone like Obama, in our current climate." (which if you step out of 'the spin zone' and consider the reality on the ground is totally a true fact right now) maybe she is saying that she is providing cover so that Obama is in less danger for as long as possible.

Was that her point, maybe? And if by some strange paranoid fantasy it were her point, is there another fantasy world where maybe it makes some kinda of crazy sense for her to do that for him?

Well, i doubt it, but if not here where else can i voice my paranoid conspiracies.

--

Oh - yeah - whilst we're on the subject.. if McCain gets elected (just, in a storm of voting irregularities) and then conveniently dies and somehow Condaleeza Rice gets back in for a third term of Bush don't say I didn't say so.. ;-)

Why is Bush demanding retro-active telecoms surveillance cover?

Some folks may not realise this but the Administration is currently demanding that Congress pass an unconstitutional law to try to get retroactive legal cover Telecoms violations under FISA law both after

and before 9/11.

According to Barbara Honnegger,

It is primarily President Bush Bush, not the IT companies, who is pushing for retroactive immunity.

The carriers have told Congressional Democrats that they believe they're already protected under existing law. Their attorneys have read the Constitution and are fully aware that any such law would be overturned by the strict constructionist Supreme Court.

--

Remember what happened to the Stalinists when Kruschev came to power (mock trials over Siberian gulags etc). Way I see it either Bush is literally protecting his own ass or he's demanding unconstitutional laws get passed just for the fun of it. Trying to set a precedent for future action maybe?

On the subject of Nuking versus Getting Nuked

I know there are hundreds, if not, literally, hundreds of millions of folks in the States and worldwide that are literally terrified as what might happen if our/their mad dictator finally does go off the deep end and actually 'use nuclear weapons' in the Iran/Middle East 'arena' if you will.

But how do you suppose the actual everyday Iranians feel about it? How the hell would you feel?

Oh, yeah, we might all die together in a sudden and virtually instant conflagration.

Could be tonight. Maybe tomorrow.

And how about late at night, when you can't sleep?

All Set To Get Nuked

UPDATE: Still here. Thank the all.

So, appparently.. the story goes like this.

1. August 30 the USAF 'lost' 5 nuculear weapons whilst being transported from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB.
   
2. The story from the Barksdale end was that 5 weapons were 'found' but it was later reported from the Minot AFB end that 6 weapons were lost.
3. Apprently in 1991, by Presidential order (under Bush Sr.), nuclear weapons were removed from all aircraft. Bomber nuclear ground alerts, during which nuclear weapons are loaded onto bombers during test and training exercises, were also halted. So it does seem unusual that this should happen by accident or otherwise.
   
4. Furthermore the procedures around handling nuclear weapons are incredibly stringent and it was most unlikely that the weapons would've left their secure facility at Minot AFB without some fairly high level of authorization, even if it was somewhat 'irregular'.
   
5. The weapons were actually loaded into a combat ready position on the B-52's in question meaning that, for the first time since 1968, nuclear warheads in combat position were carried by an American bomber and numerous international treaty provisions were violated in the process.
6. On September 14 the "air combat command" will be having a 'stand down' over this. According to the Pentagon liason this is all a fairly standard response and NORAD etc will still be in place.
7. Some folks suggest that the whole thing is really a deliberate leak designed to scare Iran into realizing that the US is getting nukes ready for them and is serious about it threats to go to war.
   
8. Others suggest that no really serious punishments have been meted out to the people responsible, and that it was whistleblowers not deliberate leakers that were responsble for this story getting out. They also point out that on September 7, CIA Director and General Michael Hayden told assembled members of the Council of Foreign Relations:
   
   "Our analysts assess with high confidence that al-Qaida's central leadership is planning high-impact plots against the U. S. homeland."
   

Putting two and three together (to get nine) the obvious conclusion is that we're all due to get nuked September 13. Joy.

Actually I should say "you're" all due to get nuked. I'm in New Zealand and, right now, glad enough of it. Even if I don't believe these predictions - when it comes to nuclear weapons I do prefer to err on the side of caution.

the "democratic" peoples republic of Pakistan

Catching up with last weekends Meet The Press just now. Director of National Intelligence (whatever that is) Admiral McConnell was actually strangely convincing up to this point. Then he said the following, in response to Tim Russert's question about Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and I just about choked on my biscuit..

MR. RUSSERT: If his [Musharraf's] government fell, how detrimental would it be to the U.S.?

Admiral McCONNELL: It would have a severe impact. It would depend—if it fell, it depends on who would replace him. It’s a democratic nation, if they continue down this current path. So, if the process of turnover happens in a democratic way, it, it may not have severe impact.

Oh! Maybe I missed the relevant daily brief. Unfortunately I have to rely on wikipedia which says things like...

Musharraf became ... Chief Executive ... of Pakistan following a bloodless coup d'état on 12 October 1999. That day, the constitutional Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attempted to dismiss Musharraf and install Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director Khwaja Ziauddin in his place. Musharraf, who was out of the country, boarded a commercial airliner to return to Pakistan. ... In the coup, the Generals ousted Sharif's administration and took over the airport. The plane landed with allegedly only a few minutes of fuel to spare, and Musharraf assumed control of the government. ...

The existing President of Pakistan, Rafiq Tarar, remained in office until June 2001. Musharraf formally appointed himself President on June 20, 2001, just days before his scheduled visit to Agra for talks with India.

..

Shortly after Musharraf's takeover, several people filed court petitions challenging his assumption of power. However ... the Supreme Court of Pakistan now filled which judges of the General's pleasing and who had now taken oath not to take any decisions against the Military Junta.. In an attempt to legitimize his presidency and assure its continuance after the approaching restoration of democracy, he held a referendum on April 30, 2002 to extend his presidential term to five years after the October elections. .. the referendum was boycotted by the majority of Pakistani political groupings, which later complained that the elections were heavily rigged, and voter turnout was 30% or below by most estimates. A few weeks later, Musharraf went on TV and apologized to the nation for "irregularities" in the referendum.

General elections were held in October 2002 and a plurality of the seats in the Parliament was won by the PML-Q, a pro-Musharraf party. However, parties opposed to Musharraf effectively paralysed the National Assembly for over a year.

The deadlock ended in December 2003, when Musharraf made a deal with the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal party, a six-member coalition of Islamic parties, agreeing to leave the army by December 31, 2004. He subsequently refused to keep his promise.

.. etc etc.. in other words the usual dictator refuses to give up power story. Its outrageous that the director of the NIE could make such outrageous statements and not be challenged!