I don't know where else to put this, but remember a while back we were suprised that Bush caved in to McCain and agreed with banning torture? It seems we were optimistic too soon.
Quote:So Much for the President's Assent to the McCain Amendment
Marty Lederman
The President signed the Defense Appropriations bill on Friday. In his signing statement he did at least two notable things.
First, with respect to several provisions of the bill, the President signaled his intention to reserve his authority, as Commander in Chief, to ignore statutory mandates. These include provisions that require advance notice of congressional committees before the use of funds to initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a new start program; and a "report and wait" provision that requires the President to wait 15 days after notifying six congressional committees before using certain appropriations to transfer defense articles or services to another nation or an international organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations.
Most importantly, as to the McCain Amendment, which would categorically prohibit cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees by all U.S. personnel, anywhere in the world, the President wrote:
The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.
Translation: I reserve the constitutional right to waterboard when it will "assist" in protecting the American people from terrorist attacks. [UPDATE: Or, as Matthew Franck eagerly puts it over at the National Review, "the signing statement . . . conveys the good news that the president is not taking the McCain amendment lying down."]
You didn't think Cheney and Addington were going to go down quietly, did you? (And this even though they took their opponents to the cleaners by negotiating the Graham Amendments, which, by precluding substantial avenues of judicial review, are far more beneficial to their detention and interrogation policies than the McCain Amendment is detrimental.)
source
End this Evasion on Permanent Army Bases in Iraq
End this Evasion on Permanent Army Bases in Iraq
Gary Hart
01.04.2006
It has been the dream of Republican neoconservatives at least since 1998 - and probably years before - to overthrow Saddam Hussein and to use the new client state of Iraq as the US's military and political base from which to pacify the complex and troubled Middle East. Leaving aside the plausibility of this notion, it is not one with which the great American leaders of history would have identified and certainly not one they would have attempted to carry out in secret.
Having failed in this enterprise, as some of us predicted, the question is: what now? There is still the possibility that a central remnant of this secret scheme may yet be salvaged. Surprisingly, the trick has drawn little attention from the American audience. It is to help install at least the semblance of a "democratic" government in Baghdad, even one that in author Fareed Zakaria's perceptive term is an illiberal democracy; to construct permanent US military bases at strategic points throughout the country and then persuade the new "democratic" government to invite us to stay.
So, now that the debate has finally turned not on whether to stay or to go but on how soon and under what conditions we should leave, it would be a mistake of epic proportions to assume things are that simple. There is an old movie line my friend Frank Mankiewicz, the veteran political adviser, is fond of quoting: "These are desperate men and they will stop at nothing." This he said during the Watergate years and we all knew what he was talking about, but it also applies today. For those of us who warned against kicking a Middle East hornets' nest, to assume that now it is simply a question of timing would be to assume that the neo-con Houdinis who gave us Vietnam-in-the-desert are out of tricks.
Any attempt to find out whether the US is, or is not, constructing permanent military bases meets with frustration. The few who have attempted to get a direct answer to this question are met with evasion and purposeful confusion over what is or is not "permanent". But this is the ultimate test of true Bush administration intentions in Iraq. If we are, in fact, constructing permanent bases, "leaving" simply means a reduction of forces and the permanent stationing of US brigades in Iraq. If this "compromise" solution appeals to you, you might wish to refresh your memory about the disastrous French experience in Indochina or even certain phases of the British occupation of Iraq.
Under circumstances where Congress was performing its constitutional oversight responsibilities, and where the press was less intimidated by power, it would be a straightforward exercise to determine whether a final neoconservative trick is afoot. Congressional committees would have senior civilian and uniformed Pentagon and State department officials answer direct questions about US plans. "Mr or Madame secretary, are we, or are we not, constructing permanent military bases in Iraq and, if so, for what purpose?"
But this Congress has made clear it is a purely partisan institution, not a separate branch of government, and that it has no intention of fulfilling its duties to oversee the executive branch and inform the American people. Obviously, reporters could do the same with the White House press secretary (with no serious hope of an honest answer) or, even better, the president.
And to forgo predictable semantic sleights of hand, let us define "permanent" as: fixed, solid, durable and lasting. In practical terms, that means pouring concrete and welding steel, not tents and ditch latrines.
It is a shame for any American to distrust the veracity of his or her leaders. But the current crop has given us more than enough reason to do so. So when the president says: "When they [Iraqis] stand up, we will stand down," it cries out for an explicit definition of what "stand down" means in practice. Otherwise, "stand down" will quickly join "stay the course" and "support the troops" as rhetorical substitutes for policy and the equivalent of the scarves magicians use to obscure the concealment of an ace up the sleeve.
The art of deception does not require outright lies. It may simply lie in refusing to reveal the truth, the art of the trick. Given all the purposeful obfuscation, deception and card-shuffling that went on during the run up to the Iraq war, and the shuck-and-jive since things turned ugly, does anyone seriously believe the neoconservative magicians are out of tricks?
---------------------------------------
The writer, a former US senator, was twice a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. His new book, The Shield and The Cloak: The Security of the Commons, is out this month (Oxford University Press)
Originally Published in the Financial Times
Re: End this Evasion on Permanent Army Bases in Iraq
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:End this Evasion on Permanent Army Bases in Iraq
Gary Hart
01.04.2006
...
The writer, a former US senator, was twice a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. His new book, The Shield and The Cloak: The Security of the Commons, is out this month (Oxford University Press)
...
Mythology!
Those rooting for the USA to lose in Iraq, cannot comprehend the fact that the new Iraq Military needs military camps throughout Iraq for their own growing military.
revel wrote:Terrible day in Iraq
...
shattering hopes that last month’s election and the new year would herald a more peaceful era.
You of course understand that what happens on January 4, 2006 does not herald a less peaceful era in all of the next 360 days of 2006 or after.
While the opinion-news media is rooting for a less peaceful era and USA failure in Iraq, the administration is working for a more peaceful era and USA success in Iraq, because they, like most Americans, know failure in Iraq is an unacceptable threat to American liberty.
icant wrote:
You of course understand that what happens on January 4, 2006 does not herald a less peaceful era in all of the next 360 days of 2006 or after.
It's easy for you to say sitting at home in front of your computer. I disagree with your notions 100 percent.
cicerone imposter wrote:icant wrote:
You of course understand that what happens on January 4, 2006 does not herald a less peaceful era in all of the next 360 days of 2006 or after.
It's easy for you to say sitting at home in front of your computer. I disagree with your notions 100 percent.
That's easier for
you to say sitting at home in front of
your computer. I disagree with
your notions 100 percent.
Folks like you who regularly give evidence of rooting passionately -- if not compulsively -- for the USA to lose in Iraq, are hardly credible sources of opinion about much of anything.
By the way, I also say it at altitude!
icant, It's because people like you never understood the history of Iraq and the divisions that existed before March of 2003. What this war accomplished was to exacerbate this division - now politically. If you think a central government in Baghdad is going to cement these divisions, you know less about what most experts expect in the future for this divisive country. A religious control of the government has many implications that you seem devoid of knowledge - including the influence from Iran.
It's funny that you can't tell the difference between 'rooting to lose' and 'fearing a loss.'
You didn't see this doom and gloom nearly as much before Bushco. f*cked things up so bad in the first few months of the war.
Cycloptichorn
I think it is ridiculous to equate providing links to news worthy events which happen in Iraq to wanting the US to lose. That was an awful lot of people to get killed in one day. If the past two years is any indication, the rest of the 360 days of 2006 or after will not be much better.
Maybe we should listen to the Shiites, they want more control in going after the insurgents but claim their hands are tied. (Some solvency.) They are the ones taking most of the hits, they should be able to defend themselves.
I see the loss of our men and women to a stupid war not worth the sacrifice. You take the position that this admnistration knows what they are doing no matter how incompetent they are in handling everything from starting this war till now - and the future. You've been deprived of oxygen for too long.
C.I., is it possible, say for like 10 posts in a row, you could attempt to avoid making some personal comment? Just to see if you can?
The comment "I see the loss of our men and women to a stupid war not worth the sacrifice. You take the position that this admnistration knows what they are doing no matter how incompetent they are in handling everything from starting this war till now - and the future." is a good one, but then you always add some needless thing that counteracts any comment you have made.
Just wondering.
News from Iraq today, worse than ever.
We're winning, we're winning ...
Anon
McG, What you don't seem to understand the crap this administration keeps feeding the likes of you and icant. They continue to talk about progress and success while our men and women - not to mention the thousands of innocent Iraqis - get killed for a causeless war.
Even with all the media reports on this war and the sacrifices made by our military and the billions its costing our treasury, it's ludicrous for this administration to keep telling the American People we are making progress. Especially since the members of this administration are chicken-hawks that failed to serve when should have, but are willing to send our men and women in harms way.
The killing of innocent Iraqi's will not cease with the departure of coalition forces. Odds are it will increase.
I mourn the deaths of our service people. I truly do. But, the progress is real and substantial.
Schools, hospitals, infrastructure and governmental operations are proceeding despite the hostilities.
You seem to put an inordinate amount of weight on the prior service records of the administration. You certainly aren't the only one either. I don't see that as being a requirement though. Would it make one bit of difference? I don't think so. People would just think Bush and his administration are war-hawks instead...
That's right; the killing of innocents in Iraq will not stop, because it's been going on for centuries. What this administration accomplished was the increase in the killings in Iraq, and the recruitment of more terrorists to their cause all over the world.
Well, I disagree with C.I. The long road will prove one of us right and the other wrong. I hope it's me they prove right.
The first presidential campaign that I paid any attention to as a kid was Eisenhowers. This great war hero who administrated the most massive war the world has ever seen and brought his side to victory was greatly excordiated by his opponents. They said such a military genius would almost certainly be a warmonger who would get us into another war right away.
Partisanship will always find something to imagine to be inadequate or disastrous.
