veiled4allah

say no to Gonzales as Attorney General

Signing on to the Daily Kos petition: Unprecedented times call for unprecedented actions. In this case, we, the undersigned bloggers, have decided to speak as one and collectively author a document of opposition. We oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States, and we urge every United States Senator to vote against him. As the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, Gonzales's advice led directly to the abandonment of longstanding federal laws, the Geneva Conventions, and the United States Constitution itself. Our country, in following Gonzales's legal opinions, has forsaken its commitment to human rights and the rule of law and shamed itself before the world with our conduct at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The United States, a nation founded on respect for law and human rights, should not have as its Attorney General the architect of the law's undoing. In January 2002, Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions inoperative. Gonzales's endorsement of the August 2002 Bybee/Yoo Memorandum approved a definition of torture so vague and evasive as to declare it nonexistent. Most shockingly, he has embraced the unacceptable view that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States. He has called the Geneva Conventions "quaint." Legal opinions at the highest level have grave consequences. What were the consequences of Gonzales's actions? The policies for which Gonzales provided a cover of legality - views which he expressly reasserted in his Senate confirmation hearings - inexorably led to abuses that have undermined military discipline and the moral authority our nation once carried. His actions led directly to documented violations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and widespread abusive conduct in locales around the world. Michael Posner of Human Rights First observed: "After the horrific images from Abu Ghraib became public last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the world should 'judge us by our actions [and] watch how a democracy deals with the wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes.'" We agree. It is because of this that we believe the only proper course of action is for the Senate to reject Alberto Gonzales's nomination for Attorney General. As Posner notes, "[t]he world is indeed watching." Will the Senate condone torture? Will the Senate condone the rejection of the rule of law? With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him. Signed, Al-Muhajabah

Bush Administration's stinginess shames America

Update: $350 million now pledged. Much better. Next time, let's not wait until we have to be shamed into it. More commentary. Facts and figures:

Cost of one F-22 Raptor tactical fighter jet -- $225 million Cost of the ongoing U.S. war in Iraq--$228 million/day Amount spent by Kerry and Bush campaigns -- $400 million U.S. aid to Yushenko camp in recent Ukrainian conflict -- $30+ million Estimated cost of Bush's Second Inauguration and Ball -- $ 40+ million Amount of U.S. tax cuts under Bush -- $1 trillion Cost of the U.S. Iraq War in 2004 -- $147 billion U.S. reconstruction aid budgeted for Iraq (though never spent!) -- $18 billion Amount the U.S. initially in aid to Indian Ocean tsunami victims -- $ 10 million Amount U.S. offered in tsunami aid after being chastised by UN official -- $35 million (source)

By then, Canada, with a population of about 11 percent that of the U.S. and a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) about 6 percent that of the U.S., pledged $33 million. Spain, with a population of about one-seventh that of the U.S. and a GDP about 6 percent that of the U.S., quickly pledged more than $68 million in relief, twice that initially committed by the U.S. Australia, with a population about 7 percent and a GDP about 4 percent of that of the United States, pledged $20 million. Japan, with a population about two-fifths and a GDP about half that of the U.S., pledged at least $40 million; the United Kingdom, with a population of one-fifth and a GDP of about 13 percent of that of the U.S. also pledged at least $40 million. France, with a population about one-fifth that of the U.S. and a GDP about one-tenth that of the U.S., quickly pledged $27 million. (source)

Commentary:

We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities. The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent. Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe. Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disburse a single dollar. (New York Times Editorial)

As the Bush administration is wont to say, actions speak louder than words, and America's actions in recent days have painted the United States as a rich, self-absorbed and uncaring nation that had to be shamed into anything approaching appropriate concern about this catastrophe. The Bush administration's handling of this crisis has been inept beyond belief. There's a broader context here that bears consideration. Two days before Christmas, the media reported that unprecedented U.S. deficits -- caused substantially by the Iraq war, which most of the world hates, and by Bush's tax cuts for wealthy Americans -- had led the Bush administration to cut substantially its previously agreed contributions to world food programs. By going back on its commitments, the Bush administration forced numerous aid agencies to suspend ongoing programs in many impoverished nations -- including, ironically as it would turn out, Indonesia. Then a day after Christmas came the undersea earthquake and resulting tsunami waves that very likely will end up taking well more than 100,000 lives while putting millions at risk of disease and destroying both their livelihoods and homes. From the very first hours it was apparent this was going to be an almost unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Yet Bush remained at his Texas ranch where, aides said, he spent time cutting brush and bicycle riding. He uttered not a single public word about what had happened in Asia. On Monday, the United States announced an initial $5 million in aid, mostly through the Red Cross, to which it said it most likely would add an additional $10 million at some point. Bush still was nowhere to be seen. The criticism began almost immediately, and it did not come only from a U.N. official. Comparisons were drawn, for example, to the additional $80 billion that Bush has requested for the war in Iraq and the $30 million to $40 million that his January inauguration will cost. The criticism had an effect. While responding angrily to accusations of stinginess, the administration on Tuesday added an additional $20 million to the $15 million it had announced on Monday. The appearance was clearly that Washington had been shamed into the larger contribution. Bush was still in Texas with his brush piles and mountain bike. But his absence had been noticed, and numerous reporters in Crawford were pressing Bush aides on why he was invisible in this crisis. Late Tuesday, in response to the questions, it was announced that he would have a public statement Wednesday. Again, the appearance was that he was shamed into it. Contrast Bush's behavior to that of the world on Sept. 11, 2001, when the United States lost 3,000 people to terrorist attacks. The expressions of grief, support and solidarity from world leaders -- including Asian leaders -- were both abundant and public. At every step of the way, however, the official U.S. response to this disaster has been seen as grudging. That's not good, especially at a time when much of the world reviles the United States for its unilateral actions in Iraq that have taken such a horrific toll on civilians. As Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Washington Post, "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care." By its niggling contributions and by Bush's silence, the United States has strongly suggested to the world that it doesn't care all that much. (Minneapolis Star-Tribune Editorial)

The president's missteps have been noted by the rest of the world, and by diplomatic observers at home. Leslie Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Bush had missed an opportunity to display humanitarian, moral and diplomatic leadership in the world. Reflecting on the administration's response, Derek Mitchell, an expert on Asian affairs at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, "I think politically they've done poorly." At a time when the U.S. image abroad has been battered by the president's unilateral decision to order the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration should have been sensitive to the need to respond quickly and effectively to a disaster of this magnitude. But that did not happen. Bush failed to engage at the critical point and then peddled the lie that the U.S. is in the forefront of providing humanitarian aid. Thirty other developed nations commit greater proportions of their gross domestic products to humanitarian projects than does the U.S. In fact, the entire U.S. commitment for humanitarian aid in 2004 -- $2.4 billion -- was about the same amount as the U.S. spends every ten days to maintain the occupation of Iraq. The contrast between the Bush administration's spare-no-expense approach to Iraq and its penny-pinching response to the crisis in southern Asia is devastating for America's image abroad. (John Nichols, The Nation)

As John F. Harris and Robin Wright of the Washington Post cannily note, US President George W. Bush has missed an important opportunity to reach out to the Muslims of Indonesia. The Bush administration at first pledged a paltry $15 million, a mysteriously chintzy response to what was obviously an enormous calamity. Bush himself remained on vacation, and now has reluctantly agreed to a meeting of the National Security Council by video conference. If Bush were a statesman, he would have flown to Jakarta and announced his solidarity with the Muslims of Indonesia (which has suffered at least 40,000 dead and rising). Indeed, the worst-hit area of Indonesia is Aceh, the center of a Muslim separatist movement, and a gesture to Aceh from the US at this moment might have meant a lot in US-Muslim public relations. Bin Laden and Zawahiri sniffed around Aceh in hopes of recruiting operatives there, being experts in fishing in troubled waters. Doesn't the US want to outflank al-Qaeda? As it is, the president of the United States is invisible and on vacation (unlike several European heads of state), and could think of nothing better to do than announce a paltry pledge. As Harris and Wright rightly say, the rest of the world treated the US much better than this after September 11. (Juan Cole, Informed Comment)

damn

Qadarullahi wa maa sha'a fa'ala God decided, and what He willed, He did. That's a Muslim saying for when things really aren't going well. Right now, it looks like Bush is going to win. American Muslims did our part for Kerry (93% for Kerry, according to CAIR's exit poll; it appears that a lot of the people who had favored Nader before picked Kerry in the voting booth since Bush was still at 1%) but it doesn't look like it was enough. Four more years of incompetence, four more years of unaccountability, four more years of lying and fearmongering. God help us.

Bush can't get out of single digits with Muslim voters

I posted recently about Arab-American voters. The majority of Arab-Americans are not Muslim but rather are Christian. That poll showed that Bush was making gains among Christian Arab-Americans, but not among Muslim Arab-Americans. A new survey of American Muslims (of all ethnic backgrounds; the majority of American Muslims are not Arab-American) backs this up:

American Muslim voters overwhelmingly support Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush, according to a new American Muslim Poll conducted by Zogby International for Georgetown University's Muslims in the American Public Square (Project MAPS). By a margin of 76% to 7%, Muslims back the Kerry/Edwards ticket over the incumbent Bush/Cheney ticket... ...When the question is expanded to include minor party candidates, Kerry's lead is cut to 68% versus Bush's 7%, with independent candidate Ralph Nader picking up 11%, similar to the 12% he garnered from Muslim voters in 2000. So pronounced is the movement away from Bush that he fails to capture even those Muslim voters calling themselves politically conservative, where Kerry leads him by a two-to-one margin. The new poll also shows a migration away from the Republican Party by Muslim voters. In 2001, 23% of Muslims identified themselves as Republicans while 40% called themselves Democrats and 28% independents. Now, only 12% call themselves Republicans while 50% of Muslims are Democrats and 31% are independents.

Meanwhile, another report indicates that the American Muslim Taskforce (the umbrella group for political activism) is planning to endorse soon. Given the polling reports, if the endorsement isn't for Kerry, there's something seriously wrong with the endorsement process.

sorry, I had to do it

Go to Google and type in the words miserable failure, then hit "I'm feeling lucky". No, that's not a link to Google, but this is. The other was just to help make sure this is a joke that keeps on giving ;) Note: Originally I had another Google trick posted here that pointed to the Kucinich for President website. However, it turns out that www.kucinich.us is not currently listed in Google or other search engines. Even if you do an obvious search like for "kucinich" it doesn't show up. Apparently somebody spammed the search engines with submission requests for www.kucinich.us, either innocently or knowing that spam tactics cause a site to be delisted. If Kucinich is a "fringe candidate" and a "no-hoper", why would it be worth the time and energy to sabotage his campaign? Anyway, remember, for president 2004, it's Kucinich. ;) Note 2: OK, the www.kucinich.us site is back in the Google listings. When I checked the other day, the top search result for president 2004 was Joe Lieberman :deathstare: It may be someone else by now, now that the other campaigns have realized this is something they ought to be gaming. But before anybody started deliberately playing with it, remember that for president 2004, it's Kucinich

Bush's 'spirit' cursed with black magic, tossed into river

The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

The spirit of US President George W Bush has been trapped in a clay pot and tossed into a river in northern Thailand after being cursed by hundreds of farmers protesting US agriculture policy. A photograph of the US leader was sealed inside a pot amid black magic mantra chants, then tossed into the Ping River on Friday by demonstrators after they rallied at the US consulate in Chiang Mai, a farm group leader said. "This is a traditional northern Thai ceremony aimed at keeping his spirit down on the riverbed so he could not come and exploit our natural resources or suppress our (farming) brothers with his superior influence," Weerasak Wan-ubol, an executive of the Northern Farmers Alliance, said today. The 300 protesters, claiming to represent 20,000 members from seven northern provinces, railed against imminent plans for a free-trade agreement between Thailand and the United States. The act was also a protest against Washington's military intervention in sovereign nations, the Bangkok Post reported. A respected elder performed the voodoo rites, inscribing ancient Khmer scripts on the pot, aimed at trapping the spirit of the US president.

a little armchair psychology

Frank of the I Protest blog has a very interesting entry analyzing The Bush psyche. As he says:

When I consider this scenario, it all makes a sick kind of sense. My hypothesis certainly answers any questions I might have for the reasons behind Bush's behavior and unfortunately isn't contradicted by any event of which I am aware. Honestly, I hope that I have guessed wrongly.

So do I.

is this why the threat level is orange?

Recently, terrorists have provided radical organizations with sensitive materials involving the strategic response of the National Guard to a variety of emergency situations, been accused of plotting to kill the governor of Washington State, attempted to bomb an environmental group's office, and plotted to suicide bomb an abortion clinic. :eek: :eek: :eek: ...oh, wait, the suspects aren't Muslims, they're white supremacist militia types. I guess it's not terrorism after all. Thank God. If Muslims had done all those things, we'd probably be at threat level red by now. (thanks to Orcinus for the links)