"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Monday, August 18, 2008

Because in Pakistan, their Constitution still matters
Posted by Jill | 5:59 AM
Unlike in the U.S., where Congressional Democrats and Republicans have decided that gross violations of the Constitution don't matter, and that presidents are allowed to set their own laws even if they violate said Constitution, in Pakistan things are different:

Under pressure over impending impeachment charges, President Pervez Musharraf announced he would resign Monday, ending nearly nine years as the head of one of the United States’ most important allies in the campaign against terrorism.

Speaking on television from his presidential office here at 1 p.m., Mr. Musharraf, dressed in a gray suit and tie, said that after consulting with his aides, “I have decided to resign today.” He said he was putting national interest above “personal bravado.”

“Whether I win or lose the impeachment, the nation will lose,” he said, adding that he was not prepared to put the office of the presidency through the impeachment process.

[snip]

Mr. Musharraf has been under strong pressure in the past few days, as the coalition said it had completed a charge sheet to take to Parliament for his impeachment. The charges were centered on “gross violations” of the Constitution, according to the minister of information, Sherry Rehman.

The rhetoric from the coalition mounted over the weekend, but the leading politicians wavered on an exact date for bringing the charges, thus leaving a window for Mr. Musharraf to leave.

In his speech, Mr. Musharraf tore into the coalition for what he called their failed economic policies. He said Pakistan’s critical economic situation — a declining currency, capital flight, soaring inflation — was their responsibility. In contrast, he said, his policies had brought prosperity out of near economic collapse when he took charge in 1999.

He then gave a laundry list of his achievements, ranging from expanded road networks to a national art gallery in the capital. Although Pakistan’s literacy rate hovers around 50 percent, and is much lower among women, he took credit for new schools.

The army, the most powerful institution in Pakistan, stayed publicly above the fray in the past 10 days. But in remaining studiously neutral and declining to come to Mr. Musharraf’s rescue, the new leader of the army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvaz Kayani, tipped the scales against the president, politicians said.


So in Pakistan, we have a general who took power in a bloodless coup, and yet that country's coalition government was prepared to impeach, while here in the U.S., that beacon of democracy for the world, our so-called opposition party leader announced right after an election which put her party in power, that impeachment was off the table, and that a president who has committed crimes that make Nixon look like George Washington, should have no accountability for his crimes.

The irony makes the mind reel.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Now WHY are we supposed to think Republicans are the ones to keep us safe from terrorists again?
Posted by Jill | 7:13 PM
Six and a half years ago, the Republican administration of George W. Bush received a number of intelligence reports that Al-Qaeda was preparing an attack in the U.S. And they did nothing.

Six and a half years later, the Republican administration of George W. Bush has received a report that Al-Qaeda is reconstituting and plotting in the tribal mountains of Pakistan. And they are doing nothing:

Picture this: A terrifying new report is delivered to the U.S. President. It states starkly that al-Qaeda is in the last stages of preparing to attack the United States. But the response is…nothing. The President takes no action, and the report goes basically unreported in the media.

We’ve heard this story before. But this is not the infamous August, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” This happened just over a week ago, when the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a scathing report about the mounting danger of a reconstituted al-Qaeda growing and plotting in the tribal sections of Pakistan. The President’s reaction now, as it was in 2001, was silence.

According to the report, “al-Qaeda’s central leadership, based in the border area of Pakistan, is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the United States…” In 2002, after the al-Qaeda-supported Taliban was forced from power in neighboring Afghanistan, al-Qaeda members and their Afghan extremist allies fled across the border into the mountains of northwest Pakistan, known as the “Federally Administered Tribal Areas” (FATA).

The FATA is desperately poor, undereducated and underdeveloped, with a per-capita income of less than seventy cents per day, half the Pakistani national average. It was in this region—where millions of Afghan refugees fled during the Afghan civil and anti-Soviet wars of the 1980s and 1990s—that the Taliban built the backbone of its army: recruiting, indoctrinating and training a generation of “holy warriors” in radical madrassas. The region’s literacy rate is 17%, leaving a massive educational void to be filled by extremist education. There are about 300 religious madrassas registered in the FATA and potentially hundreds more unregistered Islamic schools. Evidence indicates these schools foster public support for Islamist extremism and terrorism. The Taliban succeeded by taking young refugees who looked forward to no schooling, no jobs and no path in the world, and giving them a religious education, a position in an army and both a spiritual and social purpose.

al-Qaeda and the Taliban have built a new, safe home in the FATA from which they can train and prepare to launch more terrorist attacks across the world. This GAO report demonstrates clearly that they are succeeding in this endeavor, in part because the White House has failed to plan adequately, and act effectively, to defeat our primary enemy.

I suspect that U.S. domestic politics is the primary reason the White House has all but ignored this report, at least in public. Ironically, while the administration has failed to seriously confront this problem, the Republican Party has repeatedly won the presidency and lower elections by banking on its macho image and playing the tough guy, portraying their Democratic opponents as effeminate wimps. (Their campaign has already begun to use the same smear campaign on Barack Obama, pitting him against John McCain and his prisoner of war record.) This Republican machismo translates into a governance love affair with massive, explosive weapons systems like National Missile Defense. It means belittling most international policies designed to support development (economic, political and social) in the underdeveloped regions of the world where terrorism is most easily born. It means investing in large-scale military resources (useful to fight the Nazis or the Soviets) at the expense of “soft-power” tools proven more effective at defeating terrorist groups.

The vast majority of conservative, liberal and moderate national security experts—including General David Petraeus and other counterinsurgency gurus now gaining prominence in the U.S. military—recognize that we can only close these safe havens and defeat al-Qaeda through mostly non-military means. But as the GAO report states, that current U.S. policy directs literally 99% of all funding for Pakistan's FATA toward military and security efforts, and less than 1% for development. Defeating al-Qaeda will require something more than a 1% solution.

This macho image plays well into the President’s Iraq policy as he and his supporters brandish phrases such as, “Bring it on” to challenge insurgents, and label their Iraq policy critics as cowardly “surrender monkeys.” Again, while this is politically advantageous for their own constituencies at home, it has locked the President and his would-be-successor John McCain into a fixation on Iraq when the real threat to the U.S. is in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


The Pentagon is sending more aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf to gear up for an attack on Iran -- a country that, like Iraq, is perhaps a threat to Israel, but not to the United States, while ignoring the threat from Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party is preparing to paint Barack Obama as a pussy, unlike their military macho man, John McCain, who doesn't know the difference between Shi'ite and Sunni, and thinks that we can have a presence in Iraq in perpetuity the way we have one in Germany.

And the damnedest thing is that guys like Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer and the Faux Noise crew are going to once again convince the beer-chuggers of the heartland that it's the preening, macho, bellicose posturing of Republicans like John McCain that will keep them safe rather than actually having policies to deal with terrorism.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, December 28, 2007

This is precisely why Rudy Giuliani is the WRONG choice to succeed George W. Bush
Posted by Jill | 6:36 AM
Rudy Giuliani, has a new ad where he once again climbs on top of almost 3000 9/11 corpses, including firefighters who died because he wouldn't give them radios that worked, to toot his own horn and declare himself the terrorism expert because he happened to show up in front of a microphone on 9/11. But the reality is that Giuliani promises policies in the Middle East that are just like those of the Bush Administration, only perhaps even more steroidal and more bellicose. That six years of having the face we present to the world be that of an inarticulat, boorish buffoon who lied to his own people to get us into an unnecessary war and spent his country into near-bankruptcy has turned the U.S. into a paper tiger never occurs to him. But as Robert Parry points out, it is precisely the Bush Administration policies that Giuliani wants to continue -- and escalata -- that are the problem:

The chaos spreading across nuclear-armed Pakistan after the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is part of the price for the Bush administration’s duplicity about al-Qaeda’s priorities, including the old canard that the terrorist group regards Iraq as the “central front” in its global war against the West.

Through repetition of this claim – often accompanied by George W. Bush’s home-spun advice about the need to listen to what the enemy says – millions of Americans believe that Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders consider Iraq the key battlefield.

However, intelligence evidence, gathered from intercepted al-Qaeda communications, indicate that bin Laden’s high command views Iraq as a valuable diversion for U.S. military strength, not the “central front.”

[snip]

So, instead of seeking a quick ouster of U.S. forces from Iraq and using it as a base for launching a global jihad – as Bush and his supporters claim – al-Qaeda actually saw its strategic goals advanced by keeping the United States bogged down in Iraq.

To some U.S. analysts, the logic was obvious: “prolonging” the Iraq War bought al-Qaeda time to rebuild its infrastructure in Pakistan, where the Islamic fundamentalist extremists have long had sympathizers inside the Pakistani intelligence services dating back to the CIA’s war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Charlie Wilson’s Blowback

That CIA war, lionized in the new movie “Charlie Wilson’s War,” funneled billions of dollars in U.S. covert money and weapons through Pakistani intelligence to Afghan warlords and to Arab jihadists who had flocked to Afghanistan to drive out the Russian infidels. One of those young jihadists was a wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

[snip]

Though Bush eventually acknowledged that most of Iraqi resistance was homegrown, he still asserted that al-Qaeda planned to use Iraq as the launching pad for a global “caliphate” from Spain to Indonesia, another alarmist claim that scared some Americans into backing Bush’s war policies.

“This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia,” Bush said in a typical reference to this claim in a Sept. 5, 2006, speech. “We know this because al-Qaeda has told us.”

But many analysts saw Bush’s nightmarish scenario as preposterous, given the deep divisions within the Islamic world and the hostility that many Muslims feel toward al-Qaeda, including its recent much-heralded rejection by more moderate Iraqi Sunnis in Anbar province.

Also, according to a National Intelligence Estimate representing the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community in April 2006, “the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse.” [Emphasis added.]

The NIE also concluded that the Iraq War – rather than weakening the cause of Islamic terrorism – had become a “cause celebre” that was “cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”

The grinding Iraq War – now nearing its fifth year – also prevented the United States from arraying sufficient military and intelligence resources against the reorganized al-Qaeda infrastructure in Pakistan and the rebuilt Taliban army reasserting itself in Afghanistan.


The problem is that those who need most to read articles like this one; those who remember feeling reassured by Rudy 9iu11ani when the President of the United States was fleeing to Nebraska on Air Force One and Cheney was in his bunker planning the Iraq invasion and his apparatus of his fascist state, aren't going to. They're instead going to get their analysis from the mainstream press and from cable news, where even Keith Olbermann, who laudably came back from vacation last night to do a live show on the Bhutto assassination, allowed Dana Milbank to parrot the meme that this assassination helps the hawkish Hillary and the goonish Ghouliani without any kind of rebuttal, and without even mentioning that alone of all the candidates, it was John Edwards who had the history of meeting with Pervez Musharraf to be able to actually talk to him.

As Herman Kahn used to say, you can't uninvent nuclear weapons. And we can't go back and undo the horrific damage done by the Bush Administration in making the world a far more dangerous place. What we can do, however, as voters, is prevent the next president from pouring gasoline on the flames.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, December 27, 2007

Lightweight this, bitchez!
Posted by Jill | 8:00 PM
So John Edwards is put at a disadvantage as a result of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto today because he's "a lightweight" on foreign policy, eh?

Not so fast, Joe Scarborough:

Edwards spoke in Waukon this afternoon about having calls in to Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf. Then, at his second event in Decorah, he told Iowans that he got his call returned.

“He called me,” Edwards said, “because I told the ambassador I’d like to speak to him. I met him a few years ago, which I think I told you earlier, and we had a conversation in which I urged him to continue the democratization process. He told me, he gave me his assurances that he intended to do that, and we also spoke about having international independent investigators allowed into the country for transparency purposes, for credibility purposes, and we spoke briefly about the elections.”

Edwards is the only candidate to have said publicly that he received a call from Musharraf today. Edwards did not join in the fight between rivals Clinton and Obama over which candidate has the best foreign policy advisers, and asked what this conversation does for his own foreign policy credibility, Edwards referred back to the complexity of the issue.

“I think that the most important thing is to understand what’s actually happening within Pakistan, the complex nature of the problems there, and to be visionary about what America needs to be doing,” he told reporters.


While Rudy Giuliani is out there running yet more ads on which he climbs once again on top of the pile of 9/11 corpses and says that only he will kill enough Muslims to satisfy the bloodlust of the Republican base, and Hillary and Obama are playing "Mine's bigger" on foreign policy, old Johnny the Tortoise is on the phone with Musharraf. As Marc Ambinder says in the Atlantic: "That's one heck of a talking point."

The RadioIowa blog has an MP3 of Edwards talking about the situation in Pakistan.

Even the National Review Online is rendered speechless that the guy they thought was just a pretty face was the go-to guy on the Democratic side today.

More from Cliff Schecter at Brave New Films, at MyDD, and at Le Grand Orange,

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

RIP Benazir Bhutto
Posted by Melina | 12:31 PM

The Pakistani newspaper guys at Bulls Head were holding a printout of the BBC report about body parts and shredded clothes. They had tears in their eyes and not much to say. You couldn't call it unexpected.

Benazir Bhutto was shot in the neck and chest before the suicide bomb attached to the shooter exploded, taking him to his just rewards.
Simply Left Behind cuts to the quick with an inbox notice asking "why are we allied with a terrorist?;" echoed over blogtopia (tm skippy,) this news rolls over us; a capper on a pretty horrific year.

International affairs are messy, you know? messy enough for Herr Bush to interrupt his holiday at the ranch in Crawford to make a statement. That's all we need....why cant he just shut the fuck up? Considering that Bushco is expected to stay aligned with Musharraf....oh well....Any idea that we had put forth about our middle east policy being about democracy has fallen by the wayside. Elections will be suspended and the country will, no doubt, be held under martial law. Bush, thankfully, hasn't got that much to say at this point, which may be the smartest thing that has come out of the White House in a while.

Bhutto represented hope for the region, and some sort of idealistic leadership for the world. She was imperfect, and held up to scrutiny for what might have been her mistakes, but she was selfless and courageous in the face of her desire for a progressive Pakistan.

This calls into question the safety of all leaders who represent change in this world. How many more visionary leaders are there left in the world willing to put themselves on the line? Who else wants to face down an army or look sideways at the crowd waiting for someone to pull a gun? The ones who stand up and march towards danger in the interest of greater ideals for humanity deserve the protection of all of us. Why is it that we tend to end up supporting the bad side of these things? How much longer can we continue to label our aims in the Middle East as democratic or humanitarian in any way?

Regardless of the amount of aid that we have pumped into his administration, Musharraf did not set up the necessary democratic infrastructure for any idea that has been put forth to be successful in the region. No matter how much "support" we throw his way he is not going to use it in a way that will allow the country to go forward. This guy is a dictator and Pakistan is a force to be reckoned with; they do have a nuclear weapon and they do represent a threat to the world. I say that as someone who strongly believes that these issues must be policed by the United Nations. We have proved beyond a doubt that any one country acting on its own in world matters such as this cannot succeed.

Zbignew Brezinsky called in to his daughter Mika on MSNBC this morning, and simply, clearly stated that we can't possibly expect to meddle in the complex affairs of countries that are so far away physically and from the realm of understanding of an administration with such a narrow world view, and not have these sorts of things happen. The situation is so much more complex than we have treated it, and the days of throwing money and weapons at one side or another are long gone...long gone, with the radical ideals of an insecure country that offers little in the way of a life, and the promise of a better reward in heaven....almost like the rapture, huh?

Ann Curry, who recently interviewed Bhutto for MSNBC, said that Bhutto had wanted to restore power to politicians in regions of Pakistan that had been suppressed. She was anti-extremist and wanted to give rights to the people; she wanted to save Pakistan by saving democracy there. Bhutto publicly named extremist leaders who were working against the better interest of an inclusive and progressive Pakistan society. When asked why she would give up her comfortable life to jump back into the dangerous political fray, Bhutto said that it was just that she loved Pakistan and wanted to make it a better place. She looked into the eyes of the people and that was the answer for her. The joy and hope of the people who greeted her upon her return was enough proof for her that the struggle that she was driven to was the right thing to do; anything beyond that was unimportant.

RIP Benazir Bhutto. The world will sorely miss you .



c/p RIPCoco

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Nope...this has nothing to do with our friend Pervez Musharraf...
Posted by Jill | 8:34 AM
Just two days after we get the news that billions of dollars in aid the U.S. gave to Pervez Musharraf for combatting al-Qaeda was used instead to build weapons systems to use against India, we find out this morning that Musharraf's leading opponent, Benazir Bhutto, has been assassinated:

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide bombing that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, a party aide and a military official said.

An Associated Press reporter at the scene saw body parts and flesh scattered at the back gate of the Liaqat Bagh park in Rawalpindi where the rally was held. He counted about 20 bodies, including police, and could see many other wounded.

The road outside was stained with blood and people screamed for ambulances. Others gave water to the wounded lying in the street. The clothing of some of the victims was shredded and people put party flags over their bodies.

The bomb went off just minutes after Bhutto spoke to thousands of supporters and she appeared to be the target of the attack. Farahtullah Babar, the spokesman for her party, said her vehicle was about 50 yards away from blast which went off as she was leaving the rally venue.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Note these words...you may hear them here soon
Posted by Jill | 6:42 AM
"Extraconstitutional measures."

That's the wording Condoleeza Rice used yesterday when commenting on the situation in Pakistan:

"The U.S. has made clear it does not support extraconstitutional measures because those measures take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule," Rice said after attending an Iraq neighbors conference in Istanbul, Turkey. "Whatever happens we will be urging a quick return to civilian rule."


Martial law is now "extraconstitutional measures." I suspect the Administration is monitoring the situation in Pakistan very carefully -- not so much as it relates to the risk of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons, but as a test case of what they themselves might be able to get away with here.

(h/t: Richard Blair)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, November 05, 2007

Now we know why Republicans hate lawyers
Posted by Jill | 6:38 AM
For all that the headline "Pakistan police clash with lawyers" seems on its surface to be funny, it's notable -- and cautionary for Americans -- that lawyers are at the forefront of the protests against Pakistan Prime Minister Gen. Pervez Musharraf's crackdown on dissent in Pakistan:

the biggest gathering, about 2,000 lawyers congregated at the High Court in the eastern city of Lahore. As lawyers tried to exit onto a main road, hundreds of police stormed inside, swinging batons and firing tear gas. Lawyers, shouting "Go Musharraf Go!" responded by throwing stones and beating police with tree branches.

Police bundled about 250 lawyers into waiting vans, an Associated Press reporter saw. At least two were bleeding from the head.

Aftab Cheema, the city police chief, said lawyers started the trouble by throwing stones. However, Sarfraz Cheema, a senior lawyer at the rally, condemned it as police brutality that "shows how the government of a dictator wants to silence those who are against dictatorship."

"We don't accept the proclamation of emergency," he said.

Clashes also were reported in Karachi, where 100 lawyers were arrested, and in Rawalpindi, where at least 50 were detained. In Multan, dozens of lawyers chased a car bringing two newly appointed judges to the high court, chanting "Shame on you!" and "Traitor judges!"


The pesky thing about lawyers is that they know the law. When you have a dictator (or as in the case of the U.S., a would-be dictator) cracking down on dissent, it's the lawyers who are the biggest threat.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share