Quick, stop whatever you’re doing and start clicking here: This is the link to Paul Waldman’s brilliant American Prospect analysis of the Bush/McCain’t terrorism policies and their devastating effects. Most important, study the following graph:

The relative flat line at the origin represents those killed by terrorists worldwide prior to 9/11. The attack on 9/11 would be the little peak and drop in the center of the horizontal axis. That’s important: after 9/11, terrorism deaths dropped until 2003; then start edging up. The large spike on the right side of the graph represents the rise in people killed by terrorists outside of Iraq since our invasion. The broken line represents those killed by terrorists in Iraq since we went to war. Do you see the correlation? Do you notice the similarities in the post-2003 data?

I sure hope so!

Jabelson

New York — June 30 — In between bouts of rational thought, Ralph Peters just can’t help going on journalistic benders, leaving - as ususal, the truth far behind. In his most recent article, LIARS’ ROUND-UP: ON SECURITY, FACTS MATTER, Peters just spews with random abandon! Let’s begin:

“Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where’s the evidence?”

I’d direct Peters to today’s New York Times: Amid Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan. It details the regrouping of bin Laden and al Qaeda in nuke-rich Pakistan. Phew - don’t you feel safer!

According to Peters, because we’ve had no attack on our mainland since 9/11, we’re protected and any protestation is just serious BDS or worse, lying! Peters, of course, conveniently forgets that attacks on the WTC  were split between 1993 and 2001, an eight year gap, leaving us one to go before we can expect a new attack, but why quibble with details.

The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.

This is one of the right-wing’s favorite lies, dismissing off hand the Republican congress of the time, and its silence on terrorism during the Clinton years, while dropping all responsibility at the feet of Bill Clinton. The usual suspects include:

1993 - WTC attack - New York. Six dead and over 1000 wounded. Since the attack occurred a little over a month into Clinton’s first term, this must be the “true end” of the Reagan/Bush I years, but I can’t seem to find too many on the right making that charge. We do know that the nine months between Bush taking office and the attacks of 9/11 are actually Clinton’s responsibility - and that’s what matters. And if you read the infamous 1994 Contract With America, the Republican framework for their vision of America, written months after the first attack on the WTC, you’ll see it provides no response at all to Islamic terrorism. It mentions nation-building, as far as foreign and military policy goes, but stops there.

1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia. Nineteen dead servicemen. Disregarding the fact that attacks on military targets fall outside the realm of terrorism, the actual culprits have never been identified. At first we blamed Iran, but now it looks like the work of Al Qaeda. We’ll never be 100 percent sure, but, hey - we’re attacking Bill Clinton here, so anything goes!

1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings - Kenya/Tanzania. While this was a nasty simultaneous attack on American facilities, resulting in 212 dead, only 12 were Americans - the rest were Africans of various ethnicities (with thousands wounded). “In response to the bombings, U.S. President Bill Clinton ordered Operation Infinite Reach, a series of cruise missile strikes on targets in Sudan and Afghanistan on August 20, 1998.”(Wiki) So while it may’ve been ineffective, Peters lies when he claims Clinton did nothing. It was actually Republicans in Congress who not only did nothing, but dismissed the Clinton reprisals as ”wagging the dog” (an effort, they said, to push his brewing sex scandal off the map).  In fact, and considering, that bin Laden is still free, after hundreds of thousands of American boots have traversed the region, one would suggest that the Clinton strategy was just as viable, and far less expensive, in terms of money and American blood.

2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen.  Seventeen sailors killed, 39 wounded. This attack occurred within the last two months of the Clinton administration. The actual culprits were identified weeks after Bush took the White House, but he failed to do anything about it. This prompted bin Laden to go after a bigger target, resulting in 9/11. But, of course, this is all Clinton’s fault.

“Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever.”

Peters can’t resist the lazy right-wing thinking that killing AQI members somehow makes America more safe. See above about AQP (al Qaeda in Pakistan). ‘Nuff said…

“Whopper No. 3: Success in Iraq is an illusion - the surge failed. Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe.” 

Of course, the NY Times ain’t the only ones to believe this. Majorities of Americans agree, according to poll after poll. Sure, violence is down, even with the most recent of horrific suicide bombing attacks, but did we invade to reduce violence in Iraq? To unite Sunni and Shia? To fight one Shia faction at the expense of another? To strengthen bonds between Iraq and Iran?  Does the Iraqi government, or its population share American interests? Do they now embrace Israel? Everyone but Peters knows the answers to these questions and their implications regarding our success.

If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens.

Really Ralph? A recent suicide bomber took out 60 people and wounded hundreds in Baghdad. Your racist fear-mongering aside, I don’t recall too many mass murders in the DC-Baltimore resulting in 60 dead and hundreds wounded. And just last week, another 15 were killed with 39 wounded at the hands of a bomber. This, of course, ignores the normal prevaliant street crime and racketeering, as well as those wounded or killed by American servicemen - terrorists, all, I’m sure.

Peters goes on:, Iran is not more influential in the region (bullshit), our relationship with Europe is just dandy (bullshit), Obama’s put together a team of foreign policy dinosaurs (the one truth in the whole article), who are actually worse than the Bush team strategically (back to bullshit), ending, finally, with this grand lie:

Whopper No. 7: Our troops are all coming home as psychos victimized by their participation in military atrocities.

Got a source on that one, Peters?

Didn’t think so…

Jabelson

New York - June 24 - When Charlie Black said that a new terror attack on American soil would offer an advantage to McCain, he implied that no terror attack must be an advantage to Obama - thus, logic dictates, he must want a new terror attack on American soil. How else can one interpret it?

Today Ralph Peters bemoans Obama’s desire to catch and try bin Laden - as opposed to a summary execution on the spot. Fine. But why attack Obama for a similar GOP talking point? For years President Bush has said that he wants American troops to capture the al Qaeda leader “to bring him to justice.” Also, last week, a McCain spokesman said, “Under President McCain, Osama bin Laden would either be killed in combat or brought to justice…” Last year, McCain said, “”We will bring him to justice. I will follow him to the gates of hell.”  Obama has echoed those sentiments by stating that capturing bin laden would be a priority in his administration, though killing him in battle might be the only option. If brought back for trial, however, bin Laden ”would qualify for the death penalty.” 

I totally respect Glenn Greenwald - his blog on salon.com is one of my first reads of the day, and if there’s a more articulate voice defending civil liberties, I’ve yet to read it. And while I agree that Obama’s embracement of the recent FISA bill passed by the House is a disappointment, missing from Greenwald’s brilliant analysis was - aside from the obvious, “he’s a politician” reasoning, a more nuanced explanation: since starting his campaign, the Democrats in general, and the left in particular, have basically left Obama out to dry.  From the attacks on Michelle Obama, to the vicious rumors floating around the internet, to the slandering of Obama’s ex-church, minister and fellow parishioners, to the smears by association, the left-wing has been MIA. And now, when you have one of the most liberal of the libs - Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco, supporting the FISA “compromise,” and the Senate already having passed their version of it, why should Obama stand tall - to appease the Glenn Greenwalds, i.e., the far left, already despised and disavowed by Senate and House leadership? Why should he open himself to more attacks from the right, who would be able to point to Pelosi and tar Obama as even more liberal? As even more naive? As even more unpatriotic? At the end of the day, the bill will pass the Senate and Bush will sign it, and the telecoms will enjoy immunity. Sad but true. So why should Obama put his head on a platter for the likes of Glenn Greenwald (and myself), when we’ll probably vote for him anyway? He shouldn’t…

New York — June 20 — With today’s capitulation by the House Democrats, giving to the Warpublicans “what amounts,” according to the NY Times, ”to legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in President Bush’s program of eavesdropping without warrants,”, I think it’s time to praise our female political leaders! Let’s begin:

Nancy Pelosi - Since her historic rise to first woman House Speaker, coinciding with the take back of Congress by the Democrats, how has Nancy Pelosi shown that women have what it takes to play with the big boys? By giving to the minority party and it’s incredibly unpopular president everything he’s asked for, and more! 

Pelosi started her amazing journey by declaring that impeachment was a non-starter. Without opening that can of worms, it’s fair to say that Pelosi, at best, jumped the gun and worse, blew it big time. It’s one thing to oppose impeachment for a sitting president when majorities of your party gave him the powers to go to war, it’s quite another to dismiss it out of hand when half your base wants the president’s head on a platter!   

And when you consider that Democrats regained the Congress over anger at the Iraq invasion, but realize that we have more troops in Iraq then before Pelosi got the job, and that she keeps handing the President every dollar he asks for to continue funding the invasion, only one conclusion comes to mind: Nancy Pelosi stinks!

Condi Rice  - As the first female Secretary of State, one would think that feminists would offer high praise to the administration that broke this historic glass ceiling, but considering how awful she’s been at the job, as witnessed by the horrific state of foreign affairs and our crappy foreign policy, one can only conclude that feminists are waiting for a do-over - sort of like a political revirgination, so popular with the ultra-religious and those ashamed of their sloppy indulgence…

Hillary Clinton  - As the most famous woman in the senate, and the first female to get a serious run at the White House, all one can do is hang their head in shame. Not only did she run a terrible campaign (for the first half, anyway), but she ran a nasty Rovian campaign, invoking racial boogymen, and turning on her base to appease the right-wing droolers who still call themselves Democrats. Not to mention those pesky issues: she voted for the war, she voted for the Patriot Act, she voted with Joe Lieberman on the Iranian Guard, she voted with the credit-card companies against consumers, she voted for the border fence, and she failed to vote against telecom immunity, taking a pass on an issue very near and dear to the left, which brings us back to today’s telecom “compromise” and the one over-riding conclusion: it’s not that women are crappy leaders - I just wrote that headline to get your attention. It’s that our politicians - of either party, don’t give a thimble of piss for the American people, particularly at the expense of their corporate donors.

Jabelson

New York — June 19 — Taking my late afternoon RCP run, I came across this doozy: Does Obama know what he’s talking about? by Scott Johnson. Again, another “expert” assures us Obama’s a terrorism lightweight - and Johnson goes farther, smearing Obama as either ignorant or a liar or both.

So who is Scott Johnson? He’s a banker and a lawyer out of Minnesota, and a fellow at the far-right Claremont Institute; IOW, a serious right-wing expert, worthy of consideration.

Johnson is positive that prosecuting terrorism through the criminal justice system (CJS) while adhering to Constitutional principals in not only futile, but dangerous. He claims Obama’s reliance on the constitution puts America at risk, but it’s Johnson who doesn’t know what he’s talking about - or he’s lying for political gain.

Obama refers to the successful prosecution of the 1993 WTC attackers in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision granting habeas relief to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, a decision that has the far-right in absolute hysterics: “We could have done the exact same thing,” said Obama, referring to the detainees, “but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.” Consistent with our laws! And this makes the right-wing puke.

So Johnson pukes, quoting conservative prosecutor and writer Andrew McCarthy, who attacked Obama as (per the play book), naive and ignorant, in a recent NRO, claiming our laws far too lenient; our constitutional safeguards dangerous weapons in the hands of (uncharged and untried) “terrorists”, because, “…Some who contributed to the [1993 WTC] attack, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, continued to operate freely because they were beyond the system’s capacity to apprehend. Abdul Rahman Yasin was released prematurely because there was not sufficient evidence to hold him — he fled to Iraq…”

Johnson and McCarthy - like the rest of the Gulag right, purposely confuse the issue. The men held in Gitmo may be terrorists or combatants or neither - who knows? According to the right wing, led by an ever-more Neo-conservative John McCain, the men held in Cuba are killers bent on murdering Americans, and if they get at our justice system, they’ll walk and kill again, the assumption being, I suppose, that the Americans ain’t got the goods to convict them or at least try them. According to the right, the “terrorists” can rot forever in that prison.

And, of course, there’s the absurd lie that Obama would only use the CJS to fight terrorism, as if our military, the NSA, the DNI and the CIA would suddenly be pulled off the case and sent out to fight the reds! Here’s a statement today from Richard Danzig, a former secretary of the Navy, speaking for Obama: “Barack Obama will redouble our efforts against al-Qaeda, target their leaders wherever we find them, increase our forces in Afghanistan and finish the fight there.”

Obama also said, “If I’m president, and we have the opportunity to capture [bin Laden], we may not be able to capture him alive,” hardly the words of a civil liberties purist. Obama once claimed: “If [during an Obama presidency] we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [hiding in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Johnson would have us believe that Obama would meekly serve a subpoena on those targets, but, according to John McCain, Obama meant military action. At the time, serious right-wing experts (worthy of consideration) called Obama misguided for that opinion as well.

Johnson lies further, purposely distorting Obama’s simple claim that even the butchers of Nazi Germany got a semblance of justice before meeting the noose, and in that spirit, the Supreme Court judged wisely to give uncharged prisoners, scooped up from around the world (not uniformed soldiers taken in battle) a shot at basic justice.

Ignoring the obvious, Johnson compares the Nuremberg trials to the Boumediene decision on a procedural basis, as if Obama were actually discussing procedure instead of a general theme of universal justice, and then claims: “either [Obama] does not know what he’s talking about, or that he feels free to take great liberties with the truth…”

And Johnson wrote that, I guess, with a straight face….

Jabelson

MATT TAIBBI:

I like Matt Taibbi. I first saw him on Bill Maher’s show, surprised at his blunt aggressiveness, even with Maher’s other guests. He’s young and he’s smart and he calls bullshit. Here’s his latest Rolling Stone piece: Full Metal McCain.

John McCain has jerked so far loony right (see below for George Will), I’ve a constant intestinal twinge betraying the anxiety of the real nasty politics a coming. I wouldn’t be surprised to find Karl Rove on McCain’s payroll. It wouldn’t shock me if McCain moved more strongly towards war with Iran and attacked Obama as a black guy with a Muslim middle name, a funny not-really American last name, and a first name that rhymes with…

Hopefully I’m wrong.

GEORGE WILL:

It’s refreshing to read a prominent conservative like George Will defending the Supreme Court’s decision last week affirming the right of uncharged and untried detainees to get hearing in a US courtroom - as opposed to rotting in a cage for as long as the government determines them to be “terrorists,” or “killers” or “enemy combatants,” charges made without a shred of proof.

More important, Will excoriates John McCain for calling the decision one of the “worse” in American history, while ignoring, of course, the many decisions allowing black Americans to be treated as property and second-class citizens. This is a guy who wants to be president, and the idea that he supports the power of the executive to scoop up people for arrest without charge or trial, even if those folks are “non-American,” should offer pause to all Americans - no matter their political bent. And for a man who voted against MLK day and the Civil Rights Act of 1990, his blind-spot on black Americans who’ve been screwed by the Supremes in the past is absolutely frightening.

Look for Will to be smeared by the Warpublicans who call themselves conservatives these days.

PS - Don’t miss this Glenn Greenwald piece exploding John Yoo’s disgraceful Op-Ed in today’s anti-justice Wall Street Journal. The Journal is proving to be a bastion of know-nothing thuggery and Warpublican fear mongering.

Jabelson

New York - June 16 — We all knew the truth: that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to establish permanent military bases in the heart of the Middle East. And the Warpublican cheerleaders (in the government, the media and the blogosphere) pissed all over anyone who dared to utter that truth, screaming traitor at every chance, when they weren’t screaming even worse.

For a blood-boiling rundown of Republican lies regarding this invasion and the thugs who carried their water (while smearing their critics), read Glenn Greenwald’s excellent article, “The rantings of hateful Leftists and Arab paranoids“ in today’s Salon - it’s a subscription website, but if you watch the splash screen, you’ll get access.

Jabelson

New York — June 12 – An unsigned editorial on the Wall Street Journal website declares that governmental secrecy and mass detentions without charge are acceptable, expressing outrage over the “right [of habeas corpus, extended in a recent Supreme Court decision] to non-American enemy combatants captured abroad trying to kill Americans in the war on terror.”

Whoever said these prisoners were enemy combatants or terrorists?

The White House and the US military. Supposedly, that’s just fine with the Wall Street Journal; after all, no administration, or the generals under their control, has ever lied to the American people, have they? If our government tells us the Gitmo prisoners are terrorists and killers, then who are we - the American people - to interfere? The WSJ can’t be bothered to ask. Why would the second largest newspaper in America start asking questions?

The Journal whines:

Justice Kennedy declines even to consider what those standards [for judging habeas petitions] should be, or how they would protect national security over classified information or the sources and methods that led to the detentions.”

In other words, these prisoners have no right to face their accusers, nor do they have a right to question the methods (such as torture, I suppose) under which their “terrorist” status was determined. To justify their disregard for basic liberties, the Journal worries that soldiers, (perhaps fearing judicial scrutiny), “will prematurely release combatants who will kill more Americans.” That innocent men may rot in jail is of no concern. That our government and military determine guilt without oversight, troubles not at all. So, the WSJ ignores civil liberties, apparently unconcerned. It’s not like the government would ever use war or safety as an excuse to go after journalists or try to censor or shut down the press!

The editorial rambles on, mangling Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution (The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended…) ignoring Article III, Section 2 (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution…) and basically somersaulting to protect the government’s right to imprison non-Americans without charge or without trial, and without the ability to defend themselves. The Journal also fails to explain why its own fears of constitutional protections and freed terrorists, would never be used by our government to justify the imprisonment of American citizens.

Not that the editors at the Wall Street Journal care about that…

Justice Took A Bruising at the WSJ Today!

Jabelson

New York - June 12 - A studied theologian and reverend, Cal Thomas, long respected for his well documented knowledge of Christianity, uttered forth that:

Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement.

Okay, I lied about Thomas’s experience studying religion or preaching the gospels - he’s just a long time hack whose been accused of racism, warmongering on Iraq, and the usual list of hypocrisies that define the religious right in America - in other words, he’s full of shit. Unfortunately, he’s also widely read, published in 600 newspapers and, according to his own web site, he’s the number one syndicated columnist in America; quite a feat in a left-wing institution like the press.

This is the kind of election the right-wing wants to run; a nasty mudsling that slurs a man’s very soul (if you believe that kind of stuff), an absolute manifestation of the speck and the log, and it smells to: McCain left his suffering wife by the wayside to marry his much younger mistress. How would that reconcile with Cal Thomas? And will he reproach the republican candidate for his unChristian infidelity and fornication?

I think this is dangerous ground for the right-wing to tread. America can’t stand the pile on, particularly the moral or underhanded type - think of Bill Clinton’s popularity rising as the Republicans tried to get him tossed for staining Monica’s dress. Think of Hillary’s ascension as Obama and the press were perceived as sexist: right to the end, she out-polled Obama against McCain, and while racism and Wright surely reared their ugly heads, the national tide seemed to shift away from her detractors and towards Mrs Clinton, transforming the one-time presidential sure shot into a victim, an everywoman, and, inexplicably for that particular candidate, a sympathetic character.

There are legitimate differences between McCain and Obama, and a civil debate about real issues could go a long way, no matter who wins, towards moving America past her ugly history of racism. But if the right resorts to it’s usual tricks, it can only coarsen the national conversation and widen the gap between those who want racial healing and those who seem to enjoy wallowing in the status quo.

The right has gone after Obama’s beliefs with particular zest, ignoring, of course, the beliefs of his opponents; thus Wright and Falwell both damned America, but only one had access to the White House until the day he died (hint, Falwell is dead), and only one was treated as a pariah.
And while Wright might’ve been an outspoken train wreck (politically), Falwell, whom many believed anything but a good man of religion, was respected and entertained at the highest levels of American government. I just wonder if Thomas vetted Falwell’s Christian bona fides.

Probably not, since he used to work for the guy…

Jabelson

See, Obama is Winning, but this is Good News for McCain!

New York - June 12 - The Wall Street Journal has a new poll showing Obama beating McCain by 6 points (47 to 41).  But wait - says the Journal, his lead should be even bigger (due to the disgust Americans express towards Republicans these days), but because it’s not, Obama may be in trouble.

The foreign-owned right-wing Journal, which has been banging a constant drumbeat of negative opinion pieces about Obama, almost always smearing him for his “associations,” is obviously troubled by its own findings; no cause for concern, but since the second largest newspaper in America; owned by one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, is known to bleat about the so-called MSM and it’s so-called love for Obama (and the left in general), we all know it would be shrieking if say, ABC, released a poll favorable to McCain, but then did somersaults to explain how that poll fails to tell the real story.

Don’t hold your breath for the freaks at Newsbunglers to jump on this one!