Now What?

Hamas has won a landslide victory in the Palestinian elections. We've been told that democracy works everywhere, for everybody - and our president accused critics of the Iraq war of believing that some people "didn't deserve democracy." But now free and fair elections have brought a "terrorist organization" to power - a party at least rhetorically committed to the destruction of Israel. How, exactly, are we (the US and/or Israel) to deal with this?

I Spy

The Bush administration is in the middle of an aggressive push to defend the NSA-WWW (wiretaps without warrants) program. The President is giving speeches all over the country claiming his right, under the Constitution and the Iraq war resolution, to go around the FISA court.

Here's hoping that this charm offensive in the interests of the worst violation of the First and Fourth amendments since Dick Nixon crawled across the earth is as successful as the one W. launched to "reform" Social Security. Turd Blossom is making a rare political miscalculation - he doesn't understand that 51% of Americans like (i.e., prefer to wimpy Democratic alternatives) W. when he's acting tough, not talking tough. Every time W. narrows his little eyes, gives his inappropriate phony chuckle, and struggles manfully to mouth his speechwriters' platitudes about protecting the American people, his numbers drop.

Ciao

Italy is pulling off the classic cover for a failed military venture: it's declared victory and going home. See the article at the link above about their withdrawal from Iraq. The best part is Scott McClellan's explanation: Italy is "doing this all in close consultation with coalition members, and Italy had previously committed to drawing down troops. Some of this is reflective of the progress we are making on the ground."

All part of the plan, folks -- pay no attention to that iceberg, we meant to hit it.

www.nosuchagency.gov

Both the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights have filed lawsuits against the NSA's Wiretaps Without Warrants (WWW). See the link to the article at Salon.com above.

And to put this in context, here's the words of President Bush, 20 April 2004, in Buffalo, NY; it's on the official White House site at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

A thought

It has come time for our monthly discussion question and I an idea has struck me: why don't we talk about the issue of body armor in Iraq. Was it that long ago that we were discussing this very point, only to come to the conclusion that the troops fighting for "Iraqi freedom" were inadequately equipped to do so? That's right, it was during that pesky interruption in the "March to Victory" (hereafter trademarked by yours truly) called the 2004 Presidential Election. Well, I suppose Sen. Kerry may not have been a patriot for voting against that 87 billion appropriation (part of which was going to go to body armor upgrades), but, if we are still talking about this issue almost a year and a half later, what does that make the Republicans in Congress and the W.? Hypocrites doesn't quite cut it...

I suggest checking out the following links:

http://www.pointblankarmor.com/military_accessories.asp

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101061,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060107/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_body_armor

The first link is to a website that sells the body armor in question (specifically armor plates designed to protect the side and shoulder area), the second is to a Foxnews article that talks about the lack of armor only months after the invasion of Iraq, and the third is to a story that ran on the AP only a few days highlighting the pesky problem of body armor in Iraq.

Lynndie England in Bigger Hats

I hope the Bush administration is paying attention to last week's ruling by the 11th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. That court reinstated a massive verdict against two Salvadoran generals for torturing civilians (including church workers) during the "dirty wars" of the 1980s. Their attorney says that "in the war against communism, they did what the United States government wanted them to do and paid them to do" (see the link above). There's that pesky Nuremberg Defense again.