Antiwar.com Blog

Mark Gisleson at Norwegianity directed me to this James Wolcott post, What kind of a maniac puts eagles in a Christmas tree?, that I, devoted Wolcott reader though I am, somehow missed. Here are just three sentences of Wolcott on Matt Taibbi’s Time Person of the Year article to demonstrate why you should read this post:

The annual Whatzit of the Year allows the editorial brass to rise above the trendy transient and serve as clerks of posterity, judges of History. Without fail we get the same pre-announcement buildup to the big ho-hum moment. Items in the press about the deliberation process, the “lively editorial debate”–a euphemism that implies some hothead wiping the mustard from his mouth, tossing the crumpled napkin on the conference table, and flouncing out at the very idea of enshrining so-and-so on the cover.

Matt Taibbi:

The “Person of the Year” issue has always been a symphonic tribute to the heroic possibilities of pompous sycophancy, but the pomposity of this year’s issue bests by a factor of at least two or three the pomposity of any previous issue. From the Rushmorean cover portrait of Bush (which over the headline “An American Revolutionary” was such a brazen and transparent effort to recall George Washington that it was embarrassing) to the “Why We Fight” black-and-white portraiture of the aggrieved president sitting somberly at the bedside of the war-wounded, this issue is positively hysterical in its iconolatry. One even senses that this avalanche of overwrought power worship is inspired by the very fact of George Bush’s being such an obviously unworthy receptacle for such attentions. From beginning to end, the magazine behaves like a man who knocks himself out making an extravagant six-course candlelit dinner for a blow-up doll, in an effort to convince himself he’s really in love.

Definitely Metaphor of the Year.

(see 10 for introduction)

John Nichols didn’t make it, the streak ends at 109 Capital Times columns, it just wouldn’t be December 30th without him using the word “Israel” for the first time. Last year it was refusenik pilots, this year it’s Richard Ben Cramer.

In a new wrinkle, however, he defends himself. “Throughout the year, I kept buying copies of Cramer’s book and handing it to friends and colleagues, who in turn recommended it to book groups, discussion circles and friends and colleagues of their own.” Why, this rippling effect could turn into a veritable, well, never mind.

But if the book’s “that important,” if it’s “that important” that the U.S. has “‘never done squat'” to get Israel out of the occupied territories, why can’t John say so in the Capital Times, “Your Local Progressive Newspaper?”

And he never says why it’s “that important” that the U.S. has “‘never done squat.'” Israel with a soul is better than Israel without a soul and it would be great to see the injustice done to the Palestinians rectified and the truth of their suffering acknowledged, but the point of this countdown has been to draw attention to a disconnect—many of the same “progressives” who are outraged over how Bush exploits the public’s fear of terrorism are not willing to talk about a fundamental cause of hatred of the U.S.

I don’t know what’s in Cramer’s book, but a quick web search determines that he is more than willing to talk about this fundamental cause. It also brings forth a final convolution—Cramer plays the key role in an article which cuts to ribbons the same 9/11 Commission Report which I have used as both point of departure and cornerstone.

Philip Weiss sees the glass empty in 9/11 Report Misses One Crucial Point: Mideastern Policy, but I don’t. The reports states thats the “U.S. government must define what the message is, what it stands for. We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors…we can offer [Muslim] parents a vision that might give their children a better future.” Later it says our Israel/Palestine and Iraq policies must be “integrated with our message of opportunity.”

Let’s think positively, the decidely mainstream 9/11 Commission has done activists a tremendous service, advocating for a U.S. foreign policy steeped in morality, decency and justice. Now if only we could get “progressives” to give “a foreign policy steeped in morality, decency and justice” a prominent place on their list of “progressive values.”

It seems the looming confirmation hearings of Alberto “Torture is OK” Gonzales may be causing some behind the scenes turmoil, as evidenced by this article by NY Times international editor Andrew Rosenthal today, coupled with a New and Improved CYA Torture Memo from the US Justice Department. (Here’s the memo in PDF.) The torture memo, according to Jess Bravin in the Wall Street Journal (locked behind subscription, but Phil Carter quotes it here), “concludes that even under its wider definition of torture, none of the interrogation methods previously approved by the Justice Department would be illegal.” In case you were worried that anyone in the Bush administration broke the law or anything.

Rosenthal mentions the JAG controversy of last spring (I wrote about it here, and if you need to refresh your memory of the role of the delightful Mary Walker, see Billmon’s post from last spring, Praise the Lord and Pass the Thumbscrews) which makes me wonder if that controversy is still percolating behind the scenes and if they’re the ones refusing to go along with the…um, government self-exoneration. Rosenthal writes,

This month, several former high-ranking military lawyers came out publicly against the nomination of the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, to be attorney general. They noted that it was Mr. Gonzales who had supervised the legal assault on the Geneva Conventions.

Jeh Johnson, a New York lawyer who was general counsel for the secretary of the Air Force under President Clinton, calls this shift “a revolution.”

“One view of the law and government,” Mr. Johnson said, “is that good things can actually come out of the legal system and that there is broad benefit in the rule of law. The other is a more cynical approach that says that lawyers are simply an instrument of policy – get me a legal opinion that permits me to do X. Sometimes a lawyer has to say, ‘You just can’t do this.’ ”

Normally, the civilian policy makers would have asked the military lawyers to draft the rules for a military prison in wartime. The lawyers for the service secretaries are supposed to focus on issues like contracts, environmental impact statements and base closings. They’re not supposed to meddle in rules of engagement or military justice.

But the civilian policy makers knew that the military lawyers would never sanction tossing the Geneva Conventions aside in the war against terrorists. Military lawyers, Mr. Johnson said, “tend to see things through the prism of how it will affect their people if one gets captured or prosecuted.”

Well, no one in the White House or Pentagon need worry about getting captured or prosecuted, so their more freewheeling approach to torturing prisoners is at least understandable from that perspective. No wonder Rosenthal says, “Now America has to count on the military to step up when the civilians get out of control.” So much for civilian control of the military those old Founding Father types thought was important. They clearly never imagined a Bush Administration or a War on Terrah.

The end of the (tax) year is just a week away.

Did you know that donations to Antiwar.com are tax-deductible? As a division of the 501(C)3 Randolph Bourne Institute, Americans may deduct the full amount of their yearly donations to Antiwar.com from their federal and (in most cases) state taxable income.

Donations are accepted via all methods:

• Credit Card (Visa, MC, AmEx, Discover)
• Check or Money Order
• PayPal
• Western Union or Wire Transfer
• Cash
• Monthly Automatic Deductions

There have been a lot of improvements at Antiwar.com recently, and many more in the works. Help us keep going.

(see 10 for introduction)
0 next

A real road map for Middle East peace by John Nichols, December 30, 2004

Daily Yomiuri columnist John Jerney reporting, I’m the only one who’s been paying close enough attention to bring this story to a close.

It turns out that John Nichols is a hero! All along, selflessly, away from the limelight, he’s been getting out the word and he intimates he’ll do the same in 2005.

Ufot has been thoroughly discredited, it’s not raining frogs, it’s raining Questions. He won’t fall into John’s trap again, there will be no countdown next year.

As for poor Jack Newfield, he feels betrayed, behind his back John’s been gushing over a self-hater. Their relationship may be over, but they’ll always have tikkune.

After reading my post yesterday quoting Lt. Col. Paul Hastings as saying, “The terrorists are growing more desperate in their attempts to derail the elections and they’re trying to put it all on the line and give it all they can,” the author of the blog Hairy Fish Nuts sent a link to Desperation Watch, his collection of “desperate” quotes. So, there’s another thing to start bothering me as I read articles about Iraq. The desperate theme is almost as irritating as “anti-Iraqi forces” used to describe the resistance.

But, another thing about the “desperate” post seemed relevant this morning.

The former regime elements have watched Tikrit . . . slip away from their grasp over a period of time to the point where they have minimal influence over the local situation. They are desperate.

December 29, 2004 – spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division Maj. Neal O’Brien

You’d think that if the resistance had “minimal influence” over Tikrit, the US would use it’s stretched-thin manpower elsewhere, wouldn’t you? Like in Mosul, maybe.