Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Comes this. (I am thankful this thanksgiving that at least McCain won't personally have his hands on the controls of the Mighty Bush War Machine. I also don't doubt that Rice probably mumbled her approval for the attacks or Slick Dick Cheney who also visited the area did)
Saakashvili denies ex-diplomat's claimsBy MATT SIEGEL Associated Press Writer
Nov 28th, 2008 | TBILISI, Georgia -- Claims that the United States gave Georgia the green light to forcibly retake separatist South Ossetia, sparking a five-day war with Russia, are "utter nonsense," President Mikhail Saakashvili said on Friday.
Saakashvili spoke before testifying to a parliamentary commission investigating the causes and conduct of the August war in which Russia routed the Georgian military and drove deep into Georgian territory. The war caused severe damage to Georgia's economy and aggravated already troubled relations between Moscow and Washington -- a staunch backer of Saakashvili.
Georgia's former ambassador to Russia said this week that Georgian officials perceived a July visit by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as encouragement for the use of force against South Ossetia. Erosi Kitsmarishvili also said people in Saakashvili's circle told him that Rice "gave the green light" -- something Rice herself has denied.
Asked specifically whether the U.S. had given such encouragement, Saakashvili denied it, and he dismissed Kitsmarishvili's claims.
"All I can say is it's an utter nonsense, and even if it had not been so, this gentleman was not in a position to know so," Saakashvili told reporters after meeting with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen
"This is because his position didn't allow him to be present at any of the meetings, at any of these contacts, at any of the official encounters," he said.
Kitsmarishvili -- a key player in the 2003 Rose Revolution, which swept Saakashvili to power -- also told journalists Wednesday that Georgian officials had told him President George W. Bush gave his blessing for the use of force when he met Saakashvili in Washington in March.
Washington has repeatedly denied that it had advance knowledge of the invasion or that it gave its approval.
Kitsmarishvili's statements added new intensity to a growing debate about what and who bears responsibility for starting the war.
Georgia launched a massive artillery barrage Aug. 7 on the South Ossetian capital, whose separatist government has been backed by Moscow and patrolled by Russian peacekeeping forces. Russian forces then poured into the region and went on to take control of substantial swaths of northern and western Georgia.
The war ended with Russian forces firmly in control of South Ossetia and another separatist region, Abkhazia. Moscow has recognized both regions as independent.
Georgian leaders have said they launched the Aug. 7 attack after separatists shelled Georgian villages and Russian forces invaded from the north.
Russia denies that, saying it sent troops to protect civilians and Russian peacekeepers from the Georgian onslaught.
We have a very low capacity for self-criticism.
One of the media narratives I've found incredibly irritating over the past year is the implication, given Bush's historic low approval ratings, of "How'd this happen?" Apparently we have no idea.
My question is: where are all these people who voted for Bush?
In a different media universe, you might think there'd be more stories (I don't think I've seen any) trying to find people who voted for Bush but have now soured on him, and going into detail about why that is. But I suspect such a story wouldn't reflect very well on the American character, as the likely answers would reveal a lot of ignorance, selfishness, and bovine herd mentality (He was kicking Arab butt! My gas prices went way too high last summer! My preacher told me to vote for him!).
So what the media have done is largely ignore the question of how Bush went from 51% of the popular vote in 2004 to the lowest approval ratings ever recorded. But of course, we're not going to learn anything from our history if we're too afraid to - ahem - interrogate it.
I agree with Glenn that this is now the common response to events like terrorist attacks:
The temptation is great even among the most rational to empower authority to do anything and everything -- without limits -- to punish those responsible and prevent repeat occurrences.
I can remember a time when the sentiment for such a situation was "Throw the book at them!"
What a difference that is. The idea was for the perpetrators to suffer the maximum possible punishment, but for that punishment to come from "the book", a euphemism for the law.
Now, the punishment (along with the procedures for convicting and sentencing) called for by "the book" are simply not good enough and we must go further. This quite literally true with regard to one book, the US Army Field Manual, that lays out in detail what is and what is not allowed in interrogation.
Imagine the alternative universe where a President Gore "threw the book" at al Qaeda. Or one where the citizens and press of the United States insisted that President Bush operate "by the book" in his efforts.
Is the willingness to throw away "the book" what they really mean when "patriots" say that "everything changed after 9/11"?
I am waiting for members of the Bush administration to bear witness and consequences for their crimes. Not much of a rumble from the media about doing that. Or from the President-elect.
So really, how do we, the people, get the corporate NYTimes and all the others to tell it true?
The votes we cast seem to be but an autumnal tradition that has followed many years of letters,emails,calls,protests...majorly ignored by the Congress and the media.
So what is it that we can do?
Herewith a recycled comment of mine responding to the recent news that Obama is keeping Gates as SecDef:
------------------------------------
The online NY Times article reporting Obama's decision to retain Gates as Secretary of Defense began with this sentence:
“President-elect Barack Obama has decided to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in his post, a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party, Democrats close to the transition said Tuesday.”
____________________________________
I quickly scanned the article, which quotes various sources supporting this premise, but I didn’t see a direct quote explicitly citing “bipartisan continuity in a time of war”.
We’re at “war”? The only “war” I’m aware of is the mythical, fictitious “Global War on Terror” declared by outgoing President Unitard and his moribund criminal maladministration.
Oh, that’s right-- Obama piously latched on to this concept and affirmed it during his campaign. It was evidence of his “pragmatic” brilliance, because of the received wisdom that the lizard-brained troglodytic masses, fka the Silent Majority, must be fully reassured and comforted by the certainty that our President is, first and foremost, a competent and enthusiastic Warlord who will Protect Us from enemies-- even, maybe especially, ephemeral and imaginary foes. Not to mention the foes that US foreign policy creates and manufactures for the purpose of sustaining the martial mood.
Surely the erudite and intellectual new Commander-in-Chief is perfectly aware that this Orwellian “we have always been at war with Eastasia” subterfuge is just that. I guess Obama has "shrewdly" decided that it’s best to wait until he’s safely elected to his second term before stepping out from behind the curtain and revealing the truth to the troubled and fearful masses. Until then, it's, "Yes, Virginia, there IS a Global War on Terror."
Pragmatism! Is there anything it CAN’T solve?
------------------------------------
I repeat the above comment here to observe that the events in Mumbai are certain to provoke the Usual Suspects among politicians, political spokespersons, and the corporate media into heightened reification of the fictitious GWOT.
That is, the conventional wisdom will treat these horrific events as further incontrovertible proof that there is indeed an Enemy of Civilization out there which needs to be subdued and "conquered" by an Amerikan-led "Coalition of the Willing" employing massive military might-- cost be damned. And I expect that the protean incoming administration-- especially since it includes an incumbent Secretary of Defense-- will employ essentially the same demagogic terms of reference and perpetuate essentially the same Manichean mind-set expressed by the moribund incumbent in his characteristic bald and primitive manner since 9/11.
The president-elect and those who speak for him will surely express his views in a more thoughtful and nuanced form, perhaps by rebranding certain stale buzzwords and catch-phrases, mutatis mutandis: The New! Improved! Global War on Terror.
But I fear that dreadful events like the Mumbai violence will give the New Warlord an opportunity to further build his street cred with the agitated and fearful masses by reaffirming his priority to Keep Amerika Safe and Rid the World of the Abomination of Terrorism. And, by so doing, reaffirm the government's symbiotic partnership with the military/corporate complex to ensure More of the Same.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
