"Obama to Africa: End corruption, tyranny"

My immediate reaction was that he was talking about the wrong continent, and that I'd be better pleased if he were talking about the U.S.

This is merely to point out that there are many opportunities to point out that hypocrisy where doing so does not obscure something laudable, that it seems a shame to do so regarding this news item.

I'm far from convinced that the motive here is as magnanimous as you suggest (though I don't know, which is why I didn't opine one way or the other on it).

It's extremely common for the U.S. to protect and enable all sorts of monsters for as long as we need them, and then turn on them and demonize them when we don't. As even those articles reflect, the Obama strategy relies much less on close relationships with the Karzai government than our Afghan strategy of the last 8 years. There may be lots of reasons why it's in the U.S. strategic interest to appear to oppose Dotsum. I'm not saying that's wrong or bad -- just that it's a huge leap to think that this somehow means we're no longer willing to align ourselves with war criminals.

Either way, as you recognize, my point isn't to compliment or criticize the opposition to Dotsum but, instead, to point out that we should apply the principles we're invoking there to ourselves.

leftydem

alicia witt? the hot redhead from Cybill?

Yeah, she was in Cybill. Alicia Witt is from my hometown, too.

It was Alex Witt, Msnbc anchor.

I was surprised that Holt gave what might have been a real big hint there - then no follow-up. Sheesh.

Risen's NYT article today quotes an anonymous official stating that in early 2003 "Wolfowitz said we are not going to be going after [Gen. Dostom] for that," meaning stuffing thousands of Taliban prisoners into metal shipping containers and burying their bodies in mass graves.

In 2002, another NYT article quotes Wolfowicz, who lost family members in the Holocaust, stating "that sense of what happened in Europe in World War II has shaped a lot of my views," adding that "It's a very bad thing when people exterminate other people."

How does one, whose own family experiences must have made the term "mass graves" resonate deeply, who claims that his views were shaped by WWII, announce, just a few months later, that war crimes against thousands of Taliban fighters weren't worth investigating?

Apparently "it's [only] a very bad thing when people exterminate other people" when the exterminators are on the other side. It's a common theme of the Bush administration, recently adopted by Obama's: "All men are created equal" unless this rule interferes with the exceptionalism of the nation allegedly founded on it.

What a great political culture we have. Screw the little guy, make his life miserable and drive him to poverty while the elite do whatever they want.

What a system, what a group of deep thinkers we have in charge.

Golly gee batman, what should we do now?

Dostam is also a US client, in particular of the CIA- or at least was from his days of merrily committing war crimes for the Mujahideen, to the US war against the Taliban.

He fought on the Soviet side during the Soviet-Afghan War. He was never at any time a mujahedin.

After the Red Army left, the alliance between Massoud and Hekmatyr -- who were both mujahedin commanders -- fell apart because Hekmatyr decided to support the Taliban who had just come into the country from Pakistan loaded down with weapons thanks to Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistani ISI.

Massoud ended up being forced to flee to Mazar, where he joined up with Dostum and formed the Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban and Hekmatyr.

It was Hekmatyr and his mujahedin followers who turned Kabul into a rape-a-thon in the early nineties.

Hekmatyr also had a history before the war of throwing acid in the faces of schoolgirls.

There is no clean side in Afghanistan.

I think Glenn is all fired up by politics and is delusional about this country.

If you really want to investigate war crimes in Afghanistan, you'll have to investigate every single last man in the country.

I don't think anyone in this country has the time or stomach for that.

'The mystery to me is why Obama is selling out to them. Sometimes I wonder if ignorance IS bliss?'

O arrived pre-sold, judging by his revised position on the FISA amendment.

I watched some of his speech from Ghana this morning and of course it was brilliantly delivered and full of nothing but contradiction. Note i said 'some of' cause I had to look away.

I remember when I could no longer stand seeing Bush's face appear on the tube, after a certain point during the decade from hell and beyond.

The same is becoming true of Obama.

I can scarcely stand watching an educated, grown man knowingly lie so casually and routinely with his repeated references to upholding and defending the Constitution and the rule of law and the fabric of a vibrant democracy and all that other insincere drivel. At no time in the past six months nor in the past two years have Obama's actions matched his words.

Case in point: when Obama quietly told the Canadian Embassy officials to disregard what he was saying about NAFTA reform on the campaign trail cause Obama hearts NAFTA.

At that point in the election cycle, what is a voter do? Vote for Sarah Palin and her equally attention-starved POTUS-wannabe soulmate?

But back to FISA: Screamingly brilliant bright red line with sirens and confetti cannons and pyrotechnics when Obama reversed his position and actively promoted the version of the bill with the telco immunity clause intact.

Obama sez:

October 18, 2007:

Obama: "It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start."

October 24, 2007

Bill Burton: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

December 17, 2007

Official campaign statement: "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill.

Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same.

It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."

January 28, 2008

Obama:I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people -- not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program.

We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens - and set an example to the world - that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

June 20, 2008

Obama: "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people."

June 25, 2008

Obama: Well, the bill has changed. So, I don't think the security threats have changed. I think the security threats are similar.

My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.

(Timeline compiled by TPM)

***

One must be careful what one wishes for because this is surely an example change you can believe in.