Still Fighting

Activism

Join Congressman Murtha's Call for a Real Debate on Iraq. What would a real debate sound like? It's been so long, we don't even know. These days, what passes for debate is something like this: Dems: "We need to get our troops out of Iraq." GOP: "You are all weak traitor who want to cut-and-run." Dems: "Oh yeah? Then why didn't you ever serve in the war?" GOP: "Stop undermining our troops." Dems: "Shut up." GOP: "No YOU shut up." And on and on. But this country needs and deserves a real, intelligent debate about what to do in Iraq now that we've basically screwed the pooch. So, go sign the petition joining John Murtha's call for a real debate about our troops in Iraq. Who knows? Maybe it'll even work!

News

Bush Takes Blame for Iraq War on Bad Intelligence. Yes, you read that right. George "I can't do wrong and won't apologize if I do" Bush has taken responsibility for going to war over faulty intelligence. Now, reign it in, kids. There's more here than meets the eye. Why would Bush finally decide to make this statement? A leopard doesn't change its spots, after all. It certainly appears to us like Bush is worried about the press sniffing around all that pre-war intelligence, the Downing Street Memo, Plamegate and all the rest, and so he's issuing a public "my bad," in an effort to get everyone to stop digging up the past. But read between the lines. The headline is actually misleading. He didn't say that invading Iraq was wrong, just that it was his responsibility, and the decision was on him. Well, that's great, except that if he doesn't think there was anything wrong with the decision, then why's it a big deal for him to admit the decision was his? He's saying this because he wants the credit for the eventual "victory", not because he acknowledges that any reasonable definition of victory has been made nigh impossible by his actions.

McCain, White House Remain at Impasse. They sure aren't picking out curtains. The White House still maintains that it wants to be able to torture people. McCain says no. That's exactly what this argument comes down to. There should not need to be any discussion. There should be no heated debate. There should be no "chatting," as McCain said. Karen Hughes, self-annointed savior of the Middle East, is on record as saying "The goal is the same here. . .The goal is to make it very clear that the United States is a nation of laws and that we operate our detainee policy within our laws, within our international obligations and without torture." Well, that's not quite true. The goal is to outlaw torture. Our president won't allow that. Her spin is pretty impressive, isn't it? She doesn't say McCain is right (although she implies it). Rather, she indicates that we follow a system of laws. Hughes must believe that the administration has some dirt on McCain that'll force him to capitulate this discourse, because decorated VietNam vet and Hanoi Hilton survivor John McCain ain't gonna roll over and play dead on this one.

Don't Dictate To Me, Canadian Leader Tells U.S. U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins, acting as a mouthpiece for the administration, has really made a clusterfrick of things. First, there's the softwood lumber debate, where, in 2001, America raised tarriffs on Canada's softwood lumber to an astonishing 21% (Canada's rate is approximately 1%). America maintained all along that they were in the right, but recently NAFTA ruled that America was, in fact, not in the right, and that the 21% tarriffs were illegal. The decision meant that lumber tarriffs should be cut (which they were, but only in half) and the money America collected on those tarriffs should be returned ($4.1 billion, which hasn't been returned). Now, since that decision a few weeks ago, there's been a vote of no-confidence in Canada, and Prime Minister Paul Martin, along with the rest of government, faces a vote on January 23. In campaigning for that election, Martin has sharply criticized the U.S. several times, both for the above softwood dispute, as well as America's dinosaur-like approach to climate change. Ambassador Wilkins warned Martin not to bash the U.S. while campaigning. Martin's response? "When it comes to defending Canadian values, when it comes to standing up for Canadian interests, I'm going to call it like I see it. I am not going to be dictated to as to the subjects I should raise." In other words, "Screw you, Ambassador Wilkins." And why shouldn't Martin be ticked off? It took several rulings before the World Trade Organization and NAFTA before the softwood dispute reached the point that it's at now. Forestry is an integral and huge part of Canada's economy, and the U.S. doesn't produce enough wood to meet the enormous American demand, so we import wood from Canada. Although Canada likes our cash, they can just as easily not trade with us, and shift focus to China (which they have already begun to look at). In the meantime, Bush, using Wilkins as that mouthpiece, has managed to piss off yet another American ally. What a track record!

Editorials

An Update on Watchdog Reporting Around the U.S. Watchdog reporting? In this day and age? Yes, indeedy! And no, we're not talking about local news fearmongering, in which they reporting that drinking your tap water will kill you instantly. No, we're talking about legitimate press oversight of fraud and abuse going on every day. For instance, did you know about the dangerous cargo that's being hauled through majors cities by rail, and the problems in planning for a related disaster? Or how about the erroneous allocation of homebuying funds that was intended for low income families, and instead went to unqualified middle class home buyers? Or what about rapes and stabbings in high schools that aren't properly investigated? It's important to see that while it seems watchdog reporting at the national level is dying a slow death, there are still local cases where the press is doing its job. The results of these investigations may not be pretty, but if we're going to solve any of these problems, it certainly helps to know about them in the first place.

America's Shame in Montreal. No, this isn't about the Canadiens' 1971 thrilling Stanley Cup series against the Chicago Blackhawks. This is about climate change, and the Bush administration's adamant refusal to admit that the science is actually, you know, right. Instead of requiring companys to regulate and lower their emissions, the Bush administration favors "research into 'breakthrough' technologies," allowing companies to reduce their rates at their own pace. The problem, of course, is that companies just won't do it if the law isn't there. There's no reason (other than, you know, the survival of the human race) for companies to invest the time to make these changes. So, until we get a President who gives a damn, we're stuck with letting companies get a free ride. And if we won't require our companies to reduce their emissions, how can we possibly expect other countries to do the same?

Blogger Commentary

On Torture, III: Brutality and Sadism as National Policy, and the Monsters of Our Time. Don't feel cheated that there's only one Blogger Commentary today, because it's not only extremely important, but extremely long. Arthur Silber has a six part series on torture up at the Power of Narrative, and although we're only linking to part III, we encourage you to read the entire thing. Silber's premise for this part is that torture is never, ever, ever, ever acceptable. How can you fault that? This isn't about being "better than them." This is about holding to the morals that this country was founded upon. It's about subscribing to a code of ethics that is accepted the world over. It's about not running from our principles when we get scared. And those who do choose to circumvent difficulty by utilizing torture can be summed up in one word: evil.