Politics

There are rumors running around right now about the possibilty that Osama bin Laden might have been captured by Pakistan and US intelligence services somewhere in Pakistan.

Is it true? Who knows — it could be a leak of real information, or it could just be crazy rumormongering. What I’m pretty damn sure of, though, is that whether or not it’s true, there’s no way that it would be officially announced until sometime after Bush has sent the first few missile barrages into Iraq. Bush has done too good of a job of moving the blame of 9/11 from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, and bringing bin Laden back into the spotlight — especially as a captive — would likely do more harm than good to Bush’s push for war.

In the words of William Greider of the The Nation:

By relentless repetition, Bush and his team accomplished an audacious feat of propaganda — persuading many Americans to redirect the emotional wounds left by 9/11, their hurt and anger, away from the perpetrators to a different adversary. According to a New York Times-CBS News survey, 42 percent now believe Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. In an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe Saddam provides direct support to Al Qaeda. The Iraqi did it, let’s go get him. As a bogus rallying cry, “Remember 9/11” ranks with “Remember the Maine” of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964 for justifying the US escalation in Vietnam.

If bin Laden is still free, well then, no big surprise, he’s been that way for a while now. If he’s been captured, though, you can bet that he’ll be sitting in a deep, dark hole until Bush is certain that bringing him out to parade before the cameras would be sure to do him more good than harm.

(Via Tom Tomorrow)

Meg reminds us that in the midst of all the brouhaha in Iraq and Korea, things are still downright scary here at home.

With legislation that would impose sweeping new restrictions on abortion seemingly headed toward approval by the Senate this week, the assault on women’s reproductive freedom has reached an ominous turning point.

Although billed as a narrow attack on one particular late-term abortion procedure, the measure’s imprecise wording would criminalize the use of the safest and most common pre-viability abortion method used after the first trimester, namely dilation and evacuation. The bill would thereby replicate a key defect that caused the Supreme Court to reject a similarly worded state law in 2000. Moreover, the bill omits an exception in cases where the mother’s health is in jeopardy, ignoring the Supreme Court’s insistence that such an exception is a constitutional requirement for any abortion regulation.

It may be too late to do much about this, but we can hope that it will get struck down if it gets contested and goes to the Supreme Court — though at the moment, it looks like the bill’s backers are counting on a newly conservative Supreme Court to rule in their favor by the time the case makes it that far. Not encouraging, in the least.

I think tonight’s menu will include french fries, french bread, and french dressing — in honor (ahem) of the House of Representatives to serve “Freedom” fries and “Freedom” toast instead of French fries and French toast. This is what our tax dollars pay for?

(Via Jeremy Zawodny — bonus points to anyone who knows where I got that particular menu…)

This is just frightening.

U.S. Department of Justice has threatened to criminally prosecute California’s top firearms official over the state’s continued use of a federal databank to hunt down illegal gun users, The Chronicle has learned.

Federal authorities believe the list of convicted felons, drug dealers, suspected terrorists, spouse beaters, illegal immigrants and others should only be used to help gun dealers determine if someone is allowed to buy a gun, not police investigating other gun-control violations.

(Via MeFi)

The Bush Credibility Gap: The Photographic History of the Bush Administration Putting Its Mouth Where Its Money Isn’t

Very interesting just on its own, but take a moment to note the web address — this is coming from the House of Representatives server, and was created by the Democrats in the Appropriations Committee. In other words, this isn’t just some random Bush-basher airing his griefs. These are very specific Bush-bashers!

Tongue-in-cheek comments aside, it’s nice to see something like this coming from the Democrats on Capitol Hill. Mayhaps we’re starting to see a hint of Democratic backbone again?

(Via Dori Smith)

U.S. Political Counselor John Brady Kiesling, stationed in Athens, Greece, has resigned his position, outlining his reasons for doing so in a letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

…until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

On the one hand, it’s heartening to know that there are politicians like this out there. On the other hand, it’s a shame that they feel forced to resign because of the current administrations policies and goals.

(Via MeFi)

Back in June, when the Pledge of Allegiance was ruled unconstitutional because the words “under God” encroached on the division between church and state, I didn’t think that the ruling would stand. In a nation where if you don’t support the President’s holy crusade you’re just another one of those damn dirty traitors, I expected the public outcry would end up pushing the courts into overturning the ruling.

I was quite pleasantly surprised to read yesterday that the appeals court has rejected the request to reconsider the ruling, letting it stand as-is.

From the New York Times:

A federal appeals court stood by its ruling that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because of the words “under God,” perhaps setting the stage for a U.S. Supreme Court fight over a decision that prompted a nationwide outcry.

Bush administration officials strongly condemned Friday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though they stopped short of saying they would appeal to the Supreme Court.

[Judge Steven] Reinhardt lashed out at the “disturbingly wrong-headed” dissent that public outcry over the pledge ruling should have persuaded the circuit to reconsider.

“The Bill of Rights is, of course, intended to protect the rights of those in the minority against the temporary passions of a majority which might wish to limit their freedoms or liberties,” Reinhardt wrote.

And from Reuters:

In defending the ruling, defiant 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt said that the court would not be swayed by public outrage over one of its decisions and did not consider the “importance of an issue” good enough reason to rehear a legal ruling that it considered correct.

“We may not — we must not — allow public sentiment or outcry to guide our decisions,” Reinhardt wrote.

“It is particularly important that we understand the nature of our obligations and the strength of our constitutional principles in times of national crisis,” he wrote. “It is then that our freedoms and our liberties are in the greatest peril.”

Not terribly surprisingly, Attorney General John Ashcroft has sworn to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag,” Ashcroft said in a statement issued in Washington shortly after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco declined to reconsider its ruling. “We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge.”

John, John, John. I’m no legal expert, but I haven’t gotten the impression that the Pledge of Allegiance has been banned outright — only that it is not to be a school-sponsored activity. All Americans still have the right and the ability to voluntarily declare their patriotism any way they want to whenever they want. They just shouldn’t be forced to do so in ways that may conflict with their personal beliefs. I have to admit, the mental picture of a man like Ashcroft — who’s likely to equate Wiccanism with ‘Satanism’ — trying to cope with the concept of a “patriotic Witch” makes me laugh. A lot.Atheists and Agnostics can be patriotic, as can Muslims, Hindus, Baha’i, Buddhists, and so on. Heck, I’d bet that even Jehovah’s Witnesses and Wiccans can be patrotic! But they don’t believe in ‘God’, and shouldn’t be required to profess a belief that they do not hold.

Anyway, the original ruling was made. That ruling has now been confirmed. Now it appears that it may fall to the Supreme Court to finish this off. We’ll see how things end up if this does end up heading their way, but in the meantime, congratulations to Judge Reinheart and the rest of the Court of Appeals.

(Via MeFi and BoingBoing)