Tuesday's Brain is Mixed with Swill and Giddiness...

[elfs]

Ex-Terror Detainee Says U.S. Tortured Him

At the age of 19, Murat Kurnaz vanished into America's shadow prison system in the war on terror. He was from Germany, traveling in Pakistan, and was picked up three months after 9/11. But there seemed to be ample evidence that Kurnaz was an innocent man with no connection to terrorism. The FBI thought so, U.S. intelligence thought so, and German intelligence agreed. But once he was picked up, Kurnaz found himself in a prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one.

We tortured Kurnaz. So what? This is old news.

It takes a special kind of vicious mendacity to claim that because the Kurnaz affair happened two years ago, it's "old news," that the torture that happened to him is irrelevant. John Holbo makes a stronger observation than I did.

Paul Berman: I Told You So?

This is probably only of interest to those in the blogosphere who pay any attention to ivory tower punditocracies, like me. Paul Berman is now going around claiming that he was for war in Iraq, but didn't say so because he knew George W. Bush would prosecute the war badly. Yet his own words show that he was saying so, loudly and enthusiastically. Matthew Yglesias calls him out. Spencer Ackerman has more of the silliness.

Meet John McCain's Economics Advisor

John McCain's economics advisor is Senator Phil Gramm (R-Tx), an anti-regulation fanatic who helped create the conditions for the current mortgage and other financial crises we're currently seeing. McCain's recent speech didn't just call for "doing nothing," as the press has repeated; he actively called for less regulation and less transparency in the markets where this disaster began. The article provides links to many more analyses of the kind of damage Gramm has left in his wake.

Money quotes: When an elderly widow told Gramm that his Medicare reforms would make it difficult to remain independent, Gramm responded, "You haven't thought about a new husband, have you?" And this ditty about how his cuts to Social Security would hurt 80 year-olds: "Most people don't have the luxury of living to 80, so it's hard to feel sorry for them."

From this day forward, I shall no longer wince when someone refers to the Republican candidate as "Grandpa McCain." I used to think it was unfair. I still think it's disrespectful. But anyone who embraces the idea that we shouldn't care too much about Social Security's benefits to 80 year olds because there are only a few of them doesn't deserve fairness or respect.

"Only those people who embrace the idea of being evil and think that evil is cool have any business voting for the Republican Party ever again. Ever. Again." -- Brad Delong

Speaking of whom: Brad DeLong welcomes back Fafblog!

And with the same enthusiasm I did. See? I'm not alone in my unholy devotion to The Medium Lobster.

Publius Loves Fafblog!

Kieran Healy loves Fafblog!

(I'm not gonna stop until you get the message.)

Wilson's Therapy Blend Coffee

Dear Friends: You know I love my coffee. If you want me to keep loving you then never, ever bring this stuff within twenty meters of my anatomy. kthxbye.

Comments

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I supported the removal of Saddam. I did not support the American investment of military forces to do it, especially not when we were already in the middle of "a land war in Asia," with the job unfinished and the real culprits for 9/11 still at large (and today, still at large).

The moral logic for removing Saddam applied to Mugabe, as well. Except Saddam had oil and Mugabe didn't. Mugabe is (hopefully peacefully) being shuffled offstage even as we speak; if we'd waited a few more years, maybe we could have said the same of Saddam without our country having the moral responsibility for fixing a shattered nation or earned the enmity of a bloodied (and historically violent) religion.

[starbog.livejournal.com]

if we'd waited a few more years, maybe we could have said the same of Saddam without our country having the moral responsibility for fixing a shattered nation or earned the enmity of a bloodied (and historically violent) religion.

I think that's a somewhat dangerous argument, since I'm sure there were people in 1991, after the first Gulf War who were saying, in all honesty, that Saddam would fall in a "few more years", justifying the betrayal of the rebels in the summer of 1991 (I will never forgive GHB for doing what he did). But they underestimated just how complete a grip the Baathists had on the country - outside of Kurdistan, there was no civil society to speak of - the whole country was pretty much a Baathist prison camp. He got to 2003, he got to 2003, and the way France and Russia were scheming to buy his oil after stopping the sanctions, it looked as if the Al-Tikriti regime would, under Saddam and then under Uday and Qasay, last for decades more. The question, I guess is this: for those who didn't want Saddam overthrown, how many more years of repression and mass murder do you think it was worth to wait for him and his regime to fall?

Incidentally, in case you're wondering who I am, I'm the author of this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/). Yes, I do need to update it, but its finding the time to do it is the problem.

[starbog.livejournal.com]

Oh, for the record, I supported and continue to support the overthrow of Mugabe and Zanu-PF for the same reasons as Saddam.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.

I fall back on the very definition of statecraft: when a nation's objectives and its means for achieving that objective are in congruence. Our objective in Iraq has changed constantly, and our means for achieving any one of them has never quite been up to snuff. We all had good reason for believing the current outcome to be the most likely back in 2003, and should have spent more effort on assessing both our objective and means.

The Bush Administration was clearly not introspective enough, and clearly not prepared for the awesome responsibility it chose to take on. The lie "No one could have forseen..." is just that, a lie. Lots of people did.

[starbog.livejournal.com]

Lie? There's a heck of a lot of difference between a lie and not foreseeing something, or not considering something as a consequence.

At the end of the day, as far as we can tell, from opinion polls, the Iraqi people supported the overthrow of Saddam, think life is better now than under Saddam, and have faith in the democratic process (hell, the percentage turnout in the Iraqi elections is higher than here in the UK). And the mass killings have stopped.

That must count for something?

[mundens.livejournal.com]

Good on ya! I've known Zimababwean ex-pats, and when you hear a black communist guerilla fighter saying that the country was much better off under Ian Smith, well...

[starbog.livejournal.com]

I've heard that as well. And neighbouring Botswana seems to be a case study in economic growth and development and adherence to the democratic process.