Last call

Ok, this is the last round of stories to throw up before I clean up the computer for some hard-core graphics stuff, so....

Chalmers Johnson, the author of Sorrows of Empire and an all-around interesting analyst, says that the troop realignment is a weird gesture, but then again, nothing that the Bush Administration does makes any sense.

In Iraq, Sadr wants to talk. Or not. He is so damn twitchy, it's ridiculous. The 8-day battle grinds to a stalemate. So is Sadr actually a unifying factor? This Pepe Escobar piece says it is... Pepe is one of those anti-Bush folks who always has something interesting going on, but I'm not sure if I find it as credible, as, say, Robert Fisk or Jim Lobe, two other journalists in funky territory.

Meanwhile arms inspector David Kay faults the pre-war intelligence.

Some atoms flew in formation. Wow. I don't get the science involved, but hey, why not?

Porter Goss is gross, and Pakistan doesn't work

Two things: firstly, Porter Goss is part and parcel one of Dick Cheney's evil congressional badger brigades, as a Congresscritter acting to cover up investigations into the intelligence distortions that unfolded into the invasion of Iraq. Like Cheney's little finger, said Billmon:

Goss - last seen in Farenheit 9/11 giving out the number to an entirely ficticious civil liberties complaint hotline - is a former CIA operative turned Florida hack congressman who has made himself useful to the administration in ways both large and small, not least by savaging the reputation of the agency he once worked for and now hopes to lead.

In other words, picking Porter Goss to be CIA director is roughly the same as nominating Dick Cheney's little finger...

Billmon referred to an excellent piece in CounterPunch by Ray McGovern, retired CIA dude and a representative of the "sane" intelligence analysts around Washington, ripping Goss apart as a horrible Republican piece of garbage:

That possibility conjures up a painful flashback for those of us who served as CIA analysts when Richard Nixon was president. Chalk it up to our naivete, but we were taken aback when swashbuckling James Schlesinger, who followed Richard Helms as CIA director, announced on arrival, "I am here to see that you guys don't screw Richard Nixon!" To underscore his point, Schlesinger told us he would be reporting directly to White House political adviser Bob Haldeman (Nixon's Karl Rove) and not to National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger.

No doubt Goss would be more discreet in showing his hand, but his appointment as director would be the ultimate in politicization. He has long shown himself to be under the spell of Vice President Dick Cheney, and would likely report primarily to him and to White House political adviser Karl Rove rather than to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Goss would almost certainly follow lame-duck director George Tenet's practice of reading to the president in the morning and become an integral part of the "White House team." The team-membership phenomenon is particularly disquieting.

If the failure-prone experience of the past few years has told us anything, it is that being a "team member" in good standing is the kiss of death for the CIA director's primary role of "telling it like it is" to the president and his senior advisers. It was a painful moment of truth when former Speaker Newt Gingrich--like Cheney, a frequent visitor to CIA headquarters--told the press that Tenet was "so grateful to the president that he would do anything for him."

...There are plenty of Mexicans dying for the War on Terror... David Ignatius says that the GWOT (military acronym for take over the world global war on terror) shouldn't get politicized, but of course it already has, shamelessly:

A government has no asset more precious than public trust. That's especially true for a nation threatened by a terrorist adversary, where good intelligence and reliable warnings can save lives. By linking its reelection campaign so closely to the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has eroded its credibility -- to the point that some members of the public are beginning to wonder whether terrorism warnings are all just politics. The administration risks compounding that climate of politicization by nominating a sitting Republican member of Congress, Porter Goss, to be the next CIA director.

But now to delightful Pakistan, where nothing makes sense. This Salon piece, "Subcontracting the hunt for Bin Laden," by a former bigshot of the deposed civilian government was quite unnerving:

The relative transparency of the U.S. political system should make it difficult for U.S. officials to be blatant about linking political agendas to a national security issue such as the war against terrorism. In an article titled "July Surprise?" in the New Republic, published several weeks before the Democratic Convention, John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman and Massoud Ansari wrote of pressure on Pakistan by the Bush administration to produce a "high-value target" around the time of the convention to steal Kerry's thunder. The suggestion was rejected by some as a conspiracy theory at the time, but when Pakistan announced the arrest of Ghailani, a Tanzanian, in Gujarat, Pakistan, hours before Kerry's acceptance speech, eyebrows were raised even among those Americans who normally dismiss such conspiracy theories.

For the Bush administration to have risked playing politics with the timing of arrest of terror suspects is a disturbing enough possibility. More disturbing is the prospect that the initiative to gain political advantage from these arrests came not from the Bush administration but from the Musharraf regime. By subcontracting the hunt for bin Laden to an authoritarian ally who has a special interest in the flow of economic and military benefits resulting from this contract, the administration may be giving that ally a powerful say in America's political agenda whose effect is to undermine the war against al-Qaida.

Musharraf's enlistment in the war on terrorism is an extension of Pakistan's long-established willingness to be useful to the United States for the "right price." Pakistan's first military ruler, Gen. (later Field Marshal) Ayub Khan (who ruled from 1958 to 1969), told U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Henry Byroade as early as 1953, "Our army can be your army if you want us." Ever since, Pakistan's military leadership has seen its alliance with America as its meal ticket.
[.....]
As long as the U.S.-Pakistan relationship remains a single-issue alliance based on the quid pro quo of changes in Pakistani policy for U.S. money, the regime in Islamabad will continue to be tempted to take its time in finding all the terrorists at large in Pakistan. After all, most subcontractors who are paid by the hour take longer to get the job done. And while this may seem like a risky scheme for Musharraf, it conforms to the past pattern of Pakistani military regimes collecting rent from the United States for providing strategic services.

Meanwhile the Paki government is now going to go after the grandaddy of all Islamic fundamentalist organizations, Jamaat-e-Islami, and the results won't be predictable:

Under immense pressure from the United States, a slow and gradual operation has begun in Pakistan against the strongest political voice of Islamists and the real mother of international Islamic movements, of which Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front is the spoiled child.

In a surprise move this week, Pakistan's federal minister of the interior, Faisal Saleh Hayat, listed a number of incidences in which members of the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), the premier fundamentalist party in the country, had been tied to al-Qaeda, and called on it to "explain these links".

"It is a matter of concern that Jamaat-e-Islami, which is a main faction of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal [MMA], has neither dissociated itself from its activists having links with the al-Qaeda network nor condemned their activities," Faisal said, adding that  "one could derive a meaning out of its silence".

The MMA is an alliance of six religious parties that gained unprecedented electoral victories in national elections in 2002. One of its members is the leader of the opposition in the Lower House, while the MMA controls the provincial government in North West Frontier Province. It also forms part of a coalition government in Balochistan province. The MMA has 67 seats in the 342-seat National Assembly, with just under a third of them held by the JI.
[.....]
Intelligence insiders tell Asia Times Online that initial operations are not targeted against the main JI structure, but at lower-rank workers suspected of involvement in underground militant activities. At the same time, once this operation starts, it will be inevitable that it extends to the highest level. Further, every JI leader is involved with senior army officers, both serving and retired, and they will not be spared in the process.

The JI is not only the largest, most organized and most resourceful organization in the country, it has deeper roots in the establishment than any other outfit. Tackling it will surely open a Pandora's box, and at the same time create a vicious backlash.

From that new blog of Steve Clemons, "Who are the real neo-cons?" looking at a new book, "America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order" by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke. Sounds excellent, but how much have I heard before? Old David Broder says that Bush has Two Albatrosses: going into the war, and not paying for it.

In the tit for tat realm of punditry, I say that this actually defines Kerry's position on the war, and Cheney accuses himself of sensitivity in the war on terror. Then the Daily Howler says: Cheney, thou have flipped and flopped!

Likud party crushes Sharon's unity government proposal

The prospects for Israel's Likud-led government to become another national unity government with the Shimon Peres and the Labor party were narrowly squashed by the Likud central committee, one of the most obnoxious and counterproductive entities in the middle east. Haaretz on this whole mess:

Likud hands Sharon a crushing rebuff: Ariel Sharon suffered a crushing rebuff at last night's Likud convention when delegates voted for a proposal blocking the Labor Party's entry into a unity government, and rejected a proposal by the prime minister which would have effectively enabled him to hold talks with Labor.

Convention members were asked to vote on two resolutions - one from Sharon, authorizing him to carry out coalition negotiations with any Zionist party, and a competing one from Minister Uzi Landau rejecting a coalition with Labor. Sharon's own proposal was defeated by just 5 votes - but Landau's passed 843 to 612, a majority of 231.
[....]
Nevertheless, it would be very difficult for Likud MKs to raise a hand in favor of a decision rejected so sweepingly by the convention, since it is the convention that controls their political fate - it chooses the party's Knesset list.

The defeat was all the more humiliating for Sharon because, unlike at previous Likud party gatherings, he and his people worked hard to win this vote, lobbying convention members energetically and making sure that the hall was packed with Sharon supporters so that booing from opponents could be offset by cries of "Arik, King of Israel!"
[......]
There is a faction within the Likud, Sharon charged, that "has worked against the government since its inception" and has now "announced that it intends to vote in the Knesset against the policy of our government, a Likud government. This is not appropriate behavior for members of a ruling party. It is behavior that is liable to bring the Likud to the verge of a split. We have to decide - will the Likud continue to run the country in a united, responsible and statesmanlike fashion, or is the Likud led by an extremist, rebellious and irresponsible opposition?"

The Likud, he added, has suffered boycotts by other parties in the past, and precisely because of this, it should not itself boycott any Zionist party.

"I hear terrible cries of boycotts, hatred, bans, voices that threaten civil war... voices that call for violence against soldiers, policemen and even against me. We must make a different voice heard in the Likud... the voice of the late Menachem Begin, who prevented civil war before the founding of the state, who brought about a unity [government] on the eve of the Six Day War, who made peace with Egypt despite the difficulties. This is a voice that knows how to place the good of the state above any personal or party interest... If we do this, we will continue to be victorious."

[Minister] Livnat backed Sharon in her speech, declaring: "Any boycott of a Zionist party is unacceptable. It is unacceptable morally, and it will hurt us electorally... Every time the national camp has failed to line up behind its leader, we have lost."

But Minister without Portfolio Landau, one of the leading opponents of both disengagement and Labor's entry into the coalition, rejected both the allegation of boycott and the allegation that he and his fellows were a rebellious faction. It is Sharon, he charged, who has repeatedly "scorned" the Likud and its historic path - by terming Israel's presence in the territories an "occupation," by calling for a Palestinian state, and by ignoring the decision of Likud members, who rejected his disengagement plan in the May referendum.

Sharon's desire to bring in Labor is merely one more example of the prime minister's utter contempt for his own party, Landau said. As for Labor, "we aren't rejecting a party - we're rejecting a path," he said.

Labor's presence in the government, he said, would mean a return to the 1967 borders, the division of Jerusalem, an end to the army's determined war on terror, and the return of both Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and Labor Party Chairman Shimon Peres to the center of the political stage.

However, another article described how the anti-Sharon folks are actually really tired of dealing with the settlers:

One of the Likud leaders said, "It's hard for me to admit but the Likud must take the power away from the committee members, one way or another. You can't run a ruling party with more than 3,000 members, each thinking he can grab the prime minister by the balls. It's undignified, both for the party and the state."

For other minutia from Israel, a non-Jewish woman's name on a memorial plaque to a suicide bombing was written differently than the Ultra-Orthodox victims of the bombing. People hate living next to the Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv because it's noisy, smelly and has ruined their apartments. A Labor MK writes about how horrible economic conditions have become there, in essence due to the cutbacks needed to support the settlements and the war in Netanyahu's sandbox world. A rightwinger argues against considering a deal on the Golan Heights with Syria:

"Narrative" is a post-modern term that stresses relativity and subjectivity. In the history of the nations there is no absolute truth - except, of course, the Palestinian truth. It is important to reiterate and state that the life story of the Israeli nation in the land of Israel, the exile from the land and the people's cleaving to the land that developed in the Diaspora in order to return to the land, are neither myth nor relative truth. They, according to every historical and sociological parameter, are absolute truth, not narrative.

There is no "clash between two narratives" here. Although a large group of Arabs who today call themselves Palestinians have formulated a national identity - and their success, due partly to Jewish failures, is quite convincing - and deny any Jewish connection to the land of Israel, no one, apart from Israel's enemies from within and without, relates seriously to this denial.

This was well put by the historian Prof. Ben-Zion Dinur, a Mapai (Land of Israel Workers Party) member and Israel's second education minister: The Arabs who arrived here in recent centuries have all the rights in the State of Israel, but no rights to the land of Israel.

That is the interesting thing about Israel: people aren't sure if it's a nation or a narrative, no one likes smelly bus stops, and the enormously powerful ruling party is completely set against itself. Perhaps the only advantage of their coalition-parliamentary system is that it has some flexibility in theory, that better parties might go in and shift it leftward without another election. However, you can't do this if the overpowered Central Committee is stubborn, corrupt and worthless. Yet again this indicates that the problem with Israel might be that the executive actually isn't powerful enough against its internal rivals.

Minnesota Public Radio purchases third local station

While listening to MPR this afternoon I learned that they are in the process of purchasing St. Olaf College's non-profit radio station WCAL, another classical station on 89.3 FM, for $10.5 million. They don't have the cash on hand, so they are borrowing it. Gary Eichten just asked, "Is Minnesota Public Radio out to conquer the world?" in his classic way. Hahahahaaa....

I would say this will probably work out very nicely, but I'm not sure if such a nerdy thing as a St. Olaf classical station could ever become cool.

The press release has some helpful info:

WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH WCAL?
We do not yet have specific plans as we did not expect this opportunity to be on the horizon this year. Over the years, we have explored several formats that we think would be valuable services for the Twin Cities. Now we will have the opportunity to work with the community to develop the best one.

We will maintain the current classical music format until we are able to determine the best use for the frequency. We acted quickly because it was most important for us to save the frequency for public radio. For the long term, we will review other options, such as programming not currently available to the 2.6 million people within the range of the WCAL signal.

The future of signature WCAL national programs such as Sing for Joy and annual broadcast of the St Olaf Christmas Festival, which are St. Olaf's programs, is still under consideration.
[......]
WHY DID ST. OLAF DECIDE TO SELL THEIR STATION TO MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO?
St. Olaf said in its press release that it wanted to sell WCAL to an entity that would reflect the college's values and that would appreciate the 80 years of dedication and hard work that went into building the station's programming and broad listenership. President Christopher M. Thomforde noted Minnesota Public Radio's mission "to enrich the mind and nourish the spirit" and its 37-year history of operating public radio stations, and called it a "perfect partner" to carry on WCAL's legacy. St. Olaf said it would use the assets of the sale to strengthen the college's endowment and support programs that strengthen the college's mission.

HOW MANY LISTENERS DOES WCAL REACH? HOW MANY MEMBERS? WHAT IS ITS HISTORY?
WCAL reaches more than 80,000 listeners each week in the Twin Cities and Rochester areas, with broadcast transmitters in Rosemount and Rochester. It began as a student physics experiment in 1918. It was licensed as an AM broadcast station in 1922 and received its FM license in 1968. WCAL has 8,000 members.

On a tangent there's kind of a funny story in Haaretz about Ultra-Orthodox pirate radio stations in Israel.

And then you see him... and measure the war?

It's fitting that finally, at this late date, I saw this President we've heard so much about. The War on Terror came to Hudson, Wisconsin, and I posted up at Second and Locust, just outside the security perimeter. At least there weren't any of those 'free speech zones' today. Rather, Bush and Kerry partisans circulated freely. I was more agitated than usual because this was an infringement on my home turf.

The roads were blocked off by city dump trucks to block car bombs. Did that mean they weren't just dump trucks, but Dump Trucks in the War on Terror?

Three large Bush-Cheney buses came up from Exit 1 and I basically grimaced there. In 10 minutes they had gone up another block and turned down towards the river. Peering from my spot on Second Street down to the "HUDSON, WIS." archway at the end of the dike where they built the stage, the buses pulled up in tandem and for a blazing moment George W. Bush, in a blue shirt, worked the crowd lined up on the other side.

A whole crush of people were all around us, standing on railings around a pit reaching the basement windows of this corner building. I turned because Jon Lyons couldn't see a damn thing, so I crouched down and made a bridge with my hands, and Jon saw Bush ascend onto the stage and out of sight behind the buses. That was the end of our contact with the Officeholder.

In an interesting side story, my sister and some friends apparently sneaked most of the way through the security zone, in a sense proving that the war on terror is smaller than Lakefront Park. I will have to follow up on this exciting story.