Ohmigod, I agree with Ralph Nader

Here:

The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central question: ''Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"

If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed ''high crimes and misdemeanors." It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I" word.

Yes. Impeach them. They have committed high crimes against this country.

Torture Girl is back

First, a little Theater of the Absurd:

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, recently, Amnesty International said you have established 'a new gulag' of prisons around the world, beyond the reach of the law and decency. I'd like your reaction to that, and also your assessment of how it came to this, that that is a view not just held by extremists and anti-Americans, but by groups that have allied themselves with the United States government in the past -- and what the strategic impact is that in many places of the world, the United States these days, under your leadership, is no longer seen as the good guy.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is -- promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation.

In terms of the detainees, we've had thousands of people detained. We've investigated every single complaint against the detainees. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report. It just is. And, you know -- yes, sir.

And off they go to a new question.

Absurd, yes. But also, true.

Next, Mark Danner:

For these reports do use the words "systematic" and "systemic" -- they are there, in black and white -- and though the reports have great shortcomings, the truth is that they tell us basic facts about Abu Ghraib: first, that the torture and abuse was systematic; that it was ordered by higher-ups, and not carried out by "a few bad apples," as the administration has maintained; that responsibility for it can be traced -- in documents that have been made public -- to the very top ranks of the administration, to decisions made by officials in the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense and, ultimately, the White House. The significance of what we know about Abu Ghraib, and about what went on -- and, most important, what is almost certainly still going on -- not only in Iraq but at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and other military and intelligence bases, some secret, some not, around the world -- is clear: that after September 11, shortly after you all came to Berkeley, our government decided to change this country from a nation that officially does not torture to one, officially, that does.

What is interesting about this fact is not that it is hidden but that it is revealed. We know this -- or rather those who are willing to read know it. Those who can see the gulf between what officials say and what the facts are. And we, as I have said, remain fairly few. Secretary Rumsfeld can say what he said at that nationally televised news conference because no one is willing to read the reports. We are divided, then, between those of us willing to listen, and believe, and those of us determined to read, and think, and find out.

Also:

So we have had the revelations; we know what happened. What we don't have is any clear admission of -- or adjudication of -- guilt, such as a serious congressional or judicial investigation would give us, or any punishment. Those high officials responsible are still in office. Indeed, not only have they received no punishment; many have been promoted. And we -- you and I, members all of the reality-based community -- we are left to see, to be forced to see. And this, for all of us, is a corrupting, a maddening, but also an inescapable burden.

Again: And this, for all of us, is a corrupting, a maddening, but also an inescapable burden.

Let us have the strength to bear this burden. Let us continue to see, to turn toward. We may be able to do nothing else, but at least we can keep our eyes open and not deny reality because we feel helpless to change it.

The flu pandemic: were we ready?

Nature aks ze question, here.

Oh, and check out more bird flu goodies on the Guardian.

Bird Flu. It's the New Black Death.

[ADVERTORIAL]

Salon: still pimping products

Well, the second installment of Salon's pimp-a-thon is out, and, just like the first, it's a swan-song to a conveniently purchaseable product, complete with product links. Again, I would like to register my discomfort with Salon's new role as product pimp.

Yes Virginia, pregnancy may very well make you listless and lonely

Some poor pre-motherhood chick on Alternet bitches about Padme's pregnancy. I haven't seen the so-called anti-Bush propaganda movie (and I certainly won't go see it in the theater, so I really can't comment, but the author of the article says:

Despite the futuristic age in which she lives, things aren't much brighter for Padme, whose pregnancy renders her oddly helpless. Though supposedly a member of the Galactic Senate, she does little more than sit listlessly in an oversized living room watching the passing hovercraft and the multiple sunsets, waiting for her belly to grow and for Anakin to come home. The only thing that changes are her outfits.

According to the story, Padme was a talented and educated girl from the planet of Naboo. She became an apprentice legislator by age 11 and by 14 was the planet's queen. A principled ruler, she fought illegal occupations and cleverly restored freedom to her planet. When her term as Queen ended, she remained active in public service and became an outspoken senator, championing peaceful solutions to the galactic wars.

So what happened? Why does Padme spend this movie sentenced to an idle life at home in tearful silence? Is this what pregnancy does to women?

I'm wondering because for the past year or two I've been thinking about having a kid myself. Now, added to my usual litany of questions--do I have the money, will I still have time to write, can my body handle it--I'm wondering if pregnancy itself will make me lonely and dull. Will I become like Padme, stuck on the sofa, isolated, brushing my hair for hours, waiting for my partner to come home from work?

In my effort to answer the "Should I have a baby?" question, I spend a lot of time looking for role models. I look for mothers who still make it to book club, stay up on current events and show up for the dinner party. I look for pregnant women who read more than just mothering magazines, who dance and go running and converse about things other than diapers and babysitters. In short, I look for mothers and mothers-to-be who are active, smart women who still make it to Galactic Senate meetings.

Ugh. I am so sick of non-mothers mouthing off about what kind of role model I, a mother, should be to them. Some women have fabulous pregnancies, cheerfully running off to the Galactic Senate. Fine. I'm happy for them. Not that I think George Lucas has any particular insight into the experience of pregnancy, but my pregnancy was a lot more like how the above description of Padme's pregnancy than it was like this chick's idealized Babystyle book-groups-and-jogging-pregnancy.

The truth is, people, pregnancy is fucking hard. It's an enormous effort by your body. Sure, it's not sickness, exactly. But it certainly does not feel like health. Pregnancy is exhausting, bewildering, and often icky. It can make you tired and lonely, and prone to sitting on the couch brushing your hair, waiting for your spouse to come home and feed you crackers. There's a lot of waiting involved in pregnancy, and it's pretty much impossible to just go on with your regular life as though nothing is going to change. Because everything is going to change.

I should be more gracious, though. I too was once as self-centered as the author, looking at all moms through the lens of what I wanted them to be and do, my own image of how I didn't want my life to change when I had kids. I too had the gall to look at moms I knew, real and fictional, and judge them: not smart enough, not active enough, too involved with the kids, pathetic. Me, I won't be a mom like that, I said.

It's a funny thing about moms, though. We'll snipe at one another endlessly, but defend to the death the honor of all mothers against the non-moms who snipe at us. You non-mom women: you have no idea what kind of mom you'll be. You have no idea what kind of pregnancy you'll have. You have no idea of the challenges to your energy and intelligence that motherhood will lay on you, and how those challenges will be, basically, invisible to non-moms who will look at you.

But go ahead and get pregnant. And when you are sitting there on the couch, letting your book group book fall and gazing dully out at the passing spaceships, give a mom a call. "Yeah," she'll say. "Pregnancy sucks ass, doesn't it." "How come no one told me?" you'll ask.

Mark Danner, Joan Didion.

Our dear friend RJ at the Daily Blague suggests two New York Review articles; our NYRB not yet having arrived, I had to print them off the computer to read them.

Mark Danner discusses the Downing Street Memo, and reprints it in full. "Still, for those interested in the question of how our leaders persuaded the country to become embroiled in a counterinsurgency war in Iraq, the Downing Street memorandum offers one more confirmation of the truth. For those, that is, who want to hear."

Two weeks after he wrote the article, the full text of the Downing Street Memo, which, as I pointed out previously, is nowhere near as long as the Starr Report, has still not been reprinted by the Times, or, as far as I can tell, by any other major U.S. paper. Newsweek, however, is dutifully taking dictation from Larry Di Rita. Mission Accomplished!

The other article suggested was Joan Didion on Terri Schiavo. That article annoyed me, but I'm not doing well at explaining exactly why, so I won't discuss yet. Maybe it's just because it's the end of May and I've had to put the heat on, and my tomato seedlings are huddled underneath a Reemay blanket, soddenly awaiting spring so that they can be planted.

Best Friends

Some books about friend breakups have just been published, reaping a review in the Times, and an article in Salon. The Salon article, as is so often the case with Salon's 'life' features, tries to make grand historical statements about why female friendships are more important these days than they were in the past -- a ridiculous argument that any first year women's studies major would snort at. Hasn't the author heard of Lillian Faderman? Surpassing the Love of Men ? Anyone, anyone? Salon's editors should have just cut the entire last three paragraphs of the article:

Perhaps severing our female bonds and then getting over them is so difficult because it's still hard for us to articulate how important we are to each other in the first place. But it's high time we figured out how to get over our self-consciousness about the intensity of our female alliances. Because while friendship may have always existed as a shaping force in women's lives, it has never been so integral to so many.

As our biological and professional horizons change, we are freer to make our associations with women the center of our lives for longer periods of time -- not simply refuges from our dealings with men, though certainly those kinds of camaraderies still exist and are as valuable as ever.

Our friendships -- their beginnings, their durations and their ends -- have become as crucial to the timelines of our lives and to the shape of our selves as the traditional family structures we have long revered and respected. A couple of new books that take the pains of female love seriously are exactly what we need to begin to develop a vocabulary of female loss.

Historically inaccurate filler. Breaking up with a best friend is painful enough, we do not need to justify our interest in the phenomenon by insisting that it is a newly important societal trend.

But really, I'm snarking at the Salon article because I'm coming up on the anniversary of my divorce from my own best friend, and it hurts, hurts, hurts. We broke up after fifteen years of passionate love, on the basis of a brief comment I made while standing in line at a Victoria's Secret waiting for her to buy a strapless bra to wear under her wedding dress. I made the comment ("I've recently discovered that shopping gives me migraines," I said), and she gave me a look. Just a look. And then we went back to my house for lunch, and I asked her about the look she'd given me. And then, at my dining room table, our friendship simply unravelled. All the loose threads of it, years of loose threads, got pulled all at once, and we sat there in a pile of bitterness and yarn. Three emails and two brief telephone calls later, we said goodbye to one another. "Let's do it cleanly," I said to her. "We don't want to drag this out for years and years more, and torment one another, do we?" "No," she said, "you're right." And so it ended. She went and got married without me. She had been my maid of honor. She had made my wedding dress. She had been present at the birth of my son. And she went and got married without me, in a dress I'd helped her choose, and a menu I'd organized for her with a caterer I'd found, and wearing, I suppose, the strapless bra whose purchase was our tipping point.

I can't breathe, thinking of it. This is a rare kind of entry for me to put on Biscuit, as it's not about politics at all. I don't know why I'm posting it at all, in fact. Perhaps I simply feel the need for some public mourning. There's no grave to stand at, no wake to attend, no papers to sign. What else can I do with the wide and silent lake of my grief?

The Medium Lobster Speaks...

on Newsweek

The Medium Lobster has learned that while it was spreading lies about Korans at Guantanamo Bay, Newsweek managed to torture hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan, killing dozens of them in the process. And apparently Newsweek has not been content to torture prisoners on its own. It has also kidnapped citizens of other countries and flown them to dictatorships to be tortured! The Medium Lobster has said it before and he will, no doubt, say it again: no blood for mainstream media.

I agree with Kevin Drum

who writes:

I'm annoyed at Newsweek for knuckling under to the Pentagon over its Koran desecration piece, I'm annoyed at the reflexive press bashers for piling on even though Newsweek's reporters did nothing that every other reporter in Washington hasn't done a dozen times before, and I'm annoyed at my fellow liberals, who have been tepid in defense of Newsweek because the piece in question was written by Michael Isikoff, against whom we are all expected to hold a lifetime grudge because of his treatment of Bill Clinton.

It's time to grow up. If we want a vigorous press, that means going after thinly sourced stories. It means occasionally making mistakes. And it means sometimes our side takes it in the shorts too. That's life. But it's a helluva lot better than the alternative.

For disclosure purposes, readers who don't know me should know that I am related, at a weddings-and-bar-mitzvah "hey, how are you?" level, to Michael Isikoff of Newsweek. I have not recently seen him at any weddings or bar mitvahs, so I have no special insight into this story. And if I did, I certainly wouldn't publish it on this blog. Also, I was as pissed at him as the rest of you over the whole Clinton thing. There. I've followed the blogger disclosure code of ethics.

I want to cry

Here is the Times, on the Downing Street Memo:
British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics - New York Times:

More than two weeks after its publication in London, a previously secret British government memorandum that reported in July 2002 that President Bush had decided to 'remove Saddam, through military action' is still creating a stir among administration critics. They are portraying it as evidence that Mr. Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has acknowledged.

Why don't you just print the damn memo, in its entirety, and let people decide for themselves if it is evidence that Bush was intent on war or not? It's not such a long memo, and it's quite interesting reading, and then you can avoid the story being about "what critics say" vs. what the "Bush administration says". The document is there, guys. Let's see it!

UPDATE: Here is my letter to the Times:

When Ken Starr released his report on Clinton's sex life, I remember that the New York Times, along with many other newspapers, reprinted the report so that readers could come to their own conclusions about it. Rather than report that administration critics think the leaked British memo is damning, and the administration itself thinks it's not at all important, the Times should print the memo itself, in its entirety, and allow readers to decide for themselves. It is much shorter than the Starr Report, and while it's true there's no sex involved, it does address the very important question of whether the American and British people were led into war on false pretenses.

More Bird Flu PR

Maternal & Child Health: Avian Flu Evolving?

Scientists meeting in Manila under the auspices of the World Health Organization are concerned that the avian flu virus has begun to evolve into a form that can be more readily transmitted from person-to-person. This concern is based on both the observed spatial and temporal patterns of cases in Viet Nam and on the results of gene sequencing of avian flu virus samples. The evolution of the avian flu virus to a form easily transmissible between humans is the last step required for the avian flu pandemic. The WHO scientists were not able to prove that this has occurred. What they reported is that the recent pattern of the disease is consistent with this possibility.

Bird Flu: It's the New Black Death*

Watch for our video news release "Bird Flu Facts: A Special Report" to appear on your local TV news. Avian Influenza, LTD. is taking PR tips from the pros now.

Every time I read one of these press briefings,

with Scott McClellan, I think "yeah, we really gotta go to New Zealand."

Q Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's what I talked about yesterday. This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.

And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled -- or is handled with the utmost care and respect. And I think it would help to point that out, because some have taken this report -- those that are opposed to the United States -- some have taken this report and exploited it and used it to incite violence.

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

Q It's not pressure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report.

[...]

Q Back on Newsweek. Richard Myers, last Thursday -- I'm going to read you a quote from him. He said, "It's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran." He said it was "more tied up in the political process and reconciliation that President Karzai and his cabinet were conducting." And he said that that was from an after-action report he got that day.

So what has changed between last Thursday and today, five days later, to make you now think that those -- that that violence was a result of Newsweek?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, clearly, the report was used to incite violence by people who oppose the United States and want to mischaracterize the values and the views of the United States of America. The protests may have been pre-staged by those who oppose the United States and who may be opposed to moving forward on freedom and democracy in the region, but the images that we have seen across our television screens over the last few days clearly show that this report was used to incite violence. People lost their lives --

Q But may I just follow up, please? He didn't say "protest," he said -- he used the word very specifically, "violence." He said the violence, as far as they know from their people on the ground -- which is something that you always say you respect wholeheartedly -- it was not because of Newsweek.

MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I guess I'm not looking at it the same way as you do, and I think the Department of Defense has spoken to this issue over the last few days. But the facts are very clear that this report was used in the region by people opposed to the United States to incite violence and to portray a very negative image of the United States, one that runs contrary to everything that we value and believe, and it has done some serious damage to our image.

Q You don't think there's any way that perhaps you're looking at it a little bit differently, now that you understand that the Newsweek report is false?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can go look at just about every news report that has covered this and they have pointed out that this report, itself, helped spark some violence in the region.

Q Scott, to go back to Dana's question, are you saying that General Myers was wrong, therefore, that this -- the violence he's talking about? Are you saying he was wrong in his assessment of what happened in Afghanistan?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, not at all. In fact, maybe you didn't hear me, but as I said, there are people that are opposed to the United States that look at every opportunity to try to do damage to our image in the region, and --

Q Okay --

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on, let me finish -- and this report gave the additional material to incite violence, and additional material to exploit in the region. The report was wrong. Newsweek has stated that it was wrong. And there has been some lasting damage that has been done to our image because of this report. And it's going to take some work to repair that damage. And that's why we would encourage Newsweek to do its part to help repair the damage.

Q Let me follow up on that. What -- you said that -- what specifically are you asking Newsweek to do? I mean, to follow up on Terry's question, are you saying they should write a story? Are you going that far? How else can Newsweek, you know, satisfy you here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, we would encourage them to continue working diligently to help repair the damage that has been done because of this --

Q Are you asking them to write a story?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- because of this report. I think Newsweek is going to be in the best position to determine how to achieve that. And there are ways that I pointed out that they can help repair the damage. One way is to point out what the policies and practices of our United States military are. Our United States military personnel go out of their way to make sure that the Holy Koran is treated with care --

Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --

Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm coming to your question, and you're not letting me have a chance to respond. But our military goes out of their way to handle the Koran with care and respect. There are policies and practices that are in place. This report was wrong. Newsweek, itself, stated that it was wrong. And so now I think it's incumbent and -- incumbent upon Newsweek to do their part to help repair the damage. And they can do that through ways that they see best, but one way that would be good would be to point out what the policies and practices are in that part of the world, because it's in that region where this report has been exploited and used to cause lasting damage to the image of the United States of America. It has had serious consequences. And so that's all I'm saying, is that we would encourage them to take steps to help repair the damage. And I think that they recognize the importance of doing that. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, Salon. Must you too fuel our overconsumption?

Salon has introduced a new column called Object Lust. In it, writers and readers pimp stuff they like. This week it's Katharine Mieszkowski gushing about a pedometer. There's a link to the product website. This disgusts me.

Salon introduces the column not by saying "here's stuff you can buy, and we're pimping it," but by saying "oh, even you self-righteous simple-living types lust after stuff, let's all admit it in a literary and enlightened fashion":

No matter how far above the material world we float -- never mind how emotionally and spiritually tuned in we may fancy ourselves -- somewhere deep inside, we all love stuff. Even those who crow about being able to fit the contents of their lives into their Volkswagen eventually develop an intense connection with the Volkswagen itself.

Our prized possession might be a special brand of toilet paper or those Mr. Clean sponges that wipe every stain imaginable off the walls while creepily disintegrating into chalky paste in your hand. It could be the razor that leaves no nicks, the garlic crusher that cleanly mashes clove after clove, the takeout service that delivers fresh organic produce to your door, or the bra that shapes us beautifully.

Thus, we're launching a new weekly column called Object Lust.

Salon, salon. Sure, we all want stuff. Could it be because it's always being pimped to us, even in places we don't want or need it to be? Why encourage us in our pathetic obsessions with our crap? Or, if we have to talk about our crap, why not about crap that can't be bought? Crap we made. Crap we picked up on the street. Crap our grandparents brought from the old country that we can't get rid of now, even though it's crap. Broken phones we insist on saving. Or what about a column on crap we have and hate. Or stupidest purchases of crap ever.

If I want to know about stuff I could buy and why someone else has an idiotic obsession with it, there are about fifteen thousand magazines I can look at. Why do I have to see that in Salon?

One Thing

about the Koran issue, from Talking Points Memo:

The headline to this NBC article out this morning reads: 'White House says move [i.e., Newsweek's retraction] 'a good first step,' but demands more action.'

A question. What 'more action' should a White House ever be in a position to demand after a story has been retracted, especially in a case where the White House is not even directly involved in the facts of the case.

Think about.

I so resent having to write about the freakin' Koran story

which is just one more Administration excuse to crack down on the press for its lack of patriotism.

Actually, I resent it so much that I'm not going to write about it. Go read some other blogger, one who is not taking a mindfulness-based stress reduction course. I have to do some mindful breathing now.

Kevin Drum Goes Cold Turkey on the Times

The Washington Monthly:

SO LONG, AND THANKS FOR ALL THE WORDS....This isn't the biggest deal in the world, but I think I'm going to stop linking to New York Times op-eds and columns starting now. Yesterday's announcement made it clear they no longer want to engage with the hoi polloi, and in any case their op-ed page will be off limits to all of us nonsubscribers in September anyway. So why wait?

It was nice while it lasted, though.

Me? I know I'll be scrabbling around in the ashtrays of the internets, looking for half-smoked butts of Krugman columns for months after I lose access.

Articulate blogger on NEWSWEEK, censorship

here. I am pleased to see this blogger agrees with me that the real story continues to be the Downing Street Memo

Where's the Gorilla?

So, the NEWSWEEK story. Press can't decide whether to report that NEWSWEEK is retracting the story of the Koran desecration, or whether the story is that NEWSWEEK won't retract their story despite White House pressure.

The story is neither of these. The story is the Downing Street Memo.

Watch the gorilla, guys. Hard evidence that our government lied to get us into a war that's killed tens of thousands of people. Lied. Plotted and Lied. Yet what's the news? A NEWSWEEK source who read something in a different document than the one he told a reporter he read it in. The thing he read was reported elsewhere, and has been alleged by lots of former detainees. And does anyone honestly think that it's something our interrogators wouldn't do? If they'd grab a man by the testicles and make fun of his hardon? Smear 'menstrual blood' on his face? Beat him to death? Sodomize him? I'm sure no one at NEWSWEEK expected riots. But the riots are not their fault. Let Mr. Bush stand up and apologize for torturing people; let him stand up before America and the world and admit that he lied to get us into war, and that he's sorry about that. Then we'll all go ice skating in hell, and laugh.

It's awful about the rioting. But let's not blame it on NEWSWEEK.

Here is the Downing Street Memo. Do yourself a favor, and read the whole thing. Then weep, not only for the lying government we've got, but for the apathy of the American people when faced with the liars.

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.  But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.   The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Ajai Raj: My New Hero

Ajai Raj asked Ann Coulter whether she thought marriage was sacred even when the husband only fucked his wife up the ass. He was arrested. Read his account of the whole thing, you won't regret the click-through.

Yes, I am aware that you already know all about the ever-increasing perversity of of the wingnuts, dear readers.This post is for my mom, who has been in the Bermuda Triangle for a couple of months and missed all the buttfucking good times we've been having here on the mainland. Please click through that one, too, Mom, the writer's a friend of ours and very funny. And why should I write about David Hager's habit of anally raping his wife while she was passed out in narcoleptic fits, when I can let someone else do all the work?

SSRIs in Pregnancy

Salon.com Life | Bad chemistry? Here's a hysterical mom worrying that she ruined her kid's life by taking SSRIs in pregnancy. "I didn't drink coffee, I went off ahi and gorgonzola, I avoided the products of both Napa and Humboldt counties. It never occurred to me to stay on the meds."

Well, I went off my meds for baby Biscuit, and regular readers know what a disaster that turned out to be. But I found it impossible not to eat raw milk cheese (is it my fault I had to attend a wedding in France during my pregnancy? Could I possibly have been expected not to partake of a nice Pomerol and actual Camembert while in France? Bad enough that when presented with a plate of homemade fois gras, my pregnant stomach was unable to appreciate the gift...) I lost my taste for coffee, and had never thought giving up playing in kitty litter to be particularly difficult. I knew someone who wouldn't even drink herbal tea while pregnant. (Even innocent herbal tea, like, say, Sleepytime.)

I am not sure what my point is here. C'mon lady, raise your kids, and quit obsessing about what you could have done differently. Of course, in retrospect, I wish I'd stayed on my meds. I certainly will next time I get up the guts to get pregnant. ("There may well have to be roofies involved," I joke to Mr. Biscuit.) Maybe I have no point. Really, this whole post was just an excuse to admit publicly that I ate forbidden cheese while pregnant. Take that! What to Expect When You're Expecting. I piss on your sanctimonious prohibitions.

Mother's Day Tennis Bracelet

As usual, Max presented me with a fabulous diamond-and-sapphire tennis bracelet today to thank me for giving birth to his child. This gift allows him to ignore my maternal sacrifices the other 364 days of the year. Whenever I get tired of chasing after the two year old, I just put on my tennis bracelets and flash them around at the nannies on the playground, and everything's peachy again.

I jest, children, I jest. Really, some of you are so gullible. Actually, we've spent the day drilling large holes in the wall of the laundry closet so that we may install wire shelving on which to stack towels. I am covered in romantic drywall dust.

PBS

PBS Unplugged - President Bush gives us a new reason to wean public broadcasting from the government teat. By Jack Shafer

Hmm. So, if all public funding for public broadcasting was cut off, then in what sense, exactly, would public broadcasting be, you know, public?

Can people please just say "Down With Public Broadcasting, Up With NewsCorp!" and be done with it?

God loves teasing scientists

by pretending that the whole ridiculous evolution thing might be real. And the BBC fell for it!:

Fossils of an ancient fish - dating back 450 million years, when the creatures had neither bones nor teeth - have been found in South Africa.

The finds, which are 50 million years older than any other fossil fish in Africa, will help provide a 'missing link' in the evolution of early fish.

Lucky for Americans, none of our newspapers have fallen for God's little joke and reported the find yet. Let's hope our news outlets continue to stand up to the Darwinist heresy.

Digby on John Tierney's hideous NYT column

and horse cocks:

Now it seems that the moral Red Staters have finally decided to admit that they love a good horse cock joke as much as the next guy and that's just fine with me. I always knew they did. We're all about horse cock jokes in this country, from sea to shining sea. Nothing makes a First Lady more downhome and fun than talking about horse cocks on TV. Bring 'em on. Horse cocks for everyone.

But I'd really appreciate it if they'd can the phony sanctimony from now on and shut the fuck up about "Desperate Housewives" and dirty talk on TV. If it's ok for the First Lady of the United States to joke publicly about her husbands limp dick and jerking off farm animals then it's ok for Whoopie Goldberg and everybody else to make Bush jokes.

Sorry, Digby, no dice. Those people have different standards for themselves and for everyone else. If they do it, it's okay. If other people do it, it's not. This sounds suspiciously like moral relativism, but don't worry, it's not. It's the far more common money-and-power relativism, as described in the following golden rule: 'Anally rape others as you would not want to be anally raped, and then arrest them for sodomy.'

"News" coverage

Already much has been made of the disappearing bride "story" that was covered in the major media over the weekend.

I hadn't even heard anything about it until Saturday morning when it was resolved. My brother-in-law said that they found the missing bride, and I had no idea of what he was talking about. (I guess it had been covered in a minor story in the Times on Friday, when the case was still unresolved, but I missed it.) Later in the day, I went for a run on the treadmill at the gym, and was dumbfounded to see MSNBC spend thirty uninterrupted minutes covering the non-event. I didn't have headphones, so didn't listen, but it consisted of interviews with clinical psychologists talking about why she might have run away, five crappy snapshots of her staring with an artificial smile into the flash, and some footage from the 7-11 where she reappeared.

Here is the central bit about this "news":

NOTHING HAPPENED.

Repeat:

NOTHING HAPPENED.

And this was front and center on MSNBC, CNN, and presumably the fascist propaganda organ known as FOX News for several days. (When I complained to above brother-in-law, he said it was indeed a major story, because it seemed like the groom must have killed or kidnapped her.)

This merited at best some local Atlanta coverage, nothing more. I have no doubt that nearly identical fugues happen every single weekend in America: somebody gets cold feet and disappears for a while. OK, this one had the slight twist where she faked a kidnap call, but it's still not a story.

Iraq? Torture? Global warming? Darfur? Impending long-term energy crisis?

No, this is proof that the "news" vendors are selling nothing but prurient entertainment. Not news.

Pandagon: Kansas to debate whether Adam had a navel next week

My thoughts exactly: "Hurry up, Rapture! The only people that want it more than the believers are the non-believers."

stuff I'd write about intelligently if I was to write about anything intelligently lately...

Bob Herbert this morning, about gratuitous violence in Iraq. Not that we couldn't have guessed.

Bush and Blair plotted regime change all along. They lied. They lied and lied and lied, and they called it 'managing public opinion.' This is news in the UK, but not, apparently, here in the States, where everyone's already accepted that Bush lied and no one really cares.

Pat Robertson says judges are worse than terrorists. On national TV. No one cares.

Krugman on the plan to kill social security.

Say goodbye to PBS.

This is several days old, but the headline is "Doctors are warned on fetus care." Not that we didn't know it, girls, but our bodies are no longer our own, and the feds want to make sure everyone understands that.

Also several days old: a small AP notice about someone resigning from a federal election reform commission:

The first chairman of a federal voting agency created after the 2000 election dispute is resigning, saying the government has not shown enough commitment to reform.

The former chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, DeForest B. Soaries Jr., said his decision was prompted in part by what he called a lack of support."All four of us had to work without staff, without offices, without resources," Mr. Soaries said. "I don't think our sense of personal obligation has been matched by a corresponding sense of commitment to real reform from the federal government."

Mr. Soaries, a Republican former secretary of state of New Jersey, was the White House's choice to join the commission, created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to help states enact voting changes. After his term as chairman ended in January, he remained a panel member.

So those of you turning blue waiting for election reform, stop holding your breath.

Digby quotes Fritz Stern:

German moderates and German elites underestimated Hitler, assuming that most people would not succumb to his Manichean unreason; they didn’t think that his hatred and mendacity could be taken seriously. They were proven wrong. People were enthralled by the Nazis’ cunning transposition of politics into carefully staged pageantry, into flag-waving martial mass. At solemn moments, the National Socialists would shift from the pseudo-religious invocation of Providence to traditional Christian forms: In his first radio address to the German people, twenty-four hours after coming to power, Hitler declared, “The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.

Give money to Kerry; get blacklisted from telecom conferences.

The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.

The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, Md. One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party. Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: "We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House."

Also, the U.S. finally admits that it did kidnap that German guy who wasn't a terrorist after all. Oops, our bad.

Some people were excited in the past couple of weeks to find that some conservatives thought that Delay and Frist were "going too far" with their attacks on the judiciary. "Look what Charles Krauthammer said", they exclaim. "Even he thinks they're being crazy."Anyone who reads this column as a win for the side of sanity is dead wrong:

Provocation is no excuse for derangement. And there has been plenty of provocation: decades of an imperial judiciary unilaterally legislating radical social change on the flimsiest of constitutional pretexts. But while that may explain, it does not justify the flailing, sometimes delirious attacks on the judiciary mounted by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and others in the wake of the Terri Schiavo case.

Haven't we seen enough of this strategy? I think I prefer to hear DeLay threatening judges than to read Krauthammer saying that judges are awful but we shouldn't threaten them. It's an incendiary column purporting to denounce incitement. Are we really that easy to fool???!

I Grew Up in the Insanest State in Insano-Land

Three bits of Florida idiocy:

Florida police officers think it's okay to handcuff a five-year-old who is having a tantrum in kindergarten. Also, the State is trying to prevent a pregnant thirteen-year-old in state custody from having an abortion.

The girl, identified as L.G. in court documents, had to endure the added agony of justifying herself before a judge. "Why can't I make my own decision?" she asked Palm Beach County Judge Ronald Alvarez at a hearing on Thursday. "What is it that you don't understand?"

Feisty and defiant, she appealed to his reason: "I don't think I should have the baby because I'm 13, I'm in a shelter and I can't get a job."

[...]

An expert presented by L.G.'s lawyers testified that she faced a higher risk of death from carrying the baby to term than from aborting it, while a DCF witness described the potential for "post-abortion syndrome"—though he acknowledged that the supposed condition isn't formally recognized by either the American Medical Association or American Psychiatric Association. In that same hearing, Alvarez asked L.G. about her decision-making skills. "That is another reason I shouldn't have [the baby]," she replied, according to an audio recording of the court hearing. "I can't make good decisions for myself, so what makes you think I can make good decisions for a baby?"

. All pregnant thirteen-year-olds should have a talk with this eminently reasonable girl.

Finally, a Denny's in Florida City says "We don't serve Bin Ladens here."