Bombing cover-up?

"The Afghan Government has warned against any cover-up in the investigation into a US airstrike which killed nearly 50 people at a wedding party at the start of July. The warning came amid reports that a preliminary United Nations investigation into the bombing had found that US officials removed vital evidence from the site after the incident. The UN probe is said to have found that US troops cleaned the area - removing shrapnel, bullets and traces of blood."

Apparently, according to reports from UN humanitarian workers who arrived on the scene, the US made a concerted effort to get rid of evidence after the bombing. The right course of action would seem to have been to admit the military made a grevious error and then apologize, but then the US can never admit it's wrong, especially under the current administration.

Read the article here, and a follow-up story (about the UN changing the final report) here.

posted by Michael Curry at 10:55 PM

Supporting democracy?

"Watching the pathetic, mealy-mouthed response of President Bush and his State Department to Egypt's decision to sentence the leading Egyptian democracy advocate to seven years in prison leaves one wondering whether the whole Bush foreign policy team isn't just a big bunch of phonies. Shame on all of them."

This opinion piece talks about the Bush administration's response to Egypt's silencing of a leading advocate of democracy, and the message this sends to the rest of the world.

Read the whole article here [registration required].

posted by Michael Curry at 9:49 PM

A war against Iraq is not a good idea

Two articles about why the idea of a war with Iraq is a bad one.

First, from The Guardian:

"A former chief of defence staff, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, warned in a letter to the Times that an invasion of Iraq would pour "petrol rather than water" on the flames and provide al- Qaida with more recruits. He quoted a predecessor who said during the 1956 Suez crisis: "Of course we can get to Cairo but what I want to know is what the bloody hell do we do when we get there?"

The article sums up the view of many US and UK commanders that an attack on Iraq is ill-advised, at best.

Then there is this from the New York Times:

"An American attack on Iraq could profoundly affect the American economy, because the United States would have to pay most of the cost and bear the brunt of any oil price shock or other market disruptions, government officials, diplomats and economists say."

In other words, in addition to causing the Middle east to go up in flames, and getting large numbers of American troops killed for no good reason (other than raising poll numbers), an attack on Iraq could also cause the American economy to tank even more than it already has. Read the whole article here [registration required].

posted by Michael Curry at 9:28 PM

Democratic situationalists versus Green existentialists

From the July 30th issue of Undernews:

"But even if Nader only took one percentage point away from Gore - the most that can possibly be claimed - some will say that the Greens should have known better than to take that risk. In a way, it comes down to a debate between Democratic situationists - I am what the polls tell me I ought to be - and Green existentialists - I am what I am regardless of the polls. The danger with the Green existentialist approach is that you may end up with a Bush (or a Clinton, for that matter) in the White House. The danger with the Democratic situationist approach is that you definitely will. In one case, you give up on democracy in favor of a 800-pound-gorillacracy; in the other case you still retain some hope that things can get better.

Ironically, if Nader had done much better - say 10 or 15 points - we would all be in better shape since politics tends to follow third party uprisings when they are powerful enough. In the most recent case, for example, both the GOP and Democratic parties still remain in the shadow of the Perot paradigm. But because Nader didn't do all that well, the Democrats can muddle along pretending that it wasn't their fault after all but some guy they wouldn't even let into the debate.

Democrats tend to think of Greens as wayward members of their party, which is why they try to browbeat them rather than convincing them. In fact, the Greens have less and less in common with the Democratic Party - especially since the latter refuses to stand up against the Bush war, greedy globalization, and the disintegration of constitutional government.

There are fortunately exceptions - Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Lee, and Chellie Pingree (who is running for the Senate in Maine) among them. If Paul Wellstone, for example, had followed the sensible model of these women he'd be more comfortable today.

But too many Democrats presume they can either ignore the Greens or hector them back into their pointless, spiritless, and morally dead confines. It won't work for the simple reason that, unlike the Democratic Party, Greens actually believe in something. And when you believe in something, you are willing to take a few risks along the way." -- Sam Smith

posted by Michael Curry at 9:13 PM