George learns another lesson.

The right wing talking heads are turning themselves in circles over the Bhutto assassination. Unfortunately for Fox News and Laura Ingraham, who I attempted to watch last night, the events in Pakistan don't fit neatly into their talking points. Therefore, they jam the principal characters into their own black and white world views. The murderer has to be Al Qaeda, and the motive is somehow darkly related to Iraq, Afghanistan and nuclear weapons. The WSJ today lazily lumps the assassin into the new catch all bucket of the "jihadists". Musharraf's role as a bulwark against the terrorists is accepted as fact.

The fact that Bhutto's enemies may have had much more to do with ethnicity than politics, and the fact that the construct of Pakistan is revealed to be a loosely held confederation of warring tribes, is beyond the comprehension of the mouth breathing right. Bhutto and the Sindhi's from Southern Pakistan represent a challenge to the majority Punjabis, and many of the urbane upper class Punjabis are no doubt happy to see her go. The one institution that matters in Pakistan, the military, is dominated by the Punjabi majority, and their leader is Bhutto's rival, Musharraf. Along with the breakaway rebellions in Baluchistan, Bhutto's ascension was a threat to the power center in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. This assassination has the hallmarks of a mob hit, rather than an Al Qaeda operation.

The clearest casualty of the events is the Bush foreign policy. Bhutto, as it is becoming increasingly clear, was encouraged by the Bush administration to return to Pakistan to help shore up the Musharraf regime, which had lost it's legitimacy at home. From Firedoglake:

The WaPo's Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler report on the steps the Administration took to convince Bhutto to return to Pakistan, with the design of rescuing General Musharraf's discredited military regime by cloaking it with the quasi-legitimacy of a partnership with Benazir Bhutto.

For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism. . . .

As President Pervez Musharraf's political future began to unravel this year, Bhutto became the only politician who might help keep him in power.

"The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact," said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy. . . .

"U.S. policy is in tatters. The administration was relying on Benazir Bhutto's participation in elections to legitimate Musharraf's continued power as president," said Barnett R. Rubin of New York University. "Now Musharraf is finished."

The Bush Administration did not kill Benazir Bhutto; someone else did that. But it appears the Administration convinced her to go back to Pakistan to save a risky policy foolishly built on a despised, repressive military dictator to fight the US "war on terror." Now a courageous woman is dead, another nation is in chaos, the US is further discredited, it can't account for billions in military aid, and we still have an administration that remains a menace to everyone's security as long as they remain in office. But the Administration wants us to believe that only al Qaeda is responsible.

This is going to be painful to watch

James Wolcott wonderfully explains the corner that the GOP has painted themselves into with regard to the religious fanatics that they've pandered to for years. The backlash against this fanaticism by the likes of Peggy Noonan and Charlie Krauthamer is rich in irony for sure. Wolcott doesn't say it, but I think that one of the things that will really hurt the GOP in this election is the amount of time that will be wasted by their candidates debating the relative merits and wattage of their individual faiths. Certainly Romney's Mormonism, Huckabee's fundamentalism and Rudy's train wreck of a personal life will continue to be a distraction to the Republican nomination for some time to come, and this distraction can't do anything but divide and confuse the base. There's more in it than that, though. I don't think you can underestimate the harm that is done to the GOP when these guys discuss whether Darwinism is true, whether atheists are citizens, or whether homosexuals are deviants who need to be reprogrammed. Outside of a few pockets of toothless Southern fundamentalism, this sort of discourse is beyond the pale, and certainly, for Americans of the generation born after 1980, these sentiments must seem deranged, rather than quaint or old fashioned.

The single issue that will drive Republicans away from their party in droves will be the continued pandering to the fundamentalist Christian base that is holding the party hostage. When you had an old dry drunk like Bush in the White House, the Christian right can be played like a fiddle, with a wink and a nod and a dog whistle of good old southern fried homo hatred. But Rudy and Mitt pose a different problem altogether, and these bible humpers who smiled through the Bush years won't stand by for this. They'll turn up the volume, demand more and more public fealty, and in doing so drive any semblance of moderation away from the party.

Why?

Glen Greenwald has a post up today documenting the absurd lengths Harry Reid is going to in order to ensure that the Senate passes a bill that gives blanket immunity to the telecom companies for warrantless wiretapping of your conversations. Basically, Chris Dodd is throwing away his entire presidential campaign in order to filibuster the telecom immunity bill, a position he has been forced into taking because his "hold" on the legislation has been overruled by Reid.

The interesting thing to note is that Reid has over and over again provided coverage for other senators holds, which essentially kill whatever bill is being debated. The question is: why? Is there some deal? Can it really be the case that Reid and Pelosi fear that the Dems will be considered soft on terrorism if they deign to challenge the anti-consitutional excesses of this discredited and famously unpopular administration?

As Greenwald says:

Isn't it just amazing? Reid is using every power he has, including some which run directly contrary to how the Senate has traditionally operated (and how it still operates when it comes to GOP prerogatives), to ensure that one of the most glaring scandals involving Bush lawbreaking -- warrantless surveillance on U.S. citizens -- is never investigated and there is never any accountability for it. And the methods he is using to accomplish that are as corrupt as the results themselves.

Revision

This really is getting unseemly. Doug Feith, described by Tommy Franks as "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth", blames the entire fiasco in Iraq on Paul Bremer:

Feith, in a speech last night at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, provided his most extensive public remarks on the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. When he briefed President Bush on U.S. plans for post-invasion Iraq, he recalled, "The original concept was not that the CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] would be around for many, many months." But, he said, L. Paul Bremer, who ran the U.S. occupation authority in 2003 and 2004, decided that Feith's plan "was not implementable" and instead embarked on a course that antagonized Iraqis and spurred an insurgency.

The history of this administration's excellent Iraq adventure is being written right before our eyes. The decision to invade Iraq was and is unassailably sound, but the fact that it turned so awful for so long was and is unassailably Paul Bremer's fault. They've got their fall guy. Just this weekend, with absolutely no evidence to support himself, Bill Kristol stated that the decision to invade Iraq was the reason that Libya and Iran abandoned their nuclear weapons programs, and therefore the idea of a preemptive invasion of a neighboring country is a "pretty good thing".

Time is healing all wounds for Feith, Perle and the lot. The mayhem of the last four and a half years means nothing to them, the cost to this country in dollars and lives, the cost to the Iraqi people, the destruction and chaotic dispersion of the refugees, the ethnic cleansing and the simmering religious hatreds that have been unleashed. All of this fades in their memories as they justify their decisions in hindsight. These men all sleep soundly, I'm sure.

MEK and the Neoconservatives

Let's see how quickly the mouth breathing right, including Podhoretz, Perle, Feith, Cheney and the rest of the neocons embrace the "Iranian opposition group's" assertion that Iran restarted their nuclear weapon program in 2004.

The group is that National Council for Resistance in Iran, and you can read about their history here. An Islamic socialist organization, they are more commonly known as MEK, and we designated them a terrorist organization as far back as 1997. They certainly don't sound like just the sort of group conservatives would naturally align themselves with. However....

In May 2005, Human Rights Watch claimed the PMOI were running prison camps within Iraq and were committing severe human rights violations.[50] The report described the PMOI as a cult held under the tight control of Maryam Rajavi. The report prompted a response by the PMOI and friendly MEPs (European MPs), who published a counter-report in September 2005.[51] They noted that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses." Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, alleged that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the PMOI.[51]

Prompted by the FOFI document, Human Rights Watch re-interviewed all 12 of the original witnesses, conducting private and personal interviews lasting several hours with each of them in Germany and the Netherlands, where the witnesses now live. All of the witnesses restated their claims about the PMOI camps from the 1991-2003 period, saying PMOI officials subjected them to various forms of physical and psychological abuses once they made known their wishes to leave the organization.[52]

Friday afternoon Regina Spektor goodness

The NIE and the Neocons

Predictably, Norman Podhoretz and Jon Bolton find fault with the NIE report which flatly states that Iran halted their nuclear weapons program three years ago. Bolton sees a conspiracy in the CIA to undermine the Bush administration, and Podhoretz just thinks that we're all stupid. Democracy Arsenal explains:

In recent days conservative like Berman, Norman Podhoretz, Danielle Pletka and Jon Bolton, have been trying to cast doubt on the conclusions of the intelligence community. Now the Washington Post is picking up on it and lending the arguments more credibility. When reading these arguments it's worthwhile to remember a few basic facts that should absolutely discredit this entire crowd.

First, none of these people have access to the actual intelligence. They are sitting at think tanks outside of the intelligence community and simply haven't seen the data. This was a report that shows the basic consensus of the nation's 16 intelligence and it was produced on the Bush Administration's watch and ultimately approved by the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, who is a Bush Administration appointee.

The neocons have a long history of overhyping the threats that exist to the country, but Iraq was their first real success, inasmuch as they got real US soldiers shot and killed for their fanciful agenda. The post continues:

Second, and this is even more important. This conservative and neo-conservative crowd has a long history of disregarding and manipulating intelligence when it doesn't fall conveniently into their world view. The Team B exercises in the late 1970s found that Soviet intentions and capabilities were much more dangerous than previously estimated by the intelligence community. It became part of the justification for a major military buildup against the Soviets. The Rumsfeld Commission in the 1990s was specifically set up to dispute the Intelligence Community's conclusions that the ballistic missile defense threat from developing countries to the American mainland was not an immediate danger. It became the basis for greater investment in a National Missile Defense. The Office of Special Plans that was set up in the Pentagon in the run up to the Iraq War, was specifically charged with trying to find connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq. It was used to support arguments for War.

In all of these cases conservatives played with and disregarded intelligence to help make their cases for a particular policy. And in all of these cases the conservatives were wrong.

If there was ever a case study for why it is important to study history, this is it. Considered in a correct frame of reference, nobody would listen to these bloodthirsty fools. Without a mainstream press that glosses over their failures, enables their nonsense and features them prominently on news shows as experts, these folks would be laughed out of the room. The very fact that Rudy has hired Norman Podhoretz as his foreign policy guru would disqualify him from consideration in a sane wold.

By the way, Paul Wolfowitz has already been resurrected:

In early December, Wolfowitz's time for public service came round again. Now, the former deputy defense secretary who was one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, will apparently be serving under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

According to several media reports, Wolfowitz has been offered a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board -- formerly known as the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board -- a prestigious State Department panel.

There's a happy thought.

Rudy and Mitt

It really is amazing that Rudy still dominates the conversation on the conservative side, considering this.

Kerik and Giuliani have previously insisted that there was no security detail or valet service prior to December 2000.

But now it turns out that that's not true. Yesterday Giuliani aides conceded that in fact Nathan had been received the valet service and security detail "sporadically" from early 2000 in response to yet more undisclosed, undetailed and unconfirmed "threats".

"Sporadically" is Team Rudy's word. Witnesses and a law enforcement source now say she got a full-time NYPD valet service for months before the affair went public.

Bear in mind, this is now well before anyone knew anyone knew the two were having an affair and thus before anyone knew who Judi Nathan was. So why would she be receiving 'threats' at all?

Revelations about the use of taxpayer money to fund limo rides for his mistress would torpedo just about anyone else's candidacy. This guy makes the Teflon Don look like a piker.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, who is running fifth nationally, gave a big speech on religion yesterday.

What a swell idea....

The NYT editorial board beggars belief in calling for the Bush administration to call in the big guns in order to implement Bush's "carrot and stick" approach with Iran. Ignoring the fact that the NIE report actually flies in the face of the rhetoric that has emanated from the oval office for months, and ignoring the fact that Bush undoubtedly knew that Iran had shuttered their nuclear weapons program at the time he hinted at WWIII, they encourage the administration to send in the big hitters in the rush towards actual diplomacy. And who do they nominate for this delicate and important task? Wait for it.... Condi Rice.

It's hard to understate the extent to which this Secretary of State has bungled one assignment after another. As national security adviser, she ignored George Tenant's briefings on OBL, and ignored the memo which warned of an imminent attack on our soil. She has become a born again neo-con, turning her back on the legacy of Brent Scowcroft, who was her boss in the first Bush administration, and who has become a vocal critic of the shit show that we have had to sit through for the past eight years. Perhaps only Junior bears more responsibility for this pointless war and the undeniable fact that is has worked at a diametric pole to our actual national interest. Cheney is a bloodthirsty old ghoul, his support for this war and any other war he could sink his teeth into should be no surprise. But Condi.....she has unquestionably supported a war that has squandered our treasury, killed thousands of our best and brightest, and created many more terrorists than we could ever imagine. Everything that she has touched has turned to shit.

The Times' editorial is a nice bookend to Hillary's suggestion that she would turn to Colin Powell in order to engender bipartisan support for a new international diplomacy. Please, can we not do better than a man who's legacy has to be defined by his performance at the UN? He sold his soul to the devil that day, and it should be a stain upon his visage all the days of his life. If the Democratic candidates feel that it is necessary to rehabilitate the reputations of this group, I'm afraid I won't be able to watch.