Maya of Arabia

What's bugging me about the Zero Dark Thirty controversy is how it has blocked any discussion of the movie's place in film history.  I'm not sure if this is the result of sexism, as if Kathryn Bigelow wouldn't be thinking in those terms, or just political sensitivities (my friends to the left are the ones condemning the film by comparing it to the work of Leni Riefenstahl - an incredibly sexist comparison) but when looked at within the context of Hollywood genre's, ZDT is the increasingly rare beast of an historical epic, at a time when every so-called-epic from Hollywood is a science fiction or superhero story.  The last great historical epic was, of course, Titanic, interestingly enough made by Bigelow's former husband.

Where ZDT fits is as the bookend to Lawrence of Arabia.  Each movie deals with the West's involvement with Middle Eastern politics, one from the start in the 20th Century, the other for the 21st.  Back then it's one British officer struggling through the desert, now it's batteries of U.S. soldiers flying in and out with impunity, but it both cases there's the sense of "other," that the West can never, no matter how embedded, truly understand or have a place in the desert worlds.  The threats to Maya's life are essentially urban - an assassination attempt rather than dying of thirst - but there's watching still the lone figure coming from a great distance (a fateful car rather than Omar Sharif), the hero putting on the local headgear to operate in the area, the lonely military outposts in a hostile land.

The question isn't whether the movie endorses torture, it's "Where do you want to go?" which Chastain outed on The Daily Show as the existential last line of the movie.  In Lawrence, a man is driven insane by his immersion into this Middle Eastern world.  In ZDT it's a nation (with Maya as the metaphor).  Lawrence posits that his Western influence helped create the desert nations.  ZDT asks if and how we want to be engaged with these very same nations - if, in another twist on the same theme in Lawrence, there a brutalization like torture involved.

ZDT's immediacy is blinding the arguers to the true nature (and greatness) of this movie.  Sorry, Bigelow and Boal didn't wait thirty years to tell this huge story.  They were brave enough -- and smart enough -- to tell a nine-year epic tale just moments after it concluded.

Like Father Like Grandson

Here in America, when we think of Kim Il-Sung, we probably think of this:

The reality is that this sick son of bitch, now mercifully dead (for the people of North Korea), was the author of famine in his country and an oppressor of his people -- to serve his own pleasures:

From 1995 to 1997, famine raged in North Korea. According to a report by North Korea’s Public Security Ministry, up to 3 million lost their lives (source). As this isn’t the most neutral observer, real numbers are probably much higher. (See an older post here about not trusting governments with the job of human rights measurement). Still today, the country is in such a state that it won’t take much for famine to return.

It was Kim Il Sung who used to say, “Communism is rice,” meaning the system would succeed by giving the people enough to eat. The famine was caused by mismanagement and the inability to adapt to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic transformation of China.

All that said, Kim Jong Il acted with callous disregard to the suffering of his people. Rather than lose face, the North Koreans denied the food crisis for years and then kept humanitarian aid out of the places it was most needed. The regime executed people who tried to adapt by engaging in private business.

By the way, Kim Jong Il is famous for being one of the biggest foodies in Asia. Throughout the nineteen-eighties and well into the famine, he flew couriers around the world to procure delicacies for his own palate — fresh fish from Tokyo for his sushi, cheese from France, caviar from Uzbekistan and Iran, mangoes and papaya from Thailand.

Kim Jong-Il got the power by primogeniture from Kim Il-Sung and has passed it onto his 27-year old son, Kim Jong-Un, who is expected to be controlled by his uncle on his mother's side, Chang Sung-Taek.

Here's the three generations:

Grandfather

Father

Son

Grand Vizier (Chang Sang-Taek)

I'm sure they're expecting us to invade right now, and I'm sure Beijing is there to stop it, diplomatically at first.

This will be a very interesting week for President Obama. His Administration is saying it's taken out Al Quaeda, how about breaking down the walls into North Korea at this critical juncture. The top strategist in America against a regime that's been prepared to lose their dear leader for awhile, but probably hoped it would still not be so soon.

The question is, will someone from this crime family end up on a meathook and, if so, who will it be?

A Solid Endorsement

I have as many problems with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) as Andrew Sullivan and am not with him on as many issues, but he was right on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. He's not a liar, he's not a GOP/FOX grifter and he's not an authoritarian. I've said for a long time that he would be the smartest nomination the Republicans could make, a real statement that would crystallize issues.

It's a little scary that Sullivan has written his endorsement so well today, just as he did for Obama four years ago, the first such endorsement I saw and the piece of writing that influenced me to really look at Obama, take him seriously as a candidate. Hopefully, we stay the course for four more years. Obama's the best Republican President since Eisenhower, and I'm hoping since Theodore Roosevelt by the end of his second term.

Here's a few key paragraphs that I agree with:

And I see in Paul none of the resentment that burns in Gingrich or the fakeness that defines Romney or the fascistic strains in Perry's buffoonery. He has yet to show the Obama-derangement of his peers, even though he differs with him. He has now gone through two primary elections without compromising an inch of his character or his philosophy. This kind of rigidity has its flaws, but, in the context of the Newt Romney blur, it is refreshing. He would never take $1.8 million from Freddie Mac. He would never disown Reagan, as Romney once did. He would never speak of lynching Bernanke, as Perry threatened. When he answers a question, you can see that he is genuinely listening to it and responding - rather than searching, Bachmann-like, for the one-liner to rouse the base. He is, in other words, a decent fellow, and that's an adjective I don't use lightly. We need more decency among Republicans.

And on some core issues, he is right. He is right that spending - especially on entitlements and defense - is way out of control. Unlike his peers, he had the balls to say so when Bush and Cheney were wrecking the country's finances, and rendering us close to helpless when the Great Recession came bearing down. Alas, he lacks the kind of skills at compromise, moderation and restraint that once defined conservatism and now seems entirely reserved for liberals. But who else in this field would? Romney would have to prove his base cred for his entire presidency. Gingrich is a radical utopian and supremely nasty fantasist.

I don't believe Romney or Gingrich would cut entitlements as drastically as Paul. But most important, I don't believe that any of the other candidates, except perhaps Huntsman, would cut the military-industrial complex as deeply as it needs to be cut. What Paul understands - and it's why he has so much young support - is that the world has changed. Seeking global hegemony in a world of growing regional powers among developing nations is a fool's game, destined to provoke as much backlash as lash, and financially disastrous as every failed empire in history has shown.

I'm supremely grateful to Rep. Paul that he's not an Obama-hater. He's a gent, which is more than I can say for every other GOP Presidential candidate, other than Gov. Jon Huntsman (who should keep spending as little as possible in his training run in prep for 2016). Romney is establishment trash, with no vision for running a compelling campaign, let alone a Presidency. And Gingrich is anti-establishment trash, all for him, grifter class. His hypocrisy has more integrity than Romney's. It's like Tony Soprano -- this is what he does.

Obama-Paul. A tighter race than either Willard or Newton?

O'Bama

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle are doing America proud over in Dublin where they were greeted with a 100k crowd like rock stars and heroes. And why not -- Bin Laden's fish food and he's trying to bring some lasting peace to the Middle East. Drink up, have some laughs with a friendly crowd, listen to some great Irish music, what a break from the political hassles in the U.S.A.:



While back in the U.S., his GOP rivals can't field an reasonably viable Presidential candidate and are tearing themselves apart over the Ayn Randian Paul Ryan Medicare elimination plan and the Tea Party opposition to raising the debt ceiling, at least without draconian hostage budget slashes at an enormous scale. The Medicare elimination reception has been particularly gratifying, with the 55-years-and-olders not falling for the buy-off in loud town halls that are refreshing reversal of the Tea Party town halls decrying the landmark Affordable Care Act.

It's a lot more fun hearing, "Welcome home, Mr. President":

The Main Man

President Barack Obama once again flipped the story around with his now patented strong finish, closing out this session of Congress with a flurry of wins that have him looking pretty darn strong again. His press conference today was excellent, the best in ages, as he touted the wins, spreading the credit and dropping the type of answers we didn't hear in the previous eight years, including this one in response to a Jake Tapper question regarding the future of marriage equality in light of DADT repeal:

As I've said, my feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this. I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions. And they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about. At this point, what I've said is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have. And I think that's the right thing to do. But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough. And I think this is something we're gonna continue to debate, and I personally am gonna continue to wrestle with going forward.

I'll take that as a yes. For the record, here's a list of some of his biggest accomplishments in just two years, with the latest being DADT repeal, START missile treaty ratification and the 9/11 responders bill passage (two of those much thanks to the also underestimated Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) who just got a nice NY Times piece on her accomplishments).

Here's our President and VP Biden with the emotional audience at the DADT repeal signing:



And, as a final treat, this incredibly moving video of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) both when he received Lt. Dan Choi's West Point ring in July and today, after passing the bill, he gave it back:



God bless America.

Two Good Guys

Richard Holbrooke would likely have become our Secretary of State under President Al Gore, in that alternative universe where we didn't end up in two long nightmare wars unprepared. He's gone now, with George Packer writing from a very close and personal position to this great American diplomat.

This guy, fortunately, is still alive, a $6 billion dollar man, Swiss philanthropist Hansjorg Wyss, who is spending his money in amazing ways:

In recent years the publicity-shy billionaire has quietly donated tens of millions of dollars to the preservation of pristine areas of Idaho, Nevada, Utah and other states.

Now, what appears to be his most ambitious project to date has come to fruition as conservation groups this month closed a deal to purchase vast tracts of Plum Creek Timber Co. land in western Montana. Backers say the deal – which included $35 million in donations from Wyss – could shield an estimated one million acres from future development.

In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, Wyss, 75, said he first became enamored of the Rockies as a college student who toured the region in 1958. And he defended his actions against those who chafe at the prospect of an outsider buying up land that in some cases has been logged, ranched or farmed for generations.

"Look, these are beautiful landscapes," Wyss said. "There was controversy when Yellowstone (National Park) was created and when they declared the Grand Canyon as a National Monument. But there are areas in the United States that must be protected."

Good guys there are. Nothing better, nice when it's some powerful ones.

The Hugest Bummer

Thanks to enough blame to go around and go way back and, what's not hard to predict will be proven in court before this all ends, criminal negligence we're in the worst man-made ecological crisis since Chernobyl. The making of portions of the earth uninhabitable, more like our long ago poisoned and dried up neighbors in this solar system. More like entropy.

Nature organizes. Man attempts to impose will on nature, nature all too often disorganizes. It's ultimately all about our appetites for creature comforts and layers of security in an often hostile world.

I'm willing to give President Obama a chance to prove he's got a handle on this nightmare, or putting one into place. He's earned my trust thus far making strategic decision of value when being handed huge fountains of dute. He spoke today and is taking the type of responsibility Bush and his cronies couldn't muster. The responsibility we all have to start taking as well if we want to have a planetary future:



And he's got to be busy with this huge pile of dute suddenly flowing from succession-wracked North Korea, while relaunching out strategy for managing threats with Secretary of State Clinton.

Let's hope daddy can plug the hole:

Iran in his Headlock

President Barack Obama made an public announcement today just before the G20 Summit with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy that Iran has been building a nuclear facility they've kept hidden thus far. Iran had gotten wind that this was coming and tried to get out in front of it, but it's a loser's game.

This means that:

• Whatever Iran policy the Cheney Neocon Administration had been running was a MASSIVE FAIL.

• Whatever the Obama Admnistration has been doing to repair our position in the world is working.

Per one of Andrew Sullivan's readers regarding what must be Neocon panic today:

It must drive them nuts to see a clear, if limited, victory for a strategy that is diametrically opposed to their own. Their ideology being discredited by events, and so they characteristically fall back into blind fits of intransigence, like screaming, foot-stomping children.

That Goldberg emailer fails to see what has happened. Obama has known about this facility from day one. At Cairo, he reached out the Muslim world, undermining the Iranian regime's ability to engage in arm-waving, fear-mongering anti-Americanism. He built himself a triumvirate with Brown and Sarkozy, who actually have an intelligence presence in Iran. He used that presence to build an airtight case. He cut a deal with the Russians. He reached out to Iran, knowing that they would likely reject or ignore his overtures. Then, when Ahmadinejad comes to New York, having to face Western journalists, Obama announces the the existence of the Qom facility, turning the spotlight on Iran when they are unable to hide behind state-controlled media. Obama, cool and calm, pulled off a near-perfect diplomatic pincer.

I'm looking forward to what happens next.

The Obama/Cairo Effect

Is this the first fruit of Obama's Cairo speech recasting the role of the U.S. in the Middle East as well as the responsibilities of all conflicting parties?:

BEIRUT (Reuters) - A surprise victory in Lebanon by an anti-Syrian coalition against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and its allies should be confirmed on Monday with the release of official results of the country's parliamentary election...

...The outcome was a blow to Syria and Iran, which support Hezbollah, and welcome news for the United States, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which backs the "March 14" bloc, named after the date of a huge rally against Syria's military presence in 2005.

Hope vs. fear, bay-bee. And is this having an effect in Iran, on the upcoming Presidential election, as well?:

Reporting from Tehran -- Powerful reformists and conservatives within Iran's elite have joined forces to wage an unprecedented behind-the-scenes campaign to unseat President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, worried that he is driving the country to the brink of collapse with populist economic policies and a confrontational stance toward the West.

The prominent figures have put their considerable efforts behind the candidacy of reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who they believe has the best chance of defeating the hard-line Ahmadinejad in the presidential election Friday and charting a new course for the country.

They have used the levers of government to foil attempts by Ahmadinejad to secure funds for populist giveaways and to permit freewheeling campaigning that has benefited Mousavi. State-controlled television agreed to an unheard-of series of live debates, and the powerful Council of Guardians, which thwarted the reformist wave of the late 1990s, rejected a ballot box maneuver by the president that some saw as a prelude to attempted fraud.

Some called it a realignment of Iranian domestic politics from its longtime rift between reformists and conservatives to one that pits pragmatists on both sides against radicals such as Ahmadinejad.

"Some of the supporters of Mousavi like his ideas; others don't want Ahmadinejad," said Javad Etaat, a professor of political science and a campaigner for Mousavi. "They've decided that preserving the nation is more important than preserving the government."

Even some militants in the region are responding with tentative positivity to Obama's speech.

And why not? After all, here's the first U.S. President to have personally witnessed the effects of colonialism (read his first book, both the section where he learns about his father's downward spiral in Kenyan government work as well as his stepfather's similar trajectory after initial optimism in Indonesia). Per Andrew Sullivan on the Cairo Effect:

The Middle East is addicted to its past; Obama spoke of the need to move into the future. The Middle East is fixated on conflict and identity; Obama emphasised quotidian common interests. The Middle East loves quibbles; Obama landed slap-bang in the middle of most of them and refused to budge. And driving all of it was a critical question of tone — a measured, careful and stern message of respect and realism.

The obvious critique that this was just a set of words seems to me to miss the point. An intervention begins with words because it requires the actions of others. You don’t get an addict to go into recovery by cuffing him and throwing him into an ambulance. You talk to him and his family and speak calmly about what everyone in the room knows to be true but no one will face. So, for me, the core sentence of the speech was obvious: “It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.”

Maybe everyone has been waiting for change but there's yet to be a leader who can articulate it -- until now. In Israel, post-Cairo, change no longer appears optional:

United States President Barack Obama has left Israel with no alternative but to ultimately agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state, officials in Jerusalem told Israel Radio on Saturday.

Israel will be forced to acknowledge the necessity of a future Palestinian state because there are no signs that the Obama administration will yield on this issue, a source told Israel Radio.

Government sources in Jerusalem also told Israel Radio that the quicker Israel adopts the road map for peace as the preferred diplomatic initiative, the more likely it will ward off American pressure to concede to a Palestinian state within the framework of an alternative plan that is less agreeable to Israel.

Israeli Aluf Benn, writing in the newspaper Haaretz, similarly believes rightwing Prime Minister Netanyahu will have to move quickly to get ahead of the Obama steamroller:

Benjamin Netanyahu is on the wrong side of Obama's speech, with his refusal to endorse a Palestinian state and his insistence on "natural growth" in the settlements. He might have been able to soften the blow a bit had he formed a coalition with Tzipi Livni on the basis of the two-state solution. Or if, during his White House visit, he had announced that he was embracing the road map. But that's of no importance now. Before long, Netanyahu will have to deliver a speech in response to Obama, and to declare a historic change in his ideology and policy. Until then, he'll go on hoping for a miracle that will wipe the "Cairo speech" off the agenda and make it disappear into the swirling sands of Middle East diplomacy.

Okay, let's not be Pollyanna about it. Perhaps it won't work and all good will ultimately will collapse. Just one act of violence could end it all. But if history has proven anything about progress, it is that progress requires individual vision at just the right moment, convincing leadership, and accumulative tenacity in order to succeed.

There are naysayers here and abroad. In just the comments on Sullivan's opinion piece you'll find those both internationally and from the U.S. who don't believe change in the region is possible, don't believe Obama, think it's only words and they don't matter, think the Palestinians are too commited to the destruction of Israel, think Israel is to genocidal against the Palestinians, on and on and on.

But there are also plenty of comments in support of Obama, his speech and his approach. My personal favorite:

The educated young love you Obama. We do not care what the bitter previous generation think, they will be gone soon and we will be there to continue your efforts. You are the leader we dreamt of. You inspired me to continue my career and become a barrister.

Thank you.

Kazuki, Tokyo, Japan

When is Obama's first trip to Asia?

I'm looking forward to his reception there.

The Brave One

I can't think of a more courageous politician in my lifetime than President Barack Obama. If the assassination of a doctor by a rightwing extremist goaded on by Bill O'Reilly and Operation Rescue wasn't warning enough, and this guy in Utah arrested for being on a mission to do ultimate harm to our President, there's the speech in Cairo today that speaks dangerous truths we've never heard before from an American President, truths that are common knowledge but that neocons would rather never be admitted to, Kabuki-style, truths that are not well-received by either al Qaida or the Israeli settler movement.

The whole hour:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

He called for all kinds of responsibility -- for Palestinians to accept Israel, for Israel to stop with the West Bank settlements, for corrupt regional governments to reform, for women to get equal education on the region, for understanding by America of the Muslim world and an end to stereotyping of American by Islamic peoples. Enough truth to offend a lot of partisans.

A sampling of those against it:

Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, John Bolton, Hugh Hewitt, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and John Boehner all disliked the President's speech.

Okay, with enemies like that, we know he's doing something right.

As Al Giordano points out, Obama is the Anti-Politician:

Politicians, in general, are a reactive caste. They look at things as they are, and opportunistically seek out and study the cracks and weaknesses in society in order to put themselves at its helm. Most believe (and those that don’t believe, pretend) they are doing this in service of a higher ideal: right or left, liberal or conservative, progressive or religious, whatever, but because the great majority of them are essentially reacting to the same set of seemingly inexorable current events, the sum of their actions is that of constructing individual fiefdoms that look much the same no matter what ideology or flag flies over them.

And then there are the rare historical figures that appear now and then in human events to disregard those base reactive impulses with enough discipline to first develop their own idea of how things ought to be. And only after developing a detailed yet clear vision for society do they then enter the political fray. Probably the best example in the last century of such an anti-politician was Mohandas K. Gandhi, who returned home to India at the age of 46, after winning civil rights for immigrants in South Africa. He found a homeland thirsting for independence from the British Empire and its impositions. A media hero and cause celébre upon his return to Indian shores, the pro-independence advocates and parties sought Gandhi out to lead a revolution against the Crown.

Gandhi – conscious that after being away for 27 years in London and South Africa he did not know his native country well enough to lead it – instead imposed upon himself a moratorium against speaking to the press, and embarked upon a listening tour through the forgotten and impoverished regions of India in order to first understand what the real yearnings and realities of its people were. Only after he felt he had a comprehensive enough vision for what kind of better society was possible there did he enter the fray that, as history knows, won independence for the region, while showing the world a new way to fight for freedom.

Listening to the President’s remarks in Cairo this morning – billed as a speech to all the Muslims in the world – it is clear that in Barack Obama our moment in history has one such transcendent leader.

Here's ten key points from this, the biggest speech of his already remarkable career. A President who can finally talk to Palestinians. Speaking to the U.S. from Cairo as well. The first President to acknowledge that America, in 1953, sabotaged democracy in Iran when fairly elected Prime Minister Mossadegh had the temerity to nationalize the oil industry), starting the chain of blowback that led to radical Islamic revolution, U.S. hostages, today's nuclear threat.

Here's how Netanyahu watched the speech, Kabuki reactions. Here's the overwhelmingly favorable reaction from the world press, including the mainstream Islamic press.

Michael Scherer has the clearest sense of Obama's overriding international vision, this "Obama Doctrine", and how it played out with the powerful close of the speech:

This vision, as I have touched on before, does not elevate the United States as the protector of transcendent values, but rather lowers America into the great pool of nations and peoples, where everyone operates on the same level with a God-given set of responsibilities to understand each other and work together for collective improvement. The political leader who has spent a lifetime moving between cultures envisions a world where tribal differences are trumped by common humanity and practical necessity. In some ways, it is as idealistic a vision as the ones proposed by Bush senior and junior. Time will tell if it is more successful.

It is notable that Obama ended his speech with three quotes, one from the Koran, one from the Talmud, one from the New Testament, each describing God's instructions for all people to work together and get along. Of the three, the quote from the Koran is the most eloquent. “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.” It is, in a poetic verse, an apt encapsulation of Obama's radical idea--that despite our differences we are meant to find common purpose.

So can it be done? Well, Obama is saying to the world, look at me: the son of a Kenyan and a Kansan, the Christian man with a Muslim family, the black Hawaiian teenage stoner who rose through the traditionally white Northeastern Ivy League to lead the nation's most powerful country. I've already done it. You can too.

Yes we, the world, can.

But will we?

The Big One

I don't think it's going too far to say that the biggest reason Obama was elected was to repair our situation with the Muslim nations of the world, both diplomatically and militarily.

If there was no other reason to vote for this brilliant yet reasonable man starting back in the primaries when the economy wasn't the issue, it was because as someone with half his ancestry in that world and a few years logged living in an Islamic country as a child, he was going to present a different face to the world than ever in American history. Ever since the oil barons of this world fully exercised their power for the first time with gas shortages in the mid-1970's, simultaneously as Israeli-Palestinian violence reached unheard of levels, as the U.S. installed Shah fled revolutionary Iran and the religious militants took U.S. hostages, we've had to grapple with the region disproportionately more than in our nation's past. And none of it has been successful thus far.

Now you fix those problems, multi-culti college man.

As I've often written, Obama's greatest asset is his strategic capacities. If rescuing the U.S. banking and credit system wasn't difficult enough, there's all the moving parts in the Middle East. So I'm looking forward to his speech tomorrow. Of all his big speeches thus far, this is the biggest. This one is about forging a new course in World History.

Word is the speech is very candid. Which is his strategy for his whole Administration:

“We have a joke around the White House,” the president said. “We’re just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working — and nowhere is truth-telling more important than the Middle East.”

I'll be concerned if it stops working.

So far from a Fox News branded apology tour, Obama is seeking to do the job we hired him to do:

CAIRO — President Obama arrived in Egypt on Thursday aiming to repair America’s relationship with the Muslim world through a speech at Cairo University, a carefully planned address that aides said would challenge Muslim perceptions about the United States.

He's had a good first news cycle over in that part of the world. If he's setting up partnerships within the region linked out to the Western world, then this will be the Islamic World equivalent of Nixon goes to China. The history train is taking a turn through what was once called The Orient.

Watch this space.

Torturous

Of course it's torture, even Ari Fleischer says so now. He's equivocating that it should never be done but sticking his chin out that it works. It's actually humiliating to watch grown men covering their collective asses in such a grudge-holding, adolescent way. Where do you stand, Ari, outside of the politics of it all?

Which is not to say that the Obama Administration is above using politics to combat politics. Cheney opens his mouth, Obama points to prosecutions up the foodchain, leaving the minions alone. Especially as someone leaks potentially damaging info about Rep. Jane Harman, who's on record with a letter to the then Presidente Bush opposing his use of torture in America's name.

This after destroying memos written by longtime diplomat Philip Zelikow opposing the legal reasoning of White House torture-justifiers Jay S. Beybee and John Yoo.

This after using torture to drum up a false link between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein to justify the lie of their invasion of Iraq. To enable more of their snowballing violence.

Yes, waterboarding is torture, as we've defined it in punishing other countries for war crimes, but Cheney and the rest of his morons didn't even know or care:

The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.

Let us first note that if this is true, the decision to abandon the Geneva Conventions was based on literally criminal ignorance. Anyone with a degree in history or a Google account could have found out any of these things if they had wanted to. I did, as soon as the cascade of evidence of abuse and torture unleashed by Bush came to light. And let us note secondly that this is not a defense. For Tenet to have proposed a criminal torture technique without inquiring as to its history and past use is a function of criminal incompetence. For that, a man who presided over the worst attack on the homeland in US history and compounded it with destroying the moral standing of the US was awarded a Medal of Freedom.

It's a new world now, thanks to the election of Barack Obama as leader of the generations on down and everyone older who's ready to change business as usual around the world. The accoutrements of Western Civilization have spread everywhere and continue to spur liberal thought, as in more personal freedom and interpersonal understanding. What's left are the reactionaries and jihadists on either side, and I just don't think they can grow in any lasting fashion while the rest of the world increasingly pulls together in greater scale than ever in human history.

Take it from the calmest man on Earth:



I mean, what the hell are we doing having the word waterboarding now used so often everyday speech?

Thank the Bush-Cheney Administration. This time there's no one else for them to blame.

Give Him Hell, Joe

Judge for yourself. Grand Inquisitor Richard Bruce Cheney came on TV last week to call the nation less safe under President Obama because he's not a Torturer-in-Chief:



Compelling stuff, if you ignore his record of being wrong over and over again these past eight year.

Now Vice President Joe Biden bites back:



I saw Joe da Plummo on Bill Maher last week criticizing Obama for admitting some of America's faults even while using it as a way to make his criticism of Europe's faults so much more credible than when we pretended we were perfect and the world had best take our orders. Joe said that he always thinks you have to be in the position of strength, which tragically misconstrues what real strength is.

It's not just might, or the willingness to waterboard, and this fatal error of the Bush Administration, which seems indeed the dominant hard right ideology, must be pointed out as much as possible.

Never forget.

Ball of Confusion

We're in crazy times. Recessions, depressions do that. Howling at the moon. Firing guns. Stealing airplanes. Devastation in Italy, 150 dead so far in the earthquake.

Bob Dylan likening Barack Obama to a fictional character.

Meanwhile, our President rushes to change the world fast enough, overdue. Working quickly for a nuclear-free world. He's doing perhaps the #1 job he was hired for, the biggest unassailable point that no other candidate could claim, a man with Muslim family making it clear to the world that America is not in a battle against Islam.

Going so far as to say that America is not solely a Christian nation:



Oh, and he's reforming the U.S. military budget while allowing Americans to finally see (with the relatives' permission) the cost of war:



And it's the week that brought marriage equality to Iowa, the state that first showed us it was alright to vote for Obama. Can the state of America really be so bad when a straight legislator makes an honest, compassionate, breakthrough speech like this:



Yes, the battle against barbarism is far from over, but at least decency is scoring some points right now.

Up Against

There's a contrast going on between our man in Europe:



And what he's up against with the North Koreans -- what he's able to get from the international community to condemn them is a first test of his worldwide clout.:



And what he's up against at home.

Hero Week

He's faced down and fired CEOs. He solving international negotiations right and left. He's listening and explaining our now reality to the world. He's making a big bet, and it's the best bet to make right now.

In his own words:



And even after a week like that, he turns around and he's got this.

Of Course

As predicted here several days ago, the mainstream press once again underestimated our new President, who not only succeeded in mediating conflicts at the G20 Conference in London this week, leading to a huge market-rallying agreement, but his wife, "the closer," Michelle Obama won the hearts of everyone from an entire girls school to Her Majesty herself.

Yep, he's the most popular politician on the planet by far. It's a long way from when world leaders didn't want to be caught on camera shaking hands with an American President named Bush.

Obama hasn't solved everything in one week, as Ilan Goldenberg points out. There's eight years of sour dealings to overcome, along with the usual problems working across borders. But it's a big refreshing start.

Here's the man himself with illuminating answers to several important question from the world press:



And his inspiring First Lady:



Feels nice to be winners again, doesn't it?

British Invasion

The Obamas have invaded England. The mainstream press, as always, is wrong in their first nervous nelly assessments that he's going to have trouble with the other countries over there. Wrong.

Obama, as always, is in demand. He's making his move to thaw U.S.-Russian relations with a long-overdue round of nuclear arms negotiations. He's got Richard Holbrooke breaking the ice with Iranian diplomats. He finally getting us towards a sensible policy towards Cuba.

He was a star the last time he was in Europe and right now the world thinks of him as their President, even if to the chagrin of their own leaders.

Deal with it. America is back, baby, with the best strategist we've had in ages, and I predict he'll leave an even more popular presence than when he arrived.

Tally ho.

Jacked

So with less than a month to go before taking the reins of U.S. foreign policy, President-Elect Barack Obama gets some sudden fences, starting with the Israeli attack on Gaza, in retaliation for the recent resumption by Hamas of missile attacks on southern Israel. The upshot:

Part of what is going on today with Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak's unleashing of massive Israeli airpower against Hamas offices in Gaza is a test of Obama's America. Hamas's decision to end its "lull", or temporary ceasefire with Israel, also has a lot to do with testing the U.S. and seeing what the outlines of Obama's policy will be.

Barack Obama cannot afford to allow his presidency and its foreign policy course to be hijacked by either side in this increasingly blurry dispute. Israel's actions today just created thousands of aggrieved and vengeful relatives committed to delivering some blowback against Israel.

Hamas, at the same time, overplayed its hand at a fragile time. Hamas will never play the role of supplicant or subordinate to Israel's interests -- but its resumption of violence before the Israeli elections and during a time of transition in US politics triggered a devastating response from Israel that significantly undermined its own interests as a potentially responsible steward of a Palestinian state.

The violence we are watching is just yet another installment in the blur of tit-for-tat violence from both sides of this chronic foreign affairs ulcer.

If I were Barack, I'd be reaching for the Pepto-Bismol. Especially when George was fencing me in with this:

Agence France-Presse reports that Georgian officials will sign a "strategic partnership" treaty on Jan. 4 in Washington. On Tuesday, the Department of State issued the first confirmation that the United States and Georgia would pursue a more formal security arrangement.

I suppose it beats a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran, but the Cheney Administration still has four weeks to make it happen.

Impeachment articles would have slowed this.

Pardonnez Moi

Who is George W. Bush going to pardon in the twilight hours of his tenure? Here's a list of possible pardonees. While it includes Scooter Libby, it might also include every crony who has ever worked for the Bush White House, from Dick Cheney on down. For anything/everything they did these past eight years.

However, it looks like El Presidente doesn't get much of a pardon from foreign leaders himself:



Is that a W. as in "President Who?"