GEORGIANS PROTEST AGAINST SAAKASHVILI

Today's The New York Times carries a story by Clifford J. Levy on the protests in Georgia aimed at kicking out the Bush/Cheney protege Mikheil Saakashvili.

Writes Levy:

"Mr. Saakashvili took office in 2004 after leading the so-called Rose Revolution, which ousted a government with Soviet ties. He pledged to pursue a pro-Western course, distancing the country from Moscow, rooting out corruption and reviving an economy that had fallen on such hard times that electricity outages were frequent in the capital, Tbilisi.

"He says the country has made notable progress under his leadership, and many analysts agree that the economy is far stronger. But his tenure has grown steadily more contentious.

"Former aides have deserted him, and a violent crackdown on a demonstration in 2007 hurt his reputation in Washington, his most important supporter. The ruinous war with Russia has further emboldened the opposition, which contends that he bumbled into a conflict that the country could not win."

Recall it was Saakashvili who ordered the artillery attack against South Ossetia last Summer. The war that ensued between Georgia and Russia left Georgia reeling from the destruction of much of its infrastructure and loss of life. This war was not started by Russia, it was a Georgian attack against the population of a province that is inhabited mostly by Russian emigres. Yet Bush and Cheney and a lot of Republicans including some hapless Democrats blamed Russia and Putin.

If and when the voters in Georgia kick Saakashvili out of office, it will be an improvement and a mark of progress towards peace in the Caucasus. Thank the stars that rational minds in Europe opposed Georgia's entrance into NATO. Otherwise Saakashvili could have conceivably drawn all of NATO's nations into his aggressive war against Russia.

IS MUMBAI ATTACK A RESULT OF BUSH/CHENEY POLICY OF FIRING MISSILES AT VILLAGES IN WAZIRISTAN?

The tragedy is still not over in Mumbai. It appears that some of the shooters are young Muslim Pakistanis. Why they committed these atrocities is not clear, but a few observations are in order.

If the group is all from Pakistan, the suspicion arises that they are taking revenge for the injustices they perceive committed against certain Muslims in Pakistan. I suspect that the Bush/Cheney policy of shooting missiles into Muslim villages in Waziristan and other Pakistani tribal areas is implicated.

Bush/Cheney & Co. think it is permissible to drop bombs and fire missiles if they can kill a few "terrorists." But to the uneducated villagers, the Americans are slaughtering innocent women, children and farmers. Imagine what your feelings would be towards the Americans if your children were incinerated in one of the many missile attacks over the last few months.

The Bush/Cheney policy of dropping bombs and missiles does more harm than good. It may kill a few on the wanted list, but it also kills innocent bystanders and ordinary Pakistani peasants. Survivors surely will hate anything to do with America and western civilization that treats their lives of no value. They will look to revenge the killings.

Could this dreadful attack in Mumbai be the first of many acts of revenge?

READ ANDREW SULLIVAN'S PIECE ON BUSH/CHENEY APPROVED "COERCIVE TECHNIQUES"

There are those in the Bush administration, such as Dana Perino as well as George Bush himself, who insist that the U.S. does not "torture." Harsh interrogation techniques, yes, torture no.

The most shocking thing is that it seems that the Republican faithful eat this up and willingly transmit this canard. You would think that Republicans could see through the charade and that they all would condemn these harsh interrogation techniques for what they are. But no, Republicans stand solidly behind Bush and Cheney in approving torture as an approved policy.

Andrew Sullivan has a must read post on his blog The Daily Dish for The Atlantic Monthly:

"This is the defining line of torture: not some arbitrary comic book technique, but a psychological and physical fact: pushing another human being to the point where choice becomes unavailable to him or her. You can do this in any number of ways; it can take three seconds of electrocution or it can take two months of sleep deprivation, hypothermia and darkness. But the line it eventually crosses is the same line. Throughout human history, human beings have known what that line is, and the West was constructed on a disavowal of ever crossing it again. Why? Because a society that endorses torture commits itself not to limiting, but to extinguishing human freedom. And a protection of human freedom in its most minimal form is what our entire civilization is premised on."

Sullivan goes on to describe some of the Bush/Cheney et al. approved techniques:

"Even the word "torture" can be too vague and abstract a term. So let us state in plain English how Bush, Cheney, Tenet, et al. actually got information. They did it by subjecting prisoners to repeated drowning, or freezing, or heating, or sadistically long sleeplessness, or shackling or crucifying them until the pain could be borne no longer, or beating them until they pleaded for mercy, or threatening to kill or torture their children or wife or parents. Or all of the above in combination, in isolation, and with no surety of ever seeing the light of day again, with no right to meaningful due process of any kind, sometimes sealed off from light and sound for months at a time, or bombarded with indescribable noise day and night in cells fro which there was no escape ever. This is what "under coercive conditions" actually means. It drove many of the victims into become mumbling, shaking, insane shells of human beings; it killed dozens; it drove others still to hunger strikes to try to kill themselves; and it terrified and scarred and "broke" the souls of many, many others."

BIAS IN NEWS REPORTING ABOUT IRAN

Here is text of an email I sent to Martin Savidge and World Focus, the new internationally centered news broadcast. I take objection to the seemingly biased attitude of World Focus towards Iran.

I watch World Focus almost every night and enjoy your international news. However, I find your treatment of stories about Iran to be biased in favor of the neo-con Bush/Cheney approach of solving all international problems by shooting missiles and dropping bombs.

Why did you need to ask your NYT guest the other night whether "all options are still on the table," implying that the US would be justified in starting a war with Iran?

How about giving Ahmadinejad some credit for establishing closer relationships with Bolivia and Venezuela?

Why not talk about Israel having nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT instead of implying that Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for purposes of developing nuclear bombs?

ANTI-WAR DEMOCRATS WANT NEW DEFENSE SECRETARY

Jen Dimascio has an article on Politico today about anti-war Democrats urging Obama to dump Robert Gates as Defense Secretary. I agree.

Gates has been too gung-ho over beefing up the size of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. This is a dead-end position for the United States. The U.S. will never win in Afghanistan on the basis of military force. It might prevail in helping that poor country build up its infrastructure, build sewer lines, string electric power lines, but it will never defeat Afghani insurgents and the Taliban militarily. Consider that the Afghanis have defeated every foreign invading force going back to Alexander the Great.

I admit Gates is a DefSec far superior to Donald Rumsfeld and the other neo-con hawks in the Bush/Cheney administration. For example, Gates reputedly has been one of the officials who have argued against striking Iran.

But Gates is still a believer in military might and the War in Iraq. Writes Dimascio:

"Arms control advocates and anti-war activists are ratcheting up pressure on President-elect Barack Obama to dump Defense Secretary Robert Gates and replace him with a more strident anti-war voice. . . ."

"Gates exacerbated the opposition to his retention with a recent speech at the Carnegie Foundation in which he staked out a position that made it hard for arms control advocates to back the notion of keeping him around.

"Congress last year pulled funding from studies to create a Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which would reduce and replace aging nuclear warheads in the nation’s arsenal. During the speech, Gates said the cut was misguided."

OBAMA'S COMMENTS ON IRAN SUPPORTING "TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS" UNFORTUNATE AND UNNECESSARY

When Barack Obama gave his first news conference last Friday, he was asked about a letter sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad congratulating the U.S. president-elect. Obama said he would study the letter and respond "appropriately."

But why did Obama need to add that Iran must stop "supporting terrorists?" And why did he also think it necessary to say that the U.S. would never let Iran obtain nuclear weapons?

This is the same old Bush/Cheney bellicose blustering about Iran. Instead of engaging Iran and its leaders with diplomacy and respect, Bush/Cheney and now Obama somehow think they must oppose Iran's legitimate quest for nuclear technology. Iran has said many times it has no interest in nuclear weapons. Why must Obama now contradict them when there is no credible evidence to the contrary?

And as far as Iran's support for "terrorists," I assume Obama refers to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Is Hezbollah a "terrorist organization?" Or is it really an indigenous Lebanese social/economic/military organization that represents an insurgency against Israel and its restrictive policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Just because the U.S. government has labeled it a terrorist organization, following the lead of Israel, this does not ipso facto mean that Hezbollah is engaged in "terrorism." What is terrorism to Israel may be liberation insurgency to the majority of Lebanese.

CRUEL EXECUTIONS OF CHILDREN IN IRAN & SOMALIA

I tend to object to the Bush/Cheney attempt to demonize Iran and make it an "enemy." However, I certainly view Iran's use of the death penalty as egregiously wrong as I find it severely objectionable when carried out in the United States.

For a state, any state, to take the life of a person, even though that person has been adjudged to have committed some heinous act, is morally wrong and an immoral overreaching of a state's powers.

I refer to reports of the latest execution of a juvenile in Iran. The BBC reports:

"The New York-based Human Rights Watch said the Afghan man, identified as Gholamreza H, was hanged in Isfahan province on 30 October. He was 19 when the execution was carried out, but had been convicted for a murder he committed in November 2006 as a 17-year-old. .. . .

"Human Rights Watch says 26 juvenile offenders have been executed in Iran since January 2005, out of a worldwide total of 32 known executions."

Furthermore, I want to strenuously protest the stoning of a 13-year old girl in Somalia after being gang raped by three adult males.

Here is the BBC's account of the gruesome and cruel happening.

For this resurgence in primitive fundamentalist Islamic morality, I place the blame squarely on Bush and Cheney. It was these American leaders who overturned the government of the Islamic Courts in Mogadishu several years ago by egging the Ethiopians, centuries old enemies of Somalians, to invade and occupy much of Somalia. Just at the time when a moderate Islamic government was restoring commerce and a normal course of living to Somalia, Bush and Cheney upset the whole equilibrium by their misplaced zeal against any Islamic form of government.

The result has been two years of armed conflict, shelling of civilians, disintegration of any civilized life, destruction of the city of Mogadishu, and total lawlessness. What then happens are outrages like this one where fundamentalist militants impose their savage morality on some unfortunate 13-year old child.

U.S. VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ATTACK AGAINST SYRIAN FARMING VILLAGE

The U.S. has finally admitted that it carried out an attack against a Syrian village some eight kilometers into Syrian territory. For the past 24 hours Washington issued no confirmation of the incursion.

This is clearly reminiscent of Colombian president Uribe's attack against FARC insurgents in Ecuador. It has no basis in international law and is a sure fire way to start another war, if not regional, even world-wide.

Katherine Zoepf reports in today's The New York Times web site:

"Syria’s state-run media also intensified its criticism of the United States on Monday, with the government newspaper Tishrin accusing American forces of committing “a war crime,” Agence France-Presse said."

I condemn the Bush gang for approving this attack which is a clear violation of Syrian territoriality. If the U.S. had any gripes about this poor Syrian farming village, it could have pursued a diplomatic course by talking to the Syrian government. It could have done so if it chose, but instead, Bush/Cheney resorted to military force.

The result is eight people dead, including one woman and four children. Not only is this a serious breach of respect for another country's sovereignty but above all it is a violation of the eight human beings who were gunned down by American special forces.

U.S. MILITARY VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW BY CROSSING INTO SYRIA FOR MILITARY RAID

The BBC reports that U.S. airborne troops and four U.S. helicopters attacked a town eight kilometers within Syria this afternoon, near the Syria-Iraq border.

Reports the BBC:

"US helicopter-borne troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including four children, Syrian officials say.

"The official Syrian news agency Sana said the raid took place in the Abu Kamal border area, in eastern Syria.

"It said that American soldiers on four helicopters had stormed a building under construction on Sunday night."

Once again, there are reports of civilian deaths, including children. The BBC reports:

"The dead include a man, his four children and a married couple, the Syrian report said, without giving details of the children's ages.

"The village was named as Sukkiraya, 8km (5 miles) from the Iraqi border."

Second, why is the U.S. taking this action now, just 10 days before the presidential election?

And why must the U.S. violate international law by crossing the border into Syria and conducting a military raid? This is against the provisions of the U.N. Charter and international law. It is a clear violation to do this.

Here we see signs of Bush/Cheney machiavellian interference in the coming election. Do anything, even start another war, if it would help Republicans win the election. This is my suspicion until the facts prove otherwise.

SECOND POST ON SARAH PALIN TODAY - WE DON'T KNOW HER OPINIONS ON MAJOR ISSUES

I posted today about Sarah Palin's lack of qualifications to be vice president. Some may think my criticisms unfair and sexist, but I had the same qualms about George W. and look what happened. The electorate chose someone "likeable" (Bush that bully!) over competent and knowledgeable Al Gore. I guess it is possible that the electorate will find Palin acceptable and deserving to be elected, but I certainly do not, not at this time. And I fear the same disaster in foreign and domestic policy, the same melt down, the same disregard for Constitutional protections if Palin gets in as what happened when Americans elected Bush and Cheney.

The electorate needs to know Palin's opinions. Does anyone know how she feels about Iran? Or about Russia? (No it is not enough to say that Palin is governor of Alaska which is the state nearest to Russia). How would she get American troops out of Iraq? What is her attitude towards Palestinians? Towards Israel and its new settlements?

And on the domestic front, what are her plans for Social Security? Does she want to privatize it the way that McCain and Bush propose? And what about domestic eavesdropping without FISA court approval? And what does she think about immigration and ICE's treatment of immigrants caught up in those dreadful raids?

Does she believe in waterboarding or other "enhanced interrogation methods?" How does she feel about depriving Guantanamo prisoners of Constitutional rights such as habeas corpus or the right to counsel? Does she believe in the use of force as the main tool for American diplomacy? Does she agree with Bush and Cheney that military force makes right? Does she approve of the Bush doctrine on pre-emptive war?

These are some of the things no one knows yet about Sarah Palin.

I don't think that people whether male or female are going to vote for her without knowing where she stands. So far, she seems not to have expressed many opinions other than drill for more oil.

I still think this selection of Palin shows how desperate McCain must be about winning the forthcoming election.

ETHIOPIA & UNITED STATES WAGE WAR AGAINST SOMALIA

The BBC reports today that more people have been killed in Somalia in fighting between the invading Ethiopians and Somali insurgents.

"At least 13 people have been killed in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, in fresh clashes between Islamists and Ethiopian troops backing the interim government.

"The deaths bring to at least 33 the number of people killed in two days of heavy fighting in the city.

"Four civilians were said to be among the latest victims."

The BBC World Service also is broadcasting a report from its reporter in Mogadishu detailing the results of the violence on the civilian population. At times, it is hard to listen to the graphic cries of the wounded in hospitals devoid of basic equipment and anesthetics.

The Ethiopians need to get out of Mogadishu and all of Somalia. It should be left up to the people of Somalia what type of government to adopt. It should not be up to Ethiopia to determine.

Furthermore, since the Ethiopians are merely the proxy for Bush and Cheney in waging war against the Islamic Courts, the last stable government of Ethiopia, the United States should cease interfering. We are talking about a country that is largely rural and agrarian. Yet it is the target of the powerful U.S. war machine fronted by the Ethiopian army.

Moreover, the U.S. Navy sails off the coast of Somalia shooting missiles into small Somalian villages, in an effort to kill "Qaeda" adherents. Together with Ethiopian tanks, the U.S. is destroying the fabric of Somalian society.

HUGO CHAVEZ THWARTED IN ATTEMPT TO FREE COLOMBIAN HOSTAGES

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is wrong to seek a change in the Constitution to allow him to be president for life. But he has done a lot of things well, such as provide social security retirement benefits for maids, laborers and the underclasses. Another laudable Chavez project is to seek a prisoner exchange with the FARC, the Colombian insurgency group fighting against the establishment in neighboring Colombia.

There have been estimates of over 1,500 hostages being held by factions of the FARC throughout Colombia. Some have been held for as long as 10 years. Colombia's government takes the same approach as Bush and Cheney. Try to kill off as many rebels as possible. Shoot them, bomb them, kill them. This approach solves nothing.

Hugo Chavez comes along with a new approach. Sit down with them, talk with them, come to some agreement.

But yesterday, Colombian president AlvaroUribe, a close ally of the United States and Bush/Cheney, fired Chavez just when he was some progress in securing the release the hostages. Uribe claims Chavez broke his promise not to deal with the Colombian military directly in pursuing a settlement with the FARC. Just why this would be a deal breaker remains to be seen. One could speculate that Uribe does not want to see any Chavez-brokered settlement, or that he does not want the Colombian military to make a deal without Uribe's input for fear that he might lose control, or that the Bush/Cheney cabal prevailed upon him to prevent Chavez from claiming a humanitarian victory in freeing the hostages.

Whatever the reason, Uribe has forced Chavez out of the equation. So the hostages and their families are back to the beginning. Who knows, without Chavez, FARC may hold them another 10 years.

BUSH/CHENEY TO LABEL IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD "TERRORIST ORGANIZATION"

Robin Wright writes in The Washington Post that Bush/Cheney will designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "specially designated global terrorist."

This is a dumb move that may be the predecessor to disastrous military action against Iran. Instead of applying pressure, let's sit down with the Iranians and work things out. There is no reason why Bush must treat Iran and Iranians as the "enemy." The U.S. should work diplomatically to make Iran a friend and an ally.

Some would launch military strikes against Iran for what President Ahmadinejad said against Israel and Jews, doubting the Holocaust. But calm down. These are only words. Iran has not taken any military action against Israel. Hezbollah and Hamas do not constitute Iran. Lebanon is not Iran. Syria is not Iran.

Instead of provoking Iran and starting another Mid-East war, let's put down our swords and start to talk.

Wright includes criticisms similar to my own of the Bush/Cheney designation, such as that of analyst Joseph Cirincione at the Center for American Progress:

"The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

"Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.

""Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change.""