Iraq: What has the surge accomplished?

While U.S. troops have a tenuous hold on the situation in Baghdad, Iraq is in trouble in the north and south. In the north, Turkey has invaded Kurdistan in pursuit of guerilla fighters with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) but may be on a collision course with Iraqi Kurdish troops. In the south, clashes in Basra have broken out between Iraqi soldiers and offshoots of the Mahdi Army while British troops have come under fire.

The center of the country around Baghdad has seen a decrease in violence in part due to the increase of American troops -- the "surge" -- on the ground in the area. However, while there has been a decrease in fighting in central Iraq progress on political goals and reconstruction has been stalled by weaknesses in U.S. strategy and the ineffectiveness of the government in Baghdad according to a report issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO) to congress. We were told the whole purpose of the “surge” was to buy time for the political work to get done to resolve Iraq’s multiple internal conflicts. While the soldiers have done their part the political leaders in Washington and Baghdad have not done their parts.

And of course, once the Iraq was stabilized American troops were to be brought home and the rebuilding of the armed forces to begin.

The problem is this doesn’t seem to be happening. The relative calm in central Iraq apparently is not sustainable on its own.

Here are Michael Kinsley’s thoughts on the rational of the surge to bring American troops:

…Bush laid down the standard of success when he announced the surge more than a year ago: "If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home." At the time, there were about 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Bush proposed to add up to 20,000 troops. Although Bush never made any official promises about a timetable, the surge was generally described as lasting six to eight months.

By last summer, the surge had actually added closer to 30,000 troops, making the total American troop count about 160,000. Today, there are still more than 150,000 American troops in Iraq. The official plan has been to get that number back down to 130,000 by July, and then to keep on going so that there would be about 100,000 American troops in Iraq by the time Bush leaves office. Just lately, though, Petraeus has come up with another Zen-like idea: He calls it a "pause." And the administration has signed on, meaning that the total number of American troops in Iraq will remain at 130,000 for an undetermined period.

So the best we can hope for, in terms of American troops risking their lives in Iraq, is that there will be just as many in July -- and probably in January, when time runs out -- as there were a year ago. The surge will have surged in and surged out, leaving us back where we started. Maybe the situation in Baghdad, or the whole country, will have improved. But apparently it won't have improved enough to risk an actual reduction in the American troop commitment.

And consider how modest the administration's standard of success has become. Can there be any doubt that it would go for a reduction to 100,000 troops -- and claim victory -- if it had any confidence at all that the gains it brags about would hold at that level of support? The proper comparison isn't with the situation a year ago. It's with the situation before we got there.

Imagine that you had been told in 2003 that when George W. Bush finished his second term, dozens of American soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis would be dying violently every month; that a major American goal would be getting the Iraqi government to temper its "de-Baathification" campaign so that Saddam Hussein's former henchmen could start running things again (because they know how); and "only" 100,000 American troops would be needed to sustain this equilibrium.

Or as Colonel Douglas Macgregor has put it:

The trouble is that the war's rationale has become circular -- "success" means success at putting the military engagement on a sustainable basis. We're fighting for the ability to keep on fighting. But sustaining that posture keeps making the United States and our position in the world as a whole weaker and weaker.

Thelonious Monk: “Epistrophy” (1966)

Here is Thelonius Monk (1917-1982) playing “Epistrophy” in Denmark in 1966.

Monk was a jazz pianist and composer regarded as one of the founders of bebop although his playing style evolved in different directions. His compositions and improvisations are full of dissonant harmonies and angular melodic twists, and are impossible to separate from Monk's unorthodox approach to the piano, which combined a highly percussive attack with abrupt, dramatic use of silences and hesitations.

You can see him perform “Blue Monk” here.

Generatión Y blogs on Castro’s exit

Yoani Sánchez is a Cuban blogger writing for Generatión Y. The “Y” is a reference to the popularity of Russian-influenced names starting with Y for those born in the 1970’s and 1980’s when Russian culture was in vogue in Cuba. These same young Cubans then came of age following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Cuban economy. Their personal experiences were quite different from generation that lived through the revolution and creation of the post-revolution Cuban state.

The Internet is tightly controlled in Cuban but a very small number of people have found ways to access outside Internet sources denied to the Cuban population. It is not without risk that they voice opinions contrary to the official truths of the state.

This is Yoani Sánchez’s post (via Salon) following the announcement of the retirement of Fidel Castro – the only person she or her parents have known as president of the island nation. The post is following by comments. (If you are fluent in Spanish, you can read the original post plus all the comments here.)

I haven't been able to get any sleep since three in the morning. The phone began to ring minutes after Granma's webpage published Fidel Castro's latest reflections. I haven't been able to go back to bed since then. It's hard to think with any clarity when I've been up all night, especially since I'm still in the "pinch me to make sure I'm awake" stage. My friends don't help much either, since they assault me with questions, as if anyone on this island could have "answers" to anything.

I have lived all my life with the same president. And not just me, but my mom and dad too -- they were born in '57 and '54 respectively -- they don't remember any president other than the one who resigned today. Various generations of Cubans have never been asked who would govern them. Although we don't have much doubt today of who will be next to occupy the highest office, at least it appears that one person will definitely not be it. Just like in those Alfred Hitchcock (suspense) films, we've now found out, just five days before the elections, that our disciplined representatives (in the General Assembly) will be facing a different ballot, that they will not have to put their mark next to the same candidate's name as always.

Even though I'm exhausted from lack of sleep, I understand that today marks the closing of a circle. It's important to ask whether the new one that also opens today will carry our names, our hopes, or if it will take another 50 years.

For the time being, I close my eyes, and already I feel lighter.

COMMENTS:

El Marques de Santa Lucia wrote:

Feb 19, 2008 - 21:07

Thanks, Yoa, what joy, I see that you're reacting to our times!!! You say, "they don't remember any president other than the one who resigned today."

Fidel has resigned from two posts: Commander in chief of the army and President of the Council of State, but he hasn't addressed the other two offices he holds, President of the Council of Ministers and First Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party.

But it's probably best to sit back and see what happens, cautiously.

Yoarky wrote:

February 19, 2008 -- 21:39

It would be a real shame if Cubans didn't take advantage of this opportunity.

We must take advantage of this fact or there'll be another five decades of the same thing, just accompanied by something else!

ali wrote:

February 19, 2008 -- 21:40

This is a new era for our country. A new era in which uncertainty reigns. We cannot allow that, instead of building a a glorious future for our country, power is simply handed over without our people having a real voice or vote. Pray to God that information reaches the people of Cuba, because it's the only way we'll be free.

Patomas wrote:

February 19, 2008 -- 21:43

Forget it, dear, and sleep tight. So long as Fidel is alive not a single comma in the script will be changed. Raul already said this 18 months ago, that it would be that way out of respect to his brother, and he's not going to be repeating it now and again. He said it, and that's it.

Gabriel wrote:

February 19, 2008 -- 22:31

Personally, I could care less about the unnamed one's retirement.

It's been a long time since he's been relevant; the only truly relevant ones here are the Cuban people, because the future of Cuba is in their hands.

With the unnamed one or without him, Cuba will change, not when the government wants it to, but rather when enough Cubans dare to openly show their discontent with the current situation.

We're waiting for that moment to arrive.

Dave Brubeck Quartet: “St Louis Blues” (1961)

This is the Dave Brubeck Quartet performing the “St. Louis Blues” on a tour in the Netherlands in 1961.

Dave Brubeck born in 1920 is one of the most well-known jazz pianists of all time. The classic Dave Brubeck Quartet featuring Paul Desmond on the alto saxophone lasted for 17 years. The two other members of the quartet were Eugene Wright on bass and Joe Morello on drums.

You can see the Dave Brubeck Quartet here play one of their best known recordings, “Take Five.”

Which presidential candidate is prepared to move forward on US-Cuban relations?

Fidel Castro has announced that after 49 years he is letting go of his control of the Cuban government. Castro’s announcement that he would not seek or accept a new term as president or commander in chief published in Gramma, follows word yesterday that some political prisoners were being released. Whether or not there is a connection is still to be seen but one can only hope this may finally be the beginning of a liberalizing of political life in Cuba.

What happens next in Cuba is unknown although at this moment it seems likely Fidel’s bother Raul, will likely take over. But the other question is what will happen to U.S. policy towards Cuba. In many ways, Castro was defined in the eyes of the world by his relationship with the United States. U.S. policy for almost half a century has imposed an embargo on the island nation hoping the pressure would turn the Cuban people against the Castro regime.

American policy towards Cuba has been not only a relic from a previous world order -- the Cold War -- but has been a failed policy that this blog has complained about here, here and here. The policy cut off interactions between Cubans and Americans in the hope that this will somehow encourage Cubans to topple their government. Yet, despite the fact the policy never produced the stated result the American government under both Democrats and Republicans held onto this failed policy as if it were sacred. The reality is the only reason the policy existed was to pander to an older generation of Cuban refugees who may cast a deciding vote in the swing state of Florida – it has had nothing to do with Cuba for decades

Steve Clements wants to know which presidential candidate is prepared to move forward on U.S.-Cuban relations:

OK -- Which of the presidential candidates is prepared to finally break US-Cuba relations out of the anachronistic Cold War cocoon they have been frozen in and initiate a new course that benefits American interests?

Barack Obama has sketched out the initial steps of a changed direction already, while Hillary Clinton in response said that the Bush administration's management of Cuba was just fine with her until something triggered a reason to change.

When Fidel Castro hinted in December that he would be stepping down, I asked the Hillary Clinton campaign if this news was substantial enough for it to stop hugging the Bush line and consider a new groove. I was told by a Clinton adviser that if something significant occurred to justify a rethink, then a "full policy review" would be done by the Clinton team.

Well, the hint Castro gave is now real -- and this seems significant.

The ending punctuation point of Fidel Castro's tenure in office marks the conclusion of the longest serving head of state in power today (except monarchs).

The US embargo against Cuba -- which all nations but three vote against each year in the United Nations -- has utterly failed to generate any positive impact on the Cuban government or people.

Of all the low cost opportunities to demonstrate a new and different US style of engagement with the world, Cuba is at the top of the list. Opening family travel -- and frankly all travel -- between Cuba and the US, and ending the economic embargo will provide new encounters, new impressions, and the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that George W. Bush, John Bolton, Richard Cheney, and Jesse Helms run scared of.

This is a huge potential pivot point in US-Cuba relations. Will Hillary Clinton step up to the plate -- and will Obama move beyond the somewhat timid proposals he offered previously and go to the gold standard in US-Cuba relations articulated by Senator Chris Dodd?

And will John McCain just ignore history's offered up opportunity or will he continue to paw the dirt and blow steam at the island nation just off the Florida coast?

The right thing to do would be to stop the pandering and change the policy to reflect the realities of the 21st Century. Barack Obama has proposed doing just that. Hillary Clinton and John McCain so far have not.

Handful of political prisoners released in Cuba

Cuba has released four political prisoners to Spain and is expected to release another three to the U.S. shortly. The men were among 75 who were arrested in 2003 following a crackdown on dissent in the country and sentenced to prison terms up to 28 years. Human rights activists have raised concerns about the criminalization of dissent in such cases as journalist Normando Hernandez Gonzalez who was also arrested in 2003. But the police state is not omnipresent. Bloggers have voiced opposition to the government and demonstrators, such as the Women in White, have agitated for human rights.

This from the BBC:

Cuba has released four political prisoners arrested during a crackdown on the opposition in 2003. Reporters Jose Ramon and Alejandro Gonzalez, dissident Omar Pernet and trade unionist Pedro Alvarez were flown to Madrid by a Spanish air force jet.

The four were among 75 prominent figures convicted of being mercenaries in the pay of the US five years ago.

Cuba had been expected to release seven political prisoners on health grounds after negotiations with Spain.

The other three are expected to be flown to the US, says the BBC's Michael Voss in Havana. The four released dissidents were flown to Spain with their families, arriving at a military airport near Madrid on Sunday after an overnight flight from Havana.

Their release is being seen by Western diplomatic sources in Cuba as a positive move by acting President Raul Castro, whose brother Fidel Castro underwent emergency surgery 18 months ago.

"The decision was made unilaterally by the Cuban authorities and we are very satisfied," said Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos.

On Friday, he had announced Cuba would free seven of the 59 dissidents still imprisoned after the 2003 crackdown.

Those convicted were given prison sentences of up to 28 years, but 16 have already been released on health grounds.

Only a handful of prisoners have been released. Whether or not this is the beginning of something positive (i.e., the release of the remaining political prisoners and a relaxation of government efforts to quash dissent) has yet to be seen.

The semiotics of the Clinton campaign boils down to two words – “same old.”

Barbara Ehrenreich on the Obama/Clinton presidential race:

… Let’s take seriously what he offers, which is “change.” The promise of “change” is what drives the Obama juggernaut, and “change” means wanting out of wherever you are now. It can even mean wanting out so badly that you don’t much care, as in the case of the Ron Paul voters cited above, exactly what that change will be. In reality, there’s no mystery about the direction in which Obama might take us: He’s written a breathtakingly honest autobiography; he has a long legislative history, and now, a meaty economic program. But no one checks the weather before leaping out of a burning building.

Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib and the “rendering” of terror suspects, we’ve achieved the moral status of a pariah nation. The seas are rising. The dollar is sinking. A growing proportion of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year for lack of health insurance. Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is sufficiently “de-coupled” from the US economy to survive our demise.

Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes – and many of them are admirable ones – but anyone can see that she’s of the same generation and even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the first place. True, some people miss Bill, although the nostalgia was severely undercut by his anti-Obama rhetoric in South Carolina, or maybe they just miss the internet bubble he happened to preside over. But even more people find dynastic successions distasteful, especially when it’s a dynasty that produced so little by way of concrete improvements in our lives. Whatever she does, the semiotics of her campaign boils down to two words – “same old.”

You can read the entire piece here.

NO, YOU CAN'T -- NO SE PUEDE.

A parody of another video this one features members of the power elite including: Dick Cheney, Filmore Barrols, Ivy League-Legacy, Jen Trification, D. Forrest Callee, Monet Oliver de Place, Winsome Mandate, and Lily the Dog.

Coleman Hawkins: “Body and Soul”

This is a concert taped by BBC in London in 1967 of Jazz at the Philharmonic. Coleman Hawkins (1904-1969) plays “Body and Soul” and is accompanied by pianist Teddy Wilson and drummer Louie Bellson.

Body and Soul was originally recorded by Coleman Hawkins in 1939. That recording of “Body and Soul” by Hawkins is an important antecedent of bebop. Bebop (or bop) is a form of jazz characterized by fast tempos and improvisation based on harmonic structure rather than melody. It was developed in the early and mid-1940’s.

Hawkins' willingness to stray — even briefly — from the ordinary resolution of musical themes and his playful jumps to double-time signaled a departure from existing jazz. The recording was popular; but more importantly, from a historical perspective, Hawkins became an inspiration to a younger generation of jazz musicians, most notably Charlie Parker.

Fouad: I don’t want to be forgotten in jail.

Saudi blogger Fouad Al-Farhan was arrested two month ago and continues to be held without charge by Saudi officials at an undisclosed location. "I don’t want to be forgotten in jail," Fouad wrote shortly before his arrest.

Fouad used his blog to advocate for reform in the Saudi Arabian kingdom. He had been warned approximately a year ago by Saudi security agents that if he did not stop criticizing the government he could face serious consequences and was forced to shut down his blog for several months. However, he started blogging again. In one of his last posts before his detention, al-Farhan sharply criticized 10 influential business, religious, and media figures close to the Saudi royal family. His public support of a group of 10 Saudi academics arrested earlier this year allegedly for “financing terrorism” has apparently angered Saudi authorities, he reported on his blog.

Other Saudi bloggers have also been harassed.

You can find more information about Fouad here and send a letter to officials here demanding his release here. Don’t let Fouad be forgotten.

Roy Zimmerman: “Super-delegate”

Roy Zimmerman dedicates this song to the 795 Democratic Party insiders (a.k.a. Super-Delegates) who put the mock in Democracy.

John Lewis to vote for Obama at convention

The New York Times reports that Congressman John Lewis of Georgia will be switching his super-delegate vote at the Democratic Convention this summer from Senator Hillary Clinton to Senator Barack Obama. Lewis is a civil rights hero and well-respected lawmaker in Congress. He had announced his support of Clinton last fall. The announcement of his switch comes as a boost to the momentum the Obama campaign has already generated up to this point. Whether or not this signals any movement by super-delegates to Obama is yet to be seen but it certainly is bad news for the Clinton campaign.

Josh Marshall has these thoughts on the Lewis switch and super-delegates:

In the thick of a campaign it is easy to overrate the importance of an endorsement or a political hit. But it is difficult to overstate the significance of John Lewis' switch from the Clinton to Obama camps because it is a devastating blow on two or three levels wrapped together in a single person. Lewis' historic and moral stature in the African-American community and in the modern Democratic party bulks very large. “In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” Lewis told the Times. “Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.” This is a curious statement as he seems to be suggesting that his earlier endorsement of Clinton was based on his own failure to set his sights sufficiently high. What's more, the willingness of a high-profile politician not simply to endorse one candidate but to switch from one to another (at least in terms of who he believes he'll vote for as a super delegate) is a powerful sign that a tipping point is at hand.

But the most immediate and significant import is Lewis's signal that whatever the basis of his original endorsement he is unwilling to join Clinton in carving a path to the nomination through the heart of the Democratic party. The tell in Lewis's announcement is that he is not technically withdrawing his endorsement from Hillary, at least not yet. He is saying that as a super delegate (which is by virtue of being a member of Congress) he plans to vote for Obama at the convention. On Wednesday the Clinton camp started pushing hard on the idea that a delegate is a delegate and if they need to pack on super delegates to overwhelm Obama's edge with elected delegates then so be it. A win is a win is a win. I take this as Lewis saying he just won't sign on for that.

… The Clinton camp's super delegate gambit is not only audacious. Far more than that it is simply unrealistic. The super delegates who are gettable for Clinton by loyalty, conviction or coercion are already got. And enough's been seen of both candidates for everyone to be more than acquainted with them. The ones who remain -- who make up roughly half the total -- are waiting to see who the winner is.

The truth is that there are over 1000 elected delegates remain to be won. We really don't know what's going to happen yet. But if the trend continues and Obama ends the primary season with a clear majority of unelected delegates, the idea that those remaining super delegates will break for the candidate who won fewer delegates, raised less money and is polling worse against the Republican nominee simply makes no sense.

Postscript Friday evening: Since this morning there has been some confusion about what exactly Congressman Lewis did tell the New York Times. The reporter is sticking by his story and said Lewis told him that if this comes down to a scenario where super-delegates will be required to decide the outcome, he will definitely vote for Obama. According to Josh Marshall:

This isn't mainly about an endorsement or an unendorsement. The real issue here is the Clinton camp's professed willingness to win on super delegates even if they end up with fewer pledged delegates than Obama. The Times may have gotten some nuances wrong, or perhaps Lewis's camp wasn't completely comfortable with how things looked when they saw it on paper. But the bottom line message is that he won't go along with the Clinton strategy.

Horace Silver: “Senor Blues” (1959)

This is the Horace Silver Quintet performing 'Senor Blues' to a European audience in 1959 with solos from Junior Cook & Blue Mitchell.

Horace Silver (born 1928) is an American jazz pianist and composer of Irish-African descent. He began his career as a tenor saxophonist but later switched to the piano. Silver was influenced by a wide range of musical styles, notably gospel music, African music, and Latin American music and sometimes ventured into the soul jazz genre.

Silver's music was a major force in modern jazz. He was one of the first pioneers of the style known as Hard Bop. The instrumentation of his quintet (trumpet, tenor sax, piano, double bass, and drums) served as a model for small jazz groups from the mid-1950s until the late 1960s. Silver's ensembles provided an important training ground for young players, many of whom (such as Donald Byrd, Art Farmer, Blue Mitchell, Woody Shaw, Junior Cook, and Joe Henderson) later led similar groups of their own. Silver refined the art of composing and arranging for his chosen instrumentation to a level of craftsmanship as yet unsurpassed in jazz.

Saudis to execute woman for witchcraft

Human Rights Watch is appealing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to stop the execution of a woman accused of witchcraft and performing supernatural acts. Witchcraft is considered an offense against Islam in the conservative kingdom.

Fawza Falih confessed to practicing witchcraft after being beaten by the Saudi religious police. She retracted her confession in court saying it was extracted under duress. She also said that as an illiterate woman she did not understand the documents she was forced to fingerprint. However, witnesses testified that she had bewitched them including one man who was suddenly impotent. According to another witness, a divorced woman reportedly returned to her ex-husband during the month predicted by the witch said to have cast the spell. For this she has been sentenced to death.

In November, Egyptian pharmacist Mustapha Ibrahim, who worked in the northern city of Arar, was beheaded by the sword for "sorcery" under Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic laws for allegedly trying to separate a married couple.

These are the same fine folks who within the past few months:

• Suppress Valentine’s Day annually,
• Jailed Ahmed al-Farham for advocating reform in the Saudi kingdom on his blog.
• Charged a woman with adultery who had been gang raped and sentenced her to prison and to receive 200 lashes by a whip. King Abdullah pardoned her for her “crime.” (See here, here, here and here.)
• Convicted two gay men of sodomy and flogged them 7000 lashes each.

According to Peter Tatchell, a human rights activist, "The British and US governments support the despotic, corrupt Saudi regime. As well as flogging and executing gay people, the Saudi leaders are guilty of detention without trial, torture and the public beheading women who have sex outside of marriage. Migrant workers are de facto slaves. The media is heavily censored. Trade unions, political parties and non-Muslim religions are banned. The country is a theocratic police state."

In their letter to the king, Human Rights Watch urged the sentence on the woman be lifted and authorities responsible for her mistreatment and the violation of her rights be investigated and prosecuted.

Our next president needs to lay this monster to rest by unambiguously repudiating all forms of torture

Yesterday, the United States Senate voted 51 to 45 to ban water boarding and other forms of torture by the CIA for purposes of interrogating terrorist suspects. The act would limit all American interrogators to techniques permitted in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. Forty-three retired generals and admirals -- including 10 four-star officers -- in a letter to the leadership of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, urged support for the single standard. Acording to the letter,

Employing interrogation methods that violate the Field Manual is not only unnecessary, but poses enormous risks. These methods generate information of dubious value, reliance upon which can lead to disastrous consequences. Moreover, revelation of the use of such techniques does immense damage to the reputation and moral authority of the United States essential to our efforts to combat terrorism.

Sadly, the ban on torture techniques – the very same procedures that so outraged President Teddy Roosevelt during the Philippine-American War – faces a veto by President Bush. In case anyone has forgotten, George W. Bush is still the President and will remain so for eleven more months.

In the meantime (and for the past few years), the United States has been surrendering the moral high ground on this issue. Following CIA Director Michael Hayden’s admission that detainees have been tortured by water-boarding, Attorney General Michael Mukasey rejected any investigation into the practice barred by U.S. law and treaties stating because such practices by anyone who acted pursuant to a Justice Department legal opinion was "insulated from criminal liability." The White House via Vice President Cheney said water-boarding was a “good thing.”

Here are Rosa Brooks’s thoughts in today’s L.A. Times:

… While the rest of us were obsessing over the 600 possible methods of counting delegates, the Bush administration was busily conducting a PR campaign on behalf of waterboarding.

It began last week. First, Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey told Congress that no one could be investigated or prosecuted for "whatever was done" as part of a covert CIA interrogation program because the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had given its blessing to a bunch of secret "whatevers." Then CIA Director Michael V. Hayden openly acknowledged, for the first time, that "whatever" had, in fact, included waterboarding, which was used on at least three Al Qaeda suspects.

Did Hayden blush to confess that U.S. intelligence agencies were incapable of getting critical intelligence through means other than torture? Nope. Along with National Intelligence Director J. Michael McConnell, Hayden suggested that waterboarding might well be handy again in the future.

The White House was equally blase about waterboarding. White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended its legality and asserted that whether we waterboard more detainees in the future "will depend on circumstances." What's more, Fratto emphasized, it's the president who will make the call, not Congress. Vice President Dick Cheney called the interrogation of the three suspects who were waterboarded "a good thing," and cheering from the sidelines, Antonin Scalia, the administration's favorite Supreme Court justice, mused in a radio interview that it would be "absurd" to assume any clear constitutional restrictions on "so-called torture" when potential terrorist threats are at issue.

The administration's PR push on waterboarding doesn't enjoy much support, either internationally or here at home. Our closest allies, the British, reaffirmed Tuesday that they consider waterboarding a form of torture prohibited by international law. That's an opinion shared by the U.N. human rights commissioner.

Here in the U.S., Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential candidates, have condemned waterboarding as torture. They've been joined by the leading GOP presidential candidates, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Speaking in October 2007, McCain said that waterboarding "is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." In December 2007, Huckabee added his voice to McCain's: "Waterboarding is torture, and torture violates the moral code of Americans and jeopardizes the country's security."

Just for good measure, on Wednesday the Senate joined the House in passing legislation that prohibits the CIA from using waterboarding or any similar "harsh" interrogation techniques.

But President Bush says he'll veto the bill. And here's what I don't get. Bush has less than a year left in office. His approval ratings are already abysmally low. Why is he determined to compound his problems by going down in history as the first president to openly order and justify torture? Is this really the legacy he wants to leave behind? The task for the next president, Democrat or Republican, is clear. Very soon after taking office, our next president needs to lay this monster to rest by unambiguously repudiating waterboarding and all forms of torture.

You can read the entire piece here.

It is worth noting that Senator McCain, previously an outspoken opponent of torture, voted to oppose the torture ban in this legislation. Now that he is the apparent Republican nominee for President, he needs to solidify his conservative base. Of course, once President Bush vetoes the legislation, he will get a second chance to vote on the issue to overturn the veto. We’ll see if the memory of the treatment of his fellow P.O.W.’s in Vietnam overrides his desire to pander to the pro-torture wing of the Republican Party. That would tell us a lot about the integrity of a McCain Presidency.

Dianne Reeves: “Love for Sale”

In honor of Valentine’s Day, here is the amazing Dianne Reeves performing “Love for Sale.” She is backed up by Dizzy Gillespie and David Sanborn among others.

“Love for Sale” was written by Cole Porter for his 1930 musical, The New Yorkers.

The song is written from the viewpoint of a prostitute advertising various kinds of "love for sale": "Old love, new love, every love but true love". "Love for Sale" was a hit in 1930, but later on the tune was deemed too sensual and banned from radio for decades. Since then it has become a jazz standard.

Obama momentum outpaces Clinton and McCain

Senator Barack Obama not only defeated Senator Hillary Clinton by a wide margin yesterday’s “Beltway Primary” (Virginia, DC and Maryland) but also outpolled all the Republican candidates in total votes cast in the two primaries. These results are not quirks of Mid-Atlantic voters but are a reflection of the choice of voters across the country. The Senator from Illinois has bested Clinton in 23 of the 34 caucuses and primaries held so far including the last eight in a row. Real Clear Politics has a running compilation of polls head-to-head contests between Clinton and McCain and between Obama and McCain. Those polls show Clinton losing to McCain but Obama beating McCain.

Isn’t it time for the Democrats to rally behind their strongest candidate against the Republicans in the fall?

Here is Michael Tomasky in the Guardian on yesterday’s one winner and two losers:

Here's what we learned from Virginia: with 99% of the vote counted, the Republicans combined for about 457,000 votes. Barack Obama had 617,000. In a state that hasn't voted Democratic since 1964. That is a signal. Democrats, and many independents and even some Republicans, want Obama to bear the Democratic standard this fall.

And now, some exit-poll estimates from Maryland, which suggest that the scope of Obama's victory there will be as great as in Virginia. He won women with 58% (and 62% of the vote was female). He just barely lost white voters overall, 47 to 49%. He won older voters with 51%. And of course he carried black voters with more than 80%. That last one sounds predictable, but remember that only a few months ago, Hillary Clinton led Obama among black voters.

Tonight's memorable moment as a television-watching experience came when CNN switched from Obama's victory speech to John McCain's. McCain started his speech before Obama finished his - a little tacky, but not a capital crime.

Well, as Keith Olbermann dryly noted on MSNBC, someone needs to remind McCain that in the future he'd better speak before Obama. The Illinois Democrat was leading 18,000 attendees to fever pitch in his speech when CNN cut away. McCain, by contrast, was talking to what could have been mistaken for a bingo game in a church parish hall. The contrast was striking, and not lost on anyone imagining the two of them on a stage together at some point this fall.

Obama has now taken the lead from Clinton in the delegate count. But CNN's John King just made a useful point. Obama could win the rest of the states by an average of 55%, the CNN counters estimate, and he still would not have the votes needed among delegates to win the nomination.

What King did not mention is that, if Obama keeps this momentum alive and somehow manages a big night for himself on March 4 when Texas and Ohio vote, the drumbeat urging Clinton to give it up and get out of his way may become too loud for her to ignore.

But if that doesn't happen, and as of today one has to assume that it will not, King's count still raises the question of how hard and long Clinton will fight - and how she will fight. I suspect it becomes harder and harder for her, with every Obama win, to pursue her various arguments that amount to "he's not ready." Voters appear to think he's ready. The "35 years of experience" line obviously isn't counting for much.

You can read the entire piece here.

Saudi morality police see red on Valentine’s Day

Officials in Saudi Arabia have asked florists and gift shops to remove all red items until after Valentine's Day. Every year, the Muslim kingdom's Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice clamp down on shops a few days before February 14, instructing them to remove red merchandise and displays. On the eve of the holiday, they raid stores and seize symbols of love.

Suzan Zawawi reports in the Saudi Gazette

Agents of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice visited flower and gift shops in the capital Saturday night to instruct them to remove all red items - from red roses and wrapping paper to boxes and teddy bears - from their shelves, shop workers said.

"They visited us last night," said a couple of florists Sunday morning.

"They gave us warnings and this morning we packed up all the red itmes and displays."

The florists asked not to be identified.

Sunday was the last day people could buy red roses in Riyadh, until Valentine's Day on Feb. 14 passes.

Every year, Commission agents visit flower shops a couple of days before Feb. 14 to issue warnings. On the eve of Valentine's Day, they start their raids and confiscate any red items that are symbols of love, florists here said.

But as a result of the ban, there's a black market in red roses.

Rob Wagner at 13 Martyrs has this assessment of the custom:

The reasons why the mutawwa ban the celebration of Valentine's Day are a little vague. There's some speculation that Muslims should not celebrate St. Valentine, the martyred Christian saint of ancient Rome. That's pretty much nonsense. Saudi religious authorities are nervous about unmarried men and women mingling and dating, which is illegal in the Kingdom.

While the religious police have kept a low profile in Jeddah for some time now, they are generally out in force on Feb. 14. They will admonish women wearing red socks or blouses (if they can spot them under the abaya), and even bright red fingernail polish. Couples dumb enough to go out on a dinner date and have a present wrapped in bright red paper sitting on the table can expect a lot of trouble. So the women defiantly wear something red without being obvious and exchange gifts in restaurants under the table. And every couple can expect the restaurant staff to look the other way.

Saudi Arabia is probably the only country where couples celebrate the day of romance in a subversive manner.

The choice now is between the old identity politics and a new kind of politics that might build a large, winning, and effective coalition

One of the differences between Senators Clinton and Obama is that Senator Clinton repeatedly makes references to her campaign as an effort to elect the first woman as President of the United States. That is part (some would say a big part) of her appeal to many voters. Senator Obama, on the other hand, does not campaign on the fact that he might be the nation’s first black President. While race is certainly a factor in the electoral politics of some states he is not running as the black candidate – rather, he is running as a candidate who happens to be black. His message reaches beyond boundaries of race and gender.

So the choice is less one between electing the first woman or the first black to the White House. The choice is between an identity politics of the past and a national unity politics of the future.

Here is Reed Hundt at TPM Café on identity politics in the 2008 Presidential race:

Subtly, continuously, President Clinton invokes identity politics: he tells everyone all the time that Obama is the black candidate, Mrs. Clinton the female candidate.

Bill Clinton grew up with the identity politics of the 60's and 70's. Barack Obama is talking about a politics that does not start and finish with demographics, but instead depends on common ethical principles that don't so much cross, as they ignore lines drawn by race, gender, and religion.

The choice now is between the old identity politics -- the politics that gave the Democratic Party nominees like Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis, honorable people whose candidacies did not inspire -- and a new kind of politics that might build a large, winning, and effective coalition.

By talking daily about identity, President Clinton is rooting himself and by extension Mrs. Clinton in an old, out-of-date reference scheme. Maybe it will work; maybe in some other big blue state this old language will still resonate. But increasingly I doubt that.

O.K. Virginia, let’s vote

February 12th is Virginia’s turn in the Democratic Presidential campaign. For a little inspiration, check out the “Yes We Can” video above. And, of course, if you prefer something on the lighter side, there is always the “Obama Baby.”

Mr. Obama is a once-in-a-generation possibility

The manager or the visionary? That seems to be the choice Democrats are facing in this Presidential campaign. Senator Hillary Clinton has touted her experience and promoted herself as the best manager of the nation’s government although the management of her own campaign tells of something of what a second Clinton administration would look like not to mention her supervision of the healthcare task force during the first Clinton administration that Clive Crook refers to as “one of the most celebrated domestic-policy train wrecks in recent American history.”

Senator Barack Obama, on the other hand, knows that what this nation needs is less of a manager than a leader. This country and the world community need an American President who can inspire and bring out the best Americans have to offer. Clive Crook has these thoughts in the Financial Times:

The US is tired and discouraged these days. The country is right to seek a little inspiration, a lifting of the spirits, a sense of renewal. Mrs Clinton is the perfect antithesis of those things. She is commanding in debate; she knows her facts. But she is dreary and angry at the same time, which is no easy feat. She personifies partisan division. And, through her husband and her nostalgia for the 1990s, she is tied to the past. She is indeed the paradigm of business as usual, with the taint of dynastic succession thrown in. The Democrats would be wrong to make her their nominee, in my view, even in a field of unexceptional candidates – but this is not a field of unexceptional candidates.

Make no mistake, Mr Obama is a once-in-a-generation possibility. Admittedly, in many ways he is too good to be true. Hopes of what he might achieve are running out of control. His followers say he is uniquely able to restore US standing in the world, partly by adopting a more conciliatory approach and partly (it seems) by being black. The sad truth is that on many issues US interests diverge from those of other nations. Any new president could improve relations with other governments; the current administration has set that bar into the floor.

But if President Obama aimed first and foremost to advance US interests, as he would, then, regardless of how enlightened and encompassing his notion of US interests proved to be, overseas rapture at his election would quickly fade.

At home the disappointment might be worse. He is a liberal (the most liberal in the senate, according to National Journal’s annual assessment) yet running as a bipartisan moderate. If he were president, one of those tendencies would have to give way.

And then there is the question of race. Black Americans were initially sceptical about the Obama candidacy: they backed Mrs Clinton in early polls. But now they have come around, and how. They have decided he is real; they think he can win; and they long for this affirmation of their standing in the nation. Gratifying that longing is one of the best reasons to nominate Mr Obama, but be under no illusion that he or any other president could fix the problems that have created and entrenched the black urban underclass. Soaring expectations would have to come to terms with (at the very best) grinding incremental progress. Again, the disillusionment might be bitter.

All this is true, but secondary. What makes Mr Obama remarkable is that his message of hope, resonating so powerfully with black America, is cast to every American, regardless of colour, to Democrats and Republicans alike. This is surpassingly important: a man of outstanding intellect and magnetic personality, he is running on a one-nation platform, as though he merely happened to be black. And the best part is, the whole country is paying attention: polls say that he is more electable in November than Mrs Clinton. In a close election, he could make the difference.

Republicans, of course, are bound to dislike his liberalism – but what is there for Democrats to think about? Why are they even having this conversation? They have been waiting an awfully long time for a politician like Mr Obama. If, having come so close, they still manage to nominate Mrs Clinton, I think it is a choice they will regret for years and maybe decades.

You can read his entire column here.

“Safe sex or no sex” message results in suspension for two girls

Cheyenne Byrd and Tori Shoemaker, eighth graders at Louis & Clark Jr. High School in St. Louis, were suspended for two days from school for wearing shirts reading “Safe Sex or No Sex” with condoms attached to them. The girls were protesting their school’s abstinence-only sex (mis)education program. (See the CNN video clip of the story here plus commentary from Elizabeth at Sex in the Public Square, Peter Rothberg at Act Now, and Jessica Valenti at Feministing.)

The superintendent said the shirts were inappropriate and a distraction at the school. It is certainly a shame that the message of “safe sex or no sex” is considered inappropriate and distracting, especially for teenagers, while discredited “abstinence-only” sex (mis)education curriculum is used to promote ignorance. The abstinence-only sex (mis)education program emphasizes complete abstinence from sex until marriage. Discussion of contraceptives is restricted to their failure rate leaving students in complete ignorance of their availability, appropriateness and how they are used.

Philosophically, the bottom line of the abstinence-only (mis)education approach is that knowledge is bad and ignorance is necessary for the preservation of innocence. This line of thinking simply runs counter to the Enlightenment concept that knowledge is power.

Abstinence-only (mis)education is not education; it is indoctrination…that doesn’t work. The reality is significant numbers of teens are sexually active and need to know how to protect themselves and their partners if not now then certainly in the future. Abstinence can certainly be promoted but not by misinforming and withholding information. Common decency demands comprehensive sex education for our kids.

These girls shouldn’t have been suspended. They should have been commended.

Bud Powell: “Get Happy” (1959)

Bud Powell (1924-1966) is performing “Get Happy” Paris December 1959 with Kenny Clarke and Pierre Michelot. Powell was a very influential pianist in jazz who, along with Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie, was instrumental in the development of bebop.

Philip Roth: “The Democrats aren't brutes, which is too bad, because the Republicans are brutes. Brutes win.”

Novelist Philip Roth has been a well known American writer since the late 1950’s. Probably his best know novel is Portnoy’s Complaint, published in 1969. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 1997.

The following is an excerpt from an interview with him in Der Spiegel. This excerpt covers his thoughts about contemporary politics in the United States.

From Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Do you still care about politics? Are you following the 2008 election?

Roth: Unfortunately, yeah. I didn't, until about two weeks ago -- until then it wasn't real. Then I watched the New Hampshire primary debates, and the Republicans are so unbelievably impossible. I watched the Democratic ones and became interested in Obama. I think I'll vote for him.

SPIEGEL: What made you interested in Obama?

Roth: I'm interested in the fact that he's black. I feel the race issue in this country is more important than the feminist issue. I think that the importance to blacks would be tremendous. He's an attractive man, he's smart, he happens to be tremendously articulate. His position in the Democratic Party is more or less okay with me. And I think it would be important to American blacks if he became president.

SPIEGEL: It could change society, couldn't it?

Roth: Yes, it could. It would say something about this country, and it would be a marvelous thing. I don't know whether it's going to happen. I rarely vote for anybody who wins. It's going to be the kiss of death if you write in your magazine that I'm going to vote for Barack Obama. Then he's finished!

SPIEGEL: The discussions around Obama remind us of your figure Coleman Silk, the hero of "The Human Stain," who is black with unusually light skin and then invents a Jewish biography. What we mean is the questions of belonging, of right and wrong behavior. Is Barack Obama black enough?

Roth: I know this discussion goes on, but I think it will disappear if he gets the nomination. The reality of his running will wash that away. Anybody who's half white and half black is considered black anyway. That's one drop of blood.

SPIEGEL: For whites to consider him black, yes. But the question is whether the blacks consider him black.

Roth: They will once the election goes on. If he gets the nomination.

SPIEGEL: Do you actually believe that Obama could change Washington or could change politics?

Roth: I'm interested in what merely his presence would be. You know, who he is, where he comes from, that is the change. That is the same thing with Hillary Clinton, just who she is would create a gigantic change. As for all that other rhetoric about change, change, change -- it's pure semantics, it doesn't mean a thing. They'll respond to particular situations as they arise.

SPIEGEL: Are you interested in the Clintons as a couple? Are they literary figures?

Roth: Oh, this is the soap opera side. They're tremendously aggressive, I think they'll say or do anything actually that they can get away with, but no, they don't interest me as a couple. Bill Clinton was interesting as the president -- I don't know what he is now. I think they can overplay that hand, being aggressive, and people will be irritated by it.

SPIEGEL: What will remain of the current president, George W. Bush? Could he be forgotten once he leaves office?

Roth: He was too horrendous to be forgotten. There will be an awful lot written about this. And there's a lot to be written about the war. There's a lot to be written about what he did with Reaganism, since he went much further than Reagan. So he won't be forgotten. Someone has said he's the worst American president we've ever had. I think that's true.

SPIEGEL: Why?

Roth: Well, the biggest thing would be the war, the deceptions surrounding the entrance into the war. The absolute cynicism that surrounds the deception. The cost of the war, the Treasury and the lives of the Americans. It's hideous. There is nothing quite like it. The next thing would be the attitude towards global warming, which is a global crisis, and they were utterly indifferent, if not hostile, to any attempt to address it. And so on and so on and so on and so on. So he's done a lot of harm.

SPIEGEL: Since your book is set in that week during the 2004 elections, can you explain why Americans voted for Bush once again?

Roth: I suspect it was the business of being in a war and not wanting to change, and political stupidity. Why does anybody elect anybody? I thought highly of John Kerry when he began, but he couldn't stand up against Bush. The Democrats aren't brutes, which is too bad, because the Republicans are brutes. Brutes win.

You can read the entire interview here.

Surrendering the moral high ground on torture

There is a price to pay for torture. When the Bush administration took this country down the slippery slope of cutting corners on the treatment of prisoners-of-war deemed enemy combatants and by engaging in torture or the threat of torture they did more than carry us out over moral thin ice. The net effect has been to weaken the United States by destroying American credibility both at home and abroad. It has become a common assumption U.S. authorities torture, whether they do or not, to the point that our closest allies distance themselves from us. The virtues of credibility and moral leadership are not abstract; they are as empowering as the number of tanks on the battlefield or aircraft carriers on the sea. The fact these virtues are in doubt makes us a weaker nation than we have been since the beginning of World War II. Others will not follow because we think we are the good guys, others will follow because they think we are the good guys.

Unfortunately, the United States will have to wait before regaining the moral high ground. Following CIA Director Michael Hayden’s admission that detainees have been tortured by water-boarding, Attorney General Michael Mukasey rejected any investigation into the practice barred by U.S. law and treaties stating because such practices by anyone who acted pursuant to a Justice Department legal opinion was "insulated from criminal liability." The White House via Vice President Cheney says water-boarding is a “good thing.” (Compare this to Teddy Roosevelt’s reaction to reports of torture, including the “water cure”, during the Philippine-American War.)

Barton Hinkle has these thoughts on the subject in the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Earlier this week the White House called American veterans liars.

The Bush administration didn't say it quite so baldly as that. But after CIA director Michael Hayden acknowledged the use of waterboarding, a White House spokesman said the ad ministration had determined it was a lawful "enhanced interrogation technique" rather than illegal torture.

That's a remarkable shift. During the WWII era the U.S. prosecuted Japanese military leaders for committing torture -- by waterboarding -- in the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. As Charles Nielsen, an Army Air Force lieutenant who was captured by the Japanese, testified then: "I was given several types of torture . . . .I was given what they call the water cure." He described the effect: "I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death." Was Nielsen lying?

Retired Army Gen. Stephen Xenakis says that "our nation has regarded wa terboarding as torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment since the late 19th century." Is he a liar?

The U.S. Army field manual prohibits warterboarding. U.S. servicemen were convicted for waterboarding enemy soldiers in both 1901 and 1968. And in congressional testimony last year, Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist and instructor at the Navy's SERE -- Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape -- school, described his own experience with waterboarding: "It is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts." Is Nance a liar?

U.S. policy, then, seems to be that waterboarding of Americans is torture, and waterboarding by Americans before 9/11 was torture, but waterboarding by Americans after 9/11 is not. This is known as moral relativism, which conservatives used to abhor.

As David Gushee observed in "Five Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong," a 2006 essay in Christianity Today, people generally "do not want to call torture what it is." The Bush administration has been forced into Orwellian Doublespeak because it wants to pretend an activity that is clearly torturous is not torture. But saying so doesn't make it so. The administration might just as well try to defend the eating of cooked human flesh by saying, "We don't consider that to be cannibalism. It's only cannibalism if you eat it raw." Nope.

****
IT SEEMS worth asking, then, why nobody proposed torturing Timothy McVeigh to find out whether he knew of any other homegrown terrorist plots. Likewise, the argument for torturing terrorist suspects would apply equally to criminal suspects who might have knowledge of ongoing criminal enterprises. Imagine how much easier it would be -- according to the logic of the pro-torture contingent -- if law-enforcement agencies could subject mafia dons, drug kingpins, or even street-corner dealers to waterboarding, electric shocks, sleep deprivation, and similar
torments.

It does no good to respond that torturing American citizens is unlawful or unconstitutional, because the Bush administration's supporters have argued that the war on terror requires changing -- or simply ignoring -- both the law and the Constitution when the president deems it necessary. The entire pro-torture argument rests on the thesis that if the ends justify the means, rules are irrelevant and anything goes.

There are, of course, some individuals who think it is perfectly fitting to torture anybody, citizen or non-, enemy soldier or mere criminal suspect, if there is any chance whatsoever that torture will produce the desired results.

Many of them -- though not all -- have sworn allegiance to al-Qaida.

You can read his entire column here.

Time poll: Obama beats McCain; Clinton ties with McCain

A new Time magazine poll shows independent voters swinging to Senator Barack Obama in a match up with Senator John McCain but opting for McCain if Senator Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Obama beats McCain nationally 48% to 41% while Clinton ties with McCain at 46%. The poll did not include possible third party candidates such as Ralph Nader or Michael Bloomberg.

From Time:

Though the real election is nine months away, Sen. Barack Obama would fare slightly better than Sen. Hillary Clinton in a head to head match-up with Sen. John McCain if the general election were held today, a new TIME poll reveals.

Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each. Put another way, McCain looks at the moment to have a narrowly better chance of beating the New York Senator than he does the relative newcomer from Illinois.

The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that "independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, "are a key battleground."

For much of the year, Democrats have enjoyed a wide margin over any Republican rival in theoretical match-ups. Those margins have begun to shrink in recent weeks.

***
The survey of nearly 1,000 likely registered voters was conducted February 1 through February 4, before Super Tuesday and the departure from the Republican race of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

The question remains will the Democrats choose a candidate who appeals beyond the party and can win over the unconverted? The answer is staring them in the face.