Category: Politics

The US is working on a new UN resolution intended to encourage foreign assistance in Iraq. Five bucks says the first version circulated turns out to be unacceptable to the Security Council.

Unfortunately for Bush, he’s negotiating from a position of weakness. After having said he doesn’t need the UN and calling the Security Council irrelevant, he’s now finding that he has to go back and ask them for help. There aren’t many weaker negotiating stances than that.

Riverbend notes that it’s Chalabi’s turn to be president of the Iraqi Governing Council. Should be an interesting month. Chalabi’s been claiming he doesn’t want power for ages now, but he keeps winding up with influence anyhow — albeit influence mostly generated by his supporters among the neocons.

So, does he use this month to show off how useful he can be? He claims that he needs more control over Iraqi security in order to prevent bombings and terrorism — in fact, he said he warned the US before the UN bombing. One doubts it’s a coincidence that the first Cabinet was named as Chalabi’s presidency began.

The always indispensable Joshua Marshall tosses in this tale of woe, which (if true) goes a long way towards explaining why Chalabi isn’t trusted.

Juan Cole is a professor of Middle East history at UMichigan, and thus has a little more grounds on which to base his speculations than the rest of us blogger. He has a kickass post on the Imam Ali mosque bombing, which discusses the targets and the probable bombers.

Juan Cole thinks it was Ba’athists, and he has some reasonable-sounding reasons. But whether it was Ba’athists or Al Qaeda or some other group, it is clear that the bombing was a strike against US interests — again, read Professor Cole’s post for a detailed explanation of why.

I suspect the conflict between France and Libya qualifies as irony. Libya’s agreed to pay compensation to the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombings, but France is threatening to veto the Security Council resolution lifting UN sanctions against Libya.

If anyone was under the impression that France acts on purely noble motives, we can perhaps lay that to rest. France is holding out for more money. On the other hand, one’s forced to wonder why the tactics used with Libya are so unacceptable when it comes to Iraq.

Libya has chemical weapons, and pursued nuclear weapons in the past — and maybe even in the present. On the other hand, Qaddafi has apparently stopped supporting terrorism, so perhaps that’s the difference.

In which case, what does that say about the success of UN sanctions?

In a small and no doubt transient victory for civil rights, Judge Brinkema granted Moussaoui access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s testimony. Moussaoui is on trial for his role in the 9/11 terrorist attack, and he claims Mohammed can testify that he wasn’t involved.

The government is expected to appeal on the grounds that, says CNN, “no court can order the executive branch to produce an enemy combatant detained on foreign soil and that doing so would disrupt the war on terrorism.”

The point they’re still missing is this: the justice system is not designed to make it easier to prosecute the war on terrorism. It’s designed to give people fair trials, and sometimes it even succeeds. We do not make our judicial decisions based on whether or not the choice would make the prosecution’s life easier.

And it is completely unacceptable to create a method by which the executive branch can hold anyone they like without oversight or recourse.

Quote from myself: “Either the Democrats or the Republicans are going to come together behind one candidate. The winning candidate is going to have upwards of 35% of the vote.”

Advantage: me!

(Yeah, I spent too much time reading self-absorbed blogs while doing research on the previous post. I admit it.)

Some have argued that the UN Baghdad bombing, the oil pipeline sabotage, and the water pipe sabotage mean that the Iraqi resistance/terrorists have given up on attacking military targets.

Three British soldiers in Basra, an American soldier in Hillah, and a convoy of Humvees in Baghdad would disagree with that argument.

Yeah, it’s quick-link morning. But Kodi’s investigation of the relative evil of Arnold Schwarzenegger versus the villains he’s fought in his movies is really good.

Arius might have been in favor of some limited separation of powers in the government of lovely Latin American Country, perhaps a parliament he could dissolve at will or something, but nothing on the order of the limitations applied to the office of Governor of California.

The table is worth the price of admission.

Poland’s decided to adjust its military committment in Iraq. There aren’t any fewer Polish troops over there, but they’re not quite as interested in administering the area near Baghdad as they once were.

You know, we’re gonna wind up turning this mess over to the UN sooner or later, whether or not that’s a good thing.

As a rule, I really like Bruce R’s blog Flit. However, I am starting to wonder about his choice of blog partners. T. M. Lutas is not the sharpest crayon in the shed.

This in the way of introduction to this exciting new theory of American’s Iraq reconstruction plan. Salam Pax said:

I guess you’ve been hearing news about Mosul? Well it’s worse. The security situation isn’t too bad (they don’t rely on Americans in these parts- if they did it wouldn’t be any better than Baghdad). Electricity is more or less sorted out (although we do have problems)- and no, it wasn’t the Amreeeekan who got things running, thank you very much.

Lutas enthusiastically responded:

These are not the words of somebody who is going to feel permanently humiliated at their dependence on america. That’s all to the good and may there be many more such independent people.

Yep. We’re failing to provide electricity in Iraq so that the people of Iraq can feel self-reliant. Perhaps it’ll distract them from the fact that we haven’t yet let them try their own war criminals. I mean, yeah, as a tactic it’d work — but it kind of ignores the resentment it’d engender.