Maybe the anchors on CNN should speculate

*
About this observation:

13 years after 9/11 and we're building a giant data center to store all of your sexts, but apparently tracking airplanes is unpossible. 

They'd probably speculate that Atrios hates America.

President North Star gets all enigmatic

*
In Santa Monica on Friday, in reference to the NSA Prism project, President Obama said that

... if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.

Ten-four.

Will a member of the White House press corps ask the President what the problem is and what he intends to do about it? His words sounded to me like a threat.

Incidentally, when I was searching for a transcript of this quote, the top Google hits were nuthouse sites like teaparty.com and breitbart.com. No progressive media have taken note of the statement, as far as I can tell. Naturally, wingnuts will vomit outrage about three words President North Star lays end to end, so their current reaction is more of the same and not to be taken seriously. But he wasn't talking to them: he was talking to civil libertarians, good-government advocates, and regular people who are sickened by the police state infrastructure Cheney and Bush built here over 10 years ago.

Reactionaries have no problem with a well functioning police state as long as they control it. The Obama administration does not fear them. It fears the rest of us. The President took off the Centrist mask yesterday and threatened everyday Americans. I wonder what he meant by it.

Occupy Uganda

*

Here's another noodle-scratcher from the Obama administration. Last Wednesday,

the U.S. deployed combat troops to central Africa to serve as advisers to regional forces battling the Lord’s Resistance Army.

[...]

A total of 100 combat-equipped troops will eventually be deployed, with the rest being dispatched in the next month, according to the letter. “However, although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense,” Obama writes.

Yes, advisers only; won't engage the adversary unless absolutely necessary. Check. As Rocket J. Squirrel used to say, "That voice. Where have I heard that voice?"

The announcement was masterfully delayed until Friday afternoon, which is the part of the weekly news cycle where authorities typically bury the release of negative or controversial news. Yet the announcement of other important "foreign policy" news---a positive development in the eyes of most people, I'd think---was also obscured by its timing:

The U.S. is abandoning plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq past a year-end withdrawal deadline, The Associated Press has learned. The decision to pull out fully by January will effectively end more than eight years of U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, despite ongoing concerns about its security forces and the potential for instability.

Just in time for deployment to... where? Uganda? Iran? Cardassia Prime?

Seriously, has someone just discovered huge new deposits of mineral wealth in Uganda?

Brazen and bizarre, indeed!

*

It looks like the movers and shakers may be coming around to the RubberCrutch view of the absurd hype the Justice and State departments applied to the arrest of some Iranian-American guy who allegedly was involved in a cunning plot to exterminate the Saudi ambassador to the land of the free and the home of the brave. Reuters reports via TPM (anonymous sources, admittedly, and possibly Obama opponents with a political axe to grind)  that "officials" have

questioned the wisdom of the White House strategy in using the affair to rapidly push for tougher sanctions on Tehran, increasing regional tensions.

"A lot of people basically feel really suspicious about this," one official said, questioning the White House's motivation "in ratcheting this thing up so quickly."

Exactly my point. That, and the remarkable similarity of the initial journalistic language and perspective on the event, which gave strong evidence that corporate media and blogs were largely working from on set of administration-spoonfed talking points. "Pack journalism" isn't really news in itself, and it was pretty much considered the norm (with disgust) even back when I was studying the trade in the late 1980s. But this particular example seemed unusually blatant given the strikingly uniform vocabulary and attitude about the story.

Again, to be clear and with due respect to nuance, I am not dismissing the probability that there was some kind of plot in the works, nor am I jumping to any conclusions about how serious the plot may have been (even though we have strong indications that the suspects may fall into the category of "bumbling amateurs"). My points are that Obama officials handled the release of this information with noteworthy incompetence given the foreign policy implications of prematurely boiling up a potful of turds with Iran; and that the initial media coverage serves as a clear example of journalistic malpractice.

Brazen administration, bizarre media coverage. But why? I don't buy suggestions that it was intended to be a distraction from the rotten economy or an election-year stunt... because (1) no competent strategist could seriously believe that it could provide a convincing distraction, and (2) it's not an election year! The timing of the thing just makes no sense considering how high of a profile the news was given. Any alternate concepts out there?

The Brazen and the Bizarre (Part 2)

*

It may be that this alleged perp isn't even "fast and furious," let alone "brazen and bizarre":

"He's no mastermind," David Tomscha, who once owned a used car lot with Arbabsiar, told the Associated Press. "I can't imagine him thinking up a plan like that. I mean, he didn't seem all that political. He was more of a businessman."

"His socks would not match," Tom Hosseini, his former college roommate, told the New York Times. "He was always losing his keys and his cellphone. He was not capable of carrying out this plan."

Friends told the Times that Arbabsiar smoked marijuana and drank alcohol freely and had a string of businesses, "selling horses, ice cream, used cars and gyro sandwiches," leaving a "trail of liens, business-related lawsuits and angry creditors" in his wake.

Gary Sick, a former member of the US National Security Council and an expert on Iran and the Middle East, thinks the story as presented may sound farfetched (as opposed to brazen):

Iran has never conducted — or apparently even attempted — an assassination or a bombing inside the US. And it is difficult to believe that they would rely on a non-Islamic criminal gang to carry out this most sensitive of all possible missions. In this instance, they allegedly relied on at least one amateur and a Mexican criminal drug gang that is known to be riddled with both Mexican and US intelligence agents.

Whatever else may be Iran’s failings, they are not noted for utter disregard of the most basic intelligence tradecraft, e.g. discussing an ultra-covert operation on an open international line between Iran and the US. Yet that is what happened here.

Perhaps this operation is just as it appears. But at a minimum both the public and the Congress should demand more detailed evidence before taking any rash or irreversible action.

Yes: let's have more detailed evidence, please, before we make with the bombs and stuff. Now, I don't really think the government's announcement of the alleged Iranian plot was designed to provide Eric Holder a reprieve from his problems with Darrel Issa's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (Issa is a troublemaker with plenty of outstanding questions about his own pees and queues, anyway.) But can you blame Republicans if they try to paint the announcement as Obama-administration trickery? If this plot had been announced while the President was still named Bush-Cheney, what would be your gut reaction to it?

Smells like somebody is wagging a dog

*

If there’s one thing that the poodle media agree on today, it’s that the alleged Iranian/druglord plot to kill a Saudi ambassador in Washington is "brazen." Brazen and bizarre, in fact! Why, did you know that one of the alleged malefactors even showed a gross disregard for innocent human life by dismissing the significance of “collateral damage” resulting from blowing up the ambassador’s favorite DC eatery? Brazen! Even Hillary Clinton thinks so:

"This plot, very fortunately disrupted by the excellent work of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals, was a flagrant violation of international and U.S. law, and a dangerous escalation of the Iranian government's long-standing use of political violence and sponsorship of terrorism.... This kind of reckless act undermines international norms and the international system," she said.

"Iran must be held accountable for its actions....We will work closely with our international partners to increase Iran's isolation and the pressure on its government, and we call upon other nations to join us in condemning this threat to international peace and security." 

As Frazier Thomas used to say, "Hold the phone!" The fact that this episode rises only to the level of an allegation is important aside from any due process considerations for the accused. Here's our Secretary of State making a thinly veiled threat that reasonable people might understand to be the overture to another "coalition of the willing" cattle call. That's what I call brazen and bizarre, actually, over-reactionwise. Does this administration have a "Persian Fall" in mind? Is it an attempt to sow more discord within the fractious Iranian government? A Justice Department dog-and-pony show to distract Republicans and the media from the Fast And Furious cockup?

Holder said the two alleged plotters had not yet acquired explosives but had arranged for nearly $100,000 to be wired to a New York bank account in the name of the hired hit man as a down payment. The proposed hit man was actually an informant working for U.S. law enforcement.

What in the world are "Iranian-backed emissaries," by the way? The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran. Did he mean to say "guys hired by someone in Iran"?

So all day I was reading about and hearing about this brazen and bizarre "terror" plot, with media personalities from BoingBoing to the "mothership" oldies network declaring with pre-rehearsed incredulity that it sounded like something straight out of a "spy thriller." Yes, it does, doesn't it? I wonder where all our media mouthpieces got their talking points this morning.

Just to be clear: good for the FBI and DEA if they stopped a terrorism plot in the early stages. And yes, we should be concerned if Iranian officials were in fact financing a plot of the nature reported. But is it really any more brazen and bizarre than, say, an airline passenger with a smoldering bomb in his underpants? Or that day when a bunch of Saudi nationals hijacked and crashed some passenger jets in America? Or a State Department employee gunning down two men in the streets of Lahore, Pakistan? Just asking (don't want to drone on and on about it).

Guantanamo grapevine

*

As it turns out, nuclear blowback evidently has been discussed by US authorities as one possible retaliation mode in the event of the hypothetical---now real---capture or killing of OBL.

I don't claim any particular knowledge of international security issues, but it does seem farfetched to me that AQ, even with sympathizers in high places, could have a nuclear weapon deployed in Europe, let alone America. I can imagine no coherent "conspiracy theory" that would have US national security personnel turning a blind eye to this sort of infiltration even given the bale of unanswered questions and unresolved contradictions that linger a decade after September 11 itself. Many, many of those questions seem to plausibly address some kind of heinous untold story about that day. (You'd have to read the book to know what I refer to.) The idea of a foreign nuclear weapon being deployed on US soil doesn't remotely have the same ring of plausibility, conspiracywise. The same goes for Europe, I think, because their secret security agencies have been working the terrorism beat for decades.

Nevertheless, that leaves a lot of real estate in the world to cover. Anyone who thinks about it could come up with scenarios that involve, say, a corrupt Pakistan (with either an internal target or with India in the crosshairs); Iran (located in quite a target-rich region with a lot of US interests); and The Desert Kingdom itself (where it's apparently an open secret that radical members of the royal family have been financing AQ for a decade or more).

Sensational and speculative? Yes. But a nihilistic force with a sense of moral infallibility and no fear of death (i.e., insane by a reasonable person's standards) could concoct dozens of justifications for a paramilitary nuclear attack that would shred the global status quo.

All things considered, I think these idle speculations at least provide one more good reason why we should avoid celebrating the assassination of OBL with a Super Bowl party.

Now, this

*

Today I read about a lot of celebrity Republican politicians---both of today and yesteryear---praising President Obama for "wisely" following the lead of George W. Bush's antiterrorism strategy in order to bag OBL.

Steve Benen of Washington Monthly has, in response, provided a nice collection of linked articles documenting the lack of concern Bush and ultraconservative personalities publicly displayed about OBL's whereabouts and significance dating back to March 2002. (!)

For a "bonus level," Benen throws in a link to a 17 April 2002 Washington Post story about bin Laden slipping through Tora Bora to Pakistan in December 2001 thanks (reportedly) to strategic cockups by Bush's Afghanistan operations chief, General "Tommy" Franks. I leave it to the reader to assess any potential relation between the 2001 Tora Bora failure and Bush's cavalier attitude toward OBL in 2002.

So, no: if you are among those who think the world is better off without Osama bin Laden, you owe precisely zero thanks to George Walker Bush for the terrorist's demise.

Way to keep the eye on the ball

*

Among President North Star's highest priorities for the new year? Using the Justice Department to intimidate WikiLeaks sympathizers not accused of any crime. Unconscionable and futile---a waste of resources and good will.

I intend to write a bit about the new era of whistleblowing the world entered last year, but there are reasons why I must select my words carefully. It's probably legal for me to say that I think this has been the most fascinating and asymmetric application of political expression I've ever been aware of. Kind of like that guy in Tienanmen Square standing in front of a column of tanks in 1989, except packing a coupla Romulan disruptors and a Jem H'Dar cloaking device.

As nearsighted, misguided security apparatchiks busily labor to make a martyr of Julian Assange, they may discover that he has something in common with the mythical hydra. Some people may still think the President really can play 10-dimensional chess, I'm pretty sure he's no Hercules. Even if he were, why not labor to decapitate the criminal Wall Street hydra, for example? (Oh wait, I already know why: because we must not hold banking racketeers accountable for their crimes, but we must instead "reach out" to them and give them high-level policy positions in our administration.)

Editor's note: my intent for the new year is to write less about topical issues like this, because it feels pointless. RubberCrutch has bigger fish to fry.

Let freedom ring

*

Hillary Clinton, from a speech on 21 January 2010:

We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship.

The title of the speech, of course, was "Remarks on Internet Freedom."

It's funny, see?

For your "empty messaging" collection

*

Yes, for sure! Progressive Democrats are certain to resonate to this kind of twaddle while the Obama White House is simultaneously busy with futile but chilling expressions of authority that will seem inexplicable and evil to any person who has grown up with open access to the internet. You know what kind of people those are: Obama's base.

I believe it's inevitable that President Obama will have a stiff primary challenge in 2012 from the progressive wing of his party, and that it will be strongly supported by the progressive wing of society at large.

Schneier and Marshall on TSA security theater

*

Bruce Schneier is a renowned authority on "all matters security," including cyberwar, physical security, and domestic antiterrorism procedures. If you don't have much exposure to Schneier or airport security, it may be worthwhile for you to read his summary of the current backlash against TSA. At very least, read the fifth paragraph and then skip down to the graf beginning "Common sense from the Netherlands" and read the rest. But do read it all if you have time.

Josh Marshall, whose cred and authority have been rapidly falling in my view for a year, thinks the outcry is "a crock" because the people he thinks are complaining the loudest are politicians and pundits who gave full-throated support to two insane wars and the associated abridgments of our civil liberties. Well, it's not the backlash that's a crock; the crock is Marshall not doing his homework before he writes an inane post on the subject. It's also a crock that the backlash is politically motivated just because Obama's enemies are criticizing him about it. The right wingers are correct about this, even if it is exclusively for hypocritical and exploitative reasons. Maybe Josh should turn his little "muckrakers" loose on the airport security hypocrites, compiling a database of the complainers and cross-referencing their names with their previous votes or positions on draconian national security measures that don't catch terrorists and hurt only innocent Americans.

Piss Christ, what an asshole!

*

I wonder where President Barack Hussein Obama with regard to the TSA's ongoing regime of government-sanctioned sexual assault and systematic humiliation of American citizens at U.S. airports. Just wondering.

That is, I'm wondering why he hasn't ordered "Homeland Security" secretary Janet Napolitano to immediately fire the TSA chief "John Pistole," put an immediate stop to these unconscionable airport assaults, and give reason why she shouldn't follow Pistole out the door within 48 hours.

Meanwhile, I wonder where Libertarians and Tea Partiers are on this issue. I'd think it falls into the category of 'treading on them.' I'd find it easier to have some sympathy for those misguided individuals if they spoke up on matters that really do encroach on their "freedoms."

I wish the President would show something other than a willingness to work with Blue Dog Democrats (e.g., Napolitano), and across the aisle with the crypto-fascists who aren't happy with our little constitutional democracy we've had going here for a coupla centuries. How about appointing lame duck senator Russ Feingold the new head of Homeland Security? Obama can do this by exercising his authority as the Unitary Executive, after all, can't he?

Oh, Olympia Snowe wouldn't hear of it. I see....

September 11, 2010 [updated]

*
Most commemoration of the violent "Muslim" attacks on New York City and elsewhere, which occurred on the subject date 9 years ago, just leaves me wondering. Ccreeped out and revolted, too.

Most TYPICAL AMERICANS are expected, from what I can tell, to believe that this EVIL MUSLIM  force majeure from the skies "essentially free[d] both parties from liability or obligation [because it was an] extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties... [that] prevent[ed] one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract." That is, THE CONTRACT.

And furthermore, in order to visibly document one's strong approval of how one or both of those parties did perform, even though they didn't, TYPICAL AMERICANS are expected, from what I can tell, to publicly express strong, heartfelt patriotic opinions about American righteousness in the face of those attacks. And in order to meet the approval of TRUE PATRIOTS, though, everyone instinctively knows it is best to pretend, fetishistically, that we are very sad, or very angry, or very defiant, or very solemn about these events even though we, ourselves, were not harmed on that date; and no one we know lost limb or life, either. And even though all of us are constantly indoctrinated by corporate-sponsored media to understand that the East Coast, north of the Confederate States of America, is a decadent hive of scum and villainy. As well as some other places.

Therefore, I strongly recommend that you read this recap, by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), documenting how mainstream corporate media rapidly volunteered to serve as a cat's paw for America's right-wing "assignment editors" as they fabricated false connections, slanderously, between EVIL MUSLIMS and AMERICAN LIBERALS:

At least one commentator blamed the left for the attacks themselves. Columnist Steven Schwartz (New York Post, 9/12/01) wrote that "the anti-globalist rioters seek to intimidate world capitalism into shutting down altogether, and the distance between breaking the windows of McDonald's to achieve that end and blowing up the World Trade Center is pretty damned narrow."

I think this FAIR article is important because, to me, it undeniably illustrates the core sickness of so many self-identified Republicans, conservatives, Tea Partiers, rednecks, and "patriots" today: the readiness to either seize or create opportunities to slander, silence, and if necessary eliminate people THE OTHER. That is, everyone who looks like they do not belong to THE TRIBE. Routinely, the opportunity to vilify THE OTHER is driven entirely by paranoic fanasy or prima facie hate. And journalists are paid to pretend that they are blind and deaf to this.

In advance, I apologize for the churlishness with which I may respond to any assertion that "both sides do it." No, they don't. In America, they really really don't. But the Kens and Barbies who staff our nation's network and cable news shops pretend that they don't know that. They are key members of the ideological lynch mob that has held this nation in fear and moral atrophy for 3 decades.

Update: here's another example of a perverted lunatic spinning slanderous "theories" about liberals with full impunity granted corporate journalists. Although he immediately quit his position as Georgia representative and Speaker of the House, in disgrace, upon being re-elected in 1998, Newt Gingrich is still highly regarded by the polite establishment as a political visionary. He claims, whether in sincerity or deception, that in effect Barack Obama is de Mau Mau incarnate. His motives mostly don't matter; what matters is that he's still portrayed as a policy expert and political bellwether by the media lie machines.

Editor's notes: (1) Rubber Crutch's decision to post this item on September 12, not September 11, was fully intentional. (2) Yes, he did knowingly begin this counter-commemoration post with a strange but genuine Wikipedia/Fifty50 "mashup." (3) This post is likely to need subsequent editorial review for after-hours booboos that elude detection at this hour. (4) Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Recommended atmospherics for the general's exit interview

*

On the slim chance that President Obama decides to take my advice on how to handle the problem with his allegedly insubordinate General Officer, then he also may consider my serving suggestion for the exit interview.

The general's seat at the conference table should be reserved with one warm bottle of Bud Lite Lime, placed on a TGI Friday's coaster. Obama should arrive at the meeting 15 minutes late with an ice-cold 40, two fresh packs of Philip Morris Commanders, and a box of kitchen matches. Joe Biden should arrive at the meeting 15 minutes early with two fifths of Wild Irish Rose (no glass) so he can keep the general company until the boss is done chillin'.

Undereducated guess [updated]

*

Something about the layout and editing of the HuffPost front page from tonight, shown below, gives me the strong gut feeling that Obama will not fire his insubordinate 4-star general. Check the wording on the subhead: "President Obama Rebukes His Top Afghan General For 'Poor Judgment'."

Nope. If you're going to fire the guy, you don't make Peep 1 about it for the Tuesday evening headline writers. Why would the president bother with public "tough talk" before having the guy's ass on a platter in person? If my hunch is correct, I must say that it would be a really witless move with zero upside. BHO will get mau-maued whether he cans McChrystal or lets him stay. But in the latter case, Obama will also look like a king-hell pansy. And he should expect more of the same in his future. Limbaugh wins much less if Obama emerges from the oval office with the general's blood dripping from his socialist fangs.

No one is indispensable. Meanwhile, insubordination is unacceptable in any job, period, and it's always cause for immediate dismissal. Soldiers know this as well as forklift operators and Wal-Mart associates and Army public affairs officers. Maybe McChrystal wants to get fired and become the newest political darling of right-wingers (a role I still see Petraeus playing even if he retires along normal lines). So let him. Whether you support the Afghanastan mission or not, the good general has jeopardized its execution with his hi-jinx and he knows it. Not exactly a career-crowning achievement on which to base a political campaign, though. Basically, his motives seem pretty murky to me unless he just can't hold his Bud Lite Lime (the drinking of which should certainly be sufficient grounds for loss of rank and dismissal).

Update: Florida Rep. Alan Grayson has a few more reasons why McChrystal's presence can no longer be tolerated, including an incident last year when he publicly showed-up Obama about Afghanistan troop strength. And, incidentally and apropos of nothing, Grayson is my leading candidate to become the next Huey Long. Just a disinterested observation....

One legacy of our insect Republican overlords

It's this: the hollowing out of the federal government and the military services by outsourcing core public services to mercenaries. Embassy protection had always been the responsibility of the U.S. Marine Corps. The guys who work for outfits like ArmorGroup North America (AGNA) are paid reams more of the green stuff than leathernecks and soldiers. And the outfits they work for don't provide these essential services out of patriotism: they're duty-bound to make as much profit as possible for the flagship corporation --- in this case "Wackenhut," which sounds like a name that would be given to one of the inhumanoid demons scrawled and splattered into existence by Ralph Steadman (see upper left).

This variety of heist has to be obvious to everyone in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. It's justified by the baldfaced lie that the business sector does everything more efficiently than the government. In fact, the only thing the business sector does more efficiently than government is pillage the U.S. Treasury on behalf of corporation executives. I'll award an aluminum-plated Gordian Knot for the first MBA who can convince me that a corporation can provide highly trained and disciplined security personnel, loyal only to the defense of the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, for a lower price than the salary and benefits of a U.S. Marine.

It should go without saying that the situation at the embassy in Kabul is a completely logical and predictable outcome of using mercenaries to perform inherently governmental work, and it is intolerable that the Congress and the White House should allow this situation to persist for even another day.

Editor's note: the portrait of "Sir Wackenhut" (my nomenclature) is by Ralph Steadman, copyright owned by him or his masters. Fair use is claimed as the image is used here solely for purposes of social commentary and education, for no profit to anyone.

Canadiennes sans frontieres

*
Bruce Schneier's Crypto-Gram security blog tells of the dismantling, by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, of a large sign on the Canadian side of a U.S./Canada border crossing at Massena, New York. The mighty, yellow sign was declared to pose a significant risk of endangering customs agency employees by drawing the unwelcome attention of international terrorists.

No, the sign did not say "Bin Laden Sucks" or "Fuck the Ayatollah." It said "United States." Because if Canadians become aware that they're entering the United States via Massena, NY, then you-know-who has already won.