Antiwar.com Blog

As the wingers turn on serial plagiarist Ben Domenech – with the sort of righteous indignation others might reserve for oh, I don’t know, presidents who lie us into war – Michelle Malkin shares her pain:

As someone who has worked in daily journalism for 14 years, I have a lot of experience related to this horrible situation: I’ve had my work plagiarized by shameless word and idea thiefs [sic] many times over the years.

Oh, come now, Michelle. Has anyone ever really plagiarized you? Isn’t it more likely that the throat can only produce so many varieties of grunt?

Many things about Bush’s war are anti-Christian, but the destruction of Christianity in Iraq is near the top of the list. Writing in the current issue of Chronicles magazine, Wayne Allensworth reports how Christians in Iraq have faced contiinuous attacks since the U.S. invasion began. Because Muslims have identified all Christians with the West, Christians in Iraq have been killed, kidnapped, and forced to flee their homes. They have had their businesses destroyed, and their women have been forced to wear the Muslim veil. Yet, under Saddam Hussein’s secular regime, Christians lived in relatively safety and had freedom to practice their religion. Christian held posts in the government. Hussein suppressed radical Islamic groups. No, Iraq was no Bible Belt, but it was a far cry from other Muslim countries. Are Christians in Iraq better off now than under Saddam Hussein? Is anyone in Iraq better off now than under Saddam Hussein? George Bush may claim to be a Christian, but his actions are decidedly anti-Christian.

Ukraine will hold parliamentary elections on Sunday. From the AP:

Opinion polls show no party will get a majority, which means Ukraine’s future government will be determined by who joins in a coalition. A strong showing would give [Yulia Tymoshenko] the upper hand in talks aimed at restoring the partnership known as the Orange Team, which shattered in September when President Viktor Yushchenko accused Tymoshenko of betraying the revolution and fired her as prime minister.

Yushchenko needs Tymoshenko if he hopes to keep the Orange Team alive, but many analysts have predicted that he might find it more palatable to unite with [Viktor] Yanukovych, whose fraud-marred victory in presidential elections sparked the 2004 protests. Yushchenko and Yanukovych have strong ideological differences, but not the personal hatred that seems to have built up between the one-time Orange allies.

For those of you who may have forgotten – it seems like only yesterday Kiev was the center of the blogiverse – Yanukovych is the one-time Hitler of the Week who supposedly tried to assassinate Yushchenko.

UPDATE 3/24: A reader says that Yanukovych was not accused of anything. Formally, no. But the implication in the Western media at the time was pretty clear. From the London Times (December 2004):

Proof that Mr Yushchenko was deliberately poisoned would be a devastating blow for his rival, the Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovych, as the two candidates prepare for a repeat of a presidential run-off on December 26.

It would raise questions about whether the poisoning was ordered by Mr Yanukovych, his allies, or even the Kremlin, which fears that Mr Yushchenko will take Ukraine out of its sphere of influence by joining Nato and the EU.

Mr Yushchenko had said recently that he would soon reveal proof that his opponents had tried to assassinate him, but a spokeswoman said he had no plans to travel to Vienna.

Frankly, I have about as much interest in the poisoning itself as the average Ukrainian has in the McKinley assassination. I just find the events of the last year and a half to be an interesting challenge to the monolithic Orange Revolution narrative we Westerners were fed.

From the Washington Post:

Three United States senators came to one of China’s most prestigious universities on Wednesday, ostensibly to talk about trade. What they delivered was an expansive, almost evangelical campaign for American values – one that received pushback from their audience of students and faculty.

American values apparently run the gamut from whimpering sanctimony to belligerent hypocrisy:

The senators talked about an unfair advantage they say Chinese exporters enjoy over American firms because of the low-value currency. They implored China to adopt the norms of global trade. In strikingly moral tones, they pledged Washington’s resolve to pressure China to liberalize not only its currency regime but also its political culture, using trade as a wedge for broader reform.

Idiot number one:

Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told the Tsinghua University audience that his model of leadership is “a man by the name of Jesus.” He later quoted Martin Luther King Jr. as he urged China to do “the right thing” on trade policy.

Fer chrissakes, at least Ghengis Khan had the decency to skip the lectures while pillaging. Idiot number two:

Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) told the students that, post-9/11, Americans are committed to taking on whatever battles seem imperative – China’s cheap currency, along with al-Qaeda.

China’s cheap currency, along with al-Qaeda? Are you sh*tting me?

“In my country, we’re very arrogant, and I admit to it,” Graham said. “You have to understand that Americans have for 200 years fought and died not just for our freedom, but for other people’s freedoms.”

You know, like the freedom to set their own fiscal pol… oh, sorry:

Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who has led the drive to force China to raise the value of its currency, the yuan, said economic reform leads toward a free society. “I believe it is inevitable that China will have much more freedom,” he said.

That Chuck Schumer, the most insufferable prick in a state that boasts Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, is allowed – paid – to speak as a representative of this country should be one of the first things that leaps to mind when you hear the question, “Why do they hate us?”

Apparently, the Chinese audience didn’t much cotton to the preaching, backed as it is by the threat of a 27.5 percent tariff on all Chinese goods. I suspect the good, Wal-Mart-going folk of Oklahoma and South Carolina won’t be too happy, either, once they have to start leaving items at the checkout counter – though I’m sure their senators (and Fox News) will channel their rage toward the little yellow devils for “playing hardball” with America.

Via Sibel Edmonds, re: Judge Walton

For Immediate Release- March 22, 2006

Contact for Commentary: Professor William Weaver, wweaver@nswbc.org , (915.525.0483(M); 505.216.9853(H))

Federal Judge in Libby Trial Deliberately Hides Financial Background

Possible Violation of Federal Law Charged by FBI Whistleblower

Today, Sibel Edmonds, Former FBI Language Specialist and a whistleblower, filed a motion in D.C. Federal Court asking for recusal of Judge Reggie Walton from her pending case filed under the Federal Tort Claim Act. Walton is also currently hearing the perjury case involving I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who is suspected of leaking the name of former CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame Wilson to the media.

Edmonds motion for recusal is based on Judge Walton’s pursuit of secrecy in his required yearly financial disclosure by redacting his entire disclosure statement, his deference to secrecy in his rulings on Edmonds’ previous claims where he was the presiding judge, and the unusual operations of the case assignment system concerning Edmonds’ cases. For the recusal motion filed by Edmonds Click Here [.pdf].

The redaction of Judge Reggie Walton’s entire Financial Disclosure Statement appears to be in violation of the Ethics in Government Act. The Ethics in Government Act requires that Federal Judges file a yearly financial disclosure statement with the U.S. Judicial Conference as a check on conflicts of interest. A disclosure may be redacted only to the extent necessary to protect the individual who filed the report and for as long as the danger to such individual exists. The Financial Disclosure Statement filed by Judge Reggie Walton in 2003 redacts all information except for the date of the filing and Walton’s name. This is highly unusual. According to a recent GAO Report, less than one percent of judges on average request complete redaction of their financial disclosure each year. For Judge Reggie Walton’s 2003 Financial Disclosure, Click Here [.pdf]. For the request letter sent to the U.S. Judicial Conference on March 6, 2006, asking for the release of Judge Walton’s unredacted financial disclosure statement Click Here [.pdf].

In July 2004, Judge Reggie Walton disposed of Edmonds’ First Amendment case on the basis of the government’s assertion of State Secrets Privilege. On the same day as the decision, Judge Walton quashed a subpoena for Edmonds’ deposition by attorneys representing over 1,000 family members who lost love ones during the terrorist attacks on 9/11. In limiting the deposition in the case, Burnett et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., Judge Walton prevented the 9/11 attorneys from asking a majority of the proposed questions related to the attacks. These included even the most mundane questions, such as:

• When & where were you born?

• Where did you go to school?

• What languages do you speak?

• What did you focus your studies on in school?

• In what capacity have you been employed by the United States Government?

The convoluted route the Edmonds’ case has taken to Judge Reggie Walton’s courtroom appears suspicious and creates the perception that the system has been manipulated. Edmonds’ First Amendment case, filed in July 2002, was assigned to Judge James Robertson who recently resigned from the FISA Court in protest of warrantless NSA eavesdropping. In February 2003, Edmonds’ case was removed from Judge Robertson and reassigned to Judge Walton with no explanation provided. Edmonds filed a motion to request the case to be transferred from Judge Walton, and be assigned to Judge Ellen Huvelle who had been presiding over Edmonds’ related FOIA case since July 2002. The court granted Edmonds’ request and transferred her case to Judge Huvelle. However, two days later, Edmonds’ case was removed from Judge Huvelle and reassigned to Judge Walton with no further information or reason provided. On July 6, 2004, Judge Walton granted the government’s motion to dismiss based on the assertion of the State Secrets Privilege.

In March 2005, Edmonds filed in D.C. Federal Court a separate claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the case was randomly assigned to Judge James Robertson. However, five days later, Edmonds’ claim was removed from Judge Robertson and reassigned to Judge Reggie Walton. This set of facts reveals apparent violations of local rules governing the assignment of cases.

Sibel Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI’s Washington Field Office. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her issues have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege” and the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice.

In January 2005, the Justice Department’s Inspector General vindicated Edmonds’ claims when it declared that many of her charges “were supported by other witnesses and documents, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services.”

Judge Reggie Walton was nominated to his position as a United States District Court of Columbia Judge in October 2001 by President George W. Bush. He served as President George H. W. Bush’s Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President and as President Bush’s Senior White House advisor for Crime.

Update: Oops, I forgot the link to Sibel’s petition

I am so tired of this phony debate. The employees of the US government don’t have the right to kill one more person, commit one more kidnapping or act of torture against the people of Iraq – or to spend one more taxed dollar doing so either. No right. Is that not simple enough?

Brad Blog has the video (about 1/3 into it) of some of the atrocities of last November, which was, at least, more peaceful than the November before that.