« NY TimesWatch!: Can The Unitary Editor Admit Fault? | Main | Coffee Snorter: On This, We're Firmly United »
October 24, 2006
Coffee Snorters: Oh He Did *NOT* Go There Edition...
Who said Democrats cannot be trusted with our national security? Pending accusations that a Democrat staffer leaked a classified intelligence report to the New York Times, the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee's top-ranking Democrat member is outraged that his access to secret information has temporarily been revoked pending the outcome of the investigation:
The Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Jane Harman of California, wrote to Hoekstra that she was "appalled" by his action, which was "without basis." She has demanded that Hoekstra "immediately reinstate the staffer's access to classified information."
Apparently, like Bryan Calame, Rep. Harmon (D., State of Denial) believes the feelings of the underdog outweigh any potential national security implications... That all-important weighing test, you know.
We simply cannot make this stuff up fast enough.
Meanwhile, the UN continues to fly straight in the face of centuries of human history that has demonstrated that, for reasonable people at least, hope is not a strategy:
"I am an optimist," proclaimed Ban Ki-moon, the new secretary-general of the United Nations, in his introductory speech to the General Assembly last Friday. He will certainly fit right in. What has taken place at Turtle Bay over the past six weeks represents nothing so much as the triumph of optimism over sanity. In late August, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for peacekeepers to deploy to Darfur to stop a genocide that has claimed some 400,000 lives over the last three years. But the resolution contained a cruel catch: an implicit promise that no peacekeepers would enter Darfur without the approval of Sudan's leaders. This was optimistic logic, to say the least, since it is widely known that Sudan's leaders are the very same people who have orchestrated the Darfur genocide; and what genocidaire would, given a choice, invite foreign troops to enter his country to bring a halt to his evil work? As a result, it probably should not have surprised anyone when Sudan offered a blunt response to the U.N.'s entreaties: No. Yet the optimists were not done trying, and, six weeks later, they are still at it--urging, begging, cajoling the thugs who rule Sudan to please allow U.N. troops to enter Darfur. Still, the thugs say no. Still, the pleading of the diplomats goes on. This is optimism, of a sort. It is also--excuse our lack of diplomacy--utter madness.Meanwhile, in the real world, where Darfuris live, things continue to get worse. Consider recent events in an area of southern Darfur called Buram. There, in late August, Arab militiamen from the Habbania tribe attacked 45 villages, killing several hundred civilians. The villages were burned and looted and their residents forced to scatter. "Reportedly, women and children were thrown into burning dwellings as they attempted to flee," according to a recent U.N. report. "Children as young as three years old, including the daughter of an interviewee, were killed in this manner." But that, apparently, was not enough. After the initial round of attacks, militia from another Arab tribe--the Fallata--attacked those fleeing the carnage, causing "the displaced population to scatter even further" and "hampering efforts to deliver aid to those affected." As a result, one eyewitness told the U.N., "Most of our people are hiding in the bushes." Concerning Khartoum's role, the U.N. report left little doubt: "Government knowledge, if not complicity, in the attacks is almost certain."
If this scene--African children being tossed into burning dwellings by Arab militiamen almost certainly backed by the Sudanese government--has a familiar ring, it should. Identical scenes have been unfolding across Darfur for three years. And, for three years, every proposed solution that has received a respectable airing in the international community has involved obtaining the consent of the murderers themselves. No wonder not one of these so-called solutions has worked. The question now before the West, and Americans in particular, is simple: When will we have had enough of this charade? Will we wait until 600,000 die? 800,000? One million? Is there a magic number at which our moral outrage will suddenly trump our deference to Sudanese sovereignty?
Fortunately, help (or rather Hope) is on the way. If inconvenient facts get in the way of a really beautiful dream, "consultation" is always an option: (h/t Carrie)
Jan Pronk, the senior U.N. envoy to Sudan, said in a telephone interview that he sensed Khartoum was getting ready to expel him weeks before an announcement Sunday that he had been given three days to leave Sudan because of remarks on his personal Web site.Western governments yesterday protested Sudan's expulsion of the diplomat, who had described heavy casualties and sagging morale among Sudanese forces in a blog at his personal Web site, www.janpronk.nl. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the Sudanese decision "unfortunate in the extreme."
On a blog entry dated Oct. 14, he offered an overview of the political situation, including the army's military failures and a splintering of the rebel factions, rarely providing the sources of his information.
The Sudanese military "has lost two major battles, last month in Umm Sidir and this week in Karakaya," Mr. Pronk wrote. "The losses seem to have been very high. Reports speak about hundreds of casualties in each of the two battles, with many wounded and many taken as prisoner.
"The morale in the government army in North Darfur has gone down. Some generals have been sacked; soldiers have refused to fight. The government has responded by directing more troops and equipment from elsewhere to the region and by mobilizing Arab militia. This is a dangerous development. Security Council resolutions which forbid armed mobilization are being violated."
Dangerous, indeed. We cannot risk the fragile bonds of diplomacy being shattered by a careless word.
After all when lives are at stake, only a get tough policy will do. Right, Nancy?
Shamelessly ripped off from Vinnie, who has the best caption contests.
Posted by Cassandra at October 24, 2006 12:00 PM
Comments
Nancy showing off what the doctor removed after her colonoscopy. Obviously, she was still recovering from the procedure.
Posted by: Carrie at October 24, 2006 03:50 PM
To go along with Carrie's outstanding caption:
"One snake down and one to go."
Posted by: Cricket at October 24, 2006 04:10 PM
The real reason for Howard Dean's "I Have A Scream" speech.
Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 05:22 PM
"Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrgggghhh!!!!"
Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 05:23 PM
To the surprise of many, Nancy's "DNC Family Values Nite" speech didn't end up being quite as wholesome as the House Minority leadership had anticipated.
Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 05:26 PM
"RAWHIDE!"
Posted by: Cricket at October 24, 2006 05:49 PM
Keep them voters movin',
The nation's disapprovin'
Rethuglicans are losin'
Rawhide!
The Bushies can glad hand 'em
I'll just rope, throw, and brand 'em
Soon we'll be living high and wide.
My pore heart's just calculatin'
All those tensions 'xacerbating
There's just got to be a way to turn the tide
Move 'em on, head 'em up
Head 'em up, move 'em on
Move 'em on, head 'em up
Rawhide
Count 'em out, ride 'em in,
Ride 'em in, count 'em out,
Count 'em out, ride 'em in
Rawhide!
Posted by: Lil Nancy at October 24, 2006 06:20 PM
Ye Gads! Is it Halloween already? Pelosi got her start in politics working in one of Mussolini's army bordellos. I think Jane Harman began with Charlie Manson.
Posted by: Mark at October 24, 2006 06:50 PM
That picture is frightening...just in time for Hallowe'en, too.
Posted by: camojack at October 25, 2006 05:09 AM
Didn't his accuser say he had no credible evidence?
Posted by: actus at October 25, 2006 08:36 AM
I think that in a matter of national security actus, you have an investigation, however brief, and then dispose of the matter.
The inconvenience to the individual is outweighed by the interest of the nation in maintaining national security. This ought to be obvious to anyone, even Rep. Harmon, and indeed anyone accused ought to insist on it out of a healthy regard for their own skin. This is just plain silly.
Posted by: Cassandra at October 25, 2006 08:49 AM
It's just like the police when there is a shooting and the police know in advance that the officer was justified, but they take his badge and gun while he's under investigation. He doesn't whine about it.
Unless he's a big baby. Harmon needs to grow up.
Posted by: Cassandra at October 25, 2006 08:51 AM
As one who has security clearances (and an MP to boot), MH had a hard time understanding why they just now took his credentials. Any regular person would have been sitting in an FBI holding cell from day one. This guy was not only able to access classified info, but was still making that nice cushy salary to boot.
And people wonder why I'm cynical. HA!
Posted by: Sly2017 at October 25, 2006 11:37 AM
"If'n any o' you cowpokes wuz a-wond'rin' whut Lash LaRue in drag'd look lahk, feast yur eyes awn thet! Hoo-wee, thet's uglier'n a skunk cross-bred with a armadillo!"
Posted by: The Great Santini at October 25, 2006 03:38 PM
But when a cop shoots someone, we know that cop did the shooting. Here we don't. The guy said there was no credible evidence. Thats pretty simple.
Posted by: actus at October 25, 2006 11:38 PM
There's also *credible evidence* from a drug raid in New Mexico that the scientist living there had stolen classified documents from the Los Alamos Nuclear Lab. Does this mean we should let him go back to work, etc. until the investigation is complete?
Posted by: Sly2017 at October 26, 2006 03:50 PM
"Does this mean we should let him go back to work, etc. until the investigation is complete?"
So the difference is there is credible evidence. Good job. You caught it!
Posted by: actus at October 26, 2006 07:33 PM
*sigh*
Actus, I was trying not to engage because this is really dumb.
My husband has conducted I can't tell you how many investigations in 25 years. Why do you *have* an investigation?
To get at the truth. Because people say things, then retract them. They lie. They contradict each other. You don't know what the truth is UNTIL YOU INVESTIGATE. Wow. What a concept.
And when it's something as important as national security, you don't just shrug your shoulders and go, "Dude...he changed his mind. Guess we can all go home now."
He could have been paid off. He could be unstable. He could be telling the truth. The thing is... you don't know UNTIL YOU INVESTIGATE.
Do you think just maybe there might be a good reason to check it out? And do you think just maybe it's not such a great idea to let the guy handle any more classified info until we know one way or another?
Honestly. It's nothing personal. It's just common sense, which I suddenly wonder about. But I didn't want to belabor what seemed to be a really, really obvious point.
Posted by: Cassandra at October 26, 2006 07:40 PM
Look, Its not me. Its the accuser saying there was NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. Thats it. A little important before people get all up in arms about the democrat that can't be trusted and is now away from his work.
Posted by: actus at October 26, 2006 09:20 PM