Common sense

Condoleezza Rice, our secretary of state, thinks Iran is 'lying' about its nuclear intentions. Gee, ya think? How could anyone believe that a country awash with oil that is hell-bent on developing a nuclear capability wants the knowledge for power generation? Iran doesn't need nuclear power, they want nuclear weapons. Their leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, as much as said so the other day at the United Nations and again at Columbia University. If he does not want nuclear weapons, to paraphrase Shakespeare, I think he protests too much.

`

A few questions

Great Britain plans to reduce its force in Iraq by half and to limit itself to support for Iraqi troops in the country's south, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said today, according to the Washington Post. By turning more authority over the Iraqi Army, Britain could cut its forces to 2,500 by spring, a far cry from the 46,000 British troops in Iraq as late as 2003. But what sounds like good news for the Brits raises serious questions for us. How have the British been able to turn their security duties over to the same Iraqi forces that the United States says are not adequately trained? It's true that the south of Iraq, which includes the major oil exporting city of Basra, has been quieter than Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. But is that because of the presence of the Brits? What are they doing that the United States has been unable to do? Or are they being unrealistic? Maybe insurgent forces are just waiting for the Brits to withdraw before they really start fighting and trying to take control of Basra. It sure would be nice if we could trust our own government to tell us the truth about what's going on.

Election coincidence

Less than hearty congratulations are due to Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf for yesterday's election triumph in which the incumbent president/general was returned to office for another term at the head of his troubled country. The voting by the 1,170 outgoing federal and provincial parliament lawmakers was bizarre; nearly 500 lawmakers belonging to opposition parties boycotted the vote. Musharraf got 671 votes and applauded himself on being re-elected, as did the National Security Council in Washington. Of course, the election still could be invalidated by Pakistan's Supreme Court, which still is deciding whether Musharraf is even eligible to run. But if Pakistan's Supreme Court is anything like the U.S. Supreme Court, forget about it. Remember, our own court ruled after the 2000 election that the best way to determine who won the balloting in Florida was to not count the rest of the votes. How could they ever have reached a result like that? Maybe the Pakistanis have something to show the rest of us.

Better than never

Today we get the word that Condoleeza Rice, the secretary of state, has approved new procedures ensuring that U.S. officials will accompany Blackwater USA security convoys operating in and around Baghdad. The procedures also include installation of video cameras on Blackwater's armored vehicles and keeping recordings of radio transmissions between the security company and U.S. agencies. Duh. Is it me, or is this an obvious thing that should have been done all along? Blackwater has been involved in 56 shootings this year alone; I'm glad we're doing finally something, but what took so long? The Times said the new rules were in reaction to the Sept. 16 shooting incident, when at least 17 Iraqi civilians were killed in an allegedly unprovoked shooting rampage by Blackwater agents, but that must be the reporters' personal opinion. It's obvious to me that the new rules were proposed in reaction to the outraged reaction to the incident and to the events that preceeded it. The U.S. government under George W. Bush doesn't do what the people want unless they are made to look ridiculous for not doing it. Of course, the new rules do not apply to the two other military contractors operating in Iraq. I guess they'll have to have dozens of their own outrageous incidents before the president does anything.

Democracy by example

The New York Times reports today that Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, two leading candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, have proposed making military contractors subject to American law enforcement in reaction to the developing scandal involving Blackwater USA. Edwards even called for an end to the use of contractors for military and security missions. Obama proposed creating a special FBI unit to oversee such contractors. It's certainly refreshing to see candidates take a stand on an issue while it's still relevant, even though it seems obvious what the right thing to do it. We're the United States. We're an inspiration to the world; we're not a bunch of reckless, lawless people. We don't conduct ourselves that way, despite what George W. Bush thinks.

Blackwater black eye

The more we learn about the conduct of Blackwater USA and other private contractors hired by the U.S. government to protect diplomats in Iraq, the worse it gets. The New York Times reported today that the State Department has opened its third review of the Blackwater following the Sept. 16 shooting incident that outraged the Iraqi government. Turns out the security company's guards have opened fire 56 times this year alone, killing perhaps dozens of civilians in Baghdad. The Iraqi government was enraged by the shootings and sought to kick Blackwater out of the country, but the United States apparently got the Iraqis to cool their rhetoric. The United States has long protected these security contractors but it's long past time for the legal immunity these companies have enjoyed since the days of the provisional government to be eliminated and for some of these cowboys to be brought up on criminal charges. And while we're doing that, let's have a public discussion about whether our government should be in the business of hiring outside companies to do the security work that our tens of thousands of soldiers should be doing.

Bad instincts

Just when it gets hard to imagine how much worse the Bush administration can possibly get, the president takes a new step into the absurd. Bush's insistence on vetoing the highly popular $35 billion extension of the State Children's Health Insurance Program is such a move. Extending health coverage for children whose parents cannot afford private health insurance seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? More than 70 percent of the people support it, according to a New York Times poll released today, yet Bush is determined not to sign the bill. Could it be the White House is out of touch with the American people? Isn't that a suprise. Pushing the Democrats around on foreign policy is one thing, but domestic policy is a far different thing. Does anyone else still wonder how Bush got elected in the first place? Oh yeah.