Saturday, January 24, 2004

Bush: "We don’t need no stinkin’ elections"   Bush plans for Iraq mirror his vision of “democracy.”   It is ironic that the elites of a colonial power will institute the very processes that they would prefer back home, if it weren’t for all those pesky things like laws or rights or constitutions.   Bush’s colonial venture in Iraq is no different, particularly when it comes to instituting Iraqi “sovereignty”:   "The people of Iraq are free," declared President Bush in his state of the union address on Tuesday. The previous day, 100,000 Iraqis begged to differ. They took to Baghdad's streets, shouting: "Yes, yes to elections. No, no to selection."   According to Iraq occupation chief Paul Bremer, there really is no difference between the White House's version of freedom and the one being demanded on the street. Asked whether his plan to form an Iraqi government through appointed caucuses was heading towards a clash with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's call for direct elections, Bremer said he had no "fundamental disagreement with him".   It was, he said, a mere quibble over details. "I don't want to go into the technical details of refinements. There are - if you talk to experts in these matters - all kinds of ways to organise partial elections and caucuses. And I'm not an election expert, so I don't want to go into the details. But we've always said we're willing to consider refinements."   I'm not an election expert either, but I'm pretty sure there are differences here that cannot be refined. Al-Sistani's supporters want all Iraqis to have a vote and the people they elect to write the laws of the country - your basic, imperfect, representative democracy.   Bremer wants his Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to appoint the members of 18 regional organising committees. These will then choose delegates to form 18 selection caucuses. These will then select representatives to a transitional national assembly. The assembly will have an internal vote to select an executive and ministers, who will form the new government. This, Bush said in the state of the union address, constitutes "a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty".   Got that? Iraqi sovereignty will be established by appointees appointing appointees to select appointees to select appointees. Add the fact that Bremer was appointed to his post by President Bush and Bush to his by the US Supreme Court, and you have the glorious new democratic tradition of the appointocracy: rule by an appointee's appointee's appointees' appointees' appointees' selectees.   The White House insists its aversion to elections is purely practical; there just isn't time to pull them off before the June 30 deadline. So why have the deadline? The favourite explanation is that Bush needs a "braggable" on the campaign trail: when his Democratic rival raises the spectre of Vietnam, Bush will reply that the occupation is over, we're on our way out.   Except that the US has no intention of actually getting out of Iraq: it wants its troops to remain, and it wants Bechtel, MCI and Halliburton to stay behind and run the water system, the phones and the oilfields.… 2:06:59 PM

So arrogant that they don’t even attempt to hide it     Senators Raise Questions About Scalia       WASHINGTON - Two senators have written Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) to raise concerns about Justice Antonin Scalia's impartiality in a case that involves the White House's energy task force.   Scalia went on a hunting trip to Louisiana with Dick Cheney, a longtime friend, shortly after the court agreed to review a lower court's decision that required White House to identify members of the vice president's task force.   Scalia has said there is no reason to question his ability to judge the case fairly.   But in their letter, Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a presidential candidate, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont questioned whether the court can disqualify a justice who declines to withdraw from a case. The lawmakers asked if the court has issued any guidelines about accepting gifts or travel.   "When a sitting judge, poised to hear a case involving a particular litigant, goes on a vacation with that litigant, reasonable people will question whether that judge can be a fair and impartial adjudicator of that man's case," the senators wrote.   Scalia also had dinner with Cheney in November, two months after the administration asked the justices to overrule the lower court.   A court spokeswoman, Kathy Arberg, could not confirm whether Rehnquist had received the letter Thursday.   As a friend of mine said: “I’ll bet they were hunting liberals.” ba dum bum bum   Yeah, you know, those bearded, scruffy, sandal-wearing types… like that Jesus dude. 1:32:13 PM