“In May, 2009, a man named Ibn Shaikh al-Libi supposedly committed suicide while being held in a Libyan jail. Al-Libi is a deeply, deeply interesting fellow. Back in 2002, he was tortured by Egypt under US direction. It appears that the reason the US government had him tortured was not to stop some imminent attack on the United States, but to generate alleged—and false— links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that could justify invading Iraq.”

The article goes on to cite Nick Baumann’s  2009 article for Mother Jones:

“Al-Libi was the man whose false confession, obtained under torture, of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda provided the Bush administration with its casus belli for war with Iraq. It didn’t seem to matter that al-Libi’s claim that Bin Laden had sent operatives to be trained in the use of weapons of mass destruction by Hussein’s people didn’t make any sense. ‘They were killing me,’ al-Libi later told the FBI about his torturers. ‘I had to tell them something.’ A bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee report would later conclude that al-Libi lied about the link ‘to avoid torture.’”

This revelation about Ibn Shaikh al-Libi is just one of what has been a constant stream of skeletons falling out of the Pentagon and State Department’s closets since Egyptian police fired tear gas canisters labeled “Made in the USA” at protesters in Tahrir Square.  

Of course it’s always easy to look back on a series of events and/or decisions and stand in judgment of what an elected official or a political party should or should not have done.  But while hindsight may always be 20/20, the resulting criticism is not always fair nor prudent.   However, sometimes the only way that individuals, and in this case a nation, can move forward is to carefully examine past mistakes, evaluate the consequences and, commit to changing course.  There was never a better time for this type of examination than when President Obama was elected to office, on a wave of dissatisfaction with the policies and practices of the Bush/Cheney era, and with a mandate for change.  And when in January, 2009, then House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) introduced H.R. 104, a bill to establish a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties  to investigate the policies that were undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers, it was the Obama administration’s opportunity to clean the the US’ foreign policy closets.   The opportunity was missed. Now, 8 years of a previous administration’s embarrassing dirty laundry is spilling out, one dirty item at a time.

As a Political Voices of Women contributing editor, Marcia G. Yerman wrote in 2009:

“A litmus test for many will be the stand that the Obama administration puts forth on accountability regarding the actions of Bush and his key players on the issue of torture and civil rights. The conversation is out there, and has been featured in numerous posts including a January 9th article at Talking Points Memo by Elana Schor. Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, has been seen on both the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow shows, where he has been explaining the high stakes for all Americans in getting this right.”

As I wrote at the time,  I believed that Americans and the global community deserved answers to questions about the Bush administration policies that lead to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the suspension of habeas corpus, the NSA wire-tapping program, extraordinary rendition, torture, the no-bid contracts to war contractors, and more.  It was my opinion that if  President Obama and the 111th Congress failed to at least public hearing on these issues that there failure to do so would come back to come not only the President, the Democratic Party but US foreign relations.   My support for H.R. 104 had less to do with the criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials, than a desire to see the record straight and a framework for real change built on a solid foundation.  There are still Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and that the Iraq war was all about the desire to spread democracy to the Middle East.  This, of course, if probably the same group that believes that President Obama is a Muslim. 

So now, instead of an investigation by a bi-partisan panel, the White House and State Department are busily spinning answers to questions about the US’ relationships with the regimes of Mubarak, Qaddafi and Bahrain’s royal family and, the American public is learning about our foreign policy via Wikileak’s unveliing of State Department cables and CNN’s pictures of Beyonce’s private performance for the Qaddaffi family.

Congressional hearings would have been much kinder. 

What do you think? Let me know in comments.

As reported by The New York Times:

The United States stepped up the diplomatic skirmish with its left-wing adversaries in Latin America on Friday, saying it would expel the Venezuelan ambassador and declaring that Venezuela’s top two intelligence officials had supported the “narco-terrorist activities” of rebels in the region.

The moves heightened the political tensions that have been building between the United States, Venezuela and Bolivia in recent days. On Wednesday, Bolivia’s embattled president, Evo Morales, expelled the American ambassador there, Philip S. Goldberg, accusing him of supporting rebellious groups in eastern Bolivia.

Then on Thursday, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela said he was expelling the American ambassador to his country, Patrick Duddy, contending that an American-supported coup plot had been discovered.

The State Department responded by declaring Bolivia’s ambassador to Washington persona non grata. Then on Friday morning, it said it would expel Venezuela’s ambassador, while the Treasury Department accused the Venezuelan intelligence officials of aiding Colombia’s largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, “even as it terrorized and kidnapped innocents.”

The latest moves represent a low point in Venezuela’s political relations with the United States, which imported more than $40 billion in oil from Venezuela last year. Trade between the countries has remained resilient, topping $50 billion in 2007, despite repeated threats by Mr. Chávez to halt oil exports to the United States, a warning he reiterated on Thursday

In her post “We live in a global village“, Political Voices of Women blogger Paula Hall raises the question of why the US Presidential Candidates have seldom addressed this issue:

It is understandable that the American foreign policies are focused on the Middle East. After all, thousands of American soldiers and millions of Iraqis have died in the Iraq war. But I am curious to know what do the two candidates for the White House think about Latin American countries.

I read today that the US Ambassador in Venezuela has 72 hours to leave the country. The Venezuelan President, Hugo Chaves, is expelling the American Ambassador. So is the Bolivian President, Evo Morales. And Venezuela is a major oil supplier to the United Sates, which it means America, is the number one client of Venezuela.

Not to mention Brazil’s large oil exports to the US. And Brazil is also having problems with Bolivia over natural gas production. The border between the two countries has been closed and relations are at it worst ever.

With all the talk about renewable energy, gas prices and so forth, how can the United States overlooks such countries? We live in a global village under a global economy. All decisions are important and the consequences of it will affect us all.

What are your thoughts on the US’ Latin American foreign relations policy?

Try not to laugh

—
url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li25wM6JTUkI give everyone of those journalists credit for maintaining a poker face during those interviews. However, don’t you wonder what was going on off-camera?

Now with a straight face, explain to me how Russia’s international reputation is any worse than that of the United States after the Iraq WMD debacle. If, as Secretary Gates states, “the world is looking at Russia through a different set of lenses”, just imagine the magnifying lens they’re using to look at the US.

As for the impact on Russia’s reputation referred to by Secretary Rice, apparently no one in the Bush Administration saw this 2007 interview with Garry Kasparov. I sure did.

—
url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z9g7jN3Kso

A little earlier today, Reuters correspondent Oleg Shchedrov reported the following on the Russia-Georgia conflict:

“Washington demanded on Friday that Russia pull its troops out of Georgia ‘now,’ but Moscow said it would be another 10 days before the bulk of its force left Georgian soil.

In a sign of growing tension between Moscow and the West over the conflict in Georgia, a Russian news agency reported that Russia had temporarily frozen cooperation with the NATO alliance, though there was no immediate confirmation.

In some of Washington’s toughest comments to date, the White House declared Russia in violation of its commitments to leave the territory of Georgia after routing Georgian forces in a war that erupted two weeks ago.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said he could not imagine a circumstance in which the United States would engage in military-to-military cooperation with Moscow until the Georgia situation was resolved.

U.S. impatience has been growing by the day as it waits for a full-scale pullout of troops and weaponry that Russia sent into its small Caucasus neighbor two weeks ago to counter a Georgian attack on the Moscow-backed South Ossetia region.

A Reuters reporter saw a column of T-72 main battle tanks lumbering across the border from Russia into Georgia — the first sign of heavy armor being withdrawn from Georgian soil — but elsewhere Russian forces remained in place.

As Charles Amico noted in his blog, “We The People”:

“So the Bush Administration has overplayed its hand again and has been blowing smoke at Russia in the form of bellicose language expected to threaten the Russians. Do you really believe this tactic will work? If you do, wake up.”

Related posts:

The New Old Russia

Senator Barack Obama made his way home Saturday night after a long trip throughout the Middle East and Europe. During his visit, he went to Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Upon returning, he was met with criticisms from Senator John McCain for basically neglecting his own people by paying too much attention to the world audience. But polls show that Obama’s Europe trip may have given him a boost:

Democrat Obama’s apparent advantage over Republican John McCain in national polling has “stretched” to seven percentage points, according to the latest results of the Gallup daily tracking poll – a survey taken at the height of Obama’s widely watched march across Europe, days in which he polled strongly against McCain.

It’s funny that McCain basically challenged Obama to make a trip to Iraq before this trip happened, and once it did, McCain started calling Obama out on it. In a radio address Saturday, McCain said, “With all the breathless coverage from abroad, and with Senator Obama now addressing his speeches to the people of the world, I’m starting to feel a little left out. Maybe you are too.” Obama responded with, “The reason that I thought this trip was important is that I am convinced that many issues that we face at home are not going to be solved as effectively unless we have strong partners abroad.”

Then, after all the hubub from the McCain campaign, the Senator tells Wolf Blitzer that a 16 month timetable in Iraq is “a pretty good timetable.” Huh? From Daily Kos…

Read full post at The Care2 Election Blog

—
Obama’s Berlin Speech Appears To Resonate With Crowd…

Tens of thousands of Germans, along with some resident Americans, filled Berlin’s Tiergarten park to hear Barack Obama talk about the U.S., Europe and their shared visions and challenges. It was a remarkable turnout for the lazy days of late July, when most Germans are more focused on summer vacations than foreign politics.

The audience repeatedly interrupted his speech with applause and cheers, and erupted in chants of “Yes, we can!”

A lot of Europeans are hoping Obama will give them a reason to love America again.

“I expect Obama to be a president who makes it possible to be proud of being a fan of the USA,” said Gerda Schulz, a 72-year-old retiree. Schulz has watched historic speeches here by a string of American presidents — John F. Kennedy in 1963, Ronald Reagan in 1987 and Bill Clinton in 1994 — and on Thursday added the Democratic presidential contender to the list.

Did you hear Barack Obama’s speech? What did you think?

John McCain is using our sky-high gas prices to justify his flip-flopping on the issue of offshore oil drilling. I mentioned this yesterday in a post, and questioned why the MSM didn’t seem to notice. Today, they have noticed.

However, there is no evidence that allowing more offshore drilling will help in reducing the price of gas in the near future (as McCain is suggesting), or even the far future. But, I guess the McCain campaign is hoping you will be fooled, and vote for McCain in the hopes of lower gas prices.

Here is an interesting clip from The Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer…

SEE VIDEO AND READ FULL POST AT THE CARE2 ELECTION BLOG

Have you heard about the prison break by Taliban rebels in Afghanistan on Friday? You might not have, it’s not getting very much coverage in the MSM. However, as the days have gone by, this situation has escalated. Here are some video and news clips, as well as blogger reaction to this news.The first report I heard about this prison break was this 1 1/2 minute piece of coverage…

What do you think? How big of a problem is this prison break? How big of a problem is the Taliban in Afghanistan? Has the war in Iraq hurt the war on terrorism?

READ FULL POST AND SEE ALL THE VIDEO CLIPS AT THE CARE2 ELECTION BLOG–