Bush’s war on journalists continues

Say what you will about Goat Boy, at least he’s consistent -- his war on journalists continues apace. Just yesterday, the UK Guardian reported that Ali Hadhil, an award-winning Iraqi native journalist and video documentarian had his house crashed into in the middle of the night by US forces, scaring the bejesus out of his wife and children, while he was hooded, cuffed and dragged off to local US military HQ, where he was asked a bunch of BS questions before being released. From the UK Guardian:

American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.

Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.

Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.

Tell me again how we are bringing “freedoms” to the Iraqi people? I don't think I heard you right the first time, Goat Boy.

McCain and the Prez toe off

There's been a lot of discussion recently concerning the president's use of "signing statements." These basically are written statements by the President on his view as to the intent of the law that he is signing. Cynics, such as myself, view them as excuses for Bush's vapid response to the efforts of Sen John McCain to attach an amendment to the budget bill, explicating and emphasizing "no to torture." As Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe puts it:

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

With his signing statement, Bush is putting Congress on notice that he will ignore the law when and if he choses, which is most of the time. From 1993, a statement from the Department of Justice, with their take on signing statements. See what you think.

Responding forcefully, Senator John McCain’s office issued the following:

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, Jan 04, 2006

“We believe the President understands Congress’s intent in passing by very large majorities
legislation governing the treatment of detainees included in the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations and Authorization bills. The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our Committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the Administration’s implementation of the new law.”

However, with McCain's statement, the Senator is putting Goat Boy on notice that Congress is watching him, so look out. We'll see.

Iraq gets bitch slapped by IMF

In one of the bigger unreported stories that the mainstream media likes to ignore, the International Monetary Fund is directly responsible for additional misery for the Iraqi people.

As our Gentle Readers are probably aware, there have been riots – with the rioters being shot by government troops - and general feelings of dissatisfaction with the Iraqi government recently over the reduction of subsidies that have kept the price of oil products in Iraq low and affordable. Previous to the price hikes, Iraqis paid about 5c per gallon for gasoline, and comparable prices for fuel oil (kerosene, etc.) for lamps and generators and the like. As the average wage in Iraq (for those with jobs) is about $100 a month, this is already expensive oil for the typical Iraqi customer.

However, as a condition of a $685 million dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund, as reported recently by The Los Angeles Times, the government was forced to raise the price of gasoline to 65c a gallon, an exorbinate price for the working stiffs in Iraq, with additional raises due shortly that will bring the consumer’s cost to about $1 a gallon, in line with costs in neighboring countries like Dubai and Saudi Arabia, where the average income is much higher.

While this doesn’t seem like a big deal here in America, where we get pissed about gas hikes, but don’t usually riot over it, this price hike is on the order of a 400 per cent increase, comparable to raising gas prices here at home from $2.15 per gallon to $18.49. That’s $221.28 to fill up the tank in a Honda Civic.

That just might cause some riots here in LA, for starters, and I wouldn’t blame the rioters.

On the whole, this is a terrible blow to the Iraqi economy, putting them in a Catch-22 situation. The fiscal tightening that the IMF is mandating is a fiscal bitchslap in the face, as the economy that the IMF is supposed to be rescuing is crashed because of the freaking war that was started by the IMF’s primary backer, the United States.

How’s that for a lesson in bringing freedom and democracy to the benighted Arab?