As the fallout from yesterday's blockbuster National Intelligence Estimate story continues, it's been interesting to watch the right-wing response, given how wedded prominent conservatives are to the military option in Iran, and how shamelessly they've repeated the fear mongering that led us to invade Iraq.

I've been keeping an eye on the National Review Online, which has provided much entertainment so far. The tone of the subheds on two of the lead stories pretty much sums up everything; a visibly hurt Victor Davis Hanson wonders, "Are they now to suggest that Republicans have been warmongering over a nonexistent threat for partisan purposes?" Michael Ledeen, displaying the thoughtful skepticism that has long been the hallmark of right-wing hawks, says, "If this NIE is true, the evidence would have to be awfully good. And evidence of that quality has been in famously short supply."

I know it's from the Guardian, which has a bit of a reputation for military rumor mongering, but I can't help but highlight this article. I've taken the liberty of bolding every idea that is crazy and which no one who has witnessed the events of the past few years could possibly take seriously. For incredibly, insanely crazy ideas -- that is, ideas that are so crazy a person who was merely crazy would recognize them as such, and it would require a significantly more crazy person to take them seriously -- I've taken the liberty of adding italics and underlining as well:

The man who devised the Bush administration's Iraq troop surge has urged the US to consider sending elite troops to Pakistan to seize its nuclear weapons if the country descends into chaos.

In a series of scenarios drawn up for Pakistan, Frederick Kagan, a former West Point military historian, has called for the White House to consider various options for an unstable Pakistan.

These include: sending elite British or US troops to secure nuclear weapons capable of being transported out of the country and take them to a secret storage depot in New Mexico or a "remote redoubt" inside Pakistan; sending US troops to Pakistan's north-western border to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida; and a US military occupation of the capital Islamabad, and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan if asked for assistance by a fractured Pakistan military, so that the US could shore up President Pervez Musharraf and General Ashfaq Kayani, who became army chief this week.

That question isn't a hypothetical anymore.  I'll be interviewing the Afghan Ambassador to the U.S. next week and I want to ask him the questions that matter to you.

From the war on terror to the war on drugs, Afghanistan illustrates a myriad of U.S. foreign policy successes and failures.  It remains a strategic ally as the stability of the country becomes a growing concern with the increase of militant Islam in Pakistan and the consequences of the war in Iraq.

Please post your questions in the comment section below or e-mail them to me at publications@campusprogress.org.

There have been some on the far-left who have stated the War on Terror isn’t “real.” I beg to disagree; we cannot allow our genuine dislike of this President to influence our thought process to the extent that we believe everything that comes out his mouth is a lie! Most of his public appearances are political in nature, and we all know that the truth is heard less often from Bush than any public official I’m currently aware of - but it’s possible Cheney is in a dead-heat in the believability scales;  so as we search through Bush’s rhetoric, it’s important to understand that some statements, albeit over-exemplified and blown out of proportion - are somewhat truthful, and those rare occurrences deserve our attention.

I believe the threat of Radial Islam is real, and if it isn’t addressed on a worldwide scale, and treated as the police and intelligence operation it should be, the growth of Radical Islam will increase and threaten the world at large. No country is invulnerable to this threat, including the United States itself. President Pervez Musharraf made the mistake of attempting to appease the lawless tribal regions and Al Qaeda, thinking that radicalism is somehow synonymous to logic and reason; they are not, and that flawed logic has turned once-peaceful Pakistan into a hot-bed of Islamic discontent:

Al Qaeda to declare war on Musharraf

* Declaration against Pakistan’s president imminent, group says
* Bin Laden to denounce Musharraf for cooperating with U.S.
* Al-Zawahiri tape says U.S. being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq
* Bin Laden deputy also calls for jihad against France, Spain

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) – Osama bin Laden will release a new message soon declaring war on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, al Qaeda announced Thursday.

The announcement of the upcoming message came as al Qaeda released a new video in which bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, boasted that the United States was being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places.

Officials in Pakistan confirmed Thursday that Musharraf, who also is Pakistan’s military chief, would seek a second five-year term as president.

Speakers in the video promised more fighting in Afghanistan, North Africa and Sudan’s Darfur region. MUCH MORE

In every nation that has allowed Radical Islam to gain even a small foot-hold, they (the radicals) have tried to create their own areas of governance which is almost always in direct contradiction to the current rule of law for that nation. Their tactics are always one of murder, intimidation, and the regression of any semblance of dignity and respect for the associated female population(s). Radical Islam has been a blight on the world, and to curb it’s affect on our societies, a worldwide consortium of nations will be required to fight Radical Islam - and creating a training-ground and inspiration for millions more to join Radical Islam is our Iraq War in a nut-shell, which has done more to aid the cause of Radicals throughout the world and has also harmed our own national security.

Pakistan is a prime example of a failed U.S foreign policy. We refused to strike-out against the Taliban in the northern tribal area of Pakistan out of respect to President Musharraf and his failed efforts to quell radicalism in his own country; now, a recent poll has indicated that Osama Bin Laden is more popular than President Musharraf - and that is sobering news!

Bin Laden more popular than Musharraf in Pakistan: poll

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than President Pervez Musharraf, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Nearly three-quarters of Pakistanis also oppose unilateral US military action against Islamic insurgents in Pakistan’s tribal areas, said the poll for Terror Free Tomorrow, a US-based organization.

The survey “may help explain why Osama bin Laden remains at large in Pakistan and why both al-Qaeda and the Taleban have regrouped there”, the group said in a statement. MORE

It doesn’t seem to be getting better, and now the U.S., one of Pakistan’s chief allies, has sided in some measure against President
Musharraf:

Pakistan crackdown: ’scores’ held

* ‘Hundreds’ of activists arrested after police take leaders into preventive custody
* Supreme Court dismisses 2 out of 7 petitions against Musharraf’s re-election bid
* Musharraf will seek new five-year term in presidential election set for October 6
* Pakistan’s legal fraternity named first candidate to challenge Musharraf

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Police intensified a crackdown Monday that opposition parties say has left hundreds of activists in custody while the Supreme Court dismissed three challenges to the re-election bid of Pakistan’s military leader.

The U.S. Embassy called the crackdown “extremely disturbing” and urged the immediate release of several opposition leaders arrested since Saturday night. The government said they were detained to derail possible unrest.

The criticism was unusually sharp, considering Washington has been one of the biggest supporters of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key ally in the U.S. war on terrorism.

“The reports of arrests of the leadership of several major Pakistani political parties are extremely disturbing and confusing for the friends of Pakistan,” an embassy statement said. “We wish to express our serious concern about these developments. These detainees should be released as soon as possible.” MORE

On June 5th, 2003, in a speech to the Troops in Qatar, the President stated:

We have made it clear that we’ll hunt the terrorists down. There’s no place they can hide from the justice of the United States of America and our friends. And right now we’ve got — we’re on the hunt in the Horn of Africa. And of course, in the battle of Iraq, you set an example of skill and daring that will stand for all time. (Applause.) The very first strike in the liberation of Iraq started from right here, and many others followed. Missions of mercy are directed from here. LINK

Fast-forward to September 25, 2007 - and let this U.S. Intelligence Report sink-in to fully understand the folly and incompetence Bush and Cheney have demonstrated in prosecuting “the War on Terror.”

U.S. Intelligence Report to Say Al-Qaida Regroups

by Linda Wertheimer and Mary Louise Kelly

Morning Edition, July 17, 2007 • The National Intelligence Estimate, a survey of threats to the U.S. compiled from intelligence gathered by CIA, FBI, State Department and military intelligence agencies, is expected to report a persistent and evolving terrorist threat to the U.S. in the next three years from al-Qaeda. LINK

That’s right, in the final analysis, IF the United States would have stuck with President Bush’s policy of not allowing terrorists safe-haven no matter where they were, we would have followed and finished-off the leadership of Al Qaeda, The Taliban, and the lawless tribes of northern Pakistan would have been unable to destabilize the government of President Musharraf.

Look at this issue in perspective; The US is reported to have attack plans in place to bomb Iran at a moments notice; LINK Bombing Iran is a guarantee that President Musharraf’s government will dissolve almost as fast as President Bush’s ratings have, and then we are faced with a country controlled by Radical Islam that would possess NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Did I miss something here? I thought attacking Iran would be to guarantee that they couldn’t destabilize the Middle-East by possessing Nuclear Weapons, yet the mere action of attacking Iran guarantees that the Middle-East will fall into a crisis of unimaginable depth as radicals in Pakistan decide the best use for their nuclear arsenal. Am I speaking nonsense? I think not, especially as you have read above that Pakistan is in dire circumstances, and stands as a model of a government that attempted to co-exist with Radical Islam, and is now paying the price for their naïveté…

Can Pakistan be saved? I don’t know, but as far as the stability of the Middle-East is concerned, and decapitating Al Qaeda and the Taliban as we should have years ago - I believe it’s worth a try. President Bush failed the American people when he allowed Al Qaeda to regroup, and the situation in Iraq is stark evidence of that allegation. Iraq is a war based on greed, power, and oil. If we have to be in a war, it should at least benefit mankind - and if we would get off our high-horses and treat our allies as equals, developing an international terrorist strike force with teeth would be easy - especially when the world once again gains respect for the United States. It may be wishful thinking, but Mr. Bush, your options are running out fast, and those left can only hurt our nation. Be “Presidential” for once and make a decision that will help to save a vital ally and deescalate the tension in the Middle-East.

Pakistan has been our friend and ally for decades - and to allow President Musharraf’s government fall to Radical Islam would be a blow to the Middle-East and the free world in general; anyone can make a mistake Mr. President, but it takes a great man to admit and rectify those errors, and right now, those who are in the know are watching you very carefully. You’ve loaded and primed the powder keg - now it’s up to you to make decisions that actually mitigate the threat of Al Qaeda, not give them even more reason to take-out their hatred on the United States and its allies.

William Cormier

Must-read: Glenn Greenwald's rundown of Jose Padilla's conviction and what this case says about the Bush administration's terrifying legal claims. 

Dissent has a great article about European Islam -- after reading an unhealthy amount of conversative literature on the topic, author Johann Hari concludes the supposed "clash of civilizations" between the East and West is nonsense. There is radical Islam, and its currently prevailing over moderate muslims -- but Hari points to an little-discussed trend as a source of hope:

"On the streets and in the mosques outside, jihadi young men distributing 'death to democracy' leaflets subtly clash with young Muslim feminists who want an open, liberal Islam. Kaffiyas and headscarves contrast with makeup and wonderbras in a bewildering Islamic cacophony. [...] Here is an authentic Islamic Reformation on the streets of Europe. Here is the development of a strain of Islam fiercely committed to democratic values. Yet those who suggest that the birth of every new European Muslim is a problem—another tick from the time-bomb—treat [Fadela Armana, a leader of the Muslim Feminist movement] as akin to Osama. This mind-set is (at best) a distraction from the real fight: across the continent, groups of Muslim women are rebelling in the same way against the literalist, quasi-fascist interpretation of the Koran popularized by the mullahs. Tired of being its first victims, they are creating their own liberal lived Islams as an alternative. And if this rebellion is completed, European jihadism will be left literally unable to reproduce itself."

The people of "the West" have tried for years to combat radicalized Islam -- first we ignored it, then we bombed it. We even tried to hand the problem off to Vatican City -- if the pope is a source of moral clarity to Christians, he probably has credibility with muslims, right? -- but maybe the answer to fundamentalist Islam has been in our backyard the whole time. It seems like the formation of a homegrown, moderate muslim reform movement is the event most likely to take the steam out of fundamentalist Islam -- just as the organized labor movement undercut communism in Africa during the Cold War, feminist Islam can offer an alternative to Muslim youth somewhere between the evils of an authoritarian reading of the Koran and an unequivocal acceptance of western society.

When I was at the Academic Freedom Conference last month, Rick Santorum made a comment about how conservatives should engage feminists on Islam's treatment of women. While I disagreed almost entirely with the rest of his speech -- his basic policy prescription: we should say "Islamic Facsicm" as many times as humanly possible -- I do think international feminism has a role to play in reforming Islam. What's ironic, however, is that the same conservatives who have spent their entire political careers fighting "Feminazis" now need their help in their crusade against radical Islam.  

It is a sad, sad day.  Especially for us at the ACLU offices.

Are we to believe our government officials are completely exempt from being held accountable for their actions?

The case brought by survivors of torture, against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been dismissed by a US District judge.  The victims were tortured in secret prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The lawsuit alleged that Rumsfeld and other top military officials were aware of the torture and abuse, but ignored the warnings, and instead actually authorized more "extreme" interrogation techniques.   

"No matter how appealing it might seem to use the courts to correct allegations of severe abuses of power, Hogan wrote, government officials are immune from such lawsuits. Additionally, foreigners held overseas are not normally afforded U.S. constitutional rights."

It's just depressing.

On Friday, Italy became the latest European nation to condemn the C.I.A. practice of extraordinary rendition—the abduction of a foreign citizen for questioning in a third location, usually a country in the Middle East (where normal protections against torture are obsolete).  Italy has indicted 26 U.S. citizens, mostly C.I.A. officials, in the illegal rendition of a radical cleric known as Abu Omar.  Abu Omar was taken to Egypt for questioning, where he was tortured.

The Italian indictment is the latest development in European outrage over the practice of extraordinary rendition.  In January, a German judge issued arrest warrants for 13 C.I.A. officials that colluded in the kidnapping of Khaled El-Masri, and earlier this month the European Union issued a scathing report condemning member states for actively participating in the practice of extraordinary rendition.  In another high-profile case, a Canadian commission slammed the rendition of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was tortured in Syria, and cleared him completely of charges of terrorist links.  Even the outrage in the U.S. is slowly mounting, most recently with the hard line of questioning Leahy gave Gonzales last month.

Extraordinary rendition clearly violates countless international human rights laws, and the C.I.A. doesn’t even try to conceal its malicious and brutal objectives.  The only reason to send a terror suspect to Syria, Egypt or Afghanistan for questioning—nations that the U.S. State Department consistently cites for committing outrageous rights violations of prisoners in custody—is to torture the suspect without doing it on U.S. soil.  This is madness.

Will the practice of extraordinary rendition end?  I think it has the potential to infuriate the masses, but most people in the U.S. still don’t know that such a practice even exists.  Even for those who believe in the so-called War on Terror, kidnapping foreign citizens and sending them to be tortured in the Middle East offends the base standards of human decency.  The American agents indicted in Italy and Germany will never actually face trail, as the U.S. would have to agree to extradite its officials to be judged for a policy it created.  But one thing is clear—extraodinary rendition relies on the collusion of Canadian and European law enforcement to continue.  So if Canada and the E.U. decide they will no longer be complicit in the practice, it will end.  Let’s see if this string of indignation will encourage other governments to refuse to cooperate in extraordinary rendition.