North Korea has announced its plans to demolish its nuclear reactors and turn over it's supply of plutonium, and is making a big show of it.  In an unprecedented turn of historic policy, Pyong Yang is allowing news media from around the world access to the event as evidence that it is, indeed, living up to it's end of a deal made with the United States.  The Bush Administration will no doubt treat this as a resounding victory, as they should, but will extrapolate such success as proof their approach to foreign policy not only works, but is indeed the only way to handle repressive regimes.  

via MAL Contends
Listening to Bush at the Pentagon this morning on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, one would be generous to brand this callow and disingenuous performance as that of a braying ass.

The truth is that this war has shattered the lives of 100,000s of Americans and millions of Iraqis, in a calculated set of lies with consequences so grave that one struggles to find the appropriate words of condemnation.

It's always about Osama bin Laden. "Do you know Osama bin Laden?" is the question that begins, as if by law, every interview with anyone, and I mean anyone, accused of anything that would be of interest to a Joint Terrorism Task Force - and believe me, that's very inclusive, for a "force" that has a vague mission, a big budget, and an imperative to "find terrorists" which means "anyone suspicious." And so, the Bush Freedom-bashers "suspect" the news organization Al-Jazeera, of consorting with The Enemy - those well-defined entities, known scientifically by all, called "terrorists" - by having those Bin Laden rants broadcast on their network.

So what do they do? Arrest and "detain" the cameraman, Sami Al-Haj, who works for al-Jazeera, en route to Pakistan. The charge? There is none. It's all about suspicion, that well-defined, logical means of administering justice - especially by fascist or totalitarian governments. Are we becoming one of them? As if it's not bad enough to be held in Gitmo indefinitely, he's been on a harrowing hunger strike for one year. Amy Goodman interviewed his brother...

Benazir Bhutto's assassination was easy to predict: in fact, her survival, both politically and physically, was something of a dark horse. With many enemies and no army, strong pro-US anti-terrorist rhetoric right in the heart of Al-Qaeda Country, coming back from exile that was the result of her own government's corruption, and without any political clout except being the titular head of a political party that was not really in the running, she had no one watching her back except the remote-control promises of a maligned superpower (with the Oh-so-trustworthy Bush administration), and her old nemesis, Pervez Musharraf who only allowed her back in Pakistan under U.S. pressure.

So why did the geniuses at Bushco put her up to it? Her gushing, smiling interviews before her "triumphant" return to Pakistan gave her the innocent look of a True Believer. I asked myself "Does she actually believe this war on terror crap? Does she really think the United States is trying to bring democracy to Pakistan? She looks for all the world like she really does..."

Apparently conservatives are energized by the Benazir Bhutto assassination because they think it proves how much America needs an aggressive foreign policy in a dangerous world.