Shifting sands

A few short years ago I never would have thought I would be agreeing with Libertarians more than people who call themselves Democrats. A few short years ago I never dreamed I would be blasting a member of the DLC and then in the very next post telling you that a post by Andrew Sullivan on the same topic was a must read. Well here it is, the The De-Throning of King George is insightful and a must read.

The first is that this war has no clearly defined enemy and no clearly defined end-point. So the presidential over-reach was particularly grave because it threatened a permanent expansion of law-free executive power (which is another word for an elected tyranny). As Orwell understood, a permanent war is integral to the maintenance of tyranny; and in our current predicament, vigilance is warranted perhaps more than in any previous, more discretely formulated conflict.

There is also clear evidence that much of what this president attempted was not simply a good-faith attempt to protect American civilians. It was a deliberate attempt to expand executive authority, promoted by radical theorists of state power, and fomented by a cabal of dead-enders, bent on avenging Nixon. The intent of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Addington, Cambone, Yoo, and the other advocates of an untrammeled executive was the acquisition of unaccountable power. In wartime, such dangerous characters are even more of a threat, because they can use the cover of security to seize new prerogatives.

This is just a short snip, go read the entire thing.

Why does Marshall Wittmann hate America

Or at the very least why does he hate Jeffersonian Democracy. I find myself asking myself once again why he left the Republican Party, it certainly wasn't for ideological reasons. He made it perfectly clear today that he remains ideologically a Republican.

The Moose does not agree with the ruling. As the Moose has made clear, he is a Hamiltonian who is deferential to Presidential power during wartime.

So how may more Federalists are lurking in the halls of the DLC? There can be no compromise with these people. I wish Peter Daou the best of luck with Mr Wittmann's protegee, Hillary Clinton. He will need it.

A pass for Scooter........

......to protect Shooter?

Steve Soto points out that the Fitzgerald may have Cheney in his sites. As a result the administration can't let Scooter Libby go to trial. Scooter will be pardoned after the November elections but before the trial starts. Those of us in the blogosphere must start talking about this now and often.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

The Supreme Court decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfled yesterday was not about Gitmo or the war on terror. It was about balance of power v. presidential power. It also made it clear that that recent appointments to the Supreme court were less about Roe v. Wade than Hamilton v. Jefferson.
A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed

For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it.

Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.

For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.

So Jefferson won this round but it was close, 5-3 and it would have been 5-4 if Roberts had not sat this one out.

What Alexander Hamilton and the federalist had in mind for the United States was a "unitary executive", an elected tyrant. Thomas Jefferson opposed this and eventually his idea of a "Republican" government won out. Today Chris Floyd explains how the ghost of Alexander Hamilton is once again haunting the United States.
Power, Paranoia and Presidential Tyranny

That the United States, once touted as the "world's greatest democracy," is now ruled by a presidential dictatorship is a fact beyond any serious dispute. Indeed, the nation's political establishment seems to have accepted this revolutionary system with remarkable docility, even as its lineaments are further exposed week by week. The Bush Administration no longer bothers to hide the novel theory of government upon which its rule is based, but declares it openly, in court, in Congress, everywhere.

The theory holds that the president has the arbitrary right to ignore any law that he feels is an unconstitutional infringement of his power – and a law is automatically unconstitutional if the president feels it infringes on his power. This neatly-squared circle makes Congress irrelevant and removes the judiciary from the loop altogether. Thus the only effective power left in the land is the "unitary executive" – the fancy modern name that the legal minions of President George W. Bush have given to the ancient concept of "tyranny."

And of course Mr Floyd points out that the source is not George W. Bush but as we have seen before
.

The true nature of this presidential dictatorship has been laid bare in a harrowing new book from reporter Ron Suskind: The One-Percent Doctrine. Suskind, who had earlier coaxed the Regime's defining ethos from an arrogant Bushist – "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality" – has painted the portrait of an administration drunk on lawless power, a junta operated from the shadows by the grim and literally heart-dead husk called Dick Cheney and his longtime companion in skullduggery, Don Rumsfeld.

As Suskind notes, it was Cheney who enunciated the certifiably paranoid principle that governs the regime's behavior: If there is even a one-percent chance that some state or group might do serious harm to the United States, then America must respond as if that threat were a certainty – with full force, pre-emptively, disregarding any law or institution that might hinder what Bush likes to call the "path of action." Facts and truth are unimportant; the only thing that matters is the projection of unchallengeable power: "It's not about our analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence," said Cheney. "It's about our response."

Good for Ron Wyden

Oregon's own Ron Wyden blocked the telecommunciations legislation just passed by the Commerce Committee.

Ron Wyden announced this afternoon that he has placed a "hold" on the telecommunciations legislation just passed by the Commerce Committee until clear language is included in the legislation that prevents discrimination in Internet access.

His statement from the Senate floor available at the above link.

Supreme Court rejects Bush and Roberts - Update

Update to Supreme Court rejects Bush and Roberts

Will the Bush/Cheney cabal get what they want in spite of the SCOTUS decision? This sounds about right.

The decision is actually a huge political gift to President Bush, and the detainees will not be released that easily. The President and GOP leaders will propose a bill to override the decision and keep the terrorists in jail until they are securely transferred to host countries for permanent punishment. The Administration and its allies will release plenty of information on the terrorist acts committed by the detainees for which they were detained (see this great ABC News interview with the Gitmo warden). They will also release information about those terrorist acts committed by Gitmo prisoners after they were released. They will challenge the "judicial interference with national security" and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people. The Pentagon will continue to release a small number of detainees as circumstances allow. The bill will pass easily and quickly. And if the Supremes invalidate that law, we'll see another legislative response, and another, until they get it right. Just watch.

I'm not sure this needs to be a "huge political gift to President Bush" but it will turn out that way. With the Democrats in congress made up of folks that are either spineless or just as hawkish as the neocons a law will be passed easily that legalizes the military tribunals. If congress tries to put lipstick on the pig to make themselves look important Bush will simply ignore the portions of the law he doesn't like.

Update (of the update)
John Cole has some thoughts that are worth reading, With us or With Them

Supreme Court rejects Bush and Roberts

Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo War Crimes Trials

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions are unconstitutional.

In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized under U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion in the case, called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself from the case.

The ruling, which overturned a federal appeals court decision in which Roberts had participated, represented a defeat for President Bush, who had ordered military trials for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base. About 450 detainees captured in the war on terrorism are currently held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

So Bush has finally been found to be in violation of the law by the Supreme Court. As important is a majority of the court rebuked their own chief justice.

Chief Justice Roberts, one of the judges who voted against Hamdan's appeal when he served on the appeals court, recused himself from the case.

I guess the only question is will Bush simply ignore the Supreme Court like he has ignored the congress?

Update

Glenn Greenwald thinks this goes beyond GITMO.

(3) The Court dealt several substantial blows to the administration's theories of executive power beyond the military commission context. And, at the very least, the Court severely weakened, if not outright precluded, the administration's legal defenses with regard to its violations of FISA.

Go read Glenn for the details.

Update above

Electronic Voting Machine Security

The security flaws in electronic voting machines are finally getting some attention. The report from the Brennan Center for Justice has received MSM coverage. Here is the Brennan press release.

WASHINGTON, DC - The Brennan Center Task Force on Voting System Security, an initiative of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, today released a report and policy proposals concluding that all three of the nation’s most commonly purchased electronic voting systems are vulnerable to software attacks that could threaten the integrity of a state or national election.



“As electronic voting machines become the norm on Election Day, voters are more and more concerned that these machines are susceptible to fraud,” said Michael Waldman, the Brennan Center’s Executive Director. “In fact, we’ve learned a lot from our study. These machines are vulnerable to attack. That’s the bad news. The good news is that we know how to reduce the risks and the solutions are within reach.”



“I hope that election officials and lawmakers around the country read this report and take a hard look at adopting these policies in time for the 2006 elections,” said Howard A. Schmidt, former White House Cyber Security Advisor and former Chief Security Officer of Microsoft and eBay.



The government and private sector scientists, voting machine experts, and security professionals on the Task Force worked together for more than a year. The members of the non-partisan panel were drawn from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), the Technical Guidelines Development Committee of the federal Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, leading research universities, and include many of the nation’s foremost security experts.



The Task Force surveyed hundreds of election officials around the country; categorized over 120 security threats; and evaluated countermeasures for repelling attacks. The study examined each of the three most commonly purchased electronic voting systems: electronic machines (“DREs”) with – and without – a voter verified paper trail, and precinct-counted optical scan systems (“PCOS”). The report, The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World, is the first-ever systematic analysis of security vulnerabilities in each of these systems. The report’s findings include:

• All of the most commonly purchased electronic voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities. All three systems are equally vulnerable to an attack involving the insertion of corrupt software or other software attack programs designed to take over a voting machine.


• Automatic audits, done randomly and transparently, are necessary if paper records are to enhance security. The report called into question basic assumptions of many election officials by finding that the systems in 14 states using voter-verified paper records but doing so without requiring automatic audits are of “questionable security value.”


• Wireless components on voting machines are particularly vulnerable to attack. The report finds that machines with wireless components could be attacked by “virtually any member of the public with some knowledge of software and a simple device with wireless capabilities, such as a PDA.”


• The vast majority of states have not implemented election procedures or countermeasures to detect a software attack even though the most troubling vulnerabilities of each system can be substantially remedied.

Among the countermeasures advocated by the Task Force are routine audits comparing voter verified paper trails to the electronic record; and bans on wireless components in voting machines. Currently only New York and Minnesota ban wireless components on all machines; California bans wireless components only on DRE machines. The Task Force also advocated the use of “parallel testing”: random, Election Day testing of machines under real world conditions. Parallel testing holds its greatest value for detecting software attacks in jurisdictions with paperless electronic machines, since, with those systems, meaningful audits are not an option.



The Task Force’s report was made public today in the Rayburn House Office Building. Congressmen Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Tom Cole (R-OK) praised the report’s findings and called for enactment of H.R. 550, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, the most comprehensive bill before Congress addressing electronic voting security.



Said Lawrence Norden, Chair of the Brennan Center Task Force on Voting System Security: “The Brennan Center is committed to all our policy recommendations shared today with the public and Members of Congress, and we have not taken a position yet on any pending legislation. We’ll be working closely with Mr. Holt, Mr. Cole, and other lawmakers dedicated to protecting our elections.”



“I see this as an historic report because it’s the first time we’ve systematically examined security concerns presented by all of the electronic voting systems in use,” said Professor Ronald Rivest of MIT, a member of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee of the federal Election Assistance Commission. “The report will be invaluable for any election official grappling with electronic security and, hopefully, will pave the way for widespread adoption of better safeguards.”

Press Reports

• Washington Post (USA)- A Single Person Could Swing an Election (June 28, 2006)


• The Beacon Journal (OH)- Report Cites Flaws in Electronic Voting (June 28, 2006)


• The Globe and Mail (UK)- Many e-Voting Systems Flawed: Report (June 28, 2006)


• WWMT (MI)- E-voting Gets Thumbs Down from Report (June 28, 2006)


• Free Internet Press (USA)- Cybersecurity Experts Say Voting Machines Have Security Flaws (June 28, 2006)


• Reuters (USA)- Study Shows US Electronic Voting Machines Vulnerable (June 27, 2006)


• USA Today (USA)- Analysis Finds e-Voting Machines Vulnerable (June 27, 2006)


• Fox News (USA)- Report: Many E-Voting Systems Flawed (June 27, 2006)


• Boston Herald (MA)- Report: Many e-voting Systems Flawed (June 27, 2006)

Guardian Unlimited (UK)- Report: Many E-Voting Systems Flawed (June 27, 2006)

• Business Week (USA)- Report: Many E-Voting Systems Flawed (June 27, 2006)


• Fox News (USA- Study: E-Voting Systems All Flawed, but Also Easy to Fix (June 27, 2006)


• ABC News (NY)- Report: Many E-Voting Systems Flawed (June 27, 2006)


• Computer World (USA)- Studies question e-voting security (June 27, 2006)


• Canton Rep (OH)- Report Rips Security of Electronic Voting System (June 27, 2006)


• The Washington Times (DC)-Study Says e-Voting Machines Pose Problems (June 27, 2006)

Bush VS the New York Times

Chris Floyd give us a brutal account of the tyranny of the Bush administration in The Bush War on Liberty Intensifies.

Make no mistake: the Bush Regime intends to silence all dissenting voices and suppress all politically harmful information in the American establishment. It's a not a drive toward totalitarianism; they don't want or need to repress and control everything. They don't care if bloggers rant, or Harper's fulminates, or Michael Moore makes movies, or Noam Chomsky sells books (or even speaks at West Point). They are perfectly happy to allow isolated enclaves of dissent to float around out there somewhere – as long they remain isolated and, above all, ineffectual. What they cannot tolerate – and increasingly will not tolerate – is any institution, organization or person in a position of genuine influence on the American power structure to undermine the presidential dictatorship that the Regime has established. (There will be more on this theme in the next column.) Anyone within the power structure who attempts to report disturbing facts or "inconvenient truths" about the Regime's unconstitutional secret government will be attacked relentlessly. It begins with slander to destroy their credibility and effectiveness, to marginalize them, to destroy their public position – and to frighten off anyone else who might support them or give them hearing.

He points out that the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times had published the same information but it was the New York Times that was singled out. Go read the rest.

A new political twist

Just a few short days ago I wrote that the neocons, feeling let down by the Republicans were making an attempt to drive to drive the netroots/McGovernites from the Democratic party. Shorly after that post I noticed that Marshall Wittmann's almost daily flaming rants against the netroots "lefties" suddenly ended. Then today we find out that the neocon's new Goddess of War, Hillary Clinton, had hired progressive Peter Daou to be her "blog advisor". Over at the Huffington Post Cenk Uygur sees 3 possible outcomes of Peter's hiring:

1. Hillary will actually listen to what Peter has to say and adjust her views and actions.


2. They will not be able to see eye to eye and Peter will be ignored and then will eventually leave the job.


3. Peter will become an apologist for Hillary's current stances on things like Iraq, which are hideous and morally repugnant.

I see number one to be unlikely and Peter's progressive credentials are solid making number 3 unlikely as well. That leaves number two - a short marriage.

So what next? I see two possibilities.

1. The DLC neocons will succeed in controlling the Democratic Party and many if not most of the lefty-McGovernite netroots crowd will not support the Party while some of the non-theocratic corporate neocons in the Republican Party will migrate to the Democratic Party.


2. The netroots will gain control of the Democratic Party and a third party will form consisting of the DLC corporate neocons and non theocratic Republicans.
   
   
   

Just another political hack

I'm talking about Barack Obama.

Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

Thanks Senator Obama, you have just told the world that the Republicans are correct when they say that Democrats are hostile to religion.

Sorry - Sold Out

It was two years ago that I first discussed peak oil in Oil, Half Way To Empty. Few were thinking about peak oil two years ago, today about the only people still in denial are those in the Bush/Cheney/Exxon cabal. The other oil companies are even recognizing reality.

This is also the 50th anniversary of the Interstate Highway System, the symbol of the American oil based lifestyle. As I said here there are no alternatives to oil that will allow us to maintain our lifestyle. Well I'm not alone and I have some company from the energy sector. Former energy analyst Jan Lundberg reports that Matthew R. Simmons, Chairman of the energy-industry investment banking firm Simmons & Company International has joined the club. We first heard of Mr Simmons from his book Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy . Mr Simmons suggested that too much dependence was being placed on what many presumed to be a unlimited supply of Saudi Oil. He decried the fact that there was no "Plan B". He has now gone even further.

Simmons' alarm over the lack of a "Plan B" to replace our status-quo petroleum dependence has lately turned him into something more like an Ecotopian than a soldier for nonstop industrialization of the entire world; that global pursuit seems nearing its end soon in Simmons' view, due to the "inability to grow" thanks to the energy crisis he says is already here. Such an analysis is close to that of Culture Change, which, like Simmons, urgently offers a picture of the future without oil and natural gas to spare. Like this reporter, a former petroleum industry analyst and supporter of truly renewable energy, Simmons does not see alternative fuels as able to rush in and maintain the economy as we know it.

Transportation wastes energy.

Matt Simmons is a man who has reflected on the waste of energy that ordinarily would be delightful for any businessman in energy. But he wryly complains of "blueberries in Maine imported from Chile even during blueberry season." Likewise for the nation’s infrastructure: "You can tear up the roads," he said, to stop the wasteful trucking and start barging on water, to save 35 times as much energy. He mentions rail also as a major replacement for our highways, as freight by rail saves 8 times the energy. He would know, however, that today’s volume of trade cannot fit on existing railcars and barges, and that there’s little likelihood that the nation’s infrastructure can change quickly enough for the peak oil timetable.

So we must change our lifestyle which includes growing food at home.

No Business as usual:

In the past Culture Change has identified Simmons and Robert Hirsch of SAIC as interested in maintaining economic growth and seeing the economy somehow bridge the supply gap that is about to get bad due to peak oil. (Hirsch, a former oilman, can be described as less daring than Simmons at the podium, but Hirsch is another of the few courageous analysts.) Simmons all but states that growth and business-as-usual are no longer possible or appropriate. Simmons addressed the meaning of peak and the certainty of tightness by saying "Running out is really the inability to grow." For an economy and a culture conditioned to endless growth, this is really the end. What replaces growth and the ability of petroleum to feed and provide us with almost everything is the unknown, but Simmons would probably agree it involves culture change.

Too much even for Richard Cohen

Yes, the administration's most recent José Padilla moment was too much even for Richard Cohen.

I know, that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales looks (to me) a bit like Jerry Mahoney, because he fulfills the same function for the Bush administration that the dummy did for the ventriloquist Paul Winchell. At risk to his reputation and the mocking he must get when he comes home at night, Gonzales will call virtually anyone an al-Qaeda-type terrorist. He did that last week in announcing the arrest of seven inferred (it's the strongest word I can use) terrorists. I thought I saw Dick Cheney moving his lips.

The seven were indicted on charges that they wanted to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI bureau in Miami. The arrests came in the nick of time, since all that prevented mass murder, mayhem and an incessant crawl at the bottom of our TV screens was the lack of explosives, weapons or vehicles. The alleged conspirators did have boots, which were supplied by an FBI informant. Maybe the devil does wear Prada.

And Cohen points out that the cable tabloid networks were quick to feed their trailer trash audiences the hype.

Naturally, cable news was all over the story since it provided pictures . These included shots of the Sears Tower, the FBI bureau, the seven alleged terrorists and, of course, Gonzales dutifully playing his assigned role of the dummy. He noted that the suspects wanted to wage a "full ground war" against the United States and "kill all the devils" they could -- this despite a clear lack of materiel and sidewalk-level IQs. Still, as Gonzales pointed out, if "left unchecked, these homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al-Qaeda." A presidential medal for the man, please.

Does it matter? As Joe Gandleman said the other day:

Why is government believability on terrorism news being 100 percent valid without any political motives imporant? Because after 911 there was incredible and genuine American unity. If a similar tragedy happens again, calls for unity by administration leaders may generate some skeptical raised eyebrows instead of a unified nation with stiffened backbones.

And Cohen agrees:

Does it matter? Yes, it does. It matters because the Bush administration has already lost almost all credibility when it comes to terrorism. It said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and there were none. It said al-Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots and that was not the case. It has so exaggerated its domestic success in arresting or convicting terrorists that it simply cannot be believed on that score. About a year ago, for instance, President Bush (with Gonzales at his side) asserted that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted." The Post looked into that and found that the total number of (broadly defined) "terrorism" convictions was 39.

This compulsion to exaggerate and lie is so much a part of the Bush administration's DNA that it persists even though it has become counterproductive. For instance, the arrest of the seven suspects in Miami essentially coincided with the revelation by the New York Times that the government has "gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans." Almost instantly, the administration did two things: It confirmed the story and complained about it. The Times account only helped terrorists, Cheney said.

Is he right? I wonder. This is a serious matter. After all, Americans are being asked to surrender a measure of privacy and civil liberties in the fight against terrorism -- essentially the argument Cheney has been making. I for one am willing to make some compromises, but I feel downright foolish doing so if the fruit of the enterprise turns out to be seven hapless idiots who would blow up the Sears Tower, if only they could get to Chicago.

Cheney in particular has zero credibility, but his administration colleagues are not far behind. Prominent among them, of course, is the attorney general, a man so adept at crying wolf and mouthing the administration's line that he simply cannot be believed any more.

The chicken little actions of the Bush administration for political ends are dangerous for America.

Bilmon on the War on Kosacks

Bilmon has a long but must read post, The Swiftboating of Kos, on the attack on Markos Moulitas by the DLC and their friends at the almost irrelevant The New Republic. It ties in with my post below, Neocons and the Blogger Wars. I call them classic neocons and Bilmon calls them "neolibs" but the conclusions are similar. You need to read the entire thing but here is one paragraph that puts it in a nutshell.

The Lieberman Dems don't hate and fear Kos and the Daily Kos "community" because they are too far to the left. They hate them because they represent an emerging power center within the Democratic Party that they don't control -- what's more, one that is now much closer to the public mainstream on the central issue of our time (the Iraq War) than they are.

Joe Lieberman - More like a Republican everyday

Apparently Joe Lieberman has spent enough time among the Rovian Republicans to learn how to lie and spin just like they do.

Meanwhile back in Afghanistan

As we was watch Iraq continue to descend into a quagmire of chaos we tend to forget the other war the Bush/Cheney cabal is losing. Iraq and Afghanistan have one very important thing in common, the occupiers/liberators are increasingly hated because those who were "liberated" frequently see their neighbors and relatives killed by the liberators. As we reported the other day conservative William S. Lind explains:

As fighting in Afghanistan has intensified over the past three months, the U.S. military has conducted 340 airstrikes there, more than twice the 160 carried out in the much higher-profile war in Iraq, according to data from the Central Command…

The airstrikes appear to have increased in recent days as the United States and its allies have launched counteroffensives against the Taliban in the south and southeast, strafing and bombing a stronghold in Uruzgan province and pounding an area near Khost with 500-pound bombs.

One might add, “The Taliban has expressed its thanks to the U.S. Air Force for greatly increasing its popular support in the bombed areas.”

At present, the bombing is largely tied to the latest Somme-like “Big Push,” Operation Mountain Thrust, in which more than 10,000 U.S.-led troops are trying another failed approach to guerrilla war, the sweep. I have no doubt it would break the Mullah Omar Line, if it existed, which it doesn’t. Even the Brits seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid this time, with the June 19 Washington Times reporting that “British commanders declared for the first time yesterday that their troops were enjoying success in the restive south of Afghanistan after pushing faster than expected into rebel territory.” Should be in Berlin by September, old chap.

Of course, all this is accompanied by claims of many dead Taliban, who are conveniently interchangeable with dead locals who weren’t Taliban. Bombing from the air is the best way to drive up the body count, because you don’t even have to count bodies; you just make estimates based on the claimed effectiveness of your weapons, and feed them to ever-gullible reporters. By the time Operation Mountain Thrust is done thrusting into mountains, we should have killed the Taliban several times over.

If you are a leader of such a "liberated" country and you are seen as a puppet of "liberators" it's not surprising if you are not too popular especially if the "liberators" have not kept any of their promises.

Afghan Leader Losing Support

Many Afghans and some foreign supporters say they are losing faith in President Hamid Karzai's government, which is besieged by an escalating insurgency and endemic corruption and is unable to protect or administer large areas of the country.

As a sense of insecurity spreads, a rift is growing between the president and some of the foreign civilian and military establishments whose money and firepower have helped rebuild and defend the country for nearly five years. While the U.S. commitment to Karzai appears solid, several European governments are expressing serious concerns about his leadership.

[......]

Late last month, a riot in Kabul, in which protesters attacked foreign facilities for hours as police vanished from the streets, raised concerns among many people here that the government is too weak to protect even the capital.

"In the past year, security has gotten worse and worse," said Sayed Tamin, 42, a tailor in a working-class Kabul district who was hemming a pair of pants. "The Taliban have been able to come back because the government is weak. There is corruption in high places and nothing for the poor. People are very, very disappointed."

Neocons and the Blogger Wars

When we think of neoconservatives we tend to think of Republicans like Dick Cheney. This, at least in a historic sense, is not accurate. The neoconservatives were Democrats in the beginning and would probably have been seen as progressives when domestic policy was concerned. Today there are many who think of themselves as Democrats who fit the original neocon mold. Joe Lieberman and Marshall Wittmann come to mind.

So what is a neocon? From Wikipedai:

Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, supported civil equality for blacks and other minorities, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles even if that meant unilateral action. Indeed, domestic policy does not define neoconservatism — it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism.

Broadly sympathetic to Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goals to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives.

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.

This is the key; "a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles even if that meant unilateral action." The neocons represented by Cheney and Rumsfeld were largely kept out of policy making during the presidencies of not only Clinton but also Reagan and Bush I. With the election of George W. Bush and his puppet master Dick Cheney they felt their time had finally come. The neocons finally got what they wanted, both a war in Afghanistan and an invasion of Iraq. Then reality set in. As the invasion of Iraq was mismanaged and quickly became a debacle it became obvious that Dick Cheney and the Bush cabal had other priorities. Their first priorities were political not ideological and they had much more interest is making money than they did winning wars. Frank Rich addressed this in his NYT commentary yesterday:

If we had honored our grand promises to the people we were liberating, Dick Cheney's prediction that we would be viewed as liberators might have had a chance of coming true. Greater loyalty from the civilian population would have helped reduce the threat to American soldiers, who are prey to insurgents in places like Yusufiya. But what we've wrought instead is a variation on Arthur Miller's post-World War II drama, "All My Sons." Working from a true story, Miller told the tragedy of a shoddy contractor whose defectively manufactured aircraft parts led directly to the deaths of a score of Army pilots and implicitly to the death of his own son.

Back then such a scandal was a shocking anomaly. Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, the very model of big government that the current administration vilifies, never would have trusted private contractors to run the show. Somehow that unwieldy, bloated government took less time to win World War II than George W. Bush's privatized government is taking to blow this one.

Believe it or not this brings us to the attack on the blogs by the DLC's Marshall Wittmann and the neocons at The New Republic, yes in the classic sense they are neocons. This is not an attack on blogs as such but an attack on those horrible "lefty" McGovernites that drove the neocons from the Democratic Party in the first place. Many neocon ideologues feel the Republican Party has failed them and are looking to regain power in the Democratic Party.

Technorati Tags

Blogs, TNR, neocons, DLC

Media Pile-On

The media has joined Marshall Wittmann and the DLC and TNR in attacking Markos Moulitas. The most recent examples being David Brooks and Newsweek. The reason is simple, they feel threatened. The neocons at the DLC see their power disappearing and the pundits in the main stream media see their relevance being questioned. For a good analysis head over to The Mahablog, KOS not the real target? and The Scratching Post , who will win the war?

Note
I'll have some thoughts on what is going on in the neocon movement and how it relates to the above later.

Whatever happened to the United States?

Recognize this guy? OK, he's even before my time. Well it's Dr. Josef Mengele. So what does this have to do with our United States of America. Well Joe Gandelman directs us to Doctors Without Ethical Borders by Andrew Sullivan with this question:

If THIS had happened in another country several years ago, what would Americans have said about that country?

Sullivan then directs us to his review of Oath Betrayed by Dr. Stephen Miles. The evil of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal has corrupted many things but corrupting a doctor's sacred ancient oath is perhaps one of the lowest.

One of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's first instructions for military interrogations outside the Geneva Conventions was that military doctors should be involved in monitoring torture. It was a fateful decision — and we learn much more about its consequences in a new book based on 35,000 pages of government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The book is called Oath Betrayed (to be published June 27) by medical ethicist Dr. Stephen Miles, and it is a harrowing documentation of how the military medical profession has been corrupted by the Bush-Rumsfeld interrogation rules.

One of those rules was that a prisoner's medical information could be provided to interrogators to help guide them to the prisoner's "emotional and physical strengths and weaknesses" (in Rumsfeld's own words) in the torture process. At an interrogation center called Camp Na'ma, where the unofficial motto was "No blood, no foul," one intelligence officer testified that "every harsh interrogation was approved by the [commander] and the Medical prior to its execution." Doctors, in other words, essentially signed off on torture in advance. And they often didn't inspect the victims afterward. At Abu Ghraib, according to the Army's surgeon general, only 15% of inmates were examined for injuries after interrogation.

Sully's review has much more if you have the stomach for it and Dr.Miles book will be available on June 27th.

Threat or Politics????

The citizens of the United States are safer because the seven nut cases in Florida have been arrested. That said it is also becoming clear that they were not Islamic terrorists, in fact they weren't even Muslims. It would also appear that about the most they could have hoped to blow up would have been the local Burger King, which they might have done since they were vegetarians. So why the big deal? Joe Gandelman has some thoughts.

Whether it pans out that this was a legit threat or something thrown out because the elections are drawing near. Americans of all parties need to ask themselves why it seems that over the past few years some key threats or talk about threats surfaced around summer, right before November elections. Is this truly coincidence? Because terrorists get more active near election time? Or is there political manipulation? (The counter question becomes: are charges that it's manipulation indicative of massive political paranoia?) The question has been raised by the left and it's a legitimate one. It we suddenly see a spate of terrorism-related threat annoucements and stories the closer we get to November, it will even more legitimate. Is the timing all happenstance? The next few months are worth watching (particularly August/September/Oct)....as are the months after an election to see if the threats are still being reported or have seemingly vanished.

Now is there a reason for "massive political paranoia". Now there are times when paranoia is justified and when we are dealing with the Bush administration that is more often than not. Remember Tom Ridge? He had this to say after he left the administration:

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

Now I will be the first to admit that the US and much of the world is threatened by Islamic terrorism which makes the Bush administration's lack of credibility even more dangerous. As Joe Gandelman says:

Why is government believability on terrorism news being 100 percent valid without any political motives imporant? Because after 911 there was incredible and genuine American unity. If a similar tragedy happens again, calls for unity by administration leaders may generate some skeptical raised eyebrows instead of a unified nation with stiffened backbones.

Saturday Morning Reads

Lance Manion has a good post on Lieberman. Although Lance obviously doesn't trust Leiberman he's uncertain on what might be best for the Democratic Party. Here are a few snips.

Joe Lieberman's failure is not that he's not right on Iraq. His failure isn't even that he's been insufficiently liberal. His failure is that he has been so eager to ingratiate himself with the Republicans in Congress and President Bush that he has effectively turned himself into an enemy of his own party.

[......]

Lieberman is an appeaser and an accomodationist. There doesn't appear to be an issue that will make him stand and fight like a Democrat. Whenever Harry Reid plans a move his first concern has to be how to keep Lieberman from getting in the way or undermining the Democrats' position.

And this, it's all about Joe.

Lieberman seems to be more comfortable with the Republicans, but his attraction to their Party I would bet based on their holding all the cards. If he were to join them, he could become chairman of several of important committees. What he likes and what he wants a share of is their power.

I think Mark Schmitt got it right, the problem with Joe is that he is above all else a neocon and as Mark said:

Is that enough of a reason to oppose Lieberman? Sure, because it’s a huge error on one of the most fundamental questions of our time. It’s an error not of policy or of political loyalty, but of attitude. And it is not an error that I see others making. I heard Ed Kilgore today, on a bloggingHeads sequence, argue that if “the bloggers” come for Lieberman today, tomorrow they’ll go after Steny Hoyer or Hillary Clinton. I can’t speak for everyone, but while I have disagreements with Clinton and probably Hoyer, I’ve never heard them say things as deeply offensive to my sense of what democracy and patriotism requires as I’ve heard from Lieberman recently.

Lance asks the question, "do the democrats need Lieberman?". The answer is yes but unfortunately there is nothing to make one believe he can be counted on so it really doesnt matter.

The second read is via Bilmon. It is a piece by William S. Lind, Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation, certainly not a peacenik. He discusses how the incompetent Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal is losing the war in Afghanistan. He supplies a short refresher course in Guerrilla War 101:

• Air power works against you, not for you. It kills lots of people who weren’t your enemy, recruiting their relatives, friends and fellow tribesmen to become your enemies. In this kind of war, bombers are as useful as 42 cm. siege mortars.



• Big, noisy, offensives, launched with lots of warning, achieve nothing. The enemy just goes to ground while you pass on through, and he’s still there when you leave. Big Pushes are the opposite of the “ink blot” strategy, which is the only thing that works, when anything can.



• Putting the Big Push together with lots of bombing in Afghanistan’s Pashtun country means we end up fighting most if not all of the Pashtun. In Afghan wars, the Pashtun always win in the end.



• Quisling governments fail because they cannot achieve legitimacy.



• You need closure, but your guerilla enemy doesn’t. He not only can fight until Doomsday, he intends to do just that—if not you, then someone else.



• The bigger the operations you have to undertake, the more surely your enemy is winning.

Of course if you look closely you will see that many of the above points apply equally to Iraq. At least the administration is consistent.

Last but certainly not least is this post by by Carla at Prememptive Karma, Branding fear

And we are unpatriotic terrorist lovers if we protest the compromise of American values which include those little things like "search warrants" and "courts" and "privacy". Or heaven forbid that we require the government to be open with the American people. That might give the terrorists a clue as to what we're doing to monitor them.

If the government decided to roll tanks into American suburbia with the excuse that martial law is required to capture terrorists--I swear these same assholes would go on the Sunday talk shows and thank the Bush Administration for beating back those pinko commie American liberals who dare oppose their fight to capture the terrorists.

Be sure and read the rest .

Joe Lieberman and the late Democratic Party

Over at TPM Cafe Mark Schmitt takes a look at Joe Lieberman. Go read the entire thing by I'm going to quote a couple of paragraphs that I think are significant as they relate to the state of the Democratic party.

It seems to me that Lieberman is following the path, quite literally, of the neo-conservatives - not the Rumsfeldian nationalists who incorrectly wear that label now, but the original neo-cons of the 1960s, driven to the right above all by their irritation at the left, often based on domestic politics. (Hence the title of this post, an allusion to one of the most famous original documents of the neocons, Norman Podhoretz’s 1967 essay, “My Negro Problem - And Ours”.)

Is that enough of a reason to oppose Lieberman? Sure, because it’s a huge error on one of the most fundamental questions of our time. It’s an error not of policy or of political loyalty, but of attitude. And it is not an error that I see others making. I heard Ed Kilgore today, on a bloggingHeads sequence, argue that if “the bloggers” come for Lieberman today, tomorrow they’ll go after Steny Hoyer or Hillary Clinton. I can’t speak for everyone, but while I have disagreements with Clinton and probably Hoyer, I’ve never heard them say things as deeply offensive to my sense of what democracy and patriotism requires as I’ve heard from Lieberman recently.

It's not just Lieberman of course but the DLC and DC Democrat mindset that we see and hear daily from the likes of Marshall Wittmann. This mindset is contrary to the very foundation of the progressive (netroots) ideology. As a result if the DLC crowd manage to maintain control of the Democratic party the netroots activists will not be active in the party and many will once again believe that Nader was correct when he said there was no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The DLC crowd has made it clear they cannot be part of an antiwar, anti free trade that benefits only large corporations. The Democratic Party is not only a minority party it is really two minority parties. Good news for the Republicans.

What will the "decider" do?

Will he have any choice?
As I have said before sooner or later the new Iraqi government was going to have to tell Bush to leave. Well it looks like it it may be sooner rather than later.
Peace deal offers Iraq insurgents an amnesty

THE Iraqi Government will announce a sweeping peace plan as early as Sunday in a last-ditch effort to end the Sunni insurgency that has taken the country to the brink of civil war.
The 28-point package for national reconciliation will offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms, The Times can reveal.


The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.

It will pledge to take action against Shia militias and death squads. It will also offer to review the process of “de-Baathification” and financial compensation for the thousands of Sunnis who were purged from senior jobs in the Armed Forces and Civil Service after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Now this is not what the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal had in mind. What about those permanent military bases? What about control of the oil? What about the Halliburton etc. money trough?

They may not have any choice. The administration has trained and armed a security force that will turn on them in a minute. After three years of destroying cities and towns, massacring civilians and torture the Americans are hated as much as Saddam ever was.

The best the administration can hope for at this point is to spin it into a win.

Jumping the Democratic shark????

Taylor Marsh takes on Joe Lieberman, TNR and thinks that Marshall Wittmann has finally "jumped the Democratic Party shark". As we have documented here;

,
Marshall Wittmann was never a Democrat. In fact he may never have been a Republican but just a Bull Moose ego machine.

Like I've been saying all along!

What is the big difference between the Vietnam war and the occupation of Iraq? Only two words; NO DRAFT. Boston Globe Columnist Joan Vennochi seems to agree.
A military draft might awaken us

REINSTATE THE military draft and see how quickly the United States ends its war in Iraq.

Imagine if all our sons and daughters were at risk for deployment to the desert. Imagine if all our children faced the Al Qaeda-style butchery that took the lives of two American soldiers, Private First Class Thomas L. Tucker of Madras, Ore., and Private First Class Kristian Menchaca of Houston.

If we feared our children were next up to be gutted like fish, we might be less likely to shake our heads at crazy antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan. If turning 18 meant your kid's boots on the ground, a resolution to pull troops out of Iraq by a certain date might grab more than six votes in the US Senate.

A key difference between Iraq and Vietnam is the country's ability to keep this war at a convenient distance. We can turn from the front page headlines of war, death, and destruction to sports and celebrity gossip; a click of the remote, and the face of a young soldier, now dead, fades to ``Friends" reruns or ``America's Next Top Model." The volunteer army ensures that someone else's children are losing limbs and dying; someone else's children are pushed to alleged acts of violence against Iraqi detainees and civilians. Even when the news from Iraq is so brutal it forces a momentary focus on war, quick relief is promised.

I was attending college from 1964 - 1968. College students, and in some cases their parents, hit the streets to oppose the war in Vietnam. We haven't seen that during the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Many of those protesting the Iraq misadventure are the same people who protested the Vietnam debacle. They remember, the majority of the US population has nothing to lose.

Although I opposed the Vietnam war and was drafted after graduating from college in 1968 I have always been in favor of a draft, universal service. If you have a stake in a war you are more likely to question it. I have always been in favor of a draft even when I was caught up in it because I believe it makes war less likely.

Related
Army takes older recruits This is desperation, 18 - 21 year old make the best recruits. I was drafted after graduating from college and the army hated the idea of people old enough to be capable of independent thought. And rightly so, they make lousy soldiers.

Another Pro-war Democrat in trouble?

If people want a Republican they will vote for a Republican. First it was Joe Lieberman and now Washinton State's Maria Cantwell is in trouble because of her pro-war stance.

Dwindling voter support for U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell's re-election bid has put her in a statistical toss-up with her Republican opponent, according to a new poll announced Wednesday.

Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling firm, said a survey of 500 likely Washington voters June 13 showed the Democratic incumbent leading challenger Mike McGavick 44 percent to 40 percent. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

[......]

Hovering 6 percentage points below 50 percent in a head-to-head matchup is a big danger sign for an incumbent. In a news release, Rasmussen attributed Cantwell's eroding support largely to her past backing of the Iraq war and her vote against an attempt to block the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Looking like a Republican is not a winning formula for the Democrats.

Right Wing Nonsense

If your source is Peter Hoekstra and/or Rick Santorum you can safely assume that it's utter nonsensical bloviating for political purpose. Well of course this is no exception:
Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said.

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

That's right, they are left over from the Iraq-Iran war 18 years ago and were first reported almost two years ago.

Even the Pentagon says nonsense:

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

On a side note Republican Senator Chuck Hagel blasted his own party yesterday on the Senate Floor;

Congress fails in its duty when we do not probe, when we fail, we do not ask tough questions, and we fail when we do not debate the gate issues of our day. There is no issue more important than war. The war in Iraq is the defining issue on which this Congress and the administration will be judged. The American people want to see serious debate about serious issues from serious leaders. They deserve more than a political debate. This debate should transcend cynical attempts to turn public frustration with the war in Iraq into an electoral advantage. It should be taken more seriously than to simply retreat into focus-group tested buzz words and phrases like “cut and run,” catchy political slogans that debase the seriousness of war. War’s not a partisan issue, Mr. President. It should not be held hostage to political agendas. War should not be drug down into the political muck. America deserves better. Our men and women fighting and dying deserve better.

Update
Mahablog weighs in
and
Patterico is shocked that there was no mention of the WMD (non) story in the LA Times. Maybe that's because the fact that Peter Hoekstra and Rick Santorum are moronic political hacks is not really news and the LA Times is a newspaper.

Iraq VS Vietnam

As we have mentioned here before there is at least one thing the occupation of Iraq and the Vietnam war have in common, the majority of the population hates the US and the US forces. Like Vietnam the troops on the ground in Iraq cannot tell friend from foe. The US forces themselves are having doubts about the mission:

"I'm not sure we're doing a whole lot of good," Myers, 46, said of the U.S. presence in Iraq. "Everybody thinks we are. We're trying to, but we're not going to change what they want to do, and if they don't want to change, they're not gonna."

Increasingly we see news from Iraq that sounds a lot like the news from Vietnam 30+ years ago.
Iraqis Killed Their U.S. Trainers, Probe Finds

A military investigation has found that Iraqi troops being trained by American forces killed two California National Guard soldiers two years ago during a patrol north of Baghdad, an Army spokesman said Tuesday.

I would be really surprised if this were an isolated event and even more surprised if we didn't see a lot more of it in the future.

And therawstory brings us this:

THE level of violence in some areas of Iraq is worsening dramatically and US forces may soon be asked to leave by the Iraqi Government.
In an exclusive interview with The Australian, former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage has given a gloomy assessment of the situation.

"The British used to make a big deal of walking around in their berets in the south," he said. "Now they won't even go to the latrines without their helmets. The south has got much rougher, it's mainly Shia on Shia violence."

Mr Armitage said much of the violence came from differences over how the Islamic religion should be interpreted.

And he said he believed the Iraqis would soon ask the US to leave their country.

As we reported here a few days ago,

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's vice president has asked President Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq, the Iraqi president's office said.

Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, made the request during his meeting with Bush on Tuesday, when the U.S. president made a surprise visit to Iraq.

"I supported him in this," President Jalal Talabani said in a statement released Wednesday. Al-Hashimi's representatives could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

the Iraqis want us out and want a timetable.

That brings us to this:
8 Troops Charged In Death Of Iraqi

Seven Marines and one Navy corpsman have been charged with murder and kidnapping in connection with the April death of an Iraqi man in a small village west of Baghdad, Marine Corps officials announced yesterday.

The corps said that the eight sought out Hashim Ibrahim Awad in his Hamdaniyah home, dragged him into the street, bound his hands and feet, and shot him during a late-night operation, according to Marine criminal-charge sheets released yesterday. The troops are members of a fire team with Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. It is unclear what motivated the incident.

It is clear what motivated the incident. The are young men surrounded by a population that hates them and they know it. As I said a month ago.

Iraq is like Vietnam in at least one respect, young Americans are fighting for their lives in a place they shouldn't be, a place where a majority of the population hates them and would like to see them dead.

There is no excuse for this but it's not a surprise.

My concern now is that the Iraqi security forces will turn on the American troops in the not to distant future. We need to get the troops out before that happens.

Constitution Party's Mary Starrett

The Oregonian has an article on one of the States more enigmatic candidates for governor, Constitution Party's Mary Starrett. For those of you that have not been around Portland for the last 25 years Marry Starrett was the bubbly co-host of a morning TV show. It is rumored that her contract was not renewed because her politics often found it's way into the show. For starters Mary is very anti-abortion so much so that she considers Oregon's major anti-abortion group, Oregon Right to Life, a sell out. Now for the enigmatic parts:

In one breath, she speaks in admiring tones of Ronald Reagan, and then in the next will excoriate George W. Bush, the president who has tried the hardest to follow in Reagan's footsteps.

The Iraq war is "immoral, unlawful and ill-advised," she says, and she adds of Republicans who still support Bush: "You know, he could molest a child on prime-time television and they'd still find a way to excuse some of the stuff he's done."

[....]

She believes in the literal truth of the Bible but has issues with organized religion.

Conservative talk show hosts drive her so crazy that she's taken to listening to NPR and Air America, the liberal talk network. Oh, and she's a vegetarian who loves animals, and she finally kicked smoking three years ago.

And about organized religion:

"I think the majority of Christians in this country and in this state are mightily on the wrong track," she says, charging that they too often blindly follow political organizations mostly interested in their own political success. Starrett says she regards herself as a Christian but attends church only occasionally.

I guess the question is exactly what is the base of an anti-abortion, anti-Bush, anti-war candidate? The Republican candidate, Ron Saxton while saying he is pro-life is a little too wishy washy for the militant crowd so her base is probably the single issue anti-abortion types.

Bounce? - Bring the troops home?

The latest Pew Research Center Poll is out and it shows an uptick, 3%, in Bush's approval rating and an increase in those who feel that things are going well in Iraq. Let's assume that the increases are real and not statistical flukes. One interesting number is that while more think the situation in Iraq may be improving more also think it's time to bring the troops home.

Iraq Rumblings

Josh Marshall pointed out yesterday that George W. Bush does actually have a plan for Iraq and it's stay the course until it becomes someone else's problem. This brings us to the Democrats in DC. I made it clear the other day that I have little use for most of the Democratic Politicians in DC. With that in mind Steve Soto has some advice for the Democrats on ways they can re-frame the Iraq debate but of course it will fall on deaf ears. The DLC/Lieberman wing of the party remains in charge. As an example our favorite DLCer, Marshall Wittmann is using the death by torture of two American soldiers as a justification for continued US involvement in Iraq. Yes I know, the logic escapes me as well. On the other side libertarian Llewellyn H. Rockwell discusses the administrations reaction to the 2,500th death of an American soldier.

The only real moral issue that strikes the Bush administration – which is directly responsible for every one of these lost lives – is annoyance that anyone would be upset. The fodder knew what they were getting into when they signed up. It's dangerous work. In any case, it is a noble cause, or so they are told.

We are told that the cause is the democratic reconstruction of Iraq, but the invasion has so far resulted in a society ruled by martial law, a people imprisoned under a conquering regime, and a puppet state that swears to uphold Islamic law.

What has Iraq gained? What has America gained? Even if you believe there have been gains, are the deaths worth it?

Steve Soto also has a rundown on the reviews of the reviews of Ron Suskind’s “The One Percent Doctrine.” Nothing we really didn't know already but lots of inside information.

Of course when we talk about Iraq and the Democrats we have to talk about Joe Lieberman. Harold Meyerson has a good commentary on Joe Lieberman's disregard for the Democratic base and the real Democratic party.

In a remarkable interview he recently gave to The Post's David S. Broder [op-ed, June 18], the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee sounded appalled that his fellow Democrats might, in his state's upcoming August primary, reject his reelection bid because he doesn't think his party should criticize the president on the conduct of the Iraq war. (By most indications, his primary opponent, businessman Ned Lamont, is mounting a strong challenge.)

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman told Broder, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."

That's a rather stunning assertion. If parties were based on the acceptance of diversity of opinion on the most important issues of the day, they would lack the definition to be parties at all. And the conduct and duration of our involvement in Iraq is, by the measure of every single poll, the No. 1 issue in the minds of the American people -- a majority of whom believe that the Bush administration has botched the war about as badly as a war can be botched.

Defusing Dr. Strangelove

I have thought for several weeks that the titans of industry, many Republicans, and the Bush family friends in the middle east were trying to talk Bush out of allowing Dick (Dr Strangelove) Cheney talk him into an invasion of Iraq. The impact to the world economy would be catastrophic. The Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States chimed in today with some dire warnings of his own.

Military move on Iran could triple oil price

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - World oil prices could triple if the diplomatic standoff over Iran's nuclear program escalates into a military conflict, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States said on Tuesday.

Assuming oil prices were at current levels near $70 a barrel at the time of an attack, "You would see that (oil price) perhaps double or triple as a result of the conflict," Prince Turki Al-Faisal said at a press conference hosted by the United States Energy Association.

"The idea of somebody firing a missile at an installation somewhere will shoot up the price of oil astronomically," Al-Faisal said.

Gasoline at more that $6.00 a gallon would most certainly result in Bush beating out Richard Nixon in the negative approval rating race. The Iranian's weapon of economic destruction is the Strait of Hormuz.

Because all Middle East producers depend on the Strait of Hormuz to get their oil to market, military action in Iran would jeopardize the entire region's oil flows, Al-Faisal said.

Oil flows through the strait account for roughly two-fifths of all globally traded oil, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Some 17 million barrels of oil are carried through the narrow channel on oil tankers every day, according to the International Energy Agency.

If there was an attack on Iran, "the whole Gulf will become an inferno of exploding fuel tanks and shot up facilities," Al-Faisal said.

The Saudis also worry about increased attacks on their own oil facilities, if not by the Iranians then pro-Islamic terrorists.

The economy and the coming storm

A year ago we discussed the the fact that the most current "recovery" was built on sand, on home building and easy credit. That kind of economic recovery cannot be sustained. Will the storm waves are getting higher and lapping at the foundation of the economic recovery.
Foreclosures May Jump As ARMs Reset

In 2003, Anita Britten refinanced her two-story brick cottage in Lithonia, Ga. using a hybrid adjustable rate mortgage, or ARM. Her lender reassured her that she could refinance out of the riskier loan into a traditional one when her interest rate started to reset.


Three years later, Britten can't get a new mortgage and her monthly payment has jumped by a third in six months. She can't afford her payments and may face foreclosure if her financial situation doesn't change.


As more ARMs adjust upward and housing prices begin to dip, many Americans like Britten can't refinance and are finding themselves trapped in too-high monthly payments. For those who can't make their payments, foreclosure — the legal process by which the lender reposseses the house because the owner has defaulted on payments — is the only way out.

And it's not just new home buyers but people who refinanced their homes while housing prices were inflated.

In the last several years, millions of Americans took equity out of their houses and refinanced when interest rates were at historical lows and housing prices were at record highs.


Many of them chose to refinance into hybrid ARMs that lenders were aggressively pushing. ARMs, which featured a low introductory interest rate that resets upward after a set period of time, were easier to qualify for than traditional fixed-rate loans.

[.....]

This year, more than $300 billion worth of hybrid ARMs will readjust for the first time. That number will jump to approximately $1 trillion in 2007, according to the MBA. Monthly payments will leap too, many beyond what homeowners can afford.

A housing feeding frenzy!

Some homebuyers, especially first-time buyers, may not have fully understood the risk of ARMs. In the rush to close on a house sale, especially in the frenzied market of the past few years, many first-time buyers often failed to get the full details of their loan from their mortgage broker.


"Sometimes buyers are very optimistic of how much mortgage they can handle, especially in a strong housing market with aggressive marketing of riskier mortgages," said Suzanne Boas, president of Consumer Credit Counseling Services of Greater Atlanta.

[....]

Unfortunately, during a runaway market, many buyers, sellers and mortgage brokers were more excited about making deals than making smart deals, and the fallout has just begun.


"We are on the front of this ARM problem. It will roll out over the next several years," Boas said. "Owning a home is the American dream, but losing one is the ultimate nightmare."

We could see it coming and it looks like the storm is here.

Police or Commandos

Even right wingers like The New York Times columnist John Tierney are concerned both with last weeks Supreme Court ruling weakening the Fourth Amendment and the militarization of the police.

Of all the excuses for weakening the Fourth Amendment, the weirdest was the one offered by Justice Antonin Scalia last week in a Michigan drug case.

He wrote the majority opinion allowing police officers to use evidence found in a home even if they entered without following the venerable rule to knock first and announce themselves. To reassure traditionalists, Scalia declared that unreasonable searches are less of a problem today because of "the increasing professionalism of police forces."

Well, it's true that when police show up at your home in the middle of the night, they're better armed and trained than ever. They now routinely arrive with assault rifles, flash grenades and battering rams.

So if your definition of a professional is a soldier in a war zone, then Scalia is right. The number of paramilitary raids has soared in the past two decades as cities, suburbs and small towns have rushed to assemble their very own SWAT teams.

So how did we get police commandos?

And who can resist free gear from Washington? Congress encouraged the SWAT syndrome by directing the Pentagon to give local police departments old machine guns, armed personnel carriers and helicopters. The federal government has also helped subsidize drug raids and encouraged locals to be aggressive by letting them keep a cut of the drug dealers' assets.

The SWAT teams were originally supposed to deal with extraordinary threats, like hostage situations, snipers and heavily armed drug gangs. Since 9/11, of course, they've been justified for combating terrorists. But such situations are so rare that the teams have had to invent new missions to keep busy - and to pay for their operations by finding assets to seize.

Most of the time they're used simply to carry out searches for drugs, often on the basis of dubious tips from informants, often against small-time dealers and other people with no history of violence. The commandos have a proclivity for going to the wrong address, and they tend to be impatient with anything that gets in their way. In articles about SWAT raids, a motif is the shooting of family pets in front of children.

I had an example of one such raid a couple of weeks ago; the military assault on Grammy Award-winning comic Tommy Chong's Pacific Palisades house.

By far the biggest catch of Operation Pipe Dreams was 64-year-old Tommy Chong, the older half of the legendary, Grammy Award-winning comic duo Cheech and Chong, who lampooned drug warriors from the 1960s to the 1980s. Chong’s company, Chong Glass, sold ornate bongs that cost hundreds of dollars over the Internet; a Los Angeles art gallery had an exhibit of Chong’s top-of-the-line products. The Drug Enforcement Administration set up a phony shop in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, and ordered bongs and other material from Chong Glass.

The DEA hit Chong’s Pacific Palisades, California, house at 5:30 a.m., while Chong and his wife were asleep. Chong later commented,

It was a full-on raid. Helicopters, them bangin’ on the door. They come in with loaded automatic weapons, flak jackets, helmets, visors, about 20 agents. They bust in the house. They took all my cash, took out my computers, and they took all the glass bongs they could find.

But how frequent are botched police commando raids?

It's hard to know how many botched and unnecessary raids there have been, because police don't systematically track their errors, and the victims often have little recourse. But in a forthcoming report for the Cato Institute, Radley Balko concludes that mistakes have been made in more than 200 raids over the past decade.

He finds that overzealous raiders caused the deaths of a dozen nonviolent offenders, like recreational marijuana smokers and gamblers. In a Virginia suburb of Washington earlier this year, an optometrist being investigated for betting on sports was standing unarmed outside his town house, offering no resistance, when a SWAT officer's rifle discharged and killed him.

Balko also finds that two dozen people died in raids who were not guilty of any crime, like a Mexican immigrant killed by Denver police raiding the wrong home. Some died because they understandably assumed the masked invaders were criminals and picked up weapons to defend themselves. Some were innocent bystanders, like an 11-year-old boy shot in Modesto, Calif., and a 57-year-old woman in Harlem who had a heart attack when police set off a flash grenade during a raid based on a faulty tip.

"Prosecutors typically let police officers off the hook when they mistakenly shoot a civilian," Balko says, "on the theory that mistakes are understandable during the confusion of a raid. Fair enough. But civilians don't get the same deference. My research shows that when someone on the other end of a botched raid mistakes a police officer for an intruder and shoots in self-defense, his odds of facing jail time are about one in two."

The best way to avoid these mistakes would be to save SWAT teams for real crises and let police execute search warrants the old-fashioned way. They could find out, for instance, if they're at the wrong address before anyone pulls the trigger.

But thanks to the Supreme Court, they now have less reason to knock first and shoot later. They can be more professional than ever.

I guess John Tierney should have decided if he wanted a police state before he cheered on the nomination of two more police state loving fascists to the Supreme Court.

Update
Radley Balko wrote in the comments section:

Can you show me where John Tierney supported the nomination of either Alito or Roberts?

I must have missed them.

I do know of several columns where Tierney has bashed the Republicans for their position on the drug war.

Well Radley, I can't and will admit I may have spoken too soon. Assumptions can be dangerous in these times when the ideologies of those on the "right" and "left" often overlap.

Big Poll Surprise (Not) Apparently we're sick of all of you

CNN has commissioned and released a new poll on possible '08 presidential contenders. The basic premise of this poll seems awkward to me because of the limited choices offered to the respondents and range of possible answers, but it still seems telling. People answering the poll were asked if they would:

• definitely vote for
• consider voting for
• definitely vote against

six people... three Democrats and three Republicans. The choices were among:

• Hillary Clinton
• Al Gore
• John Kerry
• Rudy Giuliani
• John McCain
• Jeb Bush

The reason I find the choices odd is that some of the possible choices have already clearly stated they don't plan to run, others seem to be dark horses at best, and a few potential big ticket names were left off entirely. (Where are Mark Warner and John Edwards for the Dems , for example, or George Allen and Mitt Romney for the Republicans?

Anyway, the Democrats (or progressive leaning independents I suppose) responding weren't very thrilled with any of their choices. Hillary got the most definite Yes votes, but they only totaled 22%, with 47% saying definitely No. Gore and Kerry did worse. It should be noted, however, that each of them also got a larger percentage of "would consider voting for" in addition to the definite Yes responses. When you combine the definites and maybes, Clinton gets 50% with Gore and Kerry each getting 49% as opposed to the 48% and 47% definite No votes stacked up against them. Bottom line... nobody is that enthusiastic about these choices.

The Republicans did a tad bit better in terms of generating some positive excitement. While none of them got as high as Hillary in the definite Yes column, the combination of Yes and Maybe votes brought Rudy Giuliani in at 64% with only 30% saying definitely No. McCain was close behind with 60% vs 34% "No" votes. Virtually nobody was interested in seeing Jeb Bush run, thankfully.

Two items of note come from this poll, I think. The first is that America seems to be sick of politicians at this point and nobody is able to generate any sort of wide ranging "Oh my God, Yes! They should be President!" type approval. If the best any of them can do is 22%, that's got to be indicative of something.

The second item is one that I've pointed out before and is something that both Democrats and Republicans should be taking note of... the secret weapon called Rudy Giuliani. You see, nobody among the party faithful in the GOP and the conservatives wants Rudy. He's a "Republican Lite" member from New York, and would be considered a liberal by most rank and file conservatives. However, should the party find itself facing an almost certain White House loss in '08 because of the GOP's disastrous reputation currently and the albatross of George W. Bush around their necks, they'd probably still prefer Rudy to *any* Democrat, yes? So it's not impossible that a desperate enough GOP would give him the nod to run.

This brings us to the Democrats' traditional Two State dilemma. In the current political climate, (and it's been this way for some time now and doesn't look to change radically in the near future) in order for the Democrats - for ANY DEMOCRAT - to win the Presidency, they first have to carry both New York and California. I'm sure a lot of people hate facing up to that reality, but it's the truth. If your candidate can't carry both of those states, the race is over and the Republicans win. End of story.

The big secret is, Rudy could take New York. Probably even against Hillary. He's wildly popular in New York - the guy is a political Rock Star here - and his numbers are consistently way up in the positive range. And New Yorkers have no problem voting for high level Republicans (as evidenced by Pataki's last decade in office) as long as they are the "right kind" of Republicans. (In other words, RINOs.) And if the GOP puts up Rudy in '08 and he does carry the Empire State, the race is over and the Democrats take home another loss.

Now Rudy has some really positive national name recognition. He was Mayor of New York City and never had to sit in the House or the Senate and cast any votes you could call him on the carpet over. Very few negatives and lots of positives.

Keep an eye on Rudy and watch his moves. He could be the only silver bullet the Republicans have left in the gun given their current lack of popularity. And the Democrats should be watching him like a hawk.

It's an occupation stupid!

Thom Hartmann gets it right, what's going on in Iraq is no longer a war it's an occupation and all Democrats should refer to it as that.
Reclaim the Issues - "Occupation, Not War"

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "War in Iraq" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.
There is no longer a war against Iraq.

The war itself was short.

It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had "victoriously" defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government.

Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars - blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It's over.

Our military is pretty good at war but what we have had since May 2003 is not a war but an occupation. It is easy to see we are not too good at that.

The US won the war and has been losing the occupation ever since.

More Bull than Democratic Moose

The "big tent" of the Republican Party was not big enough for Marshall Wittmann's ego so he left. Well it appears the "big tent" of the Democratic Party is not big enough either but rather than leave he;s simply trying to drive everyone else out of the tent. This morning he compares Kos and his supporters to Ann Coulter. Of course his primary aim is once again to defend the indefensible Joe Lieberman. Of course Wittmann and Liebermann have one thing in common, over inflated egos and contempt for all who disagree with them. Sounds a bit like Ann Coulter don't you think. Over at dKos yesterday DHinMI summed up the problem many of us have with Lieberman, and it's not the war.

But that's not what's driving the Lamont effort, it's Lieberman's contempt for people who don't share his views. Democratic voters haven't been on a jihad to cleanse the party of people who supported the Iraq war; hell, we even nominated a Presidential candidate who had voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Joementum's claim is a canard. His problems are entirely of his own doing, and have little to do with the policies he supports or the ideas he espouses and almost everything to do with the contempt he showers on those he would refer to as Jihadists, but who we call Democrats. Sounds a lot like Mr Wittmann as well.