Waiting for that "Helicopters On the Roof" moment

It has become obvious that George W. Bush's mission in Iraq is to postpone the inevitable retreat from Iraq until he is out of office. It has also become obvious that the Baker Commission's mission was to give Bush political cover to do just that.
Iraq study group wraps up talks

WASHINGTON — A blue-ribbon study panel on Iraq completed deliberations Wednesday and announced plans to release a report next week that is expected to reject both a large U.S. troop increase and a quick U.S. withdrawal.

In other words "stay the course". It is also becoming obvious that the situation on the ground may not make it possible for Bush to push responsibility for his failed mission in Iraq onto the next administration.
Shi'ites, Sunnis amass arms

Rival Shi'ite and Sunni groups are massing their militias in expectation of major confrontations, Iraqis say, even as President Bush prepares to meet today with the nation's embattled prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
Mr. Bush's meeting in Jordan is part of a wider attempt to involve Iraq's neighbors in efforts to end Iraq's vicious sectarian violence before it spills over into a larger regional conflict.
But Iraqis on both sides of their nation's sectarian divide report worrisome signs that the conflict will soon evolve into pitched battles between large armed groups.
One secular Shi'ite speaking on the telephone from Baghdad said Shi'ite militias were massing in preparation for a large offensive against Sunnis in the capital.
"They had a big militarylike ceremony today for the Mahdi militia, to show their force. They are making themselves ready for something big -- protests, fighting, killing," said the Shi'ite.
A secular Sunni in close contact with one insurgent faction, said rebel Sunnis were also trying to form alliances among militias for a big push in the city against the Shi'ites, including more raids on government buildings.
"I am waiting for the Sunnis to launch a 'Tet Offensive.' That is the one plug they have not pulled yet, and I could see that happening," said senior Rand defense analyst Ed O'Connell.

So when will the US withdraw from Iraq? Just look for flocks of helicopters landing in the Green Zone and taking off again as soon as they can be loaded. Yes, once again we are simply waiting of that "Helicopters On the Roof" moment.

Too Late For Civility

George Will takes Senator-elect Jim Webb to task for his lack of civility in Already Too Busy for Civility. No George, it's not that people are too busy for civility it's more like it's too late for civility. I would like to see some civility in Washington too but it's not going to happen as long as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are in power. For the last five years anyone who disagreed with the Bush Cheney cabal has been labeled a terrorist sympathizer or worse. Anyone who objected to the Bush/Cheney dismantling of the constitution has been called unAmerican. This is an administration of men who did not serve in the military who have encouraged vicious attacks on those who did. And speaking of civility, has Mr Will forgotten that the ever civil Vice President told a Democratic Senator to "go fuck himself" on the Senate floor. No George, it's far too late for civility. The Democrats didn't start this uncivil war and I for one have no trouble with them firing a few shots back.
Update
Over at TPM CAFE Greg Sargent points out that not only is George Will a partisan shill he is a dishonest one who distorts the story to make his point.

The Decider is now the Outsider

• The Saudis know it,
• Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki knows it,
• President Jalal Talabani and the Iranians know it.

In spite of having 150,000 troops on the ground in Iraq George W. Bush and the United States are now irrelevant when it comes to Iraq. When a raging bull runs wild in the pottery shop you don't ask the bull to stick around and clean the place up. It's becoming obvious to everyone but George W. Bush and his cultists that his misadventure in Iraq is now out of his control and as a result his influence is decreasing and in fact approaching zero.

Activist Judges

There is no time that the right threaded wingnuts hate activist judges more than when they are actively defending the Constitution against the imperial attack from the Bush/Cheney cabal.

LOS ANGELES - A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutional and vague.

Some parts of the Sept. 24, 2001 order tagging 27 groups and individuals as "specially designated global terrorists" were too vague and could impinge on First Amendment rights of free association, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said.

The order gave the president "unfettered discretion" to label groups without giving them a way to challenge the designations, she said in a Nov. 21 ruling that was made public Tuesday.

The judge, who two years ago invalidated portions of the U.S. Patriot Act, rejected several sections of Bush's Executive Order 13224 and enjoined the government from blocking the assets of two foreign groups.

Of course this has driven the tyranny loving wingnuts mad. Anyone who supports the Constitution over the world of their "feerless leeder" is a terrorist sympathizer. Of course this judge has supported the Constitution before and yes, she's one of those dreaded Clinton appointees.

If Judge Audrey Collins' decision is overturned by a higher court there is a plus side. A future Democratic President could declare the Project for a New American Century and Focus on the Family terrorist organizations.

Note to anti-war pols: This is how it's done

It's kind of a shame that it takes somebody fresh off the farm - one of our newly minted and not yet even sworn in Democratic Senators, to show the old timers how things are done. Senator-elect Jim Webb (D-VA) showed up for the luncheon reception with President Bush at the White House, but he was apparently in no mood to mince words or play nice. The man has an agenda and he's eager to get down to business. And business apparently does not include cozying up to Bush.

At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.

"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

...

"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush.

Personally, I've had more than my fill of hypocrites and weasels in our higher elected offices. This sort of thing is nothing short of refreshing. For those screaming about a lack of respect, etc. Jim Webb used no abusive or insulting language, nor did he seek to steal the show. He simply chose to avoid the company of somebody he clearly dislikes. One things's for sure... everyone will know exactly what they're going to get with Jim Webb. He's not dancing. He's in a fighting stance.

An exit from Iraq with "honor"

Over at LewRockwell.com James Ostrowski not only has a plan for exiting Iraq with honor but he has written George W, Bush's speech for him.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:

My fellow Americans. I am announcing today the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. They will be leaving as soon as logistically possible.

All missions have been accomplished.

We invaded because we believed Saddam had WMDs. Saddam was deposed and was arrested for war crimes. No WMDs of the type we expected to find were found.

We facilitated democratic elections and those officials are now in charge.

We can do no more.

Iraq is now in your hands.

If the various ethnic/religious groups cannot get along in the same state, I advise you to consider creating three separate republics as James Ostrowski advised several years ago.
You can still do business with each other and form alliances and trade with each other. Political independence precludes none of those things.

Our exit from Iraq proves that our intentions were honorable and that we had and have no imperial designs on Iraq or its valuable natural resources.

Good luck and assalam alaikum

Works for me!

Funny Headline of the Day

Just to brighten up your Tuesday, a headline which looks like it must have come from The Onion, but is actually from The Wall Street Journal

Bush Approval Ratings Slip

Huh? "Slipped"? How? How could it possibly fall lower? Did Barney and the Twins suddenly break down and give him a bad rating when Quinnipac called the White House for a sample? Did Condi give him a thumbs down?

We've got two years left, and at this point I full expect the day to come when we'll see Wolf Blitzer doing his Sunday morning show come on and say, "A new poll released this week indicates that the approval ratings of President George W. Bush are now....

... oh, fuck it. Cut to commercial."

When dreams become nightmares

Six years ago Dick Cheney and the PNAC neocons thought their dreams of US hegemony were about to be realized when the Supreme Court installed their moronic, idealistic man child in the White House. Well that dream has become a nightmare - the dreams of hegemony have instead become the nightmare of irrelevance. No where is this more the case than in the middle east and specifically Iraq. This headline from Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy says it all.
U.S. can do little to stop civil war in Iraq, experts say

WASHINGTON - This is supposed to be a pivotal week for the U.S. venture in Iraq: President Bush is to meet Thursday in Jordan with Iraq's prime minister, and the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group has begun debating its final recommendations to the White House.


But does any of it matter?

Not really, according to a growing number of Middle East analysts, who say that Iraq's cascading civil war has spun out of Washington's control.

While Bush says that the US troops will not leave until the mission is complete the Iraqis may think that the mission for the US is complete and they are looking to Iran for help.

In spite of 140,000 troops on the ground the US is now irrelevant in Iraq.

If Iraq is to hold together and avoid an all-out bloodbath, they say, it will be because the country's warring factions step back from the brink and forge some sort of political compromise. That seems like a pipe dream after a weekend of the worst violence for Iraqi civilians since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.


The United States has 140,000 troops in Iraq and is spending roughly $2 billion per week on military operations, "but all of that effort doesn't really matter," said Andrew Bacevich, a Boston University professor and graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.


"We're not in control any longer," Bacevich said.


"There is a growing sense that both sides are attempting to move toward a civil war - they want to have a civil war - to bring closure to who will have power in Iraq," said a retired senior military officer who requested anonymity, referring to Iraq's Shiite and Sunni Muslims. "This is all about power."

As a sign as to how irrelevant this administration has become the Washington Post reports that Cheney was summoned to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is so concerned about the damage that the conflict in Iraq is doing across the region that it basically summoned Vice President Cheney for talks over the weekend, according to U.S. officials and foreign diplomats. The visit was originally portrayed as U.S. outreach to its oil-rich Arab ally.

I would imagine he got an ear full.

The "Decider", the "Denier" or simply "Mr Irrelevant"

Steve Soto has an interesting AOL poll up this morning.

Q: Will Bush make the right moves on Iraq?
Yes: 25%
No: 75%
Total Responses: 240,741

We can certainly see why people might feel this way.
Bush says troops will stay till task accomplished

BAGHDAD (Reuters) -President Bush said on Tuesday the hand of al Qaeda lay behind sectarian violence racking Iraq, and he would not pull troops out "before the mission is complete."

Bush, speaking in the Baltic republics before a NATO summit, deflected talk of "civil war" -- a description which could increase pressure on him to withdraw U.S. forces.

"There is one thing I'm not going to do. I am not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete," he said in a speech at the University of Latvia.

That's right - it's all al Qaeda's fault, everything is al Qaeda's fault.

Meanwhile Dick Cheney's creative intelligence unit is accusing Iran and Hezbollah of helping Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Now this may or may not be the case but let's be honest, these are the same folks who told us Iraq was overflowing with WMD. There is every reason to believe that Iran may be just as afraid of an Iraq controlled by al-Sadr as the Americans.

The entire administration is of course trying to blame everyone but themselves for the debacle known as Iraq. They have consistently created their own facts and ignored the real ones. There was a good reason the administration of Bush 41 didn't march to Bahgdad during the first gulf war. They knew that the sudden removal of Saddam Hussein would result in the continuation of a 1,400 year old battle between the Shia and the Sunni and destabilize the entire middle east. While Bush 43 claims that Iraq in the front line of the war on terror. In reality he has proved that the administration of Bush 41 was right.

The administration of George W. Bush is now irrelevant on the world stage and in Iraq. As we saw above the American people now realize it and with President Jalal Talabani's trip to Iran it would appear that the Iraqis realize it too.

The real cost of a cheap toaster

Note
This post was originally done over the long Thanksgiving Holiday but I think it's important so I'm moving it up.
.....................................
The only groups for whom "free trade' is free are the multinational corporations. When you buy that cheap toaster at Walmart you are paying a costly hidden surcharge that has a negative impact on the health of you and your family. The electricity used to manufacture those cheap products you buy at Walmart, Target, Fred Meyer etc is generated by dirty coal plants. A series of articles in the Oregonian today explain.
China's dirty exports: Mercury and soot

The enormous dust clouds gather in the Gobi Desert. They sail on Siberian winds to China. They pick up mercury, aerosols and carbon monoxide spewed by Chinese coal plants and factories.

Then every five or six days in spring, eastern China flushes like a gigantic toilet. The dust plumes, now as large as countries, ride high over the Pacific Ocean, pushing hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and ozone.

They reach Oregon in less than a week, sullying springtime views at Crater Lake and scattering dust as far as Maine. Researchers climb an ice-encrusted ladder atop Mount Bachelor's Summit Express ski-lift tower and collect the evidence.

Beyond the views, China's contaminants affect Oregon in two key ways:

A growing amount of the greenhouse gases that trap heat, shrink Northwest glaciers and raise ocean levels comes from China.

A substantial share of the mercury that pollutes the Willamette River, making fish unsafe to eat, has traveled thousands of miles across the Pacific.

And it's only going to get worse.

But China's emissions are getting bigger. It plans to add at least 500 coal plants to more than 2,000 operating already. It spews more soot than any other country.

But who's to blame?

Yet it's all too easy to blame China for the mess. U.S. consumers, who buy China's goods and use far more resources than the Chinese, share responsibility.

The dangers of mercury contamination are well known and attempts to reduce mercury pollution have been underway in the US for several decades. Unfortunately -
China's mercury flushes into Oregon's rivers

The inky smoke belched by chimneys in Chinese cities such as Linfen and Datong contains mercury, a metal linked to fetal and child development problems. Trace amounts of the poison can take less than a week to reach Oregon, where research suggests that about one-fifth of the mercury entering the Willamette River comes from abroad -- increasingly from China.

Mercury and other airborne contaminants collect over China during the winter and spring until Siberian winds arrive bearing dust from expanding Chinese and Mongolian deserts. Every five or six days, the winds flush out eastern China, sending dust and pollutants such as ozone precursors high over the Pacific, says Russ Schnell, observatory and global network operations director for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Mercury is a good traveller.

Mercury is especially suited for long-distance travel because at the smokestack in elemental form, it's insoluble. By the time it reaches the West Coast, however, some of the mercury has transformed into a reactive gaseous material that dissolves in Western Oregon's wet climate. It washes into the river, where microbes convert it into a form that further concentrates in fish.

Most of the mercury entering the Willamette comes from Oregon's volcanic soil and from sediment churned up on the river bottom. But Bruce Hope, senior environmental toxicologist of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, estimates that global sources beyond the state's control contribute 18 percent -- more than four times the share from local air deposition.

So what can be done? Trade agreements always include language concerning patent and copyright infringement. It would not be that difficult to include language that demands pollution curbs as well. Of course this will not happen as long as the corporatists are in charge of writing the trade agreements. And yes, that includes both Democrats and Republicans.

Technorati Tags

pollution, mercury, free trade, Walmart

Telling a Politically Incorrect Truth

The Right wing is all atwitter over Charlie Rangel's recent comments about the need for reinstating the military draft, and specifically over his concerns that poorer and less educated people wind up serving in the military in disproportionate numbers. (WARNING: That link goes to - ugh - Powerline, and my apologies to Ron for putting such a link on his blog, but they seem to be hosting the video and I don't see it anywhere else at the moment.) Before getting to the inevitable spin machine, let's take a look at the specific comments from Rangel which are so "offensive" to the wingers.

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there's anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

The bold section is obviously what any opponents of the Democrats are jumping on. Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that this comment, much like John Kerry's stupendously stupid joke of a few weeks back, is being taken out of context and twisted. That much would be clear to anyone not looking for a piece of meat to seize on and viewing this through the jaundiced eye of partisanship. I'll also leave aside the fact that Rangel is yet again politically tone deaf to be so careless with his choice of words. However, once you wave away all of the smoke and mirrors from those corners, we can take a look at the point that Rangel is trying to make and you'll likely see that there's more than a little truth to it.

I was disappointed when I noticed that Captain Ed, who is normally one of the more even handed observers on the Right wing, decided to jump on this as well with his entry, We Gotta Draft'Em Because They're So Dumb. Very sad indeed - a cheap shot without the substance to back it up. The Captain attempts to base his criticism of Rangel's views, once again, on the much touted (on the Right, anyway) study showing that very little such discrepancy exists.

Two points to make about this, here. But first, let me say that Rangel's generalization is dangerous and, at least in one aspect, incorrect. You can't make such a sweeping statement about all recruits. There are, beyond any question, a large number of people who, regardless of their social and economic backgrounds or educational opportunities, make the decision to go into the service. During a time of war, many more may do so out of a feeling of patriotism and debt to their country. Others may do so because it's a family tradition. I know that applied, at least in part, to my decision to enlist way back in the day.

However, the reality of it was also that we fell into a very common financial trap back in those days where my options were probably going to be limited to going to a local community college straight out of high school. Our family, in a rural area, made a tiny bit too much money to qualify for significant assistancee at the time, and my grades, while good enough to get me into school and even land a small Regents scholarshipp, were still not the top 1% that would garner the really big scholarshipss. Also, we were white, and thus cut out from some of the more minority specific entitlement programs. I can tell you, it was the same then as it is now for so many young people. If I'd had a definite path to a more prosperous post graduate study program and the promise of lucrative career opportunitiess afterward, I know I'd have looked at my options different. It still happens today where I live and all over the country. To deny that is simply unrealistic.

Second, there have already been numerous questions raised about that study the Captain is flaunting. Right off the bat, it was done by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. That's not to say they're incapable of producing anything accurate, but I've yet to see one of their "studies" that didn't benefit the Republicans. Also, the numbers themselves in that study are highly suspiciouss as usual. As has been previously pointed out, their base assumptions seem to skew the results away from reality. Let's take a quick look, paying attention to the bold sections with my emphasis applied.

The slight differences are that wartime U.S. military enlistees are better educated, wealthier, adn more rural on average than their civilian peers.

Recruits have a higher percent­age of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). Finally, the distri­bution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population. ...

By assigning each recruit the median 1999 household income for his hometown ZIP code as deter­mined from Census 2000, the mean income for 2004 recruits was $43,122 (in 1999 dollars).

Item one: "...a higher percentage of high school graduates" than you'll find in the national youth. Well, duh. Even with all of the lowering of admission standards which the armed forces have put in place, I'm pretty sure that it's still a requirement that you have either a high school degree or a G.E.D. to get accepted today, unless you get a waiver for some reason. Obviously they will have a higher percentage of diploma holders than the national pool. The study also fails to clearly indicate whether or not that percentage includes G.E.D. holders or just those who actually received a diploma from high school with their graduating class. That was idiotic to point out in the first place.

Item two: "... a higher representation from Southern and rural areas..." This was obviously crafted as a way to fight the image of inner city urban youths being pulled into the war in large numbers. But guess what? Poverty in the South, out in the farmlands given the agricultural economy, is rampant -nearly as bad as you'll find in inner cities. Go compare present representation to how many you're getting out of Manhattan, Silicon Valley, Malibu, etc. and come back and read me the figures. That recorded "result" is completely disingenuous. Ok, so you want us to see that we're not just recruiting poor black kids from the inner cities? Fine. We'll give you that. We're also massively recruiting poor white kids from rural areas with collapsed economies and failing farms.

Item three: (and this one is a doozy) we have " By assigning each recruit the median 1999 household income for his hometown ZIP code " Did you catch that part? Nowhere does this study record the household income for the family of the recruit. Nope. It's an "assigned" income taken as the median for their entire zip code. I don't know about where you live, but in my zip code we have some high priced residential areas where BMWs and Mercedes tend to park by six or seven figure houses overlooking the valley, and a few miles away, some rental units down near the center of town where you wouldn't care to walk at night. The difference between the household incomes at the two ends of that scale is massive and if you just take the average into consideration, you'd probably think the guys down in the projects are all making 60K per year. Not so.

That study looks to me (and a few others before me, also) to be full of holes and deliberately skewed to try to warp reality. Anyone of any background who chooses to serve our country should be commended. Ron and I both did it, and I still salute all the other active duty members and veterans heartily. But let's not try to put too many layers of lipstick on a pig here. The military has ALWAYS been seen as one of the "fallback" options for kids coming out of high school who are in situations where their opportunities are limited. This doesn't make military service something which is not a "decent career", as Rangel's ill chosen words could be skewed to imply. But it's also a fact that a lot of kids balancing choices would most likely be taking a different path these days if their future looked more like a big office on Wall Street with a Park Avenue apartment, and less like an economy unit in the projects and job slinging hash.

Rangel chose his words horribly, but he points out an uncomfortable truth which we need to deal with. And ginning up some Heritage Foundation study to try to pretend the situation is otherwise does no good to our military and no good to our country. Powerline and the Captain should be ashamed.

I like this!

The Quote (Question) of the day is from Beck at Unfogged:

My 18 year old brother is all into Ayn Rand now. Can't he experiment with something less likely to leave him messed up for life, like drugs?

Stuck in a cauldron of hell

It would appear that what many of us feared is happening - 140,000 of America's finest stuck in the middle of a full scale civil war in Iraq - Stuck in a cauldron of hell. This post title from Cenk Uygur at the Huffington post says it all:
Helicopters on Rooftops

Iraq has passed the tipping point. It is spiraling out of control. There are no more solutions. There has never been any good solutions, but now there are no solutions whatsoever. Everyone is wasting their breath trying to figure out a sensible and moderate way out of Iraq. It is completely hopeless.

This outcome may have been inevitable when the Bush/Cheney cabal, with encouragement from the delusional PNAC necons, made the decision to invade Iraq. If not the mind boggling incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration certainly made in inevitable.

Here are just a few of the stories this morning:

• Baghdad Braces For More Reprisals

  BAGHDAD, Nov. 25 -- In the aftermath of one of the deadliest spasms of violence, a new level of fear and foreboding has gripped Baghdad, fueled in part by sectarian text messages and Internet sites, deepening tensions in an already divided capital.
  
  In interviews across Baghdad on Saturday, Sunnis and Shiites said they were preparing themselves for upheaval, both violent and psychological. They viewed the bombings that killed more than 200 people Thursday in the heart of Baghdad's Shiite Muslim community of Sadr City as a trigger for more reprisal killings.



• Al-Sadr loyalists take over Iraqi television station

  BAGHDAD, Iraq - Followers of the militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr took over state-run television Saturday to denounce the Iraqi government, label Sunnis "terrorists" and issue what appeared to many viewers as a call to arms.
  
  
  The two-hour broadcast from a community gathering in the heart of the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City included three members of al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc, who took questions from outraged residents demanding revenge for a series of car bombings that killed some 200 people Thursday.
  
  
  With Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki relegated to the sidelines, brazen Sunni-Shiite attacks continue unchecked despite a 24-hour curfew over Baghdad. Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia now controls wide swaths of the capital, his politicians are the backbone of the Cabinet, and his followers deeply entrenched in the Iraqi security forces. Sectarian violence has spun so rapidly out of control since the Sadr City blasts, however, that it's not clear whether even al-Sadr has the authority - or the will - to stop the cycle of bloodshed.



• Calls for calm as crowd stones Iraq PM

  BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The motorcade of Iraq's prime minister was pelted with stones on Sunday by fellow Shi'ites in a Baghdad slum when he paid respects to some of the 200 who died there last week in the deadliest attack since the U.S. invasion.
  
  The anger in Sadr City, stronghold of the Medhi Army Shi'ite militia, boiled over on the third day of a curfew imposed on the capital by Nuri al-Maliki's U.S-backed national unity coalition as it scrambled desperately to stop popular passions exploding into all-out civil war between Shi'ites and the Sunni minority.

It's no longer a question of if the US should exit George W. Bush's disaster in Iraq but how to do it and minimize US casualties. Yes folks, this is indeed a "Helicopters on Rooftops" moment.

Even the wingnuts are now admitting that Baghdad is Spinning Out Of Control and they are wondering where their "fearless" leader is hiding.

Where the hell is Bush? He's had nothing to say about [anythiong] in days, meanwhile Baghdad is spinning out of control and looking like a full scale civil war.

Update
How bad is it? This from the Guardian
Iraqi coalition on brink of collapse as country descends towards civil war

Iraq's precarious government was teetering yesterday as a powerful Shia militia leader threatened to withdraw support after sectarian killings reached a new peak and the country lurched closer to all-out civil war.
The prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was forced to choose between his US protectors and an essential pillar of his coalition, when Moqtada al-Sadr declared his intention to walk out, potentially bringing down the government, if Mr Maliki went ahead with a meeting with President George Bush in Jordan next week.

Christianist? It has the ring of truth to it.

I stopped by the Sideshow this morning to get my weekend fix of Avedon Carol's wit and wisdom. I found this discussion raging, and it seems worth sharing. Avedon was weighing in on a dustup between Glenn Greenwald and the generally toxic Ann Althouse over the recent usage of the word "Christianist" by Andrew Sullivan. Avedon's primary complaint wasn't with the use of the word so much as Greenwald's implication that it was of recent origin and a construction of Sullivan.

But the truly odd thing is that Andrew Sullivan seems to think he invented the term "Christianist" and neither Althouse nor Greenwald (nor, for that matter, his commenters) seem to have noticed that it isn't so. In fact, a number of us independently started using the word at least as early as the '90s, when it began to gain currency. To my knowledge, the earliest use on the web was in this post by Tristero in 2003, picked up and proliferated by David Neiwert at Orcinus.

Still, she had some comments on why such terminology is not only valid, but useful and required in today's lexicon. Primarily, Greenwald and Sullivan are simply pointing out that certain Right wing elements in this country have been frighteningly successful in conflating the religion of Islam, and it's billions of global Muslim practitioners, with the tiny number of extremists who espouse terrorism. There are those (the vast majority) who simply view Islam as their religion and the foundation for their personal beliefs and philosophy. (Muslims) There are others who wish to take that viewpoint and make the centerpiece of their political and governmental structure. (Islamists) And then there are the extreme whackos, who right wingers choose to call "Islamofascists" and such, rather than simply labeling them as the criminals they are. The fact is, all three of these groups have Christian counterparts right here in our country and around the world.

I have argued that "fundamentalism" is a misleading term because it implies that it is based on something fundamental to the practice and inspiration of Christianity. The people who call themselves "Christian fundamentalists" certainly want you to think so, but the essence of Christianity (as opposed to monotheism) is not found in the entirety of the Bible, but only in the first four books of the New Testament, known as the Gospels - that is, the teachings of Jesus. Jesus doesn't spend a lot of time telling his followers to dominate their country's governments or men to dominate their wives. He doesn't waste a lot of words on hating homosexuality, and he never once mentions abortion. Yet these seem to be the focus of the Christian Identity movement and the Dominionists who currently have such profound influence on our government (and even our media). At the same time, the Christianist leaders act in ways that seem to directly contradict the essential teachings of Jesus; they deride "welfare" (help to the poor), they laud economic success, and they promote war. Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, who gave no-strings aid to someone who was not of his tribe or his faith; Christianists want to deny aid to anyone who does not first agree to submit to their teachings. Jesus told people to cast off their material belongings; Christianists promote the acquisition of more wealth by the already wealthy. Jesus told his followers to pray in closets; Christianists make ostentatious display of their "religious" practice.

(Linked Sideshow text used without permission, but hopefully Avedon will give me a pass for it.)

Getting back to crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the term usage, Glenn points out exactly what the definitions are that we're dealing with, and how they apply to our modern, western society.

That term "Christianist" -- like the term "Islamist" (but unlike the term "Islamofascist") -- does not remotely denote violence or terrorism, as Sullivan, who coined the term, has repeatedly made clear. It merely refers to those who view Christianity not merely as a religious doctrine to govern their personal and private lives, but far beyond that, as a set of beliefs to which secular law must conform when constraining others

That sounds about right. Frankly, I think that the people who originally sat down to pen the first four books of the New Testament would be aghast in horror to see what their religion has been twisted into today in some sectors. Personally, I suspect that they would have put aside some of their more peaceful beliefs for a time and helped the Romans hoist Pat Robertson up onto a stake if they'd run into him back in the day.

Anyway, some Sunday reading and thoughts to ponder for you today. Hope you all had a nice holiday (for the U.S. readers) and our best wishes for a happy, peaceful and prosperous holiday season and new year to come.

Great Blue Heron

We had a break from the wind and rain today so I took a walk in the wetlands and ran across this great blue heron.
Note Click on the picture for a larger image. Another shot of this heron can be found at Just Pictures.

Sorry Chuck, It's Too Late For Honor!

In today's WAPO Chuck Hagel attempts to sound like a "reasonable" Republican and for the most part fails in his commentary Leaving Iraq, Honorably. He begins by saying some of the right things.

There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis -- not the Americans.

Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.

The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.

OK, so far so good but in the next paragraph it begins to fall apart.

We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government.

Sorry Chuck, there was never anything "honorable" about the intentions of the Bush/Cheney cabal, the neocons and the PNAC crowd. It was always about a hegemonic lust for power and control of oil. Very few people see anything honorable about Attila the Hun today and the PNAC/neocon crowd will suffer the same fate in future history books. Hagel next shows us that he might have at least one foot planted in the reality based universe.

America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. Unfortunately, that perception is gaining credibility in the Muslim world and for many years will complicate America's global credibility, purpose and leadership. This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world seeks a new geopolitical, trade and economic center that will accommodate the interests of billions of people over the next 25 years. The world will continue to require realistic, clear-headed American leadership -- not an American divine mission.

The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq.

We are destroying our force structure, which took 30 years to build. We've been funding this war dishonestly, mainly through supplemental appropriations, which minimizes responsible congressional oversight and allows the administration to duck tough questions in defending its policies. Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility in the past four years.

But then he concludes by talking once again about honor.

It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.

To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months.

It's far too late to exit Iraq with honor. Honor has nothing to do with it and getting out as fast as possible and minimizing the additional deaths of America's finest should be the only criteria. Sorry Chuck, it's too late for honor.

Technorati Tags

Chuck Hagel, Iraq

Iraq - let Apocalypse begin

Well the end of timers must be happy with the hubris and incompetence of George W. Bush and the faith based neocons as the Apocalypse has arrived in Iraq.
Mosques torched after worst Iraq bombing

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Gunmen bent on revenge burned mosques and homes in a Sunni enclave of Baghdad on Friday as Iraq's leaders pleaded for calm, a day after the worst bomb attack since the U.S. invasion.

Some 30 people were killed, police said, as suspected Shi'ite militiamen rampaged for hours, untroubled by a curfew enforced in the capital by U.S. and Iraqi forces after bombs killed 202 people in the Shi'ite stronghold of Sadr City.

Four mosques and several houses were burned in a small Sunni part of the mainly Shi'ite Hurriya area in northwest Baghdad, Sunni Deputy Prime Minister Salem al-Zobaie told Reuters.

One witness said 14 people were killed in his mosque during Friday prayers: "It was attacked by rocket-propelled grenades," university teacher Imad al-Din al-Hashemi said. "When the gunmen moved on to attack another mosque, we evacuated the wounded."

Even more disturbing however is the possibility of what little government there is in Iraq is about to collapse as Moktada al-Sadr has threatened to boycott the government if Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki attends a meeting with President Bush scheduled for Wednesday in Jordan.

The surge in violence comes at a politically fraught time for Prime Minister Maliki, particularly since he is preparing to meet President Bush in Amman. Both men face increasing pressure from their respective publics to come up with a successful strategy for stemming the growing carnage in Iraq, and both are navigating rising tensions between their two governments as they try to agree on a viable path forward.

The announcement of a possible boycott by Mr. Sadr’s bloc further endangers Mr. Maliki’s political fortunes. Mr. Sadr controls Sadr City, and the attacks on Thursday appeared to have strengthened his standing and emboldened him. As long as Sunni Arab extremists massacre Shiites, Mr. Sadr can justify the existence of his militia and ignore entreaties by the Iraqi or American governments to disband it.

Of course the cultist kool-aid drinking wingnuts blame the American people for the chaos because they elected Democrats.

Faith based VS fact based, or how the neocons are like the religious right

James Zogby gives one of the best explanations of why the neocon ideology is a failure - like the fundamentalist Christians it is entirely "faith based" and ignores reality and fact.

The fundamental flaw in the world view of neo-conservativism is that it is ideological and non-empirical. Their case for pre-emptive war in Iraq and for the Administration's "democracy movement" deliberately ignored regional realities. Attempting a slight of hand transfer of what they perceived as former President Ronald Reagan's victory over the "Evil Empire", they believed and preached that forceful action designed to tear down the status quo in the Middle East would, by itself, usher in a new and more positive era.

There are parallels between neo-conservatism and other similar apocalyptical movements (like Christian fundamentalism). They see the world in Manichaeistic terms - good versus evil. They see a clash between good and evil as both desirable and inevitable. In their world, diplomacy is unacceptable, since it implies compromise with evil. And in the final battle, they see the outcome as assured - with good triumphant. All that is required, they believe, for good to be victorious is a determined act of the will. This was the ahistorical lesson they "learned" from Reagan. And this was the lesson they sought to impart to George W. Bush.

Now the Christian fundamentalist do have an advantage over the neocons, it's hard to prove that their snake oil is indeed snake oil. As in Iraq it becomes painfully obvious in a few months or years that it's snake oil the neocons have sold you. As Zogby points out now that their snake oil has turned out to be poisonous they are trying to distance themselves from their number one customer.

Now four years later, unrepentant, the same neo-conservatives who believed that will and force alone were sufficient to unleash freedom, now blame those who bought their elixir. They are accusing the Administrative of poor execution and incompetence. Some blame Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, once their "darling", some blame President Bush, some blame both.

To be sure, a few neo-conservatives appear to be remorseful, but most refuse to accept responsibility and don't want the Administration's failure in Iraq and beyond to discredit their world view. Others have actually been emboldened, advocating a stepped up offensive by fellow neo-cons to reassert their mission. But none are able to acknowledge that their dependence on ideology and refusal to understand reality, is what is principally at fault.

Facts and reality tend to catch up with faith based ideologies when they are about the here and now rather than the life after.

The simple unavoidable fact, however, is that the chaos in Iraq, the deteriorating Israeli-Palestinian situation and the worrisome enmity that many have for toward the US throughout the Middle East is the world the neo-cons gave us. Inspired by their simplistic vision, the Administration went to war in a country whose history and culture we didn't understand, unleashing forces we now cannot control. Emboldened by their view, we and Israel refused to negotiate with what we called, "evil" believing that it could be "stamped out". Instead, the President promoted the absurd idea that the Palestinians had to become a democracy before they could have a state. And because of the neo-cons, the Administration behaved in an unconscionably heavy-handed and unilateral manner exhausting the world's good-will and especially deepening the gulf between us and the peoples of the Middle East.

Blame the administration, yes, but the Bush cabal will be gone in another two years so don't stop there. Blame the snake oil salesmen - run them out of town.

I blame the Administration for buying and forcing us all to drink this snake oil, but I can't excuse those who sold it. When it's finger pointing time, it's the "con" men who are to blame.

digg story

Before you get too "thankful"

Before you get too thankful on this thanksgiving day think of the hell the Bush/Cheney administration has brought to the people of Iraq in your name. Perhaps Bush hasn't brought the Apocalypse to the shores of the United States yet like the lunatics of the Christian Right want but it would sure as hell appear he has managed to bring it to Iraq.
145 die in deadliest attack of Iraq war

BAGHDAD, Iraq - In the deadliest attack since the beginning of the Iraq war, suspected Sunni-Arab militants used three suicide car bombs and two mortar rounds on the capital's Shiite Sadr City slum to kill at least 145 people and wound 238 on Thursday, police said.

[.....]

Beginning at 3:10 p.m., the three car bomb attackers blew up their vehicles one after another, at 15 minute intervals, hitting Jamila market, al-Hay market and al-Shahidein Square in Sadr City. At about the same time, mortar rounds struck al-Shahidein Square and Mudhaffar Square, police said.

As the fiery explosions sent up huge plumes of black smoke up over northeastern Baghdad, and left streets covered with burning bodies and blood, angry residents and armed Shiite militiamen flooded the streets, hurling curses at Sunni Muslims and firing weapons into the air.

Ambulances raced to the scenes and police Col. Hassan Chaloub said at least 145 people were killed and 238 wounded in the blasts, which destroyed many outdoor food stalls and parked automobiles and buses.

Tit for tat - this is just the beginning!

The Shiites responded almost immediately, firing 10 mortar rounds at the Abu Hanifa Sunni mosque as Azamiya, killing one person and wounding seven people in their attack on the holiest Sunni shrine in Baghdad.

And for another sobering read that will make you wonder how thankful you should be check out this by Paul Craig Roberts where he explains that George Bush's only victory has been against the Constitution of the United States and 800 years of Anglo-Saxon law.

You can't have it both ways

Over at Real Clear Politics Tony Blankley tells us all about Making the Last Mistake in Iraq.

But if, as it is hard to imagine otherwise, our departure from Iraq yields civil war, chaos, warlordism and terrorist safe havens -- it is very likely that Iran will lurch in to harvest their advantages, Turkey will send in its army to stop an independent Kurdistan, and Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the other Sunni states will be sucked in to fend off Shi'a Iran's hegemony. In that nightmare maelstrom the 20 million barrels a day of oil shipped from the Persian Gulf -- and the world economy with it -- will be in daily risk of being cut off.

Nor is that all. Al Qaeda and other terrorists are already gloating that they have whipped the "cowardly Americans" in Iraq. We will be seen (in fact, we are already beginning to be seen) as a weak reed for moderate Muslims to rely on in their hearts and mind struggle against the radical Islamists. Bin Laden was right in one regard: People fear and follow the strong horse; even more so in Middle Eastern culture, where restraint is seen as weakness and murder is seen as strength.

He also talks about the foolishness of talking to Iraq's neighbors.

The almost consensus Washington argument assumes that if only we would formally talk with them, Iran and Syria would volunteer to pull our chestnuts out of the fire while we start removing troops from Iraq. Such arguments exemplify the witticism that when ideas fail, words come in very handy.

Iran has been our persistent enemy for 27 years -- Syria longer. They may well be glad to give us cover while we retreat, but that would merely be an exercise in slightly delayed gratification, not self-denial, let alone benignity. So long as Iran is ruled by its current radical Shi'a theocracy, she will be vigorously and violently undercutting any potentially positive, peaceful forces in the region -- and is already triggering a prolonged clash with the terrified Sunni nations. Our absence from the region will only make matters far worse.

While I agree that nearly everything he says here is probably true as things stand now the dire consequences are going to happen even if the US is in Iraq. Adding another 10 or 20 thousand troops isn't going to change the situation on the ground. As we have seen already playing musical chairs with the troops won't help either. So what to do. If he is serious about this he would insist that more than 5 or 10 percent of Americans are forced to make sacrifices for this mis-adventure. For starters he should call for an immediate repeal of all of the Bush tax cuts, that will hurt most of his friends but not a majority of Americans. Next we are going to need a lot, I repeat a lot more troops. Yes, the all volunteer army works great - when we are not in a constant state of war. Mr Blankley should offer all of the support he can to Charlie Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft. He should push to have it happen immediately - three to six months from now will be too late, those notices to report have to be in the mail by Christmas.

If he's not going to go along with what it will be necessary to do what he purposes Mr Blankley should keep his hot air to himself.

Lieberman goes for the bull

As anyone who reads the rantings on this virtual page knows I have little use for Joe Lieberman and even less use for Marshall Wittmann. Well now it's official, they are now joined at the ego.
Wittmann Chosen As Lieberman Communications Director

Marshall Wittmann, well-known Washington figure who's served John McCain, the Christian Coalition and the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, was named today as Sen. Joseph Lieberman's communications director.

Now Mr Wittmann has jumped around a bit in an attempt to keep his ego properly inflated. This from An Ideologue for Hire Gets New Alliance

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman announced Tuesday that he had hired a new spokesman, which is not in itself that noteworthy, except that the said spokesman, Marshall Wittmann, is one of the great career vagabonds, ideological contortionists and political pontificators ever to inflict himself on a city full of them.

To say that Mr. Wittmann defies classification is like saying Paris Hilton defies modesty. But in his peripatetic soul, he is a Washington Original, a man without a political country going to work for a senator without a political party.

Like Mr Liebermann, Marshall Wittmann's most recent incarnation de jour has been as a supporter of the hegemonic ideology of the PNAC neocons. Something he as in common with his new boss, Joe Lieberman.

When you look back on Marshall Wittmann's career what you see is less an ideologue and more someone who is looking for the best venue to feed his own ego. Yes indeed, that does sound a bit like Joe Lieberman himself. Most recently Wittmann has made every attempt to inflame the base of the Democratic party with catchy phrases like nutroots, lefties, Deaniacs etc. After this same base recently did what Wittmann said they couldn't do, beat the Republicans, he took pleasure in his one victory, Lieberman, and retired from blogging. Well now the Lieberman party has two members. Is Lieberman going to make another run for President? He can't do it as a Democrat or a Republican but with Wittmann's help he can probably get the votes of all the neocons who haven't been institutionalized by 2008.

Update
Attaturk at Rising Hegemon:

Aaron Burr without the style or the guts
Bullshit Moose, whose scat has littered the land for far too long...

Go read the rest.

Technorati Tags

Marshall Wittmann, Joe Lieberman

Some Gratitude at Thanksgiving

Having read this festive article in the Times and this resulting post at The Moderate Voice, I felt moved to pen a brief piece for you on the impending holiday celebrations. This is a season for reflection and introspection - a time suited more for counting our blessings and showing humility before the universe as we struggle to understand it than for bitterness or anger. With that in mind I would like to offer up some thanks of my own as we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving here in the United States.

I am grateful to live in a country where we were able to vote out an inefficient and flawed majority in Congress, giving us at least some hope that their replacements will do somewhat better for us.

I am grateful to live in a country where I can still (at least for now) keep an eye on the new Congressional leaders, speak my mind, and hold them accountable if they stray from the path again.

I am grateful to President George W. Bush for appointing Michael Griffin as the head of NASA back in October of 2005. He seems to have been a fine choice. (Ok... that one was painful and took a lot of digging, but I was bound and determined to say something nice about Bush for Thanksgiving. That's all I came up with so far.)

I am grateful for all of my friends who add so much spice and meaning to my life.

I am grateful for my family members, though we each may have our own flaws, for providing the framework on which I built my life.

I am grateful for the roughly half a century of life I've had on this earth and, in advance, I shall be grateful for however many more days I have to spend here, be they few or many.

I am grateful for the person who invented Cow Tails. If somebody hands you a Cow Tail and you're not happy, there's something wrong with you.

I am grateful for broadband access to the internet in our area, and hope that this technology will spread to every corner of the globe and every person living on it in my lifetime.

I am grateful for all of the pets in my life, past and present, for bringing me joy and comfort, and I am grateful to every other person in the world who opens up their homes to take in one or more of our furry friends and gives them shelter from the storm.

I am grateful for every form of media, from books, newspapers and magazines, to television, radio, movies and the internet for the way that they enlighten, educate and entertain us.

I am grateful for cheese in all of it's wonderful forms.

I am grateful for the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and for everyone else in this world, past and present, who have stood up for the dignity and equality of all people and sought a better path.

I am grateful to Ron for sharing this forum with me, and for our mutual work sharing other forums in the past, which have expanded my perspective and given me much to think about.

And lastly, I am grateful for my wonderful wife Georg, without whose strength, wisdom, love and support I would not be where I am today and very likely wouldn't even be alive to type this.

I wish you all a very happy Thanksgiving, and hope that you will take a few moments to reflect on the things in your life for which you are grateful also.

Vietnam and Iraq

Keith Olbermann made an attempt to educate George W. Bush on the real lessons of Vietnam in his "special comment". [transcript at Crooks and Liars] Of course this is a hopeless cause. Since I am 60 years old and was politically active during the late 60s and early 70s so I am familiar with the real lessons but over at KnoxViews poster Brian A says the following:

I'm post-Vietnam War. For some of you older folks who remember that era, I'm curious to what extent, if any, you see similarities between that period and this. Not necessarily similarities in the fighting of the war, but in how the government sells the war to the public.

Do valid comparisons exist? Or is our view of the current affair being unfairly skewed by the specters of Vietnam?

I would have responded but commenter R. Neal did an excellent job of beating me to it.

In both cases, the first step was to demonize the enemy and gin up a threat that didn't really exist. WMD, 911, Saddam, etc. Gulf of Tonkin, communist aggression, domino theory, etc.

In both cases, the US government propped up corrupt governments. In Iraq, we propped up a corrupt government as a "stabilizing" force in the region and to keep Iran (and Syria?) in check. In Vietnam we propped up the corrupt South Vietnamese government to keep the communist revolution in check. The difference is that in Iraq we did this before the war and then decided the corrupt government was our enemy. In Vietnam we tried to establish and keep a corrupt government in power so we could have a military presence in Southeast Asia to keep communists in check.

Now he notes some differences.

The media was more independent then. Vietnam was the first "televised war". There were daily reports and combat footage from the battle front. These reporters weren't like the "embeds" of today and the Pentagon didn't control their message so much. "Body counts" were the order of the day, and started to wear down American support for the war. The wartime politics of the U.S. and South Vietnam were also under the microscope of reporters who dug for the truth and didn't just transcribe the White House party line. The government had a much harder time controlling the message then.

It's hard to separate the fighting of the war from how all of this played out in public opinion. There were two established countries and their ideological allies on either side (US with the South and Soviet Russia and Communist China with the North) at war. There were conventional battles and military operations. The enemy (at least the NVA regulars) mostly wore a uniform and had a command structure. The Viet Cong guerillas operating in South Vietnam were harder to identify (and put the US forces in too many tough situations with regard to civilian casualties), but they still had a command structure and were fighting for a country with a government. In a sense it was a civil war, but the North and South Vietnamese chose up sides, flew a flag, and fought a mostly conventional war. And we knew who we were trying to defeat -- Ho Chi Min and North Vietnam.

I'm not sure America understands who the "enemy" is we are fighting in Iraq, and there is no government there any more. Who will we work out the terms of surrender with when we win? Who is in command of the enemy forces that will surrender their troops and weapons to us and stop the fighting?

The Charlie Rangel factor.

Then there's the huge fundamental difference, which was the draft. This mobilized an entire generation and prompted organized student activism and protest across America that got huge media coverage and started America thinking and questioning. Then Kent State galvanized American opinion against a corrupt administration and their war. Then came the Pentagon Papers. That's when America realized they were being lied to and manipulated and started saying this is enough.

This, by the way, is what Charlie Rangel is trying to say regarding the draft.

Up to this point there has been nothing to galvanize public opinion against the debacle in Iraq. The result:

America is losing confidence in this war and our goals. But at the same time Americans don't really seem to care so much. We watch the President joke about there being no WMDs, and we forget the Gulf of Tonkin. We watch the President restrict protesters to "free speech zones" and don't remember the riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago or Kent State. And how sad is it that those students at Kent State gave their lives for their (and our) First Amendment rights and now we allow ourselves to be herded like sheep into those "free speech zones"? We see the photos from Abu Ghraib and hear about the American soldiers on trial for murdering Iraqi civilians but don't remember My Lai and CIA assassinations of government officials in Vietnam. A few of us might have heard about the Downing Street Memos, but we don't remember the Pentagon Papers. Except for the families directly affected, America doesn't even seem too concerned about the causalities. Some even say outrageous thinks like "it's only 3000" or "more people get murdered in the District of Columbia" or "they are volunteers and they knew what they were signing up for." Which is of course disgraceful. Regardless, the media has not done its job in the Iraq conflict, or people would be aware of all this and see the parallels.

That is one lesson the Bush/Cheney cabal learned from the Vietnam experience, don't make the American people sacrifice, or only a few of them. No draft - tax cuts not increases; we are at war but "stay the course" at home.

Lapdogs or Leaders? Britain must choose.

This is the message coming from leading French presidential contender Segolene Royal, who wants the Brits to make up their minds whether the English channel is wider than the Atlantic.

Segolene Royal will try to force Britain to choose between being America's closest ally or being at the heart of Europe if she becomes French president, says a close aide.

He stressed that if Britain refuses to back the new drive towards a more powerful EU, France, Germany Spain and Italy could join forces to create a "quartet" to lead Europe.

He said: "Great Britain is absolutely indispensable to the European Union. It is a great nation, a global power.

" But the question the English have to answer is - do the English consider the English Channel to be wider than the Atlantic?

"We on the Continent have the right to deplore the fact that Great Britain appears to consider the Channel wider."

I suppose her aide was afraid that those comments might have seemed a bit too tame, so he lays it on the line with this one.

"The question that needs to be asked is - do we want to be vassals of the United States, do we want to be a 51st state?"

After six years of an administration which has effectively treated the EU like a group of unruly children who are to be barely tolerated while we "school" them, it seems that they've had enough of the tip-toe approach to Bush's foreign policy. It's not all that surprising that it's France who decides to step up to the plate and call out the Brits. Sort of a reverse "are you with us or agin' us?" moment.

In a way, I find this rather sad. It's an unfair situation for the people of England to face. I work with quite a few people in England on a regular basis and I don't get the impression that they hate America or Americans in general. They just don't care for George W. Bush and his Iraq policy. Nor are they thrilled with their Prime Minister taking on the role of Bush's willing and subservient lap dog.

The English and the Americans still share many things and have a lot in common. Sadly, one of the most glaring traits we both exhibit is national leaders who are tragically out of touch with the spirit and feelings of the vast majority of their citizens. The Brits shouldn't be forced to choose between the United States and the E.U. It's only Bush's policies that have put them in a position where they may be forced to make such a choice.

The Stars in Their Courses

The Stars in Their Courses

Sounds like new diplomatic and power relationships are being formed in the Gulf region, a new diplomacy whose arrangements illustrate the rapidly waning US influence, and credibility in anticipation of the US pullout, a diplomacy dominated by Iran.

Iranian influence is already strong from the Gulf to Lebanon, any new arrangement can't help but be dominated by Iran not only because of its wealth and size, but it is the only country in the region independant of American coercion.

Those countries not free of American coercion like Lebanon and Syria would probably welcome a new power center that isn't American or Israeli.

The recent crimes committed against the Lebanese by the US/Israel combine can't help but drive them into the arms of Iran. What can they expect to get out of America/Israel except more of the same? Iranian supported Hezbollah not only thwarted Israel and earned much popular admiration doing so but are now evolving into a mainstream political party and becoming part of the establishment.

The Iraqi government will now re-establish normal relations with Syria after a 24 year break, everybody, except the US, is invited to a weekend conference in Tehran to talk things over. Finally the Iraqi government is beginning to act independantly of the blundering Bush diplomacy and may be doing the first smart thing it's done to set the stage for its viability and long term survival.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vaccum. America's failure, disllusionment, loss of credibility, and looming departure is already creating a vacuum which will be filled by Iran.

Out Maneuvered?

While the Bush administration was trying to out maneuver the Baker commission with a quicky plan from it's sycophant generals they may have been out maneuvered by Iran, Syria and Iraq. While the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to do something about the increasing violence militarily it appears they may be trying to do it diplomatically and politically, some the Bush administration and the neocons are unwilling and unable to do.

Iran Urges Summit With Iraq and Syria

Iran has invited the Iraqi and Syrian presidents to Tehran for a weekend summit with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to hash out ways to cooperate in curbing the runaway violence that has taken Iraq to the verge of civil war and threatens to spread through the region, four key lawmakers told The Associated Press on Monday.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has accepted the invitation and will fly to the Iranian capital Saturday, a close parliamentary associate said.

The Iranian diplomatic gambit appeared designed to upstage expected moves from Washington to include Syria and Iran in a wider regional effort to clamp off violence in Iraq, where more civilians have been killed in the first 20 days of November than in any other month since the AP began tallying the figures in April 2005.

The Iranian move was also a display of its increasingly muscular role in the Middle East, where it already has established deep influence over Syria and Lebanon.

"All three countries intend to hold a three-way summit among Iraq, Iran and Syria to discuss the security situation and the repercussions for stability of the region," said Ali al-Adeeb, a lawmaker of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party and a close aide to the prime minister.

Now there had been hints that the Bush/Cheney cabal might be willing to talk to Iran and Syria about stabilizing Iraq. Now Iran knew that the Bush administration would put unacceptable conditions on such talks. Beating the Bush administration to the draw diplomatically is a plus for Iran not to mention they can now do it on their terms, bypassing the the Bush administration altogether.

What Bush could learn from Murdoch

George W. Bush could learn something from Rupert Murdoch; when you make a bad decision it's necessary to take your loses and "cut and run".
O.J. Simpson Book, TV Special Canceled

After a firestorm of criticism, News. Corp. said Monday that it has canceled the O.J. Simpson book and TV special "If I Did It."
"I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project," said Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. chairman. "We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

This was Fox's sweeps month extravaganza just like Iraq was supposed to help Bush and the Republicans sweep elections forever. With 70% of the American people now opposed to the mis-adventure in Iraq perhaps it's time for Bush to accept his loses and "cut and run".

Birding

I was bored with news and politics today and since we had a break in the non stop rain I took a walk down along the river. I was lucky enough to see this double-crested cormorant and have my camera. [click on picture for larger image]

Iraq - Go_____?

Thomas E. Ricks reports that the Pentagon has outlined three basic options for Iraq.

1. Go Big - can't do, no more troops.


2. Go Long - "stay the course".


3. Go Home - "cut and run".

You can guess which one the Bush/Cheney administration will choose.
Over at Democracy Arsenal Suzanne Nossel paints a pretty bleak picture of what's in store for the US in Iraq.
Facing the Truth, and Now What?
Go read the entire thing but she concludes with this:

9. If we don't begin a planned exit, there's a good chance we'll find ourselves in an unplanned one - Its surprising that by now we haven't experienced the Iraqi equivalent of the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut or the dragging of a corps of an American soldier through the streets of Mogadishu a decade later. But it seems likely that that day will come.

Yes things in Iraq can, and probably will, get worse.

So what do we do next:

In short, develop a withdrawal scenario that includes whatever steps can reasonably be taken to minimize the chaos in our wake. A regional conference, talks with Syria and Iran, improved training and reconstruction efforts, political mediation and efforts to bolster the security of less violent regions should all be part of the package. To the extent we can engage Iraq's neighbors as well as any other global powers who are willing to step up to the plate and help us and Iraq, we should. We should be honest with ourselves and with the Iraqis about what we are doing and why, acknowledging all of the above rather than pretending that we're handing off a country that's in better shape than it is. But we should commit to getting out of there regardless of how the diplomacy and mediation progress.

Our exit should be as responsible and forthright as our entrance was wanton and misleading. The best thing we can promise troops who are now being asked to put their lives at risk for an all-but-declared failure is that they are taking risks to enable the US to make the best out of a terrible situation, preserving what can be saved of both Iraqi stability (in geographic pockets) and of American credibility. Its by no means the mission they signed up for, but its an important one nonetheless.

Can anyone convince Bush/Cheney to change course? As long as Cheney has input the answer is no. Many who understood the social, religious and political realities in the area predicted what we see today before the invasion. They were ignored, ridiculed and fired. Anyone who suggests ways to minimize the damage and chaos in Iraq today will face a similar fate. Just wait for the images of helicopters airlifting people out of a Green Zone under siege in the not too distant future.

The elder rat jumps ship

We have seen nothing to indicate that George W. Bush is going to do anything but "stay the course" in Iraq. The question is how long can he get away with it. With old allies jumping ship the life of stay the course may be about over. Another blow to the Bush/Cheney cabal came from Henry Kissinger who has never seen a war or a friendly tyrant he didn't like.
Kissinger: Iraq Military Win Impossible

LONDON -- Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.

Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's neighbors - including Iran - if progress is to be made in the region.

"If you mean by 'military victory,' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

Now nearly everyone outside the White House realizes that there will be no solution to the Iraq situation without bringing in Iraq's neighbors. That now includes Kissinger, the original lord of darkness.

Kissinger, whose views have been sought by the Iraqi Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker III, called for an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Iraq's neighbors - including Iran - and regional powers like India and Pakistan to work out a way forward for the conflict.

"I think we have to redefine the course, but I don't think that the alternative is between military victory, as defined previously, or total withdrawal," he said.

Cheney and his sock puppet Bush would rather drink poison than negotiate with a charter member of the "axis of evil". The fact that carrots will be required makes it even less palatable.

Quote of the day

Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast on the neocons turning on George W. Bush.

It would be highly amusing to watch this school of sharks start turning on their own, were it not for the fact that these same sharks have made the world a far more dangerous place than it was even in the days after the 9/11 attacks they so love to invoke. And just like everything else in George W. Bush's miserable, pathetic, waste of a life, someone else is going to have to pick up the pieces.

Oversight or collecting scalps?

One of the things the voters wanted when they gave Democrats the wheel of congress was oversight. The Democrats have the numbers and the subpoena power to carry out that oversight responsibility. There is a danger that could turn into a frenzy to collect scalps which would be a danger to the country and the Democratic Party itself. In a Washington Post commentary, Send in the Subpoenas, Ron Suskind has some good advice.

The new Democratic Congress may well come down to a series of confrontations between the competing urges to investigate and to lead. Between delving into past wrongdoings and building consensus on how to proceed in Iraq. Between, in a sense, the Democratic Party's show horses and its pit bulls.

The danger is there may be some who after six years of Bush administration atrocities may be driven to look back simply to collect scalps and not as a way to move forward. In my heart a may fall into the former category but in my mind I know this is a bad move that could threaten the future. As Suskind says:

Democrats should be able to both investigate and lead, but it will take an embrace of Republican-style discipline (hardly a Democratic strong suit), an appreciation for deferred gratification (think inauguration day, January 2009) and a shrewd division of labor between pit bulls and show horses.

So what to do?

Here, then, is a playbook for the Democrats -- one that keeps the show horses preening, lets the pit bulls attack, helps the party figure out how to use its new subpoena power to maximum effect and encourages the sort of reality-based disclosures that all citizens, regardless of party, deserve.

First, the Democrats must broker a separation of powers. The show horses are their putative candidates for president, especially in the Senate, and the party's leadership in both chambers. Keep them above the fray, focusing on proposals for the future and the new "action plans," especially in foreign policy. But unleash the pit bulls: the committee chairs, their seconds and investigators who will dig relentlessly, identify targets and thus, inevitably, leave themselves vulnerable in their next reelection campaigns.

I've spent the past several years investigating various aspects of the Bush administration -- including economic policy and the battle against terrorism -- so I know there are so very many targets for the Democrats to choose from. However, there is not unlimited public patience for such efforts. The Democrats should therefore start with the freshest data: Exit polls from the midterm elections showed that concern about Iraq was matched by broader concerns about terrorism and, surprisingly, government corruption.

While the lies and deceptions that led up to the Iraq war are a tempting target energy policy and how it ties into the Iraq war may prove to be the most effective investigations.

The vast U.S. energy industry may be the ripest target for a corruption investigation. When Vice President Cheney's energy task force was meeting in early 2001 -- meetings whose secrecy Cheney has managed to protect against legal challenge -- the goal of U.S. energy independence was barely an afterthought. Now, with the United States mired in the affairs of petro-dictatorships in the Middle East, even the president has emphasized the need to cure our addiction to oil.

Studied inaction on this front stems from the coziness between the administration and big oil -- a relationship that affects the global warming debate, Iraq, gas prices and oil company profits. Investigations into that relationship are a sure win for the Democrats. Just lining up oil company executives under the hot lights -- much like the seven tobacco company chief executives were lined up in 1994, looking like gray-suited deer -- creates the image, if not necessarily the fact, of activist government. (Suggested witnesses: Lee Raymond, chief executive of Exxon Mobil until this year; Spencer Abraham, former energy secretary; Cheney; and David Addington, Cheney's deputy on many energy matters.)

While some inquests set the table for responsible policy -- much as hearings on pollution helped spur 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act -- most are designed to strengthen accountability and deter future perfidy. The administration's repeated practice of strong-arming experts who stray off message makes for a bevy of high-intensity witnesses. They include global warming experts in various departments as well as Richard Foster, the Health and Human Services accountant who was threatened with dismissal for trying to alert Congress about the deceptive cost estimates on the Medicare prescription drug program. Hearings would show who gave the order to mislead the public on these issues of pressing concern -- a proper investigation for any Congress. (Suggested witnesses: Tom Scully, Foster's boss; James Hansen of NASA; Rick Piltz, formerly of the U.S. Global Change Research Program; and former Environmental Protection Agency director Christine Todd Whitman.)

All this comes before the Democrats even get to Iraq and the manipulation of prewar intelligence, the botched postwar planning and the myriad mistakes made after the invasion.

Oddly, Iraq may be the last place that Democratic investigators want to go, precisely because it is the arena from which the party's key above-the-fray "action plan" must emerge. So much is known from this year's host of Iraq books and stream of media disclosures that hearings would mostly unearth common knowledge -- a patience-trying prospect for a war-fatigued public.

Secrets - Secrets - Secrets

Unfortunately, as I've encountered repeatedly in my own reporting, discernible reality in the war on terrorism is mostly locked in a vault marked "classified." There is no realm in which more misinformation has been passed to the public, a result of the creative license that a largely secret war affords this -- or any -- government.

A mission of the Democratic Congress that would please both the gods of politics and of public purpose (they don't always intersect) may be to drag that war from the shadows. But it will be difficult. Though members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees know from interrogation and wiretap scandals that they are ill-equipped to oversee such wide swaths of classified activities, the administration's position on keeping secrets secret is strong. Virtually no one now in the government advocates disclosure -- the default setting is to classify everything.

Democratic-run congressional committees could push for some modicum of transparency in public hearings. Start with whether any Americans who are clearly uninvolved in terrorist activities have been, or are being, wiretapped. The list is long, and addressing it would encourage judicial oversight of that program -- as well as various financial surveillance programs -- rather than keeping it caught in partisan gridlock between executive and legislative branches. (Suggested witnesses: Michael V. Hayden, formerly National Security Agency director, now head of the CIA; Robert S. Mueller III, FBI director; and Charles T. Fote, former chief executive of First Data Corp.)

The list of areas crying out for inquiry is quite long as well. The "war on terror" is a vast undiscovered country. The erosion of global U.S. human intelligence assets since the start of the Iraq war, for example, is harrowing. The fraying threads of international cooperation (as anti-Americanism becomes a path to political success throughout the world) correspond to a dizzying growth of self-activated terrorist cells. And it gets worse. A September 2003 meeting of all pertinent top officials in government, including the president and vice president, discussed how suspected terrorists, identified by the CIA, were lost by the FBI once they entered the United States -- even after the 9/11 attacks. The heated exchanges that day, and numerous similar ones over the past three years, suggest a breakdown in process that will surely be discussed by some commission after the next terrorist attack. (Suggested witnesses: Cheney, Mueller and FBI counterterrorism chief Phil Mudd, formerly at the CIA.)

And while all this proceeds, what about those show horses? Well, they'll steer clear of the hearings and, as one senator recently quipped, "stay away from past-tense words like 'woulda, coulda, or shoulda' " as they develop their action plans. But once the 2008 campaign season heats up, they'll choose among the coming year's subpoena fest for the sharpest disclosures, and wield them in electoral battle.

Or so the playbook reads.

Your Sunday Israel Rant

John "The Shaggy DA" Bolton's career in politics and diplomacy may now have a lifespan so short that mayflies feel sorry for him, but he's not going out without firing a few shots across any bow he crosses.

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, launched a scathing attack on the United Nations Friday.

Bolton was furious over the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution which said the assembly regretted the deaths of 19 civilians in an attack by the Israeli military in the town of Beit Hanoun last week.

Despite the resolution being significantly watered down at the behest of the United States, and being passing by 156 votes to seven, Bolton launched a blistering attack on the UN, and many of its members.

"Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies," he said.

"This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist."

The U.S. already vetoed a similar resolution in the security council this week, but they couldn't stop the General Assembly from voting on this watered down version. (Interesting side note... the only permanent member of the Security Council to use the power of veto more than the Russians and the Chinese over the last two decades was the United States, and the vast majority of those vetoes - 31 in number - were cast to stop resolutions condemning Israel which had been signed on to by most other nations. In fact, even England signed off on this one.) I think it's significant that our "representative" to the United Nations was still launching blistering attacks on the UN for this even after the key wording in the resolution was changed from a statement of condemnation to an expression of regret over the deaths of a number of civilians.

Don't get me wrong here... the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and various other players in the region can obviously be a right bunch of bastards with little to no provocation, and richly deserve the condemnation so often heaped upon them. But as wise old men and wives have said throughout the ages, it's pretty hard to find a coin with only one side to it. Israel will never have any incentive to stay inside her own borders and force her enemies into the permanent role of the real bad guys as long as the world treats the country like they are a helpless babe amid a pack of wolves.

Israel is a military powerhouse in that area, and everyone knows it. They have a military that is, in terms of technology, superior to all her neighbors and only one generation behind ours at any given point. They have an air force that can dominate everyone in the region except possibly Iran, thanks to Uncle Sam. And anyone who doesn't believe that they're hanging on to at least a few tactical nukes (made in the U.S.A!) is living in a dream world.

But leaving that aside for the moment, I'd like to turn back to the second of Bolton's statements which I emphasized in the quote above.

"This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist."

Does Israel have a "right to exist" as Bolton says? Clearly they do. They have a country with borders and a government and citizens and, by golly, they've even got themselves a flag. That makes you a country in today's parlance, and as such you've got a "right to exist." But here's a tip for those who don't follow history much. Every country has a "right to exist", but that right extends only as far as you can defend your country and keep it going with the ability to stop other foreign entities from taking it away from you.

Countries come and go. That's just a fact. Look at some hand drawn maps from as recently as the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There's plenty of countries which "existed" back then but are not to be seen today. They got swallowed up by invaders, or fell to internal conflict and wound up with new names, new borders, or both. Hell, the state of Hawaii was still an ostensibly independent kingdom as recently as the time of my birth. Today it's part of America. Where did it go? What happened to their inalienable "right to exist" as an independent kingdom? Anyone remember Persia? At one time they were one of the greatest imperial powers on the planet. Where are they today? Oh, that's right. They had their asses beat down and were carved up into some new countries.

What are Israel's prospects for "existing" (for lack of a better word) over the long haul? Well, at least into the immediate future they look pretty good. They've got the big kid on the block looking over their shoulder and watching their backs. But at this point you'd be foolish indeed not to believe that Israel's future as a nation is inextricably tied to the existence, power and international influence of the United States. If we continue on our current path of alienating all of our allies, demanding so much of our military that it begins to sweat and strain, and possibly putting ourselves on a path toward isolationism, they start to look a bit shaky. If the U.S. loses its place on the world stage as the sole superpower and alleged defender of the West, Israel's life span begins to resemble John Bolton's diplomatic career. The country is surrounded by national entities who would like nothing more than to see them pack up and leave, and they have antagonized so many other formerly friendly western nations that their list of allies is growing thin.

What can be done? Who knows? Don't ask me... I'm clearly not that smart. But I do believe that Israel needs to start doing a little less Bush-like swagger and military swatting and get back on a path of diplomacy first and building the relationships with other major UN members which will be required to secure a seat at the table far into the future.