Morphing Dubya and Jimmy Carter = Tony Blair

Poor Tony Blair. First, he has the war monger/Dubya's poodle legacy. Now, shades of Jimmy Carter, Blair is embroiled in an Iranian Hostage Crisis.

This man gets no breaks; and deserves none, either.

Man versus beast

I've avoided posting silly stuff here, but this one had me laughing out loud on BART this morning. These guys are future Darwin Award winners. Here's the skinny:

Guys want to impress girls, take the gals to an ostrich farm (I know, WTF? - that was my reaction, too), ostrich proceeds to kick guys' butts around, girls laugh at guys, guys come back with guns and off the ostrich, guys go to jail and have to get counseling for animal cruelty.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said:

"This whole thing is about male pride. The ostrich knocked them both on their butts."

Guys, I know you want to impress the ladies with your feats of daring-do. So a lesson in life is to not fuck around with Ostriches. They will kick your sorry asses - even after they are dead.

Read the story here.

Iraq - why the surge won't work

The surge, by itself will not, cannot work. Military intervention to control crime and murder and destruction is only a leg of the stool. Until political reconciliation occurs, the surge is moot; the stool cannot stand.

Look at the recent chaos (mind you this is JUST Baghdad, and reported for TODAY):

• BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed four policemen and one civilian and wounded nine more police in Jihad in southwest Baghdad, the U.S. military said. Police were checking a suspicious vehicle when it exploded.
• BAGHDAD - A car bomb targeting an Iraqi army checkpoint killed a soldier and wounded three others on Wednesday near al-Shurta tunnel in western Baghdad, police said.
• BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb in Bayaa district in southern Baghdad killed three people and wounded 20 others, police said.
  BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb targeting an Iraqi army patrol wounded three soldiers in the western Ghazaliya district of Baghdad, a Reuters witness said.
• BAGHDAD - A suicide bomber blew himself up in a market in the Shaab district of northern Baghdad, killing five and wounding 15, a police source said.
• BAGHDAD - Gunmen attacked the motorcade of the head of traffic police, Jaafar al-Khafaji, in northern Baghdad, killing two traffic policemen and wounding two others, police said.
• BAGHDAD - Gunmen kidnapped Hassan Abdul-Latif, an official of the Iraqi Customs Office in central Baghdad, on Wednesday, police said.
• BAGHDAD - Thirteen bodies were found shot in different districts of Baghdad on Wednesday, police said.
• BAGHDAD - Two policemen were killed and six wounded when they approached a car bomb in Amil district in southwestern Baghdad, police said. There was a body in the car.
  
  ...
  
• A mortar round landed on Baghdad airport on Thursday with no casualties, an eyewitness said. “The mortar round landed on Baghdad airport today at 11:00 am, setting travelers there into panic,” said a VOI reporter who was present at the airport when the shell landed. The panic vanished as soon as Iraqi security men assured travelers that the situation was under control and no casualties were reported, he said. A security man told VOI “these incidents occurred repeatedly so the airport halls and runways were placed far from the range of possible mortar and katyusha attacks.” Baghdad airport, 20 km southwest of Baghdad, is also used by U.S. forces as a base. Source: Airport-Mortar :: Aswat al Iraq :: Aswat al Iraq
• Unknown gunmen attacked a U.S. vehicle convoy on Thursday in southwestern Baghdad, setting a vehicle ablaze, an eyewitness said. “Unknown gunmen attacked with RPGs a U.S. vehicle convoy passing the main road in al-Shurat al-Rabia, southwestern Baghdad,” an eyewitness told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).
  He added, “the attack set ablaze a U.S. Hummer.” U.S. forces cordoned off the scene while the burned vehicle was towed to an unknown place, the eyewitness said.
• “A billow of smoke covered the area near the attack location,” he said. The U.S. army could not be immediately reached to confirm the incident.
  Source: U.S.-Attack :: Aswat al Iraq :: Aswat al Iraq
• A senior Iraqi police officer survived an attempt on his life early Thursday after an attack, by unidentified gunmen, on his motorcade in northeastern Baghdad, while one of his bodyguards was killed and two others were wounded in the attack, police sources said. “Unidentified gunmen attacked General Jaafar al-Khafaji’s motorcade using machine guns and light arms in al-Qahera neighborhood in northeastern Baghdad,” a security source told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).
• “The attack killed one bodyguard and injured two others,” he added. General al-Khafaji is working for the traffic police department in Baghdad. Source: Baghdad-Assassination :: Aswat al Iraq :: Aswat al Iraq
• Eight civilians were killed and 32 others were wounded when three booby-trapped cars went off early Thursday in different parts of Baghdad, a police source said.
• “A car bomb exploded this morning near street 20 in al-Bayaa neighborhood in southwestern Baghdad, killing two civilians and injuring 10,” the source told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI). “Another explosives-rigged car went off near a bus station in al-Mahmoudiya region in southern Baghdad, during which three civilians were killed and 12 others were injured,” he added. “Three citizens were also killed and 10 were wounded when a third car bomb, parked near a fuel station in al-Aamel neighborhood in southwestern Baghdad, was detonated,” the source noted. Source: Baghdad-Explosion-Update 1 :: Aswat al Iraq :: Aswat al Iraq
• A Katyusha rocket landed, on Thursday morning, near the joint security center currently under construction in Sadr city in eastern Baghdad, an eyewitness said. “A Katyusha rocket fell at 10:00 am on Thursday near the joint security center being established by U.S. and Iraqi forces in Sadr city,” an eyewitness told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI). No immediate comment was available from police on the incident. U.S. forces announced last month that they would establish a joint security centre with Iraqi forces in al-Jazaier police station, near Muthafar square, to boost security in the city within the Fardh al-Qanoon (law-imposing) security plan. Source: Baghdad-Katyusha :: Aswat al Iraq :: Aswat al Iraq
  
  (Note: I lost the links; go to link provided at top of article for direct links of these citations.)

Where is the political reconciliation? More on this in a future post, but there is little reason to be optimistic.

Company execs building border fence were convicted of hiring illegal immigrants

Sometimes, the news just writes itself. From the Golden State Fence Company's press release:

Golden State Fence Company, one of the nation's leading fence design and installation companies, announced today that a San Diego Court sentenced Mel Kay, the Company's President, and Mike McLaughlin, another senior executive, to serve only three years probation and no time in prison. In addition to probation, both men were sentenced to a period of home detention, 1,040 hours of community service and to pay fines of $200,000 and $100,000 respectively for the hiring of undocumented workers.

Doesn't even need a comment. A snicker suffices.

Strolling Baghdad with Senator McCain: Update

I thought my post yesterday sufficient with regards to John McCain's take on Baghdad. I was wrong.

I finally watched the video of Wolf Blitzer talking wit Michael Ware about this situation in Baghad. I had read the transcript, but honestly, this is one video that you have to watch; the transcript just doesn't do justice. Ware has been working for CNN in Baghdad for four years, and he says on-air:

[N]one of the American generals here on the ground have anything like Sen. McCain’s confidence. I mean, Sen. McCain’s credibility now on Iraq, which has been so solid to this point, is now being left out hanging to dry. To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.

And to think that Gen. David Petraeus travels this city in an unarmed humvee? I mean, in the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a humvee. There’s multiple humvees around it, heavily armed. There’s attack helicopters, predator drones, sniper teams, all sorts of layers of protection. So, no, Sen. McCain is way off base on this one.

I'm certainly not the first to ask, and probably not the last, but it still needs to be asked - Is McCain losing it?

For my previous post, go here.

Thursday political potpourri

Glenn Greenwald on why Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater couldn't survive in today's conservative scene. Greenwald's money shot:

[T]he right-wing movement in this country is now -- an authoritarian movement animated by the Orwellian slogan that "security leads to freedom" which embraces and seeks ever-expanding government power based on the claimed need to protect people from all the scary, lurking dangers in the world -- dangers which are constantly stoked and inflammed in order to maximize the craving for "security," derived by vesting more and more power in the hands of our strong, protective Leaders.

Meanwhile, the Politico reports republicans are fearful of a 2008 meltdown. Hmmm, I couldn't possibly guess why.


Former British ambassador Craig Murray charges the Brits have produced a fake map of the Iran-Iraq border to explain away the hostage crisis.
Murray writes:

A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

Murray goes on to note that none of this excuses the Iranians not giving back the Brits. Barry Lando picks up the story, too.


The New York Times reports a widening income gap between the rich and poor in this country to a level not seen since before the depression. Cue a Bush administration mouthpiece saying with a straight face that everyone has benefited from the tax cuts. Ahh yes, here's Brookly McLaughlin, the chief Treasury Department spokeswoman.

[T]he share of income taxes paid by lower-income taxpayers will be lower than it would have been without the tax relief, while the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher.

The administration can get away with this because they are without shame. Meanwhile, reep POTUS candidates are all vying for more tax cuts (WSJ).

Yesterday was the annual broadcasters dinner with hosts Dubya and Flava Rove. This little affair is quite informative about the incestuous little affair between big media and the political elites. The American public is ever the loser when Karl Rove can rap to the correspondents who give your nightly news.

The Saudi King isn't holding Dubya's hand anymore, at least when it comes to the Iraq war. Street cred at the Arab Summit apparently trumps American interests. Wow. I am so surprised.


On a positive note, the Tuskegee Airmen are finally going to be honored with the richly deserved Congressional Gold Medal. My only complaint - they aren't taking George Tenent's.

Strolling through the streets of Baghdad with John McCain

I really wonder about McCain. The so-called straight-talk express seems to have run off the road and crashed into a ditch. McCain is seemingly wandering around, injury to head, babbling incoherently. On Monday, McCain was a guest on Bill "Doubling Down on Morality" Bennett's radio show where he said:

There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.

Hmmm. Well, Sadr City would be a good choice - you might get to see a Katusha Rocket attack.

Or, you could go to the Doura (Dora?) District to dodge roadside bombs.

Wait, how about going to the Abu Dsheer neighborhood? Mortar attacks are the thing to see. If you dare.

I wouldn't got to Mustansiriyah University where a policeman was killed and three wounded in a suicide car bomb attack.

I would avoid the Zayouna district of eastern Baghdad. Gunmen killed a police lieutenant working in the Serious Crimes Unit. No, I wouldn't stroll there.

And, I would seriously avoid the al-Maalif district of western Baghdad. Gunmen opened fire on a police patrol, killing one policeman and wounding two others.

Oh. Uh. Do also avoid the Ghazaliya district in eastern Baghdad. An Iraqi soldier was killed and two wounded in a roadside blast.

Do avoid the Bayaa district. A car bomb killed two civilians and wounded ten others at a major intersection.

Unless you can stomach floating bodies, I would suggest avoiding a stroll along the famed Tigris River.

Alright, so you don't want to go strolling around Baghdad. How about the Green Zone. Everyone knows the Greeen Zone is safe. Right?

Uh, not really. Insurgents have been bombarding the Green Zone with mortar attacks. Nine people were wounded and two killed in three mortar or rocket strikes since Monday. On Tuesday a U.S. contractor and a U.S. soldier were killed, and one U.S. state department employee was wounded.

Maybe McCain was talking about some other part of the country. Nah - mortar attacks, car bombs, suicide bombers, chlorine gas attacks, sectarian reprisals, and tortured bodies are everywhere. No, I'm not citing it - read the gosh danged front page of your newspaper.

Senator McCain, I strongly suggest you burn your particular version of Fodor's. We don't want you going and getting kidnapped out on the streets of Baghdad. Do we?

More on sad old Max Frankel

I was surprised that Max Frankel's article didn't garner more attention. I wrote about in this in my blog on Sunday, but really didn't see much written elsewhere. I now realize that's not true. Two really excellent criticisms are up.

Brad DeLong skewers Frankel's self-serving mendacity.

A more honest commentator than Frankel would have written differently: would have written that the long-run survival of journalistic legal privileges depends on the existence of a community of journalists that policies itself, and that rewards journalists who inform the public and punishes those who kneel to their political masters. Frankel had a chance to engage in this task of self-policing this morning. He failed to do it.

Coward.

Firedogblog dog piles on Frankel.

Yet the argument Frankel offers, like all other arguments the NYT has offered in this case, is fundamentally dishonest. Frankel has, indeed, finally yoked the fate and interests of the NYT to the complicit involvement of Judy Miller.

...

You see, Max, it's not that we liberals have lost patience for reporters privilege. And our eagerness to have Judy testify came not just from a desire to see Cheney and Libby exposed.

Rather, it comes from a desire to see you exposed. It is time that the NYT stops pretending that it stands on the side of the public, as passive unwilling dupes of this Administration. It is time that the NYT stops laughing off the role of Miller and Gordon and Tyler and Raines and Keller and now Frankel in bringing this country to war on a pack of lies. It is time the NYT stops claiming these were leaks, rather than willful cooperation in the publication of propaganda.

Finally, Dan Froomkin summarily covers Frankel, though offering no personal commentary, other than posting some Brad DeLong quotes.

I suppose it is too much to ask any members of the traditional members of the media to take on some one so august as old Max. Its a damn shame because more and more its those ankle-biting blogs that are taking on the roles the press has eschewed in favor of martinis with the powerful.

America wants an Iraq deadline: Pew Poll

I want to start this by noting that Pew is one of the best national polling firms. I like Pew Polls because they ask interesting questions and provide a somewhat different analysis than you will get from other major pollsters.

The latest poll is no exception. For example, by a 59-33 rate, Americans want their representative to vote for an August 2008 troop pullout. The break democrats and republicans into moderate and liberal/conservative.

If you've followed any polling numbers over the past two years, you will surely know that independents views much more closely match those of democrats, and this poll is no exception. Large majorities of dems and indies want their representative to vote for the August 2008 pullout.

Reeps - surprise! - want us to stay in Iraq indefinitely. An interesting finding is that moderate reeps only favor staying past 2008 by a 49-44 rate. The conservatives have an alternate reality that I cannot seem to channel, so I won't even try to make sense of their views.

Here some links:

To the poll results

To Pew's own analysis

And to analysis by Mystery Pollster over at pollster.com. (I linked to their home page; scroll down, you will find it. But, the site is ever-interesting.)

Iraq War deaths and weekly attacks

More US troops have died this month than in March 2003 - the month in the invasion began.

The US Ambassador to Iraq, however, notes that attacks are down 25% in Iraq since the surge began. Since we already know that there were over 1,000 weekly attacks in Iraq in January of this year, Its reasonably safe to assume that weekly attacks are now in the 700 to 800 range.

This is what passes for good news in Iraq

Max Frankel: Justifying stenography to power

Over time, I've become increasingly disillusioned with the press, particularly in their coverage of major crises and events. I am not talking about the incessant coverage of freak shows like Anna Nicole Smith; no, coverage of the Iraq War - particularly in the dark days of 2002 and the first half of 2003 have seriously burned me up for some time. In particular, the perception that media elites are far more interesting in cultivating and maintaining relationships with those in power than they are in speaking truth to power.

This has become painfully evident in the run up and sad aftermath of the Iraq War. Reporters like Judy Miller, who became an acolyte of the charlatan Ahmed Chalabi, gave cover to Bush Administration propaganda about winnebagoes of death and Niger yellowcake.

Then there was the Valerie Plame outing. Countless books will be written on this topic, but an important contribution was published today by Max Frankel in the New York Times Magazine, a media elite during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Mr. Frankel does two things in the article - he provides an insightful analysis of just what transpired - starting with Ambassador Wilson's fateful trip to Niger and concluding with Scooter Libby's conviction.

In addition, Mr. Frankel makes the case why we need to maintain the system of making secret official information available to the public through official leaking to the press. Mr. Frankel is particularly excised by prosecutors coercing reporters to give up their secrets - such as in the case of Judy Miller who spent time in the big house protecting her source, Scooter Libby. Mr. Frankel also spends time comparing whistle blower leaks made in the public interest from the abusive leaks made by Mr. Libby and Vice President Cheney, et al, to discredit Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson. Mr. Frankel concludes:

It may sound cynical to conclude that tolerating abusive leaks by government is the price that society has to pay for the benefit of receiving essential leaks about government. But that awkward condition has long served to protect the most vital secrets while dislodging the many the public deserves to know.

As Justice Potter Stewart wrote after studying the unending contest between the government and the press during the cold war:

So far as the Constitution goes ... the press is free to do battle against secrecy and deception in government. But the press cannot expect from the Constitution any guarantee that it will succeed. ... The Constitution itself is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act. The Constitution, in other words, establishes the contest, not its resolution. ... For the rest, we must rely, as so often in our system we must, on the tug and pull of the political forces in American society.

In loose translation: Prosecutors of the realm, let this back-alley market flourish. Attorneys general and others armed with subpoena power, please leave well enough alone. Back off. Butt out.

Mr. Frankel, you cynical bastard. What you might call reporting, I call stenography to power. I have no more use for you than I do with the lying, cheating Bush Administration's running of the Iraq War. Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, knew full well the sour game the administration was playing to discredit Plame and Wilson. Yet, Woodward did nothing until prosecutor Fitzgerald came on the scene and busted up the endless martini lunch reporters were having with the administration. Media Matters quotes Woodward before it was even common knowledge that he was privy to the administration's mendacity:

On the July 11 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Woodward claimed Fitzgerald's investigation was "just running like a chain saw right through the lifeline that reporters have to sources who will tell you the truth, what's really going on," and was "undermining the core function in journalism." He also warned: "We better wake up to what's going on in the seriousness on the assault on the First Amendment that's taking place right before our eyes." On the July 17 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Woodward said, "[T]he idea of the government and special prosecutors monkeying around with the relationship that reporters have with sources is a very, very bad thing."

Mr. Frankel, Mr. Woodward, "monkeying around with that special relationship" isn't the problem - you collectively, the media elites, are the the problem. If you had done your duty - reported, investigated, spoke truth to power - the Iraq War may have never occurred. Or if it did still occur, the public certainly would have had a far greater understanding of just what was happening in the run up to the war.

You would rather maintain a flawed principle at the price of war? Surely you have lost your soul during one of those martini lunches.

The House vote on Iraq War funding - Abhorrent and necessary

I've held off on this post all day because I've been sick over it. The House on Friday voted to pass a $124 billion bill that funds the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but for the first time attaches a deadline to the Iraq conflict.

The bill has appalled me because it included subsidies for spinach and peanut growers. It also appalled me because it includes god-knows how many billions more dollars to continue funding the Iraq war (note: I do support the Afghanistan War, and mean no criticism of efforts on that front) as another emergency spending package.

In addition, the bill garnered near unanimous republican opposition (only two reeps voted for the bill, one of which was Walter "freedom fries" Jones), and also brought strong opposition from both liberal and conservative democrats.

The bill has zero chance of being signed into law, as President Dubya has promised to veto the bill the second it lands on his desk. Meanwhile, the Senate is poised to take up its own bill which only includes an advisory message suggesting a troop withdrawal from Iraq.

The bill is a giant bleeding mess, and dems are all over the map. The agriculture subsidies are idiotic. The bill continues funding the wars through emergency spending, although both conflicts have been going on for over four years. Plus, the whole process has managed to unify the republicans - right at a time when they seemed sure to fracture over the war.

This bill disgusts me to the core. So, I should be pissed at Pelosi, Hoyer, Murtha, Emanuel, and the rest of the dem house leaders. Well, I should be pissed. But, I am not.

The reason is the dems have shown me two things. First, they managed to break the business as usual over rubber stamp funding operations for the Iraq Civil War. Second, Pelosi impressed me by getting enough dems to vote for this measure - even though the conservative and liberal wings of the party was dead-set against the bill (for different reasons). Pelosi has shown her mettle under fire.

For just this one time I am willing to overlook spinach subsidies and the emergency spending because the import of the vote transcends all the things I so dislike in the bill. Many reeps are going to regret their vote - and their rhetoric - because it frankly doesn't look like the surge is working.

Just this week, An Iraqi deputy prime minister got blown up by his own guard (he lived but was seriously hurt), the new UN secretary-general was visibly shaken when an RPG exploded not far from where he was standing during a surprise visit to Baghdad, and the bloodletting continues with suicide bombers running amok around the country. Iraq looks to be more of the same - more mayhem, more chaos, more death, more misery.

Dubya and his band of NeoCon idiots will continue to crow about how we are winning, or must win, or whatever. They will never change course.

I just wanted a congress that was going to stand up to the administration and their pathetic and incompetent running of the war. The dems delivered. I'm holding my nose, but saying, 'bravo!'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Related note: See the linked You Tube of young Congressman Murphy of Pennsylvania, a 33 year old Iraq War vet giving the final house speech; it is really impressive.)

A sign of just how unpopular the US is in Iraq

The Iraqi economy is in turmoil. The unemployment rate is estimated to be between 25 and 40 percent. However, economic stability is needed to help tamp down the insurgency and to restore civil order. So, the United States offers economic assistance to Iraqi businessmen to help move the economy along.

The problem with the unpopularity of the US presence -and its a big problem - is any covert offers of US-based assistance may result in harassment or even death to the businessman and his/her family members. The US has devised a plan to help the Iraqi businessmen, and to keep them from running afoul of myriad insurgents, jihaddis and assorted mini-Saddams. From the Wall Street Journal:

"The only way things will work is if the U.S. contribution is totally invisible," says Maj. Christina Nagy, a civil-affairs officer from the 82nd Airborne Division. "I have people with higher ranks than me always wanting to have a ribbon cutting. I just listen and think, 'Sure, if you want the companies to get immediately shot or blown up.' "

So how can the US possibly stay invisible in a country where we have over 140,000 armed and very visible troops spread through large swaths of the country? The answer is you stage fake raids against the Iraqi businessmen the US is helping. It is described as hiding in plain sight. A side benefit is US troops can determine if the businessmen are spending the money properly during the raids.

While this move may be born of necessity, and helps minimize mayhem and destruction, it is also telling about just how unpopular this war is to many Iraqis. Are there any other examples where the US military must operate in such a furtive manner in order to accomplish the most basic of objectives? Surely the insurgents are going to catch on this little sleight of hand.

Iraq is truly a FUBAR wrapped in an enigma.

Tom Delay disses Dick Armey in book, then denies he wrote it

Tom DeLay is too much. There are days I really wish he were back on congress - if only to put a face on the insanity of the extreme right these days.

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire (a site I highly recommend):

Appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews to promote his new book, No Retreat, No Surrender, it's clear former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) didn't write it and perhaps never even read it before it was published.

Matthews asked DeLay about passages in his book where described former Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) as "drunk with ambition." Amazingly, DeLay denied writing that, even after Matthews showed him the underlined passage in his own book.

Tom DeLay has absolutely no shame. Here's the You Tube clip.

Who said it?

Okay, who said it (and when)? [name has been removed; answers below.]

"Evidently, Mr. ---- wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

"One gets the impression that Team ---- values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

So, who said it? If you guessed Tony Snow, you betcha! 1998. Of course, the redacted name is Bill Clinton. Source: Glen Greenwald

What about Ron Paul?

I received some comments about not including Ron Paul in my presidential candidate mojo rankings. Fair point; let's take a closer look at U.S. Congressman Paul. Here's a self-description from his website:

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

He served in congress in the 70s and 80s, went back to his doctor's practice a while and returned to congress in 1997 representing the Galveston, Texas area. Dr. Paul represents the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, although he is firmly pro-life (Its worth noting that Libertarian Party members are conflicted on the issue of abortion). Dr. Paul voted against the Patriot Act - both times, and is firmly against the war in Iraq.

A review of recent speech in New Hampshire had this:

[Dr. Paul] noted that some people had accused him of not being a “strong leader,” but he rebutted that accusation: “Sometimes being a strong leader means resisting the temptation to use power.” During his time spent in Congress, Paul has consistently resisted the temptation to use power.

That certainly is in keeping with libertarian principles. Now for my mea culpa as to why I didn't include Paul in my presidential candidate mojo rankings list - I thought Paul was running as a Libertarian. I now realize that Paul is running as a (small-l) libertarian Republican. There's really a world of difference between being the libertarian candidate and a republican candidate - even a minor republican candidate.

Paul occupies an interesting space - one shared with, I believe Chuck Hagel (oh great, I also forgot to include Hagel on the mojo list). Many conservatives are fed up with the anti-libertarian elements of the Republican Party, including those who would curtail individual freedoms through the Patriot Act and foreign entanglements like the Iraq War.

Hagel is seemingly despised by many party faithful. However, there seems to be more enthusiasm for the Paul candidacy than for Hagel. Maybe its because Hagel is regularly on Meet the Press and Paul isn't. Maybe its because there are other issues which Paul is perceived to be strong on, and Hagel isn't.

Recent polls have Paul either off the charts or down at the bottom. A recent CNN poll of republican voters gave Paul 2%. Hagel polled the same level.

Its early, but Paul is at least positioned apart from the rest of the republicans, and could gain traction if more Patriot Act abuses are uncovered, Iraq continues to festers, and republican voters decide they want more dramatic change at the top.

Mojor Rankings:

Paul 1.0
Hagel 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much credit for this article goes to the Big Soccer Politics and Current Events forum, and more specifically the thread on Ron Paul. See here.

2008 Presidential contender mojo ratings: March 20, 2007 edition

Ratings on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being Dubya's popularity among the San Francisco anti-war set, and 10 being the Baby Jesus. At this early early stage, no one is running away with things just yet.

Democrats:

Barak Obama: 6.2. There's a gut feeling here the Hillary 1984 video was done by some Obama crony. If so, these kinds of dirty tricks won't get the idealists excited. There's some worry if this guy really has the chops for this. We really won't know until after a couple of major debates. For now, Obama is the clear front runner.

Hillary Clinton: 5.2. I just don't see Hillary-mania building. She's started making some right noises on Iraq, but its just not enough for the anti-war democratic majority.

Al Gore: 3.6. Al really has a chance to zoom into the race in a big way, but I think he's really smart to not jump in too soon. He has the resume, he has the issue. Can he muster the fire in the belly?

John Edwards: 3.5. Edwards is hanging in there. He's a serious candidate, but its just too early for him to take off - particularly with Obama sucking all the oxygen out.

Bill Richardson: 1.2. May have a chance if he can stay in until the debates.

Dennis Kucinch: 1.0. Kucinich simply isn't a candidate we can take very seriously. However, he has been ardently anti-war, and might just garner some more attention the second time around.

Chris Dodd: 0.5. One question: Why?

Joe Biden: 0.1. Not only is he daft, but his hair is worse than The Donald's. Biden's run is purely ego pump.


Republicans

Rudy Giuliani: 6.4. Rudy has that mojo working. I really can't understand why, but I'll probably never figure out republican thinking. I have to believe this is his high-water mark, but who know? Maybe the anti-McCain clan will gravitate here.

John McCain: 4.9. The straight-talk express is running right off the road. Where in the world did Johnny Mac get the idea he needed to be Bush III and more pro-war than Dick Cheney? Its really a sad sight watching McCain implode for all to see.

Fred Thompson: 3.7. Coming out of nowhere, Thompson is quickly filling the void of the top GOP contenders. Conservatives are salivating over the prospect of Thompson becoming the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Its too early to tell if Thompson has the right stuff.

Mitt Romney: 3.2. Good-looking, charismatic, former governor. He has a lot going for him. He is plagued by his past, and his religion will be a hindrance. Mitt has been sliding backwards for a couple of months now.

Newt Gingrich: 2.6. Newt is trying to become the patriarch of the Republican party with high set of big ideas. Personally, I think Newt has a hard ceiling - even within the republican party. Even Tom DeLay hates his guts.

Mike Huckabee: 1.3. Huckabee hasn't caught on as serious contender, yet. But its early. Plus, he has the benefit of low expectations, and has nowhere to go - but up.

San Brownback: 0.7. If Brownback can get his message out, he may have a chance to compete. For now though, there are too many candidates in his way.

Tom Tancredo: 0.2. Railing against illegal immigrants only gets you so far as a presidential candidate. Even for a Republican.

Things that make me veddy veddy happy: Lost boy found

That missing 12 year old boy scout? He was found today. The kid is in "weak but good condition." Great news.

Now back to your regularly scheduled indignations and outrages.

Mitt Romney: El Gringo Stupido!

File this under, what the hell was he thinking about? From the Miami Herald:

Cubans in Miami are steaming mad at former Gov. Mitt Romney for shooting his mouth off in stumbling Spanish, mispronouncing names and erroneously associating a notorious Fidel Castro-spewed Communist catch phrase with freedom fighters.

Politicians in South Florida have lashed out at the former Massachusetts governor and 2008 presidential hopeful for describing the socialist saying “Patria o muerte, venceremos” as “inspiring” and for claimingthe phrase was swiped from liberty-seeking Cubans by leftist admirers of Castro.

The phrase, which means “Fatherland or death, we shall overcome,” was bellowed as a political speech sign-off by the dictator for decades.

At another point in the speech to the Miami-Dade Republican Party, Romney bungled the names of prominent Cuban GOP politicians, referring to Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio as “Mario.”

Romney also garnered criticism for his hard-line stance on immigration and ending the talk with the phrase “Libertad, Libertad, Libertad,” a revolutionary saying made famous in the gangster movie “Scarface,” which many Cubans feel plays on cultural stereotypes.

But it was the former Bay State governor’s use of an infamous Fidel Castro line that sparked the most controversy.

So, what was Romney thinking about? He was trying to play Panda Bear to the nuthead Cubans in South Florida. The upshot: Romney probably lost the Cuban vote. Too bad.

Juan Cole: Bush's top ten Iraq mistakes

Needs no real comment from me. Other than, Boo Yah!

Bush's Top Ten Mistakes in Iraq during the Past 4 Years

10. Refusing to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when his incompetence and maliciousness became apparent in the growing guerrilla war and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

9. Declining to intervene in the collapsed economy or help put Iraqi state industries back on a good footing, on the grounds that the "market" would magically produce prosperity effortlessly.

8. Invading and destroying the Sunni Arab city of Fallujah in November, 2004, thus pushing the Sunni Arabs into the arms of the insurgency in protest and ensuring that they would boycott the January, 2005, parliamentary elections, a boycott that excluded them from power and from a significant voice in crafting the new constitution, which they then rejected.

7. Suddenly announcing that the US would "kill or capture" young nationalist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in spring, 2004, throwing the country into massive turmoil for months.

6. Replying to Baathist guerrilla provocations with harsh search and destroy missions that humiliated and angered ever more Sunni Arab clans, driving them to support or join the budding guerrilla movement.

5. Putting vengeful Shiites in charge of a Debaathification Commission that fired tens of thousands of mostly Sunni Arab state employees simply for having belonged to the Baath Party, leaving large numbers of Sunnis penniless and without hope of employment.

4. Dissolving the Iraqi Army in May, 2003, and sending 400,000 men home, unemployed, resentful and heavily armed.

3. Allowing widespread looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003, on the grounds that "stuff happens," "democracy is messy," and "how many vases can they have?"-- and thus signalling that there would be no serious attempt to provide law and order in American Iraq.

2. Plotting to install corrupt financier, notorious liar, and shady operator Ahmad Chalabi as the soft dictator of Iraq, and refusing to plan for a post-war administration of the country because that might forestall Chalabi's coronation.

1. Invading Iraq.

Four years of war - What do Americans and Iraqis now think?

Today is the fourth anniversary of the Stupid Pointless War. A slew of polls have been released - both of American and Iraqi sentiments. Here are some highlights.

ABC News/USA Today/BBC/ARD released a poll of Iraqis. They track the new results against those November 2005. The mood in Iraq has certainly darkened. More than half of respondents have a relative or close friend who has been killed or wounded. Opposition to US forces has grown considerably.

Mystery Pollster has this synopsis:

• 78% of Iraqi adults oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq; 22% support it.
• 65% believe coalition forces should stay in Iraq until its government and security forces are stronger and operating independently; 35% believe they should leave now.
• 56% do not think Iraq is in a civil war, 42% think it is.
• In a sidebar article, ABC Polling Director Gary Langer describes in detail the "extensive planning, coordinated effort -- and some luck" involved in fielding this survey, including "harrowing tales" of interviewers who "witnessed some of the bombings, shootings and beatings that, as the survey shows, are widespread in Iraq."
  

CBS News has poll of Americans on their attitudes the Stupid Pointless War.

After four years of war, Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for success in Iraq and a majority wants U.S. troops to begin coming home, according to an analysis of data from CBS News and CBS News/New York Times polls.

Americans did not expect the war to last this long, nor did they think it would cost as many lives as it has.

The news article has some interesting analyses of a poll CBS conducted four years ago. Certainly, the Administration, Bill "The Vampire" Kristol (AKA Nostradumbass), and the NeoCon idealists all ought to be taking a hard look their expectations before this war started, and the mess they have wrought.

Nah. Watch Bush hit that drive.

Is it finally time to impeach Bush?

Rocky Anderson, the Mayor of Salt Lake City (Salt Lake City?!) makes a strong case for doing so. I had to admit I agree with him - to a point. The problem with this is the public might start to actually feel sorry for the Shrub. Plus, Cheney would be president. Yuck.

No, as pathetic and dangerous as this administration is, I think its best we just run out the clock on them. A new administration will be in place soon enough. Even if we get another Republican war-mongering, tax cutting-and-spending, civil rights-flouting, environmental hating administration at least they will be a lot more competent the current band of fools.

It is useful to have some elected officials agitating for impeachment - If only to point out how seriously screwed up our country has become under this administration. And maybe to remind Americans just how stupid the Clinton impeachment was.

Some useful Iraq-related links

I've uncovered a couple of interesting documents available on the web. The first is the so-called Iraq 'Smart Card.' This pdf gives the cultural dos and don'ts for our soldiers and civilians to follow. For example, its impolite to point with your finger. If you must point something out, use your whole hand.

Here's the link

Next, is the Army's updated counter-insurgency manual. The purpose of the memo has been laid out in the foreword.

This manual is designed to fill a doctrinal gap. It has been 20 years since the Army published a field manual devoted exclusively to counterinsurgency operations. For the Marine Corps it has been 25 years. With our Soldiers and Marines fighting insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that we give them a manual that provides principles and guidelines for counterinsurgency operations. Such guidance must be grounded in historical studies. However, it also must be informed by contemporary experiences.

Here's the link

Both of these documents are exemplary. Its just a damn shame the thought and work that went into the documents were NOT completed BEFORE we invaded the damned country.

My closing questions: Iraq is FUBAR wrapped in an enigma; will we learn the lesson of Iraq? Or, will the NeoCons have their way and give us war with Iran and Syria?

Countering the insurgency

Dr. Juan Cole has maintained an extremely informative blog on goings-on in the Middle East, with Iraq being the polka dot elephant in the living room. Today, Dr. Cole summarized thoughts on the U.S. counter insurgency (COIN) as put forth by professor Colin Kahl from the University of Minnesota. I've paraphrased below; follow the link to Dr. Cole's site for a complete reading (All emphases added by me).

U.S. COIN efforts can be usefully divided into 4 phases.

Phase 1: Denial. This period lasted from the fall of the regime until April 2004. During this time, DoD civilians and some within the military denied that there was an insurgency or, if there was one, that it was growing in support and lethality.


Phase 2: Learning curve. From the spring of 2004 to the late summer of 2005, the U.S. military woke up to the seriousness of the insurgency. ... [T]he U.S. approach to COIN during this period was still overwhelmingly enemy-centric/search-and-destroy/kill-capture. Only in 2005 does the military appear to really start systematically learning from its mistakes (and some successes), gradually figuring out that the Iraqi population is the center of gravity.

Phase 3: Getting it. By the late summer and early fall of 2005 ... the White House [developed a new approach] designed around the intent to “clear, hold, and build” Iraqi population centers, the ability to effectively implement these changes in much of the country was complicated by a number of factors.

First, beginning in 2004, an effort was made to reduce the American military footprint ... to lessen the perception of occupation thought to be driving the Sunni insurgency while also improving force protection.

Second, insufficient troop levels devoted to the “hold” portion of the administration’s strategy also thwarted implementation.

Phase 4: Doing it. [In] January 2007 ... Bush announced his intention to “surge” 17,500 additional forces to Baghdad (and 4,000 more to Anbar). ... [I]t is vital to remember, the surge is not the strategy -- it is a means to implement a strategy. The strategy is to to provide actual population security, tamp down sectarian violence, and create space for national reconciliation and reconstruction.

[T]he "clear, hold, and build" [is the only remaining] option [for overcoming the insurgency]. However ... this strategic shift may simply be too little, too late.

What to do with Marty Meehan's leftover campaign cash

The following is a story that summarizes one reason why our current political system is so awful - big money.

Marty Meehan is a democratic US Congressman representing the fighting 5th District in Massachusetts. He has represented his district since 1993, and ran unopposed in the 2006 general election.

Yesterday, the Politico reported Mr. Meehan is stepping down as congressman to become the chancellor of the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. Well, good for Mr. Meehan; this sounds like an excellent opportunity for him. And by most accounts, Mr. Meehan is regarded as a pretty darn good politician.

However, this happy little story has a side to it that appalls me to the core. It seems that Mr. Meehan has the tidy little sum of $5.2 million in his campaign finance account. Remember, this is a guy who ran unopposed in the last election.

Now, he can't spend the money on himself. But $5.2 million is a LOT of dosh. Apparently he has three choices. He can:

• Give the money to charity
• Save the money for some future run for political office
• Give the money to the democratic party committee

Okay, I just got done throwing up in my mouth, because I'm about 1,000% sure Mr. Meehan won't be donating the money to charity. The amount of money Mr. Meehan has raised is nothing short of obscene. Its not as if, the reeps put forward some charismatic and talented politician to challenge Meehan from one end of his district to the other. Mr. Meehan ran un-freaking-opposed. Why does Mr. Meehan have so much money?

The answer lies perversely in lap of the Supreme Court, which has ruled fairly consistently that money equals political speech. The perversion is Meehan's donars get to fully exercise their free speech by showering the congressman with carts full of cash, but his political opponents get shut out - big time. Since rich folks and corporation and unions are willing to fork over cash to this guy, Mr. Meehan is in his rights to accept the money. (Although this "right" is a perversion, in my opinion).

The loser in this is the average American. (surprise!) You got an issue with some bigwig who wrote a six figure check to Mr. Meehan? Don't expect Mr. Meehan's staff to be of much assistance on that matter.

Sure, you have free speech rights. You can email or call the congressman. But, you sure do NOT have the bullhorn or the bully pulpit. That's too bad, you can't afford it. Your speech isn't as valuable as Mr. Meehan's campaign donars.

I can't say that I have the comprehensive answer to this problem, but I do know I strongly favor taxpayer funded elections. Arizona's plan seems to work quite well. I will have to research that and post on it in the future. In the meantime, I invite your readers to post your opinions on campaign cash.

Donald Trump to Dubya: You're Fired

The Donald had some rough comments for Dubya. How rough? When you consider Dubya is, after all, our POTUS, the comments are Rosie-rough:

Donald Trump goes off on President Bush in a scathing attack during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on the Friday edition of CNN's 'Situation Room.

"Well, I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States. And I just don't understand how [the Democrats] could have lost that election."

MORE...

"Everything in Washington has been a lie. Weapons of mass destruction, it was a total lie. It was a way of attacking Iraq, which he thought was going to be easy and it turned out to be the exact opposite of easy. He reads 60 books a year. He reads a book a week. Do you think the president reads a book a week? I don't think so. He doesn't watch television. Now, one thing I know is when I'm on television, I watch, or I try. You do. Your own ego says, let's watch. Whether good or bad, you want to watch. He doesn't watch television. He's on television being interviewed by you or someone else, he doesn't watch. Does anyone really believe that?"

On Saddam Hussein:

"Whether they like him or didn't like him, he hated terrorists. He would shoot and kill terrorists. When terrorists came into this country, which he did control and he did dominate, he would kill terrorists. Now it is a breeding ground for terrorists."

Gen. Petraeus: Super Surge Me

From today's Boston Globe:

The top US commander in Iraq has requested another Army brigade, on top of five already on the way, as part of the controversial "surge" of American troops designed to clamp down on sectarian violence and insurgent groups, senior Pentagon officials said today.

The appeal -- not yet made public -- by Gen. David Petraeus for a combat aviation unit would involve between 2,500 and 3,000 more soldiers and dozens of transport helicopters and powerful gunships, said the Pentagon sources. That would bring the planned expansion of US forces so far to close to 30,000 troops.

News of the additional deployment comes about a week after President Bush announced that about 4,700 support troops will join the initial 21,500 he ordered in January. They are in addition to the estimated 130,000 troops already in Iraq.

"This is the next shoe to drop," said one senior Pentagon official closely involved in the war planning. "But you cannot put five combat brigades in there and not have more aviation guys, military police, and intelligence units."

As much as I hate the Stupid Pointless War, I can't say I blame Petraeus. He has a job to do, and he wants to succeed. After all, Petraeus has previously said the surge only has a one-in-four chance of success. If this surge within a surge helps to improve the odds, all the better for Petraeus and his mission.

Let's be clear, all Americans will be winners if Petraeus can salvage a win in Iraq. The problem is, what will a win look like? Will we even know that a win has occurred when we see it? If we look back to the stupid BushCo and Neocon pronouncements of TOTAL VICTORY IN IRAQ, then a win is nowhere in sight.

The goal posts have been moved in, moved in again, lowered, widened, and moved in some more. What would a win look like today? 80 weekly attacks instead of 800 to 1,000?

Its a tough situation. BushCo has declared victory or bust. Many dems have have the right instincts, but are typically disorganized. The reeps are rallying around the policy, if not the president. The result is the surge, and no realistic option of a pull out (at least for now, until the latest horrific atrocity occurs).

So we look forward to additional surges within the surge. My big question is how far can we pull the rubber band back before it snaps?

Iraq in the News - How bad will we lose and those sliding benchmarks

Two articles on Iraq are up today. First, a series of experts predicts how Iraq may eventually turn out. Second, the NYT reports today about those sliding benchmarks that BushCo set down before the surge.

From the Rolling Stone article on Iraq predictions, this quote from retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak:

Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now. Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again.

I will let each of you read the article in full to see the range of predictions. They range from beyond awful to merely terrible. No one thinks the US is going to come out of this with a win. Ever.

In checking the list of experts, I was both heartened and discouraged that Robert Kagan or Kill "The Vampire" Kristol (AKA Nostradumbass) weren't included in the discussion. I was heartened because these idiots frankly belong in jail for the blood spilled, prestige lost and money wasted on The Stupid Pointless War. OTOH, I would have enjoyed the other experts smacking these idiotic neocons around, just for the fun of it.

The other article is relevant here because this speaks directly to how things are going in Iraq - in the midst of the surge - and how things may be turning out.

The Bush administration, which six months ago issued a series of political goals for the Iraqi government to meet by this month, is now tacitly acknowledging that the goals will take significantly longer to achieve.

In interviews this week, administration officials said that the military buildup intended to stabilize Baghdad and create the conditions for achieving the objectives would not be fully in place until June and that all of the objectives would not be fulfilled until the year’s end.

A “notional political timeline” that the administration provided to Congress in January in an attachment to a letter from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had called for most of the objectives to be met by this month.

Dan Froomkin has been railing against the mainstream media for failing to report on benchmark progress. Well Dan, here some progress on the reporting of the benchmarks. So, we have movement on the media side, but not much else.

Bottom line: Until Iraqis can learn to live together and forge meaningful political (read - political NOT military) solutions, the Iraq wound will fester indefinitely.

The Pentagon - Its a civil war after all

Here is the report's key finding (and its bad, really bad):

The conflict in Iraq has changed from a predominantly Sunni-led insurgency against foreign occupation to a struggle for the division of political and economic influence among sectarian groups and organized criminal activity. As described in the January 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the term civil war does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shi’a-on-Shi’a violence, al-Qaida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a civil war, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence, and population displacements. Illegally armed groups are engaged in a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian and politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder, and indirect fire to intimidate people and stoke sectarian conflict. Much of the present violence is focused on local issues, such as sectarian, political, and economic control of Baghdad; Kurdish, Arab, and Turkomen aspirations for Kirkuk; and the political and economic control of Shi’a regions in the south. Although most attacks continue to be directed against Coalition forces, Iraqi civilians suffer the vast majority of casualties.

This is incredibly depressing, but at least the military planners demonstrate they've got a handle on the problem. I know this comment seems absurd, but consider the recent comments from Dick Cheney:

In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a “dishonest and reprehensible” political ploy.

Cheney called Democrats “opportunists” who were peddling “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

Oh wait, that was from 2005. Cheney's still blabbering and lying about this even today. Perhaps our president can inform America about what the real situation in Iraq is, and how we can achieve our goals (or at least cut our losses).

Well, no. He can't. He lives in his bubble in the "beautiful" White House, and can't give an assessment to the American people.

Revolt Today: A buzz of accountability in the White House

Revolt Today: A buzz of accountability in the White House

A buzz of accountability in the White House

Ever since the 2006 mid-term elections, team BushCo has been falling like, well, Republican Senators in the 2006 mid-terms. There have been recent two scandals - the mistreatment of wounded vets at Walter Reed, and the botched firing of seven US Attorneys. And that Iraq thing continues to fester.

Let's go through the list of the dearly departed:

• Rummy
• Kyle Sampson
• Kevin Kiley
• George Weightman
• Francis Harvey
• Alberto Gonzalez (not technically dead, yet)

It is a sweet smell in the air around the White House these days. It is the smell of accountability in action. As Bill Maher might say, New Rule: You fuck up in the White House, you get your ass canned out of town. Seems fair to me. You work in a presidential adminstration, you get the glory, you get the fame, you get the high GS rank - but you also get bucket fulls of responsibility.

At least you do now. It hasn't always been this way before the Democrats came to town. Consider that Tommy Franks, George Tenet and Paul Bremer all received the Medal of Freedom in 2004. Excuse me, I have to throw up in my mouth.

Thanks, I'm okay, now.

Yes, the Bush Administration may be the worst presidency ever (certainly the worst in the past 75 years, if you want to go all historical on me). Okay, we can debate Jimmy Carter and Tricky Dick, but you get the point dang it!).

It is also useful to see how the balance of power of should work in this country - the Administration screws up, and congress calls it out, heads roll, and we wait until the next scandal, screw up or cover up.

There are a lot of take ways going on, but one thing that jumps out to me is this: Damn, that supine, lap-dog republican congress from 2002 to the end of 2006 sucked major ass. Good riddance to bad trash.

Iraq War costs keep surging

Here's a really depressing article:

America won't simply be paying with its dead. The Pentagon is trying to silence economists who predict that several decades of care for the wounded will amount to an unbelievable $2.5 trillion.

The article is excellent, and worth reading in its entirety, but here's a sobering clip:

To draw attention to her academic findings, [Harvard professor and former Clinton administration economist Linda] Bilmes wrote a piece for the Los Angeles Times of 5 January 2007 in which she quoted the figure of "more than 50,000 wounded Iraq war soldiers". The reaction from the Pentagon was fury. An assistant secretary there named Dr William Winkenwerder phoned her personally to complain. Bilmes recalls: "He said, 'Where did you get those numbers from?'" She explained to Winkenwerder that the 50,000 figure came from the VA, and faxed him copies of official US government documents that proved her point. Winkenwerder backed down.

Matters did not rest there. Despite its independence from the Pentagon, the VA is run by Robert James Nicholson, a former Republican Party chairman and Bush's loyal political appointee. Following Bilmes's exchange with Winkenwerder - on 10 January, to be precise - the number of wounded listed on the VA website dropped from 50,508 to 21,649. The Bush administration had, once again, turned reality on its head to concur with its claims. "The whole thing is scary," Bilmes says. "I have never been conspiracy-minded, but watching them change the numbers on the website - it's extraordinary."

What Bilmes had discovered was that the tally of US fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan included the outcome of "non-hostile actions", most commonly vehicle accidents. But the Pentagon's statistics of the wounded did not. Even troops incapacitated for life in Iraq or Afghanistan - but not in "hostile situations" - were not being counted, although they will require exactly the same kind of medical care back home as soldiers similarly wounded in battle. Bilmes and Stiglitz had set out, meantime, to explore the ratio of wounded to deaths in previous American wars. They found that in the First World War, on average 1.8 were wounded for every fatality; in the Second World War, 1.6; in Korea, 2.8; in Vietnam, 2.6; and, in the first Gulf war in 1991, 1.2. In this war, 21st-century medical care and better armour have inflated the numbers of the wounded-but-living, leading Bilmes to an astounding conclusion: for every soldier dying in Iraq or Afghanistan today, 16 are being wounded. The Pentagon insists the figure is nearer nine - but, either way, the economic implications for the future are phenomenal.

The researchers went on to cite a series of areas where BushCo was wrong, wrong, and wrong again in their prognostications.

Meanwhile a new report was published with this disturbing finding:

Background Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) have endured high combat stress and are eligible for 2 years of free military service–related health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, yet little is known about the burden and clinical circumstances of mental health diagnoses among OEF/OIF veterans seen at VA facilities.

Methods US veterans separated from OEF/OIF military service and first seen at VA health care facilities between September 30, 2001 (US invasion of Afghanistan), and September 30, 2005, were included. Mental health diagnoses and psychosocial problems were assessed using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The prevalence and clinical circumstances of and subgroups at greatest risk for mental health disorders are described herein.

Results Of 103 788 OEF/OIF veterans seen at VA health care facilities, 25 658 (25%) received mental health diagnosis(es); 56% of whom had 2 or more distinct mental health diagnoses. Overall, 32 010 (31%) received mental health and/or psychosocial diagnoses. Mental health diagnoses were detected soon after the first VA clinic visit (median of 13 days), and most initial mental health diagnoses (60%) were made in nonmental health clinics, mostly primary care settings. The youngest group of OEF/OIF veterans (age, 18-24 years) were at greatest risk for receiving mental health or posttraumatic stress disorder diagnoses compared with veterans 40 years or older.

I am not at all surprised that a full one-fourth of returning vets have mental problems. I am, however, deeply appalled.

Nepotism in the Surge

When I grow up, or if my blog grows up (LOL, not very likely), I want to be Glen Greenwald. Writing yesterday under the tagline, Why would any rational person listen to Robert Kagan?:

Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan -- whose brother, Frederick, is the architect of the President's "surge" plan -- has a column in the Post this morning predictably assuring us that the surge is a great success. The headline is "The 'Surge' is Succeeding," and you already know what it says without reading it. The Evil Media has claimed the war is lost. But now it is clear that they are wrong. We sent more troops, the Great Gen. Petraeus has arrived, stores have re-opened, and Pajama Media bloggers Mohammed and Omar say things are getting better. Thus, Kagan says, there "is a new chapter in the story."

Greenwald goes on to list a series of WRONG predictions and statements about how things have been going in Iraq made by Kagan and his fellow neo-con Bill "The Vampire" Kristol (aka Nostradumass).

And there's more today from Greenwald: It turns out that Frederick's wife, writing for the Weekly Standard, also has a pro-surge article out. Color me not surprised.

Frankly, I can't expect much else from the Standard. Their flagpoles seemingly rise if they even think about the Surge. But Greenwald makes an excellent point that the Washington Post should disclose this absurd conflict of interest. WaPo tries so hard to appear even-handed, I think they miss out on what's fundementally right and wrong.

Plus, they must maintain their access to power, after all.

Mayan ruins to be 'cleansed' after Bush visit

This is from CNN.com:

Mayan Indian leaders have vowed to "spiritually cleanse" an ancient site in Guatemala after U.S. President George W. Bush visits during his seven-day, five-nation tour of Latin America.

Bush's visit to the ruins at Iximche, a one-time capital of a Mayan group, is part of an effort to show the administration is interested in all its neighbors in the hemisphere.

But many Mayans are angry that Bush is visiting Iximche, founded as the capital of the Kaqchiqueles kingdom before the Spanish conquest in 1524.

Mayan priests say they will purify the sacred archaeological site to rid it of any "bad spirits" after Bush is there.

I don't know about spiritual cleansing, but cleansing an area after a BushCo visit is a great idea. The less this group leaves behind, the better. Everyone should run out and get a jug of Clorox and a mop - just in case BushCo comes a' callin'.

Newt comes clean (after all these years)

As you probably know, Newt Gingrich finally came clean that he was cheating on his second wife during the Clinton impeachment. Nice guy sure, but no surprise whatsoever. This is the guy who served his first wife her divorce papers while she was in the hospital.

Here's Newt with Russert recently:

MR. RUSSERT: But do you, do you regret pressing the impeachment of President Clinton so hard?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: President—you know, I’m—I’ve been divorced twice.

Both times I’ve been deposed. Both times I was told, “Perjury is a felony. You should tell the truth under deposition.” President Clinton lied under oath as a lawyer in front of a sitting federal judge in a civil rights case. This was not about his personal behavior in the Oval Office. That’s a matter of judgment, and people can render judgment. The question is, do you want to go down the road of Nigeria and corruption and have a country in which, as long as he’s popular, he can break the law? And if Clinton gets to commit perjury on this topic, then what does the next president get to commit perjury on, and then what does the next president get to commit perjury on? This was entirely about something I knew personally. We have an obligation as citizens to tell the truth to a federal judge under oath. The president failed that.

The Newtster does make an interesting point - and Clinton DID look at the camera and said I never diddled that woman with a cigar. A lie under oath - and to the American people - is certainly serious business, and people are right to criticize.

That said, three important points:

1. Clinton's behavior didn't hurt anyone, outside of his family.

2. This same standard should be applied to the Bush administration, particularly Dick Cheney, and the rationale used for the run-up to the war, and long after. For Dubya, I tend to give him a break; he's an empty suit and only recites what others tell him to say.

3. I've heard ONE conservative commentator* say that Libby got what he deserved. The double standard here is incredible. The dems are no better on this score, so I'm not defending the dem position. What I am saying is this: the reeps are beyond outrageous. Its this attitude that led to their defeat in 2006, and for the reeps taking the mantle as the party of whackos and misfits.




*David Brooks on the News Hour last night said Libby deserved his punishment. He then went on to say that despite Libby's lies and obstructions, his intent was only to correct Joe Wilson's lies. LOL.

My hometown

Hey yo.

Its been over 20 years since I lived in New Jersey, and a fair bit longer since I lived in my old hometown. I grew up in Northern New Jersey - in Bloomfield. That's part of the 'pizza triangle' including Belleville and Nutley. How Italian is Bloomfield? Enough to say that Saturday Night Fever was a documentary.

Bloomfield is the kind of town that rarely makes the news - until now.

BLOOMFIELD, New Jersey (AP) -- The producers of "The Sopranos" were denied a permit to film in this North Jersey town because the mayor and some City Council members say the acclaimed HBO series negatively depicts Italian-Americans.

The owners of an old-fashioned ice cream parlor selected for the series' final scene, however, said such "personal feelings" shouldn't stand in the way.

"He should do what's good for the town," Chris Carley, co-owner of Holsten's Brookdale Confectionary, said of Bloomfield Mayor Raymond McCarthy.

Permits were approved last week. But after complaints, the council voted again on Monday and rejected them. Officials have agreed to reconsider the issue for a third time next week.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. The Sopranos, after all, is just a drama. How many mob bosses do you really think see a shrink? I know that a lot of Garden Staters get a kick of seeing their neighborhood on the show.

This Sopranos ban is unthinkable. The New Jersey I remember is one that reveled in its tawdriness. Now New Jersey is getting all sensitive, like my adopted state of California. What's up with that? I say, let the Sopranos come to Bloomfield. Fuggehedabudit.

How far can the Army be stretched?

According to the The Center for American Progress's National Security Team, not much further. They start out with this question:

In addition to the costs in American lives and treasure, this war now places an enormous strain on our all-volunteer Army, stretching it to the breaking point. But how bad is it overall?

You probably guessed that the team set about to answer that question. They did.

Of the Army’s 44 combat brigades today, all but the First Brigade of the Second Infantry Division, which is permanently based in South Korea, have served at least one tour [in Iraq or Afghanistan]. Of the remaining 43:
– 12 Brigades have had one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan
– 20 Brigades have had two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan
– 9 Brigades with three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan**
– 2 Brigades with four tours in Iraq or Afghanistan

The authors also note:

There is a clear cost on the troops as a result of the multiple deployments:

– An Army survey revealed that soldiers are 50 percent more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder if they serve more than one tour.
– The suicide rate among troops deployed to Iraq hit an all-time high in 2006

The report goes into a lot more depth. Its awfully sobering. Please read it for yourself.

Matt Sanchez writes back

I'm reading Matt Sanchez's article in Salon. Its very interesting. He writes:

I learned that I'm not as right-wing among the true believers as I feel in a place like New York, where people glibly promote diversity unless you don't agree with them.

I'm actually pretty impressed with his POV. He puts a real human face on this. He's obviously a pretty smart guy. Oh sure, his story is good for a lot of giggles, especially the Ann Coulter-faggot connection.

Matt claims that many conservatives have been supportive. I'm really glad to hear this. I have no personal interest in mindlessly hating the reeps and everything they stand for. If they can accept a gay ex-serviceman (who, by all accounts, served this country honorably), then this country is again all the richer.

Matt does complain about being attacked by the liberal blogosphere. I've read some of it - there's as much giggling as there is outright criticism. But IMO, a fair bit of the criticism is deserved - particularly from the gay community.

OTOH, Mr. Sanchez provides an opportunity to present a gay hero's face to the reep crowd. If this is how the walls of discrimination crumble, then boo-yah!

Can Giuliani re-tool the republican majority?

A number of conservative writers think that Giuliani can become the next Reagan, that is re-tool and expand the "big tent" to ensure reep wins in the future.

Daniel Casse in CommentaryMagazine.com makes the case:

[T]his conservative crack-up might ... be an opportunity for the next Republican presidential nominee. Reagan’s greatest strength in the late 1970’s was to free the party from a narrow coalition of business interests, Nixonian cultural conservatives, and country-club types. Realignment meant not just redrawing the political map, but remaking the base of the party, attracting a confederation of conservatives who had never really identified with the Republican party.

Because he does not fit neatly into any Republican box, Giuliani seems uniquely suited to take on the task of realignment—and break the red/blue split that forces the GOP to place all its bets on 100,000 votes in Ohio.

So does Noemie Emery who explains the problem (quoted below) and reasons why Rudy may be the solution:

Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford.

There's a lot of back and forth on the National Review's Corner on this topic. As one who has despised the Bush administration first and foremost for propping the Shrub up as the Great Divider, this is great news coming from the reeps.

Consider the debate within reep circles about the fate of the party and the country after 9-11, and moving through to the 2006 mid-term elections....

Oh wait, there was no debate. The reeps engaged in a huge circle jerk with everyone pointed at their lord and master - the Shrub (aka Karl Rove). Their victories were short-lived, and many reeps lost their way - big time.

I believe enough reeps now "get it." A debate about the future of the party is well underway. Where the party ends up - who knows? But at least the discussion and debate is on.

All Americans are all the richer for it.

Right Wing Nutheads and Hillary Clinton - What makes them go nuts?

Greg Sargent has a great take on the latest Anti-Hillary rant by the right-wingers. This one's a classic. It seems that Drudge was running a headline Kentucky fried Hillary: NY Senator adopts southern drawl in church service.

Greg goes on:

The Drudge headline links to this audio of Hillary speaking yesterday. If you listen to it, the main thing you'll hear is Hillary speaking in a southern drawl, saying phrases that sound like her own words:
"I don't feel no ways tired..I come too far from where I started from...Nobody told me that the road would be easy...I don't believe he brought me this far to leave me."
As you can see, this clip makes it sound like Hillary is adopting not just this drawl, but this language and this down-home grammar, as her own. The righties have been waving this around to prove what a phony Hillary is. This audio was promoted by, among others, PowerlineBlog, Free Republic, Instapundit, and Fox News, which linked to it under the headline, "Will the real Hillary please speak up?"
But as always, a simple fact-check shows this latest wingnut preoccupation to be highly dishonest. The audio clip Drudge linked to cherry-picked that quote and removed it completely from its context, which would have shown that Hillary wasn't adopting this accent or grammar or language as her own at all.

Rather, it turns out that Hillary was actually quoting the hymn lyrics of someone else -- while clearly and very openly imitating (not very well, it turns out) the cadences she thought the lyrics would traditionally have been delivered in. There was nothing phony about it at all. ...

Unreal. I'm willing to bet that 99% of the right wingers haven't gotten a clue on the real deal yet.

Tom Engelhardt - What We Know About Waste and War in Iraq

Tom Engelhardt has a singularly excellent post today about the waste in Iraq. He starts with:

Let's start with the obvious waste. We know that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives since the Bush administration invaded their country in March 2003, that almost two million may have fled to other countries, and that possibly millions more have been displaced from their homes in ethnic-cleansing campaigns. We also know that an estimated 4.5 million Iraqi children are now malnourished and that this is but "the tip of the iceberg" in a country where diets are generally deteriorating, while children are dying of preventable diseases in significant numbers; that the Iraqi economy is in ruins and its oil industry functioning at levels significantly below its worst moments in Saddam Hussein's day -- and that there is no end in sight for any of this.

I highly recommend reading it all. Click on the title.

Move over Jeff Gannon, meet Matt Sanchez

This is just, delicious. Matt, if you haven't heard is a right-wing media darling. Joey.My.Goodness leads with:

If you are familiar with Cpl. Matt Sanchez, you probably know him as the handsome 36-year old Columbia University junior and USMC reservist who recently made the rounds of right-wing talk shows like O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes, where he received praise for coming forward and complaining about his treatment at the hands of Columbia's "radical anti-military students" who called him names and mocked his military service. Sanchez was then feted at the CPAC conference where Ann Coulter made her "faggot" remark. Sanchez wrote an op-ed piece on the Columbia experience for the NY Post and began a blog and MySpace page chronicling his media exposure.

Sounds like a pretty straight forward right wing American hero. Right? Well, sure. But, its a little more complicated than that. It turns out he's a gay porn star. Click the link on the title.

Mr. Sanchez also has his own web page - here. Seems he's been receiving death threats. Which is pretty damn sad and pathetic.

Now, I could give a crap about whether he's a gay porn star or not. I'm waiting for all the reeps to go haywire over this - as if being gay somehow obviates his conservative positions.

Help me up! I just fell out of my chair

I can't believe I just read this:

Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan said tonight that if he was still advising the president he would urge him and his team to drop their policy of not talking about the Libby/CIA leak case.

"I would advise the White House to find a way to get out there and talk about it and answer some of the questions," he said on Larry King's CNN show tonight. He said it would be "interesting to see" if the White House can sustain its refusal to say anything through the appeal process.

Scott McClellan said this? This is the same "Stonewall" Scott McClellan remembered as one of the "Top 10 Republican Idiots in April of 2006:

Farewell Scott McClellan, we'll miss your outrageous lies and egregious stonewalling. Scott quit as White House press secretary last week, and if you're wondering whether he fell or was pushed, the answer is neither - he was thrown bodily out of a third floor window by Bush's new chief-of-staff Josh Bolten.

You could see the disappointment written all over Scott's chubby little cheeks as he announced to the press that he would no longer be carrying the president's water. As he stood on the south lawn and told his former boss, "I have given it my all, sir, and I have given you my all, sir," it was a bit like watching Smithers accept forced retirement from Mr. Burns. Or watching Old Yeller get a bullet in the brain from Travis Coates (except McClellan wasn't noticeably rabid).

When asked how he felt about his dismissal, Scott replied, "The White House is going through a time of transition. Change can be helpful. This is a good time and a good position to help bring about change." Ah, giving non-answers to the very end. That's our Scott. We'll miss you, old pal. Here's hoping you don't become the subject of an ongoing investigation any time soon.

Okay, that's a pure hatchet job. But Scotty is one person who deserves a hatchet job first, and a veneer of substantive analysis after. Here's a piece from Dan Froomkin back in 2004.

Even more of a charade these days are the daily briefings held by White House press secretary Scott McClellan, whose robotic adherence to repeating the predetermined messages of the day -- no matter what questions come his way -- has driven some correspondents to despair. Only narcissists and cranks could possibly feel they are getting much out of asking a question at a McClellan press briefing. Not coincidentally, the cranks are increasingly sitting at the front of the briefing room and getting called upon, in part because some big media organizations don't even bother to fill their assigned chairs anymore. What's the point?



It's true that news conferences, even of the presidential variety, have never been the most important tool for covering the White House. Deflecting tough questions and instead delivering a pre-planned message is a long presidential tradition. Like those before him, Bush goes in heavily briefed by his staff on the likely questions -- most of which are predictable -- and girded with related, but not necessarily responsive, responses. He picks the questioners, he doesn't brook interruptions, he sticks to his message.



Lou Cannon covered the Reagan White House for the Washington Post. "News conferences have always been a forum for the president to say what he wants to say, not for us to get the information that we want to get," Cannon said in an interview. "Occasionally some nugget will come out, but the news conference is really controlled by the president." But Sam Donaldson, who covered the Jimmy Carter and Reagan White Houses for ABC News, said Bush abuses the format more than any of his predecessors. "I think they have it tougher than I ever had it," he says of the modern press corps. "This president has memorized what he wants to say, which he makes fit almost any variation." For instance, Donaldson says, "If the word 'Iraq' comes up, you are going to hear what you've heard 14 or 15 times before. He's not going to really engage in answering the question."

Scotty Fucking McClellan. Go fuckin' get 'em, dude. Its never too late to grow a conscience.

Oops, the Shrub did it again

Good lord, what planet does our president live on? (And get your mind out of the gutter, it ain't Uranus, either.) From the Shrub hisself:

It's too early to judge the success of this operation. ... But even at this early hour there are some encouraging signs.

Of course, he would pick a day when 9 soldiers died (all of them needlessly), and many Shiite pilgrams were massacred. Yeah, I'm encouraged ... to go contribute to some candidates opposed to the Stupid Pointless War.

The story of the fired prosecutors

There are a lot of things happening these days that get a fuller airing thanks to having the opposition party in control of congress. Here's a quick re-cap, based on a story in the Seattle P-I about John McCay.

John McKay, the former U.S. attorney for Western Washington, confirmed Wednesday that he was ordered to resign last month and "given no explanation" for a move that critics immediately denounced as politically motivated.

McKay said he was told to step down in a phone call Dec. 7 from Mike Battle, a senior Justice Department official.

"I certainly was told of no performance or management issues," McKay said. " I understand I serve at the pleasure of the president. I knew that, and so I resigned."

However, on-going problems with this administration in the areas of accountability, playing hardball politics and competence surely come into play. After all, this is an administration that habitually and continuously lies to the American public about its intentions and motivations.

Sure enough, 'prosecutor-gate' is now a raging controversy. In fact, if it weren't for the Scooter Libby verdict (yes, of course he lied), this issue would be huge front page news. Well, this might've been knocked off by Anna Nicole Smith, David Beckham's knee or even Iraq, but its still a big story.

From Salon's Mark Follman:

[A]t least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases. That stands in contradiction to administration claims that the firings were related either to job performance or policy differences...

As I noted at the top, the opposition party is on this, and they are on this like stink on shit. With great drama this morning, DiFi unloaded this little gem:

During her opening statement during this morning's hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) revealed that the Justice Department had written to her last year and assured her that Carol Lam was doing a fine job prosecuting border cases -- even though they've said that the reason for Lam's firing was her poor performance on border cases.

[Note: That last embedded link takes you to Josh Marshall's TPM Muckracker website. Josh has been doing a tremendous job covering this story.]

The fired prosecutors also gave their own testimony today, and we learned the following:

Alleging heavy-handed political pressure, fired U.S. prosecutors testified Tuesday they felt "leaned on" by Republican lawmakers to seek indictments and hushed by a Justice Department official who didn't want them talking about their dismissals.

Testifying before Democratic-controlled congressional committees, six of eight recently ousted prosecutors said they were fired without explanation. Several described what they said was improper pressure by Republicans on pending cases.

New Mexico's David Iglesias told lawmakers he felt pressed by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., last October to rush indictments against Democrats before Election Day.

Arkansas' Bud Cummins wrote other fired prosecutors in an e-mail last month of a "message" conveyed by a Justice Department official that if they continued to talk with news reporters, the agency "would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off" and fight back.

And John McKay, the fired U.S. attorney in Seattle, said he stopped a top aide to Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., from asking him detailed questions about an investigation into the disputed election of Washington state's Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire in 2004.

This is why we need the checks and balances that makes our American system of government work. I don't mean the balance between the presidency and congress. When you have a supine congress, the bad guys can get away with just about everything.

I'm talking about having some sort of balance between the two parties. I don't think its an accident that San Diego is such a haven for corrupt pols. The dems have no power there; reeps do as the want, and they take what they want, too.

There may not be a new sheriff in DC (not yet, at least), but the deputy is at least on the ball to spot the thieves stealing hubcaps off parked cars. We should all be thankful this is getting the airing it deserves.