Iraq Returned to Self-Rule Two Days Early

Cool! Now all our surviving troops can come home and carry on protecting us from real dangers, right? Heh heh. I amuse myself.

Yahoo! News

Right on, Reaganites

Former international experts under Reagan speak out and have authored a book pillorying the neocons, Wolfowitz, Rummie, Pearle, Cheney, et al., for their idiotic promotion of US imperialism. They take on Condi, too, calling the National Security Adviser ineffective. Their attacks from the right sound like the attacks on Bush from the left. Is there some nexus, some middle ground where these forces can meet and topple Bush?

Good for you, John

For refusing to cross the Boston Police picket line to address the US Conference of Mayors. You showed some class, adhering to your mantra that you don't cross picket lines, even though it cost you a political opportunity to spread your message about aid to the cities. Sticking to your ideals in spite of sacrifice is right on, bro.

Finally

a mainstream publication, WaPo, has discovered that which we bloggers have pointed out long ago, that Tribune Bremer has tried to tie the hands of the interim government in Iraq with a detailed and lengthy series of edicts and appointments that purport to bind Iraq for years into the future. Will there be any fallout from this revelation, in the US or in Iraq? Probably not. This is how an empire works, with impunity, without opposition, regardless of how hypocritical it is.

A Parting Shot

This is how Knight-Ridder News Service reports the upcoming handover event:

Ordinary Iraqis can watch the ceremonies live on television, provided electricity is working in their power-starved neighborhoods. But there are still no details on where or when the events will take place. Iraqis inside the new leadership, meanwhile, are bracing for attacks and more criticism that they are simply a proxy government for their former occupiers.


"It'll be nice," one incoming Iraqi official said sarcastically when asked to describe the ceremonies. "Our new ministers will take an oath that'll go, `I swear by almighty God to be faithful to the United States and its Republican administration."


While the civilian occupation will dissolve, the U.S. military remains firmly in place. The patrols, checkpoints and tanks that have become part of Iraq's postwar landscape aren't going anywhere.

Off to Sonora

I'm taking a few days off from blogging, visiting my family in Tucson. A bit of bad news (among all the other bad news): Someone stole my protest sign. It's a big deal, kinda, because it was an ornate, two-sided sign, made of white panel-board that allowed me to overwrite slogans, changing them as events demanded. My last slogans were, "Hey,Hey, USA, How many soldiers died today?" and "Take Back America. Re-defeat Bush/Cheney."

I hope whoever stole it is a progressive who'll make good use of it. Hey, I may even spot it at a peace rally one of these days.

Sovereignty lite

Apparently, Iraq will have to make do without a military force, without armor or artillery. That much sovereignty, the US says, is too much.

Nice Mouth, Mr. Vice President!

F**k yourself,' said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.

Says the Washington Post, "...Even if the Senate were in session, the vice president, though constitutionally the president of the Senate, is an executive branch official and therefore free to use whatever language he likes."

Well, I'm a private citizen and also free to use any language I like. Dick Cheney is a contemptable, unmannered, self-serving dipwad who attained his position through a stolen election, the nefarious act of a politically partial Court. He should still be running Haliburton, which is where his loyalties obviously lie.

We've got to dis-appoint this cabal in November!

The handover

The June 30 date, which I'm sure the Bushies anticipated would be a fabulous photo op, with flags and trumpets and would boost Bush's ratings, will now have no such trappings, no such effect. Indeed, the pundits are saying that it could be Iraq, not the economy, that defeats him in November.

Could history be so ironic? After all of Bush's twisting and wriggling to avoid going to war in VietNam, could he become a casualty of this new war?

Clinton

I watched Clinton being interviewed by Charlie Rose and, for the first time, felt that Rose was out of his element. Too slow, too behind-the-curve, to deal with the incredibly intelligent, quick- and well-spoken Clinton. So it meant Clinton was on his own to expound his views, slightly guided by Rose, but not penetrated.

Here's what I came away with. Clinton is a business-as-usual Democrat, the very reason I voted Green in 2000. I feel sorry for Gore because Clinton's loss of principle and leadership cost Gore the election. Now I'm a Gore fan, but Clinton? Glad to see him cast into the dustbin of history. I didn't like him in office, I like him less as a has-been.

Sometimes I despair

for our world, led by powers, including the US, who are headed toward nuclear oblivion. A few voices with influence are, however, calling us to account. Good for them, and to those who listen, like Senator Ted Kennedy.

You've come a long way, Reverend

Twenty-five years ago, I defended the Moonies against charges that they brainwashed their young recruits. The Reverend Moon was thought of as a demon, later convicted after a federal trial on tax evasion charges.

Now, however, owner of the conservative newspaper The Washington Times, he's being celebrated, in fact he's being crowned, in the halls of Congress.

An historic critique

by twenty-seven former diplomats (many Republicans), calling for Bush's defeat, not only gets precious little coverage in the mainstream media, but causes Bush's approval rating to rise four points.

This is certain: Bush has hardcore support among forty-four percent of likely voters (and they will vote). Kerry has somewhat softer support among the same percent (who may vote in greater numbers this year due to Bush antipathy). To beat Bush, therefore, the undecideds must be convinced to support Kerry in a high percentage, and the pro-Kerry vote must turn out in great force.

We activists must realize we can't cause the hardcore Bush supporters to change their minds. They have no minds.

For the full text and signatories of the critique of Bush, go here.

the perfect metaphor...

Don't sniff now, but our boys are really stuck in the shit in old Baghdad.

Call me crazy

but I wonder why, if Michael Moore wants Fahrenheit 911 to "wake up the choir" to cause them to alert the blacks, the browns, the youth, and the disaffected voters to the evils of Bush and his ilk, why doesn't Moore, with financing from Soros and Turner, crank out millions of free DVDs of the movie and flood the market with them--for free? Once the distributor has made back his investment plus a decent return, the free distribution would both ensure wide dissemination and would be such a departure from traditional movie-making that it would break ground on many fronts, including the political. If Moore does this, he'll surely benefit hugely later in his life.

Iraq's new dictator

Bush/Bremer have installed a new strongman, but, to their credit, they chose one who's their dictator.

Duh

This Rasmussen poll reveals the obvious: Fox News viewers prefer Bush by a wide margin; CNN viewers prefer Kerry by a comparable margin. In other words, the biased reporting by Fox to the faithful, ie, the stupid, cancels out the somewhat less biased reporting by CNN to the somewhat less stupid. The yet less stupid, those who view PBS, prefer Kerry almost to a person; while the cretins who listen to Rush Limbaugh are Bushies, bigtime.

No figures, of course, on the alternative media, such as Pacifica or other liberal outlets.

Somewhere in the basement

of the Washington Post is a lunatic headline-writer (certainly a Republican) who writes, to capture Clinton's recent statements about the Iraq war, that "Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War but Questions Invasion's Timing."

Certainly, as the story points out, Clinton's position isn't as clear as could be, but one thing is certain: He didn't support invading Iraq but instead wanted the UN weapon-inspection process to continue. It wasn't a question of "timing" but of going to war at all--a difference of billions of dollars and thousands of human lives.

So much for full disclosure

Remember during the hearings on the Abu Ghraib torture when the witnesses in the Bush administration said that "the difference between us other governments is that we disclose our faults and will chase all leads to find out who's at fault?" Remember that?
Well, here's what it's come down to. Standard stonewalling and politics.

I smell a rat

These two paragraphs appear at the end of an article in Middle East Online.

"Amid the unrest US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the key architects of the US-led invasion, and Kevin Tebbit, the permanent secretary at Britain's ministry of defence met Iraq's new prime minister and others in Baghdad to discuss their countries' future ties.

"The visits come as both the United States and Britain work to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the government, which is due to take limited power once the coalition hands back sovereignty at the end of the month."

A "Status of Forces Agreement" is the formal name for the contract with various nations under which the US operates it bases worldwide, including Japan, Germany, Kuwait and so forth. They are binding documents that by their terms last for decades and survive changes in government.

So--Wolfie and Rummie and Bush are trying to bamboozle Iraq (and the US and the world) into signing off on such a significant, long-term agreement as negotiated with the interim government (the one that's "completely sovereign," according to them, but not sovereign enough to take custody of Saddam, for example) before an elected government takes over, knowing that the interim government is a US stooge.

I'll check around to see if anybody else has noted this development and report back.

Update: This WaPo article says that because the interim government has agreed not to subject US troops to its local laws, a status of forces agreement isn't needed. So what's Wolfie doing in Baghdad?

Oops

Bremer funds a poll of Iraqis last month to learn what the "man in the street" thinks of us, specifically, whether they want us to leave or stay, and how they regard our troops, and so forth. It's so negative that Bremer has tried to hide the results, to no avail, however.

Never mind

If I were a member of the US military--the Marines in Fallujah, the Army in Najaf--I'd be mightily pissed off. Scores of soldiers were killed (not to mention Iraqis) from the invasions of those town, in Fallujah to capture those who killed and mutilated the four "civilian contractors," in Najaf to "capture or kill" al-Sadr for his alleged participation in the killing of a cleric. In both cases, however, the armed forces didn't complete their mission, handing responsibility over to the Iraqi "security forces" who, we're learning, aren't doing their job.

I'd hate to be the parent or kid or loved one of a soldier who lost his life or limb in those exercises, in view of the obvious fact that the incursions were called off because of the political exigencies of Bush's campaign director.

Sick, sick, sick

Language buried in the final resolution of the recent G-8 summit meeting, as it relates forgiveness of Iraq's indebtedness, contains the insidiously obtuse language quoted below. This is what it really means: We well-heeled nations will reduce portions of the debt (the debt having been incurred by Saddam, and long touted by Bush as an unfair, crippling burden on Iraq's citizens) if Iraq follows the previously-imposed "privatization" of its commerce, as called for by the International Monetary Fund; that it keeps up its payments (sustainability); and that these measures are effected by Iraq before the elected government is in place, i.e., "in 2004."

"Debt reduction is critical if the Iraqi people are to have the opportunity to build a free and prosperous nation. The reduction should be provided in connection with an IMF program, and sufficient to ensure sustainability taking into account the recent IMF analysis. We will work with each other, within the Paris Club, and with non-Paris Club creditors, to achieve that objective in 2004."

Site

Tipping point

The Carl Rove machine has adopted a prophylactic defense of the president in the face of the wave of lies, errors and outrages his administration has perpetrated on the US public and the world. Their method is simple: With the arising of each new revelation an immediate staunching counterattack is launched, as with the attacks on Treasury Secretary O'Neill, intelligence chief Clark, Ambassador Wilson and so forth. Rove knows that unless immediately righted by counterattack, his ship of state will sink.

To counter Rove's plan, the attacks on Bush's lies and misdeeds must become so pervasive, so overwhelming, that finally there are too many of them to allow righting, so that the ship becomes inalterably swamped. With the new revelations of miscalculation of terrorism attacks, the condemnation of Bush by past diplomats, the ongoing prisoner-abuse scandal, the continuing deaths in Iraq and the deterioration of the status in Afghanistan--at some time, these have to weigh too heavily on Bush to allow him, even with the compliant, correcting media, to bail himself out of his self-created political debacle.

Soldier Who Robbed Bank Receives Help

I've been saying since the first hours of shock and awe that our people are going to come home traumatized.

Link

Criminal Probes of Our Troops

Give me a break. We sent them over there to kill people. We knew darn well they'd become killers.

Top News Article | Reuters.com

Not Worth It!

I'll bet this is harder to swallow than that pretzel was ...

A majority of U.S. voters now say it was not worth going to war in Iraq and feel the United States is getting bogged down there, according to a Los Angeles Times poll published on Friday.

Top News Article | Reuters.com

Can't we plant this guy?

My God, how long must we endure these egregious eulogies, these silly ceremonies, this platitudinous speechifying on Ronnie's death? If you were alive and aware during his presidency, you'd be shocked at all this piffle over his passing. I'm sure Reagan--if he's the man all these speeches say he is--is appalled.

Never mind

The earlier report by the Bush administration that terrorism is abating is, quite simply, wrong, the product of cooked books.

I'm going fucking nuts

with the ceaseless commemoratives of Reagan. That's all I can find on the news channels--hour after hour of pulp banter about his fine qualities, ignoring Iran/Contra, the multiple scandals of his administration and his unstinting retribution against those less fortunate than he. The man was no saint. He wasn't even a good person. He was an actor, and not much of one at that, who stumbled through eight mediocre years as our chief executive.

So--I decided to tune to Turner Classic Movies channel, for a respite from all the mainstream mendacity. Guess what: A series of Reagan features in honor of his death.

I'm leaving America, no shit. Be back when Carter dies.

Meanwhile, back on the ground

The Security Council passed, unanimously, the US/UK resolution on the handover of authority in Iraq. The G-8 group passed, unanimously, the US-sponsored resolution concerning democratization of the Middle East. Bush, say some pundits, is soaring with these successes. Soaring, however, is not quite the proper word to apply to the situation in Iraq, where the reality is that the violence is unabated. Apparently, the Iraqis don't know how well off they are.

Indescribable

As a writer, I'm not pleased to admit that I can't find a word--can't even find an approximation--to capture the outrage I feel upon hearing BBC's radio broadcast a moment ago of several UN Security Council members' reaction to their passage of the mealy-tongued Iraq-"self-government" resolution yesterday. The diplomats used phrases like, "recognizing the new reality," "putting the past behind us," and "coming together in the interests of Iraq's future."
So--the US/UK are forgiven. Everything is coming up roses. The thousands of dead and maimed and tortured Iraqis are forgotten, as are the young American and British troops who gave their lives and limbs for this patent violation of the UN Charter and international law. The violence we've done to the tenets of world order by the lying and intimidation we used to invade Iraq is subsumed in the slime of realpolitik. All's well that ends well. The end justifies the means.
I'll never--never--accede to such a cynical view of human governance. It's not governance at all, but an exercise in facile fakery by which those in power maintain their positions, then attempt to justify our keeping them there.
The two-year debacle we've witnessed within the United Nations (and, chiefly, without it) shows me this: Nothing has changed in the world order, or in the conduct of human affairs. We are, at base, still animals. Might, as always, makes right.

Call me insensitive, call me crass

but I'm already bored blind by remembrances of Ronald Reagan on TV during this week of mourning--and it's only Tuesday!

Crunch time

The proposed US/UK Security Council resolution on Iraq has been revised by the US four times, each time ceding more authority to Iraq's interim government, including the power to tell the US military to leave the country. Of course the US knows that that won't happen, but what might happen is that there is a disagreement between the interim government and the US Army or Marines over various military actions in Iraq.

A typical example would be the Fallujah debacle, in which the maltreatment of four "civilian" workers (read, mercenaries) led to the Marines' assault on Fallujah with hundreds dead on both sides, eventually leading to a withdrawal by the US and Fallujah in the hands of Sunni sheiks and their minions. (BTW--We never caught the Iraqis--if they were Iraqis--who killed the contractors, just as the US is pulling out of the Shiite towns without "capturing or killing" al-Sadr, which was the reason we invaded those towns.)

So, what happens if some US general, or Rummie or someone decides to launch an invasion of some segment of Iraq, perhaps on "intelligence" that al-Qaeda is lodged there or that Iranians or Syrians are sneaking in and up to no good? And, let's say, the interim government fears that such an action might end up killing hundreds of its citizens, as it might well do?

Well, as of the latest draft, we don't know. The two entities are supposed to exercise "close coordination" of such exercises.

What does that mean? Does it sound like "full sovereignty" to you?

The US/UK wants a vote on this draft Tuesday. France and Algeria are resisting, unless the above question is clarified, giving the Iraqis the power to negate any US military action. Sounds right to me, but who knows how long they can hold out against pressure from the other Security Council members, who are less strident on the subject.

Of course my dream is that just such a situation as I've described above comes to pass. The US makes a military move over the objection of the interim government and refuses to desist. The interim government appeals to the UN and/or calls out its own soldiers and the US is shown to be the warmongers that it lately has become. On Bush's watch, of course.

He who lives by the media dies by the media

Whoever planned Bush's sojourn to Europe to grab media attention around D-Day's 60th anniversary must be miffed that Ronnie chose this weekend to die. Bush's PR folks couldn't plan for this, of course, but are learning that the media are such whores that they'll cover the latest video-worthy event no matter what it is, and "great man" attributions to Reagan, plus peals of memorials and remembrances trump time-worn D-Day anytime.

Kinda like how Bush benefited from the coverage of the violence he inflicted on Iraq. He's now suffering from the media's coverage of the violence of "reconstructed Iraq."

Whatever goes around comes around.

I have two reactions to Rummie's speech yesterday

the report of which is headlined in the Seattle Times as follows: "Rumsfeld Fears Losing War on Terrorism." Rummie was in Bangladesh seeking support for the war in Iraq, fretting that the terrorists are churning out recruits faster than we can kill them.

My first reaction is, Wow! What an admission. Wouldn't you think that might make the mass media?

My second reaction is: Duh. And so you want more bombing and killing?

What the hell...

Call me a gossip, a scandal monger, whatever. Long ago I blogged on the prospect of designating Bush crazy, somehow scaring the undecideds to his opponent. Well, I'll spread this report, just doing my part.

Drip, drip, drip

Tenet resigns (plus a deputy operative in the CIA) on the eve of a stinging report about the intelligence before 9/11. Drip. That report will be issued in a couple of weeks. Drip. It will be followed by a report on the intelligence that was used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. Drip. Bush hires a lawyer to deal with the Valerie Plame disclosure. Drip. Indictments in that matter are likely imminent. Drip. Afghanistan is seething before its national election in September. Drip. The turnover in Baghdad is problematical and may lead to further violence, possibly with tension between the "coalition" and the interim government. Drip. The prisoner-abuse trials and investigations are just getting started, with subpoenas being issued for higher-ups, including Rummie and Wolfowitz. Drip. And I haven't enumerated the bribery scandal over the passage of the Medicare drug bill, the investigation of which is still pending, nor the numerous investigations of Halliburton, B&R and others for larceny in the reconstruction of Iraq, nor the numerous other scandals among Bush-supporting businesses, including Enron and its boss, "Kenny-boy".
When the ground becomes saturated, the dripping will turn into a flood and will carry Bush out of office. Right?

Finally, a super reaction by John Kerry

I've read that Kerry's team has decided to stay out of the day-to-day decline of Bush's administration of foreign policy, to stay on a positive message, to hover above the fray. This has drawn the ire of activists, including me.
But Kerry has leapt in at just the right time, on the right issue: the "backdoor draft" by Bush of enlisted personnel by extending their tours of duty by means of a "stop loss" order. Kerry should hit hard on this issue throughout the summer as these soldiers swelter and die in orderthat Bush, for political reasons, can maintain that he's not increasing the deployment of forces in Iraq.

Now what we want is coverage of Kerry's outrage, so that the military's outrage will follow.

Okay, I'm now a believer

that the New York Times has become untenable dogshit. Not just because of the recurring scandals about its misreporting, its acknowledged screwups in plumping for war in Iraq, its complete lack of truly investigative reporting in the last decade or so. These are symptomatic, merely, of being so wedded to the capitalistic system that it can't see history, can't see beyond the present-day morass, can't address anything larger than last week's stale headline.

(I just watched columnist Tom Friedman on CNN defend foreign outsourcing as good for our workers "in the long run," even though it costs American jobs in the short run; and waffle, totally, on the question of sovereignty in Iraq. This guy gets a salary?)

What have we become?

The results of this Gallup poll are more disturbing to me than even the state of public sentiment about George Bush and his wars: In answer to the question whether in the US the death penalty was imposed "too often," "the right amount" or "not enough," the percentages were 23%, 25% and 48%, respectively. Almost half of us feel we don't execute each other often enough? More than two-thirds think we're executing each other at about the right rate?

Is this the United States? If so, maybe those America-haters are right.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan

The poppy harvest is proceeding apace. Amazing incompetence. Almost makes you wonder if Rummie is one of the warlords who's taking a cut.

Elephant in the living room

Not talked about by the mainstream media is a principal reason Bush decided to invade Iraq: the establishment of US military bases in Iraq in order to gain leverage in the Middle East. With already-existing bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Iran and Syria would be surrounded by American forces.

I'll bet Rummie and Halliburton and the gang have already constructed huge installations in Iraq, probably using "reconstruction" money, and that we'll learn about this sometime this summer when the interim leadership of Iraq decides to question it.

Maybe not--but why isn't it a burning question when we are told that Iraq will gain full sovereignty?

Timid liberals

As this essay points out, all but a few democrats are strikingly mute in this election season, giving Bush a free pass about this nightmare he's created in the Middle East. Al Gore and Ted Kennedy have spoken out of late, as has Senator Robert Byrd (who's been doing so for more than a year), but others? Daschle, Feinstein, Boxer, Harkin--where are they? Why aren't we hearing from them daily, railing, as they should, against the militarism, incompetence, evil of Bush/Cheney?

Is it "timidity" as the author of the essay says? If so, who are they afraid of? The media, their constituents, the Republican attack dogs? All of these?

The effect of the lack of liberal-based critics is that those who do speak out may be isolated by the Republicans and assailed as "demented," as Gore was after his fiery speech last week.

C'mon, you liberal chickenshits. Join the democracy!

Memorial Day

I attended the evening ceremony at East Beach yesterday at a display of white crosses that the Veterans for Peace lay out every weekend. Each of the 810 crosses (one for each soldier that has died in Iraq) was underlit by a red votive candle, just after sunset, while "Taps" was played.

I got weepy, actually teary-eyed, during the ceremony. I was surprised, because, frankly, I haven't been proud of much of my nation's actions over the last several years. Fact is, I suppose I do "love America" in some deep recess--cultural conditioning, no doubt--and I was moved by the fact that so many of those assembled did so too. Many of them, like me, continue to care very much for the ideals which our founding documents set forth and in the sometimes fulfillment of them by our elected leaders.

Enough. Time to get back to work to defeat Bush/Cheney's election.

Pat Buchanan and me

I never thought I'd agree with this guy--old wounds take time to heal--but on the antiwar issue he's right on. He and "true conservatives" (as opposed to neocons) think this Iraq thing is nuts. Now, he believes Bush has got the message, and is merely posturing until he can find a graceful way out, a la Nixon and Vietnam.
Well, as I foretold a year ago, here's whazzup. After the "turnover," regardless of the state of security and so forth, Bush will announce major withdrawals of US forces just before the election, declaring a "victory" in time to help with his re-election.

(If he's re-electioned--God forbid--he'll "redeploy" troops into Iraq in a heartbeat, you bet your ass, because his dream for a US-dominated Middle East will still be extant, and now he'll have four full years to effect it.)

Sooo--stay tuned.

If I were an Iraqi, I would be mightily pissed off

at the mendacity of Bush and his minions. On the one hand they say that they must keep our troops in Iraq to ensure its security; on the other hand they boast to US citizens that they've succeeded in luring the terrorists to Iraq, so as to fight them there, rather than on our soil. Finally, Bush claims, our mission in Iraq is to bring the Iraqis peace and democracy. How infuriating it must be to try to exist in the meatgrinder we've made of their nation.

When Do Workers Get Their Share?

Check out this study from the Economic Policy Institute, comparing the percentage participations of workers, through increased income, and corporations, through increased profit, during the last three "recoveries." Profits now are higher than in any previous recovery, by multiples, while income increases are pitiful compared to previous times. And these increases are actually decreases when the soaring costs of medical benefits are taken into account.

When are those to whom Bush's "trickle" isn't trickling going to rise up and smell the fraud?

Who's Bush trying to kid?

Bush has been on the telephone telling members of the Security Council, including the Russians, that "full sovereignty" will be transferred to Iraq on June 30. Putting aside the question of the immutability of laws previously imposed on Iraq by Bremer, which I've referred to in previous posts, the Security Council resolution proposed by the US/UK is specific on the point. It reaffirms the structure of the "multinational force" (led by the United States) and then provides that the Security Council

"6. ... decides that the multinational force shall have authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq including by preventing and deterring terrorism..."

No mention whatsoever of the involvement (certainly not of a "veto power") of the Iraqis in taking these "necessary measures." How would we like to have a international force stationed in the US (say, with bases outside of New York, Washington, Los Angeles) with such powers? Would the neo-cons, much less the macho George Bush, call this "full sovereignty"?

Proof that Bush supporters can't think or write without assistance

Here's a page on the Bush/Cheney website urging visitors to write specific formulations to their newspapers, presumably so Google will pick them up.

Stopping at nothing

This analysis of a paragraph in Attorney General Ashcroft's press conference today shows how far the Bushies will go to gain their man's re-election, even so far as to suggest that Osama bin Laden might attack the US in the pre-election period in order to swing the election to Bush's opponent, citing the outcome of the terrorists' train bombing in Spain. Ashcroft implied, of course, that bin Laden would prefer a Kerry to a Bush presidency, the further implication being that Kerry would be softer on terrorism than Bush.

I don't think Ashcroft's quite evil enough to stage an attack on the US just before the election (although I'm not as certain of this as I'd like to be). I have this hunch, however, namely, that Ashcroft and FBI Muller's list of seven terrorists that was presented at the same press conference contains one or more already-incarcerated people. They'll be dribbled out one by one between now and the election by means of a series of announcements of their capture and immediate incarceration (incommunicado, of course, at Gitmo). This way, Ashcroft can assure Bush's re-election without having to rely on the not-quite-so-reliable Osama bin Laden.

Transition or manipulation?

This is my third post in two days on this subject, but Bush's hypocrisy won't allow me to stay silent. He speaks of "full sovereignty" for Iraq as of July 1, 2004, both in his speech last Monday and in statements thereafter, when trying to assuage the French and German about the extent of the "transfer of power." What a crock! Does he think his audience, like he, doesn't read?

Even CNN/MSNBC have caught on to the tension between Tony Blair's statement that the Iraqis will have a "veto" over military operations in Iraq, including, presumably, US forces, and the insistence by Colin Powell and other US officials that this is not so. Military force is of course a vital question of sovereignty--and will no doubt draw much attention during the debate on the UN resolution that the US is presently seeking.

But the focus on sovereignty should be much wider. Naomi Klein, many months ago--as noted in a few of my posts back then--pointed out actions by Tribune Bremer that locked in US hegemony over Iraqi law, including privatization of commerce and control over resources. These laws, by their terms, extended long past any "turnover of sovereignty" and were immutable by subsequent legislation. Now, she's not alone in her analysis. No less a Bush supporter than the Wall Street Journal has observed that Bremer's actions have, in essence, frozen Iraq into acceptance of a complex of laws for years to come, laws covering a broad span of authority under any definition of sovereignty.
The WSJ article, however, appeared on May 13, 2004, and so far hasn't gotten any play beyond its pages. Is that because the networks and cable stations still don't want to ask the tough questions even after months of discrediting reports about Bush's handling of the occupation of Iraq? Or are they just incompetent? Or both?

Religiosity in the US

This current and historical Gallup poll on the religious beliefs of Americans is, to me, amazing. I had no idea these figures were so elevated--high percentages of believers in heaven, angels, the devil. Astounding percentages believing in the literal truth of bible stories, such as Noah's Ark.

I don't believe in God in any traditional religious sense, but the concept of some form of grand force or design in the formation of our material world makes some sense. But the notion that this force created the great flood, parted the Red Sea and so forth--am I missing something?

Testing, testing

Okay, this story --that a learned study has found that al-Qaeda has grown remarkably, not diminished, since Bush began his war on terr'r--has made it to the Associated Press. Will it make the cable and network newscasts? Any readers who spot it on these sources, please let us know.

Update: A report about the study appeared on CNN this morning (5/26). It wasn't an incisive interview, however, and didn't make the point that the numbers of terrorists have grown due to the invasion of Iraq, which was a major thrust of the report.

Okay, fair's fair

If (as shown on CNN) George Bush can invite Iraqi businessmen to the White House to shake their "hands" (that is, their prosthetic hands supplied by the US, their real ones having been cut off by Saddam Hussein), thereby by inference claiming that we're better than Saddam because we brutalize our prisoners more subtley; then Michael Moore can say anything he wants to about Bush, because he's right: Bush is capable of anything to gain and keep his power.

I'm not crazy after all

As many of the readers of this blog know, I'm a regular demonstrator (Saturdays and three or four afternoons per week), displaying an antiwar/anti-Bush sign throughout Santa Barbara. Over the last two months, I've noted a marked change in the reaction to my sign, a distinct shift against Bush and the war. I've felt this, and now there's evidence of it.

Leave it to the French

to recognize the hypocrisy in Bush's claim that "full sovereignty" will be transferred to Iraq on July 1. Under the draft UN resolution that the US is proposing to support the transition, the US military will retain authority to take all necessary measures, without Iraqi approval, to handle security measures and will not be subject to Iraq's control, particularly in connection with its departure.

The French intend to insist on such provisions. Good for them.

Same o, same o

The US/British proposed UN resolution for the interim governance of Iraq merely parrots the stand of the "coalition" heretofore announced and effected. The US military force may remain, under the proposal, regardless of any request of the interim government to depart; Iraqi forces must obey US military orders; there is no departure date for US forces; and the commander of any "international peacekeepers" must be from the US.

France and Germany are recalcitrant, as are other Security Council members. For good reason.

How many deaths?

Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?

According to antiwar.com, deaths of our troops have now topped 800.

God help us.

Been Wondering?

Have you been wondering how many Iraqis have died in the war? I know I have. Looks like roughly 5500, according to morgue records. That's just Baghdad and three provinces.

When it hits 6000, should we sell?

Chalabi Raid

The Agonist has posted an e-mail -- the author claims to have witnessed events of the Chalabi raid. Judge for your self.

Geneva Concoction

The latest from the subterranean vaults of Kyle's Strange But True:

Should the US government release all of the prisoner abuse photos, videos and records and just get it over with. Some think so; best to clean out the worst from the back of the fridge and be done. The American people, they theorize, will sublimate it all by summer and Bush's doublethink team can get on with heading up the herd for the election.

But some Administration lawyers think they can't do that, because releasing the images would be a violation of the Geneva Convention's proscriptions, prohibiting holding up a prisoner to humiliation.

That's right folks. If they aren't released, the abused prisoners get no justice; their suffering gets buried with the truth. If they are released, that's humiliating, therefore wrong. Pretty good catch, that catch-22.

So much to post, so little time

Hard to keep up lately. Not on account of lack of blogging time, but on account of a myriad of subjects, too many to follow. Pardon my lack of links in the following recitation, but the mainstream media will soon (I trust) trumpet the following:

1. Chalabi's dead meat. The Pentagon's pretty boy, seated beside Laura Bush at a recent White House event, turns out to be a schemer, plotting with Iranians to make Iraq his turf, with an Islamic-based legal system, with Chalabi as the boss. How is Rummie going to explain this, since Chalabi was the source of much of the prewar intelligence, earning $300,000 per month? What else can Rummie do wrong?

2. We sprayed a wedding party with copter-bullets--again. Recall, we also did this in Afghanistan, and then, as now, claimed it was a legitimate defensive and/or interdictive measure. Ya know, it doesn't matter what we say to the arabs anymore. It matters only what they believe, and given our recent activities, they invariably believe the worst. As do I, I might add.

3. Two new prison-abuse photos have surfaced, these depicting a dog-attack on a prisoner and a box-standing torture. At the rate of these disclosures, we could end up with a trickle of photos that ends only on election day. Goody.

4. Republican members of Congress are balking at various of Bush's actions. They say he's sold out to the leftist Democrats on some issues and so may stay at home on election day. I love this, of course, but can the Republicans be serious--Bush isn't conservative enough!!! Goes to show you what we'd be in for if he's elected for another four years without the need to stay in the "center" in order to retain electability. If left alone, on reelection, Bush would indeed become der Fuhrer, I kid you not.

Old habits die hard

Amazing how stupid politicians are. Sure, I can understand why Bush (or Nixon or Clinton or all the others) might think that they can wait out various scandals. We Americans do indeed have short memories; and so it might make sense for Bush to bury the report of the "prewar WMD intelligence" committee until after the election. And of course the Valerie Plame thing may go away too, if delayed long enough.

But the prisoner abuse scandal--that's something else. With new photos leaking out slowly and new prisoner deaths being reported, this item isn't going to leave the radar all summer. Certainly not in the minds of Muslims; not even in the minds of Americans. But the Bushies can't break the habit of stonewalling, and so I guess we'll just have to wait for the revelations to dribble out.

Gosh all roonie.

US fire 'kills 40 Iraqi wedding guests'

It seems our forces have blasted the bejesus out of another wedding. I have the same remarks to share as I made when this happened in Afghanistan a couple of years ago:

1. How incredibly, profoundly tragic. May God have mercy on the souls of the dead, grant comfort to those grieving, and forgive the sins of those who caused this. Apropos of which ...
2. How abjectly stupid do people have to be to fire their weapons into the air, to celebrate a wedding, in a war zone?

Guardian Unlimited | US fire 'kills 40 Iraqi wedding guests'

Growing Fears of Failure

I understand the fear of failure. Not everything in my life has gone according to plan. And maybe it's my fault for never dreaming big enough. Perhaps if I'd occupied another country and converted it's assets, my career would be farther along. Anyway, it seems it's beginning to dawn on a few dunderheads that things aren't going so well in Iraq. The whole thing just might be a monumental failure. Hmm. You think?

"We had a plan that anticipated, I think, that we could proceed with an occupation regime for much longer than it turned out the Iraqis would have patience for. We had a plan that assumed we'd have basically more stable security conditions than we've encountered." -- Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the Senate.

U.S. Faces Growing Fears of Failure (washingtonpost.com).

Who's on second?

Now we have the Secretary of State and the President at odds over the propriety of Israel's massive attacks in the Gaza Strip. This administration is not only evil, it's inept. Is there a word for that?

Look out below

Foreigners' purchases of US stocks is way down, and their purchases of US government securities is headed that way. Since they're the major purchasers of our securities, who'll take up the slack to support the US economy and its currency?

There's bad news and then...

Outsourcing of jobs is increasing dramatically. Interest rates are rising at a time of all-time high borrowing by Americans. The percentage of home ownership, while increasing for the wealthy, is declining for working class families with children.

Had enough?

Do as I say...

The US State Department has released a delayed annual update on human rights violations around the globe. As the CNN reporter points out, many of the abuses we cite, we practice.

"For example, the report summarized Saudi Arabia's 'poor' human rights record with these words: 'Security forces continued to torture and abuse detainees and prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain persons and detain them incommunicado.'

"Many countries and human rights groups likewise have criticized the United States for holding detainees at the naval station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to counsel.

"The report also criticizes many countries for restricting freedom of the press at a time the Coalition Provisional Authority has taken to task such Arabic-language media outlets as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya for what it said were inflammatory, misleading reports against the U.S. military."

So--we have found the enemy and they is us.

Chink in the armor

Aha, the first schizm. Tony Blair's human rights envoy to Iraq tells of the deaf ears that were turned to her by Condi Rice and others when she repeatedly complained to them of defalcations at the Baghdad prison. Condi's delay and indifference (We'll get back to you on that") is consistent with her handling of other acute problems, most significantly, the threat of terrorist attack on the United States during the summer before 9/11.
So--Now she's in the gunsights as well as Rummie. That leaves Bush with only Cheney to take the flak for him. Could it be that Bush, at some point, may be held responsible for at least one of the nightmares that he's caused to America? Maybe soon, but surely on November 2.

Who's on first?

Bremer said a week ago that "If the Iraqis ask us (our military) to leave, we'll leave." Powell said the same thing a few days later. Then Bush said no, that we'll stay after July 1 for sure. And then today Powell split the difference. He says he expects the Iraqis to place our military under a multinational authority, with an American at its head.

Could it be that we don't have clarity even now, even on this critical issue?

Rummie's in deep poopie

A new article by Seymour Hersh spells doom for our Secretary of Defense, who, according to Hersh, informed the president. We'll hear the standard nondenials from DOD, but over time the truth will dribble out. Like maple or chocolate syrup, or honey. Delicious.

A Tangled Web

All this talk about "If the Iraqis ask us to leave, we'll leave": Pure BS. According to this Wall Street Journal article (a newspaper I rarely cite, I trust you've noticed), Tribune Bremer, over the last few months, has entered a series of decrees that completely eliminate the power of the interim governmental body to do anything, to decide anything, to appoint or fire anybody, or to pass any laws. For example, Bremer just entered an edict appointing a set of administrators (controlling the media and commmerce and the military) to five year terms, that may not be altered.
So much for democracy in the Middle East.

Fascinating possibilities

Okay, now that Tribune Bremer and Softie Colin Powell have both said that if Iraq's interim government asks our troops to leave, we'll leave, the following possibility emerges:

Bush, losing in the polls prior to the election, directs his minions manipulate an Iraqi "request" to leave so that the boys can come home in October, thus delivering Bush a "victory" and leaving Kerry with nothing to campaign on. I don't put it past Bush to declare such a victory, thus to gain re-election, only to declare a follow-up emergency and re-insert our troops within weeks after the election.

how many posts will it take 'til we know...

Just a quick note to note that All That Arises consists of 773 posts by Erik and myself. I just noticed that. In about a year, we've published into the void almost 800 times. Wow. Most of that's Erik's work; he's kickin' ass and takin' names. Cool.

Rummie's photo op

Today Rumsfeld flew off to Iraq (more pleasant there for him nowadays than here) to "host a town hall" with the troops. I'm watching it live on CNN right now. My observations:
1. He thanked the troops for their efforts rebuilding schools, playgrounds, roads, bridges. My question: Why are our soldiers doing those tasks? Isn't that what we're paying Halliburton for?
2. Rummie quipped that he's stopped reading the papers back home. I understand why--but it's a dangerous notion.
3. Rummie appeared almost catatonic.
4. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard Meyers accompanied him. A complete stooge. Both he and Rummie kept using the phrase "the few" to describe the soldiers who are involved in the prisoner-abuse incidents. He had the gall to state the these soldiers were equal to "the greatest generation" of World War Two. Maybe the troops are. But the leadership? Not hardly.
5. A female soldier, I believe a "regular army" member, asked the first question: It was near-inaudible, but it wasn't a pleasant one for Rummie. Essentially, "when do we go home?" Rummie was obviously displeased and tap-danced around it. She also asked whether, since the prison-abusers were largely reservists, would fewer of them be deployed hereafter? Rummie said no.
6. Questions about equipment and armament arose. Meyers said they had the money, just couldn't produce the equipment fast enough. One soldier asked what the Pentagon policy was about arming US civilians who were placed "in harm's way" (such as that truck-driver who recently "escaped from captivity"). Remarkably, no one--Rummie, Meyers, even Sanchez, the Army commander--knew the answer. How could that be?
All in all, it was a nonevent although I imagine Faux news will make it a lead story.

Conspiracy theory

to the max.
I apologize in advance to my coblogger, Kyle. I'm sure he doesn't subscribe to the following, which I concede is the product of my personal dementia. My only defense is that Rove and his henchmen have shown themselves to be capable of anything and so I wonder...
Consider:
1. Berg was held for thirteen days by Iraqi police, who were under the dominion of US forces, during which time the FBI visited Berg's parents twice, asking about Berg's activities. He was an American citizen, known by us to be so, so that the FBI's claim that the US didn't have custody of him is plainly, and legally, false.
2. He was released the day after the parents sued the Department of Defense, but then he "disappeared." His body was "found," decapitated, a few days later. The video of the beheading was shown on an Arabic-language website a day or two later.
3. He emailed his friends and parents after his release and was seen by friends in Iraq before he disappeared. In these emails he apparently told them he wanted to leave Iraq as soon as possible. The FBI, however, is claiming that they offered Berg "free passage" out of Iraq, but that he refused.
4. The website, in Arabic, stated that al-Zarqawi, an al Qaida leader, executed Berg. But al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian and is missing one of his legs; whereas the speaker on the video and the knife-wielder spoke Arabic with an Iraqi accent and was not apparently handicapped.
5. The Berg family was Jewish, the father was on a conservative watch-list because of his antiwar activities and was listed as an officer of his son's company.
6. Other questionsare raised about the authenticity of the video, not all of which I subscribe to, but I nevertheless ask, who benefits from the display of Berg's "execution" in such a heinous way, just as Bush's poll numbers were declining due to the photos of US prisoner abuse?
I warned you I was becoming demented, but still...

The next shoe to drop?

This lengthy piece by Justin Raimondo penetrates the testimony given by General Taguba, setting out the possibility that immersed in the photographed torture/abuse activities were civilians from an unidentified foreign nation, which Justin takes to be Israel. Recall, stories were circulating some months ago that the CIA had asked Israel's intelligence service to advise them on interrogation of prisoners.
What a bombshell that would be--and on a CNN report this morning, it's being said that the woman Pfc. named London is claiming that she was instructed by outsiders specifically how to gesture and point at the prisoners as shown in the photos.
The Republicans'contention that these abusive practices, occurring at two different prisons in Iraq, at least, are the product of only a few low-ranking "bad apples" isn't going to survive the week.

Pat Buchanan for President?

Okay, I'm kidding. But his ideas for future US actions in Iraq, the Middle East and througout the world are more aligned with mine than Kerry's.

Ugly, ugly

So now what? We torture them, they behead us. This is madness. Worse than anything we've undergone before during wartime because we're witness to its abiding ugliness. One thing: They're more brutal than we are. Another thing: If this becomes a battle of brutality, we lose.

Prisoners of their own prison

The Senate hearings into the prison scandals are as politicized as any hearings I've seen. Republicans trying to "limit the damage" to the general (a woman named Karpinski) who was in charge of the central Iraq prison system; the Democrats trying to expand it up and out. The effect will be to drag the proceedings out for months. This, plus the drip-drip of further evidence, is going to enliven our summer bigtime.

Today in Iraq

This is a fabulous day-by-day recital of events in Iraq, from an Iraqi blogger. Check it out.

Read it and weep

Here are portions of the Red Cross report on prisoner abuse. No wonder we never heard about it. Recall, readers, that we invaded this country (think Germany invading France) and rounded up those who wouldn't lie down for us (or those who we thought didn't lie down quick enough), and determined to find out stuff about the resistance. Recall, too, that as invaders we were all the while, including now, bound by the Geneva Convention, which prohibits all of this. Even Rummie, the fascist, has conceded that the Geneva Convention applies to these prisoners, as opposed to those whom Bush has deemed "enemy combatants." In other words, all of what is described is illegal under international law, under treaties that are the supreme law of the land (of the United States and of any nation that has ratified same) violation of which are war crimes.

We have acted with the very evil that we've vowed to defeat. We are the enemy now.

So far so good

Bush has just appeared on television after "visiting the Pentagon for a briefing" about the Iraq war. He gave a five-minute pre-written statement supporting Rumsfeld, preaching about the rightness of our cause, blathering about the "abuse issue," and, if I may be so bold, his speech sounded (complete with Texas accent) just like LBJ's ramblings as the Viet Nam conflict ground on in the sixties.

This is terrific. Nothing new, nothing significant, and the newscasters and analysts are already jumping on the story. Blood is in the water, the Chinese water torture has begun, the dike has a hole in it. Pick your trite metaphor.

One pissed off lady

Riverbend, author of the Baghdad Burning blog, is outraged by these latest revelations about torture and abuse at the Baghdad prison. She--a relatively moderate Iraqi--wants us out. Now!

Let the Games Begin

Let's face it folks: When someone like Rumsfeld says he's taking full responsibility for a FUBAR operation like Abu Ghraib, what he really means is that he'll make sure that appropriate scapegoats take the fall.

We all know that command is just as responsible as rank and file in this deal, but a few Courts Martial will make for good copy, and in the end, everything will be business as usual at Bush Co. Cynical? Naw it was ever thus, that's all.

Well, isn't that precious...

The Sunnis and Shias have joined together to demand that the post-June 30 governance be controlled by a group other than one chosen by the US or the governing council. A truly independent group, just like--could it be?--democracy.

I wonder how Tribune Bremer and his boss, Bush, will react to this. Could they handle Iraqis chosing their own form of governance? We have less than two months to wait until we find out.

More Bad News for Bush

The News for Bush just keeps getting better and better. Or worse, depending on your perspective.

Sick, sick, sick

I watched Rummie and the generals at the House hearing. Imagine. They actually had the gall to say that these hearings--that is, the fact that the US, through its congress, was holding these hearings in public and so forth--would send a strong message to the rest of the world that we are a worthy nation, a strong and principled democracy, able to air its dirty laundry on such a sensitive subject and vow to correct the abuses.

As I say, imagine the gall. These abuses, the photos, the hearings, never would have been aired at all if the Pentagon had anything to say about it, nor would Bush/Cheney or the Army have taken any action except perhaps in secret. All of the last week's activities arose only because the CBS program, Sixty Minutes II, televised the photos, and Sy Hersh was about to publish a detailed expose in the New Yorker magazine. In fact, the underlying Army report that detailed the abuses, as well as the photos, were buried in the Pentagon for months before, suddenly, all of Rummie's fake "democracy" became necessary.

The status of the United States in the world

is well depicted by the recent vote in the General Assembly opposing Israel's unilateral actions in the Middle East. The vote was 140 to 6, critical of Israel. The US was one of the 6. The other five? Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru and Palau. Oh. And Israel.

Rummie and the brass hats

are sitting side by side before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The witnesses came armed with charts and timelines, gave muffled waffles/responses to muddled questions/speeches by the Senators. This quickie hearing won't do much except provide the media with grist for their presses and screens. It's not likely to resolve the questions, which will linger and, if all goes as usual, will simmer all summer, boiling over occasionally as new revelations are made and are processed by the media and the world.

Fabulous.

April Jobs report

For the second month in a row, the Labor Department has reported that job creation in the US has jumped above experts' expectations, including, even, a small addition of jobs in the manufacturing sector. It's possible that this means that the economy will continue to recover throughout the summer. This is good news for Bush, bad news for those of us who oppose his re-election. (I recognize this tension, BTW, which not too many of us liberals acknowledge is inherent in our position).

Does this mean that Bush is unbeatable in November? Almost. Bush's only significant liability may therefore be foreign policy, Iraq in particular. It's possible that with Iraq in such turmoil, and with the related scandals still roiling, he could be done in by foreign policy alone, but there's not much precedent for that. True, the war in Viet Nam caused LBJ to quit (hence we'll never know whether he would have been re-elected), but Nixon was re-elected during the worst of the Viet Nam conflict.

One thing might change this prospect: A powerful campaign by the Democratic candidates, Kerry and his veep, causing a groundswell of positive support. Could that happen?

Not exactly the party line

The Iraqi general who's been appointed by us to handle Fallujah for us says our troops should forthwith pull back--all the way to the United States.

A view of Kerry's "problem"

Many of my Bush-hater buddies are, like me, dismayed at John Kerry's performance so far in his campaign to unseat the entrenched, well-funded incumbent. I've got a whole essay, so far not reduced to writing, on the subject. But this quote is a good start.

"The result, as some of his supporters concede, is that [Kerry] comes across as just a generic Democrat. No one can finish the sentence 'I support John Kerry because...' except to say '...he is not George Bush.'

"If the election is just a referendum on Mr Bush, none of this may matter. Mr Kerry is raising huge amounts of money—a record $55m in the first quarter—which may be all that is necessary if the Republicans defeat themselves. But there are big risks to running a message-free campaign. It could depress Democratic turnout. It lets Mr Bush define Mr Kerry. And if he wants to fulfil the Democrats' pledge to 'take back the country', and seize the political initiative, Mr Kerry will need a governing strategy on inauguration day. To do all that, he needs to start imposing what he stands for on the party. That is the opportunity fast disappearing."

The way it is in Iraq, now and then

This Iraqi blogger reacts to a post that paints "pre-war vs. post-war" difference, pointing out, for example, that the claim of the high school attendance by girls is the same as it was before the US invasion.

Oh boy, oh boy

The prisoner abuse issue is becoming a "what did the president know and when did he know it?" question. The press loves this kind of thing ever since Watergate. It's pretty clear there was a report about prisoner abuse in both Iraq and Afghanistan that circulated to the White House many months ago, and the Congress is pissed off about being left out of the loop, so there may be some traction to the issue, even public hearings.

It could arise to a mini-Watergate summer. Fun, fun, fun.

Troops Reprimanded for Prison Abuse

OK, everybody can relax about the torture of Iraqi prisoners. The troops have been reprimanded. I guess they're just excitable boys. Yahoo! News

Hamill "escapes"

I'm not denigrating the conduct of the truckdriver who found his way to US Army troops, and thereupon to freedom. But two items have been reported that color the story. First, when, upon his "rescue," he was asked if he was hungry, he said, "No thank you. I've already eaten." Second, he'd already escaped once--a day or two before--and when he didn't find any US Army troops to pick him up he returned to his place of captivity and waited for another chance.

Is this another Jessica Lynch thing?

The latest litany of outrages and embarrassments

The systematic abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US military; the statement by Tribune Bremer, as head of a commission investigating terrorism, that the George Bush's administration wasn't paying attention to terrorism; the ongoing deaths of US soldiers; the "strategic retreat" of the US from Fallujah; the criticism of US treatment of Iraqis by the Brahimi--can Bush somehow spin all of this away, cause the public to shrug all of it off somehow? God, if he can, we're doomed.