You say you want a revolution?

It's times like these that drive people to fill wine bottles with gasoline and throw them, or rocks, or sticks of furniture, at tanks. Or line up in scattered rows against redcoat ranks.

All is calm. The war rages on, the scandals and illegalities pile up unaddressed, the press dumbs down--indeed is dumb--and meanwhile we, unrepresented but right, sit at home and type.

Yeah, Molotov cocktails are sounding real fine right now.

Look out, world!

I'm writing this post from a coffee house, The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf in Goleta, CA. I'm using a T-Mobile Wi-Fi connection. Get down, get down. Now, at any time of day, 'most anywhere, I can place my thoughts on this blog as they arise.

Documentaries

Talk about a growth industry. A local group shows a different film--from environmentalist harrangues to antiwar polemics--each week, seems like. And I get LinkTV which plays similar fare day, night out. Some of them are fine films, some quite lame, but the latest darling--"Why We Fight"--is analyzed by Justin Raimondo, here, and I gotta tell ya, this sounds to me like a must-see movie.

Raimondo tells of an opening scene in which an American father of a son who works in the Trade Center is on a train toward New York and sees the towers in flames, fears for his son and later learns the worst. His reaction: Blind revenge.

Would that have been mine, in a similar setting, with my daughter in the towers? I don't know, but I do recall distinctly my reaction to the news of the attacks. I learned about them on my computer that morning, early, but I didn't have a TV and so didn't follow along all that day and during the next weeks as I'm told so many Americans did. But my immediate reaction that morning, which has continued to this day: "Well, that's the price of empire." Indeed, I think I even mouthed that phrase when I learned on the Internet about the strike on the second tower. Yup--that's what I felt. Not far from "we had it coming." Closer to "we saw it coming," but still not blind revenge, not at all. That's what the terrorists felt vs. the US, toward our nation's decades of domination and, in their view, corruption.

Anyhoo--I'm going to see "Why We Fight" and will report in due course, of course.

I don't get it

Down the coast from here, ten miles or so, is Oprah's place. A castle on a large acreage overlooking the Pacific. It cost her fifty million or so, five years ago. A friend of mine and I were discussing it, essentially wondering What the fuck? Who needs--who even wants--that kind of property? Not who deserves it, really (because no one does), but who would bother? I just don't get it--and now, check out Tiger's latest purchase.

What the fuck?

State of the Union

Bush's speech, portions of, and an analysis of, I heard over BBC World Service radio, was much ado about nothing, except I did get a kick out of his assertion that the US is "addicted to oil." Oh, really? Where's he been during the last three decades, and especially during the last five years as president? Thanks to his administration and the Republican Congress, no action has been taken to alleviate that dependency: policies favoring alternative fuel development have been scrapped, rules to reduce gasoline consumption by cars and to support mass transit have been repealed, and anti-environmental regulations have been enacted. It's galling indeed to watch Bush make a political point out of the very addiction he's caused.

As to the Democrats' response by that Virginia governor? Awful. Wussy, fuzzy, absolutely ineffective. Like a good Democrat.

I don't want to sound stupid, but

I've gotta ask: Given that virtually all legal experts, including me (and this of course doesn't include Albert Gonzalez and his minions) know that Bush's argument that he holds plenary power to order spying during "wartime" is an complete crock, who's gonna tell him otherwise? If Congress "disagrees," what can they do but pass some resolution or even a limiting statute, which Bush will, according to him, be empowered to ignore? And if the courts disagree? Well, under the "unitary executive" theory, Bush may ignore that branch too.

Bottom line: Whether his program is declared "legal" or not by Congress and/or the federal courts, Bush will continue it if he chooses to. Only if the courts somehow influence the military branch--or maybe the US Marshal Service, which is under the courts' jurisdiction (at least I think they still are)--to enforce any decree they enter, will the spying stop.

Oh boy--a full-scale constitutional crisis. I can't wait.

Dysfunctional economy, anyone?

On the same day we learn that Americans are saving money at the lowest rate since the depression year of 1933, we are told that an oil company, Exxon, has reported the largest quarterly and annual profit ever achieved by any corporation, ever. Ever in the history of corporations, ever in the history of profits, ever.

Larry King, the most overpaid person on the planet

Okay, maybe the CEO's of Tyco and Enron are in the same league, but this King dude is a blight on the TV screen. I just watched his puffball interview of former president Bush, including a couple of soft questions about the status of the US occupation of Iraq. When Bush said "it's going well, better every day," King didn't even pause before moving to the next soft question. Meanwhile, the Iraqi oil minister is quitting his job after years of failure; while 50,000 US troops are being conscripted to stay extra months on the ground; and scores of Iraqis--and US newsmen--are being killed and injured.

"Better every day?" Mr. former president? Larry--get off the air, and get a job selling Hallmark cards.

This isn't Spinal Tap, it's wiretap

Bad joke. But with a point.

Despite the MSM's characterization, in response to Bush's PR blitz to support his NSA spying program, that the legality of the program is debatable, it isn't. Not even for a moment is there a hestitation, a pause for reflection, on the point.

So now, let's see how Congress--in particular the Republicans--react; let's see if they act with a measure of courage and truthfulness in the face of the lawless administration. My guess: No.

State of the Union

Bush's approval numbers in the recent polls have dropped again, flatlining in the lower forties. In two days he addresses the nation--I'll not watch it (can't bear it to see his face, hear his voice) but I'll read about the speech afterward--and I'll report on what, if any, effect it has on the polls. A president usually gets a bit of a bounce after the SOU speech--and this one will be followed by the Democrats' filibuster attempt on the Alito nomination--so no doubt there'll be some good news for Bush momentarily. But with all the shoes that haven't yet dropped, from Fitzgerald's Plame-gate investigation to the Abrahamoff scandals to the NSA spying hearings to the ongoing negative news from Iraq and elsewhere in the far- and middle-East, I'm thinking Bush had better come up with another terror threat (or, possibly, and attack) sometime this spring. My guess is that he'll create a crisis about Iran (recall, there's been talk about some kind of action against Iran in March on account of that country's upcoming monetary moves in the form of the creation of a bourse), just about when his poll numbers tank again.

We have met the enemy

and he is the US Army.

"Come home, America"

When you get the time, please read this piece about George McGovern. Actually, make the time.

Just so you know I'm not making this up

I recently sent out an email to a bunch of folks I know reminding them of the existence of this blog, a step I don't like to take, but I've received so little response lately, by comment or independent communication, that I thought the folks would appreciate knowing I'm still alive and still have something to say, all negative, about Bush and his wars and his policies.

I admit my bias, but it's fact-based. Just check out this one post, just this one--representing only a portion of the blogger's entries for yesterday (Tuesday) and you'll see just a slice of what's really going on in Iraq. Bear in mind that the author of the blog, Juan Cole, is a distinguished professor, fluent in Arabic, knowledgeable about the Middle East, with no axe to grind.

Eye-opening, eh?

Reaping what we sow

So now it turns out that many of the Shiites in Iraq--and they're the majority--will rise up against the US occupiers if the US attacks Iran. (Recall, Iran is a Shiite nation with a fundamentalist as its president.) So, if Bush (or Israel) decides to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, the US faces reprisals on the ground in Iraq as well as in international forums.

We've boxed ourselves in. Isn't it time we joined the rest of the nations and sought peace in the world? Isn't it time we announced that we would no longer tolerate American corporations exploiting the natural resources of foreign lands (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAR) by paying off the dictators in those nations?

Isn't it time?

What did we expect?

Much blog traffic is being devoted to Bush/Cheney/Rove's hubristic (a word?) effort to justify the NSA eavesdropping regime that (after a year's delay and over Bush's protests) the NYT revealed a month ago. They've published legal memos and hit the stump at full stride, guns ablaze, in an all-out campaign to support the manifestly illegal practices.

They have no choice. They were caught red-handed, without deniability, and so have no choice but to go on the offensive, and Rove's announcement that the 2006 midterm campaign will be waged over the "war on terror" is his signal to Congress (with all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election) that the Republican membership had better get on board the administration's bus or be left behind when it comes to support from the White House.

The administration has been given a few weeks to present its case uncontested because any hearings (and we don't know what form they'll take) aren't scheduled until February. By that time, the Republicans may have been brow-beaten enough to authorize only limited inquiry, perhaps classified, to help Bush escape without significant injury, or maybe even with support in some wavering segments of the citizenry, who'll hear only how vital the eavesdropping is to US security. And those lawsuits challenging the practice? They may get a decent hearing, but if so, they'll take place long after Bush/Cheney are in retirement and on the lecture circuit.

I hate to say I told you so

but remember my post about two months ago about the Iranian Oil Bourse? Well, here's a definitive article, detailing how come the US (or Israel as its surrogate) will find some way to stop Iran from diminishing the dollar's hegemony as the world's reserve currency.

Come March (perhaps even on the third anniversary of our invasion of Iraq), we'll be hearing bombs fall again. Only the last letter of the victim nation's name will change.

Some comfort

My worst nightmare--no hyperbole here--would be a 2008 presidential race between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. I won't explain, because if you've followed this blog at all you know why.

But chances are neither of the will win their party's nomination. Hillary because she's a whore; McCain because he's too much a maverick, as evidence, most recently, by his recent remark that Bush's order for warrantless eavesdropping wasn't authorized. The Far Right doesn't trust him, and without them he can't get their money, their delegates and therefore their nomination, and no doubt the Far Right now controls that process.

A blessing in disguise.

I'm pretty crazy

about Arianna Huffington too.

I couldna said it better

Molly Ivins, I adore you.

Somebody, please, do away with this bitch

I've had it with Senator Clinton. She's the worst kind of warmongering hawk, a hawk in liberal's clothing, trolling for votes without principle. God, I hate her.

Not quite as promised

I told you I'd present an analysis of the Supreme Court's "assisted suicide" decision when the opinions were available. They're here, and I did indeed write a long post evaluating the three opinions (Kennedy for the 6 in the majority), plus dissents by Scalia and Thomas, with the Chief concurring with Scalia. But Blogger ate my post and, alas, I didn't save it and haven't the inclination to re-present it in its entirety.
So here's the upshot: Most of the differences between majority and dissent were over statutory and regulatory interpretation and power, with the majority restricting both and the supposed "conservatives" arguing for expansive definitions and intent of federal law. First of all, that's counter-intuitive, right? Second, the dissents were willing to adopt a definition of "medical practice" as "curative" related to the body solely (think Terry Schiavo), whereas the majority didn't pretend to make that judgment, holding that the Attorney General had no such power under the statute. So, what appears to me is that if the issue is a doctrinairre one (medical marijuana, right-to-die, abortion) the conservatives are willing to grant the feds wide authority over Americans' conduct; but if the issue is commerce, they're careful to leave business alone.

Why am I surprised?

In case you missed it

and I'm not surprised you did, given the MSM's inattention to the bloodbath in Iraq, here are a few items from the last couple of days: (1) a killing field north of Baghdad caused by US troops detouring Iraqis to off a main highway--forty Iraqis dead; (2) two bombs in Baghdad kill 23 and wound 26; (3) Iraqi army recruits attacked north of Baghdad--34 dead.

Iraq is a smaller in area and population than California. Can you imagine what condition we'd be in--and what the talking heads would be talking about--if even 1/10 of that carnage happened in this state?

Hmmmm...

I'm thinking... Army's maximum enlistment age upped to 40; enlistment bonus increased to $40,000. I'm 65 and could certainly use some cash. At this rate, by the time I'm 80, they'll reach my age and with the commensurate bonus increases, they could tweak my interest. What the hell, I've always wanted to travel in the Middle East, and by then the safest way--probably the only way--to do so will be by armored Humvee.

A tiny bump on the way to dictatorship

Today the Supreme Court, 6-3, upheld Oregon's "assisted suicide" law, ruling that Ashcroft didn't have the authority to criminalize doctors' prescription of drugs that ended patients' lives. It was a definite rebuff, some have styled it a rebuke, of the Bush administration's position that it's entitled to control by any and all means any Americans' conduct not favored by the Christian Right.
Well, maybe. But mark this: the three dissenters were Scalia, Thomas (known fascists) and--guess who?--Roberts, their new fellow-brownshirt. With the addition of a fourth fascist(appropriately, given Mussolini's second-rate status), an Italian-descent Alito, that decision would have been 5-4.
After I've read the opinion, I'll comment on the dissents (Roberts didn't write one, hiding for the moment behind the skirts of Scalia and Thomas). But this much is certain: We're in for an ugly, ugly time, we liberals and, for that matter, Americans. Anthony Kennedy, a decent guy but no moderate, is going to be the new swing vote on the Court, which means it's going to be a long, long decade.

Say goodnight to Knight-Ridder

Reporting like this has characterized Knight-Ridder's work in Iraq. Rare, almost unique, among major reporters. Some British and Canadian sources--The Independent, the Scotsman, The Telegraph, Reuters--dig around for truth, but not the US MSM, not ever. It's my recollection that UPI--previously a decent wire service--was recently taken over by the Washington Times, a Bush-supporting rag owned by the Rev. Sun Yung Moon's companies; and now I hear that Knight-Ridder might be taken over by one of the MSM conglomerates, Gannet Publishing, that owns many papers, including USA Today. So--how to get the news anymore? The Internet, a few radio stations--KPFK locally, and a few reports from the banal Air America--and that's about it.

Does it begin to feel like 1938 Germany?

What's the value of dried powder?

Until I read this NYT editorial about Bush's two most recent attempts to exercise dictatorial powers (I'd known about them before, just didn't patch them together), I was of the "keep our powder dry" school with respect to the Judge Alito nomination: a filibuster would waste public support for the Democrats, I thought, and wouldn't prevail in any event. But now I'm not sure that the powder's worth saving. Alito, loosed in the Supreme Court with the fascists Thomas, Scalia and Roberts, tempered only by Kennedy's vote, could empower Bush to do almost anything in furtherance of the "war on terror." What good is dry powder if the war's already lost?

Armageddon

Here (read the first comment, too) is a possible outcome of the situation in Iran, with the trigger being Iran's announced intention to start and oil bourse in March. Hold onto your hats. And your your duct tape.

Borrrring

How many times do we have to hear this refrain before we get wise to it?: Each next "democratic development" in Iraq is going to be a "milestone" (there have been five "milestones" so far--three elections, one constitutional debate and one "coalition" formation) and preceding each of these there will be "increased violence" to disrupt it. The latest warning, today's, precedes the formation by the "elected" parliament of its eventual structure, which will, of course, continue to require as its protectors our troops, tanks and airplanes.

Why can't the MSM, for once, draw back a bit from a moment-to-moment account of this ugly, immoral scenario? Is it too much to ask in our democracy that someone wise and informed sees what is obvious?: that Iraq will now, and for decades, continue to be a propped-up state, one that will collapse if we withdraw--and that its condition is precisely what the NeoCons always wanted. A place where our military forces could rest--dug in, implanted in the oil-rich desert and adjacent to Israel--an hour away from any hotspot that might threaten our oil supply or Israel's expansion. It's a corollary to Bush's need for constant fear of attack; Iraq's need for constant American presence.

The NeoCons have won by Iraq's loss of decent statehood. The US will be embedded there--to ensure "democracy"--just as the NeoCons yearned for all along.

Not with a bang, but a drumbeat

This article talks about the increasing mentions of impeachment of Bush in the media, among the liberal grassroots, even in the halls of Congress. It isn't much, I grant, but "the longest journey..."

Our little protest group, and my ubiquitous signage, have for months called for impeachment, to get the word out, make it familiar, part of the discourse. And when we chant, "Impeach Dick Cheney, Impeach George Bush, Toss 'em out, Toss 'em out, Kick 'em in the tush!" we get an increasing percentage of thumbs-up and smiles from onlookers. It too isn't much, I admit, but consider this: It took years to chase Nixon from office, starting with someone first uttering the "I" word, then others, then others. Same with Clinton. (I haven't researched Andrew Johnson, but I'll bet that effort needed lead-time, too.)

Now, we're not likely to get a semen-stain as proof against Bush (although wouldn't that be delightful?); nor conspiratorial tape recordings, as in Nixon's case. So there's probably no "smoking gun," no sudden explosion, that will bring Bush down. But that makes the drumbeat all the more important, first to become too loud to ignore, then to be loud enough to bring down the house. The White House.

The Iran effect

Take a look at these poll numbers showing Bush's "approval ratings." Whatever bounce he may have gotten last month (and it wasn't much) due to his media blitz over Iraq and the elections there, has subsided. (A quick way to check is to compare one pollster's numbers--say, Fox or Ipsos--to its previous poll numbers, shown below on the list.)

But now Bush/Condi have another evildoer in their sights: Iran. True, Bush can't attack it with troops (maybe not missles, either), and must resort to rhetoric, but it will be interesting to see how his poll numbers react to this new "threat." My guess is, given the gullible/torpid American public, Bush will get a boost. Possibly, however, because he can only make noise, not war, the media won't give him as much air time and the public, which doesn't respond to anything on the tube that isn't "visual" won't pay much attention.

This turns my stomach

Yesterday the NYT reports that battles are raging between the Iraqi homegrown insurgency and the outlanders, al Qaeda groups and such, largely over the latter's indiscriminate killing of Arabs, including Sunnis and innocents. Today I hear on cable television that this is a favorable development for the US, because it may mean the disintegration of the insurgency. Indeed, the Pentagon and the administration is talking about this like it's a sign of victory and the cable talking heads are so touting it too.

Does anybody realize how cruel this is? We attack Iraq, attract the "terrorist" outsiders, welcoming them to "bring it on" so that we "fight them there instead of here," and then point to the internecine carnage as a hopeful sign?

I'm ashamed of my country.

Isn't it special?

In the days after Bush and Rummie trumpet the significance of the US Army's handover to Iraqi forces a major Saddam Hussein palace--the place is looted to the walls. The provincial police chief, Hiazza, blames the Iraqi soldiers, and as a result he gets transferred to a distant town.

Hiazza, the provincial police commander, said he started investigating
immediately after police first entered the palaces. "I found everything was
looted, even the electrical switches," he said.
When Hiazza formally accused
Jabara and some members of the provincial council in connection with the alleged
looting, authorities abruptly transferred Hiazza north to Baiji, an insurgent
hotbed. "The reason they transferred me is definitely I will get killed there,"
Hiazza said. He resigned instead.

Pat Buchanan finally gets it

Actually, maybe it's just that he finally got a chance to articulate it to The American Conservative magazine, namely, that the arabs have a point: Bush is really in Iraq for the oil; Isreal is grabbing Palestinian lands; and arabs are being oppressed by both.

Socialism and capitalism

In this piece, Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton, in the course of discussing the present state of China's economy, makes a remarkable assertion:

For years, we’ve assumed that capitalism and democracy fit hand in glove. We took it as an article of faith that you can’t have one without the other. That’s why a key element of American policy toward China has been to encourage free trade, direct investment, and open markets. As China becomes more prosperous and integrated into the global market -- so American policy makers have thought -- China will also become more democratic.
Well, maybe we’ve been a bit naive. It’s true that democracy needs capitalism. Try to come up with the name of a single democracy in the world that doesn’t have a capitalist economy. For democracy to function there must be centers of power outside of government. Capitalism decentralizes economic power, and therebyprovides the private ground in which democracy can take root.

Oh, really? The nations of Scandinavia, Britain, India? To name a few. What's Reich talking about?

Cost of medical attention in America

A bit off the Iraq beat. I just watched a PBS News Hour report about the astounding increase of health-care costs in the US, which coincides with an overall decrease in the quality of the care in the US. Much hand-wringing, much puzzlement during the PBS report, especially over the question of why we in the US pay more for medical care than do other western countries, and get less. Much hand-wringing, but not a single observation that we might want to look at the difference between the systems.

Theirs: single-payer plans, funded by taxes. Ours: Private insurance coverage with gigantic profit-driven corporate bureaucracies between the doctor and the patient, and private, profit-driven companies making our drugs and running our hospitals? Has it ever occurred to anyone that capitalism, for all its good qualities in making cars and speedboats, ought to get the fuck out of health care?

Risen is full of shit

Last night I watched Charlie Rose's interview of James Risen, author of a new "expose" of Bush's march to war in Iraq. (A commentary on some of Risen's assertions in the book may be found here, and of course Risen's been all over the tube lately, including The Daily Show.) What struck me was Risen's statement that "everybody" thought Saddam Hussein had WMD's before the invasion, and that, as a result, Risen opined that Bush/Cheney didn't "lie" about their existence, they just convinced themselves of that fact in spite of the absence of hard evidence, a kind of "wishful thinking."

First of all, there was plenty of evidence of the absence of WMDs, as Risen himself states in the portions of the book cited by above-linked article. In addition to the failure of the UN weapons inspectors to find any WMD despite open access to all sites in Iraq, there were repeated prewar statements by Scott Ritter and others--inside Iraq, inside the federal government and outside--that the decade-long surveillance and sanctions on Iraq made it unlikely that WMD's could have been developed. Second--and this pisses me off no end--the issue in the weeks before the invasion wasn't "does Saddam have WMD?", it was, "given that it's still not clear whether he does or not" what is the remedy, the proper course of action?

With UN inspection teams driving in their white vans all over the place (recall those images?), scurrying unannounced and unobstructed in their searches and time after time finding nothing, what should the US do? Invade and bomb, or continue with the inspections, as Blix and al Baradei and all but Britain in the Security Council urged? Saddam was surrounded by our massing forces, his every move was watched, his nation was being scoured for evidence. So--even if it was "wishful thinking" that led Bush to conclude Saddam had WMD, what should he have done as leader of the "free world": Made war--or made certain?

Moving on from MoveOn.org

This article's right on about the war in Iraq and the position of most Democrats and their supporters, including MoveOn.org, about what to do next to cease this grotesquery. I say, to hell with those who call for more arms and soldiers, regardless of party, regardless of their other stances. If you call for more troops, or are silent about the ongoing carnage, you're complicit in America's quest for world dominance. You're worse than a neoCon, because at least they stand for something.

I report, you decide

Was the war about Iraq's oil? (Scroll to near-bottom of article, although the rest of it's illuminating, too.)

In case you're not keeping track

the current death toll (as DOD-reported) of US soldiers in Iraq is over 2,200. In case you think there's any trend here--up or down--check out this graphic graphic.

Okay, gang, keep me posted

Let me know when/if this story of Rumsfeld's misfeasance ever reaches the MSM. How can it not, since the linked-to report is an AP dispatch? Maybe Rummie has kept his job all this while by suppressing adverse news of his performance, via blackmail from information he's gleaned from the Pentagon's spying operation. Otherwise, I have no clue how come he hasn't been fired, and, for that matter, tarred and feathered and roasted on a spit.

I smell a rat

You may recall that I predicted during the summer of 2004, in the months before the presidential election, that Cheney would resign, citing failing health, so that Bush could run with a different vice presidential candidate, given Cheney's unpopularity. It didn't happen, of course, but these latest trips by Cheney to the hospital have me speculating again. Wouldn't it be clever if Cheney "with great reluctance resigned the office due to ill health," and the neocons got a new veep to fill out Cheney's term and hence to have the inside track on the presidential nomination in 2008? They must be horrified by the prospect of loose-cannon John McCain's nomination, and this would be a handy way to come up with a strong, tested successor to their puppet, Bush.

I suggest we raid the hospital and grab Cheney's medical records from this latest visit and check them out. They probably say, "Complains of shortness of breath. Patient, however, is asymptomatic, except for a terminal case of fascist prevarication, as diagnosed on previous visits."

The state of the nation

Not about Iraq or spying or scandals, this time. Although you wouldn't know it from the MSM, it's the economy, stupid. And once the masses get it--if they ever do--the Republicans had better run and hide.

Hearts and minds

What the hell are the US troops doing in Iraq? Raiding Sunni clerics, invading their mosques, painting crosses on the walls?

Those magnetized "yellow ribbons" to "support our troops"

have their origin as celebratory symbols to welcome home imprisoned persons. This website, "Straightdope," one of my favorites, tells the story.

So, it has come to this

Now we're building walls around cities in Iraq. Does this occupation begin to sound like the Nazis in Poland, or the Romans in Jerusalem? Or has it sounded like that for a long time?

A benefit of modern medicine?

Not as many soldiers die in Iraq; their lives are saved so that they can survive horrific injuries and be disabled for the rest of their lives. Oh, goody.

Another fine mess...

So, the Shiites by the thousands are protesting against the US ambassador's "coddling" of Sunnis, blaming them for the hundreds of killings of Shiites in recent days; and of course the Sunnis are deeply resentful of the US occupation, and the most radical of them are doubtless behind the attacks on US troops. As a result, the US is caught in the middle of competing forces in Iraq, taking flak from all sides except the Kurds (until the Kurds take action to split away from the rest of Iraq, taking the oil-rich area around Tikrit with them).

The solution: Get the hell out of there. Now.

Under Cheney's definition, Bush is a traitor

If disclosure of the details of the NSA spying program is traitorous, as Bush, and more forcefully, Cheney, have said, then what about Bush's assertion that the program is "limited," and intercepts only incoming calls from suspected al-Qaeda operatives? Either Bush is lying, or he's telling the truth, and is accordingly revealing details of the program, giving "aid and comfort to the enemy," which is the definition of treason.

Fascism Watch

My earlier-announced Fascism Watch has been in abeyance during the last few months (and may go there again), because of overwhelm: Bush's actions toward corporate/executive/religious dictatorship are too numerous to follow with this posting mechanism. But this item, relatively unnoticed, must be mentioned: After all that hullabaloo accompanying Senator McCain's showdown with the White House over a torture ban, Bush has determined that he'll adhere to the Congressionally-mandated ban--or not.

A day in the life

While the US mourns the death of 11 men in a mine explosion--a sad occurence, without a doubt, and accordingly subject to incessant cable TV news coverage--Iraq suffers through another day of deaths, including the bombing of a funeral procession, killing 36. Puts the scope of Iraq's ongoing trauma into perspective, eh?

Get out your raincoats or snowshoes, depending

It's gonna be necessary to take to the streets this winter. The Iraq occupation is going to wear on, Bush's poll numbers will remain mediocre, and with the latest Republican scandals and investigations, it's likely the Bush administration will find it necessary to create a crisis. In the absence of a terrorist attack on US soil (which I'm sure Bush is praying for), he'll no doubt launch an air attack on Iran's nuclear plants and make sure Syria is sanctioned by the UN for its involvement in the assasination of a popular leader of the opposition. This will elevate the crises in the Middle East to a flashpoint.

So, we'll have to remain vigilant, ready to protest with vigor (civil disobedience, even), to try to stop the madman from his ongoing administration of fear and force. It's going to be a long, cold winter, everywhere.

An interesting development in reporting

and, I think, a favorable one: After, or before, the publication or airing of an interview, the subject of the interview posts the entire transcript on a website to ensure that the aired or published portions not be unbalanced.

NSA surveillance

In the next several days the media will present arguments pro and con about the recently-revealed domestic spying operation authorized by Bush shortly after 9/11. Bush is already lying about it, calling it "a limited program" involving only "a few numbers" of al-Qaeda operatives outside of the Unites States, when the facts are otherwise. It was a widespread, full-net surveillance, its information widely disseminated throughout the federal government's intelligence community.

Let's hope--and I'm certain it's only a hope--that Congress gets its back up on this one, calling for hearings, calling to account those, including Attorney General Gonzales, who persuaded Bush it was legal. And make no mistake: It wasn't, not even close.

You want fine writing?

Sheriff Tate to Atticus Finch:

"I may not be much, Mr. Finch, but I'm still the sheriff of Maycomb County. And Bob Ewell fell on his knife."

One of the finest lines in all moviedom. From To Kill a Mockingbird, of course.

I turned on cable this New Years morning, and although I've seen the film ten times, I couldn't turn it off, couldn't leave the room. Best rendition of a novel to film, ever. IMHO.

Top 10 stories of 2006

A funny post by the Freeway Blogger, whose blog--showing the how-to and results of freeway blogging--is cool.

Yes!!

A list of words to be banished from the English language.

You're not going to believe this

Forty-four percent of those polled by Rasmussen responded that 2005 was a "good" year (or better than "good" because many of those rated it "the best ever" or "excellent").

On what planet do those respondents live? Or could it be they lived only during 1929 and 1941?

Good news

I suppose the fact that the Justice Department has opened an investigation into NYT's publication of the existence of the administration's domestic spying operation should be bad news, showing how quickly an investigation can be started if it suits the administration, as opposed to how languidly the administration reacts to other leaks, such as the Plame case. But for me, this DoJ's decision is good news, ensuring that the story of the clandestine, illegal bugging will remain in the MSM spotlight for months, maybe years, to come.

Quagmire defined

This is how our nation will ensure that it gets dragged into Iraq's civil war.

Who's on first?

Abbott and Costello couldn't create a more comical routine.

Letter to the editor

Some weeks ago I wrote a letter to the editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press that wasn't published in the letters section but in the "Voices" section, so I didn't realize it had made the cut. Recently someone told me they read it and a friend downloaded it for me. (This is in addition to the letter I wrote two days ago.) Here's the earlier letter:

New awareness prompts talk of withdrawal
12/4/05
Voice From Santa Barbara: Erik O'Dowd

With increasing frequency, Americans are asking, "Why are we in Iraq, anyway?"
It is to diffuse this growing doubt about the rightness of our mission there that the administration is now making mutterings of withdrawal.
Twenty-nine months after Bush/Cheney's invasion and occupation of Iraq, after untold thousands of deaths and maimings of Iraqis, Americans and others, and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, we are hearing suggestions from some in the Bush administration that "withdrawal" or "redeployment" of some coalition forces is likely, even imminent.
These utterances are no doubt prompted by the growing rejection by the U.S. public of our continued presence in Iraq, which is in turn based on a new awareness among the majority of our citizenry that the reasons the administration gave for the invasion were false: No weapons of mass destruction, no connection of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda, no "imminent threat" by Iraq to the U.S. or its allies.
With increasing frequency, Americans are asking, "Why are we in Iraq, anyway?" It is to diffuse this growing doubt about the rightness of our mission there that the administration is now making mutterings of withdrawal.
Don't be fooled. The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was always about establishing U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, and so when they speak of withdrawal or redeployment of forces, they don't mean our troops will come home, or even leave the area. They'll be ordered to stay indefinitely in the region to show U.S. power -- and use it if necessary -- to enforce U.S. interests (read access to oil and natural gas by our corporations). Indeed, we are presently building four "enduring" bases in Iraq to ensure our permanent military presence there.
These bases will only ensure continued attacks on U.S. targets in the region and throughout the world, by those who've long demanded that we give up our designs on the territory and resources of the Middle East. We'll continue to spend billions of dollars and risk innocent lives, just in slightly different locales.
We mustn't grow complacent. We must keep up the drumbeat, continue to demand to "support our troops" -- not by moving them a few miles farther into the desert, but by bringing them home. Home to the United States. Now.
The author
lives in Santa Barbara.

To which I would add, as I've noted before, don't be fooled about the recently-increasing US bombing of cities in Iraq, which may lessen our casualties, but will increase Iraqis', and is equally, if not more, outrageous.

Rogue Nation

Check out this list of international treaties that the Bush administration refuses to honor.

Letter to the editor

Herewith a letter I wrote to the SB News-Press. I've had passable luck getting them published, so long as I adhere to the 250-word limit, as--by 2 words--I've done in this piece. A muted statement, I agree, but what the hell.

Many Americans are in despair, having given up on the political system that twice (maybe) elected Bush/Cheney, resulting in a growing chasm between rich and poor, between ideology and humanity, between truth and lies, between war and peace. But now Bush has gone too far, uniting in outrage both liberals and true conservatives (not, however, their evil cousins, the cabal of neo-cons that have Bush’s ear).

The straw that broke Bush's back?: His secret order authorizing warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency of Americans’ private communications; and, once revealed, his unfounded assertion that the “war on terror” grants him that unprecedented power, followed by his obdurate insistence that he’s entitled to maintain the surveillance, unchecked by courts or Congress.

The Liberals' outrage is predictable, but no less so than that of true conservatives because of their innate distrust of federal power, particularly executive power, power that’s expressly limited by the Constitution’s reservation of lawmaking to Congress and oversight by the federal courts.

To be sure, the Bush/Cheney administration is in for a rough 2006. “Plame-gate” will expand; DeLay and other scandals will ripen; the occupation of Iraq will become even more poisonous; and the economy, now that the real estate bubble has popped and interest rates are rising, will slide into mediocrity.

But Bush’s Achilles heel is his arrogant assertion of executive (read dictatorial) power to intrude, unchecked, into the private communications of Americans. All sensate Americans know where this leads, and they won’t be led there.

Democratic presidential candidates in 2008

Here's a quick analysis of the status of various Democratic candidates for the next presidential election. God, how ugly. Except for Feingold (who's unelectable), the field is awful. Is there no such thing as a charismatic, strong "progressive"?

Meanwhile, back in Iraq

Check out these numbers of Iraqi casualties from our invasion and occupation.

The birth of Jesus

Okay, all my life I've thought about Christianity--Roman Catholicism, mostly, but the other Jesus-based religions, too--and I now conclude that as fine a message as that young man preached (and I suppose he actually walked on the planet at about the time it's said he did), the idea that he was the son of God is a crock (even assuming there's a God, or a god.) The whole tale is absolute bullshit, just as the notion that Muhammed is divine or any other human being has been placed on Earth for some divine purpose.

Indeed, it's more than that I don't believe it, I find the notion abhorrent to the concept of humanity, mean of purpose (to rob humans of their essential human condition), and ruinous in effect.

And the celebration of Christmas--the idea that for a couple of days we should sing and pray and be of good will--it's worse than the recent idea of "black history month." Why is there a weekend for acting benignly, when Christians, as an historical group, are essentially a murderous group of zealots abetted (now, as much as ever) by wimpy believers who do nothing while Jesus' name is used to justify killing of persons all over the world.

Religion, in my mind--and Christianity is as bad as any--is a curse, an evil force.

Who's counting?

Ya know, with Rummie's recent announcement of a withdrawal of some troops from Iraq, I got to thinking. We'll have about 140,000 soldiers there afterward (if you believe the Pentagon), and I got to thinking. Does that count the sailors on board ships in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf? What about the soldiers stationed in Kuwait and Qatar and other nearby sites? And what about this: Now that we're using thousands of "private contractors" to perform services that our military used to do--KP, transport, security operations--our soldiers are freed to perform truly military duties, right? Unlike Vietnam, where our 550,000 troops (at the height of the war) were doing all such things.

It's possible, by such reckoning, that our total military commitment to the outrageous, illegal war is comparable to the outrageous illegal war in Vietnam, only, so far, not quite as long.

Class warfare

These numbers are proof that the Republican version of an "economic recovery" is where the corporations (their highly-placed officers, their stockholders) benefit, and the workers don't. Why are the blue-collars silent? Why, for that matter, are the white-collars, who're not gaining income, but are simply spending borrowed money, drawn from their refinanced houses and credit cards? Are these folks so stupid, so unaware of even their own plight? Answer: Yeah.

Soldier bloggers

Here's a fine piece, quoting American soldiers' blogs from Iraq. Some fine images, some fine writers, some fine folks we've sent off to kill.

While Bush withdraws the troops from Iraq

during the next six months, bear in mind that, unless restrained by the "elected" government of that puppet nation, US military forces, by airstrikes through fighters,missles and drones, as well as by withdrawing to four permanent bases inside Iraq's borders, will very much continue its dominance of the region. Don't be fooled, readers. Bush/Rummie/Condi/Cheney will try to fool us with numbers, but their plan will remain intact. They want to rule the Middle East by military power, and we'll continue to be their dupes unless we "stay the course," namely, continue to demand that we get the hell out of the region.

President Bush's problem

I finally figured out why Bush invaded Iraq in furtherance of his "war on terror": He's dyslexic, having read Saddam's name as "Osama." Both words contain an s, an m, two a's, the only difference being an o, which looks like a zero. No difference, really.

Prime time slime

I didn't (couldn't) watch Bush on TV last night, but I've read news reports of his speech. My reaction: "Yawn."

Here's the deal: We're told he was "more realistic," "almost apologetic," and "convincing." He asked us to be patient in Iraq, that there were hard times ahead and that these difficulties weren't foreseen. He'd earlier in the week allowed that the intelligence that led to our invasion was flawed and that the responsibility for the decision to invade was his.

And? And? And nothing. Nothing new. Same old cliches about winning the war, progress being made, and so forth. Same speech we heard from LBJ and Nixon for years while our troops, and the Vietnamese, were being decimated in Southeast Asia.

Meanwhile, "on the ground" here's how it's going in Iraq. And meanwhile, Bush's authorization of domestic wiretaps without a warrant, and the Pentagon's surveillance of antiwar groups, give credence to this sage observation (not mine, but I can't recall the source):

"Bush said that Osama bin Laden hates us for our freedoms, and so Bush's solution is to take them away from us."

I laughed 'til I cried

when I read the quoted sentence below, which was buried in an article recounting Cheney's "surprise visit" to Iraq.

After detailing Cheney's talk to the troops (during which their questions and reactions weren't entirely favorable), Cheney toured a military base where Iraqi and US soldiers were present, during which "U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns."

Yup, we're sure making progress with Iraq's military. One day we may trust them with weapons in our leaders' vicinity.

The most populous Muslim nation

Indonesia, responds to US tsunami aid predictably, given the actions and policies of Bush's neocon friends.

Another surprise visit?

Cheney's "visit" to Iraq today is termed a surprise by the mainstream media, just as are all "visits" by US administration officials. Why not call them what they are: "sneak appearances," made so because there's no way Bush/Cheney/Rummie/Condi could safely appear in that nation if the trips were announced in advance, and if they were more prolonged or significant than quick drop-ins to a military base or the fortified Green Zone.

Okay, I've noted this before, both the fact of it, and the manner of reporting. I understand the facts aren't likely to change, but won't the media ever tell it like it is?

I told you so

You see, I was right. The NYT published the report about Bush's secret order authorizing DIA spying on US residents, after holding it for a year, only because someone else was about to publish the story. (Check out my previous post, "Outrage.")

I wasn't cynical enough, though. Apparently, there's a book coming out--authored by a NYT reporter--and so the publication of the spying story is timed to boost its sales.

Then, profit: we learn that what changed between now and a year ago was that a Times reporter, James Risen, is about to publish a book about the entire affair and thus publishing the story now will mean maximum pre-sale buzz in January when the book is released - a key for any big book sales.

How is it that

a decade into the "information revolution" brought on by the personal computer and the Internet, there's still so much ignorance in the United States?

Has it come to this?

Are we now a nation, a culture, in which the end justifies the means? I've been watching CNN, Faux News, even the "real networks," (CBS, ABC, NBC), extolling the marvel of the voting in Iraq. Here's their message. Even though we invaded a sovereign nation without justification, murdered thousands of innocents--ours and theirs--all is subsumed, all is forgiven, by an "election" conducted by citizens who're under our occupation. Iraq, we are told, is now exercising democracy and so we of the US can be forgiven for our violations of international law and of decency.

My take on this: If we are forgiven, then so are the worst of the world's transgressions, because even Attila the Hun believed he was bringing a better world to those he conquered.

Outrage

This NYT report on Bush's secret executive order allowing warrantless wiretaps on US citizens inside the country is outrageous enough, in particular the administration's insistence that Bush has inherent power to conduct such surveillance, unchecked by the Congress. This is another example of the "9/11 changed everything" ethic that Bush has used repeatedly to justify his ongoing illegalities.
But equally outrageous is that the Times sat on the story for a year in order, it says, to conduct "additional reporting." Number one: What chickenshits! Number two: What liars! It's clear that the NYT would have sat on the story indefinitely but for the recent lies by the administration, in particular by Cheney's minions, that the federal government had no such program, as quoted in the NYT article itself. I suspect, too, that another publication was about to go public with this information, and NYT didn't want to be shown to be what it is: a craven tool of the Bushites.

Riverbend's take on the election

Baghdad Burning's author prefers the Allawi "list" of candidates, even though they're puppets of the US, because when you're facing death a fever is just fine.

Alarming arrogance

When Bush, back in 2003, reacted to the millions of protesters of his invasion of Iraq with a shrug, and an offhand, "I respectfully disagree," I thought he'd reached the apex of arrogance. I was wrong. For months he's refused to discuss the Plamegate case on the ground that he wouldn't comment on an ongoing criminal investigation; but today, after he was questioned about the propriety of his comment that Tom Delay was innocent of the pending charges, his press secretary simply said it was his presidential prerogative to do so.

We gotta get rid of this guy.

A prediction

It's been four-plus years since the 9/11 attacks. At the time, I viewed the attacks as "the price of empire," and in the succeeding months and years I interiorly entertained my predictions about the outcome of the resultant "war on terror," including the invasion of Iraq, that Bush initiated. I didn't announce these predictions (except for one prediction--so far wrong, it turns out--about the decline of the dollar against foreign currencies), but each of my imaginings has been on target. So now, I'll articulate a prediction, so you can hold me to it.

I predict that by the end of 2006, Iraq (and likely its neighbors Syria and Iran) will have embroiled the US in such a God-awful mess that VietNam will look like a cakewalk. In the wake of today's elections, Iraq will become fragmented, will begin to look like a "failed state," to the alarm of nearby Arab states. The schism between "insurgents" and "terrorists" in Iraq, already emerging, will widen; antagonism between Shia-dominated nations and Sunni/Wahabbi nations will increase, and the US will try to straddle all of these conflicting forces, leaving our troops targets from a hundred directions.

Those of us who opposed the war are often chided for taking pleasure in seeing US failure in Iraq. Well, to be honest, I do. I want the US public--I want the world--to learn that the Bush version of democracy (you know what I'm talking about) cannot be imposed on the world by force, and should not be because of its illegitimacy. I want the Iraq experience to result in debacle so profound that we don't ever get talked into (lied into) repeating it.

I wish thousands of US soldiers didn't have to die to make this point, and I certainly feel awful about the dead and wounded Iraqis who've been made to pay this price. But, to me, if their suffering teaches the US to become a decent nation, a true leader of a fine, loving world, the price is, if not worth it, at least worth something.

A perfect model of democracy

I've been reading complaints about the Iraqi election: The rapidity of the timetable for voting, plus the danger on the streets has limited campaigning to television advertisement, which are so expensive that only financially-empowered candidates can afford them, and these ads don't address substantive issues but consist merely of clever sloganeering and attacks on the opponents.

So--we've created Iraq in our own image, right?

Vote for what you believe in

Late Senator Paul Wellstone's slogan. So to my thousands of readers in New York, vote for ABC--anybody but Clinton--in the upcoming Senate primary. And if you need more evidence, check out this hypocrisy.

Once again on dialup, and ever more frustrated

I'm away from my broadband connection and so am speechless (as they say), except to howl at my powerlessness. There's so much to comment about: today's 9/11 Commission report, the outrageous bullshit that Condi spouted about "rendition" of "enemy combatants" (What have we become?), the likelihood that the Fitzgerald inquiry may merge with other investigations to reveal, via the Plamegate matter, a vast conspiracy to lead the US to war, implicating Israeli influence on NeoCons, including Rummie, Hadley, Cheney and their ilk. (I can dream, can't I?)

I'll be keeping track, of course, but not blogging with my usual assiduousness. But take heart, I'll be back online bigtime in a couple of weeks.

Maddening, maddening

"Ten soldiers killed in Iraq today," crawls across the TV screen. The pundits, too, announce this as a news coup, a significant development. This drives me crazy. In the first place, it's flat wrong. Eleven died. But that's not what drives me crazy. Several days in the last few months ten or more soldiers have died in a single day, but didn't die in a single incident or whose deaths weren't reported in a single dispatch; and on numerous days the death toll has been seven, eight, nine. A brief survey of the above-linked website will demonstrate this.

Another thing: All this hoopla about the Pentagon planting news in Baghdad dailies. Yup, it's a bad thing. But in the face of all the outrages we've been committing in that country--killing civilians, jailing innocents, torturing, destroying cities--how can such a story even get traction in the US?

Because it's about the media, stupid. We are at the mercy of the media in America, and that's the most maddening of all.

What's in a word?

The Downing Street memo, isn't a "memo," it's minutes of a meeting. And the "Bush-bombing-of-al Jazeera" memo isn't a memo, either. It's a transcript. I know they're off the radar right now, but with some luck they'll come back, during impeachment proceedings of Bush/Cheney, let's hope.

Withdrawal defined

With all this discussion of "withdrawal, "draw-down," and so forth, of our forces in Iraq, let us not be misled. As Tom Engelhardt points out in this lengthy piece, these various phrases disguise the following eventualities, if the NeoCons have their way: (1) Continued support of the Iraqi "forces" by US naval air power, missiles and planes, from ships in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf, as well as the US Air Force stationed nearby, their targets called in by Iraqi forces on the ground; (2) the presence of US ground troops in at least one--probably more--permanent bases in Iraq and nearby, to rush in as needed to assist in the suppression of any violence in Iraq; (3) the control of oil and other business opportunities in Iraq by Western interests; (4) protection of the "independence" of the northern region of Iraq, "Kurdistan," to the dismay of the remnants of Iraq and of its neighbors of the region.

Make no mistake. Nothing in the current debate addresses these issues, and Bush is keeping quiet about them. But when we crazies chant--as we have for three years--"Out of Iraq!" we don't mean any of these things. We mean that the US should get out of Iraq entirely, get our troops out of harm's way and leave Iraq to the Iraqis. That's withdrawal.

Monsters

These soldiers--happen to be Brits--are more evil than the worst movie villain, as evil as evil can be. Here's the video of them shooting randomly at civilian autos, while an Elvis CD plays in the background. Imagine, for a moment, what it feels like to be subjected to automatic weapon fire, your car and person torn to shreds by huge bullets sprayed from the vehicle ahead! Think of the horror, the rage!

We've got to get our troops--all of them, Brits, Aussies, U.S.--out of Iraq to let them come home and return to humanness because this war is making some of them into monsters.

Colin Powell, the wimp

This article sums up my feelings about Powell, as well as my contemporaneous reaction to his presentation to the Security Council in the runup to our invasion of Iraq. Maybe because of my lawyer background I videotaped Powell's speech and went through portions of it afterward, especially his dog-and-pony show about the mobile labs for producing biological weapons, and it had a familiar smell to it: bullshit. I recalled at the time the U-2 overfilight photos that President Kennedy showed the nationwide TV audience to demonstrate the Soviet Union's actions in Cuba to install long-range missles. Now there was evidence! But the video graphics of Iraqi trucks equipped with laboratories?--c'mon, already.

As to Colin Powell? I've defended him heretofore as a "soldier," honor-bound not to denigrate his commander, the Commander in Chief. But I've changed my mind after these weeks of hearing from his Chief of Staff, Col. Wilkerson. Obviously, Wilkerson's statements are Powell's too, and so now it's clear that Powell is hiding behind Wilkerson's skirts to save his image.

It's time for Powell to step forward in person. Not as a soldier, not as a diplomat, but as a human being. Otherwise, I label him a coward, and so, I hope, will history.

Amen

This type of analysis of America's outrageous disparity of resource and income distribution is long overdue. Our policies, the innate greed of the capitalist system and its child, unbridled consumerism, have brought us to this point. I've lived through times when the existence of well-paid, unionized workers, a respected middle-class, and a fair apportionment of the nation's wealth were fundamental precepts. No more. Now, with a greed government at the helm, with corporate profits the aim and end of our system, we've become an indebted, impoverished nation, consuming on credit, living beyond the insecure, stingy means that we're given by a beaten-down economy, and buying and borrowing more.

Meanwhile, the poor in America have nothing and, under recent Bush legislation, will have even less in the future. Yeah, it's a human rights issue, nothing less.

Throw out the bastards, all of them...

except, maybe, Murtha, Feingold and of course Kucinich. A few others, maybe, maybe.

I've just watched Lehrer's interview of Senators Warner and Reid, a Republican and a Democrat, who hummed the same tune backing today's Presidential "speech" about Iraq, in particular, withdrawal of our troops. In essence, never.

We, the people, have got to take back America, because our representatives aren't doing our will.

We've got to start somewhere

How 'bout sending Rummie to Iraq, without a full military guard?

'Splain this to me

A college kid, a golfer on the University of Arizona, a year ago loses his entire family--both parents, his sister--when their private plane crashes on the way home from watching the kid play in a tournament. A young girl, allergic to peanuts, dies an agonizing death, seizures and great pain, after kissing her boyfriend who'd eaten a peanut butter sandwich nine hours before.

Does God have a plan? If He's omnipotent, can't He control such events? Was He too busy? If so, why bother to live a life that accords with His supposed dictates? Or maybe He just doesn't care.

Whazzup?

Uh oh

Some weeks ago we learn of the first female suicide bomber in Iraq, and now we learn of the first female European suicide bomber, a Belgian woman.

Good job, Bush. You finally succeeded at something. Creating a truly global war of terror.

Let me get this straight

We invade Iraq on various pretenses and finally settle on the "we deposed a dictator who tortured and abused his fellow citizens" rationale, only to turn the place over to a regime that tortures and abuses its fellow citizens.
Sounds like a hell of a deal for $300 billion and 17,000 killed or wounded US soldiers, eh?

Come the revolution...

It will start because of this.

How do you spell mutiny?

Check out these letters to the editor of Stars and Stripes, the Army's daily, Middle East edition, especially the first letter, but others as well. Do they sound like the Army's TV commercials to you?

Well, now isn't this interesting...

The EU has got some balls, after all. Threatening to sanction members states that have harbored the CIA's secret jails and demanding that their location and activities be disclosed.

Maybe it's time to move over there--past time.

I never doubted it

This post by Juan Cole, citing Sy Hersh's report in the New Yorker, tells of US plans to withdraw troops on the ground in favor of supplying air power in support of Iraqi forces to put down the insurgency. Not only is this madness--empowering the Shiites and Kurds to call down bombing on Sunnis--but it's hardly the stable democracy, with sovereignty and freedoms, that we're supposed to be establishing. What a God-awful mess, leaving the Middle East in a much worse position than when we invaded.

Cole also has a word of advice for George Bush about his heritage, worth reading.