Proxy wars

During the Cold War, there were plenty of these. Now we have an even more insidious form, where the purpose is merely to deflect attention from the US policies and activities in the world. Bush is remaining silent, allowing the carnage to develop between historic adversaries in the region. This is a perfect situation for Bush. He can stand back and allow CNN and Faux News cover this new war, so that our ongoing misery in Iraq falls back into the back pages and Bush once again becomes a war president.

Problem: With "traditional Democrats" (Hillary, Biden and, yes, Lieberman) supporting Israel blindly, always, they'll parrot Bush's hands-off policy. So the same schism within the Democratic party that has split it over Iraq's misery will continue, empowering the Republicans to claim they're on the side of the "angels," namely the long-enshrined Israelis.

Newsspeak

Straight out of Orwell. Note in this official Centom press release that the person whom they call a "terrorist" throughout the release was engaged in a firefight with "coalition forces" when he was killed. No terror involved, no murder of civilians, just armed resistance to the occupying forces. That's not a terrorist under any definition--except the Pentagon's. And that' s precisely how words get used, their meaning distorted, to fit the government's agenda.

An army of computer geeks

So, the wash-out rate of Army enlistees has declined dramatically, because boot camp demands have been lessened. No more miles-long marches, no more DI tirades. Instead of physically fit soldiers, we'll now be defended by nerds. Makes sense to me.

Occupation, bigtime

It's time for Americans to understand--deeply, coherently--what the US role in Iraq is. We're a victorious invading army, able to control by fiat the governance of the country, the absolute dictators of the policies enforced by the leaders we installed. When we frown on amnesty for Iraqis who killed our troops, such amnesty disappears. When we suggest no pullout time for our forces, no such time is announced. And now, when our troops rape and murder Iraqi civilians, we demand immunity for them--and the Iraqi government accedes to our demands, seeking only to view the proceedings by which the malefactors are "brought to justice."

The U.S. finds itself in a grotesquely impenetrable state. We stay because we cannot quit. We remain because no one has the courage to ask us to leave. And we have no place to go, no other place.

Welcome to America, world.

Worse than VietNam

In VietNam, we did battle with two different groups: South Vietnamese who opposed our puppet regime and sought to take over the country on their own; and North Vietnamese who supplied the former with materiel and troops. In Iraq, on the other hand, we're doing battle with Sunni insurgents, foreign fighters and now--with fury--Shia followers of various leaders who are in power in the Iraqi parliament, including the Medhi army that controls much of Baghdad. No wonder our troops are coming home bewildered. They have no clue whom or why they're killing in Iraq.

It's no surprise to me

that, as a recent Gallup poll has found, "Suggestions that the United States engage in some type of gradual withdrawal [from Iraq] increase significantly as educational level increases." I'm not talking about bigotry here, just education, because of the dumbing-down effect of most news sources. A similar poll would, I have no doubt, correlate educational level to news sources, to show that the lower the education the more likely to receive news from formulaic sources, like TV networks and news agencies.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Embedded, or in bed with?

This reporter from Newsweek Magazine tells of a new US military practice: screening reporters who are allowed to accompany troops into the field. Seems that now, in order to be an embedded reporter, you must not have written articles that the Pentagon doesn't approve of.

Well, Whaddaya know

I do believe I made it onto their lists. (I attended at least one of the protests in front of the Santa Barbara courthouse--see last line of the article.)

Ramadi

Here's a NYT account of the status of our forces in Ramadi, Iraq. It makes me want to scream.

How the Brits see us

I suppose we deserve this. No, I don't suppose. I know.

One sector of the Iraq economy is humming

but it's not all good.

I'm suspicious

Cheney's medical status is in the news from time to time--announcements that he's fine, but of course reminding us that he's got a troubled ticker.

I still think (I predicted this before Bush's re-election, but was wrong) that he'll develop a weakness before the end of Bush's tenure and will be replaced with someone that Rove would hope to install as Bush's successor nominee of the Republican Party.

Am I crazy? No. I know Rove has thought about it, don't you?

Tasteless?

Yes. Outrageous, too.

Keep on fighting

Okay, so a majority--none of them Bush appointees, and one of his appointees disqualified--put the kabosh on Bush's patently illegal Gitmo operation; and the Senate, by one vote--the slimmest margin on such a vote in history--refused to launch a flag-burning constitutional amendment into the state legislatures, where it was certain to gain the requisite 34 approvals. Two wins for the good guys.

These are significant victories, but when viewed against the entirety of current events, tiny. These decisions should enflame Bush's adversaries, embolden them, not satisfy them, not at all.

What can I say?

Here's a summary of Rassmussen Reports' polls (usually a bit skewed toward the conservatives, but it's a fine bellwether) on various issues as responded to in several selected states. I'm chagrined to admit that I lived for five decades in Arizona--apparently to no effect, because its numbers show an astounding adherence to stupidity, as bad in some categories as Texas and Nebraska.

It's not the only reason I moved to California--the beach is the main reason--but it sure solidifies my staying away from that horde of rednecks.

Now understand: I have many friends and family who are liberal, clear-thinking Americans and who live in Tucson. But the Phoenix area--it's a pit of reactionary evil, and it dominates the politics of the state. With Senators like Kyle and McCain, what can I say?

Pyongyang, Paris, Baghdad

Some of us old farts remember the years--at least two--of negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea in Pyongyang that led to the eventual standoff in the Korean "conflict"; and the interminable period of meetings between the U.S. and North Vietnamese in Paris that led nowhere and resulted in our troops finally bolting Saigon. Thousands of civilians and soldiers on all sides of the wars died while these talks were being held, with endless wrangling (there was a weeks-long negotiation over the shape of the conference table in Paris, recall) and posturing by diplomats and politicians. As fruitless and meaningless as these negotiations were, however, at least the U.S. was, to a greater or lesser degree, involved in them, presumably striving to advance U.S. interests.

Well, it looks like we're now entering a similar phase in Iraq, with al-Maliki and others on behalf of the government trying to end the strife with the multifaceted opposition to the present state of Iraq. The difference, of course, is that we're pretending that Iraq is a sovereign nation, empowered (ha ha) to strike its own bargains to that end, and so we must control the negotiations secretly, even if it keeps the conflict going. For an obvious example, we've made al-Maliki change his tune on amnesty for insurgents who've killed American troops, the effect of which has been to so weaken the reconciliation plan that it's unlikely to have any impact.

So--now we've created a war the end of which is beyond our control except through indirect, secretive string-pulling; and which we're willing to continue to save face. If I were a parent of a kid killed in Iraq, I'd be outraged. In fact, simply as an American, I'm outraged.

Why don't we have public media, or any media, like this?

This BBC analysis of the Bush administration's "reconciliation" posture in Iraq is succinct and incisive. No quotes from "administration sources," no "critics say" quotes, either. Just plain insight and straightforward presentation of the Republicans' hope that through the smoke and mirrors, conflicting messages, assuaging assurances, they can hornswoggle the Americans for one more election cycle.

Well, duh

was my first reaction to this US general Chiarelli's observation that when our troops kill Iraqi civilians, it fuels the insurgency. But I do indeed like his phrasing.

``We have people who were on the fence or supported us who in the last two years or three years have in fact decided to strike out against us. And you have to ask: Why is that? And I would argue in many instances we are our own worst enemy,'' Chiarelli said.

Am I missing something?

Isn't there something so wrong with this graph--forget about the other outrageous indexes of economic inequality in the U.S.--that it defies any explanation except contempt for those who are economically or politically powerful?

I've been waiting

for the Sunday talk shows' reaction to al-Maliki's "reconciliation plan"--which in repeated statements by the Iraq government (which I've followed on this blog) proferred amnesty to Iraqi insurgents who'd killed American troops. But now it appears that as finally submitted to Parliament, the plan so softens the amnesty provisions as to make them ineffective. Juan Cole says that Bush pressured al-Maliki to delete the amnesty provision--the only place on the web that I could find that so suggested. In any event, the talk shows were, as always, silly and redundant.

Update: The NYT noted the absence of the amnesty plan, but finessed the issue of its deletion from earlier descriptions of its effect. Note that it's our ambassador, not an Iraqi official, who's quoted about the absence of amnesty for Iraqis who killed Americans. If such a provision, which may indeed have helped quell the violence in Iraq, was deleted because of pressure from the US administration, then the word "puppet government" could not be more apt.

More discussions of amnesty are here, here and here.

Keeping track of permanent bases

So--both the House and Senate included a "no permanent bases in Iraq" provision in their military appropriations bills, as I reported earlier, only to have those provisions deleted by the Republican-dominated Conference Committee. Well, now the House has re-instated the no-bases language in its version of the bill upon passage after the converence committee action, so let's see what happens next.

You think it will actually become law? You think Bush, if he signs such a law--as he must in order to keep the appropriations money flowing to Iraq--will append to it a "signing statement" essentially nullifying its effect? You think, in the lifetimes of any readers of this post, we'll see a withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq? In your dreams.

I might watch the Sunday "talk shows" this Sunday

To see the reaction of various interviewees to the announcement on Sunday--Iraq time, which is ten hours earlier than our morning TV shows--of this broadscale reconciliation plan by the Iraqi government. It includes both a withdrawal timetable for "all foreign troops" and an amnesty for Iraqis insurgents who've killed occupation forces.

Yeah, it'll be fun to watch the neocons twist in the wind over this.

Letter to the editor

I happened to buy a copy of the Santa Barbara News-Press yesterday--I rarely buy one, other than Sunday's issue for its TV Guide, and I only read the paper occasionally, when I'm browsing in a coffee house or something--and there was my letter to the editor that I sent a couple of weeks ago. I don't know why the delay in publishing it (it's brilliant!) but what the hell. It may be found here.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan

US troops are dying (four yesterday), and even our puppet president, Karzai, is complaining about the conduct of the foreign troops in his land. Sound like any place else you've heard of lately?

Here's a more detailed dispatch to the same effect. I do admire Karzai for urging nonmilitary means for dealing with the insurgents in Afghanistan--and for protesting the killing of Taliban members, because "they too are sons of this land."

Let's face it (as no lawmakers have done): The solution to the planet's strife--from the Middle East to the Far East, from Africa to South and Central America, "terrorism" to state-sanctioned war--isn't now and has never been military. It's been political, economic, social. It's been that there's a fundamental unfairness in the distribution of means and wealth and freedom and opportunity on Earth. How can any nation--the US, the UK, even Denmark, France, Sweden--justify the vast differences between its citizens' material wealth, and that of citizens of the third world? How can such nations--especially the US--justify the ongoing and growing inequality of material wealth and opportunity among its own citizens? Any answers?

What next?

Now it turns out that our troops in Iraq are being killed--intentionally shot--by members Iraq's civil defense forces. I wonder, really I do, how it is that Bush/Cheney are still in office, as are Rummie and Condi . They're wrecking this nation, every facet of it, with such haste and abandon that it will take decades to repair.

I apologize to you younger folks. These monsters matured and took power on my watch.

Well, whaddya think?

Finally, a political football that even Karl Rove can't handle. The Iraq-amnesty plan has found its way to the US Senate, where a nonbinding resolution passed by a wide margin, condemning Iraq's plan to grant amnesty to insurgents who killed "only" US occupation troops. Nineteen senators voted against the resolution, all Republicans. So--Republicans don't support our troops after all. Indeed, they won't grant amnesty to Mexicans who entered our nation without papers, but support amnesty for Iraqis who kill our troops.

I love it.

Bush's final excuse fails

The sequence of rationales for invading Iraq--WMD; Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda and 9/11; deposing a despot--has come and gone, leaving Bush with this last excuse: bringing democracy to the nation and through its example spreading it throughout the Middle East and, I supppose, the world.

Can you imagine any nation viewing Iraq's experience and wishing to follow it?

Back to the drawing board?

Here's a recent CNN poll asking respondents whom they would "definitely not vote for for president in 2008." Democrats H. Clinton, Kerry and Gore all rate about the same, with almost half of the respondents naming them. So--this means the Democrats had better come up with a new candidate or that their most obvious candidates had better come up with a new message. We (America--and the planet) simply cannot allow the US executive to be a Republican any longer.

Truthout's hangout

Here's the latest from Truthout--my source for my previous posts about the indictment of Karl Rove--in which they detail the latest developments in the convoluted tale of Rove's and Cheney's involvement vel non in the Valerie Plame matter.

Convoluted, yes. Finished? No.

Come to think of it

Where are our kids' protest songs?

I recall in my first year in law school

we were taught that ownership of a parcel of ground included the airspace above it. In modern times, that maxim has been modified to allow the sovereign to control access to the upper reaches of airspace. So--if Iraq is a sovereign nation, why is the US keeping it from controlling its airspace?

Am I missing something?

Isn't Iraq's plan to grant amnesty to those who killed only American troops (as opposed to Iraqi soldiers and civilians) a hell of a story? I've blogged about it, but haven't found a single mention of it on other blogs--not a whisper, pro, con or undecided--and upon Goggle-Newsing it I've found only the original LA Times stories, repeated in two other newspapers, and -- nothing. Not a mention on the Sunday talk shows, either.

Maybe it's too hot to handle--certainly for the administration supporters. But for the opponents of the war in Iraq? Isn't it at least comment-worthy?

Chickens coming home to roost

Or is it roast? Whatever. Given our maltreatment and indefinite detention of those whom we contend are our "enemies" in the "war on terror," what are the chances that those two missing U.S. soldiers have had a pleasant weekend--and will soon be released by al-Qaeda?

Hoooray for Andy Rooney

I just watched the end of 60 Minutes, the Andy Rooney segment that I find amusing almost every time. Well, tonight--two minutes ago--he outdid himself. He chastised us for allowing the war in Iraq to go on, then detailed its cost and the costs of the ongoing splurge in spending by the Defense Department. He ended with a clip from Ike's "military-industrial complex" speech, the telling quotes about the rise of military power in the United States, the danger of the rise of military power, "whether sought or unsought," by the merger of corporate and military power.

Andy's final line: "Well, it's happened."

Bounce? What bounce?

All this talk on the MSM about Bush's great week (al-Zaqwiri killed, Bush visits Green Zone in Baghdad, Rove escapes indictment), check out these poll numbers. Barely a bump or a blip. I find the most telling means of reading the numbers is to compare the latest poll of each service with that service's previous poll numbers. A one-point movement in one recent poll, a two-point movement in another, with the negative poll numbers in each remaining constant. Could Bush have arrived at the point where he, personally, is "disapproved" and nothing he can do, or that happens in the world can change that?

I'm inclined to think that that's what happened to Truman and Jimmy Carter. They just got on the wrong side of the electorate's collective psyche and couldn't recover. Let's hope Bush is similarly placed--and that in desperation he doesn't do something ugly to try to gain support. Like attack Iran.

Amnesty again

This Baltimore Sun article tells of al-Malika's amnesty plan, at the same time US troops are looking for two missing soldiers. What an incredible irony, what a mess. What the hell is going on? Can you imagine how it must feel to be a target of insurgent gunfire, knowing that if you're killed, your killer will be granted amnesty? Got to give our troops a real moral boost, a wonderful sense of dedication to mission to assist the Iraqi government establish security. Isn't it going to be delicious to watch how the war-supporters juggle this development?

I knew this was going to get ugly

A day after WaPo reports that the Iraqi government is suggesting giving amnesty to insurgents who killed only American troops--see my previous post on this subject--the Iraqi who WaPo quoted, a highly-placed minister, resigns. And Democrats in Congress howl in dismay, while no one else comments. Whatever's going on isn't pretty, but I gotta tell ya, I love it.

I can't wait to hear the answer to this question

Addressed to Bush, or even to his press secretary: "What do you think of the statement by al-Maliki that the Iraq government 'will definitely' consider granting amnesty to those Iraqis whose only insurgent attacks were against US forces, not civilians?"

The silent majority

That phrase, you might recall, was adopted by the Right back in the day when they were out of power. It galvanized the arch-conservatives (and conservatives too) by giving them at once hope and cause and potential for power. And it worked. Look around.

Now, it seems, a new Silent Majority exists in this nation. Those who are unheeded and unheard about this awful ongoing tragedy in Iraq (and its outgrowths, such as torture and unscrutinized, indeterminate detention of prisoners, and wiretapping, and rendition and...) and who're more than displeased, they're angry.

Damn!

Rove won't be charged.

Will the MSM ever report this?

The economy--not as Wall Street sees it, not as corporate reports show it, but as wage-earning Americans experience it--sucks.

Extra, extra, read all about it!

George Bush is holding a meeting with advisors to learn whazzup in Iraq and what our future course might be. His meeting is filling the headlines.

Does it occur to you that the president of the US engaging in thinking and consulting and planning shouldn't be a major news event? Isn't that why the president makes the big bucks?

Except, I guess, Bush, for whom such a session is extraordinary, definitely newsworthy. Which says everything about who we, as a nation, have become.

Rove redux?

Recall about a month ago when I reported the imminent indictment of Karl Rove? Well, so far no further news about the progress of the case against him, except this item, by the same reporter who filed the earlier story about Rove's charges.

As a former lawyer who worked in federal court, I agree with the writer: a sealed indictment entitled "Sealed vs. Sealed" is unique. And intriguing.

Who would name their kid "Arlen"?

This is essentially the question the NYT is asking, when it recounts on today's editorial page the ongoing, mysteriously obeisant deference that Senator Specter (supposedly a decent fellow, albeit a Republican) continues to exhibit toward the fascists who rule the executive branch. Will we (that's us American citizens) ever learn about the NSA domestic spying operation? Will the Senate (or anybody?) ever tell us what this wholesale phonecall-screening program is about?

Will Arlen Specter ever get a spine?

We need to know this

The US Army's destruction of Fallujah and the seige of the city in 2004 (actually, there's Fallujah I--retribution for the brutal killing of four contractors, recall--followed by Fallujah II which leveled the city) has been somewhat well documented, albeit after the fact. But now we're doing the same thing to Ramadi. Will the US public learn of this--or care?

Wishful thinking

I suppose it was unrealistic of me to think that the US-installed government in Iraq might consider ending US troops' occupation. Looks like we're stuck there at the whim of Iraq's politicians, whose positions--and perhaps survival--depend on our protection.

Maybe the NeoCon is over

With all the media hype about the death of al-Zarqawi, you'd think the unwashed would bounce Bush's numbers from the lows he's recently experienced. But, according to Rassmussen Reports, No.

So--have Americans finally wised up to Bush, his advisers, and the media BS? Could be. If so, there's hope for our country. But I'm not betting on it. Just hoping for it.

The rules of engagement for 2006 midterm elections

Two schools of thought among those--including me--who desperately want the House of Representatives (at least) to be wrested from Republican control: One is to avoid using the word "impeachment" during the campaign because it's too radical, it will marginalize any candidate who mentions it and will draw Republicans to the polls out of fear; the other--mine--is to shout impeachment from the hilltops because it's right to do so, it's warranted in fact and law and it will pull Democrats to the polls who might otherwise stay home out of boredom.

Your position?

The missing billions

in Iraq reconstruction money--said to be as much as 21--were supposed to be subject to an investigation by a congressionally-authorized Inspector General. So--where's the report? Well, according to this article, there won't be a report because although Bush signed the bill authorizing the investigation, he appended a "signing statement" that effectively gutted the law, so that the supposed Inspector General, appointed by the president, deems himself powerless to conduct the study.

Just when you thought it was safe

to assume that when both houses of Congress voted unanimously to insert in Iraq military spending bills that no permanent US military bases would be allowed--the Republicans who are in charge of the conference committee have secretly stripped the spending law of that proviso. Result: Both houses must now pass the legislation without that proviso, or must act to restore it by majority vote. At least we'll get to see what the Republicans really have in mind for this republic. Are we to remain just one nation, or do they intend that we rule the world?

Update: the latest developments, showing a fait accompli.

Ho hum

Americans are being inundated with MSM reports about the effect of the death of a single terrorist in Iraq (I'm not denying he's a terrorist, but I'm stressing the singleness of him), some guy named al-Zarqawi who the US MSM ridiculed a few weeks ago as being inept with an automatic rifle. It is said that his death means good things for Bush's regime; his death means nothing to the insurgency; his death will empower the Iraq government; his death will inflame the insurgency and, more likely, the international terrorist movement.

I, for one, believe nothing will change. We are occupiers of Iraq, and the insurgency will remain, unabated, despite one man's death--a man who wasn't even part of the insurgency but rather of a "larger" movement to kill the infidel, namely, Westerners who've for decades exploited the arab/Muslim world. Nor will Zarqawi's death stem the terrorist tide. Bush has kicked the beehive and it matters not that one bee, even a boss bee, has died. Indeed, because of that death the hive has only become busier. IMHO.

Addendum/amendment. I fell into the MSM trap, playing up the death al-Zarqawi. Fact is, he's a small potato compared to the world's largest terrorist organization housed in various huge buildings, enormously well-funded by our tax dollars. It's that organization that needs to be brought down.

Molly Ivins

frets over the disastrous air polluting effect of all those burning American flags, the pernicious impact on America of all those gay marriages, the devastating ruin of the rich wrought by the federal estate tax. Funnnny--if it weren't so tragic.

A new tactic

Here's our latest attempt to pacify/defeat the Iraq insurgency: thorough occupation. Instead of fighting, then leaving, insurgent strongholds--which allows them to regather--our troops are squatting in defeated towns, building numerous small encampments, patrolling the streets regularly. It's unclear whether this effort will work throughout Iraq, but one thing is certain: The dream of a liberated, free Iraq is gone. We'll be occupying their nation for years to come unless we Americans demand our withdrawal.

Cynicism rules

This essay, pointing out Bush's cynical use of the "marriage amendment" to recoup support from his base "base," is well written and spot on. I particularly like this observation about Bush's latest speech urging passage of such an amendment:

"It's almost surreal. For one thing, the president has no role in amending the Constitution. Proposed amendments must be passed in both the House and Senate by two-thirds majorities, and then must win approval from the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. The president doesn't have to sign it. He doesn't even have to read it."

A summer day in Baghdad

as seen from Riverbend's house, in which only 4 hours a day have enough electricity to run the air conditioners.

Right on, brothers and sisters

I never joined the American Bar Association (it was too stodgy for me, by miles), but this latest action by its Board of Governors is downright cool.

Finally, some good news

The British invasion by BBC Television. Do you think Faux News viewers will tune in?

Ya gotta love this headline

"Fight a more sensitive, ethical war," troops told.

In case you didn't notice

the MSM's coverage of the war in Iraq is nigh nil.

The Army clears itself of wrongdoing

The Ishaqi massacre, more recent than Haditha, resulted in a determination of no wrongdoing by the US Army. But the Iraqis are protesting this result, and here's a bit of background, contemporaneous with the event, that pounds nails into the coffin of the veracity of our military's investigation of itself.

I gotta tell ya, this quagmire's more quagic than Vietnam. In Southeast Asia, the gooks didn't have the temerity to question our outrages. Now we've got the people we invaded crawling over our conduct and our paperwork, and revealing our force for what they are: mercenaries, hateful of their duty, hating the people they commmand. And, unlike the "wogs" the British tried to subjugate, these Arabs have video and the Internet.

Is America--are Americans--better, kinder, gentler?

With the revelation of Marine massacre and others atrocities by our troops in Iraq, we now engage in self-analysis. Is this the tip of the iceberg? Have all those uncounted Iraqi bodies remained uncounted because so many were our victims? Are we, as invaders and occupiers, any different from previous invader/occupiers?

Surely, we're not Nazis. But aren't we comparable to the French or the English or the Romans? If we concede that, we become just another empire, capable--indeed effectuating--similar disdain for occupied territory and conquered peoples. And that, ladies and gents, means My Lai and Haditha and abu Ghraib--and many other, yet-unnamed outrages.

It's time Americans understood this: We're just another nation, with the same quality of folks as previous nations. We're not "special," not "God-blessed," not better, not worse. Just another nation, warring and winning, and eventually declining because of it.

Sartre and Charlie Brown

This article evaluates the musings of Charles Schulz's character against the existentialist writer's thoughts about meaning. I must admit I've read more of the latter than the former, but now I'm thinking I'd better buy a Peanuts anthology.

Out of the mouths of NeoCons...

Michael Ledeen, one of the most egregious malefactors ever to have burrowed his way into the federal government (having burrowed through a far-right burrow), says Condi's latest "overture" to Iran is either (a) a ploy to split the baby with American politics while offering Iran a veiled ultimatum, or (b) a Bush/Rove ploy to force an attack on Iran, knowing that Iran couldn't possibly capitulate to Condi's terms of "give up and then we'll talk."

Ledeen's right on the money. Condi's latest is either a ploy or a ploy.

Football fever no more

Riverbend's tale of Iraq's decline. Sad, sad, sad. What have we wrought?

Taken for granted

This morning I surfed through my usual news sites--Common Dreams, Buzzflash, Truthout, ICasualties, a few others--then visited a few lefty blogs and blogs of buddies, while sipping my morning coffee. Got up to speed, so to speak.

Five or six years ago, no such thing. I'd have to wait until Mother Jones arrived in the mail, or until I bumped into some more-informed liberal crazy who shared some news, before I could find out what's really happening in the world. No quick access to London's Independent or the Asia Times, no way to penetrate the distortions and omissions of the MSM's reportage except to wait for the truth to seep through.

No seeping anymore, no waiting. With the Internet and a few keystrokes, the truth will out.

Verrry interesting

I wonder how the US military--and any other US entity that conducts an investigation into the Marines' killing of civilians in Haditha--will deal with Iraq's own investigation. Certainly, if Iraq finds our Marines at fault and demands justice, the US will have to go along, right? That's one way to keep the administration from sweeping the matter under the rug, eh?

Bush says he wants to create an independent, sovereign democracy in Iraq, ruled by law not by dictator. Well, George, be careful what you ask for.

Don't get me started

about how gut-wrenching is the prospect--a reality, according to this LA Times article--of the emergence of a war-mongering faction of the Democratic party, a "liberal" group who cites the tough-guy posturings of Truman and John Kennedy to support a military solution to the "war on terror" (and, for that mattter, who adopt such a phrase). Must we human beings--I'm talking now about me and others who despise war, who are repulsed by its use by American politicians as a tool of foreign policy--fight for peace on yet another front, the Democratic Right? Is there no peace for persons who only want peace?

Media madness

Articles like this drive me crazy. It seems all that matters is what Bush says or how he appears. He's contrite, he's plain-spoken, he's abashed, he's unabashed, he's truthful, he's a liar. On and on.

What about what he does? He invades sovereign nations pre-emptively and contrary to international law. He demolishes the middle class in America with ruinous tax cuts and corporate welfare. He wrecks America's standing abroad, fomenting wild anti-American sentiment globally. He sanctions ongoing corporate greed and devasation of the planet by huge companies. He sanctions torture abroad and spying at home. He does nothing while emergencies arise. He panders to the basest impulses of the basest citizens by dropping "anti-gay" and "anti-immigrant" cards whenever he gears up for elections.

Forget Bush's demeanor, forget his persona. Hell, Hitler, it's said, was a good speaker who had good and bad days. And look what he managed to do with his nation, the operative word being "do". Just as Bush is doing to us. Is anybody paying attention?

Here's another take on Bush's latest barrage of "apologies" for his "tough talk."

What tax cut?

This analysis of the effect of Bush's latest tax cut (scroll to bottom of article) shows how the benefits of the legislation will be distributed. To me, the most stark statistic is that 5% of the benefits from the cuts will be shared by persons earning less than $75,000 per year, which equals seventy-five percent of American households; conversely, 95% of the benefits will go to those earning more than $75,000.

If you wonder why so many folks in the middle class still vote Republican, so do I.

How's that again?

This article tracks the number of times over the last three years that Tom Friedman, one of the NYT's most prominent editorial apologists for the war in Iraq, has in interviews said that "the next six months" are do-or-die for democracy in Iraq. Funny if it weren't so tragic.

The madness of King George

A Jungian psychologist evaluates Bush and his followers. Scary.

A piece of the NSA phonecall-monitoring puzzle.

As you know, in the wake of USA Today's revelation that the NSA has possession of the phonecall records of all Americans who use Verizon, AT&T and Bellsouth, those companies have each denied turning their records over to the NSA. So what's a citizen to believe?

Well, this may be the answer.

Is there no point where someone says, Stop the madness?

Now we're going to use laser-guns to blind oncoming drivers at checkpoints in Iraq. More humane, it's claimed, than bullets.

You want humane? How 'bout getting the fuck out of their country?

Rassmussen Reports

Regular followers of this blog know that I follow Rassmussen Reports for daily polling. It's a conservative-oriented poll that regularly reports higher numbers for Bush and his policies than other polls. But even Rassmussen can't escape the facts, including this precipitous drop by Bush in the polls, to a new low of 36% approval-rating. And note the huge "strongly disapprove" numbers. And note also that these figures arose from polling largely after Bush's speech on immigration "reform."

It's getting to the never-can-recover level. Let's hope so.

CNN International

Okay, Congressman Murtha's report about the Marines' massacre of Iraqi civilians (Murtha is a former Marine) has made it to CNN International. Any more traction, or have we become immune to American atrocities.

The media scripts

In this too-long piece, the "media scripts," as the writer calls them, are examined for Senator John McCain and Al Gore. The Senator has been dubbed--"scripted"--by the media as "Saint John" and/or "Sun God John McCain," with each report of him being cast, sometimes directly, mostly by assumption, in such terms. This media scripting lies at the root of MSM reporting, the article says, and governs public perception of a candidate.

The script for Gore is akin to "buffoon," a negative sense of some sort of wayward loser. And I must admit that in my various conversation, even with kindred peacenik crazies, I get a mixed reaction to the prospect of Gore's candidacy for president in 2008. And yet he's right on on the environment, opposed the Iraq invasion, is a genuine liberal on most issues--and he beat Bush in 2000. He could be cast as the "comeback candidate" or the "happy ending" winner. But I agree with the article, that says that until we consumers of news take on this media scripting question, until we confront and attack it, we'll be stuck with "Saint John" in the White House in 2008, and Gore or Hillary or whatever Democrat on the outside, doomed by the media's characterization.

Another watch to watch

Knight-Ridder reports Congressman John Murtha's recitation of a Pentagon report of a massacre by US Marines of Iraqi civilians. An awful event, first reported months ago, but obscured by the accounts at the time.


Not on the scale of My Lai massacre in VietNam, but not very savory, either. Will we learn about this on the MSM? Don't hold your breath.

He who lives by the sword

This is fun to watch. Bush has for five years cultivated and catered to the Far Right, his base, and now with the Dubai ports deal, the half-measure immigration proposal, the sale of goodies to India and so forth he's losing them. He didn't realize what radical crazies they were. But I did. I spent five hours driving along the I-10 a few months ago listening to a radio talk show from somewhere in southern Arizona. The question was "immigration" and the language was foul. Minutemen calling in, calling their fellow citizens (lumped in with legal and illegal immigrants) Spics and losers and pachukos and worse. Calling for on-sight shootings of wetbacks (even though there's no river to cross in Arizona), calling for martial law.

So Bush finds himself caught between a rock (the bigoted base) and a hard place (the capitalist pigs). The former want all the people of color gone from America, the latter want some kind of "limited" work-release program that allows them to exploit Latino labor without having to pay benefits, a living wage, and provide any security.

Rove, I know, conjured this latest gambit, trying to play the "immigration card" to staunch the bleeding, the inexorable drop in the polls of his puppet. But he didn't realize how rotten was his base.

There's a good novel here, except that it's really happening. And I'm really enjoying the show.

What's good for General Motors is good for America.

Check out this article to learn the converse--and then tell your broker to dump your common stocks.

Out in the cold

I'm one of the disenfranchised--that is, the unpolled--because I have only a cell phone, no land line, and so am not polled by the major pollsters. Here's an article citing the effects of the exclusion of cell-phone-only folks like me on the percentages shown in poll results. Not too significant yet, but growing.

"The Americans have wristwatches, but we have the time."

A saying of the Iraqi insurgency.

Talk about your quagmire...

Check out this situation in Iraq.

King of the world

Whatever happened to "no entangling alliances"? Gone in favor of a permanent military presence in the Middle East, with bases throughout the region. This administration is America's worst nightmare, dooming it to becoming the world's policeman and enforcer of its interests eternally. Our kids and their kids will be paying for this forever.

By way of explanation

I want to tell you why I'm so fixated on the Plame-gate issue, why it's so important that it be tracked to its ultimate conclusion. It's because all the other excesses and illegalities of the Bush administration (except, of course, his social security craziness and his various other economic debacles) are cloaked in claims of "national security": the torture and rendition thingees, the invasion of Iraq, the spying on us, the secretive usurpation of power.

But this Plame thing is different. If it's proven that Rove/Libby/others leaked Valerie Plame's name and function as a CIA operative in order to denigrate Joe Wilson's reportage from Niger, that's just plain ol' politics. Just like Watergate, or, as John Dean says, Worse than Watergate, because it's possible that Plame was working on intelligence of Iran's nuclear capacity, Iran, one of the members of Bush's "axis of evil."

I'm here to tell ya, if Rove is indicted and the case proceeds toward trial in the next several months, this could be the end of Bush's administration. Not by impeachment--that's too much to hope for. But by disgrace and discredit, which will lead to revulsion by Americans, which might lead to a period of fair and intelligent government.

So--tick, tick, tick...

...tick, tick, boom.

Now it's being reported that Fitzgerald has handed Rove's attorney the sealed indictment, and that an announcement of the charges will be forthcoming next week. Jason Leopold, the author of this report and of the report I linked to above, is the same man who broke the story of the Libby indictment in the hours before it was announced by Fitzgerald, so it's hard fact. Rove is going down, baby.

Unfriendly fire

I suppose that's the word for when units of an army, in this case the US-trained Iraqi army, attack one another.

Tick, tick

Time is running out for Karl Rove.

Staking out Fitzgerald

Reliable sources--trust me on this, I don't want to surf to find them--have noted that Plame-gate prosecutor Fitzgerald released the information about Libby's indictment on a Friday afternoon, and that he's about due to announce Rove's indictment too. They've taken to roosting in front of Fitzgerald's office every Friday, and I'll roost here, waiting, waiting, waiting and wishing.

Whaaaa?

A bunch of Ugandan soldiers sodomized at a US military base in Iraq? Whazzup with that?

What are we to do?

Those of us Americans--and there are millions and millions of us--who want sanity in our foreign policy, starting with getting the hell out of Iraq, are in jeopardy of failing our mission if the Democrats are split between the sane ones and the warmongers: H. Clinton, E. Bayh, Lieberman, Biden and their ilk. That split can hand the Republicans continued control of Congress and, possibly, the White House in 2008. We've got to get a plan, as well as a much louder voice!

Remember that popular female Iraqi television reporter?

Recall that she was killed some months ago, reportedly shot, along with her cameraman? Well, recently a cellphone-camera was discovered that contained a clip of her death. Here's how she died at the hands of "two musclebound men in military uniforms."

Was it worth it?

All those dead and maimed Americans and Iraqis, all those billions of dollars, all that enmity and ruin--to establish a "democracy" that ceases to function because of a ringtone?

Boiling blood

What does it take to get my blood to boil? What about this story about a $6.1 billion--that's with a B--contract for a fleet of helicopters for the President? For some reason the story surfaced again today, but the contract was actually awarded in early 2005.

As to the earlier story, note (scroll down) that among the supporters of the contract was Hillary Clinton, quoted as saying it was "an Oval Office in the sky." Note also that the award went to a syndicate of largely foreign companies at the expense of the Sikorski Company of Connecticut.

A fleet of 23 Oval Offices, at a cost of 6.1 billion dollars! And get this:

"Measuring eight feet wide and 25 feet long, the cabin will include a lavatory and a galley kitchen. The fold-down stair spares the president from ducking during photogenic entrances and exits


These people in Washington are fucking crazy!

A milestone

but a dubious one.

I gotta agree with our soldiers in Iraq

These latest uniforms look "goofy."

Unknown site

Here's the Home page of a site that's fun to surf. Most illuminating is the page that presents, in a quick series, various newsworthy events from around the globe, using TV clips from AP, Reuters, BBC--whatever. I have cable connectivity and so am able to receive the clips as clearly as if they're televised. They're a day or so late, but the breadth of news coverage (for examples, an ominous volcano in Indonesia, a "Watergate" scandal in France) surely make me feel more like a citizen of the world, not merely a vessel for the news that American channels choose to present. And it's not apparent from the site itself what if any axe it has to grind, because its coverage is ubiquitous, or seeming so.

Ain't this grand?

A border war between Kurdish militias in northern Iraq and Turkish troops to the north; concurrent with blasts of Iranian border towns, likely the result of Kurdish incursions into Iran to the east. Need a program to follow the action? Here's a BBC article on the latest attacks, with map and links to earlier stories. This is precisely the "destabilizing effect" in the region that was predicted by those who opposed our invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Kurds, long constrained from expansionist and separatist acts, are now loosed by the American presence in Iraq to carry out a plan they've long had--to create a separate nation in the geographic center of four bordering nations: Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran.

The Iranian Oil Bourse

Some months ago I posted about this prospect, and now it's a-comin'. True, there won't be any immediate impact on the dollar, even if Iran pulls it off, but I think the phrase "death by a thousand cuts" came from the East, didn't it?

ROTFLOL

It's rare that I use smiley-faces or cyberinitials--I really hate them, dunno why--but if you want to roll on the floor laughing out loud check out this clip from a year-old Daily Show program. If you wonder why Porter Goss is out at CIA, the look on his face in the clip is your first clue.

Wanna bet

that the Chinese leaders realize the threat of global warming before our president does?