Now let's see...

We invaded Iraq in March 2003 and have occupied it for three and a half years. And now, maybe, Bush convenes a group (just a group, not an entirely learned group) to tell him whazzup? And when he doesn't hear good stuff about his policies, he gets "frustrated"?

You gotta read the entire story about the meeting to understand what a rock-head is our president. When you do, you'll learn this: It doesn't mean you're smart or learned if you're president; you're just well-heeled, well-born, and lucky.

Enough is enough

Somebody--not me, I'm chicken--wrestle this guy to the ground, or better yet, run him off the road and into the ditch.

War in space?

The top U.S. Air Force General has predicted future attacks on our satellites in orbit and has called for a program that allows us to guard them by making sure foreign governments' launches aren't threatening. The general's name is Chilton. Where have I heard that name before?

If it's not a civil war, what is it?

Baghdad's population is about half that of Los Angeles. In attacks on a Shiite area of the city yesterday, 62 people were killed and about 140 injured by bombs and rockets launched from somewhere inside the city limits. Can you imagine the headlines in the LA Times, or, for that matter, any US paper if such a thing happened in LA or any major US city? We'd be inundated with reports on CNN and Faux News about the battle, and, believe me, they'd find a phrase for it. If not civil war, it would surely be labeled something catchy. The city wouldn't be called "restive" or "troubled" or "in transition," that's for sure.

It's absolutely clear to me

Based on this AP story about the questions our troops in Iraq are asking their commanders, questions about the legitimacy and efficacy of the US military mission, that what we need to do is to make it crystal clear to our troops that our continued presence there is counterproductive, is enflaming the very people we're supposed to be helping. We need to grow louder in our message to get out of Iraq now. Now! Not one more death at our hands, not one more death of our troops. Not one more!

We must have been getting to them

Our repeated references to the Bush/Cheney regime as fascist has finally caused Rove to preempt the word fascist, inserting it in in the form of "Islamofascists," in Bush's latest speeches. Damn. The MSM has glommed onto the reference now, and so our years of unheeded uses of the word fascist now sound weak and copy-catty. And so it goes.

Unless perhaps we can come up with our own word. "Capitalist-fascist"? Too cumbersome. "Religiofascist"? Better, but it misses the mark. Any ideas?

Okay, I've decided

The ideal ticket, to me, would be Gore/Spitzer in 2008. As to the latter, check out these ads. Powerful stuff. And, I gotta admit, as a fellow windmill-jouster, I've always liked his style as Attorney General of New York.

You can't make this stuff up

American forces busted into a building and arrested five men for alledgedly plotting to kill Iraqi's Prime Minister. Where did this happen, you ask? At the Ministry of Health. And who are these men, you ask? Why, none other than bodyguards for the Minister of Health.

Now what?

The Iraqi government has decided to shut down a splinter group of Kurds in northern Iraq? Now, does the US get involved in that? Or do we simply supply troops in the southern areas to free up the Iraqi forces to move against these Kurds? Stay tuned.

If you're a fan of James Taylor

You might--you will--enjoy this fella; and if you do--you will--you might check out his website, which you can link to from the YouTube site.

Sometimes I wonder...

Am I so far ahead of the reality curve that when I read observations like this--that bin Laden and Bush have a symbiotic relationship--I react with a "well, duh" and am amazed that it's not apparent to lefty pundits, even if it's not apparent to the great unwashed. I've blogged about this regularly, for months, and only now does it get expression in a major post? Maybe it's just that the author, Parry, pieced together a bunch of incidents whereas my observations arose as the facts did, one obvious episode at a time.

Point is: These two despots need each other, feed each other. Even the Israelis' incursion into Lebanon, our "proxy war," could not have started without sanction from Washington, and (except for the excesses of the Israelis, perhaps) benefits Bush and, of course, bin Laden and terrorists everywhere. But you see?: Even by stirring up the Middle East as Bush has, he benefits. True, his approval numbers are in decline, but he doesn't care. All he wants to do is to help his party carry the midterm elections so he can avoid Congressional investigations/impeachment hearings and serve out his final two years in peace.

Looks like he's gonna get his wish, I might add. Bin Laden will see to it.

Compassionate conservatives?

Have they lost their minds?

"Congress appears ready to slash funding for the research and treatment of brain injuries caused by bomb blasts, an injury that military scientists describe as a signature wound of the Iraq war."

What a crock

Here's our military's response to al-Maliki's expression of outrage over the attack in Sadr city. Disgustly transparent bullshit. (I know, I know. Mixed metaphor or something.)

Whaddya know!

An insightful piece about Iraq's present situation (in particular, the unspoken standoff and conundrum facing al-Sadr and the US) written by an MSM writer, a longtime reporter for AP. I actually learned something about Iraq today, besides body counts and press releases.

Morgue humor or grim reality?

How to tell a Shiite corpse from a Sunni corpse.

"Some of the bodies are impossible to identify," Dr Falih Hassan said at the morgue. "But we can tell the victim's religion: if they have been beheaded they are Shia, if they have been killed by an electric drill or hammer blows to the face they are Sunni."

For the fighters roaming Baghdad, the logic is simple. Hassan Alami, 25, a Shiite from Sadr City, said the holes drilled in the Sunni heads were to "destroy their stupid minds". The Sunnis are said to behead their victims because this was how Muhammad dealt with apostates.

The source of these quotes, and more of the appalling article, are here, but the link that's supplied doesn't work.

Am I alone in this?

I've been following the MSM reports on the Israel/Lebanon horror, and reading the blogs and Internet news sources too, and I've not yet seen this observation: That the US policy, announced by Condi Rice, to turn to the UN for solution (a process that will mean debate and delay), is the height of cynicism; that in view of Bush/Cheney's disdain for that body when it gets in their way, their intention to depend on it now is simply a way to pass the buck and pass the time while allowing Israel to accomplish its (and the U.S.'s) military aims in the region, namely, to kill as many anti-Israeli-occupation Arabs as possible.

I'll let you know if I find some similar expression in the media, but it's possible it's so obvious that it goes unsaid.

Caprice

How else to explain the death at age 51 of leukemia of this amazing physical specimen? Or the survival of Lance Armstrong of testicular cancer, and his winning of multiple Tours de France thereafter. There's no evident meaning or rules for all of this, and if not evident, then the belief that there's meaning or rules is either (a) dependent on faith of some kind, or (b)false.

No wonder religion's so popular. It's hard to live a life that acknowledges that there are no rules or meanings. Damn hard. But to leap to faith?

I guess you gotta be there, but never having had such faith I don't know what that feels like. Is it pleasant? Is it soothing? Doesn't it ever feel silly?

What have we wrought?

Riverbend tells us.

It's enough to make you sick of politics

Actually, more than enough. A recent letter from "key Democratic Senators" to Bush about the Iraq war and occupation was said to herald a new unity among Democrats on the topic. Well, it's true several Democrats signed the letter (our Boxer, but not our Feinstein, however, and not Hillary and of course not Lieberman), but the letter itself said nothing new. Rhetoric about the past and an amorphous proposal for the future of our occupation. A weak, spineless expession of a weak, spineless party. If I didn't despise the Republicans so much, I wouldn't ever vote for a Democrat.

Class war

This ploy by the House Republicans--tying an increase in the minimum wage to reduction of the federal estate tax--is too much. When are the poor and middle class in America going to rebel against the monsters who're running this country?

This can't be true

Bush is expanding Gitmo, building a new prison there? And the builder is Halliburton? No. Not possible.

This Shiite cleric

expresses my sentiments exactly.

You know you've got problems

when a commanding general of your armed forces won't give his full name for fear of reprisal from insurgents. (Scroll down to last paragraph of this AP story.)

Once again, words fail

to capture the quality and intensity of the outrage I experienced as I read this Marine Corps article about the "second biggest building in Iraq."

Now here's a good idea

In the midst of Israel's bombing of Lebanon, the US delivers bombs to Israel. Precisely the way to win the hearts and minds of Arab Muslims in the region.

Who's on first?

Wouldn't you love having your kid killed while deployed in this cauldron? Fighting neighborhood militias and death squads, and lions and tigers and bears? I mean, WTF? (To you cybernoncognesisi that's What the Fuck?)

All's well

Sure, the Middle East is ablaze, the Earth is warming alarmingly, the poor are getting poorer while the rich are...you get the drift.

But all is well in the world. Why? Because the last two major golf tournaments, the Womens' US Open and the Mens' British Open, were won by the sound, fine favorites, Annika Sorenstam and Tiger Woods. The pretenders, Mickelson, Wie and their ilk are still back in the pack. Annika and Tiger rule, and so I may sleep tonight.

It's no surprise to me

that the biggest of the MSM, the Associated Press, is biased in favor of the US government's positions on various reports. Now, as demonstrated in this study, we can see how subtle, but dominant that bias is.

In my next life

I want this gig.

Can you guess who said this?

After criticizing Israel's assault on Lebanon, he told assembled Western officials: "Just get your hands off Iraq and the Iraqi people and Muslim countries, and everything will be all right," and
"What has been done in Iraq is a kind of butchery of the Iraqi people."


Another report of the remarks included these telling statements.

"If a reconciliation project is going to work it has to talk to all the people," he said. "It must go through our Iraqi beliefs and perceptions. What we need is reconciliation between Iraqis only, there can be no third party."

To underscore his distaste for US forces in Iraq, he related an anecdote about how US soldiers keep people waiting in lines at checkpoints for hours because they insist on resting their bomb-sniffing dogs.

"The sleep of American dogs is more important than people being stopped in the street for hours," he said, evoking chuckles among Iraqi delegates.

The author of these statements? Speaker of the Iraqi's parliament, that's who.


Could it be that our puppets are beginning to pull their own strings?

Call me stupid

but there was a lot in this essay about money that I didn't know.

Our fearless leader

or should I say stupid leader?

Drown them in blood

Okay, I've decided: I want all of them--the Iraqi "army" and "police," the Iraqi insurgents and "terrorists," its civilians and innocents, the Sunnis and Shias and Turkomans and Kurds--all of them to die. I want the Israelis and Hamas and Hizbollahs (sp?) and Iranians and Syrians and Lebanese to die. I want the Egyptians and Saudis and Afghanis to die, as well as all Indians and Pakistanis and Chinese and Koreans (North and South) and Indonesians and Phillipinos and--you've got my drift. (Lately, I include in the list the Venezuelans, the Chileans, the Bolivians and Brazilians and Cubans, maybe the Mexicans, too.)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were no people on Earth, no nations, that didn't oppose the US version of the world? We'd be free to suck oil from wherever we wanted, to cut down timber, net all the fish, mine all the minerals, exploit all the workers. We could drive our SUVs at whatever speed we wanted, borrow all the money we needed, buy anything we desired.

Yup. That's what I want. Maybe then I can stop blogging. I'll be too busy buying and spending and speeding.

A query

I'd like my (numerous) readers to tell me of one thing--one thing--that's improving (a) in America, and (b) on Earth. Just asking.

My thoughts on Al Gore's candidacy for President

are captured precisely here.

The sad story of Mr. Wilson

This AP story of a Ramadi man is touching, tragic. "Destroying a village [in this case a city] in order to save it," just like in VietNam.

In the middle of the piece is an illuminating quote. After telling of Mr. Wilson's plight (and, presumably, the thousands of other Iraqis who've abandoned the city), the writer says, "In the vast scale of suffering and displacement the country has experienced, Mr. Wilson's departure is the tiniest of blips. But it's a vivid symbol of the hardships faced by the U.S.-led coalition and the elected Iraqi government in restoring peace and quiet for the countless other Mr. Wilsons of Iraq."

Hardships faced by the coalition?

Condi's free pass

Our Secretary of State was asleep at the switch during pre-9/11 when she was, supposedly, our security chief; she was the mouthpiece for Bush in the Iraq warmup (recall her "mushroom cloud" reference?), and since then has been a main shill for Bush's failed policies, including in this outrageous appearance on TV. Note how she continues to conflate the madness in the Middle East with 9/11, hoping that the sheeplike American media and citizenry will continue to endure Bush's "policies" in Iraq and his blind support of Israel as part of his "war on terror." Indeed, her terming of criticism of those policies as "grotesque" is grotesque.

It's time we called her the militaristic whore she is, an evil force in our international relations, and stop giving her allowances because of her race/gender. If you think I'm off base here, just consider how her recent words would be treated by the media--especially the liberal media--if uttered by Rummie or Cheney. There's be a howl of protest. But when spoken by Condi, they raise barely a ripple.

This could get interesting, verrry interesting

The prosecution (by us, not them) of the Marines who're charged with rape/murder of that teenager and her family. The Bushies are hoping like crazy that they can fry all of the accuseds to show how just America is. But they can't get DNA from the victim's body because under Islam the exhumation of a dead body isn't permissible. So, the Army prosecution (the only prosecution that our occupancy laws allows) may misfire.

Wouldn't that be the Ritz? The Muslims rise up in outrage when the rape-murdering Marines are given a light sentence (or are acquitted) because of a "technicality," when all Iraqis know--absolutely, they know--that the Marines are guilty and should pay the ultimate price.

We reap what we sow. Madness.

It's a madhouse, a goddam madhouse

During the "clamp down" of Baghdad, a group of militants who, according to a witness, were driving military vehicles, kidnapped the Iraqi Olympic committee, its body guards and various visitors who were filming the meeting.

Yup--you read that correctly. A total of more than fifty people kidnapped in the heart of curfew-closed Baghdad by armed men wearing uniforms. Or something like that. Nobody knows why, nobody knows who. And I sure wanna know--with all of our, and Iraqi, forces closing down the city: How?

Update: Some of the captives were released, but scores are still being held by the gunmen. Still--nobody knows whazzup. The word anarchy applies, so does chaos. And it's still only the middle of the summer.

I wonder how the US public would react

if this quote from the Army Chief of Staff about the current status of US involvement in Iraq was widely known.

"The challenge … is becoming more complex, and it's going to continue to be. That's why I'll tell you I think we're closer to the beginning than we are to the end of all this."

Yup, there's no light at the end of the tunnel, there's no insurgency in its "last throes," there's only an ongoing "long, hard slog" on which we've just begun to engage.

Have a nice summer.

I grind my teeth

when I read articles like this, showing the agonizing futility of our "mission" in Iraq, and our wretched incompetence in working toward it. For the last two years, at least--since all other fabricated justifications for our waste of lives and treasure in Iraq evaporated--our stated task has been to create a sound local force to secure the nation. And now we learn that all we've done is arm sects of Muslims who, of course, have decades of scores to settle.

Stay the course? What course?

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.