Makes you wonder...

The daily poll of Americans' approval of Bush's presidency that's conducted by Rasmussen showed a distinct mini-bounce in Bush's favor (from the high 30's to the mid-40's) just after January 1. (The figure has now declined to 40%.) Rasmussen, as well as the coincidence, suggested this bounce was due to the execution of Saddam Hussein.

Is it possible Americans (even a small percentage of them) think like that? Don't you wish Sweden or Canada had a better climate (and would accept American refugees?)

Capitol punishment

Not a misspelling--I just wanted to see if you were awake. Actually, in a previous post I declared my opposition to capital punishment in all cases. But if I were to be persuaded to allow and exception, here it is.

A Whistleblower's tale

The soldier who revealed the Abu Ghraib photos tells his story here. Now I know why there are so few revelations about military atrocities from inside. Only one My Lai? C'mon.

Danger Zone

The latest CBS poll has Bush's approval rating at 30%, the lowest ever for any poll. Now I agree that CBS's numbers are usually lower than others', but at some point the concensus may hit 27% or so, and it may become time for a coup.

Hearts and minds re-redux

What a teriffic way to start the new year.

"Baghdad – U.S. forces killed the coach of Iraq's basketball team for the disabled in front of his house in the area of al-Mansour, western Baghdad, according to an official in Iraq's Paralympics Committee."

The coach of the disabled basketball team? Are you kidding me?

Reported here: http://www.aswataliraq.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=34306&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Direct, articulate, smart

Plus a bunch of similar adjectives describe the Army lieutenant who's refused to serve in Iraq because of his belief that our invasion and occupation were illegal and unconstitutional. Quite a soldier, this young man. Read his words and/or listen here.

Hanging Saddam Hussein

Of course I am opposed to--am disgusted by, actually--the execution of this dictator, as I am by the execution of any human being (any animal, for that matter), and I continue to wonder why we humans still do it. I'm also not that crazy about "life in prison without possibility of parole," but at least that has the supporting rationale of being necessary to avoid harm to society by removing established recidivist offenders from our midst (without, however, the demeaning feature of deliberate killing).

It is said that "justice" is served by execution, that there's some curative effect of establishing a societal balance by killing a killer. I say that's hooey. Primitive poppycock. It's windowdressing, merely, for retribution--which is itself something so senseless that no animal except the basest human can conceive of it. Are there any animals other than us who engage in retribution? I thought not.

After almost two months,

Riverbend posts on her blog, Baghdad Burning, once again--and she's bitter.

Did I read this right?

"And I encourage you all to go shopping more."

Apparently so. Check out this transcript of Bush's recent news conference about the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, in Bush's "successful war"

kidnapped girls are traded for dogs.

Tragic farce

This report in the Guardian about the Brits' attack and demolition of the "Serious Crimes Unit" headquarters in Basra is astounding. And these are the folks we're dying for, these are the people we're placing in power?

This entire ugly war has become a sick joke, a gruesome tragedy. We've got to leave that nation to allow its citizens to determine their own fate. And to allow our citizens to heal.

Laughed 'til I couldn't anymore

Here's a healthy dose of Holiday cheer. Video of Borat's visit to the Pima County (Tucson, Arizona) Republican club. Enjoy.

I wish you a Merry Christmas

but as to the New Year--probably not very merry. The numbers--reported by solid governmental sources--are frightening for the future of our children and grandchildren and, like so many problems Bush and his Republicans have gotten us into in the last six years, present an insoluble problem. What have we wrought?

Hopeless, hapless

Here we are, awaiting word from the Listener-in-Chief about how many additional combat troops he's going to launch into the cauldron that is Iraq. The ostensible reason for this is to stem the violence that is caused mainly, these days, by retributive warring between the Shiites and the Sunnis in and around Baghdad. To effect this, the US had hoped to cause the Iraqi Parliament to re-align, so as to isolate al-Sadr's block of members and hence to give the Iraqi army and US troops free rein to wipe out the militias that support al-Sadr (although their previous attempts haven't borne fruit).

But no. Today, the Shiites' grand ayatollah, al-Sistani, said he wouldn't approve such a realignment, effectively ending any such program of violence-suppression. And so, the meaningless dying goes on. Our soldiers are obeying orders, presumably, but the orders have no purpose, no aim, no end in sight. Just killing and dying.

What's in a name?

Here's an article from MediaMatters that ticks off the series of White House phrases that's been adopted by the MSM, particularly CNN, in describing various developments in Iraq and elsewhere, from "cut and run" to "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to "Democrat." I've given up on the airwaves, including PBS, as a news source (except of course Link TV, Pacifica Radio and Democracy Now! and such programs). Right now, for example, the networks are cluttered with stories of Denver's airport and The Donald's battle with Rosie, while in Iraq the killing goes on and on.

I don't get it

Why can't the anti-war faction of the American populace come up with a decent presidential candidate, one who demands immediate withdrawal from Iraq, cessation of obstinate silence on Middle East questions and discourse with other nations (Iran, Syria), and true engagement with the world on issues of fair trade and wealth-sharing? It looks from here like we're going to face a 2008 just like 2004, with no candidate (except Kucinich) speaking out on these issues. And that's after an election in which I thought we'd spoken by ballot that we wanted just such candidates.

Flag etiquette

Talk about form over substance. Talk about absurdity, idiocy, irrelevance...whatever. (Note, at the end of the article, the lady's comment that the flag's mispositioning was "disgraceful." Who are these people?)

What America needs now

is a military coup.

States rights

Here's a listing and brief description of laws that take effect in various states effective January 1, 2007. Quirky, weird in some cases, sensible in others. It surely demonstrates the concept of federalism, anachronistic as it sometimes seems.

I defy you

to read the first paragraph of this article about hogshit and not read the rest of the five-page piece. It's like watching a train wreck, or film of the allies' first encounter with the prisoners at Dachau. Can't stand the sight, can't turn away.

A testing post

This is a test. I repeat: This is only a test. On the previous two posts of mine, when I've clicked on the "Comment" line, the comment box has shown a statement "Banned by Webmaster. Your comments will not be added" and indeed my comments haven't been added when I typed them into the comment box. This post is being added to my blog to see if that problem persists.

If the same thing happens to you when you click the "Comment" line on my blog for any posts, would you email me to that effect?

Interesting reading, eh?

War rules

The Sunday morning talk shows are replete with references to the prospect of adding between 20 and 50 thousand additional combat troops to the mess in Iraq. Other interviewees spoke of the need to deploy more Americans to increase the "training" of Iraqi troops--even though their training is not the issue: their loyalty and reliability is. But there was not a single spokesman for the millions of Americans who want immediate withdrawal of our forces. Why not?

One would think the inclusion of such spokespersons would make for lively discourse, would create meaningful dialogue, would make for good theater. Is it possible the major media are willing to forego these for the sake of keeping this war going, since it's a source of high ratings?

A pause that refreshes

I've been taking a vacation from blogging for a few days, here in Tucson for the holidays. I may do some posting from time to time--there's certainly no shortage of items--but mostly I'm agog about my little granddaughter and her family. Amazing things, granddaughters. Amazing.

Be careful what you ask for

Bush/Cheney/Rove labored long and hard to dupe the American public into equating the war and occupation of Iraq with the "war on terr'r." Well, apparently they succeeded, with the result that now, with the Iraq quagmire ongoing and in fact becoming a losing battle, according to the Iraq Study Group, the public's opinion has changed dramatically: Only 35% believe the US is winning the "war on terr'r," with the same percentage believing the "terrorists" are winning.

Some tough reading

Tell me whether you believe this man's story of his arrest and imprisonment in Iraq. I do. Of course, I'm inclined to believe it, but doesn't it have the ring of truth--or, for that matter. the bracelet and necklace too?

Rays of hope

Contruction of that monster courthouse at Guantanamo that I blogged about some weeks ago has been put on hold. Small miracle.

Another miracle: The end of the "war on terror." Not the war, the phrase.

Pinochet's death

The headline for this story on AOL read, "Infamous Dictator Dies--Thousands Killed Under His Reign," and for an instant I thought Cheney had succumbed.

But seriously folks, considering that Pinochet's death gave rise to "violent clashes" with police in Chile upon the announcement, can you imagine what Iraq will look like during the weeks preceding and after the Iraq government executes Saddam Hussein? For that matter, what about the violence if, fearing such an uprising, the government decides to commute his sentence to life? Talk about quagmire.

Embeds

Among the controversial proposals of the Iraq Study Group's report is that US troops should no longer be lead combat forces, but should embed with the Iraq soldiers in small numbers, as guides and helpers. If you were a US soldier, immersed in a platoon of Iraqis, would you feel safe in light of incidents like this ?

Where's the outrage?

I've been watching the Sunday talk shows about Iraq (I've got to stop doing this, it's both uninformative and frustrating), and I've concluded that the concensus is that Bush will call for a "final surge" of troops, perhaps 20,000 or so, into Baghdad as a last effort to purge the place of violence, after which (after its inevitable failure, that is), he will begin a "gradual withdrawal" of our forces to secure areas in and around Iraq to be available to enfore US interests in the region.

Of course the prediction of our stationing of US troops in strongholds in Iraq has always been a main purpose of the invasion, so that's a no-brainer, as repulsive as it is. But the "surge" of troops? It's being touted not really as a solution, but as political cover for Bush, so that he can say to those who support the McCain militaristic solution that he "did all he could" before quitting.

So--our boys and girls are going to die to provide Bush with political cover? My God, this is the "compassionate conservative"? God help us.

Crunching the numbers

The headline of the latest Zogby poll shows Bush's positives at an all-time low (30%), with the public's sentiment about Congress' performance terrible too. But to me the telling number is found in the last line of the article, where Democratic respondents were asked to rate the Democrats' performance in Congress. Only 24% approved. Doesn't that say something to the newly empowered Democrats in Congress, that business as usual isn't going to cut it?

I guess not.

Believe it or not

Two conflicting stories about an air attack by US forces in Iraq. Question: How would the Americans know what the death toll was, and the identity of those killed, when they flew over the site in helicopters?

What is there about French?

For those of you, who (like me) don't read their language, here's a translation that demonstrates what a fine language it is. (Courtesy, Truthout.org.)

Come Clean By Laurent Joffrin Libération
Thursday 07 December 2006
The strategy of lying is collapsing. Even though he balks at publicly admitting it, even if he wants to maintain a martial front, George W. Bush has backed off. What the commander in chief still suppresses, the men he has charged, designated, promoted have just come clean about: the war in Iraq is a historic failure. A predicted failure, certainly, and a universally condemned war. But the confession of these officials gives this condemnation all its weight, all its power of truth. The American president has vicariously confessed America's mistake.
So the "weapons of mass destruction" really were a decoy; so the military operation really was a strategic folly that led to a quagmire. So the "war against terrorism" has brought about nothing but another war and more terrorism. So the plan for a remodeled Middle East really was just a dangerous pipe-dream born from the over-excited brains of ideologues drunk on military certitudes. So what some of Washington's best friends, admirers of the New World's democracy, had said - well beyond any anti-American circles - is now confirmed by the very mouth of the leaders involved. The proof is in that cynicism - even in international politics - can cost very dearly.
Not that every war is unjust, or every intervention forbidden, or every act of force immoral. Within the framework of international institutions, founded on solid law and realistic political calculations, when requested by an oppressed people that would see the soldiers on that mission as liberators rather than targets, the principle of external intervention remains - or remained - legitimate. By charging head-first into a bloody trap, the American administration also damaged that idea. In their historic dreams, Americans wanted to be the knights errant of freedom. George Bush has defaced that mythology too.

I'm getting pissed off, really pissed off

Look, so far I've treated this Bush-asshole's maladministration as evil, dangerous, demented, but only in a distant and theoretical sense. Bad for the world, bad for the nation, bad for the troops and the budget. But now, with US troops continually creating new enemies of America, Bush's criminal behavior is growing close to home for me. I've got an infant granddaughter, you see, and this asshole is turning her future--the world she'll be living in--into a dangerous, wretched place. And that, boys and girls, makes my blood boil.

What do I do about this? Stay tuned.

Baghdad's burning

So maybe I'm late understanding the meaning of the title of Riverbend's weblog, but now I get it: Like Nero, Bush is fiddling--with study groups and press conferences and congressional machinations and political equivocations--while our soldiers are fighting and dying for some undefined purpose (no decent purpose at all, really) in ghastly numbers.

Lennon, redux, redux

If you're not a John Lennon fan, or if you are a fan--of his music, of his prescience, of his soul--check out this short essay about these inseperable components of the man.

Worse than idiotic

It's cynical, monstrous. The Iraq Study Group recommends that the US reduce its combat role in Iraq, and that it use the leverage of withdrawing its forces and money if the Iraq government doesn't improve security quickly enough to suit us. So, having broken the pottery, we spread the shards around the floor and if the proprietor isn't quick to sweep it up we leave the shop. (The ISG also recommends enlisting the aid of nearby Sunni-majority nations as well as Shiite Iran to help with the process, notwithstanding that Iran doubtless seeks greater influence in Iraq through its dominant Shiite majority, and Sunni nations, including well-armed Saudi Arabia, have threatened to intervene in Iraq if Sunnis are continually murdered by Shiite death squads.)

If I'm Iran, I'm LOL. This report plays directly into Iran's hand. All Iran must do is "play nice" while waiting for the ongoing violence to drive Americans out; and meanwhile, by a thousand cuts, moving into control of Iraq through its empowered Shiite government, all the while watching more of our soldiers die trying to perform "mission impossible." Even al Qaida, not a mirthful bunch, must be giggling.

My plan--immediate and complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq, coupled with the bequest of several billions of dollars (say, 20, which is about what we spend there in three months) to Iraq's government to pay for the remaining damage and chaos we've caused--has this saving feature. We demonstrate our bona fides about not wanting empire in the Middle East and we save money and American lives. The Iraqis, and, for that matter, the others in the region can slug it out as they deem appropriate. My bet is that after a while they'll find a way to establish equilibrium--the state that the region was in, right or wrong, before we fucked it up.

FYI

Here's what happened to the "shoe bomber."

More about McCain

As support for my observations about the frightening prospect of a John McCain presidency, I submit this essay. Like me, the writer uses the word "dangerous."

Shrinking the international trade deficit.

Finally, some good news from the Pentagon.

Who are these people?

Okay, I can understand the 18% of Americans who, according to the latest Rasmussen Poll, "strongly approve" Bush's handling of the presidency. Namely, I understand that they're lunatics. But the figure I don't get is the 23% percent of those polled who "somewhat approve." How can one have such an opinion--or, rather, lack of opinion--after all that has gone on in our nation in his six years in office? I mean, is there anybody home in there?

The latest parlor game

Now that the "civil war" vel non debate is over (the "civil war"--affirmative side won, as you know), here's the latest--here's another one--and it's really, really fun.

The Caine Mutiny

I just read a comment to a blog (can't find it now), that likened Bush to Captain Queeg of the Caine, refusing to adjust course in the midst of a typhoon, thereby jeopardizing his ship and its crew. Pelosi was compared to the first mate who finally mutinied, barely averting disaster. I'm not certain about this last, but the Bush-Queeg analogy surely works.

Investigation? We'll see

Here's a report that the Defense Department is investigating the incident that I blogged about a week or so ago, in which (apparently) a couple of US soldiers had videotaped--and posted on YouTube--their taunting of Iraqi children with a waterbottle.

I'll try to maintain followup on this story, but if anyone out there finds anything relevant to either the incident or the investigation, let me know.

The wheels aren't coming off the US government

they're already off, and if you doubt it, check out this story of silliness in our foreign affairs.

Blaming the victim

That's the new parlor game in Washington these days.

McCain revealed

I've long been a McCain-basher, with some special expertise because he was a Senator from my former state, Arizona, and I've followed his career carefully. I contend he's a closet fascist--certainly a militarist with a bent toward government intrusion in citizens' affairs. The mainstream media, I contend, has given McCain a free ride, focusing on his efforts at campaign reform and some other issues where he's said to be a "maverick" and "independent."

Well, turns out I'm not alone in this view.

Your reaction?

"Mission Accomplished" makes it into the Memory Hole. When I watched the video, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry or toss a bomb somewhere, at someone.

Letter to the editor

Here's a letter to the editor of the News-Press that I wrote today. If someone should see its publication, please let me know. (I seldom read that paper.)

To the editor:

Iraq’s leaders want US forces to remain in country, no doubt largely to protect them from the insurgency. However, segments of the parliamentary coalition, including the Shiite Sadr group, want us out of Iraq, and is backed by a fierce militia that Iraq's leaders are unwilling to quell for fear of losing Shiite political support.

Meanwhile, US forces are deployed throughout Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq--Ramadi, Fallujah, etc.—trying to quell that sect’s insurgency. Ostensibly, Sunni insurgents want the US to leave Iraq so they can engage in unrestrained attacks against what they deem a "puppet government." But according to a report by Tom Hayden on The Huffington Post, a delegation of these insurgents is negotiating with US officials to gain its ends--formation of a new government, rescission of decrees against Baathists, amnesty--and wants our troops to remain in Iraq to police these results. As inducements, it's offering permanent US bases in Iraq and access by private companies to Iraqi oil.

It’s plain to see: We're being played the fool, while our forces are under assault from three sides: Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida fighters and an array of private militias. And now, with the escalation of retributive attacks between Sunnis and Shiites, our troops have come under indiscriminate fire, trying to stop sectarian battles.

How do we extricate ourselves from this mess? An AA slogan says it best: "The way to stop drinking is to stop drinking." The way out of Iraq is to get out of Iraq.

Whodathunkit?

Sacramento has a leftist weekly newspaper. Check it out here.

Wanna have some fun?

Listen to these radio clips.

That's gotta smart!

A civil war, my ass. Nothing civil about this.

A day to remember

Not today, Thanksgiving Thursday, but rather Sunday, the day our war in Iraq becomes a longer war than America's involvement in World War Two.

Not a day to give thanks, not at all.

Malachi Ritscher

Rest in peace.

From the tenor of the comments to this article, he already is.

Comic relief

I've been getting a bit too heavy on my blog lately, so I thought I'd lighten it up by linking to these guys. (I'm probably the last kid on the block to turn onto them, but what the hell.) Enjoy.

Vegas, anyone?

I wonder if somewhere in cyberspace there's a site that's taking bets on Bush's decision about our troop level in Iraq, and what the odds presently are on "going big, going long or going home."

Here's my bet: "Going long," which means an immediate infusion of about 20,000 more troops, coupled with announcements about it being a "final surge" or some much more clever Rovian (remember him?) phrase, followed (maybe, maybe) by a phased drawdown of troops over the next several months. This is nothing but "stay the course" with the awful prospect of more US and Iraqi deaths, with an added taste of "as Iraq's troops stand up, we will stand down" flavoring. But given Bush's personality, and the politics of the times (especially with Senator McCain calling for more troops), it seems to be the most likely option.

Any takers?

Ouch!

Poor Bush (II). By nearly three-to-one, his father leads him in approval, according to a recent CNN poll. That's gotta hurt.

Winning their hearts and minds

After viewing this video, I can only ask, What kind of monsters are we sending to Iraq?

I was just thinking...

however implausible it is that a bill of impeachment would be returned against Bush--and I've more or less given up on the prospect--it's possible that if Bush keeps up his craziness, he could trigger it. Certainly if during one of the several imminent Congressional investigations he and/or Cheney acts too highhandedly or are discovered to have engaged in a coverup of some significance, I could see some Democrats calling for impeachment. And with the list of those condemning his handling of the Iraq war growing ever more weighty, I could imagine that if he called up more troops, the American public would demand some way to stop him, and if the threat of impeachment would do it, then perhaps even that.

(BTW, in view of the state of affairs in Iraq, as well as of the military, consider how cynically nuts McCain is, with his call for more troops. He's clearly posturing for the presidential election in 2008, stirring up the Rightwing nutcases at Bush's expense, knowing that if no more troops are sent and Iraq explodes (as it will, no matter what), he can play "I told you so.")

Can you imagine

How difficult it would be to take a stroll in downtown Jakarta today?

Your thoughts?

Two Rasmussen polls of interest:

1. Forty-one percents of Americans believe the nation's best days are yet to come, and about an equal number don't.

2. Sixty-one percent believe American society is generally fair and decent.In each case, note the disparity in outlook between Republicans and Democrats, and between young and old.

Your view?

Somebody, stop the madness!

A huge facility at Gitmo, costing $125 million, to hold the military's "show trials" in? Have we gone nuts?

(I've gotten into a habit of asking rhetorical questions, I realize--see previous post. I'll watch this tendency in the future.)

Struck dumb.

That's not Bush, that's me. I find myself unable to formulate words to react to--unable, even, to get my mind around--Bush's statement about the applicability of the VietNam experience to Iraq. Doesn't he realize the "freedom" he's talking about only took root after we were driven out of the country after a decade of slaughter? Was he too busy snorting to read the papers back then?

Watch what he does, not what he says

After pledging cooperation and bi-partisanship with the Democratic Congress, Bush's first acts after the election are to try to get twice-denied John Bolton confirmed for the UN ambassadorship (a "nonstarter," it's said), and just today has resubmitted the names of six bigoted assholes for federal judgeships.

In the linked-to article, Senator Schumer says he hopes this last act isn't a precursor to Bush ideological intransigence over the next two years. Chuck, baby, where have you been for the last six?

Didja ever wonder

how you manage to hold 80 hostages? Are we talking cafeteria lines for food, Porta-potties, rows of cots? I mean, how do you keep secret their location, a group bigger than most art show openings?

You read it here first...or maybe second

This piece in the Guardian lays out what we can expect from Bush about Iraq in the upcoming weeks. Recall, in addition to the Iraq Study Group (the Baker bunch), which is a Congressionally-authorized entity, Bush has lately called together his own studiers, Pentagon-types and Cheney acolytes, to come up with his own report, and the Guardian has the scoop. There will be "one last push" to "win" and after that...defeat.

If I'm an "insurgent" or an al Qaeda fighter in Iraq, this is terrific. I just keep on keeping on and in time I will prevail. If I'm a Congressional Democrat, it's terrific too. I rail against this outrageous waste, and, again, simply wait for it to fail. Terrific, too, for McCain-bashers like me, who want him and his militaristic outlook to be shown for the fakey macho bravado that it is.

But if I'm a U.S. soldier, or an Iraqi, or an American taxpayer--or a decent human being--not so terrific.

"Never mind"

This Time Online piece, about the recent "Ooops" statements by NeoCons Perle and Adelman expresses my sentiments exactly. I'll be even more enraged when one or both of them peddles a book, to huge sales, on the subject of the Iraq war, focusing, of course, on how it was mishandled, not how it was wrong.

Three observations about the 2008 presidential election

1. It's two years away, boys and girls, and already the media's pumping the story since they think it will sell ad revenue to do so. Can you imagine how tired we'll be of the story in two years?

2. Barack Obama's rise from a single speech to the Democratic Convention two years ago (he's done nothing, really, in his two years as junior Senator from Illinois--although of course he was powerless) to becoming the media darling is a commentary on how ordinary is the que of Democratic presidential candidates right now. Somebody's got to emerge and catch fire, but not Obama, please. First, he's black; second, he's young; third, he's completely unknown as a politician, and as a person. Get real, Democrats. Not a pretty face, a fancy name. A real person with sound progressive principles that are tested under fire. George McGovern, anyone?

3. We gotta kneecap John McCain before his bandwagon gets too far along. He's an archconservative, benefiting from the few times he's sponsored "maverick" legislation, but make no mistake, he's bad news. His media popularity is overwhelming, based largely on his personality, which is indeed charming, but behind it are views--from agressive militaristim to nasty capitalism--that almost make Bush look benign. Really, I know. McCain was my Senator for years, and I've paid attention. So--to stop the bandwagon, we've got to call attention to these traits right now and repeat them every time his name comes up. I suggest we start with his most recent warmongering message: that we should increase the troop levels in Iraq, to "get the job done." Not only is this wholly out of step with the vast majority of the public and the pols, it is madness, utter madness. So mad, that even Bush/Cheney haven't suggested it. My notion, then, is to label the Senator something like, "Madman McCain" to isolate him and call attention to his crazy position on the war. Now, repeatedly, forever. Because if we don't stop him now, he's likely to be our next president.

Take a coupla minutes

Read and sign Michael Moore's pledge.

(I really like Moore's wit. My favorite is the pledge to allow Republicans to breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water we've created.)

Definitions, please

Bush/Cheney/Condi use the terms "achieving victory" and "success" in Iraq before our troops are withdrawn. Anybody have a clue what these terms mean in that setting? Perhaps a daily body count of Iraqis below twenty?

Surely they can't be saying that our troops remain there until the streets of Bagdad and Fallujah are as safe to walk as Coast Village Road in Montecito; the lately-closed TV stations are reopened and blaring truths; the kids are in school; the hospitals are emptied of corpses and clean as a whistle; the parliament has wide-ranging debate (including nationalizing the oil fields); and the ruling group swears eternal fealty to the US and UK. Surely they can't imagine such an Iraq. Can you? Can you imagine anything like that in the near (or distant) future?

Whither Republicans?

Some months ago, I wrote a post that bemoaned the demise of "liberal" Republicans, those folks who, back in the day, were sensitive to social, civil-rights and environmental issues, but who fashioned themselves fiscal conservatives. Folks like John Lindsay, mayor of New York; Lowell Weicker, Connecticut Senator, and others whose names escape me now. In the sixties and seventies they were a voice that was quite in tune with the liberal issues of the day: abortion rights, separation of church and state, environmental protection.

Well, here's whadup with them. Which means, I guess, that from now on (for the foreseeable future, anyway) the Democratic Party will encompass the center, center left and left (plus quite a bit of the right, in my view) leaving it the majority party in national politics for some time to come. The exception, of course, will be in the presidential race, where for some reason the Republicans seem to come up with the candidate who is more appealing to the media and the great unwashed. Candidates like Bush, Reagan and, horror of horrors, John McCain.

It's lonely at the top

Especially for Tony Blair, who has apparently been hung out to dry by his ally, Bush, in Bush's latest machinations to get his own ass out a crack. You haven't heard a lot of "consult and confer with the 'Coaltion'" talk lately, just about how Bush is trying to salvage his legacy (as if there was any legacy to salvage.)

And now, with four Brits dying in Iraq yesterday, I wouldn't want to be toady Tony when next he faces his peers in Parliament.

You want some insightful analysis?

Here's an essay that touches bases in the Middle East mess that I've not seen before. Maybe because it's written by someone "on the ground."

Lean to the left

I agree with this analysis that reminds us peaceniks that the Democrats who replaced Republicans on November 7 are no doves. Indeed, they're mostly "Blue Democrats," as likely to hold conservative views on domestic and foreign affairs as not.

So, I agree, this is no time for us lefties to dance with glee. Rather, we must, with as much determination as before November 7, take to the barricades to demand the same changes in policy that we've been demanding for years. The only change, perhaps, is the environment in which we make those demands: an environment that may be a bit more receptive. Which means, of course, that we must make our demands all the louder, all the more strident, now driven by the hope that we may, at long last, be heard.

(Here, however, is a different take on the result of the election in the House: The progressive coalition of representatives will be the largest of the sub-coalitions of the Democratic majority and this, coupled with the presence of many progressives in leadership positions, make the progressives the most powerful component of the House.)

The Split

Forget about those silly elections and Rummie's resignation. Here's the important news of the day.

I will be really pissed off

if those 25,000 Green votes for US Senate in Virginia (a one-issue campaign by a candidate favoring a monorail or something) ends up costing the Democrat (Webb) a victory over the racist swine George Allen, he of "macaca" infamy, and therefore ends up placing tied Senate votes in Cheney's hands.

I mean really pissed off.

I'm disappointed

You mean that after all that hoopla the only October/November surprise Karl Rove could pull off was the Saddam Hussein verdict?

Thanks to BBC

we--those few Americans who dial past Faux News and the other faux news outlets--are exposed to succinct, finely written analysis of historic events like this.

My previous post

It, and the two comments it has received so far, capture the span of fair-minded reaction to the future of the US as presaged by tomorrow's election: Fear of seismic shift vs. fear of not much happening at all.

My wish is that somehow, one way or another (or by some path we can't foresee) we end up in a kind of benign Swedish-ish, or Danish-ish or Swiss-ish socialist democracy that's content to be just another fine peaceloving nation that is willing to participate on an equal basis with other nations of the world, and that long after I'm gone all nations merge into one body of loving humanity.

In case that doesn't sound familiar, check out John Lennon's lyrics.

Okay, I admit it

There's a tiny part of me (not my best part, I concede) that wants the Republicans to carry the day. Hold the Senate, hold the House majority, hold a bunch of governorships. Why? First, so that they maintain responsibility for the messes they've created and can't fault the Democrats for not cleaning it up by 2008. Second, because it might convince me, and the rest of the world, that the US is done. Put-a-fork-in-it done as a decent nation. Finally, because it might lead to a bottoming out, a true revolution, in the US. A takeover, in the next decade or so, by the people who live in that nation.

Worth thinking about, isn't it?

Nuclear bombshell

Sometimes it pays to have insomnia, because occasionally you're allowed to report a scoop like this. (The full NYT story, three pages in length, is much more detailed--and much more damning to the Republicans--but is available only upon registration, so I've linked to a much more sketchy secondary source. For those who are registered, the NYT story is here.)

Now, maybe I'm no political pundit, but I gotta tell ya, this story is to me so (excuse the pun) explosive--posting Iraq's nuclear secrets on the Internet in the hope to gain some political advantage!!--that it could mean the end of any doubt about the outcome of the upcoming election. It plays directly into the "war on terr'r" issue that is supposedly the Republicans' trump card. If this story isn't blown up at least to the dimension of the Kerry flub, I don't know what...

(Update: It's now twelve hours later--two pm PST--and so far this story, despite first appearing on the front page of the NYT, has gotten no traction whatsoever, not even on AirAmerica talkshows. The "sex scandal" du jour, about "Rev." Haggard and his foibles, has bounced this incredible story of security breach off the news. It makes one wonder: Has Rove now devised a way to blast truly significant terrible news away from public attention by covering it with slightly less ugly news?)

(Up-update: End of the Friday news cycle, ten pm. The story did make some TV newscasts as a secondary or tertiary item, without much analysis, however. The implications weren't explored much, and Bush supporters were quick to chime in that the existence of such atomic plans were proof that Saddam Hussein had WMD potential, notwithstanding that these plans were pre-1991 papers that had been turned over to the UN inspectors already. But then finally, KO--that's my new hero, Keith Olberman--led his MSNBC Countdown newscast with the story, with extended commentary, and just now, on the web, the Truthout commentator, William Rivers Pitt, nailed the story. )

I can go to sleep now.

Kim Bush-il?

You've really got to work at it to become more feared as a world leader than the dictator of North Korea.

Fun, fun, fun

Writing a speech for George Bush. Try it.

Meanwhile,

elsewhere in the world, interesting things are happening.

My first reaction to this story (after thinking it was an Onion-style spoof) was of course outrage. But then, I thought this: This world we live in is peopled by bunches of peoples we simply don't comprehend. And this corollary: How grotesquely ignorant and presumptuous it is for us to think we can expect these various peoples to think and act like us, especially in matters as "civilized" as forms of political and social governance. (You knew I'd bring this around to politics, right?)

We're said to be "exporting democracy" to the world, to the Middle East and--if you listen to Bush--to all peoples and that our soldiers' presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is part of that effort. Well, I gotta tell ya, there may be peoples out there who just plain don't want it, don't understand it, don't give a damn. And there are surely people out there who resist having "democracy" imposed on them from outside, by force of arms.

Which brings me to my point. Bring the troops home! Now!

It does make you wonder

who chose the background music in this radio ad. (There's an audio link at the end of the article.)

Rhetoric trumps reality

The airwaves abound with discussion of "timelines" and "benchmarks," "cut and run" and "stay the course," "tipping point" and "last throes." And--this is awful to behold--TV pundits readily acknowledge, without critical comment, any significant change in "boots-on-the-ground reality" in Iraq must await America's election. I wonder what it would feel like to be the mother of a child who was killed or injured in the interim.

If the Republicans win the upcoming elections

this book becomes an instant bestseller.

WTF?

Our troops must wonder the same thing after a few outings like this.

Rooting for Rooney

Or, "Andy is dandy." Whatever. This clip shows why.

(In case you're wondering, the answer to Andy's question--"Why are we in Iraq?"--is this: Because Bush/Cheney/Rummie/Condi/Rove don't want to lose face.)

Riverbend is back

after two months away from her blog--and she's not happy, not one bit.

BTW--I note that my first post on this blog, in August 2003 (check my archives, listed on the left side of this blog) linked to Riverbend's "Baghdad Burning" blog--and was dated a week after Riverbend started hers. And if you happen to read our respective initial posts from that long-ago period, you'll see how sadly prophetic they are.

And you wonder why so few good folks enter politics?

Here's why.

A last-ditch effort at peace

If this doesn't work, will anything?

Twisting in the wind

That's a phrase that became popular in the Watergate era, referring, as I recall, to the plight of one of Nixon's protectors (Jeb Magruder, I believe) when he was summoned to a grand jury. Someone (Nixon's domestic adviser, John Ehrlichman, I think) decided not to intervene, to leave him "twisting in the wind" as a result of his adverse testimony.

Well now, Bush is twisting in the wind over his Iraq madness, and but for the death and destruction his policy is inflicting on innocents, I would be giggling as he twisted. Indeed, to be honest, I am giggling.

BTW, while Googling "twisting in the wind," I stumbled on this site. I didn't discover the source of the phrase, but I sure had fun.

A Cheap Shot, I admit it

Look, I'm as disappointed in AirAmerica as are other true political leftists, who view the "alternative" radio network as nothing more than silly, wimpish noise from naysaying talk-radio freaks. I've stopped listening, actually, unless KPFK and our local UCSB channel are doing rap music. And so--it's with a bit of chagrin that I offer this tidbit, which sounds precisely like what Al Franken or his ilk on AirAmerica would come up with: Bush has conceded that our recent Iraq experience appears quite like the Tet offensive in VietNam, which turned the tide of American sentiment againt the war. Except with regard to VietNam, Bush had planned and effected a successful exit stategy.

Amnesty revisited

Some months ago, the amnesty issue raised the spectre of the US placing our soldiers in the gunsights of Iraqis, only to have the Iraqi government extend amnesty to Iraqis who shot American troops. I recall at the time how luxurious it was to watch Bush/Cheney twist in the wind over such a prospect. Now it has surfaced again, and I intend again to enjoy the show, except that this time I hope the question is addressed full-on, and that question is, Does the US really respect the sovereignty of Iraq? And, as a corollary, Does the US really want Iraq to try, with full force, to effect a reconciliation between the warring factions? If the answers to the foregoing two questions is yes, Rummie/Bush/Cheney/Condi, then (1) shut the fuck up about Iraq's amnesty grants, and (2) get our troops the hell out of that country.

The Polish army at work

Check out the heading on this banner. LOL.

Poring over polls

Spend more than a moment over these poll figures about Bush's approval rating. Check out the level of "disapproval" over time, for example. You'll note, going back a year over the various poll results, that at no time has Bush's disapproval consistently been near the 60% level, until the last month or so. Check out the spread between his approval and disapprovals levels. At an alltime high now, with the disapproval percentage being so much higher than the approval percentage that one wonders how he still manages to have so much influence in our political system.

Wanna change to a parliamentary system? I sure do. At least--as happens on live TV from London--the leader gets grilled by those parliamtentarians who chose him.

I get weary, just plain weary

of reading books and news reports and essays from "frontline" authors telling us stupid Americans what we already know, what we've known for years. Of course the baldest example is Bob Woodward, who makes millions putting into print the truisms that Bush is in denial about the state of everything; that Rumsfeld is a demagogue; that Condi is an idiot. Lately we're informed that it's likely that American oil interests will soon take over Iraq's oil production. Oh, really?!!! Imagine my surprise!!

Here's what I want to know, oh smarty-pants pundits. When are you going to tell us something we don't already know?

Don't do as I do

I got out of the stock market entirely about three months ago, and since then the Dow has gone up and up, hitting new highs. I knew this would happen--always does.

And yet, just take a gander at this chart and the accompanying comment. China and Japan own us now, and all it will take is one sneeze, one burp, and the American Empire is over.

It feels good to be on the sidelines watching, rather than in the arena, fighting with lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

Goddam right!

Ship this illegal immigrant outa here!

That silence you hear

is the absence of cheering on Main Street (as opposed to Wall Street) from the new high recently hit by the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Here's why.