A story worth following

The House passed the huge military appropriations bill last week with a significant amendment, sponsored by the few "good guys" in that body, an amendment barring the use of appropriated funds for establishment of permanent US bases in Iraq. There was hardly a mention of the amendment in the MSM, even though it passed unanimously, and was a rare victory for California Congressperson Barbara Lee, an American heroine. (I didn't catch the news of the passage of the amendment, that's how under-reported it was.)

But of course it's not over. The bill still must go to the House/Senate conference committee, where Republicans rule, and which is supposed to "iron out" differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, but which can often result in significant alteration of, addition to, and subtraction from, legislation. Let's keep an eye on the fate of Barbara Lee's amendment, shall we? Given the state of public opinion about the Iraq war, it's not going to be easy for the Republicans to delete the amendment in committee.

Am I nuts?

I managed (without gagging) to watch a bit of Bush's speech and Q&A session in Cleveland earlier today. Here is AP's report of the event, so sketchy and silly as to be worthless. True, Bush said very little new (although his demeanor was remarkably glib, given the seriousness of the questions he was asked by a not-entirely-friendly audience, for once). But I picked up on one item that astounded me. He said--without equivocation, without hesitation--that the US would use its "military might" to protect Israel from Iran. Now I don't know about you, but I was unaware of any treaty under which the US is bound to do so, and even if so, any such action would have to be authorized by Congress, not by the unilateral decision by the executive. Maybe I missed something, but does Bush really think he has the constitutional, or Congressionally authorized, power to make war on Iran to protect Israel?

I'm going to await the blogosphere's reaction to Bush's statement, because there's been no reaction to it yet--five hours later--by the MSM that I can find.

deja vu

Check out this article from the NYT about the importance of the high turnout in the democratic elections in showing the viability of the new government, with many quotes about how effective it will be in overcoming the insurgency. Date: 1967. The country: South Viet Nam.

Hurray for CBS

Well, whaddya know. 60 Minutes just aired a powerful segment, excerpted here, about the Bush administration's censorship of global-warming science. The witness was none other that a NASA scientist whose credentials were impeccable, and showed the actual interlineations and deletions of his reports, handwritten by "a lawyer, a politician" in the White House, who had been an oil industry lobbyist before joining the White House staff.

At the end of the segment, the reporter said the White House had refused to comment on the segment, and the "lawyer-politician" was no longer in the White House, having left the administration a year before to be hired by Exxon-Mobil. Good stuff.

The "I" word

You see, I'm not nuts. I've been shouting and displaying a sign demanding impeachment of Bush/Cheney for many months--perhaps years--my thinking being that if that word is uttered enough times it will eventually become part of the public discourse. It's a tactic long used used by the Right, perfected by the Bush administration and it works. On this Sunday, there are numerous print articles, as well as TV interviews, in which the word appears. It's unlikely, even in the next Congress, but it "frames" the issue in terms of Bush/Cheney's failures, which, as we all know, is a large part of the process.

What b.s.

Check out the refinements that appear in this article from Islam Online--admittedly not Faux News or even CNN in "independence" (although probably more accurate). First, check out the photos of troops boarding and getting off choppers. How were these taken, since no "embeds" were allowed to accompany the troops? Obviously the Army took the photos, which are pure publicity shots.
Second, note the quoted line near the end.
"There has been no contact with the insurgents," admitted Major John Calahan of the 101st Airborne Division, a unit specialized in helicopter-borne air assaults that spearheaded the attack.

No insurgents. Not even one? Can we have our money back?

BTW--I'm not the only one to notice the appearance of poorly-disguised political hype in support of this assault.

Be (more) afraid, be very (more) afraid

This article about the "current account deficit" (the astounding imbalance between the flow of dollars into the US and the dollars out) is indeed scary. It's beginning to look like the glacier thing, where the process becomes irreversible because its continuing behavior fuels accelerating behavior. There's talk, these days, about so many "tipping points"--in Iraq, in the economy and the environment--that one wonders whether the Democrats are awaiting post-tipping-point in order to act on anything. In fact, one doesn't wonder. It's clear, from the Democrats' tepid reaction to Senator Feingold's resolution to censure Bush for his illegal wiretapping activities, that there are only a few people in that party who are actively trying to save America, as opposed to saving their own chances for re-relection.

Okay, now I'm getting scared--and pissed off

A federal district judge has denied a defense motion to dismiss a prosecution of two alleged terrorist-supporters, and has not only sealed his decision but has denied to the defense attorneys the right to see it. We are talking about the worst sign of fascism, where even the judiciary caves in to the executive, a distinct prelude to what happened in Germany in the thirties. Be afraid, be very afraid. And be mad.

Oh, wouldn't it be loverly?

If the Republican nominee for President in 2008 was Bill Frist? Even a Democrat could beat him.

What else is new?

Bush lied (again). He's skated so many times (most recently when he was caught telling us that federal wiretaps always require a "court order" but hasn't been called to account for the NSA warrantless surveillance program that he authorized, and scores of times re-authorized), that it's hard to imagine that he'll be caught in this outrageous prevarication.

Recall, when he sought to justify the Dubai ports deal, he said that port security in the US was handled by the Coast Guard and US Customs? Well, not so. According to a just-revealed Congressional report, the security at US ports is woeful, and many of the defects in security are due to lapses by foreigners: shippers, distant port operators, as well as US port operators who don't report to any federal entity.

Goodbye Knight-Ridder

It's going to come down to Reuters, the (London) Times, the Telegraph and Independent of UK, plus some of the foreign press--disseminated by bloggers--to be responsible for the news now that Knight-Ridder's on the block.

Update: Here's the report of the successful bidder for Knight-Ridder. I don't know what it means in terms of reportage and independence (I gotta tell ya, though, that the San Jose Mercury News is one of the truly independent papers).

Hold onto your hats!

It turns out another Dubai company already provides security to the US Navy and at twelve US ports. It apparently is informed of the movement of our ships, and provides the security barriers at naval installations.

On a cold day...

like today in Santa Barbara (there's snow on the Santa Ynez Mountains, just three hundred yards from my deck!), and I'm delaying my almost-daily run to await a bit of warming, I inevitably find my way to this site, which even on a sunny day is fun. Check it out, including the ever-better Search function. (I put in Kafka and learned a lot about "The Prisoner," saving myself the price of rental of the DVD.)

We have met the enemy and he is us

Or, to put Pogo's quote another way, and the NYT did in a recent editorial commenting on Bush's imprisonment without trial of innocents at Gitmo, "Now America is becoming the thing they sought to end."

Bush, the softie

Ya gotta admit, Busy does give us a lot of humorous takes.

Has it come to this?

A music festival in Germany has refused a performance by a leading rock group because one of their songs, "God is a Pop Star," might be offensive.

The man is a monster

I'm not talking about this man, an injured (check out the extent of his injuries here) veteran from my hometown in Arizona. I'm talking about the man who sent him to war: George Bush.

I can't believe, it; simply can't believe it

A new rationale (rationalization) for our troops' continued occupation of Iraq, presented without comment by CBS talking-head, Bob Schieffer (what else would you expect from that blockhead): Our troops are needed to keep the peace between Sunnis and Shiites, especially the armed militias of each, because neither group trusts the other. So there you go, we've morphed into guardians of Iraq's peace--from Iraqis.

The sum of all fears

A few days after Bush decides to peddle nuclear technology to India, France decides to sell some to Libya. That's Libya, spelled Muammar Qadhafi, until a year or so ago an inveterate international terrorist. And BTW, France has much better technology to sell than the US does. Its reactors account for a large percentage of their power and are more modern than ours by far.

So--off we go, into a new nuclear race, this one pretending to be for "peaceful purposes." What madness!

Oscars, Iraq-style

Riverbend, from Baghdad, awards "Oscars" for roles played by various actors in current events. She's a serious blogger, revealing in this post a sense of humor, cynical, but funny.