Ho hum

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

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

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

Molly Ivins

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

A new tactic

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

Cynicism rules

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

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

A summer day in Baghdad

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

Right on, brothers and sisters

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

Finally, some good news

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

Ya gotta love this headline

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

In case you didn't notice

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

The Army clears itself of wrongdoing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sartre and Charlie Brown

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

Out of the mouths of NeoCons...

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

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

Football fever no more

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

Taken for granted

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

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

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

Verrry interesting

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

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

Don't get me started

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

Media madness

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

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

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

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

What tax cut?

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

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

How's that again?

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