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.