Don't say I never did you no favors

because I've now turned you on to this site, that features fine writing about matters political, most recently this brilliant essay by this brilliant man.

Shoot first and ask questions later?

Five G.I.'s died when fired on by Iraqis who were dressed in Iraqi military uniforms and driving a vehicle that appeared to be a diplomatic car, so that the U.S. soldiers might have dropped their guard, mistaking its occupants for American dignitaries. As a result, real diplomatic cars are now suspect, so don't be surprised if our troops kill a few of our own statesmen in the coming weeks.

Questions: How do you fight such an enemy? How can you blame our troops for being trigger-happy? How do you train our soldiers, or Iraqi soldiers, to avoid such attacks, while still following orders to patrol hostile neighborhoods? How do Iraqis avoid even the slightest appearance of insurgency, when any move--speeding toward or avoiding a roadblock because it might be kidnappers; driving too fast; driving too slow; not following U.S. soldiers' commands (in English) instantly; etc.--could lead to being shot by our troops?

This quagmire isn't just Bush's. It's an ugly mess for our troops, the Iraqi civilians and army and police. It's our second-worst nightmare, second only to the dreaded "ground war in Asia"--and it's catching up fast.

Death wish

Bush must have one. Really. Among his proposals, to be presented in his State of the Union address next week, is a "dead on arrival" plan to tax some employees (middle class ones) on a portion of their health insurance benefits, to use those tax revenues to make up for tax deductions to be granted to those who pay insurance premiums out of their own pocket. (He's also going to address the "immigration issue"--the one issue he may find acceptable to the Democratic congress, but which will piss off his "base" completely.)

The health-insurance plan is so insidious it's hard to capture in words. Imagine an employee whose employer-paid plan costs more than a certain government-approved amount, and hence the excess becomes taxable income to the employee. The employee then not only ends up paying federal income tax on money that never comes to him in cash, but hopefully not in benefits either, since any sound-minded person wants not to have health problems, seeks not to incur health costs. Furthermore, Bush's plan will cause a race to the bottom in employer health plans, with employees now joining employers in seeking cheaper, and hence less extensive, plans. The result will be less coverage for employees who have health benefits on the job; while subsidizing those who have no insurance by allowing a tax deduction for their payments. But the latter, recall, would have to have significant enough income to benefit from such a deduction--and who would those be? Surely not the poor, since they hardly pay any income tax in any event. All that would happen is that some middle-class workers would pay for others' benefits.

Now there's a "compassionate conservative" for you.

My picks for president, 2008

Some time ago, I opted for Gore/Spitzer. It's still a good choice, but my first prize now goes to Jimmy Carter and anybody.

"We don't talk to evil"

Let's see if this item makes into the MSM: Larry Wilkerson's--you remember him, Colin Powell's deputy at State--statement to the BBC that Iran sent to the US shortly after our invasion of Iraq, in which Iraq proposed resolution of most of the disputed matters between the US and Iran. Apparently the letter was thought legitimate by Powell, who forwarded it to Cheney, who put the kibosh on it.

Now, Wilkerson's been "out of the closet" for some time, but Powell's still hiding behind the skirts of save-facedness. If Powell confirms this account, we've got proof that the present administration in the White House has no interest in making peace in the Middle East--in fact, has a stake in formenting continuing turmoil--which accounts for all of their behavior in the region over the last six years.

Colonialism redux

If you Google "ink blot strategy" you get several cites to Bush's most recent "plan" for Iraq, of "winning" an area of Baghdad and then keeping control of it while flooding it with money and jobs and good will--a program that was used by the British, with marginal success, in defeating insurgencies in its colonies.
You'll also find this article, from nine months ago, that described Bush's then-new plan for Iraq. Sound familiar?

I love when this happens

In a straw poll to determine preferred Republican Presidential candidates, taken of Republican voters in McCain's hometown of Phoenix, Arizona, McCain finishes fourth, behind Mitt Romney (whoever that is), Duncan Hunter (ditto) and Newt Gingrich. Apparently, McCain (whom I've heretofore advisedly called a Nazi) is too conservative for the vast majority of those polled.

Now do you know why--besides the weather--I moved to SB from Arizona?

A new "axis of evil"

No longer Bush, Cheney and Rummie. It's Bush, Cheney and Rice.

Melting away

According to this report, the al-Sadr aligned militia will adapt to the "surge" by abandoning their black outfits, hiding their arms and waiting until the Americans decide their effort has succeeded.
Of course--they're no dummies, certainly not as dumb as POTUS.

The Associated Press reports

on der Fuhrer.

I favor a constitutional amendment

to require an intelligence test for voting in presidential elections. Here's why.

A brief, thoughtful essay

about income inequality. Not a tirade, a reflection.

Crybaby

If you're so broken up about it, send the twins.

Come to think of it, I wonder what lever this fellow moved to create the tearing effect? View the terrific video.

Apology?

This is the single line from Bush's speech last night that could be called an apology:

"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

And this is what the MSM is touting as an apology? Imagine trying to get away with that weak statement to the victim after causing a drunk-driving accident, which is, to be charitable to Bush, analagous to what he has wrought in Iraq. The judge would enhance the sentence due to lack of contrition, as should we.

Now, really!

A US Air Force gunship--that's a big mutha transport plane bristling with weapons--has apparently attacked and killed some folks in the nation of Somalia, the rationale for the attack being that among them was a member of al-Qaida. Now, I'm no expert in constitutional law, nor in international law--although I've studied both extensively--but I don't recall learning that our armed forces are permitted to roam the planet, including within the borders of other nations, to kill anyone who's thought to oppose our national interest, even if they're suspected of being militarily opposed.

There's no mention of such authority in this article, except for this sentence near the end of the piece:

"The Bush administration has long claimed the right to launch discrete military attacks in other countries when terrorist targets have been identified."

Has it come to this: that if Bush "claims the right" it's his? Is there any counter-assessment of such a right? Am I missing something?

What do you think?

Is Bush's "surge and splurge" (that's my phrase, BTW, to cover the troop increase in Iraq, coupled with a massive aid campaign to repair the damage the troops cause--which I understand is what Bush will announce in tonight's speech) but a feint to disguise his real purpose: to fight Iran after Iran attacks Israel as well as the US Navy buildup in the Persian Gulf in response to Israel's imminent strike on Iran's nuclear plants? This writer thinks so, and his case is strong.

I admit it, I'm a hypocrite

I oppose the "surge" for all the right reasons: it is illegal and immoral and illegal; it will cause more deaths of humans (US and others'), more wasted US treasure, more antagonism to the US around the world, all with no possibility of "victory" (whatever that means).

But at the same time, I deep-down want Bush to go forward with the escalation over the objections of me and my ilk, because we will then be given the opportunity to call it the Bush/Cheney/McCain doctrine; and when it fails miserably over the next few months, there will be no viable opposition to a landslide election of progressive Democrats to positions of power in Congress and the White House.

It seems like I'm suggesting the use of our youngsters in the armed service as pawns in a greater political spectrum; and my answer is, You Bet I Am. Just like everybody else is, including, most notably, Bush/Cheney/McCain.

Unfair and imbalanced

Faux News has apparently given up on even the semblance of sanity.

If you've got the time

check out this site (I've mentioned it before) for in-depth reporting of what's going on in Iraq. The postings for today (1/7) are exhaustive and range from the mundane listings of killings and such around the country (not just Baghdad); to amazing revelations about our soldiers' conduct (videotaping their executions of innocent Iraqis and then posting the videos on their websites, including, the report says, the video of one US soldier pissing on a dead Iraqi); to the disclosure that a recently-enacted federal law requires that civilian contractors in Iraq (and elsewhere) who're involved in military settings are no longer immune from prosecution for crimes, but are to be subject to US military law; to the report (about which I blogged earlier) that the puppet-masters in Iraq are about to close a deal that will allow their major oil companies to have access to Iraq's oil resources on an inordinately favorable basis.

The site (just for this one day) has extensive additional articles, so you've got to be an Iraq-war junkie like me to keep on scrolling. Otherwise your head will explode.

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?)