Will the Right stop at nothing?

I happen to have made the acquaintance with Dr. Carmona, when he was an emergency room doctor at Tucson Medical Center. A straight-shooter if there ever was one. And he still is.

I hate to use this phrase

--"There's a part of me..." but I know no other quick way to identify my reaction to this story about the regular updating of the Merriam-Webster dictionary to include "new" words. Words like "ginormous" and "IED." I certainly don't think it's a bad idea to set forth definitions of words that, from whatever source, creep into our national communications. But, damn, it pains me to watch such a lofty concept as language become reduced, diluted, by this type of expression. I mean, "ginormous," as defined (essentially "huge"--a combination of gigantic and enormous) adds nothing to our dialog and, it seems to me, bastardizes both words; and IED is nothing but military shorthand for a roadside mine.

Okay, so maybe they have a place in our modern culture. But to memorialize them by inclusion in an authoritative dictionary? Could this be less a linguistic effort than a marketing device?

They still don't get it, do they?

Here's a report about a video announcement by an al-Qaeda leader that Iraq is the center of its war against the infidel, and calling on other Arabs in the region to join in the fight, with money, arms and men. This appeal is said to signal desperation by al-Qaeda, that it may be losing support among Sunnis in Iraq.

Don't you see it? Both Bush and al-Qaeda's boss are saying the same thing: Bush, in order to legitimatize his ongoing, surging war; al-Qaeda in order to keep our forces fighting in Iraq. Both sides benefit from such announcements, because both sides want eternal war. As I (and many others) say as often as possible, Bush is bin Laden's best ally in his quest, and bin Laden is Bush's best ally in his.

Maybe, just maybe, I'm doing something right

I daily picket various sites along the coastline here in central California, displaying a sign that shows the numbers of dead and wounded US soldiers and Iraqi civilians in our outrageous war, and calling for our immediate withdrawal. Just as do these folks in the midwest, whose efforts are having a distinct effect. And I've just self-published a novel that got a fine, favorable mention in the Santa Barbara Independent, a plaudit on page 35 by Nick Welsh, the paper's editor no less. Here's what he said, under the caption, "What Writers Read":

Gaviota, by Erik O'Dowd

"A very cool idea: anchor a contemporary political thriller-chiller in the very real shelling of Ellwood Beach by a Japanese submarine back in 1941. The story revolves around political ambition, family secrets, and accusations of treason."

Good for me.

Gordon Brown for president!

Can you imagine Bush--better yet, Cheney--doing this?

Maybe if we wait long enough...

Republicans will just die off.

Be afraid, be very afraid

I've listened to tapes of Nixon and LBJ during their agonies in the White House. Nixon, combative and paranoid about Watergate; Johnson, pained and frustrated about VietNam. Both men had human, comprehensible reactions.

But Bush? At peace, serene, with his position and decisions? If that's not mentally/emotionally aberrant, I don't know what.

Eighteen months to go and, thank god, counting.

Well, whaddaya know!

A relatively mainstream media outlet, McClatchy News Service (formerly Knight-Ridder) is calling Bush on his bullshit. Finally. Finally. Maybe, just maybe, it'll catch on.

Whazzup wid dat?

At the midway point in the US Women's Open golf tournament, the last names of the top six are Park, Hung, Shin, Kim, Ahn, Granada and Mayorkas. Only one American among them. Wanna guess which one?

Summertime, summertime

I just read an article (can't find it now) about how determined Bush was to get his invasion of Iraq underway in March, 2003, so that US troops wouldn't have to endure the horrible summer heat.

Here's today's weather report for Baghdad.

What's in a name?

In this one list of the day's horror in Iraq, the US military is reported to have killed some "insurgents," some "al Qaeda operatives," some "al Qaeda militiants" and some "gunmen." I know it's cheeky of me to ask, but what's the basis, precisely, for these different labels? We know they don't wear uniforms, and I doubt they have differing dogtags or business cards. Is the distinction purely literary--a reporter tiring of using the same words throughout the article, or perhaps a worker in the bowels of the printshop who ran out of capital Q's?

Two new blogs from inside Iraq

The first one, "Last-of-Iraqis," has a lengthy story about the situation in Adhamiya (the latest Fallujah--recently walled off from the rest of Baghdad), as well a detailed history of Muqtada al-Sadr's rise to prominence. The second one, "Nabil's blog," also has information about Adhamiya, as well as a long list of blogs from inside Iraq and videos of the newly-created ghetto.

Must reading.

Hang on Ruth and the gang

In view of these recent Supreme Court decisions--all horrible retreats from good jurisprudence--we better pray the four "liberals" (they're not very liberal, really) remain in good health for at least 18 months, so that a Democratic president and Senate will replace them. And then we'd better hope for poor health (death, preferably) of a couple of the five monsters on the Right, to secure a moderate majority on the Court. Otherwise, at the rate the five are rippping away the fabric of our constitution, we'll be left with nothing but a shred of freedoms in a few years.

In a nutshell

Here's a snapshot of the status of an emerging post-surge military "victory" in a Sunni area of Iraq. What a waste, what a nightmare, what a predictable--predicted--outcome.

Even Tony Snow can't explain this development

It turns out that Iraq's oil ministry has agreed to revive a Saddam-era oil deal, to allow a foreign nation to extract its oil from a large field. It's the first deal made by the ministry--and it's with China!

Heckuva job, Bush.

I'm too pissed off to write

about this latest political ploy by Congress--re-convening the Iraq Study Group. I'm dumbfounded, too. So, I'll write about it anyway.

The ISG is supposed to "study" Iraq's conditions and report to Congress a month after Patraeus' report is due in September. Then, it's said, the reports will be melded and something--probably nothing meaningful--will arise from that process.

First, it's politicaly idiocy on the Democrats' part. This process will only delay and eventually legitimatize the Bush madness in Iraq. It will give Bush an "out" in the fall, by allowing him to escape the consequences of his years of misdeeds by following some of the ISG's recommendations, albeit belatedly, and hence to appear reasonable and "bipartisan" as the war enters the final year of his terms. By allowing this, the Democrats are defusing a critical facet of the anti-Republican sentiment that has grown up over the war, and in particular will be handing Republican Congressional candidates a vehicle for arguing that their continued (up to now) support for the war was well-founded.

Second, re-visiting the ISG will gain nothing in terms of saving lives and treasure in Iraq. The eventual report will, again, be a hodgepodge of observations and "approaches," none of them novel, none of them dramatic. It will be a same-old, same-old document that wastes time and effort, and merely allows the pols to delay decision-making and to be able to point to paperwork as justification.

Third, now that the "surge" is well underway, and is going nowhere, to ask the ISG to report again is absurdly naive. The surge has closed options that might have been available ten months ago when its first report was rendered. Now, what can the ISG say except to reiterate what it said originally, except, perhaps, with more urgency.

I am furious at the dumb, cowardly Congress that has chosen this path. It's an insult to me as an American. I deserve better from my representatives.

If you like Ray Charles...

check this out.

Al Qaeda Unleashed

This article in The Guardian should be required reading for anybody who supports our continuing presence in Iraq. The writer's assertions about the benefits to bin Laden--his dreams fulfilled--by reason of the US occupation of Iraq are succinctly and incisively set forth, as is his description of their recent radical manifestations in Palestine, which the writer identifies in the rise of Hamas and its battles with Fatah.


"When Osama bin Laden and his lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri issued their "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders" statement on February 28 1998, responses to their declaration varied from apathy to amusement. They were an obscure group lost in the faraway emirate of the Taliban, a pathetic remnant of the fight against the USSR during the cold war. Their role looked historically defunct and their discourse archaic.
Things could not be more different now. Al-Qaida has become an intensely complex global network, with a decentralised, flexible structure that enables it to spread in all directions, across the Arab world, Africa, Asia and Europe. Whether pursuing active cells or searching for sleeping ones, the security world is haunted by al-Qaida's ghost. Like bubbles, these cells are autonomous, bound together neither by hierarchy nor by a chain of command. It only takes a few individuals who subscribe to its ideology and terrorist methods for al-Qaida to extend its reach to a new part of the globe.
With the Middle East moving from one crisis to another, this small organisation saw itself miraculously transferred from periphery to centre. In its founding statement, al-Qaida defined its mission as a jihad aimed at cleansing the Arabian peninsula of the American "locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations", and liberating Palestinian land from Zionist occupation. With the invasion of Iraq in 2003, al-Qaida was offered a firm foothold in the Middle East and the unique chance to implement its "resistance against Jews and crusaders" project.
The organisation's penetration of Palestinian politics is the climax of a long, still unfolding process. Rapidly expanding from one location to another, al-Qaida currently boasts branches throughout the Arab region."

Heckuva job, Bush/Cheney.

No more Mister Nice Guy

I don't get it. Bush's poll numbers are in the tank, his second term is waning (although he still has 17 months as president!) and his power is gone. So why is Henry Waxman's subcommittee not acting with courage, not to mention outrage, at Condi Rice's failure to abide by its subpeona compelling her to testify about the prewar intelligence on Iraq, in particular the inclusion of the infamous "16 words" about "uranium from Africa" in Bush's SOU speech? Why not proceed now to hold her in contempt to at least commence the predicted battle over the White House claim of "executive privilege" or whatever? I mean, why is Waxman, why is entire Congress--except for a few hearty souls--acting so meekly, acting as if Bush has any support anywhere? If the Democrats don't act now, when will they? Never? And if so, tell me, what shall we call our new political party?

Kicking the can

Here's a letter I wrote today to the editor of the SB News-Press.

Come September General Patraeus will report on the progress of Bush’s escalation of force in Iraq, and many mainstream pundits tell us the report will be definitive and will dictate America’s future course in that besieged nation. Don’t be fooled. Patraeus’ report will be similar to the scores official reports from Iraq that have preceded it: ambiguous, equivocal, essentially meaningless. It will contain enough “positives,” “negatives” and “needs improvements,” to give colorable support to the entire spectrum of decisions, from complete withdrawal, to redeployment to fixed bases, to continuing the surge.

As a result, any decision purportedly based on the report will be, as have been all previous decisions on Iraq, political, purely political. Indeed, many Americans recognize the report for what it really is: a cynical tactic that allows Bush to delay facing the reality that his invasion was wrong from inception and that the occupation is being monstrously maintained, and to buy time so he can hand off his disaster to the next president.

Meanwhile, our soldiers are being killed and maimed daily. John Kerry once asked, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Now we should be asking, “How do you ask a man or woman to be the last soldier to die while a delusional president kicks the can down the road?”