Ann Coulter

author of this mad monlogue, shouldn't be allowed on the airwaves.

Now you tell me...

Does this sound like a whitewash to you?

Letter to the editor

The following is a copy of a letter I wrote to the editor of the SB NewsPress. It probably won't be published--it's a bit lengthy--but what the hell.

Thirty-nine months after Bush/Cheney's invasion and occupation of Iraq,
after untold thousands of deaths and maimings of Iraqis, Americans and others,
and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, we are hearing
suggestions from some in the Bush administration that "withdrawal" or
"redeployment" of some coalition forces is likely, even imminent. These utterances are no doubt prompted by the growing rejection by the US public of our continued presence in Iraq, which is in turn based on a new awareness among the majority of our citizenry that the reasons the administration gave for the invasion were false: No weapons of mass destruction, no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, no "imminent threat" by Iraq to the US or its allies. With increasing frequency, Americans are asking, "Why are we in Iraq, anyway?" It is to diffuse this growing
doubt about the rightness of our mission there that the administration is now making mutterings of withdrawal.

Don't be fooled. The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was always about establishing US hegemony in the Middle East, and so when they speak of withdrawal or redeployment of forces, they don't mean our troops will come home, or even leave the area. They'll be ordered to stay indefinitely in the region to show US power--and use it if necessary--to enforce US interests (read access to oil and natural gas by our corporations). Indeed, we are presently building four "enduring" bases in Iraq to ensure our permanent military presence there.

These bases will only ensure continued attacks on US targets in the region and
throughout the world, by those who've long demanded that we give up our designs on the territory and resources of the Middle East. We'll continue to spend billions of dollars and risk innocent lives, just in slightly different locales.

We mustn't grow complacent. We must keep up the drumbeat, continue to demand to "support our troops" not by moving them a few miles farther into the desert, but by bringing them home. Home to the United States. Now.

You read it here first

That is, here. No surprise, I suppose, that our oil barons are planning to rip off the Iraqis, but it still bears reporting, right?

I regularly check out Al-Jazeera's webpage to see whazzup. I know it's thought to be a shill for the bad guys--even a target of our bombing--but it seems moderately moderate to me, and it certainly publishes news that others don't touch, especially our MSM.

Of course that's why Bush wants it destroyed.

I'd like to attend a press conference

where President Bush is asked about Hugo Chavez's decision to deliver below-market heating oil to various cities on the east coast of the US. I hope the question comes up--maybe as part of the the Thanksgiving festivities--perhaps by means of a question like this: "Mr. President, Are you having turkey, or are you eating crow?"

Who's on first?

We are told that there's a new strategy for US forces: "go and stay." This involves not simply clearing various hotspots of insurgency, whole towns in many cases, but thereafter leaving a residual force sufficient to keep the town free of a return of the insurgents. However, this involves a significant increase in the number of troops on the ground for a significant period.

On the other hand, there are the hints by Condi Rice, that troop reductions in Iraq are in the offing. Is it possible that Condi's bullshitting us, just saying what the Bush administration thinks will placate the growing resistance to the war? Naa. Couldn't be, not in this administration with its implacable dedication to truth.

Craigslist rocks

Seems like alot of things rock for me today. This one--Craigslist--surely does.

When I was apartment-hunting in SB three months ago, I logged onto Craigslist hourly almost, to find the latest listings and to communicate by email with the owners. Really quick and efficient, an important feature being that when the space was rented, it was removed from Craigslist, unlike in the classifieds of the SB News-Press, where a rental could appear available long after it was rented. Other features, too, making Craigslist far superior to the newpaper for classified advertising. I'm certain that it, along with eBay and uBid (both of which I've used as well) are part of the problem the papers are facing, as shown in their declining revenues.

And now Craigslist is taking on the news component of newspapers. Right on, dog!

Depends on whose ox is being phosphorused

Is "white phosphorus" a "chemical weapon," the use of which in warfare is illegal? It is if you're Saddam Hussein, but not, apparently, if you're the good ol' USA.

The enemy of my enemy

I'm sure on many issues I don't agree with Libertarian Justin Raimondo, whose blog, AntiWar.com, is one of my first sources for essay and news each morning. I trust he's anti-liberal on social issues, probably too on environmental questions. But as to this war in Iraq--and in critiquing those politicians of both parties who support it--he's right on. This post, to me, says it all, especially its castigation of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton for their weak-kneed, mendacious positions on our occupation. I commend it to you.

BTW--There's a quote in this post, cited by Raimondo, which is attributed to Claire Booth Luce, criticizing FDR's actions in triggering our entry into WWII:

The President "lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it."

Seems like history repeats itself each generation. FDR in 1941, LBJ in 1966, GWB in 2003. Like the song says, "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?"

Juan Cole rocks

I've mentioned this before, I know, but the blog of this university professor, a Middle East expert, is must reading for those wanting to follow the developments in the region. Professor Cole speaks Arabic and has studied the area for years, as well as traveling there regularly.

Today's posts deal with Bush's conversation with Tony Blair, wherein the latter talked Bush out of bombing the Qatar broadcast station of al Jazeera (and the post describes the network accurately, in my opinion); the attempt by Big Oil to pirate Iraq's oil to their own profit; the disclosure that Bush was personally told by way of a President's Daily Brief (PDB) long before the Iraq invasion that there was no operational connection between Iraq and al Qaeda--and that Bush nevertheless told the US public that there was, and withheld the PDB from Congress in the runup to the war.

Other tidbits, too. All part of a day in the dwindling decade of our empire.

Read it and weep

How can you not? And, for those of you who aren't doing anything to get the US out of Iraq, get off your butts.

Triangle of Death

An Iraqi reporter tells of his observations of the Iraqi army's actions in these villages. I guess you'd say we need to do a bit more training of them--or are they just following our example?

Loose tongues

I'm getting tired of this. When those people in Iraq who are fighting with small arms and crude IEDs the US occupation troops and the US-sponsored Iraqi military, they are called, variously, "insurgents" (not, of course, "patriots") and "terrorists," and if they shoot our troops the event is called an "ambush."

Does our media ever--I mean, ever--cast what's happening in Iraq as anything other than bad guys vs. good guys? I mean, isn't it at least possible that we're the bad guys? We are, after all, the invading army, invading in violation of international law, in the face of UN opposition, without justification. Can't at least one MSM headline writer at least try to fairly characterize what's really going on in Iraq?

"The Nation" takes a stand

To which I say, Right on, dog.

A word of caution

I gotta admit, with the marvelous skein of bad news for Bush lately, and his plummeting poll numbers, it's hard not to gloat. For example, check out this graphic, charting the poll numbers of Nixon, Clinton and Bush II, and entitled "Bush--Hot on Nixon's Trail."

But these NeoCon people and their puppet, Bush, still control the media, still control all facets of government, still have three years (let's hope not!) years to rule. Now--more than ever--it's time to exploit this momentary advantage, with care and diligence, and with effective insight into the process.

For example, does the Left challenge the Alito nomination? I mean, do they threaten a filibuster? Would that be a waste of energy? Would it win? Would it alienate the moderates?

Does the Left relent a bit, and lean toward the middle? Does it howl until the middle moves Left? Does it do nothing--that is, allow the Bush administration to implode in the eyes of the middle-of-the-road congressmen (and, more to the point, women) and in the middle-of-the-road voters?

I say no. Give no quarter. Attack, attack, attack!--Just like they do. You see, their issues--drilling in Anwar, continuing the Patriot Act, "staying the course" in Iraq--are so awful, and so unpopular, that the Left has wide-open area for attack.Soo--attack!

I don't get it

Add up these numbers: Environmentalists, peaceniks, liberal/progressives, the poor, blacks, browns, unionists, womens'-rightists, academics, and add in libertarians and true conservatives. How many millions is that? Surely the vast majority of them, opposed to this outrageous war, make up a huge majority of Americans. Indeed, who favors the war? All I can think of is thick-necked white males, ages 27-40 who drive pickups with gunracks, and affluent white retirees who drive golfcarts.

So why are we still at war?

Well, now

Maybe all the marching and chanting we've been doing for the last three years is having an effect. The House of Representatives is beginning to sound like the British House of Commons. As we sometimes shout while marching, when accosted by opponents, "This is what democracy sounds like!"

The other sock

just dropped. As I predicted, Fitz is pissed. He's filed a document telling the court that he's proceeding with the leakgate investigation in front of a new grand jury.

Bush the pariah

He leaves the White House to campaign for the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, sending the candidate to defeat, then he travels to the far east, stopping in South Korea to this effect:

"South Korea has announced plans to pull a third of its troops out of Iraq
next year.The announcement from the Korean Defense Ministry comes a day after
President Bush met with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun (noh moo-hyuhn) and praised him as a staunch ally in the Iraq conflict.

Is the bottom falling out?

I've referred to this poll, Pollkatz, in previous posts. It summarizes and charts, with fine graphics, the numerous polls on numerous issues.

The "Bush index" is a definitive polling indicator, because it measures the spread between Bush's approval and disapproval numbers, as determined weekly by averaging the polls concluded during that week.

Well, as you can see, the news ain't good for Bush, not at all. Pollkatz's figures reveal the highest spread ever between those figures--24.2--whereas no previous index had risen above 20. This means, according to the broad sample of polls, 36% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of his presidency, and 60% do not.

A "silent majority" has arisen, to be sure. And it's a big majority, growing bigger by the week.