Happy talk

This report of the effect of Bush's spate of optimistic speeches on Iraq upon his poll numbers (no effect, by the way) is good reporting. Sometimes USA Today comes up with decent summaries of the news, even if it's not known for investigative reporting.

The arrogance of power

This example of egregious in-your-face federal spending is enough to make me pause over my check to the IRS and seriously consider tax protesting. I mean, my likely destination upon conviction would be Lompoc Correctional Facility, just fifty miles up the coast.

Ugly Americans

Why do they hate us? This "apology" by the US military for destroying the ruins of the city of Babylon surely is one reason. Check out, especially, the last two sentences. Straight out of VietNam's famous "We destroyed the village in order to save it."

Here's what's wrong with the Democrats

This post, offering a Democratic response to the Iran "crisis" is so wrong, so stupid, that I had to leave a comment--scroll way down on the many comments--to this effect: The post makes the classic blunder of adopting the Republicans' frame: of attacking Iran or not. That's not the issue. The issue is how to create a Middle East that doesn't adopt weapons as the only dialog. The Democrats should be demanding that Bush engage in face-to-face dealings with Iran to avert further escalation. We know Bush won't do it, but having failed to he won't be on the high ground anymore, and the Democrats will have seized the moment.

Update: Somebody's listening to me about having direct negotiations with Iran. A Republican, that's who. And not just any Republican. A heavy hitter.

A thought about despair

So many things are amiss in the world--not just the many things caused by the Bush/Cheney administration (although many are attributable to them)--that I'm inclined simply to give up, to quit the battle. Would you miss me?

No October surprise

It's not that Bush isn't going to attack Iran in October. He surely will. However, it won't be a surprise. By now, everybody on this side of the pond expects it, and Iran's latest actions are ensuring it. Indeed, Iran's systematic, trumpeted defiance of international approbrium leads one to wonder whether Karl Rove has a direct line to President Ahmadinejad and is dictating his script.

Do we have to do everything for them?

Can't the Iraqis even solve this problem ? I mean, why don't they just siphon it out of the gutters?

More than fifty million Americans voted

to put this idiot into office. Check out this video and, if you can, laugh at us.

Don't believe me

about the iffy state of affairs in Iraq, in Baghdad in particular. Believe this article in The Army Times.

Tipping points

It's not just the glaciers or the Gulf Stream. It's the economy, stupid.

I don't want to be a spoilsport, but

will somebody tell me where in this resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq there's any authority granted by Congress allowing him to attack Iran? I mean, doesn't our president at least have to consult Congress before launching missles against a foreign power?

If you've stumbled onto a different constitution from mine, let me know what it says. But then again, maybe I'm just a silly strict-constructionist. A conservative, you might say.

Lying leaks

This WaPo article is long, but its gist is this: The supposed "declassification" that Bush supposedly "authorized" was supposedly the justification of Libby's statements to reporters (Woodward, Miller) to buttress the Niger-uranium claim in the face of Ambassador Wilson's revelation that it was bogus. But the leaks of the Niger-uranium claim were themselves bogus, because the Niger-uranium claim had already been discounted. So, even as leakers Bush/Cheney are liars.

A thousand words

If you want to know about John McCain, picture this.

I'm ambivalent

about this remark by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that an attack on Iran would be "completely nuts." On the one hand, I figure such a statement by our strongest ally when we attacked Iraq would operate to inhibit us from using military force against Iran; on the other hand, Straw's comment might merely be descriptive of Bush/Cheney, goading them to action, since they are indeed completely nuts.

He wouldn't dare

That's what they kept saying about Adolph Hitler during his five-year march to war against Poland; during his years of outrages against Jews, Poles, gypsies; during his planning and execution of war against Stalin. But he just kept on fooling them, doing precisely what they said he wouldn't dare do.

Bush has, consistently during his first term-plus one-fourth, done so many things that we thought he wouldn't dare do: withdrawing from the Kyoto treaty; conducting secret meetings to plan our energy future with fossil-fuel companies; selling out our national forests to the timber companies; trying to privatize social security; appointing reactionaries to the Supreme Court--all on top of his outrageous, he-wouldn't-dare, foreign policy moves and wars.

Now, with his poll numbers in the tank, with Iraq promising to sink him further, with scores of scandals threatening to cause the election of a Democratic House of Representatives (which has the power to conduct hearings, indeed, to pass a resolution of impeachment), "he wouldn't dare" cause an "October surprise" in the form of an attack on Iran--right?

Wrong.

Just think about it for a second...

Three bombs go off in sequence in Baghdad, killing 79 worshippers at a mosque. Baghdad's about the same population as Los Angeles. Can you imagine the horror, the furor, such an attack would cause here in the US? And this is just one day in the life of that sad, wrecked city, one attack among scores a day.

The "O J" word

Recall these interesting historical facts in view of Libby's testimony to the the grand jury that Cheney told him that Bush had authorized the leaking of selective (and, by the way, misleading) information about the state of intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein intended to build a nuclear bomb. (What is misleading, of course, is the the National Intelligence Estimate that Bush apparently authorized the disclosure of said that while some intelligence indicated that the aluminum tubes might be used to enrich uranium, other intelligence (from the State Department and the Department of Energy) indicated the tubes were merely for launching conventional rockets--and Bush authorized only the release of the former information.)

Historical fact #1.

Fitzgerald wanted to interview both Bush and Cheney about the leaks of Valerie Plame's identity, but after much resistance (even though Bush had said he wanted to get to the bottom of the leaks) Bush allowed Fitzgerald a one-hour interview, not under oath, and only in the presence of Cheney.

Historical fact #2.

Bush consulted a criminal attorney, who attended the interview, and who insisted that the interview be limited to the leak of Plame's identity.

Historical fact #3.

Bush had personally seen a summary of the National Intelligence Estimate, which included the reservations about the intelligence concerning the aluminum tubes, and so the selective leaking was done by Bush knowing it didn't tell the whole picture about the tubes.

Historical fact #4.

When the fallacy of the Niger-uranium intelligence was coming to light because of Ambassador Wilson's revelations, that left only the aluminum tubes as evidence of Saddam's nuclear plans. Thus it became vital to reveal this information to the public in advance of the upcoming election, and to withhold the qualification of the intelligence--as part of the effort to shore up Bush's standing on the invasion of Iraq, along with the attack on Wilson's status.

So now the question becomes, did Fitzgerald, in his interview with Bush/Cheney ask any questions, and did the latter give any answers, that misled Fitzgerald in his investigation of the Plame leak? If he asked Bush/Cheney something like, "Was there any effort made by you to counter the adverse impression that Wilson was giving about Saddam's potential danger to the US"? and Bush/Cheney said "no," then that would be a lie, a lie that could have the effect of obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation into the source of the Plame leak. And that could be "obstruction of justice"--the same charge that brought Nixon down.

Stay tuned.

More Riverbend

Here she's interviewed by al-Jazeera, telling about the blogging life.

Well, now, things are getting interesting

Up to now, Bush's defenses--to his lies that led to war, to his torture and endless imprisonment of enemies, to his illegal wiretapping of Americans--have been based on his claim that whatever was done was (1) not his fault, and/or (2) done in furtherance of the public's safety. But now, with Scooter Libby laying at his feet, through Cheney, the personal responsibility for authorizing the selective leaking national security information to NYT reporter Judith Miller, both defenses are down. This action is Bush's own--not Tenet's, not Gonzales'--and the leaks were authorized not even colorably to defend Americans but to defend Bush from claims that he lied about prewar intelligence, a purely political breach of national security done for personal reasons.

Bush has become Nixon, and Plamegate has now officially become Watergate II.

Chop wood, carry water

Check out Riverbend's reaction to learning of her recent awards, especially her tending to the parakeet's cage.

There's a lesson there folks.