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.

Ho hum

Americans are being inundated with MSM reports about the effect of the death of a single terrorist in Iraq (I'm not denying he's a terrorist, but I'm stressing the singleness of him), some guy named al-Zarqawi who the US MSM ridiculed a few weeks ago as being inept with an automatic rifle. It is said that his death means good things for Bush's regime; his death means nothing to the insurgency; his death will empower the Iraq government; his death will inflame the insurgency and, more likely, the international terrorist movement.

I, for one, believe nothing will change. We are occupiers of Iraq, and the insurgency will remain, unabated, despite one man's death--a man who wasn't even part of the insurgency but rather of a "larger" movement to kill the infidel, namely, Westerners who've for decades exploited the arab/Muslim world. Nor will Zarqawi's death stem the terrorist tide. Bush has kicked the beehive and it matters not that one bee, even a boss bee, has died. Indeed, because of that death the hive has only become busier. IMHO.

Addendum/amendment. I fell into the MSM trap, playing up the death al-Zarqawi. Fact is, he's a small potato compared to the world's largest terrorist organization housed in various huge buildings, enormously well-funded by our tax dollars. It's that organization that needs to be brought down.

Molly Ivins

frets over the disastrous air polluting effect of all those burning American flags, the pernicious impact on America of all those gay marriages, the devastating ruin of the rich wrought by the federal estate tax. Funnnny--if it weren't so tragic.

A new tactic

Here's our latest attempt to pacify/defeat the Iraq insurgency: thorough occupation. Instead of fighting, then leaving, insurgent strongholds--which allows them to regather--our troops are squatting in defeated towns, building numerous small encampments, patrolling the streets regularly. It's unclear whether this effort will work throughout Iraq, but one thing is certain: The dream of a liberated, free Iraq is gone. We'll be occupying their nation for years to come unless we Americans demand our withdrawal.

Cynicism rules

This essay, pointing out Bush's cynical use of the "marriage amendment" to recoup support from his base "base," is well written and spot on. I particularly like this observation about Bush's latest speech urging passage of such an amendment:

"It's almost surreal. For one thing, the president has no role in amending the Constitution. Proposed amendments must be passed in both the House and Senate by two-thirds majorities, and then must win approval from the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. The president doesn't have to sign it. He doesn't even have to read it."

A summer day in Baghdad

as seen from Riverbend's house, in which only 4 hours a day have enough electricity to run the air conditioners.

Right on, brothers and sisters

I never joined the American Bar Association (it was too stodgy for me, by miles), but this latest action by its Board of Governors is downright cool.