Hopeless, hapless

Here we are, awaiting word from the Listener-in-Chief about how many additional combat troops he's going to launch into the cauldron that is Iraq. The ostensible reason for this is to stem the violence that is caused mainly, these days, by retributive warring between the Shiites and the Sunnis in and around Baghdad. To effect this, the US had hoped to cause the Iraqi Parliament to re-align, so as to isolate al-Sadr's block of members and hence to give the Iraqi army and US troops free rein to wipe out the militias that support al-Sadr (although their previous attempts haven't borne fruit).

But no. Today, the Shiites' grand ayatollah, al-Sistani, said he wouldn't approve such a realignment, effectively ending any such program of violence-suppression. And so, the meaningless dying goes on. Our soldiers are obeying orders, presumably, but the orders have no purpose, no aim, no end in sight. Just killing and dying.

What's in a name?

Here's an article from MediaMatters that ticks off the series of White House phrases that's been adopted by the MSM, particularly CNN, in describing various developments in Iraq and elsewhere, from "cut and run" to "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to "Democrat." I've given up on the airwaves, including PBS, as a news source (except of course Link TV, Pacifica Radio and Democracy Now! and such programs). Right now, for example, the networks are cluttered with stories of Denver's airport and The Donald's battle with Rosie, while in Iraq the killing goes on and on.

I don't get it

Why can't the anti-war faction of the American populace come up with a decent presidential candidate, one who demands immediate withdrawal from Iraq, cessation of obstinate silence on Middle East questions and discourse with other nations (Iran, Syria), and true engagement with the world on issues of fair trade and wealth-sharing? It looks from here like we're going to face a 2008 just like 2004, with no candidate (except Kucinich) speaking out on these issues. And that's after an election in which I thought we'd spoken by ballot that we wanted just such candidates.

Flag etiquette

Talk about form over substance. Talk about absurdity, idiocy, irrelevance...whatever. (Note, at the end of the article, the lady's comment that the flag's mispositioning was "disgraceful." Who are these people?)

What America needs now

is a military coup.

States rights

Here's a listing and brief description of laws that take effect in various states effective January 1, 2007. Quirky, weird in some cases, sensible in others. It surely demonstrates the concept of federalism, anachronistic as it sometimes seems.

I defy you

to read the first paragraph of this article about hogshit and not read the rest of the five-page piece. It's like watching a train wreck, or film of the allies' first encounter with the prisoners at Dachau. Can't stand the sight, can't turn away.

A testing post

This is a test. I repeat: This is only a test. On the previous two posts of mine, when I've clicked on the "Comment" line, the comment box has shown a statement "Banned by Webmaster. Your comments will not be added" and indeed my comments haven't been added when I typed them into the comment box. This post is being added to my blog to see if that problem persists.

If the same thing happens to you when you click the "Comment" line on my blog for any posts, would you email me to that effect?

Interesting reading, eh?

War rules

The Sunday morning talk shows are replete with references to the prospect of adding between 20 and 50 thousand additional combat troops to the mess in Iraq. Other interviewees spoke of the need to deploy more Americans to increase the "training" of Iraqi troops--even though their training is not the issue: their loyalty and reliability is. But there was not a single spokesman for the millions of Americans who want immediate withdrawal of our forces. Why not?

One would think the inclusion of such spokespersons would make for lively discourse, would create meaningful dialogue, would make for good theater. Is it possible the major media are willing to forego these for the sake of keeping this war going, since it's a source of high ratings?

A pause that refreshes

I've been taking a vacation from blogging for a few days, here in Tucson for the holidays. I may do some posting from time to time--there's certainly no shortage of items--but mostly I'm agog about my little granddaughter and her family. Amazing things, granddaughters. Amazing.

Be careful what you ask for

Bush/Cheney/Rove labored long and hard to dupe the American public into equating the war and occupation of Iraq with the "war on terr'r." Well, apparently they succeeded, with the result that now, with the Iraq quagmire ongoing and in fact becoming a losing battle, according to the Iraq Study Group, the public's opinion has changed dramatically: Only 35% believe the US is winning the "war on terr'r," with the same percentage believing the "terrorists" are winning.

Some tough reading

Tell me whether you believe this man's story of his arrest and imprisonment in Iraq. I do. Of course, I'm inclined to believe it, but doesn't it have the ring of truth--or, for that matter. the bracelet and necklace too?

Rays of hope

Contruction of that monster courthouse at Guantanamo that I blogged about some weeks ago has been put on hold. Small miracle.

Another miracle: The end of the "war on terror." Not the war, the phrase.

Pinochet's death

The headline for this story on AOL read, "Infamous Dictator Dies--Thousands Killed Under His Reign," and for an instant I thought Cheney had succumbed.

But seriously folks, considering that Pinochet's death gave rise to "violent clashes" with police in Chile upon the announcement, can you imagine what Iraq will look like during the weeks preceding and after the Iraq government executes Saddam Hussein? For that matter, what about the violence if, fearing such an uprising, the government decides to commute his sentence to life? Talk about quagmire.

Embeds

Among the controversial proposals of the Iraq Study Group's report is that US troops should no longer be lead combat forces, but should embed with the Iraq soldiers in small numbers, as guides and helpers. If you were a US soldier, immersed in a platoon of Iraqis, would you feel safe in light of incidents like this ?

Where's the outrage?

I've been watching the Sunday talk shows about Iraq (I've got to stop doing this, it's both uninformative and frustrating), and I've concluded that the concensus is that Bush will call for a "final surge" of troops, perhaps 20,000 or so, into Baghdad as a last effort to purge the place of violence, after which (after its inevitable failure, that is), he will begin a "gradual withdrawal" of our forces to secure areas in and around Iraq to be available to enfore US interests in the region.

Of course the prediction of our stationing of US troops in strongholds in Iraq has always been a main purpose of the invasion, so that's a no-brainer, as repulsive as it is. But the "surge" of troops? It's being touted not really as a solution, but as political cover for Bush, so that he can say to those who support the McCain militaristic solution that he "did all he could" before quitting.

So--our boys and girls are going to die to provide Bush with political cover? My God, this is the "compassionate conservative"? God help us.

Crunching the numbers

The headline of the latest Zogby poll shows Bush's positives at an all-time low (30%), with the public's sentiment about Congress' performance terrible too. But to me the telling number is found in the last line of the article, where Democratic respondents were asked to rate the Democrats' performance in Congress. Only 24% approved. Doesn't that say something to the newly empowered Democrats in Congress, that business as usual isn't going to cut it?

I guess not.

Believe it or not

Two conflicting stories about an air attack by US forces in Iraq. Question: How would the Americans know what the death toll was, and the identity of those killed, when they flew over the site in helicopters?

What is there about French?

For those of you, who (like me) don't read their language, here's a translation that demonstrates what a fine language it is. (Courtesy, Truthout.org.)

Come Clean By Laurent Joffrin Libération
Thursday 07 December 2006
The strategy of lying is collapsing. Even though he balks at publicly admitting it, even if he wants to maintain a martial front, George W. Bush has backed off. What the commander in chief still suppresses, the men he has charged, designated, promoted have just come clean about: the war in Iraq is a historic failure. A predicted failure, certainly, and a universally condemned war. But the confession of these officials gives this condemnation all its weight, all its power of truth. The American president has vicariously confessed America's mistake.
So the "weapons of mass destruction" really were a decoy; so the military operation really was a strategic folly that led to a quagmire. So the "war against terrorism" has brought about nothing but another war and more terrorism. So the plan for a remodeled Middle East really was just a dangerous pipe-dream born from the over-excited brains of ideologues drunk on military certitudes. So what some of Washington's best friends, admirers of the New World's democracy, had said - well beyond any anti-American circles - is now confirmed by the very mouth of the leaders involved. The proof is in that cynicism - even in international politics - can cost very dearly.
Not that every war is unjust, or every intervention forbidden, or every act of force immoral. Within the framework of international institutions, founded on solid law and realistic political calculations, when requested by an oppressed people that would see the soldiers on that mission as liberators rather than targets, the principle of external intervention remains - or remained - legitimate. By charging head-first into a bloody trap, the American administration also damaged that idea. In their historic dreams, Americans wanted to be the knights errant of freedom. George Bush has defaced that mythology too.

I'm getting pissed off, really pissed off

Look, so far I've treated this Bush-asshole's maladministration as evil, dangerous, demented, but only in a distant and theoretical sense. Bad for the world, bad for the nation, bad for the troops and the budget. But now, with US troops continually creating new enemies of America, Bush's criminal behavior is growing close to home for me. I've got an infant granddaughter, you see, and this asshole is turning her future--the world she'll be living in--into a dangerous, wretched place. And that, boys and girls, makes my blood boil.

What do I do about this? Stay tuned.