Condi sucks

I need to vent. I'm tired of hearing about how Condi Rice is a "realist" in foreign policy, whose counsel to Bush (presumably like Colin Powell's) is akin to that of the advisers to Bush I, as opposed to the "hardliners" like Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfie, and of course, Cheney. Here is a typical such reference in an article which raises the long-lingering and unanswered question of "whatever happened to those five Iranian officials that the U.S. grabbed in Iraq five months ago?" (As to which question, I ask: Can you imagine the uproar in our country if Iran grabbed five U.S. officials in Iraq and held them incommunicado for months?)

Anyhoo--About this notion that Condi is the moderating voice in foreign policy, whispering common-sense solutions to Bush but being overridden by Cheney. What's the evidence of that, other than White House pundits' assertions? I mean, Condi was the first to use the "mushroom cloud" metaphor. (Bush's speech to that effect came days later.) She's in the forefront of the push to further sanction Iran; to condemn the results of the Palestinian election of Hamas representatives; to call Iraqi insurgents "terrorists" at every press conference. She, in her public utterances, appears to be as much a hardliner as the rest of Bush's advisers. At best, she's like Colin Powell, or, as lately revealed, George Tenet: A Bush enabler, unwilling to do other than nudge him and mumble him toward sanity, but at all events to stay onboard the ship.

And yet, Condi seems to get a free pass. Check out these figures from Rasmussen about her "favorability rating" (57%) as compared to the much lower ratings of others in Bush's cabal, except of course Colin Powell. Certainly those ratings can't be based on her performance as, initally, National Security Adviser (whom both Richard Clarke and Tenet assert was deaf to their alarms about imminent al Qaida attacks in the U.S.), and lately as Secretary of State. I mean--pardon me for asking--what exactly has Condi done to warrant "favorability"? The answer: Absolutely nothing.

Now, it seems, Condi is about to force a showdown with the Congress, in the person of Representative Henry Waxman, over her testimony about the insertion of the infamous "16 words" in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Waxman has subpoenaed her and she's apparently resisting and, just yesterday, has apparently refused to allow her staff to testify about the Niger-yellowcake assertion. Let's hope we learn from this confrontation where she stands: Is she a moderating voice in this administration, or is she, like Powell and Tenet, just window-dressing for the evil forces within it?

Check out these numbers

of Americans who, according to a Rasmussen poll, believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. Okay, so the 22% who apparently so believe can be accounted for as the usual "lunatic fringe" set, what about the 22% who say they're not sure (and almost half of the Democrats polled are uncertain).

That such high percentages of people can believe their leader is capable of such a monstrously barbarian act as to allow the attacks to take place is alarming, isn't it?

As a service to my readers

I'm linking to this article describing the top twenty-five online skams and pranks. (My doing so may keep my email inbox free of some of the forwards of such items, too.)

P.S. Among the best on the list is number 14, a link to a website that purports to track the location of your, or anyone's, cellphone via satellite links by simply typing in its area code and number. Try it--it's clever. (Please note that I've not forwarded it to you by email.)

Who's in charge here?

Okay, so now, as predicted, the Democrats have backed down on their "withdrawal-timeline" funding bill after Bush's veto and, after a meeting with Bush, will offer some half-baked voluntary "benchmark" version. Bush will counter with some even weaker version, and in the next few weeks there will be news stories about the two sides trying to resolve differences, ending--just as Karl Rove had scripted--with some form of funding bill that both sides "can live with."

Guess what, you dumb fucking idiot Democrats: You've just made Bush's war your war too. Congratulations for removing the single most devastating issue Republicans face in 2008.

Update: Here's what's going on during the day following various meetings between members of Congress and White House representatives. Posturing and talking, with little accommodation by either side; all of which feels to me like the Democrats are trying to find a way to give in without appearing to, while Bush is allowed to play the role of stubbornly straighforward troop supporter.

A note, however: As much as I dislike her--and her candidacy--I do like Hillary's idea of a bill de-authorizing the Iraq war. It feels right, as a matter of legality and principle as well as tactics. If Bush/Cheney lied us into war, their authority to conduct it should be withdrawn. The bill won't pass, of course, but it's a sharp statement of disapproval of the invasion without being subject to the complaint that it restricts funds for our troops; and (wouldn't it be wonderful?) it would serve as a vehicle for hearings on the administration's prewar lies, since that question would be directly relevant to the subject of the pending legislation.

One exception to my iron-clad resistance to capital punishment

is for this judge.

In case you missed it

here's the video, in its entirety, of Bill Moyers' PBS show, "Buying the War," about the media's failure to report objectively in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

Watch it and weep.

Odd man out

Over the last six years, since the 9/11 attacks, I've heard commentators use the words "everybody" and "all Americans" to describe the mass of us who supported George Bush in the wake of the attacks. Well, I didn't, and neither did a small percentage of Americans, about ten percent according to this chart.

My reaction to Bush's bullhorn speech and its sequels as he marched us to "war" in Afghanistan (not to mention Iraq) was at the time and has remained that the attacks were the work of a small bunch of crazies whom we should capture and punish, to be sure, but most importantly that we should react to their attacks with calm resolve to deal with the issues that underlay the fanatics's actions. I know that sounds wussy, but that's what I felt.

And now, six years later, as we've done precisely the opposite, it turns out I, and the small percent of decent folks who believed as I did, were right. Bush and his followers have succeeded, instead, in increasing the acts of terrorism around the world.

Now, wouldn't you think they'd listen to us about ending the madness in Iraq? Well, you'd be wrong.

MoDo Rocks!

Maureen Dowd's piece about Tenet's soon-to-be-published "tell-all" is as fun to read as Molly Ivins' columns were. Like Molly, she's taken to labeling her subjects--Tenet is "Slam-Dunk," Cheney is "Darth"--but does, probably out of deference for Molly--avoid "Shrub," using the more generic "Junior" instead.

Enjoy.

Weekend warriors

If there be any doubt about whether the "surge" is working, this report of Saturday's carnage in Iraq should provide the answer.

It's all my fault

If I hadn't made that offhand remark yesterday about Riverbend's failure to post to her blog of late, she wouldn't have decided to leave Iraq.

You want pathos, tragedy, outrage? Try reading her post.

Body counting

It now turns out that the Bush-touted "decline in sectarian violence in Baghdad" is based on skewed numbers. Not skewed, actually: fabricated. The number of bodies that are included in Bush's calculations don't take into account the major killer, namely, bombs carried by cars or suicides.

What won't this administration do to manipulate the public's perception of this awful war?

(I'll keep track to any MSM publication of this new outrage.)

Must see TV

Now that Riverbend has quit posting to her blog (at least lately), check out this video blog (vlog) by some Iraqi young folks. Often sad, always moving.

Look out below!

This site, Forex, tracks the major currencies. I've been following it for years, but lately have placed a fair-sized investment in the euro and so now I check the charts daily. (In order to see charts of the various currencies "against" each other, click on the countries' flags in the center of the frame.) The euro popped through an historic high ($1.36 dollars per euro) a few days ago and appears to have an upper limit constrained only by trade and governmental sanity returning to the US--and hence no barrier at all.

If you've got some spare dollars lying around, you might want to climb on the bandwagon.

The L word

What fun it is, finally, to hear the words "lies" and "liars" in connection with the Pat Tillman investigation being conducted by California Congressman Henry Waxman's committee. Pat's brother no only used those words but repeated them again and again, as to both the Army's explanation of what happened on that ridge in Afghanistan and its coverup by the Army brass.

What I believe...so far

Ideas such as this, speaking of a "unified field" or a "unified consciousness" appeal to me as a sound explanation of what is. They contain a comforting coalescence of mathematics and physics with Buddhist thought and even Jungian psychology. However, I depart from the author's analysis (because I find no imperical basis for it) in its presentation idea that this "field" is "love." Certainly one is free to believe that, or one is free to assume it and act in accordance with it, but I simply don't see anything in my experience or in the author's reasoning that makes it so.

So--I find it plausible that there's an elementary base force at work in all matter and energy that we know of, and that that force is likely not entirely random, but in some measure directed (for example, from organization to entropy). More than that, I know not, except that I can choose to make of that fact whatever I wish. If I wish to call it "love," I may do so, and act accordingly. If I wish to call it "horsefeathers," I may do that, and act accordingly. This, to me, better explains the presence in the universe of people like George Bush or Adolph Hitler, because their existence--and the power they've wielded--are inexplicable if the notion of "love" is imputed to the universal force. These people, and many too many others in human history, have proven to me the absence, not the presence, of any abiding concept of love in the universe.

I told you so

For weeks, I've contended that the Congressional Democrats' tinkering with war-funding legislation, by inserting various withdrawal benchmarks and the like, would eventually backfire, leaving Bush with the assertion that the Democrats are endangering the troops. Indeed, even in the face of a threatened veto, the Democrats are backing down on the pending legislation; and--as I've long argued--if Bush does veto any eventual bill, the Congress will sheepishly send him a bill without strings. Result: Bush will look "strong" and Congress will look like the dweebs they are.

I saw this coming. Why didn't they?

I'm not worried

because after mistakes like this, I'm sure software programs will never take over the art of writing.

(Or maybe I should be worried, in case they do.)

No way, Jose

There are few issues (well, maybe, not so few) where there's a black and a white. But here's one: a Senate bill that permits (doesn't even require) the Social Security Administration to bargain with drug makers over prices.

Who on Earth could vote against that? Well, apparently, enough Republicans to maintain a fillibuster. How mean-spirited, how obviously "bought and paid for" can a politician be?

Once again, Pat Buchanan is right on

I despised him during Watergate (he was an assistant to Nixon), but I gotta tell ya, his columns about the war in Iraq and the evil and corruption of the neocons are written as if by me, except that he's got loads of history, having lived much of it.

This essay about Wolfie is wonderful, all except the part about US cessation of foreign aid. I agree we should be more circumspect with such aid--we could save a couple of billions a year if we discontinued military aid to Israel, for example--but we need to continue to share our abundance with the underdeveloped nations.

But otherwise, I love watching the paleoconservatives (Buchanan's word) chew up the neoconservatives. If this keeps up, whoever gets the Democratic nomination for President will carry every state except those that seceded in 1860, and maybe even Florida. And the Congress will be so heavily Democratic that it may be able to right our ship of state.

Hurrah!

The district court judge in the AIPAC espionage trial has ruled that the evidence must be presented in public, not held secret as the US Attorney had argued. We may at last have coverage of the degree to which Israel has infiltrated our intelligence and government apparatus. At least we'll no longer be frozen out of the slightest inquiry into the conduct of our "ally." (This assumes that the US government proceeds to trial on this basis. I wouldn't be surprised at an interlocutory appeal to delay or reverse the trial court's ruling, or, for that matter, a dismissal of charges by the government on grounds of "national security.")

My favorite line of the judge's ruling: "Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen."