Ouch!

At the end of this video clip (you may have to watch a brief ad first) an impassioned woman parliamentarian pleads with the US not to withdraw and abandon Iraq to its chaos, since, she says, we caused it by drawing al Qaida to Iraq. Her appeal not only has logical consistency, it tugged at my conscience, too. I hate when that happens.

Come September?

We're told that September is a make-or-break deadline for Bush's surge, but I think it may come earlier. If, as scheduled, the Iraqi parliament takes its two-month summer recess starting in July without resolving the "benchmark" legislative logjams over proposed constitutional amendments, power sharing and an "oil law," even US Republicans will jump off Bush's ship of state.

Corporate takeover of everything?

This article describes an emerging phenomenon: privatization of public infrastructure. The reasons for it--providing ready cash for strapped local governments, reducing costs of upkeep and labor and thus lowering local taxes--seem so attractive to governments that the trend feels irrestible. The results, however, are appalling, as detailed in the article. Once all highways and bridges are owned by GM or Burger King or by blind trusts of investors (including, likely, foreigners) can our colleges be far behind? UCLA renamed FedEx U (or UPSU?), the Washington Huskies becoming the Starbucks, the Berkeley campus changed to Nike U?

Just so you know...

I'm not a liberal party-liner on all issues. For example, although I understand that science has by now definitively established that our planet is growing warmer and (to a lesser degree of certainty) that an increase of "greenhouse gasses" contributes to the warming, I remain unconvinced that "human causes," such as emission of pollutants, destruction of forests, asphalting of cities, are significant factors in the process. A documentary that draws these distinctions may be found here. No slap at Al Gore intended: I'd like him to enter the presidential race at all events.

However, nothwithstanding my hesitancy to buy the entire "man-made warming" argument, I still believe we should stop ravaging the Amazon forest, stop driving fossil-fuel vehicles, stop many of the practices we've devoloped that render our planet less habitable and cause global conflict. I do so, however, not (yet, anyway) out of a founded fear of the effects of these actions on the temperature of Earth, but rather because I like the Earth the way it was, with abundant wildlife, clean water, clean air, open space--all that good stuff. Indeed, I believe a major contributor to the degradation of the planet is our exploding populations in the "third world"--which will be exacerbated by the imminent shift of many nations of that world from "third" to "second" or even "first," as countries become more industrialized.

So, I fret for our planet, just like a good liberal. But not for all the "right" (or is it "left"?) reasons.

This is sovereignty?

From the Iraqslogger:

"In other news, Az-Zaman reported that yesterday’s parliamentary session had to be postponed due to the absence of the speaker and the vice-chairs.
According to the newspaper, the deputies who came to attend had to suffer from the lack of air conditioning in the parliament hall, because US troops refused to allow the tankers carrying fuel for the parliament’s generators from entering the Green Zone -– where the parliament is located."

Interpreting the violence

In today's post, Professor Juan Cole attempts to explain the bases for the various acts of violence in Iraq: a carbombing in a Shiite city, another in a Sunni area, a third in Fallujah, plus the "smaller" attacks throughout the nation. He's an expert on the region but is the first to concede that his explanations are speculative. But even so, the varying reasons for the various attacks demonstrates how out of control the situation is throughout Iraq, and why leaving our troops there to umpire this madness is nuts.

Scary numbers

For a long time Bush's approval ratings in national polls have hovered in the mid-30's. This is lately being mirrored in the Rasmussen polls, which does a daily sampling and usually tracks a bit higher, in terms of Bush's approval, because it asks people if they "somewhat approve" as well as whether they "strongly approve" and then the poll combines the two percentages for the overall approval rating.

Rasmussen also asks respondents if they "somewhat disapprove" and if they "strongly disapprove," and here's where the numbers are shocking. While the "somewhat" level has remained relatively constant at about 15%, the "strongly disapprove" has lately soared, as of yesterday (5/7) reaching 46%. Now that's freaky. Almost a majority who find themselves urgently opposed to the nation's leader. Doesn't this mean that an attack on Iran is inevitable?

Dennis on YouTube

Here's Kucinich's spot on YouTube, apparently to appeal to young, hip voters. And you wonder why he's going nowhere? (And who's that lady behind him, towering over him, mugging at the camera? It's apparently his new wife, Elizabeth. So, why not introduce her and then move her a foot or two to the right?) And his quick, geeky speech: For christsakes, is this the best candidate the Left can put up?

Which adage applies?

This story about American troops' concern about Iraqi's army wholesale arresting and imprisoning of innocent Iraqis. Is it, "Pot calling the kettle black," or "Do as I say, not as I do"? Or is it simply, "Shut the fuck up, gringos, and get out of my country!"

Finally, Bush and al Qaida agree on something

Both are opposed to the Democrats' plan to withdraw US forces from Iraq.

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.