Target: Iran

I hope to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Sy Hersh is just another victim of the Psy Ops, beating the war drums for a dust up with Iran -- just a surgical strike (not a ground war we would have a real chance at losing) so it can be sold to both the Pentagon and a numb American public.

They are pretty good at conducting information warfare on the the U.S. electorate.

I'm going to depart from the usual attempt to back up a theory with facts and analysis and just go with my gut.

My gut told me we were going to war with Iraq, and there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do about it the very minute they turned Florida from blue to red. In my mind, it was inevitable, right then and there.

Before I'd ever heard of a hanging chad, before Cheney said, "Go Cheney yourself" to anyone who wanted to know who was talking about what in his hyper-secret energy task force, before the PrezNitWit told his briefer, "Okay, you covered your ass" when warned about Bin Laden's threat, before Bin Laden made good on that threat, before "My Pet Goat," and before he stood atop that mass grave in Manhattan with a megaphone -- I knew we were going to invade Iraq. Some how, some way.

I don't have that same sense of doom about Iran. I just can't fathom the possibility.

Bush is a bully. Like all bullies, he's a coward. Iraq was doable, he was told it was easy. His dad and Clinton had softened up the country for a decade. Killing Saddam was personal. His psychotic Secretary of War told him, and us, "Weeks, not months."

With Iran, not so much. Not even in Cheney's wildest delusional red-faced rant could he convince anyone to suggest to the "Decider" that war with Iran would be anything less than catastrophe.

Launching a few cruise missiles and laser-guided smart bombs at border installations of the Revolutionary Guard -- the newest organization to bear the distinction of being labeled a terror group -- and probably a a couple of bunker busters aimed at some nuke facilities, that I can see. That's within the realm.

I'd even believe Bush wants to mount a more massive air assault that somehow he thinks it will not require ground forces. No doubt there is a contingent out there that believe Israel's strike against Syria was just a dry run for what superior air power can get away with.

And what about those bunker-buster proof nuclear facilities some moron is telling Bush actually do exist and can't be taken out short of a tactical nuke or one of those killer air-fuel contraptions? Well, that's what commandos are for, right? Slam Dunk!

And the bully in Bush is thinking that he can get away with this clean, no consequences. After all, Israel got away with taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor back in 1981. Besides, could the world hate him even more? Doubtful.

That is just the kind of stupidity and lack of foresight I unfortunately expect from these idiots. But anyone with an ounce of gray-matter will have to plan for the Straights of Hormuz to become impassable unless we mount a major assault on Iranian military facilities near there. Why even bother with the region if we can't get the oil out? So we'll have to be prepared to hold some ground in that area. Not to mention we should expect a massive uprising in Iraq if and when we attack Iran, bogging down our already war-weary troops.

I could go on, but I find it hard not to see this scenario escalating out of control -- and Armageddon is not something my brain is equipped to contemplate. It's the same feeling I used to get when some numskull would try and explain how the U.S. could "win" a "limited" nuclear war with the old U.S.S.R. Sheer madness.

I could see Iraq, and even said it aloud that night our hearts sunk and we knew President Al Gore would not be inaugurated. I didn't like it, but I could envision it. I just don't buy the hype about Iran.

It can't happen.

Please tell me, it can't happen.

Please.

BY THE WAY, come next November, if by some pact with Shaitan it looks like Rudy Giuliani might somehow be able to steal another election for the neocon cabal, tell anyone you know near Teheran to get the hell out. "President" Giuliani means war with Iran as certainly as anything my gut tells me.

Matt Get's Me Thinking

Was all the saber rattling from the Cheney/Crazy camp all just that much hocus pocus to keep us distracted and relieving some of the pressure on congressional Republicans temped to abandon the PrezNitWit's disastrous Iraq escalation gambit?

Matt's blurb about the neocon's next "next target: Iran policy," makes me think it was all more puppet theater.

Unfortunately, nobody bothered to tell the folks in Teheran that it was all just a game.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army "terrorist organizations," in apparent response to a Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

A game with very serious consequences.

Public Financing, The Right Thing To Do.

I'd suggest everyone read Marc Ambinder's piece about Why Did Edwards Do This, Pros and Cons.

Also, MarKOS looked at this from a couple angles, thinking it was stupid at first, but coming around after studying it for a bit. He's nervous for our boy, but thinking it through.

MyDD's Jonathan Singer has his own thoughts.


But mostly, you should read the following:
==================================================

To: Staff & Supporters
From: David Bonior
Date: September 28, 2007
Re: Public Financing

Yesterday, Sen. Edwards announced his decision to seek public financing for the primary election. John himself thought long and hard about this decision and made it with the firmest of convictions. He believes this is the right thing to do – not only for this campaign, but for the American political process. The leadership of this campaign shares his convictions and endorses his decision.

I want to assure you that we are doing this from a position of strength. I thought it would be useful to cut through all the media speculation and outline as clearly and concisely as possible exactly why we made this decision and why we believe it is a smart move strategically for this campaign.

Why did we do this?

Quite simply, we did it because it is the right thing to do.

As you have heard John say many times over the years, elections should be about ideas – not money. And the focus on money in this election is frankly obscene. Now, more than ever, candidates for president should be judged on their vision, character and personal integrity – not how much money they can throw at voters in the form of advertising and fancy Washington consultants. And, in one of the most important elections in our lifetime, candidates for president should be spending these last few months leading up to the primary election focused on meeting with voters and discussing their ideas and their vision to change America – not caught up in a fundraising contest.

The American people agree – and they want things to change. They want a president who is accountable to them, not to big corporate interests and Washington lobbyists.


Why are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama not doing this?

It’s a good question, and one that the American people deserve to have answered. John believes Senators Clinton and Obama, who often talk about their support for public financing, should join him and prove that they mean what they say.

When John challenged Senator Clinton to join him in ending the practice of candidates accepting money from Washington lobbyists, she said that wasn’t the answer – she said the answer was public financing. And just last week, Senator Clinton said that she believes public financing is the way to fix the broken system of corruption and buying influence in Washington and should be the law of the land. Well, we already have a public financing system for presidential campaigns. With this action, John is putting his money where his mouth is. The question is: When are the other candidates going to do the same?


Why now?

It became clear if we didn’t lead the way by example, no one else would. There is too much at stake in this election for the status quo to prevail.

Candidates can speak to the virtues of public financing – in theory – until they are blue in the face. But until someone is willing to step up and lead the way toward changing the way the system works, you can rest assured that things will remain the same.

John has never taken a dime of campaign money from PACs or Washington lobbyists – in this campaign or in any other campaign. This gives him unmatched credibility in calling on all Democratic presidential candidates and the Party itself to do the same. He supports public financing of campaigns as a necessary step to reduce the influence of money in policy making, so participating in the public financing system is simply the right thing to do.


What does it all mean?

Understand this: This in no way handicaps us in the early primary states, and it does not put us at a disadvantage going into the general election. If anything, this decision will help us win the nomination in two ways: our strength with the grassroots means we will get a boost not available to candidates who depend on large contributions; and we will be running the campaign in a way that reinforces John’s central campaign message.

Under the public financing system for presidential primaries, once a candidate demonstrates broad-based public support by raising $5,000 of matchable contributions in each of at least 20 states, the government will match up to $250 of an individual’s contributions to that candidate. In return, the candidate agrees to limit campaign spending for all primary elections, limit campaign spending in each state and limit spending from personal funds to $50,000.

The system of public financing was put in place after Watergate as a way to take power away from the big money players and give it back to candidates who have strength in grassroots. That’s what John’s campaign is all about. We have raised millions of dollars – more than any other Democratic campaign at this point in any previous election. As I said, we have raised this record amount without taking any money from PACs or Washington lobbyists. Just as important, 90 percent of our contributions have come from donors giving $100 or less. This is the type of real grassroots strength the public financing system was meant to encourage and reward. By focusing on small contributions and the grassroots campaigning, the boost we will get from being able to receive federal matching funds puts us in a better financial position for the nomination campaign.


Does this change our strategy?

No. We are on track and moving forward with our four-state strategy, focused on winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. We’ve said all along that we needed to raise $40 million before Iowa. With public matching funds we are very likely to exceed that goal.

But the key thing to remember is no candidate can buy votes in these states. You have to earn them with bold vision and real ideas. Substance counts a lot more than money in the places where voters can look you in the eye, judge you face to face, and question you in detail about your plans for the country. And when it comes to substance, there’s no contest. John has led this race on ideas – from universal health care, to the war in Iraq, to education, global warming and helping American workers. With this decision, he extends his leadership into the critical area of restoring the essence of our democratic government.

John’s leadership on issues is precisely why our momentum continues to grow in the states where he has been campaigning. And this growing momentum will carry us through to the general election.


What about the state spending limits?

As a campaign that has always had a plan to win with less money than its rival campaigns, we were already working within a budget that makes it possible to achieve our goals and easily stay within the spending limits. We have studied the numbers extensively, and we are nowhere near exceeding these limits. The FEC rules are much more generous than many seem to understand. For example, staff salaries and staff travel do not count against the state limits – which is perfect for a grassroots campaign. Half of all expenditures in a state don’t count against the state limit because they are treated as exempt fundraising costs. And even the total cost of television and radio advertising does not count against the limits for individual states. In short, the spending limits are actually quite manageable, if you’re smart about how you spend the money you are allowed to spend.


What happens between February 5th and the convention?

Rest assured, we are prepared for this campaign to go the distance. We have a comprehensive campaign spending plan is smart and targeted and based on a strategy to ensure that we not only have enough money on hand to clinch the nomination but also have a reserve to take the fight to the Republican nominee in the spring. To give you just one example, part of this campaign is about restoring the power of the Democratic Party. Since the party can spend money independently of its Presidential nominee, a stronger Democratic Party will be in a position to meet the challenge of waging an effective campaign on behalf of John Edwards and every other Democratic candidate.


What happens in the general election?

Make no mistake – we are taking a principled stand on this issue. John Edwards believes the best thing and the right thing would be to operate the campaign under the public financing rules for the entire presidential campaign. But he also understands that almost none of the Republican candidates share this commitment. Accordingly, we will continue to raise money for the general election so we will be ready to compete against the Republican nominee.

Once we win the nomination, John will challenge the Republican nominee to join him in accepting public financing. Quite frankly, it’s a fight we’d welcome. If they refuse, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it and make the decision at that time about whether to accept public financing. But you can be sure that we will run a campaign that is aggressive, adequately funded, and successful.

I look forward to that day. And I know that this decision is the right way to get us there.

Tricks Are For Kids

ReThug "Dirty Trick" to gift 20 of California's electoral votes to the GOP nominee looks all but dead.

If this were done nationwide, I'd be all for apportioned votes in the Electoral College instead of the winner take all system in play everywhere but Maine and Nebraska. And there was no doubt that if California split up their vote, other States would soon follow suit -- but doubtfully in time for the '08 election. Which, after all, was the whole Rovellian point.

Good riddance to cynical politics.

You Know What's Freaky?

John Edwards might actually win this thing. Especially if the Mainstream Media keeps singing his praises like this. They're tired of the Clinton inevitability (non)story, and aren't moved by Obama. Go Johnny Go!

MSNBC Democratic Debate in New Hampshire – Reviews Are In

Salon.com’s Joan Walsh Said Edwards “Made a Strong Impression” and Named Edwards the Winner of the Debate.
Chris Matthews posed the question, “Who won tonight’s debate?” and Salon.com’s Walsh responded, “I think Edwards made a strong impression and I think he pushed her [Senator Hillary Clinton] back, he brushed her back a little bit. So I would go with Edwards.” [MSNBC, 9/26/07]

NBC's Chuck Todd: “Edwards Stood Out to Me,” “It Was One of His Better Performances.”
“Of the candidates chasing Clinton, Edwards stood out to me. He seemed to realize he needed to prove contrast with Clinton on just about every answer he gave. It was one of his better performances. The guy is getting his William Jennings Bryan schtick down pat.” [“Some Quick Post-game Take-aways,” 9/26/07]

Newsweek’s Howard Fineman: “Edwards Has Emerged So Far the Most Forceful Challenger To” Clinton. “From where I sit, Edwards has emerged so far the most forceful challenger to her (other than Tim Russert).” [Fineman Debate Liveblog, 9/26/07]

Marc Ambinder: “Victory for JRE,” “Edwards Was Straightforward, Confident, Clear.”
Edwards was Edwards on Centrum Silver: straightforward, confident, clear, knowledgeable, thoroughly encased in his own frame. Ying to the yang of both Obama and Clinton; If you’re new to nomination politics, then you’d think Edwards – and not Obama – was Hillary Clinton’s main foil. The war. Social Security. Health care. Campaign ethics. Clinton didn't take the punch, but she did move to dodge them, which is a victory for JRE. [“Edwards, Clinton Spats Sound Out,” 9/26/07]

ABC’s Rick Klein: “Edwards May Have Done Himself the Most Good Tonight.”
“11:02 pm: Quick thoughts -- Hillary Clinton benefits whenever no one else distinguishes himself, and Edwards may have done himself the most good tonight. Obama squeezed in one good line, but I don't see that as enough for the evening.” [ABC News LIvebloging 9/26/07]

NBC's Domenico Montanaro: Edwards Was “More Presidential” and “Looked Poised.”
“Edwards looked poised in following up on his answer. Not angry or frustrated as we've seen him before, more presidential.” [“Edwards Pointing Out Differences,” 9/26/07]

[more] Newsweek’s Howard Fineman: “Edwards Then Hits It out of the Park,” “Wins the Round” on Social Security.
“Edwards then hits it out of the park, talking about a ‘protective zone’ of income between $97,500 and $200,000. His proposals sounded carefully thought through—whether you agree with it or not—and was much more specific than what Obama had to say on the topic. Hillary is talking too much about what her ‘husband’ did; she isn't being specific enough—Edwards wins the round.” [Fineman's liveblog 9/26/07]


NBC’s Athena Jones: Edwards Gets a “Whoop” for Promising to End Health Insurance for Congress if No Universal Health Care.
“A whoop here for Edwards' promise to cut off health insurance coverage for members of Congress if they don't pass health care by July 2009.”[“Edwards health care reaction,” 9/26/07]

ABC’s Rick Klein: “Edwards Is the First to Draw Real Distinctions About” on Iraq.
“9:07 pm: I'm ready to give the Big Three credit for intellectual honesty by saying troops will have to remain in Iraq for some years. But John Edwards is the first to draw real distinctions about what to do going forward. This won't be the last time he finds a way to set himself apart.” [Political Radar 9/26/07]

NBC's Domenico Montanaro: “Edwards Is Pressing the Distinctions with Clinton.”
“Edwards is pressing the distinctions with Clinton. He said they had learned different things on their war vote and said this Iran vote was indicative of that. Will it matter? Edwards clearly wants to put her on the defensive. So far, he's the only one.” [“Edwards Pressing,” 9/26/07]

NBC’s Chuck Todd: “Edwards Seems on His Game Tonight.”
“It's VERY early but Edwards seems on his game tonight.” [“Edwards Came To Debate With A Plan?” 9/26/07]

ABC’s Rick Klein: “I'd Give Edwards a Slight Edge in Making His Points and Making Them Solidly.”
10:05 pm: “But I'd give Edwards a slight edge in making his points and making them solidly.” [Political Radar 9/26/07]

ABC’s Rick Klein: Edwards “Distinguished” Himself.
“9:33 pm: One-fourth of the way in, Edwards and Richardson have distinguished themselves. If people were looking for a new, more aggressive Obama tonight, it doesn't look like they're going to get it.” [Political Radar 9/26/07]

Chris Matthew Said Edwards Came with a “Clear Strategy” to Differentiate Himself from Hillary Clinton.
Chris Matthews said, “Senator John Edwards was one who came out with a clear strategy to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton on the issue of combat troops in Iraq and U.S. military action potentially against Iran.” [MSNBC, 9/26/07]

GREAT BLOG REACTIONS TOO:

Even the Right Wingers at Powerline knew a winner when they saw it ... "If anyone made headway tonight, it was Edwards."

The Carpetbagger watched the debate so you didn't have to. ... "I think he [Edwards] probably helped himself the most last night."

Edwards won the Daily Kos Post Debate Strawpoll right after the debate too with 32%, Obama 19%, Hillary 13%.

Happy Birthday Uncle Sam

Not "The" Uncle Sam . . . Mine (well, sorta).

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.
Samuel Adams

He had a thing or two to say about the Orwellian double-speak the current conservative regime is prone to...

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Samuel Adams

How about some advice to the (9/11) bedwetting (9/11) fearmongers (9/11) like (9/11) Rudy (9/11) Giuliani (9/11) and their (9/11) war-profiteering (9/11) enablers (9/11) ....

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams

And he answers the question of why anyone would care about John Edwards' hair, Hillary's laugh, Barack's ears (let alone middle name), Dennis "Ultra-K's" height, or even Fred Thompson's choice of footwear or Rudy's commitment to the vow, "until death do us part."

Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason.
Samuel Adams

Beige

I think the ceiling would look nice if we painted it Beige. . .

There was something about Bobo's column yesterday that made me think to myself . . . I wonder what else there is to read this morning?

I was tempted to switch to Boring Bob's column about the GOP being anti-black, but thought there couldn't be any earth shattering news there. Tell me something I don't know, Bob. (Maybe I was wrong, who knew?)

I ended up not bothering to finish either piece. One of the main reasons I never, ever considered paying for Times Select, oft times the opinion page there isn't worth my time let alone my money. Besides, I got burned by Slate a couple of years ago, paid them for the privilege of reading their content and just a few months later they pulled their pay-wall too.

(Yes, although I didn't spend near as much as you did, all you folks that bought the iPhone early and are discovering your new Halo3 disks are scratched -- I feel your pain.)

I did find it interesting that the most quoted newspaper in America, often vilified by both the right and left, has a milquetoast rightie analyzing democrats at the same time an alleged liberal wrote a critique of the "Republic" Party. (Maybe if we use the truncation, they'll stop calling it the "Democrat" party.")

I guess I would have been more inclined to read them all the way through if they weren't so predictable, so . . . dog bites man. That, and David Brooks really is just plain stupid.

So what of today's foray into the Times' OpEd pages, now priced for mass consumption? Well, there's Tom Friedman getting all gooshy over WalMart and China discovering the economic benefits of going green, taking direct shots at George Bush's dismal environmental policies with this searing indictment -- not:

"Too bad..." "If Wal-Mart can lead, and California can lead, why can’t America?"

Wow, way to take the gloves of Tommy. Nothing hurts an oil tycoon, even a failed one, more than outing him for being a wasteful polluter. Youch!

You could probably benefit from reading a real smack-down artist like MoDo today. That is if you can get past her swooning over Saint Ronny RayGun, the only "real man" that still makes her wet all under, even in his permanently prone position. But boy she hates her some "W," and that "I'm-a-dinner-jacket" guy from Iran, or anyone who doesn't meet her macho-man standards -- including Hillary or Teh Gays, or Rudy when he's beating up on Hillary.

Hmmm, on second thought, I wonder what they're writing about in Slate today? I'd hate to sound like George Will and devote this post exclusively to bashing the NY Times, (yawn) . . .

Oh Gawd. Don't bother unless you enjoy John Dickerson being just too cute.

Hillary Clinton will take the debate stage in New Hampshire on Wednesday night with the other Democratic presidential candidates—Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

::sigh::

It's a vapid piece about how the other Democratic contenders can stop the Hillary Juggernaut. Dickerson proves the old maxim: Those that cannot run a political campaign, teach others how to screw them up. For an even better example of folks that are paid to prove they don't know anything about politics, take a look a WaPo's Michael Gershon's exposé on the real issue of the presidential campaign: Whether Clinton is religious enough. (ugh!)

Enough with the concern trolls, hit pieces masquerading as analysis, and unsolicited advice not to speak out too loudly from beltway pundits. Leave that stuff to the amateurs in Blogtopia, or the White House. We (and Bush, I guess) have built-in excuses for sounding like we don't know any better.

The Rube In The Room

Fantastic Discussion over at "The Lake" with Patrick Graham, author of the outstanding Maclean's article, “How George Bush Became the New Saddam” I discussed the other day here.

TRex shared this conversation he had while arranging this live chat with Mr. Graham:

I spoke to Graham on the phone on Sunday and he said that Iraq calls to mind that old gambler’s adage, “If you can’t spot the rube in a poker game, then the rube is you.” US forces, both military and political, are walking a dangerous tightrope whereby they are now cozying up to our old enemies the Saddam loyalists in an effort to fight a beast of our own creation, al-Queda in Iraq.

Here's what I asked, and his response.

Patrick Graham @ 112

Mark Adams @ 63

Mr. Graham, I echo everyone's sentiment at the honor of having you here and I'm in awe of the fantastic work you've done. (Also, thanks TRex for getting him here and for pointing me to the his Harper's article, Beyond Fallujah)

I just saw across the wire that "Sunni Arab extremists have begun a systematic campaign to assassinate police chiefs, police officers, othe Interior Ministry officials and tribal leaders throughout Iraq, staging at least 10 attacks in 48 hours."

I was wondering if you had any reaction to that development, if you give it any credence, or would this be at odds with what you observed. Are we seeing the beginning of a new chapter in the "Anbar Awakening," a newly emboldened and sophisticated Sunni strategy, or is this just more of the same?

I hadn't seen this. I have to say that the Sunni world is so complicated right now, so riven and intense that summing it up by 'extremists' is a little too processed. I always found that reporting in Iraq is just sorting through conspiracy theories--the most outrageous ones are often true. It's so hard if you're not there on the ground listening to what Iraqis think because they know best. But the place is so so so confusing. That's what worries me about the Anbar Awakening/Surge. The US ARmy says they are allies but really they will begin creating a reality for their 'guests'...if you dont know who the rube in the room is...A friend of mine used to say under Saddam that the Iraqis didn't create press releases, you lived them. That still holds true.

There are much, much better questions and answers to be found there in the comments. Especially insightful are Graham's perspectives on the difference between his own "loyalties" when covering things with an American escort and when he was on the other side getting shot by them.

The one thing I took out of the discussion that you don't get from his articles is how smart the Iraqis are about their own country and how dumb we seem to them. We are the rubes and we're getting played.

But what do you expect from a country that can elect George W. Bush. Twice. One that has a Congress that can allow themselves to be bluffed by this four-flushing PrezNitWit time and time again and a media that doesn't even know they are mere chips in the game.

Gross Analogies

If the news division is a "pimple on the elephant’s behind" of the major entertainment conglomerates that own the TeeVee networks, G.E. and Microsquish (NBC, MSNBC), Viacom (CBS, Comedy Central's Daily Show), Disney (ABC), NewsCorp (Fox News); then what are bloggers?

Maybe we're the puss, more specifically the white corpuscles, part of the body politic's immune system fighting the infection. Of course, that makes Right Wing Blogistan the infection itself, the errant ingrown hair or speck of dirt clogging the pore.

Individual bile spewing wingnut bloggers like L.G.F.'s Charles Johnson, Instalinker, the Powerline boys, Michelle Malkin, Pam Atlas, Drudge, the Freepers; they must be the bacteria. The smaller but notable ones like the duToits and Dean Esmay don't even rate single cell status, but are mere viruses, bacteriophages that infect a bacterium.

Don't ask me why I think of such things, and I won't ask you to think on them too much.

Fill In Your Own Metaphor

Not satisfied with trashing the right to habeas corpus enshrined in the Magna Carta, it's now up for sale.

Interestingly enough, this copy is now owned by Ross Perot -- which begs for yet another analogy. Maybe this one, courtesy of Avedon:

Congratulations to the GOP for being able to muster up six whole U.S. senators to vote in favor of Magna Carta this week. There's your campaign slogan -- The Republican Party -- Proudly Plantagenet Since 1215.

Gratuitous quote from the incredulous Director of Sotheby's via the Times:

“All they told me was: ‘David Redden [the auctioneer] is selling this really important document, the most important document of all. Can you give up this room for us?’ ” he recalled. “And I’m like, ‘Sure, but what is he selling, the Magna Carta?’ ”

Uh ... yep.

(Hat Tip HuffPost)

War Crimes by the Numbers

by shep

“Our objective is to protect innocent life. And we've got a lot of brave souls in the theater working hard to protect innocent life.”
--George Bush, on the recent killing of Iraqis by Blackwater USA guards

"The moral vacuum of Iraq -- where Blackwater USA guards can kill 10 or 20 Iraqis on a whim and never be prosecuted for it -- did not happen by accident. It is yet another example of something the Bush administration could have prevented with the right measures but simply did not bother about as it rushed into invading and occupying another country. . . .”
-- Michael Hirsh

The most recent survey of Iraqi deaths as a result of the US invasion and occupation puts the civilian death toll at
1.2 million, with a margin of error of 2.4%. Certainly, all of those deaths were not the direct result of US military action. So, let’s lop off the margin of error, round to the 7th decimal and, to be scrupulously fair, cut the number in half. That’s about 500, 000 innocent, dead Iraqis. Next, let’s compare that to the deaths of American soldiers which stands (until the next Pentagon announcement) at 3,792.

So that’s approximately 130 innocent Iraqis killed for every US soldier. Got that? While “[o]ur objective is to protect innocent life,” as we liberate and teach them western democratic values, our soldiers are killing 130 innocent Iraqis for every soldier killed by any means, including accidents and friendly fire. But let's set that number aside for a minute and see what the Geneva Conventions say about protecting civilians:

Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations…

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited…
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
…(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
[Emphasis mine]

There’s more, about protecting civilian infrastructure and “[p]recautions” to be taken: In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.”

So what should the ratio of non-combatant to combatant deaths look like if “constant care” is taken? World War I (even before Geneva) might make a good baseline. We had our machine guns, torpedoes and aerial bombardment, the major modern tools for indiscriminant killing in war (but without all that “precision” targeting capability we’re so smug and self-satisfied about today). It was also before we developed the physical and moral capacity to firebomb and nuke civilian cities and carpet bomb countries.

WWI gave us roughly 8 million civilian deaths by combat forces and 8.3 million combatant deaths; a little better than a one-to-one ratio. Go back a century to the Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815), when you had to line up your rifle sight on your target or run them through with a sword – non-combatant to combatant ratio one-to-five – and you can see the beginning of modern “progress”.

It always seemed axiomatic to me that in wars waged by "civilized" nations, more soldiers should die than civilians. Even WWII, which killed over 70 million, still had a non-combatant to combatant death ratio of roughly one-to-one, once death by disease and famine is eliminated. And even though the United States dropped more bombs on tiny Vietnam than were dropped by all of the participants in all of World War Two, the ratio was still (at worst) only 4-to-one.

In Iraq, we’ve “advanced” that ratio to at least 130-to-one (why this isn’t “news” is yet another damning indictment of what American journalism has become). You can say you believe that the US military is taking “constant care…to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects,” but the numbers prove that you are simply deluding yourself. More than any pervious war, by official policy, our forces are using massive firepower, they’re often doing it in a dense urban environment and they aren’t just shooting back at who’s shooting at them. Simply put, providing "general protection" and exercising “constant care” can’t produce a ratio like that; they are the product of purposefully chosen rules of engagement that risk civilian death to protect soldiers – and contractors.

The truth is, in the moral and political calculus among many US politicians and war proponents (and perhaps many non-supporters as well), one American life is simply worth more than 130 innocent Iraqi men, woman and children. Republicans indemnify contractors from prosecution and change the definition of war crimes for a reason. It’s been more than four years and no one can advocate continuing this particular war policy without also accepting the outrageous outcome.

The fact that this is happening with no morally defensible justification for our invasion and occupation of Iraq in the first place, and no likely objective for the current policy that can be offered by war proponents or their supporters, makes it more than betrayal of the public trust or even a simple war crime. It is a betrayal of our humanity and our honor. It is a betrayal of everything that matters: God, country and ourselves.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

There's Still Hope For Michigan

Not to gloat or anything, but after the Cav's beat down the Pistons earlier this year, the Tigers' season fading into obscurity as the Indians remain a sure thing for the playoffs, and the so called "football team" in Ann Arbor never to live down being humiliated by some junior high school walk ons in their opener while the Buckeyes remain the top ranked team of the Big Ten -- it's nice to see they've kept their sense of perspective up north.

On second thought....

Constitutionalism 1, Caesarism 0

Ron Paul beats Rudy Giuliani in the Michigan straw-poll.

Maybe you folks should start filtering your water, or maybe boiling it before you drink it. There's something very wacky going on up there.

Pop Quiz: Who's The Neocon Candidate? UPDATED

Who is the only official GOP presidential candidate who is also a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute?

Which daughter of a senior fellow at AEI works for that same candidate?

What other senior fellow at AEI is waiting in the wings to take over should this official candidate falter?

(And no, I'm not talking about Alan Keyes. He's only a former resident scholar at AEI and nuts to boot. Too nuts even for these whackjobs.)

Gingrich can run intellectual circles around the entire GOP field, and is staying out of the race at this point only to see how Fred Thompson fairs. My opinion is that he's the only Republican that can hold his own in a debate against any of the Democrats -- including Kucinich. He's more of a wonk than Clinton ever was, either Clinton.

Gingrich has since remained involved in national politics and public policy debate. He is a senior fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, focusing on health care (he has founded the Center for Health Transformation), information technology, the military, and politics. Gingrich is also a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the conservation think tank Hoover Institute, focusing on U.S. politics, world history, national security policy, environmental policy issues.

Please Unreaddy Freddy, get your act together. America's hope for a peaceful and prosperous future depend on you keeping your fellow card carrying neocon out of this race -- so the Democrats can beat your party to a pulp next November.

---

Quickie Update ... It's worse than I thought.

Some Light Reading

Thanks to TRex, I knew the gist of the Maclean's article, a frank, impartial, eye-opening perspective on the Iraq situation, and I had a link to the six page analysis.

It's the weekend, and I made some time to read it all the way through. Fascinating to say the least. From this point on, if you have not read Patrick Graham's in depth article from inside Anbar, I don't want to hear your opinions of the Surge, tribal negotiations, Sunni vs. Shiah vs. so-called al Qaeda in Iraq, Fallujah, Ramadi, the "brilliance" of Gen. Petraeus, the corruption, the militias, the fictional government, the real power, what's true, what's propaganda and anything to do with the geopolitical pressures of the region. Go read it.

You get the feeling that the neocon's had this grand idea, that once we were fully in control of the country we'd be in a position to stage the ultimate battle for supremacy in the Middle East by bombing Iran into oblivion while Israel covered our back, taking out Syria. I think they still believe this grand scheme is on track. Unfortunately, I doubt they counted on the magnitude of the dysfunctional disaster they created:

"Iraq was a disaster under Saddam, but it has turned into Nigeria."

That's the problem with most Utopians, be they those damn dirty hippies of my youth wearing all those flowers in their hair, or the Authoritarians of today. The dream clouds reason and obscures reality. Yet even when faced with the reality they created, daring to spark Armageddon itself, they cling to their vision with what can only be termed a religious fervor.

Neocons dream big. The nightmare they've created is monumental, both there and the wreck of things they're responsible for here. The Fertile Crescent is burning while we go bankrupt. You and I will never, ever benefit from this. Not in the least. But these people are banking on some kind of success, as are these folks. In one way or another, these well connected, interlocked movers and shakers shape our world and decide our fate.

Why else would we continue "investing" treasure and blood into this cesspool, propping up a government that is sick of our methods and a people that want us gone. Graham adds additional thoughts on this:

The great irony of Maliki is that under other circumstances a government like his—one that is: a) accused by the U.S. of close relations with an American enemy (Iran); b) running a strategically important country (like Iraq); c) involved in the oppression and murder of one of its minorities (the Sunnis), which is closely linked to an important U.S. ally (the Saudis)—is an administration that many Americans would want to eliminate. There is a good chance that if the U.S. Army wasn’t there already, Washington would have invaded to get rid of Maliki. But having toppled Saddam, lost thousands of soldiers, and so far spent some US$500 billion on combat operations alone, the U.S. is now in too weak of a position to do much.

However, the article is ultimately fair. A refreshing change of pace from most American media. The Iranian infiltration into Iraq is real and posses a true challenge, if not a threat to the occupation.

Just as one is accused of being a pro-Saddam, Baathist sympathizer if you crit­icize the government in Baghdad, so one is accused of being a neo-con if you point out how deeply in­­volved Iran has become in Iraq. The role Iran plays is as complex and shady as can be expected in a situation that is so murky on so many different levels, from neighbourhood turf wars to world oil strate­­gies and a proxy war with America. But the U.S. government is right to be concerned, al­though it’s not clear they can do much except protest, threaten loudly, and fight a secret, dirty war.

Iraq, Iran’s neighbour to the west, is Tehran’s self-declared security zone. Iran has already been attacked once from Iraq—by a then-American ally, Saddam—and won’t let it happen again. Nor do the Iranians want, as the West does, a secular Iraqi government that could destabilize their own theocracy. For them, Iraq is a survival issue. U.S.-led invasions have conquered not only Iraq but Afghanistan on Iran’s eastern flank. The U.S. Navy is floating off Iranian shores. Every few weeks, Washington debates whether to bomb Iran. How could Iran afford not to be involved in Iraq? Following the American example, the Iranians have learned that it’s bet­­­ter to fight the U.S. on the streets of Baghdad than the streets of Tehran.

And al Qaeda in Iraq is also very real, despite the fact that it didn't exist until we got there. In fact, it's a natural offspring of the typical modus operandi of the modern conservatives: create a strawman "enemy" to justify your belligerent ways, then anyone who challenges your methods must be part of that evil entity. They do it to liberals every day. It's one thing to label centrist, moderate, Hillary Clinton, (who's conservative by netroots standards) as some kind of Marxist. Now they did it to people who don't have any compunction using automatic weapons.

America’s other main enemy is al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda what a cheap watch is to a Swiss timepiece—effective, easily reproduced, and disposable. Al-Qaeda did not exist in Iraq before the invasion, but today it, along with Iran, are the two strongest arguments the U.S. makes for “staying the course.” Al-Qaeda in Iraq is essentially a religious criminal gang that kills anyone who threatens its power or differs from its Salafist views on establishing a perverse form of an Islamic state. Its death squads and enormously destructive truck bombs have killed thousands of Shias, but Sunnis, too, have suffered al-Qaeda’s violent nihilism. Car bombs, assassinations and “religious punishments,” including decapitations and cutting off the fingers of smokers, have put Sunni Iraq under a Mordor-like shadow of terror and justified collective punishment from the Shias. In his testimony to Congress, Gen. Petraeus pointed out the lethal threat of al-Qaeda. But this should come as no surprise to an American general—because the U.S. Army helped create al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The American role in the promotion of the terrorist organization is not some mad conspiracy theory, but a well-documented attempt by the U.S. government to demonize the insurgency and make it appear to be the central front in the war on terror. This was as great a mistake as disbanding the Iraqi army, which the U.S. did in May 2003, or perhaps even greater, since it led to the sectarian downward spiral that has destroyed the country.

When the insurgency started in the summer of 2003, it was made up primarily of the same class of alienated Sunnis who are now part of the tribal Anbar Awakening. The insurgents I spent time with in 2003 and 2004 were, in essence, nationalists who didn’t like the U.S. Army driving around their villages, kicking down their doors and shooting their cousins at checkpoints. They were also deeply suspicious of American plans for democracy, because they feared it would lead to Iran taking over the government. Some hated Saddam, some liked him, but Saddam wasn’t the issue. For want of a better term, they are the equivalent of rednecks who believe in God, their country, and the right to bear arms.

Great. Just great.

No wonder the "Dubya Youth," clinging desperately to their crackpot schemes finally got in bed with the Sunnis in Anbar. They're both nationalist authoritarians with more ideological kinship to Mussolini than Jefferson.

Delusional Orwellians.

"But rather than come up with an intelligent counter-insurgency policy, reach out to traditional tribal social structures and try to understand why American soldiers were getting killed, U.S. military leaders did what Americans have gotten very good at doing in the last few years. They made up a story, which they repeated on the news for U.S. domestic consumption—and then started to believe themselves."

It's almost as if the Americans had to create a sinister terrorists organization out of whole cloth to prove their flypaper theory. The propaganda used to demonize the indigenous resistance -- something any occupier can expect -- became a self-fulfilling prophecy, attracting and radicalizing every nutjob and fundamentalist religious fanatic within a week's ride of Fallujah. The more we blamed al Qaeda for everything, whether they deserved it or not, the more successful (and thus attractive) they looked because they stood up to the imperialist infidel.

Local Iraqis were drawn to al-Qaeda’s Salafist fundamentalism because it freed them from the conservative, tribal oppression that governed their lives. Al-Qaeda was able to take over some of the insurgency—and still controls chunks of Iraq—precisely because it was revolutionary, not conservative, and offered poor people in An­­bar a chance to kick some rich sheik and Baathist ass, as well as kill Americans and Shias. In part, al-Qaeda was part of a class war fuelled by profound anger and so­­cial resentment.

When conservatives here accuse liberals of spouting the same rhetoric as Osama bin Laden when we fight for a more populist, egalitarian society (as they used to compare us to Castro), it's no coincidence. Bin Laden purposely directs his movement towards the poor and disadvantaged, appealing to a basic sense of unfairness anywhere wealth and power is concentrated in a few select cliques with no regard for merit. After all, there is little ideological separation between a Saudi prince and most AEI fellows. However, American liberals usually draw the line at maiming, beheading and mass murder to advance our cause.

We also have a much better attitude towards women's rights than the Taliban types. Plus, we are more likely to keep an old tie-die t-shirt in our dresser than a firearm.

Graham has disabused me of the myth that Iraq is a fictional nation-state, an artificial colonial creation doomed to disintegrate. Although it was indeed cobbled together from disparate tribes, a mere province of other people's empires as I alluded to below, there does seem to be a profound sense of national identity among the Iraqi people. Ultimately a nation is more than lines on a map, but an idea, a shared belief system. Except for the Kurds who's idea of autonomy is so entrenched they don't even bother with the fight for dominence destroying the rest of the country, Graham's observation are hopeful in that they see themselves as Iraqis first with religious and ethnic considerations fueling discord and rivalries -- on a violent scale to be sure -- but never to the point where they envision themselves a divided country or a mere satellite of Shia Iran, Sunni Saudia Arabia, or a tool of America.

Small wonder that American G.I.'s have been targeted by both factions, and the apparent switching sides from Maliki's Shia government to the former Baathist Sunnis in Anbar has seen no appreciable change in our casualty numbers. It also explains why so many, including myself, were unaware of the degree of animosity under the surface and held in check by Saddam's regime. Even those of us (unlike, apparently, President Bush) who knew of the Shia's in the South and Kurds in the North as the primary beneficiaries of our No Fly Zones, we accepted the Iraqi people's own perception that they were all simply Iraqis, not part of a Shia Caliphate or Sunni international confederation.

Why this gives me hope is that it exposes the lie that when we stop refereeing this civil war, nothing can bring these people together. Bush was wrong about there being no Mandelas there, (or that the real one was dead). The neocons never wanted a Mandela, a true popular figure who could unite the people, inspire them to resolved their internal problems and focus on becoming independent and standing up to the real outside force that is trying to control their country -- which is not Teheran or Riyahd, but Washington D.C.

The neocons wanted a strongman, another Noriega, Marcos or Diem, controllable, beholden to us, and ultimately disposable. They thought they had one in Chalabi, but were thrown a Curveball as we all know. Without a doubt, a truly popular leader is more problematic for us than the civil war, which keeps them distracted and fractured.

Someone like Muqtada al Sadr could become their Mandela if he can make appropriate overtures to the Sunnis, distancing himself enough from Iranian influence to become palpable. (Granted, it may be much too late for him to make peace with the Sunnis his people have been "cleansing" out of Baghdad. He might have shot his wad in 2004 when it comes to a popular uprising.) Surely one of the first things he or someone like him want to do, something appealing to the culture's sense of revenge, is to settle the score with America.

A united Iraq would certainly try to punish us where it hurts, our wallets. After all, it is all about oil. As much as we hear rhetoric desiring a political solution with a "national unity government" as a cure for our ills, an Iraq Government that is united against us (a distinct probability) would be an economic disaster here in the States -- as if the war wasn't that already.

There Is No "Anti-War Left"

There is only a fringe Pro-War Right.

• 70% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.
• 57% are unhappy with Congress's impotent attempts to change the course in Iraq.
• 53% believe we never should have been there in the first place.
• 72% want us out within two years, with 49% unwilling to wait even a year.
• 68% think we should decrease troop numbers or remove all our troops.
• 50% want troop levels to be less than pre-surge levels by next summer, only 7% think we need more.

The numbers, obviously, are on our side. So why the spinelessness? I heard progressive talker Ed Schultz say that Tom Daschle wouldn't have allowed the democrats to be pushed around like Harry Reid does. I don't buy that for a minute. Reid has been tougher on a lot of things than Daschle ever dreamed.

One of the reasons MoveOn.org was singled out for special tut-tuting by the Senate last week is because they, as well as the rest of the progressive netroots, are perceived as no where near as powerful and influential as the likes of Rush Limbaugh, or even Ann Coulter. MoveOn made a choice to throw poo rather than act like the establishment and try to represent all liberal/democrats. That, after all is your elected representative's job. You can vote your agreement or displeasure with your wallet.

Congressional Democrats may be seen as wimps, and go out of their way to perpetuate this myth. But what does it add to the narrative when the wimps aren't afraid of us online activists? Indeed, they seem more afraid of conservatives accusing them of being beholden or intimidated by us than exposing their cowardice for all to see when intimidated by the right. They don't really care what we think and want us to just shut up, vote for them and send an occasional check. One thing they don't want is our advice.

Simple-minded and stupid sells, at least to those who don't, won't or can't pay attention. Sound-byte politics is all they get, all they can really stomach, and it's all the better when it's funny. Say what you want, but Limbaugh and Coulter are entertainers first. They don't really try to hide their sick ideology, but they do try to make it clever. They go for the cheap laugh and it works. It stays in your head. Comedy endures.

Going for Teh Funny is why Hillary calling Dick Cheney, Darth Vader is more effective a weeks worth of full page ads in the Times. In that spirit, I'd like to see more of this, please:

"You don’t fatten a pig by weighing it more often."
John Edwards on NCLB

Democrats. We're smarter, better looking, and doggone it, people like us. At least they want to.

Move On Over MoveOn, You Dumbasses

We were played, the Wingnuts were wrong and Bush was outrageous. The Dems who voted to condemn MoveOn were stupid if not cowardly and the GOP used the whole thing as a wedge to split progressives.

Hey, we're the one's who learn from history so we don't repeat mistakes, right? Learn from their usual retort. You know, the trite turn of the tables they play when they want to change the subject of the argument from how bad this looks for them to how feckless we are. Ask yourself what do we do about it, now.

You know the drill. "Yeah, we know the invasion was a bad idea, but what do we do about it now?" "Yeah, we know Katrina was handled badly, but what do you want to do now?" "Yeah, we understand that ... or this ... but, but .... but what's your PLAN?"

They don't play by the same rules, ever. They don't care about Max Cleland or the little purple hearts they drew on band-aides at their convention to mock John Kerry. They cheat, and not getting caught is the only rule they care about. Why do you think so many Republicans are in trouble with the law.

They STILL are creating their own reality while we fight the last battle, and they just threw our verbal Molotov Cocktail right back at us and are laughing as we scatter. They've run the most corrupt, inept and divisive government in a generation, if not of all time. Yet here we are listing their recent crimes, (that they don't give a flying fig about) instead of raising hell about the current ones and the ones they're about to commit.

It's not a matter of them cheating, making up rules as they go along. There are no rules for them except IOKIYAR.

You know why Cornyn introduced his stupid, ineffectual MoveOn condemnation resolution? To piss us off. Why did the Fox News stenographer serve up the question to Bush about MoveOn, and why did our sniveling "Uniter" blast the Democrats for something they had no control over -- cuz it would piss us off.

So we would talk about it, get on a soapbox and shout about it, all the while avoiding the substance of what MoveOn was trying to point out -- that the Surge is a failure, that the General who was selling it was hand picked to sell it back in January, that we have no justification for continuing the current mission in Iraq except to help Republicans win the next election. Does anyone on the right or left believe that the Democrats who voted along with the GOP did it for any reason than not wanting to lose the next election? The reverse is true as well.

MoveOn might want to take credit for it's ability to set the agenda, and they did, but the narrative was hijacked before the ad even hit the NY Times. We're talking about this because the GOP wants us to. MoveON might want to talk about it too, but not on these terms. No way does any Democratic Senator really want to be talking about this anymore.

What we aren't talking about is Ted Steven's impending indictment or the latest developments in Tom DeLays' criminal case. Reverend Lennox Yearwood getting tackled and suffering a broken leg at the Petraeus hearing, courtesy of the Capital Police, for no reason whatsoever is only known to the YouTube crowd. Silence is all we hear about Don Young getting earmarks written into law after they were passed through Congress, but before Bush signed them. Evidently, nobody is talking about the Republican US Attorney who traveled half way across the country to rape a five year old child.

You'd think that a Republican federal official who tries to rape a five year old would get some attention, no? Maybe make Olberman's "Worst Person" every day until he finally succeeds in killing himself. Yeah, typical GOP operative. He botched the job. Try, try again, I always say...

Meanwhile, George's younger brother, Neil Bush is still skimming off the NCLB. And why are Larry Craig and David Vitter are still collecting a check courtesy of the US taxpayers?

Even those fantastic Muckrakers have dropped the US Attorney Scandal now that Gonzo is gone, and haven't updated their scandal timeline since May 3rd. CREW is still updating the list of the most corrupt lawmakers which includes four Democrats and 18 Republicans, plus Vitter and Craig, perverts who get dishonorable mentions. New Mexico Rep. Heather Wilson and Arizona Sen. Pete Domenici are up to their eyeballs in the US Atty. scandal. Talk about your "betrayal of trust". Get all the slimy details here.

For instance, there's Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas, where else) who took in over half a million bucks from god knows who, and Ted ain't saying. He's been warned 5 times by the FEC to disclose the identities of 40% of his contributors and that's he's in gross violation of election laws. There's the gang of California Reps. who've been in the pocket of defense contractors and lobbyists, and have been under investigation for years and still got reelected last time out. Calvert, Doolittle, Lewis, and Miller are the heirs to San Clemente.

Mind you, John Murtha made the list, which will delight the right. There's also Rep. David Scott (D-GA), who looks like a tax cheat, and William (Freezer Bucks) Jefferson, who I wish would just resign, period. Right now, today. So should Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV), just for the good of all concerned. Sorry guys, except for Murtha, who is ten times more effective than most Democrats in the House, the party does not need you right now as much as it needs to stay clean.

For those of you still raising hell (and that goes for MoveOn as well), keep up the good work. Keep raising bloody hell. Call the Petreaus/Betray Us flap a draw and MOVE ON. We've got a lot more fights to fight. And remember not to march in a straight line. This is guerrilla warfare. Find a target, throw a rhetorical hand grenade, and run to the next target. Don't get bogged down in their fight. They have air superiority and can shape the battlefield.

I Scare Myself

First it was Ted, and now Greg Palast is offering Andrew "Don't Taze Me, Dude" Meyer a paid intership.

Just because I said he should.

Hmmm, and tomorrow's lottery numbers will be .... 25,65,9,14,68,33.

UPDATE:
It's "Don't Taze Me, Bro." Sorry for any confusion to all the tazed "dudes" out there. My bad.

As for the lottery, what can I say. I guess my powers can only be used for good.

He's Back!

Little do I know the power of this blog of mine. I mention Captain Courageous in passing, then lo and behold, Ted Turner's out there "taking it to the man" again.

"This is Rupert's War."

Priceless.

Your LibDroool Media

Come ON, already. Get a damn clue. It's spelled f-i-l-i-b-u-s-t-e-r, as in the sentence: "Obstructionist Republicans use filibuster to block restoring habeas corpus, troop deployment limits and representation for the citizens of Washington D.C."

Isn't that easy? The point is, it's unacceptable merely to say the Senate blocked these measures, since a majority of the Senate voted for each of these bills.

And please don't ever hire the "reporter" in this story for any damn thing. But give this guy a job Right NOW!

While you're at it, would somebody shut down O'Reilly once and for all. I expect O.J. mainia, and don't mind if the media won't leave Britany alone or is going to put her inspired defender on the TeeVee. But dude, could you tell them to leave John Edwards alone too.

And could someone (preferably this guy or even this one) explain to me why you have to pay for Maureen Dowd and Bob Somerby is free? What? They've taken down the pay wall at the NY Times. I guess that explains that.

Kathy Griffin: Celebutaunt For Nerds

Speaking of Kathy (Suck it Jesus) Griffin, it looks like she's hooked up with the head of the "B" list of computer gurus, Apple co-founder Stephen Wozniak.

Kathy isn't the only one with a sense of humor. Woz is a legendary prankster, one of the few humans who could go on Stephen Colber's show and "take him down." And she's just flat-out funny. This sounds typical, classic Griffin:

"The thing is he doesn't realize that I am the brains of the operation and he is like some dumb bimbo that I picked up!"

But what you might not know is Woz also founded Dial-A-Joke in San Fransico. Really.

He met his first wife by responding to a Dial-a-Joke call "live", as he often did for fun, saying, "I bet I can hang up faster than you" and then hanging up. She called back, they chatted, and he asked her out.

The guy invented the Apple I, Apple II and game Breakout (as if that weren't awesome enough). He plays guitar, like me, so what's not to love? While I still miss my old Apple ][e,c and GS's, I've learned to adapt to this new-fangled Mac interface. (Yes, I've gone through over a dozen Apple computers over the years, never once considering a Windoze product.) I'd like to get one of those pads of $2.00 notes he gets from the Bureau of Printing and Engraving. That's just cool.

Woz, (the Other Steve) was always the "cool one" at Apple IMO. While Steven Jobs and Bill Gates played the marketing game, I always considered Woz and Paul Allen (the Microsquish co-founder, owner of the Seahawks and Trail Blazers who thinks Searching for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence is a worthy cause) the guys who still retained a bit of their soul they wouldn't sell for any price.

They're "B" list Billionaires. At that price there is no "C" or "D" list. The list is short, including Virgin's Richard Branson, always chasing world records and humanitarian causes, and Ted "Captain Courageous" Turner (before Jane Fonda and Time-Warner sucked the life out of him). They're the ones you know would pick up the tab after doing beers (and in Ted's case, it would certainly be a huge tab).

Woz and Kathy are now officially my favorite celebrity couple -- so Suck It, BradJelina.

Sux 2 B U.

It must suck to be a Democratic Party Leader, or a politician of any kind. Always having to answer to a demanding constituency.

Especially when the answer is, "No."

Ryan Grim has penned one of the more informative articles I've seen at Politico.com. It starts with some straight reporting on the tightrope walked by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as he tries to court enough Republican lawmakers to make a go at ending the war without making them look like RINO's, and still appeasing the anti-war activist enough to keep them from making life hell for Dems in vulnerable districts.

Don't forget to glance at the graph and bullet points he links for a quick rundown of who the activists are and how they're organized.

Actual reporting with insightful analysis. Who'd a thunk we'd see that from the outfit that covered John Edwards hair like a cable news channel with a scoop that Paris Hilton was going to pay O.J.'s bail.

It's a fairly simple equation if you ask me ... and you should. We keep up the pressure on the Blue Dogs, and bury the GOP in their own fecal matter until they break with the PreNitWit and his band of Ayn Rand misanthropes once and for all. Continuing to play Bush's game is just plain stupid. It's that or accept a protracted conflict that will suck us dry, and maybe even get us into a real war with a country that we didn't spend 10 years bombing and embargoing.

Every little sign of weakness emboldens Bush and his pet warmonger in the Vice President's office. If this keeps up, refereeing Iraq's civil war will seem like the good old days if we go to war with a country that has three times the population, seven times the GDP, and is strategically positioned to bottle up all that crude running through the Straights of Hormuz long enough to make you consider pouring 12 year old scotch in your gas tank than burn through a weeks salary filling up your SUV.

Iran, unlike Iraq isn't some fictional amalgam of tribes drawn up on a map that we're trying to artificially regroup. They've been a united people before Rome overthrew Carthage. Iraq was just another province of other people's empires, the Persians, the Mongols, the Ottomans and finally the British, until 1932. If we actually are crazed enough to put ground troops in Iran, we won't have the convenience of watching the natives blow each other up. They will act as the unified people they are -- and kick our imperialist asses out of their country, and Iraq too -- one way or another (unless of course we go nuclear, god help us). We'd do the same to any invader brazen enough to plant their boots on our territory, and we're the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet. Do. Not. Underestimate. Iran. (or the perfidy of Bush's New World Order).

So now that the stakes are clear, we must keep the pressure on those in Washington who will still listen, who in some way or another are still responsive to the democratic traditions this country used to stand for. The pressure seems to be working, at least on some Democrats. Folks like Zack Space (D-OH-18) should take heed, especially when even some GOP Members of Congress have given into the logic and morality of ending our involvement in the Iraq fiasco and the march towards war with Iran sooner rather than later.

Pop Quiz: Who Stole John Edwards' Health Care Plan?

If you answered that "unabashed Marxist" Hillary Clinton, (go ahead and giggle at that one, I did), you win.

Seriously, Hillary is best know to Wingnuttystan as the failed author of what they like to call "Hillarycare" and I've been waiting since 1994 for it to be implemented. But instead of immediately entering the presidential race by offering a health care plan she has been identified with for a decade and a half, she originally said that she'd like some kind of vague "universal" program to be implemented by the time she leaves office after her second term.

She's upped the timetable to the first term, and echoing John Edwards includes a mandate that requires medical coverage for all (Obama's plan does not) making it truly universal, sets up a competing public system to compete with private insurers like Edwards proposes, removes obstacles to access for pre-existing conditions (Edwards, ditto), and except for the devil-in-the-details tax considerations and the relative burden on small businesses, it does look every bit as "very, very sound" as the one offered by John Edwards.

The real difference is that Hillary offered a more ambitious (read naive) plan in 1994, and Bill and Hill decided they had other priorities -- they caved. This is not her number one legislative priority, and never has been. She won't fight for this the same way Edwards will. I know this because I feel it in my gut, have seen the past performances of both, and I just superglued my crystal ball back together after the last time I made a prediction (that Notre Dame would beat Michigan).

If she really thought this was a priority, it would have been the first thing she talked about last winter, she would have been introducing legislation right along, she would have fought the good fight. I'm not buying this as anything more than her new strategy to shore up any wavering members of the liberal base -- like trotting out General Wes Clark over the weekend.

She's one of the finest politicians of the last century, but we need leadership, not another campaigner.

Millions of Americans live without health care every day. It’s time for Washington to understand that health care reform isn’t a political issue - it’s a moral issue. If they do, we’ll finally have universal health care. ~ John Edwards

John Edwards not only wrote the plan Hillary now embraces, he also has a plan to get it passed -- something the Clintons never figured out -- or at least weren't willing to fight for -- just as he's not going to lose the high ground on this issue by ignoring Her Slickiness.

Edwards: "If you’re going to negotiate universal health care with the same powerful interests that killed it before, your proposal isn’t a plan, it’s a starting point. I’d like to know what a principled compromise looks like on universal health care. When you cut the deal on universal, who gets left out? And if you don’t compromise on the universal part, does that mean you compromise on the health care part? Lower quality? Higher costs? I don't believe in it.

"In the America I believe in, we don’t compromise our principles. I will not compromise on universal health care - not on coverage, not on quality, not on cost. I’ll fight for it with everything I’ve got.

"And to show Congress just how serious I am, on the first day of my administration, I will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of Congress, and all senior political appointees in both branches of government on July 20th, 2009 - unless we have passed universal health care reform.

All in all, this is a good thing that Hillary has been moved to the left on this and now is on record advocating a publicly funded system. It speaks volumes about the clarity of vision that John Edwards possesses -- that he could take her issue and turn it into something so fantastic that she had to steal it back. It's my number one domestic issue, a moral issue, a deal breaker. I'd like to see Obama get on board the mandate bandwagon. Even Romney and Schwartzenegger believe in mandates.

The Democrats should be able present a united front on this once a nominee is chosen. That means the Blue Dogs best get in line behind this idea. (Yes Zack Space, I mean you.)

Shiah, Meet Fan (Updated below)

Is it just me, or are things about to get way, way worse in the Fertile Crescent?

Sunni warlord tribal elder assassinated days after shaking hands with George Bush to seal the "peace" of Anbar. This very well could just be an opening salvo.

Parliament members loyal to Moqtada al Sadr have left the governing coalition, others soon to follow, rocking Prime Minister Maliki's ability to rule the fictional government of a nation formerly known as Iraq.

Sadrists also warned the US to keep it's hands of Basra as the Brits leave. I think they've got some scores to settle and don't want us watching. No Eddy, this is not good news either.

The real lunatics in the region threaten a surge in violence, and they're all using guns we supplied.

Israeli warplanes hit ... something ... in Syria, maybe as a test run/warning to Iran.

At the scene of an attack on a US State Department convoy, Blackwater Mercs security operatives might have gone too far and are being kicked out of the country. (I'll bet the thugs-for-hire get more down-time than our Marines who used to guard our embassy personnel -- and that ain't changing anytime soon.)

The war drums have grown louder and louder, and louder, warning of multiple strikes against Iran by President Nothing-Left-To-Lose.

Chaos increases. War and Occupation without end. This is, my friends, yet another feature, not a bug of your government on neoconservatism.

And they're eyeing the prize:

It’s simply a great-power struggle for influence. And while there’s nothing too shocking about that, people in the United States should ask themselves - and be asked by others - what sacrifices we are really willing to bear so that the Bush Administration can try to keep Iran from having the influence in Iraq that they would normally have - and almost certainly will have - if there is a democratic government in Iraq, given that 60% of the Iraqi population is Shiite and has strong cultural and religious ties to their co-religionists in Iran. How many U.S. soldiers’ lives is that goal worth? How many billions of U.S. tax dollars?

The elder crackpots of the movement conservatives, languishing in their ivory towers, have never been exactly circumspect in what really is going on. There is so much truth in Alan Greenspan's understatement of the obvious that we would not be at war in Iraq if there were no oil there. This is the fundamental nature of neoconservative imperialism, the push for preeminence of our commercial republic as explained by Charles Krauthammer as the destiny, nay -- the responsibility of the "Unipower."

Even the man who killed irony, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Henry Kissinger acknowledges our belligerence towards Iran evolves from an insistence that even a regional power who resists our position as world arbiter and unipower will not be tolerated if they have the gumption to exert influence on "our" flow of oil. Teheran should note this as a warning -- these guys don't play.

Writers of science fiction from our past foreshadowed of our reality. The roads must roll! The spice must flow. War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength.

We won't steal your oil or enslave your population directly (slavery is freedom, after all), but colonialism by another name still stinks. We'll buy your goods (wholesale), pay substandard subsistence wages for your labor, pocket the difference and use the United States military as a security force to ensure our ability to do so.

It wasn't so much that Saddam was cheating on the oil-for-food program that led us to war. Even if you believed the WMD fiction that somehow this nation we'd been bombing every other weekend just for fun since 1992 was any sort of threat. There was no possibility the UN sanction regime enforcing his containment would somehow be lifted despite our veto over any such move. No. The sanctions were inconvenient, they had to go. Bad for business.

The containment regime was too effective. Unfortunately for Hussein, a monster to be sure, but no more or less evil than say, Idi Amin, who we left quite alone to feast on the flesh of his victims. But keeping him in check was bottling up too much of the black sludge that grease the wheels of fortune and commerce. They had to go, the sanctions, and the idea that Saddam could remain free to cause mischief once lifted was simply unacceptable. Never before, and possibly never again would Baghdad be even a semi-legitimate target for a hostile corporate takeover. But in the Spring of 2003, it was ripe.

Remember, this is the 21st century. The era of traditional colonial empires is long gone. Unfortunately, like all empires, Pax Americana requires conflict and expansion just as traditional colonial endeavors -- just not as we are used to thinking of them. Conflicts between rival sects and ethnic groups in the region (fictional or otherwise) serve to justify our military presence as long as they are contained. As long as we merely manage, but don't eliminate the violent rivalries, it serves as a disincentive to any organized threat from those disparate clients who might otherwise band together and present a formidable opposition to our interests. The expansion is not in territory or subjugated people, but in markets.

A chaotic, haphazardly organized Iraq works just as well, if not more efficiently, than a true Jeffersonian democracy -- for the interests of the neocon's commercial empire. Chaos requires weapons, machinery and fuel. Demand must be maintained, and at a high enough level to ensure ridiculous profiteering, but not so chaotic to shut down the flow of money, blood and oil.

They are truly dreamers, those neocon warmongers like Kagan and Kristol, Elliot Abrams and John Bolton, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Visionary, yet deluded sociopaths who believe with religious conviction that "The Market" is supreme, omnipotent and omniscient, and not merely the tool of greedy robber barons and war profiteers who are empowered by perpetual war and the free flow of oil. If fear, bigotry and xenophobic tendencies in our electorate can be exploited to advance their ends, so be it. They will not shy away from pandering to base primal instincts born of excess testosterone and the logic of the playground bully when it serves their goal. Their cynicism towards us, the ordinary Americans who suffer their tenure in power it most telling, since their real constituency are captains of industry. You are merely a asset or a liability, depending on your gullibility.

They see themselves as the guardians of commercialism, the system of capital creation and distribution, the corporate fiction of legal entity not as mere enterprise but as a "person" unto itself that must be promoted and protected at all cost. 4,000 of our own soldiers and even up to a million of the natives are so much cannon fodder, a "small price" to pay for continued American hegemony -- because the business of America is business.

---

UPDATE:
I wait with great interest to see how the market forces play out.

Karen Kwiatkowski, who was one of the first to blow the whistle on the fixing of intelligence to match the wet neocon dreams of invading Iraq, makes the case that without private security contractors like Blackwater (who have been asked to leave the country as noted above), the entire financial underpinnings of the occupation "will collapse."

Hmmm, Blackwater isn't the only private army in town, but it's a big one. With them and the Brits no longer there, and the stalwart Iceland contingent leaving, the Webb Amendment limiting troop deployments to one year there, one year back looks like the camel that will either break the back of the occupation, or the Republican party.