Your government at work or why I keep avoiding the news

C.I.A. Sought Blackwater’s Help in Plan to Kill Jihadists.

“It’s wrong to think this counterterrorism program was confined to briefing slides or doodles on a cafeteria napkin,” the official said. “It went well beyond that.”

I'm moving on to less stress-inducing topics. It's too damn hot and life is too damned short to be this angry.

~ ~ ~

Rick Bayless FOR THE WIN!

I had a hard time getting into Top Chef Masters even though some of my favorite chefs were showcased. It was... meh... to me, for some reason. But I'm tickled beyond belief by the Bayless win. Love!Him! and I'm really happy he won.

Top Chef Vegas... well, we'll see. There are always so many of them in the beginning I have a hard time keeping track. Bacon donut? Gross. Just!Gross! Also, I wasn't thrilled with the chef (Mike? I think) who whinged about losing to a girl. Jackass. Pack your knives and go chef. See TWOP later in the day (or tomorrow) for the re-cap.

Nothing new under the Earth and Sky

Google has a new add-on feature for google earth - the sky! I've only been able to get the demo to run. Google seems to be having several problems today, including keeping blogger up and running.

Interesting story in the in International Herald Tribune yesterday - seems Moscow runs out of hot water in the summer time.

Also in Moscow, another painful penis story. What is with all the penis stories this week?

Bushie is backing away from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq.

However, Gordon Johndroe says otherwise:

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the president's words were not intended to signal a withdrawal of support for al-Maliki. As a result of the heavy media coverage of his remarks at the North American summit in Canada, Bush will insert a direct line of support for al-Maliki in his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars conference, Johndroe said.

"Prime Minister Maliki knows where the president stands," Johndroe told reporters ahead of Bush's speech. The spokesman said that after Bush's comments in Canada, the White House had tried to make clear Bush was not distancing himself from Maliki.

"It appears that did not come through for whatever reason," Johndroe said.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is also "disgusted" with al-Maliki, apparently. Bush backing away from al-Maliki is probably a good thing for the Prime Minister, Sistani being disgusted is not. I hope al-Maliki's bodyguards are well paid and like their client.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told France's RTL Radio from Baghdad that Europe must play a bigger role in Iraq because "the Americans will not be able to get this country out of difficulty alone." Kouchner is wrapping a three-day visit to Iraq.

Not just Europe, but the UN and a Pan-Arab league needs to go in and fix the nightmare we created.

In other cheery news, A new push for change in the war on terror, in the Christian Science Monitor:

The US is losing the war on terror. That's the assessment of the nation's top foreign-policy, intelligence, and national-security leaders from across the ideological spectrum. In this year's Terrorism Index, a survey released Monday by Foreign Policy magazine, 84 percent of these experts believe the nation is losing the war on terror, while more than 90 percent say the world is growing more dangerous for Americans.

That's prompted a variety of leaders to call for a complete rethinking of the nation's strategy. And some are looking back to the cold war's battle against communism to find models for the ideological struggle against terrorism.

Um... no one won the Cold War. Russia just collapsed. Is that the strategy? Fight a boogey man for 50 years until it just goes away?

Another is a call for a Middle East Marshall Plan to help develop the region's economies and confront the alienation of the young.

This actually makes some sense and it's something many humanitarian groups have been talking about for more than a decade - long before 9/11 and the US War on Terra. Terrorism, terrorists, flourish in poverty; the people they recruit have nothing to lose and their families have everything to gain.

Dwarf's penis gets stuck in vacuum cleaner

It's a rainy, dreary day here in Connecticut. It's a helluva lot worse in Mexico. Drop a shekel or three in a collection plate for Hurricane Dean relief.

Since it's a rainy day here, I'll leave you with some reading material.

Starving Gaza, by Chris Hedges, at Truthdig:

Gaza has become the Sarajevo of the Middle East. Israel, in an action similar to that of the Serbs in Bosnia, has surrounded and cut off nearly a million and a half Palestinians in the Gaza Strip since the Islamic militant group Hamas took control in June. Electric fences and watch towers manned by Israeli soldiers keep the Palestinians trapped inside the strip. The land and sea blockade, the halting of all but minimal humanitarian aid and the refusal to allow Gaza to receive financial support are crushing Gaza’s industry, farming and infrastructure.

See also:

Gaza's public employees getting paid on one condition: stay home

Genocide in Tranquil Kurdistan.

Scott Ritter: Calling Out Idiot America (an old article, but still interesting).

From Truthout comes:

Prelude to an Attack on Iran, originally published in Time Magazine.

And what do we do if just the opposite happens - a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran."

Survivors of Bombs Left to Die in Rubble.

British military sparks US fears of losing Basra:

Stephen Biddle, who sits on the Council on Foreign Relations and is a member of a group that advised the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, told the The Sunday Times in London that coalition forces were no longer in control of the city.

"I regret to say that the Basra experience is set to become a major blunder in terms of military history," Mr Biddle was quoted as saying. "The insurgents are calling the shots … and in a worst-case scenario will chase us out of town."

Another senior US officer told The Sunday Telegraph: "The short version is that the Brits have lost Basra, if indeed they ever had it … They did not have enough troops there even before they started cutting back. The situation is beyond their control."

The officer warned of "a stink about this that will hang around the British military".

The old expression "lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" comes to mind for some reason.

And the most important story of the day, from the bin of "you can't make this shit up":

Dwarf's penis gets stuck in vacuum cleaner.

A view from the ground

Originally posted at NYT and Truthout.org:

The War As We Saw It

By Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Sandmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy
The New York Times

Sunday 19 August 2007

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the "battle space" remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a "time-sensitive target acquisition mission" on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse - namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington's insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made - de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government - places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict - as we do now - will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are - an army of occupation - and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

Pass it on.

When will it end?

1461 Days.

Roughly

35064 hours
2103840 minutes
126230400 seconds

since the war began.

When will it end?

Days of Protests

One Less Axis of Evil State?

North Korea to Close Reactor in Exchange for Raft of Aid

The NYT headline lacks gravitas, in my opinion. Gave me a mental image of rafts of food and fuel be floated over to North Korea.

Anyway...

The partner nations agreed to provide roughly $400 million in various kinds of aid in return for the North starting a permanent disabling of its nuclear facilities and allowing inspectors into the country.

Perhaps equally important, the United States and Japan agreed to discuss normalizing relations with Pyongyang. The United States will begin the process of removing North Korea from its designation as a terror-sponsoring state and also on ending U.S. trade and financial sanctions.

Among the negotiators, Japan did not agree to the aid package, however, saying it first needs to work out further bilateral issues regarding abductions by the North.

The accord sets a 60-day deadline for North Korea to accomplish the first steps toward disarmament, and leaves until an undefined moment — and to another negotiation — the actual removal of North Korea's nuclear weapons and the fuel manufactured to produce them.

Under the agreement, the first part of the aid -- 50,000 tons of fuel oil, or an equivalent value of economic or humanitarian aid -- would be provided by South Korea, Russia, China and the United States; in the case of the United States, that would require congressional approval, which is likely to be difficult to get.

For disabling the reactor and declaring all nuclear programs, the North will eventually receive another 950,000 tons in aid. Further negotiations are to begin on March 19 in Beijing.

I've got my fingers crossed. I hope it works.

But North Korea has sidestepped previous agreements, and is thought to have many mountainside tunnels where it can hide projects.

It's the first time I'll give props to the Bush Administration. Negotiation over annihilation is a good thing boys. Now work on fixing the nightmare you've created in Iraq.

~ ~ ~

We're waiting for the storm currently blanketing the mid-West to arrive on the East Coast. Some fool weather-person will give the storm a name no doubt. Maybe if the National Weather Center didn't issue its warning in all caps people wouldn't get all worked up:

/O.NEW.KOKX.WS.W.0001.070213T2300Z- 070215T0300Z/ NORTHERN FAIRFIELD- 503 AM EST TUE FEB 13 2007

...WINTER STORM WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 6 PM THIS EVENING TO 10 PM EST WEDNESDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN UPTON HAS ISSUED A WINTER STORM WARNING... WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 6 PM THIS EVENING TO 10 PM EST WEDNESDAY.

LIGHT SNOW IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN LATE THIS AFTERNOON...BECOMING STEADIER AND HEAVIER TONIGHT. AS WARMER AIR MOVES INTO THE REGION WEDNESDAY...THE SNOW WILL LIKELY MIX WITH SLEET DURING THE DAY...POSSIBLY CHANGING ENTIRELY TO SLEET OR FREEZING RAIN FOR A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME. AS THE STORM MOVES TO THE NORTHEAST LATE WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON AND COLDER AIR FLOWS BACK INTO THE AREA...THE PRECIPITATION WILL CHANGE BACK TO ALL SNOW BEFORE TAPERING OFF AND ENDING WEDNESDAY NIGHT. TOTAL SNOW AND SLEET ACCUMULATIONS BY THE TIME THE PRECIPITATION ENDS COULD RANGE FROM 8 TO 14 INCHES...WITH ABOUT A TENTH OF AN INCH OF ICE ACCRETION POSSIBLE DURING PERIODS OF FREEZING RAIN.

THERE CONTINUES TO BE SOME UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE EXACT TRACK OF THE LOW... WHICH WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON PRECIPITATION TYPE AND SNOW AMOUNTS.

A WINTER STORM WARNING MEANS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF SNOW... SLEET... AND ICE ARE EXPECTED OR OCCURRING. STRONG WINDS ARE ALSO POSSIBLE. THIS WILL MAKE TRAVEL VERY HAZARDOUS OR IMPOSSIBLE.

Looks really bad, doesn't it? I have to admit ice is not my idea of a good time but snow really isn't an issue. The YaYa's Valentine's dinner maybe in jeopardy, however. We'll just have to wait and see.

~ ~ ~

Because deep inside of me lurks a seven year old boy.

Nightmare scenario

But only if we leave - no indication that he's screwed up and that it's time, not for more troops, but to get out and let the Arab nations and the United Nations take over. By the way, did you notice he's now saying we were maneuvered into a war we hadn't planned on? Gawd freakin' forbid he take responsibility for his own actions - always someone elses fault. He also stated that the Administration has a "diplomatic strategy" that is rallying the rest of the world to join us in the fight against terrorism (extremists). What freakin' planet is this jackass living on? Bush, they're running away from you, not towards. Except, of course, for your pet Poodle Blair and even he isn't snuggling up to you like he used to.

According to the Associated Press:

"CBS News poll conducted by Knowledge Networks immediately after the speech found that 82 percent of viewers generally approved of the president's proposals while 18 percent disapproved. However, 68 percent of viewers said Mr. Bush will not be able to accomplish his goals, while 32 percent think he will." The AP goes on to say that according to the poll, Bush "rallied some support for his Iraq plan among those who watched the speech." Before the State of the Union, "43 percent of them backed the plan, while 52 percent of them supported it after the speech."

I guess I'm in the 18 percent bracket.

Bush's speech highlighted, again, his lack of discernment and understanding of the terrorists and countries who don't agree with him. He sees the world as black and white, for or against, and it's just not that simple. His government is comprised of people who are either just like him or blindly follow his ignorant lead. While I don't support the radical Hezbollah tactics in Lebanon and elsewhere, the reality is that the Shia Hezbollah members of the Lebanese government were elected and should not be equated with al-Qaeda or the radical Hezbollah membership. His moronic statement: "second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken", referring to Hezbollah collectively, without differentiating between the factions within the Hezbollah organization itself, shows how little he knows or understands about the various factions in the Middle East. It's also a lie; Hezbollah was not repsonsible for the killing of Marines in Beirut in 1983 because they didn't come into being until 1984. Condi Rice is such a wonderful "historian" maybe she should explain this to the President. Use picture cards and small words Condi.

Anyway, back to the speech. I don't think, after six years of abuse, the Democrats are going to play ball with the President on either the domestic or foreign policies. The Democrats, hopefully, will just go their own way. Or even better, Ms. Pelosi, put impeachment on the table.


For more on the most recent outbreak of violence in Lebanon see:

Beirut burns as national strike explodes into sectarian violence

Lebanese viewpoints on strike

Warning of new Lebanon protests

Mideast press fears for Lebanon:

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and his supporters did what the Israelis failed to do with Lebanon. In fact, he even did more. He unmasked himself and revolted against his own country and countrymen. Nasrallah dragged - or almost dragged - Lebanon into a rebellion that could make it another version of Iraq.

~ ~ ~

Senator Webb's speech was, by far, better than the President's speech. Americablog has posted it, go read it. It was far more Presidental than Bush's speech, but I really hope he's not going to throw his hat into the already overcrowded 2008 ring.

Winter has finally arrived.

We're not having any snow but it's gotten quite frigid in these parts. It's a normal January day for a change.

So Senator Clinton is 'In'. Who the heck isn't in the race for 2008? Just me and my cats?

The Idiot in Chief is going to talk to the Nation tomorrow night. Do I watch? I might have to get a perscription for tranks first. It's already out there that he's planning a tax increase. He's really gotten into pissing off the Republicans, hasn't he?

The death toll in Iraq is out of control -- the deficit in the US is out of control -- his approval rating is in the low 30's. According to an article in the Washington Post, only 26 percent of Americans polled believe the country is headed in the right direction; 71 percent believe the country is seriously off track -- the worst ratings in more than a decade.

So, what's he going to talk about? He's spent two weeks trying to rally public opinion in favor of his troop increase in Iraq and that hasn't worked. Is he going to talk about how he's made the country safer since 9/11? 55 percent of Americans already believe that he has not made the country safer. His waving the bloody flag of 9/11 yet again isn't going to help that. So, what's left? He's going to ask Congress to renew the No Child Left Behind law... because that's been such an amazing success. He's also going to discuss balancing the budget in five years - that must be the comdedy relief section.

Bit 'o trivia - the only President less popular than Bush on the eve of the State of the Union address was Richard Nixon, eight months before he resigned.

First snow

We've had our first snow of the 2006/2007 season. Just a dusting and it'll be gone soon.

~ ~ ~

Rebuke in Iran to Its President on Nuclear Role

In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the supreme leader — who has final say on all matters of state — might no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West.

It is the first sign that Mr. Ahmadinejad has lost any degree of Ayatollah Khamenei’s confidence, a potentially damaging development for a president who has rallied his nation and defined his administration by declaring nuclear power Iran’s “inalienable right.”

It was unclear, however, whether this was merely an effort to improve Iran’s public image by lowering Mr. Ahmadinejad’s profile or was signaling a change in policy.

Surprising. I'm wondering, as everyone is, why the Ayatollah would be pulling back on Ahmadinejad's strings. Western opposition and objections have never dictated policy in the past... so why now? Something else, other than the UN resolution and losing economic stability (nothing to be sneered at but it's not a huge issue yet), is going on. It'll be a while before anyone figures out what the other issues are, I'm sure.

~ ~ ~

"The administration's reservoir of historical analogies seems limited to the 1914-1991 period. And it's all about Europe," said Adam Garfinkle, a former Rice speechwriter who edits the foreign-policy journal The American Interest. "No one in a senior position in this administration seems to have even the vaguest notion of modern Middle Eastern history."

That's surprising? How Rice Uses History Lessons is an interesting article in the WSJ. It's only available for today, unless you are a subscriber.

She tends to portray events, particularly the clash between what she calls "moderation" and "extremism" in the Middle East, as driven by huge, almost inevitable forces that make diplomacy impractical, or even irrelevant. Critics say such a view has made Washington's top diplomat less flexible in policy making -- and less adept in old-style negotiation and hand-holding, whose results also can be hard to quantify in the short term.

Those who clamor for sitting down with Syria and Iran are out of touch with what Ms. Rice calls "the underlying forces."

"There's a tendency to think about diplomacy as something that is done untethered to the conditions underlying it or the balance underlying it," she said. "In fact, that's not the way that it works. You aren't going to be successful as a diplomat if you don't understand the strategic context in which you are actually negotiating. It is not deal-making."

What I've believed all along is that a she's unsuited to the job because Security and Diplomacy require opposing mindsets. Can one be good at National Security and Diplomacy? Perhaps, but it was take an extremely well-rounded, well-educated and naturally diplomatic person to accomplish that. I don't think Rice is any of those things - hence, her inability to deal with the nightmare she had an huge hand in creating.

~ ~ ~

I wonder if anyone is listening.

Fed Chief warns of crisis over elderly entitlements:

"If early and meaningful action is not taken, the U S economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost," Bernanke said yesterday at a Senate Budget Committee hearing.

I've never believed in the US governments ability to provide for me in my old age. I don't believe any government should provide for its citizens from cradle to grave. Social Security distributions, when I'm in my 60's, if they materialize, will be for added savings or nice "extras" like travel - it's not going to support me. Anyone in my age group needs to wake up to the realization that our Social Security deductions are funding our parents retirement - that money will not be there for us in 30 years. If you're over 30, you better be socking away 25% of your gross income each year to live on when you are 65. Otherwise, you're screwed. That 50 inch HDTV with all the bells in whistles won't provide you with a roof over your head or food on your table 30 years from now. Make do with fewer latte's and vacations so you can survive your senior years in comfort instead of worry. Do you really want to be robbing Peter to pay Paul when you are 65? 70? It sucks enough now as it is, doesn't it?

[/end lecture]

~ ~ ~

Forgot the pron update. Since January 15th there have been 237 visitors. Of that number 214 have arrived here searching for variations of L l K.

Maybe I should contact these women and sell them some ad space here?

Remove the wrapper from the turkey before cooking

The US-Iran-Iraq-Israeli-Syrian War:

At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming.

Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush's nationwide address, NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said "there's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue - in the country and the world - in a very acute way."

Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.

"The President's inference was this: that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out," Williams said, paraphrasing Bush.

I watched this on MSNBC Wednesday night. While the men were serious and little freaked out by the briefing, I doubt it's had much impact on them. When the conversation got to this point:

MSNBC's Chris Matthews then interjected, "And it could be the rationale for going into Iran at some point."

Russert paused for a few seconds before responding, "It's going to be very interesting to watch that issue and we have to cover it very, very carefully and very exhaustively."

I laugh out loud. It was not a happy laugh. The 4th Estate has done a seriously piss-poor job for the past six years. I have no faith, no hope, in that changing.

So, Bush's actions and rhetoric over the past several weeks continue to mesh with a scenario for a wider regional war - a possibility that now mainstream journalists, such as Tim Russert, are beginning to take seriously.

Don't count on it Mr. Parry.

See the Professor's take on the attack of the US Embassy in Athens. And expect this to happen with more frequency folks.

~ ~ ~

There is hope for this sorry-assed country afterall: Bush's approval rating hits new low.

Public approval of Congress has edged up a bit now that Democrats are back in control, but it's still nothing to write home about. Approval for the way Congress is handling its job rose to 32 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll, up from a meager 27 percent a month earlier. That puts Congress on par with President Bush, whose 32 percent approval rating represents a new low for him in AP-Ipsos polling.

Will you put impeachment back on the table now, Ms. Pelosi?

Oh, and while you're at it, Ms. Pelosi, do something about this wonderful economy Mr. Bush has given us:

Study: 744,000 Are Homeless in US:

"In the last 12 to 18 months, the homeless population has essentially exploded in Philadelphia," said Marsha Cohen, executive director of the Homeless Advocacy Project, which provides free legal services to the homeless in Philadelphia. "We are seeing big increases in singles and families, both on the street and attempting to enter the homeless system."

"It's a whole influx of new people, and that's the really scary part," Cohen said.

Please take a look at Homeless & Crisis Assistance, at Charity.com; it's a list of charities which provide help to the homeless. Give if you can.


~ ~ ~

Alaska stargazers excited about comet:

NASA astronomer Tony Phillips says Comet McNaught is the brightest comet visible from Earth in 30 years. It is six times brighter than Hale-Bopp in 1997, and 100 times brighter than Halley's Comet when it appeared in 1986, Phillips told The Associated Press on Thursday.

"It will remain a spectacular comet for weeks, perhaps months, in the Southern Hemisphere," Phillips said. "It could emerge as the brightest comet in recorded history."

Cool! Actually, COLD! 40 degrees below zero. It's information like that that keeps in me in New England. One of these days I'll get to Alaska, just not in January.

I'm not a happy camper today.

I listened to Bush's speech last night. He threatened Iran and then we invaded the Iranian embassy in Iraq, in effect making good on this threat.

He's pursuing global war, in my opinion. I have zero faith in the Congress stopping him. He has issued over 700 signing statements to legislation passed by Congress which were sent to him to be signed, effectively changing the intent of Congress without anyone stopping him. He has stated that the Constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper", proving, in my opinion, that he feels he may do whatever he damn well pleases. He will just sign us off into global war and Congress will do nothing.

See Informed Comment.



In other news, the other Senator from Connecticut, Christopher Dodd, has filed to run for President in 2008.

Dodd is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic during the 1960s. He is a leading voice in the Senate on Latin American issues. He is also known for his work on health care and children's issues.

He is also an idiot. And yet, he could barbeque kittens and roll little old ladies for their Bingo money and this freakin' State would still send him to the Senate. The only good thing about Dodd is he isn't Lieberman.

The Sky Is Falling!

God Told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Ya'know... if an astrologer came out with such a statement, perhaps changing "stars" for "God", they'd be laughed at. Pat says God talks to him and nobody laughs or says he's crazy.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia (AP) -- Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a "mass killing" late in 2007.

"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network.

"The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

Robertson said God told him about the impending tragedy during a recent prayer retreat.

God also said, he claims, that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

Robertson suggested in January 2006 that God punished then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a stroke for ceding Israeli-controlled land to the Palestinians.

The broadcaster predicted in January 2004 that President Bush would easily win re-election.

Bush won 51 percent of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

In 2005, Robertson predicted that Bush would have victory after victory in his second term. He said Social Security reform proposals would be approved and Bush would nominate conservative judges to federal courts.

Lawmakers confirmed Bush's 2005 nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. But the president's Social Security initiative was stalled.

"I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."

In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006.

Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.

~ ~ ~

Bush has "written" an OpEd piece in the WSJ. He's still waving the bloody flag of 9/11 and still a complete moron. Go read it for yourself, if you've the stomach for it.

Iraq Civilian Deaths Hit New Record - Ministry

Lexeme

Howard Kurtz says there's a war on civil war: The C-Word

I'm still working on the part where NBC gets more power if the conflict is viewed as a civil war. Because the network would be seen as galvanizing support for a pullout? All because of the use of the C-word? Is American support for the war so shaky that a single network's phraseology can cause that support to crumble?

Let's hope so. I get Mr. Kurtz's point, but I'm hoping that the media's use of the term civil war will wake up American's to the realization that we do not belong there.

I continue to believe that the day-to-day coverage of the carnage in Iraq is more important in terms of swaying public opinion than the label that the MSM chooses to slap on the conflict. Did most people think this wasn't a civil war before Lauer et al made the switch? I don't think so.

I do. Words matter. They shape our conscious and unconscious decisions on how we live. The media has been denying us the truth since January 2002 and that must end. The first step is to say, categorically, that Iraq is in a state of civil war. Next, help that general public recognize that we caused this to happen. Then remind them they have the power to change the direction.

Impeachment. The Final Solution.

Just since September 23 an estimated 461 Iraqi's have died and 15 US service personnel. In one week.

The UN Assistance Mission for Iraq has released it's Human Right's Report for the period of July 1 through August 31, 2006.

Compare that report with Brit Hume's lie as reported on Faux News.

17,079 civilians have died in Iraq since March 2006.

Our military deaths have surpassed the number of people killed on September 11, 2001. Not that you would know that because it's never announced.

Read that entire UN report. We are responsible for that. It's our fault Bush and Cheney are in Iraq. It's our fault there is a civil war there now.

How many more people have to die because Bush and Cheney lied? Because we did nothing to stop them?

Impeachment. It's the only solution.

Impeach Bush

Impeach Bush

Impeach Bush

So you say you want a revolution?

How Bush Wrecked the Army

The generals' revolt has spread inside the Pentagon, and the point of the spear is one of Donald Rumsfeld's most favored officers, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff.

The trumpet sounded last month, when Schoomaker refused to give Rumsfeld a detailed Army budget proposal for fiscal year 2008. The Air Force and Navy met the Aug. 15 deadline for submitting their program requests. But Schoomaker—in an unprecedented move—said he preferred not to.

Rumsfeld had limited the Army's budget for 2008 to $114 billion. Schoomaker told him that the sum wasn't enough to maintain the Army's present commitments. Simply to repair the tanks, radios, and other equipment damaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, he would need at least another $17 billion. If he didn't get it, he said, there was no point drawing up a budget at all.

Bush and Torture

The pressure George Bush has exerted the last several weeks to obtain a law from Congress validating the decisions he has taken in the name of his "war against terror" is about to bear fruit. The Republican senators who resisted the White House assert that they have imposed a compromise on it that respects human rights. The truth is that this apparent victory hides a capitulation on an essential point: the president of the United States sees recognized the right to authorize the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) to employ methods of interrogation that respect neither American legislation nor international law as codified by the Geneva Conventions. Clearly stated, the agency will be able to resort to torture, as it very probably has already for four or five years in the secret detention sites situated outside the United States.

Even the French know McCain's assurances are connerie.

Newsweek is news-worthy next week for a couple of reasons:

Losing Afghanistan: The Rise of Jihadistan:

Editor's Note: Newsweek has scrubbed the cover of the United States edition for October 2, 2006. The cover of international editions, aimed at Europe, and other world regions has maintained the original title of the story, "LOSING AFGHANISTAN." The new cover for the United States edition features photographer Annie Leibovitz and is titled "My Life in Pictures." We offer the European edition cover and story here. -vh/TO

Seriously? Does no one in the Journalistic community have any balls? Well, other than Mr. Olbermann? Read on:

In a parched clearing a few hundred yards on, more than 100 Taliban fighters ranging in age from teenagers to a grandfatherly 55-year-old have assembled to meet their provincial commander, Muhammad Sabir. An imposing man with a long, bushy beard, wearing a brown and green turban and a beige shawl over his shoulders, Sabir inspects his troops, all of them armed with AKs and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. He claims to have some 900 fighters, and says the military and psychological tide is turning in their favor. "One year ago we couldn't have had such a meeting at midnight," says Sabir, who is in his mid-40s and looks forward to living out his life as an anti-American jihadist. "Now we gather in broad daylight. The people know we are returning to power."

Not long after NEWSWEEK's visit, US and Afghan National Army forces launched a major attack to dislodge the Taliban from Ghazni and four neighboring provinces. But when NEWSWEEK returned in mid-September, Sabir's fighters were back, performing their afternoon prayers. It is an all too familiar story. Ridge by ridge and valley by valley, the religious zealots who harbored Osama bin Laden before 9/11 - and who suffered devastating losses in the US invasion that began five years ago next week - are surging back into the country's center. In the countryside over the past year Taliban guerrillas have filled a power vacuum that had been created by the relatively light NATO and US military footprint of some 40,000 soldiers, and by the weakness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration.

Mission Accomplished!

The United States worsened an already horrifying situation by invading and then abandoning Afghanistan. We are unable to fix the damage we caused and Afghanistan is headed towards being a "lost cause" because of us.

Not long ago, the Bush administration was fond of pointing to Afghanistan as a model of transformation. That mountainous landlocked country, we were told, was being converted from a "failed state" - Al Qaeda's base for the worst ever attacks on US continental soil - into a functioning, responsible member of the international community. In speech after speech, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior US officials ticked off the happy stats: the Taliban and Al Qaeda had been routed, democratic presidential and parliamentary elections had been held, more than 3 million refugees had returned and 1.75 million girls were attending school.

Heck of a job Rummie.

The Taliban doesn't always share Al Qaeda's goals or tactics, although some units have taken up suicide bombing. But a guerrilla calling himself Commander Hemat, a former anti-Soviet mujahedin fighter who now works closely with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, says foreign Arabs are being welcomed again. "Now the money is flowing again because the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan are producing results," he told NEWSWEEK. Zabibullah, a Taliban operative who has proved reliable in the past, says the Qaeda operatives "feel more secure and can concentrate on their own business other than just surviving."

Why might that be? Because of our other disastrous foreign policy choices in the rest of the Middle East?

Does no one in the US government recognize that, as distasteful, as heinous as the Taliban and Al Qaeda and others are, they are fighting on their own soil, for their own version of governance? Did they learn nothing from Vietnam? From the Soviet's attempt to deal with Afghanistan? This will not end any time soon. They are fighting for their own survival, whatever that survival entails for them. We should never have entered Afghanistan in the first place. I said that in October of 2002 and I'm saying it now: A multinational police force should have been sent to find bin Laden - not the US or it's alllies' Armies. Carpet bombing these people back to the stone age isn't the answer. They will retreat to the hills and wait everyone out:

And while Ahmad's unit is now regrouping to the east, at least 35 Taliban have stashed their weapons and stayed in the village posing as farmers. They will lay ambushes and plant IEDs to harass Afghan and US troops, Ahmad says, and the larger Taliban force will return when it's safe. He shrugs off the setback, saying it's only temporary. "We never expected the success we've had," says Ahmad. Nor, five years ago, did anyone else.

This jihad against themselves and the West is their Revolutionary War. It began in Iran in 1979 with the overthrow of the Shah. It won't end until they exhaust themselves or win their objectives. The battle field isn't confined to just their own counties, towns and villages, but the whole world. It's no solution, but maybe we should just leave them alone and allow them to destroy each other or figure out which way to go. By illegally invading Iraq, by using brute force to find a terrorist in Afghanistan, we have made bad situations so much worse. We need to back away and allow these people to find their own way. And sort out our own "houses" before telling others how to fix theirs.

It's not a good solution. I'm not sure there is one. But I do know that what we're doing isn't working, so isn't it time to change tactics? We've gone overboard on the militaristic answers - perhaps it's time to retreat. We haven't the fiscal or human resources to deal with the problems we have exasperbated. Perhaps it's time to call in the United Nations and ask them to work with the Arab League to fix this nightmare.

Before it's too late.

That's all folks - for today, anyway

The Israeli-Lebanon truce is holding. I'm still betting some fool will do something stupid to end it. Mr. Ahmadinejad isn't helping keep things peaceful: Ahmadinejad gives 'victory speech' before masses

"The problem in Lebanon did not end with the obtaining of a ceasefire. A holding of account with Israel must be held and with those who stood at its side. The stance of America and Israel harmed the image of the Security Council. The two don't have the right to be members of the Security Council," said the Iranian president. He added that "the nations of the area demand a Middle East clean from the American-British hegemony."

Syrian President Bashar doesn't want to be left out, so he's cheering on Hezbollah as well. As I said yesterday, this isn't much of victory for anyone - but try telling that to Mssrs. Ahmadinejad and Bashar, as well as Bush and Olmert.

If everyone claims victory, does that mean no one wins?

The end of August and beginning of September should be interesting.


I've read Seymour Hersh's take on the Israeli attack on Lebanon. For the most part, it makes sense, and some points I thought of in July, especially about this being a dress-rehersal for an Iran invasion. And since Bush thinks Israel won... you gotta wonder what these fools are going to do next.

"The Israeli plan, according to the former senior intelligence official, was “the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran.” (The initial U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran, have been resisted by the top leadership of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, according to current and former officials. They argue that the Air Force plan will not work and will inevitably lead, as in the Israeli war with Hezbollah, to the insertion of troops on the ground.)"

“There is no way that Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this,” he said. “When the smoke clears, they’ll say it was a success, and they’ll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.”

Read the article and draw your own conclusions.



How I never quite fell for South Africa

"After almost four years in Johannesburg, the time has come to move on, and I do so with a sense of detachment. This never really became home. Partly it was running to the airport every other week for overseas trips; partly it was being white and European; but mainly it was because South Africa was such a fraught place to live. The anxiety about crime, the crunching on racial eggshells, the juxtaposition of first-world materialism with third-world squalor - it all added up."

Excellent article by Rory Carroll of the "Guardian Unlimited".

Chickens coming home to roost

Cheney 'Cabal' Hijacked Foreign Policy

In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: "What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.

I've been awaitin' for this a long time now. Many have.

Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department.

"He's not happy with my speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier."

I'm sorry for you Mr. Wilkerson. I admire the General's loyalty as well - but there is such as thing as being too loyal. And, his Commander in Chief never returned that loyalty.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Miers Is Asked to Redo Reply to Questions

The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A Web of Truth:

Bunny Greenhouse was once the perfect bureaucrat, an insider, the top procurement official at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Then the 61-year-old Greenhouse lost her $137,000-a-year post after questioning the plump contracts awarded to Halliburton in the run-up to the war in Iraq. It has made her easy to love for some, easy to loathe for others, but it has not made her easy to know.