By Michael J.W. Stickings
Happy New Year from all of us at The Reaction.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Three thousand
By Michael J.W. Stickings
What a way to end the year:
No matter what form Bush's new strategy for "victory" in Iraq takes -- and he is likely to present it soon -- there is no winning this war. Three thousand American troops have been killed, many thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and there is now civil war.
The focus should be on getting out, not on prolonging the madness.
But the madness will continue. And more milestones will be crossed.
For such is what Bush's great failure has become.
What a way to end the year:
The Pentagon announced the death of a Texas soldier on Sunday, raising the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq to at least 3,000 since the war began, according to an Associated Press count.
The milestone was crossed on the final day of 2006 and at the end of the deadliest month for the American military in Iraq in the past 12 months. At least 111 U.S. service members were reported to have died in December.
No matter what form Bush's new strategy for "victory" in Iraq takes -- and he is likely to present it soon -- there is no winning this war. Three thousand American troops have been killed, many thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and there is now civil war.
The focus should be on getting out, not on prolonging the madness.
But the madness will continue. And more milestones will be crossed.
For such is what Bush's great failure has become.
They're selling postcards of the hanging
By Capt. Fogg
Cell phone video is providing us with many things the media find too repulsive or dangerous to put on public view, so it is not surprising that the Execution of Saddam in all it's horror can be seen on the web.
The actual drop, the grotesquely broken neck, and the swinging body, heart no doubt still fluttering, are accompanied by stills of the purpling corpse in a blood stained shroud, but what is perhaps more disturbing is the audio -- at least to those who speak Arabic. According to Bob Murphy, Senior Vice President of ABC News, the official recording did not have the hostile taunts revealed on the "pirate" video: "It's clearly a hostile environment."
Will the Passion of Saddam going to his ignominious death while being taunted by his enemies play well in Sunni Iraq and elsewhere? Will The Shroud of Baghdad become a sacred object? Stranger things have happened and I expect that the civil war -- or "sectarian violence," if you prefer -- will not be lessened in intensity by the killing of Saddam, nor will it change attidudes toward the U.S. for the better.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
Cell phone video is providing us with many things the media find too repulsive or dangerous to put on public view, so it is not surprising that the Execution of Saddam in all it's horror can be seen on the web.
The actual drop, the grotesquely broken neck, and the swinging body, heart no doubt still fluttering, are accompanied by stills of the purpling corpse in a blood stained shroud, but what is perhaps more disturbing is the audio -- at least to those who speak Arabic. According to Bob Murphy, Senior Vice President of ABC News, the official recording did not have the hostile taunts revealed on the "pirate" video: "It's clearly a hostile environment."
Will the Passion of Saddam going to his ignominious death while being taunted by his enemies play well in Sunni Iraq and elsewhere? Will The Shroud of Baghdad become a sacred object? Stranger things have happened and I expect that the civil war -- or "sectarian violence," if you prefer -- will not be lessened in intensity by the killing of Saddam, nor will it change attidudes toward the U.S. for the better.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
Saturday, December 30, 2006
The more things stay the same
By Michael J.W. Stickings
(Just another day in the life and death of Iraq XXX.)
And so it goes:
On and on and on.
(Just another day in the life and death of Iraq XXX.)
And so it goes:
At least 80 Iraqis died in bombings and other attacks Saturday as they prepared to celebrate Islam's biggest holiday, their first without Saddam Hussein...
The military reported the deaths of six more American troops, making December the deadliest month this year for U.S. forces in Iraq. At least 2,998 members of the U.S. military have been killed since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
On and on and on.
Enabling Saddam
By Michael J.W. Stickings
In an important post, a must-read, Juan Cole presents the top ten ways the U.S. enabled Saddam throughout his tyrannical rule of Iraq. Make sure to read it in full, but here's a key passage:
But when it suited the U.S. to to war against Saddam, both in 1991 and in 2003, all that culpability was conveniently ignored. And when it suited the U.S. to allow Saddam to be executed following a farce of a trial that conveniently did not address that culpability, well, you know what happened.
How convenient.
In an important post, a must-read, Juan Cole presents the top ten ways the U.S. enabled Saddam throughout his tyrannical rule of Iraq. Make sure to read it in full, but here's a key passage:
The tendency to treat Saddam and Iraq in a historical vacuum, and in isolation from the superpowers,... has hidden from Americans their own culpability in the horror show that has been Iraq for the past few decades. Initially, the US used the Baath Party as a nationalist foil to the Communists. Then Washington used it against Iran. The welfare of Iraqis themselves appears to have been on no one's mind, either in Washington or in Baghdad.
But when it suited the U.S. to to war against Saddam, both in 1991 and in 2003, all that culpability was conveniently ignored. And when it suited the U.S. to allow Saddam to be executed following a farce of a trial that conveniently did not address that culpability, well, you know what happened.
How convenient.
Vengeance, not justice
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I don't have much more to say about Saddam Hussein's execution.
I wrote about it extensively before it took place -- see here -- and Creature wrote the words I was searching for in a subsequent post -- see here: "I feel sad, not for Saddam, but for what we have become."
This was America's doing, and America should not have allowed it to happen. To the extent that Iraq was involved, I argued at the time, it was vengeance, not justice. The video of the execution is out there -- I won't link to a site that has posted it, but you can find it easily -- and what we see is that Saddam was taunted by his executioners. And those executioners were Shiite. They did not represent any sort of "new" Iraq. And two of the guards shouted "Moqtada," referring to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric whose militia is very much at the center of the sectarian violence that has thrown post-Saddam Iraq into civil war. And one of the guards shouted that Saddam had "destroyed us" and "killed us". Us. Saddam was executed not just by those linked by sectarian attachment to his victims but by Iraqi sectarianism itself. He was a tyrant, to be sure, but he was also from the other side, a Sunni. Would these executioners have behaved the same way towards a condemned Shiite tyrant? Surely not.
Saddam was convicted specifically of a crime against Shiites, but, to repeat, this was not justice, it was vengeance. What Iraq needs is justice, not vengeance, but perhaps this execution of vengeance reflects the state of Iraq today. There is no justice in Iraq.
The Times has a recount of the execution here.
I had no compassion for Saddam, just as I had no compassion for Milosevic or Pinochet, just as I have no compassion for Kim Jong-il or any of the other tyrants who still commit crimes against humanity, but compassion has nothing to do with this. What matters is justice. What matters is the rule of law as some sort of imperfect reflection of justice.
There was no justice in Iraq under Saddam, but nor was there any justice for Saddam himself. Did he deserve justice? There are many who say no. There are many who say that, justice or no, Saddam got what he deserved, or that he deserved far worse.
But are we not better than Saddam? Should not the "new" Iraq be better than Saddam? Should there not be justice in the "new" Iraq?
Or is this what we have become?
I don't have much more to say about Saddam Hussein's execution.
I wrote about it extensively before it took place -- see here -- and Creature wrote the words I was searching for in a subsequent post -- see here: "I feel sad, not for Saddam, but for what we have become."
This was America's doing, and America should not have allowed it to happen. To the extent that Iraq was involved, I argued at the time, it was vengeance, not justice. The video of the execution is out there -- I won't link to a site that has posted it, but you can find it easily -- and what we see is that Saddam was taunted by his executioners. And those executioners were Shiite. They did not represent any sort of "new" Iraq. And two of the guards shouted "Moqtada," referring to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric whose militia is very much at the center of the sectarian violence that has thrown post-Saddam Iraq into civil war. And one of the guards shouted that Saddam had "destroyed us" and "killed us". Us. Saddam was executed not just by those linked by sectarian attachment to his victims but by Iraqi sectarianism itself. He was a tyrant, to be sure, but he was also from the other side, a Sunni. Would these executioners have behaved the same way towards a condemned Shiite tyrant? Surely not.
Saddam was convicted specifically of a crime against Shiites, but, to repeat, this was not justice, it was vengeance. What Iraq needs is justice, not vengeance, but perhaps this execution of vengeance reflects the state of Iraq today. There is no justice in Iraq.
The Times has a recount of the execution here.
I had no compassion for Saddam, just as I had no compassion for Milosevic or Pinochet, just as I have no compassion for Kim Jong-il or any of the other tyrants who still commit crimes against humanity, but compassion has nothing to do with this. What matters is justice. What matters is the rule of law as some sort of imperfect reflection of justice.
There was no justice in Iraq under Saddam, but nor was there any justice for Saddam himself. Did he deserve justice? There are many who say no. There are many who say that, justice or no, Saddam got what he deserved, or that he deserved far worse.
But are we not better than Saddam? Should not the "new" Iraq be better than Saddam? Should there not be justice in the "new" Iraq?
Or is this what we have become?
Friday, December 29, 2006
It all comes down to this
By Creature
I just posted this over at Shakes in the comments. I think it sums up how I feel about Saddam's execution:
Evil dictators rule throughout the world. They kill and oppress their people. This one is now dead, not because of the horrible acts he committed -- the worst of which came with America's approval -- but because Bush, Cheney et al. had an agenda. An agenda worked out long before 9/11. An agenda which disgraced the memories of the people who died on that day. Justice was not had. Justice was spun. I do not feel safer.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
I just posted this over at Shakes in the comments. I think it sums up how I feel about Saddam's execution:
I feel sad, not for Saddam, but for what we have become. I know it's been years in the making, but tonight just solidified it all.
Evil dictators rule throughout the world. They kill and oppress their people. This one is now dead, not because of the horrible acts he committed -- the worst of which came with America's approval -- but because Bush, Cheney et al. had an agenda. An agenda worked out long before 9/11. An agenda which disgraced the memories of the people who died on that day. Justice was not had. Justice was spun. I do not feel safer.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Saddam's imminent end
By Michael J.W. Stickings
***UPDATED BELOW***
Reports indicate that Saddam Hussein will be executed within the next few hours -- by 10 pm ET this evening.
I am disgusted. I am ashamed. I am appalled. I am saddened.
We, too, are barbarians.
**********
See our previous posts here, here, and here.
And see Shakes at Ezra. And Mohammed at Iraq the Model.
**********
UPDATE: For more, see the Carpetbagger at Political Animal.
The BBC has updates here.
Two editorials worth reading are in the WaPo and the NYT. The editors of the former claim to be against the death penalty but criticize "human rights groups" and argue that Saddam's execution will still be just, however imperfectly so. Which is an utterly stupid criticism and argument. The editors of the latter do not address the justice, or lack thereof, of Saddam's execution, but they are right to point out that it comes as the result of "a flawed, politicized and divisive trial". The trial -- and, I would argue, the execution -- did nothing to "set a precedent for the rule of law in a country scarred by decades of arbitrary vindictiveness". Indeed: "Toppling Saddam Hussein did not automatically create a new and better Iraq. Executing him won't either."
This is a horrendous development.
Iraq may officially be carrying out Saddam's execution, but do not be fooled. The U.S. is responsible for this. The U.S. is allowing this to happen. To the extent that Iraq is involved, it is vengeance, not justice. And vengeance of this kind, even vengeance directed at a former tyrant, will not help a country torn apart by bitter and bloody sectarianism.
More blood is not the answer. Another killing is not just.
**********
UPDATE 2: And it's over. The news networks -- and I'm watching CNN and the BBC -- are reporting that Saddam was executed just after 10 pm ET (6 am local time).
Now reported: 10:05 pm ET.
CNN has updates here. See also MSNBC here.
**********
UPDATE 3: The Times has an obituary here.
And make sure to read the response from Human Rights Watch here: "The execution of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein following a deeply flawed trial for crimes against humanity marks a significant step away from respect for human rights and the rule of law in Iraq."
***UPDATED BELOW***
Reports indicate that Saddam Hussein will be executed within the next few hours -- by 10 pm ET this evening.
I am disgusted. I am ashamed. I am appalled. I am saddened.
We, too, are barbarians.
**********
See our previous posts here, here, and here.
And see Shakes at Ezra. And Mohammed at Iraq the Model.
**********
UPDATE: For more, see the Carpetbagger at Political Animal.
The BBC has updates here.
Two editorials worth reading are in the WaPo and the NYT. The editors of the former claim to be against the death penalty but criticize "human rights groups" and argue that Saddam's execution will still be just, however imperfectly so. Which is an utterly stupid criticism and argument. The editors of the latter do not address the justice, or lack thereof, of Saddam's execution, but they are right to point out that it comes as the result of "a flawed, politicized and divisive trial". The trial -- and, I would argue, the execution -- did nothing to "set a precedent for the rule of law in a country scarred by decades of arbitrary vindictiveness". Indeed: "Toppling Saddam Hussein did not automatically create a new and better Iraq. Executing him won't either."
This is a horrendous development.
Iraq may officially be carrying out Saddam's execution, but do not be fooled. The U.S. is responsible for this. The U.S. is allowing this to happen. To the extent that Iraq is involved, it is vengeance, not justice. And vengeance of this kind, even vengeance directed at a former tyrant, will not help a country torn apart by bitter and bloody sectarianism.
More blood is not the answer. Another killing is not just.
**********
UPDATE 2: And it's over. The news networks -- and I'm watching CNN and the BBC -- are reporting that Saddam was executed just after 10 pm ET (6 am local time).
Now reported: 10:05 pm ET.
CNN has updates here. See also MSNBC here.
**********
UPDATE 3: The Times has an obituary here.
And make sure to read the response from Human Rights Watch here: "The execution of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein following a deeply flawed trial for crimes against humanity marks a significant step away from respect for human rights and the rule of law in Iraq."
Best of the worst -- 2006
By Capt. Fogg
2006 was an outrageous year. All it usually took for me to find something to write about was a look at the headlines or a quick look at what Fox was spewing and there were plenty of outrages in word and deed to choose from. I wouldn’t dare to try to list the best of the worst, even if I did have the huge chunk of time it would take, but AlterNet was audacious enough to post its eleven most outrageous right-wing comments of 2006 . Apparently they would have stopped at ten but for Ann Coulter – still, Michael Savage’s savage claim that Wolf Blitzer “would have pushed Jewish children into the oven” is pretty bad, but not as funny as fat old Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to blame obesity on liberals while telling us you have to slaughter the cow to get butter.
My favorite in the Honorable Mention class has to be MSNBC’s Glenn Beck calling for the nuclear annihilation of not only Iran but everyone else that disagrees with Mr. Beck. But of course that’s only my opinion. Nearly everything the media blowhards and the other representatives of the Bush administration (if I’m not being redundant) gave us was outrageous enough to qualify. There is no way to list them all or to comment on them all even if I had the stomach for it. I’m left with a vision of Kurtz in his jungle hell mumbling incoherently about the horror.
(Cross posted at Human Voices.)
2006 was an outrageous year. All it usually took for me to find something to write about was a look at the headlines or a quick look at what Fox was spewing and there were plenty of outrages in word and deed to choose from. I wouldn’t dare to try to list the best of the worst, even if I did have the huge chunk of time it would take, but AlterNet was audacious enough to post its eleven most outrageous right-wing comments of 2006 . Apparently they would have stopped at ten but for Ann Coulter – still, Michael Savage’s savage claim that Wolf Blitzer “would have pushed Jewish children into the oven” is pretty bad, but not as funny as fat old Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to blame obesity on liberals while telling us you have to slaughter the cow to get butter.
My favorite in the Honorable Mention class has to be MSNBC’s Glenn Beck calling for the nuclear annihilation of not only Iran but everyone else that disagrees with Mr. Beck. But of course that’s only my opinion. Nearly everything the media blowhards and the other representatives of the Bush administration (if I’m not being redundant) gave us was outrageous enough to qualify. There is no way to list them all or to comment on them all even if I had the stomach for it. I’m left with a vision of Kurtz in his jungle hell mumbling incoherently about the horror.
(Cross posted at Human Voices.)
The hanged man
By Capt. Fogg
According to CNN, Saddam Hussein may be hanged tomorrow or as early as tonight in Eastern Standard time. Picturing the hooded and somewhat shrunken ex-tyrant on a platform surrounded by Americans is a chilling thought; watching a videotape of his bound body swinging from his snapped neck is nothing I look forward to, but not only because I so strongly oppose executions. It is because Muslims around the world will see a puppet government controlled by American infidels killing a Muslim.
As I said at Human Voices a few weeks back, I can’t imagine anything good coming from this and I can imagine a surge of new anti-American sentiment and action that could come very soon.
Saddam’s defense attorney has stated that the execution will be recorded and the video released the same day. I don’t think it’s unfair to predict that the images will be widely circulated in the Muslim world so that for perhaps the first time he actually will become involved in recruiting for al Qaeda and international terrorism.
According to CNN, Saddam Hussein may be hanged tomorrow or as early as tonight in Eastern Standard time. Picturing the hooded and somewhat shrunken ex-tyrant on a platform surrounded by Americans is a chilling thought; watching a videotape of his bound body swinging from his snapped neck is nothing I look forward to, but not only because I so strongly oppose executions. It is because Muslims around the world will see a puppet government controlled by American infidels killing a Muslim.
As I said at Human Voices a few weeks back, I can’t imagine anything good coming from this and I can imagine a surge of new anti-American sentiment and action that could come very soon.Saddam’s defense attorney has stated that the execution will be recorded and the video released the same day. I don’t think it’s unfair to predict that the images will be widely circulated in the Muslim world so that for perhaps the first time he actually will become involved in recruiting for al Qaeda and international terrorism.
Joe's escalation op-ed
By Creature
Right on cue IndependentRepublican Democrat Joe Lieberman crawls back up the president's ass and marches in lock-step with a call for more troops. Forget the fact that our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war. Forget the fact that Sunni insurgents want their power (oil) back. Forget the fact that the real central front in the so-called terror war has already been lost in Pakistan. All we must remember is, wait for it, September the 11th.
If George Bush owned a parrot he would likely name it Joe.
The Lieberman editorial can be found in today's Washington Post.
UPDATE: Not only does Joe want to escalate the war we are already fighting, he has just declared war on Iran. This "new way forward" is going to be bloody indeed. I'll let Glenn Greenwald take it from here.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Right on cue Independent
On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
If George Bush owned a parrot he would likely name it Joe.
The Lieberman editorial can be found in today's Washington Post.
UPDATE: Not only does Joe want to escalate the war we are already fighting, he has just declared war on Iran. This "new way forward" is going to be bloody indeed. I'll let Glenn Greenwald take it from here.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Edwards announces presidential bid
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I wrote extensively about John Edwards's run for the presidency a couple of weeks ago -- see here (for a post that contains both my thoughts on Edwards and a bunch of links). But now it's official. And he made it official in New Orleans yesterday:
I've long said that my two preferred candidates are Gore and Edwards. And although I prefer not to endorse anyone so early in the process, my support for Edwards is strong.
The transcript of Edwards's announcement is here. Here's a noteworthy passage on Iraq: "And it is a mistake -- I want to be absolutely clear about this -- it is a mistake for America to escalate its role in Iraq. It is a mistake to surge troops into Iraq. It sends exactly the wrong signal to the Iraqis and the rest of the world about what our intentions are there." And I'm particularly pleased that he addressed both the climate crisis and health care, two issues that need far more attention they've been getting in Washington.
For more on Edwards's "non-traditional campaign model," see here.
For reaction in the blogosphere, see The Carpetbagger Report (and Political Animal), Ezra Klein, The Democratic Daily, Booman Tribune, DownWithTyranny!, Bob Geiger, TalkLeft, and The Huffington Post. (And for a more critical reaction, see Sister Toldjah.)
I thank the Edwards campaign for advertising here at The Reaction. Click on the Blogad over on the right. And go to JohnEdwards.com and the John Edwards '08 Blog (formerly the One America Committee Blog).
And here's a video of Edwards's pre-announcement announcement from Wednesday (via Shakespeare's Sister):
I wrote extensively about John Edwards's run for the presidency a couple of weeks ago -- see here (for a post that contains both my thoughts on Edwards and a bunch of links). But now it's official. And he made it official in New Orleans yesterday:
Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina launched his second campaign for the White House from this flood-ravaged city Thursday with a call for the United States to reduce its troop presence in Iraq and a plea for citizen action to combat poverty, global warming and America's reliance on foreign oil.
Edwards was sharply critical of the administration for its conduct of the war in Iraq, and he again recanted his own vote authorizing President Bush to take the country to war, which he called a mistake.
I've long said that my two preferred candidates are Gore and Edwards. And although I prefer not to endorse anyone so early in the process, my support for Edwards is strong.
The transcript of Edwards's announcement is here. Here's a noteworthy passage on Iraq: "And it is a mistake -- I want to be absolutely clear about this -- it is a mistake for America to escalate its role in Iraq. It is a mistake to surge troops into Iraq. It sends exactly the wrong signal to the Iraqis and the rest of the world about what our intentions are there." And I'm particularly pleased that he addressed both the climate crisis and health care, two issues that need far more attention they've been getting in Washington.
For more on Edwards's "non-traditional campaign model," see here.
For reaction in the blogosphere, see The Carpetbagger Report (and Political Animal), Ezra Klein, The Democratic Daily, Booman Tribune, DownWithTyranny!, Bob Geiger, TalkLeft, and The Huffington Post. (And for a more critical reaction, see Sister Toldjah.)
I thank the Edwards campaign for advertising here at The Reaction. Click on the Blogad over on the right. And go to JohnEdwards.com and the John Edwards '08 Blog (formerly the One America Committee Blog).
And here's a video of Edwards's pre-announcement announcement from Wednesday (via Shakespeare's Sister):
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The climate crisis in Canada's Arctic
By Michael J.W. Stickings
There's been yet another worrying sign of the most pressing issue of our time:
The cause?
All part of the giant global warming hoax, no doubt. Right Inhofe, Crichton, and the rest of you fucking morons?
There's been yet another worrying sign of the most pressing issue of our time:
A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, leaving a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake.
The mass of ice broke clear from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometres south of the North Pole.
The cause?
Scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in 30 years and point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor.
“We think this incident is consistent with global climate change,” Dr. [Warwick] Vincent [of Laval University] said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 per cent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906.
“We aren't able to connect all of the dots... but unusually warm temperatures definitely played a major role.”
All part of the giant global warming hoax, no doubt. Right Inhofe, Crichton, and the rest of you fucking morons?
Liechtenstein, my Liechtenstein
By Michael J.W. Stickings
So you're a little bigger than we thought you were? Congratulations. Well done.
Although you're still the sixth smallest country in the world. And, of course, you're renowned mostly for your stamps, dental products, low taxes, and Swiss-like neutrality. But you're still a beautiful place.
Seriously. I've been there. It's lovely. I'm just happy I can finally blog about it -- no, not seriously, but here you are. My Liechtenstein post.
What to learn all about it? See here, here, and here (the official site) -- and, if you know German, here and here. And here's a nice picture of Vaduz, the capital, I found here:
So you're a little bigger than we thought you were? Congratulations. Well done.Although you're still the sixth smallest country in the world. And, of course, you're renowned mostly for your stamps, dental products, low taxes, and Swiss-like neutrality. But you're still a beautiful place.
Seriously. I've been there. It's lovely. I'm just happy I can finally blog about it -- no, not seriously, but here you are. My Liechtenstein post.
What to learn all about it? See here, here, and here (the official site) -- and, if you know German, here and here. And here's a nice picture of Vaduz, the capital, I found here:
What the troops think
By Michael J.W. Stickings
You won't hear this from the White House, which doesn't seem to care what if anything the cannon fodder think, but:
A bad idea? Well, sure, but that hasn't stopped Bush and the warmongers before. So why now? Perhaps they ought to listen to those they claim to respect so highly:
Casualties. Lives on the line. Bush and the warmongers seem to have no clue about just what the troops face on the ground in Iraq. But, then, why would they? How could they? They're well out of range, protected not just by distance but by ideological fervour and delusional idealism. Their war may not quite be a game to them, but it sure isn't as real as the guts and blood of real Americans and real Iraqis and real "willing" coalitionists that will continue to be spilled as a result of their disastrous dreams of military glory on the battlefields of the Middle East.
Maybe, for once, the warmongers ought to shut the fuck up and listen to those who are actually risking their lives for this mistake.
You won't hear this from the White House, which doesn't seem to care what if anything the cannon fodder think, but:
Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say the temporary surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea.
A bad idea? Well, sure, but that hasn't stopped Bush and the warmongers before. So why now? Perhaps they ought to listen to those they claim to respect so highly:
In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.
Others insisted current troop levels are sufficient and said any increase in U.S. presence should focus on training Iraqi forces, not combat.
But their more troubling worry was that dispatching a new wave of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties, and some questioned whether an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting more lives on the line.
Casualties. Lives on the line. Bush and the warmongers seem to have no clue about just what the troops face on the ground in Iraq. But, then, why would they? How could they? They're well out of range, protected not just by distance but by ideological fervour and delusional idealism. Their war may not quite be a game to them, but it sure isn't as real as the guts and blood of real Americans and real Iraqis and real "willing" coalitionists that will continue to be spilled as a result of their disastrous dreams of military glory on the battlefields of the Middle East.
Maybe, for once, the warmongers ought to shut the fuck up and listen to those who are actually risking their lives for this mistake.
Death to Saddam
By Michael J.W. Stickings
It looks like Saddam will be executed by Sunday and perhaps even tomorrow, NBC reports. Like Grace, who posted on this a couple of days ago, I am against the death penalty. Indeed, my opposition to it is absolute, and this case -- the case of a genocidal tyrant -- is no exception. I have no compassion for Saddam, but a suitable and just punishment for his many crimes against humanity would be for him to spend the rest of his life in prison. Another death -- another killing -- is not the answer.
It looks like Saddam will be executed by Sunday and perhaps even tomorrow, NBC reports. Like Grace, who posted on this a couple of days ago, I am against the death penalty. Indeed, my opposition to it is absolute, and this case -- the case of a genocidal tyrant -- is no exception. I have no compassion for Saddam, but a suitable and just punishment for his many crimes against humanity would be for him to spend the rest of his life in prison. Another death -- another killing -- is not the answer.
Tick Tock
By Creature
All the time in the world...
I guess it's hard work coming up with a marketing plan when escalation is your product.
The Associated Press has more on the president's big day.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
All the time in the world...
President Bush said his meeting Thursday with national security advisers put him a step closer to making changes to U.S. strategy in Iraq, but that he will seek more advice before announcing a plan in January.
I guess it's hard work coming up with a marketing plan when escalation is your product.
The Associated Press has more on the president's big day.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Gerald Ford (1913-2006)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
As I'm sure most of you know by now, former President Gerald Ford died yesterday at the age of 93. Needless to say, there's been a lot of reaction and remembrance in the news media and the blogosphere, and you can find much of it at Memeorandum.
I don't have much to add, except this: Ford was both in the right place at the right time and the wrong place at the wrong time. He likely would never have been elected president, and so he only became president as a result of Nixon's resignation. But he had no chance to succeed once in the presidency. There was no way out of Nixon's shadow -- although the premature pardon didn't help his chances against Carter in '76 -- and he was met with a seemingly insurmountable economic crisis in the form of high inflation and recession. What was he to do? The WIN ("whip inflation now") buttons were hardly enough. And then, of course, there was Vietnam. It wasn't his war, but the evacuation of Saigon, one of the lowest points in all of American history, occurred on his watch. And in perhaps the worst move of his short presidency he approved of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, now finally independent, a truly horrible and reprehensible foreign policy decision that essentially enabled the massacre of well over 100,000 people, a third of East Timor's population. At least he appointed Stevens, a liberal stalwart, to the Supreme Court -- not that he knew of Stevens's liberal future at the time.
And so he will be remembered as the man who pardoned Nixon and as the president who was never elected but who was the target of two assassination attempts. And as the president who fell down the airplane steps. And as the president constantly and effectively ridiculed on Saturday Night Live. And as a Simpsons neighbour -- in one episode, he moves in right across the street after Bush 41 moves out.
For more, I recommend this retrospective feature on Ford at The Washington Post. There's a good collection of articles (including an obituary) a photo gallery, videos, and links to other Ford-related sites.
In addition, I recommend this excellent post by my friend Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice. As usual, Joe's analysis is right on the mark, and he links to and quotes many of the best reactions from around the blogosphere.
Other good posts come from Juan Cole, Lyle Denniston, James Joyner (with a lot of links), Pam Spaulding, Digby, Ed Morrissey (and here), Taylor Marsh, and Howie Klein, among others.
In closing, here's a short campaign ad from 1976:
As I'm sure most of you know by now, former President Gerald Ford died yesterday at the age of 93. Needless to say, there's been a lot of reaction and remembrance in the news media and the blogosphere, and you can find much of it at Memeorandum.
I don't have much to add, except this: Ford was both in the right place at the right time and the wrong place at the wrong time. He likely would never have been elected president, and so he only became president as a result of Nixon's resignation. But he had no chance to succeed once in the presidency. There was no way out of Nixon's shadow -- although the premature pardon didn't help his chances against Carter in '76 -- and he was met with a seemingly insurmountable economic crisis in the form of high inflation and recession. What was he to do? The WIN ("whip inflation now") buttons were hardly enough. And then, of course, there was Vietnam. It wasn't his war, but the evacuation of Saigon, one of the lowest points in all of American history, occurred on his watch. And in perhaps the worst move of his short presidency he approved of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, now finally independent, a truly horrible and reprehensible foreign policy decision that essentially enabled the massacre of well over 100,000 people, a third of East Timor's population. At least he appointed Stevens, a liberal stalwart, to the Supreme Court -- not that he knew of Stevens's liberal future at the time.
And so he will be remembered as the man who pardoned Nixon and as the president who was never elected but who was the target of two assassination attempts. And as the president who fell down the airplane steps. And as the president constantly and effectively ridiculed on Saturday Night Live. And as a Simpsons neighbour -- in one episode, he moves in right across the street after Bush 41 moves out.
For more, I recommend this retrospective feature on Ford at The Washington Post. There's a good collection of articles (including an obituary) a photo gallery, videos, and links to other Ford-related sites.
In addition, I recommend this excellent post by my friend Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice. As usual, Joe's analysis is right on the mark, and he links to and quotes many of the best reactions from around the blogosphere.
Other good posts come from Juan Cole, Lyle Denniston, James Joyner (with a lot of links), Pam Spaulding, Digby, Ed Morrissey (and here), Taylor Marsh, and Howie Klein, among others.
In closing, here's a short campaign ad from 1976:
A new way forward toward a mystery goal that was only ever a mirage
By The (liberal)Girl Next Door
I am eagerly awaiting President Bush’s State of the Union address, first of all because there is always that WTF moment in every one of his speeches to the country (think “switch grass” and “animal human hybrids” and “steroids in baseball” in the midst of a failing war), but secondly because I’m curious to see if the American people will see through his “new way forward in Iraq”. A slogan is not a policy, but the Bush Administration is still ignorant to that fact.
While Tony Snow digested his Christmas turkey, Scott Stanzel took to the podium and gave this nugget to the press:
Still aiming high eh?
Bush and the American people have never exactly been on the same page when it came to Iraq. I mean, really, what interest did most of us have in using our children to avenge a failed attempt on his father’s life? But now that we have sparked a civil war in Iraq, and more and more of our young men and women are coming home without their limbs, or, worse, in body bags, we recognize that there is no winning while the president still shoots for the moon.
If there was ever a common goal, it was supporting our troops while they are in harm's way, but, increasingly, the American people recognize that the only way to support our troops is to get them the hell out of Iraq. Meanwhile, rumor has it that Bush will argue for sending in more troops. And why? Certainly not because “winning” in Iraq is possible, or even because it is in our country's best interest, but because he must stay the course to save his legacy. Again, what interest do the rest of us have in that?
It is dangerous to have a president at the helm whose sole concern is his place in history. The troops on the ground in Iraq don’t care about that, nor do the generals, the Joint Chiefs, or the American people. If, in his State of the Union address, President Bush puts his desires above everyone else’s and proposes a troop surge to create a “democratic and unified” Iraq, he will prove that he is unfit to lead. I, for one, can’t wait to see what we do about that.
(Cross-posted at The (liberal)Girl Next Door.)
I am eagerly awaiting President Bush’s State of the Union address, first of all because there is always that WTF moment in every one of his speeches to the country (think “switch grass” and “animal human hybrids” and “steroids in baseball” in the midst of a failing war), but secondly because I’m curious to see if the American people will see through his “new way forward in Iraq”. A slogan is not a policy, but the Bush Administration is still ignorant to that fact.
While Tony Snow digested his Christmas turkey, Scott Stanzel took to the podium and gave this nugget to the press:
“President Bush will talk soon to our troops, to the American people and to the Iraqi people about the new way forward in Iraq that will lead to a democratic and unified country that can sustain, govern, and defend itself.”
Still aiming high eh?
Bush and the American people have never exactly been on the same page when it came to Iraq. I mean, really, what interest did most of us have in using our children to avenge a failed attempt on his father’s life? But now that we have sparked a civil war in Iraq, and more and more of our young men and women are coming home without their limbs, or, worse, in body bags, we recognize that there is no winning while the president still shoots for the moon.
If there was ever a common goal, it was supporting our troops while they are in harm's way, but, increasingly, the American people recognize that the only way to support our troops is to get them the hell out of Iraq. Meanwhile, rumor has it that Bush will argue for sending in more troops. And why? Certainly not because “winning” in Iraq is possible, or even because it is in our country's best interest, but because he must stay the course to save his legacy. Again, what interest do the rest of us have in that?
It is dangerous to have a president at the helm whose sole concern is his place in history. The troops on the ground in Iraq don’t care about that, nor do the generals, the Joint Chiefs, or the American people. If, in his State of the Union address, President Bush puts his desires above everyone else’s and proposes a troop surge to create a “democratic and unified” Iraq, he will prove that he is unfit to lead. I, for one, can’t wait to see what we do about that.
(Cross-posted at The (liberal)Girl Next Door.)
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
The window has closed for Saddam
By Grace
The Iraqi Appeals Court has rejected Saddam Hussein's appeal and upheld his death sentence; no further appeals will be heard, nor will his sentence be commuted. According to the BBC, he was "convicted of human rights abuses in relation to the killings of the 148 Shias in Dujail, north of Baghdad".
In accordance with Iraqi law, and as stated by the judge, Arif Shaheen, "[the time until execution] cannot exceed 30 days. As from [tomorrow] the sentence could be carried out at any time."
So, it is done. Unless something drastic changes, Saddam's fate appears to be sealed. Within a month's time, he will hang.
Some critics have called the sentencing a "victors' justice". I won't and can't defend the actions of Saddam Hussein in any way: There is no excusing the violation of human rights and the killing of innocent human beings. However, I stand in opposition of the death penalty, so I cannot and will not defend this sentence either.
**********
UPDATE: The BBC has more here. Saddam sees his death as a "sacrifice" and himself as a "true martyr". -- MJWS
The Iraqi Appeals Court has rejected Saddam Hussein's appeal and upheld his death sentence; no further appeals will be heard, nor will his sentence be commuted. According to the BBC, he was "convicted of human rights abuses in relation to the killings of the 148 Shias in Dujail, north of Baghdad".
In accordance with Iraqi law, and as stated by the judge, Arif Shaheen, "[the time until execution] cannot exceed 30 days. As from [tomorrow] the sentence could be carried out at any time."
So, it is done. Unless something drastic changes, Saddam's fate appears to be sealed. Within a month's time, he will hang.
Some critics have called the sentencing a "victors' justice". I won't and can't defend the actions of Saddam Hussein in any way: There is no excusing the violation of human rights and the killing of innocent human beings. However, I stand in opposition of the death penalty, so I cannot and will not defend this sentence either.
**********
UPDATE: The BBC has more here. Saddam sees his death as a "sacrifice" and himself as a "true martyr". -- MJWS
An Army of Juan
By Capt. Fogg
Isn’t it inevitable? I mean, everything else of importance seems to have been outsourced or will soon be moved abroad. Americans want good working conditions, good pay, and good benefits, and that’s – well it’s just not the best thing for corporate profits. It’s not just manufacturing, it’s engineering, it’s technology, and soon it may be the Armed Forces. The plan is to recruit immigrants here and abroad and to use citizenship as an incentive to attract cannon fodder for Bush’s wars.
I usually dismiss comparisons between our times and the fall of
Opportunity or exploitation -- it all depends on whether you trust George W. Bush or not.
Your papers please...
By Capt. Fogg
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
-- Constitution of the United States of America
**********
Like many of you, I had a bit of a drive on Christmas day – 120 miles (200 Km) round trip and nearly all of it on the Interstate. Of course, this being Florida, it can be hard to tell the drunks from the incompetent and the insane, but I’m sure that the fellow in the Honda who did a complete stop in the “Sun Pass” automatic toll lane was just a garden variety idiot, or else he wouldn’t have dedicated the next 20 minutes to trying to prove his Honda was much faster and more agile than my Corvette. I’m sure he convinced himself without much effort.
I’m not sure about he several mega-SUVs that slowly lumbered to the end of a half-mile merge lane and then attempted to merge at 20 mph into a lane traveling at 85. It’s easier to assess the little sedans loaded with passengers traveling at 45 in the center or left lanes – if they are 85 or older with chins resting on the wheel, it’s just incompetence. If they’re much younger, you can bet they’re as smashed as the young men in the full-sized pick-ups rolling at 95+ down the left lane in the pouring rain.
One way or another, it was a circus out there and it thoroughly ruined the mellowness of the evening. It could have been a field day for the police had there been any in sight. It seems that my county and the adjacent counties had decided to set up road blocks on the secondary roads instead. Judging from the comments in the local paper this morning, you would think this was a very popular idea and the one fellow who happened to question the random searches was promptly drowned out by a flood of hyper-emotional tirades from MADD members and others who hate due process and the rule of law. If one cuts through the dubious stories of friends and family slaughtered by drunks, one consistent theme remains: if it saves one life, it’s worth it. That’s a statement worthy of being posted, if not above the gates of hell, at least at tyranny’s door. To reduce it to the absurd, a total curfew would save many, many lives, and a police state is a safe state.
More than the inconvenience of sitting at a roadblock while policemen justify their presence by writing tickets for broken tail lights and peering and sniffing into your car with flashlights and trained dogs and making intimidating comments, it’s the fact that one more increment of what was a guaranteed freedom has been lost in the name of security. Ah, but driving is a privilege, say the mothers of MADD, and so might it not be just a small step to say that renting an apartment is a privilege or being a citizen is a privilege which necessitates searches without probable cause. In fact, our government seems to operating on that presumption.
Somehow it makes more sense to Americans to insist that our troops being blown up in Iraq are “defending our freedoms” then to notice that our freedoms are being taken away in the name of safety or that the obverse side of the security coin is servitude. The granting of unwritten Writs of Assistance that allow police to detain, search, and inspect citizens without probable cause may seem a small step toward safety, but it’s a giant step toward a police state.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
-- Constitution of the United States of America
**********
Like many of you, I had a bit of a drive on Christmas day – 120 miles (200 Km) round trip and nearly all of it on the Interstate. Of course, this being Florida, it can be hard to tell the drunks from the incompetent and the insane, but I’m sure that the fellow in the Honda who did a complete stop in the “Sun Pass” automatic toll lane was just a garden variety idiot, or else he wouldn’t have dedicated the next 20 minutes to trying to prove his Honda was much faster and more agile than my Corvette. I’m sure he convinced himself without much effort.
I’m not sure about he several mega-SUVs that slowly lumbered to the end of a half-mile merge lane and then attempted to merge at 20 mph into a lane traveling at 85. It’s easier to assess the little sedans loaded with passengers traveling at 45 in the center or left lanes – if they are 85 or older with chins resting on the wheel, it’s just incompetence. If they’re much younger, you can bet they’re as smashed as the young men in the full-sized pick-ups rolling at 95+ down the left lane in the pouring rain.
One way or another, it was a circus out there and it thoroughly ruined the mellowness of the evening. It could have been a field day for the police had there been any in sight. It seems that my county and the adjacent counties had decided to set up road blocks on the secondary roads instead. Judging from the comments in the local paper this morning, you would think this was a very popular idea and the one fellow who happened to question the random searches was promptly drowned out by a flood of hyper-emotional tirades from MADD members and others who hate due process and the rule of law. If one cuts through the dubious stories of friends and family slaughtered by drunks, one consistent theme remains: if it saves one life, it’s worth it. That’s a statement worthy of being posted, if not above the gates of hell, at least at tyranny’s door. To reduce it to the absurd, a total curfew would save many, many lives, and a police state is a safe state.
More than the inconvenience of sitting at a roadblock while policemen justify their presence by writing tickets for broken tail lights and peering and sniffing into your car with flashlights and trained dogs and making intimidating comments, it’s the fact that one more increment of what was a guaranteed freedom has been lost in the name of security. Ah, but driving is a privilege, say the mothers of MADD, and so might it not be just a small step to say that renting an apartment is a privilege or being a citizen is a privilege which necessitates searches without probable cause. In fact, our government seems to operating on that presumption.
Somehow it makes more sense to Americans to insist that our troops being blown up in Iraq are “defending our freedoms” then to notice that our freedoms are being taken away in the name of safety or that the obverse side of the security coin is servitude. The granting of unwritten Writs of Assistance that allow police to detain, search, and inspect citizens without probable cause may seem a small step toward safety, but it’s a giant step toward a police state.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
Sunday, December 24, 2006
December 25, 2006
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from The Reaction.
We hope you have a wonderful time with friends and family.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from The Reaction.
We hope you have a wonderful time with friends and family.
Terrorists target Chunnel
By Michael J.W. Stickings
From The Observer:
Needless to say, stay tuned.
From The Observer:
The Channel tunnel has been targeted by a group of Islamic militant terrorists aiming to cause maximum carnage during the holiday season, according to French and American secret services.
The plan, which the French DGSE foreign intelligence service became aware of earlier this year, is revealed in a secret report to the French government on threat levels. The report, dated December 19, indicates that the tip-off came from the American CIA. British and French intelligence agencies have run a series of checks of the security system protecting the 31-mile tunnel but the threat level, the DGSE warns, remains high. British security services remain on high alert throughout the holiday period.
According to the French sources, the plan was put together in Pakistan and is being directed from there. The plotters are believed to be Western Europeans, possibly Britons of Pakistani descent. The DGSE say that levels of 'chatter', the constant communication that takes place between militants, has not been so high since 2001.
Needless to say, stay tuned.
Just another day in the life and death of Iraq XXIX
By Michael J.W. Stickings
On this Christmas Eve, please take some time to think about what's going on over there:
Meanwhile, there's this report on the state of the Iraqi police:
12,000. That's an astonishing "one death for every 16 officers".
Yet another consequence -- an enormous human cost -- of the gross mismanagement of this terrible war.
On this Christmas Eve, please take some time to think about what's going on over there:
Four American service members have been killed in explosions, while seven Iraqi policemen died when a suicide bomber detonated himself in a police station northeast of the capital, authorities said Sunday.
The American casualties occurred on Saturday...
The deaths bring the number of U.S. service members killed so far in December to 77, which makes it the second-deadliest month this year, after October.
Meanwhile, there's this report on the state of the Iraqi police:
Some 12,000 police officers in Iraq have died in the line of duty since the US-led invasion in 2003, Interior Minister Jawad Bolani said.
The figure is from a total force of about 190,000 officers, he said.
The announcement follows a suicide bomb attack that killed seven policemen and wounded 20 others during a morning parade at a base north of Baghdad.
12,000. That's an astonishing "one death for every 16 officers".
Yet another consequence -- an enormous human cost -- of the gross mismanagement of this terrible war.
The man that never was
By Capt. Fogg
LONDON -- British writer David Irving did not return to England after 13 months in prison last week. He was never imprisioned in Austria under a law that applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse" the Nazi genocide or other Nazi crimes against humanity in a print publication, broadcast, or other media.
Consequently he cannot be entitled to the sympathy he seeks for having lost the house in London he claims to have had during the period during which he was not imprisioned. After extensive "research," I have failed to find any evidence of his ownership of a house in London or that he is a writer. An objective observer can only conclude that the existence of David Irving is a fiction perpetuated by international Jewish and Zionist interests.
LONDON -- British writer David Irving did not return to England after 13 months in prison last week. He was never imprisioned in Austria under a law that applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse" the Nazi genocide or other Nazi crimes against humanity in a print publication, broadcast, or other media.
Consequently he cannot be entitled to the sympathy he seeks for having lost the house in London he claims to have had during the period during which he was not imprisioned. After extensive "research," I have failed to find any evidence of his ownership of a house in London or that he is a writer. An objective observer can only conclude that the existence of David Irving is a fiction perpetuated by international Jewish and Zionist interests.
Flipping and flopping and failing
By Michael J.W. Stickings
He's not necessarily my pick for '08, but John Kerry, whom I still respect and admire a great deal, has written an excellent op-ed for The Washington Post on Iraq.
Bush and the Republican spin machine accused him repeatedly of flipping and flopping back in '04, but the opening line of his piece, a line he should have used in some form to counter those ridiculous accusations, is brilliant:
And he goes on:
And, indeed, Bush's disastrous war has proven to be an immoral flop:
Where was this John Kerry in '04? Oh, never mind. He may have lost, but he's been right about Iraq for a long time. And no matter who wins the Democratic nomination in '08, this is the position Democrats -- and critics of the war generally -- ought to be taking with respect to Iraq and, as of early next year, Bush's new plan for "victory," one that, according to all the signs, will feature some sort of "surge" in Baghdad.
It is time for new leadership because the old leadership, Bush's leadership, has failed so miserably. Bush may be preparing his new plan, but there won't really be anything new about it. And it, too, will fail.
John Kerry may or may not be the right person to lead, but his voice still deserves to be heard. For whether he wins or loses the nomination, and whatever the future course of his life in politics, he is right about Iraq.
Make sure to read his piece in its entirety. It's important that you do. (And then go see The Democratic Daily and Liberal Values for more.)
He's not necessarily my pick for '08, but John Kerry, whom I still respect and admire a great deal, has written an excellent op-ed for The Washington Post on Iraq.
Bush and the Republican spin machine accused him repeatedly of flipping and flopping back in '04, but the opening line of his piece, a line he should have used in some form to counter those ridiculous accusations, is brilliant:
There's something much worse than being accused of "flip-flopping": refusing to flip when it's obvious that your course of action is a flop.
And he goes on:
I say this to President Bush as someone who learned the hard way how embracing the world's complexity can be twisted into a crude political shorthand. Barbed words can make for great politics. But with U.S. troops in Iraq in the middle of an escalating civil war, this is no time for politics. Refusing to change course for fear of the political fallout is not only dangerous -- it is immoral.
And, indeed, Bush's disastrous war has proven to be an immoral flop:
No one should be looking for vindication in what is happening in Iraq today. The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Iraq or that some of us were wrong. The lesson is simply that we need to change course rapidly rather than perversely use mistakes already made and lives already given as an excuse to make more mistakes and lose even more lives.
When young Americans are being killed and maimed, when the Middle East is on the brink of three civil wars, even the most vaunted "steadfastness" morphs pretty quickly into stubbornness, and resolve becomes recklessness. Changing tactics in the face of changing conditions on the ground, developing new strategies because the old ones don't work, is a hell of a lot smarter than the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again with the same tragic results.
Where was this John Kerry in '04? Oh, never mind. He may have lost, but he's been right about Iraq for a long time. And no matter who wins the Democratic nomination in '08, this is the position Democrats -- and critics of the war generally -- ought to be taking with respect to Iraq and, as of early next year, Bush's new plan for "victory," one that, according to all the signs, will feature some sort of "surge" in Baghdad.
It is time for new leadership because the old leadership, Bush's leadership, has failed so miserably. Bush may be preparing his new plan, but there won't really be anything new about it. And it, too, will fail.
John Kerry may or may not be the right person to lead, but his voice still deserves to be heard. For whether he wins or loses the nomination, and whatever the future course of his life in politics, he is right about Iraq.
Make sure to read his piece in its entirety. It's important that you do. (And then go see The Democratic Daily and Liberal Values for more.)
Saturday, December 23, 2006
The U.N. votes to sanction Iran
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Following a similar effort a couple of months ago to try to curb the development of North Korea's nuclear program, the United Nations has finally turned its full attention to Iran:
And then what? Although I would likely oppose a U.S. strike on Iran -- and have argued against it here, here, and here -- I'm not sure how successful such "nonmilitary sanctions" would be in the long run, particularly with Russia's unwillingness to support U.S.-led efforts at the U.N.
Which isn't an argument for war as the only remaining option, just skepticism. Then again, if Bush hadn't squandered American credibility and leadership, perhaps a diplomatic solution would be more likely than it seems to be now.
This is a good step by the U.N., but it must be followed with ever more vigorous diplomacy and, ultimately, compromise. What does Iran want? What would it take for Iran to halt its nuclear program? Those are the questions that ought to form the basis of substantive talks with Tehran. Such talks might go nowhere, and there might be no suitable compromise, but the effort should at least be made.
Following a similar effort a couple of months ago to try to curb the development of North Korea's nuclear program, the United Nations has finally turned its full attention to Iran:
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to impose economic sanctions on Iran for refusing to end a uranium enrichment program that the United States says is aimed at building nuclear weapons.
Iran immediately rejected the resolution.
The result of two months of negotiation, the resolution orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also would freeze Iranian assets of key companies and individuals related to those programs.
If Iran refuses to comply, the resolution warns Iran that the council will adopt further nonmilitary sanctions.
And then what? Although I would likely oppose a U.S. strike on Iran -- and have argued against it here, here, and here -- I'm not sure how successful such "nonmilitary sanctions" would be in the long run, particularly with Russia's unwillingness to support U.S.-led efforts at the U.N.
Which isn't an argument for war as the only remaining option, just skepticism. Then again, if Bush hadn't squandered American credibility and leadership, perhaps a diplomatic solution would be more likely than it seems to be now.
This is a good step by the U.N., but it must be followed with ever more vigorous diplomacy and, ultimately, compromise. What does Iran want? What would it take for Iran to halt its nuclear program? Those are the questions that ought to form the basis of substantive talks with Tehran. Such talks might go nowhere, and there might be no suitable compromise, but the effort should at least be made.
The Green Governator
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I've written before on Arnold Schwarzenegger's impressive environmental record -- see here, here, and here -- but I must admit I'm pleasantly surprised by just how progressive he's proven to be in Sacramento. And there's more yet to come:
All of us who care about the environment and who worry about global warming and climate change more broadly should applaud his efforts and would do well to support him. The environment must not just be "an issue" but a leading -- if not the leading -- policy priority going forward.
If anyone can do it, Schwarzenegger can.
I've written before on Arnold Schwarzenegger's impressive environmental record -- see here, here, and here -- but I must admit I'm pleasantly surprised by just how progressive he's proven to be in Sacramento. And there's more yet to come:Arnold Schwarzenegger is not the type of guy you would necessarily associate with tree hugging. When he bought a Hummer in the early 1990s, it kicked off a nationwide craze for the gas-guzzling behemoths. His lighter-fluid-dowsed action flicks and protein-packed chest bespoke more of American excess than environmentalism, more violence than vegan.
But as governor of California, Schwarzenegger has engaged in a savvy makeover, befitting a Hollywood star. He retooled one of his four Hummers to run on alternative fuels and is quickly fashioning himself into one of the most aggressively pro-environment governors in a state known for leading the nation on that issue.
This year he signed the nation's first environmental law of its kind, committing the state to lowering its greenhouse gas production to 1990 levels by 2020 and setting up an international program that provides manufacturers with incentives to lower carbon emissions, which is supposed to begin by 2012. He has vowed to fight any attempt to drill for oil off California's coast.
And now Schwarzenegger, a Republican, wants to use his star power to turn global warming into an issue in the 2008 presidential election. "There is a whole new movement because of the change of people sent to Washington," Schwarzenegger said in an interview this week, referring to the Democratic Party's impending takeover of Congress. "We want to put the spotlight on this issue in America. It has to become a debate in the presidential election. It has to become an issue."
All of us who care about the environment and who worry about global warming and climate change more broadly should applaud his efforts and would do well to support him. The environment must not just be "an issue" but a leading -- if not the leading -- policy priority going forward.
If anyone can do it, Schwarzenegger can.
Just another day in the life and death of Iraq XXVIII
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The WaPo: "Five more American service members have been killed in Iraq, the U.S. military reported Friday, in what is shaping up to be one of the deadliest months for U.S. forces this year."
Just thought I'd mention it.
The WaPo: "Five more American service members have been killed in Iraq, the U.S. military reported Friday, in what is shaping up to be one of the deadliest months for U.S. forces this year."
Just thought I'd mention it.
Digging a deeper hole
By Creature
Let the escalation begin.
The president now has the military cover he so desperately needs. Did anybody really believe it would turn out different? Sigh.
The Los Angeles Times has more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Let the escalation begin.
Top U.S. military commanders in Iraq have decided to recommend a "surge" of fresh American combat forces, eliminating one of the last remaining hurdles to proposals being considered by President Bush for a troop increase, a defense official familiar with the plan said Friday.
The president now has the military cover he so desperately needs. Did anybody really believe it would turn out different? Sigh.
The Los Angeles Times has more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
The fright before Christmas
The Christmas bombing of 1972: James Carroll wrote about it for the Boston Globe back in 2002. People my age don’t need to read about it. We remember being called traitors for our disgust with a massive anti-civilian act of unbridled terrorism:
American pilots flew nearly 4,000 sorties, including more than 700 by high-flying B-52s. Those "area bombers," incapable of precision, had never been used against cities before. That they were used now was a sure sign that this was terror bombing pure and simple... Everyone could see that the bombing was a final venting of frustration and rage by a superpower faced with ignominious defeat.
Carroll's point though, is not to point out the massive brutality this country can dish out without questioning its morality or that patriotism can be used to glorify murder most foul, but that years of war and flag waving and supporting the troops and making Americans with a conscience the scapegoat for our relentless defeat, the moral sensibilities of our leaders had declined to the level of panic and animal viciousness. Anything to win – anything at all:
Those who ordered and carried out the brutal attacks against population centers at the end of the Vietnam War would never have done so at the beginning. What Nixon commanded in 1972 he would have condemned in 1969... The war transformed America's moral sensibility; the war deadened it.
As Christmas approaches once again and as the Pentagon apparently plans to move additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region to join the carrier Eisenhower in striking range of Iran, is it silly to make comparisons? Bush insists that Iran prove it has no nuclear weapons program, just as he demanded of Saddam. Bush would love to make that bit of idiocy seem rational and honest. Is he planning to attack Iran to prove in his twisted way that it was reasonable to attack Iraq? Has providing some kind of victory -- any kind of victory -- become a plan to save face and provide some sort of ghastly “legacy?”
It’s not the sort of thing to bring visions of sugar plums to my slumbering brain in the days before Christmas.
Friday, December 22, 2006
"I believe that we're going to win"
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Not good enough, Mr. President. As always.
And, no, you're not covering the spread. Not even close.
Not good enough, Mr. President. As always.
And, no, you're not covering the spread. Not even close.
A tale of two headlines
By Creature
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino came out today to remind the press that it was their duty to print a positive story* about the all the work the president will be doing over the holidays. There will be meetings, there will be mulling, but there won't be any decided.
As the president mulls, people die. What a mess this presidency has become. Train. Wreck.
*though this Reuters reporter did manage to end his/her "hard work" story on a liberal pleasing note:
Peace on Earth, indeed.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino came out today to remind the press that it was their duty to print a positive story* about the all the work the president will be doing over the holidays. There will be meetings, there will be mulling, but there won't be any decided.
Bush plans to meet with the National Security Council on Thursday for "further consultations" about Iraq, said Perino.
"I would not consider that to be a decisional meeting," she said.
As the president mulls, people die. What a mess this presidency has become. Train. Wreck.
*though this Reuters reporter did manage to end his/her "hard work" story on a liberal pleasing note:
But as his helicopter landed in a field near the medical center, a house across the street displayed signs saying, "Bush lied, Innocents died" and "Peace on Earth."
Peace on Earth, indeed.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Pee in my pants frightening
By Creature
Yesterday the Pentagon confirmed the rumors.
The problem with sending belligerent signals to Iran is that as the rhetoric gets more heated, as the brink comes rushing fast, George W. Bush has proven he is willing to take the United States right up to the line and then cross over. If Bush starts threatening Iran you can be sure he will follow through, broken army or not, and that is just terrifying. Pee in my pants frightening. What ever the administration's agenda (most likely oil), what ever the stated excuse (a generational battle between extremists and moderates, wev), the elections have passed and the administration is ready to follow through on the rest of their Middle East destabilizing neo-con plan. This story should be front page news.
The New York Times and Glenn Greenwald have more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Yesterday the Pentagon confirmed the rumors.
The United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country, Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday. [...]
Senior American officers said the increase in naval power should not be viewed as preparations for any offensive strike against Iran. But they acknowledged that the ability to hit Iran would be increased and that Iranian leaders might well call the growing presence provocative.
The problem with sending belligerent signals to Iran is that as the rhetoric gets more heated, as the brink comes rushing fast, George W. Bush has proven he is willing to take the United States right up to the line and then cross over. If Bush starts threatening Iran you can be sure he will follow through, broken army or not, and that is just terrifying. Pee in my pants frightening. What ever the administration's agenda (most likely oil), what ever the stated excuse (a generational battle between extremists and moderates, wev), the elections have passed and the administration is ready to follow through on the rest of their Middle East destabilizing neo-con plan. This story should be front page news.
The New York Times and Glenn Greenwald have more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Thursday, December 21, 2006
The immaculate conceiver
By Michael J.W. Stickings
It's Flora, an eight-year old Komodo dragon (think The Freshman) at the Chester Zoo in England. She's pregnant:
It's a fascinating story. Best wishes, Flora.
It's Flora, an eight-year old Komodo dragon (think The Freshman) at the Chester Zoo in England. She's pregnant:Other reptile species reproduce asexually in a process known as parthenogenesis. But Flora's virginal conception, and that of another Komodo dragon earlier this year at the London Zoo, are the first documentations in a Komodo dragon...
Parthenogenesis is a process in which eggs become embryos without male fertilization. It has been seen in about 70 species, including snakes and lizards. Scientists are unsure whether female Komodo dragons have always had this latent ability to reproduce or if this is a new evolutionary development.
It's a fascinating story. Best wishes, Flora.
Why more troops wouldn't be the answer in Iraq
By Michael J.W. Stickings
In our must-read of the day, Slate's Fred Kaplan examines the latest Iraq troop increase proposal making the rounds in Washington, this time from the misguided mind of the AEI's Frederick Kagan:
Imaginary numbers? Assertions and assumptions? No evidence or analysis? No wonder the warmongers like it. That's exactly how they've waged this disastrous war all along. Kagan's proposal fits in perfectly with everything that's come before it.
Make sure to read the whole piece.
In our must-read of the day, Slate's Fred Kaplan examines the latest Iraq troop increase proposal making the rounds in Washington, this time from the misguided mind of the AEI's Frederick Kagan:
It proposes "surging" 20,000 extra troops to secure Baghdad as a necessary and sufficient first step to securing and rebuilding the whole country.
It's being taken very seriously in White House and congressional quarters. I don't understand why, because it's not really a serious study. Numbers are grabbed out of thin air. Crucial points are asserted, not argued. Assumptions are based on crossed fingers, not evidence or analysis.
Imaginary numbers? Assertions and assumptions? No evidence or analysis? No wonder the warmongers like it. That's exactly how they've waged this disastrous war all along. Kagan's proposal fits in perfectly with everything that's come before it.
Make sure to read the whole piece.
Yabba dabba doo
By Michael J.W. Stickings
As many of you know, I'm sure, Joseph Barbera (of Hanna-Barbera animation fame) died earlier this week at the age of 95. (Here's the BBC's obituary.)
His triumph? The Flintstones, my favourite show when I was a kid, even in reruns long after it went off the air. It was a brilliant commentary on American life, well ahead of its time. (See the Wikipedia entry here.)
As many of you know, I'm sure, Joseph Barbera (of Hanna-Barbera animation fame) died earlier this week at the age of 95. (Here's the BBC's obituary.)
His triumph? The Flintstones, my favourite show when I was a kid, even in reruns long after it went off the air. It was a brilliant commentary on American life, well ahead of its time. (See the Wikipedia entry here.)
Will there be a terrorist attack in London?
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The British seem to think so:
There may, of course, be something to this. And one doesn't want to underestimate the terrorist threat. But could this be an overhyped threat? And why be so dramatic about it?
And that's the problem. Given how recklessly both the U.S. and the U.K. -- or, rather, Bush and Blair -- have politicized their "war on terror" for the sake of personal and partisan gain, who knows what, or whom, to believe anymore?
The British seem to think so:
British intelligence and law enforcement officials have passed on a grim assessment to their U.S. counterparts, "It will be a miracle if there isn't a terror attack over the holidays in London," a senior American law enforcement official tells ABCNews.com.
British police have been quietly carrying out a series of key arrests as they continue to track at least six active "plots" tied to what they call "al Qaeda of England."
Officials said they could not cite any specific date or target but said al Qaeda had planned previous operations during the Christmas holidays that had been disrupted.
"It is not a matter of if there will be an attack, but how bad the attack will be," an intelligence official told ABCNews.com.
Authorities say they are seeking at least 18 suspected suicide bombers.
There may, of course, be something to this. And one doesn't want to underestimate the terrorist threat. But could this be an overhyped threat? And why be so dramatic about it?
And that's the problem. Given how recklessly both the U.S. and the U.K. -- or, rather, Bush and Blair -- have politicized their "war on terror" for the sake of personal and partisan gain, who knows what, or whom, to believe anymore?
Miracles
By Capt. Fogg
I’m still waiting for a couple of things I heard many times as a child – well one actually. The first was that the sun always shines on Easter, which of course is true, given enough altitude. Just ask the guys on the International Space Station. The other is that there are miracles on Christmas. Of course, it’s a cynical quest. A miracle has to be something that can’t happen but does happen, and to my way of thinking, if it happens, it can’t be a miracle. Most people, though, are satisfied with much less in their miracles: a water stain on a wall, a burn pattern on a grilled cheese sandwich, someone who was sick got better despite some doctor’s prognosis. As Christmas approaches, we search for these justifications for our idiocy.
I don’t know if someone somewhere doesn’t have a vast database of disasters plotted against the calendar, but I would be willing to bet that the odds are about the same on Christmas as any day of the year for floods, landslides, earthquakes, fires, famines, and pestilences. It may be a holiday for most Americans, but not for Death. Taking a quick break from supervising my holiday house guests today, I see that the news is still full of grief and horror and sadness and misery and death as has the world been down all the thousands of generations, but I’m sure that someone will ferret out a miracle from the endless stories of the ferret eating the baby’s toes or the infant run through the airport X-ray machine. People will be blown to bits today, people will starve and die in agony in gutters. Life with its concomitant horrors will go on as it always has and without interruption.
Still, we will have our miracles to clutch at in this cold and uncaring universe, to give a sense of meaning to lives that mean anything only to us as we sink into the inevitable grief and sorrow and suffering and an eternity of oblivion as the universe stretches out into an infinite and meaningless immensity.
Happy Holidays.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
How convenient
By Creature
With all the talk lately about a conflict between the president and his top military brass over escalating the number of troops currently in Iraq, today we conveniently get these two wire stories to help the president's side of the escalation argument along. Like Bush's political campaigns, where rooms are filled with like-minded people, if these soldiers were cherry picked and used as spin fodder for these headlines then the White House has sunk to an all new low.
Amazing. Not one dissenting opinion.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
With all the talk lately about a conflict between the president and his top military brass over escalating the number of troops currently in Iraq, today we conveniently get these two wire stories to help the president's side of the escalation argument along. Like Bush's political campaigns, where rooms are filled with like-minded people, if these soldiers were cherry picked and used as spin fodder for these headlines then the White House has sunk to an all new low.
No soldier present said U.S. forces should be brought home, and none said current troop levels were adequate, as some commanders have argued.
Amazing. Not one dissenting opinion.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
A rhetorical caveat
By Creature
Did Bush blink?
So we have a caveat. The same caveat we have heard from the Pentagon brass. Does this mean Bush has turned away from the idea of a "surge" in troops? On last night's Hardball, Chris Matthews seemed to think so. He latched onto Bush's caveat as clear proof that the president is backing down from the surge idea. So, now we are all supposed to take a deep breath and sit back, secure in the knowledge that the president has stepped away from the neo-con cliff. If only we could trust what the president says. How long before the president announces that he has looked into the eyes of his new defense secretary and has been assured that there is a "specific mission that can be accomplished" and he is ready to agree on the new escalation strategy? It's only a matter of time, but in the meantime we'll be fed a steady diet of the "reasonable president" rhetorical spin.
The WaPo has more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Did Bush blink?
Apart from any increase in Iraq, Bush said the military's overall size should be increased to relieve the heavy strain on U.S. troops, reversing the previous position of his administration during Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon tenure. Bush also said a troop surge in Iraq would have to be for a specific mission.
His remarks appeared intended to address doubts voiced by prominent military officials who worry that sending more troops to Iraq would be ineffective and put more demands on an already-stretched U.S. military.
"There's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before, you know, I agree on that strategy," the president said. [emphasis me]
So we have a caveat. The same caveat we have heard from the Pentagon brass. Does this mean Bush has turned away from the idea of a "surge" in troops? On last night's Hardball, Chris Matthews seemed to think so. He latched onto Bush's caveat as clear proof that the president is backing down from the surge idea. So, now we are all supposed to take a deep breath and sit back, secure in the knowledge that the president has stepped away from the neo-con cliff. If only we could trust what the president says. How long before the president announces that he has looked into the eyes of his new defense secretary and has been assured that there is a "specific mission that can be accomplished" and he is ready to agree on the new escalation strategy? It's only a matter of time, but in the meantime we'll be fed a steady diet of the "reasonable president" rhetorical spin.
The WaPo has more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
