By Michael J.W. Stickings
Guardian Unlimited: "An elite team of officers advising US commander General David Petraeus in Baghdad has concluded the US has six months to win the war in Iraq -- or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat."
Suffice it to say, however, there are certain "entrenched problems" that seem to stand in the way of victory.
Which begs a couple of questions:
-- How is victory now defined?
-- Is the war even winnable at all?
If the answer to the second question is "No" -- and it would seem to be -- then what's the point? Even an improvement in the security situation in Baghdad -- is that now "victory"? -- would likely just be temporary, what Andrew Sullivan has called a "phony peace".
Six months? Victory? Doubtful.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Alien technology and global warming
By Michael J.W. Stickings
This one merits a massive HUH?
From AFP: "A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday."
That's right, Paul Hellyer -- defence minister under Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in the mid-'60s and then a senior cabinet minister under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the late-'60s (and more recently the founder of economic nationalist Canadian Action Party -- "would like to see what [alien] technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation... that could be a way to save our planet". His words.
Something tells me this won't make it into Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation.
(For more on Hellyer, see here.)
This one merits a massive HUH?
From AFP: "A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday."
That's right, Paul Hellyer -- defence minister under Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in the mid-'60s and then a senior cabinet minister under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the late-'60s (and more recently the founder of economic nationalist Canadian Action Party -- "would like to see what [alien] technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation... that could be a way to save our planet". His words.
Something tells me this won't make it into Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation.
(For more on Hellyer, see here.)
Angelina on Darfur
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Do I really need a reason to post an arousing photo of Angelina Jolie here at The Reaction? Oh -- this isn't that sort of blog? Then how about a caricature?
(This one's from Jorge "Fico" Molina at Monkey Studio.)
Actually, let's take Angelina seriously for a moment. She has an interesting (and important) piece in today's Washington Post on the situation in Darfur -- from a refugee camp (Oure Cassoni) in Bahai, Chad. Here are a few key passages:
-- "By every measure -- killings, rapes, the burning and looting of villages -- the violence in Darfur has increased since my last visit, in 2004. The death toll has passed 200,000; in four years of fighting, Janjaweed militia members have driven 2.5 million people from their homes, including the 26,000 refugees crowded into Oure Cassoni."
-- "When I was in Chad in June 2004, refugees told me about systematic attacks on their villages. It was estimated then that more than 1,000 people were dying each week. In October 2004 I visited West Darfur, where I heard horrific stories, including accounts of gang-rapes of mothers and their children. By that time, the UNHCR estimated, 1.6 million people had been displaced in the three provinces of Darfur and 200,000 others had fled to Chad."
-- "Until the killers and their sponsors are prosecuted and punished, violence will continue on a massive scale. Ending it may well require military action. But accountability can also come from international tribunals, measuring the perpetrators against international standards of justice."
Angelina does not back away from military intervention -- and I tend to think that only military intervention by NATO (and not just the U.N. and/or the A.U. would have any chance of halting the genocide and securing Darfur and Chad -- but she is right that "there will be no enduring peace without justice". And this means that an empowered International Criminal Court can be an effective vehicle in bringing some semblance of justice to the region, investigating the many criminal acts and prosecuting the perpetrators of the horror. But the ICC will only be "as strong as the support we give it". With military action unlikely, there is no good reason not to empower the ICC.
"This might be the moment we stop the cycle of violence and end our tolerance for crimes against humanity. What the worst people in the world fear most is justice. That's what we should deliver."
Powerful words backed up by first-hand experience of what many of us in the comfort of our prosperous liberal democracies would rather pretend isn't happening.
Whatever else one can say about Angelina Jolie, she's emerged as a significant public figure in the fight for justice.
Do I really need a reason to post an arousing photo of Angelina Jolie here at The Reaction? Oh -- this isn't that sort of blog? Then how about a caricature?(This one's from Jorge "Fico" Molina at Monkey Studio.)
Actually, let's take Angelina seriously for a moment. She has an interesting (and important) piece in today's Washington Post on the situation in Darfur -- from a refugee camp (Oure Cassoni) in Bahai, Chad. Here are a few key passages:
-- "By every measure -- killings, rapes, the burning and looting of villages -- the violence in Darfur has increased since my last visit, in 2004. The death toll has passed 200,000; in four years of fighting, Janjaweed militia members have driven 2.5 million people from their homes, including the 26,000 refugees crowded into Oure Cassoni."
-- "When I was in Chad in June 2004, refugees told me about systematic attacks on their villages. It was estimated then that more than 1,000 people were dying each week. In October 2004 I visited West Darfur, where I heard horrific stories, including accounts of gang-rapes of mothers and their children. By that time, the UNHCR estimated, 1.6 million people had been displaced in the three provinces of Darfur and 200,000 others had fled to Chad."
-- "Until the killers and their sponsors are prosecuted and punished, violence will continue on a massive scale. Ending it may well require military action. But accountability can also come from international tribunals, measuring the perpetrators against international standards of justice."
Angelina does not back away from military intervention -- and I tend to think that only military intervention by NATO (and not just the U.N. and/or the A.U. would have any chance of halting the genocide and securing Darfur and Chad -- but she is right that "there will be no enduring peace without justice". And this means that an empowered International Criminal Court can be an effective vehicle in bringing some semblance of justice to the region, investigating the many criminal acts and prosecuting the perpetrators of the horror. But the ICC will only be "as strong as the support we give it". With military action unlikely, there is no good reason not to empower the ICC.
"This might be the moment we stop the cycle of violence and end our tolerance for crimes against humanity. What the worst people in the world fear most is justice. That's what we should deliver."
Powerful words backed up by first-hand experience of what many of us in the comfort of our prosperous liberal democracies would rather pretend isn't happening.
Whatever else one can say about Angelina Jolie, she's emerged as a significant public figure in the fight for justice.
Digital cameras
By Heraclitus
Hello, readers. I've been wanting to get one of these digital cameras I keep hearing about (yes, I know, I am teh lame), but I don't know much about them. I'd mainly like to use it to take pictures outside, not just snap shots of family birthday parties and so on. What should I expect to pay? I notice the cheaper ones on Amazon are a little under $100. Are these going to be pieces of crap? The digital camera review sites I've seen mainly review cameras costing several hundred or even thousand dollars. I don't need anything that nice (read: I'm not paying anywhere near that much), but how much should I expect to pay for a decent digital camera that can take good outdoor photos? Thanks.
Hello, readers. I've been wanting to get one of these digital cameras I keep hearing about (yes, I know, I am teh lame), but I don't know much about them. I'd mainly like to use it to take pictures outside, not just snap shots of family birthday parties and so on. What should I expect to pay? I notice the cheaper ones on Amazon are a little under $100. Are these going to be pieces of crap? The digital camera review sites I've seen mainly review cameras costing several hundred or even thousand dollars. I don't need anything that nice (read: I'm not paying anywhere near that much), but how much should I expect to pay for a decent digital camera that can take good outdoor photos? Thanks.
Silencing the victims of Bush's warmongering
By Michael J.W. Stickings
From Army Times (a rather reputable source):
The Gun Toting Liberal puts it well: "So there we have it; we now know what happens when the President becomes embarrassed. CENSORSHIP and more ABUSE of our fallen heros and heroines of the military. You keep hearing the President preach over and over again how much he feels for those who’ve given the 'ultimate sacrifice' but for those who’ve only given a limb or two, his actions speak louder than words, and that message is: 'Shut the hell up, quit your whining and go clean your rooms'. Just lovely, isn’t it?"
Lovely, indeed. Bush and his right-wing allies always talk about supporting the troops. "If you don't support Bush, you don't support the troops." That's the way the warmongers and their supporters try to back critics into a corner. After all, who wants to be against the troops? It's just like saying, and they also say it: "If you don't support Bush, you're with the terrorists."
But supporting the troops means something other than the pro-Bush spin. It certainly doesn't mean sending them into a war that doesn't make any sense, a war that has already been lost, an occupation that has been overtaken by civil war, a war that from the start has been grossly mismanaged. It may mean many things, including ensuring that they aren't put in harm's way without a clear mission, but it certainly means providing all necessary comfort and care to those who have been injured and who in the service of their country need to have their bodies and their lives rebuilt.
I have no doubt that many, if not most, are receiving excellent treatment. And yet there is evidently a Pentagon policy to silence and segregate from society those who have given so much for their country, as well as to subject them to mistreatment.
And where is the commander-in-chief in all this? Defending his war, more war, always more war, as troops at Walter Reed and elsewhere try to heal.
Who really supports the troops?
From Army Times (a rather reputable source):
Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media.
“Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media,” one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity...
The Pentagon also clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities, to include suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel, saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: “It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,” referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed.
The Gun Toting Liberal puts it well: "So there we have it; we now know what happens when the President becomes embarrassed. CENSORSHIP and more ABUSE of our fallen heros and heroines of the military. You keep hearing the President preach over and over again how much he feels for those who’ve given the 'ultimate sacrifice' but for those who’ve only given a limb or two, his actions speak louder than words, and that message is: 'Shut the hell up, quit your whining and go clean your rooms'. Just lovely, isn’t it?"
Lovely, indeed. Bush and his right-wing allies always talk about supporting the troops. "If you don't support Bush, you don't support the troops." That's the way the warmongers and their supporters try to back critics into a corner. After all, who wants to be against the troops? It's just like saying, and they also say it: "If you don't support Bush, you're with the terrorists."
But supporting the troops means something other than the pro-Bush spin. It certainly doesn't mean sending them into a war that doesn't make any sense, a war that has already been lost, an occupation that has been overtaken by civil war, a war that from the start has been grossly mismanaged. It may mean many things, including ensuring that they aren't put in harm's way without a clear mission, but it certainly means providing all necessary comfort and care to those who have been injured and who in the service of their country need to have their bodies and their lives rebuilt.
I have no doubt that many, if not most, are receiving excellent treatment. And yet there is evidently a Pentagon policy to silence and segregate from society those who have given so much for their country, as well as to subject them to mistreatment.
And where is the commander-in-chief in all this? Defending his war, more war, always more war, as troops at Walter Reed and elsewhere try to heal.
Who really supports the troops?
Bagram blast fallout
By Michael J.W. Stickings
By now most of you have surely heard the news:
There was a good deal of coverage of the attack all over the blogosphere, but see in particular Dustin's excellent live-blogging of the story over at Blue Collar Heresy. He's got some useful links and some solid analysis.
But the story is now not so much the attack itself, nor even whether or not Cheney was the target, but the reaction to the attack in the blogosphere.
Some leading conservative blogs -- Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, Jules Crittenden, The Strata-Sphere, Wizbang, and Riehl World View, for example, as well as Pajamas Media -- have been falling all over themselves trying to make the case that liberals (or Democrats, or progressives, or whatever) wish that Cheney had been killed in the attack. What they point to are some of the 400+ comments that were later deleted from The Huffington Post's item on the attack, comments that did indeed express regret that Cheney was not killed. (For examples of those comments, see the posts linked above.)
There is no excuse for such comments. However much I may dislike Cheney, I do not wish him harm. And I certainly find him preferable to the Taliban. (Obviously.)
And yet the right is trying to make an issue out of this -- the comments of a few loose screws -- in order to reinforce its larger smear of liberals (or Democrats, or progressives, or whatever) as pro-terror and anti-American. Here's Glenn Greenwald, who, as usual, gets it right (in a must-read post):
Case in point: A couple of months ago I wrote a post called "Bigotry in the blogosphere: Barack Obama and the anti-Muslim paranoia of the right". It looked at how one particularly bigoted conservative blogger, Debbie Schlussel, was making a big deal about Obama's middle name and familial ties to Islam. The first several comments respond intelligently to the post. But then the bigotry truly begins, with various anonymous commenters using various racial slurs to attack Obama. I won't copy them here. I have thought about deleting the comments altogether -- even now I am tempted to -- but I realize that I should rather keep them up as a reminder of the bigotry that still exists out there in the real world.
Now, what am I to make of them? They are extreme in their language, reflective of astonishing ignorance and disturbing hatred. They are shocking. But are they representative of anything other than the bigotry of those who posted them? Put another way, do they represent the views of all others who oppose Obama?
No, of course not. You may oppose Obama -- you may even dislike him -- without being a racist and certainly without using the 'N' word. You may abhor such racism altogether. (I hope you do.) You may want to distance yourself as much as possible from such detestable ignorance and hatred. (You should.) You may, as I do, consider such comments to be isolated incidents of hate speech.
Well, just as some commenters use racial slurs against Obama, so do some commenters wish Cheney dead. The former do not represent Obama's opponents any more than the latter represent Cheney's opponents. To do as some conservative bloggers are doing now I would have to try to make the case that conservatives (or Republicans, or whatever) think Obama is a Muslim nigger terrorist piece of shit. I'm not about to try to make that case. However much I may dislike certain conservatives, including those who have smeared Obama publicly, I do not think that they all think that Obama is a Muslim nigger terrorist piece of shit. (Although I do think that racism of that kind is a much more serious and pervasive problem in America than the problem of those who wish Cheney dead. I suspect there are many more such racists than homicidal Cheney-haters out there.)
All of which is to say that the conservative blogosphere -- not all of it, but certainly some of its more significant members -- are making much ado about very little. Many of Cheney's critics -- and I count myself among them -- would like to see him refuted, disgraced, maybe even impeached. But dead? No.
By now most of you have surely heard the news:
Vice President Cheney was inside the main U.S. air base in Afghanistan yesterday when a suicide bomber detonated his explosives just outside the gates, killing as many as 23 people and showcasing insurgents' growing capabilities in advance of a widely expected spring offensive.
Within hours, a purported Taliban spokesman asserted responsibility for the attack -- which killed a U.S. soldier and an American civilian contractor -- and said it was an attempt to assassinate Cheney. U.S. officials disputed the assertion that Cheney was the target, noting that his overnight stay at the sprawling Bagram air base had been unplanned and that he was well away from the blast.
There was a good deal of coverage of the attack all over the blogosphere, but see in particular Dustin's excellent live-blogging of the story over at Blue Collar Heresy. He's got some useful links and some solid analysis.
But the story is now not so much the attack itself, nor even whether or not Cheney was the target, but the reaction to the attack in the blogosphere.
Some leading conservative blogs -- Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, Jules Crittenden, The Strata-Sphere, Wizbang, and Riehl World View, for example, as well as Pajamas Media -- have been falling all over themselves trying to make the case that liberals (or Democrats, or progressives, or whatever) wish that Cheney had been killed in the attack. What they point to are some of the 400+ comments that were later deleted from The Huffington Post's item on the attack, comments that did indeed express regret that Cheney was not killed. (For examples of those comments, see the posts linked above.)
There is no excuse for such comments. However much I may dislike Cheney, I do not wish him harm. And I certainly find him preferable to the Taliban. (Obviously.)
And yet the right is trying to make an issue out of this -- the comments of a few loose screws -- in order to reinforce its larger smear of liberals (or Democrats, or progressives, or whatever) as pro-terror and anti-American. Here's Glenn Greenwald, who, as usual, gets it right (in a must-read post):
The smoke had barely cleared from the suicide bombing in Afghanistan this morning, near a base where Dick Cheney was located, when right-wing pundits -- whose sole expertise seems to be in exploiting terrorism-related issues for political gain -- began their attempt to politically exploit the attack on or near Cheney. Seemingly in unison, they all went digging deep into the comment sections of various liberal blogs, found inappropriate and hateful comments, and then began insisting that these isolated comments proved something...
But stray, anonymous comments prove nothing. And those who rely on them to make an argument -- especially without bothering to make any effort to prove that they are reflective of anything -- should be presumed to have no argument at all. That is why they are relying upon such transparently flimsy and misleading methods to make a point. And the same principle applies to journalists -- those who write articles about "the blogosphere" by using random, stray comments (or mean emails they receive), by definition, have nothing to say, no point worth making.
Case in point: A couple of months ago I wrote a post called "Bigotry in the blogosphere: Barack Obama and the anti-Muslim paranoia of the right". It looked at how one particularly bigoted conservative blogger, Debbie Schlussel, was making a big deal about Obama's middle name and familial ties to Islam. The first several comments respond intelligently to the post. But then the bigotry truly begins, with various anonymous commenters using various racial slurs to attack Obama. I won't copy them here. I have thought about deleting the comments altogether -- even now I am tempted to -- but I realize that I should rather keep them up as a reminder of the bigotry that still exists out there in the real world.
Now, what am I to make of them? They are extreme in their language, reflective of astonishing ignorance and disturbing hatred. They are shocking. But are they representative of anything other than the bigotry of those who posted them? Put another way, do they represent the views of all others who oppose Obama?
No, of course not. You may oppose Obama -- you may even dislike him -- without being a racist and certainly without using the 'N' word. You may abhor such racism altogether. (I hope you do.) You may want to distance yourself as much as possible from such detestable ignorance and hatred. (You should.) You may, as I do, consider such comments to be isolated incidents of hate speech.
Well, just as some commenters use racial slurs against Obama, so do some commenters wish Cheney dead. The former do not represent Obama's opponents any more than the latter represent Cheney's opponents. To do as some conservative bloggers are doing now I would have to try to make the case that conservatives (or Republicans, or whatever) think Obama is a Muslim nigger terrorist piece of shit. I'm not about to try to make that case. However much I may dislike certain conservatives, including those who have smeared Obama publicly, I do not think that they all think that Obama is a Muslim nigger terrorist piece of shit. (Although I do think that racism of that kind is a much more serious and pervasive problem in America than the problem of those who wish Cheney dead. I suspect there are many more such racists than homicidal Cheney-haters out there.)
All of which is to say that the conservative blogosphere -- not all of it, but certainly some of its more significant members -- are making much ado about very little. Many of Cheney's critics -- and I count myself among them -- would like to see him refuted, disgraced, maybe even impeached. But dead? No.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Just another day in the life and death of Iraq XLIII
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The Washington Post: "Sixteen children playing soccer and two women were killed Monday in a car bombing in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi, an Iraqi official said Tuesday, in an attack that Iraqi leaders decried as horrific."
Well, Laura, I guess that's your discouraging bomb for Monday, huh? It's so annoying that the media bother to report it, huh? 'Cause things are going so well, huh? But... uh:
CHILDREN ARE BEING KILLED!
Do you get the point, Laura? Do you? Do you understand what is happening in Iraq? Do you understand what this war has unleashed upon the people of Iraq? Do you understand how your husband fucked up? Do you understand how remaining in Iraq won't solve Iraq's problems?
Seriously, pay some fucking attention to reality.
The Washington Post: "Sixteen children playing soccer and two women were killed Monday in a car bombing in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi, an Iraqi official said Tuesday, in an attack that Iraqi leaders decried as horrific."
Well, Laura, I guess that's your discouraging bomb for Monday, huh? It's so annoying that the media bother to report it, huh? 'Cause things are going so well, huh? But... uh:
CHILDREN ARE BEING KILLED!
Do you get the point, Laura? Do you? Do you understand what is happening in Iraq? Do you understand what this war has unleashed upon the people of Iraq? Do you understand how your husband fucked up? Do you understand how remaining in Iraq won't solve Iraq's problems?
Seriously, pay some fucking attention to reality.
Weakening America
By Michael J.W. Stickings
According to Chairman of the JCS Gen. Peter Pace, as reported at USA Today, "there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis". And the situation seems to be worsening, largely because of ongoing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which means that the U.S. would have not be able to respond effectively to "any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Cuba or China" -- i.e., some of the key trouble spots of the (near) future.
Steve Benen, as usual, provides the political context: "Let’s be clear. Bush ran on a platform of military readiness, vowing to reverse the 'hollowing out' of the military. Six years later, our over-stretched military may no longer be able to quickly and fully respond to another crisis."
See also Christy Hardin Smith.
According to Chairman of the JCS Gen. Peter Pace, as reported at USA Today, "there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis". And the situation seems to be worsening, largely because of ongoing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which means that the U.S. would have not be able to respond effectively to "any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Cuba or China" -- i.e., some of the key trouble spots of the (near) future.
Steve Benen, as usual, provides the political context: "Let’s be clear. Bush ran on a platform of military readiness, vowing to reverse the 'hollowing out' of the military. Six years later, our over-stretched military may no longer be able to quickly and fully respond to another crisis."
See also Christy Hardin Smith.
Dema and Irma
By Michael J.W. Stickings
From the Globe: "Dema, a 26-day-old endangered Sumatran tiger cub, cuddles up to 5-month-old female Orangutan Irma at an animal hospital in West Java, Indonesia." Both were rejected by their mothers. Both, along with others just like them, are being taken care of at the animal hospital and finding comfort with one another.
From the Globe: "Dema, a 26-day-old endangered Sumatran tiger cub, cuddles up to 5-month-old female Orangutan Irma at an animal hospital in West Java, Indonesia." Both were rejected by their mothers. Both, along with others just like them, are being taken care of at the animal hospital and finding comfort with one another.
Yes, there can be happiness in the world even with all the misery and mayhem.
Giving the finger
By Michael J.W. Stickings
According to The New York Sun, presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani wants the GOP to be "the party of freedom".
Isn't that like giving his party's evangelical base the finger?
(Think abortion, same-sex marriage, free speech, etc.)
**********
I would say more about Giuliani's address to the Hoover Institution, a right-wing think tank, but why bother? Everything he has to say is so predictable and I'm awfully tired of the whole "I was the mayor of New York on 9/11" schtick.
But let me single out three points:
1) He criticized Democratic efforts to expand health care to the uninsured. Universal health care would be "socialization," he claimed. What he prefers are "free market solutions". And those solutions are? As I have said before, America's health-care system is a national embarrassment. America may have some of the best health care in the world, but it's only available to those who can afford it. And, increasingly, it's a system that is sinking the private sector. There are 47 million uninsured people in the U.S. Does Giuliani have a plan for them?
2) He suggested that Democrats would raise taxes to pay for America's wars? If America is at war -- particularly one as far-reaching as the so-called war on terror -- shouldn't Americans be asked to pay the necessary price for their security? Shouldn't they be asked to make a sacrifice? Shouldn't massive deficits be avoided? This is a debate worth having, but Giuliani, like Bush, doesn't want to have it. For them, the Democrats are all tax-happy socialists. To me, the Democrats are just being fiscally responsible.
3) He argued that "America doesn't like war. America is not a military country. We've never been a militaristic country." Either he's being disingenuous or, far more likely, he doesn't understand America, the country he wishes to lead in a time of seemingly perpetual war. He should take a trip to Arlington National Cemetary and the Vietnam War Memorial. He should read a history book, any history book. He should watch an American war movie, of which there are countless. And he should read Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts. America's history is one of expansion. Her present is one of empire. Any serious presidential hopeful should know that.
Beyond the hollow shell of image and reputation, Rudy Giuliani leaves much to be desired.
[Creature's Note: Once again, Michael's words, my cut-and-paste. Ignore all references to me below. Thanks.]
According to The New York Sun, presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani wants the GOP to be "the party of freedom".
Isn't that like giving his party's evangelical base the finger?
(Think abortion, same-sex marriage, free speech, etc.)
**********
I would say more about Giuliani's address to the Hoover Institution, a right-wing think tank, but why bother? Everything he has to say is so predictable and I'm awfully tired of the whole "I was the mayor of New York on 9/11" schtick.
But let me single out three points:
1) He criticized Democratic efforts to expand health care to the uninsured. Universal health care would be "socialization," he claimed. What he prefers are "free market solutions". And those solutions are? As I have said before, America's health-care system is a national embarrassment. America may have some of the best health care in the world, but it's only available to those who can afford it. And, increasingly, it's a system that is sinking the private sector. There are 47 million uninsured people in the U.S. Does Giuliani have a plan for them?
2) He suggested that Democrats would raise taxes to pay for America's wars? If America is at war -- particularly one as far-reaching as the so-called war on terror -- shouldn't Americans be asked to pay the necessary price for their security? Shouldn't they be asked to make a sacrifice? Shouldn't massive deficits be avoided? This is a debate worth having, but Giuliani, like Bush, doesn't want to have it. For them, the Democrats are all tax-happy socialists. To me, the Democrats are just being fiscally responsible.
3) He argued that "America doesn't like war. America is not a military country. We've never been a militaristic country." Either he's being disingenuous or, far more likely, he doesn't understand America, the country he wishes to lead in a time of seemingly perpetual war. He should take a trip to Arlington National Cemetary and the Vietnam War Memorial. He should read a history book, any history book. He should watch an American war movie, of which there are countless. And he should read Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts. America's history is one of expansion. Her present is one of empire. Any serious presidential hopeful should know that.
Beyond the hollow shell of image and reputation, Rudy Giuliani leaves much to be desired.
[Creature's Note: Once again, Michael's words, my cut-and-paste. Ignore all references to me below. Thanks.]
Laura Bush should keep her mouth shut
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Because she doesn't know what she's talking about.
[Creature's Note: Michael's words, my cut-and-paste. Ignore all references to me below. Thanks.]
Because she doesn't know what she's talking about.
In case you missed it, she said this to Larry King last night: "I hope that they can build their government and reconcile with each other and build a country. This is their opportunity to seize the moment, to build a really good and stable country. And many parts of Iraq are stable now. But, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day this discourages everybody."
There is such enormous cluelessness there (and in much else of what she said) you'd think her husband was feeding her lines through a hidden earpiece. And, like her husband, her vacuous optimism seems to be based on nothing but hope. Apparently she knows nothing of Iraqi history, nor of the nature of Iraqi sectarianism, nor of present-day Iraqi reality.
It may be that some parts of the country are relatively stable, but her statement that "one bombing a day" -- as reported by the media -- is what "discourages everybody" is appalling in its ignorance and shocking in its insensitivity. The truth is that there is daily brutality and bloodshed all over Iraq. We try to cover some of it here with our "Just another day in the life and death of Iraq" series, but there's no way to gauge the full extent of the horror. We're not just talking about one single bomb here or there. We're talking about suicide bombers blowing up civilians, about mutilated bodies being tossed onto the streets, about corpses piling up at the morgues, about a virulent disregard for human life that has turned Iraq into a massive killing field.
And this is now their opportunity, Laura has the gall to insist?
The sectarianism was there long before Bush, but it was his war -- and his gross mismanagement of that war -- that unleashed the forces that had been locked down under Saddam. It was inevitable that they would resurface, but the disregard for Iraqi history and society that accompanied the war and the subsequent occupation contributed significantly to the state of turmoil that prevails today.
In getting it wrong, the warmongers made it all so much worse. But that doesn't stop Laura -- who, to be fair, was just regurgitating the party line -- from heaping all the responsibility on the Iraqis. As if it's all their fault when things go wrong. Perhaps she should take a good hard look at her husband. It was he who must bear the responsibility for the failure of the Iraq War.
**********
Think Progress has the video, transcript, and a graph showing the steady increase in daily attacks by insurgents and militias. One bomb a day? Hardly.
(For more, see AMERICAblog and The Carpetbagger Report.)[Creature's Note: Michael's words, my cut-and-paste. Ignore all references to me below. Thanks.]
Red Herring
By Creature
"I don't think we need to send in the Marines, and it's not being contemplated." - Richard Perle, architect of the neocon policy to destabilize the world, speaking about Iran
Sure, sending in the Marines isn't contemplated -- by all accounts an actual invasion is virtually impossible, but the question should be: "Are you contemplating bombing Iran?" I bet the answer to that question would be a whole lot different.
[The quote comes from conservative Newsmax.com and is worth a complete read for the folly of it all. If you would rather not venture to the Dark Side I recommend a trip to the All Spin Zone where SpinDentist has more.]
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
"I don't think we need to send in the Marines, and it's not being contemplated." - Richard Perle, architect of the neocon policy to destabilize the world, speaking about Iran
Sure, sending in the Marines isn't contemplated -- by all accounts an actual invasion is virtually impossible, but the question should be: "Are you contemplating bombing Iran?" I bet the answer to that question would be a whole lot different.
[The quote comes from conservative Newsmax.com and is worth a complete read for the folly of it all. If you would rather not venture to the Dark Side I recommend a trip to the All Spin Zone where SpinDentist has more.]
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Duke
By Capt. Fogg"There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.”
-- John Wayne
The picture of John Wayne dressed as a cowboy stands, thanks to Photoshop, in front of a huge flag, proudly asking us why in the hell we have to "press '1' for English."
A week does not go by and often not a day when I don't get some smirking e-mail about the efforts of the business community to make it easier for native Spanish-speaking people to buy things or get information about things or put money in the bank. Pressing '2' to continue in Spanish seems to have had more of an effect on America's sense of security than anything since Pearl Harbor, and people who profess passionate love of flags, John Wayne, and the Republic for which they stand often fail to see this sleazy campaign as the direct attack on freedom of speech that it is.
“Women have the right to work wherever they want, as long as they have the dinner ready when you get home.”
"My favorite e-mail ever," says the person who sent it to me, and he concludes with "Enough said". I don't think enough can be said. I have never been a fan of Marion Morrison, although I have enjoyed a couple of his movies. His support for the Vietnam War and his attacks on the doubters of its necessity, his McCarthyism and his belief in white supremacy left me with a lasting distaste for his stupid kind of patriotism and bigotry. It may be ironic, however, that the anti-Mexican rabble-rousers chose him as the boy for their poster.
Wayne was married three times: to Josephene Saenz, Esperanza Baur, and Pilar Palette. They were all Spanish-speaking women. As he was dying, Wayne requested that his headstone bear an epitaph in Spanish: Feo, Fuerte y Formal. No English translation was offered.
“Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.”
I have to disagree. It's hardest for those who have to deal with the stupid.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Israel preparing for attack on Iran
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Israeli newspaper Haaretz is reporting that Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa is reporting that "[t]hree Arab states in the Persian Gulf" -- Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates -- "would be willing to allow the Israel Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities... despite their fear of an Iranian response". Al-Siyasa is also reporting that "NATO leaders are urging Turkey to open its airspace for an attack on Iran as well and to also open its airports and borders in case of a ground attack". As well, Britain's Daily Telegraph is reporting that Israel is negotiating with the U.S. to use Iraqi airspace for an attack.
Okay.
What now?
Is war inevitable?
Bush wants it, Israel wants it. Who is to stop them?
**********
Again, see Sy Hersh's piece at The New Yorker, then also Hersh's appearance on CNN, at both Crooks and Liars and Think Progress. TP: "Hersh says the U.S. has been 'pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight' for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to 'stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.' Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of 'three Sunni jihadist groups' who are 'connected to al Qaeda' but 'want to take on Hezbollah.'"
Needless to say, this is a story to follow closely.
**********
As for war with Iran: Remember, there may be a revolt brewing in the upper echelons of the U.S. military and, once again, as with Saddam's Iraq in 2002/3, the U.S. seems to be getting the intelligence wrong (or, rather, fixing it according to political will). Bush, Cheney, and the warmongers seem to be doing whatever it takes to build (i.e., fabricate) a case for military action against Iran.
Israeli newspaper Haaretz is reporting that Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa is reporting that "[t]hree Arab states in the Persian Gulf" -- Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates -- "would be willing to allow the Israel Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities... despite their fear of an Iranian response". Al-Siyasa is also reporting that "NATO leaders are urging Turkey to open its airspace for an attack on Iran as well and to also open its airports and borders in case of a ground attack". As well, Britain's Daily Telegraph is reporting that Israel is negotiating with the U.S. to use Iraqi airspace for an attack.
Okay.
What now?
Is war inevitable?
Bush wants it, Israel wants it. Who is to stop them?
**********
Again, see Sy Hersh's piece at The New Yorker, then also Hersh's appearance on CNN, at both Crooks and Liars and Think Progress. TP: "Hersh says the U.S. has been 'pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight' for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to 'stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.' Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of 'three Sunni jihadist groups' who are 'connected to al Qaeda' but 'want to take on Hezbollah.'"
Needless to say, this is a story to follow closely.
**********
As for war with Iran: Remember, there may be a revolt brewing in the upper echelons of the U.S. military and, once again, as with Saddam's Iraq in 2002/3, the U.S. seems to be getting the intelligence wrong (or, rather, fixing it according to political will). Bush, Cheney, and the warmongers seem to be doing whatever it takes to build (i.e., fabricate) a case for military action against Iran.
What does it mean to support the troops?
By Heraclitus
The Unapologetic Mexican has a very interesting, thoughtful and compelling post up about the rhetorical phrase "support our troops," the way it's used, what it really means, how it functions to exert pressure on people to affirm some things and refrain from criticizing others. His basic argument is that criticism of Bush, while obviously justified, doesn't go nearly far enough in really opposing the Iraq War. "Support the troops" still implies that the basic mission of "the troops" is justified, and ignores the ever increasing numbers of soldier refusing to go to war in Iraq or publicly criticizing the war and demanding an end to it. I doubt you'll agree or disagree with all of it, but it is an exceptionally penetrating and thought-provoking post, even by Nez's standards. Also check out the comment thread.
The Unapologetic Mexican has a very interesting, thoughtful and compelling post up about the rhetorical phrase "support our troops," the way it's used, what it really means, how it functions to exert pressure on people to affirm some things and refrain from criticizing others. His basic argument is that criticism of Bush, while obviously justified, doesn't go nearly far enough in really opposing the Iraq War. "Support the troops" still implies that the basic mission of "the troops" is justified, and ignores the ever increasing numbers of soldier refusing to go to war in Iraq or publicly criticizing the war and demanding an end to it. I doubt you'll agree or disagree with all of it, but it is an exceptionally penetrating and thought-provoking post, even by Nez's standards. Also check out the comment thread.
What's the matter with the media?
By Libby Spencer
Jesus' General has a thought provoking post on how our media is failing in their time honored mission of informing Americans and Joe Gandelman expands on that theme. Both are must read posts if you're interested in media issues.
Meanwhile, James Joyner disagrees and says the fluff pays the bills. He goes on to say there's "no dearth of good reporting on matters of war, international affairs, and domestic public policy. Indeed, there’s more of it than most of us can keep up with." But he misses the point.
Those stories get short shrift when the focus is on Anna Nicole 24/7 for days on end and they don't sink into the public consciousness with a two minute news item tucked into endless speculation about who the father of Smith's baby is. It's well established that the average person needs three repetitions to retain information. For those of us who actively seek out the news, we can still find it in the dregs of the coverage but the average Jake isn't getting it. All they have to work with is badly skewed Limbaugh style soundbites designed to promote disinfo.
I gave up on televised news years ago. I get my info almost solely from the internet and the odd print source. But the taxpayer is subsidizing the media industry with billions of dollars worth of free access to the airwaves and deserves a better product. They're never going to get one while the competition is limited to five or six major corporations. It's time to break up the monopolies and bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
Joyner points out that megacorps can absorb losses better than small operators but the losses were only initally incurred because the independent news sources were forced to compete with deep pocket corps who offered a dumbed down product that was more palatable to the public's purient interests and could contain costs with consolidation. If we leveled the playing field, and opened it back up to more players, we could restore some honesty to journalism and limit the ability of the spin machine to drive the news cycle.
The only downside I see in that is to the profit margins of the media mega-corps. I'm all for capitalism, but sometimes what's good for business isn't necessarily good for America. This is one of those times.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Jesus' General has a thought provoking post on how our media is failing in their time honored mission of informing Americans and Joe Gandelman expands on that theme. Both are must read posts if you're interested in media issues.
Meanwhile, James Joyner disagrees and says the fluff pays the bills. He goes on to say there's "no dearth of good reporting on matters of war, international affairs, and domestic public policy. Indeed, there’s more of it than most of us can keep up with." But he misses the point.
Those stories get short shrift when the focus is on Anna Nicole 24/7 for days on end and they don't sink into the public consciousness with a two minute news item tucked into endless speculation about who the father of Smith's baby is. It's well established that the average person needs three repetitions to retain information. For those of us who actively seek out the news, we can still find it in the dregs of the coverage but the average Jake isn't getting it. All they have to work with is badly skewed Limbaugh style soundbites designed to promote disinfo.
I gave up on televised news years ago. I get my info almost solely from the internet and the odd print source. But the taxpayer is subsidizing the media industry with billions of dollars worth of free access to the airwaves and deserves a better product. They're never going to get one while the competition is limited to five or six major corporations. It's time to break up the monopolies and bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
Joyner points out that megacorps can absorb losses better than small operators but the losses were only initally incurred because the independent news sources were forced to compete with deep pocket corps who offered a dumbed down product that was more palatable to the public's purient interests and could contain costs with consolidation. If we leveled the playing field, and opened it back up to more players, we could restore some honesty to journalism and limit the ability of the spin machine to drive the news cycle.
The only downside I see in that is to the profit margins of the media mega-corps. I'm all for capitalism, but sometimes what's good for business isn't necessarily good for America. This is one of those times.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
The coming military revolt against Bush
By Michael J.W. Stickings
So the U.S. -- mainly Cheney and his warmongering ilk -- may be gearing up for war with Iran, whether by fixing the intelligence, as with Iraq, or by "seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack," as The Times puts it.
But Iran isn't Iraq and 2007 isn't 2002/3.
Blair isn't on board this time, Democrats and (one suspects) many Republicans won't support military action against Iran, and some of America's top military officials, such as Chairman of the JCS Gen. Peter Pace, seem to be against it as well. Indeed, The Times is reporting that "[s]ome of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran," including "four or five generals and admirals".
Will such reports stop Bush, Cheney, and those who want war with Iran? I suspect not.
Yet, if true, they are indicative of just how little moral credibility and genuine authority the civilian leadership in the White House has left after six years in office and the (ongoing) gross mismanagement of the Iraq War.
**********
For more, see Seymour Hersh's latest piece at The New Yorker (via TPM).
So the U.S. -- mainly Cheney and his warmongering ilk -- may be gearing up for war with Iran, whether by fixing the intelligence, as with Iraq, or by "seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack," as The Times puts it.
But Iran isn't Iraq and 2007 isn't 2002/3.
Blair isn't on board this time, Democrats and (one suspects) many Republicans won't support military action against Iran, and some of America's top military officials, such as Chairman of the JCS Gen. Peter Pace, seem to be against it as well. Indeed, The Times is reporting that "[s]ome of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran," including "four or five generals and admirals".
Will such reports stop Bush, Cheney, and those who want war with Iran? I suspect not.
Yet, if true, they are indicative of just how little moral credibility and genuine authority the civilian leadership in the White House has left after six years in office and the (ongoing) gross mismanagement of the Iraq War.
**********
For more, see Seymour Hersh's latest piece at The New Yorker (via TPM).
Just another day in the life and death of Iraq XLII
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Another day, more atrocities:
This follows yesterday's bombing near a mosque in Habbaniyah.
And the idiot-puppet Maliki says there's been progress? Whether he's a liar or whether he's delusional, or both, the truth is not what he or his sectarian allies say it is.
Another day, more atrocities:
At least 40 people have been killed and more than 30 injured in a suicide bombing in east Baghdad, police say.
The attacker, wearing a suicide vest, blew himself up outside the College of Administration and Economics.
Earlier, four people were injured in a car bombing in the Karrada district of the city, and one was killed in an explosion near the Iranian embassy.
This follows yesterday's bombing near a mosque in Habbaniyah.
And the idiot-puppet Maliki says there's been progress? Whether he's a liar or whether he's delusional, or both, the truth is not what he or his sectarian allies say it is.
Pirates of the Indian Ocean
By Michael J.W. Stickings
It may be hard to believe, but piracy is alive and well in certain parts of the world -- The Atlantic's William Langewiesche has documented it brilliantly (see, for example, his book The Outlaw Sea). And there has been another incident off the coast of Somalia:
Such is the chaos that prevails where there is no order whatsoever.
It may be hard to believe, but piracy is alive and well in certain parts of the world -- The Atlantic's William Langewiesche has documented it brilliantly (see, for example, his book The Outlaw Sea). And there has been another incident off the coast of Somalia:
Pirates are reported to have hijacked a UN-chartered cargo ship delivering food aid to north-eastern Somalia.
The ship, the MV Rozen, had just delivered a cargo to Somalia's Puntland region when the pirates struck, a World Food Programme official said.
There have been no reports of demands from the pirates and it is not known if any of the 12 crew have been injured.
Piracy has become rampant off the coast of Somalia, which has had no stable central government for years.
Such is the chaos that prevails where there is no order whatsoever.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Just another day in the life and death of Iraq XLI
By Michael J.W. Stickings
From the BBC:
Maliki's an idiot -- have we established that yet? Besides, what does he care if Sunnis kill Sunnis? As long as the Shiites -- and their power in post-Saddam Iraq -- are protected. As I've said before, he only supports Bush's surge to the extent that it allows him to secure his own sectarian authority in Baghdad. Whatever the motives of the U.S., Maliki's are decidedly anti-Sunni and self-aggrandizing (and pro-Sadr).
As for the attack itself, here's The Washington Post:
As if there isn't enough inter-sectarian violence, there is also intra-sectarian violence. Indeed -- from the Post again -- the attack "carried the hallmarks of an increasingly bloody struggle for control of Anbar province -- a hotbed of anti-U.S. guerrillas since the uprising in Fallujah in 2004 that galvanized the insurgency".
To call Iraq a complex mess is an understatement.
From the BBC:
At least 42 people have been killed in a bomb attack near a Sunni mosque, hours after Iraq's PM hailed a reduction in sectarian killings.
A truck bomb exploded as worshippers left the mosque in Habbaniyah, 50 miles west of Baghdad, police said.
As well as those killed, more than 60 people were hurt, reports said.
Earlier, Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki said sectarian killings and kidnappings had fallen in the wake of a new Baghdad security plan, launched 10 days ago.
Maliki's an idiot -- have we established that yet? Besides, what does he care if Sunnis kill Sunnis? As long as the Shiites -- and their power in post-Saddam Iraq -- are protected. As I've said before, he only supports Bush's surge to the extent that it allows him to secure his own sectarian authority in Baghdad. Whatever the motives of the U.S., Maliki's are decidedly anti-Sunni and self-aggrandizing (and pro-Sadr).
As for the attack itself, here's The Washington Post:
The bombing was the first in recent months to kill dozens of civilians in a predominantly Sunni area. But witnesses said that unlike other large attacks, this one did not appear to have been driven by sectarian rivalries -- Shiite militias are not known to be active in the area -- but rather was probably carried out as a warning from Sunni extremists to Sunnis who support the U.S.-backed Iraqi government.
As if there isn't enough inter-sectarian violence, there is also intra-sectarian violence. Indeed -- from the Post again -- the attack "carried the hallmarks of an increasingly bloody struggle for control of Anbar province -- a hotbed of anti-U.S. guerrillas since the uprising in Fallujah in 2004 that galvanized the insurgency".
To call Iraq a complex mess is an understatement.
Peering into the dustbin of history
By Michael J.W. Stickings
"A Russian woman holds a picture of Josef Stalin as communist supporters stage a rally in Moscow," says the BBC.
Charming.
Great-grandson of a polygamist
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Why, it's Mitt Romney, of course. As the AP is reporting, "the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12": "Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice."
Ooh. Ahh.
Look, I have my own problems with Mormonism, I'll admit. And I think that Romney, a would-be social conservative who wants to blur the line between church and state, should be required to answer for his religious beliefs -- insofar as they are relevant to a run for the presidency. Is it enough for him to say that his beliefs are private? Perhaps. But if he runs on a moralistic platform -- and it seems that he wants to -- an examination of the religious foundations of his morality, of the morality which he intends to impose on the American people, is necessary.
But I tend to agree with Ed Morrissey on this: The polygamy of a great-grandfather, however loathsome in and of itself, has nothing to do with Romney's White House bid. The AP story does indeed smack of desperation, but it is hardly a surprising effort to dig up dirt in Romney's family history. This is what presidential candidates subject themselves to, and this is what a significant part of the media do. And there will be more of it. For Romney and for all the rest.
Let Romney be held accountable for his own beliefs, however, not for the disreputable practises of his ancestors.
Why, it's Mitt Romney, of course. As the AP is reporting, "the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12": "Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice."
Ooh. Ahh.
Look, I have my own problems with Mormonism, I'll admit. And I think that Romney, a would-be social conservative who wants to blur the line between church and state, should be required to answer for his religious beliefs -- insofar as they are relevant to a run for the presidency. Is it enough for him to say that his beliefs are private? Perhaps. But if he runs on a moralistic platform -- and it seems that he wants to -- an examination of the religious foundations of his morality, of the morality which he intends to impose on the American people, is necessary.
But I tend to agree with Ed Morrissey on this: The polygamy of a great-grandfather, however loathsome in and of itself, has nothing to do with Romney's White House bid. The AP story does indeed smack of desperation, but it is hardly a surprising effort to dig up dirt in Romney's family history. This is what presidential candidates subject themselves to, and this is what a significant part of the media do. And there will be more of it. For Romney and for all the rest.
Let Romney be held accountable for his own beliefs, however, not for the disreputable practises of his ancestors.
Bin Laden no big deal
By Libby Spencer
The Army's highest-ranking officer says getting bin Laden is not important.
I agree with that. Any psychological advantage to killing him was lost years ago and getting him "dead or alive" now would only elevate Osama to legendary martyrdom and probably inspire legions of new recruits anxious to avenge his death. But here's the quote that rankles.
Excuse me, but my attention span isn't quite so short that I don't remember all of these guys being held up by the White House at one time or another as the bogeymen that justified the continuing occupation of Iraq. We had to take them out in order to bring peace and posperity to Iraq and protect the homeland from "terrorist types." Now he's admitting they were straw men thrown up to bamboozle Americans into supporting the war?
Schoomaker merely echoes Cheney who last year remarked that taking out Osama wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism.
I'd agree with that as well but it does raise the question that if killing the kingpins doesn't solve the problem, how does killing the lowly henchmen under them do any more good? It's simply not possible to kill every single AQ member. Which raises the further question, how then can the White House justify escalating our presence in Iraq in order to "fight terrorists there," rather than bringing our troops home in order to bolster our defenses here?
The fact is we're not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We're acting as referees in a civil war. You don't have to be a military tactician to see the folly in deploying the bulk of our military might into that role rather than employing them in our own defense. At the least, our National Guard should be immediately brought home to do the job they signed up for -- defending the nation -- and our regular troops should be redeployed to where they would be fighting real terrorists, instead of being burdened with the impossible task of preventing the Iraqis from killing each other.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
The Army's highest-ranking officer says getting bin Laden is not important.
"So we get him, and then what?" asked Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the outgoing Army chief of staff, at a Rotary Club of Fort Worth luncheon. "There's a temporary feeling of goodness, but in the long run, we may make him bigger than he is today.
I agree with that. Any psychological advantage to killing him was lost years ago and getting him "dead or alive" now would only elevate Osama to legendary martyrdom and probably inspire legions of new recruits anxious to avenge his death. But here's the quote that rankles.
Schoomaker pointed to the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killings of his sons, Uday and Qusay, and the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence that the capture or death of al-Qaeda's leader would have little effect on threats to the United States.
Excuse me, but my attention span isn't quite so short that I don't remember all of these guys being held up by the White House at one time or another as the bogeymen that justified the continuing occupation of Iraq. We had to take them out in order to bring peace and posperity to Iraq and protect the homeland from "terrorist types." Now he's admitting they were straw men thrown up to bamboozle Americans into supporting the war?
Schoomaker merely echoes Cheney who last year remarked that taking out Osama wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism.
"He's not the only source of the problem, obviously. . . . If you killed him tomorrow, you'd still have a problem with al-Qaeda," the vice president said.
I'd agree with that as well but it does raise the question that if killing the kingpins doesn't solve the problem, how does killing the lowly henchmen under them do any more good? It's simply not possible to kill every single AQ member. Which raises the further question, how then can the White House justify escalating our presence in Iraq in order to "fight terrorists there," rather than bringing our troops home in order to bolster our defenses here?
The fact is we're not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We're acting as referees in a civil war. You don't have to be a military tactician to see the folly in deploying the bulk of our military might into that role rather than employing them in our own defense. At the least, our National Guard should be immediately brought home to do the job they signed up for -- defending the nation -- and our regular troops should be redeployed to where they would be fighting real terrorists, instead of being burdened with the impossible task of preventing the Iraqis from killing each other.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Obama takes on pure evil
By Creature
Obama on Tony Blair's Iraq bug-out plan and Cheney's reaction to it... wow:
This kid is going places.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Obama on Tony Blair's Iraq bug-out plan and Cheney's reaction to it... wow:
Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.
"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."
This kid is going places.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Friday, February 23, 2007
Another case of rape in Iraq
By Michael J.W. Stickings
From WaPo, more horror:
At least Talabani is taking these "allegations" seriously. (Although, as Melissa McEwan puts it, calling at least the second case an allegation is "rather silly" -- there's a confession of guilt, after all. And the silliness applies to both Talabani and WaPo.)
What's truly appalling is that Maliki thinks that the woman in the first case is lying, that she is (in WaPo's words) "a criminal who fabricated the story to exacerbate sectarian tension and undermine a U.S. and Iraqi security plan to pacify the capital". For of course it is Maliki who is one of the key enablers of the sectarian violence in Iraq today. He may be the prime minister, but first and foremost he is a sectarian Shiite with ties to Moqtada al-Sadr and the Shiite militias. And his plan isn't to pacify Baghdad or to unify the country but to destroy the Sunni insurgency and, in a larger sense, to ensure the Shiite domination of Iraq.
And what a civilized Iraq it would be. Here's its nominal leader accusing a rape victim of making it all up. How utterly despicable.
From WaPo, more horror:
An Iraqi police official in the northwestern city of Tall Afar said Thursday that a military officer and three soldiers had admitted to raping a Sunni woman and recording the act with a cellphone camera.
The four soldiers told an investigative committee convened by the Iraqi army that they sexually assaulted the woman nearly two weeks ago, according to Gen. Najem Abdullah, a police spokesman in Tall Afar.
The soldiers' statement follows another Sunni woman's assertion this week that she had been raped in Baghdad by members of Iraq's predominantly Shiite security forces. Iraq's Kurdish president and its Sunni vice president said Thursday that a judge should investigate her case, which the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has dismissed as groundless.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said in a statement that the courts were "the only legitimate place to examine such allegations" and that the government should avoid steps that would "inflame sensitivities and create mistrust."
At least Talabani is taking these "allegations" seriously. (Although, as Melissa McEwan puts it, calling at least the second case an allegation is "rather silly" -- there's a confession of guilt, after all. And the silliness applies to both Talabani and WaPo.)
What's truly appalling is that Maliki thinks that the woman in the first case is lying, that she is (in WaPo's words) "a criminal who fabricated the story to exacerbate sectarian tension and undermine a U.S. and Iraqi security plan to pacify the capital". For of course it is Maliki who is one of the key enablers of the sectarian violence in Iraq today. He may be the prime minister, but first and foremost he is a sectarian Shiite with ties to Moqtada al-Sadr and the Shiite militias. And his plan isn't to pacify Baghdad or to unify the country but to destroy the Sunni insurgency and, in a larger sense, to ensure the Shiite domination of Iraq.
And what a civilized Iraq it would be. Here's its nominal leader accusing a rape victim of making it all up. How utterly despicable.
That was quick
By Michael J.W. Stickings
He got in, and he got out. That -- along with appearing on The Daily Show in between -- is the history of former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's run for the presidency.
He removed himself from the race "after struggling against better-known, better-financed rivals," according to "a senior campaign official".
Really? Obama, Clinton, Edwards... Vilsack? Nothing against him -- he did reasonably well in Iowa and seems like a decent guy, if hardly the sort of progressive some prefer -- but he never stood a chance and his run made little sense.
Unless, of course, he was angling for the #2 spot -- that's still a possibility, of course, but, say, Obama-Vilsack sounds far less sexy than some of the alternative pairings.
Anyway, it's over. He was the first in and he's the first out.
So much for Vilsackamania.
He got in, and he got out. That -- along with appearing on The Daily Show in between -- is the history of former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's run for the presidency.
He removed himself from the race "after struggling against better-known, better-financed rivals," according to "a senior campaign official".
Really? Obama, Clinton, Edwards... Vilsack? Nothing against him -- he did reasonably well in Iowa and seems like a decent guy, if hardly the sort of progressive some prefer -- but he never stood a chance and his run made little sense.
Unless, of course, he was angling for the #2 spot -- that's still a possibility, of course, but, say, Obama-Vilsack sounds far less sexy than some of the alternative pairings.
Anyway, it's over. He was the first in and he's the first out.
So much for Vilsackamania.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
McCain criticizes Bush on Iraq, global warming
By Michael J.W. Stickings
He may shamelessly pander to the GOP base, the religious right, on a regular basis, and he may have spent much of the past six years cozying up to Bush, but John McCain at least occasionally has the good sense to get the hell off the ship before it sinks any further. Consider:
What is clear, though, is that McCain wants to have it both ways. He wants to be the loyal party man (and base-wooing social conservative) in order to win over both the establishment and the base, but he also wants to retain his reputation as a maverick who is willing to address key issues such as the environment from the lofty perch of independence.
It won't work.
This is the McCain I prefer, the McCain who appears with Schwarzenegger and takes tough stands against Bush on Iraq and global warming, but the McCain who wants to win the White House is the McCain who takes extreme positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and other key cultural wedge issues.
I suspect that the more genuine McCain is the one who appeared with Schwarzenegger. And perhaps that is the McCain who would occupy the White House should he make it that far.
To make it that far, though, he'll need to keep pandering to the base. And he won't make it that far if it's as obvious as it is that he's trying to have it both ways.
He may shamelessly pander to the GOP base, the religious right, on a regular basis, and he may have spent much of the past six years cozying up to Bush, but John McCain at least occasionally has the good sense to get the hell off the ship before it sinks any further. Consider:
Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., took several sharply worded shots at the Bush administration this week, distancing himself from an unpopular president and an unpopular war while wooing the right Republicans who put the president in power and once before denied McCain the White House.
McCain's latest anti-Bush tirade came during a joint appearance Wednesday in California with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.
The two leaders met to discuss energy and the environment, but the subject turned to Iraq.
Though McCain is a staunch supporter of the president's plan to add troops in Iraq, the 2000 Bush foe and 2008 contender called Bush's initial pursuit of the Iraq War "a train wreck" and labeled the administration's record on global warming as "terrible."
What is clear, though, is that McCain wants to have it both ways. He wants to be the loyal party man (and base-wooing social conservative) in order to win over both the establishment and the base, but he also wants to retain his reputation as a maverick who is willing to address key issues such as the environment from the lofty perch of independence.
It won't work.
This is the McCain I prefer, the McCain who appears with Schwarzenegger and takes tough stands against Bush on Iraq and global warming, but the McCain who wants to win the White House is the McCain who takes extreme positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and other key cultural wedge issues.
I suspect that the more genuine McCain is the one who appeared with Schwarzenegger. And perhaps that is the McCain who would occupy the White House should he make it that far.
To make it that far, though, he'll need to keep pandering to the base. And he won't make it that far if it's as obvious as it is that he's trying to have it both ways.
Getting it wrong again
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Intentionally or not -- and, given what's come before, one suspects that it's intentional, that somewhere along the line there's intentional political manipulation, an attempt to make the case without much of a basis for it -- it seems that the U.S. may once again be getting the intelligence wrong. It's not Iraq this time, however, it's Iran:
If Iran is not currently developing nuclear weapons, or even preparing to do so, it may very well shift its program to weapons development in the future.
But this isn't about the international community backing off and letting Iran build up its nuclear program freely -- supervision must continue. No, what this is about is the U.S. once again attempting to build a case for war by overstating the problem and perhaps even by manipulating the intelligence to make the problem seem much more serious and immediate than it really is. In other words, it's about the U.S. repeating what it did with Saddam's Iraq. And we know what happened and what is happening there.
And when I say the U.S., what I mean, of course, is the Bush Administration backed by various supporters of war with Iran -- many of the same who supported war with Iraq.
As we have written here, here, here, here, here, here, and here -- yes, we write about it frequently -- Bush seems to be cooking up a war with Iran (or finding a way to justify one) by stressing the imminent danger posed by Iran's nuclear program and the possibility that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents.
After what happened with Iraq, it would take a fool to buy his bullshit this time around. Unfortunately, fools abound. Complicit fools who would like nothing more than another war, or an expansion of the present one, in the Middle East.
Intentionally or not -- and, given what's come before, one suspects that it's intentional, that somewhere along the line there's intentional political manipulation, an attempt to make the case without much of a basis for it -- it seems that the U.S. may once again be getting the intelligence wrong. It's not Iraq this time, however, it's Iran:
Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today...
At the heart of the debate are accusations -- spearheaded by the US -- that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons.
However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.
"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's
investigations said.
If Iran is not currently developing nuclear weapons, or even preparing to do so, it may very well shift its program to weapons development in the future.
But this isn't about the international community backing off and letting Iran build up its nuclear program freely -- supervision must continue. No, what this is about is the U.S. once again attempting to build a case for war by overstating the problem and perhaps even by manipulating the intelligence to make the problem seem much more serious and immediate than it really is. In other words, it's about the U.S. repeating what it did with Saddam's Iraq. And we know what happened and what is happening there.
And when I say the U.S., what I mean, of course, is the Bush Administration backed by various supporters of war with Iran -- many of the same who supported war with Iraq.
As we have written here, here, here, here, here, here, and here -- yes, we write about it frequently -- Bush seems to be cooking up a war with Iran (or finding a way to justify one) by stressing the imminent danger posed by Iran's nuclear program and the possibility that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents.
After what happened with Iraq, it would take a fool to buy his bullshit this time around. Unfortunately, fools abound. Complicit fools who would like nothing more than another war, or an expansion of the present one, in the Middle East.
Prodi remains
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi submitted his resignation, but he's not leaving office. A deal has been reached:
And now? Either Prodi will form a new government or an election will be held. Like I said before, Italian politics never lacks for drama.
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi submitted his resignation, but he's not leaving office. A deal has been reached:
Parties in Italy's governing coalition have agreed a deal backing Romano Prodi to continue as prime minister, his spokesman said...
Several of his coalition partners had opposed Italian troop deployments in Afghanistan and plans to expand a US airbase in Italy.
His spokesman said partners had backed Mr Prodi's 12-point political plan.
The deal came as Mr Prodi held late-night talks with leaders of his centre-left coalition partners.
"We have all agreed to the programme so that he can continue to govern," Reuters news agency quoted his spokesman, Silvio Sircana, as saying.
Reports said the 12-point programme included support for Italy's military presence in Afghanistan.
And now? Either Prodi will form a new government or an election will be held. Like I said before, Italian politics never lacks for drama.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Prodi resigns
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Last April, I covered the Italian elections here, here, and here.
I was happy that challenger Romano Prodi of the center-left beat incumbent Silvio Berlusconi of the center-right. Berlusconi is, after all, a crook.
But the election was close, and, as the BBC is reporting, Prodi has resigned after "after losing a crucial foreign policy vote in the Senate". The issue? America's war on terror: "In the vote, several of Mr Prodi's coalition partners opposed troop deployments in Afghanistan and plans to expand a US airbase in northern Italy."
It is not clear what will happen now. "President Giorgio Napolitano is now expected to hold talks with political leaders before reaching a decision. He could accept the resignation or ask Mr Prodi to stay in power."
High drama. Politics as usual in Italy.
Last April, I covered the Italian elections here, here, and here.
I was happy that challenger Romano Prodi of the center-left beat incumbent Silvio Berlusconi of the center-right. Berlusconi is, after all, a crook.
But the election was close, and, as the BBC is reporting, Prodi has resigned after "after losing a crucial foreign policy vote in the Senate". The issue? America's war on terror: "In the vote, several of Mr Prodi's coalition partners opposed troop deployments in Afghanistan and plans to expand a US airbase in northern Italy."
It is not clear what will happen now. "President Giorgio Napolitano is now expected to hold talks with political leaders before reaching a decision. He could accept the resignation or ask Mr Prodi to stay in power."
High drama. Politics as usual in Italy.
More on the British withdrawal
By Michael J.W. Stickings
(A follow-up to this post.)
Like his nominal boss, and just as delusionally, Vice President Dick Cheney sees the British withdrawal as proof of success in Iraq: "Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well."
I'm sure the Iraq of Cheney's wild imagination is a wonderful place where free, armed, and capitalistic Iraqis worship God, America, and Bush -- not necessarily in that order -- but the real Iraq is an altogether different nightmare. (Besides, Cheney has absolutely no credibility left. Does anyone other than Lynne, Mary, Dubya, Mary Matalin, and the delusionally partisan believe anything he has to say about anything anymore? Perhaps some fellow warmongers, but that's about it.)
And so Juan Cole's assessment seems right:
That's the unpleasant truth hidden behind the happy-go-lucky spin.
**********
For more, see The Moderate Voice, Political Animal, NewsHog, Booman Tribune, Gun Toting Liberal, and our co-blogger Libby at The Impolitic.
Andrew Sullivan gets it right, too: "Remember that, according to Cheney, the entire war has been an enormous success so far. My bet is that the phony peace prompted by the surge is designed to give Bush and Cheney a moment around May to say about all of Iraq what Cheney has just said about the south. It's fine. We won. We're redeploying. But only the Democrats want to retreat. Remember: the facts in Iraq are irrelevant to Cheney. What matters is domestic politics. And he's setting himself up for a declaration of victory relatively soon. At least one other person on earth will pretend to believe him."
Stop the presses! American wins Iraq War!
Yes, you can see it coming.
(A follow-up to this post.)
Like his nominal boss, and just as delusionally, Vice President Dick Cheney sees the British withdrawal as proof of success in Iraq: "Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well."
I'm sure the Iraq of Cheney's wild imagination is a wonderful place where free, armed, and capitalistic Iraqis worship God, America, and Bush -- not necessarily in that order -- but the real Iraq is an altogether different nightmare. (Besides, Cheney has absolutely no credibility left. Does anyone other than Lynne, Mary, Dubya, Mary Matalin, and the delusionally partisan believe anything he has to say about anything anymore? Perhaps some fellow warmongers, but that's about it.)
And so Juan Cole's assessment seems right:
This is a rout, there should be no mistake. The fractious Shiite militias and tribes of Iraq's South have made it impossible for the British to stay. They already left Sadr-controlled Maysan province, as well as sleepy Muthanna. They moved the British consulate to the airport because they couldn't protect it in Basra. They are taking mortar and rocket fire at their bases every night. Raiding militia HQs has not resulted in any permanent change in the situation. Basra is dominated by 4 paramilitaries, who are fighting turf wars with one another and with the Iraqi government over oil smuggling rights.
Blair is not leaving Basra because the British mission has been accomplished. He is leaving because he has concluded that it cannot be, and that if he tries any further it will completely sink the Labor Party, perhaps for decades to come.
That's the unpleasant truth hidden behind the happy-go-lucky spin.
**********
For more, see The Moderate Voice, Political Animal, NewsHog, Booman Tribune, Gun Toting Liberal, and our co-blogger Libby at The Impolitic.
Andrew Sullivan gets it right, too: "Remember that, according to Cheney, the entire war has been an enormous success so far. My bet is that the phony peace prompted by the surge is designed to give Bush and Cheney a moment around May to say about all of Iraq what Cheney has just said about the south. It's fine. We won. We're redeploying. But only the Democrats want to retreat. Remember: the facts in Iraq are irrelevant to Cheney. What matters is domestic politics. And he's setting himself up for a declaration of victory relatively soon. At least one other person on earth will pretend to believe him."
Stop the presses! American wins Iraq War!
Yes, you can see it coming.
Francois Bayrou
By Heraclitus
Here's an interesting article on Francois Bayrou, who's running for the French Presidency along with Segolene Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy. He's running as the candidate for a small, center-left Party, the Union for French Democracy (UDF), but is garnering increasing interest and support. Although his party is technically right of center, he sounds, based on this profile, like more a populist, someone who combines conservative social policies and attitudes with more concern for the poor than the major right-wing party. He's also not a life-long member of the French political elite, which is apparently helping him with voters.
But does he have any chance at all? Polls show him gaining on Royal, and suggest that he would beat either candidate if he made it through to the second round. Remember, another third party candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen, advanced to the second round of voting in the last presidential election in 2002. He was aided by a profound and widespread distaste for both candidates, and for the landscape of French politics generally, which led to a low voter turnout, as well as surprisingly strong showings by all of the Trotskyist parties running in the election (yes, there was more than one), who syphoned votes away from the Socialists.
Could something like this happen again? Given that Bayrou is, unlike Le Pen, not considered a loathsome national disgrace, he should receive even more support from the legions of disaffected French voters. Should he have a chance? I obviously don't know a great deal about the ins and outs of French politics, and for that reason don't have a strong opinion, but if I were French, I would definitely consider voting for him. The way the French political class is manufactured has always turned me off, and were I French, I would probably be itching to vote for an outside. Although I like what little I've seen of Royal, her various foreign policy-related gaffes don't speak well of her ability to lead the country. Everything I've seen of Sarkozy (which, again, is actually very little compared to those living in France) makes me dislike him rather intensely. He seems like the epitome of the careerist, party machine politician, and a product of an extremely corrupt and dishonest party.
That's my poorly informed, superficial, overly emotional stance. But, regardless of my opinion, for the time being Bayrou seems to be mounting a serious challenge for the Presidency.
Here's an interesting article on Francois Bayrou, who's running for the French Presidency along with Segolene Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy. He's running as the candidate for a small, center-left Party, the Union for French Democracy (UDF), but is garnering increasing interest and support. Although his party is technically right of center, he sounds, based on this profile, like more a populist, someone who combines conservative social policies and attitudes with more concern for the poor than the major right-wing party. He's also not a life-long member of the French political elite, which is apparently helping him with voters.
But does he have any chance at all? Polls show him gaining on Royal, and suggest that he would beat either candidate if he made it through to the second round. Remember, another third party candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen, advanced to the second round of voting in the last presidential election in 2002. He was aided by a profound and widespread distaste for both candidates, and for the landscape of French politics generally, which led to a low voter turnout, as well as surprisingly strong showings by all of the Trotskyist parties running in the election (yes, there was more than one), who syphoned votes away from the Socialists.
Could something like this happen again? Given that Bayrou is, unlike Le Pen, not considered a loathsome national disgrace, he should receive even more support from the legions of disaffected French voters. Should he have a chance? I obviously don't know a great deal about the ins and outs of French politics, and for that reason don't have a strong opinion, but if I were French, I would definitely consider voting for him. The way the French political class is manufactured has always turned me off, and were I French, I would probably be itching to vote for an outside. Although I like what little I've seen of Royal, her various foreign policy-related gaffes don't speak well of her ability to lead the country. Everything I've seen of Sarkozy (which, again, is actually very little compared to those living in France) makes me dislike him rather intensely. He seems like the epitome of the careerist, party machine politician, and a product of an extremely corrupt and dishonest party.
That's my poorly informed, superficial, overly emotional stance. But, regardless of my opinion, for the time being Bayrou seems to be mounting a serious challenge for the Presidency.
The book of Daniel
By Capt. Fogg
New occasions teach new duties,
time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward,
who would keep abreast of truth.
-- James Russell Lowell
**********
Amidst all the horrible things going on in the world there are still those who see the fate of societies as determined by God's blessing or God's wrath and God's wrath usually stems from people engaging in what they were designed to do, or people looking at people clothed as God clothed them and doing what they have been doing since before they were really people: that's sex, of course, and sex which is not approved of by a group of people who exist for the purpose controlling other people's sex lives and warning them of God's wrath will lead to terrible things.
I only discovered the voice crying in the wilderness called Daniel Mark Cohen through an ad he probably ran himself in the February 19 & 26 issues of The New Republic titled Unhappy Anniversary.
In fact, prayer divides America and that prayer no less than others, but Cohen's assertion that God will no longer bless America since the Roth v. United States decision fifty years ago that had the audacity to determine that what is and what is not pornography is relative to community standards and not the eternal, immutable standards of self-appointed guardians and Biblical blowhards like Cohen. Only a truly magnificent idiot can forget that randy pagan societies have far outlasted empires steeped in sexual repression and have prospered. God seems to bless slavery, genocide, and bloody conquest equally with its absence, and just societies have come and gone in very short order. As the poet said, our standards change and some of those standards now make Cohen uncouth.
Only a truly arrogant idiot can insist on a recieved eternal standard about what parts of what bodies we may look at and at divine retribution for infringing upon it. Cohen is both kinds of idiot and more. He's an idiot that thinks he speaks for God and that God needs a spokesman.
Cohen, in the ad and in his book, insists that pornography is prostitution and part of a "culture of prostitution" mediated by the internet, cable television pornography, and photographic cameras. "And why should God bless America," asks Cohen, "when as a consequence, she insists on the free unregulated distribution via the internet of the most vile sexual images, so that hourly, such pictures reach and indelibly corrupt the otherwise innocent eyes and chaste minds of the country's millions of unsupervised children?"
Interesting that Cohen thinks we should be supervised as adults but that children, with their "chaste minds" need not be. I don't know whether I'm more offended by his contempt for freedom, his psychotic ideas about sex, or his insistence that children have chaste minds. I am of course angered beyond bounds by this voice from the sewer, this vox clamatis cloaco, from whose troglodytic viewpoint the world is covered in shit. I'm angry that his pathetic little God won't bless a sexually free America but isn't irritated by an America that kills children, letting them live in poverty and disease, by a world that looks the other way and feels righteous when they are hacked to bits in Africa and are forced to become killers of other children.
Cohen is too stupid, or too twisted and perverted, to dwell on the total lack of historical correlation between sexual openness and the fate of nations. God doesn't really give a damn from all evidence and from all evidence European countries that do not try to suppress pornography, that allow prostitution, and don't interfere with sex between consenting adults have less rape and murder than the lands of God-fearing, freedom-hating sexual deviates like Mark would force us to emulate.
God bless America? No, says Cohen. God damn Cohen and all miserable bastards like him? Yes, says Fogg.
New occasions teach new duties,
time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward,
who would keep abreast of truth.
-- James Russell Lowell
**********
Amidst all the horrible things going on in the world there are still those who see the fate of societies as determined by God's blessing or God's wrath and God's wrath usually stems from people engaging in what they were designed to do, or people looking at people clothed as God clothed them and doing what they have been doing since before they were really people: that's sex, of course, and sex which is not approved of by a group of people who exist for the purpose controlling other people's sex lives and warning them of God's wrath will lead to terrible things.
I only discovered the voice crying in the wilderness called Daniel Mark Cohen through an ad he probably ran himself in the February 19 & 26 issues of The New Republic titled Unhappy Anniversary.
"If the people of the United States collectively endorse a single prayer, one that, universal in its reach, transcends the necessary differences in faith and ethnicity that otherwise divide the nation, that prayer consists of three simple words: "God bless America."
In fact, prayer divides America and that prayer no less than others, but Cohen's assertion that God will no longer bless America since the Roth v. United States decision fifty years ago that had the audacity to determine that what is and what is not pornography is relative to community standards and not the eternal, immutable standards of self-appointed guardians and Biblical blowhards like Cohen. Only a truly magnificent idiot can forget that randy pagan societies have far outlasted empires steeped in sexual repression and have prospered. God seems to bless slavery, genocide, and bloody conquest equally with its absence, and just societies have come and gone in very short order. As the poet said, our standards change and some of those standards now make Cohen uncouth.
Only a truly arrogant idiot can insist on a recieved eternal standard about what parts of what bodies we may look at and at divine retribution for infringing upon it. Cohen is both kinds of idiot and more. He's an idiot that thinks he speaks for God and that God needs a spokesman.
Cohen, in the ad and in his book, insists that pornography is prostitution and part of a "culture of prostitution" mediated by the internet, cable television pornography, and photographic cameras. "And why should God bless America," asks Cohen, "when as a consequence, she insists on the free unregulated distribution via the internet of the most vile sexual images, so that hourly, such pictures reach and indelibly corrupt the otherwise innocent eyes and chaste minds of the country's millions of unsupervised children?"
Interesting that Cohen thinks we should be supervised as adults but that children, with their "chaste minds" need not be. I don't know whether I'm more offended by his contempt for freedom, his psychotic ideas about sex, or his insistence that children have chaste minds. I am of course angered beyond bounds by this voice from the sewer, this vox clamatis cloaco, from whose troglodytic viewpoint the world is covered in shit. I'm angry that his pathetic little God won't bless a sexually free America but isn't irritated by an America that kills children, letting them live in poverty and disease, by a world that looks the other way and feels righteous when they are hacked to bits in Africa and are forced to become killers of other children.
Cohen is too stupid, or too twisted and perverted, to dwell on the total lack of historical correlation between sexual openness and the fate of nations. God doesn't really give a damn from all evidence and from all evidence European countries that do not try to suppress pornography, that allow prostitution, and don't interfere with sex between consenting adults have less rape and murder than the lands of God-fearing, freedom-hating sexual deviates like Mark would force us to emulate.
God bless America? No, says Cohen. God damn Cohen and all miserable bastards like him? Yes, says Fogg.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
British withdrawal
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Here's MSNBC reporting on an important development in the Iraq War:
Why is this significant?
Apparently, Bush views this British withdrawal as "a sign of success," and Blair may say that himself in his defence. He is not about to concede anything resembling defeat or failure -- despite or perhaps because of intense opposition to the war at home. But whereas Bush seems utterly delusional, Blair at least seems to be aware of what has gone wrong, and why. Bush still talks of victory, still hopes for success, still sends troops into harm's way in the middle of a civil war. Perhaps Blair finally found the good sense to do what he should have done a long time ago: sever his ties with his "ally" in the White House. Look what Iraq has done to Bush and the Republicans. Look what it's done to Blair personally. This initial withdrawal is coming too late, but it suggests he's had enough.
The BBC article on the British withdrawal is here.
For more on what this could mean for the U.S., see Glenn Greenwald: "Blair's reversal was likely motivated in large part by various domestic political pressures. Still, the fact that President Bush's most steadfast ally has reversed himself in such a public and humiliating way, and announced a clear-cut withdrawal from Iraq on a set timetable, should embolden frightened American Congressional war opponents to move beyond inconsequential and limited non-binding resolutions and begin thinking seriously about how to compel an end to this endlessly destructive occupation."
Democrats, are you paying attention?
Here's MSNBC reporting on an important development in the Iraq War:
Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce Wednesday a timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, British media reported.
Why is this significant?
The announcement comes as President Bush implements an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq, but while some of the other coalition partners are pulling out: The Italians and Slovaks have left, and the Danes and the South Koreans want to start withdrawing.
Apparently, Bush views this British withdrawal as "a sign of success," and Blair may say that himself in his defence. He is not about to concede anything resembling defeat or failure -- despite or perhaps because of intense opposition to the war at home. But whereas Bush seems utterly delusional, Blair at least seems to be aware of what has gone wrong, and why. Bush still talks of victory, still hopes for success, still sends troops into harm's way in the middle of a civil war. Perhaps Blair finally found the good sense to do what he should have done a long time ago: sever his ties with his "ally" in the White House. Look what Iraq has done to Bush and the Republicans. Look what it's done to Blair personally. This initial withdrawal is coming too late, but it suggests he's had enough.
The BBC article on the British withdrawal is here.
For more on what this could mean for the U.S., see Glenn Greenwald: "Blair's reversal was likely motivated in large part by various domestic political pressures. Still, the fact that President Bush's most steadfast ally has reversed himself in such a public and humiliating way, and announced a clear-cut withdrawal from Iraq on a set timetable, should embolden frightened American Congressional war opponents to move beyond inconsequential and limited non-binding resolutions and begin thinking seriously about how to compel an end to this endlessly destructive occupation."
Democrats, are you paying attention?
Conservative cannibalism
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Gotta love it. Republicans eating their own, led by the insufferable Hugh Hewitt and the "Victory Caucus," his lame answer to MoveOn.org.
Not that they'll abandon their shameless assault on the Democrats: "The GOP political strategy is to shift the focus away from an unpopular war and unpopular president to the Republican claim that Democrats would abandon the troops."
Right, sure. Just as Bush equates support for the Iraq War with opposition to Islamic terrorism, these Hewittistic Republicans (and there are many of them -- this has long been a Republican refrain) equate opposition to the Iraq War (both generally and with respect to Bush's surge) with opposition to the troops.
It's spin, of course. Do you really think even the most pacific Democrats would abandon the troops? The most ardently anti-war support bringing the troops home, not leaving them to fend for themselves in the chaos that is today's Iraq.
Partisans misrepresent each other all the time. That's politics. What's true of Republicans is also true of Democrats.
But what differentiates Republican misrepresentation from Democratic misrepresentation is its nastiness. If Democrats were to say that Republicans don't give a damn about the poor, which they rarely do with such venom, Republicans respond with outrage and cries of foul play. But if Republicans say that Democrats don't give a damn about the troops, and they do with venom, it's just politics. And Democrats, fearful that the Republican slur will stick, fall all over themselves to show that they do in fact support the troops, thereby remaining on the defensive while Republicans continue their assault.
This "Democrats-will-abandon-the-troops" meme will guide Republicans through the next two years at least. With a war many of them continue to support enthusiastically continuing to go horribly wrong, and proving to be a lost cause, all they have left is to slur Democrats and eat their own.
It's called GOP strategy.
Gotta love it. Republicans eating their own, led by the insufferable Hugh Hewitt and the "Victory Caucus," his lame answer to MoveOn.org.
Not that they'll abandon their shameless assault on the Democrats: "The GOP political strategy is to shift the focus away from an unpopular war and unpopular president to the Republican claim that Democrats would abandon the troops."
Right, sure. Just as Bush equates support for the Iraq War with opposition to Islamic terrorism, these Hewittistic Republicans (and there are many of them -- this has long been a Republican refrain) equate opposition to the Iraq War (both generally and with respect to Bush's surge) with opposition to the troops.
It's spin, of course. Do you really think even the most pacific Democrats would abandon the troops? The most ardently anti-war support bringing the troops home, not leaving them to fend for themselves in the chaos that is today's Iraq.
Partisans misrepresent each other all the time. That's politics. What's true of Republicans is also true of Democrats.
But what differentiates Republican misrepresentation from Democratic misrepresentation is its nastiness. If Democrats were to say that Republicans don't give a damn about the poor, which they rarely do with such venom, Republicans respond with outrage and cries of foul play. But if Republicans say that Democrats don't give a damn about the troops, and they do with venom, it's just politics. And Democrats, fearful that the Republican slur will stick, fall all over themselves to show that they do in fact support the troops, thereby remaining on the defensive while Republicans continue their assault.
This "Democrats-will-abandon-the-troops" meme will guide Republicans through the next two years at least. With a war many of them continue to support enthusiastically continuing to go horribly wrong, and proving to be a lost cause, all they have left is to slur Democrats and eat their own.
It's called GOP strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
