Mea culpa

U.S. reassigns Marine for passing out Bible verses to Muslims
By Leila Fadel and Jamal Naji | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2008
BAGHDAD, Iraq — The U.S. military confirmed Thursday that a Marine in Fallujah passed out coins with a Gospel verse on them to Sunni Muslims, a military spokesman in the Iraqi city said. The man was immediately removed from the checkpoint and reassigned.

Seems it really was only one overzealous young Marine.

My apologies to all LTC Marine chaplains!

Stop the madness.

a call for democracy in Iraq

Al Sadr: Let Iraqis decide on U.S. troops
May 27, 2008
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An agreement between the United States and Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain operating in Iraq past 2008 should be put to a popular referendum, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged in an online message to his followers.

Has anyone else noticed that al Sadr seems to be the loudest voice for participative democracy in Iraq? Why can't W embrace him? [... well, other than the fact that al Sadr really hates the U.S. occupation?]

Okay. If not "embrace" how 'bout "tolerate"? The Sadrist movement is popular. They've made honest efforts to work thru the "system". Their efforts have been rewarded by U.S. & Iraq govt with belligerence. Why not urge Maliki to reconcile with Sadr?

Too simplistic? Probably... but what we're doing ISN'T WORKING!

Stop the madness.

Winning hearts & minds

Marines pass out Gospel verse to Iraqi Muslims
By Jamal Naji and Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers
Wed May 28, 2008
FALLUJAH, Iraq — At the western entrance to the Iraqi city of Fallujah Tuesday, Muamar Anad handed his residence badge to the U.S. Marines guarding the city. They checked to be sure that he was a city resident, and when they were done, Anad said, a Marine slipped a coin out of his pocket and put it in his hand.

Out of fear, he accepted it, Anad said. When he was inside the city, the college student said, he looked at one side of the coin. "Where will you spend eternity?" it asked.

He flipped it over, and on the other side it read, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16."

"They are trying to convert us to Christianity," said Anad, a Sunni Muslim like most residents of this city in Anbar province. At home, he told his story, and his relatives echoed their disapproval: They'd been given the coins, too, he said.

Whose bright idea was this? Will "a few bad apples" be blamed... probably not using that phrase; perhaps, "overzealous young Marines" honestly acting out of love for their Arab brethren.

Given publicity over the past few years regarding conservative Christian evangelism at our military academies, I'm betting that this idiotic gesture was the brainchild of some fairly highly placed Marine chaplain - LTC or above.

I'm pretty sure this is a really lousy way to secure the loyalty and support of our would-be allies - all of them Muslim!

Stop the madness!

just sayin', "hi"

Day-trip to Clearwater Marine Aquarium today. CMA is a marine-wildlife rescue operation that funds itself by offering tour of the facility. 30 paid staff; 500 volunteers. Home of Winter - the tail-less dolphin being fitted with prostetic tail.

I you're in the area, CMA is well-worth the visit. (We visited last August. Based on that experience is was high on our list of "Do agains!" this time out.)

I've been doing a poor job keeping with current events, politics, etc.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, I've not missed the daily downer at all!

Peace.

"Last throes", anyone?

US ambassador: al-Qaida close to defeat in Iraq
By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer
Sun May 25, 2008
BAGHDAD - The U.S. ambassador to Iraq said Saturday that al-Qaida's network in the country has never been closer to defeat, and he praised Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his moves to rein in Shiite and Sunni militant groups.

Personally, I think I'll hold off on celebrating till the headline reads,

al-Qaida DEFEATED in Iraq

The "light at the end of the tunnel" narratives long ago lost their credence.

Regarding al-Maliki's moves to rein in Shiite & Sunni militant groups, I note that the U.S. co-opted the Sunni militant groups in Anbar - paying them and renaming them "Citizens Councils"; and that the only Shiite group al-Maliki seems to care about is al Sadr's Mahdi Army. Recall, al Sadr is Maliki's political opponent. Weakening Sadr is high on Maliki's list of priorities... I'm not sure why it's also high on our list. If W were serious about promoting democracy he'd welcome al Sadr's grassroots political activism.

Call me when the good news in fact represents a fait accompli, not the end of a rainbow.

Stop the madness.

An anniversary

To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person who observes this anniversary: Today is the fourth anniversary of W's War College speech, in which he outlined the path to victory in Iraq.

In years past, I have sent email to folks I thought might care: Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, DLC, DCCC, etc. No one paid any attention.

This year, I'll celebrate on al Qaeda in Albuquerque!

President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom
Remarks by the President on Iraq and the War on Terror
United States Army War College
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
May 24, 2004
"...
There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom.
...
The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections.
...
The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires.
...
The third step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to continue rebuilding that nation's infrastructure, so that a free Iraq can quickly gain economic independence and a better quality of life.
...
The fourth step in our plan is to enlist additional international support for Iraq's transition.
...
The fifth and most important step is free, national elections, to be held no later than next January.
..."

Five steps. Two completed (sort of):
- Transfer sovereignty. Yes, Bremer left.
- Hold free, national elections. Yes, bringing Iran-allied Shi'ites to power.

The other three? We're still waiting.
- "Establish the stability and security that democracy requires". That would be the surge, right? Two-and-a-half years after the speech... and I'm not convinced "stability and security" have been established. Anyone wanna convince me?

- "Rebuilding that nation's infrastructure". Does anyone know how many hours/day Baghdad has electricity? What proportion of Iraqis have safe drinking water? What percent have functional sewage systems?... no, no one does: these basic data are not provided by the government or the news media. Last I heard - not that long ago - raw sewage ran through the streets of Sadr City... in the heart of Iraq's capital!

- "Enlist additional international support". Has W even made an effort? If so, it's been well-concealed! The only folks - other than the U.S. - who seem to be taking an active interest in Iraq are Iran and Syria. Is this what W had in mind?

Cool! Of 5 steps to "to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom" exactly 2 have been completed... or even started! This sounds a lot like 40% to me, which - even in an era of grade inflation - pretty much counts as an "F".

Four years later we're still planning to establish security, restore infrastructure, and engage the international community. None of these will occur tomorrow... tho' McCain promises all will be realized by 2013!

As I've said before, W believes that reciting the magic words is sufficient. He took NO action to in fact achieve the three unrealized "steps". All that mattered was delivering the speech.

Happy 4th anniversary!

Stop the madness.

I'm back... sorta...

Biz trip was exhausting. Training my replacement...

On the bright side: the time flew! My replacement is amazingly capable, and demanded of me very detailed training. The three days were VERY long, but very well spent - I actually got excited about work!

On the less-than-bright side: I've not had time to post!... or even to read the news! [I've somehow found time to work at least one crossword puzzle each day... hotel provided USA Today & Sacramento Bee.]

Flying to Florida tomorrow - VACATION!... Better-half expects house to be in non-embarassing state for house-sitter (nephew). We're now in heavy-duty cleaning mode. I'm taking a break.

Back to the bright side: vacation with friends in Florida ought afford opportunity to at least read the news... and respond appropriately on Al Qaeda in Albuquerque! [note: I chose to spell it out to attract NSA/CIA/FBI.] In the best of all possible worlds: if you read this blog, you are being watched!

... sigh - I think I ought return to kitchen-cleaning duties.

Peace!

... my continuing apology

... on biz travel Tues - Thurs. Little/no posting.

... vacation, 24 May - 1 June. Little/no posting.

There WILL be an ANNIVERSARY celebrated on 24 May! Stay tuned!

Peace.

For what it's worth...

It's been quite a while since I've demonstrated my psychic abilities.

I'm not sure these two items quite count, but I'll report 'em anyway.

1. An editorial in today's USA Today, Talking to an adversary isn't necessarily appeasement, pretty much repeats points I made a couple of days ago.

2. As reported by C&L, Sen Obama has presented a realistic assessment of the Iranian threat: The Iranian threat is tiny compared to the USSR. Back on 20 March I noted that, In a rational world, these guys are flies - maybe tsetse flies, but flies, nonetheless, referring to both bin Laden & Ahmadinejad.

Yeah, I know - not quite the same as reading next week's news today... but I'll still take these as more evidence of my psychic abilities!

Peace.

bin who?

Bin Laden lashes out at Arab leaders
By OMAR SINAN, AP
18 May 2008
CAIRO, Egypt - Osama bin Laden released a new message on Sunday denouncing Arab leaders for sacrificing the Palestinians and saying the head of the Shiite militant group Hezbollah did not really have the strength to take on Israel.

Bin Laden is still around?

Whatever happened to

THE PRESIDENT: "They will try to hide, they will try to avoid the United States and our allies - but we're not going to let them. They run to the hills; they find holes to get in. And we will do whatever it takes to smoke them out and get them running, and we'll get them."

Oh, yeah... this was W speaking - say the magic words and all is well.

More than six-and-a-half years after 9/11, Osama is still free to threaten the world.

Heckuva job, W!

Stop the madness!

Who's in charge (this would be fun, if only...)

Sanchez may have been commander in Iraq, but he says he was just following orders
By Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers
Fri May 16, 2008
WASHINGTON — To hear retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez explain it, the mistakes of the Iraq war that happened while he was in command there weren't his fault. Not Abu Ghraib, not the birth of the insurgency, not the decision to let rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr survive.
...
Sanchez argues that crafting a strategy wasn't his responsibility, even as the top commander in Iraq . That fell to the civilian leaders, such as the secretary of defense and the president.

Being flippant: Ok... so, who's in charge?
Former top general in Iraq says he was just following orders of civilian leadership.
W claims he takes advice of generals on the ground regarding strategy.

My notion of an American value: accountability.

End of flippancy.

To some extent, I agree with Sanchez: Defining strategic objectives is the job of civilian leadership. Once strategic objectives have been defined, it falls upon the military leadership - say, for example, the commanding general in the field - to develop a strategy to achieve those strategic objectives. With no clearly articulated strategic objectives, the military is pretty much at a loss - and under such circumstance, yes - possibly the best the commanding general can do is offer advice & follow orders. Pathetic!

As the commanding general in Iraq, Sanchez had the obligation to demand of his civilian leaders, "What are our strategic objectives?" How else could he hope to develop a winning strategy?

A flippant aside: "Following orders" is not a particularly compelling defense! The Nuremberg trials established more-or-less firm legal precedent that "following orders" is not a sufficient defense against charges of war crimes. As I've mentioned before, as a basic trainee in the 1975 all-volunteer Army, I was lectured on the obligation of the soldier to disobey an illegal order.

Our current general, Petraeus, seems happy to follow in Sanchez's footsteps. In his two highly publicized Congressional appearances, he has not once mentioned the strategic objectives he is pursuing.

Back to the main point: accountability.

Rumsfeld has been cited as saying that he gave his generals what they said they needed for the invasion... tho' I seem to recall a good deal of commentary suggesting that Rummy had an ideologically-based idee fixe that 100,000 troops would be sufficient, and pretty much made that number the boundary condition within which pre-war planning took place. [Sorry - I've not the energy or inclination to seek references for this not-so-vague memory. I'm sufficiently certain of its truth to trust that my readers can find the the appropriate citations with a little bit of time on "the Google".]

W's Iraq disaster is just that - W's! Not America's. Not the military's. Not the generals'. Only W is to blame.

On the bright side: McCain seems more than willing to assume responsibility for W's mess! To McCain's credit, in a recent speech in Columbus, OH, he does in fact, present a desired end-state in Iraq:

Remarks By John McCain in Columbus, Ohio
May 15, 2008
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.

Recall,

"It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
[SecDef Rumsfeld, 7 Feb 2003]

McCain's vision takes us to TEN YEARS. This is not the war we were sold. It is not the war we bought.

Again: if you like where YOUR country is today, if you like the direction it's headed... by all means, vote Republican!

Stop the madness!

The horserace

Big Brown wins Preakness; poised for Triple Crown
By BETH HARRIS, AP Racing Writer
17 May 2008
BALTIMORE - Not once but twice, jockey Kent Desormeaux sneaked a peek to see if anyone was gaining on Big Brown. "I looked between my legs, under my arms, and they were eight (lengths) behind me," Desormeaux said. "I stopped pushing. I said, `That's enough.'"

You weren't expecting a comment on the campaign, were you?

I watched the Kentucky Derby, missed today's Preakness.

Once upon a time I routinely dropped $$$ on horse races - not much $$$... I was in the Army, after all - not a lot of expendable cash! I'm not much of a handicapper. No, that's not quite right. I'm a TERRIBLE handicapper!

... that said, I was impressed by Big Brown's Derby victory - the jockey ran the race very well, keeping Big Brown 4 or 5 back till final turn.

Accounts of the Preakness suggest a similar winning strategy - holding Big Brown back till the final turn, then turning it on.

We'll see if this wisdom prevails in the Belmont Stakes. I recall that Smarty Jones, after winning both Derby & Preakness in 2004, was pushed to an early lead in the Belmont... and faded.

The first time I paid any attention to horse racing was 1973 - spring semester, junior year in college. Secretariat took the Triple Crown. Jackie Stewart was named Sports Illustrated "Sportsman of the Year" for 1973. I was unhappy with the choice, believing it ought have gone to Secretariat... tho' then I suppose it'd have been awarded as "Sportshorse of the Year".

It's been 30 years since I've bet on a horse race. This is a good thing.

Peace.

A public service

(This post is intended as a general public service, but may benefit W apologists more than others. If you're going to scream, "APPEASER!" at the top of your lungs, you ought at least know the history!)

from Modern History Sourcebook:
The following is the wording of the statement that Neville Chamberlain waved when he stepped off the plane after the conference in Berlin had ended on 30 September, 1938.

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for two countries and for Europe.

"We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

"We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

Chamberlain read this statement to a cheering crowd in front of 10 Downing St. and said:

"My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time."

[Excerpted from "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." ]

And the contents of the agreement?

Munich Agreement
The Munich Agreement (Czech: Mnichovská dohoda; Slovak: Mníchovská dohoda; German: Münchner Abkommen) was an agreement regarding the Sudetenland Crisis among the major powers of Europe after a conference held in Munich, Germany, in 1938 and signed in the early hours of September 30. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the future of Czechoslovakia in the face of territorial demands made by German dictator Adolf Hitler. The agreement, signed by Nazi Germany, France, Britain, and Italy permitted German annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. The Sudetenland was of immense strategic importance to Czechoslovakia, as most of its border defenses were situated there.

Because the state of Czechoslovakia was not invited to the conference, the Munich Agreement is commonly called the Munich Dictate by Czechs and Slovaks (Czech: Mnichovský diktát; Slovak: Mníchovský diktát). The phrase Munich betrayal (Czech: Mnichovská zrada; Slovak: Mníchovská zrada) is also frequently used because military alliances between Czechoslovakia and France were not honored.
...
The settlement gave Germany the Sudetenland starting October 10, and de facto control over the rest of Czechoslovakia as long as Hitler promised to go no further. On September 30th after some rest, Chamberlain went to Hitler and asked him to sign a peace treaty between the United Kingdom and Germany. After Hitler's interpreter translated it for him, he happily agreed.
[Wikipedia entry, Munich Agreement; emphasis added]

Note: if Hitler had in fact gone no further, Chamberlain might well be remembered as one of the great statesmen of the 20th century.

Instead, Hitler took Chamberlain's eagerness for peace-at-any-cost as a sign of weakness. The following September, Nazi Germany invaded Poland, starting WWII.

By mid-wiving the Munich Agreement, Chamberlain sacrificed an autonomous nation to Germany without even consulting the sacrificial victims; and ran rough-shod over existing binding international treaties, denying to Czechoslovakia the international support it thought it had previously secured.

This is quite a bit more than simply "talking" with the bad guys. This is bending over backwards to give the bad guys whatever they ask for in return for vague and unenforceable promises of future good behavior.

"Talk" and "diplomacy" were successfully employed by Nixon in China, and by Saint Reagan with the Soviet Union. I somehow don't believe that any in W's Administration, or any in Senator McCain's campaign, will soon be labeling Nixon & Saint Reagan "appeasers".

Stop the madness.

This, that, and t'other

When Saint Reagan pulled the U.S. military out of Lebanon after the attack on the Marine Barracks in 1983, no one accused him of "cutting and running", or of dishonoring the dead by prudently getting the living out of harm's way.

Saint Reagan talked with Gorbachev, the leader of the Evil Empire. No one accused him of appeasing the godless Commies.

Nixon has a solid foreign-policy achievement to his legacy: establishing diplomatic relations with the godless Chinese Commie bastards!

Anyone can talk with friends. It's not that hard... it's even enjoyable. Even arguing with friends is a pleasant way to spend an evening. It takes courage and character to talk with your enemies.

After deliberately walking away from negotiations with North Korea at the beginning his first term, W has spent the past year trying desperately to achieve some claim to diplomatic fame by belatedly engaging the godless Korean Commies. (Recall, W even publicly dissed SecDef Powell when Powell had the audacity to suggest that W's Administration would take up talks with N. Korea where Clinton had left off.)

W similarly walked away from the Mid-East negotiations Clinton had nurtured. Now, in his final year, he hopes to get something - anything - on paper - a lasting legacy in the region. Pitiful.

Whate'er became of Cheney's energy policy, formulated - as best we can tell - by his OilPatch buds? Facing $130/bbl oil, Dick has been remarkably silent.

And just a reminder:

THE PRESIDENT: "They will try to hide, they will try to avoid the United States and our allies - but we're not going to let them. They run to the hills; they find holes to get in. And we will do whatever it takes to smoke them out and get them running, and we'll get them."
[President Urges Readiness and Patience, Remarks by the President, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Attorney General John Ashcroft
Camp David
Thurmont, Maryland, 15 Sep 2001]

Followed shortly thereafter by

[Mullah] Omar: "I am considering two promises. One is the promise of God, the other is that of Bush. The promise of God is that my land is vast. If you start a journey on God's path, you can reside anywhere on this earth and will be protected... The promise of Bush is that there is no place on earth where you can hide that I cannot find you. We will see which one of these two promises is fulfilled."
[Mullah Omar - in his own words,
Wednesday September 26, 2001
The Guardian]

W hasn't even pretended to go after bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Never bet against a mullah!

W's legacy? An impoverished America stuck in an unwinnable war that is costing $100,000,000,000 per year, oil at $130/bbl, gas at $3.75/gal. An America whose Dept of Justice and close Presidential advisors authorized torture. An America whose government spies on its own citizens with no legal or judicial authority. An America whose military - though spending $500,000,000,000 per year on high-tech gadgets - is losing two wars to third-world guerilla forces.

If you like where the country is today, if you like the direction it's headed... by all means, vote Republican!

Stop the madness!

What a surprise!

Bush fails to win Saudi help on gas prices
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
Fri May 16, 2008
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - President Bush failed to win the help he sought from Saudi Arabia to relieve skyrocketing American gas prices Friday, a setback for the former Texas oilman who took office predicting he would jawbone oil-producing nations to help the U.S.

I note that this is my 3rd post this year on the same topic (4 Mar: W's energy policy; 20 Jan: "Please, sir, I want some more.").

Simply pathetic: begging his best buds, the Saudis, for cheaper oil!

I thought Cheney was in charge of our energy policy. Why doesn't W ask him for help?

For what it's worth: Two things started happening pretty much immediately after W went after Saddam.

1) Oil prices started going up - they've never stopped.
2) the dollar started going down relative to the Euro - this trend, too, has never stopped.

Can anyone name even ONE achievement of this Administration?

Funny-sad: The REPUBLICANS want us to believe that they can get us out of this mess... THEIR mess!

Stop the madness!

Others got there first... but I'll add my two cents worth anyway

President Bush Addresses Members of the Knesset
The Knesset
Jerusalem
15 May 2008
"... Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

note: the ubiquitous "Some" (one of W's favorite rhetorical tricks - the strawman "some")... in this case none-too-subtly addressing the willingness of some Democrats (and SecDef Gates, and SecState Rice) to actually establish a dialog with Iran.

When the U.S. President addresses the parliament of another country, the assumption is that he is speaking as the leader of America, not as a partisan politician. To use the occasion to attempt to score domestic political points is extremely bad form... but somehow, W couldn't help himself.

ap·pease·ment
2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.
[American Heritage Dictionary, from Dictionary.com]

Note: "Appeasement" in the sense used by W requires the "granting of concessions" in return for at least the promise of peace (e.g., Neville Chamberlain granting Hitler the right to incorporate a large portion of Czechoslovakia, in exchange for Hitler's promise, "This is my last territorial demand.").

"Appeasement" is NOT implied by a willingness to simply TALK with the perceived enemy.

W - his schoolyard bully persona intact - fails to discern the difference. Talk, negotiation, diplomacy... these are foreign concepts (probably French!).

The Conventional Wisdom suggests that we've only about 8 months more to tolerate W.

I'm not convinced he's leaving!

... For what it's worth: the fellow W quoted was a REPUBLICAN:

William Edgar Borah
William Edgar Borah (June 29, 1865 near Fairfield, Illinois – January 19, 1940 Washington, D.C.) was a prominent Republican attorney and longtime United States Senator from Idaho noted for his oratorical skills and isolationist views. One of his nicknames later in life was "The Lion of Idaho."

"'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." —1939, regarding Germany's invasion of Poland (attributed) McKenna, Marian (1961). "Borah". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 338: 156-157.

[Wikipedia, William Edgar Borah]

Stop the madness!

p.s. A debating tip: In the event your opponent cites "Some" or "Some people" holding a particular view or advocating a particular course of action, challenge him or her to name just one specific person holding the view or advocating the course of action. "SOME" is a none-too-clever suggestive dodge - demand specifics!

p.p.s. ... another debating tip: if YOU can identify a specific individual from your opponent's own camp advocating the derided position, so much the better. For example, W lambasts those who would

"... negotiate with the terrorists and radicals"

It would be nice to have ready to hand an example of just such a person... say, for example, SecDef Gates

Gates urges more nongovernment contacts with Iran
Thu May 15, 2008
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on Wednesday for more unofficial contacts with Iran, saying this might eventually open a pathway to more substantive dialogue between the governments.

For what it's worth: to every and all Dem candidates - even for County DogCatcher - RUN ON W's RECORD!

real job interfering...

My apologies to my 7 dedicated readers: my day job is interfering with posting.

I'm retiring at the end of June. In the meantime, I'm training my replacement and finishing up final projects. These two activities are taking a LOT more time than I'd anticipated.

Here are folks who'll be saying pretty much what I would:

Think Progress
Crooks & Liars
TPM

...and for a quick review of what's going on, with fun commentary:

Atrios

Meanwhile: I'll likely be working much of the weekend, and am on travel (last biz trip!) most of next week.

Thereafter, one week vacation, visiting friends in Florida.

Bottom line: I'll try to post more-or-less daily, but don't count on much brilliance!

Peace.

Our VERY SERIOUS Congress

Let's see...

We're spending $100Bn/yr in Iraq, for no apparent ROI.
The U.S. economy is tanking.
The FBI continues to abuse "National Security Letters".
Oil is at $124/bbl. Gas at $3.75/gal

So what does REPUBLICAN Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) want Congress to investigate?

Specter asks Mitchell-type probe into Spygate
By Skip Wood, USA TODAY
14 May 2008
WASHINGTON — A day after NFL commissioner Roger Goodell all but closed the door on "Spygate," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said Wednesday he wants it kept open with an independent investigation.
If the league declines to do so, Specter indicated he will consider taking steps to urge a congressional hearing on the matter.

After spending nearly three hours Tuesday meeting with former New England Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh, who also met with Goodell Tuesday, Specter said the Patriots' methods of taping opponents' defensive signals damages the credibility of the game. "It's really an insult to the people who follow it," said Specter. "… They owe the public a lot more candor and a lot more accountability."

Yes! Of course! Let's investigate the New England Patriots for spying on the competition! It makes perfect sense. This is clearly a TOP NATIONAL PRIORITY!!!

Thank goodness for Senator Specter!

Stop the madness.

Finding a voice

Conyers Tells Bush Iran Attack = Impeachment; Ask Your Representative to Co-Sign

May 8, 2008

Join Me in Calling on President Bush to Respect Congress’ Exclusive Power to Declare War

Dear Democratic Colleague:

As we mark five years of war in Iraq, I have become increasingly concerned that the President may possibly take unilateral, preemptive military action against Iran. During the last seven years, the Bush Administration has exercised unprecedented assertions of Executive Branch power and shown an unparalleled aversion to the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution’s framers. The letter that follows asks President Bush to seek congressional authorization before launching any possible military strike against Iran and affirms Senator Biden’s statement last year that impeachment proceedings should be considered if the President fails to do so.

I hope that you will join me in calling on the President to respect Congress’ exclusive power to declare war. To sign the letter below, please contact the Judiciary Committee staff at 225-3951.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

Thank you, Congressman Conyers!

If you're so inclined:

John Conyers Jr. for Congress

We need to encourage this behavior!

Now, will W listen?

Regular readers will recall that I'm betting on an attack on Iran, as a response to a "terrorist attack" on the U.S., nominally blamed on Hezbollah... and that, in addition to the attack on Iran, W will find it necessary to impose martial law, cancel the election, and adjourn Congress indefintely (using a very weird but W-plausible reading of the Constitution).

I place "terrorist attack" in quotes to emphasize that in this conspiracy-theory scenario, the true masterminds are Cheney & his allies - using CIA or other instruments to orchestrate the attack. Yes, Hezbollah will be the direct actors, but they'll have been managed by W's cabal.

Yeah, I know: this is the stuff of deeply paranoid delusions.

... but don't say you weren't warned when Halloween brings a spectacular attack on U.S. soil!

Peace.

Interesting conversation over lunch

On travel to scenic AZ today, I lunched with long-time colleague & USMC reservist. He & I have close to nothing in common politically - but we still manage to discuss politics with more than a little civility. (We DO agree that "gas-tax holiday" is a really stupid idea!)

He mentioned that he'd recently received "Push-Poll" call from some group or other... "What is your opinion of McCain?"
- His response, "Very negative."... but he's also VERY NEGATIVE on any and all Dems in sight!

He then mentioned another political call that based "anti-McCain" spiel on premise that McCain would just be a third W term. His response (paraphrased/remembered):

"If I thought McCain would be a Bush third term, I'd vote for him. But I think he'll be a hundred times worse than Bush. Listening to no dissenting voices, with limited understanding of domestic or foreign policy issues."

Again - my colleague is quite conservative. Even he thinks McCain is a loser!

On the plus side: my colleague sees no possibility of imminent deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. He DID participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom... after more than a year on a truly pointless "Homeland Security" assignment. His letters from Iraq provided an entertaining blow by blow account of the campaign, including his account of a firefight in Baghdad during which he "had never been prouder to be a Marine."

Digression: recalling from my very-long-ago U.S. Army service that mailcall was delightful when you got mail, when colleague was first called up post 9/11 I resolved to write him at least 1 letter/week... and came pretty close to living up to this commitment. That correspondence continued through his deployment to Iraq, and even for a year or so after his return. (Tho' after his return, corresponding via email would have much quicker!)

Writing letters is fun, and allows one to participate in a grand old tradition. Though our correpondence almost certainly will never be collected as was the correspondence between John Adams & Thomas Jefferson, nevertheless it was enjoyable for both parties.

Peace.