Bush Learns from Mistakes

Sadly, not the right Bush. From MSNBC/Newsweek by Lorraine Ali:

Ana and Jenna don't have much in common. Ana's father was a poor South American cabdriver who died before she hit puberty. Jenna's dad became the 43rd president of the United States the year she started college. But the two lives converged in 2006 when Jenna, a 25-year-old UNICEF intern, and Ana, a 17-year-old single mother with HIV, met during an AIDS workshop in Latin America. Out of that union came "Ana's Story: A Journey of Hope," a book by Bush for young teens that aims to raise awareness about poverty, AIDS and child abuse in developing countries. "In the U.S., we don't pay as much attention to these things, that people all over the world are living with these problems," says Bush. "The more you travel and talk to those affected by HIV, the more you know. But I'm still learning a lot, for sure."

And so are we—about Jenna Bush. Just two months shy of her 26th birthday, the White House's once rowdy twin has re-emerged as a spokesperson for global equality, children's rights and safe sex. It's quite a contrast from the Jenna of yesteryear, whose hard-partying ways were publicized in that falling-down photo, the fake ID bust and an official family appearance where she flashed the devil's horns (a favorite hand sign of Ozzy Osbourne's) as the rest of the Bushes waved and smiled. "People change," said Bush during a recent trip to New York to promote her new book. In conversation she has her mother's posture and poise, but still punctuates sentences with the occasional "that's cool" and "you know what I mean?" "Unless you want to publicize the way you change—which I never did—no one's going to know. But I have no regrets. I think [the next kids in the White House] should live their life like it's their life. I'm sure they'll support their parents, like we did, but I also hope they're sort of naive like we were and live the way they want to."

For Bush, that now means teaching primary schoolers in Washington, D.C.'s inner city; becoming engaged to former White House aide Henry Hager; writing a children's book with her mother, Laura, and promoting her own thoughts on HIV prevention—even if her thoughts do not exactly match those of her father. Safe sex is encouraged through-out her new book, even though the Bush administration's hotly contested HIV-prevention campaign was built around a staunch "abstinence only" message. "In Africa my dad's policies are pretty much in line with mine, but not domestically," says Bush, referring to her father's ABC (abstain, be faithful, use a condom) policy in Africa. "But it's a personal decision. All of us want our kids to be safe, and there's no doubt that condoms make our kids safe. And many girls don't have the choice—they are exploited sexually. It's important they stay protected and protect others."

29 September 2007

Retroactive Corporate Wiretapping Protection

As part of its wiretapping program, the Bush Administration tapped -- get it? -- quite a few telecommunications corporations to help provide information to the government. Many corporations complied, handing over everything from billing and call records to recorded material. As you might expect, this has both civil libertarians and the customers of these companies up in arms. Now, the Administration is seeking to have a law passed that would retroactively protect these companies for their actions, from both criminal and civil suits. Working Assets has an easy-to-use form available to voice your opposition to this legislation with your Congressional delegation. I urge you to make your viewpoint known.

29 September 2007

Toe-Tapping Vacation Tips

Mark Morford over at SFGate.com in San Francisco has a satirical listing of recent Republican peccadilloes. (Yes, peccadilloes are considered slight transgressions, but it's just such a good word.) It is a pointed look at their recent tawdry behavior.

28 September 2007

Matthew Shepard Act Update

The Matthew Shepard Act has passed in the Senate, nine years after the murder of the man for whom it was named. Now, it will go to conference committee to hash out the compromise bill between the House and Senate. Once that is finished, I will certainly be calling for folks to voice their support for the final measure to President Bush, who can almost never be counted on to do the right thing. This is a victory for America. Thank you for your support of the cause.

28 September 2007

State to Blackwater: Shut Up!

Following up on my recent stories about the private military security company Blackwater, it seemed worth mentioning that the State Department has issued a directive to Blackwater to not speak to either the press or to Congress without State's authorization. This followed in the wake of Rep Henry Waxman (D-CA) announcement last week that his committee will hold hearings on the recent shooting incident involving Blackwater that left up to 20 Iraqi civilians dead. There are many problems with State's move, but perhaps the largest is that this arm of the executive branch has no authority to order a private entity to stonewall a Congressional investigation. State uses Blackwater to protect its people in Iraq, something that should be handled by US military forces directly. There are also deep ties between Blackwater and both the Bush Administration specifically and the Republican party generally. Ah, all signs point to another cover-up.

25 September 2007

War with Iran: Step 1

Don't miss this from TPM. The video is only three minutes and most informative.

Did you hear about the War on Iran Authorization bill the Senate is going to vote on perhaps as early as today? No, that's not how it's getting billed. But that's what the 'Kyl-Lieberman' amendment is. In fact, the supporters of going to war against Iran are using exactly same strategy with this amendment that they did to lay the ground work for the Iraq War.

We give you the rundown in today's episode of TPMtv.

25 September 2007

Nukes on the Run

In case you missed it, the US Air Force misplaced six nuclear cruise missiles several weeks ago. The military, by its usual logic, logged the incident as "No press interest anticipated." However, it leaked and by golly, both the public and the press had interest. Now, the Washington Post has an interesting article on just what happened.

24 September 2007

Who You Gonna Call?

Republicans keep proving themselves to be unsatisfied with their choices in candidates for president. Oh, sure, the conservative pundits say that all is well and that Hillary is unelectable. Regardless, there seems to be a churning "Saviour of the Moment" club among the Republicans at large. For example, see Newsweek, The American Scene, and a column by David Broder as examples. As Steve Benen puts it in TPM:

Can't you just feel the Newtmentum?

Sure, some of us may think of the former Speaker as the ethically-challenged, unhinged conservative who shut down the government (twice) and was driven from Congress by his caucus. Or who includes among his "big ideas" getting laptops for the the homeless. Or who raised concerns about women in combat roles because, "males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes." Or the man who was so outraged by President Clinton's personal indescretions that he sought impeachment during his own extramarital affair.

But that's apparently all in the past. Now he's the GOP Savior of the Week.

23 September 2007

The Conservative Experience

You will need to read this short piece to know just why this is so damn funny.

The key to social change in this country seems fairly straightforward: wait for conservatives to have more life experience.

22 September 2007

Blackwater Stays In

On September 17th, in a piece titled "Blackwater Ordered Out of Iraq," I indicated that the private security firm would be unlikely to leave Iraq in spite of the Iraqi government ordering them out. Indeed, the Iraqis have determined in their own minds that Blackwater was entirely at fault in last weekend's bloody shootout that left civilians dead. They still want the firm out of the country. However, the Iraqis really don't have the muscle to push the firm out. And of course, while we pay lip service to "the democratically-elected government" if Iraq and to the "sovereignty" of this nation, we don't really act this way. We are certainly not going to comply with the wishes of Iraq and force Blackwater to leave. The best we'll do is to have Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promise to look into the matter.

We have lost a great many things in this war. Certainly our national integrity is in tatters. Are we not becoming that which we are supposed to despise?

21 September 2007

Edit: A White House with no good answers. Hell, really it has no answers at all. I wonder if Dana Perino actually comes with a string on her back?

Why the Filibuster

Yesterday, in post titled "What, us filibuster?" I discussed just how reliant the Republicans in the Senate have become on this parliamentary move. A TPM reader had an interesting take on exactly why this is so.

Something that strikes me about the Republican use of filibusters is that they have no effect on actual outcome. That is, everything that the Republicans have filibustered would have been vetoed by Bush anyway. So, filibuster or not, the end result is the same. This is in striking contrast to the Democrat's use in the last term, where the filibuster was the only thing standing between a law or an appointment going through.

So, why do they do it? I think they are engaging in obstructionism because most people don't pay much attention to legislative details. All they know is that Democrats have not passed a bill. A veto, on the other hand, makes more news and sets up the Democrats as being in opposition to Bush. Republicans are well aware that people dislike congress because congress has not done enough to oppose Bush. So, I think their use of the filibuster is intended to portray Democrats as being ineffective.

This explains Warner's vote on troop dwell time. Whether he voted for it or not, it wasn't going to be enacted. So, being a Republican not up for reelection (and I think most Democrats would do the same) he chose to stick it to the opposing party rather than cast a vote that has no effect in the end.

In any case Republican claims that "Democrats did it last term" arelaughable, since Bush was then and still is president.

20 September 2007

All the Time in the World

With a war on, millions without health insurance, and terrorists threatening to attack us once again, here is how our Senate has been spending its time. Why do we pay these people -- any of them -- again?

Background from TPM:

After blocking measures on habeas corpus and Iraq yesterday, Senate Republicans will seek to condemn MoveOn's Petraeus ad today. Sen. Barbara Boxer has proposed an alternative resolution that includes condemnations on other political attack ads, too, including on John Kerry in 2004 and Max Cleland in 2002.

Follow-up on the Boxer resolution:

The Senate is playing who can be nicest to military figures today. Sen. Barbara Boxer's resolution condemning political attacks on all current and former military figures (Grant? MacArthur?) got 51 mostly Democratic votes, less than the 60 needed to overcome the GOP's procedural roadblock. That was just a sideshow to the real sideshow, a vote on the GOP resolution condemning the MoveOn Petraeus ad, which is coming shortly.

Finally, the Republican measure:

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the MoveOn ad that appeared in the NYT last week. Final tally was 72-25. Hillary Clinton was among those voting against the resolution.

/sigh

20 September 2007

Blackwater Background

More on the private security firm Blackwater, the entity involved in the shootout in Iraq last weekend that left many civilians dead. From the Washington Post:

Blackwater "has a client who will support them no matter what they do," said H.C. Lawrence Smith, deputy director of the Private Security Company Association of Iraq, an advocacy organization in Baghdad that is funded by security firms, including Blackwater.

The State Department allowed Blackwater's heavily armed teams to operate without an Interior Ministry license, even after the requirement became standard language in Defense Department security contracts. The company was not subject to the military's restrictions on the use of offensive weapons, its procedures for reporting shooting incidents or a central tracking system that allows commanders to monitor the movements of security companies on the battlefield.

"The Iraqis despised them, because they were untouchable," said Matthew Degn, who recently returned from Baghdad after serving as senior American adviser to the Interior Ministry. "They were above the law." Degn said Blackwater's armed Little Bird helicopters often buzzed the Interior Ministry's roof, "almost like they were saying, 'Look, we can fly anywhere we want.' "

For more generally, see TPMMuckraker.com.

20 September 2007

What, us filibuster?

Senate Republicans are on pace to set the all-time record for filibusters in a single Congressional term. Bet they're glad that they didn't follow through on their threat last term to end the practice... you know, when they called it "un-American" and that it went "against the will of the people." From David Kurtz at TPM:

Senate Republicans killed three major measures via filibuster threats today: habeas corpus for enemy combatants, a House member for DC, and the Webb Amendment on troop rotations. It is part of an unprecedented use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans in the 110th Congress. I don't use "unprecedented" lightly. McClatchy ran the numbers, as we noted back in July (thanks to Kevin Drum for the reminder). At that time, Republicans were on pace this term to nearly triple the previous record high for the use the filibuster in the modern era. It's worth taking a look.

I know that politicians in general are without shame, but do Republicans take a course in it or something?

19 September 2007

A Rest for the Troops

From Working Assets:

Senators Webb and Hagel are introducing an amendment this week to provide relief for our overextended troops. It ensures that active-duty troops spend equal amounts of time at home between deployments as they did in a combat zone; it also mandates that Guard and Reserve units cannot be redeployed until they have been home for three times the length of their first tour of duty. This legislation will not only provide our troops with the rest & recovery periods they need and deserve; it will also clip President Bush's wings and force him to begin drawing down the number of troops in Iraq.

Working Assets has an easy-to-use form that will enable you to voice your support for the measure to your Senators. Use the link above. Thanks.

19 September 2007

Shiver Me Timbers

Today is Talk Like a Pirate Day, so do so. It is fun. I promise.

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Also, the emoticon is 25 years old today. :-) It is a very good day indeed.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

19 September 2007

Acting AG Again

On 17 September 2007, I wrote about the White House switcharoo regarding the naming of an acting Attorney General (see AG: Who's on First?) Today, Paul Kiel at TPMMuckraker.com had more on the story. From the Washington Post:

While Mukasey's nomination is pending, the Justice Department will be run by former civil division chief Peter D. Keisler, a conservative appointee who this week was a surprise replacement in that role for Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. Clement, who was publicly tagged last month as the temporary replacement for Gonzales, wound up officially taking the helm at 12:01 a.m. Monday and relinquishing it 24 hours later, officials said.

The switch was made on Sunday by the White House with no input from Justice Department officials, said two sources with knowledge of the matter. The change added another level of uncertainty to life at the Justice Department, where nearly every top senior official has resigned in the wake of controversies under Gonzales....

It would appear that the Administration is not finished harming the Department of Justice.

19 September 2007

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

One Final Gonzo

In the 10 September 2007 issue of Newsweek, George F. Will wrote an editorial titled "Now, Defining Decency Down." It covered several topics, one of which was the speech that now-departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave as he left his position. Will wrote:

And speaking of the tone-deaf, Alberto Gonzales could not even leave high office without advertising his unfitness for it. As he habitually has done, he reminded the nation that he has "lived the American Dream," which he evidently thinks is epitomized by his success in attaching himself to a politician not known for demanding quality in assistants. Gonzales then demonstrated how uncomprehending he is of essential American values. He said: "Even my worst days as attorney general have been better than my father's best days."

Well. His father married and had eight children—nine wonderful days, days even better, one would have thought, than any of the days his son spent floundering at the Justice Department. Furthermore, Gonzales's father had the fulfillment of a lifetime spent providing for his family. But what is any of that, Gonzales implies, compared with the satisfaction of occupying, however unsatisfactorily, a high office? This implicit disparagement of his father's life of responsibility and self-sufficiency turns conservatism inside out. It is going to take conservatism a while to recuperate from becoming associated with such people.

I'm almost ashamed that I failed to look at it in those terms.

17 September 2007

AG: Who's on First?

When Alberto Gonzales finally resigned as Attorney General, President Bush said that Solicitor General Paul Clement would be acting AG until a successor was confirmed by the Senate. Clement's photo even went up on the Department of Justice web site. Now, Bush has proven himself a liar once again. After nominating Michael Mukasey as the new AG, the President announced that the acting AG will not be Clement, but "Peter Keisler, an assistant attorney general who had just announced his own resignation and whose nomination to the D.C. Court of Appeals has been held up for months by Senate Democrats." Here is the reason:

So while putting forward what purports to be a consensus nominee, in Mukasey, Bush also puts a lightning rod in as acting AG. Presumably, Bush wants to keep the heat on Dems to confirm Mukasey, by making them face the prospect of a long Keisler tenure if the Mukasey nomination is held up. This is especially true given Democrats' demands that the White House and DOJ comply with document requests pertaining to the U.S. attorney firings and the administration's warrantless wiretapping program before the Senate considers confirmation.

Considering that the President has broken so many laws, it makes sense that he wants to protect himself. It is just too bad for the country.

17 September 2007

Save Habeas Corpus

Previously, I called on readers of this blog to contact their Members of Congress to lend their support for the return of the right of Habeas Corpus. As it now stands, many of the laws that have been passed since 9/11 have weakened this Constitutionally-protected right. Indefinite imprisonment without judicial review is unconstitutional and it is un-American on a fundamental level.

The Senate will be voting on the "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007" (S.185) in just a few days. Now is the time to contact your Senators and express to them that you want this bill passed. Please do so regardless of whether or not you followed through on my earlier call for action.

WorkingAssets has a form available to make this easy to do. You can find it here.

17 September 2007

Blackwater Ordered Out of Iraq

Private security firm Blackwater, which has been mentioned several times on this blog previously, has been ordered out of Iraq by the Iraqi government after a violent incident over the weekend involving the firm's forces. The question is, how will the Iraqi government enforce its call? And if it cannot, which is quite likely, it seems unlikely that the US government, which could enforce the edict, will do so... demonstrating just how hollow are our claims to supporting that government and its wishes. Click here for more on the story.

17 September 2007

Rudy & Coulter

I've had this on the back burner since Tuesday and will just throw it out there now. It is reason enough never to even consider voting for Giulliani. (It also again demonstrates just how far that Lieberman has gone around the bend.) From David Kurtz at TPM:

You may have seen over at Election Central that among the day's 9/11 commemorations is one hosted by Sean Hannity and featuring, among others, Oliver North, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, and Ann Coulter. Now, Coulter has had some less than sympathetic things to say about some of the 9/11 widows, at one point remarking, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." So it seemed a little odd that Rudy would be appearing at the same 9/11 event as Coulter given that his links to the attacks have been a featured part of his presidential campaign. Now the DNC is calling out Guiliani, demanding that he denounce Coulter's earlier remarks.

I have never been one to throw around the "Nazi" tag. It is too historically important to misuse. However, in Coulter's case, I'd say that if she had been in Germany on The Night of Broken Glass, even fewer windows would have survived. She is that bad.

14 September 2007

"36 Countries" Update

The White House has released the list of countries that President Bush mentioned in his speech last night as being part of our current "Coalition of the Willing." However, as Spencer Ackerman over at TPMMuckraker.com notes, the list still makes no sense. Check it out.

14 September 2007

36 Countries?

From Josh Marshall at TPM:

There was so much crap in the president's speech last night that analyzing requires a fairly aggressive form of crap triage to distinguish the merely bogus from the bogus and hilarious or the bogus and unconscionable. So let me focus in again on the president's reference to the "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq."

One way the president comes up with this number is to rope in something called the NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-1).

As Spencer Ackerman notes here, most of the countries involved in this initiative have agreed to let Iraqis come to their countries for training, not the other way around. So for instance, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report, Spain "plans to train groups of 25 Iraqis in mine clearance at a center outside Madrid."

And who has boots on the ground in country? One example from the president's list of 36 is Iceland which has sent a single public information officer to serve in the NATO mission in Baghdad. More robustly, Italy has 8 officers on the NTM-I mission in Baghdad, Portugal is considering sending "up to 10."

What really makes this funny, but not in a ha-ha sort of way, is that the lone Icelandic soldier mentioned is going home next month! There goes any claim to 36...

Foreign Minister Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir has decided to remove an Icelandic Crisis Response Unit (ICRU) member from a NATO training program for the Iraqi army in Baghdad next month, causing disappointment among NATO leaders.

The ICRU member has been working in Baghdad for the last two years, primarily as a media representative, and will cease working there October 1, Morgunbladid reports.

Marshall also has a pretty good recap of the entire speech that is worth reading.

14 September 2007

Airlines & Rule 240

From George Hobica at MSNBC on-line:

Before the deregulation of the U.S. airline industry in 1978, every U.S. airline had to follow the same set of rules — including those dealing with "irregularities" such as canceled flights.

In those days, airline fares and routes were regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board, the predecessor to today's Federal Aviation Administration.

One of these rules, number 240, specified that if an airline couldn't get you to your destination on time, it was required to put you on a competitor's flight if it would get you there faster than your original airline's next flight. Airlines were even required to put you in first class if that's all that was available.

It would appear that many airlines still follow this rule, but don't talk about it. The article details many airlines and their current policies. Also note:

It's important to emphasize that these rules generally apply to situations within the airline's control, such as mechanical problems. But if the flight irregularity results from a "force majeure event" such as bad weather, a riot, or a work stoppage, then all bets are off. And the legacy carriers may not have agreements with their newer competitors such as JetBlue and Southwest, so that they might not re-route you on those carriers.

Even if you are flying an airline that adheres to Rule 240, its employees may be reluctant to rewrite your ticket on a competitor because of the financial implications of doing so. So it pays to print out and carry a copy of the contract of carriage and present it to the gate agent if necessary.

If you fly, you might want to take a look.

14 September 2007

762

At the beginning of this year, the US found itself in a military quagmire in Iraq, caught between parties in civil war, with no political solution remotely in sight. President Bush announced a troop surge to combat these obstacles. Last night, he appeared on television to announced that the cost paid thus far has been worth it. In that time, military statistics indicate that 762 service men and women have been killed in Iraq. The US today finds itself in a military quagmire in Iraq, caught between parties in civil war, with no political solution remotely in sight. Do you believe it was -- and is and will be going forward -- worth it?

14 September 2007

Eggs Before Chickens

From Spencer Ackerman at TPMMuckraker:

This won't help Adm. Mike McConnell's flagging credibility on Capitol Hill. On Monday, in response to questioning from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), McConnell, the director of national intelligence, proudly claimed a victory for the new Protect America Act -- the broad new surveillance law McConnell helped push through Congress last month that revised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. McConnell claimed that three German terrorism suspects arrested last week for plotting to blow up nightclubs frequented by U.S. military personnel had come to the attention of German authorities thanks to U.S. intercepts made possible by the new law.

Only one problem: it had been widely reported that the suspects had been under surveillance for months. The Protect America Act wasn't even a month old at the time of their arrest. Almost immediately, intelligence officials queried by Newsweek's Mike Isikoff and Mark Hosenball backtracked on McConnell's dubious statement.

Yesterday, bowing to pressure, McConnell released this statement retracting his claim:

During the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on September 10, 2007, I discussed the critical importance to our national security of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the recent amendments to FISA made by the Protect America Act. The Protect America Act was urgently needed by our intelligence professionals to close critical gaps in our capabilities and permit them to more readily follow terrorist threats, such as the plot uncovered in Germany. However, information contributing to the recent arrests was not collected under authorities provided by the Protect America Act.

Through the link given above, you can read about other dubious accounts by McConnell of the effectiveness and necessity for the much-more-restrictive surveillance laws. Ackerman also notes:

McConnell has come under heavy criticism from Hill Democrats for what they consider his bad-faith negotiations during the FISA debate. At a Council on Foreign Relations address, Rep. Jane Harman, the former top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, urged McConnell to "please stop undermining the authority of your office."

On Tuesday and Thursday, McConnell is scheduled to address two key House panels -- the Judiciary and Intelligence committees -- as they debate rolling back the Protect America Act. Expect them to grill him until he comes out medium-well as to why he said the act was responsible for the arrest of the Germans. Already HJC chairman John Conyers has asked (pdf) for an explanation.

13 September 2007

High Court, High King

From TPM:

Over at TPMCafe's Table for One, Charlie Savage has a very interesting post on the strategy behind the Bush Administration's selection of Supreme Court nominees. He argues, pretty persuasively, that nominees were vetted more for their adherence to a philosophy of expansive presidential power than for their positions on the social issues that dominate the Supreme Court confirmation process.

12 September 2007

War is Sell

Six years after 9/11, our President is commemorating the events of that day by lying to us directly and through his Administration about not only the so-called war on terror, but about the war in Iraq. The "Petraeus Report" has finally come and gone and no longer can Right Wing hacks hide behind the phrase "let's wait for the general's report." Now, their view is a rosy one about a situation that is anything but. This view must be pressed to further President Bush's only goal, which, as I've written before, is to perpetuate the war long enough to hang it on the next President. Sick, yes, but ever so fitting. The "surge" is the cause-of-the-moment in this plan, so I want to note a few things after the report has been given.

• The general reported that there would be a very nominal draw-down of forces that could take place immediately. The number is about 3,000 to 5,000 troops, just as I hinted it would be in The Sick "Surge" for History on 7 September 2007. This allows Bush to trumpet that he's actually withdrawing forces, providing cover for continuing action, with the further goal of hamstringing war opponents who can no longer say that Bush isn't bringing anyone home.
• The general reported that all of the troops put into Iraq under the surge could be home by next July. This is the further carrot of "we are focused on draw-down too," without having to actually bring significant numbers of forces home. When pressed on making this withdrawal date official, the general said -- surprisingly! -- "nope, that would not be wise." Thus, the war goes on with the increased number of troops... with no end in sight.
• The reason given for the surge in the first place was not a military one; it was political. The surge would provide the stability for the political forces in Iraq to come together and form a unified central government that could then guide the country to peace. What happened was that the government went on summer vacation and is now all but disolved. Now, there is no mention of the surge having a political justification by the Administration and the goal of a central Iraqi government is morphing to an amorphous body of regional governments. Again, whatever keeps the war moving.
• The relative peace in Anbar province is being tauted by the general as proof of the surge's effectiveness. However, his own testimony before Congress last January made it clear that the transformation in Anbar about which he now speaks was well under way at that time and has progressed with little or no support from surge forces since.
• As I've noted repeatedly in recent posts, the body count numbers given by the Administration, including by the general in his report, to justify the results of the surge are bogus in their entirety. Simply put, they are lying to us about the levels of violence. One way that they are doing this is simply cooking the books by changing the methodology of the count (e.g. switching from the methodology used in the first four years of the war to an entirely new methodology, one that favors less counting of violent incidents). Another is to focus on regions where sectarian violence has already been so great as to make further violence unnecessary. After all, when a region has been ethnically cleansed, who is left to kill? Ultimately, this is the callous use of the death and dismemberment of Americans and Iraqis alike for political gain. Sick, but not surprising.
• Finally, I'll note two things that prove that nothing has changed for the better in Iraq, surge or no surge. They are the supply of clean water and electricity to the people of Iraq. The people of Baghdad enjoy about two hours of electricity a day, down from as many as six at the start of 2007. Running water comes and goes and is not reliable. This translates not only into a poor quality of life in terms of enjoyment, but also a lack of refrigeration for food and medicine, a lack of air conditioning in the brutal summer heat, and a lack of sewage services among other things. The people of Baghdad are rightly "frustrated" about this state of affairs, one that the American occupation has created and has been unable to correct in any fashion. (Other parts of Iraq have it better, but in no areas are electricity and running water a stable given.) Proof of that can be found in a recent change in the way that the Administration reports on the situation to Congress, namely it no longer reports how long the power stays on in Baghdad. Called "quality-of-life indicators" they are required reports to Congress. The Administration, however, has sought to play with their form. Instead of reporting the average amount of time that power is on in specific cities or regions, as it has done previously, the Administration now reports the average for Iraq as a whole. This has allowed them to inflate the numbers, making the situation look far better than it actually is. This is especially true for Baghdad, the focal point for the supposedly-effective surge.

Today is a day of remembrance. Remember the victims of 9/11. Remember those evil men who took their lives. Sadly, we must also remember that our President, who has lied to us from that very day and who lies to us still, has done nothing to make us safer. Indeed, because of his war in Iraq, we are actually much less safe today. That is a horrible memorial for those victims. It is a horrible testament to our love of country. We can do better. We must.

11 September 2007

A College-related Death

Some of the readers of this blog attended college with me and it is primarily for them that this post is being written. It is with regret that I inform you that one of our classmates, Eric M. Smith, passed away this past July. He died in a plane crash along with his wife and son. His daughter and mother survived. You can read a full account of the sad event here.

My deepest sympathies go out to all of Eric's friends and family.

10 September 2007

The Sick "Surge" for History

Yesterday, in a post titled "The Lie Before the Lie," I stated that President Bush has no intention of reducing troop levels in Iraq, regardless of what the meaningless "Petraeus Report" soon says. This is not to say that there won't be a token draw-down of troops -- say a few thousand -- just to garner Pavlovian favorable coverage in the press and to pacify already much-too-passive Democrats in Congress. Indeed, it is Bush's plan, formulated months and months ago and as he was telling us that he'd "base his further decisions on what General Petraeus had to say in September," to let the surge progress to the point that the next president -- whoever he or she may be -- will inherit it and his war.

Keith Olbermann discussed this on his Countdown show earlier this week in a "special comment."

And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was. But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered, unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush has consented.

As he deceived the troops at Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home, Mr. Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already proved that he had been lying, is lying and will be lying about Iraq.

He presumably did not know that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper's book “Dead Certain."

“I'm playing for October-November," Mr. Bush said to Draper. That, evidently, is the time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan, which is “to get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence."

Comfortable, that is, with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, “stay... longer."

And there it is. We've caught you. Your goal is not to bring some troops home, maybe, if we let you have your way now. Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal. You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.

Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal: perpetuating this war indefinitely.

[Bush's quotes come from his new biography by Robert Draper titled Dead Certain.]

I used the term "his war" above most specifically because it is now that which Bush fears. Only by "sharing" the war with the next administration, be it Republican or Democrat, can he hope to successfully rewrite history and share the blame for the quagmire in which we find ourselves. So intent is his worry that he is willing to sacrifice the lives of Americans and Iraqis alike. It is sickening, but it is sadly not surprising. Although the mouth of the Administration has always spoken platitudes regarding our military and its personnel, it has turned only deaf ears and blind eyes to their real needs, their true plight. Bush has broken our military. His policies have served only to kill our soldiers and place America further at risk. And now his only concern is perpetuating the war for its own sake, war without end. Or as I should say, war beyond January 2009.

To see Olbermann's entire, impassioned commentary, follow this link.

7 September 2007

The Lie Before the Lie, P. 2

Yesterday, I wrote a post regarding the Bush Administration playing fast and loose with the death toll numbers in Iraq (read: they are lying to us) in order to sell the "surge policy." Today, TMPMuckraker.com has a story detailing death count figures as determined by the Iraqi government and the United Nations. As you might expect, there are discrepancies... to say the least. Take a look.

TPMMuckraker.com also has a link detailing casualties specific to Baghdad in the recent push.

7 September 2007

Petraeus Report: Absolute Farce

I have mentioned repeatedly that in spite of what the White House and the media have been telling you, the upcoming "Petraeus Report" will actually be written by the White House, not the military general who has given it his name. Now it turns out that this report -- hollow as it is to be -- will not be written at all, not even when delivered to the President himself. I shit you not.

From The Washington Times:

A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. "There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony," the officer said.

The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus' opening statement to Congress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use in explaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the past several months.

I'm just hoping that the presentation will include finger puppets. That may help Bush pay attention.

7 September 2007

Fred Thompson: Bush the Second?

From Tim Grieve at Salon.com:

Not ready for prime time?

In all the time Fred Thompson spent planning to run for president and sort of running for president and announcing that he's running for president, you might think that he'd have thought a bit about how he'd answer a basic question on, say, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

Did he? You be the judge.

From Thompson's "Good Morning America" interview [my link] with Diane Sawyer today:

Sawyer: Osama bin Laden -- we just saw that a videotape is coming out, presumably taunting Americans again on the anniversary of 9/11. If you were sitting in the Oval Office today what would you do to capture bin Laden and to eradicate al-Qaida that the Bush administration has not done?

Thompson: Diane, that's tactics. You don't know what the president knows in terms of intelligence as to how they can pinpoint where Osama bin Laden is right now.

I think the point is clearly he's there, clearly he's somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and clearly he's still giving orders.

And the even broader concern that Americans should have is that al-Qaida is still out there in the world. They're in western Europe, they're in the United States, they're in Iraq.

Iraq is a part of global effort, a global war that al-Qaida and radical fundamental Muslims have been carrying on against us for some time. We didn't pay much attention to it for a while but we are now and we're finding there's a global war going on against us. And we better figure out a way to contain it because it's going to be with us for a long time after Iraq.

So the question is this: what the hell has Fred Thompson been doing with his time in the months and months and months prior to announcing his candidacy? George W. Bush has shown himself to be completely uninterested in the larger world around him. Thompson appears to be in the same mundane mold. He's playing the role of a presidential candidate rather than actually having the chops to step up to the job. John McCain is the only Republican candidate with any actual pedigree, but he's written himself out of the race both politically and functionally by kowtowing to the religious right and backing Bush like a love-sick puppy.

7 September 2007

Edit: It just occurred to me that "W" is in fact "Bush the Second." However, like him or not, the Elder Bush was up to the job of being president, unlike his son. Thus, while not technically correct, when viewed only in terms of competence -- or rather incompetence -- referring to Thompson as following only in the steps of the Junior Bush seems appropriate.

Iraqi Army, Day One

A new biography of President George W. Bush is being released. Written by Robert Draper, a former writer for Texas Monthly, it was oddly welcomed by the White House, perhaps believing that Mr. Draper would write an entirely glowing review. To this end, Mr. Draper was given access not only to staff and documents, but to the President himself. While I have no idea if the work is by and large favorable to the President or not, one section has gotten considerable press of late.

On 2 September 2007, the New York Times ran a piece on the book, noting several passages. One such passage was an account of an interview between Bush and Draper on the fate of the Iraqi army just after the fall of Baghdad.

Mr. Bush acknowledged one major failing of the early occupation of Iraq when he said of disbanding the Saddam Hussein-era military, "The policy was to keep the army intact; didn't happen."

But when Mr. Draper pointed out that Mr. Bush's former Iraq administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, had gone ahead and forced the army's dissolution and then asked Mr. Bush how he reacted to that, Mr. Bush said, "Yeah, I can't remember, I'm sure I said, 'This is the policy, what happened?' " But, he added, "Again, Hadley's got notes on all of this stuff," referring to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser.

I'll let Steve Benen of TPM sum up what was pretty much -- at least in part -- my response.

Let's not brush past this too quickly. The disbanding of the Iraqi army was one of the biggest mistakes of an administration burdened by near-constant missteps, one that was largely responsible for the creation of an Iraqi insurgency. On the subject, Bush sounds like a confused child -- he didn't understand the decision, he's not sure how the decision was made, and asked for his reaction to the decision, Bush is left to conclude, "Yeah, I can't remember."

My other reaction was that Bush, while not remembering exactly how the deal went down, is putting the burden of the policy squarely on L. Paul Bremer, the first US envoy to Iraq. Bush is saying that it was Administration policy to keep the army together and that he doesn't know why Bremer didn't follow through with this. The problem is, it isn't true.

Since being fingered by the President for the policy that most believe lit the fire of sectarian violence in Iraq, Bremer has come out swinging. Bremer gave the New York Times documents and letters attesting to the fact that it was Bush's policy to dissolve the Iraqi army from the beginning.

A previously undisclosed exchange of letters shows that President Bush was told in advance by his top Iraq envoy in May 2003 of a plan to “dissolve Saddam’s military and intelligence structures,” a plan that the envoy, L. Paul Bremer, said referred to dismantling the Iraqi Army.

Mr. Bremer provided the letters to The New York Times on Monday after reading that Mr. Bush was quoted in a new book as saying that American policy had been “to keep the army intact” but that it “didn’t happen.”

The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents. In releasing the letters, Mr. Bremer said he wanted to refute the suggestion in Mr. Bush’s comment that Mr. Bremer had acted to disband the army without the knowledge and concurrence of the White House.

I'm not actually sure which is worse: the fact that Bush is lying in this case or that he can't remember the events surrounding the implementation of such an important policy. What is telling about the Bush Administration and its complete incompetence is the fact that Bremer can't say that he didn't go along with the policy, only that he didn't change it. They were -- are! -- all rotten from the top down.

6 September 2007

The Lie Before the Lie

TPM's John Marshall has a wonderful essay regarding recent Iraq War "body count" figures that the White House and the military are throwing at us in advance of the so-called "Petraeus Report" being released later this month. Here is a snippet, but it is worth reading in its entirety. We are being lied to, about the deaths of Americans and Iraqis alike, in order to facilitate a position that the President has no intention of changing one way or another.

It's sometimes fun to wonder whether, knowing all we know today, we'd fall for another version of the Iraq/WMD bamboozle if another came down the pike. I'm afraid the answer has to be: absolutely.

Look no further than the present debate about the success of the 'surge'. I think Karen DeYoung's piece in today's Post -- regrettably on A16 -- settles once and for all that the numbers we're hearing are basically a scam.

It's worth beginning by noting what appears to be the universal consensus that the strategic aim of the surge -- political reconciliation -- has been a complete flop. No progress and things have gotten much worse. That leaves a debate about tactical successes, which for better or worse, we're judging by various body counts. As I've struggled to get my head around this discussion I've looked -- mainly in vain -- for numbers going back some period of time with a consistent methodology since an apples to apples comparison over some period of time is the only way to make any sort of reliable judgments about change, improvement or decline.

What comes up again and again though is one basic disconnect -- the military command in Baghdad says civilian casualties have dropped dramatically. Independent press tabulations say the numbers are high and getting higher.

DeYoung's article gives us a couple bits of information that help us start to unravel the mystery. First, the military command in Baghdad is in a spat with the GAO, which the generals accuse of using a flawed methodology. (GAO's analysis basically disagreed with them on all particulars.) DeYoung's piece includes the very telling detail that the GAO is using the same methodology that the CIA and the DIA favor. So it would seem that it's not only a question of the government versus outside observers. The military command in Baghdad sounds like it's completely isolated even within the US government on how to compute the numbers.

6 September 2007

CCD: New Findings

New information on Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that affects bees has been released.

Scientists have found a new prime suspect in the deaths of about a quarter of America's honeybees, a mystery that could take a multibillion-dollar toll on the nation's agricultural industry.

Months of genetic testing have fingered a virus that was first reported in Israel just three years ago and may have passed through Australia on its way to the United States. The correlation between Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus and the mysterious bee disease — known as Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD — was reported Thursday on the journal Science's Web site.

For further information, see this link.

6 September 2007

Craig Resignation Revisited

As I posted on 30 August 2007, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) got himself caught up in a (gay) sex scandal. He later announced his resignation as of the end of this month. Now, it seems that the "good" Senator may be rethinking his decision.

Craig plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace -- a reduced charge from the offense of which the arresting officer believed him to be guilty -- via a form commonly used in such instances. He waived his right to counsel and noted that he understood his rights in this entire process. There has been some debate -- as you might imagine -- regarding whether or not he has any chance of withdrawing the guilty plea. One attorney believes that he stands a good chance. Two others believe that he does not. I personally believe that the latter opinion is the stronger case. Craig is a US Senator, a person supposedly of power, knowledge, and general capability, not a minority immigrant who doesn't speak English (for example) who might have thus been railroaded into a guilty plea.

Regardless of how this turns out, it is good theater. Republicans are squirming to be sure. At a time when the party wants to find a way to get disenchanted social conservatives enthused about the upcoming national elections, this will only turn them off all the more. It also stands to compete for media attention with the mis-named "Petraeus Report" (see post of 15 August 2007) that the White House will soon release. What is more, Senate Republicans fell all over themselves to call for a Senate Ethics investigation of Craig. Even if he is able to withdraw his guilty plea, it will be hard for them to simply call it quits, keeping the whole thing in the public eye even longer. And finally, should Craig ever run again for his Senate seat, Republicans will have to decide whether or not to challenge him in a primary campaign -- always messy within a party -- or risk the unthinkable (in Idaho!) loss of the seat to a Democrat.

Finally, Craig is taking a risk even if is able to withdraw the plea. There is the real chance that the DA in the case would choose to bring greater charges against him instead of the misdemeanor charge to which he has plead guilty. Thus, if he ultimately lost his case, the legal -- as apposed to the political -- consequences could be much more severe.

6 September 2007

September Impeachment Reminder

In August, I called for the impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. At that time, I asked you to join me in writing letters to several members of the House of Representatives. I noted that I would continue to send such letters until such time as my call was heeded or these men left office. I have made good on my claim by again sending my letters. This is simply a reminder in the hope that you will do the same. For information on the entire matter, as well as sample letters and recipient contact information, see my original blog post here.

4 September 2007