Back in Mexico!

After 2 1/2 days of driving and and about 17 hours of buses and bus stations, I´m back in beautiful Guanajuato! I´ll be taking another two weeks of language classes. If things go well, I´ll be writing the blog in Spanish from now on.

Just kidding.

Anyway, I see that one criminal was hanged while the bigger crooks back in Washington still breathe. We drove fairly close to Crawford a couple of days ago, but didn´t stop in. Blogging will likely be thin for the next few weeks. Hasta luego.

Back in Mexico!

After 2 1/2 days of driving and and about 17 hours of buses and bus stations, I´m back in beautiful Guanajuato! I´ll be taking another two weeks of language classes. If things go well, I´ll be writing the blog in Spanish from now on.

Just kidding.

Anyway, I see that one criminal was hanged while the bigger crooks back in Washington still breathe. We drove fairly close to Crawford a couple of days ago, but didn´t stop in. Blogging will likely be thin for the next few weeks. Hasta luego.

Redact this!

Via Renegade Waiter, I learn that last week the NY Times ran an op-ed by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann which contained several paragraphs which were heavily redacted by the CIA. This bothers me. My general reaction when the government hides things from us is that we should immediately assume the worst--because the truth is probably at least that bad. So I'm going to fill in the blanks in this op-ed, and dare the Bushies to prove me wrong. Their version:

The argument that Iran helped America in Afghanistan because it was in Tehran’s interest to get rid of the Taliban is misplaced. Iran could have let America remove the Taliban without getting its own hands dirty, as it remained neutral during the 1991 gulf war. Tehran cooperated with United States efforts in Afghanistan primarily because it wanted a better relationship with Washington.

But Tehran was profoundly disappointed with the United States response. After the 9/11 attacks, xxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx set the stage for a November 2001 meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the foreign ministers of Afghanistan’s six neighbors and Russia. xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Iran went along, working with the United States to eliminate the Taliban and establish a post-Taliban political order in Afghanistan.

In December 2001, xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx x Tehran to keep Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the brutal pro-Al Qaeda warlord, from returning to Afghanistan to lead jihadist resistance there. xxxxx xxxxxxx so long as the Bush administration did not criticize it for harboring terrorists. But, in his January 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush did just that in labeling Iran part of the “axis of evil.” Unsurprisingly, Mr. Hekmatyar managed to leave Iran in short order after the speech. xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx the Islamic Republic could not be seen to be harboring terrorists.

xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxx This demonstrated to Afghan warlords that they could not play America and Iran off one another and prompted Tehran to deport hundreds of suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives who had fled Afghanistan.

My version:

The argument that Iran helped America in Afghanistan because it was in Tehran’s interest to get rid of the Taliban is misplaced. Iran could have let America remove the Taliban without getting its own hands dirty, as it remained neutral during the 1991 gulf war. Tehran cooperated with United States efforts in Afghanistan primarily because it wanted a better relationship with Washington.

But Tehran was profoundly disappointed with the United States response. After the 9/11 attacks, a meeting between Bush administration officials and al Qaeda leaders at Osama bin Laden's Kennebunkport lodge set the stage for a November 2001 meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the foreign ministers of Afghanistan’s six neighbors and Russia. In exchange for Tehran's cooperation, Powell offered to ship kidnapped blonde American teenagers, boys or girls, to be used by the ayatollahs as they saw fit. Iran went along, working with the United States to eliminate the Taliban and establish a post-Taliban political order in Afghanistan.

In December 2001, the Bush adminstration gave Iran 500 pounds of plutonium and complete plans for a modern nuclear weapon, asking in exchange for Tehran to keep Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the brutal pro-Al Qaeda warlord, from returning to Afghanistan to lead jihadist resistance there. With blondes and bombs, Iran was happy as a clam so long as the Bush administration did not criticize it for harboring terrorists. But, in his January 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush did just that in labeling Iran part of the “axis of evil.” Unsurprisingly, Mr. Hekmatyar managed to leave Iran in short order after the speech. After a month vacationing and clearing brush at the Crawford ranch, Hekmatyar returned to Afghanistan and began rounding up random people and selling them to the US for the bounties offered; these unfortunates were then shipped to Guantanamo Bay. With Hekmatyar gone, the Islamic Republic could not be seen to be harboring terrorists.

Shortly thereafter, an Afghan warlord's daughter was to be wed. The warlord invited officials from both the US and Iran, and then told each separately that the other had bought the nicer wedding gift. Somehow the two countries found out, and teamed up to bomb the wedding, and two adjacent villages, to smitherines. This demonstrated to Afghan warlords that they could not play America and Iran off one another and prompted Tehran to deport hundreds of suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives who had fled Afghanistan.

And then there's this paragraph:

xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx x xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx x xx x x xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xx

I don't know the exact wording, but I believe this paragraph states that Ayatollah Khamenei was a member of Skull & Bones at Yale with Bush and Kerry, and that Ahmadinejad is secretly married to both of the Bush twins.

So come on, redascists! Prove me wrong!

Say it's so, Joe!

Sen. Joe Biden, world famous for his spinelessness, claims that he will oppose any "surge" in troops in Iraq:

"I totally oppose this surging of additional American troops into Baghdad," Mr. Biden said. "It's contrary to the overwhelming body of informed opinion, both inside and outside the administration."

There's informed opinion inside the administration? Where?

Bush has gone to Texas to re"think" his "strategy," because that's apparently where his monkey "brain" (sorry, monkeys) is.

Meanwhile, people in Iraq continue to die by the hundreds.

Halliburton brings you the war--and some of the finest criticism of it

I just read Chris Floyd's description of how Awol continues to push for escalation of the war, despite the opposition of the generals, 89% of the American public, and even a few Democrats, none of whom seem to have either the desire or ability to stop him. More troops, a "surge" to take on Moqtada al-Sadr (who provides the main domestic support for the current puppet regime), and non-stop provocations against Iran--including the recent UN resolution, the stationing of even more US warships in the Persian Gulf, and even the arrest in Baghdad of Iranian officials invited by Iraqi President Talabani.

Strangely enough, among the Google ads on Chris's web site is this one:

KBR: Learn more about job opportunities in the Middle East and Central Asia.

In case you don't know, KBR is the war-profiteering wing of Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton. Of course, "Middle East and Central Asia" is code for "Iraq and Afghanistan." Of 891 jobs listed on the KBR web site, 435 are in Iraq and 105 in Afghanistan (and they're probably lying about the ones listed in Canada and Australia). Job titles include generator mechanic, firefighter, paramedic, pest controller (tell Tom DeLay--he should be looking for a job), refrigeration technician (those morgues don't cool themselves), small arms repairer (what would Iraq be without guns?), and of course lots of subcontracts administrators (it's not KBR's job to do its job). So join the KBR team! Your future will be exciting, lucrative, and probably short. And be sure to thank them for sponsoring Chris Floyd's blog!

He reads like he listens

I'd say that the odds that W will heed the message in the open letter sent him by the author of the book he just read are the same as the odds that he will heed the book itself. These are also the same odds that he will listen to any good advice whatsoever that differs in any way from what he already believes. I believe the word is "nil."

To explain: In a recent interview, Bush said that he had just finished reading King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. The book describes the ravages of the brutal Belgian 1885 invasion ans subsequent occupation and plunder of the Congo, which lasted for decades, killing millions. Hochschild, in his open letter, asks Bush if any of the brutally obvious parallels to his own Iraq fiasco were at all visible to him.

If you send those additional troops to Iraq and don't swiftly withdraw the ones now there, I suspect that even the efforts of the twins, when their turns in the Oval Office come, or of Jeb's kids, when they get there, will not be enough to stave off a similar judgment on you 100 years from now. It's true that you've not slashed the population of Iraq in half, as Leopold and those who immediately followed him did in Congo, but that's small comfort.

For your next assignment, Mr. President, how about a different sort of reading? Ask Laura to stuff your Christmas stocking with books about people who've had the courage to change their minds. One former tenant of the house you live in, Lyndon B. Johnson, entered politics as a traditional segregationist but ended up doing more for civil rights than any American president of his century. Another, Dwight D. Eisenhower, spent half his life in the U.S. military but gave us (a little late) an eloquent warning about the military-industrial complex.

Another ex-military man, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler of the U.S. Marine Corps, won the Medal of Honor twice, but then ended up denouncing the oil companies and agribusiness corporations he realized that he had been fighting for in U.S. interventions in Central America.

History is filled with such people, and I wish you many inspiring hours reading about them. And, in the coming two years, I hope you'll act on their example.

Mini-Meta Blogging for Christmas

Madame Nutterfly, aka Condiliar Rice, has come out with another one of those quotes that have earned her, and most previous secretaries of state, an eternal spot in the Hall of Shame. More importantly, it has been the subject of posts from a couple of my favorite bloggers. Here's the quote:

I think the fact is also that along the way there have been plenty of markers that show that this is a country that is worth the investment because once it emerges as a country that is a stabilizing factor, you'll have a very different kind of Middle East. And I know that from the point of view of not just monetary costs, but the sacrifice of American lives, a lot has been sacrificed for Iraq, a lot has been invested in Iraq. But the President wouldn't ask for the continued sacrifice and the continued investment if he did not believe and in fact I believe as well that this will in fact -- we can in fact succeed and that it's imperative that we succeed.

WIIIAI compares this to a statement from one of Condi's predecessors:

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, 1996, asked if 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children as a result of sanctions was acceptable: "we think the price is worth it."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 2006, on whether the costs and death toll of the Iraq war have been acceptable: "this is a country that is worth the investment".

Billmon comments at length on what this and similar quotes say about Condi's humanity, or lack thereof, concluding:

Does Condi understand how many deaths, mutilations and wrecked lives lie behind her "investments" and "birth pangs"? Undoubtedly. Does she care? I don't know. But, from a public diplomacy point of view, it would behoove her to show some sign that she has an emotional connection to the rest of the human race -- or, if she doesn't, to at least pretend that she does.

What strikes me is how much everything she says reflects only the American ruling class point of view. "We" can succeed and have a different kind of Middle East, because the previous version wasn't adequately serving "our" interests. It is worth the investment of American troops and money, but she doesn't even mention the much higher cost, in both life and property, being paid by Iraqis. We must "succeed," no matter how many lives fail in the process.

While I've been distracted...

I'm busy preparing for another Mexico trip--leaving Tuesday. Work, a fancy new SmartPC-phone and holiday stuff have been consuming my time, so blogging has suffered. In the meantime, I'll quickly point you to a couple of posts from more famous Ann Arbor bloggers:

1. Juan Cole comprehensively rejects the notion that the founding fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation, with other religions and atheism denied a voice. The issue has arisen again because Congresscritter Virgil Goode (R-VA), possessor of a fine witch-burner name, is making a stink about newly-elected Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN, and a Muslim) using the Koran when he takes his oath of office. Cole quotes not only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but adds numerous quotes from George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin. But Goode, like most Republicans, never lets facts get in his way.
2. Not that the supposed opposition party is much better. Dennis Perrin reminds us that most of the Dems are doing nothing to get us out of Iraq, and many are supporting the call for more troops. Perrin also reports on Marine recruiters trolling the aisles of Best Buy and his attempts to find out why Best Buy allows this.
   

From Rob Rogers.

Sir! Whatever you want us to say today, Sir!

Gates had breakfast with U.S. soldiers to hear their views.

"Sir, I think we need to just keep doing what we're doing," Specialist Jason Glenn told Gates.

"I really think we need more troops here. With more presence on the ground, more troops might hold them (the insurgents) off long enough to where we can get the Iraqi army trained up."

None of the soldiers present said U.S. forces should be brought home, and none said current troop levels were adequate.

Not a word in the article about HOW these particular soldiers were selected to break their fasts with the new War Secretary. Given that more troops was W's line yesterday, it seems a safe bet that agreeing with it was the price of admission.

Still, one of a few hand-picked soldiers tells Gates what he wants to hear (today anyway), and the Reuters/Yahoo News headline screams:

Soldiers in Iraq urge Gates to send more troops

Amazing how the calls for withdrawal following the election have morphed into a debate about escalation in just over a month.

'Tis the season

From Shannon Wheeler.

Have you ever:
	Roasted chestnuts on an open fire?
	Ridden in an open sleigh, with any number of horses attached?
	Would you be happier if you had?
pollcode.com free polls

Well, don't worry--it's almost over. On Tuesday it will be Valentine's Day in all the stores.

From Jim Day.

So two extremists went for a walk in the woods...

From Tony Auth.

From Bruce Beattie.

Let's you and him fight

Destroy, occupy, and humiliate a country long enough and sooner or later, it appears, civil war will break out. It has been happening in Afghanistan pretty much non-stop since the Soviet invasion 27 years ago, refreshed by the American invasion five years ago. It is obviously happening in Iraq. And Ariel Sharon must be in coma heaven if he somehow realizes that Israel has now pushed the Palestinians into fighting each other. The strategy is generally the same--identify a faction which serves your interests (Saddam, Taliban), arm it to the hilt, give it enough time to piss off the rest of the country, and then turn on it. Throw in some pretenses of democracy so you can blame the victims when everything falls apart.

Speaking of blaming the victims, Iowa governor and supposed pResidential candidate Tom Vilsack was on the Daily Show last night. Disgusting. His Iraq policy? It's time the Iraqis took charge of their own country--"You fight for it; you die for it." Carl Levin says crap like that all the time. Neither one of these tools calls for full and immediate withdrawal, however. They just want to blame the Iraqis for the quagmire our insane government created. Turning it over to the Iraqis is the best policy, but only because our presence only makes it worse, as it has from day one. Posing it as punishment for bad behavior by the Iraqis is just absurdly childish.

And speaking of douchebag Democrats, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (at least if Johnson survives) demonstrates the kind of leadership we can expect from the Democratic wing of the Republican party:

Senator Reid made clear that his support for a troop increase depended on its being linked to an overall withdrawal plan. "We have to change course in Iraq," he said on the ABC News program "This Week." But in the meantime, Mr. Reid said, Democrats would "give the military anything they want."

Harry, you ^&$%#$!!!!, giving the military anything they want is THE SAME COURSE!!!

Dang. I think I'll go back into my cave. Go look at WIIIAI's pictures of the year.

Bizarre thought du jour

Some day, decades or centuries from now, the people of Iraq will thank George Bush. It may be after many years of civil war, followed by numerous dictators as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein, and perhaps several other invasions. So why would the Iraqi people of the future thank George Bush? Because THEIR ancestors were not among the millions of people who died because of Bush's criminal war. Same reason we celebrate Columbus Day.

The whole thing is really a gigantic exercise in genetic engineering, combined with a decided prejudice in favor of still-hypothetical future Iraqis at the expense of the current models. Bush and his cronies in the American power elite decided that the lives of those future Iraqis are worth far more than the lives of current Iraqis.

And that's if you actually believe the crap Bush says. Personally, I have no doubt that he hates future Iraqis just as much as present-day ones.

From Mike Luckovich.


From Dan Wasserman.

If the devil didn't exist, our government and media would create him

Rogue State author William Blum comments on the demonization of Ahmadinejad and how misquotes have quickly become common wisdom. As I've mentioned here before, the "wipe Israel off the map" is a total misquoting of a statement which translates (via Juan Cole) more directly as "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." In other words, regime change, not genocide (although we know those frequently go together). But he's not talking forcible regime change--he's merely expressing a belief in the inevitability of regime change in Israel.

Blum also discusses the so-called "Holocaust deniers conference," which was actually called "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision." Attendees included many who have no doubt that there was a Holocaust and who expressed these views freely at the conference. Blum also notes that there is no simple declarative statement from Ahmadinejad in which he actually denies the Holocaust; most commonly, Ahmadinejad says something like "If the Holocaust happened, targeting Europeans and caused by Europeans, why has the Middle East been forced to pay for it?"

Nevertheless, Imperialists rarely let the facts get in the way of a good story, especially when it serves their purposes.

Several other interesting articles by Blum at that site, as well.

Are you going to believe the truth or your own lying newspapers?

Michelle forwarded me a Steve Rendall article on how the US media, especially the Washington Post, has consistently misrepresented and slandered Hugo Chavez and his programs ever since he was first elected president of Venezuela eight years ago.

BTW, Chavez may just be the next Time Person of the Year!

Are you going to believe the truth or your own lying leaders?

British UN negotiator Carne Ross describes the lies behind the Iraq war:

He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Chris Floyd and Jonathan Schwarz have more; I would too, if I had more time!

From Steve Nease (Canada).

From Tom Toles.

Actually, he is postponing finding a resolution because that's his job for his second term. His job in the first term was to get us into as many wars as possible, and then get reselected. His job now is simply to keep those wars, and their associated gravy trains, going for as long as possible. Wait until Saddam is caught. Wait until the handover of sovereignty. Wait until the Iraqi elections. Wait until the new constitution. Wait until the second Iraqi elections. Wait until our elections. Wait for the Baker cabal to report. Wait until after Christmas. Wait for a blue moon. The money keeps flowing from China to Halliburton (with the huge bill eventually coming to us or the next generation) as long as he keeps the wars going. That's his job.

In case you were wondering, he's not working for us.

Quote du jour

I want to make sure I hear from as many of those ideas and opinions as possible. Today I heard from some opinions that matter a lot to me... And I am proud to have listened to their points of view.

-- AWol, who is clearly drinking again. (Read more of his gibberish at WIIIAI)

So he talks to families who die and hears from opinions that matter a lot to him. I'd call him a moron again, but that's insulting. To morons.

From Mike Luckovich.

How depressing

That young people are still enlisting in the imperial forces by the thousands: Military meets, exceeds recruiting goals. How desperate, uninformed or just plain stupid must kids be to volunteer for W's quagmires?

Of course, I should never jump to conclusions. Although the AP article doesn't mention it (of course), the main reason the army met its goal last month is that the goal was lowered. Last year, there were lots of articles about recruiting shortfalls. Last year:

The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000. The Army has not published official figures yet, but it apparently finished the 12-month counting period that ends Friday with about 73,000 recruits. Its goal was 80,000.

73,000 out of 80,000 for a year works out to 6083 out of 6666 per month. This year:

The Army, which is bearing the brunt of the work in Iraq, did the best. It signed up 6,485 new recruits in November compared with its target of 6,150--meaning 105 percent of its goal.

So, through the miracle of bar-lowering, the Army turned a 9% deficit into a 5% surplus with an actual increase of only 6%--still failing to meet last year's goals. Chocolate rations are up.

So maybe it isn't so bad. Still--6385 people volunteering to go fight in a criminal war with no purpose and no end in sight. Something is very wrong with this country.

From Pat Oliphant.

Lying scumbags--some die, others live on

Dennis Perrin writes about two scumbags who died last week--Augusto Pinochet and Jeane Kirkpatrick, while Jonathan Schwartz writes about three scumbags who are still living--Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, and George Bush. The ready willingness of Powell and Clinton to flat-out lie about things they know very well makes Bush's ready willingness to lie about things he doesn't know (everything) seem a little more normal, I guess.

Department of redunancy department

Wherein I tell a joke.

A friend was telling me about a building in Lansing he has visited for years for work. Never any security problems. But then Homeland Security moves into the building, and all of a sudden it's Fort Knox. My friend says "Homeland Security? I thought that was what the Pentagon was for." I replied "No, the Department of Defense is for invading other countries. Homeland Security is for invading our own."

Shouldn't somebody call security?

In many companies dealing with sensitive issues or lots of money, when someone is fired security is immediately called to escort the firee off of the premises. No last chance to steal or damage stuff, spread rumors, or hack into the computers.

So why is a lame-duck Congress allowed to do one more month's worth of damage, in the form of more pork-laden, democracy-destroying legislation, before being sent home to the voters who rejected them?

The missionary

Truthdig interviews Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH):

Kucinich: People first of all need to know about this. People need to know that there is an attempt by our leadership to support the supplemental, and what the consequences are.... The most difficult part of the challenge is to get members of Congress to understand that they themselves voted for a bill which went into effect on Oct. 1 that appropriated $70 billion, which could be used to bring the troops home. Unfortunately, our leadership is saying they're supporting the supplemental as a way of supporting the troops. So if we continue to ignore the money that's there right now to bring the troops home, we're losing an opportunity to bring the troops home now. People are now saying that they oppose the war, but they're continuing to fund it in the name of supporting the troops.

They say they're not going to abandon the troops in the field. We're professing a strange love for these troops by keeping them there, because the money's there to bring them home. So this is going to shape up as a major discussion across this country. People are going to want to know why Democrats would not bring the troops home now, when the money is there now.

Truthdig: For me this is really disheartening, because I feel like I have been lied to, and the American people have been lied to, because the [Democratic] Party was so against extra funds for the war. It's almost like the party has done a bait-and-switch.

Kucinich: I think there's going to be a concern around the country that this does represent a bait-and-switch. I'm hopeful that this position will be reconsidered and that the Democrats will not vote to keep the war going. But at this point, if the Democrats go forward and support a supplemental which by some accounts is now rising to $160 billion, they'll be providing enough money to keep the war going through the end of George Bush’s term.

Now, this is a serious moment. I believe the public is largely unaware that this is happening, and I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised to learn that less than one month since this great realignment, that Democrats leaders, who came to power because of widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, are now saying that they will vote to continue funding the war.

Truthdig: Is there any hope to end the war now, and not go for this extra $160 billion in supplemental funds? Was there anything that happened in the room that gave you hope?

Kucinich: There's a type of thinking which equates staying in Iraq as demonstrating strength. There's a type of thinking which equates support for the supplemental with supporting the troops. This type of thinking is inherently flawed. It is circular in its nature. It will keep us in war. It will damn our troops to the horror of getting shot at from all sides. This is the time for Democrats to be uniting to exit from Iraq. And the exit door is already well lit with a sign that says $70 billion. If we support the troops, why in the world would we not use the money to bring them home, instead of spending more money to keep them in? Why would we, when we have money to bring them home right now, appropriate another $160 billion which would keep them there, possibly through the end of George Bush's term?

Now, I'm not sure where Dennis got the idea about the bait--very few Democrats ran on anti-war platforms. And this voting for supplementals has been going on for over three years. Remember John Kerry voted for one before voting against it? Well, most Dems have voted for all of them.

On election night, I turned on CNN for a few minutes. They had a panel of "experts" to tell us what we meant with our votes. James Carville and Paul Begala represented the Democrat's side. As the positive results for Dems came in, one of them said "I hope the Dems don't take this as an opportunity to defund the war." Aargh! But that basically is the Pelosi-Reid-Emanuel-Clinton position; keep the quagmire going, and we can run against it again in 2008.

When Kucinich was here in Ann Arbor a few years ago to speak, someone asked him why he was a Democrat, even though most of the rest of the party has exited stage right. He said "I'm a missionary." Unfortunately, the heathens like their wars too much for Dennis to convert them.

BTW, I wouldn't buy a used car from Rahm Emanuel--what a sleazeball. Read John Walsh's article from October to learn why the next supplemental will likely pass--the new Dems, hand-picked and funded by Emanuel, are not in favor of stopping the war any time soon.

Don't take it personally--he stabbed Saddam in the back, too

From Chip Bok.

Really, the world would be a lot better off if everyone at Guantanamo were set free and every living former (and current) US Secretary of State were sent there in their place. Why serial liars and war criminals like Kissinger and Baker are still listened to is beyond me.

Something he's not well equipped for

From Mike Lane.


From Steve Sack.

Lobbyist Duke wakes up after a six-month sleep

From Doonesbury.

I'd be careful, Barney--you might catch rabies

From Pat Oliphant.

With grace and tact, I'm sure...

From Mike Luckovich.

Why aren't they impeaching?

From Jeff Danziger.

It seems as though Jim Baker, despite describing W's war as a massive failure, doesn't feel any remorse at having gotten him appointed pResident in the first place. And if the Dems aren't going to impeach Bush, what good are they?

What they said

The Iraq Study Group, the new Secretary of War Bob Gates, and the 95 sellout senators who confirmed him all agree--the war on Iraq is a mess. They also agree not to do anything positive about it, like bringing the troops home. Check out WIIIAI's take on the ISG's report and aWol's reaction to it, and Chris Floyd's post on the failure of the Gates-keeper-outers.

Still, you rarely see news paragraphs like this opening one from AP:

President Bush's war policies have failed in almost every regard, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded Wednesday, and it warned of dwindling chances to change course before crisis turns to chaos.

Bush's war policies have failed pretty much since he stole the election in 2000. Why did it take this long for people to notice?

From John Branch.

Maybe Hillary will get the hint, too! Nah.

Catching up

Congratulations to Hugo Chavez on his re-election in Venezuela. I agree with WIIIAI that some of the things Chavez says (or is misquoted as saying) suggest that he is less than totally committed to democratic principles. But I'm quite convinced of three things which make me happy he was re-elected:

1. He is definitely the choice of the majority of Venezuelans. The opposition is a large and vocal group, but the Chavistas are a much larger and just as vocal group (although not heard as clearly here in the US).
2. He has used oil money for the benefit of most Venezuelans, especially in education and healthcare.
3. Charismatic opposition to US global hegemony is badly needed, and so far Chavez is the best (and with oil, the most powerful) available at the moment. Derailing the FTAA is a huge benefit to the vast majority of people in the western hemisphere, including the US, and Chavez should get most of the credit for that.

Calling Bush the devil is just a bonus. Glenn Greenwald has an interesting post on how the mis-administration's goals of pissing off the entire world and pushing for democracy at the same time tend to serve American interests badly.

It has quickly become common wisdom, from the newspapers to the cartoons to the Daily Show, that Vladimir Putin was responsible for the death of Alexander Litvinenko in London. Chris Floyd points out that this common wisdom is largely the result of a PR offensive from fugitive Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky and some media pals of his. Floyd, unlike Bush, is no Putin fan, but his post makes it clear that the situation is very murky, and what we "know" comes almost entirely from some disgruntled exiles. While I'm sure that there have been many very righteous exiles in history, it seems as though their statements should generally be taken with a grain of salt, whether they be from Iraq, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, or even the US. In this case, Putin and the Russian government apparently do not have the PR muscle to counteract what the exiles are telling the press, so the exiles' claims go unchallenged (except by Floyd).

From Tom Toles.

Quote du jour

"We implore all Iraqis not to become pawns of those who seek to destroy you and your country." -- U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad

Gee, Zal, I thought making pawns of Iraqis was what all this training of police and military was all about!

The ability of all Bushies to completely miss how much everything they say reflects directly on themselves never ceases to amaze.

Back in the USSR, Gulag edition

Read Glenn Greenwald's take on the NY Times' report on a video of Jose Padilla's trip to the dentist. The Padilla case and the entire administration that has committed it are national disgraces.

As Jeralyn Meritt said yesterday with profound understatement: "There should be a greater outcry over this." As I have said many times, the most astounding and disturbing fact over the last five years -- and there is a very stiff competition for that title -- is that we have collectively really just sat by while the U.S. Government arrests and detains people, including U.S. citizens, and then imprisons them for years without any charges of any kind. What does it say about our country that not only does our Government do that, but that we don't really seem to mind much?

I was talking to the leader of our local ACLU chapter yesterday. She said several ACLU representatives visited Senator Debbie Stabenow(D-Michigan Soviet Socialist Republic)'s office to register disgust at Stabenow's vote for the horrid and unconstitutional Military Commissions Act, aka the Torture Bill, passed in October. The staffers were apparently driven to tears, apparently agreeing more with the Constitution's defenders than their own proto-fascist boss. It is probably time to drive more staffers to tears, and hopefully resignation. People destroying the Constitution, like Stabenow, don't deserve help.

From Ann Telnaes.

The system eats itself

From Jeff Danziger.

From Rex Babin.

A much bigger threat than the threat

The government at the people, against the people, and on top of the people continues to spy on us without telling us. The color-coded morons at Homeland Security have been keeping records and assigning scores to everyone crossing U.S. borders.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.

The government calls the system critical to national security following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Some privacy advocates call it one of the most intrusive and risky schemes yet mounted in the name of anti-terrorism efforts.

Virtually every person entering and leaving the United States by air, sea or land is scored by the Homeland Security Department's Automated Targeting System, or ATS. The scores are based on ATS' analysis of their travel records and other data, including items such as where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

Think about that the next time you request falafel in seat 27D.

In a privacy impact assessment posted on its Web site this week, Homeland Security said ATS is aimed at discovering high-risk individuals who "may not have been previously associated with a law enforcement action or otherwise be noted as a person of concern to law enforcement."

Ahern said ATS does this by applying rules derived from the government's knowledge of terrorists and criminals to the passenger's travel records.

Right--the government's infallible knowledge of terrorists and criminals.

The Homeland Security privacy impact statement added that "an individual might not be aware of the reason additional scrutiny is taking place, nor should he or she" because that might compromise the ATS' methods.

Ah, yes, Amendment 10.5 to the U.S. Constitution: No person shall have the right to question or compromise ATS methods, no matter the risk to their own life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, and no matter what it might say in Amendments 4 and 6 above.

Combine this with the Torture Bill's repeal of habeus corpus (whose constitutional protection was apparently erased by another invisible-ink amendment), and some day you could be locked up forever based on information in an Orwellian database you'll never even be allowed to see, much less question. And it could be simply because a small group of people similar to you commit, or are accused of committing, some atrocity.

Try as they might, the founding parents must have known that their best work could be effectively repealed once power fell into the hands of the types of people ruining this country today (including many Dumbocrats like Debbie Stabenow).