From the Washington post:
As Washington journalists debate whether to call President Bush's plan to send 20,000 more American troops into Iraq a "surge" or an "escalation," they are letting the White House get away with a much more momentous semantic scam.
The White House would have you believe that Bush tonight will be announcing a new strategy. But from all indications, all Bush will be talking about -- yet again -- is changing tactics.
. . . That means using American bodies and firepower, pretty much indefinitely, to prop up a country racked by civil war and chafing under occupation. That means the American death count ticks on, with no end in sight.
^
. . . The White House simply cannot answer the seminal question: Why should we think things will be different this time?
^
. . . Bush repeatedly used the generals to give him political cover during the mid-term election campaign, and got quite righteous in his critique of those who would not do likewise.
Here, for instance, is Bush describing his decision-making process on April 6: "I'm not going to make decisions based upon polls and focus groups. I'm going to make my decisions based upon the recommendations of our generals on the ground. They're the ones who decide how to achieve the victory I just described. They're the ones who give me the information.
"I remember coming up in the Vietnam War and it seemed like that there was a -- during the Vietnam War, there was a lot of politicization of the military decisions. That's not going to be the case under my administration."
^
. . . Cheney really loathes weakness. And like his fellow neoconservatives, he is consumed with the conviction that an all-powerful United States is both imperative to American security and the best thing for the world. Moral leadership, multilateralism, containment, human rights -- those are all less crucial than maintaining unquestioned power, at the point of a gun if necessary. . . .
See here for the complete text.
January 12, 2007
January 11, 2007
Razzle
As I listened to the speech last night and to the commentaries that came after, one song kept running through my head:
'Give em the old razzle dazzle, razzle dazzle em. . . .
Long as you keep em way off balance They'll never spot ya got no talent.
. . . .
Though you are stiffer than a girder They'll let you get away with murder.
Razzle dazzle em ------'
***
Bush to the American People:
'I'll razzle dazzle you and you'll never catch wise.'
And he just may carry it off.
I think I'm going to be sick.
'Give em the old razzle dazzle, razzle dazzle em. . . .
Long as you keep em way off balance They'll never spot ya got no talent.
. . . .
Though you are stiffer than a girder They'll let you get away with murder.
Razzle dazzle em ------'
***
Bush to the American People:
'I'll razzle dazzle you and you'll never catch wise.'
And he just may carry it off.
I think I'm going to be sick.
A Couple of Polarizers
By Harold Meyerson--Wednesday, January 10, 2007
If any Americans could truly understand Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, George Bush and Karl Rove should. All three firmly believe that the successful politician must above all cultivate his base -- not that any of them can point to recent successes.
In refusing to do anything to curtail the anti-Sunni pogroms of Moqtada al-Sadr's legions, Maliki, after all, is just dancin' with the ones that brung him.
^
Unless and until Congress stops him, Bush will keep on doing what he's doing, and the hard-core conservatives will stick with him. The mystery is why he believes Maliki, and the hard-core Shiites, will behave any differently.
See here for the complete text.
***
Yes, indeed.
Before this nightmare can be over, Congress has to develop a spine.
The last I saw, Edward Kennedy was a voice crying in the wilderness.
If any Americans could truly understand Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, George Bush and Karl Rove should. All three firmly believe that the successful politician must above all cultivate his base -- not that any of them can point to recent successes.
In refusing to do anything to curtail the anti-Sunni pogroms of Moqtada al-Sadr's legions, Maliki, after all, is just dancin' with the ones that brung him.
^
Unless and until Congress stops him, Bush will keep on doing what he's doing, and the hard-core conservatives will stick with him. The mystery is why he believes Maliki, and the hard-core Shiites, will behave any differently.
See here for the complete text.
***
Yes, indeed.
Before this nightmare can be over, Congress has to develop a spine.
The last I saw, Edward Kennedy was a voice crying in the wilderness.
Insurgents Announce 'Insurge' -- From the Borowitz Report
Response to Bush’s Surge, Experts Believe
Moments after President George W. Bush appeared on national television to announce a surge of additional troops into Baghdad, a leader of the Iraqi insurgents appeared on the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera network to announce an “insurge” of additional insurgents into the Iraqi capital.
Hassad el-Medfaii, a prominent member of the insurgents’ leadership, said that sending an “insurge” of insurgents into Baghdad was part of a larger strategy for the insurgency which he called “a new way downward.”
“We are determined to secure chaos in Iraq, even if it means putting more sandals on the ground,” Mr. el-Medfaii said.
Mr. el-Medfaii said that he was “not concerned” about recruiting new terrorists to make the “insurge” possible: “Those videos of Saddam’s hanging have pretty much done it for us.”
But moments after Mr. el-Medfaii announced the insurgents’ plan for an “insurge,” White House spokesman Tony Snow blasted the strategy, calling the plan “unoriginal and derivative.”
“It’s clear to me that the insurgents only announced their ‘insurge’ because they knew we were planning to announce a ‘surge,’” Mr. Snow said. “In addition to being terrorists and madmen, the insurgents are showing themselves for what they really are: copycats.”
Mr. Snow said that in order to find enough troops to make the “surge” possible, the Army would focus its recruitment efforts on able-bodied men and women who have not watched the news in the last three years.
“That would also include people who have only watched Fox News,” Mr. Snow said.
Response to Bush’s Surge, Experts Believe
Moments after President George W. Bush appeared on national television to announce a surge of additional troops into Baghdad, a leader of the Iraqi insurgents appeared on the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera network to announce an “insurge” of additional insurgents into the Iraqi capital.
Hassad el-Medfaii, a prominent member of the insurgents’ leadership, said that sending an “insurge” of insurgents into Baghdad was part of a larger strategy for the insurgency which he called “a new way downward.”
“We are determined to secure chaos in Iraq, even if it means putting more sandals on the ground,” Mr. el-Medfaii said.
Mr. el-Medfaii said that he was “not concerned” about recruiting new terrorists to make the “insurge” possible: “Those videos of Saddam’s hanging have pretty much done it for us.”
But moments after Mr. el-Medfaii announced the insurgents’ plan for an “insurge,” White House spokesman Tony Snow blasted the strategy, calling the plan “unoriginal and derivative.”
“It’s clear to me that the insurgents only announced their ‘insurge’ because they knew we were planning to announce a ‘surge,’” Mr. Snow said. “In addition to being terrorists and madmen, the insurgents are showing themselves for what they really are: copycats.”
Mr. Snow said that in order to find enough troops to make the “surge” possible, the Army would focus its recruitment efforts on able-bodied men and women who have not watched the news in the last three years.
“That would also include people who have only watched Fox News,” Mr. Snow said.
January 10, 2007
The Timid Dems
As Bush puts the finishing touches on his plan to save face and use US troops to do it, Senator Kennedy is the only one coming right out and saying, 'The emperor has no clothes!'
see here for complete text.
Meanwhile, although many Democrats agree with Kennedy’s view, they are hesitant to take the politically risky step of using their control of the budget to stop the president’s plans.
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would only say that there are “several proposals” being floated. He said he would prefer something “bipartisan.”
Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer expressed reservations and said it isn’t clear if President Bush needs to come back to Congress for a troop escalation and, "I agree with Sen. Kennedy that the Congress needs to be involved.”
Being involved, through hearings or oversight though, is very different from actually voting.
*_*_*
Weren't the Dems listening during the last two years when the public was asking them to grow a spine and take a stand on something?
Come election time, they are likely to discover that refusing to take a risk is, in itself, risky.
see here for complete text.
Meanwhile, although many Democrats agree with Kennedy’s view, they are hesitant to take the politically risky step of using their control of the budget to stop the president’s plans.
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would only say that there are “several proposals” being floated. He said he would prefer something “bipartisan.”
Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer expressed reservations and said it isn’t clear if President Bush needs to come back to Congress for a troop escalation and, "I agree with Sen. Kennedy that the Congress needs to be involved.”
Being involved, through hearings or oversight though, is very different from actually voting.
*_*_*
Weren't the Dems listening during the last two years when the public was asking them to grow a spine and take a stand on something?
Come election time, they are likely to discover that refusing to take a risk is, in itself, risky.
Another 'Terror' Red Herring
This from the Washington Post:
Conservatives Decry Terror Laws' Impact on Refugees-- By Darryl Fears
Conservatives who supported President Bush's reelection have joined liberal groups in expressing outrage over his administration's broad use of anti-terrorism laws to reject asylum for thousands of people seeking refuge from religious, ethnic and political persecution.
The critics say the administration's interpretation of provisions mandating denial of asylum to individuals who give "material support" to terrorist groups is so broad that foreigners who fought alongside U.S. forces in wars . . . can be denied asylum on the grounds that they provided aid to terrorists.
Advocates for refugees add that people who were forced to aid terrorist fighters at gunpoint could be labeled as supporters . . . such cases include a nurse who was abducted . . . and a woman in Liberia who said her father was killed and she was raped and forced to stand by as rebels occupied her home for several days.
See here for the complete text.
*_*_*
Another case of the government either displaying it's paranoia or manipulating the law for its own ends.
I'll be damned if I can figure out which. . . .
Conservatives Decry Terror Laws' Impact on Refugees-- By Darryl Fears
Conservatives who supported President Bush's reelection have joined liberal groups in expressing outrage over his administration's broad use of anti-terrorism laws to reject asylum for thousands of people seeking refuge from religious, ethnic and political persecution.
The critics say the administration's interpretation of provisions mandating denial of asylum to individuals who give "material support" to terrorist groups is so broad that foreigners who fought alongside U.S. forces in wars . . . can be denied asylum on the grounds that they provided aid to terrorists.
Advocates for refugees add that people who were forced to aid terrorist fighters at gunpoint could be labeled as supporters . . . such cases include a nurse who was abducted . . . and a woman in Liberia who said her father was killed and she was raped and forced to stand by as rebels occupied her home for several days.
See here for the complete text.
*_*_*
Another case of the government either displaying it's paranoia or manipulating the law for its own ends.
I'll be damned if I can figure out which. . . .
January 9, 2007
This from Truthdig:
A court in Italy will decide whether to charge 25 alleged CIA agents for participating in an act of so-called “extraordinary rendition.” The trial, should it go ahead, will be the first to address the heinous tactic, by which the United States or its allies kidnap terror suspects in order to remove them to torture-friendly nations.
see here for the complete text.
*_*_*
Oh, I hope Italy follows up on this.
Already, though, the US has begun showing its true colors: it has flown at least one of the accused back to the US from his Italian Villa--and it is saying it will refuse to extradite him to Italy to stand trial.
If our government won't stand up against torture, other, more civilized nations need to show it that they will leave it standing alone in the bone field.
A court in Italy will decide whether to charge 25 alleged CIA agents for participating in an act of so-called “extraordinary rendition.” The trial, should it go ahead, will be the first to address the heinous tactic, by which the United States or its allies kidnap terror suspects in order to remove them to torture-friendly nations.
see here for the complete text.
*_*_*
Oh, I hope Italy follows up on this.
Already, though, the US has begun showing its true colors: it has flown at least one of the accused back to the US from his Italian Villa--and it is saying it will refuse to extradite him to Italy to stand trial.
If our government won't stand up against torture, other, more civilized nations need to show it that they will leave it standing alone in the bone field.
The Government Giveth and the Government Taketh Away
Hey, folks—
I recently read something that is simply too absurd to believe—but it’s true, nonetheless.
As some of you may know I’m in the process [still!] of selling my house.
A few days ago, I received a new years newsletter from my realtor. It included an article about lead-based paint and since this old house certainly contains lead, I read it.
It seems a seller failed to disclose to some potential buyers, as required by law, that the house contained lead-based paint. The buyers bought the house and, subsequently, their children were diagnosed with increased lead in their systems.
So, the buyers sued the seller and the court in it’s **ahem** wisdom, denied the suit stating that the law applies only to the buyers and NOT to their minor children!
Now, the people most at risk for lead poisoning are children. I think everyone knows that. First, due to the fact that they have a lower body mass, they are more at risk. And, second, who tend to gnaw on windowsills? Toddlers, that’s who.
Excuse me, I believe the original intent of the law was to safeguard those people at highest risk—namely those minor children that the court, then, excluded from its protection.
Only in this country, that our politicians constantly tell us is so great, would the law give with one hand and take away with the other.
***
Pair this situation with the post two days ago about the picture of Nancy Pelosi with her granddaughter. And add John Edwards and all those other politicians-- parents and grandparents-- exploiting their children for political gain while, simultaneously, denying lawsuits like this one, refusing to deal with global warming and other pollutants, piling up national debt for our children to pay off, not funding public education adequately, ignoring the fact that the largest number of people below the poverty line are children-- the list goes on and on.
Oh, yes, it's a great country we live in, folks.
I recently read something that is simply too absurd to believe—but it’s true, nonetheless.
As some of you may know I’m in the process [still!] of selling my house.
A few days ago, I received a new years newsletter from my realtor. It included an article about lead-based paint and since this old house certainly contains lead, I read it.
It seems a seller failed to disclose to some potential buyers, as required by law, that the house contained lead-based paint. The buyers bought the house and, subsequently, their children were diagnosed with increased lead in their systems.
So, the buyers sued the seller and the court in it’s **ahem** wisdom, denied the suit stating that the law applies only to the buyers and NOT to their minor children!
Now, the people most at risk for lead poisoning are children. I think everyone knows that. First, due to the fact that they have a lower body mass, they are more at risk. And, second, who tend to gnaw on windowsills? Toddlers, that’s who.
Excuse me, I believe the original intent of the law was to safeguard those people at highest risk—namely those minor children that the court, then, excluded from its protection.
Only in this country, that our politicians constantly tell us is so great, would the law give with one hand and take away with the other.
***
Pair this situation with the post two days ago about the picture of Nancy Pelosi with her granddaughter. And add John Edwards and all those other politicians-- parents and grandparents-- exploiting their children for political gain while, simultaneously, denying lawsuits like this one, refusing to deal with global warming and other pollutants, piling up national debt for our children to pay off, not funding public education adequately, ignoring the fact that the largest number of people below the poverty line are children-- the list goes on and on.
Oh, yes, it's a great country we live in, folks.
January 8, 2007
The Real Reason
I've posted this entry twice before--but the issue keeps coming back-- like some old horror-flick-mummy that just refuses to die.
*_*_*
The mindset inside the beltway is that the people in the US are stupid. The problem is, when it uses that frame of reference, Washington simply displays its own idiocy: We’re supposed to forget the fact that Bush was giving us one reason for the war in Iraq as of March, 2004, another in July and still another in October. Whenever the facts didn’t support the latest ‘reason’ he was feeding us, he just trotted out another.
The most recent one was: ‘We went into Iraq to free the people from the Evil Oppressor and establish Democracy.’
Of course, the latest doesn’t hold up either. The fact is, the US has never attacked another country in order to help it. Whenever we have invaded, it was to insure our own best interests. So—what are those interests now?
Well, here’s a surprise:
There’s oil in Iraq.
When Iraq was ruled by Saddam, we weren’t in control of that oil.
If things ever settle down there, US interests are going to be moving in in droves to manage all that oil.
The Iraqi people will be disenfranchised of the resources in their own country.
All this from their benevolent uncle who’s bringing them ‘peace and democracy’ at the end of a gun.
[see 12/18/06 for the full text]
*_*_*
And now, from The Independent:
Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity
The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years
Published: 07 January 2007
See here for the complete text.
*_*_*
The mindset inside the beltway is that the people in the US are stupid. The problem is, when it uses that frame of reference, Washington simply displays its own idiocy: We’re supposed to forget the fact that Bush was giving us one reason for the war in Iraq as of March, 2004, another in July and still another in October. Whenever the facts didn’t support the latest ‘reason’ he was feeding us, he just trotted out another.
The most recent one was: ‘We went into Iraq to free the people from the Evil Oppressor and establish Democracy.’
Of course, the latest doesn’t hold up either. The fact is, the US has never attacked another country in order to help it. Whenever we have invaded, it was to insure our own best interests. So—what are those interests now?
Well, here’s a surprise:
There’s oil in Iraq.
When Iraq was ruled by Saddam, we weren’t in control of that oil.
If things ever settle down there, US interests are going to be moving in in droves to manage all that oil.
The Iraqi people will be disenfranchised of the resources in their own country.
All this from their benevolent uncle who’s bringing them ‘peace and democracy’ at the end of a gun.
[see 12/18/06 for the full text]
*_*_*
And now, from The Independent:
Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity
The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years
Published: 07 January 2007
See here for the complete text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
