Mary Tillman

Mary Tillman is the mother of Pat Tillman. Today Mary Tillman testified before a congressional committee on the lies told to her family by our government. Mary Tillman is a woman who has lost a child, her son, and she has never stopped demanding that in her son's honor the truth be told about his death.

Here is a clip of Mary Tillman at the hearing today.

Thank you Mary Tillman, for your quest for the truth, for your honesty and for the bravery you show each day.

The MidEast cringes in horror...

...as Dubya decides that his post-Presidency focus will be on continuing to advise on how to promote democracy in said turmoil-heavy region. Source: MSNBC

Not that they want to look a gift horse in the mouth or anything, but can't you feel the eyes of an entire region roll?

I certainly must agree with the Pensito Review: "The president's sad bluster about staying involved in Middle East politics would be funny if it weren't so scary. Allowing him to meddle in the Middle East could easily result in nuclear-bomb craters dotting the landscape from Tel Aviv to Teheran."

The phrase "haven't you done enough already" springs to my mind. How about you?

Say No to Escalation

Tonight Bush will announce his plans to escalate the Iraq war by sending 21,500 additional American soldiers to Iraq. This escalation is yet one more bad decision in an endless list of bad decisions. When we first occupied Iraq Rumsfeld told Americans that within six months there would be less then 30,000 American troops in Iraq. Today we have over 125,000 troops and with the escalation we will have almost 150,000 troops stationed in Iraq.

Tonight Bush will state that Iraq must reach benchmarks and take over the security of their own country, however Bush has not provided any type of deadline for Iraqis to protect their own country. Is there any reason to believe that what Bush is proposing will work? Sending 21,500 additional troops is too little, too late, and in addition our troops STILL do not have the equipment promised to them over three years ago:

The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said

Bush has decided that no one can stop him from sending more of our soldiers to die, and as ABC is reporting, the escalation has already begun:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 10, 2007— President Bush's speech may be scheduled for tonight, but the troop surge in Iraq is already under way.

Have you had enough? Isn't it time to be heard, isn't it time for us to say no more? MoveOn.org is organizing rallies this Thursday against this escalation, click here to find a rally near your home, and if there isn't a rally planned for your area, organize one.

Wish Pat Tillman a happy birthday: vote Democratic

That seems to be the message in this powerful and poignant piece written by slain football star turned serviceman PatTillman's brother (and fellow military guy) Kevin Tillman.

Pat's birthday would have been Monday. Election Day is Tuesday. Kevin is saying "you do the math."

Key excerpt:

Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few "bad apples" in the military.

Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that "somehow" was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

But read the whole thing. In case you were looking for some extra motivation to get through these last few days of lame campaign ads and Republican obfuscation.

Steve Anderson: You want to own 9/11 Mr. President?

Well, you can have it!

Steve Anderson has a damning list of 9/11-related issues Dubya can "own" over at the Huffington Post.

Anderson gives the last word to TBogg, and I will too:

...there is a legacy at stake here, but that legacy belongs to President George W. Bush who ignored warnings about Osama bin Laden. His National Security Advisor was warned about bin Laden, Richard Clarke was right there. And... they... did... nothing.

They went on a one month vacation after only eight months in office.

They failed. They didn't do their job.

This is George Bush's Legacy. Suck on it.

Dubya Dealing with Dissent...from his own side

Poor Dubya. We're 60 days from the mid-term elections, and he now has more than his own ranking as Worst. President. Ever. to worry about. No, now he may have to worry about being the guy who hobbled the Republican Party for years to come.

And don't think rational Republicans don't know it. That's why Dubya is having more trouble than ever before "managing" Republicans in Congress to do what he wants. It's gotten so bad that now he's telling some Republicans that their actions are "hurting the nation" and helping the terrorists win! [Source: New York Times.]

Not just any Republicans, but Republicans that have managed to retain at lease a modicum of bi-partisan stature and respect...like John McCain, John Warner and Lindsay Graham. Would I vote for these guys? Probably not. But do these guys represent a wacko strain of the Repug Party? Nope. They're generally well-regarded even by their opponents.

Sucks to be Dubya (or Republican) right now.

Some stats on how much "safer" we are.

Bob Geiger over at the Huffington Post lays out some stats that show how the War on Terror is really going on Dubya's watch.

You may not be surprised to discover that the answer is "not very well at all."

How so?

More Al Qaeda than before 9/11.

More attacks on "coalition" troops in Iraq than when the war started.

More Taliban activity in Afghanistan.

Read 'em and weep.

Seriously...weep. Bu then get pissed and get out and vote.

Why can't the GOP find decent candidates?

Yesterday on Hardball Chris Matthews interviewed a GOP candidate for congress, Van Taylor ( TX-17 ). There are not enough words to give justice to the performance by Taylor, especially when his talking points fail to address any of the questions Matthews askes.

Take a moment to view the interview for yourself:

Van Taylor and Paul Hackett debate the Iraq war on Hardball

More below the fold.....

Amazing wasn't that? Worse, Taylor is the ONLY candidate from the GOP who is an Iraq vet, yes, the only one. Democrats on the other hand have over 50 vets running for offices across our nation. Taylor is not only without a clue, all he can do is repeat talking points and faced with a questions about those talking points he turns into a deer caught in headlights, his eyes wide and his brain empty except for talking points that Matthews destroys with a few questions.

As Iraq continues to fall apart, the GOP can no longer count on "talking points" to fool the people of this country, and given that 61 percent of Americans now oppose the Iraq war, it is clear that "terror, terror, terror" will no longer work as a means for the GOP to elect candidates.

Bush II; Day 561: Haditha

The news first broke 2 weeks ago, and it's exactly the kind of thing none of us want to hear. It's like Abu Ghraib. It's like stories out of Vietnam (which for a lot of us come more from movies than memory.)

Call us naive, but yeah, most Americans want to believe that we conduct ourselves with more honor and with higher standards than other countries, even when we're at war.

And when we become convinced that our leaders are behaving unethically and incompetently we still hold on to the fact that that is what the people temporarily in power are doing, but the people with their feet on the street, the average everyday Americans wouldn't behave that way.

So it's what makes situations like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and now Haditha hard to bear. Because while Rumsfeld, Cheney and Dubya might have created the environment and situaiton in which such actions take place, they didn't pull the literal trigger.

Haditha is still ever-present, both in the news and in the blogs. There are conflicting accounts, word that the US paid $2500 per victim to the families, and the predictable knee-jerk response from the right-wing blogs that it must all be exaggeration (as though it would suddenly be OK if it happened to fewer civilians.) Just one example.

I can't understand why the people who are willing to accept the worst from Americans are the one who are trying to lay claim to being the biggest America-lovers. That has never made sense to me, and it never will.

Bush II; Day 542:Let's talk about Iraq

Oh, yes, I'm one of those negative nellies on the left. Excuse me for thinking that we shouldn't forget about Iraq, how compeltely messed up it is, how there are people to blame for it, and how we ought to be demanding accountability!

Is that so wrong?

So, let's talk about:

-A new group of refugees are bing created in Iraq as thousand flee their homes amid sectarian violence. Source NY Times

-Or how reconstruction is being hampered by almost incomprehensibly poor execution Source: NY Times

-And, please don't forget that people just keep on dying: soldiers, Iraqi police, but mostly civilians. Source: CBS

That is all.

Bush II; Day 526: Regular Reminder: Iraq is still a deadly place

April has been a deadly month for American troops in Iraq.

And an internal staff report by the United States Embassy and the military command in Baghdad illustrates why. Contrary to how Administration officials try to downplay the seriousness of the insurgency and the ever-increasing potential for all-out civil war, the reality is a lot more scary.

Why bring this up? Don't we all know that?

I don't think so. I certainly don't think it's top of mind for the vast majority of Americans. It has become background noise.

Of course, the report might just be designed to quell increasing calls for immediate troop withdrawal. The article closes with this quote:

Gen. Qais Hamza al-Maamony, the commander of Babil's 8,000-member police force, said his officers were not ready yet to intervene between warring militias, should it come to that, as many fear. "They would be too frightened to get into the middle," he said in an interview.

If the American troops left Babil, he said, "the next day would be civil war."

Will the American people ever get truth from the current executive branch?

Perhaps only if we change the balance of the legislative branch this November and give the current administration something to really worry about.

Bush II; Day 522: BUsh relying on his military generals?

You know how Dubya always says that he relies on the advice of his military leaders? You know how he has hung on to to that statement, even when it comes out that military leaders thought we'd need more troops in Iraq, and the White House didn't listen?

Well, apparently he doesn't listen to them when it comes to staffing recommendations either.

Despite yet another military general piling on and calling for replacing Donald Rumsfeld, Dubya thinks Rummie, like Brownie before him, is doing a heckuva job. Yup, Rumsfeld has Dubya's full support.

Loyalty to his buddies above fealty to our American troops.

Nice.

Bush II; Day 519: Because I said so, OK!?

Why oh why is the mainstream media treating the news of Dubya's de-classification of reports for leaks to the press as merely "embarrassing" and unlikely to cause damage, not potentially actionable?

We have been lied to again and again basically. This, the wiretaps, each time the Bush Administration claims ignorance, and then when their claims are shown to be untrue...then they go for the argument "It's legal when the President does it." Then why not save us all time and taxpayer dollars by coming clean up front?

Because it looks really really bad that's why.

So, we can get into semantic arguments about it, or we can admit that we have no reason to believe that Dubya's first story about anything is the actual truth.

I'm so proud.

Bush II; Day 516: D'oh! Smoking gun on Plame case?

The other shoe has dropped, and Scooter Libby has rolled over but good. Of course it's odd how he accuses Cheney of ordering him to leak classified info with Dubya's approval, but doesn't cop specifically to leaking Plame's name. Oh, like if you leaked other stuff, but not her name, it doesn't count? Sort of like calories don't count when you eat standing up.

Ern Kotecki Vest over at BlogHer has a round-up of who's talking about this (lots of folks, natch.)

Bush II; Day 505: Most of this is no surprise

More excerpts have been released from a secret British memo. I thought we already knew most of this, but in case you've forgotten, here are the key findings:

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Bush II; Day 502: I thought it was Afghanistan we got right?

It's been a common moderate and liberal stance to say that they approved of going into Afghanistan, as if to prove they're not complete wusses who abhor violence. Even my hero Jon Stewart kinda bugs me with the way he feels compelled to mention his support for the actions in Afghanistan.

So, everyone, that was almost 5 years ago now...I think it's fair to say that whatever we supported...the initial military action to topple the Taliban because they were harboring bin Laden etc...is now long past, and we've been merrily watching things get screwed up in there ever since.

I agree with the NY Times editorial that queries why our troops should be risking their lives, and why our budget coffers should be drained to watch:

-A man be threated with the death penalty for converting to Christianity
-Women be at risk for stoning for adultery

And I'm sure some other barbaric practices. Oh, sure, barbaric to me and the culture I was raised in...I'm sure there are some apologists, like even Bill Maher...who also annoys me sometimes...who will say that different cultures interpret freedom and a moral society differently.

Fine. Dandy. Don't spend my tax payer dollars propping up a theocracy that clearly doesn't share our values.

Am I crazy?

Bush II; Day 489: Letting my Clark colors show

So I don't hide that I was Wesley Clark supporter, and I still am. (I'm thinking a Clark-Clinton ticket, whaddya think?)

Anyway, he was on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" last week and was his usual smart self. How do you argue with some of this:

Re: Iraq:

One of the things that's happened to us, George, is this debate - largely because of the administration in the way it's been portrayed, it's always about the military. What's happening in Iraq is not about the military. It's about who controls the country and what the future policies of Iraq will be. Those are political questions. Our ambassador over there is trying to do that job but he's not getting the help he needs. We've never established a regional dialogue we needed to - with Syria, with Iran, with the other states in the region. We just haven't given the military the help it needs to resolve this problem and so I just have to shy away from the excessive focus on the military. This is not a problem the military can solve. They're part of the solution and the military forces can be used to create political leverage, but we're not going to be able to change the forces in play in Iraq simply by jawboning. It won't be enough. We've got to use the leverage, from the region and internally, to get the responsible Sunnis into that government. Now. And the constitution changed before it's too late.

Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.

Well, what I'm trying to do is help the right Democrats get elected in 2006. That's the most important thing. And, I'm very proud, we've got something like 55 US military veterans running for Congress as Democrats. I want to help each and every one of them. I think they can make a huge difference in the future of this country. I think having one-party domination of government is very dangerous for democracy and frankly that's where all my energies and activities are focused.

We need to really get to the bottom of the Abramoff scandal, we should have a special prosecutor appointed for that, we really need a congressional investigation of the whole business of the NSA wiretapping and how far that goes, there's been a lot of squirreling around the edges; we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time. I think Americans are best served by a strong 2-party system and that's been out of whack and what I can do in 2006 is try to help the right Democrats get into office and that's what I'm going to do.

Bush II; Day 487: Can you say awwwk-warrrd?

Oh dear. It's not fun when editorials scold our President like he's a naughty boy in knee-pants.

Oh, who am I kidding? It is kinda fun. Like this one from the NY Times exposing just how amateurish Bush's recent Asian road-trip was.

Remember, it's not just corruption that plagues the Bush Administration. It's incompetence.

Bush II; Day 478: Coast Guard wasn't Cool with Dubai port deal

But their concerns were allayed, apparently, because Dubai Ports World promised to be good.

This port deal story is just one more example of an administration who feels so annoyed that there are rules and checks and balances they have to follow. They want to be able to do what they want when they want. Wiretapping? That damn FISA takes too long. 45-day review process for deals like this port deal? Why bother. We all just need to trust them and let them handle things.

An attitude I find annoying!

Bush II; Day 477: The Governors are getting cranky about the Guard

Governors of both parties are concerned that their states are being left vulnerable. Not only are 1/3 of the ground forces in Iraq from National Guard brigades, but where they go, their equipment goes. And when they return, it seems like their equipment is staying behind. Apparently the Army can't account for about half of the equipment left behind by Guard brigades, and has no plan to replace it.

And the states are feeling a wee bit nervous about it.

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and chairman of the governors association, said: "The National Guard plays an incredibly valuable role in the states. What we are concerned about, as governors, is that when our troops are deployed for long periods of time, and their equipment goes with them but does not come back, the troops are very strained, and they no longer have the equipment they were trained to use."

Of course Dubya wants folks to just trust him...it'll all be taken care of, but not everyone is feeling so warm and cozy.

Some choice quotes:

"Governors should be involved in these decisions," Gov. Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, a Republican, said after meeting with the president. "There has been too much that we have learned outside the loop. It's time we were inside the loop."

Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, the president's brother, said: "I trust General Pace. I trust the president of the United States. They said they would find the money. I think you can take it to the bank."

But Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican who is chairman of the National Governors Association, said Mr. Bush had offered "a genuine olive branch." He quoted the president as saying, "You know, if I've not been as thorough in consultation on issues like the ports or the National Guard, then let's sit down and work through the details."

Um, I think this qualifies under the 'D'oh you caught me!' defense, no? If you're operating with a 'do what you want now, apologize later' strategy in place.

Bush II; Day 476: The Civil War everyone has been fearing?

It's getting fearfully ugly in Iraq. So ugly it's stunning the average Iraqi.

So ugly that every one, from world leaders to religious leaders of opposing sects are calling for calm.

So ugly that even some are taking about who will be to blame if there is a complete collapse in Iraq.

And I can't help feeling that it is hard to reconcile tolerance for some kinds of violent rioting (over the Danish carton as an example) but not other kinds. That cognitive dissonance is a contributing factor too. I mean how can people possibly keep track of which violent hateful methods are OK, and which aren't?

Scary times.

Bush II; Day 474: Port-gate?

Time to get your conspiracy theorist hat on, and I'm always up for a bit of that.

After all, I was just explaining to my lunch-mate yesterday that the Cheney folks were likely happy that there was such a brou-haha over his shooting an elderly buddy in the face, since it distracted from other more significant revelations about Cheney that week (like Libby being authorized to talk Plame by his "higher-ups.")

This week's theory: that the Bush Administration's seemingly bonehead move to turn over port security to a United Arab Emirates-based company is really about having that company facilitate continued torture of prisoners. No, really.

Check out this post at Corrente for the run-down on why this is not as crazy as it sounds.

Question is this: do you think the Bush Administration is above these kind of shenanigans to ensure their continued above-the-law and outside-the-law actions? I don't. Pretty sad.

Hat tip: You Forgot Poland!

Bush II; Day 472: Surprise: more folks from the military were anti-torture.

Why? Because if we're torturing our prisoners, you can bet that'll be considered license to torture theirs.

But more that that...because that's not the way we are supposed to play.

A lengthy memorandum has been released, reflecting the concerns of one of the Pentagon's top lawyers...a die-hard Republican...about procedures the Administration was putting in place.

Key excerpt:

The lawyer, Alberto J. Mora, a political appointee who retired Dec. 31 after more than four years as general counsel of the Navy, was one of many dissenters inside the Pentagon. Senior uniformed lawyers in all the military services also objected sharply to the interrogation policy, according to internal documents declassified last year.

But Mr. Mora's campaign against what he viewed as an official policy of cruel treatment, detailed in a memorandum he wrote in July 2004 and recounted in an article in the Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker magazine, made public yesterday, underscored again how contrary views were often brushed aside in administration debates on the subject.

"Even if one wanted to authorize the U.S. military to conduct coercive interrogations, as was the case in Guantánamo, how could one do so without profoundly altering its core values and character?" Mr. Mora asked the Pentagon's chief lawyer, William J. Haynes II, according to the memorandum.

"...how could one [authorize the U.S. military to conduct coercive interrogations] without profoundly altering its core values and character?"

How indeed.

Bush II; Day 463: Iraq Data Distorted? You are kidding me!!!

Haven't about 10 people already said what retired CIA official Paul R. Pillar has now said: that the Bush Administration cherrypicked their way through pre-war intelligence...keeping the nuggets that would help them justify the war and discarding all the evidence that would support letting the UN inspectors finish their jobs? Or the evidence that would make them face the fact that was wasn't going to be all easy-peasy?

He is the first guy who was in the CIA to speak out, so I guess that's news. Anyway, key, unsurprising excerpt:

"If the entire body of official intelligence on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war — or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath," Mr. Pillar wrote. "What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in decades."

Bush II; Day 454: Just in case you've forgotten the cost of war

The costs of war are huge. The costs of this war include:

American life and limb
Iraqi civilian life and limb
Our civil liberties
Diminished standards for truth-telling from our leaders
The character assassination of many a public figure who dares to criticize or question, up to an including the outing of a CIA operative.

And lest we forgot, actual $$$....billions and billions of them. And requests for billions more coming down the pike.

For a war that was going to "pay for itself."

Bush II; Day 445: One more story of incompetence

You wanna know what's so sad? That stories of gross incompetence and inefficiencies, like the report from the Inspector General's office on their efforts on Iraq Reconstruction, coming out of the Bush Administration have become so commonplace and so frequent...they elicit yawns.

It's like we've just bent over and accepted that they will muck things up everywhere they go.

And all those regular lies and deceptions and obfuscations? Ho hum.

Future Presidents take note: the bar is really really low.

Bush II; Day 431: Changing the words doesn't change what's happening

So Dubya is trying to fight back against his image as a lying, spying, war-mongering, pro-torture, Bush-in-a-bubble who is the leader of a corrupt party.

Not by taking decisive action to sweep out those who are doing wrong, or by devising a concrete plan to address the concerns of well over 50% of then population. No, his favorite way to deal with things is to try to put new "catch-phrases" into the public ears, all while acting decisive. The only thing he is decisive about is that he couldn't have been wrong and that there's no need to adjust course.

Read the tack he's reviving now. More accusing those who dissent or disagree of being Anti-American simply because they are anti-Dubya policies. Source NY Times.

Mr. Bush said Americans should insist on a debate "that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries."

Mr. Bush was warned several times that if he neglected to build support at home, he could face the problems that the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations faced with Vietnam.

Any effort at finding what the White House calls a "common ground" on Iraq strategy, he said, "has to be coupled with a cessation of calling people who disagree with the strategy 'unpatriotic.' "

Yeah. What he says.

Bush II; Day 426: Am I supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy?

So, Dubya has made a big show of convening a meeting of a bunch of former Secretaries of State and Defense from both parties to talk about Iraq.

Good PR move for sure. And I'm sure several of this people had strong dissenting views that he was forced to sit in a room a listen too for once. Boy outside of his bubble.

But it's still quite a rarified and narrowly-focused crew...mostly politicos, and a couple of military folks too.

How about some cultural or historical experts?
How about some analysts outside of government?

I'm not trying to say that all of those people are motivated to make nice, but I found it significant that commentary afterwards included the fact that not a single person at that able favored immediate withdrawal.

Hey, I'm not sure I do either, but last I read, there are a significant number of people who do favor such a thing...and some of them have some credentials. How about hearing them out?

Good start. But if it's a one-shot deal it impresses me not so much.

Bush II; Day 423: You're starting now?

The NY Times reports that the Department of Homeland Security "will evaluate new requests for money from an $800 million aid program for cities based less on politics and more on assessments of where terrorists are likely to strike and potentially cause the greatest damage."

Of course, my post title asks the obvious question: you're starting this now?

But we've known for some time that money was being spent unwisely in this regard.

Conspiracy theorists might say that the money wasn't getting spent in those areas with the most likely targets (SF, NY, Chicago...you know, our great American cities) because those cities vote blue.

Then again perhaps those who feel most at risk weren't voting for Dubya for a reason, and maybe all those people in other parts of the country who let Dubya use the politics of fear to sway their vote should think about that.

It's sort of a chicken/egg thing.

Bush II; Day 407: It's been a bad day...

I was just writing about how Dubya's Washington seemed to be falling apart.

And then the shoes started dropping.

The Senate refused to renew the Patriot Act. Source: TalkLeft. Dubya may be trying to spin this as a bunch of irresponsible, anti-national security wackos, but the truth is that 4 conservative Republicans joined Democrats in saying enough is enough. If we don't retain our civil liberties then exactly what lifestyle of freedom are we engaging in this War on Terror to defend?

Just a day earlier Congress had handed Dubya a stinging defeat by defying his veto threats and passing anti-tirture legislation. He now has agreed to sign it. D'oh. Source: NY Times.

It's no fun being Dubya today.

Bush II; Day 397: Wes Clark on a plan for Iraq

Well, it might not satisfy those parts of us that want immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Wes Clark's editorial this Sunday on a real plan for getting out of Iraq successfully has a couple of things going for it.

-He talks about real military tasks and how many troops they require.

-It comes from a guy who is steeped in military knowledge and experience, and isn't just a politico.

Lastly, Clark posted this in his blog and then proceeded to post thoughtful responses to the comments he was getting on that blog. What? Willing to actually respond to questions and disagreements? Willing to stand behind what you said and explain it further? You know this guy's not a Republican.

Bush II; Day 392: Don't you feel better about Iraq, now that we have bullet points?

It's like a joke or, more accurately, a bad dream. You would think that the President of the United States would have the best minds working around the clock night and day, well, before going to war, first of all. But certainly once we're in a war, you'd think those bright minds would be figuring out how to cleanly execute and get out.

But no, the minds working for Dubya are much more concerned about presenting stories to the press and the public, much more concerned about positioning those stories to cover their own incomeptent asses. Krugman has it right.

Oh, and sometimes the minds working for Dubya are much more concerned with smearing those who disagree or point out the gaps in their little bedtime stories. And if I read this NY Times story correctly, Judy Miller isn't the only press person who has forgotten that the press should remain independent of the government...not helping them out with their cover-ups!

I don't get the folks who want to defend Dubya at all costs. You know, most of the military is doing the best they can (in a bad situation). But they've been put in that bad situation by the folks in the Administration...and all the unpleasant incidents we're hearing about, from Abu Ghraib to secret prisons can be traced morally, if not directly, back to the White House.

Are we willing to say that even if, in the end, we manage to get out of Iraq, that their government actually stabilizes and survives, that the ends justifies the deceptive, incompetent means?

It's Machiavellian...but in this case the clumsiest Machiavellian scheme ever.

Bush II; Day 383: Let's beat the dead horse, shall we?

I know the Republicans would like us all to be bored with the idea that we went to war under false pretenses, and that part of the scandal around PlameGate isn't just about leaking a covert agent's identity, but that they did so to support what they knew was a fictitious case for going to war.

But indulge me, let's remind ourselves again anyway.

Source: Murray Waas' lengthy, detailed article for the National Journal

Bush II; Day 363: Wesley Clark on torture

I'm always happy to be able to read or listen to Wesley Clark. I think he is the kind of guy that represents the best this Party can put forward to the public.

Here, John Amato from Crooks & Liars conducts an interview with Clark on the latest legislative attempt to sanction CIA tirture of prisoners. The Crooks and Liars link goes to tha actual audio file of the interview. Blah3.com also posted a text transcript.

Key excerpt:

"We need the moral high ground and our troops need the moral high ground because we’ve always believed we were better, we weren’t like other armies—we didn’t abuse people, we didn’t torture, we didn’t kill them. And to strip that core value from our troops is to strike at the very heart of the patriotism, the morale, the spirit, that animates the force of free men and women fighting for democracy."

Bush II; Day 354 Redux: A tragic milestone

Lest you forget that we are fighting a war...a war that was waged based on lies, a war that we went into without a plan to get out of, a war that is costing us illions of dollars and now, 2000 lives.

I cannot imagine how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld sleep at night, knowing those soldiers died because of them.

Yes, I mean it.

Bush II; Day 338: Bush getting his torture on

Bush apparently feels really really strongly that he should be allowed to allow torture.

More folks, including military folks and plenty of Republicans, disagree.

Dubya feel so strongly that he should be allowed to allow torture that he's threatening to make a bill saying the military has to follow the rule of law his very first veto.

Something very sick about this.

Bush II; Day 299: Mitch Ratcliffe points out, in case you've forgotten

That we are screwed nationally because we have sent so much of our National Guard overseas.

Not that I needed another reason to be pissed. But I'm wondering how they're feeling about it down there in the red states right about now.

Bush II; Day 290 Bonus: Cindy Sheehan's latest entry at the Huffington Post

Must-read.

Bush II; Day 290: Must-read Frank Rich on the right's inability to "SwiftBoat" Cindy Sheehan

Rich is at his usual high level, but the part of the story that intrigued me was not just Cindy and Casey Sheehan's story, but the story of another grieving mother.

"Another mother who has journeyed to Crawford, Celeste Zappala, wrote last Sunday in New York's Daily News of how her son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, was also killed in April 2004 - in Baghdad, where he was providing security for the Iraq Survey Group, which was charged with looking for W.M.D.'s 'well beyond the admission by David Kay that they didn't exist.'

As Ms. Zappala noted with rage, her son's death came only a few weeks after Mr. Bush regaled the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association banquet in Washington with a scripted comedy routine featuring photos of him pretending to look for W.M.D.'s in the Oval Office. 'We'd like to know if he still finds humor in the fabrications that justified the war that killed my son,' Ms. Zappala wrote."

I'd like to know too. The bastard!

Bush II; Day 289: What took 'em so long?

Does anyone else remember Dubya buddy Karen Hughes being assigned to improve our could-it-possibly-be-lower P.R. rep in the Middle East back after his inauguration?

Yup, big fanfare in January, she was going to solve all our problem.

Well, apparently she's only taking office this week, and now she's going to get right on that image problem...9 months later.

Somebody want to remind me why the public's confidence in how Bush is doing his job, particularly in regard to the War, is at record lows?

Bush II; Day 286: Artificial Deadlines Missed

It's even more fun to read Digby's post on the Bush Team's artificial deadlines (like the one for completing the Iraqi constitution) after you know the Iraqi's missed the deadline.

It's so disgusting. They tout August 15th like it's some holy day, until the date (which was picked for who knows what reason? Oh, yeah, probably because it would be the middle of summer when no one's paying attention) is missed.

The all of a sudden we are oh, so hands off, and oh, so pleased to watch the Iraqis work things out in their own way on their own timetable.

Feh.

Bush II; Day 283: Bonus! Idiotic Bush quote of the day

Really, where were his handlers when he said this? The transceiver must have been out of range:

Bush said he is aware of the anti-war sentiments of Cindy Sheehan and others who have joined her protest near the Bush ranch. "But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job," Bush said on the ranch. "And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say."

"But," he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

Emphasis: mine

Also mine: Jaw-dropping amazement at the insensitivity!

Bush II; Day 282: The "What a surprise" edition

Boy, current events never cease to amaze!

A General doesn't want more pictures of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib released...what a surprise!

The administration has to lower their unrealistic expectations in Iraq...what a surprise!

Key excerpt: "What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground. We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Dubya can only face Cindy Sheehan obliquely in his weekly radio address...what a surprise!

I don't know about you, but I'm just floored by each of these revelations.

Bush II; Day 281: Read Cindy Sheehan at the Huffington Post

Read her piece from yesterday.

Read her piece today.

And read how Dubya responded yesterday.

OK, so somebody from the military help me out here: doesn't one usually have military objectives when one deploys troops? Is "not sending a signal" a valid military objective?

Read Cindy Sheehan's pieces today.

Bush II; Day 280: Speaking of Iraq? Oh, you mean you don't want to?

Maureen Down asks a good question: why won't Dubya just come off his ranch and lend an ear to bereft and bereaved mother Cindy Sheehan?

Well, we know why he can't now: because he's strong, strong I tell you!, and to come out now under pressure would make him look weak.

But really, how much of a dick has this behavior made him look lie?

But let's move on and address a related issue: who are really sacrificing their sons and daughters for this war? Could it be, no, don't tell me, those unpatriotic, unAmerican Blue States? Yes, yes it could you hypocritical, deceitful and divisive bastards!

Check out the map for yourself, courtesy of Needlenose:

Blue states, particularly urban areas, taking the biggest hits. What a non-surprise.

Infuriating.

Bush II; Day 279: Things are hunky-dory in Iraq. No, really.

Oh, that little problem where armed men entered the municipal offices in Baghdad and "deposed" the official mayor of the city?

That ol' thing? Why deposing mayors only happens when everyone needs a break from the daily suicide bombings.

Seriously. Take a moment. Imagine what it's like to be a regular Iraqi citizen. The chaos. The destruction. The lack of infrastructure. Or order. Or light at the end of the tunnel.

Sucks to be them.

Bush II; Day 275: Because we shouldn't forget those who make it back alive

Bob Herbert has a touching story of one badly injured soldier, and what he faces now that he's out of Iraq.

And Dr. Neubaurer, over at Yahoo! Health Experts Blog reminds us of the emotional toll war takes.

This reminds me of a personal story. About 12 years ago I dated a guy who was in the Marine Reserves by the time we met. He had been over in the Gulf War. GulfWarVet (GWV) had also been abused as a child. Let me tell you, he told me everything about that abuse, but he never wanted to talk about being over there. (And remember that was a more bloodless war.)

He wasn't actually on the front line, but in the next battalion back (forgive me if I don't use the proper military terms.) The one time he really said anything about it to me he said that it really messed with your mind because you knew death was just around the corner for some number of you, or could be. And not knowing whether you'd ever make it back, ever get married, ever have kids, ever see the people you loved again...those thoughts were your constant companions.

These soldiers are not just a backdrop for Dubya speeches. It's a damn shame we don't arm them properly, don't feed them properly, don't cover their health expenses properly.

Bush II; Day 259: The latest on Rove

The White House and RNC lapdogs led my Mehlman can say that Karl Rove is "vindicated" all they want, but the dog won't hunt.

Rove tried to say he heard about Mrs. Joseph Wilson (and yes, he does only have one wife) from a reporter first. But that didn't stop Rove from being the one who told Time reporter Matt Cooper first. And that was still wrong (whether you even believe that he heard it from a reporter to begin with.)

Heard a bunch of other stupipd rationales, weaselly excuses and attempts to turn it around on the other guy lately? Well, let the NY Times editorial staff spell it out for you. Those arguments are also pure bunk.

Key excerpts:

The obvious:
"If Mr. Rove or any other officials involved were really concerned about getting out the truth, all they would need to do would be to stand up in public and tell it."

Where the smearing is really happening:
"In fact, Mr. Wilson had excellent credentials for the mission, and the entire Niger story had already been pretty thoroughly debunked by the time Mr. Cooper and Mr. Rove spoke."

Of course now Bush is saying he'll fire anyone who "committed a crime." Wow, what a relief. Again, Dubya is the master of setting the bar so low for our country, for his administration...comforting you know.

Dishonesty, disingenuousness, deception, hell, lying...not enough anymore.

Bush II; Day 258: Let's not forget, this is all about the War

It's fun to be all mad at Rove for leaking and Bush for lying and the press corp for wimping out, but let's not forget why this matters: the White House set out to smear a government official who was trying to expose that this White House wanted to go to war so bad that it demonstrated willful dishonesty about the rationale for war and wanton disregard for the rule of law or the structure of our system of government to go to war as desired. Really. That's what this is really about.

And meanwhile, the White House continues to wantonly disregard the rule of law, and no one is holding them accountable. Like Congress. See the Pentagon owes Congress some info about the War. And they simply are not delivering it. Info about exactly how it's going over there. In some circles that would be called "Contempt of Congress."

You know they keep complaining that we're all influenced by the nightly news of more bombings and insurgency attacks in Iraq, that the news media isn't giving us the true, glowing, positive picture.

So, dudes, fork over the data, the metrics, the info that would prove it's really all going swimmingly.

Hmmm. What possible reason could they have for missing their deadline to provide data that shows how things are going over there? What reason could they have? Hey, I know...maybe because it's a big old mess, and they have no idea how to fix it?

Hat tip to The Talent Show for the link.

Bush II; Day 251: Oh dear, timing certainly is everything

And the Congress doesn't have it.

As Digby points out, we're too busy funding the Iraq War and tax cuts for the wealthy in time of war to afford little things like, oh, homeland security as one example.

Too bad they had to slash that security funding for mass transit systems in the US a mere two weeks before the London bombing huh?

They look like very silly wabbits no?

But then, so do we all at this point.

Bush II; Day 245: Defining moment is now?

Fie on all these ridiculous pundits who are calling Bush's impending Supreme Court nomination a "defining moment."

And even fie on Salon.com for saying that moment has passed...because he's already weighed in ideologically via the Schiavo case, and his recess appointments and other right-wing behavior.

Umm...hello...does no one else think that the defining moment of Bush's presidency was when he decided to lie to the American people and to Congress to justify a war he had his heart set on? And that since then he and his posse have stopped at, well, very little to silence critics, consolidate power and avoiding assigning and accountability or taking any responsibility for things that have gone terribly wrong.

Anyone?

Bush II; Day 239: Is it really, really worth it?

In the aftermath of Dubya's tired re-hash of old excuses and debunked rationales, his one plea wasfor the American people to agree with him that the cost in American lives, civilian lives and billions of dollars in Iraq was all "worth it."

Worth it because of September 11th (when we all know there is no direct connection.)

Worth it because of the spread of democracy. (When our insistence on spreading democracy is resulting in the election of exactly the kind of anti-American hard liners we don't want in power throughout the region.)

Worth it because...well...we're not really supposed to question it...that makes us bad Americans who don't support our troops.

So in honor of those troops that supposedly I don't support, why don't you read this piece from the Washington Post about our soldiers and what they're going through. It's entitled Am I Next?

Here's just one of many key excerpts:

Their faces dusty and streaked with sweat, the soldiers huddle to talk through the incident, raising more questions than answers. Why had the engineers been operating in daylight, when insurgents could easily "template" their position? Why had the infantry left them vulnerable? Why hadn't they caught the sniper who killed Miller?

Spec. John Wayne Miller was killed by sniper fire in Ramadi, Iraq, on April 12. Miller's squad leader, Staff Sgt. Steve "Shaggy" Hagedorn, is more blunt. "We spent three days clearing a route and I guarantee it's worse now than when we started," he says. "So everyone's asking, 'What are we doing it for?' Everyone's asking, 'Am I next?'"

Thanks to Christopher Betke for the link.

Bush II; Day 238: Torture is still wrong, even if we're not quite as bad as the worst people in the history of mankind!

So sue me; call me unpatriotic; remind me about two fruits...I still think it's no great glory to say that people would be happier in our prisons/detention center than in the Russian gulag or a Nazi concentration camp.

Sure I agree. But is that where we're setting the bar?

And you know what, this is one time when I'll stick it to Jon Stewart too. Yes, throwing around the Nazi word is bad...but let's not take our eye off the bigger picture which is: torture is wrong, and it puts our own military at risk.

And since I've got general Wes Clark on my side of this argument, I'm feeling pretty OK and like I've retained my patriotism. Go read what Wes has to say and sign his petition here.

Bush II; Day 235: NY Times with the smack-down

Yes, today's NY Times editorial calling for some honest communication from the White house to all Americans about what's going on in Iraq and the War on Terror is quite the smack-down.

And yet that same editorial could have been written one year ago before the election, no?

So, what's it gonna take?

Well, apparently threatening Big Bird gets people riled up.

But I'm not sure they don't like to throw issues like that out there. Get us all worked up. Then back down a bit. Just to keep us lulled into thinking that if people protest enough our government will respond.

But as far as I can tell the public is pretty damn dissatisfied with what's been going on with the War and has been for a long time. And there is not acknowledgment of that and certainly no honest straight talk about it coming from our so-called leaders.

I'm glad Big Bird is going to be OK, but let's not take our eyes off of a couple of VERY BIG ISSUES that are still not OK:

-The War...on Iraq and the other war...on terrorism.

-The economy and deficit...did you see? 2006 is going to be a slower year. Slower than what? This molasses we're living through in the Silicon Valley?

-And the efforts of the most extreme wing of the Republican Party to push their minority agenda down the throats of a populace who simply cannot seem to believe they could accomplish it!

2006 is the first opportunity to send a real message. And it's only <18 months away. Take that opportunity.

UPDATED: Bush II; Day 226: The Downing Street Memo

UPDATED: Arianna brings up a point in this post that is right on the money (about how the Administration is trying to sidestep this issue. Enough to make you puke.
====================

I have yet to weigh in on the Downing Street Memo.

Part of it is there is a fair amount of blog swarming happening on the topic, check out any of the major liberal blogs and you'll get your fill. And I did point you the other day to the blog devoted entirely to the issue. I am just not sure I can really add anything to the discussion.

But I confess that part of why I'm not writing about it is that I have felt a sense of futility. People believed Bush wanted war with Iraq before. People believed that he wasn't entirely honest about his motives before. People thought he manipulated the data to match his ideology before. Just like he's done on the environment, on sex education, on women's health issues...that is the Bush Administration's modus operandi.

But back to Iraq: regular people thought this. Media people thought this. They thought this because every insider who came out and talked openly about it frankly acknowledged it. And it was like we accepted it. The outrage was minimal. The ennui was palpable.

And now we have the Downing Street Memo. A British insider with meeting notes indicating that all that the Bush insiders were already saying is true.

And MediaMetters as always can be counted on to elaborate at length on why this Memo is important

Elsewhere, Harry Shearer highlights a particularly salient excerpt in this Huffington Post entry:

""Regime change per se is no justification for military action; it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not a goal," he said. "Elimination of Iraq's WMD capacity has to be the goal."

"Ricketts said that other countries such as Iran appeared closer to getting nuclear weapons, and that arguing for regime change in Iraq alone "does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.""

Yeah. Sounds about right. So what? Now we're going to do something about it?

Well, God I hope so.

At least we have Representative Conyers. Republicans refused to allow him to hold a hearing or inquiry on the House floor, so he held one anyway in a Capitol basement. And C-SPAN is covering it.

Remember to track all things related at the blog DowningStreetMemo.com.

Anyway, I'm trying to overcome my feeling that the American media and people have been lulled into some hypnotic state where we no longer care about lies and cover-up.

And my emergence from this funk actually may have started yesterday when AmericaBlog pointed me to this truly amusing little exchange between the weasly Scott McClellan and Terry Moran. Read it to the last line, which is truly a LOL moment.

Bush II; Day 208: Women in the military get no respect

First, I agree with Bill Maher that it's odd that the real scapegoats they're focusing on in the Abu Ghraib scandal are two women.

Second, I'm not sure what Congress (or should I say the Republican in Congress) are thinking to disrespect women soldiers and try to prevent their participation in combat activities when the army is having so much trouble recruiting as it is.

Now, Republican ideology is impacting the health care option for women soldiers.

I'm beginning to think it would serve these chickenhawks if women pulled a Lysistrata...only instead of withholding sex, all the women in the military could go on strike.

Yeah, gret idea...they'll all be thrown in the brig.

And yes, I know I'm mixing my military metaphors.

But really, read the NY Times editorial above and see if you don't get completely aggravated into near incoherence.

Bush II; Day 183: FYI: People are still dying in Iraq

I feel it's my duty to remind you every now and then that as much as it seems to be a backburner topic and certainly nothing that the Dubya administration wants to acknowledge or address...bad stuff is still going on nearly every day in Iraq.

Cases in point:

Dozens die as Iraqi police recrutment center bombed.
More Iraqis blown up as they volunteer to serve their country.
At least 60 Kurds killed for helping combat the insurgents

Source: New York Times over the last two days

Or just look at the first page of the NY Times Search on "violence".

Just in case the Republicans are succeeding in making us think everything is hunky-dory over there.

Oh, and PS - it's a corrupt financial sink-hole over there too. Jeez.

Bush II; Day 175: Have we forgotten all about terrorism?

So many screw-ups, so little brain-space to remember them all.

You know the one area where Dubya still polls well? The War on Terrorism. What a joke!

According to this Reuters report, World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004.

Oh, and OBL and the Z-man are still on the loose too.

No wonder Dubya would rather talk about Social Security, even though that's a loser of an issue too.

Bush II; Day 150: Don't let the shock overwhelm you, but...

...the data on WMDs in Iraq was "dead wrong."

Yes, yes, I know this news must shake you to your very core, but a recent report from a presidential commission on intelligence found that the data, and how it was gathered, was fatally flawed.

And that procedures still haven't really been fixed.

But here, without doubt, is my favorite paragraph in the above article from the WaPo (emphasis mine):

"Yet while unstinting in its appraisal of intelligence agencies, the panel that Bush appointed under pressure in February 2004 said it was "not authorized" to explore the question of how the commander in chief used the faulty information to make perhaps the most critical decision of his presidency. As he accepted the report yesterday, Bush offered no thoughts about relying on flawed intelligence to launch a war and took no questions from reporters."

I know it's not meant to be funny, but seriously, don't you just have to laugh in a really pained way...sort of like when you watch Curb Your Enthusiasm or The Office?

How much do you want to bet this story is reported for exactly one day in the mainstream press, and that no one will follow up in a few weeks and see if any action has really been taken on the commission's recommendations or not?

Sigh.

Bush II; Day Ninety-Eight: The deaths continue; the press yawns

Has anyone else noticed that the media seems so hypnotized by the elections in Iraq that no one is commenting on the daily round-up of successful insurgent attacks on our own military, Iraqi forces and civilians?

Yes, Reuters and the AP have their obligatory story per day on the 21 killed yesterday and the 27 killed the day before, not to mention the dozens killed on Election Day.

But where is the additional commentary and analysis? The war is remaining as deadly as it has ever been, but the watchful eye of the press seems turned elsewhere.

It's like we've become completely inured to the daily death toll. It gets its one news item in the morning, and that's it.

Am I missing the outcry somewhere?

Bush II; Day Eighty: More on Condi Rice

Well, Kerry and Boxer at least bothered to vote 'No' on Condi's confirmation, unlike the other sitting Democrats on the committee.

Kerry did it in a sort of "I know it's fruitless, but I'd like to send a message" kind of way.

Boxer actually took her rejection seriously.

And given that Condi gave no indication that she is even the slightest bit concerned about lack of diplomacy, reliable evidence, truth when talking to the American people or anything else I thought Americans cared about, none of these wimpy, wussy Senators who are going to let her confirmation go through without a whisper should act surprised when things continue spiraling downward in our foreign relations.

Seriously, it's like they were saying, "Oh, please try to do just a teensy bit better in this 2nd term, OK? Please? See, we asked nicely!"

Feh.

Bush II; Day Seventy-Nine: Arianna Nails It Again...what will it take for Democrats to at least ask the tough questions?

Arianna Huffington's latest online column is smack dab on the money yet again.

Soon Congress will be asked to approve billions more in war funding, and it's time to ask the real, tough questions that frankly I think all Americans want answered. Look, the latest WaPo poll results show a dismal lack of support for the job Dubya is doing in Iraq, so despite his sunny recounting of the "accountability moment" that was the 2004 Elections, he's got some 'splainin' to do.

Like: how much more money will they ask for?

Like: how will you pay for more? Since your budget figures don't include war costs, exactly what are your thoughts: maybe roll back some of your tax cuts for the wealthy? No? Then what...where do tens of billions more come from?

Like: why is the Iraqi reconstruction so half-ass? Hey, I watch "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." With enough money, manpower and motivation they seem to work miracles. Well, I'd say we've been throwing the money at the problem...are we lacking the other two things?

Arianna urges the Democrats to find their backbones and ask these kindof questions, and so do I!

we can't leave itall up to Barbara Boxer.

Sometimes a Picture really Is Worth 1000 Words

Check this one out.

It's depressing and heart-breaking.

But you should look anyway.

Don't worry: it's not of a guy getting his head cut off or of dead Tsunami victims. But there is some blood.

Bush II; Day Seventy-Five: Elections?They're not "pivotal" anymore, just the "start"of the process!

I could just scream at the hypocrisy, and worse, how they get away with it.

Rather than postpone the elections until the country of Iraq could possibly be in good enough shape to hold them safely, the Administration would prefer to have them, and just admit up front they're kind of symbolic. No, not even symbolic...symbols have some meaning.

Let me get this straight. The ever-morphing reasons for going to war in the first place ended up settling on the whole "set Iraq up as a democracy and the rest of the Mid-east nations will fall like dominoes on the path of democracy too." Right?

And now, we can't even show them proper democracy in action. (Of course, we haven't even been able to do that in our own country, so why am I surprised?")

I just love how the Administration is able to change their tune with impunity over and over...and no one is calling them flip-floppers! Why the hell not?

This whole war has been one, long loser-move. And sending them into this mess and keeping them mired in a mess is no way of "supporting" our troops.

Daily Kos has more.

Bush II; Day Seventy-Three: Naive, Misled Voters

I talked to a lot of voters during the campaign. And I went out of my way to talk to those who did not share my point of view. I talked to lots of people who were going to vote for Bush, or, though undecided, were leaning his way.

Now, you can find pundits on TV and in blogs who claim to love, love, love the War in Iraq. But the real, everyday people I talked to? Not one of them felt good about there being no WMDs. Not one of them felt good about going in and being unprepared for the level of insurgency we would encounter. Not one of them felt Bush had told us the whole truth, or that he had been served well by his team. And most of them felt a little uncomfortable with Bush's inability to admit that anything was wrong or that any mistakes were made.

And some of them even expressed the "changing horses mid-stream" cliche an alternate way: "it's his mess, he should clean it up."

And those voters still felt like they could vote for Bush. Some like a (very disappointing) Mark Cuban attributed their vote to that hard-to-define quality: Leadership. Others simply did not know Kerry would do better, so they stuck with the devil they knew.

But the President who sees 50.8% of the vote as a mandate doesn't have time for such subtleties. And the President who sold stubbornness and arrogance as "Leadership" is really still just stubborn and arrogant.

And those naive voters who felt sure that Bush would learn from his first term mistakes and approach the second term wiser and with a little more humility handed him, instead, all the justification he felt he needed to continue on, status quo firmly in place.

Yes, Bush believes your votes in the 2004 election "ratified" his actions in Iraq. That that was the "accountability moment", and the voters spoke, so there is no need to hold anyone in his Administration "accountable" in any other way.

I feel very sad for our country that this childish and narrow thinker is our "leader".

Breaking News: Abu Ghraib Soldier Convicted

I have mixed feelings.

I believe this soldier was wrong, and must have known what he was doing was wrong.

I also believe that those higher up did know what was happening, in fact likely authorized or even ordered it.

And not one of them is going to face the music for these wrongdoings. Not one. officer.

This guy was wrong, but he's taking the fall for a lot of higher up folks who were even more wrong. And that's too bad.

Bush II; Day Fifty-Four: More on the Iraq elections

The whole Iraqi election topic seems fraught with inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and recipes for disaster.

Read all about it in the extended entry:

First of all, I continue to think we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. We proclaim that we are not occupiers, that the Iraqis want to run their own government, run their own security etc. Yet, we, the US government, are the ones refusing to entertain any suggestions of delaying the elections. My question continues to be, shouldn't we at least be letting it appear like the interim Iraqi government has a say in when they hold elections?

Now, there's this prickly issue of: when is a democracy NOT a democracy? When, actual election results are ignored to guarantee a certain presence in the government for opposition parties. Yes, there are suggestions being floated that the Sunni Party get some guaranteed presence in the government, regardless of whether they win it by votes or not. Hey, neat idea...are you going to give some Democrats judgeships and cabinet seats, Dubya? You know, to avoid polarization?

But, it may all be a moot point anyway, as the WaPo reports that the Sunnis are "pulling out" of the elections. Again, voices inside Iraq beg for more time to prepare for the elections...both to improve security and to educate the people...but those voices are ignored. Sort of like the Administration ignored the military voices who urged them to send more troops, don't you think?

It just sounds ugly and getting uglier all the time.

Bush II; Day Forty-Nine: Who Knew What When?

It continues to look ugly...the whole torture problem.

Why are we not more up in arms about this? It confounds me.

Here are some links to keep you up-to-date:
Washington Post 12/21
Washington Post 12/22
TalkLeft's take on it

Bush II; Day Forty-Seven: Iraq insurgency seems more coordinated

From Reuters: Bombing attacks continue in Iraq, this time coordinated across more than one holy city. in addition, election officials have been targeted and murdered.

We are 6 weeks before the election. Is there really any hope that this election can continue, as planned, come off without any major glitches, and can extinguish some of the flames, both rhetorical and real, that are consuming Iraq?

I hope so, but I fear it may not be so.

Bush II; Day Thirty-Seven: They're attacking our troops AND the infrastructure

What would drive a people to act outside their own self-interest and the interests of their countrymen?

Why would the insurgents in Iraq go beyond attacking our troops, which may be reprehensible, but is hardly incomprehensible, and attack efforts to reconstruct the country?

While Bush would say it's because they "hate freedom", I fail to see why these people would want to preside over a country on its crumbling last legs either.

And for those of you wondering why I wonder why the insurgents do what they do: rent "Fog of War." Robert S. McNamara's first lesson: Empathize with the Enemy.

Not sympathize.

Not pity.

Not concur.

But empathize...understand their perspective and what drives them.

So what reasons are there for this destruction of their own country?

I consider a few in the extended entry:

1. They are fighting an occupier with the blind, lashing out violence of caged animals.

2. They believe the reconstruction efforts are only lining American pockets, so harming the projects really hurts America more than Iraq.

3. They don't want America to have any credit for any good deeds in Iraq. They want to drive us out, and then rebuild, so that all the credit remains internal.

We can say (and we do) it's because they're just a cold-blooded vicious enemy who want to instill fear and keep things chaotic, or we can try to understand what the enemy imagines their purpose to be.

Every example I can think of boils down to driving out what they perceive to be the occupying force and take control of their own country.

Does that mean I think the country would be better off with these peope in charge? Nope. Does that mean I know what to do about it? Nope.

But it surely should be somebody's job to figure it out and try a companion strategy that is more than what we are doing now. We can do what we are doing now, and it will never end.

Bush II; Day Thirty-Six: Rumsfeld to Troops: "Sh*t Happens"

Well, maybe he didn't say that exactly, but I think it's a pretty fair paraphrase.

I suppose you'd be a little thrown off too if a photo op with soldiers turned into an interrogation.

But do you really think the best answer for soldiers wondering why they are scavenging through junkyards for metal to try to arm their vehicles is: 'well that armor won't help you if the tank totally blows up'?

I think he could have done a little tiny bit better than this.

Bush II; Day Twenty-Four: The other shoe drops

Admit it, you were just like me, convinced that there was no way Iraq could really hold elections in january.

And yet very few like-minded mainstream media or government folks said so out loud. To do so was "un-American", "anti-democracy", "encouraging our enemies."

That's what i find so offensive about this Administration: truth is anathema.

Well, the other shoe has dropped, and no, Iraqi officials don't think there is any way to hold elections next month. Try again in another 6 months.

No one on our side of the world is going to admit that the inevitable yet. And when they do, you can bet it will be "letting the Iraqis decide their own fate", since we're not an occupying force or anything.

Bush II; Day Thirteen: Supporting Our Troops

Perhaps supporting our troops would include:

1. Not putting them in untenable situations, so that they don't end up behaving in ways that bring even further scorn and anger their way...for example Abu Ghraib, or this latest nightmare.

2. Not spreading them so thin that we have to call up men nearing 50 who haven't served in years. [reg. required]

Bush II; Day Ten: Is This a Flip Flop?

Seriously...check out these two headlines on the very same day. I can't figure out if the problem is a so-called-liberal-media problem, or Bush purposely keeping us all confused by sending such mixed messages. After all a confused populace can't really pinpoint what they're dissatisfied with and focus on changing it...can they?

Reuters: Bush Warns of Growing Violence in Iraq

Associated Press: Bush Paints Rosy Picture of Iraq Situation

Bush II; Day Nine: Another Catastrophic Success?

OK, we finally go after Fallujah...and whether we were waiting for Allawi's OK or for the election to be over with, it doesn't matter...the point is they think many of the insurgency leaders were able to escape.

So, I'm just asking...will Bush define this as another catastrophic success?

Bush II; Day Six: Reduced accountability for funding terrorism, and anti-environment plans continue

Two stories grabbed my attention on this, day Day Six of Bush II:

1. Despite a lot of tough talk, companies that do business with terrorist-sponsoring nations don't seem to suffer much for it. I'll ask the question I always do: exactly how "pro-business" do we need to be? Pro- enough to let them continue, unfettered, funneling money to and from the people we claim to be warring against? Apparently.

Source: Associated Press

2. Bush is once again interpreting his slim win as a mandate to continue being the worst environment president ever. The free market will make sure that companies do the right thing by the environment, at least according to BushCo. Get ready for drilling in the Arctic, relaxed standards for polluting companuies and more.

Source: NY Times [Reg. Required.]

Bush II; Day Five: Iraq Declares martial Law, US Troops Await ALLAWI'S OK?

OK.

Two bad things here. Obviously martial law in Iraq is not a good sign for free and fair elections to be held 2 months from now.

But also, I'm simply confused. I'm pretty sure one of Bush's major flip-flops is on the issue of who's in charge of the US military effort there.

On the one hand he has stated that the US controls their own military...and its tactics.

On the other hand, in an effort to respond to the charge of the US as "occupiers", we seem to be now waiting for commands from Iraqi interim President Allawi.

And isn't that a disaster waiting to happen?

It'd be one thing if US troops were part of a large multi-national force under the command of, say, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander or something. But they're not...Poland aside.

I find it confusing...and obviously I'm concerned that our troops are the pawns.

So It Begins: How Dare Art Examine War?

Thought my readers here might find this interesting;

I also blog for a theatre company in San Francisco called 42nd St. Moon. They specialize in classic musicals, especially those from the earlier eras that may have been "lost" for many decades.

A show called "Hooray For What!" is opening in a week. It was performed in 1937, and its a wild farce that satirizes war profiteering, jingoism and war hawks. (This was in a still isolationist US after all.) The lyricist and co-author of the book was a known leftist, Yip Harburg.

When 42nd St. Moon sent their email blast to their subscriber list, promoting the show and its "relevant anti-war theme", they got a nastygram back from one reader...citing Tuesday's Kerry loss as evidence that "anti-war daydreaming" is not relevant!

Yikes.

Even though their blog is pretty light in tone, they let me respond in the blog, which you can find here:

42nd St. Moon's Blog

Bush II; Day Two: US Soldiers confirm Al QaQaa looted on their watch

Conveniently waiting to tell their story until after election day and requesting anonymity for fear for their jobs, US troops tell the story of the looting of Al Qaqaa.

60 Minutes Last Night

Am I the only one who felt strong sympathy for that National Guard Commander, desperately trying to find a way to be both honest and cover his ass by not lambasting the Administration? I didn't know one person could blink that much in such a short period of time.

So ironic that Cheney is now settling on saying Kerry has no plan for Iraq. Its the height of arrogance, and let's hope hubris, that Cheney can't see that it is HIS TEAM that is supposed to have a plan RIGHT NOW, and that if HIS TEAM had had one from the beginning, the next President wouldn't be in quite the pickle he's going to be in, figuring it out.

Truly sad that this crew in the White House are willing to sacrifice the troops they say they support (all except Giuliani of course.) And for what?

Tax cuts for the wealthy.

Finishing what Bush I didn't.

The fantasy of what being a "War President" would do for poll numbers.

Who Dares To Say: OBL Tape is a "Little Gift"?

I was talking to my mom yesterday, and she was wondering about the political impact of the OBL tape.

We agreed there were two schools of thought (neither of which I claim to be completely accurate, just representative) :

1. Tape reminds us of fear; and scares us about changing "horses mid-stream." God, I hate that phrase by now. Moreover, tape makes American people want to leap to the defense of our current leader in the face of this guy's taunts. Helps Bush.

2. Tape reminds us that Bush abandoned the hunt for bin Laden to go into Iraq. And gee, doesn't bin Laden look healthy and secure? And BTW: if you think about it, isn't bin Laden counting on the American people feeling as described in school of thought #1, Bush getting re-elected, and therefore his #1 recruitment tool staying around? Helps Kerry.

I don't think either option is really going to happen. But what I DO think would influence people, if they heard about it in any mainstream media programming, is the fact that Bush advisers are practically giddy over the appearance of the tape, going so far as to call it a "little gift."

And as blogger Matt Yglesias said: if an administration believes that increased fear of terrorism improves their political standing, what incentive have they to reduce the fear of terrorism?

Makes you sick, doesn't it? And is perfect ammunition for a backlash.

Source: The Moderate Voice commenting on the NY Daily News story.

Transcript of OBL's Video

The US mainstream media is only showing sound bites of this, so if you're interested, here's the entire transcript.

It's pretty easy to say we don't care what a terrorist murderer says.

And I certainly don't like it. Especially the whole "Let's blame Israel" (who has been under attack and defending its very existence since its inception) BS.

But, it IS going to provide some insight into the mess we're in, and into the enemy's mind.