Congress turns another Page

Am I surprised to learn that a Congressman is a sexual predator? Not really. Disgusted, but not surprised. Am I surprised to learn that Representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) has been preying on underage Congressional interns? It's happened before, so I guess not. I'm not even surprised that the (as of yesterday) former Congressman's prediliction was for young boys instead of girls. Our generation has, for the most part, gotten over the shock at the occasional outing of public figures preferred gender choices. The irony - Rep. Foley was chaired a committee for the protection of missing and exploited children - of course adds a nice dramatic touch and not a little hypocricy to the story.

I guess in some ways, I can feel sorry for Mr. Foley. He has an excuse. He "is sick." He can't help the way his brain is wired.

Even sicker than Mr. Foley though, is the fact that "top Republicans" have been keeping his secret for him since October 2005 - almost an entire year. They even allowed Mr. Foley to retain his place as head of the Congressional children's issues caucus.

"Representative John A. Boehner, the majority leader, and Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee" have known that this pedophile was soliciting underage pages for nearly a year. "Mr. Reynolds said in a statement Saturday that he had also personally raised the issue with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert." G.O.P. Leaders Knew in Late ’05 of E-Mail, NY Times, October 1, 2006.

Speaker Hastert, for his part, has issued a non-denial-denial. According to the Speaker's office: “While the speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.” Id.

I'm not surprised by the hypocricy, but I am revolted.

What family values was this secret supposed to promote?

While everyone rushes to investigate Rep. Foley. It seems to me that the real investigation should be into why Republican House leaders hushed this matter up for a year.

Are House Republicans and party leaders so eager to retain votes that they will even overlook pedophilia in their own ranks?

It seems there is no crime or atrocity horrible enough for Republicans to turn on one of their own. House Republicans have supported George Bush on every step of his march towards dictatorship. They approved an unnecessary war of adventure, they failed to investigate the President's approval of the use of torture, indeterminate detentions, extraordinary renditions, illegal wiretaps, and spying on U.S. Citizens. Americans are finally becoming aware that the President has engaged in hundreds, if not thousands of criminal acts, including brazen usurpation of unconstitutional powers, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. So what did Congress do? Yesterday, it passed a statute legalizing these crimes and retroactively forgiving anyone who commited them.

I'm only surprised they didn't try to protect Rep. Foley by decriminalizing pedophilia.

Meanwhile, the Democrats couldn't even protect Pres. Clinton from the fallout from a completely legal blowjob.

That's party unity for you.

The Republican Party is sick to its very core. It is not the party of American Values, it is not the party of Family Values. It has become the party of whatever Bush wants, Bush gets and every principle to the contrary be damned.

Well, they should be damned for coddling Rep. Foley for a year. Will America respond with the indignity the situation so rightously demands? Will Dennis Hastert be removed as speaker? Will John Boehner, majority leader, still lead the majority? Will the majority follow the lead of a pedophile's apologist? Will Rep. Reynolds continue to chair the Republican Party? Or will mainstream Republicans finally demand a more principled leadership and sweep out the bad blood that has taken over their party?

Is winning at any cost really winning?

When the price of victory is your soul, I don't think so.

Stuff Happens . . . Not Twice, but Three Times

Frank Rich has written an excellent column suggesting that the fate of the National Museum of Iraq reflects the war in a microcosm. I agree

This is not the first article or opinion piece I have seen published concerning the fate of the Museum and some 14,000 priceless treasures from the literal dawn of civilization. Yes, it is a terrible thing, yes it could have been prevented, yes it should have prevented.

But what is constantly missing from these reports is mention of the public outcry made by museum officials, archaeologists and historians from around the world MONTHS BEFORE THE WAR BEGAN begging for protection of the museum and important archaeological sites throughout Iraq (it's been said that Iraq is a desert country - there are no natural hills - if you see a hill, it's probably an archaeological site waiting to be explored).

I received my first notice back in November 2002 that a reporter for the French magazine Archeologia was preparing an article concerning the potential impact a war would have on the museum and archaeological sites. Archaeologists in Iraq were arming themselves to protect sites from the looting that was expected in the event of war. . . looting was anticipated because it occurred on a large scale after the first President Bush's 1991 war.

On January 24, 2003, Elizabeth Neuffer, wrote in the Boston Globe:

A Pentagon official confirmed a week ago that a group of archeologists had made a direct plea to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to consider protecting antiquities in Iraq. The official said Rumsfeld had invited the archeologists to supply any information about sensitive sites to military planners.

Ashton Hawkins, president of the American Council for Cultural Policy, and Maxwell Anderson, president of the American Association of Art Museum Directors, had appealed to the US military in a column in the Washington Post in November for such consideration.

In war scenario, antiquities seen in the line of fire, Boston Globe (Jan 24, 2003).

On or about January 28, 2003, the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) published a plea for the protection of Iraq's antiquities:

As the prospect for war in Iraq gains momentum, archaeologists have become increasingly concerned about the fate of that country’s archaeological sites, antiquities, and cultural property. In the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, the Archaeological Institute of America passed a Resolution Regarding War and the Destruction of Antiquities (PDF), which urges all governments to honor the terms of the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

As the oldest and largest organization in North America devoted to the study and preservation of the world’s cultural heritage, the Archaeological Institute of America expresses its profound concern about the potential for damage to monuments, sites, antiquities, and cultural institutions as a result of war.

Iraq, the land of Mesopotamia located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, is the home of some of the world’s oldest and most significant archaeological and cultural sites. One of the areas of initial agriculture and animal domestication, Iraq was the center of the development of cuneiform writing on clay tablets in ca. 3200 B.C. Numerous archaeological sites relating to Biblical history and the Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian Empires are located in Iraq, including Babylon, Ur, Ashur, Nineveh and Nimrud. Iraq’s museums, particularly the national museum in Baghdad and the regional museum in Mosul, are repositories for countless irreplaceable sculptures, inscribed tablets, reliefs, cylinder seals and other cultural objects that record this history.

The AIA therefore urges all governments, working in accordance with the terms of the Hague Convention, in concert with recognized experts in the scholarly community, to develop and implement carefully-researched programs to protect ancient sites, monuments, antiquities, and cultural institutions in the case of war. The AIA also offers the expertise of its members to assist all governments in undertaking these programs.

The AIA pointed out that archaeological sites and museums in Iraq were looted on a large scale, following the 1991 Gulf War and therefore:

The AIA is particularly concerned that in the aftermath of war, Iraqi cultural objects may be removed from museums and archaeological sites and placed on the international art market. The removal of such objects would denude the national and local museums of Iraq and cause irreparable losses to some of the world’s most significant archaeological sites.

1167 international scholars signed a petition that was delivered to UNESCO in April 2003, calling for the protection of Iraqi cultural property, institutions and historical sites

Throughout the early months of 2003 reports were published in numerous papers, magazines and radio programs including the New York Times, Archaeology, and NPR calling for the protection of Iraqi antiquities.

On or about February 15, 2003, the news of Anatolian Agency, (A.A), Ankara, reported that at the direction of Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul "The Turkish Embassy in Washington D.C. has launched initiatives in the U.S. State Department about protection of all historical works and cultural inheritance in Iraq. U.S. officials said that they were sensitive about protection of cultural inheritance and that the Pentagon had been carrying out works to this end," it said.

In addition to the public outcry and private communications with the administration. International law also required the protection of the Museum and other archaeological sites in Iraq. Article 4, Section 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, Done at the Hague, 14 May 1954, provides that:

The High Contracting Parties further undertake to prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, cultural property.

Article 5 of the Convention further provides that:

1. Any High Contracting Party in occupation of the whole or part of the territory of another High Contracting Party shall as far as possible support the competent national authorities of the occupied country in safeguarding and preserving its ultural property.

2. Should it prove necessary to take measures to preserve cultural property situated in occupied territory and damaged by military operations, and should the competent national authorities be unable to take such measures, the Occupying Power shall, as far as possible, and in close co-operation with such authorities, take the most necessary measures of preservation.

To quote Yul Brynner, "et cetera, et cetera, et cetera"

The point is this. The looting that took place in Baghdad, at the National Museum, and elsewhere in Iraq was WHOLLY PREVENTIBLE. Donald Rumsfeld himself requested that archaeologists provide military planners with information concerning sensitive sites.

So let's see now, (i) Rumsfeld KNEW the sites had to be protected (ii) Rumsfeld committed to protecting them, (iii) the Hague convention REQUIRES the sites be protected, and (iv) we didn't protect them.

To me, the news is not that the Museum was looted. The news is that the US entirely failed to live up to its obligation to protect the Museum.

Mr. Rich accepts Don Rumsfeld's "stuff happens" as a symbol of the short-sightedness, irresponsibility and incompetence of the Bush Administration's three year killing frenzy in Iraq.

However, as far as the Museum is concerned, I cannot accept "stuff happens". There is no excuse for Donald Rumsfeld's failure to protect a vast treasury of humanity which he was fully aware needed his protection.

The Devil Made Me Say It

I am having trouble understanding all of the fuss over Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' calling President Bush the "devil".

Yes. It was childish. Yes. It does little to promote dialogue. Yes. I expect a higher level of discourse from leaders on the world stage.

But then, it was the "Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan who called the government of Iran "the strangest collection of looney tunes and squalid criminals since the Third Reich"

Was that any better?

On January 20, 2002, in his State of the Union message, George Bush referred to North Korea, Iran and Iraq collectively as the "Axis of Evil."

Was Pres. Chavez's remark really less appropriate? If it is permissible for U.S. leaders to engage in childish name calling, why is it not permissible for other world leaders?

Okay. I admit. I was not a fan of Ronald Reagan and I am not a fan of George Bush. I would not hold either of them out as an example for other world leaders to emulate. I think childishness is simply childishness, wherever it comes from.

There is a shallow, surface issue and a deeper substantive issue here. The surface issue is this: was Pres. Chavez really out of line in his decision to taunt Pres. Bush? Should he be condemned for behaving childishly when we laud our own leaders when they are equally juvenile?

Of course, this is America, where depth is considered a past time for ivy-towered liberals these days and looked upon with derision, scorn and suspicion. Thus, Democrats and Republicans are falling all over each other to express their respect for the Presidency.

I agree with Bill Clinton. Pres. Chavez may have done more to further his cause had he used less rhetoric. President Chavez has important things to say which are lost in the haze of rhetoric engendered by his juvenile attempts at humor. These are the deeper issues that should be discussed and are going unnoticed. That's the real shame.

As long as I'm on the issue, a couple of side points.

Bush is NOT the devil. That would imply a level of competence that he has shown absolutely no aptitude for.

I think Bush is a war criminal. I think he has committed crime after crime after crime: from authorizing torture, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, to beginning a war of aggression. He is a liar, a lightweight, and a coward. It doesn't bother me one whit that there are people out there who agree with me, and I am happy to hear them speak their mind.

I think the worst form of hypocracy is the form being practiced by people like Charles Rangel (who I ordinarily admire greatly) - that is the hypocracy of stating publicly, that its okay if WE criticize our president, but not if some foreigner does it. Rep. Rangel is one of the President's most vocal critics. I think it takes a lot of nerve for him (and others) to condemn Pres. Chavez for agreeing with him.

More Tortures R Us

I already have lots of reasons for being unimpressed by Judge Richard A. Posner's legal jurisprudence. Objective economic analysis is not very useful when value judgments are necessarily subjective. How do you quantify the value of a free press? The freedom from cruel and inhuman punishment? The right to a trial? The presumption of innocence?

Apparantly, it is not worth much at all. In his new book, "Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency" Judge Posner writes "coercive interrogation up to and including torture might survive constitutional challenge as long as the fruits of such interrogation were not used in a criminal prosecution.”

It is little short of frightening that a Judge sitting on one of the highest courts in the Country can even consider such a proposition - let alone advance it as plausible.

It is even more frightening that Judge Posner writes “there is no handle in the constitutional text for the unilateral assumption of dictatorial powers by the president, no matter how desperate the circumstances."

Notice the use of the term "unilateral". Perhaps the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president would be permissible according to Posner if, say, a compliant Congress approved the act.

In fact, that is exactly what is happening today. President Bush has unilaterally assumed the right to imprison people without charges, search homes without warrants, or with secret warrants, to hold prisoners without access to courts, lawyers, friends, or family. To maintain secret prisons for the purpose of torturing secret prisoners. Of wiretapping the telephones and e-mail of countless individuals with no oversight whatsoever.

The President has already assumed dictatorial powers and Congress has been compliant. Judge Posner's new book is an apologia for these anti-democratic and unconstitutional arrogations of power. Judge Posner has written an apologia that would extend to the Nuremburg Laws. . . .it was a time of emergency, they were approved by the legislature, so they weren't so bad, just as surely as it extends to the excesses and crimes against humanity of George Bush and his administration.

Judge Posner writes "We don’t want the Constitution to be just an old piece of parchment”, but it sounds as though he already considers the Constitution to be little more than that.

For a thorough review of Judge Posner's latest see Michiko Kakutani, A Jurist’s Argument for Bending the Constitution, NY Times Book Review, Sept. 19, 2006

Who opposes torture? We do.

The following letter opposing President Bush's proposal for the creation of kangaroo courts and the legalization of torture was signed and submitted to the Armed Service Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives on September 12. The 28 signatories of the letter are:

Gen. Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.), Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret.), Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.), Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.), Vice Adm. Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.), Lt. Gen. Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.), Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan, USN (Ret.), Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA (Ret.), Maj. Gen. Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.), Maj. Gen. John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.), Rear Adm. Don Guter, USN (Ret.), Maj. Gen. Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.) Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.), Maj. Gen. Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.), Maj. Gen. Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.), Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.), Brig. Gen. James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.), Brig. Gen. Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.), Brig. Gen. David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.), Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, USA (Ret.), Brig. Gen. Richard O’Meara, USA (Ret.), Brig. Gen. Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.) Brig. Gen. Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.), Brig. Gen. Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.), Amb. Pete Peterson, USAF (Ret.), Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret.), Hon. William H. Taft IV

The letter itself reads as follows:

As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces and former officials of the Department of Defense, we write to express our profound concern about a key provision of S. 3861, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, introduced last week at the behest of the President. We believe that the language that would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as equivalent to the standards contained in the Detainee Treatment Act violates the core principles of the Geneva Conventions and poses a grave threat to American service-members, now and in future wars.

We supported your efforts last year to clarify that all detainees in U.S. custody must be treated humanely. That was particularly important, because the Administration determined that it was not bound by the basic humane treatment standards contained in Geneva Common Article 3. Now that the Supreme Court has made clear that treatment of al Qaeda prisoners is governed by the Geneva Convention standards, the Administration is seeking to redefine Common Article 3, so as to downgrade those standards. We urge you to reject this effort.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provides the minimum standards for humane treatment and fair justice that apply to anyone captured in armed conflict. These standards were specifically designed to ensure that those who fall outside the other, more extensive, protections of the Conventions are treated in accordance with the values of civilized nations. The framers of the Conventions, including the American representatives, in particular wanted to ensure that Common Article 3 would apply in situations where a state party to the treaty, like the United States, fights an adversary that is not a party, including irregular forces like al Qaeda. The United States military has abided by the basic requirements of Common Article 3 in every conflict since the Conventions were adopted. In each case, we applied the Geneva Conventions -- including, at a minimum, Common Article 3 -- even to enemies that systematically violated the Conventions themselves.

We have abided by this standard in our own conduct for a simple reason: the same standard serves to protect American servicemen and women when they engage in conflicts covered by Common Article 3. Preserving the integrity of this standard has become increasingly important in recent years when our adversaries often are not nation-states. Congress acted in 1997 to further this goal by criminalizing violations of Common Article 3 in the War Crimes Act, enabling us to hold accountable those who abuse our captured personnel, no matter the nature of the armed conflict.

If any agency of the U.S. government is excused from compliance with these standards, or if we seek to redefine what Common Article 3 requires, we should not imagine that our enemies will take notice of the technical distinctions when they hold U.S. prisoners captive. If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners.

This is not just a theoretical concern. We have people deployed right now in theaters where Common Article 3 is the only source of legal protection should they be captured. If we allow that standard to be eroded, we put their safety at greater risk.

Last week, the Department of Defense issued a Directive reaffirming that the military will uphold the requirements of Common Article 3 with respect to all prisoners in its custody. We welcome this new policy. Our servicemen and women have operated for too long with unclear and unlawful guidance on detainee treatment, and some have been left to take the blame when things went wrong. The guidance is now clear.

But that clarity will be short-lived if the approach taken by Administration’s bill prevails. In contrast to the Pentagon’s new rules on detainee treatment, the bill would limit our definition of Common Article 3's terms by introducing a flexible, sliding scale that might allow certain coercive interrogation techniques under some circumstances, while forbidding them under others. This would replace an absolute standard – Common Article 3 -- with a relative one. To do so will only create further confusion.

Moreover, were we to take this step, we would be viewed by the rest of the world as having formally renounced the clear strictures of the Geneva Conventions. Our enemies would be encouraged to interpret the Conventions in their own way as well, placing our troops in jeopardy in future conflicts. And American moral authority in the war would be further damaged.

All of this is unnecessary. As the senior serving Judge Advocates General recently testified, our armed forces have trained to Common Article 3 and can live within its requirements while waging the war on terror effectively.

As the United States has greater exposure militarily than any other nation, we have long emphasized the reciprocal nature of the Geneva Conventions. That is why we believe – and the United States has always asserted -- that a broad interpretation of Common Article 3 is vital to the safety of U.S. personnel. But the Administration’s bill would put us on the opposite side of that argument. We urge you to consider the impact that redefining Common Article 3 would have on Americans who put their lives at risk in defense of our Nation. We believe their interests, and their safety and protection should they become prisoners, should be your highest priority as you address this issue.

(emphasis added). A copy of the letter, together with four pages of biographical information on the 28 signers is available from the New York Times web site.

This is not exactly a congregation of Yippies. These are people who have devoted their entire careers to the defense of the United States, and who have earned and held some of the highest ranks and positions that the U.S. Military has had to offer.

When it comes to the defense of the United States, I trust their judgment a lot more than the judgment of a man who managed to get himself a cushy job in the National Guard to avoid Vietnam service and then didn't bother showing up.

Tortures R Us

Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the Republican Dream Team (oh, and President Bush) seem to have made an extraordinary calculation.

The last two weeks have seen remarkable revelations from the President: we DO have secret prisons; we DO have secret detainees; we DO torture prisoners (oops, I mean we use "alternative interrogation techniques": we don't torture, we merely euphemismize our captives to death). The President additionally asked Congress to approve torture, secret courts that may hold secret trials and may rely on evidence that is not shown to the defense. (I wonder. What are the politically correct (for republicans) eumphemisms for "Star Chamber" and "kangaroo court"?)

The intent was to emphasize the difference between the so-called tough-on-terror Republicans and the cut-and-run democrats.

Only the ploy has backfired. Some of Congress' most influential Republicans, including Senator John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as Senators John McCain,of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine, have expressed strong opposition to the President's proposals. Rebuff for Bush on Terror Trials in a Senate Test, NY Times (Sept. 15, 2006).

The President is so busy fighting with his own party that he barely has time to smear the loyal opposition (remember that term Mr. Bush?). This very public battle has made it possible for Democrats to take ringside seats and enjoy the action.

Why all of the dissent? Perhaps members of the party are starting to think that "I support torture" really isn't a very good campaign slogan. However, I believe it is more than this.

I believe that Sens. Warner, McCain, Graham and Collins are sincere in their opposition to torture and support for the Geneva Conventions.

I believe that George Bush does not represent, and never did, the mainstream of the Republican Party.

George Bush was elected because he LIED to the American People. He LIED repeatedly - about the impact of his tax cuts, about his plans for Iraq, about his support for the Powell Doctrine, about his opposition to wars for the purpose of "regime change". If he had told people this is what he intended, if he had told them he intended to approve secret prisons, secret trials, torture, unfettered wiretaps without any supervision, secret searches and secret prisoners, that he intended to launch a war against Iraq to promote democracy in the mideast - if he had told everyone that he intended to tax the poor and middle class up the wazoo while reducing the tax burden of the very wealthiest - If he had told us all this, is it at all possible that he could have been elected president? Or for that matter dog-catcher? I don't think so.

There are SMART Republicans who are sincere in their beliefs and who believe in the principles that make this country great. Everything Bush has done has been contrary to those principles and there comes a point where principle has to take a stand against party unity.

Sens. Warner, McCain, Collins and Graham seem to have reached that point. Party unity is not worth supporting torture. Party unity is not worth turning this country into a police state. That is not what Republicans stand for. The PRESIDENT may stand for torture - but America has opposed it since 1776. The Geneva Conventions may seem "quaint" to President Bush, but they represent worldwide acceptance of principles that AMERICA championed. Principles George Bush has either forgotten or never understood.

My hats off to Sens. Warner, McCain, Collins and Graham I only wish they had taken a stand sooner.

Taking the Long View

It may be a little early to call the election results for this coming November, but I am far more optimistic than I was a few months ago. Democrats are almost certain to gain seats in both houses of Congress, and it is even conceivable that Democrats will gain control of one or both houses.

Some races are closer than others. Some will surprise people, but over all it seems certain that Democrats will gain seats, and if they don't take the Senate and House, they will substantially narrow the voting margins.

If the Democrats do not gain an absolute majority then, given the occasional party line-crossing by "good" Republicans such as Lincoln Chafee (RI), there is good reason to hope that many of the close votes will swing against the President over the next two years.

This would not be nearly as good for the country (in my humble opinion) as an absolute majority that would give Democrats the important right to assign Committee chairmanships, to set the agenda for legislative action and debate, and to force the type of investigation and oversight that has been lacking in Congress for the past six years, (one could say that Congressional oversight actually disappeared some years before the arrival of Pres. Bush, when the Republican led Congress decided the only thing important to the Country was whether Bill Clinton had gotten a blowjob).

But I am comforted by either outcome. I think it proves something that I predicted about three years ago, before the Democrats chose John Kerry as a candidate.

Given the way the war was going in Iraq (three years ago), I suggested, to anyone who would listen, that it might not be such a bad thing if Bush was elected to a second term. Some people were so upset they wouldn't even let me explain why.

Three years ago, the future of the Iraq war was clear to me (it was clear before it started) and I suggested that the worse things became in Iraq, the more certainly American's will realize that his programs and the Republican platform were bad for America, bad for the American people,
bad for the whole world, and morally reprehensible to boot.

I also suggested that the worsening of the Iraqi situation was inevitable, and that a Democrat might find it impossible to withdraw (lets not forget, Kennedy and Johnson, both good Democrats, were both lured into pouring more troops and money into Vietnam on the theory that victory was just around the corner.

Consider the challenges that incumbent Democrats face just defending their votes in favor of the war. Senate Republicans miss no opportunity to respond to legitimate criticisms of the handling of the war with the non sequitor "but you voted for it."

If John Kerry had squeaked out a win in 2004, and he were President today, with the war in Iraq going the way it is now, the news would have been filled with Republicans telling us "But George Bush had a plan. The insurgency was in its death throes. But the liberal, elitest, soft on defense, soft on terror, tax and spend Democrats tried to cut and run and NOW look at it. If GWB had been reelected, the Iraqis by now would be throwing rose petals at their feet, and Iran would be ready to follow."

I think that a victory for the Democrats might well have ended up crippling the party for a long, long time.

Instead, GWB won the election and two years later, we are poised to take back the House and Senate. If we don't win either House, the Iraq war is only going to get worse given Bush's unwillingness to change course or consider that his real mistakes are all traced to his fundamental (fundamentalist) misconceptions concerning history, economy, politics, philosophy, Islam, the hearts and minds of ordinary people, the nature of war (can you imagine GWB read ing von Clausewitz?), and the motivations of the jihadists. If the Democrats are close to having a majority now, just imagine how much more successful they will be in the 2008 elections after two more years of Bush's mishandling of every major issue from Iraq, to Korea, from Iran to Darfur, from the economy to tax policy, social security and immigration, two more years of Terry Schiavo's, flag waving, gay-bashing, and swift-boating.

So I'm not going to be terribly disappointed if the Democrats do not take control of both Houses in two months. I won't be as happy as I would be if we had taken every seat. But as far as I'm concerned, we've already won.

Human Papadapapalalapalooza

I am trying to make sense of the opposition to the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine.

The vaccine provides a level of immunity against Human Papilloma Virus. The virus can cause women to develop cervical cancer and general warts. A good thing yes?

The conservative opposition to the vaccine is that it may "signify approval" of underage sexual intercourse.

What are these people thinking?

If HIV isn't going to scare kids away from unprotected sexual intercourse, how in the world can anyone expect that the fear of HPV will?

The only message we send when we don't immunize our children is that we are less concerned for their health, than we are for our own politics.

Condi the Comic

Condoleeza Rice interviewed this afternoon by CNN on the topic of the meeting between the prime ministers of Iraq and Iran:

"I don't see any problem" with them meeting, she said. "Iraq will give Iran a strong message that it expects Iran to be a good neighbor." (that's slightly paraphrased).

That's right. Iran will succeed in influencing Iraq: will succeed where the best efforts of All of Europe, the U.S., China, Russia and the UN, have all failed.

I couldn't help laugh. It was the best joke I've heard all day.

As Iraqi Troops Stand Up, We'll Stand. . . um . . what?

It's almost funny.

In the last week George W. Bush has made four or five speeches about the so-called "war on terror" in Iraq. He keeps telling us how well the war is going. He keeps telling us that the Iraqi troops are being formed on schedule, that they are 70% complete, and that U.S. troops will stand down as the Iraqi army "stands up."

Hello. Wake up call.

The New York Times reports today a classified intelligence briefing says that without an infusion of a new division - that's 16,000 young men and women - Anbar province is lost.

That's not standing down. That's raising the bet.

If 70% of the planned Iraqi force is prepared for duty, then why haven't 70% of the U.S. troops come home? The Iraqi's ARE standing up, according to Bush's speeches, so why aren't U.S. troops standing down?

If the war is going well, and the Iraqi army is standing up, why do we need to put 16,000 more lives at risk? And why does Iraq need Iran's help to establish security and a "unified" Iraq (question, does that mean extermination of the Sunni population of Iraq?).

Iraq and Iran

The prime ministers of Iraq and Iran today met and shook hands on the Iranian promise of aid and assistance to Iraq and the strengthening of ties between the countries. Iran promised to assist Iraq in achieving peace and security.

Jack Cafferty, on CNN's situation room asked today what does it means to the U.S. that Iran is offering to assist Iraq?

The real question is what does it mean that Iraq is ACCEPTING assistance from Iran? What does it mean to the U.S. that the man we installed to lead Iraq is cozying up to the Hitler wannabe that is leading Iran?

Bush told America that he "looked this man in the eye" and that he was someone that Bush could work with. Is this the kind of man that America can work with?

Why are our troops dying for a country that is cozying up to an outspoken enemy of the U.S.?

Stupidity in Afghanistan

There is one bright shiny spot for Bush in the Iraqi war - it hides his utter incompetence in Afghanistan.

To recap. After 9/11 happened, GWB finally realized that the Taliban was a threat (something I had been writing about well before 9/11, FWIW, I say this simply to point out that if it was obvious to me and I don't have access to the world's largest and most sophisticated intelligence apparatus, why the heck didn't Bush see it?). The Taliban gave support to Osama (not surprisingly, after all, with Ronald Reagan's help, Osama helped install the Taliban), Osame attacked the U.S. and Bush pulled his nose out of my pet goat's book binding and attacked the Taliban.

And then he decided to forget about Afghanistan and attack Iraq.

Okay, what is it that made this such an incredibly stupid, STUPID, STUPID mistake?

It was not the fact that Iraq had no WMD's, no connection to 9/11 and no relationship with al Qaeda. Those are among the reasons that the Iraq war was a mistake. But not why dropping the ball in Afghanistan was a mistake.

Neither is it the fact that the President dropped the ball in Tora Bora. Letting Osama get away rather than sending in troops needed for the unnecessary war in Iraq. That was a mistake in the war on terror. But that's not what was so unbelievably stupid about the Afghani policy.

Yesterday, a suicide bomber in Afghanistan detonated himself at the funeral of an Aghani governor who had himself died in a suicide attack a few days before. Nearly 50 people were killed or wounded. The Opium trade has returned to Afghanistan with a vengeance . . . from none at all 5 years ago, it is now the country's largest export and Afghanistan is one of the largest opium importers in the world. Essentially, we surrendered, almost entirely, the war on drugs, so that we could walk away from the war on terror.

No. The point is that Afghanistan is in a state of chaos. Outside of Kabul, the country is controlled by warlords, opium merchants and the Taliban. The Taliban is resurgent EVERYWHERE in that country.

Bush's mistake was that ALL OF THIS WAS SO PATENTLY OBVIOUSLY GOING TO HAPPEN.

What makes me think I'm so smart? I'm not. What makes me such a great prognosticator of future events (in hindsight)? Nothing whatsoever.

But I read BOOKS. I read NEWSPAPERS. And I believe that there are lessons to be learned in history.

The Taliban is doing to the U.S. supported government of Mr. Karzai exactly what it did to the Soviet Union in the 70's and 80's. It was the cost of the war in Afghanistan, in aid, munitions and blood, that ultimately broke the back of the Soviet Union.

And WE trained the Taliban to do that. Who ARE the Taliban? They are the so-called "freedom fighters" that Ronald Reagan poured so much money and arms into. Reagan trained Osama bin Laden. We taught the Taliban - the former mujahedeen - how to fight a prolonged, sustained, guerilla war against an entrenched governement with all of the assistance of one of the world's largest super-powers. We taught them how to use their knowledge of the mountainous geography to hide and attack.

And with our training they not only held off, but beat back the Soviet Union.

What in the world made Bush believe they would simply fold up their tents when we drove them out of Kabul?

Afghanistan today is little different from the Afghanistan of the early 80's - A major super-power supports a puppet government, based in Kabul, with little or no control over the outward provinces, mired down in a guerilla war that shows no signs of slowing or ending as the Taliban consolidates more and more area under its control.

Sound familiar? It should.

The Taliban simply did what it was trained to do - - fled back into the mountains where we waste soldiers' blood on the rocks while they laugh at us.

Could anyone have expected them to do otherwise?

Just like Hitler before him, Bush made the classic mistake of opening a second front, before consolidating a temporary victory in the first. Bush (and by implication, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and everyone else in that administration who supported the war in Iraq), simply failed to recognize they had won a battle in Afghanistan, not the war (not surprisingly, they made the same mistake in Iraq with the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco).

And if Bush ever bothered to read a book or a newspaper, he might have known this too.

What About the Other Dead, Mr. President?

This started out as a general complaint that George Bush likes to show up at places like 9/11 ceremonies where he has complete control over the ceremonies and is sure to be presented in the most positive possible light. . . but won't show up to honor the death of a single solitary soldier who has voluntarily given his or her life believing in Bush's misguided policies. But it sort of got away from me. Now it's more or less a first draft of a speech I would give if I were asked to speak at a 9/11 ceremony. I call it "Bush the Cowardly Beast."




Monday's coming fast and George Bush is getting ready to wrap himself in the flag of 9/11 once again.

(A curious irony occurs as I write this. When I think of the "Flag of 9/11" I have a vision of firemen. Firemen in black and yellow coats and helmets. Grime-besmeared faces on a background of gray ash and Iwo-Jima like raising a flag, that just happens to be burned. And here comes George Bush wrapping himself in a burned flag. Would he be a criminal if his constitutional amendment against flag desecration ere passed? Not my point though."

For five years Bush has reveled in 9/11 Celebrations in which he play-acts at being hero.

This cowardly bum. He didn't show up at the cushy national reserve post he had wrangled to stay out of Vietnam.

This coward who talks about nothing but fear. All he does is spread fear. Would a leader tell American's to behave like frightened children? Or would he tell us to get our backbone up?

This coward. He approves the use of torture even while he says he condemns it, and admits to it even though he can't bring himself to say the word - "alternative interrogation techniques" - Does he really think people are so stupid that they don't recognize a multi-syllabic euphemism when they see them?

(Hey. I've eliminated "death" and "taxes", now all we need to worry about is "revenue enhancement" (thank you Ronald Reagan) and "negative patient care outcome." And the roach problem in New York? Gone. We just have to get rid of the "Hugabugs" (thank you Jon Lovitz).)

"Alternative interrogation techniques" indeed. When you take a dying man, remove his clothes, put him in a room so cold that he turns blue, and prevent him from sleeping by playing rock & roll at unbearable volumes - that's torture and I don't care what you want to call it.

"A crime is a crime is a crime." I'm pretty sure that's a conservative slogan.

This miltary incompetent.

He failed to secure Afghanistan and now the Taliban and warlords control virtually the entire country outside Kabul.

He failed to secure Afghanistan and now it is the world's largest supplier of opium, and opium is the country's largest export commodity, whereas five years ago the trade had all but disappeared.

He failed to secure Afghanistan when his generals told him he needed more troops at Tora Bora, he ignored them. He let Osama bin Laden run loose so he could launch his misguided war in Iraq.

He ran away from Osama.

He ran away from 9/11.

He started a war on Iraq, before he had finished the war on terror.

He started a war in Iraq with fewer than half the number of troops his most experienced generals recommended. He fired the generals instead.

He started a war without armor for the troops or their transportation, and with insufficient ordinance.

Call it whatever he wants, the war in Iraq is NOT the war on terror.
The war in Iraq is creating new terrorists by the tens of thousands.
The war in Iraq is draining the U.S. Economy.
The war in Iraq has resulted in the total destruction of entire cities.
The war in Iraq has resulted in the near total loss of freedom for women in that country.
The war in Iraq has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees.
The war in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis.
In Baghdad, the capital city, electricity is available only 8 hours a day.

The war in Iraq has killed more American children then died in the World Trade Center.

And George Bush wants to wrap himself again in the World Trade Center flag. George Bush wants to remind us that we were attacked. George Bush wants to remind us we are at war.

But we are not at war in Iraq because we were attacked. There was never any truth to that. It was a lie. It was a coward's lie. It was a coward's lie because George Bush the coward was afraid of the truth.

The truth was that George Bush wanted to spread democracy. George Bush the coward, George Bush the fanatical egotist, George Bush the FOOL, had the unmitigated audacity to believe that HE could do what Jesus Christ and Muhmamed themselves were were unable to do. George Bush thought HE could bring peace to the Mideast.

The truth is that George Bush relied on his gut instead of relying on common sense.

The truth is that George Bush relied on his prayers more than the knowledge and experience of his own advisors.

The truth is that George Bush refused to listen to anyone who disagreed with him. The truth is that in George Bush's fanatical belief system, he is accomplishing God's will and anyone disagreeing with him is disagreeing with what God wants him to do.

The truth is that in George Bush's world the scripture reading of the day is more important than the intelligence briefing of the day. If it were otherwise, perhaps Mr. Bush would have read the memos telling him that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the U.S.

George Bush the coward ran away from the real war. American soldiers are dying every day because George Bush turned the real war on terror into a cover story for one of the stupidest military mistakes since Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.

And George Bush wants to wear the flag that was burned on 9/11. The flag of the victims.

Bush wants to wear the victims' flag Monday. George Bush will tell us again we have a ruthless enemy. George Bush will tell us again we were attacked. George Bush will tell us again we are victims. George Bush will tell us we must feel helpless. We must feel afraid.

George Bush will tell us we need to be afraid. George Bush will tell us that we need to sacrifice our freedoms (but not tax cuts for the wealthy, I mean freedom is one thing, but let's not go overboard on this sacrifice thing). George Bush will tell us that if we just give him unfettered power to do what HE decides is right, that everything will be peachy keen.

George Bush will tell us to ignore those funny noises our telephones are starting to make. George Bush will ask us to forget about whoever it is that might be reading our mail. George Bush will tell us that we shouldn't talk about the secret prisons. He will tell us to turn our eyes on torture (or "alternative interrogation techniques.") George Bush will tell us not to worry about the people, not terrorists, good, decent, average, everyday American citizens who have already been "disappeared" to secret prisons where they are not permitted to see or speak to lawyers or family members, where they have no access to courts, no rights of appeal. No charges. No right to a defense.

George Bush the coward wants us to say "Shhhhhhhhhh! we don't talk about such things." George Bush wants us to say "well at least we're safe from the terrorists." But does anyone feel safer today?

I say who's keeping us safe from George Bush.

Bush the coward wants to wrap himself in the victim's flag. But he won't attend the funeral of a single soldier who's death he has pointlessly caused. That's one flag that Bush does not want to wrap himself in. That's a flag he won't go near. Won't touch. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.

Bush can't wear the flag of a real hero. His shoulders won't bear the weight.

Monday, George Bush will make his speech about terror. George Bush will ask us to support the loss of our freedoms. He will tell us again those things that we know are untrue: that the war in Iraq is going well, that he has a plan, that victory is around the corner, that the terrorist are on the run, that the U.S. has not tortured prisoners.

But I will not give in to fear. I will not support the loss of one single freedom. I will remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I will remember only to fear fear itself. I will remember that there is an election in two months and in two months a democratic house and a democratic senate can provide the backbone that this country lost on 9/11.

(And, there's an interesting metaphor I hadn't expected, the WTC as the backbone of America. Broken on 9/11. A gaping wound left to fester by George W. Bush, just in the same way he left Afghanistan broken. Just as he has left the poor people of New Orleans, Louisiana and Mississippi.)

And I will remember the people who gave their lives. Not the ones victims of 9/11 whom I will mourn. I will remember all of the hundreds of thousands who gave their lives in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. The soldiers who died in the War of 1812 and the Spanish American War. The men and women who died in World Wars I and II and Korea and Vietnam. I will remember the ones who gave their lives for the freedoms George Bush the coward is asking us to give away. And I will mourn those sacrifices.

And I will feel badly for the victims of 9/11. I will feel badly for their friends. I will feel badly for their families. I will wish them every prayer for the future that there might be.

But I won't feel fear.

We're Still Just Talking about a Blowjob

I can not believe what I have been hearing the last few days.

It seems that President Clinton was responsible for 9/11 because he was so overwhelmed with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Who came up with this canard? Bill Maher was talking about this tonight on his HBO show Real Time with. . .

The soon to air ABC miniseries on 9/11 makes this claim.

President Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. Get over it already. How can anyone compare that to the body count Bushy boy has racked up?

At least President Clinton and his advisors tried to devise a strategy to deal with Bin Laden. Bush didn't pay attention to Bin Laden for an entire YEAR after being elected. On 9/11 Bush didn't even know that muslims were divided between Sunni and Shia.

There's certainly blame to share for 9/11 and plenty to go around for everyone, but how's this for a little blame-throwing:

If the REPUBLICANS had not wasted so much of Bill Clinton's time over a non-consequential blow-job, with the DELIBERATE INTENT of blocking Clinton's agenda, and if the REPUBLICANS had spent their own time investigating and overseeing this Country's security and defense instead of investigating a PRIVATE AND VOLUNTARY SEXUAL ACT BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS then MAYBE 9/11 might never have happened.

In other words, if Bill Clinton is to blame because he was too busy dealing with the Lewinsky scandal, than it is the Republicans who are to blame for creating a scandal out of nothing to keep the President from doing his job. They are trying to suggest that the Scandal they created from whole cloth, was the President's fault, not theirs.

The amazing thing is that the Democratic response has been lame. It's been "the ABC movie isn't factual". Great it isn't factual - but the damage is being done at a deeper level. We're being swift-boated again, and it's so obvious.

P. J. O'Rourke on 9/11

God bless a man with a sense of humor.

On conspiracies:
"We know the Jews didn't do it.
Not mechanical enough"

On the Buffalo terrorist cell:
"Anyone who grew up in Lackawanna would want to blow it up."

The root of all conspiracy theories:
"I get it."

The Real and the Unreal

In his most recent column, Frank Rich notes that

A George Will column critical of the war so rattled the White House that it had a flunky release a public 2,400-word response notable for its incoherence.

Donald Rumsfeld’s Dance With the Nazis, NY Times, Sept. 3, 2006.

I took the time to read both columns.

George F. Will is brilliant when I agree with him, and in this case I do. Will wrote that the administration's policy of fighting terrorism with shock and awe has been a complete failure. The Triumph of Unrealism, Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2006. Will wrote approvingly of John Kerry's campaign trail statements on terrorism:

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Id. Will continues:

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

Id. ("This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional." - Will must have enjoyed publishing that line).

Let's go back to Rich for a second. Rich wrote "A George Will column critical of the war so rattled the White House that it had a flunky release a public 2,400-word response notable for its incoherence."

Responding to George Will's Realism, was written by Peter Wehner a deputy assistant to the President and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives. It appeared in RealClearPolitics.com on August 16, 2006.

I tend to agree with Frank Rich here. Mr. Wehner's response is nearly incoherent. For example, concerning law enforcement, Mr. Wehner provides several lengthy quotes taken from Mr. Will's own writings. Only it is obvious from the dates of the quotes, that they were written with reference to the war in Afghanistan. But we dropped the ball in Afghanistan and moved on to Iraq which had nothing to do with terrorism. The logical transition from Mr. Will's support for the altogether just war in Afghanistan, and a war against a country that had no known connection to terrorism is a mystery Mr. Wehner does not explain.

Bottom line, when the conservative pundits begin to write that John Kerry was right, you know the White House is in serious trouble.

More Evidence

You don't really need to look very hard to find evidence that the Bush Administration is lying about Iraq and that it has been lying from the beginning. It never was hard to find really. People just didn't want to look before.

For instance, take this statement from Peter Wehner, deputy assistant to the President and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives:

We are at the outset of what may well be a historic transition -- and such transitions can be jolting and uneven. The Bush administration's "solution" is not to create "instability." It is to assist in the rise of liberty and civic habits in the Middle East. That will take longer to achieve than the historical blink of an eye. And one thing we know for sure: we were never going to get there under a policy that looked away from, or even promoted, tyrannical regimes in the Arab world.

Responding to George Will's Realism, RealClearPolitics.com, August 16, 2006.

The point here is the acknowledgement that the administration's Iraqi/MidEast policy "will take longer to achieve than the historical blink of an eye."

As I suggested in my last post, it would be simplistic and stupid to think anything else. Yet that was the snow job that the Bushies played on the American people, and made people believe - that this war would be a brief skirmish.

Were they lying then? Are they lying now?

George Bush keeps telling us we have got to stay the course. He's now playing Lyndon Johnson's Domino Theory card. He seems on the verge of resorting to Nixon's "peace with honor" excuse.

But some of the Bushies obviously know that this war can go on for a long time. It's time the administration openly admitted that. And explain to us how America's staying can really make things better than if we left.

And in that explanation, the Domino Theory is not going to cut it.

As the Dominos Fall

It was inevitable I suppose. The Bush Administration has a new rationale for the war in Iraq: the consequences of failure are disastrous. In recent speeches President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other senior officials have been making a case for the Domino Theory of Iraq. If we fail in Iraq, than the terrorists will take over Saudi Arabia, the rest of the mideast, and then Pakistan.

This was the theory behind the Vietnam War, and it proved wrong there too. But the dominos are falling, just the same:

The first domino was the complaint that Hussein wasn't cooperating with UN Inspectors (it's true that initially he was uncooperative, but he had agreed to provide everything requested by the Inspectors by the time Bush pressed the button).

The next domino was Hussein's possession of WMD's, including so called mobile biological labs and uranium yellowcake from Nigeria (more about that in another post).

The next dominos that Hussein was somehow involved with al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, or linked to 9/11 or other terrorist activity.

The next dominos, that we would be greeted with flowers, the cost of the war would be minimal,
and that it would be paid for out of increased oil revenues.

Another domino, "Victory Accomplished", complete with GWB playing Michael Dukakis while riding in a jet fighter.

Then there was the "last throes" of the insurgency domino.

Last November's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" has gone by the wayside.

More dominos: the capture of Saddaam, the killing of Zakir al-Musawri,

Most recently it is: "When the Iraqi army stands up, then ours will stand down."

Today's domino is "we broke it, we better fix it before mom & dad find out."

The administration has NEVER understood what is going on in the mideast. This president makes decisions based on his gut - a lot of good that does when he started a war at a time he didn't even know there WAS a distinction between shia and sunni muslims. Even if I trusted his gut to make wise decisions, I can not expect it to do so if it doesn't have adequate information.

Every day the administration seems to be more and more like a headless chicken, running around Iraq without a clue. I think they are terrified of the mess they have created and not only are they unable to admit it, they are institutionally incapable of seeking fresh ideas from the outside. They simply do not trust anyone who dares suggest they may be wrong.

And that is why we keep getting slogans from them and not Plans.

The Administration has no plan in Iraq. It doesn't have one because it thought it would not need one. It went into this venture so unprepared that it should be a criminal offense. They've already managed to kill as many good soldiers as good people who died in the Twin Towers. Yet the situation has only gone from bad to worse, with no sign of improvement. And Iraqi citizens are being executed in the streets now at a rate well over 1,000 per month.

But here's the thing, I believe that Bush means it when he says things like this "Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. . . . Freedom’s victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran,” he said, “and spread hope across a troubled region.” From a speech to midshipmen at Annapolis, Md., reported at Bush’s Shift of Tone on Iraq: The Grim Cost of Losing, NY Times, Sept. 2, 2006.

I believe Bush means it. I don't necessarily think he's correct, though he might be. But that's not the reason that America went to war. I believe that it is Bush's reason for having gone to war (see the 10 Downing Street Memo - just google it). But regime change is NOT an acceptable reason to begin a war under international law. It is a WAR CRIME.

America wasn't asked to do this. America was given a set of dominos, tile by tile, WMD's, Terror, 9/11, Yellowcake, Mobile Biological weapons labs, etc., all demonstrably false at the time they were given to us. But the President said we must go to war for these things and, regrettably, more people believed him than were willing to question what, in hindsight, were glaring holes in every story.

So we agreed to let Bush have his war, to save us from WMD's and terror and all the rest.

But all the time Bush and his cronies knew that the real reason was their belief that "Freedom’s victory in [Iraq] will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran."

In other words: Regime change. Something Bush had expressly condemned as a reason for war when he ran for election in 2000.

How different would the country be today if in his campaign speeches in 2000 Bush had elected to be honest about his plans for Iraq - that he intended to bring a war to change the form of government of Iraq, at a staggering cost, in terms of US prestige, safety, money, and most importantly human life, over an unknown period of time.

Did the Bushies really believe the rhetoric about our being greeted with flowers?

“The problem with stressing the benefits of democracy is that they take a long time to mature, and it’s no sure bet that it will ever happen,” said a senior official who has participated in formation of the administration’s message since the war’s start. Bush’s Shift of Tone on Iraq: The Grim Cost of Losing, NY Times, Sept. 2, 2006.

This should not be news to anyone who has studied history. Was this some recent epiphany for the administration? Proving their incompetence from the start. Or have they known it all along? Proving they were just plain lying about that too.

Yes, the Dominos are falling all right, and each one of them is another lie being exposed.

Why Can't Sportscasters Just Shut Up?

This is not the first time this has bothered me.

Andre Agassi lost the final point of his match with Ben Becker, ending an amazing career in tennis. I was sorry to see him lose.

The crowd broke out in a spontanous ovation for Agassi that went on for some time while he remained seated. Andre was in tears. He was overcome with it all. The moment was as emotionally charged as any I've witnessed on TV.

And what do the sportscasters do? They proceed to TELL us how emotional the moment is - babbling inanities so pointless as to all but kill the moment.

Look, I get it. Announcers are supposed to announce. But they are supposed to help us appreciate what we are watching. Not become what we are watching. I appreciate their babble during the game. It helps me understand some of the finer points of technique, of history, of "human interest" etc.

But somethings just don't need to be explained. Some things do all the talking that's needed all by themselves. Who needs commentation on such moments? Wait til it's over, or nearly so, and then babble away. Anyone who didn't understand the moment was an emotional one, by that point wasn't going to get it from anything the commentators had to say.

Why can't they trust us to experience an emotional moment by ourselves? Why must they usurp that time. Is it an ego thing? Is it policy? Why can't they just shut up and appreciate the moment with the rest of us?

Et tu Rumsfeld?

This week Donald Rumsfeld said that critics of the Administration's policies in Iraq were no different than the people who ignored the rise of Hitler's Nazi party in Germany and supported Neville Chamberlain's policy of Appeasement towards the Reich.

The irony is palpable. As Frank Rich reminds us. Donald Rumsfeld's Dance with the Nazi's, NY Times, Sept. 3, 2006. Pictures are worth 1000 words though, so I will save 2000 of them:



Adolf Hitler greeting the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, in Munich. (September 29, 1938)











Saddam Hussein greeting Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad in 1983








Now, once again, who is the appeaser? Iraq had severed relations with the United States in 1967 in response to the Six Day War. Frank Rich reminds us that:

Well before Mr. Rumsfeld’s trip, Amnesty International had reported the dictator’s use of torture — “beating, burning, sexual abuse and the infliction of electric shocks” — on hundreds of political prisoners. Dozens more had been summarily executed or had “disappeared.” American intelligence agencies knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons to gas both Iraqi Kurds and Iranians.

Did Rumsfeld raise these issues in his meetings with Saddam in 1983? No he did not. But the US did restore relations to Iraq as a result of these meetings.

How soon they forget.

So who is the appeaser?

Frank Rich also points out the new word in the Administration's vocabulary "Islamo-Fascism". We've gone from a war on WMD's to a Global War on Terror to "Islamo-Fascism"

I would be surprised if the administration can find (or create) a meaningful definition of "Islamo-Fascism" - I'm going to leave off on that mostly for another post, but I will leave this question dangling: "“Who are the ‘Islamo-fascists’ in Saudi Arabia — the current regime or its religious-fanatical opponents?”" (from Wrong War, Wrong Word by Katha Pollitt in the Sept 11 issue of The Nation).

Good for Her, Good for Us

The New York Times reported yesterday that "The Federal Education Department shared personal information on hundreds of student loan applicants with the Federal Bureau of Investigation across a five-year period that began after . . . Sept. 11 . . ." Education Dept. Shared Student Data With F.B.I., NY Times, Sept 1, 2006.

The story was first reported by Laura McGann, a 24 year old graduate student at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. Ms. McGann noticed what she thought was an unusal reference to"data sharing " in a GAO report that she reviewed for a research project. A little research turned up another mention of the program in a report from the inspector general’s office in the Education Department. On June 6, Ms. McGann interviewed a deputy inspector general at the department. After that she filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

According to the FBI, this data sharing program was intended to track down foreign terrorist who abuse student visas and engage in financial fraud and identity theft. Only federal student aid is generally only available to US citizens and permanent residents. That means the people the FBI was looking for wouldn't be found in the Education Department data. The students whose records were "shared" were mostly, if not all, US citizens being spied upon without warrant or notice.

A review of the files requested by the FBI showed that the reviews have not led to a single prosecution.

Ms. McGann's persistence paid off. Not only did she scoop every newspaper in the country, but when she received the response to her FOIA request, she learned that the program had been terminated on June 16. Exactly ten days after she interviewed the deputy inspector general.

Ms. McGann's persistence and result is the stuff that freedom of the press was designed for. By shining the bright light of day on a disreputable program of governmental invasion of privacy, she brought that same program to a well-deserved halt.

Ms. McGann is moving on to Dow Jones Newswires. Good for her. Good for us.
Hat's off

A Terrible Place

A few years ago I spent several days in Cambodia. At that time Phnom Penh, the capital city had only been open to the public for a year. The entire city had been emptied by the Khmer Rouge in 1975. In the year before I arrived the city's population had gone from a few thousand to a million people. In many areas you could see that the city had been taken over by the jungle. Squatters filled formerly private homes. People with devastating injuries were everywhere. There is no one - no one - in that country that has not lost friends and family to the civil wars. Every one has been in the labor camps or the refugee camps. It is a sad place. But it is also hopeful. The tourist trade is bringing much needed capital to the country and the government is making a determined effort to provide the kind of stability necessary to provide for long term investment.

But Phnom Penh was not entirely empty during the Khmer Rouge insanity. A high school - three separate two story buildings - in Phnom Penh was used as a prison and interrogation center where some of the most unspeakable atrocity's of the regime took place. This was the notorious S-21. Now the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum.

A sad place. The interrogation rooms were so stained with blood it still shows 20 years later. There is a wall sized map of cambodia made of human skulls. The cells in which the prisoners were kept were so tiny I could barely squeeze through the doorway, the space was not long enough for me to lay down in and two seated people would have been quite crowded. Sometimes four people were kept in these cells.

By chance tonight I ran across a Wikipedia entry for the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum. Its story is not so well known as some other torture camps. It's worth a virtural visit.

Prisoners at S-21 were required to conform to 10 rules which are posted in the Museum. The translation from Khmer to English could be better but these rules are:

1. You must answer accordingly to my questions. Don’t turn them away.

2. Don’t try to hide the facts by making pretexts this and that, you are strictly prohibited to contest me.

3. Don’t be a fool for you are a chap who dare to thwart the revolution.

4. You must immediately answer my questions without wasting time to reflect.

5. Don’t tell me either about your immoralities or the essence of the revolution.

6. While getting lashes or electrification you must not cry at all.

7. Do nothing, sit still and wait for my orders. If there is no order, keep quiet. When I ask you to do something, you must do it right away without protesting.

8. Don’t make pretexts about Kampuchea Krom in order to hide your jaw of traitor.

9. If you don’t follow all the above rules, you shall get many many lashes of electric wire.

10. If you disobey any point of my regulations you shall get either ten lashes or five shocks of electric discharge.

We need more people to reflect on the horrors of S-21 and similar facilities. Particularly, the ones being run by the CIA and by governments which accept the "extraordinary rendition" of US suspects for the purpose of torture.

Five years ago I would have said that the idea that the US could actually send people to be tortured in such facilities was the product of the idle schizophrenia of conspiracy theorists. Today, not only am I ashamed to see it on the front pages of our newspapers, but I am frightened by the people who believe such actions are supportable.

Dog Whisperer needs a Flea Bath

I really liked this op ed piece in the NY Times of August 31, 2006. I thought it was worth sharing. It has bothered me from the beginning that National Geographic, for which I have the utmost respect, would air a program such as the "Dog Whisperer." This op ed gives form to my misgivings.

Pack of Lies is by MARK DERR the author of “A Dog’s History of America: How Our Best Friend Explored, Conquered and Settled a Continent.”

WITH a compelling personal story as the illegal immigrant made good because of his uncanny ability to understand dogs, Cesar Millan has taken the world of canine behavior — or rather misbehavior — by storm. He has the top-rated program, “Dog Whisperer,” on the National Geographic Channel, a best-selling book and a devoted following, and he has been the subject of several glowing magazine articles.

He is even preparing to release his own “Illusion” collar and leash set, named for his wife and designed to better allow people to walk their dogs the “Cesar way” — at close heel, under strict control.

Essentially, National Geographic and Cesar Millan have cleverly repackaged and promoted a simplistic view of the dog’s social structure and constructed around it a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach to dog training. In Mr. Millan’s world, dog behavioral problems result from a failure of the human to be the “pack leader,” to dominate the dog (a wolf by any other name) completely.

While Mr. Millan rejects hitting and yelling at dogs during training, his confrontational methods include physical and psychological intimidation, like finger jabs, choke collars, extended sessions on a treadmill and what is called flooding, or overwhelming the animal with the thing it fears. Compared with some training devices still in use — whips and cattle prods, for example — these are mild, but combined with a lack of positive reinforcement or rewards, they place Mr. Millan firmly in a long tradition of punitive dog trainers.

Mr. Millan brings his pastiche of animal behaviorism and pop psychology into millions of homes a week. He’s a charming, one-man wrecking ball directed at 40 years of progress in understanding and shaping dog behavior and in developing nonpunitive, reward-based training programs, which have led to seeing each dog as an individual, to understand what motivates it, what frightens it and what its talents and limitations are. Building on strengths and working around and through weaknesses, these trainers and specialists in animal behavior often work wonders with their dogs, but it takes time.

Mr. Millan supposedly delivers fast results. His mantra is “exercise, discipline, affection,” where discipline means “rules, boundaries, limitations.” Rewards are absent and praise scarce, presumably because they will upset the state of calm submission Mr. Millan wants in his dogs. Corrections abound as animals are forced to submit or face their fear, even if doing so panics them.

Mr. Millan builds his philosophy from a simplistic conception of the dog’s “natural” pack, controlled by a dominant alpha animal (usually male). In his scheme, that leader is the human, which leads to the conclusion that all behavior problems in dogs derive from the failure of the owner or owners to dominate. (Conveniently, by this logic, if Mr. Millan’s intervention doesn’t produce lasting results, it is the owner’s fault.)

Women are the worst offenders in his world. In one of the outtakes included in the four-DVD set of the first season of “Dog Whisperer,” Mr. Millan explains that a woman is “the only species that is wired different from the rest.” And a “woman always applies affection before discipline,” he says. “Man applies discipline then affection, so we’re more psychological than emotional. All animals follow dominant leaders; they don’t follow lovable leaders.”

Mr. Millan’s sexism is laughable; his ethology is outdated.

The notion of the “alpha pack leader” dominating all other pack members is derived from studies of captive packs of unrelated wolves and thus bears no relationship to the social structure of natural packs, according to L. David Mech, one of the world’s leading wolf experts. In the wild, the alpha wolves are merely the breeding pair, and the pack is generally comprised of their juvenile offspring and pups.

“The typical wolf pack,” Dr. Mech wrote in The Canadian Journal of Zoology in 1999, “is a family, with the adult parents guiding the activities of a group in a division-of-labor system.” In a natural wolf pack, “dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all,” he writes.

That’s a far cry from the dominance model that Mr. Millan attributes to the innate need of dogs by way of wolves.

Unlike their wolf forebears, dogs exist in human society. They have been selectively bred for 15,000 or more years to live with people. Studies have shown that almost from birth they are attentive to people, and that most are eager to please, given proper instruction and encouragement.

But sometimes the relationship goes very wrong, and it is time to call on a professional.

Aggression is perhaps the most significant of the behavioral problems that may afflict more than 20 percent of the nation’s 65 million dogs, because it can lead to injury and death. Mr. Millan often treats aggression by forcing the dog to exercise extensively on a treadmill, by asserting his authority over the dog by rolling it on its back in the “alpha rollover,” and through other forms of intimidation, including exposure to his pack of dogs.

Forcefully rolling a big dog on its back was once recommended as a way to establish dominance, but it is now recognized as a good way to get bitten. People are advised not to try it. In fact, many animal behaviorists believe that in the long run meeting aggression with aggression breeds more aggression.

More important, aggression often has underlying medical causes that might not be readily apparent — hip dysplasia or some other hidden physical ailment that causes the dog to bite out of pain; hereditary forms of sudden rage that require a medical history and genealogy to diagnose; inadequate blood flow to the brain or a congenital brain malformation that produces aggression and can only be uncovered through a medical examination. Veterinary behaviorists, having found that many aggressive dogs suffer from low levels of serotonin, have had success in treating such dogs with fluoxetine (the drug better known as Prozac).

Properly treating aggression, phobias, anxiety and fears from the start can literally save time and money. Mr. Millan’s quick fix might make for good television and might even produce lasting results in some cases. But it flies in the face of what professional animal behaviorists — either trained and certified veterinarians or ethologists — have learned about normal and abnormal behavior in dogs.

The Grand Duchy of Fenwick

Behind my back, the television provides me with "white noise" while I sit and work. Usually it is tuned to CNN of C-Span (at least during the day).

Right now it is playing one of my favorite of Peter Sellers' films - The Mouse that Roared.

The plot is wonderful and Peter Sellers plays a great number of the roles himself.

The Grand Duchy of Fenwick finds itself approaching bankruptcy. Fenwick is the world's smallest country (and the only english speaking country on mainland Europe), occupies approximately 15 1/2 square miles in the French Alps.

To save the Duchy from financial ruin, Fenwick declares war on the United States of America. For as the "Hereditary Prime Minister" (Peter Sellers) puts it "there is no more profitable enterprise" for a small country today than to attack the United States. The war is launched in anticipation of the foreign aid that will be delivered by the USA once Fenwick loses. "We'll declare war today, surrender tomorrow, and begin celebrating the financial aid by Friday."

Things do not go as planned.

Peter Sellers (the "Hereditary Field Marshall") and his ragtag band of 20 farmers, dressed in chain mail and armed with bows and arrows, set sail for America - and win the war.

Upon his return the Grand Duchy must face the consequences of having won the war and the real fun begins - as the world becomes involved in the peace negotiations.

With Jean Seberg thrown in for romance and Leo McKern for being Leo McKern, this is just a fun, delightful, wonderful romp.

It's like an early Woody Allen film, only without the neurosis and existentialism.

One for the Language Police

I received this message today from a friend on MySpace.

Gay/faggot is NOT a word substitute for stupid or lame. You promote ignorance by abusing those words in that manor. People who use words like that only express there lack of vocabulary and intelligence.
(Repost if you agree.)

My friend had received this from someone else and then passed it along to me.

There is a certain irony in the author's poorly written condemnation of ignorance, but I am going to leave that aside in favor of the topic.

I took part in this war myself. Some years ago when I began playing Everquest, I noticed a trend among the younger players who use the term "gay" as a synonym for "lame", "stupid" or "bad". For some time I tried to educate some of these younger RPG colleagues that their choice of language might be hurtful to some people, including friends of theirs who might not be "out."

What struck me in these conversations was that, far from expressing anti-gay animus, these kids, were themselves surprised to hear that some people might take offense at their usage. They repeatedly explained their subjective intent - their understanding of the word itself, in context - had nothing to do with its usage in another context. For them it seemed to be just as any other word that might have more than one very diverse meanings.

And perhaps this is as it should be. Here is a demonstration of the mutability of language. There was a time that no one considered the word "gay" to mean "homosexual." It simply meant "happy" or "carefree". Similarly, "faggot" once referred to a stick of wood, or fuel for the fire.

I am interested in the etymology of this particular usage. I wonder where and how it began. Not enough to do the research myself, but it would be interesting if the language police mentioned it to William Safire.

In saying this, I am not saying I approve of the usage. I don't. There are people who find it hurtful and, for me, that's enough reason not to use it. Similarly, I will not use the word "nigger" because, in context, coming from me, it can only lead to offense. Even though it would be perfectly acceptable if I were a young hip-hopper.

Similarly, I take a strong dislike to the casual use of the word "nazi" in today's conversation. Words like "Feminazi" "Soupnazi" and "language nazi" really bother me. The Nazi's killed a substantial part of my family. The Nazi's killed six million jews, enslaved and tortured millions in the most deplorable conditions. Nearly wiped the Rom population from the face of the earth.

And someone wants to compare a mean soup ladler to that? That alone was enough reason for me not to watch Seinfeld.

So, it is understandable that some word choices are going to be offensive to others. Why would we rather hear words like "torture," "maim" and "kll" than words like "fuck" and "blowjob"?

However, language usage is not determined by lexicographers. Dictionaries are merely catalogues of known usages, they are not arbiters of correctness. Subject to copyright laws, no one individual or group has an exclusive claim to any word or phrase in the english language.

The alternative is to let the government decide what words mean and when we can use them. Happily, the First Amendment still prevents that.

Where There's Smoke, There's . . .

According to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health "The level of nicotine that smokers typically consume per cigarette has risen 10 percent in the past six years, making it harder to quit and easier to be addicted. . . " Nicotine Levels Rose 10 Percent in Last Six Years, Report Says, NY Times, (Aug. 31, 2006) . "The study shows a steady increase in the amount of nicotine delivered to the smokers’ lungs regardless of brand, with overall yields increasing 10 percent. . . . Marlboro, Newport and Camel, delivered significantly more nicotine than they did six years ago. Nicotine consumed in Kools . . . rose 20 percent." Id. "Of the 179 brands tested in 2004, 93 percent fell into the highest range for nicotine. . . . there was no significant difference in the total nicotine delivered among full flavor, medium, light or ultralight cigarettes." Id.

One of the more fascinating aspects of the report is the description of the testing process. Cigarette filters are designed with microscopic holes which allow air to flow in and dilute the smoke when placed in a standard testing machine. However, when the holes are covered by the smoker's lips and fingers, the air flow stops and the nicotine dosage delivered is significantly increased. In short, the tobacco companies are cheating on the standard tests so they can show a lower nicotine level. Massachusetts requires more accurate testing, which includes a machine that mimics the way cigarettes are actually held by smokers.

Many of these more addictive/deadlier cigarettes are not only being sold to this country's youth, but they are bein sold throughout the rest of the world, where there are no bans or regulations on tobacco advertising and less public information concerning the hazards.

The Times' editorial (Raising Nicotine Doses, on the Sly, NY Times, Aug. 31, 2006) notes that this sort of thing would not be permitted if tobacco were regulated by the FDA, as are all other addictive drugs. It is high time Congress exercised some oversight and control over the tobacco mafia.

The complete report is available on line from the Mass. DPH at Change in Nicotine Yields, 1998-2004. Related materials prepared by the Mass. DPH are available here.

Power Strokes & Power Chords Under the Big Lights

Andre Agassi managed to eke out another five set nailbiter today. After taking the first two sets and going up four love in the fourth, Agassi's opponent Baghdatis managed to take his game up a notch and carry the game to an exciting 7-5 final set. Unfortunately for Baghdatis, he cramped up in the fifth set and ended up struggling at the end. There's no way either he or Agassi will ever know whether the result of the match would have been the same had Baghdatis not cramped. Still, it could have been Agassi who cramped, and physical conditioning is as much a part of winning and as a great backhand or 125mph serve. So the bottom line is it was a great match, a memorable one and Agassi won.

Now he only has five more to go (to quote John McEnroe's subsequent on-air interview with Agassi).

Okay, that's power strokes. . . now on to the power chords.

It's not a basketball game if they don't play it. It's hardly even a baseball game if they don't play it. Same may be true for Hockey. It must be the national anthem of sporting events. Even so, I never expected that in the middle of a tennis match . . . let alone at the tensest moments of the final set . . . I would hear the sound system break into the unmistakable chord sequence of Gary Glitter's "Rock & Roll No.1" - announcing the moment had come for the crowd to stand on their feet, clap rhythmically, pump their collective fists and shout in unison (and on the beat) "Hey".

But, in a tennis stadium?