Tuesday September 30, 2003
Holy crap. Julian Borger reports that journalists are saying privately that it was Karl Rove that contacted them about Wilson's CIA wife... (RealAudio required)
Reserve exodus?
I have been talking for a couple of weeks now about the problem welling up in the Army Reserves regarding the extended tours of duty and the unfair practice of not allowing Reservists to go home after the expiration date hits...
Now we have this article in the USA Today, "Army Reserve fears troop exodus," and we can see that this is definitely an underreported issue.
"If the United States is unable to recruit significantly more international troops or quell the violence in Iraq in the next few months, it could trigger an exodus of active and reserve forces, the head of the U.S. Army Reserve said Monday.
Lt. Gen. James Helmly, chief of the 205,000-member Army Reserve, said he and other Pentagon leaders will be monitoring retention rates closely next year, when problems could begin to become apparent for full-time and part-time soldiers coming off long tours of duty in Iraq.
'Retention is what I am most worried about. It is my No. 1 concern,' Helmly told USA TODAY's editorial board. 'This is the first extended-duration war the country has fought with an all-volunteer force.'"
I think this is an important point. These guys are there of their own volition. For them to pack up and leave after their tour in Iraq would be a serious blow to the Bush administration's plans. (I qualify the word "plans", as the Bush administration's plans have nothing to do with the country's goals).
Monday September 29, 2003
Anatomy of a scandal
Apparently the Republicans don't think it's a story until the Drudge Report throws its weight behind it. But the news of the outing of Ambassador Wilson's CIA wife news seems to be catching fire without Matt.
Why has it taken so long? It's curious, to be sure, that the White House wouldn't have done its own internal investigation to find out the indentities of the officials who revealed the information to Bob Novak, but it is also curious that our press has not done anything up until now to turn the spotlight on the behavior that George Bush senior called treasonous. It is also criminal. (via Atrios)
So here are some articles to get you up to speed on the latest Bush debacle:
Washington Post:
The first article that set off the current firestorm is this one in the Washington Post yesterday. It is followed by another article today.
MediaWhores links to this article at cbsnews.com. "If the allegations are true - whoever is responsible for the leak could be headed to jail - for ten years."
MediaWhores also points out that anyone who aided or abetted the criminals who outed the Ambassador's wife are also criminally suspect as well, including the 6 or 7 journalists who were contacted by the White House officials yet refused to do anything with the information.
MWO also gives a flashback link to the great cbsnews.com op-ed piece, George W. Nixon.
Hesiod at Counterspin Central believes that the Bush administration and its flunkies like Glenn Reynolds are operating under the childlike fantasy that if they can't see their scandal, no one else can see the scandal either. He also goes into a list of Rightist blogs and news sources who aren't running the story. Why do people like Andrew Sullivan hate America so? Is treason now a good thing?
Josh Marshall is all over this foul business, so you should check his blog regularly.
What the NYTimes has had on the topic is pathetic, to say the least. Where the hell are they?
Sunday September 28, 2003
I think there's no better symbol of the Iraq war than the title and picture that can be found on the cover of Christopher Hitchens' new book, "The Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq." The picture is the iconic scene of the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad.
As you may recall, 1) the square was a pristine PR stunt, 2) the cameras placed just so to give the impression that the square was filled with Iraqis (it wasn't), 3) there is indication that there were Iraqis there who were INC members carted in for the event, and 4) these Iraqis sported American flags provided by the US military.
The sad truth that has to follow from any rational assessment of the Iraq war to this point is that the Iraqi people's liberation is still sadly postponed by the miserable planning and politicking of the Bush administration, that this administration was essentially led by the nose by the lies of the INC, and that they have been attempting, since things have started going down hill, to limit the scope of the American people's understanding of the day-to-day hell of the Iraq conflict.
This is the mission that Christopher Hitchens supports with such fervor, no matter how nice the fiction that dances around in his head might sound.
Saturday September 27, 2003
"Mission accomplished"? Yep, he said it. Via Counterspin Central.
The cartoonists are getting restless. (May require that you register at Smirking Chimp to view).
Thursday September 25, 2003
Matt Drudge is proving himself once again the lackey of the Bush administration, dishing out a whole above-the-fold treatment of Wesley Clark. They must be really scared. We're gonna see this same drivel until the election folks, so let's hope that the opposition starts taking it back to them.
Wednesday September 24, 2003
Harper's Magazine's article "Jesus Plus Nothing" is online. This is essential reading, folks.
Tuesday September 23, 2003
Holy crap, Mark Crispin Miller has a weblog! Wahooo!
Monday September 22, 2003
The thing that struck me while watching Brit Hume's little interview with George W. Bush was how Brit's dainty, stocking-clad leg stretched out invitingly towards George, slowly flexing and unflexing his ankle, pointing his tassled loafer to and fro. That guy was on the make! I wonder if George took the bait.
Sunday September 21, 2003
Reenlistment? Shmeenlistment!
Below is the text of a letter I sent to Josh Marshall, on the hopes that someone out there with some clout might bring some attention to the serious reenlistment issue that might end up crippling the Reserves:
This op-ed piece in the NYTimes helps bring some backing to that theory. It was written by Mark Kimmey, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.
"The advantage of experienced reservists to a unit is immeasurable. But here in Iraq, I am hearing more soldiers talk about calling it quits when they return to the States. Even though some soldiers are only four or five years from qualifying for retirement pay and benefits, they're getting out. The constant deployments are difficult for families and careers, they say, and waiting around for retirement benefits is no longer worth it.
"The evidence I see in other units around me is the same: the United States Army is about to see a mass exodus from its Reserve.
[...]
"The question the Army faces is simple: will more frequent, extended deployments dry up the Reserve pool? We need an answer soon. If the Reserve continue to be misused, soldiers will vote with their feet when they get home. By then it will be too late for the Army to figure out what went wrong."
It looks like we might lose this war not to the Ba'athist guerrillas but to attrition. Not only are we *not* getting support from the international community, we're losing the support of the Reserve (and just as importantly, the families of the Reservists). Here's a small excerpt from an article in the Washington Post:
"The gathering storm of protest comes after months of concern inside and outside the Army that an over-reliance on Guard and Reserve forces by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism could adversely affect retention and recruiting. Some officials have expressed concern that this could break the Guard and Reserve system, which augments the active-duty force."
The article also spells out how the Reservists are getting screwed, and we might not see a drop in reenlistment until the war is over:
"Reservists and their family members predict that the new policy is likely to have a devastating impact as individuals drop out of the Reserves after they return. It has been impossible to gauge the effect on retention thus far, they say, because there is a wartime "stop-loss" provision in effect on mobilized units that bars reservists from leaving the force even after their service requirements have been met."
In addition, Reservists' preliminary preparations here in the US aren't counting against the length of their total tour.
Finally, it also mentions a new website, 129bringthemhome.com -- where families of the 129th have set up a petition to try to get their spouses back home.
A brief quote from their site:
"We, family members and friends in support of bringing home the 129th, find this change of rules and the failure to give our soldiers the assurance that they will return home at the end of their 12 month in-country tour of duty unacceptable. The negative impact on our soldiers' morale as well as the impact on their families has already been felt.
[...]
"Once-proud Army Reserve families are being disillusioned by the decision to keep Reservists beyond their original orders. We ask for your help in getting our loved ones home by the end of their 12 month tour of active duty. It is our belief that no National Guard or Reserve unit should have to serve more than 12 continuous months at one time."
This is crystallizing into a very real (and very dangerous) phenomenon. We're starting to see more and more signs of the troops in open revolt (at least in their letters) . And the right-wing line of defense is starting to develop as well. This is now on the Drudge Report:
"PROUD: All the armed services say they will meet or exceed their recruiting goals for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30... Developing..."
This seems to contradict the information in the Washington Post article, which states that the National Guard recruitment is down by over 20%. And, of course, there's no mention of reenlistment.
Friday September 19, 2003
"We're facing death for no reason" - soldier lashes out at Bush administration's war
In the most biting criticism heard to date of the Bush administration from a soldier on the ground in Iraq, Tim Predmore states, "'Shock and awe'? Yes, the words correctly described the emotional impact I felt as we embarked on an act not of justice, but of hypocrisy." His letter was originally posted in the Peoria Journal Star. He continues,
This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. At least for us here, oil seems to be the reason for our presence.
...
There is only one truth, and it is that Americans are dying. There are an estimated 10- to 14-attacks on our servicemen and women daily in Iraq. As the body count continues to grow, it would appear that there is no immediate end in sight.
I once believed that I served for a cause: "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Now, I no longer believe; I have lost my conviction, my determination. I can no longer justify my service for what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies. My time is done as well as that of many others with whom I serve. We have all faced death here without reason or justification.
How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before America awakens and demands the return of the men and women whose job it is to protect them rather than their leader's interest?
4
Apparently three American soldiers were killed in an ambush in Tikrit. Here's more from the AP.
In addition, another was killed in a powerline accident.
And the Bush shooting gallery continues to devastate American families and pull hope, stability and security further away from the grasp of the Iraqi people.
Thursday September 18, 2003
Ambassador Wilson interviewed at Talking Points Memo
TPM: Where do you see our position (regarding Iraq) right now?
WILSON: Well, I think we're fucked.
Wednesday September 17, 2003
Busy busy...
Lots to do, so not much time for a post. But two quick things:
First, Wesley Clark made what I believe was the first public statement about his candidacy today on CNN. This should make things very interesting.
Also, reader Cliff Stabbert pointed us to a true account of "shit-burning detail." From Cal Jacobson's story: "Unfortunately, I think shit ranks right up there with asbestos in terms of non-flammable materials. We would pour at least five gallons of gas for every two cans' worth of shit, and the stuff would only partly burn."
Oh, and I almost forgot "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus."
Monday September 15, 2003
Tom McClintock called the judges' ruling today in California, "authoritarian... anti-American... French."
Darrell Issa, without a twinge of irony, bemoaned the fact that three lowly judges were working their will.
Oh, my clueless brethren.
1; letters from the front; Bush hires serial perjurer; administration intimidation; Cheney a liar? Say it isn't so!
Maybe there's a clue here for me (and any of you all who are also, sadly, clueless). Since the clue-bellied sneetches are not forthcoming with their clues, I guess we have to find our own.
One soldier killed, 3 wounded yesterday in Iraq by an "improvised explosive device." More at the NYTimes. And there's the news at The Guardian that more than 6000 soldiers have been evacuated for medical reasons since the war began, more than 1500 of those considered "wounded".
***
So, while deciding how I could procure myself a clue, I thought I could maybe ask this guy, or maybe this guy, or possibly this guy or this one. I decided that instead of asking these folks for a clue, two of whom have never seen combat, the other two not on the front lines putting their lives on the line, that it might be better to seek a clue from these folks.
Buzzflash has a disheartening letter from SGT Leanne Duffy, currently stationed in Kuwait at Camp Wolf. From her letter: "Yes, we are physically able to finish our mission but mentally and spiritually we are dying... Right now where we are at we can't see anyone taking a stand for the soldiers (as it isn't just us being treated this way but many, many soldiers). This isn't a simple board game of Axis and Allies this is a game people are playing with real people, people with families, not robots... It has been told to the officers I have spoken to that 3rd PERSCOM refers to moving soldiers as 'drug deals'. You do this for me and I'll make sure your soldiers go home etc. What I'm wondering is if there are any checks and balances for those who are making decisions here? Yes, without a doubt I am proud to serve my country... We are slowly becoming frantic. I hear people saying they are going to begin hurting themselves or others if they can't go home. The helplessness our soldiers are feeling is indescribable, it is past the point of suck it up drive on. We just want somewhere to drive on to."
Then I read some of the letters to Stars and Stripes. There was this: "I’m posted in Balad, Iraq. Since my arrival, I’ve read numerous letters from soldiers complaining about living conditions, food, the mail, telephones and Internet connections, the heat, dust, laundry, communal showers, etc. But I haven’t seen a single letter complaining about the one thing that grates on me the most: burning human feces. The burning takes place daily, morning and evening. One can see and smell the black smoke and fumes emanating from the cut up drums of waste mixed with JP-8....We’ll never get indoor plumbing... But how about just plain, old-fashioned chemical toilets?"
And there's this letter: "I’m an Active Guard Reserve, and my expiration, term of service date was in July. I went to check when I can get out of the system and was told that since my orders have me deployed with a Reserve unit, I have to stay until the unit is demobilized and a period of 90 days following the unit’s demobilization. What’s the point of having an 'Army of one' when we still have different standards and regulations? Wherever I go I’m considered active duty, yet I fall under Reserve rules for the most part. I know soldiers who are active duty, and they’ve been allowed to ETS from Iraq. So why can’t AGR and Reserve soldiers ETS from theater? I think the Army has a double standard."
That last letter brings up an interesting point: with morale so low in Iraq, what effect is it having on reenlistment rates? As these tours of duty drag on and on, more and more soldiers are going to hit their ETS date while on the ground in Iraq. What if significant numbers decide not to stay? Is that already happening?
***
Our President (both of our great country and of the club of the clueless) has hired on L. Jean Lewis, Republican partisan, Whitewater instigator, and, as David Neiwert points out, serial perjurer. He also found a link to a good rundown of her lies under oath. As he also points out here, during the 2000 election thievery in Florida, she reacted to the arrival of Jesse Jackson and his "minions" (her word) on the scene by calling them "malignant cancer cells attracted to a growing tumor." Yet, David points out, she didn't "evince any concern for the effect on the election by such groups as Don Black's white-supremacist Stormfront troops (who in fact broke up one of Jackson's appearances).'"
***
Christine Amanpour talks of intimidation by the Bush administration and its "foot soldiers at Fox News" during the initial run into Baghdad, which some mistakenly call "The Iraq War." From the article: "Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: 'Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda.'" Touché.
***
Josh Marshall thinks Dick Cheney is a liar. I think he's a lying son of a bitch. But all I did was watch him lie about the Iraq/Al Quaeda connection on Meet the Press. He said this: "The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it." As Josh points out, "Presumably Mr. Cheney is basing the veracity of this statement on the same principle by which he doesn't know that I can't bench press a thousand pounds... Even applying so low a standard as that by which we judge incidents with four-year-olds and cookie jars, Cheney's statement that 'we just don't know' whether Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks is a lie."
Sunday September 14, 2003
Clueless and weaponless.
Damn, I'm clueless. Maybe David Kay, the lead administration WMD hunter in Iraq can give me a clue.
Uh oh. Maybe not.
"...this morning the Sunday Times of London is reporting (subscription required) that 'Britain and America have decided to delay indefinitely the publication of a full report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction after inspectors found no evidence that any such weapons exist.'"
Damn. Well, maybe this guy will give me a clue.
I'm curious to know what algorithmic monstrosity could place my meager site at #10 in the blog ranking above Daily Kos, Drudge, and Eschaton View the screenshot, because I'm sure this is an anomaly. Apparently the blog achieved this ranking with a single citation from Mark A. R. Kleiman.
Friday September 12, 2003
Facing the unreal on 9/11/2003
For the past few weeks I've been trying to put together a piece about the second anniversary of September 11th. It's been difficult. The tragedy and our country's recovery has been completely overshadowed by the war in Iraq. The war has become a vulgar spectacle, akin to watching a car crash in slow motion. Soldiers are dying almost casually in that country. The news of another soldier's death comes more unexpectedly to the slain than to us. We're not surprised when we hear of another explosion, another mutilation, another shooting. We're more surprised when seven days pass without an American death -- because we know that it's the anomaly, and not the trend. And one question that has to come to mind with every new obituary is, "Why was that man there?" But the question is rhetorical. He's there because he is there. He's there because we put him there and now he can be nowhere else because for that soldier to be somewhere else would mean that we have "lost". He's there because there is no one else to take his place.
There's no worse Hell that I could imagine than being shipped off to a foreign country to fight a war on behalf of this administration, standing around waiting to be murdered.
***
Our administration treats Iraq as if it's a construction project a few weeks off schedule, when in reality it's a construction project where the crew is undermanned, working from plans lacking structural integrity, using over-priced yet shoddy materials from some mob-related company. Our administration is the company who tells the client that everything is fine while its principals are secretly planning their getaway from yet another instance of their criminal mismanagement.
And I think that this is what galls me so much about the Bush administration's reaction to quagmire that's engulfing our troops. It's the Rumsfeld line, "It's all hunky-dorey and it couldn't be any different and war is chaotic messy business and thanks for asking but we really have it all under control and how dare you insinuate and I never said that show me the reference and we don't need more troops over there it's "only four months" for God's sake!"
And then another guy bites it as some explosive device held together with baling wire and chewing gum rips through his humvee and tears him limb from limb. "Only four months" in which we've floundered and postured and our soldiers have been picked off with impunity.
***
It's our administration's divestiture from reality, their supposed "focus and determination" undercut by an ideological fervor that pretends to us that the truth is other than what it is. We are witnessing a new reality being constructed for us out of whole cloth. The latest example is the idea that somehow the Bush team was unaware of the sorry state of the infrastructure of Iraq. Recall that Rumsfeld said that they held fine-grained details about the country: where the WMDs were (around Baghdad and Tikrit). Either they are saying that their intelligence was so bad that they didn't even know what country it was that they were bombing, or they're lying to us. It does seem absurd that a country such as ours, that was a key member of the sanctions regime, would have no idea what kind of effect sanctions and a despotic dictator would have on a country's infrastructure.
Another example, from the fringe. Ann Coulter has been a furious transmitter of the demented memes of the Bush administration and the far-right fascist movements in our country. An emaciated weathervane, as it were. I could only respond with a silent terror when I saw her latest screed: "On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did." As Atrios points out, wasn't it Osama Bin Laden? Is this just an error, or a blatant manipulation? Or does she believe this?
This disconnect can also be seen in the divergence between their public face and their private policy: cutting air marshals on long-distance flights; cutting veterans' benefits; forcing wounded veterans to pay for their meals while recovering in the hospital. Their actions belie unvoiced plans for our country, yet we can glean from various sources what the final goals are. From Grover Norquist we see that key advisers to our President want to dismantle the welfare state. From the neocon Project for a New Century we can see that there are administration officials who want to strengthen and deepen the U.S.'s hegemony, while at the same time propping up our defense industry with new technology initiatives such as tactical nuclear weapons and bioweapons that can "'target' specific genotypes." For health care, they have nothing. Their economic policy isn't as much a policy as it is cover fire. Their anti-terrorism stand is as much a far-right attack on civil liberties as it is a fight against terrorist cells. From the exploitation of 9/11, to Iraq, to tax cuts and homeland security, the American people have been conned.
It's our obligation to wake up.
***
Today, during a firefight with guerrillas in Fallujah, the U.S. soldiers could see the crowd that gathered to watch, the crowd that shouted "Oh, Iraq, we sacrifice our lives and blood for you."
This is the sad legacy of 9/11. This is what our President has given us. It's not the central fight in the war on terror. It's the central fight in a war over reality: is it defined by events, or by our leaders? What will the war's outcome mean for us, and for the world?
Wednesday September 10, 2003
Paula Zahn needs to be flogged in the public square for bringing Ari Fleischer back under the gaze of the video camera. Was it too much to hope for even a year's reprieve from his mendacity?
Molly Ivins: "For 87 billion bucks, the least we deserve is some candor."
1 killed, many wounded in at least 4 attacks
The slow drip from Bush's occupation of Iraq continues, with another soldier dying Tuesday when his vehicle was hit by explosives. Another was wounded in the incident. In another attack, a car bomb went off killing one (Iraqi, presumably) and wounding 53 in Arbil, including 6 people from the Defense Department. According to the CNN article linked above, two were killed in the car bomb incident. But it gets worse. From the same CNN article comes the news that an improvised explosive device wounded two soldiers in Ramadi, and another improvised explosive was used to wound three soldiers in Fallujah.
This should come as no surprise (unless you've been listening to the Republicans like Drudge pretending that 7 days without a death of a U.S. soldier was something other than an anomaly). Whether you are Democrat or Republican, a simple, undeniable fact stares you in the face: George Bush was much too eager to claim victory and take the poll-jump that would accompany it. Either that, or cynically he had come to realize that if he waited much longer he would no longer have been able to get the same PR victory that he got. His speech on Sunday underscored just how badly on the defensive this administration has become. Had everything gone fine after his aircraft carrier landing, George would have continued his string of God-and-glory proclamations on aircraft carriers and in Army bases all across our land. They fumbled the ball, and have lost a lot of ground. It's time for them to stop letting PR and polling drive their Iraq policy. If that means we need more soldiers, then so be it. If that means that we need to cede some control to the U.N. in exchange for a much larger multi-national force that could perform adequately in urban combat situations, so be it.
But I don't believe that the solution to our problems in Iraq is to simply pull out our troops and leave the Iraqis high and dry. Our current force is inadequate to stem the rise of gang violence and kidnappings in Baghdad and across Iraq. We can't leave the innocents in the hands of vultures. We are paying a price for our victory in Iraq, and the Iraqis are too. Our victory over Saddam's army should come to stand for something other than the U.S.'s arrogance and our President's short attention span.
Tuesday September 09, 2003
Rumsfeld takes not responsibility unto himself; uh, we said $87 billion? We meant $142 billion
If you ever needed proof that this administration is so inept that they will do anything to deny responsibility for their mistakes, you've got it now. As Josh Marshall states in a post yesterday at Talking Points Memo, this administration has resorted to the most vile of behavior, taking the "You're either with us or against us," mantra to a whole new level. Rumsfeld stated yesterday: "To the extent that terrorists are given reason to believe (the President) might (acquiesce), or, if he is not going to, that the opponents might prevail in some way, and they take heart in that, and that leads to more money going into these activities, or that leads to more recruits, or that leads to more encouragement, or that leads to more staying power, obviously that does make our task more difficult."
That's right -- it's all everyone else's fault! As Josh states, "The administration games the public into an endeavor by exaggerating the gains and minimizing the price. Then the gains are revealed as not quite so great. And the price is revealed as very much greater. And if all that weren't bad enough, the operation is bungled on several fronts. So the gamers and the scammers say it's the fault of the critics who tried to carve through the mumbo-jumbo in the first place. And when the public has a touch of buyers' remorse over a product that was peddled on false advertising, the answer lies in the public's own degeneracy and division."
According to White House officials, Bush lowballed the costs of the War on Iraq/Afghanistan/Terror/The World by $55 billion dollars. From the LA Times: "Administration officials said President Bush's emergency spending request — which would push the U.S. budget deficit above the half-trillion-dollar mark for the first time — still left a reconstruction funding gap of as much as $55 billion." Yet, "(a)dministration officials stressed that they had no plans to ask Congress for more than the $87 billion during the coming fiscal year, which ends just before next year's presidential election." So they'll tag that extra $55 billion in reconstruction costs onto next year's $87 billion request, I guess.
In the meantime, how will that $87 billion be spent? They're not telling. "The White House gave few details of how the $87-billion appropriation for fiscal 2004 would be spent, beyond saying that $16 billion would go to cover work in Afghanistan and elsewhere and the rest to Iraq. Of the $51 billion allocated for military operations in Iraq, it provided a breakdown for just $1.2 billion, prompting calls from lawmakers for more candor." Shouldn't that have been written, "prompting calls from lawmakers for candor"? Maybe they can explain the $50,000,000 that will be required to resurrect the New Diyala bridge on the southeast end of Baghdad.
Sunday September 07, 2003
Josh Marshall was right -- Bush mentioned the idea that Iraq is being flooded with terrorist groups intent on playing out their war against the West in the more hospitable setting of the Middle East. Juan Cole says that this notion is rather sensationalistic, given the 50,000 Baathists in Iraq who know where the hidden weapons caches are.
Iraqis threatens to go it alone; from swagger to stagger
From the Christian Science Monitor, Spetember 5: "Iraqis threaten to go it alone": "(P)rominent Iraqis are threatening to ignore or upstage the Coalition Provisional Authority's (CPA) plans for Iraq.
Mohammed Bahr al-Ulloum, a highly respected Shiite cleric who withdrew from the interim Governing Council this week, says that he may set up militias around Iraq to address deteriorating security...
...(O)ther Iraqi figures are now organizing a nationwide conference that will promote itself as the true face of the Iraqi democracy.
The Constitutional Monarchy Movement (CMM), led by Sherif Ali bin Hussein - a Hashemite family prince who is considered by royalists to be the heir to the Iraqi monarchy deposed in 1958 - is organizing a conference of what he says will be approximately 500 political, professional, tribal, and legal leaders from all over Iraq."
Maureen Dowd: From swagger to stagger: "Even though Bush the Younger has done everything in his power not to replicate the fate of his dad, he is replicating the fate of his dad. Only months after swaggering out of a successful war with Iraq, he is struggling with the economy. His numbers have fallen so fast, Top Gun is now tap dancing. He will address the nation to try to underscore the imaginary line that links the budget-busting pit of Iraq to the heartbreaking pit of 9/11."
Thursday September 04, 2003
Running to the UN; more on Iraq and 9/11; Right-wing hate transmission; jobless claims above 400,000; Estrada gone; Abizaid ignored
George Bush has now caved in to pressure from everyone and is groveling back to the UN for the support he needs to prosecute his war in Iraq. Maybe he'll put the soldiers under French command! It's sad when the leader of the free world gets his ass handed to him on a plate with a side of fries and has to do a 180 in his foreign policy, turning for help to the people that he so recently vilified.
First it was the Left that told him to get the UN in there, then the Republicans came on board, and apparently even the Joint Chiefs started siding with that treasonous State Department, and together with Colin Powell they did an end-run around the Rumsfeld brigade.
Tom Tomorrow has more on how the Right has (and still is) attempting to tie Iraq to the events of 9/11. He has quotes from those bastions of liberalism The Christian Science Monitor, Time, and The Wall Street Journal.
Dave Neiwert had a great post on how Right-wing hate groups started the meme of MeChA's alleged "racism" -- another example of how Right-wing media outlets and pundits in this country are transmitters of hate-group propaganda. In this recent flareup regarding MeChA, it's not surprising to find out that David Horowitz is somehow involved; Mr. Neiwert points out that this is not the only episode of Mr. Horowitz being involved in the transmission of hate-group propaganda.
Jobless claims creeped above 400,000, an indication that the economy is still weak. Productivity is blasting off, but there's no increase in the workforce. Brad DeLong has figured that initial unemployment insurance claims would have to dip to around 357,000 before we will start seeing a drop in the unemployment rate.
Miguel Estrada has withdrawn his name for consideration for a Federal Appeals Court post.
An amazing article at The River Cities' Reader talks about how General Abizaid, in an internal Defense Department book, discussed the massive troop requirements for urban warfare, the potential for troop burnout, and the consequences of under-preparedness for urban combat situations. He was essentially ignored by Donald Rumsfeld and his team. Now Abizaid is in Iraq to try to get a handle on the situation. The article includes a number of points pulled from Abizaid's book, "Doctrine for Joint Urban Operations." A few of his points: "* Urban operations increase support demands due to the high level of injury and exhaustion of personnel, damage to equipment, and to the potential need to provide support to noncombatants. *In combat operations, the need to secure cities building by building, room by room, requires large numbers of infantry. * Nearly all operations in urban areas, including predominantly air operations, take significantly longer than originally expected. * Forces will need reconstitution more frequently. ... Historically, it is necessary to pull units back for rest and reconstitution far more frequently in urban combat than in other types of operations. ... When that is coupled with the high casualty rates normally associated with urban combat, the problem of reconstitution becomes a serious one, requiring foresight and prior planning and preparation. * Urban combat is mentally, physically, and emotionally exhausting, and the psychological effects on all participants (including health-care personnel) can be devastating."
Wednesday September 03, 2003
The Right eats its own - but still hates America
Another day being led by the Right wing of the American political spectrum. Why do they hate America so? You're either with us or against us, George! With us or against us!
First, there was Paul Wolfowitz's editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday in which he attempted, once again, to tie Saddam Hussein's regime to 9/11. And it's obvious from his comments that that is exactly the idea that the administration has been trying to promote in the armed services. Wolfowitz ends with this: "To those who think the battle in Iraq is a distraction from the global war against terrorism... tell that to our troops."
Instead, I'd rather tell our troops why exactly it was we were there, Paul. Because you can't make up your mind. Now that the terrorists seem to be converging on Iraq, you guys are saying that that was your plan all along. "Bring 'em on!", your boss said! We're losing guys left and right, and we still have a cadre of Rightists who see any complaint about your horrible mismanagement of the War on Terror (that seems to be doing nothing but inflaming hatred for the US abroad) as treasonous, Communist, Marxist, Trotskyist, the whole shebang. Pretty soon they're going to have to lock up half the country and all of Congress, because complaints about your negligence are on the rise even in your own Rightist party! Those treasonous bastards!
Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, reflecting a sense of anxiety heard by members of both parties, said he wants to "combat a sense of drift" about U.S. policy in Iraq and bring in more international assistance.
...
"Mainly, people want reassurance that the administration knows what it's doing," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), "that things are going better than CNN would have us believe."
...
Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) said they found more people worried about administration policy regarding the USA Patriot Act, and its implications for civil liberties, than the situation in Iraq. But the shift in public opinion on Iraq was noted by many in both parties.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said his constituents "have gone from a sense of exhilaration over the victory to a sense of deep concern. They need to be told what it's going to take and what to expect."
...
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said some Americans link the worrisome bulletins from Iraq to concerns about budget deficits and unemployment, making them "very tentative and unsure." As a result, he said, the administration is likely to face "a lot of tough questions" this fall.
Now the Bush administration is caving in to pressure from an uneasy public, and reaching out covertly to the UN to get more nations on board the Iraqi love train. And it's going to apparently require ceding some control over the situation to the UN. Why does George hate America so? Doesn't he know that ceding any control to the UN is like turning over the keys to your car to Saddam himself? From the article: "They say they expect the United States to engage in quiet, behind-the-scenes negotiations on the text of the resolution, to ensure it would be agreeable to the veto-wielding permanent members and the rest of the Security Council, and to project a unanimous, internationally backed stand on what happens next on Iraq."
Bush is going to make sure that the French like the resolution? From that first article quoted above: "Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said that back home, 'some are wondering if we should invite other troops in, and have more of an international presence.' But Brady said he was wary of such a move. 'I don't think we'll win the war running it by committee,' he said."
And finally, Josh Marshall points out this article in today's Washington Post, a followup to yesterday's. Josh got the key 'grafs from the article:
A senior administration official said that Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had recently begun lobbying key members of the administration to support a U.N. resolution. The official added that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have become "much more interested in this than before," because they know a new resolution is necessary for them to attract new peacekeeping forces to Iraq.
The defense official said Gen. John Abizaid, the new head of the U.S. Central Command and the top commander in Iraq, and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been "strongly engaged in the internationalization effort, to include a new U.N. resolution."
It doesn't seem that the Right knows what to do! Should it hate America like the rest of the commies who are, through their complaints, destroying our war effort and lowering the morale of our troops? (Silly me -- I thought that the 125 degree heat, lack of running water, and constant guerrilla actions would be enough.) Or should they conscript more American kids to die in Iraq? Such tough decisions!
Tuesday September 02, 2003
Another soldier killed
Another soldier died today, according to the NYTimes. "Also Tuesday, a Black Hawk UH-60 helicopter crashed south of Baghdad, killing one U.S. soldier and injuring another. The accident took place at around 12:30 a.m. and was a 'non-hostile' incident, said Spc. Anthony Reinoso."
To those Rightists out there who say, "These casualties don't even compare to what we suffered in Vietnam," all I can say is that if you feel that this casualty rate is "acceptable", maybe we should find a way to conscript you or your kin to the effort.
LiberalOasis has an interview with Paul Krugman. "LiberalOasis: What do you hope to accomplish with your latest book, 'The Great Unraveling'? Paul Krugman: 'I’m hoping that I can help people put it together, just pull it together in a way where they see just how badly they’ve been misled. How the things that are going wrong now are not just stuff that happened, but has been building from three years ago and before.'"
Car bomb hits Baghdad police academy
From CNN's website: "A car bomb exploded Tuesday in a parking lot near a western Baghdad police station at which cadets are being trained for the country's new police force... According to police, there are casualties but no deaths."
2; 1; nation building; casualty rates rising
Another bomb kills two U.S. soldiers in Baghdad. "Two U.S. military police officers have died and another was wounded after their Humvee hit a bomb along a highway in southern Baghdad, the Coalition Press Information Center said Tuesday."
Also, from the same article, news that one U.S. soldier drowned on Monday and two others were injured: "A U.S. soldier in Iraq drowned and two others were injured near Tikrit, U.S. Central Command said Monday. The soldiers were part of the 4th Infantry Division's Task Force Ironhorse. They were on a routine patrol Friday night when their vehicle fell into a canal, a Central Command statement said."
Countries Resist Aid to Iraq. This says it all: "'What exactly is it that happens on the ground that makes things better if the U.N. is in charge of reconstruction?' Bremer asked. 'How does the situation on the ground get better?' Dobbins's answer: 'You get more resources and you get more legitimacy.'" Bremer is nothing but a party apparatchik who, like his counterparts here in the US, wishes the UN would just go away (but leave the combination to the safe).
U.S. soldiers in Iraq are getting wounded more often than press reports would lead you to believe. "Indeed, the number of troops wounded in action in Iraq is now more than twice that of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The total increased more than 35 percent in August -- with an average of almost 10 troops a day injured last month... With no fanfare and almost no public notice, giant C-17 transport jets arrive virtually every night at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, on medical evacuation missions. Since the war began, more than 6,000 service members have been flown back to the United States. The number includes the 1,124 wounded in action, 301 who received non-hostile injuries in vehicle accidents and other mishaps, and thousands who became physically or mentally ill... 'A few of us started volunteering [at Walter Reed] as amputees in 1991, and this is the most we've seen ever,' said Jim Mayer, a double amputee from the Vietnam War who works at the Veterans Administration. 'I've never seen anything like this. But I haven't seen anybody not get good care.'"
Regarding that rumor that Bush didn't want to see any more American deaths come March of next year: does that mean he wants no more deaths, or that he just doesn't want to see them?
Monday September 01, 2003
Happy Birthday MozillaZine!!!
Happy Birthday! It was 5 years today that I turned on MozillaZine, and it has grown well beyond my expectations. I have some comments that will be going up on the MozillaZine main site later today, but I just wanted to extend a quick thanks to everyone who has helped with the site over the years: Jason, Steve, Alex, Asa, James, and all the forum moderators. Thanks!!!
Intentional; your role in the jobless recovery; life in Baghdad
The tearing down of the Shiia banner in Iraq was intentional, we now find out. "The top U.S. military commander in Iraq acknowledged Thursday for the first time that his forces intentionally knocked down a Shiite Muslim flag in the capital's Sadr City ghetto, an incident that triggered rioting and fueled anti-American sentiment among Iraq's majority Shiites." Too late to do any good now.
What is your role in the jobless recovery? Watch this.
Members of the NC National Guard tell of their time in Baghdad. "Their shelter is an abandoned concrete government building tucked behind the walls of a deserted Iraqi compound. Lacking city electricity, running water and windows, the bomb-scarred structure is filled with military cots and furniture scavenged from other bombed and abandoned buildings."
