Lieberman again thinks we're making progress.

Nice hat. And flack jacket.

Just another weekday stroll through the quiet streets of Baghdad...

It's fascinating to see the heterodox economists' reaction to Chris Hayes' marvellous article, which I think is spot on in its dissection of change in the profession. His message is that heterodoxy is - slowly - becoming the new orthodoxy. I agree. But are heterodox economists happy? They are not. Either they dispute that the mainstream has shifted, or they argue that it has fatally watered down heterodox approaches by absorbing them. I begin to suspect that heterodoxy is not defined by the content of its ideas but simply by its outsider status in the economics profession.

I think this information is already out there, but it bears repeating. A report by the Intelligence Science Board gives insight into how our coercive interrogation techniques were developed.

The study mentions the careful interrogation techniques used to interrogate German and Japanese troops in WWII, undertaken by highly educated interrogators, fluent in the language, spent six hours preparing for every hour of interrogation. But that isn't the model. Rather, we based our techniques on those used by the Soviet Union to elicit information from prisoners:

Many of the techniques that have come in for such criticism were based on those used in the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training, or SERE, in which for decades American service members were given a sample of the brutal treatment they might face if captured.

Because the training was developed during the cold war, the techniques later adopted by the C.I.A. and Special Operations officers in Iraq were based, at least in part, on how the Soviet Union and its allies were believed to treat prisoners. Such techniques included prolonged use of stress positions, exposure to heat and cold, sleep deprivation and even waterboarding.

A report on detainee abuse by the Defense Department’s inspector general, completed in August but declassified and released May 18, gives new details of how the military training was “reverse engineered” for use by American interrogators. It says that as early as 2002, some SERE trainers and some military intelligence officers vehemently objected to the use of the techniques, but their protests were ignored.

To think that we chose between methods proven useful in eliciting military secrets and methods useful in perpetuating Stalinism, and chose as we did.

[cross-posted to Tikun Olam]

Recently, I wrote here about the tragic conviction of Navy Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz for leaking the names of Guantanamo inmates to a human rights lawyer in 2003. Even though the military later released all the names anyway, Diaz was convicted on the improbable charge of damaging the interests of the U.S. by revealing the names. He was sentenced to six months in prison. All for doing what any decent American should've done. All for standing up for traditional American values of freedom, decency, fairness and the rule of law.

Diaz' niece saw my post at TPMCafe and wrote me a nice note thanking me. Then Bryan White, one of my readers, asked me if he could contact Diaz to thank him for his bravery:

Poor bastard! They've got the wrong guy in jail. He's been locked up for obeying the law.

...I'm sending him a letter telling him I admire him and that I wish him the best. See if he needs anything or just feels like corresponding. Show solidarity. I support the guy and want to be sure he knows it. Millions of people support him. I just hope he doesn't come out of this bitter or hateful...

Matt agreed to recieve mail from Bryan and the former's niece graciously provided his military address. I was thinking that if others of my readers would like to do this I could pass on your names to his niece and ask her permission to provide Matt's postal address.

But you can't have Matt's e mail address because the Navy denies him e-mail privileges. You also can't send Matt copied pages from any media (including the internet). You can only send him newspapers or magazines that are pre-approved. The idea that a man who gave 18 yrs of his life as a Navy lawyer is locked up as a common criminal & prevented even from using e mail is so repugnant as to be beyond belief. This man is a patriot & deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom, not 6 months in solitary. What is the Navy afraid of--that he will communicate some secret code to yet another human rights lawyer and give away the keys to the kingdom?

Matt Diaz is an American patriot. The military brass and CIA officers running Gitmo and their enablers back in DC are the criminals who deserve six months in the brig for ignoring our Constitution. Matt should be giving lessons in habeus corpus and due process to senators like Lindsay Graham and John McCain who essentially "legalized Gitmo."

In an op-ed, "Jenin comes to Lebanon. So where is the outcry?", Jonathan Kay challenges the hypocrisy of the international community as well as the arab and muslim world, in its response to Lebanon's current fight against terrorists vis a vis Israel's similar operation in Jenin in 2002.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=96c43ca9-ec26-470a-adda-93476ff79799
Last week, the Lebanese army attacked a squalid Palestinian refugee camp that's become infested with Islamist suicide terrorists and guerilla fighters. On May 20, government troops surrounded the camp, with tanks and artillery pieces shelling it at close range. Army snipers gunned down anything that moved. At least 18 civilians were killed, and dozens more injured. Water and electricity were cut off. By week's end, much of the camp had been turned into deserted rubble. Thousands of terrified residents fleeing the camp reported harrowing stories of famished, parched families trapped in their basements.

How did the rest of the world react? The Arab League quickly condemned "the criminal and terrorist acts carried out by the terrorist group known as Fatah al-Islam," and vowed to "give its full support to the efforts of the army and the Lebanese government." EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana also condemned Fatah al-Islam, and declared Europe's "support" for Lebanon. And the UN Security Council called the actions of Fatah al-Islam "an unacceptable attack" on Lebanon's sovereignty. As for the Western media, most outlets ignored the story following the first flurry of news reports.

At this point, please indulge me by re-reading the first paragraph of this column -- except this time, substitute the world "Israeli" for "Lebanese" in the first sentence. Let's imagine what the world's reaction would be if the ongoing siege were taking place in Gaza or the West Bank instead of the Nahr al Bared refugee camp on the outskirts of Tripoli, Lebanon.

First of all, a flood of foreign journalists would descend on the camp to document Israel's cruelty and barbarism, and the story would remain front page news to this day. Al-Jazeera would be a 24/7 montage of grieving mothers swearing revenge on the Zionist butchers, and rumours would swirl of mass graves and poison gas. The Arab League, EU and United Nations would condemn Israeli aggression -- as would the editorial board of The New York Times. The Independent would dispatch Robert Fisk to embed with Fatah al-Islam. And the newspaper's cartoonist, Dave Brown, would produce another award-winning rendition of his signature theme: Jews eating Palestinian babies.

Actually, we don't need to speculate: What I have just written is exactly what happened when the Israeli army invaded the Jenin refugee camp to root out terrorists in April, 2002, a battle that was similar in scale to this month's siege at Nahr al Bared. (At Jenin, 52 refugee camp residents were killed -- most of them gunmen, according to Human Rights Watch. At Nahr al Bared, the figure is 45 and climbing.) The main difference between the two sieges is that Israel's army put its troops at far greater risk by invading Jenin with infantry -- whereas the less humane Lebanese army has simply pummelled Nahr al Bared with explosives from a distance. Jews apparently care a lot more about saving Palestinian civilians than do Lebanese soldiers.

For years, we have been told that Palestinian suffering and "humiliation" is at the root of the Middle East conflict, as well as the Western-Muslim clash of civilizations more generally. This is nonsense: The 200,000-plus Palestinian refugees who live in Lebanese camps are treated worse than dogs -- with no access to decent schools or good jobs -- and no one in the Arab world cares a whit. In fact, many Arabs seem to embrace the same blind anti-Palestinian hatred of which Israel is typically accused. When Lebanese armoured personnel carriers rolled through Tripoli on May 20, they got a standing ovation from local residents. "We wish the government would destroy the whole camp and the rest of the camps," one local told The New York Times. "Nothing good comes out of the Palestinians."

Just as Lebanon's stew of eternally warring Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Hezbollah terrorists and militarized clans serves as a Mediterranean microcosm for the political dysfunction of the Arab world, this month's events capture perfectly the utter cynicism of the Islamic world's trumped up vilification of Israel, and the West as a whole. As with the Muslim- on-Muslim slaughter in Darfur, Iraq, Pakistan, Gaza and a dozen other hot spots, the siege at Nahr al Bared shows that what inflames "the Muslim street" (for lack of a better cliche) isn't Muslim suffering, but the relatively tiny fraction thereof that jihadi propagandists and their Western apologists can lay at the feet of Jews and Christians.

Muslim blood apparently comes cheap -- but only when it's drawn by other Muslims.

I will begin my commentary with my experience.

I was raised at a home called Homewood Terrace in San Francisco from 1952 when I was 6-years old until 1965. This was a home for youngsters whose parents had some problems resulting in their not being able to raise their kids. There were some younsgsters who were orphans and there also were some who were emotionally disturbed. During the 1950's, there were some youngsters who were transported out of Europe to escape the holocaust. We all attended the public schools, although during the 1960's, there were youngsters who had special problems and were taught at a school on the grounds. There were cottages on the grounds with house parents in each cottage. During the summers, we were taken on picnics at the homes of wealthy people who served on Homewood Terrace's Board of Directors and the Women's Auxiliary in Atherton and Hillsboro, just south of San Francisco. We also went swimming at some other public parks in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of the board and auxiliary members would donate symphony and opera tickets to the home for youngsters like myself, who had an appreciation for this kind of music. As a teenager, I recall going to the Opera House to see Yehudi Menuhin.

Until 1958, Homewood Terrace was well administered. Unfortunately in 1958, the Board of Directors replaced the director with a new director who ran the home pretty much like a reform school. He instituted a policy where parents in order to be able to have visits with their children had to call the Homewood Terrace administration by the preceding Wednesday. This policy was very arbitrary. Some of the parents had issues of forgetfulness and would forget to make that call. Even though they really wanted to see their children on the weekends, they were denied such visits. On some occasions, my father would forget to make that call by that Wednesday. My parents were divorced, and my mother never forgot to make that call for her weekends with us. Under this particular director, if a youngster of high school age wanted to visit with friends whom they met at school, they also had to let the administration know days in advance. As a parent who later raised a child, I can say that a youngster doesn't know what they're about to do the next day let alone 3-5 days later. As a result of this director's policies, there were a lot of runaways. I recall alarms being installed on the windows of the cottages, at that time. Fortunately, he left Homewood in 1961 or '62. His successor reversed the worst of his predecessors policies.

When I reached the 12th grade in the Fall of 1963, I was placed in one of the first group homes. At that time, Homewood Terrace started to phase out the home on Ocean Ave. and moved kids into homes in the neighborhoods. The home that I was placed in was for young people who were in their last year of high school or attending City College, now SF Community College. During the Spring of 1965, my brother and I left the home to move in with our father. In view of what I said, I have mixed feelings about my upbringing at Homewood Terrace. There are the issues that I mentioned above, and I feel that I wasn't given enough encouragement to achieve certain things, which was also the case with other youngsters. Still, I made a life for myself and I'm glad that there was a place where I could be raised, and it beats what I'm about to say below.

I say that there is a very strong need today for homes of this kind. In re-instituting these homes, we can keep what was good, and improve on whatever was not done right in the past. We have parents today, who should have no right to raise children. Often, they don't even know where their youngsters are. We constantly hear on the news about drive-by shootings, people being mugged by teenagers, vandalism being committed late at night, etc., all by kids whose parents don't know or don't even care about their whereabouts or what they are up to, and I'm not only talking about children from financially poor families. In regards to vandalism, this often occurs in Chico Califoornia, where I now live, although it's a pretty safe community. I support all efforts to help parents do a better job of raising their children, but if nothing else works those particular parents must forfeit the right to have children. In re-instituting these homes, some children could be placed in group homes in the neighborhoods. Children with more severe problems would need to be placed in more institutionalized settings. With much less money being spent for war and on prisons, and with the super wealthy being required to pay their fair share of taxes, I hope that a future Democratic administration will institute policies to help our young people to be able to make decent lives for themselves, and also help their parents when possible.

No surprises here...

No snark is worth it. Cheney is pure evil. Why doesn't the Democratic house impeach him? I have little expectation that the Senate would convict him, but the impeachment will bring so much more out in the open. He is not exempt from criminal prosecution AFTER he leaves office.

Further, an impeachment would keep him sufficiently busy that he might be prevented from more mischief, or at least somewhat hampered.

Very. VCAP Executive Director Robin DeJarnette is also the executive director of the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund. As such, DeJarnette has played a major role in the GOP's national campaign to disenfranchise poor and minority voters.

Richard L. Hasen recently wrote an excellent article for Slate about the American Center for Voting Rights and the affiliated American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund, "The Fraudulent Fraud Squad - The incredible, disappearing American Center for Voting Right."

It seems that Robin DeJarnette wants to downplay her role as executive director of the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund (the Center) with Virginia voters. DeJarnette's online VCAP bio omits any mention of her association with the Center:

"Robin DeJarnette is the founder and Executive Director of the Virginia Conservative Action PAC. Robin has been involved in advancing the conservative movement in Virginia for 15 years. She was the Government Relations Director for The Family Foundation for 10 years. Robin has also consulted and been involved in numerous local, state and federal races throughout Virginia, to include managing Jay Katzen’s campaign for Lt. Governor. She also represents and lobbies for various pro-family groups before Congress."

In 2005, VCAP's $29,832 contribution to Christopher G. Oprison's Virginia State House campaign was the second largest donation to Oprison's campaign. Oprison lost the race but went on to become White House Associate Counsel. His name recently surfaced because he was copied on a controversial email sent by Tim Griffin to Karl Rove.

Robin Dejarnette's involvement with the national politics dates back to at least 2003 when she and Jill Holtzman Vogel, formerly known as Jill K. Holtzman, teamed up to create the VOLPAC-VCAP Victory Fund in 8/03. According to FEC records, the Fund was a joint fundraising effort between the Volunteer PAC and VCAP-Federal. Holtzman was treasurer and DeJarnette, assistant treasurer.

The Volunteer PAC, of course, is associated with former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist but VCAP-Federal does not appear to have ever been registered with the FEC. In any event, the VOLPAC-VCAP Victory Fund, the Fund was terminated by Holtzman Vogel in a 12/03 letter to the FEC.

Jill Holtzman Vogel is a partner along with her husband, Alex Vogel, in a law firm. Holtzman Vogel PLLC. According to her bio, she was named Chief Counsel of the Republican National Committee in February 2004. Prior to founding the law practice, she served as Deputy Counsel at the Department of Energy and prior to that, she was  Deputy Counsel at the Republican National Committee. 

In 2003, Holtzman Vogel raised money for a Virginia State Senate campaign but dropped out of the race. She is running again for the same senate slot and has already raised $464k, according to the Virginia Public Access Project (VPAP).

Between 2005 and 2007, VCAP has contributed $28k to Jill Holtzman Vogel's campaign, making it the campaign's fourth largest donor.  

Robin DeJarnette's involvement with the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund may very well stem from her relationship with Alex and Jill Holtzman Vogel. Holtzman Vogel PLLC provided more than $70k in legal services to the American Center for Voting Rights in 2005 alone and may have provided legal services to the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund as well.

More importantly, Alex Vogel's consulting firm, Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, acted as the executive director of the American Center for Voting Rights in 2005. Alex Vogel was Senator Frist's Chief Counsel and is still counsel to First's Volunteer PAC. Prior to his job with Frist, Vogel was General Counsel for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)and prior to that, he was Deputy Counsel for the Republican National Committee.

One hand washes the other in Washington DC and thereabouts. Alex and Jill Holtzman Vogel probably helped Robin DeJarnette become executive director of the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund and, in turn, Robin DeJarnette's Virginia Conservative Action PAC provides financial support to Jill Holtzman Vogel's campaign. VPAC's support for Holtzman Vogel began in 2005 which was the same year that the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund was founded.   

What does Robin DeJarnette know about election law that everyone else doesn't? Not much, according to her 2/16/06 interview with the US Election Assistance Commission. See p. 12. Jason Torchinsky, assistant general counsel to the American Voting Rights Center, did all of the talking.

Torchinsky, formerly with DOJ Civil Rights section, is now an attorney with Holtzman Vogel. Prior to his stint with the DOJ, Torchinsky was with the Republican National Committee Counsel's Office where, presumably, he worked for Jill Holtzman Vogel.

In the EAC report, Robin DeJarnette is identified as a political consultant for C4 and C5 organizations and Executive Director of the American Center for Voting Rights. That makes her an expert in election law?

Robin Dejarnette and everyone else associated with the American Center for Voting Rights are so dishonest, they permitted Pat Rogers, American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund secretary and director, to identify himself as a "private attorney" in New Mexico during a 3/3/06 EAC interview. See p. 26 of the EAC report linked above.  

Pat Rogers, of course, is now better known as one of  the thugs who was instrumental in getting USA-NM David Iglesias fired.

More to Come. 

Xan please add a message to the blog, or send me a private e-mail through the site.

This article says it all...

With allies in enemy ranks, GIs in Iraq are no longer true believers

"I thought, 'What are we doing here? Why are we still here?' " said Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. "We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us."

His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness.

So, the Iraqis have adopted the old Vietcong method, friends by daylight. Is this still not another Vietnam Mr. Fake President?

A little more than a week ago, I did a post about some swifts.  It appeared that only one of the pair had returned.  This past weekend, both adults returned with two youngsters in tow.  The family unit huddles in a tight wad in the corner where they used to build their nest.  It looks like they built their nest elsewhere, and the male was spending his nights under the carport, while the female sat on the nest (make appropriate or inappropriate gender jokes as the spirit moves you).

I guess it proves that we should never be swift to judgment lest we run afoul of Mother Nature who hatches her plans as she sees fit (sorry, that's all the puns I could fit into one sentence).

According to a piece in today's Los Angeles Times Julian E. Barnes reports that the military has figured out that the goals set by the Bush administration for the troop escalation (I refuse to refer to it as a "surge" one more time; I'm sick of them framing the entire debate from the beginning with sugar-coated euphemisms to candy-flavor their bullsh**), are not going to be met by the time Petraeus makes his much-vaunted report to Congress in early September.

Not gonna happen.  Huh.  Who'd've thought it?

So, the new plan is to "redefine success", or, as a spinner might refer to it, lower expectations.  And they're going to do that by focusing on "pockets" of success, like, say, a market being open someplace in Iraq.  That's success!  Get it?

No need for us to trouble our pretty little heads anymore about those pesky "benchmarks," you know the ones--the oil revenue law, allowing Sunnis back into the government after WE threw them all out, and having provincial elections and so on.  Instead:


 

With overhauls by the central government stalled and with security in Baghdad still a distant goal, Petraeus' advisors hope to focus on smaller achievements that they see as signs of progress, including deals among Iraq's rival factions to establish areas of peace in some provincial cities.

"Some of it will be infrastructure that is being worked, some of it is local security for neighborhoods, some of it is markets reopening," said a senior military official in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing military tactics.

Military officers said they understood that any report that key goals had not been met would add to congressional Democrats' skepticism. But some counterinsurgency advisors to Petraeus have argued that it was never realistic to expect that Iraqis would reach agreement on some of their most divisive issues after just a few months of the American troop buildup.

So, the big benchmarks Bush finally gave down and agreed to pretend to support, until he doesn't want to support them anymore, were never supportable to begin with. 

Which means that the whole idea of a central government in Baghdad being stabilized by a massive input of more American forces made no sense in the first place, because the government can't do what it's being asked to do anyway. 

Which means the whole premise for the entire escalation was, well, bullsh**.

But it's okay--REALLY--because the guy who thought up this whole grand scheme in the first place, the plan that has completely disrupted and damn near unraveled the United States military, paralyzed the Congress so that all they could do or talk about for six long months was the war-funding bill, and turned a war-worn-out public bitter and mean as an election season heats up--well, he's on-board with this REDEFINING thing:


 

Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and early advocate of the troop buildup, said the military would have few major political accomplishments to report by September.

"I think the political progress will be mostly of this local variety," said Kagan, who recently visited Iraq and met with American commanders.

Oh, God, I don't know about you, but I feel so much better now that Fred is on board!  After all, he's got the president's ear.  Not the Iraq Study Group or polls showing 70% of the American people wanting this thing to end, and not the majority of the U.S. Congress, but Fred Kagan.  He's the man with the plan.

But the plan keeps changing.  And our reasons for changing the plan keep changing.  And they all sound so darn REASONABLE until, well, they change again.  It's hard for a lying bunch of bastards to keep up with the bullsh** spin-machine:


 

The push for smaller, more local deals represents a significant shift for the Bush administration, which has emphasized that security in Baghdad needed to be the top priority in order to allow the central government to make progress toward national political reconciliation. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have pressured Iraqi political leaders to reach key agreements by the end of summer.

But Gates last week said U.S. officials may have over-emphasized the importance of Iraq's central government.

"One of the concerns that I've had," Gates said, "was whether we had focused too much on central government construction in both Iraq and Afghanistan and not enough on the cultural and historical, provincial, tribal and other entities that have played an important role in the history of both countries."

The senior military officer in Baghdad said the new command has realized that there will be no quick national-level deal on the key issues.

"You are talking about Sunnis who had power and Shiites who have power forgetting about what happened over the last 30 years," said the officer. "How easy is that going to be?"

You know, I would say DUH right now, since sooo many of us out here in the ignored and overlooked hinterlands have been saying the same thing for MONTHS, but I don't want to belabor the obvious.

The thing is--and this is always the central tragedy of this useless administration and their worthless war plans:

What Gates and the military are talking about here ARE small but significant steps that can make a big difference IN SOME CASES. 

I would be the first to congratulate the Marines and Army guys out in the Anbar province, who have managed to persuade tribal sheiks to fight back against the al-Qaeda extremists who have been blowing up their mosques and marketplaces. 

Iraqi police and army recruits have quadrupled with the support of the sheiks, and locals are more willing to cooperate with the Americans and provide tips that can help track down bomb-making factories and weapons caches.

I would never do anything to take away from their successes in the Anbar.  My son and my nephew fought hard in that godforsaken sector of a barren country, and I would like to hope that it counted for something.

Kagan points to that so-far-success-story as proof that, WOW, now ALL  the sheiks in Iraq are going to hurry up and join the Anbar Success Club--but AS USUAL, it's not that simple. 

For one thing, every sheik who speaks out against al-Qaeda winds up eventually getting assassinated.  People are living in deep fear out there, and Marines are still dying in the Anbar.  And that is the Anbar.  You can't necessarily extrapolate from tribe to tribe in that country and assume that the Diyala will follow along in line swiftly, as Kagan seems to think.

Each sect is different, each tribe, each geographic area of the country, each ancient rivalry.  And mixed areas are explosive and unmanageable--Baghdad, for instance, can't even claim tribal sheiks to put forth as leaders because so many of its population has fled or otherwise been in flux.  Even Muqtada al-Sadr can't keep all his people in line.

Military commanders are offering to arm tribes that wish to cooperate with them, and if they don't want to cooperate, they get harrassed and arrested and whatnot.  All on the local level.  THAT'S the new plan.

And that's fine, for now.  But how long before those arms start being used against our own troops?  It's already happening.  In a recent two-hour battle in Sadr City between American troops and Iraqi army troops against militant Sadrists, aereal surveillance later proved that a significant number of IRAQI ARMY TROOPS were HANDING OFF WEAPONS TO THE SADRISTS.

During the battle.  To be used against Americans.  You can read about it in the New York Times, where soldiers who fought in that battle now believe this whole war is bullsh**. 

You can lower expectations and redefine success all you want to.  You can point to all these well-trained, well-armed Iraqi army troops and so forth.  You can point to "pockets" of success.

But the bottom line is that ANY success in this war has always been ephemeral, a shimmering mirage on the horizon that looks so very much like cool, sweet water.

Until you drive a little further down the road and find desert.

Or a bomb cleverly hidden and ready to blow you to the next fake oasis.

Vows to rebuild Capitol, Congress ... eventually

Special to The WitList
28 May 2007

WASHINGTON, DC -- Wearing a flight jacket and a broad smile, President made a dramatic helicopter landing on the Capitol steps yesterday to commemorate last week's victory over the Democrat insurgents.

Standing in front of a sign declaring “Submission Accomplished,” Mr. Bush praised Congress for continuing to fund the War to Nowhere minus timetables for troop withdrawal or meaningful ways to measure the war's progress.

“Major combat operations against the Democrat insurgents have ended,” he declared. “In the battle for Iraq war funding, the Republicans and its allies have prevailed.”

The president said he planned to rebuild the Capitol by cutting off its water and power and planting incendiary devices in office trash cans. He also vowed to track down insurgent leader Cindy Sheehan, who is believed to be hiding somewhere in the northern territories of California.

The new funding will allow the White House to achieve its goal of keeping the troops in Iraq until victory is achieved or another administration takes over, whichever comes first.

“We won the war, but we're not about to lose the peace,” noted one highly placed advisor who was not Karl Rove. The aide defined “victory in Iraq” as the day presidential candidates can walk safely on the streets of Baghdad protected by only a handful of heavily armed bodyguards instead of an entire Marine battalion.

To mark its new definition for victory, the White House announced that Operation Iraqi Freedom will now officially be known as Operation Make Iraq Slightly Less Dangerous Than Detroit.

The president once again thanked U.S. soldiers for sacrificing their lives to save what's left of his reputation.

"I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party," wrote Cindy Sheehan, but became a target of attacks from liberals when [I] "started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party."

Today, Cindy Sheehan announced in her blog that she is giving up her role as an anti-war protester and going home.

It seems to me that Cindy Sheehan is beginning to understand the dysfunctionality of politics.

George W Bush is just an older, male version of Paris Hilton.

A rich brat who never had to take responsibility for their screw ups and who think they are above the law as a result.

Only, Paris never got 3400+ GIs killed, tens of thousands GIs wounded, and wasted God knows how many tax payer dollars.

Paris got 45 days in jail.

What does George deserve?

Guys, this is a post I made over on my old blog, "Blue Inkblots," at http://www.blueinkblots.blogspot.com,  on Thanksgiving Day.  I thought it appropriate to re-run it here today.  I would like to point out that, at the time, we had lost 2,869 soldiers and Marines in Iraq.  Since then, we have lost almost SIX HUNDRED more.  For every month this debate about the war slogs on, at least a hundred more men and women leave an awful empty chair at the table.

 

Grief is magnified during the holidays, and with the toll in Iraq steadily mounting, there are now thousands of families across the U.S. who are faced, like Sergeant Baker's relatives, with an awful empty space at their Thanksgiving tables.…

"For everybody, it's the same horrible loss. It's the same tragedy. It doesn't make any difference whether someone was for or against the war…The pain is the same."--"The Empty Chair at the Table," Bob Herbert, New York Times, November 23, 2006


 

Rex told his dad that he had "seen more and done more than any 21-year old ought to have to in an entire lifetime!" That was about a month before his death.

Rex no longer has the nightmares and sleepless nights, he no longer has to worry about shooting women and children or losing his "nerve". God has removed the fear and wiped the tears away for Rex. A sniper took his life, but God has the capacity to infuse suffering with purpose.--Personal letter from Edie Page, mother of Pfc. Rex Page, to me, in response to a letter of condolence I sent to her when Rex, who was a member of my son's platoon, was killed in the Anbar province of Iraq on June 28, 2006

I've been told I am obsessed with the war in Iraq. From those who do not understand the nature of that obsession, I have been criticized, even mocked, for my passionate beliefs concerning this war.

It does not help that I held those beliefs long before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. It does not help that every single thing I said--or shouted--before that invasion has now come to pass. It does not even help that the majority of the American public finally came around three years, eight months, and 2, 869 American deaths in Iraq and 351 American dead in Afghanistan, and 21,485 maimings and mutilations of American soldiers and Marines later to realizing that it just might not have been worth it.

It sounds very patriotic to refer to brave women like Edie Page as GOLD STAR MOTHERS. A gold star is, after all, a good thing. It's what kindergarten teachers sometimes put on the papers of their students who have done well.

It's a way to soothe ourselves and make ourselves feel better. We hold them up to heroic standards and give stirring speeches about their patriotic and noble sacrifices for their country.

It doesn't feel very patriotic, however, when the box arrives a couple months after the dead are buried. The one full of their things from the war: their letters from home and their CD's and their pictures of their kids or their wives or girlfriends or moms and dads, and their Bibles and their teddy bears and their favorite mementoes that remind them of home and their combat boots.

Did you know that the Army unit who is tasked with sorting through those things and packing them up for the families has to limit their rotations to three months?

This is because the stress is so terrible for them, so awful, that the human psyche just can't bear it for any longer than that without suffering symptoms of severe post traumatic stress.

You sit there all day long, for three months, sorting through those treasures and lovingly packing them up for grieving families, and see how well you hold up. Though they take their jobs very seriously and are very proud of what they do, when it gets right down to it, most of them who do this would rather get shot at.

And then the box gets home and families often put up makeshift shrines to their beloved soldier or Marine. They put up the posthumous Purple Heart and the other medals, and the snapshots, and the high school sports trophies, and the horse show ribbons, and the tri-cornered flag.

This is all they have left.

Some mothers, like Celeste Zappala, the mother of Sherwood Baker, the soldier who was written about so eloquently in Bob Herbert's piece, become peace activists. They join organizations like Gold Star Families for Peace or Military Families Speak Out. They protest the bloodbath.

That doesn't help either, really.

 

"Where's the comfort in being right?" Mrs. Zappala asked. "Everything we said was right. Sherwood died looking for weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. All the nonsense about the al Qaeda connections and Sept. 11th. They were all lies. It was all wrong. But none of that brings Sherwood back to the table."
--"The Empty Chair at the Table," Bob Herbert, New York Times, November 23, 2006

Others, like my son's buddy Rex's mom, search for meaning in their personal religious faith, and cling to that to get them through the harrowing nights and endless days.

We have now lost just about as many soldiers and Marines to the Iraq war as we lost in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11.

In Iraq, IN ONE MONTH ALONE, they lost--and continue to lose--at least that many--probably many more. Every month. And while they do most of it to themselves, it was this administration who used American troops as if they were, say, a big bodyguard, ordered by the CEO to take a baseball bat to smash a gigantic hornet's nest. They're now being asked to stand still while the hornets swarm around their head and sting their eyes, nose, and mouth because nobody seems to know what else to do. The CEO of course, will never get stung.

Those who insist that what we must continue standing by the hornet's nest, that it's the right and true thing, use twisted statistics to back up their case.

Like the one about how re-enlistments are at an all-time high.

I saw one Republican congressman refer to this as, "The men and women fighting this war know they have a real mission to accomplish. That's why their re-enlistments are higher than ever."

Sounds great, until you talk to the actual soldiers and Marines. You find out then that many of them are forced to remain in the service EVEN WHEN IT IS TIME TO RETIRE.

The most common tactic being used by the military service right now to ensure re-enlistment is to threaten that if they do not re-enlist, that they will be sent back to the war, and then promised that, if they do re-enlist, they will not have to go back for at least two years. The confused--usually young--troops then sign the papers--and are promptly sent back to war.

This is the truth. This is what is happening. It's called the back-door draft.

That doesn't even count those who muster out, then get married, start a family, maybe sign up for college only to be called back in and sent back to war.

It's the dirty little secret behind all the yellow ribbons, waving flags, and anti-draft debates.

"This is why so many are getting out, even though they intended to spend a career in the military. They're being treated dirty. That's not right. Just because we're at war doesn't mean you can't be treated right."--the wife of a retired Brigadier General, in an e-mail to me

Today, Thanksgiving Day, three more Marines died in the Anbar. That means that on Thanksgiving Day, maybe just as the families were about to sit down to dinner, they got the dreaded knock on the door and their lives were stripped bare to the bone.

Today, Thanksgiving Day, thousands of American troops are serving in a war for the second, third, or fourth family holiday in the past four or five years.

Their children are growing up without them, and there is still an awful empty chair at the table, even though they will--hopefully--return one day to take their seats. I can tell you, from experience, that it is a horrible way to spend a holiday. You don't just miss them, you are terrified for them. And they try so hard to be brave when all they want is just to come home.

But Edie Page's boy will not be among the number who gets to come home. Not now. Not ever. He was a big, sweet, goofy, funny, kind-hearted Marine who was utterly dependable in battle and a friend to all who knew him. He was cherished by his family and beloved by his buddies.

He lived 21 years on this earth.

It's not enough.

People say I'm obsessed by this war.

Until all those Thanksgiving tables are full again, you're damn right I'll be obsessed.

GOD BLESS YOU, MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR ARMED FORCES WHO FIGHT SO VERY FAR FROM HOME ON THIS DAY.

YOU ARE NOT FORGOTTEN.

No website, no employees, a disconnected phone and a lapsed corporate registration. Without the 990s, you would be hardpressed to know the GOP funneled $2.8 million through the Free Enterprise Coalition to fund election-related legal expenses between 2004 and 2005.  

Not a lot of information about the Free Enterprise Coalition is online and I found only two references to legal cases involving the Coalition.
  
From a 12/14/05 Project Vote press release on the Common Dreams website, "One Year Later: Results of 2004 Voter Fraud Investigations Give Vote Groups a Clean Slate":

"..In Ohio, a lawsuit funded by the conservative Free Enterprise Coalition and litigated by the law firm of Shumaker, Loop and Kendrick collapsed on October 28..."

The press release goes on to describe two other lawsuits filed in Florida against ACORN but does not indicate if the lawsuits were funded by the Free Enterprise Coalition:

"...Two Florida lawsuits, based solely on claims by convicted felon and ex-ACORN employee Mac Start and litigated by Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler of Fort Lauderdale, were dismissed with prejudice. Stuart admitted to making false statements against ACORN..."

On 2/1/06, the Free Enterprise Coalition and the American Legislative Exchange Council filed a brief amicus curiae in support of Governor Perry in the Texas redistricting case. According to a list of case documents on the Jenner & Block website, the RNC also filed a brief amicus curiae on the same day.

Who was running the Free Enterprise Coalition?

A list of Free Enterprise Coalition board members from the 990s and the number of hours per week they devoted to the Coalition:

Robert Livingston
499 S. Capitol St
Ste 600
Washington DC 20003
Chairman
4 hours

Edward T. McMullen
1323 Pendleton St
Columbia SC 29202 
Treasurer
2 hours

Richard Hefley
8975 Winged Foot Dr
Tallahassee FL 32312
Board member
1 hour 

Oscar Persons
1201 W. Peachtree
One Atlantic Center
Atlanta GA 30309
Board member
1 hour

Mark Elam
4733 34th Rd
N. Arlington VA
Board member
1 hour

Dalton L. Oldham
1320 Washington St
Columbia SC 29201
Director
35 hours

The Free Enterprise Coalition was registered in 1998 although according to its 2004 990, the Coalition had little, if any, activity prior to 2004:

VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION

Company Name: FREE ENTERPRISE COALITION

Business Address:
1323 PENDLETON STREET
COLUMBIA, SC 29201

Status: TERMINATED(AUTOMATIC)

Status Date: 1/31/2007

Filing Date: 9/18/1998

Registered Agent:
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
Status: ACTIVE
Creation Date: 1/5/2004

Officers, Directors:
ELAM, MARK
TREASURER

LIVINGSTON, ROBERT L
PRESIDENT

The 2004 and 2005 Free Enterprise Coalition 990s are online at the Foundation Center's 990 Finder. Search EIN# 911928865.

2004 990
(Cash basis)

Primary exempt purpose: Promote free enterprise system by ensuring fair election system

Program achievements: Conducted and supported litigation to ensure fair ballot access, election procedures and districts in over 16 states

Direct contributions - $2,812,000

Legal Fees - $1,534,358.40 ($65,00 relates to managment expenses)
Supplies - $1,476.50
Occupancy - $5,872
Total expenses - $,1568, 637.60

Cash on hand at 12/31/04 - $2,812,000
Accounts payable at 12/31/04 - $1,568,637.60

[Since the Coalition uses the cash method of accounting, I am surprised that it accrued legal expenses at year end.]

2005 990-EZ
(Cash basis)

Purpose and progam achievement - same as 2004

Contributions - $0

Professional fees, and other payments to independent contractors - $967,963.07
Occupancy - $11,498.51
Other expenses - $159,761.48
Total expenses - $1,139,223.06

Cash on hand at 12/31/06 - $104,139.34

[The opening balance sheet on the 2005 990-EZ does not agree with the closing balance sheet on the 2004 990.] 

In both years, the Free Enterprise Coalition's books were in the care of:

Dalton T. Oldham
1320 Washington St
Columbia SC 29201
803-799-9199

In addition to being a member of the board of directors, Oldham is listed as the executive director. 

I found three instances of GOP candidates disbursing money to a Free Enterprise Coalition in Washington DC in 2006, one as recent as five months ago. Since I only found one officially registered Free Enterprise Coalition, I assume that the one in DC is the one under discussion here.   

On 12/21/06, Mac Thornberry (R-TX) disbursed $10,000 to the  Free Enterprise Coalition in Washington DC for legal expenses.

On 9/14/06, Michael Burgess (R-TX) contributed $10,000 to the Free Enterprise Coalition in Washington DC. The contribution is categorized as "non-federal."

On 2/15/06 Kenny Marchant, a candidate for Texas state office, contributed $7.500 to:

Free Enterprise Coalition
499 S. Capitol St
Ste 600
Washington DC 20003

Why would Marchant, a candidate for state office, contribute $7,500 to an obscure conservative group in DC? Marchant's entire campaign expenditures between 1/1/06 and 6/30/06 were only $13,508.

Thornberry paid the Free Enterprise Coaltion at the end of December yet the Coalition let its corporate registration lapse one month later. Seems to me that the Coalition was suddenly in a hurry to go out of business. Why?

Maybe the Free Enterprise Coalition going out of business has something to do with the burgeoning DOJ scandal. Maybe the SJC should ask Barry Schlozman if he ever heard of the Coalition.

More to come.

(from the book, written in 1958, not the far inferior movie, where the Ambassador MacWhite character played by Brando is not much like the Ambassador MacWhite portrayed in the book)

pp. 108-109, Philippine Minister of Defense Magsaysay to Ambassador MacWhite: "I know you're a diplomat and that warfare is not supposed to be your game; but you'll discover soon enough out here that statesmanship, diplomacy, economics, and warfare just can't be separated from one another. And if you keep your eyes and ears open you'll start to see some of the connections between them. It's not something you can learn from textbooks. It's a feel for the thing."

p. 267, Ambassador MacWhite in a letter to the Secretary of State: "The little things we do must be moral acts and they must be done in the real interest of the peoples whose friendship we need--not just in the interest of propaganda. The men I mentioned above, men who have sacrificed and labored here, are not romantic or sentimental. They are tough and they are hard. But they agree with me that to the extent that our foreign policy is humane and reasonable, it will be successful. To the extent that it is imperialistic and grandiose, it will fail."

p. 284, authors Lederer and Burdick: "We do not need the horde of 1,500,000 Americans--mostly amateurs--who are now working for the United States overseas. What we need is a small force of well-trained, hard-working, and dedicated professionals...They must go equipped to apply a positive policy promulgated by a clear-thinking government. They must speak the language of the land of their assignment, and they must be more expert in its problems than are the natives."

Over the weekend, like many of you, I've read the gripes and quibbles about how to frame the disastrous Congressional vote to fund the war.  I think the NYT has been doing the Bush Spin dance over the Iraqis better than whirling dervishes. Let's sit one out and recap: 

Bush played the fear card (what a shocker) and the Dems folded.  So what is next? We need to divest ourselves and our Congress of the euphemism, "We did it for the troops."  That politeness must be exposed for what it now is. Those big bad dollars for the war are not destined to benefit our soldiers.  Never were. The "war" in the name of the troops (read paradoxical injunction) has been funded to renew our subscription to the occupation and to inject capital into the pockets of the profiteers. "For the troops" is the hook. Soldiers are hardly the beneficiaries of war.  We don't need Congresspersons to be so "polite" to their constituents at a time when one message, not two, needs to be sent: STOP THE LIE that gave impetus to the justification for war and occupation in the first place. 

The people get it. Give them credit. The impeachment of Dick Cheney is the message that Congress needs to send to the President to stop this madness and to bring our soldiers home.

From time to time, I run into a really great blog that makes me wonder why I even bother trying. One is Connecting the Dots by Robert Stein.

The "blogosphere" is typically considered part of the youth culture, but Stein is about 80, and a veteran journalist. He writes with experience, insight, economy, and rhythm. All his stuff is good.

Thanks for writing, Mr. Stein.

I’m sorry, Senator Reid, Congressmen Obey and Murtha, and Big Tent Democrat, but September will be just like May, unless . . . you change this:

“I cannot vote ... to stop funding for our troops who are in harm's way."

-- Carl Levin

No, Rep. Obey, if you don’t change the Carl Levins the following is b.s.:

"We will transfer the Iraqi fight to September. Opponents of this war need to face this fact, just as the president and his allies need to face the fact that they are pursuing a dead-end policy."

No, you have to change the thinking and voting of folks like Carl Levin (and countless other Congressional Democrats) or Congress will be just as subject to Bush blackmail – look, Bush plays chicken with the troops, with a vengeance – and you will always in the end give him the money he wants. So, Congressional Democrats,  either deal with Bush's game or go home.

In September, assuming the Democratic leadership goes along with John Murtha and takes Iraq Supplemental funds out of the regular fiscal 2008 defense bill (which will be voted on in July) and keeps Iraq funding ‘supplemental’, then there will be a vote on funding the Iraq occupation/war. And, presumably, the White House will want funding for the entire fiscal year, about $145 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now Harry Reid, John Murtha, and David Obey (and BTD) may want to give Mr. Bush half that, and put the sociopath on a short leash. But, once again, what will they do if Bush threatens to veto anything less than the full $145 Billion? I.e., replicating, more or less, his successful stance against the short-leash bill passed recently by the House? Does Congress pass a bill anyway that it knows he will veto? And is it then ‘forced’ (see ‘support the troops’ rhetoric buy-in by Carl Levin above) the second time round to put something together that Bush will not veto, just like it did a few days ago?

I can’t see any reason not to think so. Same old same old, and clueless about what has to change so there won’t be the same old same old.

Nonetheless, last Friday Big Tent Democrat wrote about the funding Iraq debacle -- Iraq Supplemental: From the Ashes Can Rise The Not Funding Phoenix -- with an inexplicably hopeful heart:

I believe, after this hard lesson, for Democrats in Congress, for progressive activists, for the Netroots, we can now go forward with a PRAGMATIC, realistic plan to end the Iraq debacle AND play smart politics. Yes, from these ashes should rise the Reid/Feingold ... NOT funding after a date certain framework.

BTD thinks a Reid-Feingold-esque commitment by Democrats to a ‘no more Iraq funds’ date certain is the way to get us out of Iraq sometime soon. I don’t. Here’s what I think, in an exchange a couple days ago with a Reid-Feingold believer and BTD supporter:

…Reid-Feingold was a "big deal" because it supplied the best framework for ending the war, and would have sent a message to Bush that he can keep vetoing all he wants, but he was never going to get another blank check.

-- Categorically Imperative

I don't get that. There was no 'best framework' possible, so why pretend, that was obviously always a myth.

The only way to end the war before 2009 was and is to fly directly into Bush's blackmailing ("I'm gonna leave them there without bullets or food.") and just vote 'no' on Iraq funding. (Note how this has the opposite to do with creating, sponsoring, or managing any bill.) When 50% of either House does that, a funding bill cannot pass. It would be a bloody, loud, angry mess and I half-expect Bush would come very close to going through with his threats, but that's the only way we would get out.

-- fairleft

Later in the same post BTD writes (emphasis added):

The intention to NOT fund the war after March 31, 2008 must be made the Dem position now.

The short leash must be pulled to a stop on March 31, 2008.

Say it now so you can end it then. If you do not say it now, then you can't end it on March 31, 2008.

This is nonsense: If you _say_ it now, that’s meaningless and Bush knows it. What matters is what a majority of Congress will do when Bush starts to play chicken, like he did this month. Look at it this way: what will the ‘date-certain’ Reid-Feingold statement makers do if troops are still in Iraq in the middle of March, 2008, and Bush is ranting, “I dare you to deny funding to troops in the field?”

They will back down and give the President his money, unless they are prepared for that tactic.

Unless the antiwar contingent in Congress makes the argument, starting now and very noisily, that it will not back down even if the President is playing chicken with the troops. Anti-warriors must make the case from now till September, and start to prepare and spin the public for the vicious, anti-democratic game the President will play. The public must be told why so many in Congress will not back down in September.

Rep. John Murtha, who I otherwise have a lot of respect for (he gave us ‘short-leash’: great idea!), wrote at HuffingtonPost on May 24:

Some have suggested that since the president refuses to compromise, Democrats should refuse to send him anything. I disagree. There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president.

But Democrats have not and will not “refuse to send him anything.” An authentically antiwar Congress definitely should and would pass an Iraq supplemental that is short-term/leash or even better has a hard deadline for pulling out the troops. The money runs out with troops in harm’s way only if the President vetoes such a bill (or bills).

The Democratic leadership, or failing them the Democratic anti-war leadership, must argue that the Commander-in-Chief commits treason by both vetoing funding and refusing to withdraw U.S. troops from danger. Congress must of course be prepared to replace Bush immediately through impeachment in those circumstances. This threat must be voiced, from now till September, or Bush will know September will be as push-over as the May one.

Actually, a much more likely scenario is that if the occupation isn't funded the troops will be withdrawn. That withdrawal may ‘harm’ the President as his bloody dreams die, but the troops will be safer than ever, back home. Rather than policing a meaningless occupation; that’s ‘support the troops’.

My ‘just say no’ strategy already has the support of 51% of U.S. Democrats (see April 20-24 CBS/NYT Poll). In sum, as I said on talkleft a few days ago (emphasis added):

It won't work today, it will work in September

in my humble opinion. But only if anti-warriors in Congress start the ball rolling and argue their case, and the real progressive netroots publicize and honor them, and attack (and 'punish') those (including Presidential candidates) not on the bandwagon.

"Yes, Mr. Bush, you've forced us into this game, so there you go." Unfortunately, it's the only effective way to deal with the bully.

[UPDATE: Just to add that I admire and appreciate BTD A LOT for his focus -- and his effort to focus blogosphere attention -- on getting the US out of Iraq.]

I've been serious and angry.  Now, it's time for music.  Dedicated to the WWII vets, my favorite big band, Major Glenn Miller.

In the Mood
String of Pearls (No pic)
I've Got A Gal In Kalamazoo featuring Tex Beneke (100 bonus points for identifying the piano player, and another 200 points for naming his character and the popular 1970's TV show in which he was a villain)
Pennsylvania 6-5000
American Patrol
Moonlight Serenade

Update: In the Mood gone Hollywood (another 100 bonus points for identifying the piano player, and still another 100 bonus points for naming the miracle Christmas movie he was in)

Update 2:  For the youngsters in the crowd, those are 78 rpm records, with one song per side ;-)

Update 3:  Screwed up links fixed

It seems Nazis and Christians are teaming up again to form Oppressive Voltron. This time, in Russia.

Russia Pro-Gay Rally Arrests.

There are times when people question my a-religiousness. I tell them, usually, that I've found religion to be a means for leaders to oppress freedom and democracy. Let's face it, religious dogma leaves no room for the democratic process, nor freedoms. Religion is a means to instill fear, hatred, and blind obedience, particularly in the monotheistic religions.

Here is an example of Orthodox Christianity in Russia (previously banned and oppressed during the reign of the communist Soviet Union) teaming up with the Nationalist Party (AKA Nazi Party), in an effort to oppress both politically and violently the rights and freedoms of gay Russians.

Gay rights advocates from across Europe met in Moscow, and were viciously attacked by Christians (the religion of peace) as well as Nazis, during a rally. The only people arrested? Homosexuals and their advocates. No Nazis or Orthodox Christian assailants were arrested.

Would President Bush leave the troops in Iraq without adequate supplies?

Last week, President Bush got the Iraq war funding bill he wanted. Chalk up a big win for Bush. Apparently, many Democratic lawmakers who wanted an earlier bill with timelines for a phased withdrawal were afraid to flat-out de-fund the war.

With Mitch McConnell and John McCain referring to Iraqi security timelines as "surrender dates" and the image of American soldiers running out of bullets in a firefight, de-funding was just too scary for most Democrats.

But is the Republican rhetoric anything more than a fairy tail?

First, as for the "surrender date." Surrender to whom? Al Qaeda? Al Qaida would be "toast" in Iraq if the Shiite majority and the Mahdi Army took control of that country. They hate Al Qaida.

Again, surrender to whom? Al Sadr the Shiite cleric? Is Muktada al Sadr going to move into the White House if we leave Iraq to sort out Iraq's problems? This is silly.

There's not going to be any surrender, and we'd be better able to fight Al Qaida if we weren't bogged down in Iraq.

In a recent testimony in the Senate, General William Odum said the Iraq War has mainly advanced Al Qaida's and Iran's interests, not America's. Odum was head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan Administration.

In this article at Firedoglake, Jane Hamsher discusses how Democrats in Congress not only failed to make it clear to the public what defunding would mean (withdrawal) but even helped perpetuate the myth of the soldier on the front line running out of water and ammo.

Pin Bush and Gates Down

At the next presidential press conference, I'd suggust question 1-5 be the following:

"Are you Mr. President, and Mr. Secretary, prepared to leave troops in Iraq without adequate supplies?"

Watch them squirm, watch them dance. They will not be able to say "yes." This is what the media and the Democrats should have been asking, over and over again, to frame this debate properly.

The President has his funding for the summer. The Democrats have to make sure that, come September, the likes of McConnell and McCain will have to come up with some new and more creative fairy tails. These guys are caught in a time warp. They think it is (or wish it was) World War II.

Cross-posted from Sustainable Middle Class

My previous post, "Be Afraid...," put forth the idea that Bush is bent on starting a war with Iran this summer.

I was wrong, not about a war with Iran, but about WHO wants the war. I made the same mistake everyone else in Congress has made by thinking Bush was, indeed, "The Decider."

I came across this post on The Washington Post's blog that reveals WHO is the real decider. Just like Deanie Mills' analogy that this administration is a real life version of the "Wizard of Oz," it's the man behind the curtain that we need to pay attention to: Dick Cheney is planning to do an endrun around Bush by getting Israel to "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb-bomb Iran," as McCain recently sang to the media.

McCain said it was a sick joke. But what if he was trying to give us a message beneath that lunacy?

I've been wanting to post something to mark the day.  I put something up last night, but it wasn't right, so I took it down.  I started to do a post around In Flanders Fields, but I don't really want to expound on the dual meaning I find in the poem.  The premise of the day is simple, yet profound.  I can't improve on Lincoln's simple but profound words from his Gettysburg Address.

We here highly resolve that the dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I believe that is the meaning of the day and the challenge that faces us today.

Sometimes when writing a posting, one knows in advance that it may be controversial and has the potential to be met with anger…and sometimes that leads one to decide against ever publishing it. Other times, despite the probabilities, one pushes ahead and publishes such words because one believes they need to be spoken regardless. This is one of those postings.

On Memorial Day weekend…as well as any time one seeks to stop and remember those who are no longer here…we look for ways to understand death and to reconcile with the ominous nature of our mortality. Try as we might, one is never fully prepared for the death and loss of a loved one…and though time may lessen the time we spend in pain, it never lessens the depth of the pain that we do experience.

When we attempt to understand death, we often draw comparisons in order to help us accept our loss. For example, with the death of an aged grandparent, we might tell ourselves that despite the obvious loss, our loved one had the good fortune of living a long and meaningful life. Unfortunately, there are times when our loss is virtually inconsolable and we’re unable to find a single scintilla of justification. Clearly, we all hope to avoid the latter…but life doesn’t always afford us our hopes.

The death of a soldier is an event that rarely goes without notice…and that is as it should be. Nonetheless, it is also quite troubling…and though we may not take the time to fully understand our reaction…in some primal way, it is known without analysis or discussion that the loss of a soldier requires a debt of gratitude since the life of each soldier is given in the service of the country we embrace. This unspoken, though well understood, sense of debt exists regardless of how one views the conflict that facilitates the loss of a soldier.

When a war is unpopular, or thought to be unnecessary, it creates a heightened angst when one is forced to recognize and assimilate the loss of a soldier. That heightened angst, in my opinion, comes from our natural tendency to seek to justify the loss of life. If one opposes the war, one may well struggle to find the means to soothe the loss. Perhaps the void that internal conflict creates is something we should embrace since it may be the very mechanism by which we can bring an end to conflicts that seem unwarranted. Nonetheless, navigating this highly sensitive terrain is akin to walking a mine field…if one fails to step lightly, an explosion can ensue.

With that said, I embark on a perilous journey…a journey intent on not only exposing the angst mentioned above…but a journey intended to accelerate that angst. To be clear, I honor and value the lives of every soldier lost as well as every individual and though I infer no disrespect, I realize some may not agree…and so I apologize in advance should my words seem otherwise.

This coming Friday, Dr. Jack Kevorkian will be released from prison after serving eight years for his part in assisting in the suicides of over one hundred individuals…individuals that by and large suffered ailments that would eventually end their lives or that had taken from them the lives that they cherished such that they already felt dead…though by some trick of fate, remained here in this existence against their will.

Assisted suicide is legal in only one state under highly regulated conditions and it remains a very controversial issue. Perhaps that is because we prefer to engage death as a matter of chance rather than as a matter of choice. I understand that argument though I’m not sure it can withstand a reasoned review. Again, let me be clear…my argument is not meant to minimize the religious beliefs that stand in opposition to assisted suicide and I readily accept objections to assisted suicide on that basis alone.

Notwithstanding, I’m of the opinion one can make a reasoned argument that we frequently fail to apply our beliefs about death consistently. Three headlines, one from 1998, and two from this Memorial Day weekend help demonstrate my point.

From The New York Times in 1998:

Kevorkian Deaths Total 100

Dr. Jack Kevorkian has helped a 66-year-old man with lung cancer kill himself and has now assisted 100 suicides, his lawyer has reported.

Mr. Herman died one day after the Michigan House of Representatives adopted a bill addressing Dr. Kevorkian, who has been acquitted in three trials.

The bill would make assisted suicide a felony punishable by as many as five years in prison and $10,000 in fines, or both. It now goes back to the Senate, where minor changes are expected to be adopted before it goes to Gov. John Engler, who is expected to sign it.

From The United Press International - 05/27/2007:

More Than 100 Soldiers Killed In May

BAGHDAD, May 27 (UPI) -- At least 101 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq in May, the seventh time since the 2003 invasion that the monthly toll passed 100, military officials said.

In April, 104 soldiers were killed, the Web site icasualties.com -- maintained by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count -- said. The U.S. Department of Defense has confirmed 3,439 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, and 13 more await confirmation.

From The Associated Press – 05/26/2007:

U.S. Deaths Near Grim Memorial Day Mark

BAGHDAD - Americans have opened nearly 1,000 new graves to bury U.S. troops killed in Iraq since Memorial Day a year ago. The figure is telling — and expected to rise in coming months.

In the period from Memorial Day 2006 through Saturday, 980 soldiers and Marines died in Iraq, compared to 807 deaths in the previous year. And with the Baghdad security operation now 3 1/2 months old, even President Bush has predicted a difficult summer for U.S. forces.

This past week Congress authorized a military spending bill that met with the president’s approval and that did not include any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq…despite the fact that one can argue that the 2006 election sent a strong message that our elected officials bring an end to the war in Iraq and prevent the deaths of more U.S. soldiers.

Every indication suggests that George Bush will leave office…after eight years…with a significant presence of U.S. military troops still in Iraq. Back in 1998, the state of Michigan passed a law that led to the eight year imprisonment of Dr. Kevorkian for his part in facilitating the deaths of individuals who wanted to end their lives. Now I’m not suggesting the president or this congress should be imprisoned for their part in facilitating the death of 100 soldiers during the month of May…or the nearly 1,000 since last Memorial Day…or the 3,439 total soldiers killed in Iraq since the war began back in 2003.

However, on this Memorial Day weekend, I am suggesting Americans consider this information and put themselves through the process described above…the one which we humans go through when we lose a loved one. If at the end of that process, one feels some additional angst due to the growing absence of justifications for these deaths, then may I suggest that perhaps its time we demand that our elected officials do the right thing? If 100 assisted suicides warranted a law to imprison Dr. Kevorkian for eight years, what would be a reasonable equivalent for accepting the further loss of life in Iraq?

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

The NYT front page today has a lengthy piece on how the Iraqis want us to leave but say that we can't, that the violence in Iraq will worsen once we're out. The argument is summed up by this Sunni Arab spokesperson: "People in the street say the United States is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.”

Frank Rich also has a piece on Iraq, discussing the Blame Iraqis First! approach to foreign policy, summed up here by John Bolton: “Our obligation was to give them new institutions and provide security. We have fulfilled that obligation. I don’t think we have an obligation to compensate for the hardships of war.” Or President Bush, who said, "the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude."

Two contrasting views on our obligations to the Iraqi people.

While I understand the former, and have seen it echoed here in the Cafe by fellow bloggers, I can't help but wonder what, if any, obligations the Iraqis have in this mess. On the one hand, we cannot blame them for this disaster.

But, admittedly, reading the quote from the Sunni Parliamentarian, I can't shake the feeling it sounds like something you'd hear from an addict, coercing us in for some help "just one more time..." And, while it's not mentioned in the Times article, the political considerations of the Sunnis cannot be overlooked -- of course they want us to stay, as they are now the minority in Iraq.

I'm not standing on the side of the Bush Administration here -- there's no way to conceive of the Iraqis "owing us a huge debt of gratitude." We've screwed them, for sure, as things were better under Saddam. Sadly.

But, at the same time, we haven't seen much effort by the Iraqis to put things back together. Which is why us leaving seems like a convincing argument, as we in many ways are simply enabling this cycle of violence.

Things might get worse, but they'll never get better until they get worse. Again, it's like the drug addict analogy -- no one can recover until they've truly hit rock bottom.

I'm not sure of the answer here...

Given this weekend's release of the Pentagon's Report on China's Military Developments and the alarm with which they have been received by China hawks (hat tip Observing Japan), the summer 2007 issue of The Washington Quarterly is timely and adds some context to the China debate.(hat tip CSIS Global Strategy Institute).

Much of the debate on China has been focused on this question: Why is China seeking to strengthen its military despite the apparent absence of direct threats from other nations? How you answer it, depends very much on your world view.

"[A]s China becomes more wealthy, it is directing its wealth to its military, which will enable it to secure "press diplomatic advantage, advance interests, or resolve disputes." Does anyone expect it to be otherwise? Even if China was a mature democracy, would it be any different? Once again, the comparison to the rise of the US is telling. As discussed in considerable detail by Robert Kagan in his Dangerous Nation, as the US grew wealthier over the course of the nineteenth century (with foreign trade no small part of US economic success), US interests abroad grew accordingly, and as interests grew, demands that the US have the military means to secure them grew accordingly (which led, of course, to a further expansion of US interests). China is not altogether different. Its interests are growing rapidly, and globally, leading it to desire a military to will be able to secure those growing interests."

To continue reading, please click here.