Sadrists Reload as Virginia Mourns

For anyone who still thinks that the Iraq war is going swimmingly, yesterday we learned that Moqtada al Sadr (pictured at right, in poster) has effectively pulled out of the government. The militia leader, who reportedly has a 60,000 man armed force, ordered his six of the 38 Parliament representatives to leave and go home.

I realize that this news may have been lost in the horror at Virginia Tech, but for the average Iraqi, disasters like VT's occur daily in every province. Now, with the Sadrist secession, we have ensured that more violence will be directed at US forces and anyone who cooperates with us. Just yesterday, 51 Iraqis were killed or found dead, and for a country one-tenth the size of the US, that would be comparable to over 500 in the US. Where's the outrage?

As terrible as the killings at Virginia Tech are, Americans are confident that they are an aberration which will be corrected with awareness and added security. The likelihood of this incident spinning into a regional war is zero. In Iraq, such violence has become a way of life, and is increasing with no end in sight. At some point, a tipping point is reached with such violence. The factions avenge old grudges, demagogues appeal to the basest instincts, armies are created to grab land and resources, civilians are killed in spite and the educated middle class leaves. And Bush sends a few more soldiers to stoke the flames.

I don't know the answers for Iraq. But I also know that Bush doesn't either. Every day that goes by, we are dug in even deeper and every decision made the last five years has been the wrong one. Every single one. So I'm pretty confident that the next one will be wrong, too.

We mourn our dead in Virginia (at left) and try to gain some insight as to how this could happen so we can prevent another such incident.

In Iraq, they are still in the midst of an escalating firefight and our leaders have no clue.

Abstinence Goes Out of Style

I am shocked (shocked !) to hear that Paul Wolfowitz (shown at left, sans wedding band), the head of the World Bank, is having sex!?! After all, the President's (recently discredited) program for sex education says that birth control is not appropriate and abstinence is the only option outside of marriage. Maybe there is a special dispensation for sex with postmenopausal women, which would likely get Wolfowitz off the hook.... and... in which case Condi Rice must be getting ready to bust her move pretty soon. I'll have to read the official White House guidelines on that.

Several years ago, comedian and future Senator Al Franken asked administration officials to give their “abstinence testimonials”, explaining how they remained celibate before marriage, as a public service to promote a healthy lifestyle for teens and young adults. I'm not sure if he had any takers, but certainly this most recent news from Wolfowitz will set back the practice of abstinence decades. I had visions of entire towns and states with virginal young people dutifully heeding Dear Leader's mandate and saving themselves for marriage: just imagine, no sexually transmitted diseases, no unwanted pregnancies. None.

Ahh the rapture of it all. But now this! The horrors! What will the kids think? And who will explain it to them?

Since abstinence is the only option in the sex ed curriculum espoused by the President, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Wolfowitz would actually shake his groove thing with another human being. If we expect that overtly hyperhormonal teens can be abstinent, then why can't we expect the same from a responsible government official? And head of the World Bank, no less. What will the rest of the world think?

Peeking Over The Precipice

Logging on to Google News today, these are the top six stories. Perhaps Google is a participant in the Great Liberal Media Conspiracy (TM).

No embellishment. The stories speak for themselves:

Large anti-US rally held in Iraq

Iran 'closer to nuclear weapons'

Commentary: Immigration plan unites far right and far left

Gingrich urges Gonzales to quit

U.S. Senator calls for engaging Syria

New Book Shows Bleak Outlook for Iraq Because of US Mismanagement

Each of these stories is representative of some aspect of the Bush administration's rank incompetence on various issues: occupation, diplomacy and immigration. And this is a random sample on a given day.

Fred Upton Drifts Off to Sleep Again

I knew Fred Upton couldn't stay awake.

A while ago, Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) was showing some signs of lucidity by recognizing that George W. Bush's “surge” is a recipe for continued disaster. In February I praised Upton when he said: [Bush's] surge strategy will fail and only prolong the day that the Iraqis will finally pick up the baton and lead their own government.

He continued in his Congressional floor speech:

Let's face it, this is a civil war, it is real anarchy. And, in fact, the Iraqis don't want us there. Nearly 80 percent of them in Baghdad say that American troops provoke more violence than they prevent. And those same polls show that Iraqis overwhelmingly want U.S. troops gone within a year. In fact, we know that a majority of both sides, Shia and Sunni, believe that it's okay to kill our troops.

So imagine my surprise when Mr. Upton inexplicably voted against the latest war funding bill last week and cited the provision to reduce troop numbers as the source of his discontent. Most recently, Upton said:

"Setting goals for success is one thing, setting a date in stone for withdrawal is another. I firmly believe that such a date not only puts our troops in grave danger, it also allows the insurgents to plot their strategy."

What would you be in favor of? The Iraqis have missed every goal set for success, every single benchmark over the past four years. Their soldiers are not trained, their government is not stable, their streets are not safe, their neighbors are not supportive, their police force is corrupt. In short, there are no signs that the US presence has done anything but add to the chaos.

Mr. Upton, if this is “real anarchy”, and if the Iraqis “overwhelmingly” want us out, and if you agree that “American troops provoke more violence”, then why would you oppose a redeployment of our men and women out of that hell-hole?

If you don't agree with a troop increase and you don't agree with a troop decrease, then what do you agree to?


Stay the course?

Go back to sleep, Fred, you're embarrassing yourself.

Unemployment Should Start Here

I'm all for asserting Constitutional rights and protection against self-incrimination certainly should be respected, but I also find it somewhat odd that an aide to the Attorney General, a woman who works as liaison to the White House, cannot answer a few simple questions from the people who pay her salary.

Perhaps Monica Goodling should exercise her Fifth Amendment right as a civilian and not as a government employee and certainly not as an officer of the Justice Department.

Maybe Pat Robertson can hire her back at her Alma Mater.



UPDATE 4/6/07: She's gone. Time to grab some pine and wait for Pat's call.

Mr President, Shut Up and Sign This Bill

Let's be clear. The Congressional bill to fund the Iraq war would do exactly that: fund the war. The president needs to thank Congress for the favor and sign it.

Let's be clear. Previous war funding bills all have had outside appropriations, i.e., “pork.” The last one was written by Republicans and was chock full of bacon. There is no such thing as a “clean bill” and there never will be.

Let's be clear. The Iraq Study Group called for a draw down of troops. Every poll in the last 8 months has shown that up to 70% of Americans are in favor of a troop reduction. Three-quarters of Iraq's population want US troops out of Iraq. For the president to act shocked shocked that a Congressional funding bill would include a redeployment provision is the ultimate in disingenuousness. If the president were truly concerned with funding the war, he would have engaged Congressional leaders long before the bills were signed and delivered to his desk.

The argument over funding the war is begging for a compromise with some timetable and concrete benchmarks for the Iraqis to follow. For the president to ignore this reality and then become petulant only after he doesn't get his way puts our nation's credibility, whatever shreds may remain, at risk.

Sampson Agonistes*

Reminiscent of John Dean refusing to be thrown under Nixon's freight train of lies, former DOJ chief of staff Kyle Sampson (shown at left) testified to Congress today that his boss, Attorney General Abu Gone-zales, was “not accurate” in his own statement to Congress two weeks ago.

"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate. I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign."

Sampson will not be the fall guy. He stated in no uncertain terms that Gone-zales fibbed when he claimed ignorance of the firings of US attorneys. If Gone-zales is being truthful, then he is irrelevant to the Justice Department. If Sampson is being truthful, then Gone-zales is lying. Either way, Gone-zales is, well, gone.

In a further moment of unprecedented candor, Sampson gave some insight into the Executive Branch's view of the independence of the activities of US attorneys:

“Thus, the distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial. A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district important to effective leadership of the office, is unsuccessful."

Maybe I'm naïve, but my sensibilities dictate that federal prosecutors remain above the petty political peccadilloes and they should be more concerned with enforcement of laws than appealing to some George Costanza look-a-like in Washington.

Related items:

Sharon Eubanks (at right), a 22-year veteran attorney of the Justice Department, claims that the Bush White House interfered with her prosecution of a tobacco case. She said, "The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said," Eubanks said. "And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public."

She charges the political operatives with writing her closing arguments for the prosecution and demanding that she ask for a lesser settlement after she had won a landmark case against tobacco profiteers.

A 35-year veteran attorney in the civil rights division of the Justice Department, Joseph Rich has written an op-ed stating that the Bush administration has attempted to influence elections by subverting the independence of the Justice Department.

He says, “Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.”

Rich goes on to enumerate specific examples of Bush politicos targeting prosecutors who did not adequately play ball with the administration's partisan agenda. Bush's cronies used the Department of Justice as a barracks for their patronage army, rewarding poorly qualified lackeys with plum jobs and strong-arming or firing reputable veterans.

While one could discount these items as isolated cases of disgruntled government employees simply piling on to a White House in turmoil, the more likely scenario is that of a pattern of unchecked power being spewed by an Executive Branch drunk with hubris.

We need more subpoenas, and quickly.


*with apologies to Milton

Friday News Dump-- Pat Tillman Edition

Since this is a late entry, I'll make it brief. Late last Friday the Pentagon, under cover of the night, released the official report on the cover-up of the friendly fire killing of Corporal Pat Tillman in Afghanistan.

As we all may remember, Tillman gave up a lucrative NFL career to volunteer for the Special Forces after September 11, 2001. He turned down cushy recruiting duties that the military offered him in order to out himself in harm's way for his country. Tillman trained and deployed and was subsequently killed in action accidentally by his own comrades.

Cpl. Tillman's family was paid back with a series of orchestrated lies by senior Pentagon brass. The cause of death was purposefully obfuscated until after a televised memorial service for Tillman two weeks after his death. Upon learning of the cover-up, his irate mother noted that such abhorrent behavior was done for “patriotic” reasons.

The most recent report notes that three investigations into the friendly fire incident were mishandled and up to half a dozen Army Generals, including John Abizaid, lied about the incident. The truth was known about Tillman's killing within 24 hours of the unfortunate incident, but the Generals made a concerted effort to dissemble and mislead.

Tillman's father said:

"After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this. They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. [T]hey realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy."

Tillman's mother said:

"It makes you feel like you're losing your mind in a way. You imagine things. When you don't know the truth, certain details can be blown out of proportion. The truth may be painful, but it's the truth. You start to contrive all these scenarios that could have taken place because they just kept lying. If you feel you're being lied to, you can never put it to rest."

Mistakes happen, especially in war; most people understand that. Family members deserve the respect and humanity to be given the truth about such things at the time of their discovery. Conveniently, the Pentagon found “no criminal negligence” in neither the incident nor the several cover-ups which followed.

I'll throw one more thought out there: George W. Bush, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, is famous for watching SportsCenter every night, and the coverage of Pat Tillman's death on that show was ceaseless for months after his death. At some point Bush must have thought for one second, “I wonder how that guy died.” Controversy surrounding Tillman's death was almost immediate because he was a football hero and celebrity. Bush must have had access to reports and the Generals involved. Bush had said that “Pat Tillman was an inspiration both on and off the football field.”.

Did Bush never ask how Tillman died? If this is how we treat a celebrity, heaven help the poor working class folks. Atrocious.

UPDATE 3-27-07:

The Tillman family has issued a statement regarding the Pentagon report and is calling for Congressional hearings.

"The briefing we just received was shamefully unacceptable," the family said in a statement issued from their home in San Jose, where Pat Tillman grew up. "Our family is therefore compelled to continue our (pursuit of) the full truth about the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death and the so-called 'missteps' and 'deficiencies' of Pat's unit, the Army, the Department of Defense, and this administration."

I'm sure that will provide terrific publicity for future military recruitment.

Friday News Dump-- Gone-zales Edition

First in this week's series of the Friday News Dump is the convenient late-night release of records that puts future former Attorney General Abu Gonzales in a meeting that decided the fate of the fired US attorneys. Unfortunately this puts a lie to the previous claim that the AG, AG, was not part of the process.

On March 13th, the Goner had said: “But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.” He went on to whine that there are “110,000 employees” of the Justice Department and he cannot know all the decisions being made, as if he was out of the loop in the firing of the eight US attorneys. Firing US attorneys has the same priority, I suppose, as terminating a DOJ cleaning lady or any of the other “110,000 employees” for sloppy dusting or serving spoiled lunchmeat.

Laughable at the time he said it, now shown to be an outright lie. The recent document dump plainly puts AG at a meeting of Justice Dep't principals as they hashed out the plan to fire the US attorneys for political reasons, and even discussed the rationales conjured for canning them. And they wonder why the Congressional Judiciary Chairmen are insisting on testimony under oath.

The documents surfaced just hours after [Gonzales' “resigned” Chief of Staff D. Kyle] Sampson (pictured at right), through his lawyer, reached an agreement to testify about the firings before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week. He resigned from the department last week.

If these US attorneys all serve at the “pleasure of the president” (I'll leave any further imagery of that statement to the Rude Pundit), then why manufacture all this bullshit? Just fire 'em and move on. Remember the noise over Clinton firing a bunch of clerks in the Travel Office? In the end this recent flap is an internal Republican affair since the attorneys themselves, all Bush appointees, are the ones claiming injustice at their firings. By the way, when the movie of this episode is made, Jason Alexander--i.e., George Costanza from Seinfeld-- will of course be cast as Sampson.

The US attorneys' claims are critical because, if true, they put an unhealthy political (nay, criminal) spin to the conduct of the Justice Department. The president is not allowed to selectively terminate attorneys who refuse to attack his cronies' political opponents or attorneys who refuse to participate in other partisan shenanigans. The president gets to appoint them, but we all pay their salaries and they are charged with defending our Constitution.

Rover, Darth Cheney and Dumbya plotting to let this out on Friday night is further evidence of the disdain they have for the public's attention span. By Monday morning this will all be forgotten.

War Over Subpoenas

A while ago this column noted that the new transfer of power in Congress was all about subpoenas, and 75 days into the new Congress this is now coming true. Instead of coming clean about the US attorney firing flap, the Bush White House has engaged in a obvious cover-up and now has claimed “executive privilege” instead of testifying to the American people, i.e., Congress. On the 34^th anniversary of John Dean's famous quote about the Nixon White House having a stain, the Bush White House is showing its own stain.

The rule of law in this country dictates that the truth will come out eventually and President Bush is the decider on whether his cronies do this voluntarily or not. Subpoenas and testimony under oath are the tools we use to achieve justice in this great nation, and this particular issue begs for such justice.

The White House has vowed to be forthcoming with all information, yet the emails they recently furnished have a three-week gap from November to December 2006. Does anyone remember Rosemary Wood? Tony Snow, the White House spokesmodel, has said that the President will fight subpoenas, but does not cite any valid precedent. In fact, 31 of President Clinton's aides testified under oath in response to Congressional subpoenas issued by the Republican Congress, and for issues a lot less germane than a president fiddling with the Justice Department.

In case you missed the Watergate drama, stayed tuned and heat up the popcorn, because this has all the makings of a re-run. Maybe after this one, you'll understand why we should have learned these lessons 35 years ago.

Free Fall

Depressing. Look, nobody had been more vehemently against the election of George W. Bush as President. I knew he was trouble and I still cannot fathom how he could have fooled so many people through two elections. But even I did not see this coming, the rank incompetence, the utter disregard for law or ethics, the damage that will take decades to repair if it can even be fixed. My duty as citizen is being tested to even watch this train wreck anymore. Even Bush doesn't seem to give a damn. Here's the run down:

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted on 4 of 5 counts including obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI and 2 counts of perjury. One juror remarked that the jury wondered why Libby was on trial and not other higher ranking officials, such as Rove and Cheney. This is really a story about the Iraq war and the cherry picked intelligence to justify the war. Libby was the salesman and fall guy. If the war had been a success, US Attorney Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, most likely would still have pursued this suit because it was not politically motivated and was based on legal facts.

Will Bush pardon Libby? You bet he will. If Poppy Bush could pardon the Iran-Contra criminal Cap Weinberger to protect his own ass, you know Dubya will do the same. Besides, as the Rude Pundit has said, prison would be unduly hard for a man named “Scooter.”

The next story entails the war that was falsely justified by Libby's boss. Nine more soldiers were killed yesterday in explosions. Bombings also killed over 140 civilians attending a Shi'ite pilgrimage. Ho-hum, just another day in our quaint little Occupied Territory. Bush's “surge” is in force-- and fully funded-- yet the security of Baghdad seems unchanged, and we are in the 2nd month of the most recent 6 month Friedman Unit that Bush has given himself. Is it working? Huh, who would have guessed?

The third story is about eight US Attorneys who were fired around the elections in 2006 for apparent political reasons. David Iglesias, the US attorney for the district of New Mexico, and Bush appointee, claims that various Republican congressmen had pressured him about pending indictments against Democrats, and when they these indictments were not filed before the November elections, Iglesias was fired. While it may be difficult to prove a cause and effect relationship in these cases, and the Iglesias case is a classic he said- he said without corroborating circumstantial evidence, the allegations are pretty damning. The fact that these eight attorneys were Bush appointees as well as the timing of the firings adds to the credibility of charges. To fire that many US attorneys is unprecedented in the middle of a presidential term.

Finally, we have Walter Reed and the Veterans' Administration Hospitals being investigated for substandard conditions and an unwieldy bureaucracy. The story is emblematic of the Bush administration's lack of preparation for anything related to the Iraq war. Over 30,000 wounded have been removed from the battlefields of Iraq; where did the president think these men and women would go?

Military hospitals and the VA operate under the venue of the Executive Branch and therefore the president bears responsibility. Bush has ordered yet another bipartisan commission to quantify his mistakes, but judging from how he has completely ignored the recommendations from the 9-11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group, I don't see the value. The Senate has been having hearings on the Walter Reed situation, and while they may be criticized for political grandstanding, what should they do, just ignore it like the president has?

As a consequence of these these issues, Bush's approval rating sits at 30%, his all time low, and he has been below 40% longer than any other president in history. Bush is not a victim of partisan sniping and gotchas, rather he has failed at substantive duties of the President due to his own incompetence and laziness. His presidency is in free fall. My question is, who are these 30%?

An Object Lesson from a Wingnut

"There is no teacher but the enemy."-- Gen. Mazer Rackham, Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card.

Victor David Hanson is not my enemy, but he is a tool, and like all tools he has some utility. For the uninitiated, Hanson is the Last Bush Apologist and he writes drivel for the National Review. Today, Hanson has lived out his purpose in showing us that the US' mission in Iraq is indeed lost.

I'll accept the criticism that picking on Victor David Hanson (at left) is too easy, a fool's game. It's true that his columns are usually the most senseless compilations of worn out platitudes and irrational tautologies, but his recent piece represents a wonderful summary of everything wrong with Bush's war and he finishes with a clue to the question of whether Iraq can be saved.

According to Hanson's most recent piece, the reasons that Bush's war has become a disaster have, of course, nothing to do with the miscalculation and ineptness of the Commander-in-Chief, but rather, everything to do with everyone else in the world: NATO, Congress, “Sunni-border nations”, the “European Left” and CNN. Poor George, he didn't get to make war in a vacuum, presumably like FDR and Woodrow Wilson had the luxury of doing during the last century's great wars. Because we all know there was no dissension among the ranks at those times.

Some of us who have opposed the war in Iraq since it's inception have done so not because of a blanket condemnation for force, but rather we oppose the war because of the poor rationalization for the war, the inept diplomacy surrounding the war and the incompetence in the conduct of the war. Hanson forgets that Bush had near-record approval ratings after 9-11 with the vast majority inexplicably never questioning how the administration, the branch of government in charge of protecting our borders from attack, could miss all the warnings during the summer of 2001. Bush was given a free pass and allowed to make war or peace at his discretion. How this may have deterred Bush in the handling of his foreign policy is a mystery to me.

Hanson continues that Bush was held to higher standard in Iraq due to “easy victories” in Grenada, Panama, Serbia, the Gulf War, etc., and Bush was hamstrung because of all the military cuts made during the 1990's. The confused unwashed masses, ie, the 70% of Americans who now oppose the Iraq war, are too unsophisticated to understand that war means casualties and nothing of value is gotten easily. Our Dear Leader is presumably the only one adult enough to have this great wisdom.

Predictably, my view is completely different. Bush got a blank check after 9-11 with an overwhelming mandate to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan and half the Senate Democrats joining to pass the Iraq UN Force Resolution. If anybody downplayed the difficulties in Iraq, I would point to Cheney's assurances of the US being “greeted as liberators”, Wolfowitz calculating that Iraqi revenues would “pay for rebuilding” and Rumsfeld predicting that the war “might last 6 days or 6 weeks, but certainly not 6 months.”

Hanson bemoans the “Orwellian” outcome that in order to get “one person / one vote” in Iraq, we have to allow “Sadr and his epigones” the freedom to kill us. Never mind that Bush's administration decided to disband the Iraqi Army, under-man our occupying force, allow chaos to reign for years after the invasion and leave a power vacuum which naturally has been filled with profligate demagogues such as Sadr, Zarqawi and others. Of course, any other imperial supervisor from Tiberius to Churchill could have predicted the current Mad Max scenario that has resulted.

Hanson and I disagree with how we got to the current situation in Iraq, but we have some agreement on how the future could turn out differently. Although it's a long shot, some semblance of victory could be achieved in Iraq, and Hanson and I agree that the only avenue at this point is through military victory. I would argue that only military solutions remain because Bush has squandered all the other options. We have no real allies left in Iraq to rely on diplomatic assistance. The regional powers have lost confidence in the US' ability to build anything but a failed state. If you were a Saudi prince, would you sign on to the US' caravan at this point? The political factions in Iraq have gained such a foothold that the people of Iraq live in fear rather than hope. The economy of Iraq continues to falter with joblessness and vast emigration of the educated middle class. I see these miseries as leaving only the US military to bail out Iraq.

Hanson seems to agree that the US military is the trump in this game:

Not arguments, rhetoric, pleading, or money right now can save the democracy in Iraq. The U.S. military alone, in the very little remaining time of this spring and summer, can give Iraqis the necessary window of security and confidence to govern and protect themselves, and thereby to allow the donors, peacekeepers, compromises, and conferences to follow.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. If Iraq is to be saved, and that's a huge "if', the US military is all that remains between some type of order and a failed state. Hanson fails to ask, if Bush agrees with this premise, then why is he asking for a mere 21,500 soldiers? If Iraq is the “central front on terror”, then why hasn't the administration fought the war with more conviction? If the West's “way of life” is truly “in jeopardy”, then why hasn't the President been able to convince the European “non-Left” of the importance of the war?

Republican Senator Gordon Smith said he recently spoke with Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Iraq, who told him the troop surge, as outlined by Bush, has only a one in four chance of succeeding.

I don't have answers for these questions, and obviously neither does Hanson. His final sentence makes it clear to me that the war has indeed been lost. Hanson as the Last Apologist for Bush goes over the edge of reason and engages in science fiction thinking when he finishes his missive with the quaint plea:

“If General Petraeus can bring a quiet to Baghdad, then all the contradictions, mistakes, cheap rhetoric, and politicking of the bleak past will mean nothing in a brighter future.”

Ah, yes, the Indispensible Man Theory of warfare, much like Orson Scott Card's Ender Wiggin, who saved humankind from the Bugger invasion, Gen. Petraeus is the last best hope to save Iraq from itself. IF the good general can “bring quiet to Baghdad”, much like bringing virginity to Anna Nicole; IF only he can do that, THEN all will be good with the world. If only... then, then, then... then "I'll be proven right and all those librul dunderheads will be proven wrong.”

Just as Harry Potter has special wizard powers, Gen Petraeus is somehow uniquely qualified to grasp victory from the jaws of certain defeat. With Hanson invoking the Indispensible Man theory, I'll mark March 2, 2007 as the day we officially lost the Iraq war.

Fred Upton Wakes Up

Good morning, Fred. How are you? Would like some coffee with your bagel shmear? Well, well, you had a nice long sleep. I hope you're rested up....because you have a lot of work to do, sir.

After rubber-stamping the Republican Party's War-A-Palooza over the last several years, my Representative in the House, Fred Upton (R-MI), recently broke ranks with his party and joined Democrats and only17 of 246 Republicans to disapprove of President Bush's decision to send more troops into the Iraq War. Upton decided to do the right thing and join the Democratic leadership to oppose President Bush's “surge.”

In his floor speech, Mr. Upton said that “... [Bush's] surge strategy will fail and only prolong the day that the Iraqis will finally pick up the baton and lead their own government. He continues:

Let's face it, this is a civil war, it is real anarchy. And, in fact, the Iraqis don't want us there. Nearly 80 percent of them in Baghdad say that American troops provoke more violence than they prevent. And those same polls show that Iraqis overwhelmingly want U.S. troops gone within a year. In fact, we know that a majority of both sides, Shia and Sunni, believe that it's okay to kill our troops.

Kudos to Mr. Upton for his (albeit delayed) insight.

I'll take Upton's change of heart at face value, although it reeks of political opportunism to back the president without expressing any serious reservation these last few years, then when the war and his party's Congressional majority is lost, he gets a “Hallaleuah” moment of epiphany.

But, Mr Upton, your work is hardly done. The Cheney administration is made up of recalcitrant warmongers who care little about the authority or advice from the Congress. You have been a large part of the disaster in Iraq merely by your blind acquiescence to your Party's policies. Now, you must summon all your creative powers to bring our soldiers home, and that entails much more than signing on to a non-binding resolution that stinks of political cover.

We'll be watching.

Penn State: Owned

For some reason, I love stories like this. Illinois' basketball team has been struggling all year and are currently on the bubble for an NCAA Tournament bid. We've had some heartbreak in the NCAA last year when all the planets were aligned to run the table.

Last year, Penn State came to Champaign to upset the Illini and spoil their 33-game home winning streak. This year it was payback. Eric Benz, An Illinois junior biology major from Chicago, and a member of the Orange Krush posed as a Penn State alumnus to buy 100 tickets behind the basket in Happy Valley for the recent game. Benz and 100 members of Orange Krush student section, the oldest in college basketball, traveled by 12-hour bus ride and they kept up the ruse of PSU alumni throughout the pre-game.

Once the game started, however, the Nittany blue came off to uncover the proud Illini orange. Justin Weyman, the PennState ticket rep who made the errant sale put it this way:

"I was walking along the concourse and looked down through one of the portals, and I saw them strip off to their orange and start screaming. My stomach just dropped. I knew it was going to be something we would hear about."

The best part of the story is how Eric Benz, the Illinois junior, planned the scheme months in advance by chatting up Weyman last October with Penn State trivia in order to prevent suspicion:

"I'm just a sports nut, especially a college basketball junkie -- which isn't good for my major... And [Weyman] mentioned something about organizing the White Out they were having for the Michigan football game. And I knew about that because I watched the Ohio State-Penn State game two years ago on TV. I was just trying to be friendly." Weyman needed little prompting to sell a block of tickets to 100 fans...

The Illini won handily, buoyed by the presence of the cheering section:

Illinois head coach Bruce Weber recalled an immediate energy boost from his players when they saw the orange block emerge behind the backboard opposite the Penn State Blue Band. [Illinois player Brian] Randle had never seen the Krush so close to the floor.

Now if we can just get a berth to The Show.

Vaccinate the Boys!!!

My modest proposal is to make the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine mandatory for boys and optional for girls. Frankly, I'm hesitant to make the HPV vaccine mandatory for anyone, especially for the first five years of use until unforeseen problems can be studied. My bias is to keep such things optional for all, but if mandatory vaccination is to be instituted, I would argue that boys should be required before girls.

The purpose of any vaccine is multi-fold: 1) it should protect the individual from getting the disease, 2) the vaccine should protect other contacts from potentially getting infected and 3) a vaccine program can serve to completely eliminate a disease from a population, called “herd immunity”. This has been successfully achieved with small pox, a disease not seen in over 30 years.

Most infectious diseases that are managed with vaccines are transmitted from an infected individual to an unsuspecting host through airborne transmission (influenza, measles, chicken pox, etc), or by exchange of bodily fluids directly (hepatitis, HPV, etc).

Of these, HPV is the only one that is solely transmitted through intercourse and has an effective vaccine. Girls and boys can get this with either voluntary or involuntary (in the case of rape) contact. I would argue that since the boys are the population reservoir for the disease, and are the transmitters to girls or other boys, then only boys should be required to get the vaccine. If a girl transmits the virus to a boy or other girl, the receiver would very likely be a willful participant.

I think that the latest plea for girls to be required to get vaccinated is misguided. From a purely epidemiological standpoint, if anyone is required to get the vaccine, it should be the boys since only they transmit the virus onto others unwillingly (#2 above). Girls should be given the option to be vaccinated for their own protection (#1 above) as well as the protection of their partner (#2). Herd immunity (#3) is not an issue so far with HPV since th virus is endemic.

I know someone will broach the idea of a girl seducing a boy or other girl and therefore transmitting the virus to an unsuspecting host. This argument can be made, but it's very weak. There are many more rapists than seductresses.

ADDENDUM: This has been cross-posted over at dailykos, and as expected, the discussion became quite animated. A few clarifications to the above post came up:

1)The main point is that vaccines serve multiple purposes from a public health standpoint, but compulsory vaccination serves only one purpose, namely, to protect unsuspecting and unwilling others from getting infected from the host. Texas, Michigan, Florida, Maryland and other states are considering making the vaccine mandatory for pre-teen girls, and this makes no sense to me when balancing civil liberties with public health.

2) Should girls get vaccinated? Absolutely, if they and their parents choose. Females are unlikely to pass the virus onto an unsuspecting or unwilling person. Unlike diseases transmitted thru airborne droplet nuclei in public places, HPV is transmitted through genital contact in (presumably) private circumstances. The only times HPV would be transmitted unwillingly would be in the case of rape, which almost always is from male to female or male to male. Therefore, if anybody should undergo compulsory vaccination, it should be males.

3) This sounds counter-intuitive and many at dkos had a problem with the concept of vaccinating the population in order to protect a subgroup of the population. The example of German Measles (Rubella) came up. Rubella is a viral illness that is self-limited and very mild or even asymptomatic in adults and kids. Infection in pregnancy, however, can cause birth defects to the developing fetus in utero, and this will often go undetected until birth. Therefore, from a public health standpoint, we try to vaccinate not only all reproductive age women, but also anybody who may come in contact with susceptible pregnant women. That way, even though some pregnant women may be susceptible, their chances of getting Rubella while pregnant becomes vanishing small because everyone else is vaccinated.

Requiem for Chief Illiniwek

After 80 years, the University of Illinois is forcing Chief Illiniwek into retirement. A vocal minority have successfully made the case that the athletic mascot is an insult to the heritage of Native Americans.

Truly, I have no strong opinion on this issue and this blog entry is intended only as a farewell for the memories I had as an undergraduate in Champaign-Urbana. Memorial Stadium and Assembly Hall were at their quietest during the National Anthem and also when the Chief was preparing to enter with his dance at half-time.

I remember nothing but reverence for the Chief during those years, and never considered the mascot anything but a gracious representation of the indigenous heritage of the Prairie State. Personally, I believe the contingent of Native Americans are misguided in their mission of expunging our culture of all such mascots, but that's not for me to decide. Certainly some mascots are disingenuous and disrespectful, with the Washington Redskins nom de sport and the Atlanta Braves' “Tomahawk Chop” coming to mind, but Chief Illiniwek was of a completely different tradition.

“The Chief” has always been revered by Illinois fans and attempts were always made to add authenticity to Native American traditions in a respectful way. The student who portrayed Chief Illiniwek was a talented campus celebrity on the level of the football quarterback or basketball center. His athletic dance routine was sincere, with fans showing affection not derision, and usually clapping along with the music. The dance always ended with a recitation of the Alma Mater.

Maugham said “tradition is a guide and not a jailer” and, for good or naught, the great tradition of Chief Illiniwek has ended. I know I can't begin to understand the misgivings of Native Americans with the display of their culture for our entertainment, no matter how well intended the traditions may be.

But I also know that I'll miss Chief Illiniwek.

Blaming the hammer instead of the carpenter for a bent nail

Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense and former head of the Operation of Special Plans (aka: Ministry of Propaganda), is being raked over the coals by the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Carl Levin (D-MI), for manufacturing "intelligence" to support the rationale for going to war in Iraq.

At this point most Americans are suffering Iraq fatigue and we may feel that the last thing we need is another re-hash of the ill-fated run up to the war. But in reality, these questions have never been asked until now. Why was a policy wonk, a pencil neck think-tanker like Feith, making up "facts" that linked Al-Qaeda to Saddam, thus whipping us all up into a battle frenzy?

The reason is simple: because the Bush/Cheney administration wanted him to. The OSP was formed for the express purpose of spewing out unadulterated propaganda to support the pre-conceived notion of taking out Saddam. We have a plan, now give us a reason to use it.

These are horrific allegations, but the outcome has been even worse. The bigger question is why this inquiry has taken so long to pursue, and only Bill Frist (R-TN), former Senate majority leader and Pat Roberts (R-KS), former Senate Intelligence Chair, can answer that question.

WWJD?

In pure Christ-like fashion, members of His Coalition continue to bear false witness for apparently political reasons--- and in a polished form of snark, I might add. Roberta Combs, President of CCA, pictured at right, is "condemning" Speaker Nancy Pelosi for “demanding” a military jet to fly her from DC to her district in California.

Too bad Pelosi has done no such thing.

The non-partisan sergent at arms of the House has said that he requested the jet on Pelosi's behalf for security reasons, much the same as had been done for the previous Speaker, Dennis Hastert. The information was “leaked” from the Pentagon and twisted around by a plethora of right-wing nutzoids.

Remarkably, the Christian Coalition of America has continued the canard even after Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary, has called the flap “silly.”

Amen.

Filibusters and Failure

This isn't going to end well. In case anyone had any doubts about the FUBAR status of the US intervention in Iraq, this week should have put all questions to rest.

The Democratically-controlled Senate set out a few weeks ago to put its members to a vote on the Iraq war, with a non-binding resolution pointed at the issue of the president's proposed "surge” of 21,500 soldiers into Iraq. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV, shown at left), the majority leader, spear-headed the toothless legislation presumably to rub President Bush's nose in the stink of his unpopular surge because it is in direct contradiction to the Iraq Study Group's recommendation as well as the requests of many recently fired military commanders.

The problem was that the resolution had strong language stating that Bush's plan went against “the national interest”, and many Republicans, although they are on record as opposing the troop surge, followed Ronald Reagan's 11^th Commandment that one should not speak ill of a fellow Republican, and were unwilling to sign such a strong condemnation of the president.

Which brings us to Senators Warner (R-VA) and Hagel (R-NE), who along with more moderate Democrats, crafted a watered down resolution which left out the nasty words about “national interest.” Unfortunately, when the bill came up for debate these same Republicans joined their colleagues and voted inexplicably to filibuster their own resolution. Odd? Perhaps, but you're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.

The Democrats are barely hanging onto the Senate majority, with their 51^st Senator still in rehab from his cerebral hemorrhage several weeks ago, so apparently only meaningless debates will ever take place. This slim margin is hardly wide enough to fend off any filibuster by even the most conciliatory Republican minority on even the most noncontroversial bill. The Senate is functionally deadlocked.

Every bipartisan group opposes any escalation of the Iraq war, the US public bends 70% against sending more troops into the grinder--- yet the Democratically controlled Senate cannot even pass a simple non-binding resolution stating as much.

And to think that Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) wants to go even further and actually end the war! Good luck with that, sir.

We are getting a clearer picture of the (lack of) outcome every day. The president has dithered for 46 months on securing the occupation of Iraq. His administration has consistently presented a pollyannish appraisal at every juncture: in regards to the level of violence, the costs of war, the political fortitude of the Iraqis and now the ability of a troop surge to solve the problems. Bush's surge ain't gonna work and we all know it, but we have to let it play out anyway.

The added problem is that the Senate dithers as much as the president. Bush's stated goal is to kick this can down the road to let the next president solve Iraq; he's said as much. Troop surges are designed to prolong the military phase of the war because Bush has been incapable and unwilling to pursue the political, diplomatic and economic aspects of the war. That heavy lifting is just too hard for our tyro leader.

Bush has pissed off every diplomatic ally we have, with even Great Britain pulling out of Iraq. NATO has been asking for more troops and materiel for Afghanistan, but the US has none to spare. The sectarian political landscape in Iraq looks grimmer every day with violence and heartache passing the break point of any potential conciliation between the factions. And economically Iraq is in shambles with their most highly educated folks refugeed in Jordan and Syria and the infrastructure destroyed.

The President can't run the war and the Democrats are unable to stop it. As the region spirals into chaos nobody can stop the bleeding.

Letter to the Editor

Here is my recently published letter to the editor of my local newspaper, the Kalamazoo Gazette, in response to their editorial on President Bush and the Iraq War. It's just my latest version of screaming into the wilderness which is the editorial board of the Gazette:

`Spite' was wrong issue to focus on

January 23, 2007

Your recent editorial, ``Don't cut military funding to spite Bush,'' is one of the most obtuse opinion pieces I've read on the Iraq war. With so much mayhem produced by Bush's failed Iraq policy, with so many Americans and Iraqis killed and maimed unnecessarily, it is inconceivable for a responsible journalistic board to come up with such a fatuous thesis.

I've heard nobody call for cutting war revenue in order to ``spite'' Bush. On the contrary, Bush has received a bipartisan blank check up to this point and has done nothing constructive with such unrestrained power. It's about time someone, at least, counted the pennies spent.

Bush's ``new strategy'' has been roundly criticized by Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, hawks and doves, and it stands in complete contrast to what was recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

You state that a funding cut would ``send a terrible message to U.S. troops.'' Perhaps you should pay more attention to the ``terrible message'' sent by a commander-in-chief who has made one wrong decision after another in the prosecution of this ill-conceived war.

You should think more critically about the president's proposal and less about the political machinations of a frustrated Congress and public who have generously supported Bush with their blood and treasure.

If you agree with Bush's latest iteration of a plan for Iraq, then make the case, but don't berate the loyal opposition who are (finally) doing the responsible job of governance. And please don't assign assumed motives such as ``spite.''

Of course, the Kalamazoo Gazette is the same newspaper that endorsed Bush in 2004 after disagreeing with almost every policy supported by his administration, so dissonant editorials have become commonplace.

Signed.

Option 4: The Heavy Lifting that Didn't Happen

I've been thinking about the old joke about the man going into the service station for directions and the man behind behind the counter says, “You can't get there from here.”

Thus, I'll discuss Option 4. To form a free, peaceful and democratic society in Iraq the necessary components may be lacking. As House has wisely surmised, they would have stumbled on a democratic system by now if they were so inclined.

The US mission in Iraq has inexorably creeped from a search for Weapons of Mass Destruction into a nation-building exercise that was destined for failure from the outset. The military won a decided victory over Saddam's Republican Guard within days and US led inspection teams ruled out the expected stockpiles of biochemical weapons within a few weeks, and everyone knew that Iraq never had nuclear capabilities.

So now we are entrenched militarily in a region that is increasingly unstable and no discernible realistic goal has been put forth. A comprehensive solution would have entailed political, diplomatic and economic phases in addition to the military phase. Unfortunately (an appropriate term in reference to Iraq), the time to have begun the political, diplomatic and economic parts of the plan was either before or during the military phase. Can we expect our diplomatic allies to sign on to the mission now? Can we expect the warring factions within Iraq to come to the table for a political solution as was done in Dayton? Can we expect the economy of Iraq to be self-sufficient any time soon? Hardly on all three accounts.

Having said that, I'll present the plan put forth by Michael O'Hanlon (at right) and Edward Joseph from the Brookings Institution who are calling for a partition, or federalization, of Iraq as was done in the Balkans in the 1990's. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and others have called for similar partition plans as well. Obviously, these regions are different enough to obviate direct correlations between their solutions. Also, the Iraq war has been so mismanaged for so long that the chances of a peaceful outcome are vanishingly small.

O'Hanlon recognizes that Iraq, like the Balkans, consists of distinct subregions dominated by ethnic and/or religious majorities. These subregions should be allowed to exist in semi-autonomous states with self-rule based on their unique characteristics. Unlike Bosnia, however, Iraq has an economy welded to the delivery of one thing-- oil-- and that for a successful economic plan, collusion among the sectarian factions in Iraq must take place to exploit the export of oil in order to benefit all the players. Without a political truce among the factions, the economy of Iraq will falter.

Unfortunately (yes that word is used a lot in relation to Iraq), the circumstances in Iraq have not ever been amenable to a peaceful coexistence between Shi'a, Sunni and Kurds. Only with a dictatorial ruler has there been enough order to keep the oil flowing. Scowcroft and Poppy Bush were wise enough to know that in 1991, thus they allowed Saddam to stay in power after Gulf War I. And if the machinations of full scale diplomatic, political, economic and military nation-building were to occur, the work necessary should have been done in advance and by an administration more competent than the current one. Failure was predetermined in 2003.

O'Hanlon, however, believes that we could attempt a political solution even at this late date by bringing the major players together, Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd, for a summit to iron out differences and come to some accord, as was done in Dayton. So far, however, no inkling of such a gambit has ever been put forth. Furthermore, strong militia leaders such Moqtada al-Sadr and perhaps even al Qaeda leaders would demand to be at the table, which of course would be a nonstarter and could kybosh any deal. Sadr's militia reportedly numbers 60,000 and is fully armed.

In order to increase the slim chance of lasting success for O'Hanlon's political plan, a diplomatic phase would need to be instituted among our allies which would necessarily include UN, NATO and especially Arab states such as Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Having a true multinational force in place to keep the peace for the long haul would do wonders to instill a sense stability and commitment to the educated moderate citizens in the region. Unfortunately (there's that word again), many of the educated and productive moderate Iraqis have left in the continuing refugee migration of 1000 people per day. This brain drain will have lasting negative consequences on the social development of Iraq for generations to come. And with Great Britain reducing their presence to 4500 from 7000, chances of increasing an allied presence in the Iraq quagmire is zero.

My point in the previous discussion of Option III was that if, as Bush is determined to do, we are to entertain a purely military solution to Iraq, and ignore our allies' opinions, and pay for it by ourselves, then we had better have a big freakin' army. Only by having a huge overwhelming military presence to institute martial law for perhaps a decade can we have any hope of making up for the deficiencies of the political, economic and diplomatic parts of the plan. And nobody would be able to guarantee that even then we would be successful. In short, the 21,500 planned by Bush is way too little and way too late.

I admit that going through these perverse mental gymnastics is pointless. Bush will do what Bush will do as Decider-in-Chief, and it will likely make no rational sense. To speak of “solutions” in Iraq is specious. I'm also safe in that there is no way I will be proven wrong since Bush is unlikely to engage in the heavy lifting needed to institute anything so sensible as a comprehensive plan as Clinton had done in Bosnia, and the American people are wise enough to eschew any military draft for Bush in Iraq.

WSJ: Hack Journalism

The Wall Street Journal's (subscription) editorial Monday follows many of the themes covered by my latest “diatribe”, with one glaring deficiency, which is that they fail to arrive at a conclusive remedy.

They call for a "Heaver Footprint" in Iraq:

President Bush is set to announce his new strategy for Iraq this week, and the early signs are that it will include both more American and Iraqi troops to improve security, especially in Baghdad. We think the American people will support the effort, as long as Mr. Bush treats this like the all-in proposition it deserves to be.

So now after the Republicans have lost both houses of congress, Bush is going to unveil his fourth or fifth “plan for success.” Has he attempted to garner support from congressional leaders, from foreign allies, from high ranking advisors or members of the Iraq Survey Group for his "new strategy"? Has Bush done the behind the scenes wrangling necessary to make his case, or is he going to simply make another lame proclamation to all of us unwashed masses and then expect us to cheer our great leader?

If the stakes in Iraq are as great as Mr. Bush says -- and we believe they are -- then he should commit whatever forces are needed to achieve success. The public's support for the Iraq campaign is waning, in major part because the casualties and expense have been producing no visible progress.

No mention is made of Bush's responsibility in squandering the support of the public and congress these past four years. If I were the WSJ opinion editor and had backed Bush during this deadly dithering, I would be irate at this point. Where is the outrage? When Bush's latest “plan” fails, WSJ will be the first to blame the “waning public support” or the Democratic congress, but never the Commander-in-Chief.

A better message is that he will do whatever it takes to reinforce the forces of moderation and democracy in Iraq to prevent a defeat that would empower American enemies in Iraq and in the war on terror. And his strategy is best framed as providing the forces necessary to protect the population that most military experts believe is the key to successful counterinsurgency.

Ahhh, yes, the plaintive plea to “do whatever it takes.” And what, pray tell, could that be? More troops? OK, then how many? And from where will they come?

The most glaring deficiency of the Wall Street Journal piece is the lack of a concrete remedy, which according to Journalism 101, is requisite for any opinion piece. The WSJ is negligent to point out the problems in Iraq and not conclude that more soldiers-- many more soldiers-- are needed, and have been needed for a long time, to “prevent defeat.”

The 800 lb gorilla in the room that nobody wants to recognize is that, if we choose to continue this war, we need to institute a draft. Go heavy or go home. And by going home, we will have abrogated our responsibilities to “buy what we break” in Iraq.

The tragedy nearly four years after the fall of Saddam is that such a strategy has never been tried. The consequences of failure in Iraq are too great not to try it now, before it really is too late.

Notice the passive tense: strategies are tried. Those pesky strategies just don't behave themselves. Never mind holding the ersatz strategist accountable.

And when, pray tell, will it be “really too late.” When your son or daughter is required to put on a uniform?

Bush has three options: pull-out altogether, add 20K to 40K soldiers, or institute a draft and add up to 250K soldiers immediately, as Gen Shinseki and others had advocated in 2003. Following his usual pattern, however, Bush most likely will do the worst of all three options and adopt some version of the McCain plan which is add just enough soldiers to kick this can down the road for another 6 months. And that number-- 20K, 30K-- has been determined by how many troops are available rather than how many are needed.