Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian leader said to be a “lieutenant” of Osama bi-Laden, has released another video, which has been published on a number of Islamist sites. Abu Aardvark has the details:

It's a quite interesting video, or "videos" to be more accurate since the production includes two very different segments: one with Zawahiri in an office, with English subtitles, bashing Bush; and one with Zawahiri against a blank background, with no English subtitles, delivering an extended analysis of how the Pope's statements, America's war on terror, various French and other European actions, and Darfur fit together into a coherent and clear Crusader war against Islam.

I take it as significant that the second part of the video is not translated or subtitled - the message is for other Muslims, not for Americans - and that Zawahiri adopts simple white robes when addressing other Muslims.

Subtitles, eh? I suppose al-Zawahiri has figured out that not all of us have been studying Arabic. I wonder if he knows that the Department of Defense has been cutting off its own nose by firing qualified translators because their lifestyles might offend some knuckle-dragging fundies of our own? Probably so, all things considered they seem a bit wilier than Bu$hCo, don’t they?

But that’s one of the major problems with Bu$hCo and the fantasist wingnuts trying desperately to burn our Constitution and drag us back to the 10th century. Ideology always trumps common sense and intelligence.

Zawahiri lacks bin Laden's charisma, but at times - as in this video - he can actually [use] his lesser stature to his advantage. The first half of the video kind of reminds me of Eminem's rap battles at the end of 8 Mile, with Zawahiri going directly after Bush's perceived strengths (the war on terror, Iraq) with what is at least meant to be devastating mockery. Zawahiri addresses Bush directly as a peer, by implication elevating bin Laden above Bush's level. His critique of Bush is punctuated with refrains of "Bush, you lying charlatan", "Bush, can you be brave for once in your life", and so forth. [emph added] The English subtitles mean that when this part of the video is aired on CNN or Fox, the translators can't distort the message.

I find it hard to believe that Fox or CNN would deliberately supply a false translation, don’t you? I have a suspicion that the subtitles can be unmasked electronically before playing on US television, but then – what’s the point when the world knows there was a translation supplied? So I guess we won’t be hearing much about this from American media outlets.

Two important notes here. First, on Iraq, which will probably be misunderstood: when Zawahiri mocks Bush for withdrawing from Iraq, this probably does not mean that he actually wants Bush to withdraw from Iraq - the mockery is no doubt intended to infuriate Bush and goad him into keeping the troops in Iraq, right where al-Qaeda wants them. Those who conclude that Zawahiri's comments mean that we must remain in Iraq to deny al-Qaeda its victory are playing right into his hands. Second, Zawahiri is clearly trying to paint a sweeping portrait (as did bin Laden in January) of al-Qaeda on the march, scoring gains on all fronts. This is more bravado than reality - there's little sign that the increasingly radicalized and angry mainstream Arab and Muslim public is turning to al-Qaeda for leadership or inspiration - but the construction of this narrative of al-Qaeda's relentless ascension should be seen nevertheless as a core of al-Qaeda's current strategy. That, by the way, is also how I read the tape released on the internet last week by Muhajir, the new al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, which claimed a figure for jihadi deaths (6000) significantly higher than any reputable estimate: it's a boast, not a complaint; not a confession of weakness or struggles, but an attempt to magnify the role and importance of al-Qaeda in the Iraqi insurgency. If and when the US does actually withdraw from Iraq, al-Qaeda will no doubt try to claim victory; the American goal should be to deny it that ability, by minimizing al-Qaeda's role in the Iraqi arena rather than exaggerating it and lending credence to its claims.

There’s no question that it is in the interest of the Islamic fundamentalists to keep us engaged with the Iraqi tar baby. Each day we struggle harder and bleed a little more. And while they are taking greater casualties than we are, they have less to lose, because Mr Bu$h’s short-sighted, immature personality chose a war of aggression in order to appease his own psychological demons and not for sound reasons of foreign policy. As Abu Aardvark states, goading Mr Bu$h is guaranteed to enrage him, and reinforce his stubbornness and desire to stay where we are. Maybe that tar baby is inside a briar patch, in fact.

I’d comment on Mr Bu$h hearing about this video and rolling on the floor, chewing on the carpet in his rage, but of course, that’s a technical violation of Godwin’s law.

There’s quite a bit more in the translation and review, and you’d be well-advised to read it all and take it to heart because you won’t hear an honest interpretation of it from our side of the divide. I can’t vouch for the translation, of course, and I wouldn’t vouch for an “official” “corrected” translation from Bu$hCo, if only because they never get anything right.

Our brother Gordo, over at the Alternate Brain, presents some Celtic cultural pleasantries, such as the classic drinking song, “What the Scotsman Wore Under His Kilt.” It’s a cute ditty, sure to please in its breezy, relaxed and jovial look at life after the pubs close. But there is a darker side to the Highland race, and I take confused pride in the fact that I have some small touch of savage blood in my background – not much – just enough to disqualify me for eating with a knife and fork. The Highland Scot is unreconstructed and does not easily suffer the foolishness of the Sassenach and the mongrelized Anglo-Scots of the border, to say nothing of the Anglo-Irish, but that’s another story.

Historically, the Highland man is hard, battered and burned to oak and hard leather by the climate and poverty of the land he loves. But it is the women who are the hard cases. I ran across this bit years ago, written by a fine author whom I wish I’d met.

The Gordon Women

There is a story they tell in Breadalbane:

Gordon of Achruach was at feud with Campbell of Kentallan, who hired certain Gregora, landless men, who took the Gordon unawares while he was hunting in the Mamore. And they cut off his head and put it in a bag to show the Campbell that the work was done. That was the way of it.

And as they fared for Kentallan, the Gregora came by the Gordon’s door at Achruach, and went in, and the Gordon’s wife (little knowing she was a widow) bade them to table, as the custom is, and went out for the Athol brose. And while she was gone the Gregora winked at one another, and set the Gordon’s head on a dish, with an apple in the mouth, to see what the good wife would make of it. That is the Gregora for you, hell mend the black pack of them.

And the good wife came in, and saw her man’s head bloody on the board, but kept her countenance and never said a word, only smiled on the Gregora and bade them good cheer. The Gregora wondered at this. Had she not seen it? was in the mind of each of them. Still looked she never on the head, but said a word to her ghillie and sent him forth. And smiling on the Gregora, she told them a tale, never looking at the head, and held the spellbound, for she was great at the stories, and very fair besides. The Gregora wondered, has she not seen it yet? This is not canny, was in their minds, and they said they must be for the road, but she held them there by their tale and her presence, and so they bided whether they would or no. That was the way of it.

And still she spoke and looked not on the head, until the ghillie returned with her men of Achruach, who came in swift and sudden and stood behind the Gregora seated, one to one, and each Gordon with his dirk at a dirty Gregora neck. And she told on till she was done – aye, she was great at the stories – and then said she: “I see my man has come home, and has but an apple to eat. Give him to drink also, wine red and warm.” And at her word they slew the Gregora where they sat, and the red blood ran. That was the way of it.

And the ghillie said: “Oh, mistress, how did you keep your countenance this long while in the presence on yon fell thing, and beguile these stark men?” And she answered, “The day I cannot keep my countenance, and hold men in their place and work my will on them, that is a day you will never see.”

That was the way of it. That was a woman of the Gordons for you.

Cross posted at the front page of My Left Wing.

The Rovewellian brainwash we're hearing in support of our failed wars is positive proof that the pen is, indeed, mightier than the sword. The Bush administration continues to use the written and spoken word to garner support for military actions in a conflict that our generals admit has no military solution.

Remember back when the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) became the Struggle Against Violent Extremism for about five minutes?

Continue reading "War a la Rove"

And the Editors have them.

Sure, it’s great humor, but it points out, with vicious satire, part of what is wrong with our Press Corpse, which has not been marginalized so much as subsumed by the Greater Beltway Universe, which stands in stark contrast to life here on Planet Earth.

Yesterday, in this post, a commenter made the observation that there are just two more years until Mr Bu$h goes back to Crawford. I responded with this comment:

I'd like to believe you, Mike, but the truth is this guy likes being dictator waaaay too much, his co-conspirators find he's a very useful front man, and the Fascist Party is quite happy with what they term his "leadership."

I’d like to believe the reader's statement, but a well-scarred life experience with personalities like Mr Bu$h’s and stories like this make me far less confident.

They cry, pray to Bush and wash out the devil - welcome to Jesus Camp

The children at the Kids on Fire summer camp are intent as they pray over a cardboard cutout of President George Bush. They raise their hands in the air and sway, eyes closed, as they join the chant for "righteous judges". Tears stream down their faces as they are told that they are "phonies" and "hypocrites" and must wash their hands in bottled water to drive out the devil.

The documentary film Jesus Camp follows three children at the Kids on Fire Pentecostal summer camp in the small city of Devil's Lake, North Dakota.

At the risk of sounding tedious let me repeat once again: These are not “Christians.”

In America today we have individuals and groups that make the claim that we are a Christian nation. A Christian nation is one in which the country is based upon and lawfully recognizes Christianity, thus making the country a theocracy. While America is predominantly Christian at 82% of the population, this only makes it a predominantly Christian culture and does not make the country a Christian nation by any stretch of the imagination.

The basis for this false claim is three-fold. First, they claim that the colonists and residents of early America were predominantly Christian. Second, they claim that the majority of the Founders were Evangelical Christians. Third, they claim that the Founders wanted a Christian nation and based the country on the Christian religion and Judeo-Christian principles. Together these amount to their claim of a Christian nation.

This comes from Exodus 20:1-17, Which as these creatures keep reminding us is the only true accounting of mankind’s history. and the only law book needed to properly administer a “Christian” nation.

1Then God spoke all these words: 2I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3you shall have no other gods before me. 4You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Why are children being taught to worship Mr Bu$h if he’s going out of office in two years?

Via Raw Story, a gripping “home video” by a Halliburton truck driver, Preston Wheeler, driving a truck in Anbar Province a year ago. The video was presented on ABC’s evening news show yesterday. We don’t watch a lot of Big Media commercial television because of professional issues; basically we don’t consider Big Media personalities to be “journalists”, with very few exceptions.. Perhaps some of you saw the show

The video is electric, as the driver reacts to the ambush with spontaneous language that will surely garner ABC a massive fine from the politicized Bu$hCo FCC.

From ABC’s The Blotter:

A dramatic home video obtained by ABC News shows U.S. troops apparently abandoned a truck convoy after it came under insurgent attack in Iraq last year.

Three unarmed Halliburton truck drivers were executed at point-blank range once the troops left, according to a surviving driver, Preston Wheeler, of Mena, Ark., who taped the scene.

"They was murdered. To me, they was murdered," Wheeler told ABC News in an exclusive interview to be broadcast Wednesday on World News and Nightline.

So many lessons to be drawn from this: our troops’ vulnerability in Mr Bu$h’s ego-driven personal war and occupation – they have to be supplied by truck convoys on a daily basis through areas inhabited by a populace – Sunni and Shia - that hates Americans with a burning passion. We briefly discussed this vulnerability here and here.

The commentary from COL Pat Lang, US Army (Ret) is especially relevant here.

It’s interesting that the convoy commander didn’t stand and fight, as is expected according to the last word we heard on the subject in the April, 2006 article just above. Perhaps the rules have been changed again, and in an ambush civilian contractors are on their own and sauve qui peut is the rule. Or maybe the convoy commander, from the Virginia NG just couldn’t manage the battle well enough.

Once insurgents opened fire and disabled four trucks, the personnel carrier can be seen racing ahead.

"They left. They, I don't know where they went, they're nowhere to be seen," Wheeler said.

Wheeler says it was 45 minutes before a U.S. military force returned. By then, Wheeler says, he had seen two drivers shot at point-blank range. He identified them as Keven Dagit, of Jefferson, Iowa, and Sascha Greener-Case, of Sierra Vista, Ariz.

While we here at Main and Central have very little sympathy for armed contractors, i.e. mercenaries, who get killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, we do feel a sense of shame and loss when patriotic Americans, desperately in need of work, risk their lives for promised serious money.

A spokesperson for Halliburton declined to discuss the specifics of Wheeler's accusations and tape. The spokesperson says its employees sent to Iraq are fully informed of the risky nature of the assignment.

Wheeler was hit by two AK-47 rounds and suffered serious damage to his right arm.

Two months after the ambush, Halliburton notified him he was fired, citing a "work-related" injury.

This is George Bu$h’s 21st century America. Workers inured on the job are kicked to the curb, since there is no further value in exploiting them.

In an interesting turn of events, ABC News is reporting that the notoriously heterosexual Representative Mark Foley – yeah, he’s one of ours, down here in this tropical paradise – has sent a batch of emails to a 16 year old Capitol Hill page.

Congressman Mark Foley's office says the e-mails were entirely appropriate and that their release is part of a smear campaign by his opponent.

In the series of e-mails, obtained by ABC News, from Rep. Foley (R-FL) to the former page, Foley asks the young man how old he is, what he wants for his birthday and requests a photo of him.

The concerned young man alerted congressional staffers to the e-mails. In one e-mail, the former page writes to a staffer, "Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out."

Another notoriously heterosexual Republican politician, Ken Mehlman, has not yet been caught up in such a tempest.

Foley's office acknowledges that Foley wrote the e-mails to the young man but says they were completely innocent and that Foley is at most guilty of being "too friendly and too engaging" with young people.

The e-mails were sent from Foley's personal AOL account, and the exchange began within weeks after the page finished his program on Capitol Hill. In one, Foley writes, "did you have fun at your conference…what do you want for your birthday coming up…what stuff do you like to do."

In another Foley writes, "how are you weathering the hurricane…are you safe…send me an email pic of you as well…"

The young man forwarded that e-mail to a congressional staffer saying it was "sick sick sick sick sick."

Now that’s interesting. Doing the people’s business on his own time and his own personal AOL email account, eh? It has to be the people’s business, after all, since our Mr Foley is such a dedicated representative of the people.

Elizabeth Nicolson, Foley's Chief of Staff, said they believe the e-mail exchange began when the page asked Foley for a recommendation and that the subsequent exchange was totally innocent. She said Foley's office believes the e-mails were released by the opposition as part of an "ugly smear campaign."

I'd better alert AOL security to tell them someone hacked Rep. Foley’s AOL account, eh? Dangerous threat to national security, when a Republican gets caught with his pants down – figuratively speaking.

I feel so feliciously dirty, writing this story. Move over, Ana Marie Cox, I’m ready for a job at time.com.

9/29 UPDATE: Representative Foley has resigned his seat in Congress, apparently to immediate effect. As he is up for re-election this year, and we are - what? 5 weeks from the election, there may not be any chance at all of the R's putting in a pinch hitter, if you will forgive my pun.

Looks like we might be one closer to taking back the House, and turning it back into an American institution.

Tristero is just on fire today:

The truth is that there is a rogue presidency and there has been, since January, 2001 (earlier, if you count the stolen election). Certainly, everyone in Washington knows it, but no one dares to admit it. The bill legalizing torture merely enables Congress to pretend they still have some influence over an executive that from day one was governing, not as if they had a mandate, but as if Bush was a dictator. If, for some miracle, the bill didn't pass, every congress-critter knows Bush would keep on torturing.

Better to vote to pass and preserve the appearance of a working American government, the thinking goes. For the very thought that the US government is seriously broken - that the Executive is beyond the control of anyone and everyone in the world - is such a truly awesome and terrifying thought that it can never be publicly acknowledged. If ever it is, if the American crisis gets outed and Congress and the Supremes openly assert that the Executive has run completely amok and is beyond control, the world consequences are staggering. It is the stuff of doomsday novels.

Damn , we wish we’d said that. It’s well-worth reading twice, in case you really believed this Congress had one ounce of courage, patriotism, honesty or even human decency about it. It’s as black and corrupt and George Bu$h’s soul.

And take this to heart. Do you really believe that a man who has so destroyed the very fabric of American democracy is going to willingly step down in January, 2009?

In the new, more prosperous Russia, there are more cars, and perhaps more vodka.

The light at the end of the tunnel is often an ambulance beacon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th-uXdaMzLA

The NY Times has good news this morning for Americans who can still think:

Scientists Form Group to Support Science-Friendly Candidates

Several prominent scientists said yesterday that they had formed an organization dedicated to electing politicians “who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.”

A group of scientists, Scientists and Engineers for America, [www.sefora.org] have formed a political action committee to take part in national and local races in which scientific issues play a part in the electoral campaigns. Set up as a 527 organization, according to Mike Brown, its Executive Director, it will be involved in electoral politics, but contributions will not be tax-deductible.

[Mr Brown] said it would focus its resources — Internet advertising, speakers and other events — on races in which science issues play a part.

The group is looking at the Senate race in Virginia between George Allen, the incumbent Republican, and James Webb, a Democrat; a stem cell ballot issue in Missouri; the question of intelligent design in Ohio; and Congressional races in Washington State, Mr. Brown said.

It sounds to me like this is a group that, notwithstanding its official non-partisan stance, will be supporting Democratic and Progressive candidates in deep Red states, where all official human knowledge stopped right after the bible was written, 6000 years ago when the world was created. (The fact that writing is about than 3,000 years old is a minor quibble, I suppose.)

In a statement posted on its Web site (www.sefora.org), the group said scientists and engineers had an obligation “to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interest ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research.”

Organizers of the group[… ]said it would be nonpartisan, but in interviews several said Bush administration science policies had led them to act. The issues they cited included the administration’s position on climate change, its restrictions on stem cell research and delays in authorizing the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception.

[I]t said the government should not publish false or misleading scientific information, something Dr. Wood said occurred when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention briefly posted an item on its Web site suggesting that abortion was linked to breast cancer.

This group is going to make the baby Jesus cry, and we’re going to be treated to another round of wailing about “discrimination against Christians” because as we all know, loudly public American “Christians” only like science when it can be used to hurt people.

John Aravosis is having a reality moment.

Sometimes you just have to let an idiot hang himself.

As you all now know, George Bush made public the executive summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq late yesterday. Bush claimed that the NIE was going to exonerate him and show how peachy everything was in Iraq and in the war on terror. In fact, the document was horrifically pessimistic, and said just what the NYT said it said - namely, that Bush's quagmire in Iraq is fueling more terror and making us less safe.

The thing I can't fathom is what possessed Bush to make this document public AND to claim that it was going to be a really happy and peppy assessment. Granted, he may not have read the thing - it was, after all, a full three pages (and there were no pictures). But seriously, he must have read the thing - how did he get off thinking he could just lie about it, and then release it three hours later, like nobody would notice?

Now for a summary of the media reaction to the story. It ain't pretty. Meaning, it's absolutely hysterical.

John highlights some adverse reactions from the media in general, and there are some familiar organizational names in there that in the past have been brazen Bu$hCo boosters.

We’re not psychiatrists, nor do we play them on television, but we do dabble in online psychoanalysis. We suspect Mr Bu$h was counting on the standard reaction from media units that have been beaten into submission by 30 years of incessant VRWC noise, as well as eager co-operation from those members who are ashamed recipients of RNC income subsidy.

We would also point out that any document of this degree of sensitivity has been egregiously redacted. The actual document is much worse than what has been released. We know this because we know how Bu$hCo works. But perhaps this is just the first few thin drops seeping through the dike, and we will see a fuller release of this document if public clamor increases.

By all means, visit John's remarkable page and view all the negative media comments.

We’ve been a bit critical of the American Legion, and our brother Jeff Huber has really had a case of the red ass about this group of closet Nazis. This is not to say all Legionnaires are Nazis. But it does seem you can’t get to the National Command level without a good taste for the black, red, and white.

Imagine our surprise and delight when we saw this today:

The American Legion Addresses Findings

"Recent media reports that Gulf War Syndrome doesn't exist are misleading and masks the fact that even though ongoing maladies being experienced by Gulf War veterans may not have a scientific name they certainly do exist," said Paul A. Morin, national commander of The American Legion. "The Institute of Medicine's (IOM) recent report on the health of Gulf War veterans is basically a summary of existing peer-reviewed research and the committee's findings. The most contentious, which some media are just now reporting on, is the conclusion that there is no Gulf War Syndrome," Morin said. "This is not breaking news within the veterans community, but it does warrant more explanation because of the misleading headlines."

So, chalk up half a point for the Legion in this one particular instance. As Aristotle said, “One swallow does not make a summer.” It appears the Legion National Command might even have personal connections with Gulf War vets who actually suffer from these adminstratively non-existent maladies.

Today is the anniversary of my first post on this blog online magazine. It's hard to believe it's been a year; so much has happened.

I'd like to thank my regular readers - all 20 of you - and acknowledge the hard work you've put in following my rages, and most especially I'd like to thank that anoymous spammer located somewhere in the former Soviet Union who likes this place so much that he sends me over 200 messages a day advertising ringtones, cialis, sex webpages (especially the ones devoted to NMBLA topics.)

Most especially, I'd like to thank Jo Fish, who gave me this opportunity, and a shout out to all the brothers who've sustained me in my times of doubt.

The AP is reporting that our cousins have set out to pacify the southern city of Basra, which is in their territory.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- British and Iraqi troops set out Wednesday on an ambitious mission to pacify the southern city of Basra, root out its corrupt police and help the residents rebuild.

Some 2,300 Iraqi army troops and 1,000 British soldiers are taking part in "Operation Sinbad," with another 2,000 British troops deployed in the surrounding area, said British forces spokesman Maj. Charlie Burbridge.

The troops swept into a southeastern section of the city, Iraq's second-largest, at about 5:30 a.m. Eventually they will move through the entire city in an operation expected to take months, Burbridge said in a telephone interview from southern Iraq.

We must be getting old; Alzheimer’s is an insidious disease; the victim doesn’t even realize that his memory is failing. But we think we remember being told that the Brits had been so successful in their administration that Basra was very peaceful, and they were looking for other work to do, and had loaned some troops to the US, who haven’t been doing so well.

Umm, no, maybe not.

BASRA, Iraq - Southern Iraq, long touted as a peaceful region that's likely to be among the first areas returned to Iraqi control, is now dominated by Shiite Muslim warlords and militiamen who are laying the groundwork for an Islamic fundamentalist government, say senior British and Iraqi officials in the area.

The militias appear to be supported by Iranian intelligence or military units that are shipping weapons to the militias in Iraq and providing training for them in Iran.

Some British officials believe the Iranians want to hasten the withdrawal of U.S.-backed coalition forces to pave the way for Iran-friendly clerical rule.

Iranian influence is evident throughout the area. In one government office, an aide approached a Knight Ridder reporter and, mistaking him for an Iranian, said, "Don't be afraid to speak Farsi in Basra. We are a branch of Iran."

Well, it seems this invasion and occupation has been equally successful in Basra, too.

The city of Basra has largely come under the control of Shiite clerics, who have banned alcohol sales. A woman without a headscarf is a rare sight. Record shops have been replaced with stores selling Quranic recordings. It's difficult to purchase chess or backgammon sets; the games are frowned upon by hard-line clerics.

Iraq's top Shiites acknowledge that they want to set up a regional government in the south, but they insist that the provinces involved would remain loyal to the central government in Baghdad. But an Iran-friendly Shiite government in the south could have far-reaching effects on Iraq and the Persian Gulf region and on the strategic position of U.S. military forces in the country.

U.S. forces are dependent on a fragile re-supply line that runs from Kuwait north to Baghdad through southern Iraq. A regional government allied with Iran could pose a risk to that supply line.

Oh yes, just perfect.

It looks like Bu$hism has infested the Ministry of Defence, too.

Mrs Clinton addressed the attempted 9/11 hatchet job by Chris Wallace last Friday:

In unusually blunt terms, Senator Clinton questioned the current administration’s response to an intelligence briefing President Bush received about a month before the 9/11 attacks. It mentioned that Al Qaeda was intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes.

“I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team,” she said during an appearance on Capitol Hill.

Anyone who breathes oxygen is aware by now that the Clinton Administration took special pains to prepare the incoming Bu$hCo apparatchiki for the most serious challenge facing The US in the 21st century: Islamic terrorism, most especially in the person of Osama bin Laden and al-Quaeda. The warnings were ignored, as we know, since Mr Bu$h is a rootin-tootin cowboy oilman and just doesn’t cotton to effete Eastern folks (except for his parents, and brother JEB! Of course. And as we know, when Mr Bu$h got his PDB (“bin-Laden Determined To Strike Inside US”) he ignored it, not believing that someone from the family that had done business with his family for 30 years could possibly be a threat to the common people. Or maybe, the conspiracy theorists whisper, he really didn’t care what happened to the common people.

In her remarks, Senator Clinton also suggested that Bill Clinton’s animated defense of his own national security record as president, delivered only a few days earlier, provided a powerful example for Democrats, whom Republicans have sought to portray in recent national elections as too weak to lead the country in such perilous times.

“I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks,” she said.

This shocked the Republicans and their bought-and-paid-for Big Media, who don’t believe Democrats have the constitutional right to speak up for themselves. Having successfully bullied and intimidated Democrats for six years they were caught with their pants down by Mr Clinton’s spirited and carefully documented defense and indictment of Mr Bu$h. Chris Wallace, who isn’t a newsman but plays one on television, looked like a schoolboy being lectured by the Headmaster.

We don’t think national Democrats will develop the courage to defend themselves and the rights and freedoms we used to enjoy under the Constitution, even though we’ve seen some vague signs of spine from Senator Harry Reid and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. Most of them are just too used to being kicked, and have learned to accept it.

One of the very few good things to come out of the Iraq tragedy. A Florida couple’s 24 year-old son was killed in Anbar province in 2004. I cannot even begin to imagine the shock and grief to these people. They are no different from more than 2,700 other American families, shattered by Mr Bu$h’s personal war of aggression and occupation. Yet they found some peace as a result and salvaged someone else’s children.

Mark and Karen Zook, both 51, toyed with adoption even when their children were little. The idea returned after their son Ian, a Marine corporal, died in 2004 in what the government called "enemy action" in Iraq's Anbar province.

Friends remembered the 24-year-old as their high school valedictorian and a steadfast Christian. After his death, Port St. Lucie's Friendly Park became Ian T. Zook Park, and his parents moved to a house in Palm City where they could look out their back window and see his grave.

It just happened to have the same floor plan as their old home in Port St. Lucie, complete with bedrooms presumably for children.

"Here we are, two parents who lost our son. There's not a lot of hope in that," Karen Zook said. "So we thought, somewhere in the world there's a child who needs parents."

They used the money from Ian's life insurance policy to find that child.

"We wanted to make sure we put it to good use," Mark Zook said.

The family's journey began on Valentine's Day when the Zooks committed to an adoption agency. Next, they had to choose a city.

Mark, a corporal with the Florida Highway Patrol for more than 20 years, and Karen, a physical therapy assistant, spent hours online and decided on Kemerovo, Russia. They made their first trip to the impoverished coal-mining city in June.

It took three days to get there, changing planes and changing time zones. But they met friendly people and saw flowers blooming along the river. It reminded them of the Midwest in spring.

Anya [11] and Alexander [12] lived together in an orphanage, which had kind caregivers and clean rooms but no air conditioning and no heat until the government allowed it — only after Sept. 19, even though the temperature was nearly freezing.

Anya knew she had prospective parents coming, but the Zooks met Alexander, whom they call Sasha, his Russian nickname, while visiting with the little girl. He helped take care of smaller children at the orphanage.

At the end of his time with the Zooks, he told them through an interpreter, "Thank you for the two most wonderful days."

When the couple returned to Florida, they prepared a volume of official documents to continue with the adoption. Twice the Russian government changed its demands, but everything was complete in three months.

The Zooks returned to Kemerovo this month and booked four seats for their return flight.

I just thought we deserved something pleasant in connection with Iraq.

Senate and House conference representatives seem have said that they doubt it will be possible to reconcile differences in the pending legitimization of Mr Bush’s “preferred” interpretation of the new NSA spying law being obediently hand-crafted by Senator Specter. We briefly discussed this new Specter rape of the Constitution here:

The administration declined to say when it would choose to seek warrants under the new plan.

See: Hell, ice cubes. Here’s the key sentence in the entire article:

The program approved by Mr. Bush “does allow for the interception without court order of international communications where one end is within the United States, and this agreement would provide this authority and would establish a process for moving to individualized court orders with respect to individuals within the United States,” said Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman. He declined to elaborate.

Heretofore all wiretapping required a court order. This new bill ”approved by Mr Bush” has killed the FISA court, because he can wiretap international communications. It also supposedly requires him to get warrants to listen in to his domestic opposition.

Helloooo, signing statement, or perhaps ignoring this provision outright, as he has in the past.

A mid-level apparatchik of Bu$hCo was asked about whether it matters if this bill is passed. Insisting he must remain anonymous because he is not authorized to tell the truth in interviews, the Justice Department coffee-fetcher said, “It doesn’t matter. We’ll get it for Dear Leader later. Democratic Congressmen, and a few Republicans, are still being amazingly careless on their cellphones, and we’ll discuss this bill with them, in private, after the elections.”

The Senate and House representatives were more optimistic about the new detainee rules and seemed likely to reach agreement on one of Mr Bu$h’s most treasured goals – the right to torture anyone, anywhere in the world, in any manner he desires, without any legal liability:

[T]he Republicans were optimistic about eliminating last-minute concerns over a separate measure laying out rules for interrogating terrorism suspects and trying them before military tribunals. They said they were hoping to send the bill to Mr. Bush by the end of the week for a signing ceremony that could help them kick off the home stretch of the campaign with a message that Republicans were taking strong steps to protect the nation from terror attacks.

The changes had been made over the weekend, as negotiators from the House and White House adjusted a compromise that had been reached between the White House and Senate Republicans on Thursday.

In one change, the original language said that a suspect had the right to “examine and respond to” all evidence used against him. Mr. Graham and his colleagues in resisting the White House, Senators John W. Warner of Virginia and John McCain of Arizona, had insisted that the provision was necessary to prevent so-called secret trials. The bill submitted late Monday dropped the word “examine” and left only “respond to,” reviving complaints about secret trials, this time from Democrats.

In another, the original compromise said that evidence seized “outside the United States” could be admitted in court even if it had been obtained without a search warrant, a provision Republicans and Democrats agreed was necessary to deal with the unusual circumstances of seizing evidence on the battlefield.

The bill introduced Monday dropped the words “outside the United States,” which Democrats said meant that prosecutors could ignore American legal standards on search warrants within the country. The bill also broadened the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant, from anyone “engaged in hostilities against the United States” to include anyone who “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.”

When asked about the heavy lobbying efforts by leftist and progressive bloggers to defeat this bill, the anonymous Justice Department messenger boy said “We know who they are. It’s much more important to get the new detainee bill through. We’ll get to those traitors in time. Now we can apply the clear standards of 21st century American justice that Dear Leader needs to fight the Islamofascists, and we won’t be bothered by the quaint foolishness of showing our enemies the evidence we’ve construc – I mean collected to prove their guilt in the streamlined military tribunals.”

A frequent commenter here, Seven of Six, has posted a really devastating recitation of the latest official Republican Party plan to screw over veterans – this time disabled veterans:

The republi-cons are trying their best to tear down each and every entitlement program that exists. The reason is simple, the government is going broke. They are spending way to much on the war on terra, giving tax-cuts to their cronies and simply, the basic mismanagement of the country. Now comes the latest assault on disabled Veterans and their benefits from the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC). These folks are supposed to be working for the Veterans, instead they are assigned by congressional republi-cons to gut the VA system and save it money anyway it knows how. They are proposing lump sum buyouts for injured Vets. The most frustrating part is that the young uneducated kids coming back will look at this as a good idea. They want to start with those disabled Veterans who are in the 10%-30% Service Connected range.

You should read the entire post, by all means.

Many thanks to Cookie Jill from Skippy’s (y/sctp) bit of the outback for this:

if waterboarding isn't torture... according to the wall street journal and bushco, why then was waterboarding one of the "tortures" cited in convicting the japanese for war crimes committed during ww2?

so...is waterboarding torture?

interestingly, the united states has long since answered that question. following the end of the second world war we prosecuted a number of japanese military and civilian officials for war crimes. including the torture of captured allied personnel. at one of those trials, united states v. sawada, here’s how captain chase nielsen, a crew member in the 1942 doolittle raid on japan, described his treatment, when he was captured,

It’s worth reading the rest.

We suppose if you’re a Republican legal precedent only counts when you want it to.

The NY Times is reporting on a new Republican bill on domestic spying:

G.O.P. Reaches Tentative Deal on Domestic Spying Legislation

It’s nice to see the Times, which has a 12 year long history of fellating the GOP and the Bu$h maladministration, finally admitting that the domestic phone and computer eavesdropping Mr Bu$h ordered the NSA to engage in right after he took possession of our Oval Office was in fact spying. While the Times didn’t quite have the courage to admit all of the truth, a cynical man would say that the introduction of this program seven or eight months before the WTC attack on 9/11 shows Mr Bu$h either has incredible skills at forecasting the future or that he was bent on illegally and unconstitutionally spying on his domestic political opposition right from the start.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — Republican leaders said Monday that they had reached a tentative agreement to garner political support for legislation on domestic surveillance, in part by sidestepping the question of whether the president has the constitutional authority to order wiretapping without a court order.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who leads the Judiciary Committee, said that in recent negotiations, the White House had agreed to delete language from his bill that critics said would have implicitly acknowledged the president’s constitutional authority to order wiretapping without a warrant.

Well, one expects Arlen Specter to sidestep any serious legal or constitutional issues; that’s his standard way of doing business. He likes his camera time, during which he portrays himself as a brave and diligent conservator of constitutional rights even as he crafts bills to give Mr Bu$h exactly what any tinpot dictator of a third-rate banana republic would love to have enshrined in law.

Three Republican senators — Larry E. Craig of Idaho, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — had raised concerns about this and other aspects of the Specter bill, which would submit the wiretapping program to a secret court to rule on its constitutionality. With the changes, they said they could support the legislation, and Mr. Specter predicted he would have enough Senate votes to gain passage.

The three said the new plan would protect “the rights afforded to citizens in the Constitution,” in part by requiring that the administration get a court order if it wanted to listen to conversations of an American citizen or others defined as “U.S. persons.” In a statement, they said the new plan would require that “in order to conduct electronic surveillance of a U.S. person, a court-ordered warrant is necessary.”

We don’t know whether to laugh, cry, scream, or defecate brown cubes. There already is a “secret court” which was established to rule on wiretap warrants. The FISA court, created in 1978, reportedly has denied four requests out of some 19,000 applications. Not even Barry Bonds has hit that many home runs.

So, what we’re allegedly seeing in this typically dishonest Republican kabuki is yet another law for Mr Bu$h to completely ignore in his ongoing assault against every principle of American democracy.

The administration declined to say when it would choose to seek warrants under the new plan.

See: Hell, ice cubes. Here’s the key sentence in the entire article:

The program approved by Mr. Bush “does allow for the interception without court order of international communications where one end is within the United States, and this agreement would provide this authority and would establish a process for moving to individualized court orders with respect to individuals within the United States,” said Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman. He declined to elaborate.

Heretofore all wiretapping required a court order. This new bill ”approved by Mr Bush” has killed the FISA court, because he can wiretap international communications. It also supposedly requires him to get warrants to listen in to his domestic opposition.

Helloooo, signing statement, or perhaps ignoring this provision outright, as he has in the past.

Idiosynchronic – who posts at some of the most interesting places - has a short piece up at Progressive Historians.

What's a Redline Event and Will It Be Justification?

For those with limited imagination, a “red-line event” is a case of having the “double dog dare ya to step over that line” challenge met.

. . all the military analysis I've read indicates that Iran has a fair number of cruise missiles salted away in a fairly wide-ranging tunnel/cave system along their coast.

These papers also imply that Iran's stock of missiles is fairly effective vs. current defensive systems. It seems like they could release a sufficient quantity of munitions to damage, possibly even sink a carrier.

My recollection is fuzzy, but isn't sinking a carrier one of our redlines for nuclear release?

You should probably go read Idiosynchronic’s discussion of this possibility.

One more truth about Mr Bu$h’s Iraq qWagmire that hasn’t really penetrated America’s conscious – yet:

US troops in Iraq are Tehran's 'hostages'

WASHINGTON - For many months, the administration of US George W Bush has been complaining that Iranian meddling in Iraq is a threat to the country's stability and to US troops. The irony of this publicity campaign over Tehran's alleged bid to undermine the occupation is that Iran may well be the main factor holding up a showdown between militant Shi'ites and US forces.

The underlying reality in Iraq, which the Bush administration does not appear to grasp fully, is that the United States is now dependent on the sufferance of Iran and its Iraqi Shi'ite political-military allies to continue the occupation.

Three and a half years after the occupation began, the US military is no longer the real power in Iraq. As the chief of intelligence for the US Marine Corps revealed in a recent report, US troops have been unable to shake the hold that Sunni insurgents have on the vast western province of al-Anbar.

The fact is that our “golden hour” as doctors term that small window to save a trauma victim’s life, passed right about the time we watched Iraqis plundering everything except the Oil Ministry. While the US troops protected those oh-so-precious documents concerning the Iraqi oil which was Mr Cheney’s major concern, the Iraqis overthrew the restraint imposed by 30 years of Saddam Hussein’s rigidly enforced peace, law and order, and sectarian community.

[T]he main threat to the occupation comes not from the Sunni insurgents but from the militant Iraqi Shi'ite forces aligned with Iran, led by Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army. The armed Shi'ite militias are now powerful enough to make it impossible for the US occupation to continue.

Gone are the days when the US military could be so cavalier about Muqtada's forces that it deliberately provoked a major confrontation with him in Najaf in April 2004. That was when he was believed to have 10,000 poorly trained troops.

Since then, US officials have avoided giving any estimate of the Mehdi Army's strength. But according to a report published last month by London's Chatham House, which undoubtedly reflected the views of British intelligence in Iraq, the Mehdi Army may now be "several hundred thousand strong". Even if that estimate vastly overstates his troop strength, it reflects the sense that Muqtada has the strongest political-military force in the country - because of the loyalty that so many Shi'ites have to him.

Sadr’s loyalty is to Shia first, and association with the Iranian co-religionists second. He has no sense of loyalty at all to “Iraq” a country cobbled together by the British after WWI. And having viewed the last three years it’s certain he has nothing but contempt for the US and its various puppet governments. He’s just waiting for the opportune moment to turn his army loose and eject the infidel Americans and British from the country.

When Mr Bu$h starts bombing Iran, whether from his Messianic delusion or from the desperate idea of distracting American voters from the tremendous damage he has done to three countries, Sadr will probably make his move. American troops, tied to Kuwait and the US by a tenuous road convoy system, will be most vulnerable then. Direct attacks on troops won’t even be necessary. All he has to do is close down the roads. An Air Force involved in bombing Iran in a campaign that will take days, if not weeks, will have precious little resources available for tactical support of the convoys. We’ve seen very little use of anti-air missiles in Iraq so for. That might change, since it is believed the Iraqis have perhaps several thousand.

Patrick Lang, former head of human-intelligence collection and Middle East intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency, explained why in an important analysis in the Christian Science Monitor of July 21: US troops must be supplied by convoys of trucks that go across hundreds of kilometers of roads through this Shi'ite heartland, and the Mehdi Army and its allies in the south could turn those supply routes into a "shooting gallery".

Lang noted that the supply trucks are driven by South Asian or Turkish civilians who would immediately quit. And even if the US military used its own troops to protect the routes, they would be vulnerable to ambushes. "A long, linear target such as a convoy of trucks is very hard to defend against irregulars operating in and around their own towns," Lang wrote.

It would not require a complete cutoff of supplies to make the US position untenable. A significant reduction in those supplies would begin a "downward spiral", according to Lang.

We briefly discussed the good case realities of a retreat here. And we discussed the bad case scenario, which seems more and more likely, here.

It’s not something Americans can think about dispassionately or logically because as a nation we’re too propagandized about our exceptionalism. There would have to immediately be someone to “blame” even as the troops made their harrowing drive south, beset by IEDs, and sniping attacks with AKs and RPGs. That someone would be you and us, and of course, the Clenis™.

Chickens. Roost. Good Luck to all of us, because it could get very ugly.

Today’s Independent carries a story about the changing fortunes of war in Afghanistan:

British forces in Afghanistan are restructuring their operations after months of fierce combat which have taken a mounting toll on the battlefield and caused rising concern at home.

The policy of setting up "advanced platoon houses", which have drawn relentless attacks in the heart of Helmand province's Taliban country, will be quietly abandoned. British troops will instead be concentrated in more easily defended bases near the towns of Lashkargar, Grishk, Sangin and Musa Qala, as well as their main base, Camp Bastion.

When US troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan to fulfill Mr Bu$h’s dream of proving he was more of a Great Warrior than his father, the British troops took over American positions that were, in some cases, isolated and not easily supportable. While the US Air Force has greatly improved its tactical support capabilities, the RAF has not.

British troops in Afghanistan are exhausted and desperately short of helicopters, and there is no sign that the casualty rate will fall, according to accounts yesterday from officers on the frontline.

The reports, including a leaked email describing the RAF as "utterly, utterly useless", put the government under fresh pressure over whether it adequately prepared British troops for operations in the hostile south of the country.

Actually, there have been several leaked e-mails from British officers in Afghanistan that have complained about the state of things. A series of emails from a Major James Loden were leaked to the British press by a concerned family member:

We are lacking manpower. Desperately in need of more helicopters. Attacks consist of regular rocket, mortar, RPG and small arms on the fire base, plus fairly heavy fire fights out on the ground. The RAF have been utterly, utterly useless. In contrast USAF have been fantastic. I have a couple of soldiers who I have concerns about after some heavy contact ...

By now [we] could see the Taliban were rushing weapons out of a mosque hidden in depth. We began to engage them with mortars. At about the same time the enemy engaged us with mortars ... The 2 platoons were trickling towards us now clearly exhausted ... Those of us on the fire support tower were shouting at them to keep running and spread out because of the enemy mortar fire

As for facts, I have been in the field since July 27th and have only had 3 days with no contact so fairly constant. [Referring to attack helicopters] The bottom line is that there are not enough of them.

[Referring to air support during a fight with the Taliban] Harrier couldn't identify and fired rockets that just missed Coy HQ compound. l Comd ... put in a snap ambush and slowed them up with a heavy rate of fire. ... no casualties, lots of ammo expended!

This is company-level combat, the staple of land warfare. (In the British Army companies are commanded by Majors.) This sort of positioning is not the way the US does business; it is not US doctrine to set companies in isolated positions.

Another story in the Guardian seems to identify this officer as a member of 3Para, which is considered an elite unit, well-trained and highly motivated.

However, in Iraq the story seems more confident:

British troops quit Iraq base, adopt WWII tactics

BAGHDAD, Aug 24 (Reuters) - British troops abandoned their base in Iraq's southern Maysan province on Thursday, which has been under almost nightly attack, and prepared to head deep into the marshlands along the Iranian border to hunt gun smugglers.

Soldiers of the Queen's Royal Hussars are to adopt tactics first pioneered by the famed Long Range Desert Group, a roving special forces unit that fought Field Marshal Erwin Rommel's German Afrika Korps in North Africa during World War Two.

Well, that sounds exciting. Stripped down Jeeps armed with machine guns rocketing around the sand dunes, machine-gunning German Iranian smuggler convoys and blowing up airplanes. Although you might not rocket around salt marshes.

"We are repositioning our forces to focus on border areas and deal with reports of smuggling of weapons and improvised explosive devices from across the border," British military spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge told Reuters.

"We are going to do what the Long Range Desert Group did in North Africa. We will live in the desert. We will be mobile and able to strike when we want. We will have surprise on our side," he said.

There have been some indications that there isn’t much US and Brits do in Iraq that surprises al-Quaeda/Shiite militias/insurgents/dead-enders/Iranian gun smugglers, but let’s give it a try because we haven’t done anything right so far in Iraq.

Now, the Queen’s Royal Hussars is traditionally an armored regiment, and it’s reported they Brits are shipping their Chieftain tanks and Warrior IFVs out of Iraq, supposedly by sea. The speculation has been that they want to get them out through the Straits of Hormuz before Bu$hCo bombs Iran and all hell breaks loose. This makes some sense because they’re expensive pieces of equipment. But wouldn’t they be very important when Iran flips the switch in retaliation after the bombing starts?

How do you fight off a counter-attack (best case), or conduct a fighting retreat (worst case) without some heavy fire support?

Aide Detained at Airport en Route to Venezuela

Venezuela’s foreign minister was detained at John F. Kennedy Airport yesterday while trying to fly home after the United Nations General Assembly meeting, prompting an apology from the State Department.

The minister, Nicolas Maduro, was returning to Caracas, Venezuela, when he was prevented from boarding his plane, said Joanne Moore, a duty officer at the State Department.

Now why would they stop a diplomat? Did they suddenly discover bomb making materials in his suit pockets?

CNN, quoting an anonymous White House official, said that Mr. Maduro, his wife and their child, arrived at the airport 30 minutes before their scheduled flight yesterday and paid for their tickets in cash. He was asked to go through a second security check but refused and started making a call on his cellphone, the official told CNN.

The official said that Mr. Maduro informed airport security that he was a diplomat only after his travel documents, including his passport, had been confiscated.

AHAH! He paid cash. And he was traveling with his wife and child!! VERY suspicious.

Have you ever seen a diplomatic passport? I’ve seen several, although it was more 30 years ago. Maybe not all countries follow the convention, but the ones I saw were larger than the “normal” passport and had a different cover color. Some countries stamp the outside of the passport, identifying it as a diplomatic document. I imagine it would be a nice exercise to learn if Venezuela follows this convention.

Mr. Maduro told CNN that when he informed authorities at Kennedy airport that he was the Venezuelan foreign minister and showed his diplomatic passport, he was threatened and shoved by immigration officers.

He said that he believed he was detained in retaliation for President Chavez’s speech at the United Nations [describing Mr Bu$h as “the devil], according to CNN. However, the White House official was quoted as saying that there was no connection.

Apparently the White House, acting through the Department of Homeland Security, is now conducting its own foreign policy program, excluding the State Department, which has proved itself to be ideologically unreliable, what with complaining about making was on innocent countries, and protesting torture as useless in obtaining information.

This would never have happened if Venezuela did not have a lot of oil. Because it does, Hugo Chavez is a dangerous radical and must be replaced, despite having been chosen in a free election.

It's Saturday night, the weekend in well in swing for many of you, and thanks to The Uberblonde here is your weekend game.

http://www.toddalbert.com/files/images/bushsmack.swf

Juan Cole, writing today, has a fascinating bit – two bits, actually - about our “cakewalk” of Iraq:

' In the city of Tikrit north of Baghdad, 3,000 persons came out on Friday to demonstrate for the return of Saddam Hussein to power. Tikrit is his birthplace. '

This desire to return to the old regime, where electricity, water purification plants and garbage collection worked all the time and morgue workers had time to practice their pinochle, is going to grow.

In a worrisome sign that Muqtada al-Sadr has gone deep into an apocalyptic sense of the end of the world [Ar.], al-Zaman reports that the young nationalist Shiite cleric maintained that the US Department of Defense has compiled an enormous file on the hidden Twelfth Imam, that is virtually complete save that it lacks his photograph.

[For Shiite Muslims, the Twelfth Imam or Imam Mahdi is a little like Jesus Christ for evangelical Christians. Shiites believe that the Imam was translated by God into a supernatural realm, from which he secretly rules the world and from which he will one day return to restore the world to justice.]

Al-Sadr said during his Friday prayer sermon in Kufa that "The United States has been preparing for ten years a rapid reaction force against the awaited Imam Mahdi and the US provoked the Gulf War so as to fill the region with military outposts for this purpose."

He said that he had not stood against the elections held under conditions of foreign military occupation, because he wanted to see a political opposition to the Occupation develop. He said that nevertheless, conflicts between him and the Americans had continued and would continue.

Those who follow this religion thing closely will understand this appears to be a very big deal. All religions have myths and superstitions, and these are usually the emotional underpinnings for the faithful. Look what happened when an off-chance remark of Pope Benedict’s was misinterpreted. There were riots, arsons and at least one murder.

Now Imam al-Sadr is talking about a ten year US campaign – a conspiracy, if you will – to prevent the Twelfth Imam from bringing justice to the world.

Thanks heavens we will soon be so distracted by the Iranian reaction to our illegal and unwarranted sneak attack on them that we won’t have time to worry about religious zealots rioting in Iraq.

Imam al-Sadr also said in his Friday speech: “Have you asked yourselves what the US has given the Iraqi people save the killing and destruction that you see? . . . That is only a preparation for the advent of the Imam Mahdi.”

Yup. Not a good thing.

Apparently Eric Brewer was at yesterday’s White House news conference and asked Tony Snow about the recently invented theory of “unitary executive power.”

Me: On Sunday, former deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo said, in an op-ed in the NY Times, that, “The White House has declared that the Constitution allows the president to sidestep laws that invade his executive authority. That is why Mr. Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements—more than any previous president—reserving his right not to enforce unconstitutional laws.”

And my question is, why doesn’t the president veto laws that he thinks are unconstitutional?

Mr Snow, recently a bobblehead at Fox News, educates Eric about the real Constitution, not that ridiculous triad you learned about in high school Civics.

You haven’t been around here much, have you? This is a question we’ve done many times, so, for those of you who’ve heard it before, you may resume your crossword puzzles.

Um, the fact is that signing statements are designed not to evade the law but to look for constitutional ways to do them. Furthermore, the number of signing statements is about equal to Bill Clinton’s. What’s happened is, the number of provisions that have been cited have been a little more numerous. This is actually something that presidents in the past have done if they think that the methods—you’ve got to go back and look, Helen—the number of statements—and one of the things also is that what has happened in this administration is rather than writing vague signing statements and saying “we disagree with this,” we’ve spelled out the provisions precisely. And I would invite anybody to go back and start comparing and contrasting, and you will find that the characterizations are the same, except that we’ve been more precise in trying to identify which things we think need remediation. Also, the signing statements are designed to say, “this is the way in which we will interpret it so that we preserve the intent of Congress, preserve the intent of the law, and at the same time, preserve what we think is the proper Constitutional balance.

Apparently they’ve decided SCOTUS is also a rubber stamp thingie under Mr Bu$h’s imperial rule.

We must get out more. We think we missed the memo.

There are reports this morning that Osama bin Laden, Mr Bu$h’s BFF and scion of the family that has been business partners of the Bu$h family for 30 years is dead in Pakistan from a typhoid infection. While early reports have been in several French newspapers and one Irish publication, the original leak is reported to have been in a regional French paper in the province of Lorraine. This paper stated the report stemmed from a classified DGSE document that was leaked. The actual report comes from an unclassified document circulated by the Audi Arabian intelligence service. Saudi Arabia, of course, is the oil-rich Middle East kingdom that has also enjoyed warm and friendly financial relationships with the Bu$h family for the last 30 years., as well as the country that supplied most of the 9/11 terrorists.

No need to supply links, since the MSM will be touting this story for at least 12 hours, unless some blonde goes missing somewhere.

This is a very fortuitous news report, coming just before a crucial mid-term election in which Democrats planned to hand Mr Bu$h and his criminal Republican Party their asses and other assorted body parts over the inaction and indifference over bin Laden and his creation, al-Quaeda.

The NY Times is reporting a story that says a “throng” came out in public to acclaim Hassan Nasrullah, the Hezbollah leader. The photo accompanying the article is impressive.

Hundreds of thousands of people stood Friday and chanted “God, God, protect Nasrallah.” It was the moment they had waited for: Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in person, declaring that his militia was stronger than ever and that no army in the world could force it to disarm.

This was Sheik Nasrallah’s first public appearance since the war with Israel started in July, and it was steeped in defiance: at Israel, the United States, Arab heads of state and those political forces in Lebanon aiming to clip Hezbollah’s political and military power.

The first thing that comes to mind is the ironic thought that this must be a bitter blow for Pamela Oshry, the chaotic blogger at Atlas Shrugs, and one of the “stars” at Pajamas Media. She created a Vlog, and her short film clip about Mr Nasrallah is a comedy classic. Liquid alert. Have bleach handy for eye disinfection while viewing this bit of theater of the mind.

The second, and much more important thought was, Israel has managed to unite many of the Lebanese people behind an implacable enemy. What were they thinking of?

At the rally, the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, declared that the militia had emerged stronger from its recent war with Israel. "Not a single army in the world will be able to dismantle our resistance," he said, and asserted that Hezbollah still had 20,000 missiles in its arsenal. It was Sheik Nasrallah's first public appearance since the war with Isarel started in July.

Israel’s attack on Hezbollah, which was intended to neuter a strong external ally of Iran before Mr Bu$h’s next foray into empire building, was a spectacular failure. There are strong indications that Israel hatched this attack plan in consultation with Mr Rumsfeld’s special group of happy warriors, acting in concert with the Likudnik-minded PNAC. Hezbollah fought the once-invincible IDF to a standstill, inflicting casualties and damage that shocked the Army and the nation. The pro forma protest that Hezbollah fought Israel in difficult mountainous terrain is a non-flyer. A competently led army plans for combat in such terrain and understands casualties are expected.

Result: Hezbollah is now a major player in Middle East power politics. Advantage: Iran.

The crowd was mammoth, packing every corner of the 37-acre square in the southern suburbs of Beirut. There was a plastic chair for nearly everyone, and a baseball cap for protection from the sun. Hezbollah’s martial choir belted out chest thumping music. The crowds waved flags, wildly cheering for Sheik Nasrallah, who has become a folk hero to many here and throughout the Arab world. The audience came on foot, by car and by bus from the south and the north, and in every case, people said they came because Sheik Nasrallah asked them to.

Individual chairs for hundreds of thousands of supporters? “Gimme” caps for each participant? There’s a lot of organization, money, and status involved here.

I’ll bet Messers Bu$h, Cheney, and Rumsfeld wish they could organize something this huge.

In all this haserai about the rubber stamp Republican Congress further trashing the United States’ reputation in order to grant Mr Bu$h’s heartfelt wish to be able to torture anyone he thinks deserves being tortured one significant point has mostly been overlooked. Thom Hartmann makes the point crystal clear:

The Republicans are trying to keep George W. Bush out of jail. So far, the media and the Democrats haven't done much to stop them.

On the surface, it seems the Republicans are having a debate about "wiretapping terrorists" and "harsh interrogation of prisoners." These frames about the current "rebellion" by McCain, Graham, Warner, et al, are today embraced by both the Republican Party and the mainstream media.

Ironically, this is a theme we presented last Friday. We feel no sense of pique about Mr Hartmann bringing up the topic a week later. Mr Hartman has a much greater circulation, and can get the message out more effectively than our little blog online magazine. Good for him. Sierra Hotel.

But the real issue is whether Republicans in Congress will trade the principles of democracy and the rule of law to keep George W. Bush and several of his colleagues out of jail, or whether they'll uphold the rule of law and American democracy while abandoning him to face the consequences of his illegal acts.

On June 29, 2006, in the Hamden Case, the US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration had violated the Geneva Convention and other international treaties with regard to the treatment and prosecution of detainees in the so-called "war on terror."

The logic of the decision could subject Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and Rumsfeld - along with those down the chain of command who followed their orders - to prosecution as war criminals both in the United States and internationally. If they violated Common Article 3 and others of the Geneva Conventions, they could be subject to lengthy imprisonment in the US for violating US laws, as well as being brought before the United Nation's International Court of Justice at The Hague, the same as Slobodan Milosevic.

With as much respect as we have for Mr Hartmann, we are astounded that he would ask if the “Republicans in Congress will trade the principles of democracy and the rule of law to keep George W. Bush and several of his colleagues out of jail, or whether they'll uphold the rule of law and American democracy while abandoning him to face the consequences of his illegal acts.”

These Republicans in Congress would trade the principles of democracy for an extra 5,000 votes, and probably throw in their 14 year old daughters, as well. As for discussing the rule of law and Republicans in the same sentence…

It’s like having a discussion with Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen.

A hastily convened conference call by the Justice Department to discuss the ruling caused Brian Roehrkasse at the Department of Justice Public Affairs Office to comment to those on the call that "the Supreme Court's holding indicates the military commissions, as currently constituted by DOD, while robust in affording enemy combatants more process than this or any other country has ever afforded enemy combatants, are not consistent with current congressional statutes, especially the UCMJ and treaty provisions, Common Article 3."

A plain English translation would be close to: "The Supreme Court said we've broken US law, we've broken the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and we've broken the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3."

Even this corrupt Justice Department run by Abu Gonzalez understands the law.

Will the Republicans bail George out the way Osama's half-brother, Salem Bin Laden (who soon thereafter died in a plane crash in Texas), did when Dubya's Harken Oil Company was going bust? Will they keep him from being prosecuted the way his father did when Poppy shut down an SEC investigation of Junior's inside trading? Will they keep him out of federal custody the way his daddy did when Dubya left the Texas Air National Guard to desert the military and go on a year-long drinking binge in Alabama?

Will they? We’re reminded of folk wisdom about Popes, bears, and woods.

There was a story in yesterday’s NY Times that not a lot of people seem to have discussed:

G.O.P. Gains Big Fund-Raising Advantage

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 — The Republican National Committee has amassed a significant fund-raising advantage, according to campaign finance records filed Wednesday, feeding Democrats’ fears about remaining competitive in the intense final weeks before the midterm elections.
…
The disparity is caused by the decision of the Democratic National Committee chairman, Howard Dean, to take a longer view of turning around the party by devoting most of the money he has raised to rebuilding state organizations across the country. Last week, the committee said it would provide $12 million to finance voter turnout efforts, only $2.6 million of which would be directed toward House campaigns, a point of bitter contention among Democrats and relief among Republicans.

This is not surprising, and should not disconcert faithful Democrats, Liberals and Progressives. The Republicans are the party in power. They’ve been in power since 1994, when Newt Gingrich took out his Contract on America and a Republican Party, eager to maximize the opportunity to achieve undreamed-of financial and political wealth, happily signed on to a campaign to befuddle America with a long term campaign of lies, misdirection, and laws designed to disenfranchise Democratic voter majorities.

While it’s true that Dr Dean is looking long term, it is possible for Democratic politicians to make good advantage of the opportunities.

So, I address this to incumbent Democrats: If you want to ever be more than a neutered, helpless, hapless opposition it’s important to fight for the principles that made our party great. I know all of you have people on the other side who have made a special effort to be your “friends.” They talk nice with you off the Congress floor, and smile and chat, and ask about your family and oooh and ahhh politely when you show your family pictures, and tell you the things they’re doing to destroy this country is “just business” and doesn’t affect your friendship . I know they assure you that there will always be a place for you in Congress and you shouldn’t worry. I know they’ve castigated and demonized us in Congress and in their bought-out press, and so you’ve made mistakes and supported their bad laws and policies to give the country away to their money friends.

We want you up on the Congressional floor, every day of the week, saying NO!!! to everything they want to do. We want you to be an Opposition Party.

It’s time to wake up. If you stand for nothing you will fall. These people are not true Americans. They’ve taken oaths to support and defend the Constitution and they have foresworn them.

They’ve given the Treasury away to their campaign donors. They’ve ignored national security, and 3,000 Americans were murdered, out ports were given away to the very people who financed those murders. Five years after the WTC attacks not one US port has any security to protect it from smuggled nuclear weapons. They’ve finagled and schemed to get easily hackable voting machines in key states. They’ve involved us in two foreign wars that are not going well, to say the least. One was a justifiable war; it was started to strike back at the people who attacked us on 9/11. The other was started because Mr Bu$h has some serious emotional and psychological issues with his parents and because Mr Cheney wants his friends in Big Oil to get richer.

They insist Mr Bu$h has the right to eavesdrop on anyone, anywhere in the world. That includes you and me. That’s not what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country, and it’s not what we, the American people, want. Even though Mr Bu$h insists it’s to keep the country safe, the historical record shows he ordered the NSA to do this very shortly after he was inaugurated in January 2001. It was not done as a reaction to 9/11, but rather for the purpose of domestic intelligence against political opponents, as is quite obvious.

Now they want to codify torture, and to be free to torture anyone whom Mr Bu$h certifies as an enemy of the US. First, torture is disgusting, disgraceful, and anathema to the principles the United States was founded on. Secondly, the “enemies” Will one day include you and me. Mr Bu$h is insisting he has the right to lock up anyone, anywhere in the world, he wants to. That also includes you and me.

Statistically, there are more Democrats, Liberals and Progressives in this country than Republicans. What are you afraid of? If you stand up to fight for us, we’ll come to the polls, and support you in such numbers not even the shameless Republican Party of 2001 will be able to steal another election.

If you are so terrified of angering these criminals we will replace you with other representatives, men and women with the balls to fight for our country.

I ran across this little thing and just thought it applicable.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29447540@N00/249650003/

Billmon, presenting COL Sam Gardiner:

When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran

COL Gardiner's essay, "Summer Diplomacy" is available as a .pdf document through the Billmon link.

Approaching the end of WWII, the prolific film makers John Huston and Frank Capra produced a propaganda film “Know Your Enemy: Japan” which was hard-hitting, and well-produced as a propaganda film, with the expected tilt towards “understanding” only the negative aspects of the Japanese people, symbolized by the savage, racist, xenophobic, genocidal side represented by the expansionistic military. As a propaganda film intended to shore up the (possibly) flagging spirits of an American people tiring after four years of brutal warfare it was a success.

Today, America (and the West) are locked in a titanic struggle for political and religious survival, according to our wrong-wing cousins. This thesis may or may not be accurate, since it’s always better to examine your enemy’s motivations rather than your own fears and paranoia. On the surface it appears that the Islamist “enemy” in the Middle East is opposed to US influence and power projection in their home region, the Middle East, rather than “hating us for our freedoms” as the totalitarian Bu$hCo likes to say. Is this an accurate representation of the facts as they actually are? Perhaps it’s wise to take a look at Islamic history for a better understanding of the “enemy’s” motivations.

Efraim Karsh, a professor at the University of London, and a former officer in the IDF, has written such a book, Islamic Imperialism: A History, which examines the history of the Greatness that was once Islam.

Brian Downing, an author and frequent contributor to online examinations of military and political history, reviews Professor Karsh’s book at The Agonist, and gives it a pretty good reception.

How are we to understand Islamic politics today, especially the acts of terrorism of the last decade or so? Efraim Karsh, an Israeli professor at the University of London and former IDF officer, begins his answer by sketching two oft-heard answers. The first says it is Islam’s response to frustration from decline vis-à-vis the West; the second a response to the West’s, mainly America’s, policies in the region. Karsh dismisses them (regrettably, after only brief exposition) and argues that the key is a powerful cultural current in Islamic thought, present at its creation, that venerates military expansion and empire building.

I think most of us are familiar with the argument that much of the current Islamic fire was generated by Western and especially American economic and cultural exploitation of the region. I have to admit however that I’d never considered the frustration that might infuse a culture (the Islamic Middle East) that once was great, but lost its relevance against a technologically superior competitor.

In his review Downing attempts to condense Professor Karsh’s historical recitation of Islam’s rise to power and its associated militaristic expansion, eventually creating an empire from the Atlantic coast of North Africa to Central Asia. He also presents some teasers of Karsh’s exposition of Islam’s fall from relevance because of internal conflicts and disputes, dynamics we can see in today’s internecine strife in Iraq’s killing squads of Shiite and Sunni militias.

The ideological forces we face in the war on terror are more complicated than a dream of empire. Resentments stemming from decline and US policies cannot be dismissed as Karsh recommends in an early paragraph or two. If we are to form an effective strategy for the region, sources of hostility must be considered. Instead, our policies seem based on an odd combination of doltish sloganeering that no longer inspires and heavy firepower that no longer works. Our leaders would do well to recognize the complex reasons for Islam’s hostility and perhaps play off disparate groups and beliefs in a manner that obviates the need for blunt force of arms, which serves more to broaden and intensify hostility than assuage or destroy it. But perhaps this is a dream as elusive as that of Islamic empire, betraying a yearning for the vanished gardens of an older America in which the ensnaring strife of the world, when not deftly elided, was at least thoughtfully approached.

It’s not a “beach book” since the beach summer is now past. But at 276 pages Islamic Imperialism is a manageable read, and probably worth the investment of time. A meaningful and influential portion of Islam appears to have declared itself our enemy and it would be wise to understand that enemy. A review of a book review might seem like an exercise in nitpicking, but I think this is a book I want to read, and maybe some of you will, too.

The NY Times has published an editorial today that’s well worth a read:

The White House has been acting lately as though the struggle over the proper way to handle prisoners is a debate about how tough to get with Osama bin Laden if he’s ever actually caught. This week, we’ve had two powerful reminders of the real issue: when a government puts itself above the law, innocent people are put at risk.

Discussing the cases of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen abducted by Americans in 2002 and rendered to Syria, where he was tortured for 10 months, and Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi photographer employed by AP, who was imprisoned for five months by the American military, with “secret evidence” that cannot be shown to Mr Hussein, his lawyers, the AP, or even Iraqi courts, the Times concludes that two bills currently before the US Senate don’t meet the test of conscience or practicality:

The White House’s measure endorses the practice of picking up any foreign citizens the United States wants, abusing and even torturing them, and then trying them on the basis of secret evidence. It effectively repudiates the Geneva Conventions, putting American soldiers at risk.

The other bill, written by the only three Republican senators… defines “illegal enemy combatant” so broadly that the administration could apply it to almost any foreigner it chose, including legal United States residents. Both bills choke off judicial review and allow even those acquitted by a military tribunal to be held indefinitely.

In hindsight it seems obvious that the removal of judicial review of Bu$h malAdministration actions has always been a major goal. The facilitation of a rubber stamp Republican Congress has enabled this cabal to thoroughly trash the nation’s reputation in the world community, making a country once considered an icon of honor and decency into a rogue state.

Senators McCain, Warner and Graham should be ashamed of their efforts in this matter. It would seem that Mc Cain signed on to this disgraceful bit of legislation either because he’s forgotten he was a victim of torture or because the hunger to be President destroys memory and ethics.

The NY Times has an article discussing the survivability of the present Iraqi national government today, couched in the terms of whether the Prime Minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has the “political muscle and decisiveness” to solve the multiple political problems facing the country.

Let’s be clear: coalition government is difficult, especially so when the various factions of the coalition have mutually exclusive goals. It requires great strength and personality to carry your associates and colleagues forward in such a situation. Just ask the Anglophones who have had to deal with Quebec.

Four months into his tenure, Mr. Maliki has failed to take aggressive steps to end the country’s sectarian strife because they would alienate fundamentalist Shiite leaders inside his fractious government who have large followings and private armies, senior Iraqi politicians and Western officials say. He is also constrained by the need to woo militant Sunni Arabs connected to the insurgency.

Leaving aside the question whether “aggressive steps” is even an option for a government incapable of securing the streets of its own capital, one must consider the fact that the Shiite militias are larger and most likely better armed than their Sunni counterparts. As Mr Wong, the writer of the article adds:

Patience among Iraqis is wearing thin. Many complain that they have seen no improvement in security, the economy or basic services like electricity. Some Sunni Arab neighborhoods seem particularly deprived, fueling distrust of the Shiite-led government.

It should be plain to anyone paying attention for the last three and one-half years that US inaction and disinterest has a major part in the current problems confronting Iraq’s national government. Lack of planning, insufficient troops, protection of only the Oil Ministry, etc, etc, blah-blah-blah. By now we know the litany of errors, mistakes, miscalculations, and screwups, some of them undoubtedly deliberate. The US has poured billions of dollars into Iraq and they still don’t have electricity for more than a few hours a day. Heavens, we haven’t even finished repainting all the schools yet!

Here are some quotes culled from the article:

Mr. Maliki, a conservative Shiite, took office in May. A senior American diplomat here said the White House still had confidence in him, mainly because “he has articulated goals for Iraq that make sense to us.”

Bush administration officials have repeatedly cautioned that Mr. Maliki needs more time. “This is a national unity government of many, many moving parts,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He has got to negotiate as he goes.”

But diplomats who deal with the Bush administration on Iraq issues, and recently departed officials who stay in contact with their colleagues in the government, say the president’s top advisers have a far more pessimistic view.

“The thing you hear the most is that he never makes any decisions,” said a former senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss internal deliberations. “And that drives Bush crazy. He doesn’t take well to anyone who talks about getting something accomplished and then refuses to take the first step.”

The one common thread in all these quotes is the unnamed source. As is quite common with all Bu$hCo enterprises, no one is authorized to discuss the inside baseball. We aren’t party to Mr al-Maliki’s “articulated goals”, which means there is no metric for success. The “many, many moving parts” aren’t discussed, nor described, so no sense of the magnitude of the challenge can be attained.

The overall sense of pervading pessimism is quite disturbing, of course, because while coalition government is difficult, these folks spent the years 1968 to 2003 under Ba’ath Party rule. They should have some sense of compromise, even if it is under a gun barrel.

After the 2003 deposing of Saddam Hussein, the disbanding of the Army was certainly a serious miscalculation. Some countries run by the consent of the governed, others by virtue of the muscle of the central government. Iraq was left with neither to give its government credibility.

In a final assessment, one can best gain an opinion about any government’s usefulness by learning the thoughts of the “man in the street.”

“I thought he’d be stronger, but he looks weak,” Mr. [Mahmoud] Othman, [an independent Kurdish legislator] said. “He feels frustrated because nobody’s cooperating with him.”

The same sentiments are heard in the streets of the capital.

“There’s no security, no job opportunities, no services, nothing at all,” said Muhammad Jabar Abdul Ridha, 18, a construction worker walking through downtown Baghdad on Tuesday afternoon. “This government hasn’t done anything better than the previous one.”

Who was the previous Prime Minster? Was it Iyad Alawi? Ibrahaim al-Jaafari? We’ve lost track. Will we see Mr al-Maliki replaced by some other Bu$hCo puppet? With all the confusion and lack of certainty about Iraq, there is one overarching truth: the present US government has absolutely no intention of leaving Iraq, and in fact has invested much of its “reconstruction” efforts in creating a number of “enduring bases” and an embassy larger than many cities in order to continue a power projection in the Middle East.

More and more it looks as if Iraq, an artificial country established by a British dictate after WWI, is going to deconstruct into three self-administering states, under a loose federalization. These will basically follow lines of ethnic and religious separatism, and will leave a weak central government with no ability to organize and encourage a sense of nationalism.

Mission Accomplished.

I've got company visiting this week, and like all well-trained guests, they had the foresight to bring bribes gifts to sweeten up the olde farte in residence at Casa Disaster.

MMMmmmm.... peppermint! Excellent.

The Time magazine issue of September 17th features a long explanatory piece about Mr Bu$h’s insane need to start another war in the Middle East. Contrary to American journalism’s habit of lazy he-said, she-said writing, Michael Duffy’s cover story actually examines the issue logically, with no flag-waving idiocy from Likudnik neocons. It’s available here, free after watching a short advertisement.

A flurry of military maneuvers in the Middle East increases speculation that conflict with Iran is no longer quite so unthinkable. Here's how the U.S. would fight such a war--and the huge price it would have to pay to win it.

The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1

The orders for units tasked to mine warfare is significant because that is one of the greatest dangers in conflict with Iran. In such a conflict, Iran’s most potent weapon is not military, but rather economic. A large portion of the world’s oil moves through the Straits of Hormuz and they are just too easy to shut down with mines.

The Persian Gulf, a traffic jam on good days, would become a parking lot. Iran could plant mines and launch dozens of armed boats into the bottleneck, choking off the shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and causing a massive disruption of oil-tanker traffic. A low-key Iranian mining operation in 1987 forced the U.S. to reflag Kuwaiti oil tankers and escort them, in slow-moving files of one and two, up and down the Persian Gulf. A more intense operation would probably send oil prices soaring above $100 per bbl.--which may explain why the Navy wants to be sure its small fleet of minesweepers is ready to go into action at a moment's notice. It is unlikely that Iran would turn off its own oil spigot or halt its exports through pipelines overland, but it could direct its proxies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack pipelines, wells and shipment points inside those countries, further choking supply and driving up prices.

All of this is caused by the fact that Iran has a lot of oil, and controls the primary export route out of the Middle East. A secondary goad is the fact that the hard-liner fantasists on the right are deeply troubled by the fact that the US has never “gotten even” with Iran over the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy.

One of Iran’s potential weapons in a military clash with the US is its allies and friends among the terrorist community. When Hezbollah initiated this summer’s war in Lebanon the world was stunned as it watched Israel fought to a standstill by what is essentially a guerrilla movement, albeit a well-supplied and very competently led one. Israel’s stunning loss in Lebanon has turned the “Spartans of the Middle East” into just another high-tech Western power befuddled by Islamic and nationalistic ideology married to the resistance tactics espoused by Sandino, Mao and Guevara.

Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who taught strategy at the National War College, has been conducting a mock U.S.-Iran wa