Gawd, can't ya just feel the love... Our VA Secretary says that registering voters, which would be primarily disabled vets, in VA facilities is a "partisan" distraction! How big of him! His reasoning, you might ask?
"VA remains opposed to becoming a voter registration agency pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act, as this designation would divert substantial resources from our primary mission," Peake said in an April 8th letter to Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA). He was referring to a 1993 federal law that allows government agencies to host voter registration efforts.
What? They'd be forced to divert precious funds from the wonderful upkeep of Walter Reed? Or from the staff's payroll that just so happens to audit each and every application for VA benefits, as opposed to the IRS standard of auditing a mere 6% of filers... This is merely another outrage, atop an already extensive list, but, it needs to be highlighted! Yep, Shrub and the Goopers really has the best interests of our brothers-in-arms at heart! If you get a chance, send an email to either Kerry or Feinstein for applying some pressure to VA...
"The Department of Veterans Affairs should provide voter materials to veterans," Feinstein said. "I believe the cost of providing these voter materials is minimal. It's a small price to pay for the sacrifice these men and women have made in fighting for our nation's freedom. I am disappointed."
"You'd think that when so many people give speeches about keeping faith with our veterans, the least the government would do is protect their right to vote, after they volunteered to go thousands of miles from home to fight and give that right to others," Kerry said. "And yet we've seen the government itself block veterans from registering to vote in VA facilities, without any legal basis or rational explanation.
"I will keep fighting with Sen. Feinstein to ensure that veterans aren't facing unnecessary hurdles just to exercise their voting rights."
Fed Up? Register to vote if you're not already, and Vote!
It seems America is in a lot of economic trouble. The economy is suffering, and we could all sit around and play the blame game, or we could do something about it. (I know, I know, throw out the r’s and vote in Democrats.) That always used to work, and might work this time. But that will put off the recovery until sometime late in 2009, or maybe even 2010.
We need to do something now. Right away. So Mr Bu$h has decided that he’s going to give everyone some incentive- some walking around folding ca$h to just go out and spend, just like he wanted everyone to do after 9/11. We sure showed them Saudis then, didn’t we? We spent like drunken sailors, but somehow the economy got overheated and we have this recession thing – that’s the second one for Mr Bu$h’s occupation of our White House, but as I said this is the time for action, and we can do all the recriminations later.
He’s going to send out these checks - $300 for single people, $600 for couples, and as I understand up to $1600 for people with children. So I decided to write Mr Bu$h and suggest a better plan.
Dear Mr Bu$h,
I know Presidenting is hard work. I’ve watched you now for seven years and you’ve made a royal fuckup of the job. Now, I know you’ve been to college, and to graduate school, so I know you’re a smart guy. So to have a smart guy like you screw up the job is surprising, but I’m not here to lay blame. As I said we need to fix the country and we can do the recriminating later.
I just wanted to point out that, as a widower I’m only supposed to get $300, hut here’s the deal: I’m retired, and don’t work, so I have lots of free time on my hands, and I’m a real patriotic American.
So I want you to send me a check for $3,000. Since I don’t work, I’ve got lots of free time to go shopping and I’ll do everything I can to help you end this second recession of yours.
No need to thank me. I figure it’s my patriotic duty, now that so many multi-millionaire CEOs are out of work, what with the catastrophic collapse coming our way because of the unregulated mortgage things causing our unregulated banking system to fall apart.
The sooner you send me my $3,000 check, the sooner I can get started saving the country.
Your friend,
Lurch
PS: what kind of stuff do you want me to buy? I could use a new TV. Should I buy a TV made in Japan or one made in Korea? I could also use a new computer. I guess they're all just about Japanese now. Should I buy one of those computers the Chinese are making? You know, the ones an American company sold to China? I hear those are pretty good, even if they do have that special doo-dad in there that sends a recap of my day's work overseas every night while I'm sleeping.
One of the basic principles of Generalissimo Field Marshal Fred Kagan’s escalation was to send a lot more troops into Iraq to kill as many Iraqis as possible, (although truthfully males of fighting age were preferred to woman and children) and to die and bleed, and be wounded and maimed in order to allow the Shiite Maliki central government to have some room to make political changes with a view towards some sort of reconciliation.
Of course, many people with working brains can see that the real goal was to raise enough dust to quiet those who had the bad taste to note that the tar baby is just soaking up our blood and treasure, and to ensure some vague resemblance to “success” so that more criminals could be elected in 2008 under the banner of the republican Party.
Many wondered whether arming Sunnis and ex-Baathists was a wise solution, but they were willing to kill Saudis and Yemenis, and so the Army went ahead and put ‘em on the payroll – all 70-80,000 of them, at $300 each per month. Just don’t call them “Saudis and Yemenis” though because Mr Bu$h’s family has this long, profitable, on-going business relationship with the House of Saud.
Suddenly, if you were anti-occupation and wore a keffiyah you were automatically “al-Qaeda” (unless you were on the payroll as a ”concerned local citizen.”)
Hell, even this guy would have been “a-Q” because he fit the profile: foreigner, hated Western occupation, had the headdress and the robe, even.
The fly in the ointment is that the Shiites have just about zero interest in joining hands with the Sunni for anything, unless it’s to help the Sunni climb the steps to a gibbet. So political reconciliation was unlikely unless it was forced upon them, and in a confusing change in policy, our alleged Russian expert Condoleeza Rice doesn’t want to dictate to the Maliki government about stepping up the pace of reconciliation.
Despite the almost-universal distaste for change, something has snuck through. I know you will join me in applauding it.
The three stars that represented Saddam Hussein's Baath Party will be removed, to address the concerns of Iraqi Kurds.
They have refused to fly the flag since the fall of Saddam Hussein, saying it is too closely associated with a regime that repressed and killed their people.
The flag was also changed in 2004, when a line of script, allegedly in Saddam Hussein's own handwriting, was changed to Kufic script.
But the latest change - passed by 110 votes to 50 - is only temporary, as a design for a new flag will be sought after one year.
Well, that was momentous, wasn’t it?
The Arabic phrase shown above is pronounced as Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim, and is a beautifully poetic phrase which offers both deep insight and brilliant inspiration. It has often been said that the phrase Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim contains the true essence of the entire Qur'an, as well as the true essence of all religions.
Muslims often say this phrase when embarking on any significant endeavor, and the phrase is considered by some to be a major pillar of Islam. This expression is so magnificent and so concise that all but one chapter of the Qur'an begins with the words Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim.
The common translation:
"In the name of God, most Gracious, most Compassionate".
fails to capture either the true depth of meaning or the inspirational message of this beautiful phrase. So, let's look deeper into the meaning of these wonderful words.
The rest ought to be a snap now that they’ve straightened out that flag thing.
This morning’s NY Times has a classic hit piece written by Michael Powell and Chris Bluettner that excoriates Presidential hopeful (heh!) Rudy Giuiani. It seems Mr Giuliani practiced the Bu$h method of political control while mayor. A vengeful, petty tyrant who uses his underlings to punish anyone who dares speak against his “greatness.” And most surprisingly, he’s a republican!
We learn that he went after a whistleblower complaining about some sort of police department sting at a Bronx Zoo traffic light, and the cops were sent to his house to arrest him on a 13-year old traffic warrant which was thrown out of court. The man won a $290,000 settlement for being treated illegally. A case worker revealed the city had made mistakes in assessing and handling a child’s danger in a domestic manner and the child died as a result. The case worker was fired.
The list goes on and on.
[F]ar more than his predecessors, historians and politicians say, his toughness edged toward ruthlessness and became a defining aspect of his mayoralty. One result: New York City spent at least $7 million in settling civil rights lawsuits and paying retaliatory damages during the Giuliani years.
That’s not toughness; that’s being a bully. An outraged man would consider the very long list of Americans publicly crucified by Mr Bu$h's Renfields.
There’s been a lot of recent commentary in blogtopia (y!sctp) about Mr Giuliani being a “small man in search of a balcony” and other such comparisons with Benito Mussolini, along with some very imaginative (and cruel) photoshopping of the late Mr Mussolini and Mr Giuliani, who, it appears has a political career that could be described as “late.”
Bloggers will be bloggers. There will always be people who will point fingers and keyboards in derision at political figures. That goes with the glamour of being a public figure. If you don’t want to be vulnerable to public scorn pick a trade that doesn’t put you in front of cameras.
The thing that bothers me most about today’s Times article is its applicability.
Where were you clowns six years ago, when a democracy slowly being strangled needed people other than Democrats held up for ridicule?
Mr Bu$h has been taking a premature victory lap in the Middle East lately and apparently still warning everyone about the evil Iranians.
Speaking in Israel, he’s been especially solicitous, remembering that country is in charge of our foreign and military policy in the Middle East and the hard right barking dogs over there are very quick to shut down the flow of ca$h to the republican Party if it looks like there’s any sort of tendency to stop paying attention to the region. Facing a really tough election in November, the r’s need all they can get because the most important allies, the Billionaire’s club and Wall Street can’t carry it all themselves, and many of the lower-level supporters are disenchanted by what the party is offering this year by way of Maximum Leader.
While visiting Yad Vashem, the memorial to the Holocaust in Israel, Mr Bu$h apparently teared up while viewing an aerial photograph of Auschswitz. This happens. I’ve visited Dachau several times and the effect is horrible. My wife had never seen me cry before, and I think that is the response of most people.
Apparently Mr Bu$h took a cue from Avner Shalev, the head of the museum commission, and after discussing the matter with our alleged Russian expert Condoleeza Rice in front of the photograph, our Great Warrior Leader decided that President Roosevelt should have given the order to bomb Auschwitz in order to stop the exterminations. Not bomb the camp, but rather the railroad tracks leading to the camp because that would have somehow stopped the slaughter.
Considering the inaccuracy of US bombing during that war, the bombing would probably have crept to the camp and that would have been doing the German government of the time a favor. And if somehow they Americans had managed to hit the railroad tracks and not killed the prisoners in the camp, what would have happened? They Germans would have unloaded the cars short of the bomb point and walked the prisoners into the camp.
So this happy little bit of Bu$h mental wandering and pandering wasn’t about saving the Jews on Auschwitz, but rather about saving the Jews in Israel by stopping the Greatest Evil The World Has Ever Seen ™ Maumoud Ahmadinejad.
(If you talk to the oldest Germans you can find, you will learn that none of them were Nazis, they all hated Hitler and deplored the Holocaust, and you come away wondering how Adolph Hitler held off the Allies for 6 years all by himself.) In much the same way
we are being told today that this one man, Ahmadinejad, all by himself, is compelling a nation of 70 million people to destroy Israel. This man who has no authority to order the transfer of one soldier from one camp to another, whose job is to talk to the international community, who has no voice in the decision of items of national importance, has been inflated by the Bu$h malAdministration into some great monolithic commander-in-chief dedicated to one goal. And the government of Ehud Olmert has been happy to cooperate in this lie. Mr Ahmadinejad has been falsely elevated to the position that Mr Bu$h secretly desires for himself.
Led by the lies and siren call of Big Oil’s greed and the loyal treason of the Likudnik agents of PNAC, America has been dragged into the tarpit of Iraq , which of course is only the first step in enabling Israel’s expansion to the Litani River which Israel needs to continue to grow.
Led by the lies and siren call of Big Oil’s greed and the loyal treason of the Likudnik agents of PNAC, America has been dragged into the tarpit of Iraq , which of course is only the first step in enabling Israel’s expansion to the Litani River which Israel needs to continue to grow. An expanding Israel needs not only new land, but more important, more water resources.
The danger for America is two-fold: the continuing drive to serve Israel’s interests in the Middle East by eliminating its potential enemies does serve America’s long-term strategic interests. A strong military position in that region ensures control of the oil, thereby denying it to economic rivals such as Russia China and India. But the rising cost of this military posture and power projection is becoming a crippling economic threat to the middle class, which is the only basis for democracy. The ongoing and soon to be permanent tax cuts for the millionaires like Messers Bu$h and Cheney (and many if not most of Congress) impose a growing strain on a drowning middle class as the nation struggles to pay for a Defense Department consuming more money than all the other countries in the world combined.
The second great danger for America is in that Mr Bu$h dearly loves his position as dictator-in-all-but-name. He is not the stupid dolt that many think he is, but rather a sly, scheming man with a badly damaged psyche.
He has said it at least twice. (This clip’s audio is very poor and you will have to pay close attention to hear the sound bite.)
America should be seriously considering whether Mr Bu$h will actually leave the White House in January 2009.
The constant (and rising) drumbeat of war against Iran would provide him with the perfect reason to “postpone” the November elections due to a self-created “national emergency.”
Can you seriously imagine the Democratic “leaders” in Congress stopping him?
One day my man will come. He’ll be tall (or maybe short) broad-shouldered (or maybe slight) with a full head of flowing locks (unless he’s bald.)
One thing I do know is that he’ll be a rip-snorting progressive/liberal who will stand up in front of the nation’s video cameras and tell the truth. His eyes will flash the fire of outrage and smoke will pour out of his ears as he describes how my country was nearly dealt a death blow by criminals.
He’ll speak the truth about this corrupt political system we’ve got in this country. He’ll kook right into the camera’s fish-eye lens (ignoring the fish-faced media-drone standing alongside with a microphone and a pre-printed list of “gotcha” questions furnished by Corporate Headquarters) and he’ll say “The republican Party in this country is a pack of lying, stealing, skeaving warmongering poodle-fucking baby rapers. Each and every one of the national and state republican politicians would go to their children’s funerals and steal the pennies off their kids’ eyes.”
He won’t be afraid of the pearl-clutching bullcrap the republicans have trademarked. In fact, as one of them gets the vapors over what he said, my hero will gently push the Victorian fainting couch out of the way with the toe of his shoe, whistle innocently, and murmur solicitously when the faker lands on his fat wallet.
One day my man will come. (Sure my man could be a woman, but it won’t be Hillary Clinton, unfortunately.) Until my man comes I’ll just content myself with Dan Hartman fronting up the Sorels.
As we stagger off into the year of 2008 I’ll offer my very best wishes to all of you. May your health be better than in 2007. May happiness and comfort surround you and your loved ones. May you be able to hold onto your jobs in Mr Bu$h’s “booming” economy, and if you are fortunate enough to have health insurance, I hope you keep it, and that it will cover you and your family in time of need.
Finally I hope that we will be allowed to hold elections next November, and despite the desperate efforts of the republican Party to steal yet another election, I hope sufficient numbers of outraged patriots stand on the poll lines for the 6, 7, 8, or 9 hours necessary to overcome the republican voting machines and elect a Democrat to the White House, and enough real Democrats to Congress so that we may begin the process of removing the stain George Bu$h and his fellow conspirators have put on our nation.
Thank you, one and all, for reading Main and Central through this year.
I have no idea how to embed this video so you have to follow the link. Wear asbestos survival gear. Bring your own oxygen.
People standing alongside a roadway with their eyes closed, mumbling and moaning, and testifying to an urban myth, are now considered a motivating portion of what is laughingly referred to as an “informed electorate.”
This morning’s WaPo carries an interesting story about a potential shift in emphasis in South Asia. Now that the Defense Department has as Secretary who stands on his hind legs, the uniformed services have found the courage to stand up (ever so slightly) to Mr Bu$h.
With violence on the decline in Iraq but on the upswing in Afghanistan, President Bush is facing new pressure from the U.S. military to accelerate a troop drawdown in Iraq and bulk up force levels in Afghanistan, according to senior U.S. officials.
Administration officials said the White House could start to debate the future of the American military commitment in both Iraq and Afghanistan as early as next month. Some Pentagon officials are urging a further drawdown of forces in Iraq beyond that envisioned by the White House, which is set to reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15 by the end of next summer. At the same time, commanders in Afghanistan are looking for several additional battalions, helicopters and other resources to confront a resurgent Taliban movement.
The withdrawal mentioned is of course the tail end of Generalissmo Field Marshal Kagan’s famous surge escalation, which apparently might have actually had some effect on violence. The constant combatant pressure on insurgency may have caused the resistance to pull in its horns, at least temporarily. This, coupled with the providential “Anbar Awakening” has given the impression that, at long last, all the wishes and hopes of the never-right will come to fruition.
No one seems to have given any thought to the possibility that maybe the resistance is just marking time, until the drawdown begins. Iraq is – or was - a pretty modern nation. They’ve had calendars and newspapers for more than a couple of years, and they understand all about US national elections, and they understand that all this drawdown talk is all about the next election, like everything else the Bu$h malAdministration does.
Bush's decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan could heavily influence his ability to pass on to his successor stable situations in both countries, an objective his advisers describe as one of the president's paramount goals for his final year in office. They say Bush will listen closely to his military commanders on the ground before making any decisions on troops but is unlikely to do anything he believes could jeopardize recent, hard-won security improvements in Iraq.
Administration officials say the White House has become more concerned in recent months about the situation in Afghanistan, where grinding poverty, rampant corruption, poor infrastructure and the growing challenge from the Taliban are hindering U.S. stabilization efforts. Senior administration officials now believe Afghanistan may pose a greater longer-term challenge than Iraq.
The Bu$h malAdministration cares not a whit about grinding poverty, rampant corruption, and poor infrastructure, but the uniformed services do. Helmand Province continues to be a serious problem in Afghanistan. The recent battle for Musa Qala highlights a significant development: the strength of Taliban in the region and the failure of the US Government to prosecute the real war.
The battle of Musa Qala involved more than 8,000 combat troops from the US, NATO and the Afghan Army. This is close to the effective combat power of a full division. It took them the better part of a month to fight their way through a sophisticated defensive belt of mines, booby traps, fortified bunkers, machine gun posts and anti-aircraft gun positions defended by an estimated 2,000 Taliban. The G’s captured Musa Qala in February, and held the town ever since, using it as an expeditionary base, sending units out to other areas in order to distract NATO attention. It was also claimed the town was a drug-smuggling center and this is quite possible, since opium poppy production is reportedly higher than in past years.
Staging raiding and diversion parties from a central point is a classic use of second-level guerrilla forces, and the Western allies were unable to mount a proper offense until late this year, as British forces that had formerly been committed to Iraq became available. There were reports that artillery had been used to break through the defensive belt.
When you have to use artillery you’re not dealing with guerrillas. You’re fighting main force troops. And when you have to concentrate a division’s worth of troops from three countries in order to capture a town held by your enemy for almost a year a wise strategist would re-think his planning.
Since there are a finite number of US troops available to fight Mr Bu$h’s ego-war in Iraq and the real war in Afghanistan, there has been pressure to draw in the forces in Iraq, centering on the jewel in the crown, Baghdad and the Green Zone, and stationing troops in the “enduring bases” rather than actively seeking combat against the resistance in the provinces.
CAMP VICTORY, IRAQ -- In a change of plans, American commanders in Iraq have decided to keep their forces concentrated in Baghdad when the buildup strategy ends next year, removing troops instead from outlying areas of the country.
The change represents the military's first attempt to confront its big challenge in 2008: how to cut the number of troops without sacrificing security.
Actually, the military’s real challenge is how to slow down the decline in Iraq in order to take the violence off the news horizon and enable the Republicans to claim a great victory before the 2008 elections. It’s going to be interesting to see how the ideologues who have risen to influential positions in the Army react to a Democratic President and a Congress with a greater Democratic majority. I know if I were the strategist advising the new President I’d be recommending an immediate cashiering of about 80 or 90 generals and about 100 colonels.
Let’s get some uniforms in there that actually respect democracy and the US Constitution.
A year ago, when U.S. patrols in Baghdad were sparse and sectarian killings were spiraling out of control, President Bush proposed a troop buildup in part to establish order in the capital. Over the last four months, violence in the capital has begun to abate.
But the most significant improvements have been in outlying areas, where the first of about 28,500 additional troops arrived in February, followed by gradual improvements in Baghdad. Military planners at first thought it would be the other way around.
"There was a sense we would focus very significantly on Baghdad and change would come from Baghdad out," said a senior military official in Washington, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing troop strategy. "What we are seeing is just the opposite, it is probably outside-in, toward Baghdad."
Unspoken in this quote is the fact that the outer provinces, especially Anbar, are strongly Sunni. The capital is heavily Shiite. Prime Minister Maliki’s government, while ostensibly a coalition, is primarily Shiite within the ministries.
If we’re banking on change from the outer areas, are we actually expecting a renewal of the civil war?
UPDATE: Bernhard, who's always worth reading, believes the change in strategy presages a planned regime change in Baghdad.
Marc Armbinder is reporting that Joe Lieberman (R-Tel Aviv) is supporting John McCain for President. This is hardly surprising as Senator McCain has been by far the most wild-eyed supporter among the Republicans for the Oded Yinon Strategy, which calls for the destruction of all of Israel’s neighbors.
Senator McCain’s endorsement this morning by both the Boston Globe and Des Moines Register in the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries could breathe new life in the old warhorse’s campaign. If he has a respectable showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, it might even attract some funding to his campaign, which is presently mired in fifth place in the issues-free National Seventh Grade Popularity Contest administered by our bought-and-paid-for Corporate Media.
While the Des Moines Registerdescribed Senator McCain and Senator Clinton the most competent and ready to lead, there are some who might disagree.
"With dissension at home and distrust abroad, as American troops continue to fight wars on two fronts, the times call for two essential qualities in the next American president," the Register’s editorial board concluded. "Those qualities became the paramount considerations in making endorsements for the Democratic and Republican nominees in the 2008 Iowa caucuses.
"The times call for competence. Americans want their government to work again.
The times call for readiness to lead. Americans want their country to do great things again. They’ll regain trust in their government when they see a president make that happen."
The Des Moines Register editorial board may not have noticed it, but what Americans actually want is someone dedicated to the premise that American is a nation of laws, and the people overwhelmingly want to see some serious war crime trials, with many, many, many long-term imprisonments, and if we’re really lucky about 25 or 30 executions for treason.
While all the Republican candidates (except for Ron Paul) are for more war, more torture, and less taxes for the millionaires, which very surprisingly include themselves, if I really had to stick my hand into the box that might possibly contain that scorpion, I’d rather see McCain have a brush with destiny than Millionaire dog-tormenter Romney, Millionaire adulterer and Mafia buff Giuliani, or Governor Huckabee, who all seem to want to drag us back to the 10th century.
After all, Senator McCain has adequately shown his Foreign Policy knowledge and experience, and demonstrated his ability to plot a careful course in the Middle East, right?
I was sort of mentally recapping the latest news – the asshole cowardly Vichy Dems caving in once again to a textbook psychopathic killer, the stunning revelation about why Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table, the news that even though the Intelligence Community understands Tehran is not threat to the US, we’re still going to bear down on them.
It all reminds me of an episode in Joe Wambaugh’s Police Story series from the 1970s in which a SWAT officer, played by Tony LoBianco, is horribly burned in a helicopter crash during a training exercise. Being treated in the hospital, subjected to daily torture as his bandages are removed, crazed by morphine, he asks the doctor whether the fight is all worth the pain, and all the doctor can tell him is that he has to decide that for himself.
He balls up and decides to tough it out, of course, and fights through, eventually returning to a somewhat normal family life.
So, fuck you, George Bu$h. And you too, Nancy Pelosi. The same to you, Harry Reid you corrupt Las Vegas pimp. Up your DLC-fellating ass, Steny Hoyer, you triangulating prick,
We’re going to beat all your sleazy, corrupt, cowardly asses and take back our country. And then we’ll see just who the hell we put in jail.
Frequent commenter WK threw a note over the transom to advise me of some slight improvements in the plight of America’s homeless veterans.
BERNARDS -- Frederick Ohweiler said Monday that it took the better part of the past three years to prepare for life "on the outside."
"The outside" for Ohweiler means being drug and alcohol free, a roof over his head and a trade that led to a job with a future. It also means outside the system, clean and sober and on his own.
Ohweiler was for years, he said, one of the state's 8,000 homeless veterans. Nationally, homeless prevention organizations said, on any night, nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless.
In 2004, Ohweiler was enrolled in a new program at the Veterans Administration Hospital at Lyons that offered a place to live, a break from the cycle of addictions and an opportunity to enter a culinary school.
It is a national disgrace that there are 200,000 homeless veterans. Of course, that’s just one disgrace among many in the Age of Bu$h. Not all the homeless vets occurred under Mr Bu$h’s occupation of our White House, but it can be reliably stated that their plight has grown worse because of his neglect.
An administration that allowed uniformed troops to wallow in soiled and stained linen in a rotting hospital wing could be expected to have even more contempt for veterans no longer in the green bag.
On Monday he was on hand at VA Lyons to celebrate the expansion of the Hope For Veterans Transitional Housing Program, operated by Parsippany-based Community Hope.
Officials and guests marked the expansion of the program by 25 beds, increasing to 100 the number of veterans who can be served.
The new beds are in a wing of the previously abandoned building on the Lyons campus that was renovated in 2004 for the transitional housing program.
Community Hope, founded in 1985, is one of the state's largest providers of supportive housing. It operates cottages at Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, offering patients there a chance to make the transition from an institution to life on the outside.
At Lyons, Hope for Veterans is a two-year residency program that offers veterans the chance to develop greater independent living skills through addiction recovery programs, job training, community service work, self-help groups, mentoring opportunities, developing savings and eventually moving to permanent housing.
I know you join me in congratulating Fred Ohweiler, and wishing the best for him and all his brothers who are trying to fight their way back to a healthy, successful and productive life after serving their country. Sadly, it’s unlikely the current pack of criminals despoiling our democracy will do anything for the veterans. It will have to wait for patriotic Americans, a Democratic President and strongly Democratic Congress, to start repairing the damage that the Republicans have brought to our nation.
WK advises that he is in one of the photos in the story linked to above, One of the balding heads is his.
It seems that the alleged War on Terror is getting much less popular with the troops. It’s still a big hit with the wingers, but among those who actually get to spend 15 months away from their families – again – and get to risk being blown up, or shot, or lose a limb, it’s getting to be less important.
WASHINGTON - Soldiers strained by six years at war are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.
While the totals are still far lower than they were during the Vietnam war, when the draft was in effect, they show a steady increase over the past four years and a 42 percent jump since last year. [emph added]
This story hasn’t been discussed very much. Obviously, not in our bought-and-paid-for corporate mass media, which is far too busy paying attention to the class president race, and obsessing over whether Hillary shows too much cleavage or packs a dildo in her power pants suits, or whether Barack Obama is a closet Islamist.
Oddly enough, the media and punditocracy also doesn’t seem too concerned about Rudy Giuliani’s serial adulteries, his delight in cross-dressing, or his apparent preference for entering into business deals with criminals. Nor do they seem much concerned with Mitt Romney’s inability to stick to one side of a position. But they also seem really excited about Fred Thompson’s after shave.
I haven’t seen much written about desertion around the internet tubes, either.
It’s generally agreed that the primary topic of the November 2008 general elections will be Iraq (if Messers Bu$h and Cheney decide to allow elections.) Current polls indicate more than 72% of Americans want our troops out of Iraq, and most want them out at once. The only groups that seem to want the Occupation to continue indefinitely are Big Oil, the winger noise machine, Mr Bu$h’s 24% and the Likud Party.
According to the Army, about nine in every 1,000 soldiers deserted in fiscal year 2007, which ended Sept. 30, compared to nearly seven per 1,000 a year earlier. Overall, 4,698 soldiers deserted this year, compared to 3,301 last year.
These are interesting figures, because they pretty much agree with a story from last year, when Army representatives told us that about 20,000 soldiers had deserted since 2000.
Statistically that’s a drop in the bucket. But if you’re in the green bag, you notice when some dude takes off and doesn’t come back. And I guarantee you notice when more dudes quit without giving notice this year than last year. If your brain hasn’t been rattled and rolled by IEDs you probably think.
That guy from over in the 3rd Battalion? Chickenshit MFer. But when someone from your own company does it, someone you know, someone you shared death with skies off, you think, because you know he’s got the balls. He went through it with you.
.
Desertion used to be considered a pretty serious thing. Back during our last attempt at imperialism in Viet Nam, deserting, or going AWOL for more than 30 days was good for a Bad Conduct Discharge and three years in Barb Wire City. It seems that since the “Commander-in-Chief” has been proven to have deserted during that time, the Army is a little less willing to punish people for waking off the job.
Despite the continued increase in desertions, however, an Associated Press examination of Pentagon figures earlier this year showed that the military does little to find those who bolt, and rarely prosecutes the ones they get. Some are allowed to simply return to their units, while most are given less-than-honorable discharges.
The Army has changed. Even the Colonels and Generals are beginning to figure it out.
Today’s NY Times blog “The Caucus” discusses Barack Obama’s disgraceful pandering.
COLUMBIA, S.C. _ At Barack Obama’s gospel concert here last night, more than 2,000 black evangelicals were singing, waving their hands and cramming the aisles _ most enthusiastically when Donnie McClurkin, the superstar black gospel singer, decried the criticism he has generated because of his views that homosexuality is a choice.
He said his past statements about homosexuality had been twisted and he had been unfairly maligned. He segued into a hymn about standing up for one’s self and thrust a defiant fist toward the ceiling. This led to a short pitch for Mr. Obama, who, he said, stands for change. “But the greatest change a person can have is not in politics,” he said. “There is only one king.”
Mr. McClurkin is the preacher who had said he was gay but was “cured” through prayer and tonight he was the star act in a parade of star acts, which included the Mighty Clouds.
I know a little something about addictions. I studied up a bit on alcoholism because both my parents were afflicted with this disease. You can’t cure alcoholism, but you can arrest it with effective treatment, which includes honest, even brutal, introspection and a strong resolve to change your life.
From what I’ve read about homosexuality it’s a hard-wired genetic change in our DNA that turns us towards members of the same gender. You can’t change it just with prayer, just as you can’t change alcoholism with prayer alone. I used to have a good laugh when I read fawning stories in the media about George Bu$h changing his life with prayer.
Has anyone who’s been paying attention for the last six years think he’s changed his life by dedicating it to a deity?
His inclusion had drawn public criticism from gay activists who wanted Mr. Obama to cancel his appearance. Mr. Obama did not, but issued a statement a few days ago saying he strongly disagrees with Mr. McClurkin’s views and that he has tried to address what he called the homophobia among some black voters.
So he looks to score points with black Christians, who actually follow the example of that carpenter far more than most of the self-expressed white “Christians” in this land. He invites a black preacher and gospel singer to take the stage with him, thereby implying an endorsement. People start asking what’s up with Pastor McClurkin and his unusual ways and Obama then denies any association, other than, of course, standing on the same stage with him, and at a political rally organized for Senator Obama’s benefit.
I don’t know a lot about the down low lifestyle – just what I’ve read at Steve Gilliard’s. He always said African-Americans were dead set against it, that it was more shameful than among whites. I have to go with his authority, because he was right about so many other things.
I can’t help wondering if Senator Obama really has tried to address the issue of homophobia, or is trying to, or would like to, maybe the best thing to do would have been to have stepped up to the microphone while Pastor McClurkin was heefin and hollerin and put his hand over the mike, and said, “Wait. Wait. You can’t say that. I disagree with the lifestyle too, but you can’t malign people like that. It’s not Christian. Did Jesus malign the lepers? Did he malign the Romans? Did he even malign Judas? Stop. Just stop. Thank you. Go home. We’re not here for this.” That would have put the focus right back on Senator Obama and not on Pastor McClurkin.
That could have established the two-year Senator, with very limited experience at the Federal level, as ready for prime time.
UPDATE: It seems Matt Stoller agrees, at least in part.
Mrs Clinton hasn’t yet won the primary election for the Democratic nomination, but the National Corporate Media seems to have already enshrined her as inevitable because nothing sells soap powder like a good controversy, and they know that mention of the Clinton name creates visceral and hysterical response from the Fascist Front.
Like many sensible Progressives, I’m uncomfortable with Mrs Clinton for several reasons. The name is unimportant to me, although knowing Mrs Clinton in the White House means bringing a master at public relations to the fore once again and that heartens me. But the Clintons bring a lot of baggage with them. There’s all that peace and good economy Mr Clinton helped bring about, and the 12 million-odd jobs that were created during his time in the White House, along with the international respect and good will.
This sort of success requires a massive assault on Mrs Clinton. The economic success of Bill Clinton’s Presidency is compared favorably with GHW Bu$h’s time, and when compared against the present occupier of our Oval Office the contrast is even more startling. Thus, the very name Clinton will be decried, turned into the 21st century of Benedict Arnold, Alger Hiss, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and, of course, the Rosenbergs.
They are terrified of a competent Democratic President.
LibbySpencer, working off a great commentary by Kevin Drum, has a nice summation about this at The Newshoggers. But first, Mr Drum:
[T]here's a huge difference here. A guy like Giuliani is polarizing because he actively chooses to be. It's part of his persona. He wants people to hate him
Hillary, by contrast, is polarizing not because she wants to be, but because the right-wing attack machine made her that way. She's "polarizing" only because a certain deranged slice of conservative nutjobs detest her.
And then Libby:
The people on the street want change and the largest growing demographic is in Independent voters. I'm not so certain enough people will vote to trade one family dynasty for another. Maybe she can win, but winning by a few hundred thousand votes isn't going to heal what's ailing our country. We need a leader that can bring our people together, not one that's going to pound the wedge between us in more firmly.
Granted, the rightwing rage machine hates all Democrats, all liberals and the whole progressive agenda and I agree we shouldn't let them dictate our choices, but that works both ways. We shouldn't not vote for her because they hate her, but neither should we vote for her to prove we can't be bullied. That's just as short-sighted.
Well, yes, but the idea of a couple dozen assorted heart attacks and strokes on the other side of the universe is an attractive thought, isn’t it?
Mr Bu$h has vetoed the expanded SCHIP insurance program that would have continued the program which presently insures about 6 million children and opened it up to many of the 9 million who presently have no health coverage.
Naturally, Mr Bu$h has tried to justify this cruel and heartless kick in the face of helpless children by explaining that he must – just must, mind you, keep an eye on the nation’s burgeoning national deficit. He wants to help the poor, most certainly, but he also has to defend the nation against those evil liberals. And the money that would be spent on poor children, whose parents probably aren’t Republicans, would just be wasted. It’s better spent supporting Big Oil‘s campaign to steal the resources in the Middle East.
By the way, in the past, Mr Bu$h's other vetoes were signed off with a big smile and a flourish of the pen in front of cameras. This time he signed off to hurt children in secret, barricaded in our Oval Office. He's probably ashamed of what he did, although a cynical man might think he had a bit of a thrill coursing along his nerve system, knowing he was denying healthcare to children.
Bush on Wednesday cast the issue in terms of those who want to help the poor and those who want to increase the size and cost of government.
"The policies of the government ought to be to help poor children and to focus on poor children, and the policies of the government ought to be to help people find private insurance, not federal coverage," he told a crowd of business leaders in Lancaster, Pa. "And that's where the philosophical divide comes in."
Vince, one of my neighbors, has four children. A year ago his company suddenly decided they were going to stop providing health insurance to employees. He used to get his insurance at a pretty nice price, and by not insignificant additional premium he got some coverage for his wife, Brenda, and their kids. We were talking a while back and he was wondering where to send the bill for his private insurance for his family. It seems for the six of them it comes to about $1,150 per month, with a surprisingly steep deductible. I guess now he can mail that bill on into Big George, who’s ready “to help people find private insurance.”
The congressional bill would spend $60 billion over five years to expand the program to cover 9 million to 10 million children, and pay for it with higher tobacco taxes. Bush has offered $30 billion, a 20% increase over current levels but not enough maintain the existing enrollment, budget analysts say.
Last weekend Brenda asked me, “How can this guy sleep at night, refusing to insure kids?”
Like a baby, Brenda, like a baby. And he smiles as he thinks of those sick kids with no insurance.
Vince, send him the policy proposal with the $100 deductible. It’s a better deal, since Big George is helping out.
As has become customary, the Bu$h malAdministration submitted a budgetary estimate for fighting the necessary war in Afghanistan and his ego-war in Iraq. Then, as has apparently become automatic, it submitted an “emergency” increase for more: $42.3 Billion more.
Today’s NY Timesdiscusses Mr Bu$h’s latest budget request demand in surprising terms while noting the bottomless pit that Bu$h politics has become:
If, as he says, President Bush is going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq, why on earth does he need vastly more money from Congress to wage war? The staggering, ever escalating numbers tell the real story: As long as it’s up to Mr. Bush, the American presence in Iraq will be endless and ever more costly, diverting resources from other national priorities that are being ignored or shortchanged.
The administration showed its cards on Wednesday when it asked Congress for an additional $42.3 billion in “emergency” funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. This comes on top of the original 2008 spending request, which was made before Mr. Bush announced his so-called “new strategy” of partial withdrawal. It would bring the 2008 war bill to nearly $190 billion, the largest single-year total for the wars and an increase of 15 percent from 2007.
And here are a few more facts to put the voracious war machine in context: By year’s end, the cost for both conflicts since Sept. 11, 2001, is projected to reach more than $800 billion. Iraq alone has cost the United States more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the Gulf War and the Korean War and will probably surpass the Vietnam War by the end of next year, according to the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
There are three different threads working here. First, there is a genuine need for funding to fight these wars, one good and necessary, the other evil and pointless. We’re losing both. Anyone who hasn’t been asleep for the last four years understands that, on appearances and results, Iraq has been grossly mismanaged. Afghanistan, which was initially a success, has turned to bitter ashes as more and more resources are diverted to the desperate enterprise in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban once more operates outside the gates of Kabul.
Secondly, as the editorial states, spending more and more on America’s intended overseas empire removes funding from programs the Republican Party considers wasted money: the social safety net designed to protect the poor and helpless in America. The Party of Millionaires can’t stand the thought that funds are spent to feed children or supply them with medical care. Diverting that money to defense industry corporations fattens their profit margins even as it takes food out of the mouths of America’s hungry children.
Thirdly, deepening the future economic crisis in America, and investing more blood and treasure in Iraq creates a conundrum for the “real enemy”, the Democratic Party, which might make some significant gains in the November 2008 elections. Somehow they must find a way to undo the damage that 14 years of Republican Congressional majority and 8 years of George Bu$h have done to America’s economy and world reputation.
And then there is the Bu$hCo (and in truth, Washington) signature: waste and corruption.
Americans also should ask why the Pentagon should be entrusted with more tax dollars when it can’t seem to spend what it has wisely. Military officials recently revealed that contracts worth more than $90 billion are being investigated — $6 billion for possible criminal charges, the rest for financial irregularities. According to the vague details made public, the new money would pay for the continued American troop presence in Iraq, the purchase of armored vehicles and training Iraq’s new army. But it also contains funds for longer-term goals, such as replacing outdated equipment.
Democrats currently in Congress are a sorry spectacle as they cringe and cower before the cowardly Mr Bu$h and his criminal gang. Either they’re frightened of his calling them unpatriotic and “not supporting the troops” or they’re frightened of him for some other reason. My money’s on the other reason, because he’s still maligning him with the other tropes anyway, even after they give him anything he demands.
Congress must dissect this request carefully, find out why Mr. Bush suddenly needed to ask for the extra money and use the chance to reshape the failed strategy in Iraq. In other words, lawmakers should join Democrat Robert C. Byrd, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in pledging there will be “no more blank checks for Iraq.”
At some point someone is going to have to start paying for all this and it would behoove patriotic Americans to support and elect new Democrats to ensure the ultimate cost is borne by those who have profited most from the Iraq boondoggle.
The Fourth Horseman, pestilence, has come to Iraq and now Baghdad in the form of a rapidly spreading outbreak of Cholera.
…
adding to the problems of poor water sanitation, of course, are the lack of modern medical treatment and antibiotics that many Iraqis now suffer. If the Iraqis are really unlucky, the outbreak is of the antibiotic resistant 'O139 Bengal' strain first noticed in 1992. Even if it's the older strain, the last epidemic in South America, which began in Peru in 1991, caused 1.04 million identified cases and almost 10,000 deaths.
How can anyone describe this as success, four years and some into the occupation? Where's the surge to deal with this faceless and inhuman killer of innocents? Where are the billions in earmarked funds from the Bush administration?
Meanwhile, in news that’s really important to the “Very Serious People” in our intolerably dysfunctional Washington, Joe Lieberman (R-Tel Aviv) has managed to move us one step closer to killing a lot of Iranians.
Next step: Mr Bu$h designates the Iranian Army in toto as assisting those mythical “someones” who are allegedly making the EFPs that don’t look like Iran’s military weapons and Whining Joe gets his fondest wish.
Disgracefully, acting either from a drug-induced coma, or a very threatening set of candid photos kept in a safe in the White House, or some other incomprehensible reason, the following spineless Democrats voted once again to start another needless war against the wishes of their constituents:
I’m always ready to discuss the foibles and fallacies of the Republican Party as it is constituted today. If you’ve been paying attention, the history of the last 15 years has been a perfect example of stupidity, cupidity, illiquidity, and – well, lack of lucidity. The arrant greed and massive social blindness of the 28 percenters should be enough to terrify any thinking American. I’ve watched them loot the American Treasury over the last six and one-half years and can see this nation is going to have a terrible economic crisis in the near future.
I’ve watched their bull-headed jingoistic fervor damned near destroy a magnificent fighting machine that used to be the envy of the world. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but after the Viet Nam debacle, the field grade commanders of that time vowed to change the Army when they had the power. They did just that and during Gulf War I the US Army and Marines performed magnificently. The nation that had always been seen as the ideal of democracy and freedom did what we like to think it is supposed to do: defend the weak and downtrodden. But now, sent into Iraq in a ruthless search for oil to feed the corporate Oil megalopoly, it has been ground down to a nub. Our country is now a pariah, the object of contempt around the world. If we ever escape from Iraq, we face a decade long struggle to rebuild that Army, and until we do that, our nation is in danger. It may take even longer to repair our reputation.
The first step is to develop the political will to get ourselves out of the middle of a shooting civil war. Developing that political will won’t originate in Washington. It has to start outside the Beltway because those people have no fricking clue what is going on in the real world.
The times call for a strong and sensible, experienced leader. We need someone with level-headed executive experience to lead us into tomorrow. It would probably help if that leader had some foreign policy experience because, let’s face it, leaving aside the fact that our foreign policy decisions are at present made in another country, our Secretary of State has a career dedicated to dealing with the Soviet Union, and the last I heard, the Cold War has been over for 15 years or so. Mr Bu$h’s idea of foreign policy is calling up his ole compadre Vicente Fox, and inviting him up to the fake ranch for a barbeque.
I don’t want to appear to be backing any particular candidate because I’m not sure the nation people have reached a consensus about this subject yet. But I will tell you this: Bill Richardson has started a strong public campaign for his candidacy. He does have some attractive credentials.
He has served in the House, and maybe knows a little bit about negotiations up there in the Junior Club. He’s served as US Ambassador to the United Nations and maybe knows a little bit about how to behave at a dinner party at the Turkish Ambassador’s home, and probably knows not to touch some other foreigners because that’s an insult. He’s also served as the Secretary of Energy, so maybe he knows a little bit about energy, its conservation and costs, and about viable alternatives for the future. I’m damned well clear in my mind that we have to find a way off the oil teat because we don’t have the national infrastructure to support the cost of oil through the 2010s and 2020s. And he’s presently governor of New Mexico. This is what’s called “executive experience.” It’s my understanding that in New Mexico the governor actually does real stuff, and is not just a figurehead as is the case in some other southwestern states I could name, if you get my drift and I think you do.
He’s developed a short campaign video with some thoughts about the challenges facing us. A lot of what is said in it makes sense to me.
By the way, if you want to get a bit of the man’s flavor, take a look at some of the other videos he’s made. They’re different. Any man who can poke fun at himself seems more human to me.
If you’re at all curious about the man I’d urge you to go to the new website he’s set up to fire up his campaign, and look at it with an open mind. That’s what democracy is supposed to be about, after all: examining the alternatives logically. I don’t think our decisions should be made for us in corporate boardrooms. That’s not what I signed on for.
You will see that the key issue of this website is saving our Army before it descends into anarchy, and resolving the Middle East problem in a sensible way. I believe we look like shit, occupying a Muslim country. Bad public relations, and the neighboring countries don’t really like it. The troops are drawn down into exhaustion by multiple deployments with inadequate rest tours at home. They’ve been brutally and callously mishandled by the Bu$h malAdministration, (and that includes most of the uniformed mutts in the Pentagon) and if you’ve been paying attention the Republican Party fully endorses Mr Bu$h’s Iraq policies. That tells me the next President must be a Democrat. Some Democratic candidates have been beaten so badly by the Great Wurlitzer that they are terrified of speaking the truth about Mr Bu$h’s ego-war. They don’t offer a clear path of change, which is what almost 80% of Americans want.
Don’t make a decision about a candidate today. All I’d ask you to do today is take a look at Governor Richardson’s website and give it some thought. And as always I’d like your opinions on this matter.
I dislike shilling for any political party, PAC or fund other than ACTBlue, (which is at least truly grassroots) because I think our present system is broken and so corrupted by cash that the whole thing should be swept up neatly into a dustpan and tossed into a garbage can. The next system must be publicly financed, and lobbying must be thoroughly and rigidly controlled so there is no chance of the bribery we see now. Lobbyists and their corporations must be licensed and rigorously watched. Violations of law must include real time in a real prison and massive financial penalties.
Senator Russ Feingold has a few requirements for the next President.
A tip of the too-small Kevlar helmet to Mr Charlie Pierce, who's everything a reader could want in a newspaperman.
Lower Manhattanite has an alternate view of Mr Rove’s departure.
The clunkiness, mixed-messages for leaving, and odd sudden-ness leads me to believe that while Rove may have had leaving in mind as an idea, forces with more ooomph than him, most certainly handed him the golden parachute, while also giving him a base-of-the-palm "nudge" out of the plane. If you trot out the euphemistic "I want to spend more time with my family.”, and then, just as quickly switch to "There was a Labor Day 'go now—or ride it out' deadline.”, all while the party is openly seething at your fealty to one man, while costing it Congressional control, and even seeing a state the GOP controlled as recently as last November have it's Republican party nearly broke , well...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that maybe—just maybe some pissed-off people of influence pushed your wattled ass on out.
I see the long-ignored, Old School “Dons” like James Baker's hands all over this thing. That embarrassment of the Maryland GOP—where if you think about it, many GOP Beltway insiders actually live—being Samuel L. Jackson-in-“Jungle Fever”-broke, 16 months out of a huge election season is a borderline killing offense for a party supposedly fighting its way back to relevance. And Rove—lightning rod, nexus of hate and Bush fatigue, and reverse fund-raising tool for a super-majority crazed Democratic party out to put a boot on the GOP's neck come the next cycle, is as toxic for Republican candidates as his patron is.
With the numerous investigations swirling about, sooner or later—in spite of the draconian levels of cover-up/record destruction/hiding behind privilege—one of those boils was gonna pop. At some point, after a long period of things going one way exclusively, you will get a “Sox in '04” moment. So, with Rove's being at the nexus of almost all of the probes, the best thing to do was to cut bait, lest that “Sox in '04” moment take the whole party down—because of their knee-jerk need to defend the President, the party's standard-bearer for the last six years. A helluva sacrifice when you think about it—because his ability to “rat-fuck” electorally from the White House is much more devastating from within than what it is from without. Executive Privilege is one bomb-ass perk—especially when you have use every exploitable element of the government at your fingertips.
The problem with this theory is that while he might have been pushed out the door to keep blood off the front door, executive privilege (technically) doesn’t obtain to ex-employees of the WH, despite the protestations of Sara M Taylor. One shouldn’t infer from Congress’ not slamming her into the middle of next week that Mr Rove would get the same gentle handling if he put forward the same defense if he was subpoenaed - and he will be subpoenaed. There are just too many different garbage piles with his name on an envelope at the bottom.
Meanwhile, the race is on to see just where the Party of Crime eventually finds its level. It’s just possible there could be a serious upset in 2008, despite Congress’ eager fellating of all of Mr Bu$h dictatorial dreams. We’ll know more in two or three months, after they decide whether they have to attack Iran to keep a lid on things inside the US.
To an extent it will depend on how hard Congress laughs at the “independent report” of GEN Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that the White House is writing for them to sign.
This morning’s WaPo takes a very harsh look at the cowardice of the Democratic Party “leaders” and their refusal to support the Constitution.
THE DEMOCRATIC-led Congress, more concerned with protecting its political backside than with safeguarding the privacy of American citizens, left town early yesterday after caving in to administration demands that it allow warrantless surveillance of the phone calls and e-mails of American citizens, with scant judicial supervision and no reporting to Congress about how many communications are being intercepted. To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law -- or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions.
Administration officials, backed up by their Republican enablers in Congress, argued that they were being dangerously hamstrung in their ability to collect foreign-to-foreign communications by suspected terrorists that happen to transit through the United States. The problem is that while no serious person objects to intercepting foreign-to-foreign communications, what the administration sought -- and what it managed to obtain -- allows much more than foreign-to-foreign contacts. The government will now be free to intercept any communications believed to be from outside the United States (including from Americans overseas) that involve "foreign intelligence" -- not just terrorism. It will be able to monitor phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens or residents without warrants -- unless the subject is the "primary target" of the surveillance. Instead of having the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court ensure that surveillance is being done properly, with monitoring of Americans minimized, that job would be up to the attorney general and the director of national intelligence. The court's role is reduced to that of rubber stamp.
There’s much more. Fred Hiatt must be on vacation, otherwise we would have been presented with some pap about “Heimatschütz” – defense of the Homeland.
The Democrat’s disgraceful groveling before the tyrannical demands of a man-child shame all of us. To have given in to the equivocation of such a ridiculous claim, and to have actually legalized the crimes he has committed over the last 6 years has stained that party, and Congress, with a dishonor that is palpable.
We may possibly be allowed to hold elections next year, and it would be in our interests, from a point of self-defense, to find as many real Democrats as we can, as quickly as we can.
The latest issue of Time Magazine (July 30th issue date) examines the quickening pace of background talk about leaving Iraq. Everyone is taking about abandoning the Great Enterprise, except the Decider-in-Chief and the sock puppeteer Mr Cheney. (That probably explains why Mr Bu$h had to have a colonoscopy on Saturday, and have five polyps removed. Wool is irritating.)
The cover story argues that there are two schools of thought about Iraq.
The first, represented by many congressional Democrats, argues that it is past the time for America to leave. The best thing that could happen now is for the U.S. to pull out as quickly as possible, force the Iraqis to take control of their destinies and compel the oil-rich gulf states in the neighborhood to get off the sidelines. In this view, leaving Iraq would deny al-Qaeda its best recruiting tool, a large U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Along the way, the U.S. could save the $10 billion a month that it is spending on the war and rescue the U.S. Army and Marine Corps before they both collapse.
A sardonic man would note in passing that Time missed mentioning the 74% of polled Americans who agree with the “many congressional Democrats.” who believe that the latest National Intelligence Estimate is right:
Al-Qaeda has reestablished its central organization, training infrastructure and lines of global communication over the past two years, putting the United States in a "heightened threat environment" despite expanded worldwide counterterrorism efforts, according to a new intelligence estimate.
Intelligence officials attributed the al-Qaeda gains primarily to its establishment of a safe haven in ungoverned areas of northwestern Pakistan. Its affiliation with the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, the report said, has helped it to "energize" extremists elsewhere and has aided Osama bin Laden's recruitment and funding.
Great. They’re back, as strong if not stronger than they were in September 2001. They’re getting tons of ca$h from the Saudis, and lots of eager fighters and suiciders from there, too. The Pakistani madrassas instituted in Pakistan by the Saud family are churning out hundreds, if not thousands, of dedicated Islamic fundamentalists each year, so many in fact, that Iraq and Afghanistan don’t have room for all of them, so they’re starting up trouble in Pakistan.
In fact, we’ve lost ground in the last year, if you can believe an NIE. If you get my drift and I think you do.
An NIE on global terrorism written in April 2006 described a downward trend in al-Qaeda's capabilities since bin Laden and the rest of the group's surviving leadership were driven from their sanctuaries in Afghanistan by U.S. military forces in December 2001. That report, like the one issued yesterday, said that the Iraq war was a primary recruitment vehicle for al-Qaeda. But the earlier report concluded that al-Qaeda's operations had been disrupted and its leadership was "seriously damaged."
This loss of ground, by the way, is the best argument possible for impeachment and voting out the corrupt Republican Party in November 2008.
The Bu$h malAdministration is facing a problem. On the one hand, news is so bad that they must present some good news, somehow, somewhere. Thus we find them trumpeting the success of the Sunni insurgency, our newest BFF, in knocking back the alleged “al Qaeda in Iraq.” These are the people who were killing US troops eight months ago, and killing them in such quantities and methods that the Bu$hies started murmuring darkly about the Shiite Iranians, committed deadly enemies of all Sunni everywhere, of supplying them with weapons, including the dreaded Iranian EFPs which are puzzlingly marked in English.
On the other hand we are now unfortunately in an election season, and it is necessary to ramp up the fear, fearFEAR all the time, because only the Republican Party can keep those jihadis from killing you!
To be fair, there is some sort of vague organization in Western Iraq using the name “al Qaeda in Iraq” and they are being fought off by the western tribes, although it’s possibly not so much an ideological battle as it is a turf war. The tribesmen have become accustomed to some of the Western vices like tobacco and alcohol, and al Qaeda is reportedly quite the pack of prohibitionists, so the tribes are temporarily pushing back against the AQ opportunists.
Time notes that with all the bickering and sloganeering, everyone seems to be missing a key point:
What's needed is not the sloganeering of certain politicians but a clear-eyed, multifaceted policy. That would involve making plain to the Iraqi government our intention to pull back, followed by an orderly withdrawal of about half the 160,000 troops currently in Iraq by the middle of 2008. A force of 50,000 to 100,000 troops would dig in for a longer stay to protect America's most vital interests: denying al- Qaeda a safe haven and preventing an almost inevitable civil war from spilling into neighboring countries. At the same time, the reduction in the U.S.'s military footprint in the region should be accompanied by a sustained surge in American diplomacy.
They are of course missing the primary point: Withdrawing 80,000 troops will do nothing more than reduce the number of targets available to the Iraqi resistance. And hunkering down in reinforced bases will just pin them in place to be mortared and rocketed on a daily basis. It won’t remove the one unifying cause that is driving the resistance and al Qaeda’s paymasters, the Saudis.
Plus, there is all that oil. Messers Bu$h and Cheney are not going to abandon the oil, and without a robust military force to protect the Western oil companies interests under the Iraq Oil Law, those resources will end up being nationalized in an instant. We didn’t just invade and occupy Iraq to steal the oil. The intention was also to deny it to economic competitors.
If the US were to completely withdraw its military forces from Iraq (and of necessity the Middle East) there will be a clear winner, and it won’t be al Qaeda.
That helicopter lifting the Stars-and-Stripes-bedecked “A” on the cover is a Russian Hind-D.
I consider myself a Child of the Enlightenment; I favor reason, logic, informed inquiry, and that other thing we never see from the Bu$h malAdministration: science in aid of humanity, rather than in pursuit of killing.
I keep an open mind about one of the greater scourges ever to befall mankind: religion. I admit to being uncertain about the existence of a deity, and accept the idea that if one must fixate on such a being, (s)he should be allowed to do so, with no discrimination or repression from me. Just… leave me alone, please, and I’ll leave you alone with your Invisible Cloud Being. It’s all good. If you can prove to me, you’re right I’m willing to nod my head and give it a lot of thought.
Case in point: Yesterday I reported that GEN Peter Pace, USMC said that we are basically screwed to the wall, and Field Marshal Generalisasimo Fred Kagan’s awesome surge escalation was, like just about everything Mr Bu$h ordains, too little, too late, and we may have to “plus up” once again. (geeze – do you hate stupid jargon as much as I do? Why not just say “put more troops over there” or as a sergeant might rather inelegantly put it, “more ass in the grass?)
BAGHDAD - The U.S. military's top general said Monday that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is weighing a range of possible new directions in Iraq, including, if President Bush deems it necessary, an even bigger troop buildup.
Making no predictions, Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are obliged to consider various troop-level scenarios before September, when Bush will receive an assessment of the Iraq situation from his top commander there, Gen. David Petraeus.
"We're (doing) the kind of thinking that we need to do and be prepared for whatever it's going to look like two months from now,"
Now, granted, my reason for pointing all this out was the unspoken but obvious goal of the Likudniks who control our foreign policy that Iran must be destroyed as a functioning nation, its infrastructure reduced to dust, so it will no longer be an obstacle to Israel’s expansion. But that is a hidden, covert, super double secret goal, and there must always be a cover reason. Yesterday it was those evil Sunni al Qaeda types, who six months ago were less than 1,500 in total, but have now increased their numbers to somewhere around oh…. Eleventy three-eighty thousand or so and now constitute such a danger to the Heimat I mean Homeland, that we must start fighting the evil Shiite Mahdi Army followers of Moqtada al-Sadr.
And 160,000 troops might not be enough to pacify them.
Now, that was early in the day, and later yesterday, Senator Reid opened a credenza in his office, found a spine there, and we’re doing all Congress, all the time, 24 hours a day, egging on the GOP to do their obstructing so we can point all this out to the brain dead media and finally give them some irrefutable proof that the Party of Crime really has no interest in stopping the bloodletting.
Then, mirabile dictu late yesterday GEN Pace suddenly discovered that Iraq ain’t all that bad.
Pace: Waves of change hit parts of Iraq
RAMADI, Iraq—Upbeat on what could be his final visit to Iraq before retiring, the top U.S. general said Tuesday that parts of Iraq are undergoing a "sea change" in improved security.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took some people in war-battered Ramadi by surprise during a sandstorm that kept his helicopter grounded and gave him extra hours to tour.
He was driven down streets that U.S. soldiers had called "The Gauntlet" and "The Racetrack" before the combination of a U.S. offensive and new Sunni Arab tribal alliances against al-Qaida in Iraq brought a remarkable, if uncertain, peace to this provincial capital.
Pace told two reporters accompanying him that his unplanned interlude, which included a chat with Mayor Latif Eyada, reinforced his sense of optimism about the U.S. troop buildup, which is focused mainly on Baghdad but includes Ramadi and other areas of Anbar province.
… "To them, the hard work of getting rid of al-Qaida is done," Pace said. "Now they want to get on with their lives."
Earlier in the day Pace met with U.S. commanders in Baghdad, as well as Marine Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, who is responsible for all of Anbar province, and Army Col. John Charlton, whose 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division has ushered in the changes in Ramadi and environs.
"What I'm hearing right now is a sea change that's taken place in many places here, that it's no longer a matter of pushing al-Qaida out of Ramadi, for example but rather, now that they have been pushed out, helping the local police and local army have a chance to get their feet on the ground," he said. [emph added]
As a Child of the Enlightenment I have always been troubled by the superficiality and spooky occultishness of modern American Xtianity. It seems to combine the worst elements of 9th century seigneur culture and 20th century used car salesmanship. But given the miraculous turn around in Iraq after one day of Democratic expose of the Party of Crime’s obstructionism, I have to give this whole G_d thing another think.
Senator Reid: do you suppose if we did this thing twice a week we could get a decent health care program going in this country? I get so embarrassed when my European friends laugh at us. It’s a stinger when they call the most powerful nation on earth™ a third rate 14th century abattoir.
Rather than a tip of the too-small Kevlar helmet, let me doff it, and bow in the midst of the censer smoke, in a very ecumenical sense, to John Aravosis of AMERICAblog.
Carl Hulse’s article this morning in the NY Times is giving Americans in general and Democrats in specific a false hope. Yesterday Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico supposedly “broke with the White House” over Iraq.
“We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress,” said Mr. Domenici, a six-term senator who has been a steadfast supporter of the president.
Thus Mr. Domenici joined a growing number of Republican voices in opposition to the war just as Senate Democratic leaders are readying plans to put the political and policy focus back on Iraq next week.
Note Senator Domenici’s words: it’s not the Iraq occupation that‘s wrong. The fault lies with the Iraq national government. What he’s calling for is the passing of “benchmarks” demanded by Dick “dick” Cheney and obediently codified in Congressional action by a spineless Democratic Party. The “benchmark” demanded is the surrender of control over Iraq’s oil wealth, and by extension the nation’s economic independence, to the Big Oil friends of Mr Cheney.
Senator Domenici has not suddenly and patriotically taken up the cause of 77% of the American people. Let’s not forget that Senator Domenici famously contacted Alberto Gonzalez, the Inquisitor General, several times to complain that David Iglesias, the New Mexico US Attorney, was not unfairly and illegally persecuting Democrats over trumped-up “voter fraud” concerns.
A thug is still a thug; a criminal usually doesn’t become a law-abiding citizen in some middle-of-the-night epiphany.
Mr. Domenici is up for re-election next year, and his views on the war are likely to figure prominently in the campaign. His turnabout followed similar calls for a new Iraq policy last week by Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and by Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, another member of that panel. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, a respected Republican voice on military issues who is also facing re-election, has also been pressing the administration to shift course.
Anyone tempted to take heart from Senator Domenici’s words, or from those of Senator Lugar, for that matter, would be wise to consider Senator Whining Joe Lieberman (R- Tel Aviv) who used to pretend to be a Democrat until he was called out by the Democratic voters of Connecticut. It required a massive rescue operation by the Republican Party in
