If we had true leadership

I was once again listening to "Springer on the Radio" this morning, and he said something I had to take exception to; that the United States should offer oil proceeds to foreign countries as a incentive for them to aid in the reconstruction and security of Iraq.

This is not a bad idea, on the face of it. However, given the situation we have now, there's no way it could actually work. At the very least, anyone in Washington who suggested it would be swiftboated as suggesting that "American boys and girls died so France and Germany could make money". Bush might very well be able to accomplish it on his own, but not only is there no leadership there, he would probably be impeached for that (and not for any of the real reasons he should be).

Oh, for crissake!

Terrosists May Pose as Homeless for Surveillance, Government Says

WASHINGTON (AP) - Asking for increased vigilance in the wake of the London bombings, the government is warning that terrorists may pose as vagrants to conduct surveillance of buildings and mass transit stations to plot future attacks.

Not only can't AP evidently hire a spell checker, now we're supposed to be afraid of homeless people?

Where is it going to end with this crap? Hell, why not just give the police the right to arrest anyone, anywhere, anytime? That'd keep us plenty safe from terrorism, after all!

That "flypaper" is working just so well

Al Qaeda claim for Red Sea attacks

(CNN) -- An al Qaeda-linked group has claimed responsibility for rocket attacks Friday that targeted but missed two U.S. military ships in the Jordanian Red Sea port of Aqaba.

I thought the terrorists were all supposed to be "flypaper"ed down in Iraq. The hell are they doing all the way over in Jordan?

And if the Cole attack in 2000 was an example of al-Qaeda attacking "America" the way the right would have us believe, how is this not disproving the idea that Bush is keeping us safe?

Could you possibly be a bit more vague?

Officials: Muslim prison gang maybe behind alleged plot

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A militant Islamic prison gang may have been behind an alleged plot to attack synagogues and National Guard installations on Jewish holidays or the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, investigators said.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion when you use that many qualifiers in one sentence ("maybe", "alleged") it's not so much a news story as pointless speculation. Or agitprop.

Caption time!

"Okay - everyone who doesn't want to get assassinated, raise your hand!"

Exsqueeze me?

According to the WaPo, we can no longer expect the Iraq of the neocon's dreams; we'll have to settle for less:

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

[ ... ]

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

[ ... ]

"There has been a realistic reassessment of what it is possible to achieve in the short term and fashion a partial exit strategy," Yaphe said. "This change is dictated not just by events on the ground but by unrealistic expectations at the start."

[ ... ]

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."

I've pasted so much from the original article, mainly because I just don't know where to begin with this. (Go read the actual thing - there's a lot here I didn't include.)

We were sold the Iraq war primarily from the beginning as a search for WMDs and ties with al-Qaeda, both of which never materialized. Then the justification changed to, and as far as Bush defenders have been concerned is still, the liberation of the Iraqi people and the establishment of a "model democracy" in the Middle East, to inspire thoughts of democracy and freedom in the minds of people all over the region.

Now, NONE of it is true. No grand new model democracy, no free-market cornucopia of oil, not even a decent security situation for the Iraqis who have suffered through bombings, invasion and sanctions. Evidently the "pottery barn rule" has been amended to "We broke it, we can't fix it so we'll just sweep the piles of shards under the carpet and walk away slowly so as not to attract attention".

Those "unrealistic" ideas have driven us to invade and occupy a country that presented no threat to us, that was not involved in 9/11, that was all but defenseless. We have violated long-standing principles of non-agression, violated international law, violated American law.

Over eighteen hundred Anerican lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives (at the least), a devastated country, a new breeding ground for terrorism, the American world image trashed... for literally nothing, it now appears. Hope all of you who cheered this on so enthusiastically are REAL HAPPY now.

Speaking his mind, what there is of it

I ranted on this over at Eschaton but I think I'll cover it here as well:

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush, noting that lots of people want to talk to the president and "it's also important for me to go on with my life," on Saturday defended his decision not to meet with the grieving mom of a soldier killed in Iraq.

I truly cannot understand the depths of the amorality of a man who would say something like that. It's important for HIM to "get on with his life", while those whose lives have stopped, like Cindy and Casey Sheehan, are nothing to him. He'll gladly exploit the dead of 9/11 to justify just about everything his misAdministration does, but face a woman who's lost her son to his lies? Nope, he's got his bicycle to ride.

And his followers, who get off on their Grand Guignol images of people jumping out of the Towers but call Cindy Sheehan "insane" for wanting some kind of accountability for her son's death. If I were a cynical person, after the next terrorist attack, when the wingnuts are crying for blood as they did after 9/11, I'd just say to them "I think it's [ ... ] important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

Why grieve when there's naps to be taken & bicycles to be ridden?

Chemicals! Chemicals! I need chemicals!

U.S. Forces Raid Insurgent Facility Suspected of Producing Chemicals

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - U.S. forces raided an insurgent facility that may have been producing an unspecified type of chemicals, the U.S. military said Saturday. It was unclear what was being produced or whether the materials were intended for weapons, the statement added.

neverthless, cue the warbloggers and their cries of "WE FOUND THE WMDS! LOOK! LOOK! CHEMICALS! INVASION JUSTIFIED! WE FOUND 'EM! LOOK!"

Not good, very bad

President Bush Says 'all Options Are on the Table' Regarding Iran's Nuclear Aspirations

In the interview, Bush said the United States and Israel "are united in our objective to make sure that Iran does not have a weapon."

But, he said, if diplomacy fails "all options are on the table."

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said.

Well, as we have seen from the Downing Street Memo ("Military action was now seen as inevitable.", July 2002), and given the fact that the military planning is already in process for an attack of some sort on Iran, and given the propaganda efforts I'm trying to detail here, I think it's becoming very likely that the use of military force against Iran has already been decided and the White House & Pentagon are just waiting for the proper moment to carry it through.

"Again, all options are on the table, and -- but one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Bush, March 13, 2002

Time to go to plan "b"

So it turns out that the new President of Iran had nothing to do with the 1979 hostage crisis:

Sources: CIA finds Iranian president likely not hostage-taker

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A CIA report has determined with "relative certainty" that new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not involved in the taking of U.S. hostages in 1979, two government officials told CNN.

Of course, even though it's been discredited, we can expect at least SOME on the right to use it as a justification for invading Iran anyway. Just like with Iraq: the Nigerian uranium deal that never happened, the ties to al-Qaeda that never occurred, and the aluminum tubes that were for artillery pieces, not nuclear processing.

Another example of Repug "state's rights"

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon does not need the consent of governors to move Air National Guard units in their states, the Justice Department has concluded

[ ... ]

For their part, state adjutants general, who oversee the Air Guard in the states, argued that the plan would prevent units from fulfilling their homeland security missions, including protecting the skies and supporting governors in state emergencies.

because the Pentagon's needs in a "time of war" trump the needs of state governors, of course. Even if the "war" hasn't been declared.

Scared of a grieving mother

Cindy Sheehan is waiting outside Bush's ranch in Crawford to talk to him, but he's been taking a helicopter in order to avoid her:

Yet there was no sign Mr. Bush intends to meet Ms. Sheehan. In fact, there were reports he is travelling solely by helicopter when he leaves the ranch in an effort to avoid racing past the protester in a limousine.

What a brave, brave man. I'm sure we can all take heart at his actions and know that a truly dedicated individual serves us in the White House.

Let's not give them any excuses

JCS chairman General Myers doesn't want to see the release of those additional pictures from Abu Gharaib:

"It is probable that Al Qaeda and other groups will seize upon these images and videos as grist for their propaganda mill, which will result in, besides violent attacks, increased terrorist recruitment, continued financial support and exacerbation of tensions between Iraqi and Afghani populaces and U.S. and coalition forces," he said.

As opposed to, say, bombing innocent civilians, perhaps?

Oops! Sorry 'bout that!

Evidence for global warming continues to mount, and one of the last refuges of the deniers has fallen:

After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations.

[ ... ]

Mark Herlong of the George C. Marshall Institute declined to comment. The group, financed by the petroleum industry, has used the data disparities to dispute the views of global-warming activists.

So much for that, I guess. With the new evidence of strengthening hurricanes, the Siberian tundra defrosting, and continued disintegration of the Antarctic, it would seem that the global warming evidence is becoming more and more incontrovertable.

Question is, what do we do and how much time is left to do it?

"Nausea" isn't a strong enough word

What the hell have we come to as a nation? Wasn't this the kind of thing we used to criticize the Soviet Union for doing?

U.S. Defends Detentions at Airports

Foreign citizens who change planes at airports in the United States can legally be seized, detained without charges, deprived of access to a lawyer or the courts, and even denied basic necessities like food, lawyers for the government said in Brooklyn federal court yesterday.

[ ... ]

Syrian and Canadian officials have cleared Mr. Arar, 35, of any terrorist connections, but United States officials maintain that "clear and unequivocal" but classified evidence shows that he is a Qaeda member. They are seeking dismissal of his lawsuit, in part through the rare assertion of a "state secrets" privilege.

[ ... ]

Dennis Barghaan, who represents former Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of the federal officials being sued for damages in the case, argued that Congress and recent judicial decisions tell federal courts "keep your nose out" of foreign affairs and national security questions, like those in this case.

shorter Mr. Barghaan: shut the hell up and do as you're told.

Words fail me.

You don't always need to "outsource"...

Rumsfeld: Iraq bombs 'clearly from Iran'

'cause god knows there weren't any huge caches of military-grade high explosives left unguarded after the invasion for the Iraqi resistance to loot.

Oh, geez, I guess there were.

And what are we to make of a Secretary of War who makes a comment like ""They (the Iranians) live in the neighborhood."? He's been hanging around George too long, I guess.

"Intolerable"

Reading an article ("Strategy & Tactics" #52, Sept/Oct 1975) recently on the "Carter Doctrine" and the plans for an invasion of Saudi Arabia back in the mid-70s, I came across an interesting line:

"The price of oil doubled to an intolerable $11.65 per barrel by early 1974."

Well, says I, what would that be in present-day dollars?

Calculating it out with the aid of the information here, I find that $11.65 in 1974 dollars is the equivalent of $38.07 in 2004 dollars.

The hell? With oil prices up to $64/barrel at the moment, what's going on and why are we willing to tolerate oil prices that are more than twice what the "intolerable" price should be?

The impact may very well be starting to sink in, though.

No more carrots for Iran, says The Economist

The fun continues --
No appetite for carrots, no fear of sticks

Aug 8th 2005

Iran has partially re-started its uranium enrichment program, and regardless of the conclusion by U.S. intelligence that Iran is a decade away from nuclear capability, The Economist is perfectly willing to assume that diplomacy and negotiation have failed:

But Iran’s decision to back away from the [negotiation] process, coupled with recent political developments—America cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election that brought Mr Ahmadinejad to power—has complicated things. The carrots no longer seem to be working. What else is there but sticks?

Well, given that America can evidently recognize an election of doubtful legitimacy these days, I'm not suprised at the criticism. But the immediate leap to what sounds like an arguement for military action?

I would be happy if my predictions I've been making would be wrong, if an attack - if not an invasion - on Iran didn't seem to be in the making. But I'm hearing too many parallels to the rhetoric we heard some three years ago on Iraq -- and it just seems too deja vu to deny.

edit: credit to "Lime Rickey" on Eschaton who directed me to this story.

I can't see the forest; there's too many trees

While out and about this morning (trips to the DMV, library and grocery) I was listening to the fill-in host (Jay Marvin) for Jerry Springer on AAR. On comes yet another "I'd call myself a conservative" type who disagrees with Bush, but is mainly concerned about "illegals" and how inffective both Bush and the Democrats have been at "keeping them out". (The Dems hardly have any power these days anyhow, so blaming them for doing nothing is hardly an indictement.) Plus we get another "businesses are outsourcing all our jobs" comment.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that the one has nothing to do with the other (undocumented workers are not taking American jobs; they're the ones doing the scut work that people who live here won't do, can't do, and/or demand too much money to do), I think the word for my reaction to the "outsourcing" comment is "AWW! POO' BABY!"

Look, you're a "conservative". You've been cheering for capitalism for decades now, and when the capitalists do what they're wont to do (outsource jobs to places where labor costs less) you whine about it. Sorry, sunshine, you can't have it both ways. You can't champion the free market and then act all indignant when the free market does what it does -- cut costs and maintain profits, regardless of the damage it causes. (Cripes! Do you have to EXPLAIN stuff like this?)

Then we get the "corporations hire illegals and that's against the law" (and that's where I got to the store & stopped listening). Well! Corporations breaking the law? Shocked, I am, to tell you! Shocked indeed!

Once again -- if you're on the side of a political philosophy that has let corporations run rampant, violate the law with impunity and, indeed, actually stands in the way of holding them accountable, pardonnez-moi if I'm not overly compassionate when it comes back to bite you in the ass.

Capitalism is not an immutable natural law -- if it's not working in your interests, it should be changed.

How you can tell you've been watching too much Discovery Health Channel

There's a commercial on the previously mentioned local Air America station; quite a normal little commercial with a guy who's just died in the emergency room fretting from the afterlife about what a tool he was in not getting life insurance for his family.

The commercial starts out with a fairly strong heartbeat sound "bee-beep! bee-beep!" which immediately goes to a steady tone and a woman announcing "Time of death, 2:56 pm".

Obviously I have seen too many episodes of "Paramedics" and "Trauma: Life in the E.R." since at this point in the commercial I am given to start shouting at the radio about how quickly they call the code on the poor sap and how they don't even try to re-start his heart, f'crissakes! At least give the S.O.B. some adrenaline or something! What is this, some new money-saving HMO policy? I hope I never end up in THAT E.R....

This indicates something, but I'm not sure what.