Winning Hearts and Minds in Afghanistan

Afghan probe finds U.S. killed 10 civilians:

The U.S. military had said it killed five militants during a January 17 raid against suspected Taliban leaders in southern Uruzgan province and insisted it fired only on armed men.

But Karzai said an Interior Ministry investigation into the attack, some 400 kilometers (250 miles) southwest of the capital, Kabul, established that 10 civilians had died.

At the time of the raid, local officials had maintained that 11 civilians were killed: four men, four children and three women.

More Safe By the Day

Three U.S. soldiers among dead in 2 bombings

What Does It Really Mean For Bush To Claim To Be A Christian?

Baghdad Is Bush's Blue Dress

Bush Justice

Justice Antonin Scalia in 'Duck Season'

Supreme Court Justices Need Friends Too

Bush vs the World's Sick and Poor

Bush Scaling Back Dollars for Third World:

President Bush plans to scale back requests for money to fight AIDS and poverty in the third world, putting off for several years the fulfillment of his pledges to eventually spend more than $20 billion on these programs.

Why am I not surprised? This is par for the course with this administration. It demonstrates its "compassion" by grand pronouncements, takes advantage of photo ops and favorable publicity, and then quietly cuts funding.

Bush's Friends Are Scum: Richard Perle Has His Hand Out Again

Charity Event May Have Terrorist Link:

Pentagon adviser Richard N. Perle, a strong advocate of war against Iraq, spoke last weekend at a charity event that U.S. officials say may have had ties to an alleged terrorist group seeking to topple the Iranian government and backed by Saddam Hussein.
. . .
Perle, in an interview, said he was unaware of any involvement by the terrorist group, known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and believed he was assisting the victims of the Bam earthquake when he delivered the paid speech.

"All of the proceeds will go to the Red Cross," Perle said. Informed that the Red Cross had announced before the event it would refuse any monies because of the event's "political nature," Perle said: "I was unaware of that." Perle declined to say how much he received.

OK, I realize that I'm slow, but if Perle really did think he was "assisting the victims of the Bam earthquake", then why in hell did he charge for his speech? Actually, Perle charges for everything. He has frequently been criticized for asking for payment when appearing on TV news shows.

This guy is such an amazing piece of shit. He's already had to step down as chairman of the Defense Policy Board for trying to use his government insider position to secure business deals. He currently has a silly book out, co-authored by David Frum (author of the "axis of evil" phrase - sort of), pretending to tell us all how to win the war on "evil." We could start by booting every creepy thief like Perle out of government for good.

Dean vs His Base

Dean Cites Need for 'Leaner and Meaner' Campaign:

Howard Dean said Wednesday night that he had been thinking about restructuring his campaign "for some time" and that after consecutive losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, he needed "a leaner and meaner organization" to prepare for a nomination fight that had become "a war of attrition."

But David Corn isn't buying it:

Neel might well be a fine person, a good CEO, a believer (on his own time) in the values of the Democratic Party. But he was a bigtime player in the very game that Dean claims he wants to destroy. Dean's choice of Neel suggests Dean is clueless or disingenuous. Does he not know what it means to head the U.S. Telecom Association? Does he not understand that it is wrong--or, at the least, ill-considered--to place a lobbyist at the front of a charge on Washington? Was he not worried that this action would cause his opponents, the media and--most importantly--his devoted supporters to question his sincerity and his judgment?
. . .
Dean has signaled that he is not fully committed to his core message--unless he wants to argue that it takes a thief to catch a thief. But does he really believe it takes a corporate lobbyist to "take back America" from the corporate lobbyists? Let him explain that in one of the e-mails he regularly sends his thousands of followers. They trusted Dean, and there is nothing wrong with hope. But as Dean fans deal with the disappointment of New Hampshire, he has delivered them more bad news to process. Looking at the Neel move--a scream of a different sort--it would not be unreasonable for any Deaniac who embraced this campaign as a reform movement to say, Stick a fork in it; it's done.

Bless his heart, it's obvious from the genuine hurt and disappointment expressed here that David Corn, despite trying to maintain his balance as an "objective" journalist, really wanted to believe that Dean was the real thing. His message is one that many of us have needed for some time. Alas, when push comes to shove, his behavior seems to be the same old shit.

Democrats Have Been Right All Along

It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

Voters vs Democracy

These observations about the Democratic primary from the ever astute Sam Smith:

While American politics has always centered on the 5-10% of voters who were indecisive or indifferent, the power of this strange bloc - a kind of aristocracy of the apathetic - has gained new importance as reality in politics is increasingly replaced by media-generated myth.

This election has much more in common with 'American Idol' than it does with its electoral predecessors, a point dramatically illustrated by the number of voters who think it's their responsibility to find an electable candidate rather than one with whom they actually agree. This is a deadly trap, ultimately fatal to what remains of democracy, because it reduces the citizen to the status of a sitcom producer rather than an active political participant. If we are all trying to guess what each other thinks, we will all drown in our suppositions about each other.

How important this is can be shown by the exit polls from New Hampshire and Iowa. In each case, eliminating all voters who made up their minds in the last week - the least involved, the least thoughtful, and the least committed to anything - produces strikingly different results.

Is America a great country, or what?

The Media vs The People

Are U.S. journalists truly spineless?
YES

Nonsense in Support of Tony Blair

The long awaited Hutton Report was released today and pretty much let Tony Blair off the hook for any responsibility for misleading the British public about Iraq's WMDs and potential as a threat. But consider, how can Tony Blair possibly be held not responsible for misleading the public when the centerpiece of his brief was a dossier made up mostly of plagiarized quotes from a graduate student's paper using sources that were ten or more years old? This was blatant fraud; total misrepresentation. And then Bush and Powell picked up the same material and used it here with the American public.

This deserves not just a public reprimand but a prison term.

Bush vs Justice

Iraq Activist Kathy Kelly Sentenced to Federal Prison

Yesterday in Columbus, Georgia, Kathy Kelly, co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness and three-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, was sentenced to three months in federal prison for enacting her habit of bearing witness against US military violence, this time by crossing onto the property of Ft. Benning military base in November of 2003, as a form of protest against the School of the Americas/Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (SOA/WHISC).

Just in case you thought America didn't have political prisoners. The history of CO and protest imprisonment in this country for the last century is largely unknown to most citizens, but even Amnesty International has pointed out our bad example in this regard:

The Department of Defence continues to hold hundreds of foreign nationals without charge or trial in the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. Many have been held there for more than a year in conditions the totality of which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. None was granted prisoner of war status or brought before a competent tribunal to determine this status as required by the Geneva Conventions. None has had access to any court or to legal counsel. Visits by family members have not been granted, thereby drawing relatives into the distress of this indefinite and unchallengeable detention regime. On 3 July 2003, it was announced that President Bush had named six detainees under the Military Order he signed in November 2001, making them eligible for trial by military commission. Any such trial would contravene international fair trial norms, and any executions carried out after such trials would violate minimum international safeguards applying to capital cases.

Detainees have been held incommunicado in US bases in Afghanistan. Allegations of ill-treatment have emerged. Others have been held in incommunicado US custody in undisclosed locations elsewhere in the world, and the US has also instigated or involved itself in "irregular renditions", US parlance for informal transfers of detainees between the USA and other countries which bypass extradition or other human rights protections. Two US nationals have been held incommunicado for more than a year in military custody without charge or trial in the USA, having been designated as "enemy combatants" by the executive. A third man, a Qatari national, was recently removed from the criminal justice system by presidential order just before his trial. Such resort to executive power threatens to undermine not only international law but also the US criminal justice system itself.

Has the Veep Become a Liability?

Will Dubya Dump Dick?

Our Government Is A Sad Joke: David Kay and the Congressional Follies

I have been watching ex chief weapons inspector David Kay being "interrogated" by the Senate Armed Services committee, mostly a self-serving bunch of out of touch idiots concerned primarily about their own political hides and less about the fate of American citizens. It should make us all really concerned that these are our supposed "representatives." School children could do a better job of addressing realities. These people live in a fantasy world largely of their own - and a complicit media's - creation:

Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told members of the Senate Wednesday that the failure to turn up weapons of mass destruction in Iraq exposed weaknesses in America's intelligence-gathering apparatus.

This is how the Bushies hope to escape responsibility for their pre-Iraq War lies - by blaming everything on failures of intelligence. But this is nonsense. Even if Iraq had all the really bad stuff they were supposed to have, it didn't add up to a justification for invading and occupying them. Many countries have WMDs. Certainly America and its allies have more - including atomic bombs, missiles, chemical and biological weapons - than any of our supposed enemies. So how, exactly, does possession of such weapons justify pre-emptive attack? It doesn't. The illogical leap the Bushies made, that Saddam was likely to use such weapons - and against us - is counter to both current factual evidence and historical precedent. Common sense alone would suggest that Saddam was savvy enough to know better than to risk everything he had for a surely suicidal gesture. Whatever else Saddam is, he isn't suicidal.

I have asked many who told me that Saddam was a great threat, to give me one example of any threatening word or gesture from Saddam against us - ever. So far, no one has been able to produce any example. That he was perceived as a threat is testiment to the power of focused propaganda. Another case of the "big lie" told often enough and loudly enough so that it becomes "common knowledge." How much of the daily policitcal landscape addressed by the media is made up of such false fronts and empty suits?

This is NOT what democracy looks like.

Bush vs Reality

As Joe Conason points out, our "president" continues to speak as if he has experienced a different reality than the rest of us:

Jan. 27, 2004 | Mr. Bush's fantasy planet
The president was fantasizing again this afternoon about the circumstances that led to war -- and if his remarks at his press conference with the Polish president are to be taken seriously, he also seems badly confused about his Iraqi timeline. This was Bush's first attempt to answer the damning findings of David Kay, departing director of the Iraq Survey Group. It didn't go well, although almost everyone in the White House press corps pretended not to notice.

So removed from reality is the president that it seems worthwhile to unpack two exchanges with reporters who asked about Kay's admission that he expects no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq.
. . .
what is most notable in Bush's answer is that he again said Saddam "did not let us in." This is the second time he has made this weird statement, as if Hans Blix and UNMOVIC had never existed, nor conducted the most intrusive weapons inspections ever done in Iraq. (The first time was last July, when Bush said, in the presence of an astonished Kofi Annan: "And we gave [Saddam] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.")

How dare the press mock Howard Dean when they listen respectfully to this arrant lunacy?

Right on Joe! But alas, they do listen to this shit and pretend not to notice that it is quite out of touch with reality.

Law and Order in Iraq

Three dead in Baghdad hotel blast

Bush Says We're Safer Now?

Widespread attacks kill 13 in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Five attacks claimed the lives of 13 people in Iraq on Tuesday, including six U.S. soldiers, two CNN employees, four Iraqi policemen and an Iraqi civilian, according to police and military sources.

I can see the light at the end of the, what is that, spider hole?

The BBC vs the English Language

Another icon broken. Tonight on the BBC I had to suffer this observation about Tony Blair:
He is "one of he most articulate arguers that there is."
OK. I feel better about being a Southern hick. NOT.

Chief Weapons Inspector vs Bush

Inspector Calls US Iraq Intelligence a Failure
and
Bush administration retreats on Iraq weapons claim
and
Kay Testimony Impeaches Bush

The Courts vs Bush

Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional

The Wisdom Of George W. Bush

"In the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

Oh, he must have just been kidding.

The Only Superbad Power

In today's New York Review of Books, Serge Schmemann reviews seven new books dealing with the American empire. All of these books are critical - in varying degrees - of the policies of the Bush administration, and the reviewer seems to agree with most of what the authors have to say, yet includes in his review this truly bewildering statement:

It is inevitable that a foreign policy couched in biblical symbols, eschewing subtleties and advanced by Texans, oil-men, neocons and industrialists would be insufferable to liberals, doves, internationalists and New Englanders (conversely, remember what Bill Clinton did to conservatives). One suspects that even the senior George Bush occasionally looks out from his crag at Kennebunkport on the policies of his firstborn with some misgiving. Still, it is difficult to explain the level of loathing that the junior Bush and his government have achieved among otherwise rational liberals.

No it isn't. This is a theme frequently seen in the press - the puzzled amazement that a large segment of the American populace (not to mention a majority of the world's people) fear and loath George W. Bush and everything he stands for. Simple self-preservation might be enough to explain it. From his destroying legal frameworks that have taken decades to create and nurture to his declared intention to bring back atomic weapons as a viable combat option, invade any country he deems to be a threat, and expand the military into space, this president has proven to be a danger to his citizens, constitutional government, and to the future of world peace.

A reviewer who professes to appreciate what these books have to say but can't understand the depth of passionate opposition to Bush is either being disingenuous or is obtuse in the extreme. In any case, ignore the reviewer; each of these books is well worth reading:

AMERICA UNBOUND
The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy.
By Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay.
246 pp. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. $22.95.

THE SORROWS OF EMPIRE
Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.
By Chalmers Johnson.
389 pp. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company. $25.

THE BUBBLE OF AMERICAN SUPREMACY
Correcting the Misuse of American Power.
By George Soros.
207 pp. New York: PublicAffairs. $22.

BUSH IN BABYLON
The Recolonisation of Iraq.
By Tariq Ali.
Illustrated. 214 pp. New York: Verso. $20.

SUPERPOWER SYNDROME
America's Apocalyptic Confrontation With the World.
By Robert Jay Lifton.
211 pp. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press/Nation Books. Paper, $12.95.

CRISIS ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA
How to Deal With a Nuclear North Korea.
By Michael O'Hanlon and Mike Mochizuki.
230 pp. New York: A Brookings Institution Book/ McGraw-Hill. $19.95.

AFTER THE EMPIRE
The Breakdown of the American Order.
By Emmanuel Todd. Translated by C. Jon Delogu. Foreword by Michael Lind.
233 pp. New York: Columbia University Press. $29.95

Theater of the Absurd

I have spent most of this day struggling with a couple of fundamental questions that seem to be central to the horror of our time: Why do people allow themselves to believe obvious bullshit? and Why do many work so hard to support policies that undermine their own best interests?

There can be no question that the Bush administration has been frighteningly successful at accomplishing both of these, to their gain and the public's loss. On the question of the war against Iraq, I remember vividly people that I work with who are otherwise kind and reasonable human beings, accepting the dropping of high explosives on downtown Baghdad because "the president knows things that we don't and we shouldn't question his judgment." Huh? Whatever happened to the belief that in a democracy the citizens are ultimately responsible? Whatever happened to the concept of representative democracy - which sort of depends upon the public having access to relevant information? Why should the president know things that we don't? Are citizens not trustworthy? Have we all taken our que from Congress and just abdicated our responsibilities? Yeah George, you do whatever you think is best. we'll just watch.

Things have gotten weirdly out of whack here. American citizens are acting like the "good Germans" under Hitler and just "following orders." HELLO - we are supposed to be in charge. The assholes in congress (and the White House) work for us, not the other way around. Let's get some shit straight here, the "Commander in chief" is commander in chief of the armed forces. I am not in the armed forces. I don't salute and I don't bow. We have allowed our own tax dollars to fund massive efforts at disinformation and deception, mounted by our "representatives" and aimed at conning us out of most of what we are due as citizens of this "Republic." The government exists, the armed forces exist, the very self-important roles of the many creepy and pompous hangers on (think Paul Wolfowitz, for example) exist, because of our tax dollars and "consent". I think it may be time to withdraw both.

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

YESTERDAY: Backbone of Iraqi resistance has been broken, U.S. commander says

The former regime elements we've been combating have been brought to their knees," Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the Army's 4th Infantry Division, told reporters at the Pentagon in a satellite video news conference from his headquarters in the city of Tikrit.

TODAY: 5 U.S. Troops, 4 Iraqis Killed in Attacks

Bomb attacks in central Iraqi towns killed five American soldiers and four Iraqis on Saturday, a day after two U.N. security experts arrived in the capital to study the possible return of the world body's international staff.

I just have the awful feeling that I have been here before.

Who Profits? Who Pays?

America's Prison Habit

What Condition Is Our Condition In?

State of the Union: It's Not Good, Thanks to Bush

Why We Are Really In Iraq

MAKING A KILLING: The New War Profiteers

Does Cheney Have an Old Script?

Cheney Cites Discredited Source as Proof of Iraq-al Qaeda Link

Realpolitik Kalifornia Syle

Why Prison Guard Union Might Take Pay Cut

Skull and Bones

I hate to even bring this up because to so many people it seems like conspiracy theory nonsense, but if John Kerry is the Democratic nominee, the next presidential election will pit one member of Yale's Skull and Bones Society against another. This is not a trivial thing. For those who don't know, Skull and Bones is not some innocent college fraternal secret society - it is the most powerful and influential elite alumni organization in history. It is not aimed at the college years but at the years after. Each year, 15 seniors at Yale are tapped for Skull and Bones. This group is so select and so secretive that members are forbidden from discussing the organization even with their spouses. But there can be little doubt that members make every effort to help one another in their quest for wealth and power. The number of Bonesmen who have ascended to the peak of American corporations and government organizations is amazing considering the small number - less than 800 currently living. Three presidents and numerous members of congress have been members of Skull and Bones, a disproportionate number of significant players in our intelligence community, numerous CEOs and quite a few cabinet members and department heads have been Bonesmen as well. Their influence far transcends their number.

And this is why I would be concerned about Kerry as a candidate. Bonesmen support one another as sort of a first priority. So how would this play, exactly, with Dubya a member as well? I have to say, I just don't feel real good about two Yale members of an ultra secret society devoted to mutual support pretending that either has my well being at heart. Know what I mean?

For more information on this odd but potentially meaningful perspective, check out Democracy Now where all the good stuff you won't get elsewhere is available for the asking.

Faith Based Nonsense

The real problem with George W. Bush's approach to EVERYTHING is that it is faith based and totally disregards factual information. His economic policy is faith based: he has faith in the "Market" to do the right thing. If tens of thousands of Americans are cast into poverty and homelessness, well, that must be their fault. His foreign policy is faith based. He has faith that America has the answer and that any country that doesn't agree to support us on whatever he wants to do is wrong. "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."

This kind of thing is making America a dangerous foe to those who should be our allies. When it comes to matters of belief, there is always a great deal of room for differences, yet Bush doesn't recognize that. Instead, he insists that his narrow, fundamentalist (and basically uninformed) view of things is the only correct interpretation.

If we were not so dangerous, we would be a laughing stock. Instead, we are a frightening menace to the rest of the world. It shouldn't be this way.

Mars vs Bush

Now that Bush has decided to ride the positive wave of enthusiasm for the new American presence on Mars, it seems almost like the first flush of Hubris's payback that the lander is suddenly communicating but not anything that makes sense:

The Mars probe Spirit stopped returning science or telemetry data this week in what NASA called a "serious" breakdown.

"We have a very serious anomaly on the vehicle," said Pete Theisinger, project manager for the Mars Exploration Rover Mission.
The news came as NASA prepared for the arrival on Mars this weekend of the second exploration rover, Opportunity.
. . .
U.S. President George Bush last week announced a new space initiative aiming to set up a manned base on the moon from about 2015 and which would eventually send human missions to Mars and beyond.

Sorry Karl, things just don't always work out the way you plan. Was this why there was no mention of the "BOLD VISION" of going to Mars in the State of the Union fantasy?

See, if there were just more Liberal Arts majors in the Bush administration there would have been at least some appreciation of the need to avoid "Hubris." Alas.

More State of the Union Nonsense

This qreat quote, by way of South Knox Bubba, who found the SOTU address to be "just . . . weird", cleary shows how out of touch Dubya is:

He proposed expansion of abstinence education to prevent STDs and teen pregnancy. Hey, here's a news flash. The kids receptive to this message aren't getting any anyway.

So much nonsense. So little time.

Circular Reasoning via George W Bush

In the utterly predictable State of the Union address, Dubyah engaged in an argument that is so entertaining - once one really looks at it - that I just have to comment on it. He demands that the tax cuts - set to expire on specific "sunset" dates, be made permanent. He also claims that he will halve the deficit in five years.

Here's where the fun comes in:

1. the tax cuts actual cost was sold on the basis of the sunset provisions. If they had been viewed as permanent, the cost would have been so extravagent that no one - even Republicans - would have voted for them.

2. the projection of cutting the deficit in half is dependent, in large part, on the tax cuts being temporary and expiring on their sunset dates as the law requires.

3. SO, the call to make the tax cuts permanent AND to halve the deficit in five years are self contradictory. Either one or the other, but no way both. But hey, for Bush, this is no problem, because reason has no real place in his universe. He seems to feel that it is OK to say anything - as long as one is "sincere" - and no actual evidence applies. This is a whole new approach to political speech in America - it was known to Soviet Russia and to Nazi Germany - but never before America.

Welcome to the Brave New World - Big Brother is ignoring you - because he can.

Impeach Cheney

U. S. Representative Jerry Costello has called for impeachment hearings aimed at "Vice" President Dick Cheney:

Costello questioned the award of billions of dollars of contracts to Cheney's former corporation Haliburton to extinguish fires and rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure after the war.

"Can you imagine what the Republicans would be doing to a Democratic president who was a CEO of a company that now has gotten billions of dollars worth of contracts -- no-bid contracts -- without competition?" Costello, D-Belleville, was quoted as saying.

"There would be hearings day after day. And my prediction to you is that you will see in this session of Congress ..., there will not only be hearings, but I think there ought to be impeachment hearings."

Of course, it's probably futile. First we would have find out where his "secure location" is and then we would have to coax him out into the light. Not an easy task. And then there is the whole other set of issues about inside influence:

The General Accounting Agency sued Cheney after he refused to release documents about who and when he met with before formulating the country's energy policy.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to hear Cheney's appeal.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that Cheney spent last week duck hunting in Louisiana with one of the Supreme Court Justices who may decide the case -- U.S. Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia.

Yes sir, is America a great country or what?

State of the Union Bushit

It really is hard to know where to start in commenting on the current State of the Union address because there is so much in it that really demands standing on the highest hilltop and screaming "THIS IS BULLSHIT!" But, since it is really all of a piece in terms of high level abstractions and unsupportable crap, a single expression chosen at random will serve as an example of what is wrong with all of Dubyah's speech making:

"The United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins . . ."

This is such hypocritical crap. Would this be the same United States of America that rushed out to buy duct tape when Tom Ridge said "Boo"? That created a huge federal bureaucracy to prod and harass airline travelers for fear that someone will bring nail clippers onto a plane? That passed a massive set of laws that allow secret searches and seizures, indefinate imprisonment with no charges and no due process for suspected evil doers? That forces protesters into segregated "Free Speech Zones" hundreds of yards from any place the president is appearing? That responds to an attack by 19 guys with box cutters by invading two countries, spending upwards of $300 billion, sacrificing the lives of over 500 service men and women, and has, seemingly, no idea how to end it?

This is nonsense. If we have not been "intimidated" then what the hell is all this overreaction about? And why is this administration so intent on keeping the fear factor front and center?

State of the Union Followup

The Bush State of the Union address was exactly what one would expect - including the smirks and constant standing ovations whenever a politically inspired note (such as making the tax cuts permanent) was sounded.

The Democratic response to this nonsense was worse. Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle make it clear why the Republicans are in power. The Dems don't have a clue and act like frightened amateurs who have never been on camera before. Pelosi could hardly get beyond the grimace of her face lift in order to have more than the one strained expression. Daschle came across as an only slightly electrified corpse. Both were boring and unconvincing. As bad as Bush was - both of these - leaders of their respective Democratic sections of congress - were lifeless and phony - boring and unbelievable.

Damn, this whole experience is so depressing. We not only have to elect a new president - we have to replace the entire Democratic "leadership" of congress. They're a useless bunch of losers.

As to the nature of the Republican response, we have Senator Bill Frist complaining that the Democrats didn't stand and applaud when the Repugs did. Pathetic. The networks are doing instant replay of those festive moments, like Senator Rick Santorum jumping to his feet in response to Bush's call for government support of "traditional" marriage. These people all need to go to hell, right now. I'm so sick of all of them. If "Hell is other people", these are those people. Save us all from them. PLEASE.

The Twilight Zone Election

In what seems like the strangest twist in the Democratic primary race, two architypical peacenics have endorsed the only full fledged military man running: both lefty film maker Michael Moore and former peace candidate George McGovern have endoresed retired general Wesley Clark as their choice for Democratic candidate for president.

Kind of boggles the mind.

Bush vs Jesus

It is a cold, rainy day in our nation's capital and I had attempted an afternoon nap which seemed appropriate given that I can't go out on foot and there is nothing on television that isn't worthy of contempt. But, just as I was drifting off to sleep, I came awake with a start, with the realization that Bush must either proclaim himself a Christian or a coward. Dreams are strange, and I have no idea why this hit me so hard while not awake, but now that I am fully awake it seems equally forceful. I don't normally like reducing issues to "either/or" questions because they don't typically reflect reality. But this is a situation the "compassionate conservatives" have brought upon themselves. Bush proclaims himself a Christian, and even makes that the central perspective in understanding who he is and what he stands for, and yet he and his close advisors have, following 9/11, done just about everything they could to make the American public fearful and use that fear as a way of justifying striking out at other countries that were thought to be threats.

OK, here's the thing, if one is a Christian, then there should be no fear of what might happen in this life. This is a transitory world and not as "real" or important as the eternal world to come. But what Bush and his minions have been pushing is even worse than just not really owning their faith; rather, it is a cowardly sense that trivial third world countries have the power to make us fearful and reactive. Thus we had to attack a country that was at peace - a country that had never overtly threatened us, out of FEAR that it might someday.

I just went back and reviewed several posts I had written prior to the war on Iraq and the dominant emotion I was feeling then was shame; shame that with all the real issues confronting us our president elected to make Iraq the focus of his concern. Shame that a country that spends more on its military than almost all other countries combined, should profess fear of a third rate, bankrupt, virtually defenseless country. And we even took this pitiful cowering fantasy before the United Nations and professed shock and outrage that most other countries thought we were behaving hysterically.

I suspect that if we saw ourselves as others see us it would be a chastening experience. Here we are, a country that pretty much insists on having its own way in all things, whining because the rest of the world isn't willing to invade a country that wasn't threatening any other country (certainly not us). It is really a testament to our national pathology that even at this late date - when no WMDs have been found, when no link to bin Ladin has been found, when the Iraqi military has been revealed to be a Potemkin Village and Iraqi public opinion is demonstrably NOT in favor of being an occupied country, we still pretend that we are vindicated and all the rest of the world owes us an apology. And this at the same time that we are desperately trying to get the U. N. to help us extricate ourselves from our own mistake there without making it seem like we actually made a mistake.

Polls reported today say that a large majority of Americans (68%) believe that the Bush administration has actually made us safer from terrorist attack. What, exactly, is supposed to have been done to accomplish this is not known. But, Bush and Rove both believe that in politics "perception is reality." So, whatever caused the perception, the end result is exactly what Dubyah wants. The question of whether we actually are safer is another issue. Indeed, the question of how much of a threat we have been under is one that should be surfaced and focused on - but that is not likely. Drumming up the threat of terrorist attack is useful to the Bush administration - realistically demonstrating that it is less than what we face driving our own cars serves no purpose for them - even if it is the truth.

So, if Bush were really a Christian, would he be threatening to get bin Laden "dead or alive"? Would he insist that we need to attack first before other countries might attack us? Would he brag in his state of the union speech about extra judicial executions of terrorists who will "no longer be a problem" for us? Would he think that dropping high explosives on a densely populated city an appropriate way to respond to terrorist acts when the terrorits involved are not likely to be in the city to be bombed? What do we do about all those troubling New Testiment passages about turning the other cheek, "blessed be the peacemaker," judging not lest ye be not judged, and the very troubling observation that he that takes the sword shall die by the sword.

I'm sorry, but my reading of the New Testiment leads me to believe that Jesus would not be in favor of preemptive attack, ariel bombardment, targeted assassination, or any of the other ugly "we can kill you better than you can kill us" kind of stupid, adolescent, reactionary behavior favored by this administration.

Bush vs Real Science

One of my favorite blogs speaks to a favorite subject of mine - the Bush administration's plans to cancel money for real science and use it for propaganda and favors for their supporters:

In their never-ending war on actual science, the 1600 Crew has decreed that Hubble Must Die. It doesn't matter that the Hubble, after getting off to a rocky start with a bad mirror, has been one of the most successful and visible accomplishments, of NASA and our space program, the Hubble is no longer going to be supported.
. . .
The unwritten sub-text here is that the Hubble Space Telescope helps to prove, by its very unbiased observations, that the Universe is more that 4000 years old, or what ever crack-pot literal interpretation that the bible slaps on it. Anti-scientists, coupled with their co-conspirators the dogmatic religious right have no desire to have real science being done anywhere. From potentially life-saving stem cell research to that creationist horseshit that they are trying to force into textbooks and classrooms, they want nothing more that a return to a rerun of the Dark Ages. Scary isn't it? I hope I'm not right.

Oh, and that whole manned space flight thing, the 1600 Crew ought to just write the check to the Aerospace contractors now, and quit acting like they want to accomplish something besides enriching campaign donors. For a billion dollars in that industry you get two computers, a server and a copy of some CAD program with a consultant to run it. A year from now, they fire the consultant, sell the computer equipment, take a tax write off and head to Barbados for the winter to count earnings. Jeebus.

Remember, Bush is the quy who, whenever any piece of scientific research contradicts his chosen policy, refers to it as "flawed science." As if he would know.

The Sorrows of Empire

I am currently reading Chalmers Johnson's excellent book, _The Sorrows of Empire_, a followup to his visionary pre 9/11 book _Blowback: the Costs and Consequences of American Empire_. It's a shame that Bush doesn't read. If he had read _Blowback_ we might have been spared the "sorrows" that are presented in the new book:

The sorrows of empire are the inescapable consequences of the national policies American elites chose after September 11, 2001. Militarism and imperialism always bring with them sorrows. The ubiquitous symbol of the Christian religion, the cross, is perhaps the world's most famous reminder of the sorrows that accompanied the Roman Empire--it represents the most atrocious death the Roman proconsuls could devise in order to keep subordinate peoples in line. From Cato to Cicero, the slogan of Roman leaders was "Let them hate us so long as they fear us."

Four sorrows, it seems to me, are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal "executive branch" of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens. All I have space for here is to touch briefly on three of these: endless war, the loss of Constitutional liberties, and financial ruin.

Look around, and consider what this Republican administration is selling. There is no question that Johnson is right, and that what we are faced with is:

(1) Endless War - Bush and his close advisors have all told us that Iraq is just the beginning;

(2) Loss of Constitutional Liberties - despite what Ashcroft calls the "phantoms of lost liberties" there can be no question that many rights we used to take for granted are gone - probably for good; the president now proclaims the right to imprison an American citizen indefinitely, without charges and with no access to an attorney or other guaranteed due process. We now have concentration camps and the Supreme Court has upheld the president's right to keep secret who is being held there and what is being done to them;

(3) the Replacement of Truth by Propaganda, Disinformation, and the Glorification of War, Power, and the Military Legions - have you watched FOX or CNN news lately? Read the New York Times or the Washington Post (both supposed to be "liberal" publications)? Tried to reconcile the words of the president's press secretary with whatever reality he is speaking of? Compared the words to the deeds in a typical George W. Bush speech? Wondered what is compassionate about conservatism or why a law allowing more pollution is called the "Clean Air" initiative or a law allowing cutting down old growth trees is called the "Healthy Forests" initiative or why people who were paying less tax than they had paid in 50 years needed tax "relief"?, and

(4) Financial Ruin - this is the easiest to see in overt current policies; we have deficits as far as the eye can see into the future; the WTO has issued warnings that America's debt level runs the risk of creating an international financial crisis, former treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil and economist Paul Krugman have both warned that the high level of debt and dependence on foreign countries to support it, makes us terribly vulnerable to foreign pressures that our military superiority cannot deal with. We are - except in the denial of our conspicuous consumption - a third world nation - drowning in debt with no means of paying it off.

Welcome to the brave new world of George W. Bush and Company.

Another President Against Democracy

It was reported today that one of our good allies in the war on terra, Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, was jeered and heckled by secular legislators while Islamic fundamentalist deputies walked out of the Pakistani Parliament as he attempted to give a speech aimed at pleasing the Bush administration by announcing a crackdown on fundamentalism and continued efforts to achieve peace with India:

In a 40-minute address that was also broadcast to the nation, General Musharraf said the country was threatened by a "negative image" because it is seen as promoting an Islamic insurgency in Kashmir, the Indian state that is a main source of contention between Pakistan and India; failing to crack down on Taliban supporters along the Afghan border; spreading nuclear weapons technology to other countries; and being an "intolerant society."

The general called that image inaccurate and said a vast majority of Pakistanis were "moderates who totally reject extremism." He urged Pakistanis to "wage a `jihad' against extremism."

Tariq Rehman, a professor at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, said General Musharraf was trying to signal that he was committed to reform.

"He wants the United States to know `I will stick to this,' " Professor Rehman said. "He is giving a message both to India and the U.S."

Of course, consider the mixed message this is sending to the Iraqis: the U. S. is supporting a regime that is an anti-democratic military dictatorship that seems to be taking its anti religious fundamentalist message from a foreign country. Oh, this is what Bush means by "democracy" - America friendly dictatorships. Remember, that's what Saddam was for a long time. He only became a terrible, evil man when he quit taking orders from us.

Bush vs Democracy in Iraq

I love to see the Repugs squirming in their current conflict - wanting to stay in Iraq long enough to secure the long term advantages for American business that the war was intended to secure and needing to appear to "give" the Iraqis their freedom and somehow get out before the 2004 election. Bush's "roadmap" for this is as full of holes and contradictions as the entire preparation for the war's aftermath seem to have been. Currently complicating the timeline - and remember that the deadline is pretty much fixed by the Republican's need to exit Iraq with enough time to campaign without that issue hanging over them - is the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, an elderly Shiite Muslim cleric, who is widely viewed as the most influential Muslim. He is not pleased with either the U. S. timetable or the approach to selecting and interim government, and his objections have already forced Bush and Bremmer to make changes in what they had planned:

His pronouncement on who may write a new constitution (only Iraqis elected by Iraqis) forced Washington to upend its timetable for granting the country its independence. Last week, the ayatollah rejected the American proposal for choosing an interim legislature through caucuses, immobilizing the transition. His backers took to the streets to support him.

The ayatollah's influence recalls that of another once-reclusive Shiite cleric, Ruhollah Khomeini, who 25 years ago took the helm of the Iranian revolution and created an Islamic republic implacably hostile to the United States.

As many of us pointed out prior to the war in Iraq, there is no way in a country with such longstanding ethnic and religious divisions, to easily establish a viable western style democracy. The ayatollah is a Shiite and the Shiites are a majority of the population in Iraq, so naturally they are in favor of popular elections as soon as possible, because they are almost certain to win such elections. But the minority Kurds, who have already forced the Bush administration to promise them some level of autonomy independent of whatever national governemnt is established in Iraq, are almost certain to continue to push for a separate Kurdish state (and this is complicated by a majority of Iraq's oil fields being in their territory).

To further complicate things, the Sunnis, the minority Muslim sect that Saddam Hussein belongs to, have exercised political power in Iraq for over five centuries - even during long periods of colonial rule serving as the colonial power's Iraqi administrators. Thus, while hated by both Shiites and Kurds, the Sunnis have the only long term experience of civil administration and represent the best educated and most modern segment of Iraq's population.

What the Bush administration is really looking at in an Iraq without any external constraint, is almost certain civil war.

Oh, and did I mention that the problematic Shiite cleric is not even an Iraqi? He's an Iranian. Yes, the axis of deep doo-doo just gets worse and worse.

Kennedy vs Bush

Ted Kennedy pulls no punches in saying that Bush's case for war in Iraq was dishonest:

Of the many issues competing for attention in this new and defining year, one is of a unique order of magnitude: President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. The facts demonstrate how dishonest that decision was.
. . .
Hussein's brutal regime was not an adequate justification for war, and the administration did not seriously try to make it one until long after the war began and all the false justifications began to fall apart. There was no imminent threat. Hussein had no nuclear weapons, no arsenals of chemical or biological weapons, no connection to Sept. 11 and no plausible link to al Qaeda. We never should have gone to war for ideological reasons driven by politics and based on manipulated intelligence.

Vast resources have been spent on the war that should have been spent on priorities at home. Our forces are stretched thin. Precious lives have been lost. The war has made America more hated in the world and made the war on terrorism harder to win. As Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in announcing the latest higher alert: "Al Qaeda's continued desire to carry out attacks against our homeland is perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11th."

But the Bushies continue to claim we are safer. They sure can't make that case about Iraq itself, as today's headlines scream:

Suicide Bomber Kills 20 in Iraq

But, as Rumsfeld reminded us during the looting following our "victory" there, "Freedom is messy."

Bush vs Our Health

Bush, like the cheerleader he once was, has jumped into the mad cow controversy to advocate that we should all keep eating beef. Meanwhile, unreported in most of America's "free" press, a new report has been released that indicates that mad cow disease - and more disturbing - its human counterpart, are much more common than previously thought:

Researchers at the multinational European Institute for Ruminant Research in La Vache, Switzerland have published their first detailed analysis of the global reach of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as mad cow disease. Their findings show that the disease is much more prevalent than previously believed and that its human counterpart, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, or vCJD, has been manifest in Europe and the United States for many years.

The multidisciplinary research team, comprised of microbovine pathologists, quantum epidemiologists and beefy political scientists from many nations of the European Union, is led by its lead researchers and spokespersons, Dr. Peter Wahnsinn and Dr. Maria Beveleché.

“These are very startling findings,” Dr. Wahnsinn announced at a hastily convened press conference at the EIRR laboratory in suburban La Vache, Switzerland. “But we can no longer hide ourselves from the obvious truth. Human variant mad cow disease is not only here and widespread, but it has been raging through the human population for many years now. There are probably reporters among those of you at this very news conference who are already infected and showing subtle, early symptoms of the illness.”

Is this disturbing, or what?

More Bushco War Profiteering

In the same week that the Army has called for further investigation of Halliburton irregularities and overcharges in Iraq, it was announced that it has been awarded another $billion project:

The U.S. government yesterday awarded a Halliburton subsidiary, under fire for how much it paid to import fuel into Iraq, a competitively bid contract worth as much as $1.2 billion to continue repairs to the country's oil facilities.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave KBR one of two contracts that replace a no-bid contract it was awarded last March. A joint venture between Pasadena-based Parsons Corp and its former division, Parsons Energy and Chemicals Group Inc., won the second contract, worth up to $800 million.

The announcement came in the week Pentagon auditors asked the Defense Department inspector general to investigate a deal between KBR and a Kuwaiti fuel supplier to import gasoline into Iraq as part of the first contract.

A draft audit report last month found that KBR may have overcharged the government $61 million for fuel from Kuwait.

At the same time that the Bush administration is showing its confidence in the Vice President's "former" employer (Cheney still receives annual compensation from Halliburton), the IRS has announced a major investigation of one of the leading environmental groups, the Nature Conservancy:

A team of IRS examiners will move into the global headquarters of the Nature Conservancy in Arlington to begin auditing the charity, the world's largest environmental organization.

A letter sent to the Conservancy by the Internal Revenue Service last month indicates that the audit will be of uncommon scope for a charity, tax specialists said. The memorandum proposes a preliminary meeting between four IRS examiners and the Conservancy's chief financial officer to discuss logistics, communications, telephone access, equipment and accommodations. The IRS will examine 2002 tax returns, the letter said.

"It is unusual," said former IRS commissioner Donald C. Alexander, now a private tax lawyer. "This is an extraordinary case. . . . It is an indication of a pretty strong audit."

I seem to have missed the part where the IRS "moved into" the offices of Halliburton to inusre that everything was on the up and up. This, in a nutshell, is the administration's priorities - reward business associates - even when there is clear evidence of corruption, and hammer all organizations that attempt to put limits on profit over people.

Bush vs MLK Legacy

Yesterday "President" Bush went to Atlanta to attend a fund raiser and dropped in at the Martin Luther King gravesite to lay a wreath - thus getting a great photo op with King's widow and being able to claim most of the cost of the trip as presidential business rather than political fundraising.

While this kind of thing looks blatantly manipulative to many (especially since one can't come up with anything about Kings "legacy" - praised by Bush - that they would agree on), many actually see these gestures as meaningful. This morning on NPR a segment devoted to the extreme attitudes many have about Bush quotes a number of people who, to me, seem to be living in the Twilight Zone. One Bush supporter, a female attorney in Ohio, says that he is the "best president" in her lifetime and that, among other things, he has "made the economy strong again."

What planet do these people live on? A year ago on the previous anniversary of King's birth, Bush came out against affirmative action. The day after this years hypocritical photo op, he used his power to make a recess appointment to ignore Democratic opposition and appoint Charles Pickering to the federal appeals court. Pickering's nomination has been blocked for over two years because of his past support of segregation and continued extreme conservative views:

''The president's recess appointment of this anti-civil rights judge the day after laying a wreath on the grave of Martin Luther King is an insult to Dr. King, an insult to every African American, and an insult to all Americans who share Dr. King's great goals,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). ''It serves only to emphasize again this administration's shameful opposition to civil rights.''

More Support for Dean

On the same day that Carol Moseley Braun withdrew from the Democratic primary and threw her support to Howard Dean, Elaine Kamarck, a Clinton/DLC type, has thrown her support to Dean and explained why in an excellent article in "Newsday."

I think Dean has the best chance of any of the candidates in this race to beat George W. Bush. . .
Howard Dean . . . is the strongest candidate against Bush that the Democrats have. The complaints against him are overdrawn and easily outweighed by his strengths.

Start with the complaints. The first is that he is too left-wing to win. Dean owes his colleagues in the primary race a big debt of gratitude on that one. When Gephardt attacked him for a Medicare position taken in the mid-1990s, it reinforced the fact that Dean is a fiscal conservative - well within the mainstream of the successful Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. If Dean were a real left-winger, he would have called for a national health insurance plan (like Gephardt and Kucinich). Instead he has a much more realistic plan to take care of the uninsured - and has a Vermont record on it to boot.

If Dean were a real left-winger, he'd call for cutting defense spending and immediately removing our troops from Iraq - as Kucinich has. But Dean understands that the fight against terror requires new, albeit somewhat different, military spending than the current Bush plans and that we can't fight terror by allowing Iraq to turn into another Afghanistan.

The second complaint involves Dean's personality. The argument is that he is too combative. This always struck me as odd. How can Democrats object to a combative person running against an incumbent president who tells the world: "Bring 'em on!" Do they think they can beat Bush with a wimp? With some guy who says, "On the one hand this, and on the other hand that?" I, for one, relish the sight of Howard Dean - his wrestler's neck bulging - taking on the president after Bush tries to tell us that record deficits don't matter, that Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center or that a time of constant terror alerts is a safer world. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, in endorsing Dean, called him the Harry Truman of the 21st century. Truman was a feisty little plain-speaking man - and a great president.

But the most compelling reason to support Dean is that only he can change the nature of the political game. No Democrat will win unless he can make the country see through Bush, and Dean has been so good at this that by last fall all the other candidates were mimicking his outrage.

Furthermore, if Democrats play old-fashioned politics, they lose, plain and simple. George W. Bush is the incumbent; he has the Executive Branch, Republicans control Congress, and this White House has shown an uncanny ability to bamboozle and intimidate the national press corps. The Republicans own the "Establishment," and they will use it to raise $170 million or more to destroy the Democratic candidate.

Dean has built a primary campaign that makes the Establishment pretty much irrelevant. The only way a Democrat wins in November is to keep it that way. By the end of last year Dean probably had at least 300,000 individual contributors. If Dean wins some early contests and locks up the nomination by mid-March, each of these people will have a great story to tell to 10 new contributors. How much could Dean raise from these 1.5 to 3 million people (you do the math; the numbers of potential donors are huge) in the months before the Democratic convention?

I started sending Dean money in 2001 when he first announced, because even then he was taking a very aggressive stance against Bush while no other Democrat was even willing to make a wave. Even before 9/11 the Dems were mostly fearful of voicing overt criticism. This is the ground that Howard Dean staked as his own - he was willing to call Bush a phony, a liar, and a danger to the American citizen long before the obvious case was make. He deserves our support.

Republicans vs the Truth

Atrios reports how the results of a poll presented on a Republican website have been, apparently deliberately, reported incorrectly:

They simply switched which item each button votes for, so all the votes for the "wrong" answer end up being for the one they want. How, er, responsible of our elected representatives.

I suspect this is not unusual in the down-is-up world where people believe that Bush "won" and that Gore "lost" the 2000 election. Phony numbers are not likely to go away as long as the current crop of conservative political operatives are calling the shots. Truth means nothing to these guys. As Karl Rove has said (and Dubya has repeated), in politics "perception is everything."

Bush vs the Universe

Bush today announced his "bold" new "vision" for renewing America's space program. Far from a surprise, this announcement has been anticipated for months; ever since some of Bush's "advisors" leaked that the administration was in search of "bold" ideas that would allow Bush to satisfy the "vision thing" in his 2004 campaign. A new space program was one theme being looked at even then. So, this is the reality of the situation:

1. This is NOT Bush's idea. It is something his staff thought might make him look visionary. You know as well as I do that he has no clue about space.

2. The fact that he is investing only an additional billion dollars in the NASA budget to fund the initial planning for such a program is also an indication of lack of seriousness. This is all window dressing for his campaign. Any serious development and funding would take place long after he is out of office, so he can say pretty much anything he wants at this stage with no consequences.

3. The most serious reservation we should have about this results from many recent conservative sources that want to militarize and commericalize space. Extending terrestrial conflicts and competition to the moon and beyond, while the stuff of science fiction action plots, is probably not the best way to approach the exploration of outerspace.

4. Finally, the thing that should be sounding alarm bells all around is the Bushes refusal to even estimate a cost of this enterprise, just as they refused to give any kind of estimate of the cost of Iraq - until it was too late.

And while it is true that all presidents for some years have depended on speech writers, Bush is exceptional in this regard. He simply cannot be trusted to answer questions or make remarks unscripted. They either make no sense and/or call into question his ability to occupy the office he claims. Therefore, every public announcement that is credited to him is carefully scripted by some anonymous dweeb whose only job is to provide Bush with grammatical and quasi-logical statements that advance his "conservative" agenda without embarrassing his public.

What kind of government is this where the person supposedly in charge is like a ventriloquist dummy whose words are someone else's - and that person an unknown low level functionary at that (David Frum, Mr. "Axis of . . "? Pulezeee).

Bush vs Science

In the ongoing attempt to replace inconvenient scientific conclusions with more politically acceptable ones, Calpundit reports this latest Bush administration move:

Here's the story: Congress mandates that HHS produce an annual report on healthcare disparities related to race and poverty. The most recent version was released a month ago, but it turns out that the final version released by the political troops was dramatically different from the initial draft written by HHS scientists. Upon learning of this, Bush heckler-in chief Henry Waxman commissioned a report comparing the scientists' draft with the final draft.

Read the Calpundit piece for details on what was changed. So many inconvenient facts, so little time.

Why Isn't Ken Lay In Jail?

It was just announced that the Fastows have reached a plea agreement with the prosecuters in their Enron "screw you while we get whatever we can" case. The question we need to have answered is, is Ken Lay's ass part of what they gave up or is his ass what they are protecting? How much prison time would you do for a few million dollars? Ken can afford hundreds of millions, if that's what it takes.

Whatever, this is not a normal case. The outcome, therefore, must be highly suspect.

Is America A Great Country Or What?

Channel surfing tonight has landed me on a show I have never seen before - "American Shooting" - a show for gun nuts. Tonight they are touting the possibility of "dressing up" as a western good guy or bad guy to enhance the experience of shooting.

I must be missing something, but the idea that we should encourage people who want to blow things up real good to dress up in costume to enhance their experience - well, it makes me uncomfortable. It suggests, as I have suspected, that many of those who want to go armed are out of touch with reality. Fantasy would be fine if the firearms involved were loaded with blanks - but when the only real and deadly part of he equation is the gun and the rest all made up, we have reason to be concerned.

Now they are doing the history of the Henry Rifle. Puts me in mind of the Danny Glover character in "Silverado" - "I don't want to kill you and you don't want to die." Right.

To make things worse, it was just announced that the "Crock Hunter" show, where the host had fed a live crock a chicken with one hand while dangling his three month old child with the other, and suffered massive and justified vilification for his cavilier treatment of his offspring - has increased its ratings by more than 20%. No bad deed goes unrewarded.

Why Are We In Iraq?

According to the Village Voice:

Things move quicker in Iraq—"Vietnam on crack," as one columnist has described it. With breathtaking speed, the liberators have been tarred as home-invading thugs.

In one mid-December briefing, the Coalition Provisional Authority boasted that 24 hours of raids on 1,620 suspected rebel hideouts yielded 107 arrests—a success rate, 7 percent, of the sort that once turned South Vietnamese peasants into Vietcong insurgents.

The insurgent war of attrition against American soldiers has gotten very desperate, very fast, the latest sign being a number of downed helicopters; eyewitnesses say Thursday's crash south of Fallujah, killing nine, was the result of a missile strike—as was the crash in November that killed 16. A mortar strike on a base Wednesday killed one and wounded 30. The American death toll in Iraq approaches 500; the number of medical evacuations, as of mid December, is 10,854, most not reflected on the Pentagon's website.

Once again a war has gone wrong, and the denouement still must be leveraged for maximum political advantage—or at least to minimum disadvantage. A scary story must be capped off with a happy ending. And for that reason, the Bush administration must make sure certain things are forgotten: namely, the aims it said we were going to war for in the first place. George Bush must keep on moving the goal line, as he has ever since this war's beginning.

Why are we in Iraq? The notion of an imminent threat from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction washed out with the tide. We hear less, too, about making Americans safer from terrorism; the threat level as of this writing has only lately been lowered from orange, a degree of warning that, the Department of Homeland Security informs us, calls for "taking additional precautions at public events and possibly considering alternative venues or even cancellation." (Have fun at the Super Bowl.) And no one in power wants to talk about all the Middle Eastern nations that would start democratizing just as soon as Iraq's newly liberated people showed them the way.

Sam Smith vs Right Wing Bullying

The incomperable Sam Smith on Right Wing bullying:

For many years now, the Republican right has engaged in a politics of cultural bullying that is the direct descendent of the southern segregationists. It is based on anathematizing a minority in order to solidify its own political base around false assumptions of purity and superiority. It is an illusion that deceives much of its own constituency into thinking that ultimately minor cultural differences are more important than such issues as economics, healthcare or public education. Thus it is not only mean, it is masochistic. One minority ends up being hurt by another that is being conned and hurt in other ways.

The illusion works best in a politics in which a large portion of the public is politically inert. That way you don't have to convince a majority, you need only mobilize your own minority. It is a vile sort of politics that deliberately fosters hate and anger and is as alien from the American ideal as one can find. It is, in fact, far closer to the theocratic tyranny of the Taliban than to anything in our own best traditions.

Read the whole article to see what he suggests the ideal Democratic candidate do to respond to this approach.

Army vs Bush

A new study by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat:

The report, by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point."

It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network.

"[T]he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."

Well, that about says it as well as one can. Why do our elected representatives and media notables continue to act as if the "war" on terrorism makes sense? Largely because they are cowards and know that if they criticize Bush's stupid program they will be attacked by the rest of the robotic anti-terrorist cheerleading squad. Just keep an eye on what is being said about Paul O'Neill after he dared to tell the truth about Bush planning the war with Iraq long before 9/11. They don't even bother to refute his charge - they instead attack him as being "disgruntled" and therefore "anti-Bush."

I love it, we have come to a time when truth or faleshood is no longer an issue. Now all that is important seems to be the motivation for a given statement. Even if true, if motivated by anything other than the most positive motives a statement can be dismissed and the mainstream press seems willing to play along.

We are really talking Twilight Zone stuff here.

Bush vs the Press

In their ongoing war against honest reporting in the media, the Bush administration continues to spout judgements about reporters designed to reduce or altar their standing as necessary guardians of the Republic:

Political guru Karl Rove claims that the job of journalists is "not necessarily to report the news. It's to get a headline or get a story that will make people pay attention to their magazine, newspaper or television more."

And Chief of Staff Andy Card scoffs: "[The media] don't represent the public any more than other people do. In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election."

Card argues that it's not the responsibility of top White House policymakers to provide reporters with facts.

"It's not our job to be sources. The taxpayers don't pay us to leak!" Card tells Auletta. "Our job is not to make your job easy."

Don't you love the concept that actually providing "facts" to reporters is not the job of administration officials? Presumabley then, the fact that so much of what comes out of the White House spin machine is deliberate fabrication is just fine, especially since Card seems to think that answering question truthfully is the same as "leaking." Of course, if your first priority is always secrecy, that would make sense. But then we have to ask, what is it that you have to hide that makes answering questions honestly so much of an ongoing priority?

And then, why are newsmen, routinely, such easy marks for Bush propoganda? Their response to the kind of tacky treatment they receive is rather pitifull:

Predictably, the reporters who cover Bush aren't happy. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank complains: "My biggest frustration is that this White House has chosen an approach ...to engage us as little as possible." And the New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller grouses: "Too often they treat us with contempt."

Damn. Where are the young Woodward and Bernstein when we really need them?

The French vs Bush's Veep

The French government is involved in a criminal investigation into wrongdoing by Vice President Dick Cheney and other officers of Halliburton for massive bribery:

Le Figaro, one of France's biggest (and most conservative) newspapers, reports "an investigative judge is looking into allegations of corruption during construction of a natural gas complex in Nigeria by Halliburton and" a French oil company. According to a gas and oil trade publication (picked up by the international AP newswire on October 11, 2003) the judge is "looking into who may have benefited from nearly $200 million in potentially illegal commissions allegedly handed out from 1990 to 2002." In May, Halliburton admitted that, under Cheney's stewardship, it paid "$2.4 million in bribes to Nigerian officials to get favorable tax treatment." Halliburton now says it is cooperating with a simultaneous review by the Security and Exchange Commission.

The London Financial Times reports the investigation specifically focuses on the criminal charges of "misuse of corporate funds" and "corruption of foreign public agents." The Sydney Australia Morning Herald reports the investigative judge is specifically targeting Cheney for his "alleged complicity in the abuse of corporate assets."

I know we are all surprised that we are not hearing a single word about this from America's "free" press - even those independent and fearless fighters for fair and balanced reporting at FOX.

O'Neill vs Bush: Part 2

In continued reporting prior to the release of a new book that will criticise the Bush administration for its economic and intenational policies, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill claims that plans to invade Iraq were begun long before 9/11 provided the supposed rationale. Despite essentially saying that much of what this administration has said is deliberate falsehood, O'Neill contends that he doesn't expect to be attacked for his remarks:

O'Neill, who was asked to resign because of his opposition to the tax cut, says he doesn't think his tell-all account in this book will be attacked by his former employers as sour grapes. "I will be really disappointed if [the White House] reacts that way," he tells Stahl. "I can't imagine that I am going to be attacked for telling the truth."

O'Neill also is quoted saying in the book that President Bush was so disengaged in cabinet meetings that he "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people."

Oh my goodness! And O'Neill really doesn't think he will be attacked for this? He was fired for contradicting the president about the size of deficits that would result from the tax cuts (and, of course, he was telling the truth while Bush was lying). Does he think that Bush has mellowed and will just ignore attacks against his most significant policies - and by a former staffer at that?

O'Neill vs Bush

Oh this will be fun:

White House officials braced yesterday for a forthcoming book in which former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill lavishes criticism on the Bush administration.

The book, "The Price of Loyalty," chronicles O'Neill's tenure at Treasury and conveys his impression of President Bush as a man uninterested in government policy, who tuned out detailed discussion of the economy and whose decisions were driven primarily by partisan politics.

Wow! What a surprise. And I thought every decision he made was carefully informed by reason and analysis of available facts and aimed at what was best for the country as a whole.

Harkin for Dean

Today Senator Tom Harkin endorsed Howard Dean for President. FOX News said it was no big deal and quite expected, since Harkin is the "most liberal Senator the Democrats have."

This must come as news to Ted Kenneddy.

Bush vs All of Us

On every front, we are suffering the Bush assault:

(1) on the Environment, regulation is relaxed and rules are reinterpreted so that pollution can be redefined as creative enforcement;

(2) on Civil Rights, the Patriot Act and other initiatives result in our government supporting concentration camps in Cuba where prisoners have no legal rights,

(3) on Veteran's policy they want to cut veteran's benefits and complicate the ability to receive health care in VA hospitals,

(4) on the media, they work for consolidation under a few friendly corporate heads (like Rupert Murdock) - despite the fact that the airwaves are the public's property, and

(5) on Education, the "no child left behind" act insures that many children will be left behind - and that no reputable news source will be willing to actually tell the story.

All this makes me so tired. When I was 20 I thought he government would necessarily become more rational and humane as people were made aware of its actions. I was wrong. Forty years later it is worse than ever. Rupert Murdock has more influence than our elected representatives. Are we willing to live with this? What choice do we have?

Just A Thought

We have a president who is only coherent when he is scripted by someone else. I defy anyone to actually fault this observation. The only time Bush actually speaks in meaningful English more complex than three word sentences (eg, "Bring 'em on" or "What's the difference?") is when someone else has written him a script. You can tell when that is because he e-nun-cee-ates ver-ry care-ful-ly and has this wide eyed expression while speaking and then a little smirk at the end of sentence to show how pleased he is that he has said it without mishap.

The sad thing is that many Americans actually experience this repeated performance and aren't insulted. Worse, many believe that the words he wades through are his own. Sorry guys, he doesn't have a clue. This is all Karl Rove and his script writters - whoever they are. Remember David Frum? He was the speechwriter given the charge to come up with a reason for war with Iraq and invented the phrase "Axis of Hate" (they actually paid him for that) which some other more stylistically savy dweeb changed to "Axis of Evil." Consider how much trouble this phrase has caused and then remember that it was invented on the spot by a speechwriter; just part of the job.

TNR vs Common Sense

The New Republic, a magazine that continues to be called "liberal," despite its very conservative and militaristic tone, shows its true colors by endorsing the candidacy of Joe Lieberman. Yeah guys, if you can't have George Bush as a Democratic candidate you want the closest Dem to him.

Pathetic. Lieberman's polling numbers, even in his home state of Connecticut, are the lowest of his career. This man is not a serious contender and to pretend that he is is to ignore all the evidence. The New Republic Editors themselves don't even think he can be nominated. They end their endorsement by saying:

It may take years, or even decades, for Democrats to relearn the lessons we thought, naïvely, they had learned for good under Clinton. But one day, Joe Lieberman's warnings in this campaign will look prophetic.

So, it may take decades (at least until we forget the awful sound of his whiny voice) but someday we will be sorry we didn't support him. Does this sound like a reasonable position to be taking if you are seriously trying to pursue a campaign right now?

I think its time to finally cancel my TNR subscription.

Bush vs the World's Economy

A new report from the International Monetary Fund says the rise in U.S. debts Is a threat to the world's economy:

With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy, according to a report released Wednesday by the International Monetary Fund.

Prepared by a team of I.M.F. economists, the report sounded a loud alarm about the shaky fiscal foundation of the United States, questioning the wisdom of the Bush administration's tax cuts and warning that large budget deficits pose "significant risks" not just for the United States but for the rest of the world.

The report warns that the United States' net financial obligations to the rest of the world could be equal to 40 percent of its total economy within a few years — "an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country," according to the fund, that could play havoc with the value of the dollar and international exchange rates.

It's unusual for the IMF to criticize its major stakeholder, but such critical attention to the dangers of the Bush economic policies are way overdue. The continuing decline in the value of the dollar on the international scene is a clear indication of foreign nervousness about the U. S. economy - despite the Bush administration's crowing that everything will shortly be fine.

Arianna Huffington vs Bush

Thank you, Arianna:

Unelectable, My Ass!

By Arianna Huffington, AlterNet
January 7, 2004

I swear, if I hear one more Democratic honcho say that Howard Dean is not electable, I'm going to do something crazy (maybe that's what happened to Britney in Vegas this weekend).

The contention is nothing short of idiotic.

Consider the source. The folks besmirching the good doctor's Election Day viability are the very people who have driven the Democratic Party into irrelevance; who spearheaded the party's resounding 2002 mid-term defeats; and who kinda, sorta, but not really disagreed with President Bush as he led us down the path of preemptive war with Iraq, irresponsible tax cuts and an unprecedented deficit.

Dean is electable precisely because he's making a decisive break with the spinelessness and pussyfooting that have become the hallmark of the Democratic Party.

So, please, no more hand-wringing about Dean being "another Dukakis." And no more weepy flashbacks about having had your heart broken by George McGovern, whose 1972 annihilation haunts the 2004 Democratic primaries like a political Jacob Marley, shaking his chains and warning of the Ghosts of Landslides Past.

While it may be true that those who don't know the past are condemned to repeat it, consider George W. Bush - who not only doesn't know the past but doesn't quite understand the present either. He doesn't think it matters. After all, he's a Bush, and protected from the common consequences of bad behavior that afflict you and me. Our president is a selfish, narrow-minded, silly, half-educated boob who feels that he is due certain honors and position - regardless of merit or effort.

Mariani vs Bush

George Bush was served Friday with a personal 9-11 RICO complaint. Despite a general news blackout of this story, a New Hampshire widow's attorney is moving forward with agressive action against significant members of the Bush administration - including the President himself.

Also served were Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft, CIA Director George Tenet, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, and Dubyah's father, George Herbert Walker Bush.

This is a pretty on the edge story that may just be over the top. It's hard to decide when mainstream media refuse to deal with it. Still, it could be lots of fun if it gains any traction. For more detail about Mariani's lawsuite, check out this site.

Bush vs Meaning

I just saw a clip of Bush mouthing one of his now famous pronouncements about his war in Iraq. He said, and this is still frequently repeated:

"We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary - and not a moment longer."

As often as I have seen this replayed, I have yet to hear a reporter ask the obvious questions:

(1) "necessary" for what? and

(2) who decides?

These are not trivial questions. Like most of Bush's public pronouncements, much is simply glossed over by the glib, abstract statement. It sounds good as long as one doesn't try to actually determine what it means. As soon as you do you realize that this kind of statement can mean whatever the listener wants it to mean. It is an age old rhetorical strategy and one would hope that savy reporters wouldn't let politicians get away with it. Yet they do, and no one in any position of authority seems to care.

This sort of reminds me of the creed for the Universal Life Church:

"The Universal Life Church believes in that which is right."

Who could object? And yet, what, exactly, does it mean?

Terrorists vs the Bush Administration

Has it occurred to anyone else that the "specific" intelligence the Bush administration has used to cancel and delay international flights may just be a case of terrorists toying with us? We have been responding to specific words - names, locations, etc - that have been picked up in electronic scanning. Since bin Laden and company know that the CIA and NSA, among other organizations, are constantly recording and scanning phone and radio communication, doesn't it make sense that they would "seed" conversations with specifics that would indicate whether the communication was intercepted or not - by these very heavy handed procedures the government is using to no productive end.

Do we really think the CIA, FBI, NSA, TSA, and Dept of Homeland Security are making us more safe while they play these clumsy games that just make travel a pain in the ass?

Have an Orange day.

Howard Dean Against Politics As Usual

This from Sam Smith at Progressive Review:

when the Democratic National Committee decided to send a mailing to its workers some years back, it found that no one had kept a list. The party had come to care only about its donors.

Enter Howard Dean. His donors and his "workers" are the same. No "special interests" - only concerned citizens who want to make a difference. When he tells audiences that they "have the power" to take their country back, it is more than just a rhetorical flourish. He means it and it is true. It is very much a David and Goliath situation, though. Bush is backed by the full weight of his position as a sitting President, supported by the full military-industrial complex, the extractive industries (oil, gas, coal, and other mining interests), drug companies, insurance companies, agribusiness, multi-national corporations generally, and national print and electronic media, mostly owned and controlled by a few major corporations. But, as Sam Smith points out, there is a kind of energy and engagement that we can regain that can make all the difference:

We have lost much of what was gained in the past because we traded in our passion, our energy, our magic and our music for the rational, technocratic and media ways of our leaders. We will not overcome the current crisis solely with political logic. We need living rooms like those in which women once discovered they were not alone. The freedom schools of SNCC. The politics of the folk guitar. The plays of Vaclav Havel and rock groups in Hungary. The pain of James Baldwin. The laughter of Abbie Hoffman. The strategy of Gandhi and King. Unexpected gatherings and unpredicted coalitions. People coming together because they disagree on every subject save one: the need to preserve the human. Savage satire and gentle poetry. Boisterous revival and silent meditation. Grand assemblies and simple suppers.

Above all, we must understand that in leaving the toxic ways of the present we are healing ourselves, our places, and our planet. We rebel not as a last act of desperation but as a first act of creation.

Damn, this is going to be a fun election.

Crime in the Street

SOB and Mrs. SOB just returned home after spending a few quiet days in New Orleans in a lovely B&B on Esplanade and Burgundy St, on the edge of the French Quarter. But it seems that not all visitors to that neighborhood had a pleasant experience:

Singer-songwriter Ray Davies of the Kinks was shot in the leg while chasing thieves who snatched a purse from a woman he was with, police said Monday. He was not seriously injured.

Police said Davies, 59, and the woman were walking along the Quarter's Burgundy Street around 8:30 p.m. Sunday when the theft and shooting happened.

Looks like we got out of town just in time. The only gunfire we heard was mixed with the fireworks welcoming in the New Year.

Bradley to Endorse Dean

Former senator Bill Bradley looks to be the next major political figure to announce support for Howard Dean's bid for nomination as Democratic candidate for president:

Howard Dean, who stunned the Democratic establishment last month when he won the backing of former Vice President Al Gore, will pick up another key endorsement Tuesday from former Sen. Bill Bradley, sources close to the Dean campaign said.

Remember, this is the guy the press keeps calling "unelectable". Right, that's why he has so much grassroots support, has raised so much money from ordinary people, and keeps picking up endorsements from major party big shots.

Go Howard!

Bush vs Clean Air

The Bush administration's policies that have aimed at gutting enforcement of many environmental laws are leading to resignations of senior people at the Environmental Protection Agency:

Three top enforcement officials at the Environmental Protection Agency have resigned or retired in the last two weeks, including two lawyers who were architects of the agency's litigation strategy against coal-burning power plants.

The timing of the departures and comments by at least one of the officials who is leaving suggest that some have left out of frustration with the Bush administration's policy toward enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

"The rug was pulled out from under us," said Rich Biondi, who is retiring as associate director of the air enforcement division of the agency. "You look around and say, `What contribution can I continue to make here?' and it was limited."

But remember, the Bush plan to allow utility companies to emit more pollution is named the "Clean Air" act. Bush is all about politics. It doesn't matter what you do; you just have to be able to describe it as something positve and keep on message despite the reality. Voters don't care about facts anyway, do they?

Krugman vs the Bush Economy

Paul Krugman has an ecellent piece in the current New York Times in which he quotes at length from former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin on the dangers of the Bush approach to managing the U. S. economy:

In a paper presented over the weekend at the meeting of the American Economic Association, Mr. Rubin and his co-authors — Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution and Allan Sinai of Decision Economics — argue along lines that will be familiar to regular readers of this column. The United States, they point out, is currently running very large budget and trade deficits. Official projections that this deficit will decline over time aren't based on "credible assumptions." Realistic projections show a huge buildup of debt over the next decade, which will accelerate once the baby boomers retire in large numbers.
. . .
"Substantial ongoing deficits," they warn, "may severely and adversely affect expectations and confidence, which in turn can generate a self-reinforcing negative cycle among the underlying fiscal deficit, financial markets, and the real economy. . . . The potential costs and fallout from such fiscal and financial disarray provide perhaps the strongest motivation for avoiding substantial, ongoing budget deficits." In other words, do cry for us, Argentina: we may be heading down the same road.
. . .
The point made by Mr. Rubin now, and by Mr. Mankiw when he was a free agent, is that the traditional immunity of advanced countries like America to third-world-style financial crises isn't a birthright. Financial markets give us the benefit of the doubt only because they believe in our political maturity — in the willingness of our leaders to do what is necessary to rein in deficits, paying a political cost if necessary. And in the past that belief has been justified. Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when the budget deficit soared.

Krugman then goes on to use the recently released Bush budget plan to demonstrate the lack of financial maturity at work in this administration. It claims to reign in increasing deficits by reducing domestic spending (on education and veterans benefits, for example) while ignoring the real spending threats - entitlements and the military.

Bush vs The Rest of Us

There are a few themes I want to see dealt with in the 2004 election. One is the idiotic claim that Republicans frequently make that "government should be run more like a business." This is truly stupid for a number of reasons. First, government IS a business - the people's business. And it differs from private businesses in significant ways. Fundamentally, a private business exists only to provide profit to its owners. Government exists to provide service to citizens as a whole - the PUBLIC. In a peculiar sense, we are both the owners and the customers of the government business. It is very much our own enterprise. If we have a problem with how it is providing its services, we need to change it. But the recurring theme that we should "privatize" government functions is largely nonsense.

Supposedly, private businesses are more efficient than government and therefore can provide serves cheaper. You will go a long while before ever encountering anything other than anecdotal evidence to support such a claim. Fundamentally, since private business must make a profit, there is a certain margin that it must always set aside in its equations in order to "stay in business." Government doesn't have to make a profit. As has been clearly demonstrated in the Medicare arena, government can provide services much cheaper because it has a much smaller administrative overhead - contrary to the Republican BS argument. The only way that a private business can provide serivces as cheaply as a government agency is by somehow reducing the level of service. That is - since you tend to get what you pay for - you will get LESS for your tax dollars when they pay a private contractor than when they pay for services provided by a responsible government agency.

And the oft repeated extravagant examples of government "waste" ($500 wrenches and $5000 toilet seats) are almost always cases of "privatization" out of control - military contractors who feel that they are too large to fail and can charge whatever they can get away with, since their product is important and they are the only suppliers.

Can you spell Halliburton boys and girls?

Bush vs Ordinary People

Why isn't Ken Lay in jail? Just asking. The answer is pretty clear - his good friend Dubyah has seen to it that nothing bad happens to Kenny Boy, despite the magnitude of Enron's financial crimes. Bush is famously protective of his friends. It's a shame he isn't so protective of citizens as a whole.

Bush vs His Own Image

According to the "Guardian," the Bush administration is trying to rebrand Bush as a man of peace:

The White House has retreated from its doctrine of regime change and pre-emptive military action and is returning to traditional diplomacy in an effort to repackage George Bush as a president for peace.
Signs of the new strategy that have emerged in the past few weeks include:

· North Korea, where authorities yesterday agreed to allow US inspectors to visit its nuclear complex next week.

· Iran, where the US proposed, through UN channels, sending a high-level humanitarian mission after last week's earthquake - although Tehran last night asked for any visit to be delayed.

· Libya, where the US welcomed Muammar Gadafy's surprise decision to give up weapons of mass destruction.

· Iraq, where the Bush administration is pressing for greater involvement from the international community.

· Palestine, where US peace envoy John Wolf may be sent to try to restart talks.

While sane persons everywhere applaud these moves, the really sad and disturbing thing is that they don't result from any conviction other than political expediencey. If these guys thought that invading Syria would win them the 2004 election they would be into it in a flash.