Joke of the Day

Today in Iraq notes the WP's reference to many versions of the Bush Lightbulb Joke. Here's one:
How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb? Ten.
One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;
One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;
One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;
One to announce to the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness;
One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb;
One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner 'Bulb Accomplished';
One administration insider to leak how Bush was literally 'in the dark' the whole time;
One to viciously smear the insider;
One to write the talking points about how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;
And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

For what it's worth

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear:
A Very Slight Change in the Script

There's a man with a gun over there telling me I got to beware :
Legionnaires Condemn War Protests, Pledge Support for President, Troops

Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down:
Iraq Shi'ite militias fight as splits emerge

"Who would Jesus assassinate?"

First, lets make no mistake about what Pat Robertson actually said:

We have the ability to take him [Chavez] out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

"Who would Jesus Assassinate?" asked Keith Olbermann at Countdown tonight.
One question raised by the whole Pat Robertson episode is whether being a religious extremist cause you to become mentally ill, or whether being mentally ill leads to religious extremism? Either way, Robertson now qualifies (see also Phelps, Fred).
But today's most remarkable non-denial denial statement came from Donald Rumsfeld. The AP story 'U.S. dodges Robertson comments on Chavez' includes a pretty lackluster distancing from Robertson's remarks and quotes Rumsfeld as saying "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
Oh, that Rummy -- just so coy, isn't he? Lets take a closer look at that remarkable statement:
"Our department doesn't do that kind of thing" -- baldfaced balderdash. Remember, for example, the Phoenix program in Vietnam. And the CIA has admitted to political assassinations like that of Allende in Chile. Bush's Herod Doctrine now OKs US preemptive strikes. And don't forget Ari Fleisher's remark in October, 2002 about how one bullet for Saddam wouldn't cost very much.
"Its against the law." Well, yes, it is contrary to international law as well as being a completely short-sighted and self-defeating policy. Of course, the US isn't a member of the international court, and the invasion of Iraq was against the law too. . .
"He's a private citizen." Yeah, like Saddam Hussein is now a private citizen. Pat Robertson hosts one of the most popular TV shows in the world, the 700 club; he tried to run for president 18 years ago, and still has influence in both the White House and Congress. So please excuse the world for thinking that maybe someone got him to run up a flag to see if somebody salutes.
"Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time." --well, yeah, but that doesn't mean remarks like this are just ignored. There is such a thing as hate speech, and the Secret Service is supposed to keep track of 'private citizens' who go around making threatening remarks about government leaders.
It just goes to prove how right Chretien was: "If you start changing regimes, where do you stop, this is the problem. Who is next? Give me the list, the priorities."

Credentials? Need some nice credentials , fella?

Why, yes, don't mind if I do.
Thanks to The Poorman, I now hereby claim the title of Distinguished Senior Fellow (DSF) of The Poor Man Institute.
To demonstrate the quality of this fine institution, I also want to inform both of my readers about the Institute's latest cause celebre -- The Elder Lifestyle. Watch out, everyone!

It is impossible to look at today’s society and not notice that something is wrong. There is a sickness at the core of our culture, a rot, a decay. There is a fetid odor rising from the stangnant sewer of American society, and it smells suspiciously like that weird funk at grandma’s house. I’m referring, of course, to the practitioners of the trendy, and morally dangerous, elderly lifestyle. There is no doubt that the numbers of the elderly have grown, and will continue to grow, unless something is done to stop it. While elderly advocacy groups claim they are not trying to recruit new members, the numbers speak for themselves. More and more people are dropping out of the workforce, picking up Social Security checks, and planting themselves in front of the PAX channel at taxpayer expense. Many people feel that we should be tolerant of the elderly lifestyle. They say that it isn’t hurting anybody, that they can’t help it, that it is “natural”, etc. “What’s the big deal if we just lay down and do nothing while old people ruin everything that’s good and true in the world?” they ask. The elderly lifestyle is a choice. No one is born liking Antiques Roadshow. No one is born wanting to hike their pants up to their armpits and turn the heat up to 87°F and babble endlessly about how much things used to cost and how no one ever visits them and how much better everything used to be. Admittedly, most people are born wrinkly, toothless, whiney and incontinent, but that’s just the point! How are we supposed to teach our children to be responsible adults when the media keeps pushing a hip and resposibility-free elderly lifestyle of adult diapers, free money, and all the pills you can pop? And study after study has shown that “going old” is a gateway to the dead lifestyle. The Poor Man Institute for Freedom and Democracy and a Pony recommends that Congress enact a law making 47 the maximum age allowable by law. After you get to 47, you have to stop. Enough is enough. For, as the Bible teaches: “Old […] people […] are […] wicked”. (Genesis 5:32 - 19:7)

Pretty good, except, for obvious reasons, I disagree with the "Stop 47" law.
Personally, I think it would be much better just to enact a constitutional ammendment in both Canada and the United States which simply disallows skin wrinkling and all other kinds of interior organ deterioration whatsovever. That way, we can all just stay young forever.
Great idea, huh? That's the kind of high-quality thinking you will be getting now on this blog, now that I am a Distinguished Senior Fellow (DSF)!
-signed, CathiefromCanada, DSF

There ain't nobody here but us chickens

Speaking of chickenhawks, take a look at some of these liberals, trying to get Martin to break his election-in-30-days promise, just so they can hang onto their seats for a few more months. The Globe story -- 'Martin faces pressure to put off election call' -- quote "a senior Liberal" as saying "there are hints that the other parties would agree to a motion to delay any election until the spring. 'The question is, who puts forward that motion?' the Liberal said."
Well, it had better not be Paul Martin.

Well, that explains it then

Time magazine's article 'Inside Iran's Secret War for Iraq' quotes numerous unnamed sources and senior US military officers, as well as an "informed Western observer" and "western diplomats", and also intelligence officials (some of whom are "top", as in "top diplomats and intelligence officials").
A lot of these people seem to think that the Sunni/Baathist insurgency was actually, really, all along, an Iranian-backed Shia insurgency with training camps in Lebanon and some relationship to Hizbolla or something. And they're sneaking arms across the border and "Businesses, front companies, religious groups, NGOs and aid for schools and universities are all part of the mix". Too many Iraqis now have a "shared world view with Tehran".
So it seems pretty definite . . . whatever it is, its all Iran's fault.

Portrait of a Lost War

I had been wondering what the US military was actually doing in Iraq these days.
Not very much, I think. The Americans military seens to be playing a static, zero-sum game, hoping that no one in Washington notices their lack of progress.
Recent news stories about US soldiers have talked about how some never left their Iraq bases at all. And I haven't noticed any stories anymore about military types - or anyone else for that matter -- going around constructing schools or hospitals or rebuilding electrical substations or water works. They're doing busywork like staffing checkpoints to protect the Green Zone in Baghdad, and they're operating huge prisons, and they're trying to keep the airport open. When American bases are fired on by insurgents, they still seem to be sending out expeditions to try to find the attackers, and they also still seem to be undertaking occasional patrols, though as described by even the cheerleading embedded reporters, these patrols don't seem to have much purpose. In general, it has been my impression that the American troops are hunkered down in their bases and aren't making much progress on anything in Iraq.
This Guardian story confirms that scenario -- Under US noses, brutal insurgents rule Sunni citadel

. . . There is no fighting here [in Haditha] because there is no one to challenge the Islamists. The police station and municipal offices were destroyed last year and US marines make only fleeting visits every few months . . . A year ago Haditha was just another sleepy town in western Anbar province, deep in the Sunni triangle and suspicious of the Shia-led government in Baghdad but no insurgent hotbed. Then, say residents, arrived mostly Shia police with heavyhanded behaviour. 'That's how it began,' said one man. Attacks against the police escalated until they fled, creating a vacuum filled by insurgents. Alcohol and music deemed unIslamic were banned, women were told to wear headscarves and relations between the sexes were closely monitored. The mobile phone network was shut down but insurgents retained their walkie-talkies and satellite phones. Right-hand lanes are reserved for their vehicles. From attacks on US and Iraqi forces it is clear that other Anbar towns, such as Qaim, Rawa, Anna and Ramadi, are to varying degrees under the sway of rebels. In Haditha hospital staff and teachers are allowed to collect government salaries in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, but other civil servants have had to quit . . . DVDs of beheadings [of accused 'spies'] on the bridge are distributed free . . . One DVD features a young, blond muscular man who had been disembowelled. He was said to have been a member of a six-strong US sniper team ambushed and killed on August 1. Residents said he had been paraded in town before being executed. The US military denied that, saying six bodies were recovered and that all appeared to have died in combat. Shortly after the ambush three landmines killed 14 marines in a convoy which ventured from their base outside the town. Twice in recent months marines backed by aircraft and armour swept into Haditha to flush out the rebels . . . the insurgents withdrew for a few days and returned when the Americans left . . . their strategy appears to be to wait out the Americans, calculating they will leave within a few years, and then escalate what some consider the real war against a government led by Shias . . . The constitution talks, the referendum due in October, the election due in December: all are deemed collaboration punishable by death. The task now is to bleed the Americans and destabilise the government. Some call that nihilism. Haditha calls it the future.

What a pointless excuse for a war this has turned into. And the biggest betrayal is this -- those Iraqis who believed in America and supported the troops and tried to work in the new regime are the ones now being shot or beheaded by the insurgents -- just like Vietnam, eh?

Columnist Carlos Pietri, at V Headline (a Venezuala electronic news service) writes about Rumsfeld's recent visit -- and it looks like Rummy has been making himself just as well loved there as he is in the capitals of Europe. In a column entitled 'Not Chavez, Castro or Morales who undermined US influence in Latin America' Pietri says

. . . Definitively his stupidity is so great that he does not see what is evident to every one: the true causes of the Bolivian crisis was the influence of the United States in the region ... they have promoted poverty, war, corruption, drugs trafficking, historical injustice, exclusion and especially the displeasure of the Bolivian people . . . It is evident that President Chavez "has influenced" the people of Bolivia, but not to destabilize it or to promote some king of illegal activity, but to encourage Mr. Morales to fight for the well-being of his people, in which I do not see anything wrong . In Latin America, the United States has had bad antecedents through supporting dictatorial regimes if they favor of their USA interests. The United States has always forgotten that they will gain more by policies of rapprochement rather than promoting divisions ... that help offered must be directed to the interests of the needy and simply not to their own greed. The "proof" that Rumsfeld said exists on Cuba and Venezuela influencing the situation in Bolivia is as nebulous as the "intelligence" relating to the existence of arms of mass destruction in Iraq. . . . Will Rumsfeld not be thinking about a possible invasion of Bolivia ... or Venezuela? It's clear that Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and Condoleezza are only interested in continuing to rob Bolivian petroleum and gas ... THAT is the real subject ... anything else is pure lies and falsification. . . . I reiterate, it is not Chavez, Castro or Morales who have undermined the influence of the United States in Latin-America ... it has been the immorality of the people who govern the country of the north.

Revealed at last: the "American Chickenhawk" Policy

NOW I get it.
The 101st Fighting Keyboarders got it all along, while the progressive bloggers did not.
And no wonder Bush can't meet with Cindy Sheehan.
Bush said in his radio address today "if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets . . . the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war . . . " and he continued with the newest American buzzwords: "By advancing the cause of liberty in a troubled region, we are bringing security to our own citizens and laying the foundations of peace for our children and grandchildren."
In other words -- as long as Afghanistan and Iraq are battlefields then the Unites States itself will not be. Iraqis and Afghans must fight so that the security of the United States will be protected. Their men, women and children must die so that Americans don't have to. Casey Sheehan and 1800 other American suckers were collateral damage to the main goal, trading tens of thousands of 'Haji' lives for American ones. Bush is waging an illegal war in the Middle East so that Americans can stay home and stay safe.
All those young republicans and upper-class American twits who won't sign up for military service have got it exactly right -- why should they waste their their beautiful minds on something like that?
This policy will make sure that all Americans are just like Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Wolfie and Condi -- chickenhawks.
Hey, reminds me of a song:
There ain't nobody here but us chickens
There ain't nobody here at all
So quiet yourself,
And stop your fuss
There ain't nobody here but us
Kindly point that gun,
The other way
And hobble, hobble hobble off and
Hit the hay. . .

Good, bad, ugly

Good.

Non-Sequitur

Bad

Cam Cardow, Ottawa Citizen

Ugly

Brian Gabel, Globe and Mail

Iraq in 7 acts - its a one-way trip

I love the Smirking Chimp. I don't know where they find this stuff, but it is a terrific daily round-up of lots that is important or interesting or funny.
For example, this article today by writer Rich Procter: 'Iraq: A drama in 7 acts (4 down, 3 to go)'

Act One - The Glorious National March to Victory!
Act Two - Things Go Wrong
Act Three - Turning Points that Aren't
Act Four - "Oh Shit" Moments Mushroom
Act Five - Sickening Realization that We've Already Lost. Panic. Dread. Denial.
Act Six - Call Defeat "Victory", Get the Hell Out
Act Seven - Blame, Demonize and Punish the Innocent, Reward the Guilty

Here's how he describes Act Five, where, he says, the US is today:

Presidential poll numbers tank. "Hoo-Yah!" War Hawks begin issuing measured statements in the passive voice ("Mistakes have been made. Tough choices cloud exit scenarios. New approaches are being considered.") Members of the President's own party inch away from him, fearing collateral damage. The most deluded Hawks fall back on the ultimate piece of political boilerplate, "We must win because we can't afford to lose" (without revealing how we achieve this miracle.)

And for all of you too young to remember, this is exactly what happened in Vietnam, too. Proctor finishes the article by saying

Any chance we can head off another decade of war? Another 10-20,000 deaths? Not
with War President "Never Made A Mistake, Won't Change Course, Everything's
Hunky-Dory, Get Outta My Driveway, You Peaceniks!" As Edward G. Robinson said in
"Double Indemnity," (We've) "got to ride this streetcar to the end of the line,
and it's a one-way trip and the last stop is the cemetery."

Getting out

In her demand for real answers, Cindy may also have inspired a new focus on realism about Iraq -- as shown by these two major posts today.
This is why I read Eschaton:

. . .conventional wisdom of 'liberal hawks' and 'liberal not hawks' regarding Iraq is basically about the same. We need to get out. The latter emphasize the importance of 'getting out now' while the former epmhasize 'getting out as soon as we can subject to things being better in some undefined way,' but the positions aren't really so different. The 'hawks' are just more wedded to the idea that we have to be able to 'declare victory' while the 'not hawks' think that little chest beating is not actually all that important. But, none of these people are George W. Bush. As we know, but no one talks about, we have no intention of getting out now or ever . . . .It's time for the Biden Democrats, in one of the infinite Sunday show appearances, to raise the issue of the administration's long term intentions in Iraq. If the stubborn George W. Bush intends to leave troops in that country forever, then no talk of getting out, either on a rigid or flexible timetable, is relevant.

And this is why I read Kevin Drum:

. . . they [he's talking about some liberal hawks], and many people like them, keep telling us that we need to stay in Iraq even though they seemingly agree that no one has a credible plan for accomplishing our goals there. This doesn't make any sense. Either you believe that there's a way we can win in Iraq — a real way that involves the leadership of George Bush and his staff, not some fantasy scenario in which he suddenly turns into the reincarnation of FDR — or you don't. And the only reason to stay in Iraq is if you think we can win . . . no one, neither Democrat nor Republican, has presented a convincing plan for winning in Iraq under the present circumstances. The insurgency is not going to give up, the Army doesn't seem to have any kind of consistent commitment to using counterinsurgency techniques against it, we don't know for sure that they'd work anyway, and let's face it: the track record of major powers beating large-scale overseas insurgencies is close to zero in the past half century. So what's the plan? I happen to think a timed withdrawal is probably the best bet left to us, although I admit that I suspect Iraq is going to end up in chaos no matter what we do. That would be a disaster, but if we can't stop it anyway there's no point in making things worse by staying. For now, that's pretty much where I'm at, and anyone who disagrees really needs to give the chin scratching a rest and tell us clearly and concisely what they'd do differently to turn the tide in this war. Time has run out.

I cannot tell you the number of useless, pointless articles and editorials I have read in the last three years which went on and on about how, if Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney would only do W, X,Y and Z in Iraq, then everything would work out just fine.
The trouble was, the W,X,Y, and Z solutions always involved things that nobody in the Bush administration had any intention of doing -- like turning the occupation over to the UN or solving the Israeli/Palestine problem or letting the Iraq government decide for themselves whether they wanted American troops to stay or not. It was great today to see both Atrios and Drum demand that people start demanding real answers -- and from the Bush administration, not from the Senate minority leadership and Michael Moore.

And just when George was likely driving down the road to see her!

Cindy Sheehan had to leave her antiwar camp this afternoon to go to her ill mother.
Quick, cue the batmobile -- so the right wingers can now say that Bush WOULD have talked to her if she had just BEEN there.

If we don't remember the past, are we doomed to repeat it?

The CTV headine says CMA supports parallel, private health system, the Globe says CMA backs private care, and the CBC headline reads CBC News: Doctors support parallel private health system at CMA meeting in Edmonton> Now, I didn't think that the doctors themselves were really quite as definite as these headlines imply, and indeed the CBC story also reports that the incoming Canadian Medical Association president Dr. Ruth Collins-Nakai said the motion "merely reflects a recent Supreme Court decision, which upheld the right of Quebecers to turn to private health insurance if the public system fails them."
But when headline writers can so blithely write off the public health care system, it does indicate that our beloved system is losing the public relations battle.
These headline writers, and reporters, and I think most of the doctors too, likely do not remember a time when medicare was not available.
I do. Or, at least, I remember the doctor's strike in July of 1962 in Saskatchewan. I was a teenager at the time, and I remember how scared we all were without doctors. And a baby died of meningitis because his parents couldn't find a doctor to care for him. I remember my parents, both CCFers, talking about how important it was that the government hold fast and keep up the fight.
According to a doctor in Prince Albert, who was one of the few at the time who supported medicare, the first summer medicare was in force he saw dozens of people with medical conditions they had neglected for years, because they couldn't afford a doctor and had been too proud to ask for charity.
We need to remember all of this -- how painful and dangerous and humiliating it was to be unable to afford a doctor; and how hard it was to bring medicare into existence. We simply cannot loose it just because we take it for granted now.

Cindy leads the way

New York


Nebraska


Kansas City


Portland, Oregon


Los Angeles


Las Vegas


Washington


Jackson, Miss.


Milwaukee


Philadelphia


Durhan, North Carolina


Pawtucket, Rhode Island


Notice how many of these protesters were my age and older?
Like I said before, it's the parents who are leading the anti-war movement this time. We now know a bright shining lie when we hear it.