Great line of the day

At Daily Kos, Hunter writes about what the Domenech affair says about the Washington Post:

. . . so long as your paper continues to report facts they don't like . . . those conservatives are still going to attack the paper itself as being hopelessly 'liberal.' Journalism is the liberal part. From Horowitz to Hewitt to Limbaugh, these people hate you. You can't appease them, because there's no such thing as an acceptable 'level' of partisan hackery that will offset actual journalism or inconvenient facts. They'll only be happy when you kill the journalism -- or at least stop reporting the facts surrounding the more inconvenient stories . . . By all means, stand by your decision to balance someone accused of being liberal with a professionally partisan conservative; to balance those with excellent credentials with someone with none; to balance facts with spin; to balance journalism with hackery. It sounds like you've got the glimmer of understanding on just how bad an idea that was, but it doesn't sound like, even now, you understand the basis of the conservative attacks against you. They're playing you for chumps. And you're taking it . . .

Emphasis mine.

Here's the news from Iraq

The US military on the ground is trying very hard to get with the program, but the truth keeps tripping them up. Here's today's AP story quoting Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch:

"There is not widespread violence across Iraq. There is not. Seventy-five percent of the attacks still take place in Baghdad, al-Anbar or Salaheddin (provinces). And in the other 15 provinces, they all averaged less than six attacks a day, and 12 of those provinces averaged less than two attacks a day." . . . The three provinces he cited, however, are home to about 9 million people . . . As Iraqi soldiers and police have begun patrolling more territory, U.S. forces have become less visible in many areas in the country and less easy to target. Also, the nature of the violence in the country has shifted from assaults on American troops to battles rooted in sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Well over 1,000 people have died violently in Iraq, mainly in and around Baghdad [in the last month] The sectarian-rooted deaths since then have been running at dozens a day. The bodies of hundreds of victims have been dumped after being shot execution-style, hands bound and bearing signs of torture.

Here is the reality. How would we like to be living and working and raising a family in neighbourhoods that looked like these?




A makeshift refugee camp in Baghdad for people displaced by the violence.


Another body found on the street in Baghdad:


A bomb attack at a coffee house:


A car bomb attack in Miqdadiya


A patrol in Basra:


A vegetable market in Hilla, south of Baghdad:


An oil tanker truck set on fire -- the driver blamed the American military, who are probably getting blamed for everything which goes wrong in Iraq these days.


The family allegedly slaughtered by American troops:


And finally, some actual good news: three of the Christian Peacemakers were rescued

The O'Reilly Tactic - "Just Shut Up"

Bush to the media: Just shut up.
With no new "turning points" coming up, the Bush administration is really in trouble with public opinion about Iraq now. The only tactic they have is to revive the Republican talking point from 2004 about how Iraq is just perception, not reality, and its all the media's fault. Its like promoting the idea that if people just don't TALK about poverty, then it doesn't really exist.
Let's be clear here -- the Bush administration doesn't care what is actually happening in Iraq, just what gets reported. They are trying to intimidate reporters and news editors into downplaying the awful daily news from Iraq. It's Bill O'Reilly's "just shut up" line as a White House tactic.
Crooks and Liars quotes CNN commentator Jack Cafferty:

. . . if somebody came into New York City and blew up St. Patrick's Cathedral and in the resulting days they were finding 50 and 60 dead bodies a day on the streets of New York, you suppose the news media would cover it? You're damn right they would. This is nonsense . . . The news isn't good in Iraq. There's violence in Iraq. People are found dead every day in the streets of Baghdad. This didn't turn out the way the politicians told us it would. And it's our fault? I beg to differ.

Saveabureaucrat.com

Another new blog: Saveabureaucrat.com
Another hilarious example of how blogs could change the world.
This story has gone worldwide in the blink of an eye -- an Ottawa bureaucrat has set up a website called "Save a Bureaucrat" to try to raise money so he can quit his job. He writes:

I'm desperate. Desperate to escape my 9 to 5 job I've been at for over 10 years now. It's not that I don't appreciate the steady hours and the decent pay, but it's just that after a while it starts to sap the energy and soul out of you and you realize that you have become a true bureaucrat. . . . But how can I justify quitting my job and giving up my security and pension? The only way I can do it is by obtaining enough money that I can afford to quit and then have enough spare time and energy to do something that makes a difference in my life and the lives of others. Please help me in any small way you can to realize my dreams . . .

So far, he has raised about $50.
The only other place I have seen this type of chutzpa was in the classified ads in Harper's magazine, where people would advertise for money so they could see the world, write poetry, etc -- I always wondered how that worked out for them.

Great line of the day

In The Worm Turns, Digby writes about how the American people and the press are tired of Bush's rhetoric and are more willing to listen to the Dems again:

Listening to George W. Bush's speeches for the last five years, particularly after 9/11, is like having someone sing 'It's a small world after all' over and over and over again. It was bad the first time. Now it makes you want to stab your ears with a letter opener. The press, forced to listen more often than anyone else, seems to have reached its limit as well.

Emphasis mine.

75, 30, 28, 23, 23, 22, 6, 5, 5, 3, 3.

This made me feel sick.
These are the ages of the family members executed last week by American soldiers, according to the Iraqi police report. The report reads

At 230 of 15/3/2006, according to the telegram (report) of the Ishaqi police directorate, American forces used helicopters to drop troops on the house of Faiz Harat Khalaf situated in the Abu Sifa village of the Ishaqi district. The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 people, including 5 children, 4 women and 2 men, then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles, and killed their animals...

Here is the AP story describing this massacre. Not quite as bad as MyLai, I guess, but the attitude is the same -- American military so paranoid and out of control that pre-schoolers are the enemy.
James Wolcott describes some of the chaos going on now in Iraq, quoting from Patrick Cockburn on the Iraq death squads and Robert Dreyfuss on the civil war. Then Wolcott has a suggestion for next year's invasion anniversary:

Perhaps next year on the anniversary of this glorious mission, the US could fly a transport plane crammed with the creme de la creme of warbloggers, hawkish pundits, neoconservative thinkers, and cable news and talk radio hosts, and deposit them on the site of Saddam Hussein's fallen statue--the newly christened Krauthammer Square--and let them behold the joy and splendor they have bestowed upon a grateful Iraqi people. Who, in turn, will brave the heat, dust, and danger and leave their homes to demonstrate their gratitude to their noble guests by attempting to shoot their lying asses to pieces.
No, that probably won't make for an appropriate holiday. Scratch that idea.
To earn its rightful date on the calendar, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq should be a day of remembrance on which conscientious Americans wear mourning colors and beg the world's forgiveness, and Iraqis' forgiveness most of all.

Scary, isn't it?

What kind of dream world is George Bush living in?
During Bush's press conference today he said in response to Helen Thomas's question about why he started the Iraq war:

. . . the world said, 'Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.' And therefore, we worked with the world. We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world.
And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did. And the world is safer for it.

Emphasis mine. Could it be that this is really the way Bush remembers it? Saddam did let the inspectors back in, to inspect. It was BUSH who told them to leave, in March 2003, so that the war could start. And Saddam sent the UN a report, a thousand pages, describing what had happened to the weapons. It was BUSH who said this report wasn't good enough. And it was BUSH who ignored millions of anti-war protestors around the world, and who couldn't get a Security Council vote to support the war.
Does he really think it was Saddam who was ignoring the "message of the world"?

Why Canadian soldiers may have problems in Afghanistan

Dave at the The Galloping Beaver provides a useful summary of recent events in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which may affect the Canadian mission there:

Frustrated at the failure of Pakistan to neutralize or capture al Qaeda and the Taliban in Waziristan, Rumsfeld has resorted to a tactic which has served to do nothing if not antagonize an otherwise benign population. He's bombing them. Never one to use the right number of troops on the ground, Rumsfeld defaults to techno-war and air strikes. Results have been less than spectacular. While few al Qaeda terrorists have been killed, tribesmen, angered by US strikes and Pakistani army disregard for their safety, have started to accept Taliban rule and an alliance with al Qaeda.
NATO troops, including Canadian, British, Dutch, Danes, Estonians and an attached Australian force, in Helmand and Kandahar provinces are now under increased risk of attack. The four Provincial Reconstruction Team bases are on a direct line out of Tora Bora. Instead of being able to expand Afghan government control, which is their role, to areas outside Kabul, they will end up having to defend against the rebuilt forces of both the Taliban and al Qaeda. All thanks to Rumsfeld's interference resulting in a botched initial attack on al Qaeda and a subsequent reliance on a wholly untrustworthy ally in Pakistan.

This doesn't bode well for ultimate success in the Afghanistan campaign, does it? Maybe NATO should just ask the Americans to leave, so that the remaining troops can implement a strategy to win the peace in Afghanistan which will actually be successful.
And this is why I think the Canadian mission in Afghanistan does need frequent reassessment, to ensure that we are not being sabatoged by American bluster and blundering,

The apocalypse turkey

Two sidenotes to the Bush speech in Cleveland today.
The AP story says "The White House made no attempt to screen either the audience or the questions, said spokesman Scott McClellan." Yeah, I'll bet -- just another plastic turkey. The very first question was about whether Bush thinks that terrorism is a sign of the biblical Apocalypse -- a question which would naturally occur to just about anybody, I guess...
And check out Olbermann's take on Bush denying he promoted the Iraq war by making a connection between Saddam and 9-ll -- "Who does the President think he's effing kidding?"

Great line of the day

At Daily Kos, in Who are the Crazy Ones?, DarkSyde writes:

Daily Kos and other progressive venues have been attacked by right-wing ideologues who describe us as 'crazy or 'extremist'. Yet, the progressives base believes the rule of law applies to everyone, that science trumps wishful thinking, that our Constitution matters, and that the War in Iraq was based on lies and has been run by incompetent civilian leaders at the highest level.
Much of the conservative base makes a habit of denying scientific reality and arguing that the Constitution is meaningless when applied to George Bush or Dick Cheney. Millions of them fervently hope and sincerely believe that any day now, they and a few selected animated corpses straight from the grave will be sucked up right out of their clothes, and plopped onto heavenly ringsides seats to gleefully watch the eternal torture of every man, women, and child left behind. Tell me again, who are the crazy ones?

The future of Iraq? Here's what Juan Cole thinks

Juan Cole draws a scenario for Iraq -- oil at $500 a barrel, Iraq split in three, the Kurds at war with Turkey and Iran, the Shiites and AlQuaeda at war on several borders and with Israel, and major conflicts at the Straits of Hormuz and in Saudi Arabia.
In the Comments to his post, Cole says "It is exaggerated for effect, and intended to show the worst-case end point of current policies."

Save this and lets see what happens.
What concerns me now is this -- what could STOP this scenario from happening? The United Nations? The Arab League?

Snakes on a Plane

This is priceless.
It's why I love blogs and I love the internet.
There's a Samuel Jackson movie coming out called "Snakes on a Plane" -- which is a pretty great title for a film, isn't it? Euuuu - think about it! Here is the film trailer.
Anyway, there's nothing that someone won't blog about -- here is the Snakes on a Blog website by Hollywood writer Josh Friedman who is trying to promote some tickets to the premiere. He has t-shirts, fake trailers, posters, etc. In his other blog, he describes being asked at one point to work on the script for the movie. Apparently he didn't end up working on it, but this was his reaction to the initial offer: "...ask Agent the name of the project, what it's about, etc. He says: Snakes on a Plane. Holy shit, I'm thinking. It's a title. It's a concept. It's a poster and a logline and whatever else you need it to be. It's perfect. Perfect. It's the Everlasting Gobstopper of movie titles." And he is right.
Not to mention all the other "Snakes on a ...." lines we can think of. Here are some of the parody posters.

What a stupid idea

So someone in the Department of Transport thinks Canada should join in the fun and have our very own no-fly list? Yeah, its worked so well in the States -- mainly to harass peace activists.
What a dumb idea for Canada to consider. These types of things are just bureaucracy run amok, and government gone mad, while making us all afraid of each other.
The only real reason to stop someone from flying is because they are suicide bombers who might blow up the plan -- in which case, screen them out before they can get on the plane, then charge them and put them in jail. Otherwise, lets just leave everyone alone.

The first three weeks of the war with Iran

So what would happen during the first weeks of a war between the US and Iran?
Paul William Roberts provides a scenario in today's Globe & Mail. The essay is behind their subscription wall, so here's the summary of what Roberts says:
The US scenario of an attack on Iran is that their nuclear facilities would be bombed and that Iran will grimace and take its medicine.
The Iran scenario plays out differently - "the one most likely playing to thunderous applause in the corridors of theocratic poser on Qom and Tehran" -- is that Iran has already promised to retaliate and there are nearly 1000 missiles in place that could be fired at targets around the Persian Gulf such as ships, airbases, refineries and oil terminals.
Supertanker traffic through the Gulf would halt for weeks, thus stopping 25 percent of the world's oil supply.
China and Japan would be miffed, and could vent their displeasure by dumping a few billion dollars from their foreign currency reserves to offset dolar-based oil prices by forcing a week dollar even lower.
In Iraq, the resistance would increase their attacks because US planes will be busy over Iran "which may explain why US forces there have been consolidating their bases recently." Iran would have "little compunction" about sending to Iraq "killing machines much more advanced than what they currently provide...thus far they have been cautious not to send anything easily traceable...once the bombs fall, though, the gloves will come off, and we can expect to see in Iraq such weapons as .50-calibre rifles able to punch through body armour, multiple rocket launchers, and newer kinds of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles..."
Iran might blockade the Straights of Hormuz with sea mines and attack boats, and by sinking ships. "Around 40 per cent of the world's crude passes through this two-mile-wide channel, where Iranian forces are already situated, ashore at the head and on heafily fortified islands...in 1999, Iran deployed its new Russian-supplied Kilo-class submarines as part of a plan to block the Straits in times of crisis. The subs were to be used to lay mines and fire advanced torpedoes at ships attemtping to enter or leave the southern Gulf." And nearly all US military supplies to Iraq are shipped through the Persian Gulf. So if the US tried to secure the Straits by a major US amphibious landing, such an effort would need somewhere around 30,000 US troops and would involve weeks of combat.
In conclusion, Roberts speculates,

What would happen though if the invasion stalled and the straits were not reopened swiftly? The emergency oil stocks utterly vital to the economy of the industrial world would begin to run out, along with supplies to some 150,000 US troops stranded in Iraq and Kuwait. It is then not at all far-fetched to contemplate history's most ignoble and empire-quashing retret through the deserts of Iraq and Jordan and into Israel, particularly if thousands of Iranian soldiers pour into Iraq to assist in the attacks on US military camps.
These, then, are the chilling facts that have made Iranians so cocky of late...and it is hard to say why they should not feel so self-assured. It truly is a MAD scenario, son of the Cold War, thus one only a lunatic would contemplate. The risks are too grave, the benefits not at all clear.

Roberts ends the essay by noting that it should be expected that defusing the tense situation with Iran could be done through diplomacy.

This will be wearyingly obvious to most world leaders -- except those in Washington, where it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between arrogance and ignorance.

The "Stick It!" Speech

I haven't been watching much Boston Legal lately, but I'm sure glad I watched this episode and saw James Spader's "Stick It!" speech.
Why is it, though, that a television character is speaking out more for American democracy than the American media is? Oh, well, at least somebody is doing it.