Great lines of the day

Dave at Galloping Beaver writes a powerful post about war and Afghanistan -- You want support? Earn it

. . . I've got a chestful of useless gongs and some permanent shrapnel wounds to remind me of days which I would rather have missed in my life.
I've experienced the exhilaration of close-quarters battle and the years of remorse that follow because I had no choice but to kill the teenage soldiers in the fire-pit to my front.
I've been beside a good man, a highly competent marine, who suddenly dropped like a bag of shit while I got splattered with flesh and blood. The movies make it look so much more dramatic and heroic than it really is. The truth is just a bloody, fucking mess.
I've been on the right flank of a patrol when the man on point stepped on a landmine. And all we could do was watch as he lay there screaming, his viscera splayed over the ground, the lower half of his body gone. He lived for over five minutes while the medic did a drill on him - with morphine auto-injectors. It ended with a colour sergeant screaming, "FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!" because he had been unable to protect a good man.
I've watched kids die. It ends everything. Their personalities cease to be a part of the team; their humour stops; their dreams end; and, their death affects a hundred other people - permanently.
I've had to call fire down on my own position while I watched my men nod. They knew, as I did, that there was little chance we would get out of it alive, much less unscathed. It was necessary at the time and the cost of that act is paid for in year after year of nightmares.
I have a direct and long-service association with both British and Canadian militaries. I have an affinity for the people who serve in those militaries and I have an interest in how they are committed. My interest is in their welfare, how they're led and how safe they are. Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, they are kids on an adventure. They won't come home that way.
I'm not "anti-war". I am, however, highly skeptical whenever troops are committed to combat. I expect that the real reasons for going to war will be clearly enunciated by the politicians who continue to live in comfort and convenience while others suffer and die.
To provide unreserved support for the Afghanistan mission is not only stupid, it is irresponsible. And, it is not contingent upon me to provide alternatives to the decisions of the self-styled warrior class, those who are prepared to waste lives while not risking theirs, be they prime ministers, presidents or keyboard commandos.
I will question everything about the Afghanistan mission. My support comes only when I receive rational, truthful answers . . .
most Canadians, after reading of another soldier killed in Afghanistan, ponder whether to return their empty beer bottles or shine up the motorcycle. Almost no one considers that there are 27 Canadians who can never entertain such mundane thoughts because they were blown away in a mission that appears to lack long-term definition and has gone on longer than the US involvement in World War II.

Emphasis mine. And my agreement, too.

Where were you?

A new ad campaign to raise money for a memorial asks "where were you?" on 9/11.

A national ad campaign being launched on Thursday features the stories of people who remember where they were when they heard of the 2001 terrorist attacks . . . A historian says the event will be remembered for life by the people who experienced it, in the same way that people recall the assassinations of President Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr . . . The foundation has compiled about 250 "where were you" oral histories . . .

Here's their ad:


John at Americablog says:

What the hell is our obsession with remembering September 11? We remember it, ok. I don't need a TV commercial to remind me of that day or how I felt. I was there. It took me a long time to get over it. And I most certainly don't need my politicians, or anyone else, trying to drag me back to that day kicking and screaming several times a year . . . Unfortunately we live in a country and a society where the dead aren't just eulogized, they're propagandized. You want an ad campaign? Here's an ad campaign:

And here is the picture I think Bush really should use:


If I could add a photoshop slogan, it would read: "Where was the President? Frozen at the switch...".
I wonder if the project has recorded Bush's own history of that day:

The President was seated in a classroom when,at 9:05,Andrew Card whispered to him: “A second plane hit the second tower.America is under attack.”The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis.The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening. The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading.

Pathetic

Steve Gilliard sums it up:

. . . the White House wants to call on the spirit and unity of the Second World War without any of it's sacrifices, no rationing, no draft, no restriction on travel, even a refusal to mention the war in any serious way, much less having their families participate in it.
Osama Bin Laden doesn't have Grossdeutschland and 2nd SS Panzer in some cave. He isn't enslaving a continent, he's not sinking the US fleet at Pearl Harbor.
He is not a threat to the stability of the United States. He cannot conquer the US. He is, at most, a threat to US interests. Yet, to beat Osama, the microchip militia and friends want to toss out the consitution and call anyone who questions them appeasers. It isn't us who is hosting Central Asian dictators who boil their opposition alive, or turn our back on repressive regimes or who has built a network of secret prisons.
If this was WWII, Barbara Bush would be in a uniform and not conducting tours of the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. Bush's bodyman would be training at Quantico or Benning for deployment overseas, not going to Harvard B School without the benefit of a BA. Jenna's boyfriends would be in uniform and not drunken louts working for daddy.
It's a pathetic comparison to the national sacrifice of World War II, and the only one which can be made by people who's knowledge of history doesn't go beyond a textbook.

Great line of the day

Arianna Huffington, in her post called What Keeps Don Rumsfeld Up at Night? Hint: It's Not the Body Count in Iraq, writes:

Forget the escalating sectarian violence. Forget the rising influence of Iran. Forget the 100-Iraqi-deaths-per-day. Forget the 2,638 American dead. For Don Rumsfeld the problem isn't that we are not winning the war in Iraq, the problem is that we are not properly spinning the war in Iraq.

Emphasis mine.

Mr. Foot-in-Mouth

This CP story lists a large number of Ignatieff gaffes while describing him as the "front-runner" in the Liberal leadership race.
Really? Could it really be true that a majority of Liberals think an arrogant expatriate who has never run anything except an academic think-tank will generate more respect from Canadians voters than Harper and Layton and May and Duceppe?
Well, I think I know four people who will be just thrilled if Ignatieff wins...

Don't Panic

The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy had "Don't Panic" written in large, friendly letters on its cover. Its a phrase we can apply now to Iran: Don't Panic!
Think Progress summarizes the hype and hysteria that Fox News viewers are seeing about how Bush is intending to start a war with Iran.
And if you can stomach it, check out the cheerleading at the National Review (h/t Wolcott) -- "Negotiation? We don't need no stinkin' negotiation. We want war! We want war! We want war!"
Over at Talking Points Memo, guest poster Matthew Yglesias has two excellent posts about the Iran panic, one about the hysteria and the other about the fear-mongering.
First, kibosh the hysteria:

. . .Iran [is]outgunned by its two leading religio-ideological antagonists, Israel and Saudi Arabia, in the region. One immediate neighbor is Pakistan, with a larger population base and a nuclear arsenal. Another immediate neighbor, Afghanistan, is occupied by soldiers under the command of an American president who has spurned peace offers and threatened to overthrow the Iranian government. A second immediate neighbor, Iraq, is occupied by a larger number of soldiers from the same country. The Iranian military's equipment is outdated and essentially incapable of mounting offensive operations. So Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Under the circumstances, wouldn't you? . . . somebody needs to call bull$#*t on the prevailing elite consensus about Iran. Of course it would be better to find a way to persuade, cajole, whatever Iran out of going nuclear -- the spread of nuclear weapons is, as such, bad for the USA. But there's no need -- absolutely no need -- for this atmosphere of panic and paranoia.

Second, quit with the Scary Hitler analogy:

I hope I won't rob anyone of their innocence by making this observation, but politicians lie. In particular, along with telling the truth about his strategic ambitions, Hitler lied about his strategic ambitions. One reason people underestimated their scope was that Hitler put some time into trying to deceive people. He said different things at different times . . . So the "lesson" people want to draw from the 1930s isn't that we should take people's statements more seriously. Rather, the "lesson" they've learned is that we should always adopt the most alarmist possible interpretation of every given situation. But, of course, they never put it that way. Why don't they? Well, because when you put it that way it sounds like a stupid lesson. Which, obviously, it is. If you want to draw lessons from history, you need to really look at history as a whole. Have countries, as a general matter, been well served by adopting maximally alarmist interpretations of events abroad? I don't think that's a remotely justifiable view. If anything, history teaches the reverse lesson.

Emphasis mine.

$450 million slush fund?

Alison alerts us to the flap going on at Daily Kos over this diary: Canada Forks Over $450 Million Donation to Repugs. The diary reports that the softwood deal "negotiated by Bush and his Canadian lackey, Harper will see $450 million funnelled straight past Congress and the US treasury, and will go instead, directly to the Bush Whitehouse".
Not surprisingly, some of the commenters were pretty skeptical about this.
So, I looked into it.
First, I found out that the accusation about the $450 million slush fund was made by Washington trade lawyer Elliot Feldman, who is one of the most highly respected trade lawyers in Washington -- "Elliot Feldman, of Baker & Hostetler. . . has a Ph.D from MIT, a J.D. from Harvard, has taught at four universities including Tufts and Brandeis, and knows NAFTA law thoroughly."
Not a nutcase, then.
Second, the claim was made in Feldman's testimony to the Standing Committee on International Trade last Monday (Aug 21).
Here's what he said (emphasis mine):

I want to talk for a few minutes about the genesis of this agreement, and one of its most important and least-discussed elements. There is a bit of Watergate in this story, and as in Watergate, it is essential to follow the money . . . First, on April 7, the United States Court of International Trade ruled that the U.S. industry was entitled legally to no money--none of it. It was not surprising, then, that 20 days later the U.S. coalition said it would take $500 million. . . Third, it was not quite as obvious in the two-and-a-half-page term sheet of April 27 that Canada would give away everything that the previous government had been defending in order to complete a deal, because political priorities had changed so radically. Fourth, the term sheet promised a major joint initiative to improve North American competitiveness. The "remainder” . . . would go to so-called "meritorious initiatives" in the United States.
Industry was troubled by this last development. It wondered why it was providing foreign aid to the United States, but it was also reassured that the sum would be small. More impressively, Minister Emerson told CEOs that as long as they were getting back 80% of their money, it was none of their business what would happen to the rest. He was, by all accounts, very blunt on this subject.
Meanwhile, we were advised by negotiators that the White House had taken a direct and active interest in this money but that Canadian industry ought to focus on other things; as the minister had said, it was not really their concern. The "remainder", then, became $450 million out of $500 million. That, honourable members, is a colossal sum of money. It's certainly got the U.S. government, as well as the coalition, getting the other $500 million committed to the deal. It's astonishing how little--nothing, really--the government got in exchange for it . . . So here we have the Government of Canada requiring that Canadian private parties sign over $450 million to an escrow fund slated to be conveyed to the White House. The agreement does not mention Congress, and the Bush administration says Congress will not be involved in any way with this agreement. The Government of Canada is thus making a gift of $450 million to be spent by the President. That was more than a belt buckle, even more than a stetson, on July 6.
There is only one date certain in the deal: the planned expenditure of the $450 million must be determined by September 1. . . . The entire Republican campaign war chest has less than $300 million. Canada will add to it by 150% in funds to be expended for meritorious initiatives. It does not require much imagination to foresee the strategic places where this money will be spent. . . .

Emphasis mine.
During question period, committee member Peter Julian (NDP Burnaby-New Westminster) returned to this issue:

Mr. Peter Julian: . . . I'd like to come back to what I think is quite a staggering revelation, that the funding—the $450 million—would, as I understand it, be under the control of the White House. Congress would have no say, and Canada would have no say as to the use of that money. In a sense, in a midterm election year we'd be giving $450 million to a massive political fund.
Dr. Elliot Feldman: . . . This is in my view an historic, unprecedented, astounding intrusion into American politics. We've researched all the way back to the revolution and found nothing like it in American history.
The question I came this morning to put was, will the Parliament of Canada accept responsibility for possibly tipping the balance in American politics, in preserving the control of Congress by the President's party? This softwood lumber agreement is an historic moment in part because of that proposition, and it's up to this Parliament to decide whether it'll accept the responsibility. That responsibility cannot be shifted, and indeed that money inevitably will go to shore up the electoral aspirations of the Republican Party through the President. It's not going to be touched by Congress; it's going through an escrow fund . . .
Mr. Peter Julian: So what you're saying is that we are not only providing money to the coalition to fight further legal battles--giving half a billion dollars to them--but we're also providing money that may go to political purposes, for the re-election of Republicans, many of whom have been most adamant against allowing free trade in lumber. It's ridiculous.
Dr. Elliot Feldman: The provision in article 13(A)(2) of the agreement, which lists the meritorious initiatives, contains language that could describe only a slush fund for the President.

Here is article 13(A)(2):

ARTICLE XIII Institutional Arrangements
A. Private Initiatives
. . . 2. By September 1, 2006 the United States, in consultation with Canada, shall identify meritorious initiatives to receive the funds that are to be set aside for that purpose under Annex 2C. The funds shall support meritorious initiatives in the United States related to:
(a) educational and charitable causes in timber-reliant communities;
(b) low-income housing and disaster relief; or
(c) educational and public-interest projects addressing:

(i) forest management issues that affect timber-reliant communities, or
(ii) the sustainability of forests as sources of building materials, wildlife habitat, bio-energy, recreation, and other values.

And here is Annex 2C:

4. At least 30 days before the Effective Date, the United States shall provide Canada or its agent with information identifying three separate escrow accounts whose beneficiaries are respectively:
(a) the members of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports;
(b) a binational industry council described in Annex 13; and
(c) meritorious initiatives in the United States identified by the United States in consultation with Canada as described in Article XIII(A).
5. Canada or its agent shall distribute $US 1 billion pursuant to the Irrevocable Directions to Pay to the escrow accounts referred to in paragraph 4 in the following amounts: $US 500 million to the members of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, $US 50 million to the binational industry council, and $US 450 million for the meritorious initiatives account.

Sorta vague, isn't it, about who is going to come up with the list of projects and who will approve them. All it says is they will be "identified by the United States in consultation with Canada" -- so does this mean Karl Rove and David Frum will figure out how they want to spend the money?
So who is outraged?
Well, ThinkProgress noted the slush fund possibility back in June (this story spotted at the time by the eagle-eyed Accidental Deliberations) and Bob Rae talked about the "presidential slush fund" back in July. This week, Bruce Campbell from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives writes about the fund as "an unprecedented campaign gift from the Harper government to the Republican re-election bid, paid for by the Canadian lumber industry."
And who is NOT outraged?
Well, I would suspect that any Republican political consultants who came north last winter to work for the Conservatives during the election campaign would be happy as clams about now.

Yes, but can he parallel park?

I thought they just played poker:

. . . a woman in Hohhot, capital of north China's Inner Mongolia region, crashed her car while giving her dog a driving lesson. . . There were no injuries and both vehicles were only slightly damaged . . . The woman, identified only be her surname, Li, said her dog "was fond of crouching on the steering wheel and often watched her drive," the news agency report.
"She thought she would let the dog 'have a try' while she operated the accelerator and brake," the report said. "They did not make it far before crashing into an oncoming car."

Actually, if you Google "dog driving" images, you get more than 3,000 pictures...

Sometimes I feel this way too

But I usually manage to babble on about something...

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who cares"

This is a great story -- Oops: Impostor scams Louisiana officials.
I saw the Yes men documentary on TV recently and it was terrific -- they are completely plausible, totally corporate. And they only bullshit the bullshitters:

A man who pulled a hoax on Louisiana officials and 1,000 contractors by presenting himself as a federal housing official said Monday he intended to focus attention on a lack of affordable housing. "We basically go around impersonating bad institutes or institutes doing very bad things," said the man, who identified himself as Andy Bichlbaum, a 42-year-old former college teacher of video and media arts who lives in New York and Paris. "That would be HUD. At this moment, they're doing some really bad things."
Masquerading as Rene Oswin, an official at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Bichlbaum followed Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to the lectern Monday morning at the Pontchartrain Center in Kenner.
In a speech to attendees of the Gulf Coast Reconstruction and Hurricane Preparedness Summit, he laid out grandiose plans for HUD to reverse course.
. . . In his speech, Bichlbaum said the department's mission was to ensure affordable housing is available for those who need it. "This year, in New Orleans, I'm ashamed to say we have failed," he said. To change that, HUD would reverse its plans to demolish 5,000 units "of perfectly good public housing," with housing in the city in tight supply, he said. Former occupants have been "begging to move back in," he said. "We're going to help them to do that." . . . Bichlbaum said The Yes Men plan to release a movie about their exploits next year, but that commercial gain is not their goal. "The real reason we do it is what we're doing right now," he told a reporter. "You're paying attention to this issue of affordable housing and the absurd policies of HUD."

Now, do you think there is any chance that some local or national reporter will follow up on this story? Well, maybe -- now that the JonBenet Killer is no longer in the news...

Great line of the day

Avedon Carol reports on the latest supidities in fear and loathing. As Carol puts it:

This is the kind of crap right-wing bed-wetters are willing to give up their rights for. Well, sorry, but I'm not.

Say it ain't so

Surely not. Not even in Alberta.
I haven't been following the leadership race in Alberta, but please tell me that this homophobic, ignorant,
divisive, mean-spirited pulicity hound blowhard named Ted Morton doesn't actually have any chance to follow Ralphie as Conservative leader.

Great line of the day

Dave asks exactly what values are we promoting in Afghanistan?

Harper needs to explain how perpetuating and promoting a corrupt, inept government which sits by and allows the Taliban to expand and profit from opium poppy production is anything close to a Canadian value.

Yeah, I was starting to wonder about that myself.

Fantasy

Juan Cole has a few choice words for the republican congressional report on Iran.
The words are: "riddled with errors", "neoconservative propaganda", "wild fantasies", and "vastly exaggerates".
Ouch.
Cole also notes that the report was written by John Bolton's former assistant:

So this report is the long arm of Bolton popping up in Congress . . . John Bolton is just an ill-tempered lawyer who has no special expertise in nuclear issues or in Iran, and aside from an ability to scare the bejesus out of young gophers who bring him coffee and to thunderously denounce on cue any world leader on whom he is sicced, he has no particular qualifications for his job. Nor do the Republican congressmen know anything special about Iran's nuclear energy program. They certainly know much less than the CIA agents who work on it full time, some of whom know Persian and have actually done, like, you know . . . intelligence work. We are beset by instant experts on contemporary Iran, like the medievalist Bernard Lewis, who wrongly predicted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would attack Israel on August 22, based on Lewis's weird interpretation of his alleged millenarian beliefs . . . Pete Hoekstra, who is the chair of this committee, has a long history of saying things that are, well, disconnected to reality. Like when he made a big deal about some old shells with mustard gas found in Iraq left over from the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, and claimed that these were the fabled and long-sought Iraqi WMD over which 2600 of our service people are six feet under and another 8000 in wheelchairs. Nope. Bolton at one point was exercised about an imaginary Cuban biological weapons program, which even his own staffers wouldn't support him on, and at one point he was alleging that Iranian mullahs were sneaking into Havana to help with it. This congressional report is full of the same sort of wild fantasies.

Ouch.
But I particularly liked his description of Bolton as an ill-tempered lawyer...

Who is listening to these people?

Glenn Reynolds, April 2003:

. . . maybe we shouldn't rub in just how wrong, and morally corrupt the antiwar case was. Maybe we should rise above the temptation to point out that claims of a "quagmire" were wrong . . . And I suppose we shouldn't stress so much that the antiwar folks were really just defending the interests of French oil companies and Russian arms-deal creditors. It's probably a bad idea to keep rubbing that point in over and over again. Nah.

Mark Steyn, May 2003:

. . . It takes two to quagmire. In Vietnam, America had an enemy that enjoyed significant popular support and effective supply lines. Neither is true in Iraq. Isolated atrocities will continue to happen in the days ahead, as dwindling numbers of the more depraved Ba'athists confront the totality of their irrelevance. But these are the death throes: the regime was decapitated two weeks ago, and what we've witnessed is the last random thrashing of the snake's body . . .

Glenn Greenwald, today:

. . . The same people who were wrong about everything -- literally -- and who viciously mocked those who were right, now want to use the same mindset and assumptions to guide us into our next war . . . Democrats should make this election about this question because it is, in large part, what the election is about -- whether the country wants the same people who dragged us into Iraq to do the same in Iran, Syria and beyond.