Good Question

Mikaela reposts, courtesy Dan Froomkin's White House Watch:

Senator Kennedy (D-Mass.): "A year ago, the president said we couldn't withdraw because there was too much violence. Now he says we can't afford to withdraw because violence is down."

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.): "Where do we go from here?"

Albuquerque Anti-War March Pictures, March 17, 2007

marjorie says...

Here are some of my favorite signs from today’s anti-war march and rally. There were about 1000 people there. For a more comprehensive look at the day, see Jo Ann's pictures on SWOPblogger--they're great.

"Democratic" Iraq

Mikaela says:

Today from Democracy Now, we have this news:

Iraq to Expel Thousands, Spy on Iraqis in Baghdad Crackdown
The Iraqi government has announced a series of controversial new measures in its crackdown on Baghdad. Tens of thousands of displaced Iraqis have been told to leave homes Iraq says are being occupying illegally. The Iraqi government also says it will eavesdrop on phone calls and open mail at will. Military forces will be authorized to break into any homes and cars judged to be dangerous. Iraq also says it will close its borders with Iran and Syria, increase military checkpoints, and extend Baghdad’s military curfew.

I bet the Iraqis are more grateful than ever to have had Democracy thrust upon them. Makes you teary to see a fledgling Democracy in action, doesn't it? To see liberty take root?

Ah, we Liberators feel our hearts swell to overflowing at the terrible beauty we spread to the world. You're welcome!

Happy Valentine's Day, Iraq.

Yours truly, forever,

America

Bait & Switch: How the war in Iraq becomes all-out war in the Middle East

Mikaela says:
Not sure what to think about the President's strategy to escalate the war in Iraq? Not sure what to make of his raid on an Iranian office in an Iraq town, his capture of personnel and computers? His movement of aircraft carriers into the region?

Many are speculating that we consumers are experiencing the classic bait and switch. Think we're going in to stop weapons of mass destruction in Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Okay, we'll bite. Then we get there, depose the dictator we put in power, then switch our rhetoric to spreading freedom and democracy. When that doesn't work, we pull the biggest magic trick of them all -- keeping us focused on Iraq while with sleight of hand, we pull a gun (or airforce carrier, take your pick) on Iran. I'm sure Iran will then cover our invasion of Syria.

Think this is all hyperbole? Think the Bush administration can't be that cynical, can't be that messianic, can't be that bloody? Think again. It's coming, people, and we only have 2 years to stop it.

Here's a range of voices on the latest Bush doctrine, courtesy White House Briefing:

Robin Wright and Nancy Trejos:

"While the public focus is on Iraq, the administration is now spending as much time on plans to contain Iran as on a strategy to end Iraq's violence, U.S. officials said."

Dana Milbank:

"'I have to say, Madam Secretary,' a seething Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) told Rice, 'that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.'

"'Madam Secretary,' added Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, a moderate Democrat, 'I have supported you and the administration on the war, and I cannot continue to support the administration's position. . . . I have not been told the truth over and over again.'"

Sudarsan Raghavan writes in The Washington Post that Baghdad-based Spec. Daniel Caldwell "echoed a sentiment shared by many in his squad:

'They're kicking a dead horse here. The Iraqi army can't stand up on their own.'"

Carter administration national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski outlines five flaws in Bush's plan, in a Washington Post op-ed. Among them:

"The decision to escalate the level of the U.S. military involvement while imposing 'benchmarks' on the 'sovereign' Iraqi regime, and to emphasize the external threat posed by Syria and Iran, leaves the administration with two options once it becomes clear -- as it almost certainly will -- that the benchmarks are not being met. One option is to adopt the policy of 'blame and run': i.e., to withdraw because the Iraqi government failed to deliver. That would not provide a remedy for the dubious 'falling dominoes' scenario, which the president so often has outlined as the inevitable, horrific consequence of U.S. withdrawal. The other alternative, perhaps already lurking in the back of Bush's mind, is to widen the conflict by taking military action against Syria or Iran. It is a safe bet that some of the neocons around the president and outside the White House will be pushing for that. Others, such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman, may also favor it."

The Financial Times editorial board writes:

"It may be one last heave. It may be a cover for US withdrawal. . . . [T]his policy will not succeed in fixing an Iraq traumatised by tyranny and war and then broken by invasion and occupation. But it may end with the US 'surging' into Iran -- and taking the Middle East to a new level of mayhem that will spill into nearby regions and western capitals."

Eugene Robinson, writing in his Washington Post opinion column, worries that Bush is trying to change the subject to Iran.

"As cynical as I am about this administration, it's hard for me to imagine that at this point, with all the push-back he's getting from Congress and the public about escalating American involvement in Iraq, George W. Bush would even think about launching a new military adventure in Iran. But you have to worry about a president who talks so much about the judgment of history and who has such a Manichaean view of the world."

Keith Olberman has another 'special comment' on MSNBC:

"Only this president, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran."

Jay Leno, via US News:

"It was nothing but reruns on TV last night. But enough about President Bush's speech......

"Actually, the good news last night, President Bush finally admitted he made some mistakes in Iraq. The bad news, he's planning on making the same mistakes again."

Two preambles to Bush's speech tonight

Maggie says:
First, from the brilliant Molly Ivins:

It's up to us to stop this war

This war is being prosecuted in our names, with our money, with our blood, against our will. Polls consistently show that less than 30 percent of the people want to maintain current troop levels. It is obscene and wrong for the president to go against the people in this fashion. And it's doubly wrong for him to send 20,000 more soldiers into this hellhole...

Second, a pissed-off Pelosi and an admonishment that Bush didn't meet with them before this morning, and that the meeting was "notification, not consultation."


Time for a plan, folks. Time for action. This is it. Make no mistake, Bush is blatantly disregarding the clear message sent by voters around the country, in overwhelming fashion, in November. Add to that message the countless words of caution and protest sounded by former military strategists and foreign policy experts, all of whom are horrified by what our country has gotten into and know there is no way out except retreat. Sending over 20,000 troops into combat at this time is not just unconscionable, it is deeply unethical. The new Congress must act at once to put a stop to this madness, this display of stubbornness so immense that not even unnecessary bloodshed makes it waver.

Stop, stop, stop, before things get even worse.

Banner Day for U.S. News

Mikaela says:
What are they thinking? The Bush Administration in its death throes reminds me of all the low-budget horror movies in which the tentacled monster clasps the hero or heroine or whoever he can reach as he falls backward over the cliff or pitches into the sea.

Having been repudiated at the polls, having the Pentagon reject "Stay the Course" or anything like it, having a special panel of experts hand us an alternative way out of the Iraq quagmire, Bush in all his wrong-headed glory is pushing for one last gasp -- send a surge of troops to die in Iraq. Soldiers aren't working... what's should we do? Send more. Sounds logical to me.

There have been certain points in my life, albeit Generation X amnesia-soaked, where I have felt poised on the fulcrum of history, wobbling in the political winds blowing from the north and the south, east and the west.

Today, it feels drafty again. This in a week in which KUNM is reporting that UNM President Harris met with the group Stop the War Machine, and when asked what UNM researchers contribute to when paid by Sandia Labs and Lockheed Martin and others known for weapons development, President Harris said he didn't know, but that the science skills and knowledge gained by students was good enough. In my mind, he may as well have said, So what if they work on bombs?

So what.

There are rare moments when public opinion can tip the balance of government policy. We saw it all the polls -- maybe. We saw it during Vietnam. Polls are showing fewer and fewer Americans find Iraq palatable. The next question is: will we act? Our politicians are still paralyzed with indecision, not quite knowing which choice history will bear out as the right one.

Today and tomorrow and into the early new year, there's a small opportunity for a few voices to tip the balance toward peace, away from empire. Who will speak? I am listening. What I hear is a circling of wind through Christmas bells.

May we choose peace. May our world become whole. May we be well.

From Democracy Now:

Joint Chiefs of Staff Oppose Sending More Troops to Iraq
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are unanimously opposing a White House plan to send up to 30,000 more troops to Iraq. According to the Washington Post, top Pentagon officials have warned President Bush that a short-term troop increase could give a boost to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq, without strengthening the position of the US military or Iraq's security forces in the long term.

Pentagon: Violent Attacks in Iraq At An All-Time High
As Robert Gates was being sworn in, a new Pentagon report revealed that attacks against American and Iraqi targets are at their highest level ever. ...The Iraq Study Group report concluded that the government is significantly underreporting violence in Iraq.

Robert Gates: Failure in Iraq Would Haunt Our Nation For Decades

• Robert Gates: "All of us want to find a way to bring America's sons and daughters home again. But, as the President has made clear, we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come."

Sen. Reid Supports Temporarily Sending More Troops to Iraq
The top Democrat in the Senate has said he would support President Bush's call for sending thousands of more troops to Iraq. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He spoke on ABC's This Week.

• Harry Reid: "If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it."

Colin Powell: U.S. is Losing War in Iraq
Meanwhile former Secretary of State General Colin Powell has said he opposes the idea of sending any more troops to Iraq. He also admitted the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq.

• Colin Powell: "So, it's grave and deteriorating, and we're not winning, we are losing. We haven't lost, and this is the time now to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."

White House Tries to Silence Ex-Official from Criticizing Iran Policy
A former Bush administration official is accusing the White House of trying to silence him from criticizing the president's policy on Iran. Former National Security Council official Flynt Leverett recently drafted an op-ed intended for the New York Times on Iran. The CIA cleared the article but then the White House blocked its publication. According to Leverett, the White House is demanding that he removes entire paragraphs that detail publicly known information about how Iran cooperated with the United States in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and how Iran offered to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States three years ago. Leverett accused White House officials of using fraudulent charges of revealing classified information to keep critical views from being heard. Leverett said "Their conduct in this matter is despicable and un-American in the profoundest sense of that term." Leverett is the former Senior Director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council and a former senior analyst at the CIA.

U.S. Army Considers Breaking Goodyear Strike
The Financial Times is reporting that the U.S. Army is considering measures to force striking workers back to their jobs at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Kansas. 17,000 members of the United Steelworkers have been on strike at 16 Goodyear plants since October 5th. They are seeking greater job security and continued healthcare after they retire. The military relies on a plant in Kansas to make tires for Humvee trucks and other equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Duncan Hunter, outgoing chair of the House armed services committee, the strike has cut output of Humvee tires by about 35 percent. On Saturday, solidarity actions were held in support of the striking workers in over 100 cities around the country and in Canada.

Report: Blair Knew Iraq Had No WMDs
The Independent of London is reporting the British government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Britain's key negotiator at the UN testified privately that Blair knew Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction. The official – Carne Ross told an official inquiry that at no time did the British government believe that Iraq's WMD capability actually pose a threat to British interests and that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained." The British Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the testimony of Ross from being made public.

U.S. Accused of Bribing UN Security Council Nations
Researchers at Harvard University are accusing the United States of using its foreign aid budget to bribe countries which have a vote in the United Nations security council. A detailed analysis of 50 years of data has revealed that the U.S. gives nations nearly 60 percent more cash in years when they have a seat. Much of the money is channeled through the UN's children's fund UNICEF which the U.S. has traditionally controlled. The current head of UNICEF is Ann Veneman – President Bush's former agricultural secretary.

We're at Civil War in Iraq

Mikaela says:
Mainstream media has begun to label Iraq a civil war. Academics who study these things are finally satisfied. The White House isn't happy.

Here's standard criteria by which to judge a civil war:

By Monica Duffy Toft
monica_toft@harvard.edu

There are six criteria for considering a conflict a civil war.

Q. Is the focus of the war control over which group governs the political unit?

Q. Are there at least two groups of organized combatants?

Q. Is the state one of the combatants?

Q. Are there at least 1,000 battle deaths per year on average?

Q. Is the ratio of total deaths at least 95 percent to 5 percent? In other words, has the stronger side suffered at least 5 percent of the casualties?

Q. Is the war occurring within the boundaries of an internationally recognized state or entity?

She says yes to all above in Iraq since 2004.

Getting stuck in Iraq: how...stooopid. Not!

marjorie says...

I’m sure you’ve all noticed the latest “he said/she said--someone has to apologize”…stink between the R’s and the D’s, this time about what John Kerry said at a campaign rally. Here’s the quote that has the Republicans self-righteously shrieking that John Kerry, who is an actual Vietnam combat veteran, insulted all U.S. military personnel:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

The R’s claim that Kerry, in essence, is calling the troops “stupid” while the D’s claim that Kerry simply botched a joke that was supposed to be aimed at Bush. In this instance I have to like the stink actually, because Kerry's comment is so blatant. Unfortunately, the stink never addresses the real issue...which should be no surprise given the unwillingness of the American public, much less either party, to address it: the lot of uneducated (and less affluent) people in this country is to fight our wars for us, with all the incumbent risks…such as death or being subjected to a lifetime of trauma and ill-health.

That is what Kerry is saying here. And he is right. Both parties think that is ok and they don't want to dwell on it. And there are a lot of Americans who think it’s ok too. Do the majority of us think that? I know that the ignorant “pull yourself up by your bootstraps or die” mentality is alive and well. But I like to think that more of us understand the structural inequality built into our system.

Take education as an example, since Kerry brought it up. Structurally, our system does not allow everyone to get a decent education. If it were based on equality, we wouldn’t glorify brainwashed Harvard-ites, as one example, and we’d funnel a lot more money into public education. Is smarts synonymous with education? Kerry shows his Ivy League background on that one…thankfully there are plenty “uneducated” people out there who recognize just how stupid his statement is, who recognize that “getting stuck in Iraq” has a lot more to do with access and opportunity than it does with making “an effort to be smart.”

Rumsfeld to the American Public: BACK OFF

marjorie says...

Rumsfeld Tells War Critics to Back Off.

Last time I checked, that would be the majority of the people living in the United States.

The conservative conscience

Maggie says:
For so many of us, our problems with Republicans lie as much with the resoluteness of their righteousness and their angry condemnation of any opposition as it does with their policies. So often, I seek out some intelligence, some global perspective, something besides macho talking points in their directives, and I nearly always come up empty. I want the intelligent debate, I want the clear differences in philosophy being presented as honest options for Americans to side with. Yet with the Right, I hear only rabid calls of patriotic strength on the one hand and self-righteous moral lecturing on the other. Their middle - or rather, their honest core - is so often unheard.

But in this fascinating Salon interview, we hear the compelling thoughts of Andrew Sullivan, a conservative pundit who sees the error of his ways and admits his mistakes in supporting the administration. Besides making some damning points about the turning tide for gay Republicans – Andrew Sullivan is gay himself – he offers the following really remarkable statements about Iraq. Read the interview for the full breadth of his thoughts… they’re worth it. And I can only ask: what would American rhetoric look like if the other side was willing to be as humble as Sullivan is here?

This question that you put your finger on is going to be the critical historical debate. Was this adventure so conceptually flawed that there was no way it could win, or was it so fantastically screwed up in its execution that it was a good idea just wrecked?

I don't want to be wishy-washy about this. I certainly think that the way Rumsfeld and Cheney ran it made it impossible for it to succeed, because they refuse to provide the manpower and resources for what needed to be serious nation-building. I think they essentially sabotaged the war out of their own arrogance, because they'd rather lose a war than concede a point. That's the pettiness of these people.

I don't know why, by the way, the angriest people in this country are not those who opposed the war but those of us who supported it. I mean, we were completely deceived. It never occurred to me that they would not send enough troops to keep the peace or establish order, or, when presented with the evidence that they needed to do so, would simply refuse to entertain the argument. It's still incredible to me.

I do believe that the case many of us made for the Iraq war -- those of us who didn't have access to inside intelligence -- was made in good faith, based on what we were told. Obviously, I feel differently now. And I feel a deep sense of responsibility for not being more skeptical about the Bush people and what they were telling us before the war. I think I was way too gullible. I wanted, in a time of war, to give the president every benefit of the doubt. I was dumb to do so. And I certainly also feel, as a supporter of the war, extreme anguish about the lives that are currently being lost in that country by innocent people, as well as the horrible betrayal of American values.

Science is in the word -- and the water

Mikaela writes:

Science is beginning to confirm the power of the word. Mystics have known for as long as man has been speaking that words have the power to literally change the air we breathe, the water we drink, the experiences we can have. Now, a scientist in Japan has shown that words – written or spoken – shape water molecules. Words with good connotations create symmetrical patterns in the water molecules. Words like hate spawn asymmetry. This only works with unpolluted water.

I.
What cannot be purified
cannot be transformed

what can be transformed
is pure

thus is born a morality
of molecules

holy water
of a weighted hand

our words
at the center

or maybe the crystalline edge
of the great unknown

where what we can control
and what we cannot fathom

dance together to the beat
of vibrating cosmic strings

Moses parting the water
not with holy staff

but with a plea
a command?

human voice
urging rearrangement

water obeys
responds?

interprets the energy of his voice
into action

miracle
made science

law
suggestion

II.
One Jewish sect asserts the Torah itself is just the name of God. One word that calls forth – embodies – inhabits creation.

Defaming that book
means calling forth darkness

chaos
nothingness

known only to so-called
producers of terror

who now sit praying
in American-run jails

we torture terror
and believe in freedom

we protect our interests
without blaming our banks

we call in darkness
create terror

our words forming asymmetrical structures
in pools of pure blood

what will tranform this evil?
what purification is possible for twisting lies?

most cleanliness
is removal of debris:

first
we jail the jailors

sop up the blood
tend to the wounds

speak kindly to the hurt
free the innocent

burn the prison
and pray

that our words will fall silent
that our prayers for peace will rise

part the waters
connect what has been too-long divided

let fall what may
the heavy fruit of justice

hanging
in the tree of knowledge

we must all bite
and swallow.