Dread and Iran

Talking Points Memo, highlights a recent article from the AP. It doesn't sound good:

Citing Iranian involvement with Iraqi militias and Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration has shifted to offense in its confrontation with Iran — building up the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and promising more aggressive moves against Iranian operatives in Iraq and Lebanon.

The behind-the-scenes struggle between the two nations could explode into open warfare over a single misstep, analysts and U.S. military officials warn.

I also agree, whole heartedly, with the analysis provided by Josh Marshall:

I've always viewed the fears that the White House would try expand the war into Iran with a mix of deep skepticism, fascination and latent foreboding. Logically, it makes no sense on any number of counts. But the last half dozen years has taught us all that that's simply not a significant obstacle. There are any number of ridiculous gambits I was sure these guys wouldn't try before they did try them.

Again, the 'sensible' interpretation of what's happening right now is that the administration is trying to regain control of the situation in Iraq. And to further that aim they're rattling their sabres at Iran to get them to back off and stop making trouble. That's the sensible explanation. But we're not dealing with sensible people. And much more important, the folks who are running this show are simply too stupid to be trusted to execute such a delicate and perilous feint.

There is no good reason for us to engage militarily with Iran. As much as I dislike the leadership in Iran, going up against them now does nothing for the US. We cannot sustain an area that large, we cannot afford the financial cost and we cannot isolate ourselves any further on the world stage.

Knowing all of this won't change Bush's mind.

Oh IPod, why must you vex me?

By my own admission, I am not a bright person. However, you would think that I could figure out what the hell is wrong with my IPod.

ITunes does not recognize the IPod- at all.

My IPod is Taiwan.

Changing the tone

From a post on Crooks and Liars, we get the following quote by right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham:

Ingraham: A friend of mine, a very close friend of mine—-very conservative from Kentucky—his dad called him up after the speech, his father is right wing Christian conservative—called him up after the speech, after Webb's speech and said, " Did you just hear…this Webb guy? Like, I haven't heard a Democrat talk like that for years." I heard more and more people saying the same thing…

This is what the Democrats have lacked for years, they need a voice that is not afraid to challenge conservative notions on their own turf. Conservatives, oddly, have owned toughness for years and it is encouraging to see the tables being turned.

Cats as Right Wing Tools

Just so we can both be clear, neither disco or broca are suggesting that the type of political activist pictured below is an anarchist. Further, they are not human beings either.

"Anarchists" as Right Wing Tools

Just so that we are clear here- these are the folks that I am referring to:

Anarchists as Human Beings

Since we are smack-talking about anarchists on this blog, I thought I'd post some pictures of anarchists, from a Eugene Weekly series available here , here and here.
















Also, Wikipedia does a tremendous job of summing up the incredibly multifaceted anarchist movement.

There is a variety of types and traditions of anarchism with various points of difference.^[4][5] However, the varieties are not particularly well characterized and not all them are mutually exclusive.^[6] Other than being opposed to the state, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."^[7] Preferred economic arrangements are one of the many areas of disagreement for anarchists.^[8]

The multiple schools of thought include Black, Capitalist, Christian, Collectivist, Communist, Eco, Feminist, Green ,Individualist , Monarchist ,Mutualist , Primitivist ,Philosophical, Social ,Syndicalist , and Without adjectives .

I'm not condoning violent protests, and few of these people are either. Some of the "dumbest political activists" who are anarchists are pictured below:

Noam Chomsky










Howard Zinn

Protesters as Normal Human Beings

Bob Hebert of the New York Times has an interesting thought:

You can say what you want about the people opposed to this wretched war in Iraq, try to stereotype them any way you can. But you couldn’t walk among them for more than a few minutes on Saturday without realizing that they love their country as much as anyone ever has. They love it enough to try to save it.

While I am glad that Hebert had enough intellectual curiosity/honesty to meet the protesters, I find myself frustrated that he is playing the 'people who don't like this war are hippies" game. Unfortunately, he is not the only one- this is AmericaBlog (one of my favorite blogs) writing about the march:

It was an interesting mix of people. Rather young, which was very interesting. Lots of students, and kids in their 20s. And not your usual peacenik crowd - these kids looked like upper middle class college kids (not an easy crowd to motivate politically). The march was well organized, no violence or anything out of line that I saw.

I am not exactly sure where this frame originates from- but from personal experience, it is out of date. The people most motivated to help end the war are remarkably similar to those folks you meet in every day life. They shower, brush their teeth and have jobs. Now granted, at every march you are going to get the one group of protesters with signs asking for the end of water fluoridation, and there are the *anarchists* UPDATED: 'Anarchists' (who are most likely in league with the pro-war crazies*); but the vast majority of these people are the type of people you could ask over for dinner.

It only serves those that want this war to continue. As they become successful painting anti-war protesters as pot-smoking satanists, the more likely it becomes that more average folks decide to not join their ranks.

*I have no proof that anarchists are working with pro-war forces, but c'mon- they are either the dumbest political activists on the planet (perhaps universe) or they are working to give the anti-war crowd a bad name.

The last refuge of scoundrels

Glenn Greenwald has written about an alarming trend coming from the war supporters. The ever-annoying practice of suggesting that all criticism for the President's plan "emboldens the enemy" and "discourages the troops". This is Bill Kristol from yesterdays Fox News Sunday:

Support the troops. Appropriate the funds. Encourage them. Let Dave Petraeus have a chance to win this war. Don't pass a meaningless resolution that, as Joe Lieberman said -- on the one hand, it's non-binding so it's meaningless, but symbolically, it could only encourage our enemies.

This ridiculous criticism has been around since the beginning of the war, yet now it seems that it is given all by itself. In the past, supporting the troops was offered as part of the reason for supporting the war. Now, it is the only one.

Hidden in these comments is the stunning realization that there is nothing to be had in Iraq. The neocons have so thoroughly screwed the pooch on this, that the only thing they can cling to is the thought that our words are somehow shaping a war thousands of miles away.

It figures...

I am cutting and pasting from Atrios here, but I think it is worth it to see how the Sunday talk shows ignore those folks who were against the war at the outset:

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; actor Kevin Bacon.

Joe Biden - supported the war
Richard Lugar - supported the war
Duncan Hunter - supported the war
Kevin Bacon - unsure of his opinion on war.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Jim Webb - opposed war, though not in Senate at time.
Mitch McConnell - supported the war
Arlen Specter - supported the war

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and David Vitter, R-La.; former presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson; Kenneth Pollack, a Brookings Institution analyst.

Mike Huckabee - supported the war
Chuck Schumer - supported the war
David Vitter - supported the war
Michael Gerson - former Bush speechwriter, supported the war
Kenneth Pollack - supported the war

CNN's "Late Edition" - Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele; Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.

Chris Dodd - supported the war
Jon Kyl - suppported the war
Michael Steele - supported the war
Donna Brazile - unsure if she took stand on Iraq war, but is on board of wingnutty Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

"Fox News Sunday" - Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation.

Sam Brownback - supported the war
Joe Lieberman - loves the war
Ellen Miller - N/A

By my count 15 of the 16 guests (who had a legitimate voice) were for the Iraq war at the beginning.

I am glad the Sunday talk shows are staying balanced.

Little Known Facts on Wikipedia

The things you learn-the surprising fact comes at the bottom:

Garret Augustus Hobart (June 3, 1844 – November 21, 1899) was the 24th Vice President of the United States.

He was born in Long Branch, New Jersey, and grew up in Marlboro Township. He graduated from Rutgers College in 1863. He was admitted to the bar, and practiced in Paterson.

Hobart served in the New Jersey General Assembly from 1872 to 1876, serving as speaker in 1874. He was a member of the New Jersey Senate from 1876 to 1882, serving as its president in 1881.

He was nominated as the Republican candidate for Vice President on the ticket with William McKinley, and was elected in the 1896 presidential election.

He served as Vice President from March 4, 1897, until his death from heart failure in Paterson, New Jersey on November 21, 1899, aged 55. Hobart is interred in Cedar Lawn Cemetery

During his tenure as Vice President, his wife Jennie Hobart frequently performed the duties of First Lady because Ida Saxton McKinley, wife of President of the United States William McKinley suffered from epilepsy.

The popular television show Charles in Charge is believed to be loosely based on Garret's life.

Not that my opinion matters so much, but I now have so much more respect for Garret. He went from being a below average VP to an AWESOME VP and he totally looks like Scott Baio

Things are going swimmingly in Iraq...Really!

The constant refrain from the right wing regarding Iraq war coverage is that they don't show all the wonderful things that are going on in Iraq (e.g. all the schools that are being painted, the surprisingly low electricity costs, all the schools that are being painted). The same can be said, however, for all of the horrible things that are occurring.

According the Lara Logan (CBS's Chief Foreign Correspondent) her network is refusing to air a segment she reported on. The report she filed explored the extreme violence encountered TWO BLOCKS from the U.S. controlled Green Zone, yet the piece is only being shown on the CBS website (here).

This is a fairly clear example of how the Right has been able to get the frame that they want. If CBS were to run this piece on the evening news, the wingnuts would go nuts and scream about the media's liberal bias. By constantly complaining about the coverage, they have created a situation where the media has become afraid to report the truth. Instead of realizing that the facts are not in their favor, the madmen who support the current policy in Iraq will do everything they can to make sure the media keeps its head in the sand.

Cheney Prevents Intelligence Oversight

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has recently revealed that President Cheney exerted a great deal of force on the Senate Intelligence Committee in order to delay their report on bad Iraqi intelligence:

Vice President Dick Cheney exerted "constant" pressure on the Republican former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to stall an investigation into the Bush administration's use of flawed intelligence on Iraq, the panel's Democratic chairman charged Thursday.
...
Rockefeller said that it was "not hearsay" that Cheney, a leading proponent of invading Iraq, pushed Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to drag out the probe of the administration's use of prewar intelligence.

"It was just constant," Rockefeller said of Cheney's alleged interference. He added that he knew that the vice president attended regular policy meetings in which he conveyed White House directions to Republican staffers.

Republicans "just had to go along with the administration," he said.

If only we had a governmental system that provided for a system of constant...I don't know...maybe...checks and balances. I'm just spit ballin' here, but it would seem pretty great if there was a way for one branch of government to watch the other. It might prevent abuse of power and over-reaching by one branch.

Cheney Spars with Blitzer Over Criticism of Iraq,

Cheney further displays his complete lack of contact with reality. Instead of acknowledging that they have critics, he makes it about Blitzer. What is really fun is that Blitzer takes heat for being right wing.

So simple, even a 4 year old gets it

Saw this on Matt Yglesias's blog and it kind of speaks for itself (plus there is the awww factor):



p.s. I don't think this warrants a whole new post, yet this quote about conservatives by T-Bogg is perfect:

I have said before, and I'll say it again: conservatives are the kind of people who immediately start contemplating cannibalism when their boat breaks down five feet from shore.

Bipartisanship of Oz

Steven Thomma recently wrote a prescient analysis of what is likely to be the outcome of Dubya's call for bipartisanship, after nearly six years of "my way or the highway" bravado, and equating the dem's with terrorists.

George Bush tried to go home Tuesday night.

His goal was what he thought he left behind in Texas when he was a Republican governor with a Democratic legislature. But the mythical bipartisan place he tried to reach out to in his State of the Union address Tuesday was never like the one he romanticized in Texas. It's not what he's built in six years in Washington. And today it's as elusive as Oz.

"Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on," he said, "as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there's work to be done."

Yet the chasm between the parties is wide and deep, the politics between them are poisonous and Bush bears much of the blame.

After reaching out to Democrats his first year, Bush governed after the 2001 terrorist attacks as the leader of a one-party state.

Zealotry

All in all, this is generally a good article about Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) as it covers his ascension through the Democratic party and his prominent role in delivering the Dem response to the SOTU. I do, however, have a problem with this part of the article:

Democrats owe their newfound control of the Senate to Webb's slim and improbable victory over former Virginia Sen. George Allen (R). Webb -- a Vietnam war hero turned antiwar zealot -- also embodies his party's central message: a determination to oppose the Iraq war while still supporting the troops who are there.

A zealot? Webb shares the opinion of, roughly, 70% of the American people. So, according to the Post's logic- this country is filled with anti-war zealots.

What does it make the escalation dead-enders like Joe Lieberman (I-Himself) and George Bush?

Washington is run by teenage girls

I foolishly spent my morning caught up in some blogosphere fun in the form of Serious Washington Journalist James Carney vs. blogger Atrios. In a nutshell, the Serious Washington Journalist wrote a comparison piece on President Bush and President Clinton for the horribly named Time Magazine blog- Swampland. His argument is that Clinton was once hugely unpopular and that Bush should follow Clinton's lead.

The problem with his post? It is simply not true and the blogger Atrios called him on it. Clinton was never as unpopular as President Bush, and when he did fall out of favor, it wasn't even close to as long as Bush has been*. Instead of taking the criticism in stride, Serious Washington Journalist got snippy (I highly recommend checking it out as it is a great example of how badly the Washington press, in general, handles criticism- here, here & here).

Nevertheless, the absolute worst part of the whole thing is this quote by Carney, in regards to President Clinton's 1995 State of the Union:

Then he proceeded to deliver what may forever be the longest State of the Union address in history -- 81 long minutes of policy prescriptions large and small. It was interminable, a seeming embarrassment.

You see, for a Washington insider like Carney (Time Magazine's DC Bureau Chief) the last thing this country needs is a President that focuses on policy. His job isn't to run the country, it is to serve as the central figure in political warfare. Carney, and his ilk, don't seem to understand why President Clinton was so popular- he made policy a priority rather then staging photo-ops on aircraft carriers.

*providing even more evidence that the Washington press refuses to believe Clinton was liked more than Bush

"Blockbuster Developments" in Libby Case

Here's some fun facts from today's Scooter Libby perjury case. Ah, how nice it would be for some justice to be done.

Under oath, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff Scooter Libby told a grand jury that he first learned that Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent from conversations with the media. In fact, he first learned that information from Vice President Cheney himself.

Libby is now on trial for perjury. His defense is that he simply forgot who told him that Plame worked for the CIA. But in court today, prosecutors outlined a powerful case establishing that Libby had reason to remember who told him and motive to cover it up. MSNBC’s David Schuster said today’s revelations from prosecutors are “new and will astound a number of people, even those who have been following this case.” Among the new claims:

– “Vice President Cheney himself directed Scooter Libby to essentially go around protocol and deal with the press and handle press himself…to try to beat back the criticism of administration critic Joe Wilson.”

– Cheney personally “wrote out for Scooter Libby what Libby should say in a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper.”

– “Scooter Libby destroyed a note from Vice President Cheney about their conversations and about how Vice President Cheney wanted the Wilson matter handled.”

Umm..about Pelosi being ruined...

As was pointed out by a more astute blogger than myself. About two months ago, the mainstream press was declaring that Nancy Pelosi was ruined as speaker. The consensus was that she should just pack it up and head off to her little pot & sodomy farm in San Francisco. She was DONE. Stick a fork in her, D-O-N-E. Nobody was going to listen to her and the House Dems were in open rebellion.

Well...just two weeks into her term as speaker. We find out that she kicked a little butt.

Sworn in just over two weeks ago as the first female speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi wasted no time showing who's boss.

The California Democrat rammed six major bills through the House at breakneck speed, stomped out smoking privileges near the House floor, partially sidelined a powerful Democratic committee chairman and decided she liked traditionally Republican office space so much she claimed it for herself.

By Democrats' timekeeping, she did it all in far under the 100 legislative hours she had allotted.

"We did what we promised the American people we would," Pelosi declared on Friday, pledging it was "just the beginning."

Pelosi's initial agenda, completed Thursday, included measures with wide popular support: increasing the minimum wage, broadening stem cell research, allowing government bargaining on Medicare drug prices, cutting student loan costs, putting in place terrorism-fighting recommendations from the Sept. 11 commission and rolling back energy company tax breaks.

Each bill passed with bipartisan majorities and Pelosi triumphantly gaveled down the votes, at one point banging the gavel so enthusiastically that it left a small dent in the podium.

And the American people? They kind of like that San Francisco liberal a hell of a lot more than that Texan 'cowboy':

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve 33
Disapprove 65

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job as speaker of the House?

Approve 54
Disapprove 25

The pollsters helpfully compare the failed Pelosi speakership with Newt Gingrich's successful kick-ass revolutionary one (approve/disapprove):

12/20/94 (as incoming speakers): 35/43
1/4/95: 35/37
1/29/95: 40/48
3/5/95: 38/51

The Washington press corps must be pretty pissed that Pelosi is ruining their preordained story. Maybe they can write some more stories about her choice in outfits.

A place where logic dies

While the rest of the sensible world celebrates John Warner's (R-VA) decision to oppose the troop 'augmentation'. Glenn finds a maddening little nugget from before the war with Iraq (From Larry King Live in the early part of 2003):

KING: What if Saddam Hussein tonight in a fit of sanity decides he totally wants to cooperate. That's it. Whatever Bush ask for short of exile. What does he do?

WARNER: You asked me what does he say, and my reply to that would be, he has no credibility.

KING: But he can't -- that's nothing.

WARNER: But he could establish credibility with quick and prompt actions.

KING: Like.

WARNER: And they'd have to manifest themselves as compliance with the Security Council resolutions all of them. But especially 1441. I am going to disarm, here it, is go find it. Not hide-and- seek. . . .

You know, I asked George Tenet, CIA director basically what you just stated, and he's written a letter, it arrived in my office an hour ago. And he states, we have now provided all of the information that we could to the inspectors. Yet they have not uncovered anything.

Because Saddam Hussein from the very beginning after 1991, decided that he's going have to endure some type of inspection regime as he continues to build weapons and he's become very skillful to keep these manufacturing base of weapons of mass destructions active, mobile and beyond the ability of any inspections to really catch it. And this is proof of it. We've given them all the information, they can't find it.

KING: What's his purpose, he's inviting war. . . .

WARNER: The group of nations agreed on [the inspections], and I think Hans Blix tried to make it work. But he's been outsmarted.

I don't mean to suggest that Warner's change of heart is unwelcome (although, I believe this is being done to carve out a sensible center- which is staying in Iraq for a long time). Yet, we shouldn't forget how we got here. A lot of very foolish people, put on nice suits and thought that because they looked serious they were serious.