(Stop) Taking the Bait

President Bush, "can't you be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq"?

Now, I don't need some extremist asshole thug in a cave to speak for me, but I'm not going to contest what's al-Zawahri is saying here. The truth is self-evident.

My only concern is, how will Bush and his sycophants respond? Will they use this as an another excuse to ignore legitimate criticism of Bush's policy failures, claiming that 'al-Zawahri sounds surprisingly like liberals' in this country? Probably.

Instead, will Bush take the bait and play into their game? --As he did when he invaded Iraq in response to 9/11, effectively helping to legitimize their message to Muslims everywhere, that we're engaging in a war against Islam and are out to steal their resources? Likely.

No wonder the Iraq War has helped create terrorists faster than Bush can kill them.

Stop giving the terrorists exactly what they want, Mr. Bush. They want End Times. Do you?

Really?

Heir Apparent to Edward R Murrow

While I understand that political news shows have increasingly become more partisan since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, only those news shows that present a substantive argument are worthwhile in the public discourse.

I find it interesting that critics of the Fairness Doctrine complained that it was used to "intimidate or silence" political opposition, while since its repeal, we have seen the rise of only baseless and unproven charges -- i.e., the "politics of personal destruction"; or the rise of pundits claiming to be "fair and balanced," but at most giving equal air time to a skewed presentation of facts on one side, countered by "sexed-up", politicized talking points on the other.

The following is neither. This is not a hit piece in my opinion, as it attempts to trace the actions taken (or not taken) by this Administration for counter-terrorism planning. It merely reveals what we have long known: That the focus of this Administration in the first 8 months was not on the most pressing threats at the time, but rather on Cold War-era defense strategies (SDI).

These are facts that have not been successfully refuted by the Administration; these are not baseless charges such as those often leveled at Bush's predecessor. If the Administration could detail a fact-based rebuttal, I would hope that Keith Olbermann would allow them the air time to do so, just as one of Olbermann's tele-journalist predecessors, Edward R Murrow, had done when he took on tyrants with substance, spoke Truth to Power.



(Hat tip to Hunter at Daily Kos and Crooks and Liars for posting this.)

In case you missed it...

...in all of the reporting about the NIE document:

"The Bush administration has blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday."

Isn't it great to know that they care so much about us, that they want to shield us 100% from the inconvenient truths that affect our world on a daily basis?

I'm so comforted, I could vomit.

...and one more NIE-related thing

Is anyone else wary of this final assertion in the NIE?

"Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support."

I am not a paranoid person by nature, but given the extreme secrecy of and issue politicization by this Administration, I can't help but read a not-so-subtle jab at "groups of all stripes" -- such as the netroots, perhaps? -- who have, by using several of the Internet advantages mentioned above, spear-headed a rebirth of our democracy in this country.

Next stop: Using these politicized NIE conclusions to kill Net Neutrality, in the name of "national security."

NIE: The Bottom Line (so far)

Think what you will about the revelations in the partially declassified April 2006 NIE, but I maintain that the central premise remains: That "the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position (in the global counterterrorism struggle)" as a result of the invasion. It is clear that U.S. objectives have been compromised:

• As stated in the NIE, and well covered today by the media and blogosphere: "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."
  
• Our moral leadership in the world is lost, making it much harder to win the Battle of Ideas -- which many experts agree is the central battlefront in reducing the terror threat
  
• Afghanistan is witnessing the rebirth of the Taliban. Our chances of having permanently eliminated the Taliban and its al Qaeda sympathizers were much greater when our attention and resources were focused in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, the four reasons cited in the administration's NIE for the spread of this jihadist movement clearly point to the same conclusion:

1. Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness
2. the Iraq "jihad"
3. the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations
4. pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims

Reasons #1, #2 and #4 are directly worsened by the invasion of Iraq. No way around it. (Reason#3, incidentally, while largely due to homegrown corruption by exploitative ideologues, certainly has not been helped by Western trade practices and many countries' Middle East policies.)

The NIE itself concludes this central point, albeit buried somewhat on page 2:

"We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate."

...And George W Bush would have us believe we are naïve and mistaken? Based on this document, which was intended to "end speculation"? Sounds more like wishful thinking -- unless there are further details awaiting declassification that contradict these findings...but somehow I doubt it.

Regardless, at the end of the day we're still in Iraq due to this Administration's disastrous Grand Experiment, so what do we do?

Must I repeat myself?

Confirming what we already knew, again

Add this to the ever growing list of evidence, confirming the fallacy of George W Bush's miserable Iraq policy.

"A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document."

Of course, the question clearly remains on what to do to clean up this mess, and I think the answer is clear, but the bottom line remains: We must hold the Bush Administration accountable for this miserable failure, and ensure that extreme ideological movements like the neo-conservative movement are permanently discredited. The benefit of this is obvious: We help to minimize the terror threat at home and abroad by intelligently engaging in a strategy to reduce the threat, rather than engaging in straw-man politics that serve only the interests of those in power and do nothing to help reduce the threats we face globally.

KEEP YOUR THEOCRACY OFF MY DEMOCRACY

...and other bumper stickers. (As compiled by "a former Methodist minister in Lakeside, Ohio, who writes: 'The following actual bumper stickers are now on cars. I didn't write any of them. I'm only the messenger. If they make you laugh, good. If they make you cry, good.'")

This was sent to me by my boss. I edited the original list down, so as not to (completely) overwhelm the post...some are familiar, some are new:

BLIND FAITH IN BAD LEADERSHIP IS NOT PATRIOTISM

IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION

IF YOU SUPPORTED BUSH, A YELLOW RIBBON WON'T MAKE UP FOR IT

POVERTY, HEALTH CARE, & HOMELESSNESS ARE MORAL ISSUES

OF COURSE IT HURTS. YOU'RE GETTING SCREWED BY AN ELEPHANT

BUSH LIED, AND YOU KNOW IT

RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM: A THREAT ABROAD, A THREAT AT HOME

BUSH SPENT YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY ON HIS WAR

PRO AMERICA, ANTI BUSH

FEEL SAFER NOW?

I'D RATHER HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO SCREWED HIS INTERN THAN ONE WHO SCREWED HIS COUNTRY

JESUS WAS A SOCIAL ACTIVIST -- THAT IS A LIBERAL

IS IT 2008 YET?

DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM -- Thomas Jefferson

DON'T BLAME ME. I VOTED AGAINST BUSH -- TWICE!

STOP MAD COWBOY DISEASE

GEORGE W. BUSH: MAKING TERRORISTS FASTER THAN HE CAN KILL THEM

KEEP YOUR THEOCRACY OFF MY DEMOCRACY

HONOR OUR TROOPS: DEMAND THE TRUTH

THE LAST TIME RELIGION CONTROLLED POLITICS, PEOPLE GOT BURNED AT THE STAKE

I still [heart] Bill

...despite his foibles, and despite that I'm a heterosexual male.


Two of my favorite snippets published on Huffington Post (among several):

• Clinton on watching the World Cup Final in Berlin: "I'm totally psyched for this."
• Clinton on the vote to go into Iraq: "I'm sick and tired of being told that if you voted for authorization you voted for the war. It was a mistake, and I would have made it, too....The administration did not shoot straight on the nuclear issue or on Saddam's supposed ties to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11."

It takes a big man to admit a mistake. Otherwise all very true, Bill. Very true. Including what you said about Karl.

Tran v Cantwell

...somehow I doubt my message was received:

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Cantwell	357,860	91.11
Tran	18,843	4.80

(4259 of 6683 Precincts Reporting (63.73%) at 8:10pm. Source.)

...but I like to think that Cantwell heard us: Over 18,000 (and counting!) votes is much more than the margin she had to win her last election (a mere 2029 votes) over Slade ("Skeletor") Gorton.

Then again, we can all be thankful that McGavick is trailing significantly (today) in the polls. I hope Cantwell maintains her lead over McGavick, and returns to D.C. perhaps a little less eager to support the Bush Admin's next bad policy decisions...

Go Maria!

...in the general election. However:





Today, I voted for Hong Tran in the Democratic primary as candidate for U.S. Senate from Washington state. Why? To "send a message" to Maria Cantwell, of course! Ouch!

While Cantwell recovers from trembling in her boots, and prepares to carry her campaign into the general election after handily defeating all other Democratic primary opponents, I'm hoping that there will have been enough votes for Hong Tran to put Cantwell on notice. I hope Cantwell notices that her support for the Iraq War isn't simply given a pass, when a significant percentage of Democratic primary votes are diverted to the top anti-Iraq War Democratic candidate, Hong Tran.

...and you'll note that I said "top anti-Iraq-War" Democratic candidate. Contrary to attempts by traditional media and Republican strategists, I'd like to reiterate that just because a candidate opposes Bush's Iraq War policy, it does not mean that s/he is "weak on terrorism," opposes the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, or does not want our nation to be better protected against potential future terrorist attacks -- be they from domestic or foreign extremists.

Rather, we simply want a foreign policy that helps reduce the threat of terrorism, not increase it, as Bush's Iraq War policy has clearly done. --Which, I'll add, we knew would likely occur, for those of us who chose to seek out unpoliticized evidence and listen to top national security experts ignored by the Bush Administration prior to the invasion in 2003.

...but best of luck to Maria Cantwell in November against Mike McGavick.

Inaugural Ball

Why not christen this first blog attempt with a tribute to a great band, long since defunct, but reunited for a quick 3-city tour? Scratch Acid's Seattle performance on Saturday night was cathartic and therapeutic...long needed in today's national nightmare, 5 years in the running.



Lyrically appropriate, when you consider the impact of Bush's policies on this nation and our planet.