Happy Halloween!

...from my good friend PG (and the Village Voice):



Truly scary shit...

3rd Quarter Bush Iraq Policy Report Card: D-/F

Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress give their third report card on the results of the Bush Iraq War policy, since the Senate voted to make 2006 a "year of transition" in Iraq. Time to check progress...

C-SPAN has the press conference* announcing the release of their report card:

• Security and Stability in Iraq: F
• U.S. National Security/Military Readiness: F**
• Progress of Democracy/Freedom in Iraq: D-
• Economic Reconstruction in Iraq: D-

(**To be fair, Stephen E. Flynn of the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations gave the Administration's Department of Homeland Security an overall C- (better than an F!) on the state of our national security; but we should consider that Flynn was grading our domestic preparedness [like port security (D+) and disaster response (C-)], not merely military readiness for foreign conflict, as Korb and Katulis.)

We know that the right wing will decry the Center for American Progress as a "liberal" organization (merely complaining, to be ignored, etc), but consider three things:

1. Lawrence Korb served as Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration, 1981-1985
2. Nothing Korb and Katulis say is in dispute by the Administration
3. Korb and Katulis have a plan to address the (unnecessary and strategically disastrous) mess Bush created in Iraq

$1000USD says the Korb/Katulis plan (v1.0 originally released September 30, 2005) will look remarkably similar to the Iraq Study Group plan* James Baker III put together for the Bush Administration -- conveniently to be released after the election on November 7, so as not to embarrass the Executive Branch prior to a national vote...

(*Note: This content may require the latest RealPlayer, which is not available on Windows 95, Mac OS9 or Linux systems.)

WaPo: In Syria, Iraq's Fate Silences Rights Activists

Let me repeat: Iraq's fate is silencing rights activists in the Middle East:

The idea of the government as a bulwark of stability and security has long been the watchword of Syrian bureaucrats and village elders. But since Iraq's descent into sectarian and ethnic war -- and after Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, on the other side of Syria -- even Syrian activists concede that the country's feeble rights movement is moribund.

Advocates of democracy are equated now with supporters of America, even "traitors," said Maan Abdul Salam, 36, a Damascus publisher who has coordinated conferences on women's rights and similar topics.

"Now, talking about democracy and freedom has become very difficult and sensitive," Salam said. "The people are not believing these thoughts anymore. When the U.S. came to Iraq, it came in the name of democracy and freedom. But all we see are bodies, bodies, bodies."

[snip]

Internationally, as well, the erosion of U.S. stature over Iraq and Lebanon has put Syria in position to try to improve its regional and world standing without giving in to the reform demands of the United States, diplomats and analysts said.

Is it possible to have made a larger strategic error in our nation's history?

My God.

We Need Five (5!) Planets to Support Us

World Wildlife Fund Director-General James Leape:

If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us

What could we do about it?

The United States, a key consumer nation, is at the forefront in what the report terms resource "overshoot" -- or using far more resources than the planet can sustain. However, the United States also has available some of the more effective opportunities to stem natural resource loss and reverse overconsumptive trends. For example, the nation's environmental footprint or impact can be substantially lightened by reducing carbon dioxide emissions which threaten global climate. The United States is also in a position to promote greater sustainability in fisheries, forestry, agriculture, and other sectors, and to stem biodiversity loss by protecting vital habitats.

What are we doing about it?

After a six-year delay, the Energy Department proposes standards so moderate that even some firms complain.

[snip]

[I]n the three standards it has proposed itself, the department has set a far lower bar than efficiency advocates had wanted. Two of the standards are so low that even some industry officials are complaining. Earlier this month, DOE surprised nearly everyone by nixing on technical grounds a proposal for home boilers backed by industry and consumer groups.

"It's never happened before that they've rejected a negotiated standard," says Charles Samuels, a Boston lawyer who often represents the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

Such moves are causing many observers - from efficiency advocates to members of Congress - to question how deeply DOE is committed to energy efficiency, despite Mr. Bush's rhetoric.

We had better find 4 more planet earths, and quick...

The Death of Habeas Corpus

I've been wondering how to express my disappointment and sadness after Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which was signed into law on Tuesday by George W Bush. Nothing that I could have written could have captured my thoughts as eloquently or as forcefully as Keith Olbermann's Special Comment last night:



For further reading on this travesty, check out Glenn Greenwald's commentary here and here. The latter is a good recap of how Right Wing America will view the signing of this Act, based on the intellectual laziness and/or mental contortions required by Their Media to justify such a blatant backward step for this country.

In short, it's all one giant middle finger to the Promise of Democracy -- and, incidentally, an unnecessary step in the fight against terrorist extremists.

Net Neutrality and Iran

Bill Moyers weighs in on Net Neutrality and concludes that the Internet may be the tool to help revitalize our democracy.

I would argue it already is, given the rise of the netroots and its impact on some key (and symbolic) races. (Go Ned!)

As Bill notes:

The Internet is revolutionary because it is the most democratic of media. All you need to join the revolution is a computer and a connection. We don't just watch; we participate, collaborate and create. Unlike television, radio and cable, whose hirelings create content aimed at us for their own reasons, with the Internet every citizen is potentially a producer. The conversation of democracy belongs to us.

That wide-open access is the founding principle of the Internet, but it may be slipping through our fingers. How ironic if it should pass irretrievably into history here, at the very dawn of the Internet Age.

...Slip through our fingers? You mean like in Iran?

Are the FCC and Big Media trying to pull an Ahmadinejad?

Securing the Common Good

This is what I'm talkin bout:

Under a progressive vision of the common good, government must pursue policies that benefit everyone equally. It must ensure that opportunities are abundant and that even those who have been left out and left behind can get the help they need to succeed. Common good progressivism does not mean that everybody will be the same, think the same, or get the same material benefits. Rather, it simply means that people should start from a level playing field and have a reasonable chance to improve their stations in life.

[snip]

To pursue the common good, though, we as Americans owe something to our country in return. People must assume responsibility for their actions, treat others with respect and decency, and serve their families and communities.

I think it's about time that truly religious people recognize that today's Republican Party doesn't stand for their values, and that the vision articulated here is certainly more aligned with their beliefs:

"Our religious traditions call us to that deeper vision of caring for all, being in it together, not a go-it-alone culture," said [Alexia] Kelly, who has worked for the U.S. bishops and served briefly as a religious adviser to 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

...and for those who disagree, or feel betrayed by politics, they can stay home instead on election day and pray.

Today's event details.

Update: Crooks and Liars has a snippet of video from Bill Clinton's speech at Georgetown University today.

Bob Lives! (...but the prognosis is bleak)

As implied in a post last week, I was skeptical that an anonymous comment from a online MSNBC blog reader named "Bob" was real.

The MSNBC reporter in Baghdad, Jane Arraf, who originally wanted Bob to reveal himself, has posted an update. It turns out that Bob is an actual person, who "works for a U.S. contractor teaching English to Iraqis in the aviation industry and he lives on a military base." His work is commendable, and I'm happy that there are men and women like him who risk their lives to make a positive contribution to the situation in Iraq.

The trouble is that this situation is far larger than can be distilled down and summarized by Bob's Good Works; this situation cannot simply be rectified by merely reporting "both sides" of the story, as if each side weighted equally will then reflect the reality on the ground. Suggestions that traditional media need to report the "progress" are fine, but this cannot be reported in a vacuum: Even in Bob's own recounting of the progress he has witnessed in Iraq, there are undercurrents of the very problems that have propelled the country into civil war:

"...On my first day of class while I was calling the roll I had a first for me. Keep in mind I have taught in eight different countries as of right now but this is my first war zone. As I was calling out the names one student was absent but it was explained to me that he had been kidnapped. OK that was a negative but two days later he was freed and six days later he was in class and even though he has a broken foot and has to drive over 180 Km [110 miles] he was in class every day and can't get enough!"

Simply illuminating a few moments of a patient smiling may be inspiring on the surface, but it does not change the reality that the patient has an inoperable tumor and the prognosis is bleak.

To acknowledge this isn't pessimistic, it's realistic. In other words, Bob: Keep telling it like you see it. Reporters: Print Bob in context of reality.

America: Get off the couch, get some exercise, and start thinking critically.

Who do you trust?

Top Economists? Or the current ultra-conservative Republican agenda?

Current ultra-conservative Republican agenda:

Republicans argued that an increase in the minimum wage would discourage employers from hiring workers and would hinder people in the early stages of their careers from gaining skills and advancing.

[snip]

The Senate has rejected 11 attempts to raise the minimum wage since 1998, according to a legislative history compiled by Democrats. House Republican leaders indicated this week that they would not allow a vote on the issue this year.

Top economists:

"We believe a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed," the group including renowned academics for top U.S. universities said in a statement disseminated by the Economic Policy Institute.

I think I'll go with the renowned academics and economists, thanks.

Let Slayer Speak!

If ever there was a time for moral outrage, it is now.

Contact your Congressman or Congresswoman, your Senators, and your Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha Representatives.

Co-Dependent

At the end of the day, regardless of what you may have thought about the need to invade Iraq back in 2003, we find ourselves at a point where we need to question why we're still there.

One (perpetually wrong) answer -- that we need to "fight them over there, so we don't fight them over here" -- is so ludicrous as to be laughable, if only so many lives and our own nation's security weren't at stake.

Another (more correct) answer is that the Bush Administration needs to keep fighting to maintain its viability and its raison d'être...oddly similar to another extremist entity: Al Qaeda.

In other words, these two need each other to get by; not unlike a pair of co-dependent lovers who constantly nag and fight, but ultimately don't have the balls to break it off.

I think these two need counseling.

My (imaginary) friend named Bob

This is exactly the kind of reporting we need more of in Iraq: More continuing to question conventional wisdom, whether aligned with a right or left talking point, to find the truth.

Seems we have a reporter who simply wants to know how an anonymous blog commenter ("Bob") can claim progress in Iraq, despite the violence that is a daily reality for Iraqis today:

Some readers and viewers think we journalists are exaggerating about the situation in Iraq. I can almost understand that because who would want to believe that things are this bad? Particularly when so many people here started out with such good intentions.

I'm more puzzled by comments that the violence isn't any worse than any American city. Really? In which American city do 60 bullet-riddled bodies turn up on a given day? In which city do the headless bodies of ordinary citizens turn up every single day? In which city would it not be news if neighborhood school children were blown up? In which neighborhood would you look the other way if gunmen came into restaurants and shot dead the customers?

Day-to-day life here for Iraqis is so far removed from the comfortable existence we live in the United States that it is almost literally unimaginable.

I'm curious to see if "Bob" responds and backs up his claims, or if his comments are as imagined as his onscreen persona.

(Thanks go to Kos for posting this.)

Does the Foley scandal prove the existence of a God?

Glenn Greenwald was wondering...and I have to admit, this thought has crossed my mind more than a few times this week.

This scandal is no doubt a fine example of divine retribution. If nothing more, it serves as a reminder of how much the sting of hypocrisy really hurts; and the greater the hypocrisy, the greater the pain:

The perfection of this scandal lies in its substance, not its theatrics. The Foley scandal is not -- as even some Bush opponents have asserted -- an aberrational, isolated, inconsequential melodrama that is unrelated to the substantive and important critiques of the Bush movement and which just coincidentally emerged as a cynical weapon that can be used to defeat the Republicans. The opposite is true. This scandal has resonated so powerfully because it is shining such a powerful light on the towering hubris, utter lack of intellectual and ethical integrity, and deeply engrained corruption that accounts for virtually every other Bush disaster -- from Iraq to law-breaking scandals to torture to Abrahmoff-type corruption schemes and everything in between.

AMEN.

Political stunts trump policy needs...again

Someone should try to maintain a list of the number of times this administration has chosen politics over policy -- or however you want to phrase it: style over substance, fear over security, insanity over rationality, lies over truth...

A delay to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's departure from Iraq means the six powers meeting in London would be unable to conclude its business, a State Department spokesman said Friday.

Sean McCormack, traveling with Rice, said the delay meant she would arrive late for a meeting with foreign ministers from the U.K., France, Germany, Russia and China. The group still planned to meet, but McCormack said they would be unable to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council as had been expected.

Plans Rice's departure from Irbil was delayed by about two hours because of mechanical problems discovered in the C-17 military transport that was supposed to ferry her to Turkey, where another jet was waiting to fly her to London.

Funny that this little side trip to -- yet again -- trumpet 'progress in Iraq' was overshadowed by violence, lack of security and a still-decaying infrastructure.

I'd be laughing at the irony if all of this weren't so tragic.

Let's Review, Shall We?

Just a few details, summing up what we know:

1. Clinton Administration met weekly on counter-terrorism, left incoming Bush Administration a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy, plus recommendations to make counter-terrorism a top-priority.
2. Bush Administration ignored counter-terrorism strategy left by Clinton Administration, focused on missile defense as the most "urgent threat"; Cabinet met only once where Al Qaeda was on the agenda prior to September 11, 2001.
3. Then-CIA Director George Tenet requested a meeting on July 10, 2001, to warn then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice of "a potentially catastrophic attack by Al Qaeda, possibly within American borders." No follow-up.
4. Bush Administration does not follow up on Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) of August 6, 2001, which had the title "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," according to the 9/11 Commission Report, which "found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" after receiving the PDB.
5. October 2, 2006: Rice "does not recall" meeting on July 10, 2001 with Tenet, but finds it "incomprehensible" that she would have ignored reports of an impending attack on the United States.
6. October 2: July 10 meeting is confirmed.

This may be an incomplete list of incompetence, but it's not incomprehensible.


(Thanks to ThinkProgress for their archives.)

Foley Shit

I was avoiding blogging about this Mark Foley thing, because I really don't like it when politicians' personal issues cloud political policy debates. I'm wonky that way.

However, I was compelled to comment for three reasons:

1. I really wanted to title a blog entry "Foley Shit." (Though I can't even claim credit for this obvious display of brilliance.)
2. We really do need to know what the Republican leadership knew, and when they knew it. It's unacceptable to have these people in leadership positions if they truly were protecting a house seat over protecting children from sexual predators. And I'm really trying hard not to blow a gasket over the fact that many of these people claim moral superiority for their "family values"...
3. I am utterly sickened by the pathetic defense(s) the True Believers on the right have foisted on us -- particularly any comparisons to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal (it's all just "inappropriate behavior towards subordinates" etc etc etc). Look: Lying about an affair between two consenting adults is infinitely more preferable to a 52-year old U.S. Congressman making unwelcome advances to 16 year old boys, and then Party leadership covering it up. The two scenarios don't even compare!

But this isn't about my preferences -- or even Mark Foley's, for that matter. This is about a sick man being aided and abetted by a truly sick and corrupt party leadership.

-And that's certainly not good for the health of our country.