December 2006 Archives

Atrios helpfully reminds us about what the last honest man, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Himself-Conn.) had to say about Iraq during his campaign against Ned Lamont:

I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year we will being to draw down significant numbers of American troops and by the end of next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home.

Sen. Lieberman, of course, now supports a surge of troops.

The fact that he remains a credible voice about Iraq is an indication of just how unserious our political elites are about the Iraq tragedy.

The New York Daily News' Michael Daly is properly shrill in an attempt to remind us that we have major unfinished business with an international terrorist:

The execution of Saddam Hussein brings justice for thousands of innocents murdered in Iraq during his regime.

Someday, we might even see justice for the 2,749 innocents murdered in downtown Manhattan five years ago.

It's been only 1,931 days since President Bush promised to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Perhaps it is wrong to rush a man noted much more for his bluster than his competence.

Josh Marshall puts Saddam Hussein's execution in an important context:

This whole endeavor, from the very start, has been about taking tawdry, cheap acts and dressing them up in a papier-mache grandeur -- phony victory celebrations, ersatz democratization, reconstruction headed up by toadies, con artists and grifters. And this is no different. Hanging Saddam is easy. It's a job, for once, that these folks can actually see through to completion. So this execution, ironically and pathetically, becomes a stand-in for the failures, incompetence and general betrayal of country on every other front that President Bush has brought us.

Try to dress this up as an Iraqi trial and it doesn't come close to cutting it -- the Iraqis only take possession of him for the final act, sort of like the Church always left execution itself to the 'secular arm'. Try pretending it's a war crimes trial but it's just more of the pretend mumbojumbo that makes this out to be World War IX or whatever number it is they're up to now.

The Iraq War has been many things, but for its prime promoters and cheerleaders and now-dwindling body of defenders, the war and all its ideological and literary trappings have always been an exercise in moral-historical dress-up for a crew of folks whose times aren't grand enough to live up to their own self-regard and whose imaginations are great enough to make up the difference. This is just more play-acting.

Amen. Yes, you killed Saddam. Woo-hoo. Are we any safer? Is Iraq any safer? Was this worth the lives of nearly 3,000 U.S. soldiers?

As Digby points out:

This half-assed, jailhouse execution by what appear to be a bunch of random thugs in leather jackets and black hoods milling around the prisoner, puts the final coda to our pretentions of helping the Iraqis build a civilized society.

Indeed. I doubt history will view this as a victory.

Oh, by the way, warbloggers: how is that search for Osama bin Laden going? The Osama Clock on this web page keeps ticking.

Crooks and Liars provides an example of what happens when theocrats gain too much power.

Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.'"

Just a little. I hope the new Democratic majorities in Congress can put a dent in the ongoing Republican war against science.

More than five years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, figuring out ways to keep our state and national governments functioning in the wake of disaster should be a higher priority.

Via Stateline.org, here is a story about Iowa's legislature examining what it should do to prepare.

IFTF's Future Now's blog links to a new study which explains how a regional nuclear war among emerging nuclear powers could have major impacts on the global climate.

Jim Kunstler hits upon one of the growing scandals of our time: excessive compensation for poor performing corporate leaders. As he writes:

Now, at some point, the Executive Compensation Committee of this board (composed of four directors) recommended McKinnell's pay package, including terms of severance, in case things didn't work out. Presumably, the committee then presented their recommendations to the full board for a vote. Aside from the massive clumps of deferred compensation ($77.9 million) and pension benefits ($82.3 million), the package included $12 million in pure severance pay, vested stock grants ($5.8 million), and a plain vanilla annual bonus of $2.15 million.

It is amusing that a CEO who made $140 billion worth of stock value evaporate during his tenure would be regarded as worthy of a performance bonus. But the sweetest little sugar plums in the stocking are the $576,573 worth of medical and dental coverage (so Hank doesn't have to wait in some emergency room with a bunch of illegal Mexican sheet-rockers), and finally the $305,644 that McKinnell will get for paid vacation days he didn't take.

What I'd like to know is how come Pfizer's directors are not sitting down right now with investigators from the Securities and Exchange commission, or the US Attorney's office, or the New York state Attorney General's office and answering some questions as to how they acquiesced in the looting of this corporation. Surely, there are only two ways that the directors' behavior can be explained: as either the wildest sort of fiduciary failure or flat out venality -- which would naturally lead to either civil trials or criminal prosecutions.

In a sane world, anyway.

Josh Marshall reminds us of an important fact of life about the debate over a surge of troops into Iraq:

The premise of this narrative is that the president is slowly persuading the generals of the logic of his position that we should escalate the conflict in Iraq by inserting however many tens of thousands of new troops into the country. But the premise is bogus because it is the duty of the three and four star generals to come around after the president does not accept their contrary opinions. He's in charge. They're not in charge. That is how we all want it to work -- though, admittedly, it is somewhat harder to stomach when the president is a stubborn, serial bumbler.

Media Matters has compiled a list of the most outrageous statements made by conservative pundits in 2006.

It's not for the faint of heart.

Greg Sargent has an excellent question that the media should be asking Sen. Joe Lieberman (Himself-Conn.):

Which military commanders did Lieberman speak with, and what did they say to persuade him that "additional U.S. troops must be deployed"?

As Sargent notes, since military commanders are saying the do not support the "surge" idea, Lieberman should not be able to get away with a generic "After speaking with our military commanders on the ground" justification for his support of the idea.

Senator Lieberman: just with whom did you speak on the ground?

Turns out that Rep.-Elect Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) can trace his family history in America back to 1742.

One wonders what this fact will do to Rep. Virgil H. Goode, Jr.'s (R-Va.) ravings about the dangers posed to this nation by the combination of immigration and Ellison's becoming the first Muslim to win election to Congress.

Now, if Goode had any decency, or understanding of our Constitution, he'd apologize or resign. I won't hold my breath.

Dear So-Called Liberal Media:

When President Bill Clintion lied about a private consensual sexual matter, our pundit class deemed the future of our Republic at stake. What about the children, you asked.

Yet, new admissions that President George W. Bush has been repeatedly lying about whether it is he -- or the generals on the ground -- setting troop levels has so far resulted in very little comment. The Washington Post's Peter Baker reports:

By yesterday, however, Bush indicated that he will not necessarily let military leaders decide, ducking a question about whether he would overrule them. "The opinion of my commanders is very important," he said. "They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot." He added: "I agree with them that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy."

A senior aide said later that Bush would not let the military decide the matter. "He's never left the decision to commanders," said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so Bush's comments would be the only ones on the record. "He is the commander in chief. But he has said he will listen to those commanders when making these decisions. That hasn't changed." (emphasis added)

Greg Sargent at the Horse's Mouth recounts just a few of the many occasions when this president or his surrogates assured the American people that the generals were in charge.

To be blunt, so-called liberal media, matters of war are more important than blow jobs. In this case, real children are DYING in Iraq.

Rep. Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (R-Va.) will not apologize for his anti-Muslim tirade and attack against Rep.-Elect Keith Ellison (D-Minn.).

Rep. Goode took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Article VI of the Constitution includes the following prohibition:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (emphasis added)

Why does Rep. Goode not accept the Constitution? I think he should resign if he feels religious tests are necessary -- despite being specifically prohibited by the Constitution to which he swore an oath to preserve and defend.

The Washington Post's Peter Baker reports:

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

Thank you, Mr. President, for getting to the position reality-based people had in 2004. Over on the Daily Kos, Meteor Blades wonders if we can consider this "better late than never?"

The president later offered some of the most pathetic spin possible when asked to explain his pre-election declaration that we were definitely winning in Iraq. As Baker writes:

Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.

Right. It was just a prediction and not a lie from the president in a last-ditch effort to save the Congressional Republicans. Sure. I love it that this president apparently thinks the American people are stupid enough to fall for such twisty spin.

Rep. Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (R-Va.) believes the American people better wake up before more Muslims like Rep.-Elect Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) get elected to Congress. Click here to read Rep. Goode's letter to his constituents.

(Hat tip: Crooks and Liars)

Far too much political reporting in this country focuses only on the polls and other "horserace" questions rather than on the details of policy.

For this reason, it is more than a little odd that Newsweek ran an article about Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama's presidential chances without mentioning its own poll showing Clinton beating Sen. John McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani in head-to-head matchups.

Why did they exclude their poll showing Clinton ahead? Newsweek says:

The Newsweek numbers on the head-to-head presidential matchups were not publicized by the magazine. They appeared in a press release on the magazine's Web site but weren't included in a Clinton-Barack Obama cover story, which focused on whether Americans were receptive to black or female presidential candidates. A Newsweek editor said the poll matchups were not pertinent to the cover story. (emphasis added)

Huh? As Atrios mocks:

Right. The poll numbers regarding how receptive voters were to Clinton and Obama were not pertinent to a cover story "which focused on whether Americans were receptive to black or female presidential candidates."

Another example of your so-called liberal media hard at work.

The Washington Post's Robin Wright and Peter Baker report that the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously oppose the troop surge idea. Among the problems cited:

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

It looks like Time magazine may have been wrong to name "You" the person of the year. A new conservative talking point is out, blaming you -- the American people -- for not having the will to win in Iraq.

Click the link and see what the company hired to administer the Louisiana "Road Home" program of homeowners repair or buy-out grants thinks represents $500 worth of damage.

Then imagine what you would think if one of your 90-year-old relatives received a congratulatory letter informing them of the $500 grant.

How could a nation like ours allow this tragedy to continue to unfold in the Gulf region?

As David Horsey makes clear, President Bush sure is the decider. (Hat tip: Americablog)

Crooks and Liars' John Amato links to a recap of some of Donald Rumsfeld's most notable quotes. Statements like:

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."

You mean he's not on the Moon?

Or, of course, this piece of prognostication about the then-upcoming Iraq War:

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Alas, it has taken far longer than six months. Good riddance.

It is difficult to believe that the situation at Guantanamo could be getting worse. Meanwhile, despite the denials of our government officials, many of those released from Guantanamo have been released by their home countries. As Digby writes about the situation:

Guantanamo is a stain on America that is going to haunt us forever. Its very existence is an affront to the constitution upon which our government is built and the philosophy of human rights that inform it. For years now we've known what was happening down there and yet it still continues. In fact, from today's report, it's taken a recent turn for the worse. I can hardly believe it.

This stain should be a bigger deal in our political conversation.

Stephen Colbert agrees with Tom DeLay -- liberals are at fault for the Iraq disaster. After all, as Colbert points out, there simply is no one in the executive branch of our government that made any bad decisions, ignored expert opinions about the chaos an invasion would create, or misled the American people about intelligence findings.

Nope, not one person in the White House could be accused of any of that. Uh-huh.

See the video at Crooks and Liars.

TPMuckraker's Justin Rood takes a close look at a GAO graphic that shows the amount of violence in Iraq, and wonders why the Bush Administration refuses to release the data for September, October, and November -- months that media reports suggest have been particularly violent.

You can see a larger version of the chart here. It tells a pretty compelling story -- part of a compelling story. It was produced in December, but it's missing data for the months of September, October and November of this year -- a period of increased violence, according to news reports. What gives?

I called Joseph A. Christoff, the GAO official who produced the document. "I have all [the Pentagon's] data" for those months, he told me. But the military stamped it classified, he said. And despite making weeks of phone calls, he can't convince anyone there to declassify the numbers.

Gee, I wonder why that would be?

Plans are underway to turn off most of the lights in Sydney for one hour on March 31, 2007, as a way to encourage discussion about global warming.

Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz runs down some of the post-election myths many pundits have been spreading.

Let's face facts. Neither the mid-term election nor the Iraq Study Group Report meant much to President Bush's Iraq policy.

So, as Kurtz explains, you can expect Americans to wake up in the New Year to find our nation even more entangled in Iraq -- with the deaths continuing to pile up.

Time's person of the year is "you." Yes, you.

Somehow, in Time magazine's estimation, YouTube, blogs, and "user-generated content" are more important than wars killing thousands of people a month, genocidal regimes, or the architects of a Congressional power switch.

Enjoy looking at the cheap "mirrors" on the newsstands next week.

This is another horrible consequence of our president's shameful decision to invade Iraq. The Washington Post's Nancy Trejos reports:

Life has become more difficult for most Iraqis since the February bombing of a Shiite Muslim mosque in Samarra sparked a rise in sectarian killings and overall lawlessness. For many women, though, it has become unbearable.

As Islamic fundamentalism seeps into society and sectarian warfare escalates, more and more women live in fear of being kidnapped or raped. They receive death threats because of their religious sects and careers. They are harassed for not abiding by the strict dress code of long skirts and head scarves or for driving cars.

President Bush likes to talk about improving the lives of women in Iraq and Afghanistan. As with many other policies, he has failed miserably to keep this promise.