Which Old Witch?

The Wicked One!

Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead! They hanged him, in the dark, in a dark place.
I reckon some people are happy about it. These men certainly must be! I don't know about al Jaafari, but there's not much George W. Bush likes more than a nice execution. Probably reminds him of better days when, as Governor of Texas he could order lots of executions. Or course, a good old-fashioned hanging beats one of those wussy lethal injection executions hands down. Heck, with a lethal injection you can't even tell when the Grim Reaper has come and gone.
However, this may fall among that class of Things You Should Be Careful You Wish For. It seems to me it's a somewhat ominous precedent. Having a Quisling court of a puppet government execute a former head of state; I mean. A head of state who was, moreover, handed to the court conditionally, premised from the get-go on the certainty of a guilty verdict and a death sentence. Saddam was, of course, a Brutal Thug Dictator - supported in his thuggery, unfortunately, by the United States so long as he followed orders: something he failed to do in 1991.

Be That As It May

The precedent has been established now: Kangaroo Court Yes; World Court No.Who knows if perhaps there will come a time when a United States President, sitting or former will wish that he could appeal to the World Court?
OH:, just as an aside, I think it's really really stupid to create a martyr to give your enemies a rally point, just out of a self-righteous belief in your own personal divine guidance. I know; it's hard to believe that Saddam Hussein could ever be made into a hero, but think about who is telling the story in the Sunni states of the middle east? And how many would-be successors are willing to rewrite the history of Iraq/The Saddam Years to their own personal gain?
Please Stay Tuned

What Choices?

"Analysis: Bush Iraq choices get tougher
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
CRAWFORD, Texas - Whatever the reasons for President Bush''s lengthy deliberations on a new Iraq policy, they undoubtedly will serve two political purposes: Letting the grim milestone of 3,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq and the potential backlash from Saddam Hussein's execution pass before the public hears his new ideas. The execution of Saddam by his countrymen would help legitimize the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Yet, if it incites more bloodshed, it would remind Americans that the situation is "grave and deteriorating," as the recent Iraq Study Group concluded.
The American public has grown weary of the war and even though past wars have seen vastly higher casualties, a U.S. death toll topping 3,000 — which is approaching - would shine a spotlight on the human toll of U.S. involvement.
For now, Bush has been able to fend off calls for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Yet if the situation in Iraq doesn't improve — and quickly — those calls could begin to drown out whatever new ideas he puts forth in the early weeks of the new year. Americans are a patient lot and likely will give Bush the time and backing he needs to take another shot at getting a U.S. policy in Iraq that works. And the new Democratically led Congress, which convenes on Jan. 4, probably won't block the commander in chief if he decides to briefly increase troop levels. "It is likely his last chance, however," said analyst Jon Alterman. "Republicans and Democrats alike will be looking for early signs that the president's policy isn't working, in which case they will quickly head for the exits. My sense is that this is taking a long time because they know it's their last shot."
Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Friday that neither the approaching 3,000th U.S. death in Iraq nor Saddam's execution is "dictating when" Bush's speech will be delivered. Those two events, though, will influence its reception by the American people.
When Saddam was pulled from his hiding spot in a spider hole in December 2003, public opinion shifted in Bush's favor. But the former Iraqi leader's execution likely would have less inclination to sway public opinion now because Americans' views have hardened as the war has intensified.
The White House viewed Saddam's execution as an "important milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law." Still, skeptics of the president's policy can argue that remains mired in violent turmoil. And those opposed to a surge in U.S. troops will use the 3,000th death as a reason to continue opposing one. "I think there was a time when the death of Saddam Hussein would have given Bush the kind of political capital he needs to call for an increase in troops and an expansion of the military effort there, but I think we're past that time," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University.
Bush is expected to deliver his speech — laying out his plan to improve security, assist the Iraqis in reaching a political reconciliation between warring sects and help with reconstruction — before his State of the Union address on Jan. 23. "

It's Remarkable

Isn't it; all the years of the war, when George W. Bush didn't want to send more troops - the generals didn't want more troops. Now that the President wants to send more troops - the generals suddenly discover that they by golly sure would like to have some more troops!
I suppose it's some part of the legacy of Donald K. Rumsfeld, that he managed to purge the Pentagon of any generals who thought like generals, leaving only those who thought like lieutenants. I think perhaps they should dust off General Westmoreland, he of Vietnam infamy, and put him back in charge!

In The Holiday Season

The Headlines...

Are truly like a letter from an alternate reality. A little cut/and/paste... and voila!:

World leaders call for peace on holiday AP - 30 minutes ago
British raid Basra police station AP - 17 minutes ago
Philippine military goes on high alert AP - 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Pope offers Christmas prayers for peace AP - 43 minutes ago
Ethiopian jets bomb airports in Somalia AP - 2 hours ago

In Bethlehem, Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah, head-christian-in-charge, said "God wants peace".

Perhaps so, but He sure isn't getting any help from His people! It's pretty clear; God may want peace, but the record shows mankind is a lot more comfotable when there's a war or two going on. Why else are they apparently the most common state of affairs worldwide?
Merry Christmas, or Happy Solstice...

On Boxing Day

December 26, 2004, two years ago:

"On the morning of Dec. 26, 2004, the most powerful earthquake in four decades lifted the seabed west of Sumatra by several yards, propelling waves up to two stories high at jetliner speeds across the Indian Ocean to smash into coastal communities, beach resorts and towns in 12 nations.
In hardest-hit Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and India, the waves surged miles inland, tossing ships, swallowing entire villages and leaving behind a blasted landscape of concrete foundations and rubble littered with tens of thousands of bodies.
On Sumatra island — home to more than half the tsunami's nearly 230,000 dead and missing — volunteers and emergency workers took three months to recover all the corpses and bury them in mass graves."
(AP, Dec. 25, 2006)

December 26, 2006, now:

"EXCLUSIVE
Where did our tsunami cash go?
Western countries send complaint to police after loss of money donated to identify victims
...
The sources, who asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the subject, said funds contributed by Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and France amounted to almost Bt60 million.
The money was donated by the citizens of those countries, who wanted to help victims of the tsunami(emphasis mine; Ed.) that killed more than 5,000 people in the Phuket, Phang-Nga and Krabi areas.
The source said more than 60 per cent of the funds were wasted and disguised as travelling and other miscellaneous costs. 'To be frank, someone has stolen our citizens' money,"'said one of the sources, who has followed the victim identification process from the beginning."
...
(from The Nation, Bangkok, Dec. 25 2006)

"Editor,
Regarding Where did our tsunami cash go?(Nation, Dec. 25)This drove me crazy at the time, and the passing of time doesn't seem to have helped any. Why is it that, after the tsunami struck on Boxing Day 2004, the dead tourists were somehow more important than the living citizens? Still today, you talk about "wanting to help victims of the tsunami..." Hey! The dead are past our ability to help. How about helping the living, who lacked food, shelter; in some cases lost their entire families? Some of the victims are living without shelter or means of earning a living still today, two years later. Please, people, try to focus on what's important here!
Thanks,
Frank Maunder,
Bangkok Thailand"
(from me, Bangkok, Dec. 25 2006)

More Charting

It appears that President George W. Bush isn't the only politician who's planning a New Course In Iraq...

"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right ... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose."
Senator John McCain This in response to some polling regarding his proposal to add many thousands more (army) troops to those already occupying Iraq.

No fuzz on Sen. McCain's brain!

You either win, or you lose!
Or, as here, you have lost. Perhaps he never learned the present complicated tense in grammar school.

Charting a New Course

George W. Bush

is busily charting a New Course In Iraq (NCII). Some would say it's about time. Others would say it's way past that time. I said a long time ago (Here) that it was never time to begin in the first place. In 2003 only a few hundred million people thought it was a Bad Idea for the United States (and let's not forget the Coalition of the Willing) to attack Iraq.
Now, I believe, the number who think that was a bad idea is into the billions. Something here about eleventh hour conversions...
Anyway, I have to admit that my brain isn't able to do much in the way of original thinking. When the President talks about a NCII, I can only come up with two directions. One: stay. Two: go. What else is there? Sorry folks, no do-overs in war - you can't opt for the original don't-invade-to-begin-with. Maybe there's a third course? Sort-Of-Stay? Sort-Of-Go? Slouch toward Bethlehem?
Now, the president has said that leaving is not an option. If he's telling the truth, which i fear he is, then the NCII is going to look remarkably like the OCII (Old Course In Iraq).
The Pentagon uniforms have a new idea, of course: Give Us More Money! Might as well get something out of this mess!
Something here from MacBeth... "staggers along in its..." until enough people have died. Or too many people. No, no, thats from Bob Dylan, isn't it. Well, anyway, once enough people have died...
Then we can leave.
It's amazing how many people have to die to save their leader's faces.

Critical Condition

I'm only guessing, but my best guess is that right now


Harry Reid (D-NV),

Senate Majority Leader-In-Waiting has a new best friend;


Gordon Smith (R-OR).

Just in case he needs an eleventh hour conversion of a backbencher. He's probably taken Gordo up on the mountain, and is showing him the kingdom of Major Committee Chairmanships. Sorry to seem so cynical.

My thoughts are with Sen. Tim Johnson.

Flexible And Realistic

Indeed!

The Iraq Study Group Report is in, and it seems to be a best seller! It lists many many Good Things We Can Do In Iraq. Most of them no longer possible, if they ever were. Meantime, George W. Bush says he will be "flexible and realistic" about ... troop movements! Here's what the NY Times reports: "Bush Backs Away..."

By now, it seems pretty clear that the president isn't going to change anything with regard to the Iraq disaster. And why should he? Anything that includes keeping American ("Coalition Of The Willing") military in Iraq, which is not at all negotiable for this newly "flexible and realistic" President, is more likely to make things worse than they are already. Why not simply leave things as they are; let the killing continue. After all, as the President says, it isn't that he is losing the war in Iraq - he just isn't winning fast enough! Therefore, when the next President of the US abandons Iraq, the neocon historical revisionists can report (over and over and over, until they create a believing electorate) that the War President was within a hairs breadth of Winning In Iraq; but the new president was insufficiently bellicose for the task - It's All Her Fault!

As for that part about "When Iraq Can Defend Itself", judging by the casualty figures among the occupying forces (regrettably, they are my countrymen); looks like they are able to defend themselves just fine now. Probably a result of the training they got from the US army.

I wonder; if James Baker III had a do-over in the 2000 election - who would he cast his ballot for ?

Who, Besides Me...

... thinks there's something very very wrong with a society that debates the relative merits of torture as a way of dealing with "enemies" - real or suspected?

My God people, what are you thinking of?

How To Win In Iraq

A lot of new voices seem to be entering the How To Win In Iraq Sweepstakes (You May Already Be A Winner!) The Pentagon is apparently going to propose increasing the level of effort to train and equip an Iraq army that will be robust enough to protect the Government of Iraq. The Iraq Study Group (sounds a bit like a graduate seminar in the Geography Department, doesn't it?) is perhaps going to suggest actually talking to other countries in the region. Pretty bold stuff.
One thing that all the powers that be in the USA have in common, however, is that they all exist in a society that implicitly believes that governments work. Whether they like the way a government works or not is irrelevant here; none of them seems able to concieve other than extensionally that a government might be incapable of effecting events within its allocated geographic extent. I am here to tell you that, in fact, there are lots of places in the world that have no effective government (see The Hadley Memo). We all know the names - it's just that we don't seem to remember them very well. Let's just say they aren't high on the world tote board. Nepal, Cambodia, Somalia, Haiti, to mention a few. And, now, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why the Pentagon's Approach Won't Work

The Army of Iraq was sent home three years ago by the American Viceroy. The Army of Iraq that the US Army is training is in fact a lot of young men who have no allegiance to, and no interest in, the nation of Iraq. They are the very insurgents and militias that are shooting at us. The effectiveness of US military training is evident; consider how much better the anti-occupation forces are at killing our soldiers now than they were a few years ago. With more training by the US miltary, eventually the people who want to kill us will be as effective a force as our own army! Sadly, as I said above, an Army General (or a Marine or Air Force General for that matter) is someone who has experienced great success in the United States, is committed to the national government, and has almost a faith-based belief in the effectiveness of training as the solution to every problem. Their experience has shown them that this is correct. The underlying assumption that there exists a government is what's in error with respect to Iraq.

Why the Study Group's Approach Won't Work

Our feckless president won't talk to people he doesn't like. Except to tell them they'd better just do as he tells them to, or they'll be the next on the list. Actually, the neocons who did such a fine job of steering the USA into an attack on Iraq are trying to reprise that effort in Iran. Such delusional thinking is really quite remarkable, if you stop to consider it.

The Maunder Solution

Get out! A phased withdrawal, with the troops leaving according to a schedule. Said schedule being - As fast as the transports can land, refuel, load, and take off!

Will that lead to chaos in Iraq? As opposed to the situation now? Surely. That poor devastated country is in for it, and we - the United States, President George W. Bush, the Iraqi Study Group, The Pentagon, The Democratic Congressional Majority; none of the above has any power to prevent it.

At least, when we are no longer there to be shot at, the Iraqis we trained so dilligently will turn their guns on the foreign forces they are now allied with. A new set of foreigners to exercise their well-deserved xenophobia on. A new scapegoat, if you will.

I should probably mention, at the end, that I wanted to rush-to-post in order to predate the Iraq Study Group's no doubt very eloquent report, due out on Wednesday.

Might Be

Heading For A Civil War ...

"New savage twist to violence in Baghdad"
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press "BAGHDAD, Iraq - Revenge-seeking Shiite militiamen seized six Sunnis as they left Friday prayers, drenched them with kerosene and burned them alive, and Iraqi soldiers did nothing to stop the attack, police and witnesses said.
The fiery slayings in the mainly Sunni neighborhood of Hurriyah were a dramatic escalation of the brutality coursing through the Iraqi capital, coming a day after suspected Sunni insurgents killed 215 people in Baghdad's main Shiite district with a combination of bombs and mortars.
The attacks culminated Baghdad's deadliest week of sectarian fighting since the war began more than three years ago.
Police Capt. Jamil Hussein said Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in the burnings of Sunnis carried out by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia, or in subsequent attacks that torched four Sunni mosques and killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children, in the same northwest Baghdad area."

It would probably be an improvement if this turned into a straightforward "Civil War". Then perhaps there'd be some civility.

Sorry . . .

The Vietnam Lesson

So finally, at long long last, George W. Bush arrives in VietNam. About 35 years or so late. What does he do first? Just what any red-blooded American Commander In Chief would do: He lets his hosts know that "Hey, if I'd been President, instead of that cut-n-runner Democrat LBJ, I woulda whupped your ass!" (We don't mention RMN around the White House - neither Republicans nor Democrats).

While standing in front of a bust of the winner of that war, Ho Chi Minh.

What a diplomat! What a fugitive from reality!

Of course, the man is as bloodthirsty as anyone alive today, so dropping yet more bombs, shooting yet more villagers, deforesting yet more jungle, wreaking yet more havoc, year after year after year, would be no problem for this man.

I think the analysts have been wrong; I don't think the Iraq attack was about killing Saddam Hussein. I think it's just Bush making up for having missed his chance at killing gooks - he'll kill some ragheads to make up for his missed chance in Vietnam.

And, of course, he had to let the Vietnamese know how lucky they were to get off so lightly, before he sobered up enough to realize there had been a war. "Dammit, I missed all the fun!"

... Or Else!

Gen. John Abizaid,commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East, sternly warned Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
that he must disband Shiite militias and give the United States proof that they were disarmed, according to senior Iraqi government officials with knowledge of what the two men discussed.

Or We Spank!

Moments Away

Let the voting begin!

In a few hours now, the voters will be flocking, or at least slouching, to the voting booths. The biennial popularity contest has been unusually mmm, contested, this time around. The prognosticators were predicting big things for the Democrats, based on their polling. Then things started to shift. Big surprise! In statistics, this kind of shift is known as Regression Toward The Mean.
In this case, mean is a very apt description. There are a couple of reasons for this: One is that the oft-remarked "undecided" vote is going to go disproportionally to Republican candidates. Easy to see why. A lot of polled voters said they were undecided when they really meant Republican but were too ashamed to admit it. A tipoff: there's that number (18 or 19 pct., I forget) of pollees who say that John Kerry's remark about "stuck in Iraq" (like that's not a true statement of fact!) is likely to influence their vote. If the candidates will sieze on any pretext, well, so will their supporters, it seems.
The other reason is that polling seems to bring out the inner idiot in the pollee. My favorite recent example is a poll from Iraq, in which 80% of the pollees agreed that the United States occupying forces increased the violence in their hapless state, but only 70% thought that it would be a good thing for the occupiers to leave! Of course, I could be reading this wrong; perhaps the 10%difference was by way of those who approved of the additional targets for their bombs and bullets, and would be sorry to see the soldiers leave.

...good for Missouri

Here's George W. Bush stumping in Missouri, November 3 2006: "...And the Democrats want to raise your taxes...we put the death tax on the road to extinction..."
Yes! The Democrats want to raise your taxes. The Republicans, on the other hand, want to raise your children's taxes, and their children's taxes. But that's okay, because your children won't have to pay any taxes. Because they'll be living nicely on the many millions of dollars you were able to bequeath to them on account of the nice Repbublicans' repeal of the estate (aka death) tax! You do plan to leave an estate worth millions, don't you?
Of course, when everyone is rich and pays no taxes, it's a little puzzling how the roads are going to be fixed. Much less how we're going to pay the billions of dollars a year to prop up the puppet governments in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, etc. etc. Perhaps the future will look something like this: We All Live Upstairs Now. Now is one of those times I can honestly say Good Idea; Too bad it's wrong!

Remarkable!

Cheney: Iraqi Government Doing 'Remarkably Well'

By E&P (Editor & Publisher) Staff
Published: October 17, 2006 3:55 PM ET
NEW YORK Vice President Dick Cheney, as he is wont to do during difficult times for the administration, appeared on Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show today, where he declared that the current government in Iraq is "off to a good start" and "they're doing remarkably well." Americans are concerned, however, because the war, which began in March 2003, "wasn't over instantaneosly," he explained.
Here is the relevant portion of the transcript concerning Iraq:
CHENEY: Well, I think there’s some natural level of concern out there ... On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now. They’re off to a good start ... If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.
(The Web site, ThinkProgress.org, has the audio)

Central Command thinks it's going this well!

As The Professor Says

As Casey Stengel, known to baseball fans of a certain age as "The Perfesser" used to say

"You Could Look It Up".

In this age of cut/paste writing, there are a lot of boiler plate phrases that seem to be included everywhere certain subjects are mentioned. Like the one about "...Thought by some to cause global warming...", referring to CO2 when talking about the Greenhouse Effect. Where, of course, "some" actually means "everyone who isn't making money from CO2 emissions."

But that's a topic for a later post.

The phrase that currently sticks in my brain is

"Government of Iraq."

Finally I just couldn't take it any more. But, before I decided to howl in protest, I decided to follow the Perfesser's advice; I looked it up. Here is the definition, (courtesy of Wikipedia):
"A government is a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organization or group. In its broadest sense, 'to govern' means to administer or supervise, whether over a state, a set group of people, or a collection of assets.
The word government is ultimately derived from the Greek κυβερν'ν (kybernan), which means 'to steer'.
Typically, 'the government' refers to the executive function. In many countries (particularly those having parliamentary systems), the government refers to the executive branch of government or a specifically named executive, such as the Blair government (compare to the administration as in the Bush administration in U.S. usage). In countries using the Westminster system, the party in government will also usually control the legislature.
The 'Welsh Assembly Government' is the name of the executive branch of Wales, and 'Scottish government' is the unofficial term to describe the Scottish Executive."
It seemed to me that the operative word here with respect to "Government of Iraq" is "Power", so I "looked it up";
" Political power (imperium in Latin) is a type of power held by a person or group in a society. There are many ways to hold such power. Officially, political power is held by the political leader of a state, such as a president, prime minister, or monarch, as representatives or holders of the sovereignty. Political powers are not limited to heads of states, however, and the extent to which a person or group holds such power is related to the amount of societal influence they can wield, formally or informally. In many cases this influence is not contained within a single state and it refers to international power.
Political scientists have frequently defined power as 'the ability to influence the behaviour of others' with or without resistance."
I think it's especially cool that the creators of these Wikipedia entries added a dash of Greek and Latin to their work. Very nice!

However, my point (finally) is in the form of a question:

What Government?

A Cautionary Note

Here's something I read a few years ago. I didn't remember the exact place I had read it. I re-encountered it a few days ago. Just thought I'd share it with you:
" ... it is reasonable and understandable that the question is often asked: 'Why can't we take a specific and troubling dilemma straight to God, and in prayer secure from Him sure and definite answers to our requests?'
This can be done, but it has hazards. We have seen [alcoholics] ask with much earnestness and faith for God's explicit guidance on matters ranging all the way from a shattering domestic or financial crisis to correcting a minor personal fault, like tardiness. Quite often, however, the thoughts that seem to come from God are not answers at all. They prove to be well-intentioned unconscious rationalizations. The [alcoholic], or indeed any man, who tries to run his life rigidly by this kind of prayer, by this self-serving demand of God for replies, is a particularly disconcerting individual. To any questioning or criticism of his actions he instantly proffers his reliance upon prayer for guidance in all matters great or small. He may have forgotten the possibility that his own wishful thinking and the human tendency to rationalize have distorted his so-called guidance. With the best of intentions, he tends to force his own will into all sorts of situations and problems with the comfortable assurance that he is acting under God's specific direction. Under such an illusion, he can of course create great havoc without in the least intending it. (emphasis mine)
We also fall into another similar temptation. We form ideas as to what we think God's will is for other people. We say to ourselves, 'this one ought to be cured of his fatal malady,' or 'That one ought to be relieved of his emotional pain,' and we pray for these specific things. Such prayers, of course, are fundamentally good acts, but often they are based upon a supposition that we know God's will for the person for whom we pray. This means that side by side with an earnest prayer there can be a certain amount of presumption and conceit in us..."Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., Copyright 1952. Pp 103-104.
I remember thinking when I first read it "Havoc; yeah, especially if it's the President of the United States!"

Confessions of a Defeatocrat

George W. Bush predicts terrible consequences to follow if United States troops leave Iraq. As if there are not already terrible consequences as a result of their presence. In fact, those things he is predicting are occurring now precisely because of the presence of the occupying troops. "Bush told reporters last week that he invites a change in strategy if the plan isn't working. But he also said the U.S. will not leave until the job is done."The President, as usual, has things precisely backwards; the job won't be done until the troops leave. Things like this: "...The worst bloodshed took place about 50 miles north of Baghdad, around the predominantly Sunni town of Duluiyah and the larger, predominantly Shiite town of Balad. The two communities are separated by the Tigris River..." will continue not occasionally, but every day. Here's the complete Washington Post story:

Washington Post October 15 2006: Iraq Violence Spreads...

Note that in this report, as in very report from Iraq since the invasion three years ago, the killing and destruction is always couched in terms of Shiite versus Sunni. You know, the people who are spending the month of Ramadan fasting, praying, seeking insight into the Will of God as detailed in the holy books of the Old Testament and the Quran. Well, yes, the God of the Old Testament is a pretty bloody God.
What to do?
If we stay: The sectarian violence will continue.
If we go: The sectarian violence will continue.
Since we have been there: Thousands of Iraqis, men, women, children, have been killed. Many by our bombs and bullets.
After we leave:Thousands of Iraqis, men, women, children, will be killed. Not, however, by our bombs and bullets.
When will it end? Not while we remain there.
What will Iraq look like? Not like the vision George W. Bush had when he waved his magic wand. It is most likely to look either like the old Iraq only now ruled over by Saddam Lite, or it will look like three mini-Iraqs, ruled by three "strongmen"; in a more-or-less-continuous state of conflict.
Can the United States influence the outcome? Only in terms of when it will end. The longer the occupying forces stay, the longer it will take.

Hindsight Bias!

Apparently, the neocon apologistas who have been claiming that "No One Could Have Forseen What Has Happened" have some cred with the "liberal-leftist" mainstream media. Or, maybe this is what happens when short attention spans banish memories of anything beyond the current fiscal year or some similar time marker. Appearing in the Washington Post, a news outlet I generally think well of, is this:

Washington Post: Iraq War Naysayers May Have Hindsight Bias

Such an incredibly tortured attempt to deny the facts that were so apparent before the attack on Iraq, and to claim that there were no voices trying to warn of the obvious (to me, anyway) wrongness, is a serious maiming of the record. So blatantly in error that I actually sent off, using a rather miffed tone admittedly, Letter-to-Editor of the Post:
"Editor, With all due respect, do you really believe that the million or so people who were marching to protest the then-imminent Disaster In Iraq in January of 2003 were exhibiting hindsight bias? In fact, I was marching in San Francisco not because, as the cynics were saying, because I was a naive simpleton peacenik. I said it at the time, and I say it again to you now; I was marching not because I thought it would prevent the disaster from happening - I was marching precisely to preserve my right later on to say 'I Told You So!'"

Originally posted on March 18, 2003

Over time I have sent the WaPost a number of letters. I think one was actually printed, but it was probably a slow news day. Enough said.

Coddling Terrorists?

Apparently these days its considered defeatist and cut-and-run and really lame-o to defend someone else's rights.
Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post 28 Sept

"Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945.

One Would Suppose

"Earlier this month, in describing how CIA questioning had loosened the tongues of 14 high-profile suspects captured after 9/11 and imprisoned abroad, Bush insisted that they weren't tortured. Yet in the same speech, he worried that U.S. interrogators 'could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act — simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way.' "

Thorough. Professional.

It's hard to imagine a more "thorough and professional" organization than the late unlamented Gestapo. The efficiency with which they carried out their perverse acts was unprecedented. And rarely matched since. Certainly not by the CIA. Or the FBI. While those organizations are now pretty much dedicated to presenting a shiny unsullied facade to the public, their effectiveness at the supposed tasks they were created for is at a sad ebb.

Meanwhile, one would suppose, and certainly wish, that George W. Bush had finally awakened to the fact that he has acted so wrongly and so despicably, that he is now engaged in trying to A: Hide his criminal activities, or B: Maneuver himself into a position to recieve a complete pardon from his predecessor.
History suggests, however, that he is still unable to connect with reality sufficiently to understand that what he has done, is doing, and likely plans to do, is not only immoral, but also totally counterproductive in "Promoting the General Welfare" of the country.

Clueless In Bangkok

I guess this has gone on a lot here in Thailand. I, as is generally the case, was completely clueless. There hasn't been a real government here since the Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, resigned in a fit of pique last February.

Here's some background from BBC.

The "caretaker government" however, seemed to be doing fine. Even managed to add an entire new layer to the bureaucracy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Probably at other ministries as well, but MFA is the parent of the Immigration Department, where I go quite often and generally find out I've done something wrong, again. There hasn't been a coup here in The Kingdom since 1992, a long time as such things go around here. Since the first Constitution in 1932 (in which the King ceased to be a God and became a constitutional monarch), there have been 17 coups. Eighteen now. The constitution, the new one (1997) has been suspended. It's going to be given an upgrade.

General Sondhi and Admiral Satiraphan

Thaksin Shinawatra

Army Tank at Government House Bangkok

While I have been clueless, My Students

seem to have known something. Yesterday I was asked by some of them what I thought of PM Thaksin and of General Sondhi. I think (hope) I navigated the suddenly stormy waters all right. I don't believe it was a loyalty test.



It's enough to make one wonder; is this the first of many military takeovers? How long will it take for the United States Army to realize that it need not fight an endless series of lost wars overseas - it can fight one short sharp winnable war right at home? Not that I believe for a moment that is going to happen. I think the United States Constitution is more likely to suffer the death of a thousand cuts, as has been happening lately, than to be tossed on the rubbish heap of history by a group of disgruntled Generals.
But then, as I have already admitted, I am clueless!
I have to go to school now. It's the last week before

Final Exams

Off With Their Heads

It occurs to me that the President shares some characteristics in common with a famous ruler of an earlier

non-reality-based Realm

"Now for the evidence," said the King, "and then the sentence."
"No!" said the Queen, "first the sentence, and then the evidence!"
"Nonsense!" cried Alice, so loudly that everybody jumped, "the idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen.



But I had never thought of Alice as one of the Supremes before.
I was pondering earlier today if George W. Bush would be upset if he himself were to be denied access to the evidence against him, if he were to be on trial for, Oh, Lets just say,

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

e.g.
But then I realized that, yes; this man is so reality-averse that he would indeed not wish to hear any evidence brought at his own trial. After all, as the decider he can veto anything the Senate passes, and perhaps even have the "ayes" rendered to some overseas CIA "facility".
The people of Rome once thought Marius was a great leader. Until they discovered he was not only mad, but blood-mad. (See Maunders Corollary to Santayanas Conjecture)

OH GOOD

"I thought we were in trouble"

"On Thursday, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told the Security Council that Iraq's sectarian killings and kidnappings had increased in the last three months, along with a rise in the number of displaced people.He said ethnic and sectarian violence was 'one of the most significant threats to security and stability in Iraq.' The average number of weekly attacks increased 15 percent in the last three months, and Iraqi casualties rose by 51 percent, Bolton said." (AP News)
It's disheartening to think that all that security and stability we have helped the staunchly Democratic Republic of Iraq to establish is now in jeopardy!
It's going to work out all right though. We have George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice's word on that.

Butch Cassidy thought he was in trouble too, before he and Sundance took out all those troops that had them cornered. Good thing he was wrong about the situation.

How Dems Can Win the Midterm Elections

By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Friday 08 September 2006
What the Democrats should do to win the midterms - and the '08 race for the White House.

Eleanor Clift on Truthout.org

I'm sorry, but I have to say

I hope they don't!

"Why is that, you ask?" Two reasons, I reply:
Reason one - I don't want the congress all balled up in More In Sorrow Than In Anger hearings about every hangnail displayed by the present administration. That's a lotta hangnails. To say nothing of all the other little blemishes on the body politic. It would be even less edifying than the spectacle of the rabid Republican hypermoralistas lewdly eyeballing a smudged velvet dress.
Reason two - I want it made Rub Your Nose In It Clear that the credit due for the present and soon-to-be-future state of affairs belongs entirely to the children of the night er, right, that is.
Speaking of the right; did anyone remark on Presidential wannabe Newt Gingrich's

American Eleven - A Values Led Plan for Victory in November?

My own personal favorite is number 8: Control Spending and Balance the Budget, but it beats out number 7: Achieve Sustainable Energy Independence by a mere whisker.
Clearly, Newt is more of an Idea Man than a Details Man. It's pretty bold of him to claim that this congress (or any forseeable congress, of any major party makeup) is about to balance the budget, or take any substantive action on energy issues, other than giving money to big corporations to "research" energy efficiency. Most of the government giveaway money is funged into the pockets of the corporate heads who managed to get their hands in the governments pockets.
At any rate, I am somewhat, or slightly, or hopefully, confident that Newt will end up alongside Bill Frist as an embarrassed alsoran. But then, if the present President could get elected, and then re-elected, perhaps you really can fool all the people all the time.

Not Just A Liar

The President has been making the hustings trying to get people back on board his disastrous War On Terrorism train.

New York Times Sept. 8.

Meanwhile, back in Baghdad, Troops are flooding into the city, and they're going to build a

Moat!

That's sure to keep the terrorists and bombers out! Or in! Or something! You can already see the

"enhanced security measures"

working.
Bombings: up.
Killings: up.
Dismembered bodies: up.

It's a good thing the enemy is in his "last throes", or we might be in some measure of difficulty here.

Here's a Stumper

"KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 2 — Afghanistan’s opium harvest this year has reached the highest levels ever recorded, showing an increase of almost 50 percent from last year, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, said Saturday in Kabul."
This speaks volumes for the superiority of the free market approach to economics so raptly advocated by western economists. One has to ask though; if the United States can restore the principal industry in Afghanistan to such a robust state, why can it not do the same for the principal industry in Iraq? The demand for oil is certainly as great as the demand for heroin;
"We are addicted to oil."(G. W. Bush, 2006)

So what's the problem? The markets are there, the demand is there, but our occupying forces in Iraq seem unable to match the economic renaissance brought about by our occupying forces in Afghanistan. Why doesn't the president send the Afghan economic restoration team to Iraq, to bring their oil industry up to snuff?

Non Sequitur Omnis

Between a Rock ...

and a Hard Place.

"Lebanese citizens inspect the crater at a bridge that was destroyed when Israeli missiles targeted it, in the village of Boudai, in the Bekaa Valley, eastern Lebanon, Saturday, Aug. 19, 2006. Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that left one Israeli soldier dead. Lebanon called the raid a 'flagrant violation' of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire, while Israel said it was aimed at disrupting arms smuggling from Iran and Syria. (AP Photo/Samer Husseini) "

What does the Israeli government not understand about the word Truce?
Because of the need to not become (more of) an international pariah state, Israel was forced to sign on to a truce in Lebanon. Because of the need of a tottery government to survive, PM Olmert was forced to stage a showy front-page military action. Thus the need to keep the followers in line again trumps common sense, to say nothing of morality and decency, and creates yet another disaster.
Not unlike what President Bush faces with regard to his constituency huh?
It seems like this kind of pushmi-pullyu statecraft is destined to continue until the perpetrator runs out of constituents and can either safely take the proper action, or be removed from office and shot.
Oh; and it's not confined to the United States and Israel. It now seems to be the common course of governments everywhere.

Now, this is odd ...

"BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), a three-term Democrat now running as an independent candidate, leads the man who beat him in last week's primary vote by 12 points in a three-way race, a poll released on Thursday shows. ... The survey found that Lieberman polled best among likely Republican voters, leading the others with 75 percent of the vote compared with Lamont's 13 percent and Schlesinger's 10 percent."
So, the Republican candidate polls 3rd among Republican voters! Behind the democrat the entire Republican establishment is laboring to portray as little better than a mmm, lesee, the current enemy-of-the-day designator is, I believe, Islamist Fascist. And this cut-and-run-ultraliberal-terrorist-coddling Democrat is polling ahead of the good honest strong-on-security Republican among Republican voters. I wonder who is managing Mr. Schlesinger's campaign?
Now, I don't know about Denmark, but there's sure something rotten in the state of Connecticut.

Back From the Brink

It's been a long time since I've been here. I'm still not sure if I've retired from blogism or not. Things have gotten so crowded in the blogosphere that it might better be called the clogosphere.
I've passed on so many topics that now I sort of feel like I should comment on all of 'em at once. I'll try to resist.

This is just too good to pass up though: "Bush says Israel defeated Hezbollah"



This claim from George "Mission Accomplished" Bush, while being flanked by Dick "Last Throes" Cheney and Condi "Birth Pangs" Rice.
Talk about a Trifecta!
Three blind mice, unable to distinguish what's real from what they wish was real.

Iran-0-Phobia...

With all the worry about Iran and nuclear weapons (I
think that we will have more megatonnes than them for the
forseeable future), I have an idea. Instead of
spending a trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) attacking Iran, why don't
we just give them a trillion dollars to stop doing
whatever it is that worries us. I have to admit, I'm
really not sure what that is, but Condi Rice really
displays a furrowed brow these days.
Bribery, you say? I say, it seems to work pretty well
for our government, so why wouldn't it work for their
government too?

It Must Be Difficult

Being George W. Bush.
Here he is doing what God told him to do, but not getting the results God told him he would get. Perhaps he just realized ~ "My God! My God must have had a senior moment; He said Iraq when He must have meant to say Iran! God told me to attack the EVILDOERS in Iran! God must have made a mistake! Surely, it cannot be that I misheard him! Or perhaps he forgot that A thousand years is as a day to the Lord. Perhaps Democracy Will Bloom In The Deserts Of The Mideast - in a millenium or so.
And so, as we continue along this path of madness, we hear (yet again) that "They'll Welcome Us As Liberators; They'll Strew Our Path With Flowers." Now it's the poor oppressed Iranians we will be bringing the freedom of saturation bombing to, instead of the poor oppressed Iraqis. Perhaps the Iraqis will appreciate the respite. I doubt that the Iranians will welcome the bombs dropping on them. As I have said before, or ought to have, the phantasy branch of the federal government remains firm in its grasp of unreality.
At least as remarkable as the fact that there are those who can still say such things (one former DoD official wondered publicly what his boss was smoking), is the fact that a majority of Americans believes this phantasy! Fifty -eight percent, according to the last poll I have seen, think it makes perfect sense to attack Iran.
Of course these are from the same pollsters who are bringing forth numbers that show that "Bush is at an all time low in popularity", spinning the amazing fact that not only does his wife support him but apparently more than one-person-in-three thinks he is competent. Now that is truly An Amazing Statistic.

The New Science

In the news these days, the once-hot topic of Intelligent Design seems to have faded out, as other assaults on rational thinking take its place.
During its primacy however, I noticed that a lot of people were comparing/contrasting ID (as they code-word it) to other areas of belief. Some used Darwinism as a comparison. Others used Astrology; claiming that ID was no more a science than was Astrology. A lot of people seemed to "get it" that a basic requirement of scientific thought is that your concept or hypothesis must be testable. To simply make an assertion (i.e., It's Too Complex - I Can't Understand It - It Must Be Gods Work) doesn't pass the testability test. Sorry ID, you can't be a science!
Now follow this carefully, because it's the point of this whole post: Astrology DOES pass the testability test! The astrologer predicts, the skeptic can check the predictions against the actuals. Oh Yes You Can!
In general, the success rate of the astrologer is pretty poor. Not, however, as poor as the success rate of the economist. You could look it up. When economists predictions are checked against reality, it seems that often times a cageful of monkeys does a better job than a boardroom full of economists. No wonder Economics is known as The Dismal Science.
So why, then, is Economics a science and Astrology not? I am suggesting that it's mostly a public relations gap. And, a crafty choice of symbols on the part of the economists. Where the astrologers use planetary signs, the economists use dollar signs. Vastly more potent symbol in todays world of captialism-on-the-rampage. Additionally, where astrologers make predictions, economists make 'forecasts'. Somehow, wrong forecasts don't generate the same skepticism as wrong predictions.
In an attempt to bring order out of, well, if not chaos, then at least confusion, I am proposing an entire new approach. A fusion as it were of two 'sciences' which, while separately they provide little insight, combined they will perhaps provide us with improved 'forecasting' results. It took some thought, but since astronomics sounds suspiciously like a subset of astronautics, I have decided on Econostrology as the name of my new science. Since it's my invention, it's up to me to name it! I can also be the founder-in-chief of the International Society of Econostrologists (ISE). Using astrological methods, but calling the results forecasts, and inserting a lot of dollar signs, I think this new and hopefully less dismal science has a fair chance of catching on.
A science is, of course, not a science if it doesn't propose a testable hypothesis. Here, then, is the Fundamental Theorem of Econostrology: The People Will Shift From One Side Of The Ship To The Other. When The Cargo Of Debt Becomes Too Great, The Ship Will Sink. The Survivors Will Be More Cautious When Next They Sail. Their Offspring, However, Will Not. I think this hypothesis is readily validated in the historical record. In fact, it's almost a lemma of an earlier theorem: Those who don't remember the past are destined to repeat it. Those who do remember the past are likewise destined to repeat it.
As the founder or Econostrology, I'm planning to name Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman as the founding past president, honoring him for his work establishing that high unemployment is a good thing (though not, perhaps for the unemployed - ed). Since he is now unemployed, I hope to persuade Alan Greenspan as the current past president, honoring him for his work in bamboozling the United States Congress with his Delphic testimony regarding, e.g. 'irrational exuberance'.
I myself plan to be treasurer of ISE. Less work, more profit.

Everybody's Getting Fat Except...

Obesity seems to have become *ahem* a large item in the news;

How We Get Fat

yet again. It has become a wonderfully complex, hence controversial, topic. People debate both the cause and the cure. While many insist that weight gain is caused by excess caloric intake, many more interesting theories abound. Some say it's MacDonald's, some say television. Some say it's school cafeterias, some say it's advertising.
Just as the cause is debated, so too is the cure. A cartoon character was informed by her (cartoon) physicain that she should lose some poundage; he recommended "moderate diet and exercise." The cartoon lady responded with "don't you think that's a bit extreme?" For those who agree with Blanche, there is a plethora (really, don't you think that should be "are a plethora"?) of obesity cures, most of them reconizeable by claims that weight will "melt away effortlessly". Such is human frailty that we buy into such claims no matter how unlikely we believe the claim to be. So, from Fat Dissolving Soap to Vibrating Belts (which at least sound sort of fun, in a kinky way), we rush from this brand of snake oil to the next, filled with hope, again and again. Surely, one of these magical cures must work!
Now, out of years of personal experience, I announce to you Franks Own Fat-Loss Method!
My new method comes from my observation that:
When I drive a car - I weigh about 215 lbs.
When I walk - I weigh about 175 lbs.
In other words, my CAR is responsible for about 40 lbs of (mostly) fat, or a difference in body mass of over 22%!
Ever the diligent researcher, I looked here

National Transportation Statistics

and discovered that in the United States today there are someting over 260,000,000 cars. As an aside, yes, just as in those old predictions, there are now more cars than there are drivers for the cars.
Now let's look at the math:
260 million cars @ 40 lb/car. That's 10.4 billion lbs of excess avoirdupois, just in the USA!
Continuing, fat is 9 Cal./gram, there are 455 g/lb; so, 9 x 455 x 10,400,000,000 = ummm, lessee...
42,588,000,000,000 (~42.5 Trillion) Calories adhering to the American waistline!
The energy shortage is now over - all that remains is to "tap in" to this National Fat Reserve (NFR); enough reserve energy to see the nation through its next "driving season" (doesn't that phrase seem really tragically odd to you?)
Now, my own experience suggests this energy can best be recovered by people walking from place to place; but that might be a bit extreme.
Seeking the solution in technology; perhaps a National Liposuction Program, with the results transformed into bio-diesel, is a more palatable proposal.
Seeking the solution in the new national paradigm (I truly hate that word!) of victimhood, which is today always the most likely way of responding - I think we will just continue to blame anybody-but-me and keep patronizing the snake-oil-salesman-of-the-moment, seeking the zipless weight-loss, with six-pack abs thrown in for the more unrealistic of us (among whom I count myself, sometimes anyway).
And continue to add to the NFR.
Meantime, my feet hurt.

Insanity, Part II

There are those who insist that the Radical-Militant-Islamic-Terrorist-Fundamentalist's (please select any two or three of your choice) are using images of US Mistreatment-Abuse-Torture (select any one of your choice) of Muslim men to inflame rank and file Muslims. They do this, it is said, with the purpose of increasing the intensity of the conflict between the United States and Islam.
There are those likewise who insist that George W. Bush is making a stupid mistake in giving these R-M-I-T-F(please see above) fuel for their fulminations.
Why is there no one making the connection - the President has precisely the same stake in the conflict as the R-M-I-T-F'ers. His power increases as the threat increases; therefore it is to his benefit to insure that the threat increases. Just as it is to the benefit of the R-etc.
That is why the conflict widens; the threat grows. The leadership of both sides are stoking the flame.
Remarkably, the citizens of the Late, Great, United States of America (The United States of Amnesia - Gore Vidal) are now in favor of attacking Iran, because surely Bush wouldn't try to cry wolf yet again, untruthfully! If you'll keep buying it, the President will surely keep selling it.
Suckers!

Fun In The News

People have been saying for a while (me among them), that nobody in the present administration can be trusted with firearms. As soon as Bush, or Rumsfeld, or, of course, Dick Cheney has a weapon available, you can be sure it is gonna be used!
So now, the headline is that the victim of the Veeps assault is "Very Stable". I am really thinking that this is one of those compare-and-contrast essays. Very stable, that is, compared to his assailant. I wonder what the man said to cause the Veep to blast him? "I think you should stop attacking other countries for no reason." perhaps. Or something like that.

Also in the news, "Condi Rice fears that things may get out of control." Oh-Thank-God. Here I was thinking things already were out of hand. But if Dr. Rice (a sort of distaff Dr. Strangelove, if anyone could be) is able to deal with the situation, things are sure to be okay.

Insanity

Reminded of that trendy definiton of Insanity... "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results."
Comes a report in Financial Times

FT.com

(and many others) about a new poll, in which 57% of the pollees apparently think that it's a good idea to attack Iran! Fifty-seven percent of my countrymen appear to be insane!
Now, we have one of our body parts stuck in Afghanistan; another stuck in Iraq. Since that hasn't worked, lets put another one in Iran. Sure - that'll work! We'll just keep on attacking other countries until we manage to get it right. Casting back through recent history (well, recent to me anyway), we haven't been very successful at attacking other countries since the 1940's. Since then, ever since General MacArthur tried to start a war with China, which he succeeded in doing at a cost of around a million lives, thousands of them American servicemen, all our military adventuring seems to have gone awry. To put it mildly. I think we are soon going to run out of body parts to invest.

Which leads me to a (somewhat) parallel topic. I have changed my mind! Here's what I said last November:

I Did Not Think I Would Hear This

I regretfully take it back. Sorry Congressman Murtha.

Now it's my opinion that we need to leave all those troops in Iraq. More even, we need to send the entire force of the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force to Iraq. If the troops come home, that will only make them available for Mad George to send to attack yet another country that isn't a "Partner For Peace". I'm guessing here, but it sort of appears that any who aren't Partners For Peace are potential "Partners For War".
And there seem to be a lot of 'em.
No; lets send everyone to Iraq, where we have already had more Americans killed than in the World Trade Center. Keep 'em out of the bloody hands of the President.

Hamas

The "Shocking Victory" of the Hamas candidates in the Palestinian election seems to be somewhat of a bitter pill for George W. (Mad George) Bush, as well as for the Gov't of Israel. Here's a sample quote from Israel:
"If Hamas wants to be considered a partner in peace, it's very clear what it has to do. It has to renounce terrorism, disarm, accept Israel's right to exist and support political solutions to issues rather than pursuing violent jihad," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.
Just wondering; is there any likelihood that Israel would do the same? Or is this a case of Might-Makes-Right, and Palestine must do what Israel says it must? Remain a puppet state, in essence.
Just asking.

Sacrifice

It's Eid ul Adha, the Muslim festival of sacrifice.

Here are the ones about to be sacrificed. I wonder what the goats think about this.
Meanwhile, President Bush has proclaimed the year 2006 as "Another Year Of Sacrifice". Really! For a man who thinks "sacrifice" is when the batter lays down a bunt, this is far too far beyond the pale. Just what is Mr. Bush sacrificing himself?

Except for the future of his country, the one whose Constitution he has pledged to Protect and Defend.


Here's an Iraqi who was sacrificed last year, when his wedding was bombed by US attack aircraft.


Here's another one who has been sacrificed, a soldier who was doing the bidding of his Commander in Chief, against all sense and reason.