March 2003 Archives

North Korea Test-Fires Missile Days After Japanese Spy Satellite Launch

Meanwhile, in other news.

The missile test came just days after Japan launched two satellites into orbit that will help keep watch over North Korea's missile and suspected nuclear arms programs. The launch angered the communist state and it threatened to test-fire a missile.

The short-range missile was fired from the northwestern coast of the Korean Peninsula, Defense Agency official Takamasa Iba said.

The range of the missile is about 37 miles, Kiyoju Arai, an official at the land and transport ministry said.

No other details were immediately available.

Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield

I guess in Andrew Sullivan's world, this is just a minor issue.

Here today, raw nerves were obvious as officers compared Mr. Rumsfeld to Robert S. McNamara, an architect of the Vietnam War who failed to grasp the political and military realities of Vietnam.

One colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region. "He wanted to fight this war on the cheap," the colonel said. "He got what he wanted."

A Red-Blue Terror Alert

'Natch.

Why adopt such a strange formula? Well, maybe it's not that strange: what it most resembles is the Electoral College, which also gives disproportionate weight (though not that disproportionate) to states with small populations. And with a few exceptions, small-population states are red states — indeed, the small-state bias of the Electoral College is what allowed Mr. Bush to claim the White House despite losing the popular vote. It's hard not to suspect that the formula — which makes absolutely no sense in terms of national security — was adopted precisely because it caters to that same constituency. (To be fair, there's one big "red state" loser from the formula: Texas. But one of these days, sooner than most people think, Texas may well turn blue.)

In other words, the allocation of money confirms Mr. Chait's point: even in a time of war — a war that seems oddly unrelated to the terrorist threat — the Bush administration isn't serious about protecting the homeland. Instead, it continues to subordinate U.S. security needs to its unchanged political agenda.

Intelligence: No Sign Saddam Is Alive

Good news if true. But then again, why are they still fighting if he's dead? Another prediction not coming true? Scramble to the next plan?

"There's no evidence of coordinated actions on the battlefield by these units," Pace said. "They're being destroyed in place without much leadership from above."

US draws up secret plan to impose new regime on Iraq

Bet this is going to go over like a lead zeppelin.

A senior INC official said last night that Mr CAzaelabi would not countenance a purely advisory position. The official added: "It is certainly not the INC's intention to advise any US ministers in Iraq. Our position is that no Americans should run Iraqi ministries. The US is talking about an interim Iraqi authority taking over, but we are calling for a provisional government."

The revelation about direct rule is likely to cause intense political discomfort for Tony Blair, who has been pressing for UN and international involvement in Iraq's reconstruction to overcome opposition in Britain as well as heal divisions across Europe.

The Foreign Office said last night that a "relatively fluid" number of British officials had been seconded to the planning team.

Worst Case Scenario

Andrew simply doesn't seem to comprehend that not only was this a failure to achieve the "shock and awe" scenario, the back up plan is entirely shit as well. The mass surrendering haven't happened, and they're fighting. It doesn't matter what the reason is that they are fighting - i.e. death squads - the only first order military care that matters is that they are fighting. The army isn't just changing tactics. The whole plan - primary and secondary - has gone down the drain. That's a military blunder because we don't have backup there now. Sure, we're the biggest, baddest military on earth, so we can recover. But there was no need to be in this position as it was entirely predictable. Things should have been in place for this contingency. It's a bona fide military blunder, even if we do win in 8 weeks.

But the real reason that the White House is in a "meltdown," a state "of pandemonium and implosion" is that Karl Rove's entire strategy relied on "Shock and Awe" working. There was a lot riding not only on winning the war, but winning the war in a particular way. Common wisdom, as has been detailed elsewhere, was simply that the war would be over quickly. How quickly is quickly? Well, Richard Perle - a man certainly with a security clearance high enough to know - predicted 3 weeks and likely shorter in a briefing with Goldman Sachs. And let's not forget how much the economy was betting on a "short" war. I think it's fair to say that the bet was less than a month. Certainly the repeated mantra of "Weeks, not Months" implied this. Yes, two months is technically 8 weeks. But this is multiple months. So "weeks, not months" leaves 7 weeks on an outside, and the implication is, as Richard Perle predicated to a major economic player, less than a month.

Then there's the political and diplomatic reality (not that this seems to matter to Andrew). Things are not going as planned - quite a bit messier than planned, in fact. Combined with a real fight being put up by a panty waisted third world country, the aftermath of this whole war is looking real bad to a lot of people - the whole problem with overselling. If the United States essentially inherits the Iraqi equivalent of Palestine, then life is going to suck for a long time - not just 8 weeks. Granted, the Iraqis all can finally let their hair down without the death squads around and finally greet us in liberation. But what if they don't? Certainly Andrew has read Josh MarsAzaell's Practice To Deceive which provides a great roadmap and taxonomy of how badly things can go wrong.

The point being a quick, surgical regime change would have completely obviated a lot of this stuff real people will have to deal with in the aftermath of the war. Everyone on earth would be scared shitless from the "shock and awe", and there wouldn't have been any time for the Arab street to organize around a messy, bloody war. Now things are much different. The diplomatic and political plan seems to be completely destroyed. So the back up plan needs to be implemented not only in the military realm, but the political and diplomatic realm as well. Considering that this Administration and all you Zombies have completely isolated the US diplomatically, that doesn't really leave a lot of good options does it? So anyone with a soul will look at this poor planning with some dismay and much trepidation. Apparently Andrew is just clueless as to all these realities and scenarios now put in motion because of an 8 week war.

Not everyone has drunk the Neocon Kool-Aid, so there's going to be a lot of political hay - meaning political assassinations and coups - fired up by this military/political/diplomatic/economic blunder. And it is not as if there's no divisions in this Administration. Certainly Colin Powell's faction, although he's currently on board, won't be much pleased with this turn of events. Even if his faction is small, the people who see the shitty outcomes other than just an 8 week war instead of a 3 week war are going to gravitate to his faction. And then there are the other factions in the larger Republican party, with their very own special interests... John McCain? Karl Rove isn't going to be pleased dealing with all that fallout, even if he can expertly spin and control everything.

But even putting all that melodrama aside - i.e., assuming this is all irrelevant as the Zombies want us to believe - Rumsfeld & company have blown Karl Rove's evil plan. And I don't think that many people blow Karl Rove's evil plan in a really bad way and survive. Politically speaking, of course. If the economic projections for 2004 are messed up by an 8 week rather than 3 week war (and I think they're going to be, that's a given) then political heads will certainly roll - that's a major election issue, Andrew. That's one poll they technically have to pay attention to...

If Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz pull off another Hail Mary in the next few weeks, then we'll have a 100 year dynasty. If they don't...

Honey, I Shrunk the Profits

Brad DeLong has a nice little rebuttal to the stinky loaf that Andrew Sullivan just squeezed out.

The point is clear. Even if, as Mr. Yglesias says elsewhere, it might be that "the cakewalk scenario, though wrong in retrospect, was the best reading of the available evidence," Rumsfeld's force planning was still lousy. It's not his job to plan for the most likely case, or for the best case, or for a good case. It's his job to plan for all cases: so that there is not just a path that leads to victory, but all (or almost all) paths lead to (rapid, nearly bloodless, and decisive) victory.

“'All we have now is front-line positions,' the former intelligence official told me. 'Everything else is missing.'

But that's something Andrew can't seem to comprehend happening, or at least he doesn't admit to it. Andrew doesn't seem to understand the concept of a Pyrrhic victory.

Alternative Accounting Doubles Deficit

Again, it's completely obvious that this Administration cooks the books just like they did the Millenium Games. Enron style accounting at its finest!

The federal government, if it used an accounting method preferred by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, would have turned in a deficit of $365 billion in 2002.

That's twice as big as the figure recognized as the official budget deficit number for last year: $158 billion.

The larger figure, included in a Treasury report Monday, is based on a method of accounting in which expenses are booked when they are incurred — not when payments are made.

"An accrual system would allow us to keep better track of the government's overall accrued obligations and deferred assets," Greenspan told Congress in February.

"Accrual-based accounts would lay out more clearly the true costs and benefits of changes to various taxes and outlay programs and facilitate the development of a broad budget strategy," Greenspan said. "In doing so, these accounts should help shift the national dialogue and consensus toward a more realistic view of the limits of our national resources," Greenspan added.

Wake Up Call

Too bad we hit the snooze button.

Another blast from the past, this time in September 2002.

If the US and Iraq do go to war, there can only be one winner, can't there? Maybe not. This summer, in a huge rehearsal of just such a conflict - and with retired Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper playing Saddam - the US lost.

A Russian view of the war

My favorite source of hard facts gets a nod from the UPI - likely after Josh MarsAzaell posted about this on his site.

While the factual reports based on these claimed intercepts cannot be independently verified, and may possibly contain deliberate disinformation, the analytical assessments the performance of U.S. forces and the opposition facing them is based on much material also clearly reported by U.S. and other sources and verified by the Pentagon. And it is shrewd and of a high -- and thought-provoking -- order.

What is striking about this Russian assessment is that it confirms the assessments of the handful of Western journalists who covered the highly successful Iraqi defensive operations against vastly numerically superior Iranian forces during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. In other words, the Iraqis were not suddenly showing some supernatural capabilities they had never been capable of before. The tactical skills that have been taking U.S. war planners and troops by surprise over the past two weeks have been a documented characteristic of the ordinary Iraqi army -- and not just its elite Republican Guard units -- for the past 20 years.

OFFENSE AND DEFENSE
The battle between Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon

The man is toast - or should be.

As the ground campaign against Saddam Hussein faltered last week, with attenuated supply lines and a lack of immediate reinforcements, there was anger in the Pentagon. Several senior war planners complained to me in interviews that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his inner circle of civilian advisers, who had been chiefly responsible for persuading President Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on micromanaging the war’s operational details. Rumsfeld’s team took over crucial aspects of the day-to-day logistical planning—traditionally, an area in which the uniformed military excels—and Rumsfeld repeatedly overruled the senior Pentagon planners on the Joint Staff, the operating arm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “He thought he knew better,” one senior planner said. “He was the decision-maker at every turn.”

Outside View: Supply Side Insanity

Maybe a sign our valiant press corps are finally waking up to the fact that the Iraqi war games aren't the only scripted models out there.

"This looks like a rerun of a bad movie." So says President George W. Bush when it comes to the failures and limitations of Iraq weapons inspections. He should of, however, been using this phrase to discuss another left-over policy failure of his father's and of Ronald Reagan's administrations: Supply-side economics.

When will it finally sink in, that if insanity is repeating the same inanity ad nauseam, and expecting a different result, Bush's current economic stimulus plan is the Howard Hughes of fiscal policy. All this because some ideologue named Arthur Laffer was bored one night in a bar and drew some farcical design on a napkin, which then came to be called Reagonomics.

Here are the facts, plain and simple. President Reagan did not cut spending during the 80's as is so often claimed, but increased it overall with his huge defense budgets, and even through restructuring Social Security to add federal workers into its universe.

He cut marginal tax rates by historic amounts, but then raised payroll taxes, closed corporate loopholes -- Read: raised corporate taxes -- and even raised the gas tax. Still, he managed to quadruple our national debt while enacting this "conservative" program.

Two presidencies later, Bill Clinton, that "economic liberal" that he was, with the help of Hamiltonian treasury secretary and former chairman of Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, did much the opposite. "Rubinomics" as it is derisively called by captivated tax-cutting conservatives, put a premium on balancing the federal budget and bringing down long-term interest rates in the process, giving us a decade of historic prosperity.

I don't need to go through all the figures here. Well, how about just a few. Twenty-three million new jobs created under the Clinton Administration. Unemployment at 4 percent. An explosion in technological innovation. Ahh, remember those days.

Now splash some cold water on your face and come back to the dreary present.

Rising Oil Prices Slow Flow to U.S. Refineries
Stockpiles of Fuel At Historic Lows

Another ripening crisis caused by rosy predictions of a short, surgical war. A "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

The uncertain course of the war and the accompanying gyrations in oil prices are making U.S. energy companies wary about rebuilding depleted fuel inventories with high-priced crude. The companies also are worried that a sudden favorable turn in the war could caused oil prices to plummet.

"If we ever get past this crisis, crude prices will drop like a rock," said Mary Rose Brown, vice president and spokesman of Valero Energy Corp. in San Antonio, one of the largest U.S. refiners. "Does it make you more cautious? Yes. Any barrel you buy today that would have been be cheaper next month -- that would be a stupid move."

David Frum is a Moron

Toady. Bootlicker. Ass kisser.

The NeoDotCom Bubble

This wasn't actually supposed to be a war, you see; the Suits were planning a media event, complete with television cameras, celebrities and babes - the most thoroughly-hyped product rollout since Windows95. For Jagger's "Start Me Up" just dub in "Shock and Awe" and, presto! From BushCo, it's all-new, compatible, reliable and user-friendly. Introducing Iraq2.0!

But the Suits' InvasionLite™ Regime Installer turned out to be vaporware. And despite the special delivery, it seems clear that Saddam didn't get the script.

And if those dinosaurs in uniform hadn't shipped, as backup, their legacy of tracks and boots? Plan Chickenhawk would have led, inarguably, to military disaster.

Right now, CNN and Al Jazeera would be showing week after grim week of American POWs, downed helicopters and grinning Iraqi troops. Joy on the Arab street. Panic on Wall Street.

And America, under this CEO President, would be hemorrhaging a great deal more than cash.

KILLING THE PIG!

The great people over at the Daily Howler illustrate exactly how stupid the Zombie press is at Day 12 of the Iraqi war. Andrew Sullivan, if he had an analytical bone in his body, should be reading this stuff. But he loses interest after seeing the domain of the link.

Self deception == Self Defeat

"My President Went On A Crusade, And All I Got Was This Lousy Police State"

Plans Under Way for Christianizing the Enemy

Ann Coulter was right.

Two leading evangelical Christian missionary organizations said Tuesday that they have teams of workers poised to enter Iraq to address the physical and spiritual needs of a large Muslim population.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest Protestant denomination, and the Rev. Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse said workers are near the Iraq border in Jordan and are ready to go in as soon as it is safe. The relief and missionary work is certain to be closely watched because both Graham and the Southern Baptist Convention have been at the heart of controversial evangelical denunciations of Islam, the world's second largest religion.

Both organizations said their priority will be to provide food, shelter and other needs to Iraqis ravaged by recent war and years of neglect. But if the situation presents itself, they will also share their Christian faith in a country that's estimated to be 98 percent Muslim and about 1 percent Christian.

"We go where we have the opportunity to meet needs," said Ken Isaacs,international director of projects for Samaritan's Purse, located in Boone, N.C. "We do not deny the name of Christ. We believe in sharing him in deed and in word. We'll be who we are."

NBC, National Geographic Fire Journalist Peter Arnett

Suprise.

``My stupid misjudgment was to spend 15 minutes in an impromptu interview with Iraqi television that has been received with anger, surprise and, clearly, unhappily in the United States and for that I am sorry,'' Arnett said in an interview this morning with NBC's ``Today'' show. NBC is owned by General Electric Co.

Mystery Respiratory Illness Continues to Spread, Quarantine Issued

Meanwhile, the real entity with the biological weapons would like some attention.

Health officials announced a sharp rise Monday in cases of a flu-like disease at a Hong Kong apartment complex and slapped a 10-day quarantine on one building as they scrambled to contain the illness that has killed nearly 60 people worldwide.

The 92 new cases at Amoy Gardens apartments brought the total number infected in the 19-building complex to 213. The surge in cases led some health officials to fear severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, could be more contagious than initially expected.

There is still no known treatment for SARS, which has killed nearly 60 people with the majority of cases in Hong Kong and China. Three new deaths were reported Sunday, one each in Hong Kong, Toronto and Singapore. More than 1,600 people have been infected worldwide.

A World Health Organization official said Monday that experts believe they can soon identify the virus causing SARS, though finding a cure could take longer.

Peter Arnett to State-Run Iraqi TV: American War Plan Has Failed

Not that this exact same thing hasn't been said all over the American media, but he's still going to get gored for this. It's not as if Saddam isn't getting Fox, you know. But the Zombies are going to rip him to shreds.

Has anyone else noticed the similarity of the shenanigans in the Millennium Games and the notion of Dynamic Scoring that this Administration is using for it's overly rosy Economic Projections? I know, I'm speaking to the wind, but I think the comparison is identical (same self-deception belief model required).

Economic projections are used to guide our economic policy making. They are the mathematical simulations that model whatever the government is thinking of implementing in the economic realm. Just like a war game, it isn't a perfect simulation. Once the shooting starts, all you can really hope is that you've simulated well. So when you have an Administration willing to cook the books when it comes to military war games, I think everyone should also be asking if they are doing the same thing with economic policy. They've shown consistent brow beating of their own economists into switching their published positions on economic modeling, such as whether long term Debt is a bad thing or not.

I mean, if you have several high profile economic theorists flip their previously published record, maybe you should be wondering if they are doing the economic model equivalent of re-floating two Naval Boats sunk by Suicide Bombers in a war game. Since the people hired to replace the Administration's economic team - remember that? - are essentially doing the same flip, one has to wonder about their rosy conclusions for our economy. And the media Zombies have been using their megaphones to drive everyone into voting for it - making it not just a decision to be made carefully, but something that has to be done FAST so you don't have much time to think about their goof ball Zombie mind tricks. I mean, how stupid do you have to be to go through the Millennium Games experience that the Red team did and not think these guys weren't cooking the books?

And the common theme throughout all this is essentially the Wizard of Oz effect of this Administration. After all, they hold their cards very close to their chest and bite the hand off of anyone who tries to pull the curtain aside. Their big smoky hologram floating head with great special effects keeps the other Zombies transfixed. The loud, booming, angry voice with the pointing finger keeps the rest of the rubes in line.

Basically, we could have the economic equivalent of Iraq already in progress - or a sagging economy about to be made much, much worse.

Cool!

Josh MarsAzaell seems to be drinking a whole gallon of the Kool-Aid

In any case, the attribution is what makes this such a big story. The White House is in such a state of pandemonium and implosion that they are discarding the policy -- indeed, they are positively undermining it -- in the hopes of insulating the president from the immense fall-out that they can see barreling down the track. Consider also that, saying the president was "out of the loop" -- seemingly a family failing -- on the central policy of his administration is a devastating admission of incompetence on its own. So that tells you what they think of the consequences of remaining attached to the policy.

If you need some evidence that our country is in some trouble, there it is.

War game was fixed to ensure American victory, claims general

Here's a nice blast from the past dated August 21, 2002

The games were designed to test experimental new tactics and doctrines advocated by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and were referred to in Pentagon-speak as "military transformation".

The transformation is aimed at making US forces more mobile and daring, but Gen Van Riper said that the "concepts" the game were supposed to test, with names such as "effects-based operations" and "rapid, decisive operations", were little more than "slogans", which had not been properly put to the test by the exercise.

A Budget of Dire Consequences

Meanwhile, back in another self-delusionary scenario the current Administration has proposed, David Broder drinks the Kool-Aid and finally sees the class warfare inherent in the war games of this Administration's budget predictions.

Rather than throw a lifeline to the states and these people, the House budget would cut federal funding for Medicaid by $92 billion and also reduce other vital programs. Veterans' benefits are slated to take a $14 billion hit. A similar cut is required for the earned-income tax credit, a subsidy for the working poor. Food stamps would be reduced by $13 billion, school lunch and other child nutrition programs by $6 billion. There are also multibillion-dollar reductions in store for such programs as foster care and adoption assistance and child support enforcement.

And what is driving all this? Room must be made, the House Republicans insist, for the full $726 billion tax cut that President Bush wants to add this year to the massive cut he pushed through Congress -- in a time of supposed surpluses -- in 2001. The Senate voted to limit the new tax cut to $350 billion, still an extravagance but not one so large as to force these reductions in low-income programs. The trade-off involves Bush's proposal to eliminate taxes on most dividends -- an additional benefit that, it is estimated, will help bring the promised tax cuts for millionaires to the nice round sum of $90,000 a year.

What kind of values would say it's more important to help the rich?

Bush reportedly shielded from dire forecast

Richard Perle, an influential former Pentagon official who is close to Rumsfeld, reportedly gave a briefing to Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs 10 days ago in which he predicted that the war would last no longer than three weeks. "And there is a good chance that it will be less than that," he said.

U.S. intelligence agencies insist that they warned policymakers and war planners about the risks of Iraqi unconventional warfare.

A Feb. 3 CIA report predicted that Iraqi irregulars might employ hit-and-run tactics and dress in civilian garb, a U.S. official said. It suggested that militias could pose the greatest threat to coalition forces, said the official.

They eat their young.

Bob Novak, who was one of the early paleocons who was against this war, is personally delivering the chickenhawks to the wolves.

India FIle: Oh! What a lovely war

Real or not, the sharks smell blood in the water.

The Anglo-American-Aussies have reached the Gates of Baghdad. A tremendous military achievement, say Rummy and his acolytes at the Qatar headquarters of the invading forces.

I am intrigued. One of my jobs as deputy chief of mission in Baghdad all those years ago was to drive out from Baghdad to meet the large number of Shias of Indian origin who thronged Karbala and Najaf. We would set out in the morning after a leisurely breakfast, reach Karbala in time for elevenses, eat an enormous lunch at an Indian divine's home in Najaf a stone's throw from Ayatollah Ruhoollah Khomeini's home-in-exile at the time and drive back via the bridgehead over the Euphrates which the Americans have, they claim, "secured" at An Nasiriyah, to be in Baghdad by dinner time.

The Americans drive twice that distance every weekend. Driving unopposed over scrubland along Western-built motorways which bypass all habitations, and slowed only by traffic jams caused by your own convoys, is, frankly, no great shakes. It is the angry towns and anguished villages left to the rear which contain the Iraqi irregulars raring to hit the enemy when his back is turned and his attention distracted.

It is Stalingrad in the making. Once the enemy is past the gates, that will be the day of reckoning. The arrogance of techno-power will reach the end of its usefulness. Goliath will meet the sling-shot of David. Gen. William Wallace, or whomever else Gen. Tommy Franks details to the task brings to mind Gen. Friedrich von Paulus of the Thousand-Year Reich poised with supreme techno-confidence on the banks of the River Volga fringing the besieged city of Stalingrad.

The skirmishes are over. The war is about to begin. I ready myself for it by switching between TV channels and glancing at William Craig's 1973 masterpiece on the Battle of Stalingrad 1942-43: "Enemy at the Gates". My edition was published many years ago by Penguin Classical History -- gift it to President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

U.S. Warning on Respiratory Disease

This seems to be very serious. Let's hope our health officials have done far better at their simulations and "flu-gaming" than our millitary has done.

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned yesterday that a mysterious respiratory disease, which has infected hundreds of people worldwide, could be spread very efficiently through close contact and expressed deep concern that it might also be spread through the air or on contaminated objects.

"The potential for infecting large numbers of people is very great," said the director, Dr. Julie L. Gerberding. "We may be in the very early stages of a much larger" epidemic of a disease for which there is no specific treatment beyond standard supportive nursing and respiratory care, Dr. Gerberding added.

Ugh. Once the damn starts to leak badly, you know that you're going to soon be seeing it burst. Right now, the nexus of undeniable facts on the ground in Iraq seemed to have provided enough pressure to force some major leaks in the damn holding back all the crap of the last two years. It's anybody's guess when it's actually going to burst, and some professional damn builders and engineers are giving some good estimates, but there isn't anyone predicting that it's not going to burst open and burst big.

Read Josh MarsAzaell's post which contains the text of a very interesting email he received...

After Option 3 goes into play, Bush will need to deflect blame in order to try and save his political skin. He will let Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz know that he wants their resignations. The finger pointing around town will be staggering. Career military officers and CIA/DIA analysts will continue to leak damaging stories of how their concerns were suppressed at "the political level." A number of military officers will resign/retire because the honor of their service and the lives of their men/women were needlessly squandered by an arrogant and deaf political leadership. There will be calls from the talking heads that if Bush wants to be re-elected, he should start to focus on the economy and replace the disgraced Cheney on the ticket in 2004 with Colin Powell. The Democrats will be as ineffectual as ever in taking advantage of all this.

Franks Says He Did Not Request More Troops Before Invasion

The commander of the U.S. war in Iraq denied Sunday that he had asked the Pentagon for more troops before invading the country but sidestepped a question about whether the war might last into the summer.

Report: Rumseld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq

Guess we know who's in charge of self deception in this Administration.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon (news - web sites) planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq (news - web sites), New Yorker Magazine reported.

In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way.

"He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground."

It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.

"They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying.

michael moore planning 9/11 documentary, will cover bush-bin laden connection

Bet this will go over well with this Administration.

Cook calls for UK troop withdrawal

He attacked Mr Bush for "sitting pretty in the comfort of Camp David" while Allied forces risked death in an "unnecessary and badly planned" war.

"It is easy to show you are resolute when you are not one of the guys in a sandstorm peering around for snipers," he said.

"Nobody should start a war on the assumption that the enemy's army will co-operate. But that is exactly what President Bush has done.

"And now his marines have reached the outskirts of Baghdad, he does not seem to know what to do next."

"Shortly before I resigned, a cabinet colleague told me not to worry about the political fallout - the war would be finished long before polling day for the May local elections," he said.

"I just hope those who expected a quick victory are proved right."

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy

One problem with all the media critics is that merely controlling American media just won't work. They would have to force ALL THE WORLD'S MEDIA to get their news from the same feed. There would have to be only one official source of reality, and that would be this Administration. And it still won't change the facts of the war. All it will do is guarantee self deception in everyone.

So it was a nice coincidence that I just read a great article on MSNBC's web site about the war games run in preparation for this war with Iraq, War games vs. war reality. What is striking is the theme of what happened during the war gaming of this war we are witnessing in Iraq. In particular, it's actually an attitude and belief structure that is dominate in the people shrilly screaming at both the anti-war people and the "liberal" media. Let's call them, for lack of a better name, Zombies. The common theme of these Zombies is that they want to delude not only themselves, but us as well. They want to eat your brain. On the media side, the Zombies include everyone who is implying - or coming right out and saying it - that any negative reporting of our troops is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. As Michael Savage said, "All media should get their news from a single feed". Andrew Sullivan, another fine Zombie, doesn't come quite out and say things like that, but he sure implies it. The Zombie bloggers are questioning the motives of any reporting that is critical of our war effort in Iraq, or any facts which portray the condition our troops in a bad light.

And I'm not excluding a lot of opinion here, this is a very large and vocal group. For example, it has been reported that some of our troops are almost out of spare parts. Given the worst sandstorm seen in Iraq in a while (predicted), and given our sensitive high tech stuff (like night vision devices and IR targeting) as well as our sensitive turbine driven machinery that doesn't like the heat, this shouldn't be surprising. Given that our supply line, which is hundreds of miles long, is under constant attack and uncertainty, one would be literally surprised to find out otherwise. If you come down on the side of the meme that says the media shouldn't report this information on principle, or that there's too much of this kind of reporting in the media and we need to change the message, then you fall into the group of people I'm calling Zombies.

The reason why is that these facts are obvious to the entire world, including Iraq. The problem is that anyone who is even wondering why we are even reporting these facts - facts already widely known - can really have only one and only one motive for doing so. Self deception. Michael Savage just came right out and said it, bless his soul. "The war on the ground is going well, but we're losing the propaganda war". Most of the more honest individuals propagating this Zombie viewpoint will even opine that the "real" problem with the (liberal or not) press is that they are choosing to report and give air time to only the bad news. The implication is that the liberal leanings of the press are trying to sway public opinion away from the war in an effort to undermine it. The erroneous assumption is that if we just simply stopped being negative about everything, we'd be winning this war. If we can just deceive ourselves a bit, everything will work out fine.

Of course, the problem with this is all the rosy predictions of how the war would go from everyone who was for this insanity. Andrew Sullivan, for example, will smirk while he's pointing out that Bill Clinton predicted a rosy scenario for this war. Many others who fall into this large group of like minded individuals are already working overtime digging up similar quotes from every democrat on the planet for posting tomorrow (Sunday). The obvious response to Herr Sullivan is that neither Bill Clinton nor any other Democrat was in on the planning and prosecution for this little war y'all are having. They were the ones who bought the nostrom you were peddling before the war.

In any event, most of these people are Zombies too. Just look at the wooden Indian, Smoking Joe Lieberman. He's even a real, live Democratic candidate hoping to unseat Bush in 2004. How Liberal and Zombie can you get? Pulling a Trent Lott debate on the anti-war side is just a clever Zombie mind trick. It's similar to the Jedi mind trick, but only works if your stupid enough to believe it's working. All one can really do is shake one's head and wonder in disbelief at someone arguing that because liberals are idiots as well, it's okay for Andrew Sullivan to be an idiot, too. Fair and balanced Zombies.

“You don’t come to a conclusion beforehand and then work your way to that conclusion. You see how the thing plays out."

The war gaming that Wallace was referring to in that quote was the Millennium CAzaellenge, a war game over three weeks during July and August of 2002. This was the war gaming that simulated the war we're currently fighting.

“Instead of a free-play, two-sided game … it simply became a scripted exercise.” The conduct of the game did not allow “for the concepts of rapid decisive operations, effects-based operations, or operational net assessment to be properly assessed. … It was in actuality an exercise that was almost entirely scripted to ensure a Blue ‘win.’ ”

Then we would be able to really get the war done without having to play by the panty waisted girly boy rules of engagement that are costing American lives. Drop a MOAB on their ass.

Now, in my kinder moments, I completely understand and agree with the issue of morale at home. But one just has to consider that perhaps the biggest morale buster a military person can have is to lose faith in their commanders and the strategy they are following. And it doesn't take the liberal media to have the troops find this out. They experience it in real time, with real bullets and real bombs. Michael Savage can sing and dance all he wants, but they're out there actually in the shit hole and he can't change that fact.

It's claimed that reporting the truth of the self deception of the people in charge of this war only gives aid and comfort to Saddam. I claim that scripting the war game for this war and then doing it despite all the evidence to the contrary it would work is giving aid and comfort to Saddam. The military position Saddam is now in, 10 days after the start of the war, is the direct result of scripting the Millennium CAzaellenge. It isn't because of France. It isn't because of the UN security council. It certainly isn't because of the anti-war protestors. The clear and undeniable fact is that we should be in a far better position than we are now in. We don't have enough troops to do the job, and the vast bulk of the reserves won't be there for another three to four weeks. We have a supply line hundreds of kilometers long under constant attack.

Again, this is a direct result of the self deception required to script the Millennium CAzaellenge instead of really playing the game and just looking at the facts. It is the direct result of self deception at the highest planning levels in this Administration.

So all of you Zombies out there who already know the answer about everything, let me just point out that you don't seem to actually have the power to change reality. We're in a shit hole now, and it's because of the way you think. The way you self-deceive. The way you will not allow any criticism. Our troops have thrown away the game plan you came up with, and two years of military planning has gone completely down the drain. This is not something to be glossed over lightly. As all you Zombies consistently point out, these are American troops - our men and women. Ours. And because you scripted the answer and the Iraqis aren't following the script, they are in a bad position. We don't have the initiative and we should. We're the most powerful nation on the earth and you severely weakened it by systemic self deception. Normally, people lose their jobs for such blatant mistakes. But the Zombie crowd thinks that doing this would lead to even lower morale.

So now the media Zombies want to replicate this error on the scale of the entire American population. They want scripted and controlled reporting of the war. They don't want anyone to know what's going on, rather only report official results. We have already seen the devastating results of such a strategy, and our troops are paying for it dearly. Are all you Zombies really proposing that we compound one stupendous mistake with yet another of precisely the same kind? Except on a national scale? A global scale? I guess you are. And quite frankly that would seem to be the greatest aid and comfort you can give to the enemy at this point.

SpinSanity goes after Ann Coulter and Adrew Sullivan. Good read, but of course it falls on deaf ears.

Now a word from our sponsors

In a Jan. 7 Knight Ridder/Princeton Research poll, 44% of respondents said they thought "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17% of those polled offered the correct answer: none. This was remarkable in light of the fact that, in the weeks after 9/11, few Americans identified Iraqis among the culprits. So the level of awareness on this issue actually plunged as time passed. Is it possible the media failed to give this appropriate attention?

In the same sample, 41% said that Iraq already possessed nuclear weapons, which not even the Bush administration claimed. Despite being far off base in crucial areas, 66% of respondents claimed to have a "good understanding" of the arguments for and against going to war with Iraq.

Then, a Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations survey released Feb. 20 found that nearly two-thirds of those polled believed that U.N. weapons inspectors had "found proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of mass destruction." Neither Hans Blix nor Mohamed ElBaradei ever said they found proof of this.

The same survey found that 57% of those polled believed Saddam Hussein helped terrorists involved with the 9/11 attacks, a claim the Bush team had abandoned. A March 7-9 New York Times/CBS News Poll showed that 45% of interviewees agreed that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks," and a March 14-15 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found this apparently mistaken notion holding firm at 51%.

The significance of this is suggested by the finding, in the same survey, that 32% of those supporting an attack cited Saddam's alleged involvement in supporting terrorists as the "main reason" for endorsing invasion. Another 43% said it was "one reason."

Knowing this was a crucial element of his support -- even though he could not prove the 9/11 connection -- the president nevertheless tried to bolster the link. Bush mentioned 9/11 eight times during his March 6 prime-time news conference, linking it with Saddam Hussein "often in the same breath," Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor observed last week. "Bush never pinned the blame for the [9/11] attacks directly on the Iraqi president," Feldmann wrote. "Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public."

Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center, told me last week: "It's very rare to find a perception that's been so disputed by experts yet firmly held by the public. There's almost nothing the public doesn't believe about Saddam Hussein."

The question, again, is: Did the press do a solid enough job in informing the public about the key contested issues? "If the U.S. war against Iraq goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war," Feldmann conceded. "But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire." Newspapers could be, too..

Now that the prewar march is behind us, let's hope the press does a better job of informing Americans in a post-Saddam world

Stunned. Simply stunned.

Okay Glenn, let's say that in the next few days that the Iraqi's start using chemical or biological weapons when the coalition crosses the red line around Baghdad. Are you going to be giddy with barely contained irrational exuberance at being proven right about Iraqi's WMD?

Certainly, there's going to be a hell of a lot of "I told you so's" from those who believed this all along. I'm sure you'd be barely able to contain yourself in posting your own. However, I doubt anyone will actually be pleased to see chemical or biological weapons used on our troops. Even if their use confirms your beliefs about Saddam's regime and makes the nay sayers look like fools.

So perhaps you can understand the dilemma that those of us on the Left side of the Bush have when the dire predictions about the Iraq war seem to be coming true. Yes, there's a lot of qualified "I told you so's". But absolutely no one is pleased to see our worst nightmares come true. I know it's hard for you to believe but maybe if you reversed the positions as I suggest above, you can perhaps understand better what those of us on the Left are feeling at this point. It's not a giddy joy you're seeing. Not giddy joy at all.

It's not our hubris that got us here.

Purity of Essence

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: Roscoe Shrewsbury emails:

On the one hand, the Anti-American Class has been saying all along that Iraq is no threat to anyone; on the other, they are now crowing with trembling, barely-suppressed glee, that Iraq is far more formidable than anyone had supposed.

Yes, I've noticed that myself.

The giddiness is the same giddiness shown by Peter Seller's character in Dr. Strangelove when he realizes that the entire world is going to be destroyed in nuclear holocaust by the insane sequence of events caused by a man obsessed with "Purity of Essence". I mean, can you guys be any more dense? Yes, I'm sure that we'll continue to see even deeper levels of cognitive dissonance to come.

Watch the Cain Mutiny Glenn. And then tell me about more about the Strawberries. Or are those WMDs?

Yea, we're all giddy with unbridled joy over our worst nightmares becoming reality. Just giddy as hell.

They were all disloyal. I tried to run the ship properly by the book, but they fought me at every turn. If the crew wanted to walk around with their shirttails hanging out, that's all right, let them! Take the towline - defective equipment, no more, no less. But they encouraged the crew to go around, scoffing at me and spreading wild rumors about steaming in circles and then 'Old Yellowstain.' I was to blame for Lieutenant Maryk's incompetence and poor seamanship. Lieutenant Maryk was the perfect officer, but not Captain Queeg. Ah, but the strawberries! That's, that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist. And I would have produced that key if they hadn't pulled the Caine out of action. I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer. (He pauses - looks at all the questioning faces that stare back at him, and realizes that he has been ranting and raving.) Naturally, I can only cover these things from memory...

Best quote of the day comes from Charles Pierce

If the Democrats were an actual political party, they’d make mighty hay out of the notion that Dick Cheney’s old company now has a sweet no-bid deal to rebuild whatever we blow up in Iraq. (This is the kind of naked grab-it-all that would embarrass a county commissioner.) Of course, this also is the party that takes seriously Weepin’ Joe Lieberman, now working his night job as the Indian who stands outside the Neocon Cigar Store. Remember, if you will, that 2000 vice-presidential debate, when Cheney actually said the Azaelliburton’s success under his stewardship had nothing to do with government work. Lieberman’s response to this bare-faced non-fact was audible only to dogs. To hell with the ticket. I’m prepared to propose that we stop Weepin’ Joe at the Connecticut border and refuse to allow him into the Commonwealth of Massachusetts until the 2004 convention in Boston ends.

Gotterdammerung of ridiculousness

Finally committed to the "This is absolutely insane and getting worse by the millisecond" world view. To all those on the Right side of the Bush, I'd like an answer to the question Josh asks

Let's assume Bill Clinton had launched the country on a major war on the other side of the globe. Clinton's top military advisors had told him and his Sec Def that he was sending them to war gravely under-gunned, without all they needed to get the job done and protect the lives of American troops. Then let's assume that Clinton and his Sec Def ignored their advice. He and the Sec Def told the generals they didn't understand how modern wars were fought and sent them out anyway. And then let's assume that the generals and admirals warnings were rapidly confirmed on the battlefield with a bogged down offensive and an escalating number of American casualties. Do you think Clinton and his Sec Def might be in some hot water? Yeah, me too.

Finally, is it time -- strictly for humanitarian reasons -- to set up a journalistic no-fly-zone to give some sanctuary for the hawks who've been telling us for months that a few good SWAT Teams could take down Saddam's regime.

I mean, think about Ken Adelman, who last month said that Iraq would be a cakewalk. (Okay, what did he really say? Ummm, well "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." I think that counts as calling it a cakewalk.) Now he's been driven to the hills by reportorial fedayeen. He's exposed to the elements and short on food. Or what about Richard Perle who said Saddam's regime was "a house of cards [which would] collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder." Sure, AEI would like to send out a relief mission. But most of their troops are up in the hills with those makeshift tarp-and-cardboard tents like Adelman and Perle. And well -- how to put this? -- let's just say they're just not in much of a position to beg relief from the UNHCR. Can't we at least protect these war-hawk worthies from fixed-wing aircraft, if nothing else? Toss 'em some MREs from the spare C-130? I mean, just for humanitarian purposes.

And I think it's still to soon to fully evaluate Rumsfeld's plan. Perhaps Saddam's regime will collapse spectacularly in the coming days. But at the moment the results of Rumsfeld's gamble are not looking very good.

But it really does look very bad from what I can gather. As I said, the fact that Josh has drank the insanity Kool-Aid and is currently assimilating in stunned disbelief

I have a simple request: Is it possible for the Bush administration to go one day without fulfilling its critics' direst predictions about its war aims and operational abilities?.

March 28, 2003, 1448hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - According to the latest intercepted radio communications, the command of the coalition group of forces near Karabela requested at least 12 more hours to get ready to storm the town. This delay is due to the much heavier losses sustained by the coalition troops during the sand storms then was originally believed. Just the US 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division sustained more than 200 disabled combat vehicles of various types. The 101st Airborne Division reported some 70 helicopters as being disabled. Additionally, the recently delivered reinforcements require rest and time to prepare for combat.

Read the rest of the post for some really interesting "end of the week" lessons learned, myths destroyed and other fun analysis of the worst military blunder for quite some time.

One thing that I think is getting lost in all the apoplectic shock reverberating throughout the world today is that there are many ways to severely weaken the United States. The one we heard so much about before the war dice were rolled was the danger of just pulling our troops out of the region. The (correct) belief that we would severely weaken our position in the world and everyone would see that we were just panty waisted girly boys if we didn't follow through with military force, seeing as how we went to all the trouble to ship the troops there and all. If we didn't fight this war, every tin cup dictator in the world would see that we had no resolve - that America was weak and didn't mean what it said.

I think now we can safely say that there is also the severe damage one can do to the United States by showing the entire world what absolute fools we can be when the neocons are rolling the dice. One saying comes quickly to mind which may help illustrate the point

Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, rather than to speak and remove all doubt

The worst is yet to come
The US is losing the propaganda war, and it could get a lot worse at the gates of the capital

This is from our friends down under, part of the coalition of the willing.

And this week a military intelligence officer said: "The intelligence we gathered before the war accurately reflected what the troops are seeing out there now. The question is whether the war planners and policymakers took adequate notice of it in preparing the plan." US complaints about the nature of the fighting suggest it anticipated the Iraqis would work from West Point and Sandhurst military manuals.

Scientists Warn on Bush Bioweapons Push

Okay, read this and think about it for a second.

And then remember that we still haven't found the Anthrax Terrorist. Remember that episode? Remember all the speculation that this was one of our own? Remember?

Many believe the anthrax attacks that killed five people and briefly paralyzed Capitol Hill in 2001 were launched by a scientist with access to one of the government's high-security facilities — called Biosafety Level 4 labs, or BSL-4 for short.

So are we creating the enemy in order to defeat the enemy?

Government officials insist that the labs will be secure and serve only defensive purposes. But the U.S. military has a history of dabbling in biological agent programs that push up against a 30-year-old international treaty banning them.

U.S. Says Syrian Shipments to Iraq Are `Hostile Acts'

I guess we can now fight three wars with Afghanistan tied behind our back, right Mr. Rumsfeld?

Asked if he was threatening military action against Syria for allowing shipments of night-vision goggles and other equipment, Rumsfeld replied that his statement was ``carefully phrased.''

As Eyes of the World Focus on Iraq, The Rest of the World's Hotspots Get Hotter

Meanwhile, in other apocalyptic news

Indian-Pakistani relations deteriorated to a dangerous level yesterday after New Delhi blamed Islamabad for a massacre in Kashmir earlier this week. Early yesterday India test-fired a nuclear-capable missile and, a few hours later, Pakistan followed suit.

The confrontation between the neighbors, both nuclear powers, is the most serious of a number of troublespots bubbling up while the focus of Washington and Europe is fixed on the war in Iraq.

North Korea, another nuclear power, also took a series of provocative steps yesterday aimed at antagonizing Washington, including ending one of the few vehicles for contact left open with the US. It also announced a rise in defense spending.

The war in Iraq has disrupted US-Russian strategic arms reduction talks. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict hovers on the brink of a new catastrophe.

Nancy Soderberg, a member of the Clinton administration's national security council and a former US ambassador to the UN, said yesterday that there was a problem of focus with the Bush administration. "I think it is a one-crisis administration," she said.

Victor Bulmer-Thomas, director of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, speaking about the India-Pakistan confrontation and the standoff with North Korea, said yesterday: "War creates certain latitude for testing enemy responses."

Conservatives Tailor Tone to Fit Course of the War

Many of those commentators who argued for the doctrine of a United States-enforced world order, including Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol and Andrew Sullivan, said Iraqis would welcome allied troops as liberators. Others predicted a swift victory against a grossly outmatched and disloyal Iraqi military.

Now, with televised images of Iraqis chanting anti-American slogans, and with Saddam Hussein's troops fighting back hard, the pundits have returned to the offensive, echoing President Bush's optimism and denouncing what they see as pessimism in the news media.

There is a range of views among the so-called hawks. Some simply urge patience. Some agree that they may have added to the perception that victory would come easily.

Mr. Limbaugh said he blamed the nature of the news business for what he considered to be overly negative coverage. "Four thousand safe plane landings a day doesn't make news," he said. "It's the same thing here. I don't think on balance this is any ideological expression on the part of most press people. They're oriented toward finding things that go wrong."

Mr. Kristol said he did not think current perceptions would matter at the end of the war.

"All the media stuff doesn't matter," he said. "In the end, reality matters. No one remembers Day 3 was a good day, Day 4 was bad. Have we been successful in helping create a decent government in Iraq? Reality trumps everything."

Ari Fleischer Fan Club

A critical reminder of what exactly the prospect of rational debate is up against in America.

People don't understand how a hot, blonde, 24 year old NYC girl could have such a major crush on Ari Fliescher - But I DO!! I think it is so cool the way he can walk into a room full of vicious press sharks and completely control the room and never ever flinch. He's the sharpest guy out there. Hmmm...I wonder if he would like to go on a date with me? Could you give him my phone number? -LM

To control climate change, alternative energy technologies must be developed

While we're speaking of hubris and the underestimation of our enemy, we might want to think back on some other things that the neocons are so sure of. Except in this case, they are certain that it is uncertain. Perhaps they are just idiots.

Uncertainty in the climate sensitivity to growing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been a stumbling block to policy makers addressing the climate change issue. A study published in the March 28 issue of the journal Science, however, concludes that huge reductions in fossil-fuel carbon emissions will be required by the middle of this century -- regardless of the likely climate sensitivity.

"To reduce carbon dioxide emissions and avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we must switch to alternative, carbon-free energy sources," said Atul Jain, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a co-author of the study.

Hubris.

Yea, I'm glad that a chink in the neocon's Teflon armor has been opened up, but I'm not for a moment believing they're even worried about this. They own the debate. They own the government (all three branches) and what media they don't own is too scared to say anything or question them. If the war starts going well, then all talk of hubris will evaporate like a morning fog... And since I sincerely hope the war goes much better than it has been, there's no way I can justify wishing otherwise - no matter what the cost.

Think well, Kristoff. Think well. Situations can flip on a dime, and by Sunday morning, everything will be back on track and this last week will be but a dream quickly forgotten.

The danger, Israel, is to the West

Israel is getting pretty worried.

The allies aim to wrest Iraq away from the Butcher of Baghdad and his terrorizing Ba'ath Party.

Simultaneously, Britain is leading the charge to ensure that, as soon as that objective has been met, the international community will move to remove the ancient land of Israel from Jewish control and hand it to the father of terrorism and his blood-soaked PLO.

The noble goal of liberating Iraq has long been linked in the British mind with the ignoble one of creating "Palestine" on Jewish lands.

Use a Firewall, Go to Jail

Yea, the DMCA really was such a great idea

The states of Massachusetts and Texas are preparing to consider bills that apparently are intended to extend the national Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (TX bill; MA bill) The bills are obviously related to each other somehow, since they are textually similar.

Here is one example of the far-reaching harmful effects of these bills. Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that "conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication". Your ISP is a communication service provider, so anything that concealed the origin or destination of any communication from your ISP would be illegal -- with no exceptions.

If you send or receive your email via an encrypted connection, you're in violation, because the "To" and "From" lines of the emails are concealed from your ISP by encryption. (The encryption conceals the destinations of outgoing messages, and the sources of incoming messages.)

Worse yet, Network Address Translation (NAT), a technology widely used for enterprise security, operates by translating the "from" and "to" fields of Internet packets, thereby concealing the source or destination of each packet, and hence violating these bills. Most security "firewalls" use NAT, so if you use a firewall, you're in violation.

If you have a home DSL router, or if you use the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of your favorite operating system product, you're in violation because these connection sharing technologies use NAT. Most operating system products (including every version of Windows introduced in the last five years, and virtually all versions of Linux) would also apparently be banned, because they support connection sharing via NAT.

And this is just one example of the problems with these bills. Yikes

Wow. Another gem via Atrios. Aaron Brown has his ass handed to him on a silver platter

BROWN: Well I hope that soldiers in the field aren't looking at CNN but I think, it strikes me, Dr. Ellsberg, that we veered a little there. Let me try and re-frame the question. If the Iraqi political strategy is to use the anti-war movement to put pressure on the coalition to cease fire, don't - whether that's the case or not -

ELLSBERG: That implies a rather delusional aspect of Saddam Hussein that I don't have any confidence in. If you really think that Saddam Hussein is relying on reading newspaper accounts or seeing media accounts of people, handfuls of people or thousands of people, lying in the streets, and relying on that to influence, sAzaell we say, President Bush? I didn't see it happening in getting into this war, and I don't think Saddam is so foolish as to think that his own safety, as a tyrant in that country, depends on us. So I really think that's an irrelevant question.

BROWN: Do you not think that the anti-war movement -

ELLSBERG: In fact I think that's very naive. I think that one who thinks - that goes back - I think that's just a way, really, of the administration trying to quell dissent in this country. Such theories - and really, they're theories of Saddam Hussein - are not very good. That's a great part of the crisis this country is in, right now

BROWN: Do you think the anti-war movement of this time will be, in any way shape or form successful in the way that ultimately the anti-war movement was in encouraging an end to the Vietnam War?

ELLSBERG: Well really the anti-war movement had it's effect primarily after months and years of body bags had come home and I pray, I hope that that is not going to be the basis for success - of any kind of - I hope that doesn't happen, in a word, and I don't know anyone, in the movement opposing this war, who wants that.

I would be very happy, by the way, to see Saddam leave, dead or alive at this moment, to see all of his troops defect, to se his generals defect as apparently was confidently predicted - that confidence was very foolish - and I think by the way, should undermine Bush's confidence in the judgment of the people who have been advising Rumsfeld, and think of replacing them, very quickly. I would like to see that but it doesn't seem to be happening at all. I never was confident that that would happen.

Really I don't think many people on those streets have very much confidence at all that they will influence President Bush. He doesn't seem to listen to a majority even, let alone a minority of the people, after all, a majority did not vote for him. I don't think they expect to be very move - or to move, either Saddam Hussein or George Bush. But I do think that they are speaking to each other, and to the country, and to the world and I think that's for the good of this country to hear, the world hear, that there are many Americans who feel this war is deeply wrong, and we're in a crisis.

Krauthammer, then and now.

I love the internet

Wow. Looks like Dr Krauthammer has more personalities than Sybil. Maybe he could write himself a prescription for either Hypocaway or Denyitall.

Better double the dosage, Dr.

Atrios writes that he's wondering about Rummy and Cheney's obsession about doing war on the cheap. So does CalPundit...

The answer is simple. Calling up 350,000 troops is a once in a decade thing. You can't do that often. But calling up 60,000 troops is something - if you could get away with it once successfully - that you could easily start getting away with. Once people got used to it, and you showed you could win doing it, it would become as simple as turning on the light switch. You walk over, flip the switch and change regimes.

Thank god they weren't successful in this part of their plan - the uniformed military vetoed that, thank "Bob".

As I said, this is a well thought out plan - and a pattern. Not an aberration.

Bush Administration Frustrated by War Doubts

Let's be clear. I'm not giggling with joy that things are not going well. I am horrified that this is happening. Horrified that this was entirely predictable and yet it still happened. There is no joy in being proven correct. Only deep sadness that despite all our best efforts, we failed in stopping this insanity from taking place at all.

But to hear the administration, I just have to stand in awe at their complete disconnect with reality. And this is the real tragedy, after all. How this situation came about is not purely the fault of this Administration. They had an awful lot of help from the media. Rather than have a real debate in America, we had mouth pieces for the worldview of the neocons. And this has extended to every aspect of political life here in America, not just foreign policy. The entire issue of the presidential election, the tax cuts, energy policy, welfare, medicaid, education, abortion, religion and everything else has been treated the same way. The press has been on bended knee, worshiping at the tid bits thrown to them by the official leaks from this Administration.

We have a president who has given only 8 press conferences in 25 months. The press doesn't seem to care, as they are now so covetous of being granted access to these rare events and asking scripted questions during them. We have a concentrated media focused exclusively on entertainment - not information. After all, it's what the people want. So when the radical Right starts dominating the reporting - well, that's just capitalism at work. If the left had anything to say that people wanted to hear, they would "vote" for it with their dollars.

The illusion is that somehow information is a commodity like oil or steel that companies can compete to provide. The unfortunate reality is that information is not a commodity, but an essential part of our decision making process. Getting the wrong information, or not getting all the information isn't just a matter of which grade of oil we have or what kind of steel is in the beams. It directly affects how we decide what to do. The debate in America has been completely controlled by the Right. All criticism is quickly marginalized and shunted off to obscurity and discredited channels. No one listens to them.

As religious capitalists, we confuse the fact that what people want to buy is what they need to hear.

The plain and simple fact is that there are plenty of things we need to know which we would much rather ignore. If we buy into the notion of an entertainment based information market, then the obvious result is that no one will pay to get information they don't want to hear. This results in self-delusion and incredible miscalculations. It also means that people are trivially led around by the nose by who ever is in control of these infotainment corporations.

So there's plenty of blame to go around here, and I'd like to start seeing some of it start being owned up to. The way out of this mess is to start having very real and very serious discussions. True criticism (not shrill "debate").

Unfortunately, we're in a big pickle. We've let this Administration do everything it could to plug up all sources of information. This Administration has drastically scaled back any freedom of information sources we used to have. They have the most tightly controlled executive branch in history. We have cowed reporters who are so afraid of losing access that they cannot fathom rocking the boat. And then there's the neocons on the Right with the megaphones - like Ann Coulter and just about every political talk show host in the media today. There are no voices of opposition, except in caricature. There are no liberal voices with a microphone - much less a megaphone - that isn't laughed off the stage in a barrage of tomatoes today.

In order to get out of this mess and have the serious kind of discussions that Kristoff rightly believes we should have, we will have to fundamentally change the way political debate happens in this country. And since the Administration is planning on spending 500 MILLION dollars in the 2004 election, I just can't believe this fundamental change will happen. Given the way Gore was treated in 2000, I think we're just going to see more of the same derision, scorn and suppression of whatever democratic candidate emerges from the crowded pack. Already we've seen the incredibly laughable "debate" about John Kerry's mysterious genetic heritage and the comical assertions that this somehow disqualifies him from holding the office of President.

And let's not forget the hounding that Bill Clinton had. At this point, I couldn't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut whether Bill Clinton is the most evil man on earth and deserved every bit of hounding that he got. Fine. You won. You had your fun. What I do care about at the moment is that we currently have an Administration that is doing far, far more serious things and the media is simply rolling over and ignoring the issue. Worse, they're actively scorning anyone suggesting that we should actually look into this stuff and investigate what the hell is going on.

Fine. You flayed Bill in a righteous crusade. Point is, we have a serious problem here. And everyone is on bended knee, giving wide deference to the people who are the source of the problem. A double standard that has now caused the very disconnect with reality that led us to the miscalculations in Iraq.

Oh well. It was a good rant. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. If a liberal rants in a forest and no one listens, did he really rant?

"Cakewalk"
Bush administration officials and their hawkish supporters now say they never promised an easy war -- but the record shows otherwise.

Not that this will make any difference to the neocon wannabes in the slightest, but it is nice to have something that clearly shows these guys just squeezed out a stinky loaf the consequences of which our troops are now dealing with. It is their hubris. Their responsibility. And we should never let them forget this.

Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:
"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."

"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder.

Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003:
"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.

"The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on.

Hearts and Minds

There are times when I see clearly why the Left is a disorganized, ineffective mess. Reading Kristoff is almost always one of those cases. He truly is an intelligent, caring man with great insight. He is always on the side of compromise and inclusion. His advice this time is

We doves simply have to let go of the dispute about getting into this war. It's now a historical question, and the relevant issue, for hawks and doves alike, is how we get out of this war (and how we avoid the next pre-emptive war). Americans should be able to find common ground, for all sides dream of an Iraq that is democratic and an America that is again admired around the world. Creating a postwar Iraq that is free and flourishing is also the one way to recoup the damage this war has already done to America's image and interests.

In the last two years Mr. Cheney and other top officials have gotten it wrong again and again — on energy, on the economy, on the budget. But political muscle has insulated them from any adverse consequences. So they, and the country, don't learn from their mistakes — and the mistakes keep getting bigger.

Again, the mistake being made over and over is belief in the meme "people who've done everything wrong up until this point will suddenly start to do everything right". They have no intention of changing their minds on this. Everything we've witnessed about this Administration screams that fact. To assume that they are playing by the rules - as Kristoff wants us to believe - is a very dangerous assumption to make. Just look at where that thinking has gotten us in the military part of this drama.

So while I completely agree that this can't become a tick under the skin that irritates the crap out of the Left which causes them to miss the actual goal of mitigating the disaster currently unfolding in Iraq, we cannot forget that the way this happened is a pattern - not an aberration. I would wish nothing better than a truce to be declared between the neocons and the Left regarding this whole situation. It would simply be lovely to be involved in a serious debate about what we're going to do and how we're going to get out of this stinking mess. But that is not what they intend to do. Every indication is that they are just going to step up the heat. Take Fox news' blatant demonstration of just what's going to be in store for everyone who's on the other side of this argument...

It will take great strength during these days to not completely blow our collective lids with the rage boiling within us at the disaster this group of radical Right wing thinkers has placed us in. However, that is precisely their clear and consistent strategy: Create facts on the ground which make it impossible not to pursue their policy. This Administration is quite adept at taking and maintaining the initiative. They are not playing by the same rule book. They are playing on the assumption that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for permission - something that every teenager learns instinctively. So they're going to stick to their playbook and keep creating "facts on the ground" and following Kristoff's strategy will always lead to the Left grudgingly forgiving them.

Look. They already have a blank check signed by Congress for this whole affair. At issue is whether anyone has woken up and looked clearly at not only the current situation, but what they are planning for the future..

If this can be done by finding common ground with the neocons, that would be lovely. But I just do not believe that there is any common ground. They wanted this war, they have followed their plan for the buildup to this war, and I have no illusions that they will follow their plan after this war. Playing catch up and trying to compromise with them will only play into their hands. They will always have facts on the ground that you'll have to acquiesce to. Always. At issue is whether we can gain the initiative and create new facts on the ground that they have to deal with.

Delusions of Power

Go Krugman Truth Squad, GO! The Sodium Pentathol kid should be able to carve this one up pretty quickly, right? After all, we know that Paul Krugman is just a liberal twit who's facts don't stand the light of day... Right?

So have at him Luskin. Make us proud.

What liberal media?

Found this via the always on the edge Atrios. Apparently

Fox News had its own response to the demonstrators. The news ticker rimming Fox's headquarters on Sixth Avenue wasn't carrying war updates as the protest began. Instead, it poked fun at the demonstrators, chiding them.

"War protester auditions here today ... thanks for coming!" read one message. "Who won your right to show up here today?" another questioned. "Protesters or soldiers?"

Media experts said what Fox did Thursday morning was not shocking - Fox was openly hawkish about the war long before it began. But, they said, the display - tagged with the Fox News logo — threw journalistic objectivity out the window and also ridiculed the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

"Fox tries to position itself as 'the real American network,'" said Michael Hoyt, executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. "But real Americans believe in democracy and freedom of speech. I think what they did was cynical and bush league."

Barbara Reed, an associate professor of journalism at Rutgers University, said she wasn't surprised by Fox's action, given the fact that the network is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the Australian media mogul and ardent conservative whose publications have been hawkish.

"Fox isn't the only news outlet that has shown bias, but I think Murdoch and Fox are over the top on this one," Reed said.

Taking Sides
The Iraq war will divide the world--for the better.

Proving that Josh MarsAzaell's article wasn't just idle speculation, Daniel Henniger is rather somber and low key (for the WSJ) and starts off with

Togetherness is oversold. Especially by politicians and statesmen, who sometimes hide their courage under the teacup of compromise and multilateralism. But there are times when all of us have to decide which side we are going to be on, not for an evening's argument but for the long haul. The Iraq war is one of those moments.

By the time this war ends, it will have divided national leaders, divided the world's voters and, yes, divided the world's press. That is to say, the institutions that set the world on its course. We will know pretty soon where that world is headed, and who will be its pilots.

There is a tradition in the U.S. that once the president puts troops into action we "unite" to support our men and women, as Democrats such as John Kerry and John Edwards have now done. But that's easy. A larger choice is being asked of everyone by this war waged against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

So now the false dilemma of "are you with us or against us" is quietly being resurrected and pushed on the home front with renewed vigor. What the rest of the world considers alarming, the Neocons consider a strength! It just proves their clever strategy was right all along. Orwell at his best.

But paranoid delusions aside, what's truly hilarious is that George Bush's tag line was "I'm a uniter, not a divider". And, of course, the constant theme throughout this Administration has been the bitter divide that separates the US politically, and the divide between the US and the rest of the world. So Daniel is telling us that this war will divide us - for the better of course - in much the same way that Josh MarsAzaell's hornet's nest analogy: It sharply contrasts the population, making them easier to spot and to be dealt with.

Which side are you on? Some surely will recoil at the suggestion that we should so simply reduce the politics of this war. But the war against Saddam Hussein is a rare, defining event, as Vietnam was. It is going to establish divisions for a generation--in relations among nations, in voting patterns. Long-term claims to moral standing are at stake. Among families and friends, these matters in time will never come up again, but like villagers in occupied France, no one's ever going to forget either.
These are not the destructive divisions so often worried over by instinctive moderates and multilateralists. These are constructive divisions, which are driving the world's people toward making a decision about what they believe in, why they believe it and what kind of world they want to live in.

So was just looking at the NY Times, Washington Post, SF Chronicle, LA Times, Chicago-Sun Times, Washington Times. Just looking. Seeing how their front doors were arranged. Reason why is what I read on the translation of www.iraqwar.ru.

Intercepted radio communications indicate that tomorrow we should expect a powerful attack by the coalition. During all day today the coalition troops were being reinforced and fully resupplied with fuel and ammunition. Additional units reserved for maintaining security along the Kuwaiti border were moved today to the front lines. The total number of additional [coalition] forces to enter Iraq numbers up to five battalions and around 800 combat vehicles.

Based on this information to say that tomorrow we should expect heated combat would be an understatement.

But what's clear is that things are tough. The previous report paints a rather bleak picture for today. What makes this hard is that I have absolutely no way of verifying the evidence - after all, American media is rather... well... suspect at the moment. All information is suspect.

Intercepted radio communications show that at around 0615hrs this morning the lead of a flight of two A-10 ground attack planes detected a convoy of armored vehicles. Unable to see any markings identifying these vehicles as friendly and not being able to contact the convoy by radio the pilot directed artillery fire to the coordinates of the convoy.

Later it was discovered that this was a coalition convoy. Thick layers of dust covered up the identification markings - colored strips of cloth in the rear of the vehicles. Electronic jamming made radio contact impossible. First reports indicated that the US unit lost 50 troops killed and wounded. At least five armored vehicles have been destroyed, one of which was an Abrams tank.

During the sand storm the coalition command lost contact with up to 4 coalition reconnaissance groups. Their whereabouts are being determined. It is still unknown what happened to more than 600 other coalition troops mainly from resupply, communications and reconnaissance units communication with which was lost during the past 24 hours.

There's been a lot of noise made in American media regarding the establishment of a base in northern Iraq - the northern front. However, the fact that we haven't done it until now seems particularly disturbing. Remember all the Turkey non sense?

Information coming from northern regions of Iraq indicates that most of the Kurdish leaders chose not to participate in the US war against Iraq. The primary reason for that is the mistrust of the Kurds toward the US. Yesterday one of the Russian intelligence sources obtained information about a secret agreement reached between the US and the Turkish government. In the agreement the US, behind the backs of the Kurds, promised Turkey not to support in any way a formation of a Kurdish state in this region. The US has also promised not to prevent Turkey from sending its troops [ to Northern Kurdistan] immediately following [the coalition] capture of northern Iraq.

In essence, this gives Turkey a card-blanche to use force for a "cleanup" in Kurdistan. At the same time the Kurdish troops will be moved to fight the Iraqis outside of Kurdistan, thus rendering them unable to support their own people.

Along the border with Kurdistan Turkey has already massed a 40,000-strong army expeditionary corps that is specializing in combat operations against the Kurds. This force remains at a 4-hour readiness to begin combat operations.

All of this indicates that the coalition command will be unable to create a strong "Northern Front" during the next 3-4 days and that the US Marines and paratroopers in this area will have to limit their operations to distracting the Iraqis and to launching reconnaissance missions.

Since I'm just an amateur, I can't really justify this, but what bothers me about the push tomorrow (in theory) for a powerful strike tomorrow is that it seems terribly risky. But maybe not. The storm is over, and our air power is available. The shock of war is over and our troops are "absorbed" in war and their tactics are working. It could be a very good day tomorrow on the morale front. But it will be a very interesting kind of victory. Basically, what we will have accomplished is securing our butt in this nasty conflict. There seems like enormous pressure to take back the initiative. But it's a supply game.

At the current level of combat operations and at the current level of Iraqi resistance the coalition may face a sharp shortage of troops and weapons within the next 5-7 days, which will allow the Iraqis to take the initiative. The White House took this conclusion of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff with great concern.

Godspeed.

We cannot change the past, we can only mitigate the future

I guess demoting Perle from Chairman to mere member of the advisory board will take care of all that HUBRIS we've been seeing a lot of lately.

Anybody remember N Korea? If I was France, Russia or China - or anyone else with nuclear weapons on this planet - I would be proving your commitment to world stability and take care of that problem for the US. It looks like we're going to be busy for a while with the current business in Iraq. We know they are insistent, but the idiots in charge just badly miscalculated. Hopefully we'll get the situation back here at home under control now that Perle has been demoted to a mere demi-god.

Yea, right. I just hope at this point the entire planet doesn't blow up in some weird apocalyptic science fiction way.

Seriously, though. If the other great countries on this earth would excuse the mess and handle our responsibilities with respect to N Korea - preferably through the UN - we'd really appreciate it a lot. And by showing the rest of the world that not only the UN can solve really scarry problems with real diplomacy and a back bone, the world will be in a much better place when our own mess is over. The neocons will have suffered a major blow in their strategy by making the UN stronger, rather than weaker. And without the 8,000 pound gorilla in the room - that would be US - maybe some more rational, less self delusional progress can be made on mitigating the disaster we're making of this Iraq affair.

But given how self serving everyone else is on this planet - after all the US isn't unique given the great history of Europe - well let's just say that I'm not hopefull.

Perle resigns as key Rumsfeld adviser

Richard Perle, a former Reagan administration Pentagon official, resigned Thursday as chairman of the Defense Policy Board that is a key advisory arm for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

In a brief written statement, Rumsfeld thanked Perle for his service and made no mention of why Perle resigned. He said he had asked Perle to remain as a member of the board.

But that this was done at all is actually significant. It shows that they actually bleed when cut. Just not very much given the wounding.

Just found an interesting informal study on how bloggers report events. It has to do with the 100 acre industrial plant that was suspected of being a WMD factory. What was done was find who posted the original report and who reported the update, and look at where there biases lay. Interesting read. Meme Cauldron was on the short list that linked to both. My reply to the post is in the comments that follow. As I said there, I would love to see more studies like this. Formal, of course. It's a window into bias and what drives insanity, imho. The more we know about it, and the more data we have on it, the better we can deal with it.

Urban warfare: advantage US

Another stunning indication that hubris hasn't gone out of style with the new reality of the Iraq war.

There Will Never be a Palestinian Democracy

Whoops. Looks like the neocons are getting a touch of hubris. This is a bit of the tipping of the hand that seems premature. But maybe it's just damage control with Israel. Israel is a bit scared at the moment as to what victory in Iraq means for them - i.e. a forced settlement resulting in a two state solution. As this article shows, they shouldn't be worrying.

These Arabs will never be at peace, will never know the blessings of democracy so long as they are encouraged to cling to a false and hateful identity as "Palestinians." They are not a separate people; they are part of the Arab nation and, with few exceptions, they need to be absorbed back into it. Until they are, there will never be peace in Israel or real and lasting progress toward democracy in the southern Arab states. The biggest mistake America can make would be to keep this evil identity alive by giving it a U.S.-sponsored mini-state. The ancient land of Israel has already been divided between Arabs and Jews, into Jordan and Israel. It cannot be divided again to create another viable state.

Still no word from the Krugman Truth Squad

Not that I'm surprised. It was really all sound and fury, signifying nothing. They splattered against the windshield I guess.

White House prepares to feed 24-hour news cycle

The full court press begins.

When Americans wake up in the morning, they will first hear from the (Persian Gulf) region, maybe from General Tommy Franks," she said. "Then later in the day, they'll hear from the Pentagon, then the State Department, then later on the White House will brief."

Before anyone goes on air, however, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer will set the day's message with an early-morning conference call to British counterpart Alastair Campbell, White House communications director Dan Bartlett, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, Pentagon spokesperson Torie Clarke, and White House Office of Global Communication (OGC) director Tucker Eskew - a routine that mirrors procedure during the conflict in Afghanistan

Iraq TV Raid May Break Geneva Convention

Don't these people understand? We only care about the Geneva Convention when it affects us. When it's our turn to live up to obligations, we lose interest.

Practice To Deceive

Makes my paranoid fantasies look like a trivial walk in the park. This is Josh MarsAzaell at his best. Read this article. Read it now. And then start wondering about the storm clouds gathering. Then you might want to look for shelter.

Ending Saddam Hussein's regime and replacing it with something stable and democratic was always going to be a difficult task, even with the most able leadership and the broadest coalition. But doing it as the Bush administration now intends is something like going outside and giving a few good whacks to a hornets' nest because you want to get them out in the open and have it out with them once and for all. Ridding the world of Islamic terrorism by rooting out its ultimate sources--Muslim fundamentalism and the Arab world's endemic despotism, corruption, and poverty--might work. But the costs will be immense. Whether the danger is sufficient and the costs worth incurring would make for an interesting public debate. The problem is that once it's just us and the hornets, we really won't have any choice.

No Nam
The war may be ill-advised, but don't call it a quagmire.

Wow. Another fantastic article in the American Prospect by By Michael Tomasky. He makes a really, really good point illustrated by a quote from the author of "shock and awe"

"Where we are is where we are, and this is not a criticism and don't write it as such, but if it had been up to me, I would have waited months, perhaps, to get a second resolution, when it would have been clear that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I don't agree with the administration view that Iraq is a clear and present danger."

Diplomacy is this administration's real quagmire. The hawks managed to crash their way through the china shop once, when a) the arguments against the bad guy were clear as water and b) the likelihood of a relatively short war was equally clear. Will American public opinion endorse new rounds of belligerence and unilateralism even as other nations are finding ways to strike back at us? This question is far more likely to be in play in the fall of 2004 than in Iraq, and it's far less likely to benefit the incumbent than today's conventional wisdom would hold.

I think the future is really quite cloudy. For example, the sheer aftermath of the war is quite the complicated thing to predict. While that puts the Administration into a particularly bad position, the position that the world will be in is even worse. At issue is more than just a "quagmire" of diplomacy or war. Fundamental alliances have been cracked upon the hard rock of Iraq. It isn't just deep divisions, but complete and utter destruction. Nothing, I guess, is ever really final, but I think that the lines are being drawn on the radical Right's side and they're going to make sure that the division is complete. They're just not going to give up at all.

Part of it is their psychology. I mean, here's a group of people willing to shred the constitution at a moments notice. Their fist reaction to this crisis is to apply the screws and set up a police state. Waiting in the wings for the second act of this entire psychodrama is the PATRIOT Act II or its legal equivalent. This Administration has been working this area of the game quite consistently since they came into power. Heck, even the way they got into power was a clear part of the game plan. On the most paranoid level - not necessarily something I believe mind you - they have shown every indication of severely bending, if not actually breaking, the rules. Once PATRIOT Act II shreds the remaining impediments to control, they'll have all the tools necessary for a complete coup.

So, against the backdrop of complete and utter chaos in the middle east, this Administration will be in complete and absolute control - or more enough control than required - of the American psyche. Maybe we should be thinking of the Iraq war as the psychological equivalent of a gang rape on the political psyche. It's going to be more brutal than anyone thought, and a lot of innocence will be lost. This was struck home today as I was listening to a student interviewed on NPR... She was talking about people who changed their mind about the war after they started to see pictures detailing the true human costs of the war. Pictures of American soldiers dead and potentially executed. Pictures of POWs. Pictures of Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire. And what she said was "What did these people think? War is hell and it's not a pretty thing at all. It's brutal. They should have understood that going into all this".

The point being is that the stripping of our innocence in the first truly contested battle the US has fought in a long time might have exactly opposite effect the Left thinks. Perhaps it will only be a short term effect - perhaps a year or two - but perhaps that's enough for them to tighten down the screws using this psychological stripping as the coup de grace.

Granted, these are paranoid ramblings of my darkest imagination. But quite frankly, look at the situation we're in now. We're in the beginning of a war that is going unexpectedly bad. We have Iraqis fighting us instead of surrendering. We have the entire mideast in uproar and protest - against the US! More importantly, we have an Administration that has pretty much ripped up the constitution with PATRIOT Act I already. The first drafts of this law show quite clearly that Ashcroft was willing to suspend Habeas Corpus indefinitely. In the PATRIOT Act II, we see that this wasn't just a passing thought of this Administration, but truly a desire they wish to see fulfilled. It's not just a conspiracy theory, we have the actual documents written by them.

So while I think it's all very interesting to debate about what is and is not a quagmire, it seems that a lot of the more rational Left is still completely missing the 1,000 pound gorilla in the room. I think that they are mistaken in believing that this will be a primarily political battle. They have shown their cards and pointed to the gorilla and gestured rudely in the direction of all of us. I think there's a lot on the Right who are starting to realize that they are likely to be in the same boat as well, regardless of what other goals they may share with the radical wing of their political party...

To me, it looks like a shit storm of unimaginable magnitude is in the process of breaking upon us all. Like all things, we don't really understand its scope until its well under way. Perhaps I'm just clueless and completely wrong. I'll be pleased and just go back to my comfortable life and simply be remembered as someone's crazy uncle. That would suit me just fine.

But it's hard to ignore the signs we already have, though. Hard to ignore. Much like the Iraqi adversaries we have in this military drama, the other side of this engagement is not playing by the rules. They have thrown the rule book away. And assuming that your adversary is playing by the rules is a very dangerous mistake to make.

War Could Last Months, Some Military Officers Say

Quite a sober article. Coming from the Washington Post, it's even more surprising. Although they try to frame it in the best possible terms - something I completely understand - I think the sad fact is that the military has been screwed over by the politicos. I think this is terribly depressing. I know those on the Right side of this war would like to think that those opposed to this insanity are just waiting to laugh and point fingers. It's really just the opposite. It's more like a boiling rage at the idiocy and hubris of those who would put our troops in this kind of situation. Good, honest people who are willing to die for their country. I just don't think it honors their sacrifice and courage when we do this to them.

Reading my favorite Russian military and intelligence analysts, the details missing from the Washington Post piece make a quite grim picture. Some of it is good news, though.

Harsh criticism from the top US military leadership and pressure from Washington forced the coalition command to resort to more energetic actions. In addition to that the shock of the first days of war among the coalition troops, when they expected an easy trek across Iraq but encountered stiff resistance, is now wearing off. They are now being "absorbed" into the war. Now the coalition actions are becoming more coherent and adequate. The coalition command is gradually taking the initiative away from the Iraqis, which is in part due to the reliance of the Iraqi command on inflexible defensive tactics.

Now the main tactical move of the US troops is to use their aerial and ground reconnaissance forces to test the Iraqi defenses, to open them up and, without entering direct close combat, to deliver maximum damage using artillery and ground attack aircraft. The coalition has finally stopped pointlessly moving around in convoys, as was characteristic of the first three days of the ground war.

The tactics allowed for increased combat effectiveness and considerably increased losses of the Iraqi side. Due to such attacks by the coalition during the previous night and today's early morning the Iraqis have lost 250 troops killed and up to 500 wounded. Up to 10 Iraqi tanks were destroyed and up to three Iraqi artillery batteries were suppressed.

It is difficult not to not to notice the extremely overstretched frontline of the coalition. This frontline is stretching toward Baghdad through An-Najaf and Karabela and its right flank goes all the way along the Euphrates and is completely exposed. All main supply and communication lines of the coalition are going through unprotected desert. Already the supply routes are stretching for more than 350 kilometers and are used to deliver 800 tonnes of fuel and up to 1,000 tonnes of ammunition, food and other supplies daily to the advancing forces.

If the Iraqis deliver a decisive strike at the base of this front, the coalition will find itself in a very difficult situation, with its main forces, cutoff from the resupply units, losing their combat readiness and mobility and falling an easy pray to the Iraqis.

It is possible that the Americans are relying on the power of their aviation that should prevent any such developments. It is also possible that this kind of self confidence may be very dangerous.

It's also grim to realize how much damage the sandstorms are doing to the equipment.

Massive numbers of disabled combat vehicles and other equipment becomes a strategic problem for the coalition. Already, radio intercepts indicate, all available repair units have been deployed to the front. Over 60% of all available spare parts have been already used and emergency additional supplies are being requested.

The sand is literally "eating up" the equipment. Sand has a particularly serious effect on electronics and transmissions of combat vehicles. Already more than 40 tanks and up to 69 armored personnel carriers have been disabled due to damaged engines; more than 150 armored vehicles have lost the use of their heat-seeking targeting sights and night vision equipment. Fine dust gets into all openings and clogs up all moving parts.

All of this really makes you viscerally understand just what the limitations of technology are. Over the last two decades, we've been worshiping at its feet - particularly the military. And now, we're being stymied and severely affected by such "simple" things that turn all that technology to mush or at least neutralize it.

Humbling. It would be a very good lesson to apply to such idiocy as Anti Ballistic Missile systems which don't yet work, and may never do what they are intended at all. The false sense of security could prove equally devastating.

FBI Warns of Simple Chemical Weapons

Maybe the eye opener of the asymmetric warfare fought in Iraq has finally influenced the FBI. At issue with the Administration's focus on Iraq, Anti Ballistic Missile systems, and other high tech extravaganzas is the simple fact that terrorists use extremely low tech means of achieving their goals. One thing that those of us on the anti-war side have tried to point out over and over is that terrorists don't need states like Iraq to produce really nasty chemical weapons. After all, they used box cutting knives and religious lunatics to create precision guided weapons of terror. Ricin - the poison fear in fashion at the moment - is trivial to produce from the Castor Bean plant, which is available at your local decorative plant shoppe. And it doesn't take a chemical weapons expert armed with an X-Files style mobile laboratory to produce. One single bean can produce enough toxin to kill 50 people. It's trivial to "weaponize" and doesn't require any unusual chemicals or machinery to do this. Add to that all the other simple things evil people can do, then you start to wonder why the heck any terrorist would actually go through the trouble of dealing with a country at all. According to recent interrogations of senior al-Qaida planner KAzaelid Shaikh Mohammed gives us the terrorizing realization that al-Qaida may already be farther along with building some truly terrifying low tech nasty stuff. And the stupid thing about it all is that taking out Saddam isn't doing jack to prevent what we already know is in place and threatening us.

U.S.: Iraq Chemical Suits Reinforce Fears

In absence of any proof at all for chemical or biological weapons, we're being presented with the defenses against them as proof they have them. Now, how stupid do you have to be to believe the only reason for having these suits is that the Iraqis have chemical or biological weapons themselves? Sure, we've said we would never use them ourselves, but every frickn' military worth its name would have these defenses - it's called prudent preparation. Now, they really might have WMD they're going to use on us - I truly hope they don't - but it is also possible that the whole chemical suits is a clever and cheap ploy to slow American troops. It's called PsyOps. The Iraqis can do this as competently as we can. And it seems to be working quite well. They may not have WMD, but since the US is convinced that they do, they can use this belief to tie us up and slow us down. Of course it's prudent to assume the worst, but that's just exactly what they're counting on. It's called asymmetric warfare.

Again, I hope to "Bob" that the Iraqis don't have WMD. I'm personally convinced that they don't. But I'm going to have to see more than a bunch of chemical suits before I'm convinced that they do have them. I'm just getting sick of this being presented as definitive evidence that they do have WMD.

Geesh.

When are facts facts? Not in a war

This is such a great display of how cowed the press in America has become

BASRA UPRISING

Claims
Tuesday, March 25, 5.30pm
Widespread media reports of a popular uprising against President Saddam Hussein in Iraq's second city of Basra, believed to have originated from military sources. Follows reports from pool reporter Richard Gaisford.

Claims cAzaellenged
Tuesday, March 25, 6.10pm
British military sources say they are unable to confirm reports of any popular uprising in Basra, but reiterate that they would do everything possible to encourage and support any Iraqis planning to overthrow forces loyal to Saddam."We don't know anything about a popular uprising," said one British military source in Central Command in Qatar.

Iraq calls claims 'Azaellucinations'
Tuesday, March 25, 7.44pm
Iraq's information minister denies the reports, calling them "Azaellucinations". "I want to affirm to you that Basra is continuing to hold steadfast," Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf told the Arabic language al-Jazeera television network.

Army 'confirms' claims
Wednesday, March 26, 2.27am
A British spokesman at US Central Command headquarters in Qatar says it appears there has been an uprising. "We don't have a clear indication of its scale or scope or where it will take us. But we will want to support it to exploit its potential. It looks like this uprising is based on the massive resentment of the population."

Al-Jazeera rejects claims
Wednesday, March, 7.40am
An Al-Jazeera reporter, who is stationed behind coalition lines in Basra, says he has no evidence of an uprising. He says the city is crawling with Iraqi military and the streets are littered with shrapnel.

Blair backs claims
Wednesday, March 26, 12.30pm
British prime minister Tony Blair says he believes there has been a limited uprising overnight. "In relation to what has happened in Basra overnight, truthfully reports are confused, but we believe there was some limited form of uprising," he told the House of Commons.

BASRA 1
...where an hour is a long time in the military calender.

Claim
Tuesday, March 25, 8.13am
Reuters: "British military spokesman confirmed on Tuesday British troops were probably going to go into Basra to battle irregular fighters resisting US-led invasion forces in Iraq's second city. "We are meeting resistance from irregulars, members of the Fedayeen, who are extremely loyal to Saddam Hussein's regime," group captain Al Lockwood told CNN television. "They are lightly armed, and very small in number, but they are terrorising the citizens of Basra and we will probably need to go in and meet any resistance."

Counter claim
Tuesday, March 25, 9.16am
Reuters: a British spokesman said on Tuesday British troops would not enter the southern city of Basra to battle irregular Iraqi fighters - contradicting an earlier statement. But the British did consider Basra a military target. "We're not going into Basra, it's simply considered a target," a British military spokesman at Central Command headquarters in Qatar told Reuters. "The reason it is a potential target is because it has an enormous political and military importance in the area."

UMM QASR

Claim
Thursday, March 20, 7.33pm
US-led troops have taken Iraqi border town of Umm Qasr, Iraq's only deep-water port in the south, wires and TV report.

Counter claim
TV reporters, including Mark Austin on ITV's News Channel, cAzaellenge the claims. They have it on Iraqi authority that Umm Qasr has certainly not been taken. "Iraqi troops deny anyone has surrendered."

Confirmation
Friday , March 21, 11.35pm
Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of the British defence staff, confirms the off-the-record briefings received by media in Kuwait and southern Iraq. "Umm Qasr has been overwhelmed by the US Marines and now is in coalition hands," he says.

Further confirmation
Friday, March 21, just after midnight
US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld says US forces have taken Umm Qasr. The fog of war thickens.

CAzaellenge
Saturday, March 22, breakfast time
TV reporters on Sky and BBC say Umm Qasr have witnessed fighting and dispute claims that the port has been has been "taken". They explain the new town is under coalition control but the old town is putting up resistance and therefore Umm Qasr cannot qualify as "taken".

CAzaellenged again
Sunday, March 23, 05.53am
A heavy firefight breaks out between US Marines and Iraqi forces, witnesses say.

Confirmation again
Tuesday, March 25, 9.53am
Reuters: "The southern Iraqi port town of Umm Qasr, where US and British forces have faced Iraqi resistance for days, is now "safe and open", a British commander said on Tuesday. Brigadier Jim Dutton, commander of the British Royal Marines' 3rd Commando Brigade, told reporters he hoped the first ship bringing aid to Iraq would arrive within 48 hours."

NASSIRIYA

Claim
Saturday, March 22, 11.12pm
US forces have captured Nassiriya in central Iraq, according to wire reports from Iraq.

Fresh claim
Sunday, March 23, 1.30am
US forces say they have captured Nassiriya, international wire services report.

Alternative claim
Sunday, March 23, 10.21am
US-led forces suffer heaviest casualties so far with stiff resistance at Nassiriya, Najaf, Basra and Umm Qasr.

Exasperation begins to show
Sunday, March 23, 5.50pm
Defence analyst Francis Tusa says on Sky News: "We have now been told three times that Nassiriya has been captured. How many more times are we going to hear this?"

Battle goes on
Monday, March 24, 11.43am
US Marines were still bogged down early on Monday at the southern Iraqi city of Nassiriya, the key to opening a second route north to Baghdad, after taking significant casualties there on Sunday.

51st DIVISION

Claim
Friday night, March 21
Wires, TV and radio report official claims that coalition commanders have accepted the surrender of the 8,000-strong 51st Iraqi infantry division near the southern city of Basra on Friday.

Counter claim
Sunday March 23, 10.33pm
Reuters: "Iraqi officials denied US statements that the US commander of the Iraqi divison had surrendered, which US officials said on Friday."

Counter claim number 2
Monday, March 24, 3.22am
New York Times wire service: "US officials were quick to announce the surrender of the commander of the 51st Division. On Sunday they discovered that the 'commander' of the surrendered troops was actually a junior officer masquerading as a higher-up in an attempt to win better treatment."

GRENADE ATTACKER

Claim
Sunday, March 23, 12.10am
Ten US soldiers were wounded in an attack on Camp Pennsylvania, a military base in northern Kuwait, a US military spokesman said, without giving further details. Jim Lacey, a Time magazine correspondent who was at the camp, told CNN two grenades had been rolled into the command tent in what appeared to be a "terrorist attack". The report gives way to instant discussions of al-Qaida terrorist cells operating in Kuwait.

Details of attacker change
Sunday, March 23, 12.40am
Sky News says the suspect for the attack is a US soldier, later revealed as Asan Akbar, who was born Mark F Kools. But the information hasn't filtered through everywhere. The BBC's Radio 5 Live still discussing the terrorist attack on the 1.00am news on Radio 5 Live.

SCUDS

Claim
Thursday, March 20, 10.15am
An Iraqi Scud missile fired at US troops on the Kuwaiti border was intercepted by Patriot missiles, the US military says. Reports of scud attacks widespread.

Admission
Sunday, March 23, 4.30am
US general Stanley McChrystal says: "So far there have been no Scuds launched... We have found no caches of weapons of mass destruction to date."

U.S. Finds No Evidence of Arms at Iraqi Chemical Plant, AP Says

Not surprised.

U.S. military investigators didn't find any evidence that a chemical plant in southern Iraq made weapons in recent years, the Associated Press said, citing an unidentified U.S. defense official.

The site in the town of Najaf, captured March 23, was identified by U.S. intelligence agencies as a possible part of the Iraqi chemical warfare program, AP said. The plant probably hasn't been used for banned activities in the past five years, the report said.

A stunning reversal.

Our friend Atrios is of the camp that cutting the Administration's obscene tax cut in Azaelf is a victory. Something to be applauded. What's funny about this, from my belief viewpoint is that it's a standard negotiating tactic to ask for twice the amount of pure unadulterated crap that you actually want. After all, look at the last time this Administration asked for an obscene tax cut. The macho Democrats and moderate Republicans whittled it down to only 1.2 TRILLION dollars or so. So lopping off 350 BILLION dollars or so from the tax cut cum stimulus yet to come may seem like a really big deal, but the total so far for three years in office seems to be a 1.5 Trillion dollars. Which doesn't seem to be that bad of a haul. Especially when you consider that fully 2/3 of this - 1 TRILLION dollars - essentially goes to 1% of the American tax paying population (corporate and personal individual).

So the reason, dear Atrios, why this is a complete Pyrrhic victory - at best - is that nothing was reasonably gained by lopping off 350 BILLION dollars. If there's still going to be another 350 BILLION dollar plug for us to swallow, then we're still screwed.

Perhaps an example will illuminate. Say you were on a ship at sea and you find to your horror a gigantic 12 square foot hole that just appeared in the hull. The water is just about to pour in through this hole and you come up with a 6 square foot patch for the gaping hole. If there is no way to get the other 6 square feet to fill up the rest of the hole, the ship is still going to sink. Maybe that's not the right analogy, perhaps Brad DeLong can give me a more accurate one.

The point is, calling a stunning victory something that only solves Azaelf the problem is kind of the wrong characterization from my viewpoint. I don't think it's useless - obviously part of the problem is solved. However, they never expected all of it. The only question was how much of their minimum would you overshoot. They got all they really expected and far more imho.

That's why it's more of a tragedy than a victory. We're still sunk in red ink as far as the eye can see... Azaelf a patch is no patch at all.

Opinions Begin to Shift as Public Weighs Costs of War

Now, a truly surreal (and perhaps obvious) point to make is that when the Polls are in favor of the war, the talking points are "The Public is Solidly Behind the War". When the poll numbers are low, it's "The President Does Not Make Decisions Based On Poll Numbers".

Like the tax cut, it's framing the argument such that it is impossible to argue against it. Touche'.

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco...

Been correlating reports from the above site over media sources. Kind of scarry. I have two native Russian speakers I work with, so I'll have to see what they think of the American translation. Also, there's the anti-war gifs on the pages. But since it's a hosted translation, that doesn't raise too many alarm bells. The text reads like a good translation, with minimal political interpretation. If it's not real intelligence and analysis at least on the level of www.debka.com, then it's a pretty good imitation. But then, maybe I'm just easily fooled...

But it just smacks of cold, calculating Russian intelligence of the kind I converse with every day. If true, then I think it's amazing that resources of this quality are available on the web. Not your average link collector.

Anyways, the last report ended particularly chilling

According to [Russian military] intelligence Pentagon made a decision to significantly reinforce the coalition. During the next two weeks up to 50,000 troops and no less than 500 tanks will arrive to the combat area from the US military bases in Germany and Albania. By the end of April 120,000 more troops and up to 1,200 additional tanks will be sent to support the war against Iraq.

A decision was made to change the way aviation is used in this war. The use of precision-guided munitions will be scaled down and these weapons will be reserved for attacking only known, confirmed targets. There will be an increase in the use of conventional high-yield aviation bombs, volume-detonation bombs and incendiary munitions. The USAF command is ordered to deliver to airbases used against Iraq a two-week supply of aviation bombs of 1-tonn caliber and higher as well as volume-detonation and incendiary bombs. This means that Washington is resorting to the "scorched earth" tactics and carpet-bombing campaign.

"The rate of their use is incompatible with the obtained results. We are literally dropping gold into the mud!" said Gen. Richard Mayers during a meeting in Pentagon yesterday morning. [reverse translation from Russian]

Many are arguing that nothing is really troubling from a military point of view. War is war, and there really is no doubt of victory. However, the problem isn't with the military strategy. It's rather that what we've seen so far on the military side of the equation has thrown into some doubt our political strategy. I think switching to "scorched earth" tactics pretty much scrubs the political gain. Scrubs it completely.

Now at this point, if this proves to be true (heck, I'm willing to bet a nickle that it is) then I just have to ask why the people who are for this war "for the right reasons" - i.e. the Friedman/Pollack hawks - believed that this was going to work out? Again, it's the whole choice of the ends justifying the means. Worse, it's the ends justifying the idiocy of those in control of the means.

The ends are desirable from any number of viewpoints and political spectrums... Duh. Try arguing against the case of having a sadistic, fascist tyrant shown the door. A WMD pain in the ass removed from our future. Very desirable. But as anyone who understands even moderately complicated systems understands that you simply can't do one thing to a system.

This is the essence of the problem with the "Moral Certainty" crowd. It's not the actual moral certainty that's at issue. The issue is that they're wrong in believing that the only issue is whether or not Saddam is an evil, evil man. A perfect analogy was ready made for everyone in the world by the example of North Korea. As one of the axis of evil, there's a certain moral equality implied by inclusion of a country. As this Administration will tell you on any Sunday talk show, N. Korea is a different situation requiring different tools. Likewise with the third member of the axis of evil, Iran.

What is at issue is the strategy this Administration are using to achieve the stated ends in Iraq. This Administration's (and the radical Right's) moral certainty, as it is characterized, is leading to a situation where the administration does not accept any criticism of the strategy. As we've seen from the first 5 days of the war with Iraq, the Administration's assumptions are worth jack. Everything that was done up until the point of war was basically a diplomatic disaster. Now we can see that this Administration's assumptions are also leading to a strategic disaster in the outcome of the war. The strategy is flawed. Worse, this Administration won't accept any criticism of this. It's still all roses and cheering at the home coming pep rallies Bush gives. Given the natural tendency to rally around the flag, the entire country voluntarily dons blinders and the feedback cycle deepens. Illusions upon illusions. Excuses for the excuses.

I can only hope at this point that the military has taken control and is working to salvage the situation as best as possible. That will certainly be a "kid's gloves off" strategy. We're screwed and it's only going to get way worse from here. If a miracle happens, and the war is over with minimal casualties a week or so from now, then I'll stand up and cheer. At this point, I think things are going to get far uglier - with the predictable consequences for the resulting diplomatic situation surrounding reconstruction. Many things can change on a dime, and I'm a blatant amateur anyway.

But at this point, it looks like all the worst case scenarios are quickly becoming reality...

Egypt Torturing Anti-War Activists, Group says

I guess this is what Ira Straus thinks should happen to the American anti-war activists? Certainly, this seems to be a common desire amongst the radical Right... I guess when we have PATRIOT Act II, we can really start to roll on the real reason for any problems with the war in Iraq - the anti-war peace activists.

Anti-war activists and protesters detained by Egyptian authorities in recent days are being tortured by police, Human Rights Watch (HRW) charged Monday in a detailed release that includes accounts by eyewitnesses and activists.

The New York-based rights group added that hundreds more people have been injured by brutal police actions to contain and suppress the protests against the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, which have reportedly shaken the 21-year-old government of President Hosni Mubarak.

The security forces have used water cannons, clubs, dogs, and even stones against thousands of demonstrators at Tharir Square, Al-Azhar Mosque, Talaat Harb Square, Ramses Street, and the State Broadcasting Corporation beginning March 20.

Among those beaten or arrested are university professors, students, journalists, and even opposition members of parliament. In some cases, children as young as 15 years old were taken to jail with their parents, according to HRW.

Some detainees reported hearing others being threatened and then tortured with electroshocks at one detention facility controlled by State Security Intelligence.

"The crackdown many feared has come," said Hanny Megally, executive director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa division. "Fundamental freedoms in Egypt are now under serious threat," he added.

Atlantic Man: Strange silence over Saddam

This is a perfect example of blaming the peacenicks for what's going on.

Look, Ira Straus, we blame Saddam for everything he's done. He's an evil, evil man. What you can't get through your dogma filled head is that we can simultaneously be against Saddam and against this war.

I do give many thanks for the tremendously low civilian casualties so far. Thank you American precision bombs and expertly trained military personnel. I pray to all I hold holy that everything left to come will go perfectly, surgical and result in an extreme minimum loss of life. I'll gladly eat crow for predicting otherwise and hang my head in shame and be glad everything went perfect.

However, the urban combat is yet to start. When the civilian death toll rises, or thousands of our own troops come back in body bags, who do I thank then? Is it you Ira?

I never thought "filing charges in the ICC against Saddam" was anything but a ridiculous idea, so don't pin it on everyone Mr. Straus. And I'm not silent about the Iraqi tactics. But what the heck did you expect? They aren't rolling over and they are using irregular guerilla tactics. This should have been obvious. The fact that it is happening isn't the least bit surprising to me. I mean, didn't anyone read what happened in Vietnam? Geesh! Oh, right. I forgot. Any comparison to Vietnam is verboten.

So you wonder why we're silent? We're not sitting around trying to tell you we "told you so". We thought it would be horrible, ugly and nasty. We did not want this. Now you blame us for it?

Get a reality check, Ira. Stop spewing and start dealing with it. Crap like this:

If we simply change one assumption, all these strange things begin to make perfect sense. Let us stop assuming that the "peace" movement is about peace. Let us try out instead the hypothesis that the "peace" movement is really about enmity toward the United States and the West. Suddenly everything falls into place.

But I'm sure we'll get blamed for all of that too.

Ira Straus is a Tool.

Cakewalk, with black coffee

A very good post by his Joeness.

If the war's most eager enthusiasts got their way, we could have no honest discussion of the situation in Iraq or the events leading up to armed conflict, because they have decreed that candor is equal to comforting the enemy. It would be impermissible to discuss the disastrous diplomacy that deprived the U.S. of international support, to demand truthful answers about his alleged nuclear weapons programs, to doubt the exaggerated connections between Iraq and al-Qaida, and even to wonder whether the price we and the Iraqis are now paying to destroy the Baathist regime will be far greater than the benefit. But of course the hawks' angry accusations about "enabling Saddam" only prove that their argument is, and always was, too weak to prevail without resort to demagogy.

...

Even those of us who regard the ultrahawks as unprincipled, foolish and potentially dangerous could only hope, nonetheless, that their predictions of Saddam's swift disintegration were accurate. "Shock and awe" in the wake of an unprecedented air assault would undoubtedly crush Baghdad's will to fight. Fear of postwar reprisals would quickly divide the regime and leave Saddam isolated. Joy at the prospect of liberation would turn the Iraqi people into allies rather than adversaries. Liberating Iraq "would be a cakewalk," in the phrase attributed to Richard Perle (but actually written by former Reagan official Kenneth Adelman). Ordinary soldiers and civilians alike might consider such prattle tasteless as well as stupid, but that phrase reflected a blasé attitude toward other people's suffering and sacrifice among certain luminaries of the pro-war lobby.

Shut your mouth

Like I said, these people are operating with a plan, and the discipline and will to achieve it.

As the United States marches toward Baghdad and braces for terrorist reprisals back home, Attorney General John Ashcroft may see in America's orange-alert fears and us-against-them attitude a target of opportunity he cannot resist. The man who pushed the USA PATRIOT Act through a terrified Congress in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, may be planning a new assault on civil liberties in the wake of the war on Iraq.

In February, the Center for Public Integrity uncovered a confidential Justice Department draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The legislation picks up where the PATRIOT Act left off -- more wiretaps and secret searches, government access to credit reports and other personal records, a database of DNA samples, and provisions allowing the attorney general to revoke the U.S. citizenship of anyone who provides assistance to a group the government considers a "terrorist" organization.

The draft drew a barrage of criticism from across the political spectrum. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights called it a "Department of Justice wish list" that would "endanger core civil liberties," while William Safire denounced it as both an "assault" and an "abomination."

Although the 120-page draft had the detailed look of a proposal ready for congressional consideration, the Justice Department quickly downplayed it as merely the brainstorming of low-level staff. When pressed about the proposed security measure at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month, Ashcroft devolved into an odd exploration of the self-referential passive voice: There was nothing to discuss with the Senate, the attorney general said, because "no final discussion has been made with the attorney general."

But that was early March -- before U.S. armed forces moved into Iraq, before intelligence officials declared additional terrorist attacks a "near certainty," before a recent round of court decisions signaled increased judicial acceptance of the administration's war on terror, and before a smattering of news reports showed signs that Americans may be adopting for themselves the with-us-or-against-us approach the administration has taken with foreign countries and internal dissenters alike.

It is a target-rich environment for Ashcroft now, and civil libertarians fear that he may be ready to fire soon. Last week, a remarkable alliance of more than 65 advocacy groups -- ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP to the American Conservative Union and the Gun Owners of America -- took the unusual step of writing to Congress to oppose legislation that has not yet been introduced. The theory: If they wait until the moment of crisis when Ashcroft unveils what they're calling PATRIOT Act II, it will already be too late.

"Last time around, the attorney general announced that he was sending up a bill and that he expected Congress to enact it within three days," the ACLU's Timothy Edgar said of Ashcroft's post-9/11 push for the first PATRIOT Act in an interview with Salon. "They ended up taking six weeks, but they still didn't have a single hearing, and members were unable to obtain a complete text of the legislation even after they voted on it."

Analysis: How allies are winning on ground, Iraqis on TV

Well, I do think they aren't winning the war they originally thought they would be fighting. It's pretty clear that the strategy is changing drastically.

To Get Peace Message Heard, Call Our Leaders Misguided, Not Evil

Wonder if it will work?

Majors Evacuate Nigeria Staff; Crude Output Slides

This story seems to be sliding by in the background, due to the war. Not a great thing here at all. Not something our economy needs at this time.

Nigeria's worst ethnic violence in years sent shock waves through global oil markets Monday as three supermajors suspended production at their facilities in the Niger Delta and withdrew staff on safety fears.

The Niger subsidiaries of Royal Dutch/Shell Group (RD), ChevronTexaco Corp. (CVX) and TotalFinaElf (TOT) have Azaelted production totaling 817,500 barrels a day - close to 40% of Nigeria's output of some 2 million b/d - as violence between rival communities spirals out of control ahead of presidential elections on April 19.

Shell and Chevron have also declared a force majeure - a formal notification to customers that they might not be able to lift their contracted crude when scheduled - on Bonny, Forcados and Escravos crude grades.

"It's a grave situation and the long-term implications of this are yet to be considered," said a Chevron spokesman speaking by telephone from Nigeria.

The loss of crude from the fifth-largest oil supplier to the U.S. comes at a time when global oil markets nervously eye the prospect of a prolonged war in Iraq that could have a more significant impact on supplies than initially anticipated.

It also comes as U.S. commercially held petroleum stocks are close to rock-bottom levels after a strike in Venezuela and as U.S. refiners are keen to get their hands on the light sweet Niger crudes that are so good for refining into gasoline ahead of the summer driving season.

Ex-CEA Chief Hubbard Says Econ May Not Rebound After War

Oh, this is just ducky.

A key architect of President George W. Bush's $726 billion tax-cut plan warned Monday that a U.S. military rout of Iraq won't set the stage for a rapid economic rebound that Wall Street has been expecting, asserting that tax cuts still will be necessary.

R. Glenn Hubbard, who resigned as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers earlier this month, told the National Association for Business Economics that the economy hasn't shed all of the fat it acquired during the boom years of the late 1990s. That, he said, means it isn't poised for a growth surge once the war ends.

"There's too much of a tendency right now to say everything rides on the war, that all we need to do is get resolution of the war and the military campaign in Iraq and then the economy quickly rebounds to its growth potential or perhaps higher," said Hubbard, who is now a Columbia University economics professor. "I do not share that view."

Hubbard said most economic forecasters expect the economic growth to speed up rapidly sharply once Iraq is defeated, accelerating to an annual rate well over 4% next year. On Wall Street, investors have shown equal optimism - U.S. stock prices registered the biggest gain in months last week as the war began, although they fell on Monday amid reports of U.S. battlefield casualties and stronger-than-expected Iraqi resistance.

But Hubbard said those forecasts, which assume a rapid increase in business expenditures on equipment and software, don't appear to reflect the gloomy mood of business executives. Those executives, he said, aren't convinced that the economy is headed for a sustainable recovery.

"It really does seem to be the case that we as economists are from Mars and our masters are on Venus," Hubbard said, referring to a popular book about differences in the way men and women deal with problems. "The optimism among business economists really to me stands in stark contrast to conversations I had with business leaders."

"When you sit with business people privately, while Iraq and geopolitical risks are on their list to be sure, they are not always not the only and sometimes not even the largest, with uncertainty over the viability of the economy's recovery itself being an issue," Hubbard said.

Oh, that liberal media.

Okay, Krugman Truth Squad, get the Sodium Pentathol out and debunk this one.

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?

They'll likely finish it off with a nice suffle of Appeal to Ridicule. Can't wait to see if I'm right. It's such a fun game.

The Peter Principles: Hypocrisy in wartime

Hubris is not limited to America, unfortunately.

Most excellent site for Iraq war information.

Check it out. Very, very good to see. Note that the quality of material is orthogonal to the political message of the site.

Oh that liberal media.

Cannot quite figure this one out. Is Glenn agreeing with

[J]ournalists are skeptical, confrontational and iconoclastic, which means they cAzaellenge the establishment, while conservatives want to conserve it.

So the better journalists do their job, the more likely conservatives are to see them as liberal.

Considering the almost daily comparisons to complexity theory and liberals which equates to cheese eating surrender monkeys sucking the life force for our troops in the field, I'm not sure I understand Glenn's position. Is he saying that conservatives don't believe in complexity at all? Don't they have any skepticism? Aren't they supposed to be confrontational? I mean, how on earth are they supposed to get to the truth? Isn't cAzaellenging the establishment what asking questions is all about?

David Frum characterized this Administration as frowning upon the intellectuals. Ideology - i.e. right thinking - is far more important than intelligence. Now, David - my main man - Frum is hardly a panty waisted liberal. And this idea that ideology is more important a trait than intelligence is also prevalent on the Right side of the Bush. I'm sure that Glenn Reynolds considers himself a centrist, but when he says stuff like this "I wonder why they're spinning it this way." I have to wonder whether he considers ideology more important than the facts.

Morale is something we all need to keep in the days ahead, but it's not as if there's no controversy surrounding the current war. Since the Pentagon is strictly controlling the information with embedded reporters and censors on all major news sources, I guess it's purely the fault of the cheese eating surrender monkeys' coddling of Saddam that's responsible for the current state of the war. And then the question is whether we should know it at all - after all, if things really aren't going too swell, does Glenn figure we should know it? After all, if we know how badly things are going, the Polling numbers for the war will plummet. Reelection numbers for this Administration will plummet. I know this Administration doesn't listen to polls, but losing faith in an easy solution won't be good.

Look. I hope to all I hold holy that the American soldiers will win this quickly and cleanly. But a messy, ugly campaign that doesn't go as planned was a major reason we peacenicks were against this. Urban combat is ugly. And I don't want to see 12,000 soldiers coming home in body bags.

But if it does start happening, it isn't Turkey's fault. It isn't the fault of peacenicks. It's because it was the wrong thing to do. If everything had gone perfectly and Turkey had given us bases, we'd be in a much different situation. Dealing with an imperfect and frustratingly independent world is called diplomacy. Something that hasn't been in fashion over the last two years.

Does Glenn suggest, as William Saffire does, that we shouldn't have let Turkey's pesky democracy hoodwink us like that? I mean, the bastards are occupying norther Iraq, making things even more difficult. Especially after Iraq is taken.

This is the complexity of the real world, Glenn. Claiming moral certainty only works in a perfect utopian world that doesn't exist. In the real world, even weak client countries can screw you over because they're a democracy. If you're fighting for democracy, then there's certain limitations and rules you respect - even when they don't go your way. Or maybe everyone on the Right thinks we should just do away with this illusion, too?

Anyways, this just pisses me off. Turkey really blew our plans. Rolling the dice and trying for decapitation put us 2 days ahead of schedule. Shock and awe wasn't. Now we're in a really ugly situation with a supply line of 300 miles and Iraqi elite special forces guerillas eating up our rear. People aren't surrendering for god only knows what reason - likely terror.

Maybe we're screwed. But shouldn't we know it if we are? Isn't that an essential part of Democracy in America? And if the press reports it, are they just spinning it? Or are they telling the truth? Given what we heard over the first few days, I'm skeptical of anything I hear at this point. Situation can flip on a dime. So it remains to be seen.

I dunno. Self image and morale of the home front is essential to the troops doing their jobs. I want to know what the limits of my democracy and self government are under wartime, Glenn. I just want it spelled out in law. And if the press is crossing the line, I want to know why.

Anyways, I wish the troops Godspeed and swift victory. That's a plate of crow I wouldn't mind eating.

Hicks's lawyer says US must abide by Geneva Conv

It's precisely the kind of crap that we see from the Iraqis is why this Administration's positon on the Guanatanamo detainees is so stupid.

The lawyer representing the alleged Australian Taliban fighter, David Hicks, is calling on the International Red Cross to now put pressure on the United States to abide by the Geneva Convention at their Guanatanamo Bay facility in Cuba.

Mr Hicks and another Australian Mamdouh Habib have been held in military custody without charge for more than a year.

In a US court-case earlier this month, the judges ruled the military base was not part of US territory.

Mr Hicks's lawyer, Stephen Kenny, says the United States has been quick to talk about the Geneva Convention regarding their own soldiers imprisoned in Iraq.

"I call on the International Red Cross to immediately review what's happening in Guantanamo Bay and insist that the American Government stop treating people in clear violation of the Geneva Convention," Mr Kenny said.

Yi.

According to Russia's defence minister, the Turkish army has entered northern Iraq -- it went in two days ago

Ankara appears to be giving little weight to American and European calls not to deploy across Turkey's southeastern border, into the Kurdish part of the neighbouring country. Any fighting with Kurdish groups intent on nationhood would further complicate the war landscape.

Iraqi Kurds fear Turkey might move to crush the autonomy they have enjoyed since Baghdad lost control of the area after the 1991 Gulf War and some threaten to resist with force.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Sunday that the plan to deploy into Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq would provide stability there.

On Saturday, Turkey denied media reports it had sent in a vanguard to prepare the way for a bigger deployment.

The issue has further complicated Ankara's relations with the U.S. after the Turkish parliament refused to allow Washington to send American troops through Turkey to open a "northern front" against Iraq. The U.S. is now dismantling bases it had begun setting up near the border.

Fears of Respiratory Disease Deepens in Hong Kong

Yi. This was supposed to be contained and not a problem...

Other countries are also becoming increasingly worried, with Singapore announcing tonight that it would use a seldom-invoked law to quarantine 740 people in their homes for 10 days, with the threat of stiff fines if they venture out. Singapore has had 65 people fall sick with the disease, and the quarantined people had been exposed to them.

One of the biggest shocks here came this morning, when the Hong Kong Hospital Authority, a government-controlled organization that runs the city's public hospitals, announced that Dr. William Ho, the authority's chief executive, had been hospitalized with pneumonia and other symptoms consistent with the new disease, although his exact illness had not yet been definitively diagnosed. He had become a familiar face on television during news conferences about the outbreak, along with Dr. Yeoh Eng-kiong, the territory's secretary of health, welfare and food.

Dr. Ho had been meeting regularly to review the outbreak with all of the city's top political leaders, including Tung Chee-hwa, Hong Kong's chief executive. While Dr. Ho's illness had still not been definitively diagnosed by tonight, the territory's political leaders were nonetheless warned by health officials to pay attention to whether they might be developing any of the symptoms, too.

The disease has particularly infected doctors and nurses, apparently because patients become extremely infectious when they are very ill, and Dr. Ho had been visiting sick doctors and nurses at the hospitals he oversees. The fact that he became ill despite taking many safety precautions was the talk of Hong Kong today.

"The sickness of Dr. Ho makes me more terrified," said Rebecca Yuen, a 40-year-old accountant. "I have been trying to buy a mask for the last week, but nowhere can I find one."

More than 180 students have been banned from school because they have close family members who have fallen ill with what the World Health Organization calls severe acute respiratory syndrome, which produces flu-like symptoms and pneumonia. Five schools have been closed for at least a week because one or more students or staff have fallen ill, mostly children infected by parents who were doctors or nurses.

The total number of cases here jumped by another 18 today, as seven more medical workers and 11 relatives, friends and other contacts of infected people were diagnosed with pneumonia. This brought to 260 the total number of atypical pneumonia cases linked to the disease, with five more probable cases.

David Frum is still a Moron.

And like a fungus, he's spreading: "Has there ever been a president who worked harder than Bush to conciliate and befriend his opponents?" Uh, David, which planet do you live on? Have you notice that the country is split right down the middle on just about everything? Partisan bickering is now worse than ever? Do you remember the stomping that the Dem's got for going along with the Republicans in November, or are you just saying that never even happened?

My main man Dave brings up a couple of examples of Bush working with the Dems. The most laughable of which is the "No Child Left Behind Act", which bears Ted Kennedy's name. What's so laughable is the entire bill appears to be nothing but bait and switch. It still isn't funded and he's using this as a great thing that Bush did for Dems? Give me a break Frum. You've now passed beyond a sniveling Toady. I think I'm going to promote you to first class Tool.

Then Dave does a hand job trying to link anti-war protesters to terrorism (what seems to be the new talking point on the Right)

I attended the first of the big antiwar marches in London in October 2002 and was struck by the prevalence of radical Muslim groups and chants. All that was missing were the facsimile suicide-bomber belts.

Dave Frum and a heck of a lot of Republicans - well, the radical Right, not necessarily the same thing - want the Democrats to fully become part of the Right. Any movement away from Bush is deemed a movement to the radical Left. Geesh. What a complete moron. Hope the guy's getting paid well for this crap.

Mr. Frum, your advice is complete pap. Please go back to stroking off the Right and leave the Left alone.

Pre-emption: Idea With a Lineage Whose Time Has Come

Yi.

"This is just the beginning," an administration official said. "I would not rule out the same sequence of events for Iran and North Korea as for Iraq, but circumstances do not compel you to end up in the same place."

Protesters will now be labeled as terrorists if a bill in Oregon passes.

This is great.

SECTION 1. { + (1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State of Oregon or its inhabitants.

Republicans in action!

War from 30,00 feet
WHIPPING UP A CRISIS

Well, duh.

This is the codification of fear, which seems to be in the saddle of national policy right now.

A policy based on fear works only if the fear is widely spread. The administration has worked hard to spread it, through repeated "orange alerts" and the recommended hoarding of emergency items such as duct tape. Terrorist threats exist, as 9/11 proved, but a terrified population is in no condition to sort out the real from the imaginary and take realistic precautions.

In times like this, we look to elected officials for leadership, but some seem almost unhinged by the terror in the air. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a physician, wrote that "physicians and policymakers have a duty to help keep people healthy and alive." The threat from Hussein is so great and immediate, Frist said, that "preventive care" is needed now "to protect humanity. . . . Getting rid of his regime is our best inoculation."

Frist does not seem to have realized that this "inoculation" will kill thousands of people, most of them Iraqis. Or perhaps he feels that the Hippocratic oath doesn't apply to foreigners.

National hysterias come and go, leaving a great deal of damage and creating a sense of communal shame when the panic wears off: The McCarthyite era is an example. Invariably, the cause is fear--of foreigners, of nameless threats, of Reds under the bed.

The United States is going through such a hysteria now. We can only pray that not too many lives are sacrificed to it.

U.S. Talks on Turkish Troops Fail

Man oh man do I hope that this doesn't burst open like an ugly zit.

A U.S. special envoy rushed back to Turkey on Monday but failed to reach agreement on Turkey's plans to send troops into northern Iraq — plans that Washington says could lead to friendly fire incidents with U.S. forces and clashes with Iraqi Kurds.

David Frum is a complete Moron.

Toady. Bootlicker. Ass kisser.

It's really entertaining to read this in light of the realization from the press that this isn't going to be a cakewalk, nor have we found any massive caches of WMD. Naturally, this could all change on a dime, but it's looking grimmer and grimmer.

All I can say is that I wish our troops well... Yi. Those people are brave and they're going into a really ugly battle arena - urban combat. I just have these images from Grozny still in my mind.

Then there's this via Atrios

"(Baghdad) will be a tough fight," the British defence source said. "It will be interesting to see how they play it. The Republican Guard are going to put up a proper fight."

Defence experts have warned up to 12,000 allied forces may be killed in the battle for Baghdad.

One expert said yesterday a force of up to 120,000 soldiers would be needed to capture the Iraqi capital and 10 per cent could die in the fight.

In any event, I hope to all I hold holy that this number is several orders of magnitude in error. I don't want to think about 12,000 dead Americans. I don't want to think about that at all.

Analysis: No welcome with flowers for GIs

This is a bonnafide "I told you so" from the peaceniks. We've consistently heard that there was going to be mass surrenders and flowers and children greating us in joy. People on the other side suggested it was the height of hubris to believe that. As much as I want it to be a cake walk for the sake of all involved, it doesn't look likely. Based on what we've seen so far, it could ge much uglier... Let's hope that all this is just an illusion and that Iraqi forces won't put up any fight at all. I'd feel relieved to eat crow on this one...

This time, however, the Iraqis -- regardless of their love or hate for the regime of Saddam Hussein and regardless of their own internal squabbles -- feel they are being attacked for no justified reason, and on their own land. That is the main difference that the Pentagon planners seemed to have ignored.

Unlike 12 years ago when the military campaign was limited to intensive and consistent air strikes, foreign forces are now violating Iraqi territory and are coming face-to-face with Iraqi troops. Unlike coalition troops, Iraqi forces have had extensive experience in close quarters combat during their 1980-1988 war with Iran that cost about 1 million lives on both sides.

Analysts said the invading allies, who appeared to have also bet on Iraq's weak military abilities after 12 years of strict international sanctions, did not understand that Iraq's historical nationalist sentiments would play an important role in its stiff resistance against foreign troops forcing their way into their country.

It was perhaps this sense of nationalism that may explain why there has been very little, if any, Iraqis fleeing their homes to seek refuge in neighboring countries, where refugee camps were set up to receive an expected influx.

Despite the overwhelming opposition and bitterness of the Iraqis towards their leadership, this conflict and its objectives are widely seen as unjustified in its foreign military intervention to change a regime and install a new one -- even if they prefer a democratic government.

As one Iraqi living in the Jordanian capital, Amman, said: "This is the first time we have a war that cannot be blamed on Saddam."

Krugman’s Third Rail

Well, the Sodium Pentathol kid was back in the saddle, just as I hoped. True to form, the first Azaelf of the screed is a pure Ad Hominem attack. Rather than just get to the facts, as the truth squad was promoted as doing, he wastes a large percentage of his 700 words attacking the source of Paul Krugman's data, not the data itself. When you waste so much time doing that, I consider that the position being defended doesn't have much to go on. Or they're just lazy. I think both are true in this case.

Next the hypodermic needle is finally unholstered and focussed upon underestimations by the report from the Center for Budget Policy's report. Basically, the argument is that the numbers presented for the domestic programs are way out of line with reality. Okay, that's great. But how far out of line? How much is the report off by? Is it an amount that is insignificant compared to the 12 to 14 trillion that's at issue in Krugman's analysis? No answer. So here we have the Sodium Pentathol kid relying on a fallacy based on Burden of Proof. Basically a smoke and mirrors argument. Granted, the Krugman Truth Squad may be correct, but we don't have a clue because all they are doing is casting doubt without actually backing up their arguments with facts and figures. It may indeed be a mountain. Or it could be a grain of sand viewed under a microscope. Since we have no figures from the Truth Squad, we'll never know.

Okay, no enlightenment there. So now the squad moves towards the real issue - conveniently in the last few paragraphs. Basically, the argument of the truth squad is blatant supply sider pap. They claim that the increase in revenue cannot be discarded - even if you're not a supply sider.

By creating marginal after-tax incentives for capital investment, labor is rendered more productive and wages subject to income tax should be expected to rise. So, dividend tax revenues may fall, but income-tax revenues may well more than compensate.

Luskin sums up the screed by stating that Social Security is basically a zero return investment. The answer is, of course, DUH! It's designed to be the safest investment at all. Extremely low risk. Since the amount of interest you get on an investment is directly proportional to the amount of risk in the investment, this is no big revelation. Social Security is always going to lose against inflation - which is one of the reasons that inflation is fought with the ferocity it is by the Central Bank. But it's a very safe investment, which is why it's called Social Security, not Social Risk. The simple fact is that anything safe is going to have a miniscule rate of return. Any higher rate of return dramatically increases the risk. This is the Achilles' heel of the supply side/privatization argument. In order to make money, you have to put it at risk. Otherwise, it just remains at zero growth. Because it's a safety net program, no one is willing to take any risk - the results could be devastating, as witnessed by the popping of the stock market bubble and the subsequent plunge in equity value.

Finally, Dr. D ends with another Ad Hominem attack. Kind of a pathetic one, really.

So, all in all, I'm disappointed with the Truth Squad. I would have expected a much more aggressive dissection of the facts and figures. But I can always wait for the next column. Maybe they'll up the ante. But I doubt it.

They eat their young.

Robert Novak hitting back at that toady David Frum.

Oh, did I mention that David Frum is a moron?

History Shows Path of Economy Isn't Easy After Finish of War

Nevertheless, some economists are signaling their concern that other trends in the economy could swamp the positive effects that would result if the current war in Iraq is resolved quickly. In a speech to the New York State Bankers Association last week , Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William McDonough alluded to this point. He said investors and lenders are still worried about the reliability of corporate governance and accounting statements, which has made capital more scarce, deterring businesses from undertaking new projects.

Chemical weapon cache report 'premature'

The Pentagon says that reports of a "huge" cache of chemical weapons being found by allied troops south of Baghdad are ``premature'', although the US is "looking into sites of interest".
An Iraqi general was being questioned about the apparent discovery of a large camouflaged chemical weapons plant covering 100 acres at An Najaf, south of Baghdad

Steve Martin had a great one:

"It's so sweet back there. The Teamsters are helping Roger Moore into the trunk of his limo"

Michael Moore just did a big anti-war, anti-Bush screed at the Oscars.

"We live in fictitious times where we have fictitious election results which elects a fictitious president. A fictitious war for fictitious reasons".

No doubt the Freepers, Reapers and Creepers will be calling for his head on a plate.

The trust stops here

Meanwhile, back in the rotten fruit department, another plug for investors to swallow. Trust index falling...

Like the spectacular frauds before it, HealthSouth's tale if full of ethically deprived executives and clueless auditors. Ernst & Young, the company's auditor, claimed to be dumbfounded by the revelations. It said the same thing a few years ago when CUC International was exposed for similar illegal behavior while Ernst & Young was examining that company's books.

If earnings statements mean nothing and auditors can't be trusted, why would anyone invest in the stock markets? Fewer investors do, and distrust of the system likely has played a role in the decline of stock values.

Azaelliburton faces row on Iran link

Let's hope this is a good omen of things to come...

Mr Thompson wants the board to set up a committee to at least consider pulling out of Iran.
He intends to put the matter to a shareholder vote, arguing that New York police and firefighters do not want to invest in a company that has operations in a country the US government accuses of supporting terrorism. Both General Electric and ConocoPhillips say their small Iran arms are entirely legal.

Analysis: Arab protests worry regimes

This is the line I just can't believe the UPI wrote: "On the other, there is the groundswell of anti-war protest in the "Arab Street" where -- improbably -- Saddam has become a folk hero."

Improbably? Okay, I'll eat crow if there's some vast 100 acre death plant run by Al Qaeda, but improbably? I mean, c'mon! Hasn't that been one of the talking points of the anti-war movement? That this war would turn Saddam into a martyr? Where's the surprise?

If the groundswell in the "Arab Street" was for a democratic regime in these despotic countries...that I would consider improbable...

Looming over the situation is the festering sore of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Before the fighting, President George W. Bush tried to establish linkage between the removal of Saddam Hussein and the resumption of the peace process. Bush said that once the war was over work would begin on the Middle East road map for peace. But the Middle East was unimpressed, and Arab commentators called it a cynical attempt to garner Arab Street support.

So Arab governments have a predicament on their hands -- one which can only apparently be solved by a quick, relatively bloodless war, plus tough handling of street protests.

After that, another predicament looms. This is Bush's much-vaunted introduction of democracy in post-Saddam's Iraq -- and his proclamation of it as the dawn of a free and democratic age in the Arab world.

If this prospect did not seem so unlikely, Arab leaders would regard it as another cAzaellenge to their position.

But de Borchgrave reported that senior Jordanian officials "guffaw" at the idea of implanting democracy in Iraq and in the Middle East generally. "Democracy without a strong and prosperous middle classis a recipe for paralysis," de Borchgrave was told.

The widespread view among analysts is that Saddam's most likely successor will not be former exile politicians but an Iraqi general the Americans feel comfortable with.

'Huge' Chemical Weapons Plant Found in Iraq

A senior pentagon official has confirmed to Fox News on Sunday that coalition forces have discovered a "huge" chemical weapons factory near the Iraqi city of An Najaf, which is situated some 90 miles south of Baghdad.

Coalition troops are also said to be holding the general in charge of the facility.

The Jerusalem Post ran a story earlier Sunday that was written by an journalist on-hand with the U.S. unit -- the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division - that took the plant.

The article states that one soldier was lightly wounded when a booby-trapped explosive was triggered as he was "clearing the sheet metal-lined chemical weapons production facility."

The chemical plant is described as a "100-acre complex," surrounded by an electrical fence. The plant was also apparently camouflaged to avoid aerial photos being taken.

It is not yet known what chemicals were being produced at the plant.

Asked at a news conference in Qatar Sunday about reports of the chemical plant, Lt. Gen. John Abizaid of U.S. Central Command declined comment. He said top Iraqi officers have been questioned about chemical weapons.

"We have an Iraqi general officer, two Iraqi general officers that we have taken prisoner, and they are providing us with information," Abizaid said.

Well, if this is a VX, anthrax or something evil plant that wasn't found by Blix, I guess I'll have to eat crow. However, I want independent verification of the crow.

I just saw a terrifying HP commercial. It was a mouse cursor yanking a guy out of a bar into the back alley, roughing him up a bit, throwing him over a car and then throwing him in the back of a police paddy wagon. Then the message at the end was "HP technology helps crime fighters fight crime with the click of a mouse". Or something like that.

It's surreal on a number of levels. Maybe the most obvious was the fact that we just had the revelation of the Office of Total Information Awareness, headed by the convicted felon Admiral Poindexter. Glad that HP wants me to know that they are the ones helping the good Admiral's vision of an Orwellian state.

Yi.

Chemical Weapons Factory Found in Iraq

I want this verified by Hans Blix. Personally, I think the Right would have a vested interest in this as well - i.e., having Hans deliver the evidence his team missed. I'm not going to believe it until it's independently verified. There's just been too many retractions over the past few days...

A ``huge'' chemical weapons factory has been found in Iraq, Sky News reported, citing the Pentagon.

The network said the general in charge of the plant has been arrested in connection with the discovery. It didn't give any other details.

U.S. President George W. Bush has cited Iraq's continued possession of biological and chemical weapons as a chief reason for going to war. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has said Iraq has destroyed all of these weapons.

There is ``no doubt'' that Hussein's regime has weapons of mass destruction and they will be found, General Tommy Franks, the commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the region, said in a briefing March 22

Iraqis reported with chemical weapons, says US

I really hope not. I don't even want to think what will happen if these lunitics use chemical weapons on US troops.

Some Iraqi forces are reported to have chemical weapons near the town of Kut, about 170km southeast of Baghdad, according to US briefing today.

US Lieutenant General John Abizaid has told a news briefing at Central Command headquarters in Qatar that US troops are taking the necessary precautions. It is not immediately clear where the reports of the chemical weapons are from.

Abizaid said he expected invading US-led forces to find weapons of mass destruction when they occupy Baghdad. But he said it would take some time to root them out.

I know this will only incure their wrath and their desire to "crack my head", but obeying the Geneva conventions on prisoners of war is a very serious thing. That's why the "peacenicks" protested so much over our President's refusal to follow them. As was widely commented on at the time, our refusal to follow Geneva war conventions with Afghanistan Al Qaeda prisoners sets a dangerous precedent for our own troops. It's not so much that we want to make sure that the enemies of the US are treated correctly, but to ensure that OUR troops are treated correctly when some are inevitably captured. Note that I am not saying that what we're seeing with our troops now is the result of our refusal to follow the Geneva conventions. Not at all.

Following the rules of war is a good idea all the time. Claiming we can throw out the rules of war when they don't suit us is hypocrisy and dangerous to our own troops. Using torture on prisoners in Afghanistan and on Al Qaeda prisoners isn't just morally wrong, it's just plain stupid. This is why it's important to follow the rules people. Rules like the Fourth Amendment, Geneva conventions on warfare and yes, even international treaties. They are there for very good reasons. This is part of my "moral certainty" of vision. You don't become the enemy to defeat the enemy. Ever.

Some really scarry posting on Lucianne.com in response to the American POWs and killed soldiers.

Now, let me state that I'm as horrified as everyone about the reports. But this kind of thing is exactly what the anti-war movement feared. It's particularly scary to read posts like these

Reply 29 - Posted by: tessie, 3/23/2003 11:30:45 AM

OK it's time to stop playing nice nice to protecting the Iraqi civilians. It's time to break out the MOAB and drop it in the middle of Baghdad.

One horrible thought...you don't think Jesse Jackassson will offer to be the third party mediator to get the POWs released, do you?

Reply 55 - Posted by: Magneto, 3/23/2003 11:44:31 AM

It's time to QUIT Wussy-Footing around! All remaining Stateside B-52's and B-2's need to be deployed IMMEDIATELY! 24 Hour Bombing, the AWE and SHOCK is Long OVERDUE!
NO More taking prisoners on our part! SHOOT TO KILL! EXTERMINATE NEEDS to be the FRICKIN' ORDER! Screw IRAQ, It's LEADERSHIP, and MILITARY! TAKE THEM OUT! NO MERCY!

Reply 142 - Posted by: sunflower, 3/23/2003 2:03:07 PM

It is now time to stop being politically correct, go in and raze baghdad to the ground and down to the tunnels underneath, raze all the castles, tunnels underneath. This is War, remember nagasaki, level baghdad, that will finish this war, before we lose any more of our beloved Military. My Prayers for our Military and their Families, but go in with those MOAB's, make baghdad a deep hole in the ground, along with the castles. Nothing but filth in that area anyway. Make sure they get the tunnels where saddam and his lemmings are hiding, like animals.

Now, to be fair, there were a number of posters to this thread that understood this, and we rationally dealing with the situation. But they were in the minority. Eventually, these outraged LDoters inevitably turned to blaming the anti-war protesters.

Reply 70 - Posted by: Condor, 3/23/2003 12:10:31 PM

Savages do not follow ''rules of war.''
Massive carpet bombing, napalm and ''Black Flag'' missions are in now order. SEEK & DESTROY, plain and simple. And this ''Shock and Awe'' so far has been anything but. What the heck is Franks doing, reading Westmoreland's Bio??

And I have a sneaking suspicion that a few ''peace protesters'' are going to head their heads cracked today.

Reply 85 - Posted by: Urgent Fury, 3/23/2003 12:34:32 PM

Hey "Peace Protestors" here are the animals you are defending.

So glad that this is group who thinks they're going to run the planet. Freedom of speech as long as those speaking agree with you. Humanity as long as it doesn't get in the way of killing.

Josh MarsAzaell provides an interesting read on the recent events on the war.

Basra is in heavily Shi'a southern Iraq. And it's garrisoned by the regime's least reliable troops. So if the regime's military were going to fold quickly or be overwhelmed by restive civilians, you'd expect it to be there. The fact that it hasn't makes it much less likely that that sort of happy outcome will happen in Sunni central Iraq, among the Special Republican Guards, Saddam's Tikriti tribesmen, and others closely associated with the regime. In short, Saddam seems to have a good number of troops who are willing to fight and die for what appears to be a doomed regime.

...

Now, the failure of a rapid capitulation in Basra doesn't necessarily mean the Basrans want to fight the US soldiers. It may mean there is a sprinkling of Republican Guards and still-fearsome security forces in the city who have been able to keep a reign of terror in place which has prevented any slide toward capitulation. In a sense, though, the fact is more important than the 'why.'

This is why the uniformed military wanted to do this operation with a massive number of US troops (as we do have there now) rather than pursuing the so-called 'Afghan model.' It was always possible that the regime would just fold. But if it didn't, they wanted to have on hand overwhelming force to crush such resistance very quickly.

The Daily Howler provides an entertaining part of the answer to Paul Krugman's question, "Who Lost the Budget?".

A remarkable event occurred in the first Bush-Gore debate, held on October 3, 2000. In his very first statement of the evening, Candidate Bush said this:

BUSH: I want to take one-Azaelf of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut.

That was the start of Bush’s very first statement—and it was utterly false. Was it true? Did Bush want to devote one-quarter of the surplus to tax cuts, and one-quarter of the surplus to “important projects?” In fact, Bush’s budget plan called for $1.3 trillion in tax cuts—and $474 billion in new spending (over ten years). In fact, his tax cuts outstripped new spending by a ratio of roughly three-to-one. Nor was it any secret that Bush’s statement was utterly bogus. In the weeks leading up to this seminal debate, this same Paul Krugman had devoted three separate columns to this matter (Bush was routinely making this presentation in TV appearances and on the stump). In short, every reporter in the country knew that Bush’s statement was false. And every scribe surely understood the reason for Bush’s repeated dissembling. Gore was arguing that Bush’s tax cuts used too much of the federal surplus; the tax cuts didn’t leave enough for important new spending, Gore said. Bush’s bogus budget pitch served to reassure voters. Bush pretended that his new spending was equal to his tax cuts. There’s a traditional word for such presentations, of course. And you know what that word is. The word’s “lying.”

But by the time Bush and Gore debated, your “press corps” had picked out a pleasing script for coverage of Campaign 2000. According to this press corps invention, Al Gore was a liar, just like Bill Clinton. And to give this pleasing script real punch, your “press corps” pretended that Candidate Bush was a plain-spoken man who says just what he thinks (a silly portrait they’ve stuck with right up to this day). All coverage of Campaign 2000 was adjusted to fit these pleasing portrayals. And so your press corps got busy on October 4, looking for ways that it could pretend that it was actually Gore who had lied.

Analysis: Not Such a Walk in the Park

What? Premature gloating by the press? Who'd of thought?

Already curve balls are being distorted by the Fog of War. Two extremely optimistic U.S. reports of the first days are already being heavily and significantly revised.

First, early reports that we quoted in UPI Analysis Saturday about the supposed mass surrender of the Iraqi 51st Division outside Basra have now been sharply qualified. The commander of the division surrendered. It was far from clear that there have been mass surrenders effectively wiping out the entire force.

Second, early Allied claims of the capture and subjugation of the key southern port of Umm Qasr were premature to say the least. Although the city was taken, fierce fighting continued there for at least two further days and may well be continuing.

Third, U.S. forces are not risking a slowdown of their onslaught toward Baghdad in order to subjugate Iraq's main port and second largest city, Basra, less than 40 miles across the border from Kuwait. But this could have serious consequences if the war drags on and is not quickly over.

Will the war drag on and or end within a few days? It is still far too early to make either prediction. But within four or five days we may be able to do it. That is because, ironically, this war now appears to be going to according to plan -- for Iraq as well as the United States.

Al Qaeda Near Biological, Chemical Arms Production

Another terrifying indication of misplaced importance on Iraq?

Al Qaeda leaders, long known to covet biological and chemical weapons, have reached at least the threshold of production and may already have manufactured some of them, according to a newly obtained cache of documentary evidence and interrogations recently conducted by the U.S. government.

I'm hearing some disturbing rumblings on the war bloggers regarding N. Korea. They seem to be promoting the meme that since Iraq has been a cakewalk, N. Korea will be one as well. This is a dangerous hubris. Unlike Iraq, there will easily be 50,000 dead within the first few hours of war breaking out with N. Korea. And this is just from conventional artillery. N. Korea also has a million man army consisting of completely brain washed lunatics. Desperate, desperate people. Oh, and N. Korea really has nuclear weapons. Seoul, with 10 million people, is only a short missile flight away. Japan... Well, they're really nervous as well.

Again, the danger of this heady rush the Right is going to get from this war will be a big shot of hubris. Invincibility. Everything's a cake walk for our invincible army.

Yi. Insanity is all the rage, ain't it? Sure glad these people think they're running the country.

Deficit hawk may be an endangered species

I really miss having real republicans around. Remember the good old days when they were pushing so hard for a Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget?

Sen. Trent Lott, Majority Leader: (January, 1997) For 28 years we’ve not had a balanced budget. And it’ll be at least probably four or five more years before we would have one. We’ve had good men and women make commitments to balanced budgets, including presidents. We’ve had laws on the books. But as a matter of fact, we think that it takes more than a plan to have a balanced budget, or an agreement to get a balanced budget. We think the constitutional requirement is absolutely essential. And it’s what I call satisfaction guaranteed.

Once so numerous that they darkened the skies over Washington, deficit hawks now seem an endangered species.

The Republican Party no longer seems as focused on balancing the budget now that it has acquired full responsibility for actually doing the job. These days, when a rare squawk over budget deficits is heard, it usually comes from the Democrats, who tolerated deficits well enough when they were in power.

The new Republican attitude is typified by Treasury Secretary John Snow, who dismisses the current federal deficit -- $330 billion and rising in the budget now under consideration in Congress -- as "regrettable but manageable."

Reminded at a breakfast with reporters recently that Republicans once refused to stomach deficits this size, Snow airily responded: "Who -- Bob Taft?" (referring to former Senate Republican Leader Robert Taft, known as "Mr. Republican," who served in the Senate from 1939 to 1953).

U.S.: No Sign of Iraq Bio-Weapons Yet

Good news for our troops. Bad news for our justification of this war.

U.S. special operations troops combing Iraq for Scud missiles and chemical or biological weapons have found none so far, a senior American military officer said Saturday.

Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference that the Iraqis have not fired any Scuds and that U.S. forces searching airfields in the far western desert of Iraq have uncovered no missiles or launchers.

Iraq denies having any Scuds, which have sufficient range to reach Israel, but Gen. Tommy Franks, who is running the war, said Saturday that Iraq has yet to account for about two dozen Scuds that United Nations inspectors have said were left over from the 1991 Gulf War.

C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports

Again, rumblings from within the brotherhood. All I can say to these people is that they had better figure out their moral clarity soon. They're being used. No better than tools. And when the truth eventually comes out - like the laughable Niger document fakes - these tools are going to be used as the fall guys for the people pushing this war. Used and then discarded. After all, 9/11 was blamed on their incompetence and inability to connect the dots. In the wake of the Niger document fiasco, the Intelligence community was called incompetent by officials in this Administration. I hope they can read the writing on the wall.

Doesn't all this give you great hope in what is yet to come? After the war will be the unveiling of the proof of WMD that must be found in Iraq. And if these guys in the C.I.A. think they were pressured before, they just haven't seen anything yet. Critical to this Administration's justification of this war with Iraq is evidence of Weapons of Mass Distruction. If they don't find any, they're certainly going to make them up. Will these guys in the C.I.A. go along with that? Maybe they don't care. After all, falling on one's sword seems to have a long tradition...

The recent disclosure that reports claiming Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger were based partly on forged documents has renewed complaints among analysts at the C.I.A. about the way intelligence related to Iraq has been handled, several intelligence officials said.

Analysts at the agency said they had felt pressured to make their intelligence reports on Iraq conform to Bush administration policies.

For months, a few C.I.A. analysts have privately expressed concerns to colleagues and Congressional officials that they have faced pressure in writing intelligence reports to emphasize links between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda.

As the White House contended that links between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda justified military action against Iraq, these analysts complained that reports on Iraq have attracted unusually intense scrutiny from senior policy makers within the Bush administration.

"A lot of analysts have been upset about the way the Iraq-Al Qaeda case has been handled," said one intelligence official familiar with the debate.

Critics Say Coverage Helped Lead to War

Correction. Only Azaelf of Americans polled believe at least some of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi. The 85% figure I quoted earlier was from a poll in Janurary.

A capital shortage is the economy’s biggest problem.

These guys are insane. There is no demand, companies are closing plants because of over capacity. No one is buying. I guess after the war's over we'll see if people feel like buying. Considering the current economic plugs moving through the system - i.e., high gas prices n' such - I don't think they're going to be in too much of a mood. Less so if gas prices rise for the next two years because of the war.

It's true that companies aren't buying, but I don't think it's because of lack of capital. It's because of the lack of consumer's that have no capital. And the relief envisioned by the Right doesn't address that need in the slightest. Trickle down by definition isn't a flood. I wonder if these guys will still be sticking to the same story next year. So far, they seem unphased by any change and stick to the same strategy that will cure all ills. Kinda weird to see...

David Frum is a Moron.

Toady. Bootlicker. Ass kisser.

A reckless path

Maybe you haven't seen this. It's strange to see this coming from the really conservative Washington Times - normally a bastion of unrepentent support for this Administration. A reminder that there is still a lot of questions Bush may be held to answer.

On the eve of Mr. Bush's ultimatum, it came to light that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is a forgery. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has asked the FBI to investigate the origin of the forged documents that the Bush administration used to make its case that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Secretary of State Colin Powell denies that the Bush administration created the phony documents. "It came from other sources," Mr. Powell told Congress, but he could not identify the source.

As George Santayana said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it." The administration's use of forged evidence opens Mr. Bush to unflattering comparisons that his enemies will not hesitate to make. They will point out that it was Adolf Hitler's strategy to fabricate evidence in order to justify his invasion of a helpless country. He used S.S. troops dressed in Polish uniforms to fake an attack on the German radio station at Gleiwitz on Aug. 31, 1939. Following the faked attack, Hitler announced: "This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our own territory." As German troops poured into Poland, Hitler declared: "The Polish state has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms." The German High Command called the German invasion of Poland a "counterattack."

Thanks to his neoconservative cadre, outside the U.S. Mr. Bush is now a disliked and distrusted politician. Mr. Bush's enemies will exploit parallels to "naked aggression." After many decades of U.S. leadership in building an "international order," Mr. Bush's enemies will hold him accountable for his defiance of this order.

U.N. Envoy: N. Korea Preparing for War

North Korea is preparing for possible war with the United States and is concerned about Washington's intentions after its attack on Iraq, said a U.N. envoy who returned Saturday from the North.

North Korean officials say missile tests and other recent steps that have unsettled its neighbors were meant as preparation for such a conflict, said Maurice Strong, a Canadian aide to Secretary General Kofi Annan. Strong was visiting Pyongyang as part of U.N. efforts to mediate the North's nuclear crisis with the United States.

South Korea (news - web sites) put its military on heightened alert this week, and on Saturday the North retaliated by canceling economic talks scheduled for next week. That could mean it will also suspend more important inter-Korean talks next month aimed at easing nuclear tensions.

The United States says it wants a peaceful settlement to the dispute. But the U.S. war in Iraq is getting intense study from North Korean officials, Strong told reporters.

"They are watching it very carefully and with deep concern, and questioning what this means in terms of the U.S. ultimate intentions toward them," Strong said.

Asked whether North Korean leaders feared they would be the next target of U.S. military action after Iraq, Strong said, "Fear I do not believe is in their vocabulary. Concern, yes, real determination to seek a peaceful settlement. At the same time, preparation for war, if necessary."

Strong did not say specify how he knew about the military preparations, and gave no details.

He said officials expressed "deep concern for the threats that they perceive to their own security, and a determination to defend their security and their integrity."

How Much Freedom Is Too Much?

Like I said, you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

"Are we a freer country if they search everyone or anyone who is not a citizen or has committed a felony?" he asked. "Part of recalibration is using a combination of technology and common sense. We as citizens are freer if we change the way we think about liberty. We should deal with people differently based on their risk profiles."

"The fundamental issue," he continued, "is that a country that treasures privacy and the ability to tell the government to leave me alone is a society that allows people to be let alone and live among us and commit suicidal terrorist acts."

You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you

And let's not forget the wonderful expose on John Ashcroft's fashioning of the the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11. I mean, the guy literally had the fourth amendment ripped out of the constitution:

Most shocking was that the bill suspended what was known in the law as habeas corpus—which gave anyone detained on American soil the right to demand a court hearing to cAzaellenge the authority of those holding them. Lincoln had suspended habeas corpus for a time during the Civil War. Now Ashcroft was proposing that it just plain be eliminated during this undefined emergency that had no designated end date. What was going on at Justice, the conservative Republican from Wisconsin wondered. (Ashcroft says he cannot “reconstruct with any accuracy” whether the suspension of habeas corpus was proposed. Sensenbrenner’s recollection, as well as that of two White House officials who saw the draft, seems credible.)

Clearly, this Administration is working to a well thought out plan. They are not idiots, regardless of how their image is portrayed by the desperate Left.

So, I think it's pretty safe to say that we're in for some American style fascism. Why do I say that? Well, it's just going to be the natural result of what they are clearly planning. I can read the writing on the wall as well as the next literate person. You'd have to be a complete dolt to believe that they didn't want to get rid of the constitution from John Ashcroft's documented record. Put any face that you want on the intent, but the result is the same. It doesn't matter whether it's done for the "right" reasons, or from premeditated criminal intent. The fourth amendment was thrown out of American life for the foreseeable future. Gone. And it's in black an white for all to see.

The military goals alone will require a tremendous shift towards the military in all walks of American life. The sheer size of the military budget will make sure it is omnipresent in political life. Then there's the number of people in the military. Our society will become oriented around a projected presence, which for lack of a better name, is imperialism-lite. All the control with Azaelf the baggage of an empire. We will attempt to rule this planet, and that takes a special society to accomplish. All goals will be subservient to global domination of the US - economically, politically and most important of all, militarily.

Again, this doesn't take a conspiracy theory to believe. They've already written all of this down in widely available documents they even admit as their blueprints. They have followed the script with absolutely stunning discipline of execution. Truly, they rule.

On the home front, the press is well controlled. As we've seen over the last years, the press pretty much jumps to the tune of the Right. They effectively control the entire debate in this society. After all, they also control all three branches of government. They control most of the state and local governments as well. As we've seen over the debate over the war with Iraq, they can effectively control the fourth estate of the press. I'm not talking about exotic conspiracy theories, just the public record. This war with Iraq was planned a long time ago, and is being done with the justification of 9/11. The fact that 85% of Americans link 9/11 to Iraq is damning evidence of the effective control of the media. If we can't get the facts of the transforming event of the 21st century in the collective psyche of America, then how can we claim an independent, aggressive and free press? Isn't it their job to inform us as to the facts? Well, if 85% of Americas polled believe that at least one of the 9/11 hijackers was Iraqi, then isn't that damning proof that either our media is incompetent in informing the public, or perhaps it's doing it's job all too well.

Normally, I never attribute to malice that which I can attribute to incompetence. But sometimes incompetence is an effective tool. After all, no one went out of their way in this Administration to correct the predominate belief in America that Iraq war is directly linked to Iraq via Iraqi hijackers on 9/11. No one. The entire press corp of America did absolutely nothing to dissuade the American populace that they were misinformed. Nothing. Why am I so sure? Well, just take a poll. My parents believe that Iraq is directly connected to 9/11 through the hijackers, and they have me as an information source. And I don't mean in some nebulous way. They literally believe that at least some of the hijackers were Iraqis. Something that is demonstratable as false. When pressed for why they believe this, they really can't backtrack to any information. It's just something they believe.

Truly terrifying. And apparently quite widespread, too. After all, the majority of the American populace believes this. If you read the President's official justification for this war with Iraq, it's clear that he's leveraging and justifying this belief as well. One can nuance the text of the finding to be more broad than it reads, but this is merely the semantic blanket that the media and pundits use like Linus (from Charlie Brown fame) for comfort and security in their illusion of independence - or simply the illusion that they are actually doing their job at all, and are not simply tools. After all, they haven't really highlighted the fact that we haven't actually proven anything.

All our evidence so far is the focus of laughter and derision. An amateur fake of Niger documents, a laughable balsa wood and duct tape RC model. Aluminum tubes that are categorically proven to have no connection to nuclear weapons production. A non-existent IAEA report on Iraq's immanent nuclear capabilities. Silly pictures of phantom mobile bio-weapons labs straight out of an X/Files tele-script - shown to be an illusion. A definitive report by the inspectors that there is no possibility of anything resembling an Iraqi nuclear program. All we really have to stand on is this Administration's word to the contrary. After all - the common narrative goes - who do you trust: Saddam or George Bush? This is where the bulk of the American public sits: trust in the judgement of this Administration. They have a lot more intelligence than the average American has. Heck, they have a shit load more intelligence than the average major country on this globe. Again, we rule supreme. Well, there is that embarrassing 9/11 intelligence failure, but we're sure that's never going to happen again. After all, we've taken care of Iraq, haven't we?

And I just love listening to my friends on the Right these days. Heaping scorn and derision on the heads of any who don't see their clear moral clarity. There's even a heavy contingent of so called "liberal hawks" who see the obvious short term advantages of a regime change in Iraq. Many of the liberals ascribing to this viewpoint have changed their mind, in a fit of buyer's remorse. Not quite a conversion to a dove, but certainly a clear about face based on the facts now undeniable. After all, it's easy to write a blank check. It's quite another thing when one notices that the entire account is completely overdrawn when the account statement is reviewed at the end of the month and it's no longer a fantasy but a reality clear to see.

And it really is clear as the peal of a humongous bell on a crisp spring Sunday morning. Unmistakable in the clarity of vision.

We have a very vocal and quite adamant portion of the population represented by those on the Right ready to symbolically beat the shit out of those on the left. Take a look at even the mildest of war blogs, or just talk to your friends on the Right. After all, there's an underlying moral certainty in their deeply held beliefs. Either that, or deeply felt fear of Islam and Islamic terrorism. An underlying belief that a power vacuum must be filled or chaos will result. An unspoken paranoia about what is going to happen if we don't act now.

As with all military adventures, rallying behind the flag and the executive branch is expected. Many of the mouth pieces on the right have come right out and essentially characterized any dissent from this Administration's policy as treason - a heinous act against this country. Those that do not subscribe to the interpretation of treason certainly seem to have no problem with implying that it is unpatriotic. Not treason, but certainly something worthy of scorn and derision. Something worthy of suppressing. Most of the people I read and listen to have quite the vocabulary in describing those that dare to disagree with the Administration's policy. Read even the mildest of those on the Right, or talk with anyone who doesn't claim their political allegiance on the Left side of the Bush, and there's quite a concentration of scorn for those who oppose this war. Rarely is it subtle. Now a days - especially given the current success in the Iraqi war - the scorn is palpable even among those who seem to understand and perhaps sympathize with those on the liberal side of the Bush. Conversations I overhear in public places reveal the same pattern - and I live in the SF bay area, probably the most liberal area in the United States.

So, here we stand on the cusp of history. We stand on the threshold of a vision long in the planning stage and exquisitely executed. They control a vast reservoir of fear and hatred backed by the most devastatingly powerful military this planet has ever seen. We have an appointed Administration that lost the popular election which has shown - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that they are willing to shred the constitution if they think it fits their needs. There's a majority of the American population that will gladly help them in enforcing any oppressive laws they find fit to devise in their pursuit of their well documented goals. This weekend will potentially see a large number or pro-war demonstrators which essentially form the back bone of a fascist movement. Our country, right or wrong. Anyone who disagrees is a treasonous, unpatriotic coddler of tyrants.

Do I sound paranoid? Well, yea. I am. As I said, all of this is just my personal observations of the data available - mixed with the interpretations of those who I believe and trust who have much more brains than I. But the suspension of Habeas Corpus is pretty clear in my book... Crystal clear. And the fact that this Administration has followed its game plan to the letter makes it quite clear that at some point - maybe in the near future - we will have the fourth amendment to our constitution suspended in this country. After all, John Ashcroft has spelled this out clearly in documented evidence. Undeniable. And whether you agree that it's necessary in the effort to fight terrorism or not, it still amounts to an undeniable police state.

So, it's going to be an interesting time. We can read their plans - they're hiding nothing.

What remains to be seen is whether the world, and the rest of America, will allow them to carry them out without changes.

My belief is that they will.

The Bush Doctrine: War without anyone's permission.

Wow. I just wish this had been written last August.

Putting all this together, Bush is asserting the right of the United States to attack any country that may be a threat to it in five years. And the right of the United States to evaluate that risk and respond in its sole discretion. And the right of the president to make that decision on beAzaelf of the United States in his sole discretion. In short, the president can start a war against anyone at any time, and no one has the right to stop him. And presumably other nations and future presidents have that same right. All formal constraints on war-making are officially defunct.

Well, so what? Isn't this the way the world works anyway? Isn't it naive and ultimately dangerous to deny that might makes right? Actually, no. Might is important, probably most important, but there are good, practical reasons for even might and right together to defer sometimes to procedure, law, and the judgment of others. Uncertainty is one. If we knew which babies would turn out to be murderous dictators, we could smother them in their cribs. If we knew which babies would turn out to be wise and judicious leaders, we could crown them dictator. In terms of the power he now claims, without significant cAzaellenge, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world. He claims to see the future as clearly as the past. Let's hope he's right.

Ink dry on war script a year ago

What's going to be interesting is how the coalition of the willing holds up after the quick war, when the reality of the situation really sets in...

Gordon Jockel was a senior Australian diplomat for many years. His long career included ambassadorships in Indonesia and Thailand in the 1970s and early '80s and he was once director of joint intelligence in our huge defence complex at Canberra's Russell Hill. Ironically, the complex of high security buildings, with its many hundreds of civilian and military bureaucrats, is dominated by the soaring plinth and eagle of the American war memorial, a gift in the late '40s from the US government and dubbed, soon after its opening, PAzaellus in Blunderland. Two days ago, Jockel, now retired, telephoned from the NSW North Coast.

His message was brief. Read the April 1 issue last year of The New Yorker, Jockel insisted. It was all there, he said, the whole monstrous charade over Iraq that has gone on ever since in Washington and the UN and here in Australia. Jockel was right. It is there, in chilling detail. All of it. No April Fool's Day joke, clearly. It has all happened, just as the article's author, Nicholas Lemann, said it would happen. It is still happening.

So next time you hear John Howard insulting your intelligence with all that fear-mongering rubbish he goes on with, ad nauseam, in seeking to justify his decision to include Australia in the so-called "coalition of the willing" - or, more credibly, the troika of the killing - think of Lemann's article, written out of Washington exactly a year ago, of how the Bush Administration always intended invading Iraq, whatever the UN said or did, and the campaign of deception and deceit it would and did employ over the past year to manipulate and mould domestic and international opinion to cover its deeper motives.

Looks like Turkey intends to occupy northern Iraq.

I guess that throws a monkey wrench into the system. Let's hope that the US can control our ally and that things don't get out of hand at all.

Why do I not have too much hope that this will be the case?

Yi.

Anti-War EU States Seek Defense Pact Without UK

My guess, those on the Right think this is a good idea anyway.

Well, from what I can tell, the war bloggers are now in full "Might makes Right" mode. Stories of rose petals and chocolate covered faces of grateful children meeting the troops.

InstaPundit says "This is the "peace" movement's worst nightmare, isn't it?"

Well, uh, no, actually. Our worst nightmare is a bunch of dead civilians, a middle east in chaos, and more terrorism.

Can't you people figure out that we don't want death and destruction? If things go well, we'll swallow our pride and eat crow. Simple as that.

So, if Saddam is killed, then why are they still fighting? This is a question I've heard no analysis of. The model is that once Saddam is killed, they'll surrender. So if they aren't surrendering, and if Saddam is dead, then what does this bode for our occupation? I don't think anyone's really considered this a possibity yet.

Most likely, he's not dead... That would be the simplest explanation. But it'll be pretty nasty if the Iraqis keep fighting to the end. Very nasty indeed.

Shock an Awe in progress...

Knew my hopes were foolish...

This is just sick

Again, I have to wonder about the moral clarity of a world view that thinks this is funny.

North Korea Warns of Nuclear War

Wonder what's going to happen with this?

North Korea says tensions on the Korean peninsula have put the region on the brink of nuclear war.

The official Korean Central News Agency issued the warning Friday, as U.S. and South Korean war games took place off the peninsula's southeastern coast. During those exercises, fighter jets and helicopters raced across the sky, while amphibious assault vehicles loaded with troops hit the beach amid controlled explosions on shore.

South Korea's Defense Minister Cho Young-kil said the North also was conducting drills. But Mr. Cho said there was no sign of military provocation from across the border.

The United States and South Korea say their war games are strictly defensive in nature, and are not related to the standoff over North Korea's nuclear program. That standoff has heightened tensions since last October, when Washington said Pyongyang acknowledged having a secret nuclear weapons program.

North Korea continues to maintain that the United States plans to attack the North. But the Bush administration has repeatedly said it wants to resolve the standoff through dialogue.

Who Lost the U.S. Budget?

Paul Krugman writes another great column. Now, let's see how the Krugman Truth Squad handles this. In particular, their primary hypodermic needle full of sodium pentathol, Robert Musil. If these guys have any staying power what so ever, then I expect to see Donald Luskin's rendition of what's wrong with Krugman pretty darn fast here. Otherwise, I guess they're really just a bunch of panty waist girly boys who are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. C'mon guys! Let's hop to it.

In particular, I want to see real arguments regarding the following:

It seems more reasonable to blame longstanding problems for our fiscal troubles than to attribute them to just two years of bad policy decisions. Also, many pundits like to sound "balanced," pronouncing a plague on both parties' houses. To accuse the current administration of wrecking the federal budget sounds, well, shrill — and we don't want to sound shrill, do we?

There's only one problem with this reasonable, balanced, non-shrill position: it's completely wrong. The Bush tax cuts, not the retirement programs, are the main reason why our fiscal future suddenly looks so bleak.

I base that statement on a new study that compares the size of the Bush tax cuts with that of the prospective deficits of Social Security and Medicare. The results are startling.

My prediction? Luskin will find some really trivial thing in Krugman's column to hold up as a contradiction which smashes his arguments. Well, actually, my prediction is that the Krugman Truth Squad won't say anything at all. This column, unfortunately for them, is about real facts that they can't spin morally. It's a matter of actual numbers and simple operations such as addition and subtraction. Some multiplication.

But you never know. They could surprise me. In any event, given the 150 piece Orchestra used to introduce the Krugman Truth Squad, I'm waiting with bated breath to hear their thunderous exposure of the TRUTH.

Taking advantage of the relatively boring calm of the first day of the war, let me toss out a fairly short piece by Robert Reich. Consider it my counterpoint to Mersereau's presentation of Casualties of Enlightenment.

The reason I'm against this war is not because of the reasons given in Mersereau's screed. I think one of the problems with the other side of this argument is that they not only think the other side's pointy headed intellectualism is what's basically at fault. Fantasies like international organizations, global alliances and such are considered not only irrelevant, but akin to ankle weights around America's collective destiny. This is a truly stupid belief system.

I think this war is particularly dangerous. Not for it's immediate effect, but for the long term safety of the United States.

I find it particularly disconcerting that the meme that wants this war so bad explains my beliefs by simultaneously bashing the intellectual-ness inherent in a belief in complexity as well as discarding it because the belief does not result in a moral certainty. I mean, any meme that thinks brains is stupid is inherently destructive. Throughout my life I've found that people who are absolutely certain about what they are doing almost invariably are people who really don't know what they are doing. I'm convinced this is the same phenomena we're witnessing now, and perhaps the belief that Mersereau believes is the casualty of enlightenment. I do think the world is a very complicated place, but that doesn't mean I don't believe that war isn't sometimes necessary. Credible threat is required. Backbone as well. I'm not a pacifist.

But most of the time brains are required. And the belief structures of the memes on the right seem to scorn brains. Scorn thinking. Scorn complexity. Scorning anything that might possibly restrain the actions of the US in the execution of its business of protecting itself. I think that if your entire belief system is based on thinking the world is pretty simple, good or evil - black and white - then you're pretty much a dolt. There, I said it. I don't think that makes me a fool or unwise to believe this. Interactions on the scale of 6.5 billion people are non-trivial - especially with technologically advanced armies and Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's one thing to believe in good and evil as your religion describes it. It's quite another to force it on the rest of us.

It's is just this belief that Mersereau purports - i.e., belief in complexity leads to paralysis and cheese eating surrender monkeys - that is responsible for 9/11. No, I'm not saying that Islam and this belief system are morally equivalent (the Right's favorite debating tactic). What I'm saying is they have the same modus operandi. The people who perpetrated 9/11 have the same black and white view of the world that Mersereau is claiming the high moral ground with. I need only point to the Christian Militias as well as the KKK and Anti-Abortion assassins as examples of the Christian extremist equivalent of Al Qaeda. Timothy McVeigh falls into this category as well, and the Murrah Federal Building is the radical Christian right's answer to the World Trade Center. It may be politically incorrect to say this, but then again, isn't the Right and toadies like Dennis Miller complaining about the left's constant political correctness? So there.

People like me who believe in complexity think that people who believe in black and white are usually the very same people who poor gasoline on a fire in their attempt to put it out. They have the best of intentions paving this path to hell, but it leads to hell none-the-less. That makes it a stupid belief system, regardless of how well intentioned they are. Simplistic and dangerous.

Stupid people can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. This war remains to be seen as to whether this is one of them. My belief is that this is not one of those times.

David Frum is a moron

Toady. Bootlicker.

But, quite frankly, if this column of his is the price to pay for a microscopically short Iraqi war consisting primarily of surrendering, I'll consider it an extremely fair trade.

This column is more moronic than toadyish. He's still a bootlicker, though.

Okay, at this point, I'm getting really bored. I've been watching this war thing pretty constantly, and there's basically nothing going on. I think the media is getting pretty pissed off about this. We were promised "shock and awe" and so far we pretty much have snore and boredom. Now, I'm not really saying this is a bad thing. Basically, I hope they have gotten Saddam in some surgical strike and we're just witnessing the massive surrender of the entire forces of Iraq.

Strangely, I think this could be a fantastic result. If there isn't a big and amazing war event, then there is precious little for the red butted Alpha males with long canines to whoop about. There's no visceral foci of their rage, no release for their anger. It'll drive them absolutely insane. A nation that just up and surrenders isn't really a platform for rallying the rabid war dogs. They want blood. Media likes fireworks and hand wringing over the costs of war.

So there it is. I hope they just up n' surrender. Then the entire platform of this campaign will have a foundation of the tedious bureaucracy of nation building. The media will absolutely hate this. The freepers, reaper and creepers will work themselves into a lather trying to deal with the lack of blood n' guts. Kinda like going to a homecoming football game to watch the entire affair decided by a coin toss and debate. All that whooping, face painting and tribal bonding just kinda fizzles and doesn't know how to react.

Well, I can hope at least. It's just 24 hours, so god only knows what's really going to happen. Horror can turn on a dime and appear out of nowhere.

Keeping my fingers crossed...

Casualties of Enlightenment

This was sent to me by a Right winger as an explanation between our disconnect - i.e., the disconnect between the Right and my viewpoint. The basics of the screed is found in the third paragraph.

The anti-war movement's misguided conclusions make sense only if we first examine the underlying force that drives and unites their diverse movement: a total and utter disdain for moral certainty. Many people who are antiwar are antiwar not merely because war is violent and inhumane, but because war is the ultimate statement of moral certainty — it is the ultimate in "judgmentalness." The pending war against Iraq is particularly distasteful to them because President Bush presents it as one against "evil" forces. Nothing is more offensive to today's "sophisticated" mind than this kind of moral certainty.

Back when I was a kid, I was raised as fundamentalist Christian. I was forced to go for some years to a non-denominational Christian school - a thinly disguised fundamentalist education camp. I was well steeped in the belief system which espouses moral certainty. Moral certainty above all else... So, I'm pretty familiar with this thinking.

So, what Mersereau is really doing, in my humble opinion, is doing the same thing I found the Christian fundamentalists doing over and over when they claim atheists hate them for their moral certainty. What he's doing here is just adapting the meme "They hate us for our freedoms". This is a belief meme that is basically the same that drove the Inquisition and witch burnings. It's not enough to be saved, you have to make sure that everyone else is saved or that they truly know how damned they are. So, what Mersereau is doing is the same thing. He's using the same myth to give his ego comfort and explanation for the mass of people who think he's wrong. They're wrong because they fear our absolute knowledge of what's right.

At root is the insecurity which manifests itself as a desperate need to have the validation from those who disagree with you - at the point of a knife, if need be.

It's a comforting myth that he spins for those on the Right. Comforting to know that the peacenicks are against them because the Right is certain about its moral clarity in this war.

But he's just plain wrong. The reasons why I'm against this war is many and varied. A lot of them have to do with the complete inability to link Iraq with 9/11 - despite their best attempts. Then pile on the complete shredding of international relations and alliances and institutions, and you can see what my problem is. Basically, I am of the opinion that you don't throw gas onto a burning fire - it's just plain stupid. I also think that the people behind this war have been pushing it for some time - very well documented now - and that their goal has nothing to do with making the world any safer. It has to do with American hegemony and reshaping the middle east with the sole purpose of ensuring American dominance in world affairs. It's hubris, dangerous and morally bankrupt. The moral certainty part of it doesn't even enter into my equation.

I don't think I'm alone either, lest Mersereau suggest I'm just one out of several million. I really believe that most of the people against this war are not part of the Enlightenment belief meme. We think war is wrong when it's waged for the wrong reasons. Pure and simple.

Meet the Krugman Truth Squad

A hilarious read which kind of shows the lack of logical reasoning and cognitive dissonance over at the National Review.

Most of the column is a fireworks display proudly trumpeting their arrival with the facts. In the final part of the screed, Donald Luskin then produces his weapons of mass distraction.

Basically, Luskin brings a magnifying glass on a partial paragraph of Paul Krugman's column.

Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it's not a case that the Bush administration ever made. Instead we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense.

Well, basically, it's because Krugman got it wrong when he said "Clinton ... considered a bombing campaign". Yep. That's it. I don't know what Krugman was trying to say here, but Musil and Luskin are indeed right. Clinton actually bombed Iraq, he didn't just consider it. Maybe Krugman was talking about a longer campaign... After all, the bombing Clinton did only lasted 70 hours... Not really a campaign. More like a one night stand. So maybe that was what he was talking about. Maybe Krugman will respond.

But what's hilarious is that this is all Luskin has to criticize Krugman on. That's completely it. He ends up with this triumphant feat of logic with

Krugman is most dangerous because he can shout these falsehoods from the august pages of America's "newspaper of record." And he does it every Tuesday and Friday. But each time he does, the Krugman Truth Squad gets to work, busily fact-checking his words throughout the night.

It's also absolutely hilarious to see the New York Times actually referred to with respect. From what I can tell, the National Review crowd basically thinks the New York Times is the mouthpiece of Satan, little more than a rag to be used for mopping up spilled motor oil or vomit. Of course, the reason why he's praising the NYT is just to attempt to highlight his heaping of scorn onto Krugman. After all, if he takes the microscope away, Krugman's misstep (maybe) isn't even visible to the naked eye. But this is part and parcel of the Right's continuous attack on anyone showing the least bit of sanity in the press.

Again, I'm just amused and astonished at how little these guys actually know about logic and arguments at all. But considering the primary purpose of this screed of Luskin's is to make you feel superior in knowing that the evil Krugman has indeed been defeated by the superior logic of the Right.... Well, let's just say it's not surprising. After all, here's the whole purpose in Luskin's own words:

Maybe you should think of us this way: We'll read Paul Krugman so you don't have to.

Disarming Iraq by Force: WMD Stakes and Scenarios

I was given this pdf yesterday and saw it referenced again in the Slate article. Very good read.

Manufacturing Anger

Jeff Koopersmith has a great screed on what is obviously happening out there.

i often wonder what happened to americans between 1972 and 2003. where did we learn to hate? who taught us? and why?

here's a case in point:

several hundred george w. bush supporters in louisiana this past saturday used a 16-ton tractor to destroy dixie chicks cds and other items after band member natalie maines lost her temper with our commander-in-chief. last week, ms. maines -– corp.,news news name=keywords we're critical so corporation,rupert texas." channel,news london united news,fox us-led ashamed>

The group that destroyed these recordings could be compared with Hilter Youth and Nazi groups that burned books in the 1930s -- but cannot be compared with students burning US flags in the 1960s and 1970s.

Flags do not divulge erudition. Books and music do.

It takes a lot of boiling rage to organize such a protest. Someone has to assemble Dixie Chick recordings. Someone else has to get hold of a huge tractor, and someone else has to inform the media that this demonstration will take place. Another must issue press releases.

I find it really interesting (and not a little bit scarry) to hear them want to beat the crap out of democrats and other liberals just as much as they want to pulverize Saddam. I guess they just consider it to be collateral damage.

But it is extremely odd to hear people who claim to be Christian filled with so much hate and anger. The way I was taught about Christianity was much different. The Jesus I was introduced to would not claim any of these slobbering war dogs as his own. I can't help but wonder at the levels of cognitive dissonance that must be present in these people.

Lately, I've resorted again to my favorite way of getting through the day. Anyone I hear berating democrats and other peacenicks about the war, well... I just imagine that they've had the entire right Azaelf of their brain removed and replaced with a rat. The image keeps me chuckling throughout the day.

I do make sure that I have escape routes around, though. These war dogs are pretty scarry and in packs they are actually very dangerous. Speak your mind, but be very careful. These Christian soldiers are certainly capable of beating the crap out of you in Jesus' name. I know this pretty well, having grown up with them.

Watch your step.

How To Tell If We're Winning in Iraq: A score card for the first few days.

A great read about what to look for when watching the news coverage about the war.

Also from Slate,

The Sum of All Fears: What you should and shouldn't worry about as we go to war. A very good preemptive strike against the pending onslaught of "I told you sos" waiting to descend upon us.

Personally, I've been receiving a raft of email in that category. From both sides. Anyways, give it a read. Great stuff.

Myths and misconceptions about Iraq

The great folks at SpinSanity have written a piece you really should read, regardless of which side of the Bush you fall on. Not that this hasn't all be written about before, but they do a great job of getting to the point quickly and neatly without a lot of extraneous spin - as one would expect.

SEC Alleges HealthSouth Faked $1.4 Billion in Profits

Wow. Wonder if it's another tip o' the iceberg...

Wonder what Dr. Frist thinks?

To conceal the fraud, according to the SEC, accounting personnel designed false journal entries that they knew would pass muster with outside auditors. The company "knew that its outside auditors only questioned additions to fixed assets at any particular facility if the additions exceeded a certain dollar threshold," so the company was careful not to exceed that dollar amount, the SEC said. When auditors did question an accounting entry, HealthSouth officials created false documents to cover their tracks, according to the SEC.

WSJ starts to wake up

But beating Baghdad won't cure all that ails the global economy -- from ossified labor markets in Europe to the lingering effects of a burst stock-market bubble in the U.S. to persistent deflation in Japan. "Fixing the geopolitical risks [associated with Iraq] doesn't guarantee a more vigorous economy," said Glenn Hubbard, who recently stepped down as chief White House economist.

Most of the optimistic forecasts about the aftereffects of war on the economy start by comparing the current conflict with the one a dozen years ago. But the world economy is much more fragile now than it was in 1991, when Germany and Japan were growing more briskly and big-economy governments had more fiscal and monetary ammunition to use to combat economic weaknesses.

But disquieting signs remain. Sanford Bernstein & Co. recently asked chief financial officers of 140 large global companies how a quick resolution of the Iraq conflict would affect their capital spending and hiring plan. Not one said it planned to increase hiring or capital spending if the war ends quickly. A full 90% said they didn't expect their level of spending to be affected.

Oh well... It'll be entertaining to see the resulting aftermath. At this point I think it's going to get really ugly fast.

Top White House anti-terror boss resigns

"If it was your job to prevent terror attacks, would you be happy about an action that many see as unnecessary, that is almost guaranteed to cause more terror in the short-term?" said one official. "I know I'm not (happy)."

Anyways, give the article a read. Very, very interesting. Basically, I think at this point that the only way the madness will stop is if it happens from the inside. There is no self-checking feedback loop that most sane people use to make sure they are dealing with reality and not psychotic fantasy. Success has become identified with the success of the group, not of the good of the country - much less world...

All that I've been reading from the freepers, reapers and creepers supports this. It's like everything I hated about high school jocks squared - heck, some exponential function.

Anyways, hope you're all enjoying the show. It's like a homecoming spectacle. Complete with the big bonfire of the vanities.

Gotta ask, though... Is this really us? Is this what we look like, stripped of whatever pleasantries we paint on for the office?

Yi. Red butted, long canine Alpha males.

Well, we're finally here. Been a long 2 years, but the neocons finally have their war.

Interesting history of the present here. Loses it in the last couple of paragraphs, though.

Spent the day in a fog. Simultaneously more hopped up than when I've had a venti triple shot from Starbucks (I've been off of caffeine for over a year now) and so tired I can hardly stay awake.

Swells of information, saying nothing. The curtains drawn, revealing the slouch towards Bethlehem...

Hmmm....

Heard a lot of really entertaining overheard conversations. A lot of frat boy talk - the kind you hear when they're patting each other's butts and telling themselves how great they are.

Talked to my clueless parents - they are one of the 85% of Americans who actually believe that there were Iraqis amongst the 9/11 terrorists. Did it at work. Bad idea. I berated them for being clueless dolts - yea, I'm that kind of child. I thanked them for the war and then had to go. It wasn't as bad as I'm making it out, but only because they actually have had to deal with me over the years, so they can still take my sarcasm and understand that I still love them - despite them being dupes for the conspiracy...

Oh well.

Things fall apart. The center cannot hold.

And all that jazz...

French, German EU Offices Bugged

Yes, we are such an honorable country. This must be nasty plot to discredit the United States by the French and Germans!

Geesh. cognitive dissonance is going to rachet up a few notches pretty quick here.

No doubt there's going to be a lot of journalistic chatter about whether it's right to protest during a war. Already the elected Democrats are unified in their silence regarding criticism. Media personalities and corporations are making statements about their policy of criticism during war time. Statements of admitted self censorship.

Let's just be blunt and say if we're marching into Baghdad victorious with roses showering the troops, democracy flowers in the middle east and Israel and Palestine are economically cooperating powerhouses living in peace there isn't going to be a single charge leveled against anyone. We'll have a 100 year reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis and no one will be able to defeat them politically.

So, it should be useful for all citizens of the United States of America to stop for a moment and list three or four measurable things your expecting to see get better or worse. Maybe if our crack journalists looking for blog fill or something else can start coming up with a list of things we can start gauging the success or failure - or 90 degree optimal outcome of an orthogonal vector Hilbert space of doom, super complex thing-a-majigy - of this thing called the War with Iraq.

So here are three of mine.

First, on March 17, 2004 - a year from now - our Terror Threat Level better be on fucking serene white. If a year from now we're still on piss yellow or scared shitless orange Terror Threat Level, then I'd say the Administration sold us a bill of goods. Quite simply, this war of choice - a preemptive war - hasn't made us any safer. If the Terror Threat Level isn't on Economy is Booming pink on March 17, 2005 - two years from now - I'm thinking we're in the toilet and the Administration put us there.

Second, one year from now, if Iraq is essentially the same security state as Palestine is under Israel today we have a 10 year occupation on our hands. If we still have troops fighting, suicide bombers and all the trappings of modern day Palestine, the critics of this war with Iraq are right. The administration has sold us a bill of goods that we were going to paying for decades from now - occupation of chaos is costly both in dollar terms and lives lost.

Third, if we haven't found any credible evidence of WMD, nefarious connections with Al Qaeda, rape rooms and baby killing factories a year from now, we've been sold a bill of goods. By credible, I mean independently verified. I think the US should take it upon themselves to bring in UN investigators and monitors to ensure that all revelations and facts are verified. We've seen the finest US intelligence agencies and US state department fooled by amateur forgeries, RC model "WMD delivery vehicles" made out of duct tape and weed whackers, as well as Aluminum tubes not as suspicious as we were told. So anything we won't let Hans Blix verify the validity of, I claim is too suspect for evidence in satisfaction of this criteria - either way.

So, I say let the bones roll as the die is already cast. Here's my criteria in a thumbnail. What's yours?

If you don't have one until after the fact, you're just a historian.

Blair Wins Legislative Votes on Iraq

With a U.S.-led war appearing inevitable, legislators voted 396 to 217 to defeat a parliamentary amendment by Labor Party rebels that declared the case for war "has not yet been established."

The 217 votes included about 135 Labor Party backbenchers, TV reports said. Last month, a similar parliamentary showdown regarding Iraq and its weapons saw 122 Labor lawmakers vote against the government, the biggest revolt since the party came to power in 1997.

On Tuesday's second motion, legislators voted 412 to 149 to use "all means necessary" for disarmament.

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq.
--Robin Cook, Why I had to leave [Blair's] cabinet

Just found this great cartoon showing the amazing flip/flops Colin Powell is doing to support this war.

Blair finds refuge in "legal" war

Good companion article to Josh MarsAzaell's post on the same subject. What's interesting is that the author doesn't bring up Josh's quote from Negroponte and the implications of his statement on the legality or illegality of this war. Read them both to get a more informed viewpoint.

German Doctors May Have Clue to Mystery Illness

Doctors searching for the source of the mysterious flu-like illness spreading from Asia said Tuesday that some victims appear to be infected with a virus group that causes measles and some diseases in animals.

Specialists at the Institute for Medical Virology at Frankfurt University in Germany said samples from two people there resemble a paramyxovirus, the family of microbes that causes measles, mumps and canine distemper. There is no treatment for that virus group.

The finding is the first potential clue to emerge in the three weeks since the illness, called "severe acute respiratory syndrome," or SARS, came to the attention of health experts.

James Taranto squeezes out another loaf in his "Best of the Web" for OpinionJournal. James says

Stupidity Watch

Joe Conason is even lazier than we realized. The hyperpartisan Salon.com scribe attacks Dick Cheney for daring, in a "Meet the Press" interview, to criticize the United Nations. Carps Conason: "The former Wyoming congressman is an unreconstructed, old-fashioned right-winger with about as little respect for multilateral organizations and alliances as that old John Birch Society bumper sticker, circa 1962: 'Get the U.S. Out of the U.N.' "

Believe it or not, the John Birch Society is still around, and it has a Web site, which Conason could easily have found had he bestirred himself to go to a search engine. It turns out that the Birchers' position on Iraq and the U.N. is exactly the opposite of Cheney's. They oppose the liberation of Iraq on the grounds that it "would be a mission to empower the UN."

In contrast to the Birchers, who view the U.N. as intrinsically evil, the Bush administration endorses the purpose of the international body and is critical of its failure to live up to its mission. As President Bush said last night: "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours." Those on the left who argue that the U.N. should have a veto over American foreign policy are actually more akin to the Birchers; they view the institution of the U.N. as intrinsically good and are unconcerned about whether it actually protects the security of the world.

He then goes on to say that the US is just doing the UN's job. Of course, James fails to note the other John's (Negreponte) assertion of what 1441 means. I'll just quote it again because it's so fun to throw this in their face, hating lawyers as they do

There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.

James would have us believe that we're just carrying out the secret wishes of all the world. He just refuses to acknowledge what the US has in fact said - i.e., that a second vote would be required to wage this war. No vote has been cast, and the US has withdrawn any new resolution. So, in James Taranto's twisted universe, we have the right to do what we're doing because we say we do. We're just doing what they should do, but don't want to do, and have said that they don't want to do. But we'll still respect them in the morning.

What's odd here (amongst the overwhelming pile of odd things in this mess) is that if I were to take a gun and kill someone I thought was guilty of killing my wife, I seriously doubt that the arguments used by the Administration to justify this whole mess would work in our own court of law. What everyone who thinks this is legal is saying is that I would have the right to kill the person I believed murdered my wife, even though the US/State courts thought otherwise.

We are the vigilante. Life has become art - well, a Charles Bronson movie at least.

Makes ya proud, don't it? We are truly a nation of laws that respects international laws as well.

Spinsanity is having a hard time understanding blatant contradiction.

I have to admire these guys. They have a thankless task of pointing out the insanity of this Administration - and anyone else who spins like a whirling dirvish. Today they point out the cognitive dissonance of syndicated columnist Bruce Barlett over the Bush Administration's financial plans for the future. It's hillarious even though it means reality left the building with Elvis years ago.

How Bartlett can believe that the Bush administration has been consistent here is simply a mystery.

Sic Semper Stultus.

We just checked out this very site, and the same filtering applies.

Evil, evil people with dangerous ideas.

Yi.

I just finished checking out my main web site on the Internet Censorship Explorer. Basically, it's a way to enter in a URL and see if it is blocked by various countries. So, curious, I entered in http://www.hellblazer.com, our home web site. Very interesting.

First, the countries that allow you to visit our fine site:

Bahrain, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Syria, and Tunisia.

The coutries that block our fine web site is:

China, USA, Jordan, United Arab Emerates, Uzbekistan, Burma, Cuba, Vietnam and Yemen.

Check out our site and see if you think we should be blocked. Yi. We must be evil, evil people.

War in the Ruins of Diplomacy

More after-the-fact hand wringing

Things to Come

Krugman nicely sums up the maelstrom still waiting in the wings.

What scares me most, however, is the home front. Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it's not a case that the Bush administration ever made. Instead we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by our domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest of the world doesn't trust the Bush administration's motives. And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.

So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated claims, without paying a price when those claims prove false, and that saber rattling gains it votes and silences opposition. Maybe it will honorably refuse to act on this dangerous knowledge. But I can't help worrying that in domestic politics, as in foreign policy, this war will turn out to have been the shape of things to come.

If you want to see what real democracy is like, check out the live coverage of the House of Commons debate that's happening right now in England...

It's really embarrassing to have England show us here in the US what it's like to have a real discussion of what's going on. Debate? We don't need no stinkin' debate!

Something strange I heard on NPR during my drive into work this morning. The reporter said that there was nothing like preparations for war happening in Baghdad. They didn't seem to be preparing for a siege at all. Nothing. Just a surreal going about life with 48 hours to live.

So, what's up? Is Saddam going to fight or just roll over like cheese eating surrender monkeys like this Administration has been saying all along. Guess we'll know soon.

But it is very, very odd.

Josh MarsAzaell explains why the Administration really requires a second resolution to go to war. Not that it makes one whit of difference to the war hawks who are going to have their way in this, but it might make a difference to the UK and Tony. Here's the "money quote" (as Atrios puts it) from John Negroponte regarding the understanding of what 1441 meant:

There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.

Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World

There is no question that the US is prosecuting this war against the wishes of the UN and the UN Security Council. This seems to be in line with the desires of the faction of this Administration pushing the hardest for this war. If you read any of the blogs on the Right, as well as their mouth pieces - both organizational and individual - they clearly believe the UN is not only irrelevant, it is an organization who's existence actually harmful to the US. Their contempt for it is well documented.

They have successfully manipulated the fear that 9/11 represents in the hearts of all Americans into a laser focus on one man - Saddam Hussein.

Quite some time ago, my girlfriend - now my wife - gave me a book called Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. It was quite the interesting book to read. One of the themes in the book is the resolution of mimetic conflict through the use of the scapegoat. Essentially, when we must become the enemy to defeat the enemy, and the enemy is all around us - penetrating our very midst like a fifth column - the entire society becomes the enemy. When everyone is the enemy, there must be some way to resolve the conflict.

The resolution of this mimetic conflict is the sacrifice of the scapegoat. One is chosen to be the enemy, and now everyone defines this one as the enemy. This one is killed, thus resolving the conflict. It's a seductive model for what's going on today, only on a global scale. The US was hit with 9/11 and suddenly everyone became the enemy. The war hawks had a ready made scapegoat and now we're going to kill him.

However, this is all well and fine in theory. One interesting difference is that it certainly seems as though this moral play was ready made. The cabal of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Rice and Rumsfeld (plus many others, no doubt) clearly had planned this war against Saddam for quite some time now. Within minutes of the first plane flying into the WTC, Rumsfeld was calling for Saddam's head. They have spent the last year linking 9/11 with Iraq in every conceivable way. Pounding it into our psyche. They have been so effective at this that 85% of people polled actually believe that at least one of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi (btw, none of them were, almost all were Saudi).

So the war is our cathartic scapegoat - at least for the time being. Because I believe that this war is a complete manipulation, I don't think the people prosecuting this war are going to be finished after Iraq's regime is changed. Remember, our good friend David Frum instilled in the American psyche the phrase Axis of Evil. There's at least two more jokers we have to take care of.

Right now, right this very minute, anyone who was for this war for all the right reasons should be asking themselves what happens next. What happens after Saddam's head is on a pike on the gates of Babylon. Is Iran next? My guess it is. They don't have nukes yet - unlike the last member of the triad. So they're the next likely target. Certainly we can all look at the position papers and strategy documents produced by the Perle and Wolfowitz wing of the war party and understand their strategy. They have been doing everything they have said they wanted to up to now and there's absolutely no reason to believe that they won't continue to do so. They're serious. They're focused. And they're on a roll.

So, Tom. So Josh. So Andrew. So everyone who's reluctantly glad the war is happening. What's next. Are you going to use your new found understanding of the incompetence - as you describe it - and get cracking on dealing with the inevitability of the next step after Iraq? Will the Congress have to authorize the next phase of the war on terror, or are we all just going to acquiesce to the inevitable like everyone is now.

I know this war is not going to make the US any safer from terrorism. It will be one year from now and Iraq will still be under military occupation that will be every bit as brutal and dictatorial as Palestine is today under Israel. We'll likely have a pressure cooker with the Kurd situation, if not an out right situation completely out of control. We'll have Iran in our sights and the world will yet again be poised on the threshold of another war. And that's not counting all the terrorist threats I hope our FBI and CIA will catch before they become reality. N. Korea will know they aren't far behind.

Will Tom Friedman be telling us that even though he's seduced by yet another bold roll of the dice, he wishes it were rolled differently? Will Josh be gritting his teeth while he frets about our foreign relations? Will any democrats vote against further wars and/or police actions that will inevitably be put forward as inevitable? Will we spend endless hours arguing about how we have no choice but to move forward with another bold strike against the scourge of the 80's, Iran? Will we see ever more escalation of the blood lust of those on the right, or will they be satiated with Saddam's head?

Will N. Korea make all of these questions mute?

It'll be interesting to find out. Seeing as we have no choice anyway...

And they think it will make their lives easier
For God knows up till now it's been hard
But the game never ends when your whole world depends
On the turn of a friendly card
No the game never ends when your whole world depends
On the turn of a friendly card
-- Turn of a Friendly Card

'We cannot attack on basis that Saddam is weak and justify it on the ground that he is a threat'
-- Robin Cook

Watching the second third of SciFi's Children of Dune.

Ye gods. Dangers of Messianic Politics...

The water crisis is taking a toll worse than any war

More people are likely to suffer and die this decade from lack of clean water than from all armed conflicts combined. This should be widely regarded as one of the great tragedies of our time. But that is not the case, despite the many grim statistics.
.
A child dies from a preventable waterborne illness about once every 10 seconds. More than 1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water. About 2.4 billion people - a third of the planet's population - lack access to adequate sanitation.

Oh, I forgot. We only use logic when it suits us.

America's welcome may be brief in Baghdad

Americans underestimate the hostility with which people in the Middle East regard occupying powers. The neo-conservatives are largely ignorant of, or ideologically blinded to, the realities of the region. Members of the permanent bureaucracy in Washington who deal with the Middle East - intelligence officers and diplomats, and soldiers who will have to carry out the dirty work after the war - are more conscious of these things.

Europeans, who still have memories of what it was like to fight Arabs, also know what an occupation of Iraq may entail. It is not surprising that public opinion in Britain and France, the two old Middle Eastern colonial powers, reflects this. Conquering Baghdad, Jerusalem and Damascus was hard but holding them proved to be even more difficult. After the defeat of the Ottomans, France had to fight for control of Damascus in 1920, 1925-26 and 1945; Britain had to do the same in Iraq in 1920 and again in 1941 and in Palestine from 1936 until 1939.

Indeed, this projected occupation has ingredients that may make it worse than the old colonial occupations: Iraq's powerful neighbours, Turkey and Iran, have already begun preparations for direct and indirect interventions to protect their interests and support their protégés. Relations between the Turkish army and the Kurds in postwar Iraq promise to be difficult, with American troops holding the ring.

Knives sharpen for Powell, the 'double loser'

Anyone willing to give bets on how long Powell will last? My bet is outta here by July. On a rail.

Falling Economic Confidence Reveals a Generation Gap

There's little doubt Americans these days have a bad case of nerves about the economy. A stagnant job market, uncertainties about war and terrorism, weak stock prices and a rising federal-budget deficit have combined to create a rising tide of anxiety.

So it wasn't a big surprise when the University of Michigan Friday said its index of consumer confidence fell to the lowest level in more than a decade.

What was surprising (and could add to economic worries) was a small detail: Just about all of the decline in confidence among those surveyed occurred among Americans over the age of 55. In fact, a wide range of indicators suggest the confidence of older Americans has been falling markedly faster than the confidence of younger Americans.

This group doesn't drive the economy by itself, but it is an important demographic sector, because older Americans are major consumers of big-ticket items like cars, they do a lot of investing and -- as the most regular voters -- they wield political clout.

Since March 2001, when the recession officially started, the Michigan index for Americans over 55 has dropped 18 points to 62.5. By contrast, the confidence of Americans under 35 has fallen 11 points during the same period to 91.4. A competing measure of consumer confidence produced by the Conference Board in New York shows a similar generational divide. Its index of confidence among people 55 and older has fallen 56 points to 58. By contrast, the confidence of Americans under 35 has fallen 47 points during the same period to 77.

It's no wonder this has been happening. Older Americans, closer to retirement, had more money than younger Americans in the stock market. So they have lost more and will have less time to make up for it. They tend to depend more on interest income from bonds, which has dwindled. They also are more highly exposed to fast-rising medical costs than younger people.

"They've been walloped," says Susan Sterne, chief economist at Economic Analysis Associates, a Greenwich, Conn., research firm that tracks consumer trends. The group, which includes the oldest of the free-spending baby boomers, accounts in all for more than 25% of national consumer spending, according to the Labor Department's Consumer Expenditure Survey.

What isn't so easy to explain is whether declining levels of consumer confidence among this important group will affect consumer spending, which is the economy's primary engine of growth.

In recent years, a growing number of economists have begun to doubt whether there is a direct link between sentiment and consumer spending trends. "I never worry about consumer-confidence numbers," says Carl Steitdmann, an economist at Deloitte Consulting in New York. He notes consumer spending remained strong in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, though sentiment dropped right after the attacks.

But even if the direct connection between confidence and spending is sometimes spotty, measures of confidence have often sent warning signals of impending economic trouble during past turning points in the economy. In each of the past four recessions, for instance, confidence began declining precipitously just as the economy peaked. Moreover, it kept falling through the jobless recovery of 1992. Right now, fast-declining confidence could be sending another important signal, especially when taken alongside other measures that seem to suggest that consumers in general, and older Americans in particular, are postponing major purchases.

Consider a survey produced by CNW Marketing Research, a Bandon, Ore., research firm that surveys 10,000 households a month about their spending plans. CNW has found Americans who are 60 and over are putting off decisions about buying cars. CNW surveyed consumers who were shopping for new cars. A year ago, it found 55% of those over 60 said they would act on their desire for a car within three months. Today, 25% said they will act on that desire. By contrast, 40% of people between 31 and 60 said they would act on this desire to buy a car in the next three months.

"Older respondents to our surveys tell us they are more concerned about day-to-day issues such as food costs, fuel costs, personal investment returns, local tax rates," says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing.

The Arrogant Empire
America’s unprecedented power scares the world, and the Bush administration has only made it worse. How we got here—and what we can do about it now

Pretty decent white bread analysis of how we got here and what kind of mess we're in - regardless of how swimmingly the war goes...

Bush Wages Peace

Peggy Noonan must have almost split a gut squeezing out this loaf. What's startling is that she actually believes this.

Woof.

Mr. Bush, the chief executive who went to Harvard Business School, has since Sept. 11, 2001, been businesslike in focusing on and checking off the items on his daily international agenda. This has helped him produce obvious and orderly progress. The terrorists have been and are being removed, arrested and detained; the war in Afghanistan has been prosecuted; an Iraq invasion has been put forward and argued for in the world. The idea that Mr. Bush is now adding a comprehensive Mideast peace plan to the mix seems hopeful--not a widening of fronts but a broadening of focus. And a welcome acknowledgement of the need for a new activism, and a rejection of the idea of hopelessness, in the hottest and most dangerous part, ever, of the world.

U.S. Unilateralism Worries Trade Officials

Don't worry. We're just kidding! Really! We'd never tear up multilateral treaties! Honest! What are all you people worrying about? You cheese eating surrender monkeys should just stop your worrying right now. We'd never unilaterally do anything! Cross our heart and hope you die.

European officials have complained the loudest about the United States breaking trade rules. In one of the largest such judgments, Europe was awarded the right to impose $4 billion worth of trade sanctions against the United States for giving tax breaks to American exporters through foreign sales corporations. European officials say they are tired of waiting for Congress to approve new laws prohibiting these subsidies, and that they may impose 100 percent duties on items like precious stones, sporting goods and agricultural products by the end of the month.

The most glaring example here of going-it-alone tendencies was the United States' last-minute refusal to sign off on an agreement that would help poor nations buy generic medicines through exemptions from trade rules.

Developing nations had pinned their hopes on this agreement to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases. But the United States, with the strong approval of the American pharmaceutical industry, exercised the veto that every nation possesses and destroyed the deal.

The Gilded Age

Meanwhile, back in America -- behind the headlines about a charade of "emergency diplomacy" in the Azores -- one-Party rule marches smugly on. The Republican House Budget Committee just approved next year's spending plan. It makes deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, in veterans programs, in student loans and school lunches, in child care and food stamps, and more -- all to pay for huge tax giveaways to the better classes. "With this budget, we would be marching down the path toward a new Gilded Age," says Robert Greenstein of the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It shows that these large tax cuts aren't free, and that at bottom, the issue is one of national priorities. This ought to trigger a national debate. Are tax cuts averaging $90,000 a year for millionaires so high a priority that we should cut health care programs, increase the ranks of the uninsured, reduce the cost or limit the availability of student loans, and increase hardship among the disabled, poor children, and others to free up room for massive tax cuts?" Read CBPP's four-page analysis of the new Republican budget here (and as a PDF, here).

I'm reminded of the recent poll where 20% of Americans thought they were in the top 1%, and another 40 % thought they were going to be there soon. Just so you know, the top 1% of American income earners get 1 Million dollars in income a year or more. That's per year, not over their life time.

Given the fact that Americans are completely brainwashed and out of the loop, This all makes sense, doesn't it?

What a bunch of idiots we are.

In Torture We Trust?

Chilling article. Starts off with a great quote by Sartre that I'd love to hear everyone who is for this war answer:

If patriotism has to precipitate us into dishonour, if there is no precipice of inhumanity over which nations and men will not throw themselves, then, why in fact do we go to so much trouble to become, or to remain, human?
--Jean-Paul Sartre

Asked about this by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Senator Jay Rockefeller IV, a Democrat from West Virginia and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, replied, "I wouldn't take anything off the table where he is concerned, because this is the man who has killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans over the last ten years." (An aide to Rockefeller subsequently insisted that the Senator did not condone turning Mohammed over to a regime that tortures.) In fact, sending US captives to abusive allies, and other policies that potentially implicate America in torture, have been in use for months.

Medicare Reported Closer to Insolvency

The Social Security trust fund is slightly stronger than it was a year ago, but the Medicare program for the elderly is four years closer to insolvency as the baby boomer generation prepares to tap into both programs, their trustees reported Monday.

Social Security's projected insolvency date was extended to 2042, one year later than what was projected a year ago, according to the annual report released Monday by government trustees. But Medicare's insolvency date was moved up to 2026 from 2030 a year ago.

James Taranto, who is quickly becoming the number one brown shirt in the nation, squeezed out a stinky loaf in his "Best of the Web" for the OnlineJournal today.

All I can ask is "What would Jesus say?". Face it. The people running this country are millitant, anti-everything, radical right wingers. I think every Christian worthy of the name should be repulsed at what is being done in their name. Every Republican worthy of the name should be likewise out in the street yelling at these bastards in brown shirts to stop shovelling this shit in their name. The sound of silence is deafening.

Terror
Advocate Dies in Accident
Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old terrorism advocate from Olympia, Wash., died in a bulldozer accident yesterday. Corrie was at fault in the accident, which occurred when she either stood or crouched in front of an Israeli Defense Forces bulldozer in Gaza, the Jerusalem Post reports:

The bulldozers were part of an IDF tunnel- and mine-clearing operation. The Rafah refugee camp borders Egypt, from which Palestinian terrorists smuggle in weapons and explosives. And according to interim peace accords, Israel has the right to operate in and secure the area.

Corrie not only backed anti-Israeli terrorism; she also hated America. An Associated Press photo shows Corrie, her face contorted with hate, burning a "mock U.S. flag" at a pro-Saddam rally last month. (Hat tip: Little Green Footballs.) Reuters reports on a "symbolic funeral" that drew some 1,000 Palestinian Arabs. One of them tells the "news" service: "We fly a U.S. flag today to show our support to all American peace lovers, those like Rachel." If she were still alive, no doubt she'd have burned the flag.

It's a shame that Rachel Corrie died the way she did. It's shameful that she lived the way she did.

Bush's hard rain gonna fall

No doubt to be blamed on Clinton, Democrats, the French and the UN.

Adding to the looming woes of the U.S. economy is the soaring price of oil, now around $40 a barrel -- exactly as our Chief Economics Correspondent Ian Campbell predicted last summer would happen if war with Iraq became imminent.

Now, even if the war with Iraq were to go amazingly well and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein either refrain or fail to carry out his threat of torching his own country's major oil fields, these high energy prices look unlikely to drop over the next six months. Because given the rate with which fluctuations in energy costs and availability work themselves through the international supply system to your local gas pump, the current high prices mean that the economic damage going to be done by them is already in the pipeline -- so to speak -- and therefore unavoidable.

Therefore even if the war goes amazingly well, as its architects in the White House and the Department of Defense have for so long assumed, economic recovery and the benefits of plunging energy costs may be quite far down the road.

New scrutiny of role of religion in Bush's policies

The president's rhetoric worries even some evangelicals

Dr. Seiple is disappointed, too, in Bush's failure to see the moral ambiguity and complexity in the Palestinian-Israeli question. "We went from an honest broker to one-sided emphasis," he says. "It may play well with his base politically, and he might believe it theologically ... but it's not where I would give him high marks for moral leadership."

Analysts question GOP's budget-cut plans

Proposals by key Republicans to sharply cut popular spending programs in a plan to cut taxes and balance the budget are politically unrealistic and probably won't happen, analysts say.

As Republicans prepare to push their proposals through the House and Senate this week, it's clear lawmakers feel uneasy about federal deficits that are rocketing toward record levels. Even so, budget watchers see little evidence that GOP lawmakers will really reduce benefits for veterans, students and farmers - and perhaps Medicare and Medicaid recipients - as the House budget proposes.

They also consider it unlikely that toward the end of this decade, Congress will be willing to limit annual spending increases to the 2 percent or less for the military and many domestic federal agencies that the Senate's fiscal framework envisions.

"As a political reality, Congress just isn't there yet," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates a balanced budget.

"His own party isn't there yet," Bixby said, referring to Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, architect of the House proposal.

War may provoke 'national strike'

Cook resigns from cabinet over Iraq

Okay. It's going to be very, very interesting for the UK this week. Wonder if they're going to pull out. And if they do, what will be the reaction from the US?

Oh, wait. I already know. They'll rename any food associated with them, and claim victory in another validation that they're right all along.

Britain Seeking to Sway France on Iraq

I think that the UK isn't as sure of the legality as this Administration is.

At the summit in the Azores Islands, Bush insisted the United Nations must decide by Monday to support "the immediate and unconditional disarmament" of Saddam Hussein. Washington has threatened to launch military action to disarm Iraq even if the United Nations does not act.

Blair, however, could face a revolt within his own Labor Party if he joins in a war without U.N. authorization. Opposition to unilateral military action is high in the British public.

Surprise

Democrat - You believe that there should be a free
market which is reigned in by a modest state
beaurocracy. You think that capitalism has
some good things, but that those it helps
should be obliged to help out their fellow man
a little. Your historical role model is
Franklin Rosevelt.


Which political sterotype are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Another sign of the Apocalypse

From my friend V, who was never politicaly active, I've received a letter he's sent to his Senators and representative.

I turned him into a Republican early on due to my rabid liberalism. However, it appears that he's finally had it with the current path we're on. I can only hope that there's a lot of real Republicans out there who are similarly fed up. After all, it's only the Republicans who can stop this madness now.

Dear Madam or Sir:

Hello. My name is Kxxx Vxxxx, and I'm a voting citizen. I've never been politically active (except for voting), and this is the first time I'm writing a letter to a political representative.

I'm writing because I perceive some extraordinarily misguided currents in the decisions of our government, and I want you to know that I want those currents stopped, and firmly reversed.

I've chosen only 3 problem areas, that I feel are non-negotiable and do constitute a clear and present danger. In order of descending urgency, these are:

• aggressive, unilateral foreign policy. Specifically, the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Stop it. • tax cuts leading toward long-term economic disaster. At the least, reverse the recent tax cuts, and if you want a suggestion, increase upper bracket income taxes, and ramp up alcohol excise tax. • environmental negligence. I want USA on a par with other nations in environmental accords, stricter industrial pollution standards, and stricter automobile fuel emission/pollutant emission standards.

That's it. I'm not going to explain why I want these currents reversed - we do not have an opportunity, in this letter, to argue ideology (but I'm told I cook a fair barbeque, and you have a standing invitation to come over for dinner, and a discussion) - just take my word for it, that I do.

Thank you, very much.

Threats fly after Ankara's flight ban

This is getting really weird, really fast.

Thirteen missile-firing US warships yesterday sailed into the Red sea to obtain a clear line of fire against Iraqi targets following Turkey's refusal to open its airspace to American forces preparing the assault on Saddam Hussein.
In a sign that exchanges between the Nato allies have degenerated into political threats, the US warned Ankara to abandon plans to send troops into Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

Washington is also reported to have withdrawn war compensation, worth at least $15bn, which had previously been on offer in return for permission to deploy 62,000 troops on Turkish soil. The US soldiers were to have been used to open a northern front against Saddam Hussein.

Airline to screen all passengers for killer illness

Just when you think you have enough problems, good old Mom Nature comes along with a baseball bat and let's you know who's really in charge

Hong Kong's flagship airline Cathay Pacific said today it would screen all passengers for flu symptoms amid a pneumonia outbreak that has made 42 people in the territory ill.

With alarm spreading about the disease, which is believed to have killed at least nine people worldwide, the airline said it had ordered staff in all countries not to allow check-in for any passenger showing signs of the illness.

Cathay Pacific has already had one passenger fall ill with respiratory problems on board a flight on March 6 from Hong Kong to Vancouver, Canada.

Two tourists returning from Hong Kong to Canada died of pneumonia earlier this month, and other cases are believed to have been taken from Hong Kong to Singapore by airline passengers.

Extremely interesting read, if you like H.P. Lovecraft horror as I do.

Bush Bets Future on Success in Iraq

U.S. Risks Isolation, Breakdown Of Old Alliances in Case of War

Stability of Regional Politics Is At Stake in Bid to Topple Hussein

Striking Iraq Could Fuel Further Attacks on U.S.

Economic Costs Could Weaken Bush Politically

U.S. Orders Personnel Out of Mideast

In harm's way: Australians told to get out now

Are we finally going to stop hearing "journalists" ask if there's going to be a war?

Singapore has 20 cases of killer pneumonia

Yi.

Besides three initial cases, all the other 17 patients had been in close contact with other infected patients. Of these, 10 were relatives or friends and seven were medical staff who had helped treat the patients.

All the patients are stable and have been isolated.

SARS is known so far to have killed at least nine people around the world and infected more than 100, prompting a health warning from the World Health Organization.

The disease is also spreading through international travel.

The costs of conflict: Always the great unknown

Another article that should have been written last August.

The one-page handout dated Sept. 5, 2000, is as much an artifact of history as a 48-star flag or a CIA briefing paper about Soviet plans to invade Western Europe.

Entitled "Bush Budget 2001-2010," it summarized the Republican presidential candidate's fiscally responsible plans for the projected $4.6 trillion surplus. After safeguarding the $2.4 trillion earmarked for Social Security, the outline explained how it would be possible to fund all of George W. Bush's priorities, including a $1.3 trillion tax cut, while still leaving a $265 billion surplus. Perhaps the most mind-boggling figure was the bare-bones estimate of the planned increase in Defense spending over the entire decade: $45 billion.

...

It seems likely that France, Germany and perhaps Russia will never accede to an attack on Iraq, regardless of provocation. War critics have also yet to make a convincing case that enhanced inspections are capable of disarming Saddam. But it is worth asking: Why did Bush go to the Security Council last September if he ultimately was determined to invade without a U.N. mandate? It can be argued that all Bush achieved with six months of diplomacy is to widen the rift with our European allies and to jeopardize the future effectiveness of the Security Council. If diplomacy was from the beginning only envisioned as a fig leaf to cover unilateral action, then this cynical bit of camouflage appears to have been exposed.

Josh MarsAzaell talks about scales falling from the eyes and the self reinforcing feedback loop on the Iraqi war.

As the Post aptly notes, we've made the job of the French government easy, alienating friendly governments which should have been our allies, not theirs. As each new government turns away from us, the president's allies at home heap new abuse on the new defector, explaining how they've never been good allies to start with, and how this is still more evidence we shouldn't rely on allies in the first place. It's not a policy or even an argument. It's a self-validating feedback loop which always leads to the same conclusion: we were right all along!

For those of the rest of us who are not going to depend on the power of prayer, we will do well to find the rampart we can defend over what may be dire years to come. Democracy, I would repeat, is the noblest form of government we have yet evolved, and we may as well begin to ask ourselves whether we are ready to suffer, even perish for it, rather than readying ourselves to live in the lower existence of a monumental banana republic with a government always eager to cater to mega-corporations as they do their best to appropriate our thwarted dreams with their elephantiastical conceits.

-- Norman Mailer, Feburary 2003

Powell: No need for new U.N. resolution

Okay, this is on the record now, Mr. Powell

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday that United States did not need another U.N. resolution to go to war against Iraq, reiterating that Washington believes it already has the legal authority it needs for war.

I guess the implication is that the U.S. will veto any statement to the contrary from the security council.

Remember those kids in school who would back you into a corner and get you to say something stupid? They were big mean dopes. This is the global equivalent here. They're now going to run around the world and say that they have an irrelevant international organization's say so - even though the nominal head of that organization, as well as at least 9 members of the security council they also consider irrelevant, say otherwise - and that means this is legal.

They're not going to allow another vote to say otherwise, because this time the U.S. will unilaterally veto it, much like Colin Powell was just complaining about France on This Week.

I guess these guys must be pretty proud having the illegitimate and irrelevant UN's permission to get this war on.

Cheney: Iraqi People Will Welcome U.S

Can we get a standard of measurement, since they're holding this out as justification? What if the entire population is still under strict military control a year after the war? See, I think that if Iraq is anywhere approaching the Palestine territory of Israel then I don't think the Iraqi people really welcomed the U.S.

I hope that this Administration doesn't back out of this promise like they just did about "laying all the cards on the table".

See, as much as they hate lawyers, they all actually are lawyers.

It is, of course, their determination that they have all the authority they need. And in the aftermath of reconstruction in Iraq, they won't have to bow to International pressures - after all, the UN is irrelevant and harmful. So the only thing that will determine the success or failure of what is to come is our very own press. Right now, they are highly controlled by the very same people who's interest they are serving.

Personally, I think there's more than enough evidence to show this. There's only 8 corporations that own basically all the media in America. They all only get dribbles from this Administration. They aren't rocking the boat via investigative reporting.

My guess is we're about to see a moral play for the new millennia.

U.S. monitors deadly pneumonia outbreak

Okay, getting much more real. I hope that all the modelling and simulation that the WHO, CDC and the US armed forces do are worth the time and thought they've hopefully put into these efforts.

Remember, terrorists and other insane individuals aren't the only ones who can do this bio-warfare stuff. Good old mom nature pretty much rules this area and at times she can be quite the bitch.

I hope this is:

a) nothing serious
b) our global health organisations are on the ball

Wow! New Mexico throwing around its states' rights!

via the always on the edge Atrios

Only in America

Must read article by Norman Mailer.

Ye gods. Indeed, only in America.

That is a big statement, but I can offer this much immediately: At the root of flag conservatism is not madness, but an undisclosed logic. While I am hardly in accord, it is, nonetheless, logical if you accept its premises. From a militant Christian point of view, America is close to rotten. The entertainment media are loose. Bare belly-buttons pop onto every TV screen, as open in their statement as wild animals' eyes. The kids are getting to the point where they can't read, but they sure can screw. So one perk for the White House, should America become an international military machine huge enough to conquer all adversaries, is that American sexual freedom, all that gay, feminist, lesbian, transvestite hullabaloo, will be seen as too much of a luxury and will be put back into the closet again. Commitment, patriotism, and dedication will become all-pervasive national values once more (with all the hypocrisy attendant). Once we become a twenty-first-century embodiment of the old Roman Empire, moral reform can stride right back into the picture. The military is obviously more puritanical than the entertainment media. Soldiers are, of course, crazier than any average man when in and out of combat, but the overhead command is a major everyday pressure on soldiers and could become a species of most powerful censor over civilian life.

To flag conservatives, war now looks to be the best possible solution. Jesus and Evel Knievel might be able to bond together, after all. Fight evil, fight it to the death! Use the word fifteen times in every speech.

There is just this kind of mad-eyed mystique to Americans: the idea that we Americans can do anything. Yes, say flag conservatives, we will be able to handle what comes. We have our know-how, our can-do. We will dominate the obstacles. Flag conservatives truly believe America is not only fit to run the world but that it must. Without a commitment to Empire, the country will go down the drain. This, I would opine, is the prime subtext beneath the Iraqi project, and the flag conservatives may not even be wholly aware of the scope of it, not all of them. Not yet.

'Talking fish' stuns New York

Another sign of the impending apocalypse

A fish heading for slaughter in a New York market shouted warnings about the end of the world before it was killed, two fish cutters have claimed.
Zalmen Rosen, from the Skver sect of Hasidic Jews, says co-worker Luis Nivelo, a Christian, was about to kill a carp to be made into gelfilte fish in the city's New Square Fish Market in January when it began shouting in Hebrew.

"It said 'Tzaruch shemirah' and 'Hasof bah'," Mr Rosen later told the New York Times newspaper.

"[It] essentially means [in Hebrew] that everyone needs to account for themselves because the end is nigh."

Al Qaeda's Top Primed To Collapse, U.S. Says
Mohammed's Arrest, Data Breed Optimism

From the counting your chickens before they're hatched department...

The United States is within reach of dismantling the leadership of the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Bush administration officials and U.S. intelligence experts said.

Pushing U.S. Toward War
A more aggressive military stance, desire to help Israel among the factors

Another fine article that should have been written in August, 2002.

Amazing how everyone sees clearly after it's way, way too late.

I guess hindsight is always 20/20

The newest reality show
War is porn the whole family can watch together.

We don't want a war. But oh, we do. We want it bad. We don't actually want the consequences of war -- suicide bombers and a high death toll of innocents in Iraq. And we certainly don't want to fight this war ourselves. But we want to watch it. We like to watch.

More than anything, we like to watch.

This war is our new favorite reality show. And we love reality TV. But now we're beyond people eating slugs and getting voted off islands. Our hunger for reality programming is increasing. We want more graphics, higher stakes, greater losses. We adapt quickly. We become bored instantly.

We want to see death. Maybe not up close and personal, but certainly real. We want to see destruction and human suffering. We want to watch our military muscle flex in front of the mirror. And as we watch, we want to gasp. We want to cry, "No! Stop!"

Harder. Faster.

This is why we want war. But we won't admit it. None of us will. We feign disgust at the way the media has turned the war into entertainment, but secretly, truly, deep inside -- it's what we really want.

An open letter to Ralph Nader voters
You were right -- you did change history!

I sneered in 2000 when one of you guys said on CNN that you were willing to risk a Bush victory because you believed "things have to get worse before they get better." But I'm not sneering now. Now's the chance for you overwhelmingly white, middle-class, college-educated Nader voters to show that you really do care and aren't just willing to let someone else do the dying for you. You put Bush in the White House, so why not sign up for his invasion -- what better way to "make things get worse"? In this time of uncertainty and fear, your country salutes you.

But I've learned my lesson. I'm not willing to cut off my head to spite my body. Within months of GW's victory and the obvious effect in Florida that Nader had, I tossed out Nader from my politics immediately.

I still believe in what Nader says. I think that the Dems have lost their spine and have become toadies for the radical right. But I know that the enemy used this effectively and I'm not going to let them do this again.

Yes, it was my fault that this Administration is in power. I feel the shame and guilt daily. I only hope that we get another chance to make it right.

Smug President Has Painted U.S. Into a Corner

Uh, no. We painted ourselves into a corner by letting this guy lead. It's all our fault, or haven't you read the papers backing him 100%, the stratospheric approval ratings of the president (until recently) and the polls showing a majority for this war.

There has been no opposition from the Dems until January, and even now it's basically spitting into the wind. The press has been completely absent from any serious discussion and now that it's too late, they suddenly discover all the facts that they should have been bringing up a year ago.

So, go ahead and revel in your death bed conversion to reality. Glad you all woke up and started realizing that this all wasn't an act. They're deadly serious and guess what? You all helped.

N. Korea Says U.S. Pushing Nuclear

Okay Pete Du Pont (and all you other freepers and reapers), here's the deal. Your justifications are their justifications. Guess what. A bunch of tough talk ain't gonna cut it. They are insane and really don't give a frick if you change the names of food in protest.

"The DPRK cannot remain a passive onlooker to the U.S. intensified military moves as they are a dangerous military racket to ignite the second Korean War," North Korea's official Rodong Sinmun said Sunday. DPRK stands for Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea's official name.

Repairing the World

Tom Friedman gives a great speech. Too bad it falls on deaf ears.

Hope that next time Tom will remember this and not be used as a tool by those who manipulate the good intentions to achieve their ends.

Let's hope there is a next time to worry about.

Wives Cheat to be Bad in Bed

Rock on!

Wives who cheat on their husbands are increasingly searching for good sex - and finding it with a co-worker, according to a psychologist who studies sexual behavior.
Dr. Shirley Glass, an infidelity expert and Baltimore psychologist, believes the reasons for extramarital affairs have changed because of the modern workplace and the end of many taboos relating to female sexuality.

"Women that wrestle with their image as a 'good girl' in marriage feel they need to be with a bad boy to experience that part of themselves," Glass said.

"In extramarital affairs, they are more free to experiment and to be wild."

Field guide to Iraqi hawks and doves.

Just look at the plumage!

WAR, WHATEVER

Well, duh.

GEORGE Bush's top security adviser last night admitted the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons.

Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not Azaelt America's war machine.

Evidence from ONE witness on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme will be enough to trigger a fresh military onslaught, he told an all- party meeting on global security.

Former defence minister and Labour backbencher Peter Kilfoyle said: "America is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections. President Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing.

"This make a mockery of the whole process and exposes America's real determination to bomb Iraq."

A carefully crafted deception

This is your foreign policy.

This is your foreign policy run by John Dimitri Negroponte.

Any questions?

More Anti-Gay Bigotry
Copied directly from Atrios, as I want to spread this around on the net and Google searches.

Along with some serious violations of rights. From the ACLU:

• One teacher called a conference with McLaughlin's parents and the principal because she objected to his being open about being gay. During the meeting, the principal concurred that she was opposed to McLaughlin talking at school about being gay.
  

• A different teacher ordered McLaughlin not to discuss his sexual orientation, saying that she found it "sickening," and later called his mother to complain about his homosexuality.
  

• School officials preached their religious views on homosexuality and forced him to read aloud from the Bible in clear violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This was done as punishment after McLaughlin, who is himself a Christian, disagreed with a teacher for calling him "abnormal" and "unnatural."
  

• In violation of McLaughlin's free speech rights, the school suspended him for two days for telling other students about being made to read the Bible in school. The principal and assistant principal also told McLaughlin that if he told any of his friends why he was suspended, they would recommend that he be expelled.
  

• McLaughlin is not even allowed to participate in typical teenage conversations about crushes. In January he was disciplined for talking between classes with a female friend about a boy they both considered "cute." He was disciplined; his friend was not.
  

Remember, though, keep it clean. Email has more impact if it sounds like it's coming from an intelligent person instead of a ranting lunatic. That said, start typing!

Pulaski County Special School District
925 East Dixon Road
Little Rock, Arkansas 72206
Telephone: 501-490-2000
School district website: http://www.pcssd.org/

Don Henderson, Superintendent: dhenders@pcssd.org
Jeff Shaneyfelt, Board President: jeffshaneyfelt@lsmcpas.com
Pam Roberts: proberts@mwsgw.com
Carol Burgett: y2659@aristotle.net
Don Baker: wdbaker@arkansas.net
Pat O'Brien: pobrien@aristotle.net
Mildred Tatum: No email listed
Gwen Williams: gwilliams29@earthlink.net

Imaginary Girlfriend for Sale on EBay

Sign the apocalypse is immanent.

NEW CHAPTERS OPEN IN THE MYSTERY BEHIND THE WAR

Wow. Things are even worse than I thought.

It's great to realize that our whole Iraq strategy up to six weeks ago was based on a the words of a fraud. Guess this puts the story about Iraqi military and how it may be underestimated into perspective.

Yi!

Well, something funny happened about six weeks ago on the way to the Delaware. The polished, posturing, London-salon habitue CAzaelabi, a businessman wanted for fraud in Jordan, has long been the darling of the war party here. Paul Wolfowitz even wrote his policy program. But even as they were still oohing and aahing about him, he was suddenly -- POOF! -- gone.

As Martin Sieff, an expert analyst for United Press International, wrote just last week, the Pentagon's civilians' man, CAzaelabi, was found to have been feeding them worthless intelligence to back up his ambitions. In fact, Sieff says: "The entire U.S. war plan against Iraq was designed and based on the assumption that the Iraqis would not fight and that the Iraqi army would fall apart. And this assumption itself was entirely based on the flood of supposedly priceless inside information that CAzaelabi had provided to his eager audience in the Defense Department."

It was at that point of disillusionment with CAzaelabi, other sources confirm, that the American administration changed policy completely. Now it would back an American military governorship of postwar Iraq. Obviously, this turnabout carries with it dire threats of the entire Middle East seeing invading Americans, with their UFO chemical warfare suits and their 21,000-pound bombs, as the "new colonialists."

Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.

Listen to this

"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents -- which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger -- are not in fact authentic," ElBaradei said in his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.

Close said the CIA should have known better.

"They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division, who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get by," Close said. "I mean it's just mystifying to me. I can't understand it."

A U.S. intelligence official said that the documents were passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency within days of being received with the comment, " 'We don't know the provenance of this information, but here it is.' "

If a mistake was made, a U.S. official suggested, it was more likely due to incompetence not malice.

"That's a convenient explanation, but it doesn't satisfy me," Close said. "Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen plenty of malice, but I've never seen incompetence."

Put Up or Shut Up, Richard Perle

A fantastic article about Perle's once and future lawsuit against Hersch.

"I'm gonna punch you in the nose" is a serious threat. "I'm gonna punch you in the nose tomorrow … or the day after" carries much less urgency. But the stipulative warning "I'm gonna punch you in the nose next week in England, where I'm looking to hire a professional nose-puncher to inflict the punishment" is the sort of statement only a grandstanding pantywaist would make.

A grandstanding pantywaist like Richard N. Perle.

Found this via the horse.

The significance of these failures cannot be overstated. Opinion polls conclusively demonstrate that the American public is fundamentally misinformed about key facts that have driven the Iraq debate. It is these misconceptions that are allowing the Bush administration to pursue a foreign policy that is decidedly not in our national security interests. One can only wonder if support for the war would fall to levels seen in our NATO allies (levels that would make the attack political suicide) were Americans made aware of the same stories that have received widespread attention in the foreign press. Would the American public support the war if they were aware that, contrary to Mr. Bush's assertions, Iraq and al Qaeda are essentially enemies? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were originally provided by the American military? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that the Bush administration had grossly overstating Iraq's military capabilities and the threat posed by Iraq to American interests? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that the White House was spying on UN counsel members in an attempt to influence their votes? Would the American public support the war if they were aware that Dick Cheney's former employer Azaelliburton, which still pays him a million dollars a year pension, is all but certain to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in the conflict and its aftermath?

Uncertain Economy Hinders Highly Precise Supply System

In an economy subdued by the threat of war, is just-in-time becoming just too difficult?

During the boom of the 1990's, whole industries embraced just-in-time supply chains and lean manufacturing techniques to make their output more sensitive to customers' needs. Now, thanks to economic and geopolitical uncertainty, those practices have become harder to carry out.

Now, I don't mean a dark side in the obvious sense. What I've wondered is whether taking the slack out of the system - which is what "just in time" does - would make the system highly vulnerable. It's like a ten speed bicycle chain. It's got a built in mechanism to take up the slack in the system (i.e. the chain) when the gearing is different. What I was afraid of was that the "just in time" system was essentially taking the slack out of the system, racheting it down into more and more efficient operation, but didn't have any slack to give back to the system when the good times changed. The result, I thought, could produce a chatosrophic snapping of the system if people weren't careful enough to build in enough slack.

Yi.

Respiratory Illness Afflicts Hundreds Globally

Hundreds of people in Vietnam, Hong Kong and mainland China, many of them hospital workers, have come down with a mysterious respiratory illness that has killed at least six people and left most of the others with severe breathing difficulties from which they have not yet fully recovered, officials of the World Health Organization said yesterday.

The illness has also been reported in Canada.

Even the most sophisticated tests by leading laboratories in four countries have failed to find a cause, the officials said. Nor is the illness responding to antiviral or antibiotic drugs.

US steps up bombing missions

The United States has deployed a long-range bomber over Iraq's southern no-fly zone as President George W Bush prepares for emergency talks with his allies.

We are already at war.

It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.

This is, as we say in the country of my birth, a "lawyer's strategy". This is how we're going to wage war.

Aren't we a great country? We sure put them "cards down on the table" so that everyone knows where they are, don't we?

Officials said only two likely options remained, both of which would end in activation of the US war plan.

The first option is to submit the resolution to a UN Security Council vote it is certain to lose and then proceed to war.

The second, more likely option is to withdraw the resolution introduced late last month and claim existing international legal authority to attack without new UN authorisation.

"It's harder to proceed if you have a vote against you than if you have nothing," a senior US official said. "For legal reasons, we're in the best position we can possibly be right in now."

that's why I say hey man, nice shot
what a good shot man.

On Terror and Spying, Ashcroft Expands Reach

Okay, just so I'm clear. The man who is doing away with the fourth amendment to our constitution gets a five page spread in the NY Times.

Thank god I got my passport renewed.

Ye gods.

Now isn't this just ducky

I know. Old news. But interesting to hear ABC say

According to what is in the draft, if adopted it would allow the Justice Department to wiretap a person for 15 days without a warrant; federal agents could secretly arrest people and provide no information to their family, the media or their attorney until charges are brought, no matter how long that took; and it would allow the government to strip Americans of their citizenship for even unknowingly helping a group that is connected to an organization deemed to be terrrorist.

It would also make it a crime for people subpoenaed in connection with an investigation being carried out under the Patriot Act to alert Congress to any possible abuses committed by federal agents.

There is also no "sunset provision," which constitutional scholars say removes the element of congressional oversight and means lawmakers would have no way of compelling the Justice Department to prove that the powers provided in the act have not been abused.

"There's no question the government has to have the tools to protect us from terror attacks and to prosecute those who want to harm us," ACU Executive Director Stephen Thayer said.

"But having said that, the American Conservative Union wants to be sure that Congress takes into account the civil liberties of the citizens and through their deliberations reaches the proper balance between law enforcement and protecting citizens' rights," he added.

Christopher Pyle, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer who served on the Church Committee, a Senate select committee that studied government intelligence gathering, put it a bit more forcefully.

"I don't think the Fourth Amendment exists anymore," said Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, referring to the amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and requires probable cause for a search or arrest. "I think it's been buried by the Patriot Act and some of the court rulings that have been handed down. We need a requiem mass for the Fourth Amendment, because it's gone."

Muscular Independence
No more buying, bullying, and begging abroad?

These guys are great! Victor Davis Hanson asks why we are asking for permission for this war.

Yet the American people are growing tired of this notion of "it makes sense in the long run." And perhaps they are right since this entire old way of doing business — treaties, alliances, bases, deployments, arms credit, special aid packages — and indeed our very mentality of coalition building are all part of a world gone by, one predicated on the old bipolar rivalry with the Soviet Union and finally blown to bits by 9/11.

What the United States should seek is a sort of military autonomy, a muscular disengagement that lessens dependence on other mercurial and conniving countries and yet allows us strategic flexibility — and, yes, the freedom to move in the interest of freedom-loving peoples abroad who wish to act in concert with us. We should prefer a series of bilateral arrangements and a new tactical doctrine that does privilege "exit strategy" but simply states that the purpose of all (rare) U.S. interventions is military victory and the political will to define and then ensure such an outcome. Removal of a fascist like Saddam Hussein from Kuwait or stripping him of weapons of mass destruction both have exit strategies, but will never solve the problem of Iraqi state support for terrorism — him! — until the regime is defeated, humiliated, and removed.

Nothing is worse for a great power than to ask others far less moral for permission to use its power; and nothing weakens a great power more than intervening and intruding frequently but rarely decisively. Had we simply ignored the U.N. — as Mr. Clinton did in Kosovo — and moved unilaterally last fall (like Russia and France do all the time), Saddam Hussein would be gone, and we now would have more impressed friends than we do disdainful enemies. Instead, we await China's moral condemnation of our unilateral action — this from a regime that in the last 50 years butchered more of its own citizens than any government in the history of civilization, annexed Tibet, invaded Korea and Vietnam, and threatened to annihilate Taiwan. France hysterically alleges that we will harm the city of Baghdad in its liberation, but is silent about the Russian destruction of Grozny in its subjugation. And so on.

The American people are not naifs who yearn for isolationism, but they are starting to ask some hard questions about the way we have been doing business for 50 years, and it may well be time to grant the French, Canadians, Germans, Turks, South Koreans, and a host of others their wishes for independence from us: polite friendship — but no alliances, no bases, no money, no trade concessions, and no more begging for the privilege of protecting them.

Any questions?

"It is Worse than a Crime; It is a Mistake" The Three Strategic Fallacies of the Bush Administration

The United States is now more isolated from its major allies and more internally divided over foreign policy than at any time since 1945. The strategy of the Bush administration-and not merely its style-is to blame.

The grand strategy of the Bush administration rests on three axioms: American global hegemony; preventive war; and the so-called “war on terror.” All three axioms are fallacies that inevitably produce counterproductive and misguided policies. What the great French diplomat Talleyrand said of Napoleon’s execution of the Duc d’Enghien applies with equal force to Bush’s grand strategy: “It is worse than a crime; it is a mistake.”

So, let me get this straight. Bush's strategy does indeed rest on fallacious assumptions.

And this has been this way from the very beginning.

And everyone who was in the this "bold roll of the dice" for all the right reasons understood this.

And they still went along with it because they were seduced by the "bold roll of the dice" or because it was for "the right reasons" as the goal was laudable.

Okay. Just checking. I guess Pete Du Pont didn't get that memo either.

Hey guys. It was obvious from the beginning.

Just wanted to point that out, as the facts haven't changed one wit. All that has changed is that this Administration has confirmed that this was indeed the case.

Now where did we put those brakes?

Yi. This muzzling of the press allegation is getting some attention. Read about the dirt from Atrios.

Mr. Rove would like you all to know that he controls the horizontal. He controls the vertical.

So if you take the call for an investigation into the faked Iraq documents, the questioning by ex-CIA employees of their colleagues' intelligence, I think there's a smoking gun here. It must be that CIA was fooled, and egg is yet again on their face, or they faked the data themselves, or their acquaintances (plumbers?) faked the data for them, or some "friendly" country that wants a war faked the data.

And they have the proof. The world has the proof. You can bet there's some country's crack intelligence who has already got the answer, and they will have no qualms in leaking it to the world press.

I don't think they can plausibly blame this on Saddam or the French or the Germans - but you never know.

No one will care, of course, but at least it's another brick in the wall.

Senator Wants Fake Iraq Documents Probed

Okay, can I have bets on how long this will live before being 86'd like the investigation into 9/11?

Milliseconds? Microseconds?

No one will care until decades from now.

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the FBI on Friday to investigate forged documents the Bush administration used as evidence against Saddam Hussein and his military ambitions in Iraq.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said he was uneasy about a possible campaign to deceive the public about the status of Iraq's nuclear program.

An investigation should "at a minimum help to allay any concerns" that the government was involved in the creation of the documents to build support for administration policies, Rockefeller wrote in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) has denied the U.S. government had any hand in creating the false documents.

"It came from other sources," Powell told a House committee Thursday. "We were aware of this piece of evidence, and it was provided in good faith to the inspectors."

Rockefeller asked the FBI to determine the source of the documents, the sophistication of the forgeries, the motivation of those responsible, why intelligence agencies didn't recognize them as forgeries and whether they are part of a larger disinformation campaign.

The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Poll: Bush Has Substantial Support in War

Places everyone. Mr. Rove says we're bihind schedule, but we're still going to have this wrapped up by May.

(note the last paragraph of the quote)

While President Bush (news - web sites) has substantial voter support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), Americans are so worried about problems war could bring that Bush's support — and the nation's political balance — could easily shift, a bipartisan poll finds.

Those sharply mixed feelings suggest that war and its effect on international relations, terrorism and the economy pose considerable political risks for the president, said two political pollsters who conducted the survey for the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.

"The president has inspired a great deal of confidence about himself and one of the consequences is that there are very high expectations for the conduct of the war," said Democratic pollster Jeremy Rosner.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff said the poll clearly demonstrates "how narrow the window could be for the definition of what goes well in Iraq (news - web sites) and how many things could go wrong that could very quickly shift public opinion." If the war goes smoothly, he said, Democrats could face a significant hurdle in the 2004 elections.

Lieberman Says Alaska Drilling Plan Will Be Blocked in Senate

Wow. I sure hope this is true.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democratic presidential candidate who opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, said Republican proponents will lose a vote next week to open the wilderness to development.

``We've got more than 50 votes to take the attack against the refuge'' out of a budget bill, the Connecticut lawmaker told reporters.

Lieberman predicted the vote will be close, while Republicans said they need the support of only one more senator to win. Lobbyists on both sides visited lawmakers' offices on Capitol Hill today seeking to shore up support.

Putting the Bush administration proposal into the budget would protect it from Senate filibusters and increase its chances of passage. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the 19 million-acre refuge may contain as much as 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Cook ready to quit over war in Iraq

Will Tony have anyone left in his government?

ROBIN COOK signalled to fellow ministers yesterday that he will quit the Cabinet if Tony Blair takes Britain into war with Iraq without a second UN resolution.
As America and Britain strove to keep diplomacy alive, with suggestions that the UN negotiations might last until Monday, Mr Cook “put down a marker” at a tense Cabinet meeting that he would go if the UN did not sanction war.

His remarks were said to have been coded but, according to several present, left little doubt about his intentions. Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, has also threatened to resign.

Secondhand Diplomacy

Compassionate conservatism at work.

The late-night call came from William Steiger, the new director of the U.S. Office of Global Health Affairs and the godson of George Bush Sr. Although Novotny and his team had already set out their position in negotiations with 190 other nations, Steiger insisted the U.S. delegates backpedal on several key issues affecting the tobacco industry. "We had to back down on any sort of agreement for restricting cigarette advertising, any sort of pro-tax stand, and any policies on secondhand smoke restrictions," Novotny recalls. Steiger also ordered him to oppose efforts to ban descriptive terms like "low-tar," "light," and "mild," which, according to the National Cancer Institute, deceive smokers into thinking that those brands deliver less tar and nicotine than others. "The positions that we had developed, which were headed in the right direction, we had to reverse in midstream, almost in mid-sentence," Novotny says. "It was horrible. I felt devastated."

Chirac softens tone on Baghdad

hmmmmm.... Will GW have his war and have it santioned by the UN?

This is getting very weird. But I guess we should have predicted it...

Will Iraq fight? Iraq's under-rated army

Yi.

Will Iraq fight? Even if the highly controversial analyses favored by the Bush administration are correct in predicting massive popular uprisings against the Iraqi leader on the advent of war, the answer to this crucial question boils down to a single key issue: How good is the Iraqi army today?

There is an almost universally held assumption among U.S. media pundits that it is no good at all. It was no good in 1991, so the argument goes. And it is only a fraction of the size and capability today of what it was then, so how can it do any better?

This appears to be an open and shut argument. And it explains the confidence, for example, of columnist Charles Krauthammer who in January told Greta Van Susteren on the Fox News Channel that he expected U.S. armed forces to reach Baghdad within the first two days of ground hostilities.

But, as is so often the case in history -- especially military history -- and military analysis, what looks obvious and inevitable from a distance turns out to be anything but when you take a closer look at the actual facts of the case.

I'm sure it won't, though. These things never, ever do.

Teachers Suspended for Refusing to Remove Anti-War Signs From Classrooms

Home of the free. Land of the brave.

Dozens of students walked out of class to protest the suspensions of two Rio Grande High School teachers who were removed after refusing to take down anti-war posters in their classrooms.

Carmelita Roybal, a ninth-grade English teacher, was placed on leave with pay Wednesday after refusing to remove a black-and-white "No War Against Iraq" poster from her classroom. Art teacher Heather Duffy was asked to leave Thursday and suspended with pay for refusing to remove a similar poster. About 45 students walked out in protest Thursday.

Ex-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data

A small group composed mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq.

Members of the group contend the Bush administration has released information on Iraq that meets only its ends - while ignoring or withholding contrary reporting.

They also say the administration's public evidence about the immediacy of Iraq's threat to the United States and its alleged ties to al-Qaida is unconvincing, and accuse policy-makers of pushing out some information that does not meet an intelligence professional's standards of proof.

"It's been cooked to a recipe, and the recipe is high policy," said Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who briefed top Reagan administration security officials before retiring in 1990. "That's why a lot of my former colleagues are holding their noses these days."

David Frum is a moron.

Toady. Bootlicker. Ass wipe.

Is war with Iraq legal?

The question of whether a war on Iraq is legal under international law will become more pressing if the United States and Britain fail to get a new Security Council resolution.

Last Chance
How Tony Blair can set the terms for war, or even stop it

A great essay, but geesh. This Administration is not playing by the rules. Doesn't anyone realize that? No one is going to stop their war. The people in control of this trainwreck simply don't care. They just don't care what anyone thinks. They actually consider it a badge of honor that no one is with them. Legitimate and illegitimate war is a distinction they just do not care about. In many ways, they actually want to do this entirely by themselves. This essay is just a fantasy.

Nice fantasy, though.

Furthermore, Blair's alliance with Bush is probably the only thing keeping countries such as Spain in line with the United States. Most of America's allies have electorates that are overwhelmingly against the war -- in Spain polls show that more than 70 percent of the population opposes an invasion -- and leaders of those countries are no doubt growing anxious that the war could ruin their political careers. If Blair gives in to his public on the war, it could very well provide a signal to other allies that they too should abandon the United States while they still can. "In practical terms, Britain is the ally," Allin says. The current American coalition is like a Jenga tower: If Britain pulls out, the entire alliance is likely to collapse. And of the nations that appear ready to join Bush in this war, only Britain has a significant combat force ready for action in the Persian Gulf. Blair has now committed 40,000 troops to join 200,000 Americans in Bush's "coalition of the willing." If Blair withdraws, the Brits go home -- and the veneer of multilateralism that the United States has struggled to keep up would depart the Middle East with them.

A Case for Hell

Another essay on what Pete Du Pont can't comprehend with his tiny little brain.

Much of the furious debate at the United Nations has been over whether inspectors are capable of disarming Iraq, but what really divides the United States from its chief critics on the Security Council are two diametrically opposed scenarios of a post-war Iraq. The American scenario, dubbed "new dawn," sees a transformed Iraq leading a democratic revolution in the Middle East that would sweep away monarchs and dictators, end the isolation of Ariel Sharon's Israel, boost oil production and bring in high-tech industry. The French and Russian scenario, dubbed the "gates of hell," foresees a rise in Islamic radicalism and terrorism and in global economic and military instability. No one can really know what this war would bring -- the repercussions from the Gulf War are still being felt -- but here are some reasons why, even if the United States quickly ousts Saddam Hussein, the Mideast might more closely resemble the gates of hell than the new dawn.

Cheap attacks on war opponents

The only attacks they have are cheap ones. Remember, these guys are thrifty. They believe in recycling the tactics of other fascist states. It's just good economic sense.

The worst offender on this count, however, has been James Taranto, writer of the "Best of the Web Today" (BOTW) column on the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, who has repeatedly accused liberals who oppose a potential war with Iraq of supporting Saddam Hussein. On numerous occasions, he has called them "pro-Saddam" or offered several other aggressive rhetorical attacks. On February 25, for instance, Taranto labeled "McLaughlin Group" panelist and Newsweek writer Eleanor Clift "one of Saddam's shrillest defenders." Writing on March 6 about a walkout by some students who oppose the war, Taranto claimed they were "ditching for Saddam." And in yesterday's BOTW, Taranto used the example of antiwar protestors who defaced a September 11 memorial in California to smear everyone who opposes the war, concluding that it was "all you need to know about the 'antiwar' movement" in a section entitled "'Antiwar' Is Anti-American."

All of these statements share the common and flawed assumption that opposing a war in Iraq at this time means that you support Hussein's regime. Boiling complex policy questions down to such an either/or proposition is not a fair assessment of the debate, however. While it's true some in the antiwar movement have supported Hussein, many protestors oppose his rule but believe the costs of a war in human life and global stability would be too high. Others believe that war is simply not an appropriate way to eliminate governments they strongly oppose, pointing out that the U.S. cooperates with many oppressive governments that violate human rights without endorsing them and their tactics. Supporters of the war may strongly disagree with these views, but by applying derisive labels to a whole movement, they're smearing millions of people and ignoring their arguments.

WorldCom to Write Down $79.8 Billion of Good Will

Whoa! That's a big plug to swallow!

WorldCom, the long-distance carrier that is mired in the nation's largest bankruptcy filing, said yesterday that it was writing down $79.8 billion of its good will and other assets. The move is an acknowledgment that many areas of the company's vast telecommunications network are essentially worthless.

The company said in a statement that all existing good will, valued at $45 billion, would be written down. WorldCom also said it would reduce the value of $44.8 billion of equipment and other intangible assets to about $10 billion.

Nice little bit by Josh MarsAzaell on the 11th hour, 59th minute attempt at middle east peace announced today.

What's so sad and revealing and pathetic about this is that it's only at the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute that the White House realizes that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is one of the moving parts involved in dealing with Iraq. On the whole world stage we're watching the president and his crew driving at eighty miles an hour into a brick wall called reality. Too bad we're in the car with them.

Democracy in Iraq doubtful, State Dept. report says
Social, economic obstacles work against transformation

I guess Pete Du Pont didn't get the memo.

Kinda blows the entirety of your argument out of the water, eh Pete? You wonder why we're so frickin' skeptical of the bag of goods you want us to buy blindly? Idiot.

A classified State Department report expresses deep skepticism that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.

The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.

The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

Even if some version of democracy took root -- an event the report casts as unlikely -- anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.

"Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve," says one passage of the report, according to an intelligence official who agreed to read portions of it to the Los Angeles Times. "Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements."

The thrust of the document, the source said, "is that this idea that you're going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible."

Torture, Beyond Saddam

The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again. The U.S. was so desperate to bribe Turkey into our coalition that it was willing to allow tens of thousands of Turkish troops into Iraq's Kurdish areas. And we still seem ready to acquiesce in this. The Turks, having broken the back of Kurdish resistance within their borders, plan to expand their efforts and "disarm" Iraq's Kurds to block their control of oil fields.

How can we allow this? Aside from the sheer immorality of presiding over what is in effect a Turkish invasion of peaceful Iraqi Kurdistan, such an incursion risks warfare between Kurds and Turks that could spill into Turkey as well.

Scientists develop 'brain chip'
A "brain chip" could be used to replace the "memory centre" in patients affected by strokes, epilepsy or Alzheimer's disease, it has been claimed.

This is very cool.

Getting Serious
Questions for the peaceniks.

In their usual way, the Right comes up with a series of "questions" that they have for those opposed to their point of view. They ask them, and then answer them for us. Kind of them. Here's my answers to Pete Du Pont:

Peace is important, but is peace without freedom acceptable?

??? Who's freedom are we talking about here Pete? Are you referring to Iraq? Are you talking about the Iraqi people's freedom? Are you saying that we have to go to war because we have to free the Iraq people? The way I understood the world was that we worked for freedom and democracy, not that we waged war for freedom and democracy. This question and Pete's answer is a fallacy commonly known as a false dilemma. Look it up Pete. Or do they require a course in logic at the Wall Street Journal?

If you believe peace is paramount, which of the following wars would you not have fought:
• The Gulf War of 1991, which liberated Kuwait from Iraqi invasion and terrorism?
• World War II against Nazi Germany?
• The American Revolutionary War?
• The Civil War?
• The Korean War?
• The war that freed Afghanistan from the Taliban?

First, I don't think peace is paramount. Again, Pete is using the fallacy of the straw man to frame the debate his way. But to answer your question, the only one I would not have fought is the Korean War. Pete is also confusing the issue because he is essentially begging the question. He assumes this war with Iraq is the equivalent of the American revolution. Therefore to be against the war with Iraq is to be against the American Revolutionary War. Great logic, Pete.

Why will appeasement succeed with Saddam Hussein when it has failed with so many other dictators?

This is another blatant straw man attempt. He says: "your policy is appeasement", which is clearly not the case. We don't want to appease this evil man, we want to make sure it is done right, for the right reasons. Stop putting words into our mouths, Pete. Geesh.

May the United States take action to prevent attacks--before they occur--on its territory or people

Depends. Certainly some preventive action is allowed. But have you ever read the UN charter, Pete? Article 51 specifically proscribes precisely what you guys are trying to do with this war on Iraq. Iraq has not attacked us. It may attack us, but it certainly hasn't yet. International law is clearly against this, and if you believe that we have the sovereign right to attack first, then you're violating international law. I know that doesn't count for much to people like you who disdain international anything, but it means a lot to the rest of the world. So, if you do this, you're breaking the law. Simple.

And yes, these treaties and laws were set up for very good reasons. Following your twisted logic leads to incredibly unstable world situations. Let me ask it back. May North Korea take action to prevent attacks - before they occur - on its territory or people? You see, the slippery slope you have us on works just as well for Kim Il Sung. You're basically saying that Kim has every right to attack the US first because we have threatened them with potential attacks. And clearly we have threatened them. We have 50,000 troops sitting on their border. We actually have threatened them in the past. And we're moving new troops and weapons into position.

Are you saying that North Korea has the right to attack us? Geesh.

If not America, who? If not now, when?

Uh, aren't we doing this right this very second? We are disarming him. But guess what? It's a sovereign country. We don't get to say who should run in and how it should be run. You claim "People in these nations hate America because they envy us." No Pete. People in these nations hate us for more complex reasons than that. You've trotted out the favorite on the right, but pretty much the entire world hates us not because of envy but because idiots like you are running this place. People who don't understand that we can't act by fiat. That it takes cooperation with allies to solve complex problems. Grow up Pete.

Finally, Abraham Lincoln said there was no middle ground between freedom and slavery. Can there be a middle ground between freedom and terrorism?

Uh, where are the terrorists that are coming from Iraq? When has Iraq ever terrorized us. You're conflating two very different things here in your question, as well as conflating Iraq and terrorism. You guys keep claiming a connection between Saddam and terrorists, but so far you have come up with squat. I find much more connections between Pakistan and terrorism, Saudi Arabia and terrorism and North Korea and terrorism than anything else you jokers have come up with as a connection between Iraq and terrorism. You're argument is so fallacious I can't even begin to start categorizing it.

Look Pete, we're not buying your bag of crap. That's the long and short of it. You're trying to appeal to our good nature and our desire to bring freedom and democracy to salvage a pathetic attempt by this Administration to prosecute a war of choice. If they had done this right, the world would right now be for this, rather than against this. The reason for your failure lies in your own bed, not ours. Grow up and accept responsibility for your own idiocy.

U.S., Britain, Spain to Hold Azores Summit

Now, what I love about this is that the entire thing is being billed as Bush bending over backwards for diplomacy. So, if it's all about diplomacy, why is he essentially preaching to the choir? I mean, Spain and Britain are already on board, aren't they? Diplomacy would actually mean going and dealing with the people who aren't on board. Say, France, Germany. Or at least meeting with the people who are on the fence.

Not quite Orwellian, but certainly the expected bizarro world definition of diplomacy we've come to expect from this Administration.

What is the war's 'brand strategy'?

Every war needs a compelling brand proposition, and the Bush administration's default proposition is: "This is about American prerogatives," a Manhattan consultant said.

Ramesh Ponnuru supports terrorism

Well, not really, but one might get that impression from this little bit at the end of his article on deficits. Apparently Ramesh is following the Noonan script here by trying to use the issue of Torture to paint liberals as those who think they're better than everyone else.

I have a soft spot for him, largely because his son is a friend of mine. But his back-page essay in the latest edition of Time is idiotic. He writes, "With the approach of war, a familiar recklessness boils up from the American id; you catch it, for example, in the talk-show braying about various ingeniously horrible ways that the U.S. ought to be torturing KAzaelid Shaikh Mohammed. (I have been trying to decide how much anti-Arab bigotry goes into this: Would the braying be as graphic and gleeful if the terrorist were a Whiffenpoof? Maybe.)" Oh please. We all get the point: Lance Morrow is morally superior to the "American id," which is guilty until proven innocent.

What I love about these radical conservatives is that they can turn anything into an attack on America.

Look, the simple fact is we are having a serious discussion in this country about whether we should torture people. As others have pointed out, this shouldn't even be a question.

These conservatives seem to hold Jesus and Christianity in high esteem. Hardly a millisecond goes by without them lecturing us on our morals in the Liberal party.

Well, wake up guys. I think if you asked the question "What would Jesus Do?" you'll quickly come to the conclusion that he'd rather die on a cross in agony rather than do this to another human being.

And I'm flabbergasted to find out that you aren't just as horrified at the thought.

Torture! And Ramesh just can't help but use it as a foil to show that Liberals think they are better than everyone else.

Now, how low is that?

David Frum is a moron.

Toady. Bootlicker. Kiss ass.

More Racial McCarthyism
Why Estrada is being held back.

Peter N. Kirsanow squeezes out another loaf in the attempt to portray the Estrada fiasco as some witch hunt. The funny thing is that he doesn't even explain why Estrada is being held back. It's just a nebulous, meandering screed, whining about not getting their way.

Wake up guys. The Dems have finally grown a bit of calcium in the spinal region.

Here's hoping they get used to it and start liking it.

George W. Queeg

Paul Krugman riffs.

All I can say is read it.

Powell Faults Palestinians in Mideast

Now the thing that pisses me off about this pronouncement is that I have yet to hear any criticism of this kind being leveled against Israel. And I think the rest of the world is hearing the same absence of criticism.

I keep getting the impression that any criticism of Israel is tantamount to racism. Any mention that Israel might actually have some blame in the current situation seems to be completely absent of the current diplomacy.

I can only hope they are saying it in secret.

Because the impression we're giving is indeed that we're taking Israel's side in this conflict.

And that is a dangerous position to take.

Arrrgggg. So much running through my head. Just read Bridging the Atlantic Divide by Philip Gordon. Also read a great post by Brad Delong. First the problem with our European neighbors.

Relations with our neighbors across the Atlantic are much on people's minds these days. Because of Iraq, the UN is currently stressed to the breaking point. So is NATO. Pretty much every bi-lateral and multi-lateral relationship the US has can be described as stressed. Some are more severely stressed than others. It was refreshing to read an article that pointed out that it's really not the case that the US and the EU (France and Germany in particular) have irreconcilably different goals.

Lately, the Right wing press has been consistently pushing the meme that we should bid our decades long alliances adieu. Basically, the UN is not only irrelevant, it's actually harmful to the US. Likewise NATO. As far as I can tell, there isn't an alliance that we have - other than Briton - seems to be an object of scorn for those on the Right. This meme wants us to accept the premise that these alliances and the treaties upon which they are based are things of the past to be rejected and scorned. Relics that have little use in the new world order. Ankle weights that prevent us from acting in our sovereign interest.

Yi. What's particularly disturbing is to hear this rhetoric from people who call themselves Conservatives.

con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
n.
1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
3. Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom
or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.

And I used to think the Republican party fit that description. However, in the nineties, we saw the rising of radical conservatives. On its face, the phrase is oxymoronic. And it's precisely this paradox which has stuck me throughout the last two years of this Administration. On the one hand, they preach and pay homage to traditions and values. It's almost quaint to say these days, but Bush's platform during the 2000 election was nothing but an appeal to tradition. Heck, the whole campaign appealed to "putting the adults back in charge" - a return to saner, more traditional times.

But at this point, it seems more like a radical right wing agenda than a return to tradition. As I've said too many times to count, we're completely abandoning every traditional relationship we've had. While many arguments can be made for change, it's clear that these relationships have very good reason for existing. While the Soviet Union no longer exists, it's clear the world still is a very dangerous place. Friends are something to be valued, not to be disdained.
Especially when you have a lot of evil people after you. One would think we need all the friends we can get.

Certainly we can talk seriously about restructuring a lot of these relationships. Clearly a lot of them have indeed grown long in the tooth. A few have survived their original purpose and the threats no longer exist in the same form. Maybe I was confused, but I thought that this was what bi-lateral and multi-lateral negotiations were all about. For example, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or the Global Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. What I had come to expect from global diplomacy was a certain amount of negotiations and conferences. A certain amount of discussion.

At least some careful thought.

Perhaps what is so alarming about the new conservatism is that they don't believe in diplomacy. They are absolutely convinced that the US doesn't need to consult with anyone in the matters of national security. What's even more alarming is that this belief is actually a long held one - although it's relatively new to most of the members of the conservative party.

Essentially, the Republican party has been hijacked by a minority of the radical Right.

I know this isn't really any great news, but I think it's now pretty clear for even the Republicans at this point. The present standard bearers of the Republican party are clearly acting with an agenda that is driven by a narrow ideology of radical politics. It's almost undeniable now, and the question will be whether the Republican party can quell this coup on their own. Clearly the Democrats can't. Clearly the combined might of the entire world can't.

I think it's time that we all started acting like adults. We can all agree on a lot of basic issues, things like the desire to get rid of Saddam the right way, the usefulness of international relations, and... well, fiscal conservatism.

So there should be a sane way out of this mess.

It will require compromise, however. We simply cannot dictate to the world. This isn't a case of immanent threat. We don't have tanks rolling down the hiway in the USA. And that's something that appears to be hard to swallow for most of the Right at this point - and particularly for the radical right which is currently in control of this entire nation.

Look, a lot changed on 9/11. It really did. But what did not change was our need for strong relations. What did not change was our need for intelligent, reasoned reactions.

Many events in the past two years have shown the need for thinking ahead, and for seeing things as they really are.

And right now, we're being controlled by a group of people who think we need to react from the gut. That we need to revert to base survival.

And while I think the world is truly a dangerous place, I don't think we make it any safer by ripping up alliances that have served us so well in the past. Clearly, we have more in common than we have differences. The people leading us have very different ideas about how we should proceed towards the future. A lot of us out here are scared at where they are heading.

I know I've said this a million times, but the people in charge have a very clear track record. They are the most secretive Administration in our history. They are clearly unable to negotiate to save their lives. They are brash and simplistic.

This is just a blog, so I don't have to obey any writer's rules of grammar and style, so I'll just end this screed with this note. One of my favorite lines from the comedy troupe FireSign Theatre sums it up quite nicely:

The think he's crazy, yet he out ranks them.

And thus the position we find ourselves in at this juncture.

It will be very interesting to see what the next week holds for us.

Very interesting indeed.

So are we going to get rid of all "Chinese" references in food now?

What, are we going to order out for "Freedom" food now?

A heck of a lot of hay has been made over France's absolute position on a veto. Everyone keeps saying "how can France support this position?". What they're frustrated with is France digging in their heels and not going forward on any resolution which merely gives the appearance of an alternative to war. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the U.S. position, which is undeniably: "We want our war and we want it now".

If the U.S. was serious, it would list conditions under which it would agree that Iraq is disarming - regardless of whether it was a cooperative disarming or not. But what I hear over and over again from the Right is that disarming is like pornography - they only know it when they see it. They can't define it because - as they readily admit - they don't believe in it at all. They don't want disarmament, they want a regime change. So single minded is this push that anything else is completely unacceptable to them.

So we protest and complain over France's digging in of their heels.

We completely ignore the fact that we don't care what they think, and we're just looking for a diplomatic fig leaf for the UK.

Thank "Bob" for blogs. Orcinus, which is a fantastic blog filled with wonderful stuff, has some great discussions about the use of torture in our pursuit of terror. Must read.

Again, why do we have to become the enemy in order to defeat the enemy?

What simply amazes and terrifies me is how quickly even the liberals accept torture. Again, we're so terrified that we're willing to do anything. Anything at all. This is what's really sick. This veneer we call humanity seems to be only a few molecules thick. At the slightest hint of problem, we wash it off with ready made solvent and we whip out the dentist's drills ready to start drilling.

Amazing how Christians can sanction this. Amazing how anyone can sanction this.

But I guess civilization is just one day and three meals away from chaos anyway.

Everyone's all aflutter at the dow rising again. All I can say is read this paper.

So far, it's still on target, and it's not a pretty picture.

Well, jobless claims are still on the rise. Another 420,000 some odd this week. According to this article, anything above 400,000 is considered to be a sign of a deteriorating labor market. What I found a little disturbing was that the fact that the resolution of the Iraqi war might not pull the economy out of the tail spin it's currently in. Here's the bit:

Most of the trouble, many economists believe, has been concern about the possibility of the United States going to war with Iraq. According to this view, businesses will make long-term spending and hiring plans once that situation is resolved.

Other economists, however, worry that businesses will not start hiring again until they see demand pick up significantly. Since there's little pent-up demand on the part of consumers, whose spending makes up more than two-thirds of the economy, it seems possible that the full economic recovery could take longer than most economists think.

Oh, and lets not forget that pesky problem with N. Korea. Think that's going to go away once the war is over?

Not a chance.

So, I think that everyone in this Administration is smoking weed, hoping against hope that the miracle of war will bounce the economy back into the black. But this is the same Administration who's done everything they possibly can wrong in the pursuit of this war - not to mention completely neglecting the economy.

Don't expect much help in the near future from these bozos.

You know, as much as I like to think of Tony Blair as GW's love slave, I have to admit that at least he faces his own people. It's a clear and distinct contrast to what's going on here in the U.S. Tony has stood up to the howls of his critics and answered questions that the U.S. press corp hasn't even dared to answer. It's simply amazing to watch. He stands in the house of commons during "questions" and gets beat over the head with his stance on the war. He has newspapers and journalists questioning him daily. Amazing.

Over here... Well, we have a press conference that was scripted. All - and I do mean all - of our news sources are for this war. Have been for this war and have essentially pushed it unquestioningly. When I think about it, Tony isn't the lap dog of GW. What he was really trying to do was make sure that the war was done right for the right reasons. And I have to admire that. He stood up for his principles and weathered the criticism as well as the slings and arrows of the press and critics of his own party.

Would that we in the U.S. have such back bone in our political leaders. Would that the Democrats react as Tony's own labor party did and actually question this Administration.

I think back to all the senate hearings over the last year. Day after day, witness after witness. Nothing. Hardly a peep. No ruckus jeering from the opposition at all. No questioning of the course of action. Nothing.

So, hats off to you Tony. I know it was hard. I just hope you still stick with your initial convictions and accept the U.N.'s decision and deal with the fallout like a man. I'm pretty sure you will. Unlike we here in America, the Brits seem to understand the stiff upper lip thing. They understand when things have just completely gone to hell and they can't follow it any more.

Strange how the country that used to rule us as a colony, the country which we rebelled against to form our own democracy, is teaching us some painful lessons about what a democracy really is.

Thanks Tony. I won't call you GW's bitch any more. You don't deserve it.

Another one of the bombshells waiting to go off is the world court on war crimes. This just had its first session recently, and the U.S. isn't on board. I remember how this was quite a topic of discussion last year. One of the things that stands out now was the argument that those on the Right were making. Basically, they were saying that the U.S. is the U.N.'s policeman, with the largest number of forces in peace keeping activities. To hold ourselves to a world court would allow countries with a beef against the U.S. to ensnarl us in litigation and political machinations just because we were being good citizens.

Well, now the reason is pretty clear as to why they didn't want to be a part of this world court. We're about to enter a war that by all accounts so far, will not be sanctioned by the U.N. Thus, making it an illegal war. Now, putting aside the bizarre contradiction of a legal war for a moment - yes, I do believe that there is such a thing - the point is that from the perspective of the world, we're going to be doing something completely wrong. Regardless of whether we believe in it or not, the rest of the world doesn't. And they have the court.

So, what's really interesting here is that the UK - aka Tony - is a signatory of the treaty creating this world court. They have taken great pride in setting this institution up. So, from Tony's perspective, it's going to be impossible to get involved in a war that the U.N. doesn't sanction. It's not just for political correctness that Tony is fighting for U.N. legitimacy of this war. As part of the European Union, they have an enormous stake in seeing that this war is done through the aegis of the U.N. If it isn't, then he will quickly find that his own people who fight in an illegal war are going to be hauled up before the world court. That just won't sit well with the rest of the EU. The people of the UK won't swallow that kind of crap at all.

The U.S. will likely get away with it. After all, we're the biggest bully in the world. We have consistently thumbed our nose at any world institution which dares to impinge on what we claim as our sovereign rights. However, the UK is no U.S. They actually have to pay attention to the rest of the world. Their days of empire and imperialistic glory are long past. They can hold out a bit, but their economy is so intertwined with France and Germany that it would be suicide to thumb their nose at them like the U.S. does. They can't afford to go to war without the U.N.'s approval.

So it looks like we stand alone. I doubt that Spain and Australia will give much material help, either. For much the same reason as Tony. They are countries which can't afford to snub world opinion and risk having their citizens hauled up before the world court on war crimes. They just can't.

And so the dream of the war hawks will become reality. We will have overturned a regime alone. We will have flipped a switch and suddenly Saddam won't be there any more. And that will please them to no end. They want the world to tremble in front of our might. They want the world to know that we are supreme. That we, alone, control our destiny.

Sounds like a psycho case, right? I mean, don't you know people like this in your real life? People who are so insecure that they constantly have to show everyone that they're the biggest and baddest mofos on the block - in the company? People who are so unsure of their role in the world that the only thing they can do is make everyone tell them constantly how great they are...

Amazing. I'm going to do some research into these psychological pathologies and see if I can draw some analogies. Maybe I can get an idea of what it takes to control, if not cure this sickness. I fear that the result will be some sort of drug therapy. Hmmm... It's almost as if the entire U.S. needs to go through psychotherapy, or some drug regime of anti-psychotics. This is your country. This is your country without Prozac.

Hmmmmm....

So I'm getting even more depressed. I know, sounds ridiculous. But it's not really depression, per se. It's resignation. Inside, I always have the little part of me that's still a 5 year old, optimistic about everything, who still believes in miracles. But the more and more I talk to people, and given the lemming like rush into this disaster we're labeling the war with Iraq... Well, even the 5 year old inside me is starting to grow up and understand reality.

There's a lot of different classes of people who are for this war. The ones that offend me the most, and who scare me the most are the rabid war dogs. As one of them said "I'm more than willing to kill 300,000 Iraqis to make an object lesson for the rest of the middle east". The 5 year old inside of me doesn't help much when I hear that. Especially when I hear it from people that I trusted, that I admired and that I thought were basically level headed - even though they were way to the right of me politically.

But as scary as these people are, at least they are easy to spot. They show their true colors like the red butt on an Alpha male baboon. They bare their long teeth and expose those sharp canines and I remember that, well, yea. These guys are pretty scarry. But their not the ones that bother me most of all. Like I said, these war dogs are easy to spot. Yea, you forget about them when their in the minority and things are going good and peaceful. They do scare the hell out of you when the pop out of their camouflage and bare their canines... But you quickly adjust.

No, what scares me are the people who are fence sitters. Those who don't really know what's going on and pretty much don't care. These are the faux centrists. They give a damn good impression of being caring and understanding, but when you start back tracking the things they've said, you note with some disquiet that they have a knife hidden behind their back. Or worse, a pair of handcuffs. After all, they don't want to do the killing themselves, they just don't want to get killed by the people with the big canines. They are the ones who eventually become toadies for the Alpha males with red butts, or those that glance furtively as they pass you by in your hour of need. They are the ones who don't speak up when they know they should. They stand by and watch people get beaten in the streets. They are the ones who are driven by fear.

And it terrifies me to realize that most of the U.S. seems to be composed of these people. Heck, almost everyone in the press corps can claim membership of this sub species of human. And on the one hand, I can understand. Fear of the scary world is a very real thing for 99% of humanity. Threats work really well against us as humans. Especially implied threats. We stand by while those with red butts and long canines whittle away our civil rights. We turn our eyes away while thousands are rounded up and sent to god only knows where. We respond in a knee jerk fashion, gleefully giving away everything that makes this country what it is because we're scared.

Scared of the bogy man of terrorism. Scared of a balsa wood and duct tape model radio controlled plane that any self respecting hobbyist would laugh at. Scared so much that we're willing to sanction torturing of individuals who might know something that might make us safer. We're so scared and frightened that we latch onto those red butted Alpha males because they seem so sure of themselves. They are so certain of how to handle this that it gives us comfort. It makes us feel safe. We, as Americans, find the simplicity and forcefulness of their logic a rock to cling to in these scary uncertain times.

And so the 5 year old inside me just gawks in terror. He was under the assumption that part of growing up was learning to live with fear. Learning to stand firm on principle, even though you are terrified of the world surrounding you. He was brainwashed into believing that this country was formed on the principle that fear doesn't rule our lives. That, despite the world's headlong rush into disaster, we would hold ourselves to what we believed as higher goals. Things like freedom, equality and justice. Truth. Compassion.

Now he sees that those adults who taught him this are throwing these ideals away for a small piece of comfort at the first sign of real trouble. The moment we find that we're not safe and sound in our home, all snuggled in bed, we lash out at anyone who even reminds us of those who have hurt us. Anyone who resembles those who terrify us. He sees the embodiment of our democracy holding people against the very rules we ourselves have signed and stood by for decades. He sees us giving into the very principles that have we have fought against for hundreds of years.

This 5 year old looks at the beacon of light and sees precisely where it is leading. A country ruled by fear and pain. Lashing out in its fear.

So, as the adult, I try to comfort my own 5 year old and tell him that the world is indeed a scary place. It is filled with those who will sell you out for a pack of cigarettes. Worse, it's filled with those who will sell themselves out for a small measure of comfort. Filled with toadies and bootlickers who are more scared of the world than he is. Scared of themselves. Scared of others. I remind him that... Well, part of being who we are is to understand our fear and understand how to deal with it. He scrunches up his face in that way that 5 year olds do when they're thinking about something deep for the first time, and a smile comes to his face.

I don't know what it is that he's smiling about, but the optimism seems to still be there. As the adult, weary of this world and resigned to what seems like the inevitable, I can't understand what he's optimistic about. But the glow on his face keeps me warm. Keeps me safe. And, well, I don't know. He seems to be loony toons from my perspective, but I won't tell him that. Regardless of whether he's laboring under some illusion of hope and optimism, I just remind myself that my adult may be laboring under an illusion, too.

Sometimes people wake up from fear. Sometimes people finally find their center and dig in.

Sometimes.

But then again, sometimes millions die in the process. Sometimes hundreds of thousands of optimistic children who don't know any better are slaughtered by the red butted Alpha males with long canines.

Sometimes they're slaughtered out of fear by those who are terrified. And that's what scares me most of all...

Trans-Atlantic Illusions
NATO should have gone out of business a decade ago.

At what point do we say enough is enough? These people are literally revelling in the dismantaling of everything we've built over the decades since world war II. Maybe they're right and they need to go. But don't we get to talk about it first? Don't we have some discussion?

Nope. Notification, not consultation.

NATO should have gone out of business a decade ago. But, big bureaucracies have powerful survival instincts, especially those living in Brussels on public funds. NATO sucked America into the Balkans where no vital U.S. interests were at stake and the North Atlantic Treaty did not apply. Despite this ingenuity, the day had to come when America's global responsibilities and its sense of self-worth as a nation would place it fundamentally at odds with Europe and with NATO.

The current "crisis" in trans-Atlantic relations is an opportunity to make a virtue of necessity, to declare "mission accomplished" in Europe and move to a mature relationship between an Old World with its own future and America with ours.

You know, everyone keeps referring to the UN as the League of Nations.

I remember what happened when the League of Nations unraveled.

I think the result was called World War II.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

More on the justification of this war.

Basically, we're saying that because we're threatened, we have the sovereign right to strike first.

So, isn't India and Pakistan threatened by each other far more than we are by Iraq? Are we saying, as the Beacon Of The World, that either one can follow our lead and strike first with nuclear weapons?

If not, what on earth is different? Pakistan infiltrates India and commits terrorist actions with the support of the state itself. Isn't this state run terrorism?

Again, our logic just doesn't hold water. Simple it may be. Forceful - for sure. But simple and forceful are the mark of a brute, and not something to be proud of.

But certainly is par for the course for an Administration that values ideology over intelligence.

We are simply insane.

Panel: U.S. Must Invest in Iraq Long - Term

Pretty soon we'll know the first installment.

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, said Democrats would introduce a measure this week calling for no additional tax cuts or additional spending until the costs of the war are known.

``How in the world can we agree to a budget if we're going to be off by hundreds of billions of dollars because of the war,'' Daschle told reporters.

Dow Jones Industrial Average. 1 year.

This is your economy. This is your economy run by idiots.
Any questions?

The French Connection

Would that Safire note that the same albatross is around our neck.

But we have good reasons. Unlike the French.

Yea.

White House Says It Wants U.N. Vote on Iraq Friday

Bush administration officials said today that they could still win 9 of 15 votes in the Security Council for a resolution effectively authorizing an attack on Iraq but they cautioned that the situation was extraordinarily chaotic and changing by the hour.

Still, White House officials insisted that they would force a vote on the resolution by Friday, whether or not they had the votes.

Surprise. All our troops will be in position. Here we come, ready or not.

Life under wartime

The Home Office has published a consultation paper detailing who it thinks should have access to private data and for how long. Neil McIntosh explains what's behind the so-called snoopers' charter

Oldest human footprints found on volcano

Three primitive humans who scrambled down a volcano's slopes more than 325,000 years ago left their footprints fossilised in volcanic ash. If the ages of the trails are confirmed, they could be the earliest known footprints of our Homo ancestors.

Paolo Mietto of Padua University and his colleagues examined three tracks of footprints on the Roccamonfina volcano in southern Italy, known to locals as "devils' trails". "Because they occur in volcanic rock, they have always been considered supernatural," says Mietto.

The scientists say the footprints are fossilised in ash deposited by an eruption that has already been dated as 385,000 to 325,000 years old by radiometric techniques.

One person left a track of 27 footprints in a zig-zag pattern, which probably made descent of the steep slope easier. Another track of 19 prints shows a gentle curve, but there are occasional palm-prints where the walker put a hand on the ground probably to avoid slipping.

A third track of 10 evenly spaced prints forms a straight line. There are also two animal tracks, possibly made by big dogs or wolves.

Unraveling a centuries-old global system of national equality

Gee, sounds like a great trade, eh?

Wonder why no one is accounting for all these pesky little details on the side of the "costs" of this war.

But rest assured, whatever the costs, George Bush is sure the benefits will be far greater.

How sure are you?

The fight-to-the death that the president is poised to launch against Saddam Hussein's regime will send a tsunami of destabilization throughout the Middle East. But beyond that, if this war is not authorized by the UN Security Council, it threatens to unravel not just the 58-year-old UN system, but the whole web of interstate relations that has grown up through the past four centuries.

Gitmo Terror Prisoners Denied Hearings

Note, what we're doing here is in direct violation of the Geneva conventions on warfare. Look it up.

So, is this country serving as a beacon of how to violate treaties that protect our own troops?

What in the heck is this madness we have been inflicted with?

I just don't understand how everyone seems to have taken leave of their senses and let these "adults" rip up every treaty they can find.

I just don't understand it.

Pyongyang may launch Rodong

North Korea would violate the 1999 accord signed with the United States if it launched a ballistic missile. The bilateral accord requires Pyongyang to freeze launches of ballistic missiles.

North Korea also would directly contravene the Pyongyang Declaration that was issued during a visit to the capital by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in September.

Not only Washington, but also Tokyo intend to take measures against Pyongyang that could include economic and other sanctions, if it chooses to launch a Rodong missile, according to the sources.

Losing Tony

There's been plenty of talk about Tony Blair risking his political life over Iraq. But this week for the first time his future looked in serious doubt. So are the New Labor loyalists who turned on him over Iraq really prepared to lose their most successful leader of modern times?

Hopefully, the British citizens will remember the pleasure of the Iron Maiden and think twice before flip flopping.

Bush's Minimalist Mantra

The lesson we learned about Bush is the power -- and the danger -- that derives from his capacity to take even the most weighty presidential decisions and refine them to the simplest terms.

The antecedents of that simple, three-step syllogism are almost as bare-bones as the proposition itself. The United States was a victim of a devastating terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001. He, George Bush, has sworn an oath to protect his country from another such attack. Saddam Hussein, if left unchecked, could execute or facilitate an even more damaging assault with weapons of mass destruction. Hussein has defied repeated United Nations calls to disarm. His continued defiance is unacceptable. If the United Nations balks at removing him, the United States, for its own security, must do so.

I can't count how many times I've heard "everything changed on 9/11". The question I keep asking those who repeat this is "what changed?". I get a variety of answers. Most of them lame. As far as I can really tell, what changed on 9/11 is that we decided to finally throw logic and reason out the door.

Look. We were attacked. A heck of a lot of countries have been attacked - some on an almost daily basis - by horrendous terrorist attacks. So, is what changed on 9/11 that America was finally attacked? Well, no. We've had several terrorist attacks even on our own soil. Remember, it was the same lame Al Qiada group that tried to blow up the world trade center once before.

So, was it the scale of the attack? That's closer to the truth. What 9/11 showed is that we are vulnerable on a level we didn't imagine before. So maybe that's what we can say was changed on 9/11. We realized we were vulnerable on a visceral level...

But to then make the leap that we have to go to war with Iraq because even more terrible attacks may occur... Well, that's a stretch. I remember well that within milliseconds of the WTC falling, this administration was saying we needed the Anti Ballistic Missile system to protect us against "rogue" nations. Considering that we had just been whooped by 19 people hijacking 4 airplanes with box cutters, it was hard to understand. But they kept with this meme and now we have begun to deploy a system that doesn't even work - and most likely never will.

What's happening is the conflation of two very different threats. On the one hand is the very real and immediate threat of terrorism. On the other is the questionable threat of Saddam Hussein. What this Administration wants us to believe is that Saddam and terrorists are intricately linked. That Saddam is going to give WMD to terrorists any minute now and if we don't take him out, 9/11 will look like small potatoes.

What I never understood about all of this was that terrorists - by definition - are people who use ultra-low tech to devastating effectiveness. They don't use WMD - well, not in any conventional sense. After all, the 4 planes that they hijacked were turned into WMD very effectively - no doubt.

But the point is, taking out Saddam isn't being done to keep WMD out of the terrorist's hands. There are PLENTY of other places to get them. The list is as long as the number of countries currently on this earth.

But everyone swallows the logic and accepts it as fact. The implicit assumption is that when Saddam is gone, we won't have terrorists with WMD anymore. This is, of course, an absolute lie.

What is going to happen is that the likelihood of potentially devastating terrorist attacks will go up dramatically. And they won't be done with WMD. So, are we going to see even simpler logic from this Administration? If we win against Saddam and the terrorist attacks only go up, then what have we accomplished?

Regardless of the other reasons which we should get rid of Saddam, getting rid of him won't stop the threat of terrorism at all. Not one bit.

But the siren like seduction of simplistic logic still rules the U.S. It's what everyone has always stereotyped us as - wanting simple and quick solutions to all our problems.

And the problem - as the entire world clearly sees - is our simple and quick solution is actually going to do far more harm than just leaving the issue be.

Even worse, we're destroying relations that have taken decades to build. We're shredding treaties left and right.

We're torturing people in our single minded fury and paranoia.

And no one is asking if this is a good idea, as our press corps have left the building with Elvis.

Future doesn't look bright from where I sit...

PERLE SUING OVER NEW YORKER ARTICLE

Sad thing is, in the UK, he might have a chance. However, I think a lot of dirty laundry is going to come out. Perle certainly has enough of it.

Richard Perle, the influential foreign policy hawk, is suing journalist Seymour Hersh over an article he wrote implying that Mr. Perle is using his position as a Pentagon adviser to benefit financially from a war to liberate Iraq.

"I intend to launch legal action in the United Kingdom. I’m talking to Queen’s Counsel right now," Mr. Perle, who chairs the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, a non-paying position, told The New York Sun last night.

He said he is suing in Britain because it is easier to win such cases there, where the burden on plaintiffs is much less.

Tolkien Internationalism
George W. Bush is Gollum.

This is a true gem.

George W. Bush, it turns out, is actually Gollum.

As almost everyone knows, Gollum is the character from The Lord of the Rings trilogy with a severe split-personality disorder. He hates J.R.R. Tolkien's protagonist, Frodo Baggins, because Frodo's uncle took Gollum's precious ring -- the ring that Frodo now wears and that Gollum covets. At the same time, Gollum also loves Frodo, his "master," for treating him with kindness. Gollum expresses this inner war through his oft-repeated refrain, "We hates master. No! No! We loves master."

With that in mind, consider some of our president's recent foreign-policy pronouncements:

We hates the United Nations. No! No! We loves the United Nations.

A Fickle Federalism
The Rehnquist Court hobbles Congress -- and the states, too.

More great stuff from TAP

At the same time, the broader body of the Court's work displays an inconsistent interest in empowering the states. Most famously in Bush v. Gore but also in a variety of cases cAzaellenging state regulation of such things as cigarette advertising and HMOs, most of the justices who in other settings support states' rights have sought to curtail state powers, cut off state initiatives and limit the states' ability to vindicate political rights. Rather than demonstrating a principled commitment to the autonomy of the states, the justices' opinions shift with the context -- leaving the Court open to the charge that, like many politicians, it is using states' rights as a doctrinal rallying cry for other political ends. The Court's conservative majority has moved along three paths to limit the power of the federal government. First, the Court has been restricting the subjects on which Congress can legislate. Second, it has prohibited Congress from requiring state and local governments to help enforce national laws. And third, it has denied individual citizens the ability to sue states that violate national laws.

The shrinking of Congress' range of action has been startling. For six decades beginning in the 1930s, the Court had held that the Constitution's grant of authority to Congress to regulate "commerce ... among the several states" provided the basis for a wide variety of economic and social legislation. But in 1995, in United States v. Lopez, the Rehnquist Court began to turn that around. Lopez invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which had made it a federal crime to possess a firearm within a certain distance of a school. To reach this decision, the five-justice majority asserted the traditional primacy of the states with respect to law enforcement and education -- although the Constitution neither assigns these issues to the states nor places them beyond the scope of national power. The Court majority also claimed that there was no demonstrated connection between guns in schools and economic activity (commerce).

The Taxonomist
Saddling Our Kids With Debt

Places everyone. Mr. Rove is on the set.

I've long been a bit of a conservative on fiscal policy. Of course, that dates back to when conservative was spelled with a "c." What passes for conservatism in this country these days seems to be a combination of kooky economic theories, gross irresponsibility and shady rhetoric. Take, as a leading example, George W. Bush. "This country has many cAzaellenges," the president pointed out in his State of the Union address. "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations. We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage." Nice sentiments, but of course Bush was just kidding.

Just the Beginning
Is Iraq the opening salvo in a war to remake the world?

Of course it is! Hasn't anyone actually read what Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and countless others of their minions and sycophants actually have written?

Careful what you write blank checks for, eh?

I think we're going to be obliged to fight a regional war, whether we want to or not," says Michael Ledeen, a former U.S. national-security official and a key strategist among the ascendant flock of neoconservative hawks, many of whom have taken up perches inside the U.S. government. Asserting that the war against Iraq can't be contained, Ledeen says that the very logic of the global war on terrorism will drive the United States to confront an expanding network of enemies in the region. "As soon as we land in Iraq, we're going to face the whole terrorist network," he says, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a collection of militant splinter groups backed by nations -- Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia -- that he calls "the terror masters."

"It may turn out to be a war to remake the world," says Ledeen.

Promised: Autonomy for British Command, Post-War Assets in Iraq

Carving up the spoils.

The exact details of the secret Bush-Blair understandings are still unknown. But the US President is clearly determined to grant Britain strategic assets of the first order in return for prime minister Blair’s unstinting support on Iraq. By the same token, he will make sure that the leaders who opposed him -- French president Jacques Chirac, German chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder and Russian leader Vladimir Putin - will end up losers on the Middle East and the Gulf scene.

FBI Says War With Iraq Could Lead to Hate Crimes

Duh.

The FBI warned U.S. law enforcement officials on Wednesday that hate crimes against Arab-Americans could increase if the United States goes to war with Iraq or if there is another terror attack on America.

Tom Friedman is whistling in the dark.

Tom, as they say in Vegas when the dice hits the table... NO MORE BETS.

There isn't anyone in the world, except for Tom apparently, who believes the dice aren't already rolled.

So, Mr. President, before you shake the dice on a legitimate but audacious war, please, shake the dice just once on some courageous diplomacy. Pick up where Woodrow Wilson left off: fly to Paris, bring the leaders of France, Russia, China and Britain together, along with the chairman of the Arab League summit, and offer them any reasonable amount of time for more inspections — if they will agree on specific disarmament benchmarks Saddam has to meet and support an automatic U.N. authorization of force if he doesn't. If France still snubs you, the world will see that you are the one trying to preserve collective security, while France only wants to make mischief. That will be very important to the legitimacy of any war.

Call the Vote, Walk Away.

Krauthammer squeezes out another loaf in the same vein.

Kristol: U.N. Has Gone From "Useless' to 'Harmful'

Are these really the people you want running your country? Imagine this taking place in your workspace. Wouldn't you be out looking for another job really quick in an effort to run away screaming as fast as you could?

“A humane future,” they write, “will require an American foreign policy that is unapologetic, idealistic, assertive and well-funded. America must not only be the world’s policeman or its sheriff, it must be its beacon and guide.”

Lot's more, but you get the point.

These are not responsible people. They are insane.

Brad DeLong explains why Mickey Kaus is puzzled

Ye gods. I've heard this from my friends on the Right as well (especially from the faux centrists).

Mickey Kaus is puzzled because he doesn't get the fact that that the two different problems that worry Krugman (and me!) operate at different time scales. One--possible deflation--is a problem for the next three years. The second--possible inflation--is a problem that may begin to threaten the country starting at the soonest a decade hence, but not until then.

...

But Kaus's question--hope--that the two dangers will somehow neutralize each other is vain. The first danger will be over and settled long before the second danger begins to gather strength.

Smoking Gun turns out to be made with Duct tape.

A remotely piloted aircraft that the United States has warned could spread chemical weapons appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellors attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker.

Iraqi officials took journalists to the Ibn Firnas State Company just north of Baghdad on Wednesday, where the drone's project director accused Secretary of State Colin Powell of misleading the U.N. Security Council and the public.

"He's making a big mistake," said Brig. Imad Abdul Latif. "He knows very well that this aircraft is not used for what he said."

In Washington's search for a "smoking gun" that would prove Iraq is not disarming, Powell has insisted the drone, which has a wingspan of 24.5 feet, could be fitted to dispense chemical and biological weapons. He has said it "should be of concern to everybody."

The drone's white fuselage was emblazoned Wednesday with the words "God is great" and the code "Quds-10." Its balsa wood wings were held together with duct tape. Officials said they referred to the remotely piloted vehicle as the RPV-30A.

So what everyone was holding up as a "smoking gun" turns out to be little more than a poorly made RC hobby plane.

Anyone really wondering why the whole world is laughing at us?

Can we dig this pit any deeper?

Is Usama captured but this fact is being hidden so the Bush team can "unveil it" at the start of the war?

Pooya said he heard of bin Laden's arrest from credible sources "who I have reasons to believe have never given me wrong information."

He added he believed news of the arrest was being held back to coincide with the start of military action against Iraq (news - web sites).

"All I know is that one of the things under consideration is when the announcement should come -- it's supposed to be timed with the apprehended attack between the 17th and the 18th (of March)."

Wanna take bets that no one will even care?

State Republicans Look to Scrap Primaries

Is this legal? Can they really do this?

Republican-led legislatures in five states believe they've found a way to ease the budget crunch — eliminate the costly 2004 presidential primaries.

President Bush is unlikely to face any serious opposition in the Republican run-up to the election so any budget-driven change to the primary would affect the growing field of Democratic candidates.

State Democratic lawmakers are crying foul, arguing that their GOP colleagues' motivation is political.

Coalition of the billing -- or unwilling?

The Bush administration is lavishing billions of dollars on potential allies at the U.N. Strangely, it isn't working.

Bio-Whatchamacallit

This is what you get when you have an Administration that actively disdains anyone with intelligence.

This is what you get when you slam intellectuals and people who actually know what they're talking about and prize ideology more than intelligence.

Yi.

Web Odds Poor for U.N. Resolution

The odds are down substantially from early February, about two weeks after betting began, when odds of a second resolution passing by March surpassed 60 percent. But in the intervening weeks, political reality interfered. France's disclosure this week that it is willing to veto a resolution authorizing war pushed the options to all-time lows.

John Delaney, TradeSports CEO and founder, says the trading odds simply reflect current events.

"A picture paints a thousand words," he said, looking at the two-month chart. "This obviously reduces the chance of it passing."

Bets on the outcome of the U.N. vote are one of two types of "contracts" tied to the Iraq conflict that TradeSports is offering. The other contract -- the second most actively traded contract on the exchange -- lets traders bet on how long Saddam Hussein is likely to remain leader of Iraq.

Despite low odds on the chance of a second resolution passing, traders are quite confident about the prospect of Saddam's near-term ouster. According to current odds, Saddam has about an 87 percent chance of being kicked out of office by the end of June.

Justin Wolfers, a Stanford University economics professor who has studied political betting exchanges, says the odds indicate that the United Nations is "decreasingly relevant" to traders assessing the probability of war.

House Budget Chairman Vows Tax Cuts and Balanced Budget

This is your government. This is your government on drugs.

Any questions?

Russia Says Terror Groups to Exploit Iraq War

Well, we already knew this.

However, we're about to see what this really means in practice. Given Agent Crowely's assesment of the FBI's ability to fight terrorism....

Well, I just hope she's wrong.

Clashes at Turkey anti-US demo

We're willing to destabilize a fragile democracy to have our war of choice.

Resignation fuels more war dissent

Disquiet over Australia's backing for a war on Iraq is widespread across the intelligence, foreign affairs and defence sectors, key insiders say.

The resignation of Office of National Assessments senior analyst Andrew Wilkie in protest at the Howard Government's stance reflected views held by many senior officials, former top ONA official David Wright-Neville said.

Concerns over the Government's increasing use of intelligence for political purposes were also widespread, he said.

Several senior members of the Defence Force have expressed reservations about involvement in a war in Iraq to The Age.

One key officer said he would consider resigning if Australia joined a war without United Nations sanction.
An intelligence analyst said that opposition to joining a war was common among defence intelligence officials.

"We don't think this is an issue for Australia. It's all about US strategic interests," he said.

"There are a lot of other things we could be doing in South-East Asia."

Get it?

Nikkei stocks plummet

Tokyo stock prices hit a 20-year low Tuesday amid frantic fiscal year-end selling, escalating war fears and ebbing faith in the government's assurances against a financial crisis.

The Nikkei Stock Average, the main barometer for the Tokyo stock market, closed below 8,000 for the first time in two decades on worries that a war in Iraq without international backing would create upheaval in the U.S. economy.

Officials have called for calm and said they are ready to step in to support the market. Japan's top spokesman Yasuo Fukuda hinted early Tuesday at massive currency intervention later in the month, while the Bank of Japan injected extra funds into the money market, pumping 1.5 trillion yen ($13 billion) more into the system.

Airlines warn of `economic catastrophe'

So glad we have adults minding the store. Too bad there too busy in the back room trying to beat the shit out of some two bit dictator to notice that the business is on the verge of collapse.

The Right War for the Right Reasons

John, you're missing the point. The issue at stake here is that this is a war of choice. Because of the unbelievable bungling of this Administration in their prosecution of this war, the entire world is against it. Therefore, it should not be done. That's it.

Yea, there's a lot of audible goals you've stated. At issue is the small fact that no one - other than those slobbering for this war, a minority of the world - think that they will be accomplished. In the prosecution of this war of choice, we've managed to completely alienate the very world that will be needed to put Iraq back together again. We've destroyed relations with our allies. We've severely weakened NATO. We've severely threatened the U.N. We've basically flipped off the entire world.

And why? Because he's an evil man? No. The issue is that the Administration wants to reshape the middle east. By itself. It's way. It is dictating, not negotiating.

So, while I agree with the stated goals, the reality of the situation is that what has been done in practice does not resemble these goals. It's one thing to say you want to do something. It's another to have your actions belie your reasons.

The world doesn't want a war John. It wants disarmament. You and your kind have put us in this position by your arrogance and your complete disregard for diplomacy. If there's a nasty fallout from all this, it's your fault. You shouldn't have done this in this way and you know very well that is the case.

Our economy is in a tail spin. The world is on the brink of disaster. Decades long alliances are being shredded as I speak. Polling across the world shows that people consider the U.S. a greater threat than Saddam.

Wake up. Might does not make right.

It's our mess.

The world doesn't want to clean it up.

US Republican senator questions tax cut ahead of a war

"I'm beginning to question whether we should wait until after the war with Iraq, evaluate the economy, evaluate our spending needs and priorities, and then decide whether or not an economic growth plan makes sense," Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told reporters.

Too bad that it's simply too late. Susan, they have pictures.

Brits Backing Out?

Only the U.S. press corps would find this surprising. It's been pretty clear from the beginning that Tony (George's love puppy, as he's known over in the UK) was playing a very dangerous game. For some reason known only to himself, he was betting that the U.N. would sanction this war, and (more importantly) that the U.S. would be pushing hard to make sure that the U.N. sanctioned it. Right now, if there is no U.N. support - and more importantly, no veto underlying that support meaning a majority voted against it - Tony's ass is in a sling. Only 20% of Brits support the war with Iraq, and that spells political doom for Tony the tiger.

So what's going to happen to the U.S. with no Brits? What will our coalition of the willing look like? A few Spanish and Australian troops mugging for the camera to underscore the vast coalition our Administration has put together?

Me, I think this Administration will take this as yet another badge of courage as to how their willing to stick to a principle, no matter what the cost, no matter if anyone supports it what so ever.

Sounds like a great group of leaders we have.

Bush-league script enraging press

Don't worry, though. Our crack reporters are... Uh, well, as soon as we find some crack reporters, they'll be right on this.

Cleaning the Pool
The White House Press Corps politely grabs its ankles.

Wow. Wow.

This was just Bush’s eighth press conference since taking office, and each one of them has been a travesty. In his first presser, on Feb. 22, 2001, a month after his controversial inauguration, he was not asked a single question about the election, Al Gore or the Supreme Court. On the other hand, he was asked five questions about Bill Clinton’s pardons.

Reporters argue that they have no choice. They’ll say they can’t protest or boycott the staged format, because they risk being stripped of their seat in the press pool. For the same reason, they say they can’t write anything too negative. They can’t write, for instance, "President Bush, looking like a demented retard on the eve of war…" That leaves them with the sole option of "working within the system" and, as they like to say, "trying to take our shots when we can."

But the White House press corps’ idea of "taking a shot" is David Sanger asking Bush what he thinks of British foreign minister Jack Straw saying that regime change was not necessarily a war goal. And then meekly sitting his ass back down when Bush ignores the question.

They can’t write what they think, and can’t ask real questions. What the hell are they doing there? If the answer is "their jobs," it’s about time we started wondering what that means.

Yep. Just boycott it. If you're not getting ANY information at all, other than spoon fed crap that doesn't even answer the question you just asked, and this is just the way it's going to be... Well, just stop going.

See how long it takes for Ari to come whelping back. Yea, it'll be tough. Yea, it'll likely cost you a lot.

But guess what? Right now you're just toadies doing your master's bidding. Is this really what you want to do?

You guys have power, yet you refuse to use it. Sometimes the only recourse for an Object is to Object.

Do it. Do it now.

We're not learning anything from you guys anyway. It's not like there'd be a news vacuum or anything.

Geesh.

James Taranto, who does the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal "Best of the Web, says that this event tells you "all you need to know about the anti-war movement"

James shows a fine example of the fallacy of the Hasty Generalization, which is absolutely typical of the Right. Millions of people march world wide. Hundreds of thousands in the US. And a small group of people burn some flags and then this characterizes the whole group.

Hey James, wake up. First, this isn't representative of the whole movement, as you well know. Second, at some point, if people keep being ignored, they will start to step up their rhetoric. This is inevitable. When our own President says that he doesn't pay any attention to the millions marching, guess what's going to happen? They're going to keep raising the volume until people like you get the message. If you were smart and actually understood our system of government, you'd be giving these people a voice such that they didn't feel they had to resort to such displays of free speech. Oh yea, you don't believe in free speech either.

Burning our flag is a powerful statement. One that I'm not willing to voice. However, to simply slap these people away... Well, you're just making a big mistake.

Fools.

Trade Group: War Plus Terror Could Be Airlines' Death Knell

Yi.

Dirty Bomb Suspect Can Meet Lawyers

Finally some sanity!

Or maybe not, as "We're studying the opinion," said Marvin Smilon, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney James Comey.

Meaning, they're looking for another way to subvert our civil rights.

Yi. We just don't do this kind of thing in this country. Or we didn't used to.

Alien Life Search Inches Forward

Scientists behind the world's largest distributed computing project are about to take a closer look at some of the most promising of the billions of radio signals they've collected in their search for intelligent life in outer space.

Between March 18 and 20, SETI -- which stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence -- astronomers will visit the giant Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico to re-examine between 100 and 200 of the best radio signals from space, which have been identified by millions of home computers working in concert.

For those of you who call yourself centrists or liberals, but are still for banning "partial birth abortions", please read this.

As someone who actually had to face the choice of a second trimester abortion or the health of his wife, let me tell you this is not something we should have religious fanatics legislating. These people are idiots. Yes, it sounds horrible. It is horrible. But guess what. Life is full of horrible choices. We do not get the easy ones. Taking away this choice based on your religious beliefs is unconscionable.

And then there is the right to abortion issues.

Ye gods. What a country.

Lawmaker condemned by Holocaust survivor now accused of racism

"It seems like every time this gentleman says something, he digs himself a deeper hole and embarrasses this state more," Rep. Keith Ellison, DFL-Minneapolis.

Do it Dems. Do it soon.

'New urgency' to find Bin Laden

Western intelligence sources have told the BBC that a major intelligence-led operation is under way in both Afghanistan and Pakistan to find Osama Bin Laden and other senior al-Qaeda leaders.

Isn't anyone in this Administration paying attention? Isn't this precisely what the opponents of the Iraqi war were complaining about - i.e., that it's a major distraction from the war on terror?

Geesh.

Seek and Ye SAzaell Not Find

At issue is the government's publication of information. You see, a while back the Administration decided that it needed to cut costs. Laudable goal that is. Unfortunately, they decided to take care of two birds with one stone. In the interest of hiding information, the Administration is going to eliminate publications that used to tell everyone what was going on. For example, the elimination of publishing data about the number of layoffs in the country - don't hear that anymore do you. Now they're eliminating the "Budget Information for States" - the primary federal document reporting how much states get under each federal program.

Wake up people. What they're cynically doing is eliminating all the information that WE THE PEOPLE use to check up on what our government is doing. Pretty soon now, the only source of "truth" will be whatever Ari Fleischer decides to tell us.

I guess this is where the press has been moving all along. As there is little - if any - investigative reporting, and considering how cuddly the press and the military are going to be during the inevitable war, the only function they will serve is as the PR department for the Administration.

All in the name of cutting costs.

I just can't believe that everyone is letting them get away with this.

Two posts on Brad DeLong's web site really point out the underlying shifting sand the global economy is faced with.

The first scary one is about Japan under stress. Basically, Japan is looking like rather than the decade long norm of zero growth, they may be headed into (or already in) another recession.

The second scary post is regarding the 70% losses in Germany's DAX since 2000.

The issue is that we're obviously in a global economy, and since our economy is in the dumps, there is absolutely nothing that the global economy can lean on when it starts faltering. So, we're in this war thing now, and our economy seems to be in a nose dive. The rest of the world is heading down with us. The problem is that, alone, we might have been able to absorb all this crap we're doing to ourselves. But with the rest of the world on target to crash as well... In essence, we can't ignore the rest of the world's financial problems. It's not Fortress America. The entire world has tendrils intermixed throughout our economy - as well as vice versa.

The Right is expecting the U.S. economy to pick up dramatically once the war is over. But what if it doesn't? After all, there's a whole bunch of crap that's wrong with the economy now, and it isn't simply just that we're having a case of pre-war jitters. There are some severe structural problems that need to be addressed.

My money is betting that the war will come and go - hopefully without any incident - and we'll still be exactly where we are now. If we're lucky. Because the moment that the herd figures out that we're still just as screwed as we were, and that the end of the war hasn't changed any of the fundamentals. They're going to swarm down big time.

For Army, Fears of Postwar Strife
Iraq's Historic Factions May Severely Test a U.S. Occupying Force

The U.S. Army is bracing both for war in Iraq and a postwar occupation that could tie up two to three Army divisions in an open-ended mission that would strain the all-volunteer force and put soldiers in the midst of warring ethnic and religious factions, Army officers and other senior defense officials say.

While the officers believe a decade of peacekeeping operations in Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans and now Afghanistan makes the Army uniquely qualified for the job, they fear that bringing democracy and stability to Iraq may be an impossible task.

Again, the strategy used by this Administration throughout the "prosecution" of this war has been to force you into a corner so you have absolutely no choice but to acquiesce, and THEN tell you how screwed you are going to be. That way your dropping jaw doesn't really matter.

See, if we actually had a pro-active investigative press, we'd have already figured this out and had a serious discussion as to what we're going to do, what the real estimates of the costs would be, and how we're going to accomplish our laudable goals. Instead, we have a re-active non-investigative press that only tells us how severely screwed we're going to be after it's safe for them to tell you - i.e. when you have no frickin' choice or a chance to say "uh, excuse me waiter, but I didn't order chaos and an an open ended military occupation!".

Iraq’s disarmament will substantially boost the stock market.

Wanna bet?

Seymour Hersh’s piece is a disgrace

David Frum is a moron. A toady. A bootlicker.

Josh MarsAzaell on the underlying isolation that's the real threat.

By seeking to rend NATO, the administration has demonstrated that poorly-functioning international institutions aren't what it is opposed to, but rather ALL international institutions.

Measuring Lost Freedom vs. Security in Dollars

The other shoe dropping.

Civil liberties and privacy may be priceless, but they may soon have a price tag.

In an unusual twist on cost-benefit analysis, an economic tool that conservatives have often used to attack environmental regulation, top advisers to President Bush want to weigh the benefits of tighter domestic security against the "costs" of lost privacy and freedom.

"People are willing to accept some burdens, some intrusion on their privacy and some inconvenience," said John Graham, director of regulatory affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget. "But I want to make sure that people can see these intangible burdens."

In a notice published last month, the budget office asked experts from around the country for ideas on how to measure "indirect costs" like lost time, lost privacy and even lost liberty that might stem from tougher security regulations.

Why Beijing gets Taiwan wrong

Anyone want to take bets on whether China will "annex" Taiwan while the U.S. is "distracted" with Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea?

Bets?

U.S. air force prepares to test huge bomb at Eglin; residents warned

Gee, wonder what this is going to be used for.

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Florida (AP) - The U.S. air force plans to test a 9,450-kilogram bomb for the first time at this base Tuesday, and officials are informing residents that they can expect to hear it for kilometres away.

The loudness of the "massive ordnance air burst," or MOAB, will vary depending on wind currents and some people may not hear it at all, Eglin officials said in a brief news release. Air force officials are warning residents of communities surrounding the western Azaelf of Eglin's 1,850-square-kilometre military reservation in the Florida Panhandle to be prepared to hear an explosion that sounds like thunder or a slamming door.

They added that the test will be conducted only under weather conditions best for minimizing the sound and inside a buffer zone to keep a shock wave and debris from the explosion inside Eglin's boundaries. The backup date for the test is Thursday.

MOAB is similar to but 40 per cent heavier than the BLU-82, billed as the world's most powerful non-nuclear bomb and known to send up a mushroom cloud similar to a nuclear weapon.

The BLU-82, nicknamed "daisy cutter," was developed during the Vietnam War to create jungle clearings for use as helicopter landing areas. It was most recently dropped in Afghanistan on caves where al-Qaida leaders were suspected of hiding.

In the Gulf War, it was used to clear minefields. MOAB is expected to be ready for use this year if the test is successful.

Analyst: North Korea fears it's next after Iraq

Thanks David Frum for the Axis of Evil speech.

Moron.

Short shrift from puzzled colleagues
Resentment and cynicism greet minister's outburst in interview

Some entertaining background into Clare Short's ultimatum to Tony Blaire

The irony underlying her outburst is that Mr Blair and Mr Brown have both been generous to Ms Short. Under her, the department for international development has grown to be a "parallel Foreign Office" with a larger budget than Jack Straw. "She's been a good departmental minister," concedes a No 10 aide.

Jenny Tongue, her Lib Dem shadow, believes Ms Short has had enough of seeing her budget siphoned off for war work. Caroline Spelman, the Tory spokesman, wonders if Ms Short has simply refused to do the kind of humanitarian relief planning so evident before the Afghan war but not so evident now.

Has she had enough, they wonder? Is she determined to quit anyway, even if Mr Blair does not sack her when he has the time? "If Tony really wants to punish her, he'll keep her in the job," a sacked Labour minister suggested last night.

A Fiscal Train Wreck

Don't say you weren't warned.

How will the train wreck play itself out? Maybe a future administration will use butterfly ballots to disenfranchise retirees, making it possible to slash Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe a repentant Rush Limbaugh will lead the drive to raise taxes on the rich. But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.

And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. It won't happen right away. With the economy stalling and the stock market plunging, short-term rates are probably headed down, not up, in the next few months, and mortgage rates may not have hit bottom yet. But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future.

I think that the main thing keeping long-term interest rates low right now is cognitive dissonance. Even though the business community is starting to get scared — the ultra-establishment Committee for Economic Development now warns that "a fiscal crisis threatens our future standard of living" — investors still can't believe that the leaders of the United States are acting like the rulers of a banana republic. But I've done the math, and reached my own conclusions — and I've locked in my rate.

Perles of wisdom

Ah. That explains what Richard Perle was talking about.

PENTAGON THREATENS TO KILL INDEPENDENT REPORTERS IN IRAQ

This is your country. This is your country on drugs.

Again, we have become the very enemy that we are fighting. Satisfied?

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares.. ..They've been warned."

Rock on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/08/international/americas/08GUAT.html

This is what happens when you run your country by the law of the jungle, as Theocrats on the Right seem to want us to.

"We are living through anarchy," said Bishop Álvaro Ramazzini, who leads the diocese in San Marcos, a state on the Mexican frontier that is plagued by lynchings. "People do not believe in the legal system. Instead, it is the law of the strongest, that violence can solve any problem. They can tell anyone `burn them,' and it will be done."

It's our mess.

Colossal Idiot Democrat Remarks

Okay, here's one for all you on the Right. Yes, this was as stupid as Trent Lott. Will he resign over this? I don't know. Should he? Well, ask the Jewish Defense League if they are satisfied with his apology.

So I just heard James Carville ask a very telling question.

I was Tivo'ing my pre-recorded Crossfire episode for today and came across a very interesting question that every American should be asking themselves:

If the threat from Iraq is immanent, and immediate - meaning that we must respond NOW, and we are directly threatened - why did we go to the U.N. in the first place.

Basically, the theory that this Administration has been promulgating is that this is an immediate threat that can only be decided by the United States alone. The Right wing press is pressing the adoption of the meme that by allowing the U.N. to have a say as to whether we get our war on, we are abdicating U.S. authority to the U.N. And the implication is, bluntly: "Ain't no one going to tell the U.S. how to deal with its security threats." In other words, "we don't need no stinkin' badges to protect ourselves".

Now, the point about why we are going to the U.N. at all - if this is such an immanent and immediate threat - is that all the treaties we have signed clearly say that if we are under immanent and immediate threat we can clearly defend ourselves. There is no body holding us back.

Take Afghanistan. The Taliban was directly linked to 9/11 via Al Qiada. We had every right to strike Afghanistan in self defense. There may be some nay-sayers in the world, but there was almost universal backing of American actions against Afghanistan.

In contrast, let us take the case of Iraq. Iraq is a war of choice. It is premised on the assumption that someday in the future - it may be REAL SOON NOW - we're going to be directly threatened by Iraq.

This is not the same thing as Afghanistan. And the President going to the U.N. security council proves that this Administration understands this. It is not a defensive war - i.e. one that you have to react to immediately. It is a war of choice.

Now, the treaty with the U.N. is specifically designed to deal with wars of choice. It clearly proscribes preemptive wars without the backing of the U.N security council. That is precisely why it was set up. What this means - for the morons on the Right - is that if you're going to kick someone's ass, you have to have the go-ahead of the rest of the world. We made these rules ourselves. We have, through past precedent, set up these rules for very good reasons. Let's not forget the entire world being thrown into a decade long chaos by a few countries starting wars of choice. The U.N. was formed in the ruins of this war as a statement by all who survived and prevailed that this should not happen again.

Now, you on the Right can be as crass and as deriding and as degrading as you want against the U.N. But the simple fact is, WE SET UP THE RULES. If you are saying that we need to shed the U.N., you are - in no uncertain terms - saying that there is no need to consult with others. There is only the requirement to dictate. You are saying, in effect, that we have hegemony over the entire world. We rule. They should get in line or get out of the way.

I think you're insane. You are willing to destroy this admittedly flawed organization with absolutely no alternative other than the pure, unadulterated power and might of the United States of America. Is this what you're telling me? Is this what you're telling the world? They just don't matter?

Well, it seems that our own constitution has something to say about this that you also seem not to be paying attention to. It's one thing to make the argument about breaking agreements with other countries. After all, we have a sovereign right to defend ourselves.

However, for very good reasons, we do not have the sovereign right to attack another country preemptively.

The kind of war we have sovereign rights over is the self defense kind.

Not the preemptive kind.

So the upshot is that the Right is conflating the two kinds of wars - wars of choice and wars fought in self defense.

They know this because they were forced to go to the U.N.

Now, the world doesn't seem to agree. So they are trotting out the meme that says this is a war of self defense, not a war of choice.

But if it was a war of self defense, we wouldn't need to go to the U.N.

Thus the logical contradiction that Richard Perle, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz spin every day.

And the one you have been caught in, if you think this is a war of self defense - one of immanent and immediate danger.

Wake up. Think about it.

It's about to happen, so you might as well see what you've wrought.

I asked a question on Google Answers. I've used this a couple of times, and I highly recommend it. Three are people out in cyberspace who's talents lie in the realm of librarians. They know how to find things out.

Anyway, here's my question:

Is there any Iraqi oil drilling installation on key geologic faults in
the underlying oil basins?

Basically, considering the underlying geology of the Iraqi oil basins,
are there drilling installation which is located where they could
drill to underlying fault - or otherwise - weak geological structures
which may drain the oil basin into more porous layers. Basically, is
Saddam drilling anywhere where he could potentially drain the oil
fields.

We have available on the web the resources that would make any institution of just 20 years ago seem picayune.

So, we might as well start taking serious advantage of it. We need to make common knowledge out of our own individual specialized knowledge and skills.

Certainly, no one who is supposed to be taking care of this responsibility is doing so - i.e., our 4th estate, the free press.

Annan Warns Against War Without U.N. Approval

Yea, like Bush cares what Annan thinks

``The members of the Security Council are now faced with a grave choice,'' Annan told a news conference. ``If they fail to agree on a common position and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action would be seriously impaired.''

``If, on the other hand, they can come together, even at this late hour, to address this threat in a united manner and ensure compliance with the previous resolutions, then the Council's authority will be enhanced and the world will be a safer place.''

``If the U.S and others were to go outside the Council and take military action it would not be (in) conformity with the (U.N.) charter,'' said Annan, who was in The Hague for peace talks to reunite Cyprus.

Bush Sr warning over unilateral action

In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. “The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces.”

Also drawing on the lessons of 1991, he said that it was imperative to mend fences with allies immediately, rather than waiting until after a war. He had been infuriated with the decision of King Hussein of Jordan to side with Saddam rather than the US, but while criticising the Jordanian leader in public and freezing $41 million in US aid, he also passed word to King Hussein that he understood his domestic tensions.

A think tank war: Why old Europe says no

This war came from a think tank

Fed's Poole: Shocks at Fannie, Freddie could smack economy

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

"Should either firm be rocked by a mistake or by an unforecastable shock, in the absence of robust contingency arrangements the result could be a crisis in U.S. financial markets that would inflict considerable damage on the housing industry and the U.S. economy," Poole said at a conference on the two government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs.

Surprises that destabilize financial markets occur with some frequency, Poole said. Because of the scale of the short-term debt obligations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a problem at either company could spread quickly, he said.

"A market crisis could become acute in a matter of days, or even hours," Poole warned.

Heck, I'll go on the record again. If the inevitable war with Iraq goes smooth as silk - as those that are trumpeting from the highest tower are proclaiming it will. If the inevitable war results in rose petals showering our troops... If the inevitable war results in a short occupation resulting in democracy...

Well, I'll gladly eat crow. I'll yell out from the roof tops that this was the right thing to do, despite all my misgivings.

However....

What's the chances they'll do the same if everything goes to hell - the Kurds demand their own state and Turkey invades, if WMD are used and we go nuclear, if Saddam sabotages the oil fields so they are beyond use, if the rest of the Muslim world rises up and we're now in a worse situation than we were before...?

No, they won't say "Okay, you were right". What they'll do is blame it on everyone else. Everyone - from the UN to Bill Clinton, to people like me who think this whole thing can only end in tears - all of them will be at fault. Dollars to donuts.

Testing Times
In this era of MCAS and other high-stakes school tests, the fate of your child is increasingly in the hands of the industry that designs, produces, and grades them.

And that's just where this Administration wants them to be.

We inebriate ourselves with numbers now, drown ourselves in data. Poll results drive politics. Entertainment is measured by ratings points, by audience share, by box-office receipts. We rate and rank and assess and Top 10 ourselves into stupor - bewildered and lost in thickets of numbers we'd hoped would clarify what they seem only to further obscure. We are a nation in love with the scoreboard, and we've made a universe out of the scoreboard because the scoreboard doesn't lie.

13 Questions We Wish They'd Asked
At President Bush's Press Conference Thursday Night

By "Bob's" beard... I wish we had a press.

Attack Anxiety

“The scale of the failure of U.S. diplomacy to give Bush workable alternatives to the situation in which he finds himself—going to war over the concerted opposition of allies and world public opinion—is staggering,” Jim Hoagland, the normally hawkish foreign-policy columnist of the Washington Post, wrote last week. The roots of that failure have been growing for two years. The Administration trashed the Kyoto environmental treaty, the A.B.M. treaty, and the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, and did so contemptuously and arrogantly, without offering compromises or remedies for their flaws; it demanded the ouster of Yasir Arafat while offering no resistance to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank; it defined the war on terrorism exclusively in the theological language of good versus evil, viewing any attempt to analyze terrorism politically as morally inadmissible; it undermined the power of the convincing reasons for confronting Saddam (such as his consistent failure to disclose and dispose of his weapons of mass destruction) by mixing them with unconvincing ones (such as his alleged coöperation with Al Qaeda); it created the impression that the U.N. effort to disarm Iraq has been a charade masking a predetermined plan to oust Saddam by force no matter what. Even among those who believe that an invasion of Iraq, sooner or later, cannot be avoided, some are asking, Where is the Administration’s wisdom, its sense of diplomatic touch, its Great Power modesty?

Saddam's War

Don't worry, though. This will all be blamed on the UN and Clinton and of course, all the peace protesters.

His survival strategy is probably hopeless. But he has every reason to believe he can sway world opinion. And if that fails, he can turn a surgical U.S. invasion into a bloody nightmare.