April 2003 Archives

Busy, Busy, Busy has a shorter Richard Cohen that I truly love:

If I ever wake up, I may realize that I was manipulated into supporting the war on Iraq by a gigantic bait-and-switch con job.

Well, I lost all my email sent to me over the last 24 hours. So if you haven't heard back from me, just resend. My bad. I'm not purposefully ignoring you. Robot fingers, you know. I also took down the comments temporarily. Rather than have a comment for each post, I'm going to set up comments for the archive week. Anyways, many thanks for the comments so far, and hopefully I'll have the alternative online tonight or tomorrow.

Baghdad Bait and Switch

Richard Cohen drinks the Kool-Aid.

Then I heard the window open and felt the breeze on my face. "I hope everything turns out hunky-dory, like you've been writing," he said. "Otherwise, you should have been an accountant and made some money so you could take care of your parents." He looked at me, tenderly.

"Give them my love, boychick."

With that, the window closed, the breeze ceased and I went back to sleep. I had a nightmare that I was an accountant.

Digby reminds us of something we should all be very aware of.

However, I doubt that was the point. The Republicans understand propaganda and Newtie understands it better than anyone. He fired off a salvo at the behest of the radical imperialists in the administration knowing full well that he would be severely criticized by the Colin Powell faction. It isn't the first time that he has taken a bullet purely for the purpose of injecting a new meme into the discourse. As that great DC journalist Cokie Roberts once said, "It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's out there."

The radical right drumbeat for "State Department Reform" is already beginning as a result of his speech. Kristol endorsed it and that's as good as saying it is only a matter of time before it becomes a GOP article of faith. Powell is reportedly unlikely to stay for a second term, so they are planning to purge the state department of career diplomats and analysts who are resistant to their Imperialist fantasies.

Like the Soviet totalitarians they studied and came to identify with, the radical right excels at power strategies and internal political control. And, while George W. Bush is showing quite an aptitude for Stalinist strong arming, the Leninists and Trotskyites are still necessary to consolidate the GOP hold on the body politic.

Newt has not yet outlived his usefulness.

Spooked

Okay, just when you think it can't get any weirder, read the above. Twice. And then come and tell me that there is nothing to worry about at all. Nothing at all. No panic here. Nope.

''We want your medical records,'' she continued, sliding a paper across the table, ''and want you to sign this release.'' She paused. ''You were in the military, you use the V.A. We can get those records.'' They can? So why do they need a release?

''I'd like to talk with my attorney first,'' I said. ''May we continue this tomorrow?''

Cruella said, ''Yes, but you'd better come back,'' ominously adding, ''I don't want to have to come looking for you.'' I expected her to continue, ''And your little dog, too.''

My attorney relayed the sobering news that, in a rare First Amendment exception, the simple utterance of a threat against a major presidential candidate can get you five years in prison and a fine -- and what I reportedly said qualified.

Wow. Could we all just have been under an evil statistical spell?

The Daily Howler takes the above report and runs against A Nation at Risk. Could it be that we were really doing pretty well all along, and it was only our stupid, pointless, ridiculous and dare I say short sighted policy on not helping those in need which dragged down the average to make us look like idiots? And so all these poor teachers and students have been been taking it on the chin over a misreading of statistics?

When newspapers report international studies of this type, scores-by-race are rarely provided. Newspapers don’t like to go there. But for those who would judge American teachers and schools, it’s significant to see how white American kids perform on tests of this type. After all, the U.S. has an unusual history, which affects its overall scores in such measures. For a period of roughly 400 years, the United States tried, as official state policy, to eliminate literacy in the black community. Until the mid-nineteenth century, it was against the law to teach black kids to read; for roughly a century after that, only the most modest efforts were made in this area. Under the circumstances, it’s a miracle that black literacy rates aren’t much lower. But American blacks are still affected by the assault on literacy that was conducted over time, and average scores on international tests are affected by residual problems that have yet to be solved in our nation’s urban schools. But as Bracey points out, white Americans sometimes score at the very top among international groups. Since other countries didn’t spend centuries stamping out literacy in one part of their populations, these scores provide an intriguing rebuttal to sweeping attacks on American schools. Obviously, our suburban schools are far from perfect. But our suburban schools do tend to house kids who score near the top of the world.

DON’T EVEN START: Don’t even start with your complaints that it’s “racist” to leave out our black kids. The point here is simple—American history has created a situation that exists in no other developed nation. Japan and Sweden didn’t spend hundreds of years destroying literacy among ten percent of their populations. The astounding tragedy of American history created the tragedy of today’s urban schools. At present, American ed is indeed overwhelmed by the problems that exist in our urban schools. But other countries don’t face the unique problem that our history has asked us to handle.

More trouble brewing in Iraq.

Daily KOS has a great post about those Clinton terrorists and the... uh... shooting of 15 protesters.

Iraqi opponents of the US occupation are merely setting the table. We haven't even gotten to the appetizers yet.

FBI Scientist to Plead Guilty to Lying

This is why you don't do everything in secret, why you have patriotic citizens scrutinizing our law enforcement constantly. I mean, this is the whole purpose of transparency, ain't it? We don't rely on the goodness and honest of individuals to do the right thing. We rely on the rule of law and a system of checks and balances.

Checks and balances that are quickly being hacked away by this Administration, I might add...

"I cannot explain why I made the original error in my testimony ... nor why, knowing that the testimony was false, I failed to correct it at the time," Lundy wrote in a sworn affidavit to Justice Department officials. "I was stressed out by this case and work in general."

You know, something else that has my panties in a twist. I keep hearing about democratic "litmus tests" for judges n' such. I think this is just another Zombie Mind Trick by the evil sons of Satan. The position they state is that if you have any test for a judge, it's a democratic "litmus test" and therefore equivalent to the Christian Right's "litmus test" they use. And therefore should be attacked just like the liberals attack their "litmus test".

One big difference.

It's not a "litmus test" when you're talking about current and past LAW. It isn't a test to see if you would overturn current laws in favor of a particular world view. The way they want to spin the whole thing, they make it sound like standing up for CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS is some kind of wacky political skullduggery that should be exposed as the evil ACLU infected undead that it obviously is. I mean, when someone asks a judge if they want to OVERTURN Roe V. Wade, it's not a "litmus test" by democrats. It's the LAW OF THE LAND. And the question is, DO YOU WANT TO OVERTURN THE LAW OF THE LAND? In essence, it's a question determining if the judge has an activist agenda - i.e., will they use their position to further their ideology. And that's a perfectly acceptable question.

So making the case that the "litmus test" of the Christian Right - which is to OVERTURN LAWS - is equivalent to the questions on the left as to whether they want to overturn those laws is just completely silly. It's perfectly reasonable to ask what a judge's views are about CONSTITUTIONAL rights. It's not like the left wants to overturn them. It just wants to know if you're going to uphold them and not whittle them away to nothing in an onslaught of moral certainty.

If you believe in a "higher law", then the Christian Right's viewpoint almost makes sense.

But then, you'd have to be a fundamentalist religious extremist to want to impose that law, wouldn't you? Say, like the Taliban?

Orcinus talks about Tripartite hate

Read the post. He's great as usual. He pulls out a quote from a gem of love from Flip Benham which pretty much sums up the political thought of the Christian Right at this point in history.

Homosexuality, Islam, and abortion have something in common. They are three different colored gloves covering the same fist. Abortion is a crimson glove (stained with the blood of our pre-born children). Homosexuality is a pink glove (stained with the blood of young men and women given over to their own lust, and stained with the blood of nations that approve of such behavior). Islam is a black glove (stained with the blood of Christians, Jews, and anyone else who dares disagree with the false "god" Allah and his demon possessed prophet Mohammed). Three different colored gloves, yet the same fist. It is the fist of him who robs, kills, and destroys. That's right, I'm talking about the devil himself! We are not unaware of his schemes.

We'd be partying with the big boys then.

We must stop relying on Conservative and Republican mercenaries to fight our battles for us. It is said that politics is the "art of compromise." The Gospel of Christ, however, is not up for negotiation. There can be no compromise when it comes to any one of the issues mentioned above for they are simply different colored gloves camouflaging the same fist. It is the fist of the devil. We must take this battle to the streets in the Name of Jesus Christ and win it there before we can ever expect to win the battle in Washington, D.C.

Josh MarsAzaell has a couple of priceless quotes in his latest post.

It was the week of the great Newt Gingrich smackdown. Jack Kemp called his old friend's argument ludicrous and compared him to "a bull who carries his own china shop around with him." Bill Buckley, famed lover of Foggy Bottom, said Newt had "overdone it." And pretty much every other Republican in town, pretty clearly at White House direction, trashed him.

Newt was like that one doofus you have in every high school clique who's always trying to get into the act after the moment has passed.

Busy,Busy,Busy talks about how the Administration has managed to inject genetic material straight into the meme germ line. Who says these guys don't understand viral engineering?

'Empire of a Devil'

Kristoff points out the violence inherent in the system*.

The hawks are aghast at the idea of a new package deal with North Korea, and Washington seems to have been reasonable lately only because the Pentagon was too distracted by Iraq to notice what the State Department was up to. Pentagon officials yelped when they noticed, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld circulated a memo suggesting that Washington and Beijing together bring down the North Korean government.

A fine dream. But what's scary is that this proposal is so divorced from reality (Beijing would never agree) that it suggests that policy is being formulated by ideologues sealed within the Pentagon.

And when sanctions on North Korea would fail, the next step would be a military strike. It's a sign of the mess we're in that even a thoughtful statesman like Senator Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican, is talking openly about a military strike. A strike would be a historic gamble that might work, or might trigger a war that would incinerate hundreds of thousands of people in Korea and Japan.

"That would be truly insane," said Steven Bosworth, a former ambassador to Seoul. He added, "For us to unilaterally attack North Korea would in my judgment be one of the most immoral acts conceivable."

All in all, looking at the alternatives, starting negotiations should be preferable to starting wars.

U.S. April Consumer Confidence Index Surges to 81 From 61.4

Some silver lining in an otherwise WMD-less sky.

Since the economy is literally magic anyway, just thinking that it's better will actually make it better.

Keep up the delusion! Go out and spend, spend, spend!

From the Guardian.

© Steve Bell 2003

steve.bell@guardian.co.uk

If you're wondering, the post with the devolution cartoon wasn't ever supposed to be there. I thought I deleted it.

Why? Dunno. Just didn't like it for some shiftless and unaccountable reason.

Likely no green tea for several hours. Makes me irresponsible.

Anyways, went away with latest republishing... Sorry...

Security Hawks Gain Voice in Foreign Deals

Okay. Significant reading on the Weird Shit-o-Meter

Should Tom Ridge be in the business of regulating international mergers? President George W. Bush has decided that he should.

In a little-noticed move, Bush has installed the secretary of homeland security as a member of the obscure regulatory body that weighs the national security risks posed by major foreign investments in U.S. companies.

Now some experts, including former senior government officials who served on the panel, suggest the president's maneuver could dilute the influence of those who champion cross-border investment. The result could be a more difficult environment for non-U.S. companies that come before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, looking to execute mergers and acquisitions in this country.

"This is part of the broadening of what constitutes a national security concern, and it also reflects a broadening of the industries seen as subject to CFIUS review," says Ronald Lee, a Washington, D.C., partner at Arnold & Porter who handled CFIUS matters as head of the Executive Office of National Security at the Department of Justice.

Tests Cast Doubt on Chemical Find in Iraq

A metal drum found in northern Iraq that initially tested positive for nerve and blister agents might instead contain rocket fuel, according to new tests, a U.S. chemical weapons expert said Monday.
...
The suspicious barrel was among 14 barrels found in an open field near the Tigris River town of Baiji, among mounds of earth that hid missiles and missile parts. U.S. troops performed an initial test and found indications the barrel may contain the nerve agent cyclosarin and a blister agent that could be a precursor of mustard gas.

By design, initial test procedures favor positive readings, erring on the side of caution to protect soldiers.

Two teams of experts were brought in this weekend for additional testing.

One team conducted three tests, but the tests "were not totally conclusive," Novikov said.

The second team, a specialist Mobile Exploitation Team, "suspects that it might be rocket fuel," Novikov said.

George W Bush, President

'bout time he started blogging.

(via Atrios)

Here's an example of why it's stupid to profile when fighting terrorists.

Remember Oklahoma City? Remember all the radical right wing pseudo Christian organizations out there who the FBI (thankfully!) foils in their attempts at mass murder/terrorism acts? By basing your entire strategy on profiling for Radical Arab Moslems, you're going to miss these white bread, home grown people with truck bombs, Ricin, and god only knows what else. Hey, we haven't caught the person/persons responsible for the 2001 Anthrax letters? I mean, really. We haven't a clue what happened, apparently. And to bias your belief on who did it towards Arabs means that you're just not paying attention. There's a lot of wackos out there.

And if your policy is one of profiling for radical Muslim terrorists, that's just as stupid as profiling for buzz cut, corn fed, angry young men from Idaho or Montana.

It's just bad police tactics.

Oh, and then there's the moral issues. But that's beside the point (apparently).

Federal Gov't. to Borrow Record $111B

HoooBoooooyyy. I just love them conservatives who are spending us into a black hole.

The borrowing is needed to finance a budget deficit that is soaring to what will be an all-time high this year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the deficit for the current budget year will total $287 billion and projects deficits over the next decade will total $1.82 trillion under the administration's proposals.

Okay, I have put the comments back in. However, they seem a big askew... Not showing the numbers of comments, nor are they sending me email when I get any (Ha!). So expect some glitches while I unfoobar this...

Powell: N. Korea Will Disarm for U.S. Aid

Hey, wait a minute. Isn't this the same deal they had before?

Wait. There's got to be a difference. After all, this Administration kept saying they weren't going to reward them. Got to see what the Great Oz does with this.

Make no mistake, though. I'm glad to see progress. I just think the Administration needs to be constantly reminded of their pleasant quotes and positions on this before.

What the heck am I talking about? These guys are able to change the entire justification for a war! This is small potatoes to warp this reality...

Rolling Back the 20th Century

Wow. If you haven't already, read this excellent article by William "Secrets of the Temple" Greider. And then get busy.

High Court Rejects Abortion Privacy Case

Yep, I think this is a clear indication of how the Supremes feel about privacy rights. Hey Andrew... Guess what? You helped!

The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for health authorities in South Carolina to collect names, addresses and other information about women seeking abortions, a power doctors say violates a fundamental duty to protect patient privacy.

The high court rejected a cAzaellenge to the state's plan to catalog medical records from clinics and abortion doctors. The court's action, taken without comment, ends a lengthy legal cAzaellenge that had kept the law on hold.

South Carolina is the only state whose law allows regulators to see, copy and store abortion patients' medical records without stiff requirements that the information be kept confidential, lawyers representing the clinic and outside medical organizations said.

"For every individual, having your private medical records kept confidential is important. In the abortion context, it's even more important," said Bonnie Scott Jones, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented a Greenville, S.C., abortion clinic. "Women are subjected to harassment, violence, if their abortion decision is disclosed."

South Carolina wants abortion clinics to open all files, including patient medical records, if state investigators ask to see them. Supporters say the new regulations will improve state oversight of abortion providers, and are part of ordinary state record keeping.

Rummy's North Korea Connection
What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?

Wow. I stepped into the twilight zone. I thought this story was dead! Now Forbes picks it up and starts asking some hard questions.

Even so, ABB tried to keep its involvement hush-hush. In a 1995 letter from ABB to the Department of Energy obtained by FORTUNE, the firm requested authorization to release technology to the North Koreans, then asked that the seemingly innocuous one-page letter be withheld from public disclosure. "Everything was held close to the vest for some reason," says Ronald Kurtz, ABB's U.S. spokesman. "It wasn't as public as contracts of this magnitude typically are."

However discreet ABB tried to be about the project, Kurtz and other company insiders say the board had to have known about it. Newman, the former ABB executive, says a written summary of the risk review would probably have gone to Barnevik. Barnevik didn't return FORTUNE's phone calls, but Newman's Zurich-based boss, Howard Pierce, says Rumsfeld "was on the board--so I can only assume he was aware of it."

By all accounts Rumsfeld was a hands-on director. Dick Slember, who once ran ABB's global nuclear business, says Rumsfeld often called to talk about issues involving nuclear proliferation, and that it was difficult to "get him pointed in the right direction." Pierce, who recalls Rumsfeld visiting China to help ABB get nuclear contracts, says, "Once he got an idea, it was tough to change his mind. You really had to work your ass off to turn him around." Shelby Brewer, a former head of ABB's nuclear business in the U.S., recalls meetings with Rumsfeld at the division's headquarters in Connecticut. "I found him enchanting and brilliant," he says. "He would cut through Europeans' bullshit like a hot knife through butter."

But isn't if funny to know that not only was Rumsfeld involved in Iraq (when they were still our friends), but he was also head of the company that sold North Korea the very same reactors that we're now dealing with. It's like a bad song. He makes money going in, and he makes money cleaning up the messes.

Hey, maybe if we just got rid of Rummy and his band of pirates, we could just cut the whole middlemen out of this mess and save a bunch of bucks in the process.

Game theorist Sandler describes unintended consequences of US counter-terrorism policies

Finally.

Current world events would not suggest that a decline in terrorism incidents has taken place during the post-Cold War era. Yet, that is what Todd Sandler, a University of Southern California (USC) professor, has found in studies conducted with colleague Walter Enders of the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.
In a distinguished lecture at the National Science Foundation (NSF) today, Sandler said he and his colleague have also found that despite the declining number of terror incidents, the likelihood of death or injury from terrorism has increased. High on the list of reasons for this trend are the changing face of terrorism involving more religious groups and amateurs, and the way governments respond to terrorist threats.

Sandler and colleague Enders were in Washington, D.C. to receive The Estes Award from the National Academy of Sciences for their research on transnational terrorism using game theory and time series analysis—techniques that effectively documented “the cyclic and shifting nature of terrorist attacks in response to defensive counteractions.” Game theory employs the idea of mutual responses between two thinking, rational agents, such as governments and terrorist groups, as defined in Sandler and Enders’ work.

Speaking at NSF, Sandler gave insights into game theory and other new economic tools being employed to better understand trends in transnational terrorism, an extension of work he and Enders began more than 20 years ago with NSF support. At that time, they initiated a study of various forms of government “never-to-negotiate” strategies in hostage-taking incidents, as well as a look at negotiated agreements that occur between governments to thwart terrorism. The project also analyzed effective government responses when terrorists can “choose the country to stage their incidents.” A paper for The American Political Science Review in 1993, and other writings based on the project, led the Department of State’s security office to consult the researchers about policy development.

“Investing in this basic research generated a knowledge base that almost a decade later, with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was highly sought after as a valuable tool for decision makers,” said Dan Newlon, NSF program director for economic sciences.

“We published then that terror increased as security measures were heightened, not the other way around,” said Sandler, a Robert R. and Katheryn A. Dockson Professor of International Relations and Economics at USC. “Terrorists just substituted places and people who were less protected.”

Bypassing facilities and attacking people instead may have resulted in fewer recorded incidents, but it came with the unintended consequence of greater human costs, Sandler concludes.

Sandler’s current work with Enders involves an advanced look at that trend. Using time series analysis, the two believe they have a better predictive tool than existing methods in determining the letAzaelity of the post-Cold War period of transnational terrorism, and for assisting future government policy considerations.

In his NSF lecture, Sandler revealed that time series analysis bore out the conjecture that a new brand of terrorism among religious groups and amateurs brought on an increased deadliness of terror acts. Sandler believes this creates a dilemma for government counterterrorism measures: “For example, when metal detectors were placed in most airports, skyjackings and other threats declined, but other events such as hostage-taking took place in greater numbers where facilities were not well protected,” he explained. The fortification of U.S. embassies and mission facilities reduced attacks against them specifically, but led to an increase of assassinations of officials and military personnel outside of protected compounds.”

Sandler and Enders’ work also merges the seemingly disparate areas of economics and political science.

“An exciting aspect of Sandler and Enders’ work is the way they integrate political science and economics to provide these valuable insights into terrorism,” Newlon said.

Jimm has a great post entitled "Nothing But Ideology And Fiction, Speculation And Threats, Forgeries And Plagiarism". He may have left out Incompetence, but that's okay. Plenty to chew on. Go over and read the post. He's the kind of independent I find comforting in this world of Faux Centrists, Libertarians who've sold their soul, and reactionary Greens.

Why are you still here? Read him.

Anthrax in Suitcase Kills Egyptian Heading to Canada

An Egyptian ship crewman has apparently died from exposure to anthrax contained in a suitcase he opened, Reuters news service reported Monday.

An autopsy of the man, identified as Ibrahim Saved Soliman Ibrahim, revealed that he died in his hotel room April 11 after experiencing vomiting, multiple organ failure and internal bleeding, which were believed to have been caused by the deadly bacteria, according to Reuters.

"He was the victim of anthrax," said Brazilian federal police spokesman Fernando Sergio Castro, adding that officials were 90 percent certain that anthrax was the culprit.

Reuters reported that several health workers who discovered the body were evaluated at a hospital after becoming sick, but are now out of danger.

Ibrahim, a crewman aboard an Egyptian merchant ship called the Wabi Alaras, was transporting the suitcase to Canada, although authorities do not believe he knew what was in the bag, according to Reuters.

"He opened it because he was curious," Castro told Reuters. "We imagine that this is about bioterrorism and Brazil was just used as a point of transfer."

Ibrahim had traveled from Cairo to Brazil to join the ship, but he died before it sailed to Canada, Reuters reported. Canada was alerted about the ship through Interpol, and officials quarantined the vessel last week.

"There is absolutely no criminal or terrorist threat to Canada," Royal Canadian Mounted Police Inspector Dan Tanner said from Azaelifax, Nova Scotia.

Brazilian authorities handed preliminary autopsy reports over to Canada, a Health Canada spokeswoman in Azaelifax told Reuters, but final results wouldn't be available until Tuesday at the earliest.

Castro told Reuters that an unidentified person gave Ibrahim the suitcase last week, and the crewman was to deliver it to someone in Canada.

Five Americans died and several others were sickened in serial anthrax mailings in the months following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The case remains unsolved.

Pause the postwar glee to ask: Were supporters misled?

Hey, it's even in USA Today. Maybe my parents will even read this. On 11A, though.

If the weapons are found and their authenticity confirmed, Bush will have the I-told-you-so moment of his presidency. He'll deserve to be rewarded politically for staring down the Nervous Nellies and defending the nation against weapons controlled by a mad man.

If the weapons are not found, the most charitable explanation is that they were moved out of Iraq while we were bombing our way to Baghdad -- or that we had rotten intelligence to begin with. Either illustrates incompetence.

The more ominous conclusion is that Bush deliberately misled Americans to gather support for the Iraqi invasion -- or unwittingly was misled himself by gung-ho advisers, none of whom wear uniforms. I don't know which of the two is worse, but either should carry a heavy political price.

Okay, back to sleep y'all. I said CALM DOWN BACK THERE or your mother and I are going to stop this bus and then you'll be sorry.

Okay then. No more talk about a heavy political price.

BARREL FOUND BY GIS TESTS POSITIVE FOR SARIN

The NY Post is still printing this as truth. In fact, this has already been shown to be yet another Tiffin phantasm of tests designed to err on the positive side (for good reason). Think they're going to have a big headline saying "BARREL FOUND BY GIS TURNS OUT TO BE ROUNDUP PESTICIDE"? Nope. Didn't think so. The Great and Powerful Oz has decreed otherwise.

If you repeat something often enough and loud enough it become truth.

The Clincher

Sullivan prematurely pops his cork over Al-Qaida/Iraq ties, and WMD discoveries. Listen to this

Several reports over the weekend, barely covered in the mainstream American press for some reason, strike me as blockbusters. The Sunday Telegraph's scoop of documents in Baghdad clearly linking al Qaeda with Saddam, if verified, means that an essential debate is over. Even opponents of the war against Saddam's dictatorship said they would be more inclined to support war if there were proof of a link to al Qaeda. Now, it seems, there is. But the manner in which we found this out after the event, raises a more complicated question about foreign policy in the age of terror. We know that Saddam had elaborate designs to make chemical and biological weapons. No serious person doubts that - although whether he tried to destroy evidence before the war, how extensive it was, what exactly it amounted to, are still questions in search of good answers. (But we're getting warmer, it seems.) So what does a free country do when confronted with an enemy state, with WMDs, that we strongly suspect is in league with terrorists like al Qaeda, but cannot prove without invading? It's tough. My view is that, after 9/11, we have little option but to launch a pre-emptive strike and hope for retroactive justification. But I understand why people demand proof before such action. This new finding - and I bet there will be more like it - strengthens my position, I think. The threat was not the weapons as such; it was the regime, its capacity to make and use such weapons and its potential or actual alliance with al Qaeda. We had to make a judgment about how likely it was that such a link existed. We bet right. Bush clearly didn't create that alliance. It existed long before he came long. It's clearer and clearer that we did the right thing. And this debate is even more important to have now when we can look at the evidence than before, when we couldn't.

First, as Sully knows by now, the "documents" have so far turned out to be so much spurious noise. But that's in the Guardian, which Sully doesn't deign to read unless it has something he can lambaste. Secondly, the WMD find that is warming the cockles of Sully's cold heart have turned out to be Tiffin phantasms like all the others.

But you think Sully's going to post a follow up saying that he just popped his cork early? Naw... Better just leave the post uncorrected so that anyone looking for justification can find it and use it against those stinky liberals.

Stinky liberals, I might add, who seem to be the only people who care about protecting his rights. Sully? He'd rather just forget the whole thing and hop on back to his Lilly pad like the Toady he is.

Anyways, I love his claim "This new finding - and I bet there will be more like it - strengthens my position". So, now that it's just a Tiffin Phantasm, does it make your position limper? After all, it seems increasingly likely that you bet WRONG. It's becoming clearer and clearer that you did the wrong thing.

After all, why all the push now to justify the war purely on humanitarian grounds? Why all the lowering of expectations for finding WMD's and even links to Al-Qaeda?

Well, don't expect Sully to admit that he went off Azaelf-cocked. And do expect him to switch back to the humanitarian argument.

Toady. Bootlicker. Thy name is Andrew Sullivan.

heh. Joe Conason lambastes his nibs, Tom Friedman.

Happily enough, however, discovering chemical and biological weapons in Iraq doesn't matter any more -- according to Thomas L. Friedman -- because we have discovered human skulls there instead: "As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war," he wrote on April 27, noting the excavation of the skeletons of Saddam's victims. "That skull, and the thousands more that will be unearthed, are enough for me. Mr. Bush doesn't owe the world any explanation for missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that the White House hyped this issue)."

Avid Friedman fans must be badly confused by now. After all, this is the same pre-eminent foreign affairs columnist who told us on March 9, "If the president can't make his war of choice the world's war of choice right now, we need to reconsider our options and our tactics." And he is also the same multi-Pulitzered pundit who said on March 19 that "such a preventive war is so unprecedented and mammoth a task ... that it had to be done with maximum U.N legitimacy and with as many allies as possible," adding that "we need to patch things up with the world. Because having more allied support in rebuilding Iraq will increase the odds that we do it right, and because if the breach that has been opened between us and our traditional friends hardens into hostility, we will find it much tougher to manage both Iraq and all the other threats down the road."

All very sensible advice, yet I wonder why the globe-trotting, VIP-visiting Friedman no longer seems to understand how important the issue of WMDs is to the credibility of U.S. policy. Americans may or may not care whether we ever find chemical or biological weapons (there are almost certainly no nukes in Iraq.) Others around the world care intensely -- and are unlikely to be soothed by realizing that the WMD issue was a pretext for pre-emptive war. What is to stop India or Pakistan or China from concocting a pretext for launching a strike against a perceived danger? If we did it, so can they.

And I also wonder how, in Friedman's mind, the grisly discoveries about Saddam's victims of the past quarter-century erase what the Times columnist wrote on February 19:

"I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials have tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama bin Laden or will be soon. There is simply no proof of that, and every time I hear them repeat it I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You don't take the country to war on the wings of a lie.

"Tell people the truth. Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred."

Doesn't it matter at least as much whether the White House lied about weapons of mass destruction? That question still matters to the world, where our torn alliances will be harder to mend if we don't find proof of the alleged causes of this war -- and if we don't permit those findings to be verified by independent international observers from the U.N.

0 for 32

Okay, so the mysterious barrels of chemicals that were purported to be a combination of Sarin and Mustard Gas turned out not to be so.

In northern Iraq, a military chemical-analysis team said today that a cache of barrels and two mobile laboratories found near the village of Bayji were most likely not used for chemical warfare purposes, countering earlier reports from an Army officer at the site.

"I am satisfied that it is sarin," Lt. Col. Ted Martin of the 10th Cavalry Regiment said Sunday.

The Great Oz is powerful and long is his vision.

No proof of Powell's arms claims U.S. empty-handed in Iraq search for weapons of mass destruction

The Chronicle has a Washington Post matter of facts story. Nice summary so far.

Powell detailed Iraq's use of mobile laboratories to produce chemical or biological weapons as a way of avoiding discovery and displayed diagrams of their interiors. The information came from an Iraqi chemical engineer who'd seen one of them and witnessed an accident in which 12 technicians died from exposure to biological agents.

This defector, and three others, presented independent information, Powell said, that proved Iraq had "at least seven of these mobile biological agent factories" and that each of the truck-mounted factories had at least two or three trucks each.

None of the truck laboratories has been discovered, and none of the defectors has come forward.
...
Powell told the Security Council about Iraqi scientists who were threatened with death if they told U.N. inspectors about weapons activities and "a dozen experts . . . placed under house arrest -- not in their own houses." That information came from human intelligence sources, a senior official said, but to date not one of those individuals has been produced.

Revealed: How the road to war was paved with lies

Facing calls for proof of their allegations, senior members of both the US and British governments are suggesting that so-called WMDs were destroyed after the departure of UN inspectors on the eve of war – a possibility raised by President George Bush for the first time on Thursday.

This in itself, however, appears to be an example of what the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix called "shaky intelligence". An Iraqi scientist, writing under a pseudonym, said in a note slipped to a driver in a US convoy that he had proof information was kept from the inspectors, and that Iraqi officials had destroyed chemical weapons just before the war.

Other explanations for the failure to find WMDs include the possibility that they might have been smuggled to Syria, or so well hidden that they could take months, even years, to find. But last week it emerged that two of four American mobile teams in Iraq had been switched from looking for WMDs to other tasks, though three new teams from less specialised units were said to have been assigned to the quest for "unconventional weapons" – the less emotive term which is now preferred.

Mr Powell and Mr Bush both repeated last week that Iraq had WMDs. But one official said privately that "in the end, history and the American people will judge the US not by whether its officials found canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent [but] by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America".

You know, I thought there was supposed to be this whole Cost/Benefit analysis thing. I guess Tom considers everything lost to be less value than having the Iraqis free from a dictator.

A bold roll of the dice.

Al-Qaida links still dubious

Western intelligence officials are playing down the significance of documents appearing to show that Saddam Hussein's regime met an al-Qaida envoy in Baghdad in 1998 and sought to arrange a meeting with Osama bin Laden.
"We are aware of fleeting contacts [between Baghdad and al-Qaida] in the past, but there were were no long-term official contacts," a well-placed source told the Guardian yesterday. "The documents do not take things further forward"

British security and intelligence agencies have persistently dismissed attempts by hawks in the White House to link Saddam's regime with al-Qaida, a link which would help London and Washington to argue that Iraq had posed an imminent threat.

According to the documents found by the Sunday Telegraph an envoy from al-Qaida went to Baghdad from the Sudanese capital Khartoum in March 1998 - two years after Sudan, under pressure from Saudia Arabia, ordered Bin Laden out and he returned to Afghanistan.

Intelligence officials acknowledge that al-Qaida and Iraq shared a mutual hostility towards Saudi Arabia and the US after the 1991 Gulf war, but they say Saddam distrusted the terrorist network and there was little love lost between Bin Laden, an Islamist fundamentalist, and Saddam's secular regime.

Intelligence sources also played down the significance of documents found by the Sunday Times in the Iraqi foreign ministry which suggest France gave the regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.

The sources described them as ordinary diplomatic traffic from the Iraqi ambassador in Paris.

The information, said in the files to have come partly from "friends of Iraq" at the French foreign ministry (search), kept Saddam abreast of every development in American planning and may have helped him to prepare for war. One report warned of an American "attempt to involve Iraq with terrorism" as "cover for an attack on Iraq."

I must say, given the choice between Saddam linking up with Ussama and the alternative... I'll take the alternative.

On message, on script

Leave it to the Canadians. This stuff just keeps getting better, don't it?

What a marvellous ride this war has been for students of power politics.

Now, of course, that wouldn't be your point of view if you were sitting in the rubble of your home in Baghdad, or worse, but as a study of pure political manipulation — Wow!

And, it's not just one war. The war against Afghanistan's Taliban regime is over. So, it would appear, is the war against Iraq's Saddam. But the War on Terror continues.

Democrats are so afraid of fallout — of being called unpatriotic — that a "prominent Democratic senator" had to go off-the-record recently to tell the New York Times the White House is pursuing a policy of "never-ending war" in order to keep the U.S. public from focusing on Bush's domestic record and get him re-elected next year.

A senator who doesn't want his name in the paper?

Now, that's intimidation. You gotta stand back in awe.

Well, shock and awe.

That, after all, is the working title of this particular production by Bush & Co., also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.

But heck, Tom's willing to give them a pass because Iraqis fared so well - so far.

Guess how the US fares, or how our constitution fares aren't something Tom Friedman worries about.

Friedman finally comes clean.

As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war. That skull, and the thousands more that will be unearthed, are enough for me. Mr. Bush doesn't owe the world any explanation for missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that the White House hyped this issue).

And when you look at the way war critics — from the Dixie Chicks to Tom Daschle — have been savaged by conservatives, it feels as if some people want to use this war to create a multiparty democracy in Iraq and a one-party state in America.

Tom is insane. Absolutely insane.

Sorry. It's possible to simultaneously be glad that Iraq is free of Saddam, and really pissed about being completely misled in the whole war effort. After all, it PROVES that we could have done the exact same thing without a war. There were plenty of alternatives, yet they didn't even try them. They also destroyed the UN, treaties and alliances in the process. The damage from that may be immense. And then there's the Afghanisation of Iraq. Hey, remember Afghanistan Tom? Yea, I pray to "Bob" that we will do the right thing in Iraq, but that would assume that the Administration really wants to do this... And is able to. We'll see.

In any event, that was clearly never their intent. Yes, after Iraq falls we can see what's good about that. However, they lied and cheated to get this. It was never their intent.

Question is, given how they went about this in the first place, how can we be sure of anything that they tell us they are so sure of in the future? Is Tom saying that it's okay to lie and cheat as long as it works out in the end? What if it doesn't? What about the cost? What about the alternatives?

As far as I can tell, Tom is willing to give up on accountability, rule of law and just about everything else our constitution is about. As long as the right people are running things - so it would seem - Tom is willing to have a complete dictatorship. Tom is willing to let any number of sins be committed as long as everything works out. Apparently Tom thinks we owe it to the Administration to let them off the hook because the Iraqi people are free. He's not going to criticize them. He's just going to give them a free pass.

Oh well. I guess we'll just go back to sleep and let Tom and his buddies in the Administration figure out what's best for the world.

Geesh.

Bob Graham is wrong.

Sorry, I know he's a democratic candidate and all that, but he just said a really stupid thing that shows a deep misunderstanding of our own constitution:

The Florida senator also said that by refusing to allow an Iranian-style religious government to take power in Baghdad, even if elected by the Iraqis, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "demonstrates the kind of quagmire that we are potentially going to be in in Iraq."

"If you talk about a democracy, which means that people vote and select the political leadership that they desire, then you can't say, `But there are certain segments of the population that are off-limits,'" he told ABC's "This Week."

"One of the concerns that many of the Middle Eastern leaders have said is that if you have a pure Jeffersonian democracy, you're going to have some of the most extreme elements within the country elected to the positions of responsibility."

I just think it's stupid to attack the Administration because they're not going to let a Fundamentalist Islamic Government be set up. It's stupid to do this in Iraq, just as it is stupid to do this in the US. C'mon. There's got to be plenty of other stuff that is fair game to attack the Republicans on. This isn't one of them. I really wish the Dem's would just lay off of this line completely.

It's a very stupid thing to do.

U.S. Said to Find Iraq Nerve Gas Evidence

The discovery of a dozen 55-gallon drums in an open field near the northern Iraqi town of Baiji may prove to be a turning point in the search for those weapons of mass destruction — if it is confirmed they contained banned chemical weapons.

Lt. Col. Ted Martin of the 10th Cavalry Regiment said troops went to the site at midnight Friday after having been alerted by U.S. Special Forces teams. Their suspicions had been raised by the presence of surface-to-air missiles guarding the area.

When a chemical team checked the drums, one tested positive for the nerve agent cyclosarin and for a blister agent which could have been mustard gas, Martin said.

"I am satisfied that it is sarin," Martin said Sunday.

He said soldiers also found two mobile laboratories containing equipment for mixing chemicals, but they appeared to have been looted.
...
But more tests were being conducted. By design, initial tests favor positive readings, erring on the side of caution to protect soldiers.

There have been numerous false reports that coalition forces have turned up chemical or biological weapons. So the U.S. Central Command was measured in its response to the discovery.

"There are many sites that we look into every day, and when we have confirmed positive results we will provide that information," said Capt. Stewart Upton, a spokesman at Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar. "We just want to be very cautious that when we go with the information, that when we release nuclear, biological, or chemical information, that we're accurate."

Reports of Weapons 'Greatly Exaggerated'

Heck, even the Times/UK is getting into the act now. This is an excellent read, and brings up some very good points. Nice to see that at least the UK media are asking the hard questions and bringing up the embarrasing facts. Reproduced here because I think they are quite excellent issues.

Top of that list is why the Saddam regime, facing annihilation, did not use weapons of mass destruction if it had them. According to Hoon, this is because the weapons were “scattered across Iraq (and) were well hidden” while UN inspectors were in the country.

But then they weren’t ready to use in 45 minutes, surely? Hoon appeared unaware of this claim. “I do not recall ever saying that. I specifically did not put a time on it,” he said.

No, he didn’t say it, but his Government did, and the claim is central to Britain’s justification for pressing ahead with the war. Hoon himself, just before the outbreak of war, made a speech that gave warning of the “very real threat today . . . of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”.

Hoon then alleges that the sudden onslaught of war disrupted command structures and prevented the weapons being reassembled. It didn’t seem that sudden at the time. Several days passed between the departure of the UN inspectors and the start of the bombing. There was also a solid two weeks after the bombing started in which Iraqi command structures looked anything but shattered, to the point where Washington was grimly bracing itself for a long war.

Why, on Hoon’s “well hidden” account, has nothing of significance been found, even though American forces have been in the country for more than a month? There is a limit to the number of possible hiding places. US Intelligence had identified about 150 sites worth investigation, and are already believed to have visited about Azaelf, according to analysts. Not one of these has yet yielded a “smoking gun”.

On Hoon’s account, the regime was organized and skilful enough to dismantle, transport and hide all these weapons beyond the detective skills of US forces, and yet so disorganized that it could not retrieve and deploy even one.

What about the chance that weapons have been smuggled out, to Syria, or sold to terrorists? This possibility has been gaining currency; it has been raised by David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, and Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Minister, although citing reports he said he could not verify.

But that, too, is implausible. Smuggled out to Syria? Not likely. Damascus is certainly capable of making serious misjudgments, but knowingly allowing Iraq’s banned weapons across its border would be only slightly short of accepting Saddam himself, a risk which no sane regime, looking at the American force camped in the region, would contemplate.

Could they have been sold to terrorist groups? It is unlikely that they would want them, or pay much for them. The kind of chemical or biological weapons Saddam is accused of making are needed in large quantities, say a tonne, to be of any use. They need complex, expensive and conspicuous delivery systems, such as aircraft equipped with sprays or missiles. Terrorists targeting subway trains or water supplies can make do with something far simpler, such as ricin.

The exception is weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. That is scarce, small in volume and easily hidden, and could be sold for a lot of money. But the nuclear part of the weapons program is widely thought to have been the least developed; Saddam is not believed to have overcome the difficulty of buying or making weapons-grade material.

Gary Samore, director of studies at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, and an expert on Iraq’s weapons program, also questions the motivation. “If I were an Iraqi fleeing for my life, I’d take cash before bottles of liquid anthrax,” he says. True, documents can be easily destroyed or transported, he says, but missiles are particularly hard to transport or conceal.

The most plausible account so far is the one given by Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary, in his resignation speech. This is that Iraq certainly made highly unpleasant weapons but not in large enough quantities or at a level of readiness to warrant the term “mass destruction”.

“Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term — namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target,” he said.

“It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munititions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.”

There is no question that Saddam’s regime produced, and used, terrible weapons. The odds are that forces will uncover evidence of them. But this is a long way from the claims made in the run-up to war, or the accounts now offered about why the weapons remain so hard to find.

Hmmm. Wonder why?

"The senior officials who have been captured are sticking to the party line: 'We don't have any WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. This is a fine regime. We never did anything nasty in our lives,' " the U.S. official said. "They're all sticking to the story."

But Saadi and others may have little incentive to cooperate because they are suspected of running the weapons programs, and furnishing evidence would only bolster war crimes cases against them.

"The people who are most likely to point you to where the WMD are hidden are not the top 55 guys," the official said, "but people below that level, physically involved in hiding it and who are not considered war criminals."

The official said one low-level Iraqi scientist has provided some cooperation, pointing U.S. military search teams to suspected sites. But he said that although the United States has found some precursor materials, "we have not found an actual chemical weapon."

I think the CalPundit is going to have to think up another theory.

Just my opinion, mind you...

Industrial Sealant as a Dessert Treat.

Brad DeLong follows up on Paul Krugman's op ed last week about the "Jobs" program that the president is trying to push as a Tax Cut for the Rich. Wait a minute. It's the other way around. No wait a minute....

Not surprisingly, we have something that is neither a good industrial sealant nor a good dessert topping. It is, however, still pretty effective as a tax cut for the rich.

Religious Conservatives Rally behind Santorum

"What Senator Santorum did was stand up for the United States Constitution and stand up for the American family and say, this is a really dangerous proposition that the Untied States Supreme Court is considering right now," said Jesse Binnall, a spokesman for Public Advocate of the United States, a family values advocacy group that held a small pro-Santorum rally on Capitol Hill Thursday.

The rally featured about Azaelf a dozen activists wearing black-and-white striped prison garb or old-fashioned, English-style police uniforms. The activists sang songs railing against liberal efforts at "thought control" and "intolerance" of Christian conservative views.

The Traditional Values Coalition is leading a petition drive in support of Santorum.

Bill Devlin, a Democratic committeeman in the city of Philadelphia and vice president of the Urban Family Council, says liberal critics are playing a political hand in going after Santorum.

"This is character assassination because George Bush is doing so well, there's nothing really they can go after him on," said Devlin.

"Rick Santorum absolutely should not step down," Devlin continued. "This is not another Trent Lott because Trent Lott obviously offended people based upon race, which is unchangeable and morally neutral, whereas Santorum was addressing...sexual behavior, which is changeable [and] morally significant."

Key Iraqi Weapons Official Captured

Amin, the former Iraqi National Monitoring Director, was No. 49 on the U.S. list of the 55 most wanted figures from the regime of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

No further details were released.

Amin, also known as Hossem Mohammed Amin al-Yasin, was the six of clubs on the U.S. deck of cards listing the most wanted figures.

The general was among the key figures in Saddam's weapons programs and would have detailed knowledge of any illegal armaments, if Iraq (news - web sites) still posses them.

For more than a decade as head of the monitoring commission, the former air force communications engineer has earned a reputation as a loyal officer who has fulfilled Saddam's expectations.

Amin and his troops refused to allow U.N. inspectors into presidential palaces and other "sensitive sites" during the first round of U.N. inspections that ended in 1998.

Papers link Saddam to al-Qaida

The Iraqi documents will likely be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged--that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qaida.
......
The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many Western government officials that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida. One Western intelligence official contacted Saturday night described the file as "sensational," adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance or detection."

Might.

And if the Al-Qaida connection is so strong - which is what we were repeatedly told. Wouldn't there be a bit more than a meeting back in 1996?

It may well be the case that there are huge connections detailed in yet to be discovered documents. But this isn't proof of a connection. It'll take a lot more than this scrap of information to convince me.

More on the Santorum inanity.

The president has always said that when it comes to legal matters, that it's a question of different groups, homosexual groups, gay groups should not have special rights or special privileges.

And that's what everyone should remember about this going forward. These guys think that they are granting "special privileges". They are promoting people who they despise when they give them the same rights that they have. They intrinsically think that large classes of people are lower than they are. The intrinsic rights of these classifications of people are less the intrinsic rights that Christians have.

Get it?

This is your country. This is your country run by Christian Fundamentalists. Any questions?

Wonder if Nicholas Kristoff is going to say we need to be more tolerant of the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians and start accepting their bigotry. Heck, they only want to legislate morality.

Claims that the news media form a vast liberal conspiracy strike me as utterly unconvincing, but there's one area where accusations of institutional bias have merit: nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans.

That's the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians. Evangelicals have moved from the fringe to the mainstream, and that is particularly evident in this administration. It's impossible to understand President Bush without acknowledging the centrality of his faith.

But despite Santorum's radical statements, Republicans have proudly told reporters there will be no rerun of the Trent Lott debacle, in which the Senate majority leader was sacked for publicly admiring Strom Thurmond's racist presidential campaign last December. Why? For one thing, Lott got thrown overboard less because his GOP colleagues cared about his racism than because they thought he was a liability who wasn't loyal enough to Bush, had made a lot of enemies and cut too many deals with Democrats. Santorum's a company man, so everybody got the talking points: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, like Fleischer, calls him "a man of inclusion." Actually, most Republicans got the no-talking points: The White House and Republican National Committee have advised Republicans not to comment on Santorum's outrageous remarks when asked about them by the media, so most of them aren't.

Don't expect this to end like the Trent Lott affair.

It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies. It takes a great deal more courage to stand up to your friends.

Standing quiet about Santorum is a symptom of the lack of courage this Administration has when it comes to bigotry. Pure and simple pandering for votes.

John Lott appears to be a fraud and a liar

Found this gem via Atrios

And I certainly agree about Dinesh D'Souza. His Two Cheers For Colonialism was pure "Uncle Tom" spew. It was such a propagandistic success with the Radical Right Wing Fascists that none other than Jonah Goldberg picked up on the theme and wrote Two Cheers for McCarthysim.

It's extremely interesting to read Dinesh's article, and examine it with the 20/20 vision gained from looking back from the future. The man was writing pure propaganda to plant the idea that colonialism was okay. Or it was a test flag to see if anyone saluted. It is a piece of propaganda specifically designed to make everyone (or at least enough people) comfortable with the idea of colonialism or imperialism. See? We're actually doing them a favor with this stuff, old boy. Grab a cigar and have some Sherry as we talk about empires past.

Dinesh's arguments are hauntingly familiar in the Right's disposal of the "War For Oil" proposition. We don't get rich off of colonial possessions. In fact, it's a drain on our economy old boy. We're bringing Democracy to them. Education. Law. A new way of life those savages would have never developed on their own.

Rereading Dinesh makes me remember how hollow all the re-justification of the war based on humanitarian purposes sounds to me now. Yea, this was the reason all along!

And then to read Goldberg's apology for McCarthysim... Man, it's just completely surreal. Especially in light of mass roundups, jailing without trial or lawyer. And then there's Santorum. Ye gods! The Great Oz is wise and powerful indeed. In an evil way, of course. The mighty Wurlitzer is mighty indeed. And it plays to the Great Oz's score. Long is his vision. Mighty is his voice.

I guess the Radical Right doesn't think there was anything really wrong with Fascism. It was just that Mussolini was a jerk.

White House defends Santorum as 'inclusive'

In a recent interview, Santorum compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. He also said the right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution.

''The president believes the senator is an inclusive man. And that's what he believes,'' Fleischer said.

Rick Santorum sucks big donkey d*cks. And George thinks that's okay.

...He judges people about who they are. ... He judges people for how they act and how they relate.'' He said Bush's judgment of people ''has nothing to do with their sexuality.''

Which has nothing to do with sexuality.

Constitution Section 4.1 - Electoral Reform?

Jimm pointed this Agonist post out to me. I tell ya. To quote Josh MarsAzaell, "This plan might just be crazy enough to work".

What have we got to lose?

Section. 4.
Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, sAzaell be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

*****

Advocate electoral reform. Either Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or a more proportional and progressive system. No constitutional amendment is needed, if the Democrats win the Congress and put electoral reform on the platform in 2004. Or support it through the state route...if 2/3 of states nominate an amendment, then 3/4 of states must ratify in order to make it a reality.

We have amended the Constitution before. As recent as the 60's, and even in 1992 in the case of congressional pay. Only it's not necessary in this case. Just to win Congress. Or is it?

To the Demos, quit whining about Greens and people voting on principle, and start advocating electoral reform. The election of 2000 was a debacle...take advantage of it. If you don't, you are fools. Put it on the platform! Guarantee every Green votes for you (and a bunch of other 3rd partyers as well).

One thing that's really starting to get my panties in a twist is the meme that's been rearing its ugly head lately. Perhaps the "liberal" NY Times displays this best in their latest editorial.

If everything were indeed destroyed, Saddam Hussein put his nation through years of crippling economic boycotts and brought on the ruin of his regime for no good reason.

But what the NY Times fails to ask, is WHY DID WE DO WHAT WE DID? I mean, what was the big deal? Why did we have to go to war by March 17th? I mean, the entire army was a pushover (your words, not mine). And now we can't find a frickin' scrap of evidence? Why did we have to destroy the UN? WHY WAS IT SO IMMANENT AND SO FRICKING IMPORTANT THAT WE HAD TO DESTROY A LOT OF CRAP TO DO THIS. We couldn't have waited another 3 months like the French and Russians wanted to?

And to boot, we have the Administration just out and out admitting that, while not a lie, perhaps placed too much emphasis on WMD in their rush to war?

The NY Times just can't face up to the fact that they were duped. The alternative is to believe that this pushover of a tin cup dictator was some kind of super villain. A souped up evil doer who can pull a fast one on the greatest intelligence agencies on this planet. I mean, really! Which completely amazing thing are we to believe? That he didn't have WMD, or he did but was able to destroy them and/or smuggle them out to Syria (or Iran) while we were tracking frickin' quarks from our satellites, drones and god only knows what else we had.

Me? I'd rather believe he had no WMD, as the alternative seems to be worse - and getting even worse all the time. The level of incompetence that must have taken place to pull the wool over the collective Intelligence Community's eyes must be truly staggering.

If I was a white hat, I'd be pretty pissed at the corner they're painting them into. A picture entitled "Scapegoat: a portrait of intelligence failure".

It's surreal, isn't it...

Anyone but me wonder why they had 55 cards in the Iraqi most wanted "deck"? I haven't seen them yet, as I think they're just too bizarre for words, but a deck of playing cards has only 52 cards in the deck. Add two jokers and you get 54. So what was the 55th? Anyone out there who's actually seen this deck, let me know.

I postulate it was the card that comes with Hoyle deck with the rules of some card games on it. I mean, that's got to be humiliating for this one Iraqi. He only rated the evil "card of instruction" ranking.

Manila reports first SARS deaths, WHO gives grim forecast

Oh, this is just ducky.

The Philippines reported its first deaths from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) yesterday and a World Health Organization (WHO) official said SARS could become a horrifying epidemic if it spread in China's provinces or in nations like India and Bangladesh, where people live cheek-to-cheek and medical facilities are poor.

"There will be various countries in the world where we would be really concerned because we don't think they have the capacity to stem the tide once it is introduced," WHO official Wolfgang Preiser told reporters in Shanghai.

"It may have happened already. We don't know."

Think the Administration has a plan for this one? Aren't you glad we have international institutions to orchestrate what little we can do against this kind of stuff?

Why is it a good idea to do it for health issues, but not for diplomatic and political issues?

Turkey Asks U.S. Envoy to Explain Remarks

Gots to be careful...

SARS as a bio-engineered virus update.

From BigPicnic, some links that support the assertion that something might be suspicious about SARS.

First is from the Humanitarian Resource Institute.
Second is from the Institute of Science in Society.

While the epidemic has still to run its course, a report appeared in the Journal of Virology, describing a method for introducing desired mutations into coronavirus in order to create new viruses. A key feature of the procedure is to make interspecific chimera recombinant viruses. It involves replacing part of the spike protein gene in the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) - which causes invariably fatal infections in cats - with that of the mouse hepatitis virus. The recombinant mFIPV will no longer infect cat cells, but will infect mouse cells instead, and multiply rapidly in them.

These and other experiments in manipulating viral genomes are now routine. It shows how easy it is to create new viruses that jump host species in the laboratory, in the course of apparently legitimate experiments in genetic engineering. Similar experiments could be happening in nature when no one is looking, as the SARS and many other epidemics amply demonstrate.

It is not even necessary to intentionally create letAzael viruses, if one so wishes. It is actually much faster and much more effective to let random recombination and mutation take place in the test tube. Using a technique called "molecular breeding" (see "Death by DNA shuffling", this series), millions of recombinants can be generated in a matter of minutes. These can be screen for improved function in the case of enzymes, or increased virulence, in the case of viruses and bacteria.

In other words, geneticists can now greatly speed up evolution in the laboratory to create viruses and bacteria that have never existed in all the billions of years of evolution on earth.

Powell Says Embryonic Iraqi Authority Will Grow Into Full Government

I just had to post that title. Amazing, ain't it? I guess this is directed at the right to life crowd.

Creationism & Political Snobbery

Wow. If I could write, this is what I would have written. My problem is that I start spitting and stammering and with my jaw hanging open on the floor.... Well, I can't even type. I'm in a state of shock n' awe. My brain is unable to even begin to come up with prose that doesn't include the most damning of pejoratives I can think of or lookup in the nasty thesaurus. Calmer, more rational minds must prevail.

The BigPicnic is great. Go read them instead of me.

Reason for War?

Found this via the always first Atrios.

Okay, the Administration has just come out and admitted they duped everybody about the whole WMD thing. Just came out and admitted it.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

You were all duped. Duped and lead around by the nose by the Great Oz. And now they're admitting it.

And they're counting on all of you to protect your pride far more than you want to hold them to the fire for duping you.

Ye gods. I cannot believe this country is in such a sorry state. They now come out and just plain admit they duped us, and EVERYONE rolls over.

Geesh. What a pack of jokers.

Gingrich accused of idiocy, McCarthyism for criticism of State Department

What? Gingrich an idiot? Gingrich a McCarthyistic buffoon? Who knew?

John Naland, the president of the American Foreign Service Association, said Gingrich's broadside attack -- in which he accused US diplomats of actively trying to sabotage President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s foreign policy agenda -- was unfair, inaccurate and bordered on slander.

"You have essentially accused these employees of treason," Naland wrote in a letter to Gingrich a day after three former US ambassadors fired off angry missives to Congress urging that lawmakers ignore their former colleague's remarks.

"Sir, these are serious charges indeed," Naland wrote. "If you have proof you should run, not walk, to the office of the nearest US attorney.

"However, you do not have proof," he said. "Your charges are spurious.

"As such, they will be consigned to the dust bin of history where they belong, along with that paper Senator Joseph R. McCarthy held up in a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia on February 9, 1950," Naland said.

He referred to an address in which the late anti-communist McCarthy -- whose name has become a synonym for witch hunt -- produced a document he said contained the names of 57 traitors who allegedly worked in the State Department.

Iraq's WMD May Have Been Destroyed

And the expectations get lowered below sea level now, and they are sinking fast. Any questions?

Pack of Jokers

Check out Quiddity's new deck of most wanted.

Hey, what about Congo?

Considering all the bludgeoning liberals have taken for not being overjoyed at the overthrow of Saddam, and the non stop crowing about how this was a war of liberation (not for WMD), I'm really surprised that all those out there crowing have been missing the big picture.

Congo:
---3.5 million dead in 4.5 years
---4,000 civilians massacred in the last 8 months
---Brittle Peace about to break

So when you're wondering why liberals - or generic anti-war people - aren't up and crowing about the liberation of Iraq, it's because that wasn't the reason this war was fought. Yes, it's a nice by-product, but as far as brutal and repressive regimes go, it's low on the totem pole.

What I suggest is that you who are crowing so much about the humanitarian aspects of the war with Iraq do is get off your ass and take a good hard look at the world around you, and start seeing that there are far more brutal, repressive things going on out there, and if you believed your own pap about a humanitarian basis for this war, you'd be outraged at the massive killing that is going on as we speak.

But you don't really give a damn about that, do you? It's just an excuse for your preemptive war to make you feel like it was justified, now that the WMD seem to be a bit more elusive than originally purported.

Why are we not jumping up and down?

Well, would you be jumping up and down if someone just paid a penny on a trillion dollar debt?

You'd say "thanks, but not enough".

And that's what I say.

Glad to have the Iraqis free. What about all the others? Not interested? Didn't think so.

(Thanks to Mark Fiore and his latest cartoon latest cartoon for reminding me)

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin

I guess, as so many gloating liberals have emailed me to point out, I have been incredibly naive. I expected a basic level of respect for gay people from civilized conservatives. I've always taken the view that there are legitimate arguments about such issues as marriage rights or military service and so on; and that fair-minded people can disagree. And, of course, there are many fair-minded people among Republicans and conservatives who do not agree with Santorum, and I am heartened by their support, especially the Republican Unity Coalition and Marc Racicot, RNC head. But something this basic as the freedom to be left alone in own's own home is something I naively assumed conservatives would obviously endorse - even for dispensable minorities like homosexuals. I was wrong. The conclusions to be drawn are obvious.

"Vote for me or I'll send the dog straight to hell"

About the most reasonable secular argument one can make for keeping the words "under God" in the pledge is a historic one. An argument that I've often heard from the pundits on the Right is that this is a "historical" thing. The implication is, the phrase was in there from the beginning. You know, when all the founding fathers were hemp smoking deists.

Which is a complete spin illusion. The POA didn't even exist until 1892 - one hundred years (or so) after the creation of our constitution.

So people like Jerry Fawell and others who claim this is a "Christian" country are on pretty shaky ground when they're making the "history" argument for keeping the phrase "under god" in the POA.

And just look at what's happening in Iraq. Here, the reason behind the separation between church and state becomes crystal clear. I know Jerry Fawell thinks Christianity is the one true religion, but I don't think even Jerry Fawell would like to see an Islamic Fundamentalist Iraq. And it's because of the inevitable disaster which will happen without separation of Islamic Religion from Politics that our founding fathers founded this nation on the principal of separation between church and state.

Christianity, Catholicism, Moslemism, Buddhism.... Whatever. They shouldn't be part of politics.

And this is just my opinion. If the Pledge of Allegiance was a relic from our young past, I would easily support keeping it in. But it isn't. It was put in for specific religious reasons.

Iraq is a very clear object lesson to the correctness of this principal.

People like Jerry Fawell and Pat Robertson need to explain why it's a good thing for Iraq not to have an Islamic Fundamentalist government but it's okay to have an American Christian Fundamentalist government.

And their only conceivable answer can be "because Christianity isn't Islam, and Christianity is okay. All other religions are not okay."

This is simply not an acceptable answer to minority Moslems, Jews and yes, even Atheists in these United States.

The United States of America is not a theocracy. Iraq should not be one as well.

Pseudoscience vs. Snobbery

John Derbyshire has just left the land of the sane. I mean, it's just amazing to see that someone actually wrote what he did. I'm in shock and awed. The idiocy, stupidity, and yes SNOBBERY that oozes from this article is just astounding.

Operation Dessert Snipe

Far better at the argument than I could ever be. And I love the lines "we have gone to war on the wings of a snipe".

Seriously, though, despite the humor, the column is a very good serious read.

Now, I know the Great Oz has something up his sleeve that will make us all look like fools for believing that there are no WMDs... But so what. Even if they find them, their entire premise that this was an immanent threat and we must preemptively attack is completely blown. Not that this major point will sink in to the American populace's psyche, though. And being right here isn't something to be joyful about. The fallout of this idiocy is just starting to take shape. We may have been right, but guess what? We're still left holding the bag.

Which is, after all, the inevitable outcome of a snipe hunt.

Fear and Grocking.

Silvan takes me to task for not having comments. Gee, I wish I could comply. Due to some technical difficulties previously, I couldn't get my comments working. Then there's always the terrorizing prospect of seeing all these posts with zero comments. :) I'll take a look at trying to get them working again tonight. The previous problems were due to my horribly misshapen HTML that composed my template. That was fixed after a night of carefully indenting and debugging. I must say, I hate HTML. I write a lot of XML in my job, and I just can't stand dealing with it for something that isn't my job. But I have some tools now which can help me out without destroying the HTML and Blogger tags in the process. Wish me luck.

But back to fear and panic, he postulates "Panic is just letting fear get out of control, right?". My thoughts are a little different. I think panic is fear's call to action. It's purely herd instinct - a manifestation of the group reaction. Panic, undirected, results in chaos. But panic directed can be a very powerful thing. For example, look at the expert direction of the panic over 9/11 by the Great Oz. So panic without direction is extremely dangerous. But panic with a plan and leadership can be a devastatingly effective force...

Oh, and just a note. I didn't mean to use "Zen Master" as a pejorative. I was only meaning it as a compliment... Sorry if this was taken otherwise...

Great SARS blog I found from Brad DeLong's website: SARS Watch. Particularly interesting is this post.

Canada's main virology laboratory has found the virus for severe acute respiratory syndrome in only 40 percent of probable and suspect cases, a surprisingly low rate that puzzles the laboratory's scientific director and other health officials....

There could be a number of explanations for the low positive test rate, Dr. Plummer, Dr. Stöhr and other experts said. They include the possibility the coronavirus is not the cause of the disease or is not its sole cause; that specimens tested were collected at the wrong stage of the disease or were taken from the wrong part of the body; or that there were flaws in the laboratory testing. ... Still another, and less likely, is that mutant strains of the virus have developed and are escaping detection or causing milder cases.

Dr. Plummer's team in Winnipeg has tested about 3,000 specimens from 95 probable and 90 suspect cases in Canada and Asia. His team identified the SARS virus in about 40 percent of the probable cases and 35 percent of the suspect cases. He said he was surprised to find the virus in about 20 percent of an additional 250 people who were not suspected of having SARS but who were tested because they had come to Canada from affected areas in Asia or who had mild symptoms not thought to be SARS. Although the 250 were not randomly chosen as scientific controls, Dr. Plummer said he was still surprised at the number who tested positive....

If the coronavirus "is the whole and only explanation, which is certainly possible," he said, "there are a lot of weird things about it."

One puzzle is why the percent testing positive now has dropped to 30 percent when it was 70 percent initially. Because all the probable and suspect cases in the Toronto area are linked in a chain of transmission, "they ought to have the same thing," Dr. Plummer said. "Every day, we just scratch our heads" over the declining frequency, he said. "We don't think it is our testing or epidemiology, but it could be those things — though we don't have any reason to believe that."

Another puzzle, Dr. Plummer said, is why he and other scientists in the W.H.O. network are finding very small amounts of SARS virus in respiratory secretions in the first few days of illness but larger amounts later in the illness. "There is not much virus there for a disease that appears to be transmitted by respiratory" droplets, and "I do not know what that means," Dr. Plummer said. About 10 percent of SARS patients experience diarrhea. Members of the W.H.O. network in Hong Kong have found that a form of the virus can persist in feces up to 30 days after illness, though scientists do not know whether it is infectious to other people.

The findings, Dr. Plummer said, raised the question whether the SARS virus might infect the intestinal tract and cause lung problems secondarily, possibly through an immune reaction.

Brad DeLong has some very good posts (as usual).

The first that caught my eye was a post on The Rule of Three. He asks the question "Is there a connection with my desire to find and mention three examples of everything when I write? To give only one or two implies those are the only examples I can think of--three seems to imply that there are a lot more examples, but that space is limited." My thinking on this is very influenced by Buckminster Fuller's explanation (Yea, I'm a Bucky reader. So sue me). The importance of three comes from some very deep structural considerations about the way the physical Universe operates. The first obvious answer is that three is the minimal structural element - i.e. the triangle. You can't get any structure simpler. It requires three things to construct. So, and this is just my armchair analysis, structural integrity is inherent in our thinking. Since I believe that physical structure applies to thought constructs (just my belief in the evolutionary basis of abstraction), it is a heuristic that the mind uses when evaluating the "structural integrity" of an abstraction. If it's structurally sound, then it stands a good chance of being true. Much like logical arguments, though, just because they are well constructed doesn't mean they're right. It only means that if the premises are true, then the argument is true. Validity is not the same as true.

Also, I think there is something to be said about three being the minimum "recognition event". The first time something happens, you notice it. The second time something happens, you have the minimal amount of information to predict if it will happen again. The third time something happens, then you have minimal confirmation.

Anyways, just my random thoughts about this.

Brad also has some very interesting thoughts about the recent support for Alan Greenspan by this Administration. He brings up a very good point. Back in end of 2002, there was a heck of a lot of bluster from the Radical Right about whether they should dump Greenspan and get someone in the Fed who was willing to be part of the program. Serious talk from those in the know.

Elementary considerations of political consistency would seem to have called for delay of Greenspan support until after this year's reconciliation bill has passed: Republican legislators will ask over the next several months, "If this tax cut is so important and such a big deal, why isn't it important to have a Fed Chair who supports it?"

It seems that somebody or somebodies inside the White House, somebodies interested in presenting an image that economic policy is sober, responsible, and middle-of-the-road, has or have won an important internal political struggle.

Finally, there's an excellent post about his Nibs, Bill Frist. The Senate majority leader. In case you've been in a cave lately with Ussama or Saddam, you should know that Frist is being fried. I remember vividly the whole Trent Lott/Bill Frist affair back in 2002. Heck, I was on vacation at the time and since I'm a news junky I was having fun with the whole fandango.

Perhaps most worrisome for Mr. Frist, everyone else in the room seems to think that Frist agreed to a maximum of $350 billion for the conference report as well as the Senate bill. For Frist to say otherwise is very dangerous: after all, the only asset a Senate majority leader has is other people's trust in his word.

Is Frist damaged goods? If they need to replace him, then who's available? And if they do replace him, what kind of damage will that do to the Great Oz's agenda? After all, this position is an important one, and not something that is purely technical. Rather, it is a position that takes a lot of finesse and leg work. Oh, and then there's the whole trust thing. As much as the Right would like to believe otherwise, the Senate is a maelstrom of competing interests. Riding herd on even your own party is an extremely difficult task.

A very good post on the whole InstaPundit flap by the ArchPundit. The interesting meta point for me is very laid out by the ArchPundit

Perhaps it is their background as law professors that is the problem. While law journals serve their purpose, I'm a bit mystified by this almost post modern view of social science Kopel and Reynolds seem to be promoting. A fair panel is one that examines the issue from a social scientific view--not just a balance of pro and con. I understand the funding throws up flags, but attacking the professional credibility of social scientists without any evidence other than anonymous sources and simple assertion:

The closest that anyone on the panel gets to not being entirely antigun is James Q. Wilson

Kopel and Reynolds don't seem to grasp that there claim of bias in the context they are using it is a claim of professional incompetence and an attack on every members', except Wilson's, character. The level of cynicism reaches the silly level here. They assume everyone is a hack and so the point of a panel like this is that hacks from both sides should be included. Fortunately, everyone is not a hack and this isn't a post-modern universe. Hacks should be excluded from such a panel--including Civiletti and Lott. When Reynolds complains that DeLong does not understand Reynolds' argument, it is Reynolds who is confused. Reynolds thinks this panel is similar to the Kass Panel on Bioethics. A panel studying ethics is far different than a panel studying methodology. It isn't the point to ideologically or philosophically balance the panel, but to methodologically balance the panel.

You want good science. Good science is oblivious to a particular viewpoint. It's about data. It's about methodology. It's about interpretation. Whether you have a particular viewpoint or not is irrelevant in as much that it can only cast aspersions on your interpretation of the data, or your methodology. It's not a team that gets to battle it out in the arena of public opinion. If the facts show X, then you don't need to have a balance on a committee investigating something which don't believe in fact X.

But since there is very little understanding of the scientific process in most of the Public, this understanding and framing of how we find out the truth is understandably warped. Exemplary of this insane belief is the Christian Right's push to have creationism taught side by side with Evolution. They claim that Evolution isn't a science, which flies in the face of facts. People who make this claim know absolutely NOTHING about science and what a theory is and how science works. Because they are threatened by Evolution, they just try to cover up the fact that they don't actually have a theory - rather they have a belief - and treat the whole thing exactly like Glenn Reynolds does with Gun control - i.e. you get a balance by having teams of opposing players fight it out and who ever wins has the truth.

Sometimes I believe the human race is completely doomed by its ignorance.

Anything into Oil

No, not a post about Iraq war being about oil. Rather a very fascinating science article about a claim to be able to turn anything with carbon in it into oil. For example

If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water.

"The potential is unbelievable," says Michael Roberts, a senior chemical engineer for the Gas Technology Institute, an energy research group. "You're not only cleaning up waste; you're talking about distributed generation of oil all over the world."

"This is not an incremental change. This is a big, new step," agrees Alf Andreassen, a venture capitalist with the Paladin Capital Group and a former Bell Laboratories director.

Thermal depolymerization, Appel says, has proved to be 85 percent energy efficient for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for every 100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process." He contends the efficiency is even better for relatively dry raw materials, such as plastics.

And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there."
"We've got a lot of confidence in this," Buffett says. "I represent ConAgra's investment. We wouldn't be doing this if we didn't anticipate success." Buffett isn't alone. Appel has lined up federal grant money to help build demonstration plants to process chicken offal and manure in Alabama and crop residuals and grease in Nevada. Also in the works are plants to process turkey waste and manure in Colorado and pork and cheese waste in Italy. He says the first generation of depolymerization centers will be up and running in 2005. By then it should be clear whether the technology is as miraculous as its backers claim.

Still no confirmation on SARS potentially being an engineered virus. I spent last night scouring the web for any information, and strangely all the articles on the genetic code are dated April 14-16. Nothing of any real value after that. I did find a lot of confirmation that SARS is a completely new type of coronavirus, but that I already knew.

I did find out where you can get the actual genetic sequence known so far for SARS, available here.

But no confirmation or story link regarding the post from BigPicnic about the oddities in the SARS genome which initially raised alarm bells. I note in their comments that there still isn't a link to the original document, or a reference other than Nature News. There is a link to an article that I've found which echos other articles I've seen which say

Researchers at the University of Hong Kong said a new genetic sequencing of the SARS virus proves conclusively that it came from animals.

But, the virus nonetheless is "something that is new to science," university microbiologist Malik Peiris said before the WHO findings were announced during a meeting of scientists from around the world working on SARS.

Asked about the possibility that the virus was man-made, Peiris said there was no chance of that.

"That whole genome is essentially new," he said. "Nature has been the terrorist throwing up this virus."

Atrios has some choice words for William Saletan. All I can say is that I hope all the Gay and Lesbian Republicans look long and hard at this issue, as well as all others who would be affected by these morality police. Let's not forget exactly what they were hounding Bill Clinton for. This remark by Santorum is merely more of the same.

And what should be even more disturbing to a very wide audience is the constant repeat of the phrase "and the right to privacy, and there is no such concept in the constitution". Various forms of the phrase pop up in every Right wing apology for Santorum. I think Andrew Sullivan's portrayal of the whole issue is correct.

It's an issue that crosses all lines. And everyone should be standing up to this bigot and hold him accountable.

U.S. warns Baghdad's 'mayor'

Another blip on the bizarro meter

Baghdad's self-proclaimed rulers said Wednesday that they will use Iraqi government funds to pay all state employees their salaries this month -- with a 1,000-percent raise -- and took credit for progress in getting power, water and hospitals back up and running.

They also claimed the U.S. Army recognizes their authority, meets with them daily and even drove them from Kuwait to Baghdad in U.S. military vehicles.

The United States, however, denies supporting or meeting with the group and says it rejects the claims of the man who has appointed himself mayor of Baghdad, Muhammad Mohsen al-Zubaidi.

One U.S. commander in Baghdad went further -- warning that Al-Zubaidi and his followers face arrest if the returned Iraqi exile pushes too far with claiming authority -- especially if he forms an armed security service.

Lt. Col. Alan King, commander of the 422nd Civil Affairs Battalion, said he had seen reports that Al-Zubaidi was distributing weapons and uniforms to followers.

Al-Zubaidi "is running Baghdad as much as Saddam Hussein is," King said.

The Doctrine of Fascism

When in doubt, go to the source.

Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Duce of fascist Italy from 1922 to 1945, needs no introduction. The following selections are from his article entitled “The Doctrine of Fascism” which appeared in the Italian Encyclopedia of 1932.

Put simply, fascism is maybe best understood as an extreme reaction against socialism and communism. It was explicitly anti-democratic, anti-liberal, and corporatist, and it endorsed violence as a chief means to its ends. It was also, obviously, authoritarian, but claiming that it was oriented toward "socialism" is just crudely ahistorical, if not outrageously revisionist. Socialists, let's not forget, were among the first people imprisoned and "liquidated" by the Nazi regime.

I got back immediate claims to the contrary. First, that I had no idea what fascism is - which could always be the case - and in any event, the description of fascism that I purported better describe the Liberals.

Pretty strange. Liberals can be called Anti-American, commies, pinkoes, treasonous slimy nabering nabobs of negativism and that's an okay characterization. But start calling the Right fascist and you know you struck a nerve.

Anyways, I think the shoe fits the people who are currently in charge. Yea, it's not like Mussolini. Yea, it's not Nazism. It's uniquely American.

I'm not saying this is the Republican party. Republicans aren't fascists.

But like the communists that we have in the Liberal wing of American politics, the fascists are certainly part of the Right. And right now, unlike the communist minority of the American left, they are now running the country.

I know I'd be very alarmed if the communists were running the country - heck, that's just me. I wonder why there isn't a lot more than just murmuring on the Right about their own wacko minority.

Oh wait. They have a lot of guns. Now I understand the silence.

ET TU, NEWTUS?

Bevan sees the writing on the wall.

It's hard to argue that Don Rumsfeld isn't the perfect person to be running the DoD. But that doesn't mean that he or someone who shares his thinking would be the best person to run State, as Gingrich seems to suggest. Would the administration really be stronger with, say, Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle as Secretary of State? Monopolies of thought are extremely dangerous, and it's hard to imagine that President Bush would be better served by one - especially since the evidence indicates that Bush seems to agree with Powell's advice at certain times and on certain issues.

Nuking Common Sense

Silvan has a post script that was perhaps meant for me regarding fear, Dr. Strangelove, and rock and roll. Well, actually another post or two as well.

I guess I need some 'splaining. After all, wasn't I saying we needed more fear and panic? Mabe not. But it's an excuse to write anyway.

I guess at issue is that there are many ways fear and panic can be dealt with. There's a very big difference between being driven by fear and reacting to fear. My point is that fear and panic are essential tools to survival. If you are fear-less, you are insane. You do stupid things because you are missing an essential piece which tells you that you are doing stupid things.

Likewise, if you are fear-full, you do stupid things because you are overwhelmed by your fear and paralyzed in inaction. Or you do even more stupid things like build bigger and bigger nuclear bombs and more of 'em.

So I don't have a major disagreement with Silvan regarding fear and panic. Only a disagreement as to its usefulness. Again, the middle road. Taoism, Buddhism... Heck, even Zen teaches this stuff... You can't let fear control you. You channel it and master it. But you don't eliminate it.

Either side of the extremes lies madness.

And right now we're seeing manifestations of both sides in spades. I feel the NeoCons, or Radical Right, or whatever you want to call them, are driven by fear. They own the government, the media, everything. And yet they are still so afraid of losing it that they grip even tighter. Likewise Americans are so afraid of the bogeyman of terrorism that they are willing to do anything to achieve some illusion of safety.

But then we wander through the middle east in a bluster that can only be described as insane, trying to reshape the entire region as if we're gods. Scripting wargames, thinking that CAzaelabi would have everything under control. Re-papering history so that we only have the "perfect" plan view of our actions...

All of it manifestations of the two sides of the same coin.

So, yea. We need to deal with fear and become its master. But we can't chuck it out the door and just imagine a perfect world either. Nature has long, sharp teeth and things get eaten as a normal course of existence. Things blow up, or shake themselves to pieces. Gamma ray bursts could sterilize this planet in the next microsecond.

Rational fear is useful. Irrational fear is madness. But to be fear-less is also madness.

Fear teaches you respect, focuses the mind and is an early warning system.

Iraqi Shiites Fast Filling Power Vacuum

The brilliant - dare I say perfect? - plan of the DOD seems to be kicking into high gear. While they're setting up shop in the ritzy part of Baghdad with CAzaelabi, the Shiites are out with the people who matter and working the crowds.

Now, I would only like to point out that this is a possibility that the nay-sayers and doom predictors worried about before this all happened. But I guess winning the war proved them all wrong.

Geesh.

Again, this is a pattern with this Administration. They lucked out when they didn't predict the opposition they got from the Iraqis during the war. They didn't predict the Shiites doing what they are now doing. They are now blaming it on an entirely predictable effort by Iran. These guys are, with all due respect, idiots. Just like the Millennium Games.

I guess the Shiites are a bit different from what they war gamed in the political strategy.

More Than Azaelf of Top Iraqi 'Weapons Sites' Searched With No Result

Hans Blix, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, commented Tuesday on the lack of U.S. findings.

"It is conspicuous that so far they have not stumbled upon anything," he said in New York.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Tuesday there was "no question we remain confident that WMD [weapons of mass destruction] will be found."

On Wednesday he said the president still believes weapons exist there. Asked what will happen if none are found, he said "the chances of success depend not on finding something by bumping into it," but on information provided by Iraqis involved in the programs.

Asked if he meant searches might not find the weapons but rather some kind of evidence they previously existed, Fleischer said: "There are no changes in the American position. We have high confidence that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction ... that indeed will be found in whatever form it is."

What am I thinking? I mean, I know what they're going to do. They're going to wring their hands and opine about how it was a good war after all, despite being done for the wrong reasons...

Blair, on the other hand... Well, I think he's going to be fried. And the Brits are going to have their panties in a twist over this one. Not that this matters for US politics, though.

And, of course, Rumsfeld's currency will yet again rise due to this. No doubt about that.

But I do wonder about all the "liberal hawks", say like Josh MarsAzaell. The whole war was premised on this WMD and our inability to use inspections to make sure they weren't there and never would. Wonder how that's going to shake out.

Naturally, a caveat. If they find them, I was wrong. Okay Taranto?

SARS virus is man-made!

Holy Flirking Snit.

Well, hold your horses until I can find any confirmation from this. I found this at BigPicnic, and I can't find the source. But

SARS has been claimed to be a mutated form of an already existing virus. This means that it contains the architecture of a deadly disease, but a difference exists in its composition making traditional treatments ineffective.

Generally, when a mutation such as this occurs in nature, it is a switch in ONE nucleotide (out of several thousand). VERY RARELY a mutation can occur that spans two or maybe three nucleotides that get spliced into the viral DNA at various places.

The SARS virus contains a 35 nucleotide insert in the promoter region. More shocking is that this sequence is not analagous to any known nucleotide sequence know to exist in man or beast.

In common terms, there is no other explanation other than that this virus was designed. That is to say, this insert is some form of engineered trait that has been manually inserted into an existing virus to make it either: more potent, more contagious, more specific, or more proliferative

Update: See my later post

Iraqis: We Were Told to Destroy Bacteria

Seems to be the emerging theme for the common narrative. Essentially, this article is full of innuendo and assertions that sound bad, but when you think about them for a minute or two, only sound like a regime that is extremely paranoid of doing ANYTHING that would get them in trouble.

Such laboratory equipment, used by scientists to grow bacteria for study, could theoretically be used to create biological agents such as anthrax. But the equipment would be much too small to generate biological weapons in the quantities Iraq has been accused of producing.

Rasheed said none of the materials were being used for weapons development, but that he was unsure whether any were banned by U.N. resolutions adopted at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, which prohibited Iraqi research into weapons of mass destruction.

"Maybe some were banned. I don't know. We just wanted to avoid problems," Rasheed said.

Again, what a frickin' joke.

Iran Is Said to Send Agents Into Southern Iraq

Yea, this is all going to work out just fine.

They said the infiltration from Iran was not unexpected, but they described it as a matter of significant concern at a time when outside powers are jockeying for influence to fill the political vacuum in Iraq. They said it suggests that Iran, which stayed on the sidelines during the American-led war in Iraq, may be trying to take a more assertive role in shaping developments in southern Iraq, whose population — like that of Iran — is composed overwhelmingly of Shiite Muslims.

"They are not looking to promote a democratic agenda," one military official said.

Kamiya vs. O'Reilly

Never going to happen. He's a panty waisted control freak who shudders at the thought of anything even approaching a fair debate.

But it's nice to see Salon get scrappy.

New Fox Reality Show To Determine Ruler Of Iraq

Certainly seems to be a far better plan than what our government seems to have.

Did the New York Times just change the rules of journalism?

Journalists hammer out agreements with sources all the time. They agree to fudge the identities of sources. They agree to put information on deep background, publishing what they've been told without directly attributing it to anybody. In extraordinary instances, as Washington Post Executive Editor Benjamin C. Bradlee wrote in 1986, newspapers will consult with the government about sensitive stories and withhold information for national security reasons. But, Bradlee, snarled, "we don't allow the government—or anyone else—to decide what we should print. That is our job, and doing it responsibly is what a free press is all about. … Trouble starts when people try to sweep a lot of garbage under the rug of national security."

Give Miller kudos for her scoop, but it's worth asking if she and the Times secured it at a price too dear. If the paper of record has changed the rules of sourcing to the advantage of the U.S. military and the Bush administration, it ought to inform its readers of those changes, preferably in a meaty "Editor's Note" on Page Two.

If this is the case, it'd be a great coup. The Administration would have completely neutered the Left in one fell swoop.

Even though this is my bet, I'm still sticking to my claim there ain't anything resembling WMD's in any meaningful sense of the term. A few things here and there, but nothing like they were telling us existed.

'Course this means I'm going to be blasted by the Great Oz. Who cares. I'm just a rube anyway. It's the nice thing about being insignificant. :)

U.S. Planners Surprised by Strength of Iraqi Shiites

Gee. I guess people who come up with worst case scenarios actually do have a function after all. Surprised? I mean, c'mon.

No doubt, the WSJ will spin this as another nay-saying failure for the Left.

Some U.S. intelligence analysts and Iraq experts said they warned the Bush administration before the war about vanquishing Hussein's government without having anything to replace it. But officials said the concerns were either not heard or fell too low on the priority list of postwar planning.

CAzaelabi's influence, particularly with senior policymakers at the Pentagon, helped play down the prospects for trouble, some officials said. "They really did believe he is a Shiite leader," although he had been out of the country for 45 years, a U.S. official said. "They thought, 'We're set, we've got a Shiite -- check the box here.' "

"We're flying blind on this. It's a classic case of politics and intelligence," said Walter P. "Pat" Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specialist in Middle Eastern affairs. "In this case, the policy community have absolutely whipped the intel community, or denigrated it so much."

Wait. Go back to sleep. Sorry to disturb ya.

Oh, and by the way. Yes, I do know that Andrew Sullivan is gay. My point is that the Rev. Myung Moon, who signs Andrew's paycheck, says far more horrible things about gays and he seems to take the paycheck without a whimper.

Like I said. Toadies are laughed at and despised by the very masters they are serving.

Imperialism by Empiricism

Another one from Silvan. He's responding to my grouchy old man post regarding realpolitick. His point is to "not panic"...

All I can say is that because I'm a SubGenius, I subscribe to the religion's fundamental tenet: I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to. Being a SubGenius, I am genetically incapable of panicking, but I can certainly do a darn good job mimicking it. Panic is something that has evolved over millennia for a very good reason. Panic is the thing that tells you all is not well in your world. Things are getting way out of hand and you have to do something quick. To not be panicking at this point, you would have to be a Zen master or a SubGenius (not isomorphic concepts). Panic can be a good thing. Fear is a gift. Fear and Panic tell you that you should be extra special careful and start looking for an exit immediately. The adrenaline rushing through you sharpens your focus and slows down time to a stand still. Oh, and if you need to lift a car off someone, the hormone reactions will come in mighty handy.

Panic? We need more of it. Lot's more of it. The kind of panic you feel when you pump the brakes and you suddenly realize they aren't working any longer - the lines have been cut. That little brake light on your dashboard you brushed off when you started the car might have warned you before you reached 100 mph on a rain soaked highway. . . But little time for regrets now. Fear is what you must channel to avoid becoming a red smear on the highway for the rubes to clean up later. Panic is the mechanism evolution has carefully evolved to scream "You're really screwed now" in a way you cannot avoid it. In a way you can't brush it off and ignore it.

Humans are excellent at avoiding and ignoring the reality around them. Look at Vegas. An entire synthetic reality. Look at American politics. . . Another synthetic reality. . .

Well, in my humble and irrelevant opinion, there's plenty of reason people should start panicking. Sure, one of the downfalls is that you get Chicken Little Syndrome. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. But I think the brake light has been on the dash, glowing like a fiery red eye - reminding us, in some primal way, of the eye of danger. A predator that is peeking into the cave to see if something tasty lives inside.

Panic channeled can maybe get you out of the idiotic situation you find yourself in. Use it as a tool. Panic is a good thing.

We're in a bus travelling at 100 mph down a hill and there's a sharp left at the bottom where's there's a 1,000 foot drop off into crashing ocean waves. We've just discovered the brakes are gone, and the idiots driving the bus have decided to accelerate. Pop quiz: What do you do? Panic, or try to change your world view?

Just kidding. Really. Go back to sleep and hit the snooze button. Nothing going on here that you need to concern yourself with. Nothing at all. Here's a blanket and your favorite teddy bear.

It's not like we are planning on bombing North Korea or anything. We are absolutely not going to be 500,000,000,000 dollars in debt per year for the foreseeable future. There simply are not 50,000,000 people in the US who don't have medical insurance. We definitely have not lost 2,000,000 jobs in the last two years. Where do you get these figures? You've been panicking, haven't you... Well, no matter what you've heard, our states' budgets are not 100,000,000,000 dollars in the red. We did not just invade another country on falsified evidence of WMD. Really! We won the war, and that proves we were right all along! We are not going to have a fundamentalist Islamic Iraq no matter what those Shiia clerics say. We've got CAzaelabi and Garner on the job! Just quiet down. We are absolutely not going to invade Syria. We are simply not shredding your civil rights. PATRIOT act II is just a few tweaks here and there. Nothing major you should worry your pretty little head over. And we are definitely not going to treat Iraq like we did Afghanistan. No sirree. No way and how. Everything is proceeding according to plan.

You guys are just panicking. Hey, I have my golf shirt on. You think I'd be golfing if there was something to panic about? I don't know where you get this stuff. You should stop reading so much on the internet. Now go back to sleep and just quiet down. We've got a sharp left turn coming up at the bottom of this hill and we need to be going a heck of a lot faster than we are now. We don't have brakes, you know. And everyone knows you accellerate into a turn.

Oh, and will someone please do something about Colin Powell? He keeps on trying to grab the steering wheel and it's just plain annoying. Hey, Newt? Can you give us a hand here and get rid of that annoyance? He's driving me crazy.

Now, where's that gas pedal?

What? You're still awake? I told you to go back to sleep. Here's a pillow.

Silvan digs my grave deeper.

I was looking for a much fluffier, bunny shapped answer instead of the 20 story Godzilla shaped one. Oh, and out of chocolate, not Semtex.

Yi.

Finally, Andrew Sullivan using his preternatural powers for propaganda for good.

Andrew writes a wonderful column about Rick Santorum's recent outburst about sexual privacy. Considering that this is his party, and his masters, I'm shocked to see it happening. But it is an extremely important issue, and one that is frequently pinned on Liberals (i.e. consentual private sex between adults of the same sex). Is Andrew waking up? I don't think so.

But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I'm glad to see him do some good for a change with that silver tongue of his.

Unusually long and aligned 'buckytubes' grown at Duke

This is an amazing accomplishment. With buckytubes measuring in millimeters, incredible composite materials become possible. If they can grow these in centimeter lengths, then watch out. Very cool.

"To the best of my knowledge these are the longest individual single-walled carbon nanotubes ever recorded, although we removed that 'longest' statement from our paper because you can never claim longest forever," Liu said.

"In our paper, we claimed lengths of more than 2 millimeters, but in our own lab we are now growing 4 millimeter long nanotubes," he added in an interview. "We may get even longer nanotubes later on."

Nanotube lengths are normally less than 20 millionths of a meter, their JACS report said -- about 100 times shorter than the ones Liu's team is making. If its girth could somehow be bloated to a 1-inch diameter, then a 2-millimeter-long nanotube's length would extend proportionally to more than 31 miles, Liu estimated.

U.S. has plan to bomb North Korea

The Pentagon has produced plans to bomb North Korea's nuclear plant at Yongbyon, if the rouge state goes ahead with reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods that would yield enough plutonium for six nuclear weapons, according to a published report Tuesday.

Citing "well-informed sources close to U.S. thinking," the Australian newspaper reported the plan also involves a military strike against North Korean artillery stationed in the hills above the border with South Korea.

The artillery threatens Seoul and about 17,000 U.S. troops stationed south of the Demilitarized Zone.

The Pentagon hardliners said to be behind the plan reportedly believe the precision strikes envisaged in it would not lead to North Korea initiating a general war it would be certain to lose.

The United States would inform North Korea it was not aiming to destroy the regime of Kim Jong-il, but merely destroy its nuclear weapons capacity, the newspaper reported.

However, the Bush administration hasn't made a decision to accept the plan.

Instead, President George W. Bush has emphasized that they believe diplomacy can work with North Korea.

The United States, North Korea and China are scheduled to hold talks in Beijing on Wednesday.

Rumsfeld calls for regime change in North Korea

A secret Donald Rumsfeld memorandum calling for regime change in North Korea was leaked Monday, opening a fresh foreign policy split in the Bush administration.

The classified discussion paper, circulated by the defense secretary, appears to cut directly across State Department plans to disarm Kim Jong Il, the North's dictator, through threats mixed with promises that he is not a target for overthrow.

The paper does not call for military action against North Korea, but wants the United States to team up with China in pushing for the collapse of Kim's bankrupt but belligerent regime, the New York Times reported.

In a sign that Washington is girding itself for a repetition of the bitter arguments that preceded the Iraq conflict, the memorandum was leaked on the same day that a senior State Department negotiator flew to Beijing for talks with China and North Korea.

Officials working for Rumsfeld are opposed to the talks, pointing to North Korea's long history of extorting aid and concessions in return for promises--unkept-- to behave in a more reasonable way.

Instead, they seek to use the effect of the rapid victory in Iraq to push North Korea to scrap its nuclear weapons program immediately.

They also want to demand weapons inspections across the country. That would be an unthinkable concession for a Stalinist police state that bars even aid agencies from a third of its territory. This raises the prospect that the United States would be urging inspections for form's sake and with little hope of success, much as happened in Iraq.

As someone once said, it's the replay of a bad movie...

Biotoxins Fall Into Private Hands

Okay, this is a terrifying article. On so many levels.

But get this. South Africa has been put up as the model of disarmament - one that was used to contrast against Iraq. Now we learn about this...

"The rollback in South Africa is incomplete," said Milton Leitenberg, an arms control expert and senior research scholar at the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs. "It's unclear that the government ever wrapped these programs up, and they need to wrap them up. The fact that you've got a guy with a walking collection of bacteria traveling around the world is just more evidence of that."

Found this excellent bit via Jimm. Definitely worth the read. Jimm and many others seem to be catching the mojo in anticipation of 2004. Me, I'm still a cynical husk of a man who believes 2004 is going to find an awful lot of disappointed and terrified Democrats after the dust clears. But I'll keep the 5 year old from seeing that side of me. In a perfect world, I can't see how Bush could win. But in a perfect world, we would actually have a semblance of a free press and some opposition Democrats with more than a couple of atoms of Calcium in their spinal region. Add to this bit of fun the electronic voting... uh... control and it doesn't look good. And if the 2004 election is about national security, which I'm sure the GOP is going to do their best to make it so, then the Dems will be left without a leg to fall down on.

Without hope, there can be no plan. But hope alone is not a plan. Bush raised a record $194,000,000 for the 2000 presidential campaign. I recall hearing them plan on raising $500,000,000 for the 2004 campaign. I wish I could verify this fact, but in some respects it just doesn't matter. They will certainly top 250,000,000, and the Dems will be woefully far behind. The media is firmly in Bush's camp. And with all that astounding amount of money to throw around, why wouldn't they? Bush 2004 is going to drown the media in money.

So I have hope. Things are really strange and all the campaign money in the world can't turn the economy around. But if no one cares, and we have even less voters than in 2000, then I say the Dems are screwed.

Oh well. Back to put on my pink bath robe and get my golf club. Those kids are messing in my yard again.

Hokum From the Prosecution

Starting to see something at least.

I won't say they don't exist; something is sure to turn up sooner or later. And I certainly don't say Hussein should have been declared not guilty and sent home. But I do say that Powell's spellbinding display looks more and more like prosecutorial hokum. And either Powell or the intelligence professionals who supplied him with his talking points must have known it was hokum. Not deliberate lies so much as a glib presentation designed to paper over holes in the evidence. Think of the district attorney who is so convinced he has nailed the right guy that he sweeps aside whatever facts don't fit.

It doesn't happen only on TV. Scores of Americans are on death row as a result of not-quite-ironclad evidence adduced by prosecutors who were certain the defendant was guilty. Juries believed it, and in most cases so did the public. Why shouldn't we believe that what our officials say is the truth? After all, we've had a look at the defendant's rap sheet, and we don't doubt he could have done this crime as well. Besides, doesn't he look guilty?

So we convict -- and, too frequently, execute. And when someone comes up with new evidence that the old evidence was cooked, we don't know what to do.

We don't know what to do in our judicial system, and we don't know what to do in Iraq. It's tough enough when the new evidence proves someone else did the crime, or when a witness admits to having lied. It's a hundred times tougher when the new evidence is merely that the old evidence was oversold.

In the case of Iraq, we're inclined to blur the line between rationale and objective. Maybe the reasons offered for giving up on inspections in favor of war weren't as sound as we thought, but surely the objective of ridding Iraq and the world of Saddam Hussein was a worthy one.

Maybe such blurring is all we can do. I don't know anyone who regrets that Hussein is gone, even those who would have preferred stronger evidence and U.N. support for the war that removed him. All we can do now is hope that Iraq can survive its near-term civic chaos -- couldn't Arab governments supply police officers to help in the emergency? -- and end up an oasis of democracy in a desert of tyranny.

And we can hope that our own leaders won't interpret our gratitude for America's military triumph with open-ended support for more Middle East adventurism.

Idiots.

Washington to Syria: Hand over Saddam’s WMD First

The US ultimatum to Damascus consists of three demands, to be followed in the same order:

First ,give up the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam has secretly hidden in Syria.

Second , return to Iraq all the officials of the Saddam regime granted asylum.

Last Friday, DEBKAfile listed the top eight as being: former vice president Izzat Ibrahim Al-Douri, Saddam’s bureau chief Abd Hamoud, Baath party boss Aziz Salah, special security service chief Hanni Tefalah, Republican Guards Secretary Kemal Mustafa, Republican Guards Commander Seif A-Din Suleih, Iraqi Intelligence Commander Taher Jaloul and Special Republican Guards commander, Gen. Barzan Suleiman Tikriti.

Kemal Mustafa was handed over Sunday.

Third ,disband the command structures of the Hizballah, Hamas, Jihad Islami and other Palestinian terrorist groups operating out of Lebanon and Damascus and give their leaders into American hands.

Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert

A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said.

They said the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs.

The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said.

Hopefully, we'll know sooner rather than later.

But, given the fact that this report is pretty vague - i.e. no real details - this is suspicious. After all, truth is specific. Spin is vague.

We will see.

U.S. seizes Iraq's 'most wanted' science minister

Let's hope the answer really is "We have none". It's the best case scenario for our country. Well, except for the fact we launched the preemptive whole war thing and all... After all, let's hope it's not the fact that our intelligence agencies failed us yet again and Saddam managed to move out huge amounts of WMD under our noses. That is not a pleasant thought.

So where are they, Mr Blair?

The American press should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They are absolutely lap dogs at this point. Even if we find WMDs, the press should be aggressively asking these questions. To not do so is to let the Administration off easy. They made huge claims about WMD that got us into this war. Claims so outrageous that we certainly all were led to believe they knew right where they are, and Hans Blix was just an idiot and a stooge of Saddam.

But wait. Wide deference to a President in time of war. Hey guys, war is over. Or haven't you been reading the papers? The NeoCons were right, and the nay-sayers were wrong. Can we have some reporting that actually holds this Administration's feet to the fire? Something resembling investigative reporting? I mean, I'm not asking you to say there aren't any. I just want you to start asking this Administration the kind of questions that are asked in the article above in the Independent of the UK.

Really. All I've seen is some petty rumblings and nothing but non stop pap about the certainty of finding WMD from this Administration. If you're afraid to ask the questions, then what the hell are you there for? I mean, asking questions - respectfully, of course - is what you're supposed to do. There are questions here that need answering - even if we eventually find the WMD. And the answer could very well be that Saddam was far more dangerous than we thought, and we now have a REALLY big problem on our hands because some other "rogue" state or Al Qiada has them. Don't you think that it would be prudent, regardless of the answer, to actually find out? I mean, if the worst case scenario is true - meaning that WMD is now somewhere else just as dangerous - don't you think we should find out sooner rather than later?

The failure to turn up anything to date raises two possibilities, neither one good, says Joseph Cirincione, chief of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "It may be that there aren't as many weapons as the President said, in which case we have a major intelligence failure, a huge embarrassment for the President and a huge blow to U.S. credibility—and that's the good news," he says. "The other option is that there are as many weapons as the President feared, and they're no longer under anyone's control."

But then, that would be just a tiffin fantasy of mine.

So where are they? In case we forget, distracted by the thought of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, looted museums and gathering political chaos, the proclaimed purpose of this war, vainly pursued by Britain and the US through the United Nations, was to disarm Saddam Hussein and to destroy weapons of mass destruction deemed a menace to the entire world.

Anyways, the adolescent way this whole war thing has been handled will either turn out to be true, and we're still screwed because they let the WMD slip into Syria, or false and we're screwed because we fought a preemptive war against another country because we were duped by our own Administration. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

At least that's the way it's looking to me. Fine. Say that there really was WMD, and I was a complete moron who thought otherwise. If they slipped across the border to Syria (or where ever) in the last year, then our intelligence agencies are completely populated by morons who can't see massive amounts of WMD while they're watching the country with a microscope and super high tech spy satellites). And I just really can't believe that the finest intelligence agencies in the world would miss something like that. And if they did... By "Bob's" beard that means something even scarier than having weapons of mass destruction now in the possession of another rogue regime or Al Qiada.

It means that our intelligence agencies are woefully ignorant. For all our vaunted intelligence, a tin cup dictator managed to fool them all. And considering what a push over he was militarily (yea, you guys were sure right about that one), how on earth am I supposed to believe that they managed to put one over on the CIA/NSA/MI6 and whatever the frick Israel's intelligence agency is called. And since we still don't know what went wrong before 9/11 (hey, remember all that?), maybe all the "vaunted" changes we've made to our intelligence agencies were the wrong things to do?

I mean, I know anything will be spun into the argument

We need to shred more liberties. We need more spying on our own population. We need more powers for the executive branch. We need to suck more money from the economy for Bush's tax cuts.

And they didn't predict 9/11 either.

So, maybe that would be something to investigate if you're an investigative journalist?

Asking hard questions is patriotic. Pointing out inconvenient facts is patriotic. If we did more of this instead of suppressing them by questioning patriotism and yelling treason at anyone who even dares to question the great plan and intelligence of This Administration, maybe we'd have a better intelligence network and figure this crap out BEFORE it becomes an even worse scenario than what we just went through. I mean, hasn't everyone been yelling and screaming at anyone who dares to voice even the mildest dissent about this whole war thing? This whole WMD thing?

This potential "Gee, he had WMD but he somehow shipped them out to Syria, Iran and Cuba. Oh, Al Qiada may have some, too".

I really don't want to find out the answer to that a year from now. I think someone should have the answer to this pretty darn quick. Because a terrorist attack with WMD isn't like moving 200,000 troops around. It's 15 guys and Anthrax. It's 15 guys and VX.

And time really does matter here. The way the American media has been treating this, you'd think we had all the time in the world to figure out what happened to this stuff and where it is.

Even Critics of War Say the White House Spun It With Skill

That's why I love the American press. These kind of analysis are entertaining after the fact. We should have had this kind of analysis before the fact. Ah, but then it would have been unpatriotic then, wouldn't it. So glad we know how the barn door got open after the horses have escaped. We know how the fire happened after the barn has burnt down.

And the media corporations are proud of this? The reporters are proud of this? They're going to accept Pulitzers next year for this? Our representatives in our government are proud of this?

What a pack of jackals.

And worst of all, no one will remember to dust off this analysis and run the same column the next time this happens. We have a reactive rather than proactive media/press.

What liberal media?

Prove Iraqi guilt, MPs tell Blair

Well, at least there's one other democracy involved in this that is going to get some pressure applied to prove that the government wasn't duped by this Administration. Imagine the following playing out in our Government:

Backbench Labour MPs who feel they were duped into backing the war on the basis of questionable intelligence want the cross-party Commons intelligence and security committee to carry out an investigation. One well-placed former minister said: "The intelligence committee is raring to cAzaellenge the veracity of what the security services told them about Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons. They were told what he had and where it was. There may be a perfectly innocent explanation for all this, but they don't seem to be able to find the stuff."

Britain and the US are so desperate to uncover a 'smoking gun' to justify the war against Iraq that they have drawn up a list of 146 sites to be inspected in Iraq. A team of civilian scientists and military forces, dubbed Usmovic because they are a US-led rival to the UN's Unmovic inspection force, will interview up 5,000 Iraqi scientists.

US forces have begun to interrogate General Amir al-Saadi, the head of Iraq's weapons programme, who surrendered last weekend. But General Tommy Franks, the commander of US forces in the Gulf, attempted to lower expectations when he warned that it may take a year to uncover details of Iraq's arsenal.

Such comments are causing alarm in the Commons. Lindsay Hoyle, the Labour MP for Chorley, who voted in favour of war because of Mr Blair's chilling warnings about Iraq's banned weapons, said: "We were led to believe that the Iraqis could fire them within 45 minutes. If that was the case where have they vanished to? We were told there was hard evidence."

David Hinchliffe, chairman of the Commons health committee, said: "For many of us who talked to ministers there was an implication that more was known. Therefore a lot of people are anxious to establish the truth."

MPs are also starting to ask questions about the conduct of the intelligence services. They want to see the evidence that persuaded members of the Commons intelligence committee to back government efforts to win round waverers before the war began. One MP is telling committee members: "You kept saying you wished you could tell us, so now will you tell us?"

Critics suspect that Downing Street may have hyped up the intelligence reports about Iraq's banned weapons. They point to last month's resignation speech by Robin Cook, in which the former foreign secretary said: "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term."

I mean, right now, the "I told you so's" are deafening on the other side of this argument - and this is only about something that no one really disputed. Winning the war. The entire reason for the war - the preemptive case - well.... That we can never be sure of. We'll never know. We just are so sure that we will find them, and we're also so sure that this Administration didn't lie to us, that we dare not ask the question. Because if the proof doesn't show up, then we'll have committed a war of aggression that most of the entire world was against. And it was done on the basis of a lie. And that means everyone was duped.

And that is too terrible to contemplate, because that would mean admitting that the French were right. And what a humiliation that would be.

So we don't even ask the question because we don't want to hear the answer. We'll just pleasantly go about our business treating the topic taboo. But at least one other democracy has a stake in the whole thing, and they at least are asking the question. And the Administration doesn't seem to have them cowed. And if they don't get answers that they like, then they're going to start getting pretty pissed off. Before the actual war, a large percentage of the British population was against it. After the war, and the subsequent liberation statue pulls changed this to a majority supporting the action. But they had better find WMD soon, or give a damn good explanation as to why they haven't. And if it turns out that MI6 was duped by the CIA, then that will be a major blow to national pride.

Because then Blair really was Bush's lap dog. He was duped by the NeoCons. And that won't sit well in the British's gut at all...

Anthrax, chemicals and nerve gas: who is lying?

Perhaps it's time to give Mr Ritter another chance. It may, in fact, be time to reassess who exactly has been the deceiver and who the dupe in this whole affair. What Mr Ritter and others now allege, with increasing confidence, is a pattern of false information emanating from both Washington and London since last September – lies and distortions that launched a major war and are only now beginning to be widely exposed.

Exhibit number one is a speech Vice President Dick Cheney gave to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last summer. "The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents." he said. "And they continue to pursue the nuclear programme they began so many years ago." Mr Ritter says this is pure fiction.

Mr Cheney attributed his information to high-level defectors, including Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal. Supposedly, Kamal led UN inspectors in 1995 to a chicken farm stuffed with secret documents on ongoing weapons programmes. Actually, according to Mr Ritter, Hussein Kamal told US intelligence that the weapons had been destroyed, and the chicken farm documents subsequently examined by UN inspectors corroborated that.

Exhibit number two is the briefing paper issued by Downing Street on 24 September, which first alleged the purchase of uranium for nuclear weapons use from Niger. The documents indicating this purchase have now been exposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency as glaringly obvious fakes.

The timing of the nuclear allegation was crucial in persuading the US Congress to grant President Bush full war powers against Iraq a few weeks later. Several angry congressmen who voted in favour now want to know how and why they were misled.

"This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened," Henry Waxman of California wrote to the President last month. "I believed that you had access to reliable intelligence information that merited deference... The two most obvious explanations – knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence – both have immediate and serious implications."

Exhibit number three is the list of dangerous substances that President Bush and Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, said the Iraqis had not accounted for. Another distortion, according to Mr Ritter. The 15,000 litres of anthrax on the list, for example, was a hypothetical projection of future production at a biological plant that was closed down long ago.

Mr Ritter has not, of course, been vindicated quite yet. US intelligence may really know something, and significant hidden caches of weapons could still materialise. But the pattern of deception and unsubstantiated allegation is unmistakable, even as the political embarrassment for the Bush administration deepens.

If it turns out not to be the case, I'll put on sack cloth and ashes. However, my bet if it turns out that it was a lie and deception all along, it'll all just be spun away and forgotten.

After all, the ends justify the means here in the US.

A flash animation you must see. It's a Honda ad, but you're going to love it. It's the best Rube Goldberg machine I've ever, ever seen. The geek in you will love it...

I do so love it when Atrios gets shrill. I like seeing the passion about the absolutely Orwellian schtick the Right is trying to pull here. Hope he doesn't lose this when he goes on vacation...

Had a couple of interesting discussions regarding WMD's or lack there of. One was the usual, "well, he could have these X-File mobile WMD labs, and they'd be really hard to find". I, of course, repeated my screed here (without the frills). But one of the more interesting talks I had centered around the probability that we don't find WMD at all. Nothing but stuff the inspectors already knew about. No paper trail. Nothing.

What got me thinking today was listening to the NY Times reporter in Baghdad, John F. Burns, on The News Hour with Jim Leher. Considering we may have seen Saddam Hussein pop up in Baghdad today, one of John's comments seemed particularly eery. He was saying that before the war, he was talking to Aziz (I think) about how the deputy prime minister felt about Tommy Franks occupying the palace they were walking around at the moment, looking for Saddam. In response, Tariq said (something like) "You tell Franks that when he comes here, he will be chasing shadows".

John Burns is convinced these guys had escape plans in place. He believes there is a very real possibility that Saddam is alive and IN BAGHDAD! I mean, how freaky is that? The tape today was pretty eery.

Another story that caught my eye was what the Marines were busy tearing up the floor tiles in one of the Palaces of Saddam. I can't remember which blog I first saw this in, but apparently Saddam had George Bush the First's face tiled into one of the floors on the palace. So until the marines ripped it up,

"Everybody walked over it and wiped their feet on it," Lt. Col. Rick Schwartz, the battalion commander said. He left the Saddam portrait behind, on the ground for future use.

Anyways, back to the WMD story. One of the things that has crossed my mind a lot is the notion that the WMD's were a phantasm all along? Saddam had to know how hard they were trying to find it. Don Rumsfeld even set up a new DOD intelligence branch to bypass the CIA. Apparently the CIA couldn't find them, so he needed new answers. Not saying this happened, but certainly Saddam could have completely led them on about the whole WMD thing. He knew they'd believe anything, and so he just did some inexpensive mind fucking. His regime was over, that much was obvious. He had a year to plan his escape, and went about completely fabricating evidence for the US. Now the US has occupied Baghdad, and the US can't find anything.

He now starts popping up (or his doubles, one can never be sure any more) in Baghdad! Baghdad!

I'll say it again, when you have a controlled press, and a group in the Administration that is hell bent on their world view - despite facts - and evaluating every "scap" of information that can find exclusively in that world view... Well, it's the simplest thing in the world to lead them around by the nose. It's like a red flag to a bull!

This whole thing is going to make a hell of a book someday.

A Multi-Stage Process for Post-War Iraq

You know, despite the NeoCon assertion to the negative, there are times that lawyers really are useful. Say, when you're actually trying to create a liberal democratic government from scratch in a feudal society only recently released from 35 years of brutal suppression.

In this house we obey the laws of Thermodynamics.
-- Homer (Simpson)

Quiddity has a great chart on my main man, Ahmad CAzaelabi. Sure looks like a winner here. Now, were not setting something up we're going to regret later. We're doing it right this time!

This guy sounds like the Iraqi version of Kenneth Lay, doesn't he? Don't you think the government will look a lot like Enron? Weird.

The Horse has a rant about Alterman that I absolutely agree with. (hey, why no permalinks, guys? Ever hear of blogging?).

Alterman's post reveals a part of him that kind of bugs me. It's not something I despise or hate or even think is wrong. But it's something that I think lends credence to the "egg headed elitist" theme that the Right loves to paint the Left with. I mean, really. David Reese is clever, funny and mirrors the way a lot of people seem to think about what's going on with this madness. And to claim that Reese is "out there" belies a certain mindset of Alterman's. It's kind of like Atrios' constant characterization of Paul Krugman as shrill.

But the Left is a very big tent, and a lot of the occupants really don't like the majority of the other occupants. Another example, CalPundit with his issues with Left wing "extremists". One thing that the Right has over the Left is that the Right doesn't seem to do a lot of infighting. The Religious Right doesn't necessarily share the same goals as the Corporate Right, but they certainly don't get in their way. They allow their various factions to have their way and don't wack them over the head.

Contrast this with the problems on the Left. You have democratic businessman who are gung ho for globalization and free trade agreements. This slams right up against the anti-globalization movement and trade unions. On some very basic level, a lot of the Left has completely opposite goals with a lot of the Left.

I can't remember where I read this - and I'm still looking - but there was a very interesting point made about this. The claim was that Democrats, because they have this intrinsic friction in their own party, produce far better policy than the Republicans. Because of the very thing the Right hates about the Left - Compromise. Not everyone is happy with the outcome, but a mostly good consensus is reached. Nobody wins everything, and there's a heck of a lot of negotiations going on.

Something that doesn't seem to happen on the Right at all (the Administration's way or the Hiway).

So, I accept Atrios, CalPundit, Alterman and all the others' squeamishness and semi-elitist stance on these things. They're part of the big tent, and are critical to the consensus that we must eventually come up with. They're not happy with everything. I'm not happy with everything. But in the end, we're all better off for the diversity of opinion, style and viewpoints.

After all, who own's the instruction manual? Who has the Miss Manner's book of style and right thinking?

Isn't that what a belief in complexity and diversity is all about?

How To Lift Sanctions

An excellent suggestion by Joe.

So here's a modest proposal: The U.N. Security Council, several of whose members don't appreciate the manner in which Iraq contracts are being monopolized by American companies, should place a simple condition on permanent removal of sanctions. As soon as the U.S. can prove that there are no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the sanctions will be lifted for good. Until then, the Security Council can lift sanctions temporarily -- if the U.S. and Britain bring UNMOVIC in to monitor and certify the results of the ongoing weapons search.

Actually, the Security Council would be doing the White House and Downing Street a great favor by insisting on that point, whether Bush and Blair realize it or not. Without U.N. verification, most of the world will regard any U.S. discovery of chemical or biological weapons with utter disbelief, as Secretary-General Kofi Annan has gently suggested.

Women need widescreen for virtual navigation

It's one of the reasons I love 'em. They like wide screens. They need to see the whole picture - not just some mental model. It's a wonderful and essential balance to the "male" abilities to model reality. After all, if you don't have the complement to this model and a rigorous check, you can build up twisted versions of reality. And that's just one of the benefits to having diverse strategies and skills.

Women who navigate around 3D computer-generated environments for a living - or even for fun - are having their style cramped by ultra-narrow computer displays and graphics software that favours men.

Female architects, designers, trainee pilots and even computer gamers should be given much wider computer screens, a team of computer scientists from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Microsoft's research lab in Redmond, Washington, told a computer usability conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, last week. Wider screens and more realistic 3D animations, they say, will boost women's spatial orientation and 3D map-reading skills to match those of their male counterparts.

It may sound like sexual prejudice, but it seems that men's much-debated ability to navigate slightly better than women applies in virtual environments as well as the real world. And on average, says Microsoft computer scientist Mary Czerwinski, men are quicker to create a mental map of an environment and orient themselves within it.

"Unfortunately, it tends to be the case that women have lower spatial ability - and that's true in virtual worlds too," she says. This is thought to have evolutionary origins. Male hunter-gatherers roamed far afield, creating and following mental maps to do so. Women, on the other hand, had more piecemeal maps centred on landmarks such as a homestead.

The Shape of Things to Come

Very nice little article.

Of course, not everything we can measure conforms to this new shape. In national politics, the fastest-growing affiliation is Independent. Diversity and interracial marriage are rendering the old bimodal and trimodal racial categories irrelevant. Yet almost everywhere we look closely, we find ourselves staring down a distributional well. The implications are huge: insurers, marketers, and policy-makers may be basing decisions on faulty premises about what is normal. They're assuming a vibrant center - Middle America, middlebrow tastes - when the action has migrated to the edges. The 180 from bell curve to well curve has turned their logic on its head.

Galton and his contemporaries believed that conditions would deviate from the bell curve only during periods of transition. Every age, of course, supposes it is living through a unique era of profound change. But in our case, the conceit might actually prove true. The madness of our times might simply reflect our stumbling effort to revert to the mean. Either that or one of the world's eternal verities is less eternal than we supposed. This deviation may turn out to be anything but standard.

Just joined BlogShare. Looks kind of cool to the gamer in me. Not a great stock picker, but it'll be fun to play.

And just a little note for historical record. The reason why there is international doctrine about preemptive wars is precisely because if you're wrong, it means you were the aggressor. It is always a "bold roll of the dice". And like it or not, if we don't find credible evidence for large scale industrial chemical or biological weaponry, we will have been the aggressor. And that makes us wrong - regardless of whether we freed the Iraqis or not.

At this point, the chances of finding any nuclear weaponry or nascent capability looks pretty slim. The constraints of nuclear engineering are non-trivial and require a huge industrial base. Not something trivial to hide in the slightest. So right off the bat, I think everyone will have to admit that the Iraqi Aluminum Tubes was a tiffin fantasy. Given the addition of the Niger document forgery, the whole nuclear issue is rightfully labeled a fiasco. A complete red herring.

So on the list of "I told you so's" I think the Left can rightfully claim this as one of their own. Regardless of whether we find other WMD, there wasn't anything to the "credible intelligence" that Powell gave to the world about Iraq's nuclear capability or potential. Note that I am willing to give a lot of slack here if we do find chemical or biological weapons. If we do find WMD on the scale that the Administration was purporting, then I just think the "I told you so" and publicly thank the prescient nature of our intelligence agencies.

But it's important to keep in mind the reality of the regime as we're now in the process of occupying it. Much to the Right's delight, the Iraqi military was essentially a pushover. As the UN Inspectors also showed, the industrial base of Iraq was pretty much devastated by the sanctions after the first gulf war. 12 years of sanctions has pretty much removed the underlying industrial capability required to do sophisticated operations. Military or otherwise.

In some of my talks with friends about this, they bring up the fact that it doesn't take much room to set up a bio-weapons lab. The space needed doesn't seem to be that great, and they could be easy to hide. Of course, the ever present Mobile Bio-Weapons labs are also brought up in the same conversation, so there's that as well. But what I try to get across in these conversations is that all of these things, while small and easy to hide in their own right, require a vast and technologically complex infrastructure to support. Just the industry required to support the electronics - i.e. computers, controllers, test equipment, measurement equipment, etc. - is immense. I mean, these things are non-trivial. You're dealing with deadly weaponry. There are a heck of a lot of protocols and safety precautions you must take care of, or you're going to have a shit load of dead people on hand.

A lot of dead people are hard to hide. Relatives, friends, lovers... Somebody is going to find out. And our intelligence (or say Israel's intelligence) will hear about it. So the Iraqi's couldn't be doing this via a Fred Flintstone operation... Weaponized Anthrax is incredible stuff. You have to have an excellent clean room and a lot of very sophisticated filters 'n such. The suits alone that the lab technicians wear are a marvel of material engineering and require their own industrial support. Clean rooms and sophisticated filters that keep weaponized anthrax spores from killing all your highly trained personnel require an industrial base as well. They just don't pop up out of no where.

So you have to think about WMD production as a pyramid. Sure, there may be only a tiny fleet of Mobile Weapons labs - straight out of the X files - which are darn hard to find. But the industrial base that creates and maintains this tiny fleet won't be hard to find at all. It's huge.

The natural reaction to the above is "well, they import all the sophisticated stuff and make the rest as it's relatively low tech". In my irrelevant opinion, this is the only realistic scenario one can concoct - as I said, it's pretty clear for the UN inspections and our subsequent occupation that they don't have an Rapid Prototyping industry base, nor do they have .01 micron filter manufacturing, nor do they have any sophisticated plastics or electronics infrastructure. None. So if they have Mobile WMD factories, or something hidden under the banks of the river, it's going to have to be largely foreign built and maintained. Remember, anything not manufactured by the Regime is going to need training for personnel, if nothing else. Anyone who sells software or any other high tech equipment here in the US knows that you sell a lot of professional services and training with this stuff. A lot. After all, it don't take care of itself. It takes skilled professionals.

And I'm not saying that all this is impossible. It could certainly turn out that our friends France, Russia, or China have been supplying them all this high tech gear, training and support.

But I think it highly unlikely.

Because we had sanctions, and because we don't have an intelligence agency composed of morons, we would have seen this. No doubt in my mind. I'll be very surprised if this turns out not to be the case. It could well be that this Administration's evidence is a bunch of purchase orders and maintenance contracts from the evil people supplying them. But then, why withhold that information now? As CalPundit points out, what possible reason is there now for withholding that information? Certainly they can raise a piece of paper like McCarthy did and say they have a list with the names of these countries on it. I don't know. Maybe they are waiting to find the original receipts. But wouldn't copies be sufficient? Maybe they don't have copies, but they have wire transfer records and intercepted communication. They don't want anyone to know that the NSA can break France's crypto. Kind of a lame excuse, as they're going to suspect it anyway if they really did the act, but I guess I can kind of accept that.

But the risk here is that they'd have to find the "smoking gun" original documentation and paper trail in order to prove it. Maybe Saddam was stupid enough to leave it around before he took off. But at the very least I think he would have destroyed this stuff. Maybe there's something left, but at best it would be piece meal - no smoking gun. But you never know. Apparently, hope is a plan these days.

And so it's still my belief that Iraq has no WMD capabilities. I'm absolutely positive they did have them at one time. But the last 12 years have eliminated that capability. Anything left is goo and useless. What's more is that I'm sure we could have set up something that would have eliminated this as even a future possibility - i.e. an alternative to War. Back before the war, Josh MarsAzaell had said that what worried him about an inspection regime in Iraq was America's staying power. We would have had to set up something that would maybe last for quite some time - decades. And that was something he didn't think we could do as a country, much less an international community.

What's strange is that we'll likely have to put a lot of long term effort into rebuilding Iraq now. Democracy doesn't just pop up over night. As Fareed Zakaria points out in his new book (and other writings), democracy isn't merely voting. The structure of what Fareed calls "liberal democracy" is based on much more. For example, our bill of rights.

Our Bill of Rights specifically limits what the majority can do to the minority. Fareed does an excellent job in laying out precisely how wrong democracy can turn out. If the structure isn't set up right, you can end up simply having democracy legitimize a dictatorship. A fine example of what can go wrong with equating democracy with mere voting is Venezuela (remember them?). Democracy takes a lot of time, effort, and sophisticated thinking. Not to mention buy in by the people who compose the democracy. Courts, law precedent. Business law. Markets. Financial institutions You name it. Democracy is incredibly complex and composed by a diverse set of components. Voting is just one of a million things.

In a country which has no real history of democracy - regardless of what evidence the Right trotted out before hand - it's a non trivial thing to do. Believe me, if we can pull it off it will be a major, major accomplishment. Kind of like building 100 Hoover dams. I wish us all the luck, foresight and planning in the process. But it's going to take a long time. And if we treat Iraq like we have Afghanistan... Well, that's going to be a complete disaster. I can just imagine Iraq run by warlords and tribal feudalism. It's not a pretty sight. Add to that the breeding ground it will make for terrorists, as well as a friendly base of operations for these groups, well... Let's just say it's going to take a lot of time, money and investment of highly trained personnel.

Maybe the UN can help with this. But after the last year, I wouldn't be surprised if we get quite a bit of cold shoulders and "you're on your own buddy". Hopefully, the value of actually doing this right will be seen by the rest of the world, and collective pride will be swallowed by our erstwhile allies and they will pitch in during this effort. But even with the UN and other allies, it's still going to be quite a long haul. And if Josh MarsAzaell thinks we can't keep up the effort to keep WMD's out of Iraq for the next couple of decades, I wonder why he thinks we're going to be able to stick with the stuff we know we're going to have to do or we'll end up in an even worse situation - i.e. something worse than Afghanistan under the Taliban. I mean, this is complicated, subtle and non trivial stuff that's never been tried before.

In any event, our not finding WMD is not going to strengthen our hand in the slightest. And the pressure to find them is going to be unbearable. Especially as the 2004 presidential election draws nearer.

There's an interesting saying: "It's hard to believe someone is telling the truth when you know that if you were in their place you would be lying". And that's where we are going to be if we are six months out and still haven't found any WMD. Heck, I think that's where we'll be if we're six weeks out and we haven't found any WMD. But I'll be generous. A year out and well...

I think if we plant the evidence, the fact will likely be found out quickly. There's just too much to make up. But I could easily be wrong about this - heck, I don't plant evidence for a living like the intelligence agency plumbers do. But I do have my doubts. I also have a lot of faith in the military personnel who are undertaking the search. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that these people are incredibly honorable and professional. I don't think they would put up with faking evidence.

So we'll see. If they find it, and it's verified, then we were at least right about the WMD. But we still fought a preemptive war, and I still think that's wrong. Even if it resulted in these good things. I think it starts a really dangerous precedent that's going to be hard to control - not just within our own country, but in the world as a whole. But then, that's the subject for another post...

Anatomy of the Three-Week War

What's interesting here is that I think a lot of the hawks are having second thoughts about crowing over how easy it was. After all, "It was more that we were good rather than they were bad". Which is to say, CYA regarding Paper Tiger arguments.

Me? I don't know. I'm just a dumb liberal. Sure looked like an ass whooping to me. Could we do this again against a foe that actually fought back? Don't want to find out... I'd be very much surprised to learn that we couldn't. However, I think the difficulty would be far greater. And if we pulled a logistical boner like we did during Iraq, I don't think we should be counting too much on hope.

A crusade after all?

When President Bush called his war on terrorism a "crusade," he backtracked quickly in the face of intense reaction at home and abroad. Now many people are worried that, in the case of Iraq, that inopportune choice of words may turn out to hold more than a modicum of truth.

As Christian relief agencies prepare to enter Iraq, some have announced their intent to combine aid with evangelization. They include groups whose leaders have proclaimed harshly negative views of Islam. They are also friends of the president. The White House has shrugged its shoulders, saying it can't tell private groups what to do, though legal experts disagree.
.....
A greater concern of some people is that the administration may in fact support the effort, given the president's beliefs and the import of conservative Christians as a political constituency.

Bush has after all moved ahead with his domestic faith-based initiative, although Congress has not passed the authorizing legislation. Meanwhile, the former deputy director of the White House office for faith-based programs has a new job: building nongovernmental institutions in Iraq.

CalPundit wonders about WMD

Now, I know that Iraq is the size of California and we can't search it all at once, but before the war we insisted that we had irrefutable intelligence about Iraqi WMD. We couldn't reveal it to anybody, of course, because that would compromise our sources, but we did know.

But if that's the case, then (a) surely we can reveal everything now, since there are no longer any sources to compromise, and (b) even if we can't do that, surely we can go straight to the sites containing all the WMD. After all, there are no Iraqis around anymore to quickly hide it all as soon as they see us coming.

And yet, so far there's nothing. No sign of nuclear development, which is very hard to hide, and not even any sign of chem or bio weapons yet. Since our case for war was predicated on the notion that Iraq posed an imminent danger, one that required immediate action instead of allowing the inspectors more time to work, surely there ought to be enough of this stuff around that we should be finding it by now. After all, we don't want it to fall into the wrong hands, so locating it and securing it ought to be a top military priority.

If we don't find it quickly, this indicates that our intelligence operations were wildly ineffective. If we don't find it at all, it means we were lying through our teeth. Neither one is an appealing prospect.

I gotta say that I really don't relish the idea of watching Jacques Chirac a year from now crowing about how he was right the whole time. This stuff better show up.

And I think that's probably what most people are fearing. International law? What the heck. But to be shown to be a dupe? That's gotta hurt.

Fascism Everywhere!

Well, just the discussion about it. Orcinus has a couple of interesting posts about various different point of views on the subject, definition and taxonomy of fascism. Actually, I'm not really worried about whether this particular brand of insanity is precisely fascism, or something altogether different. What's important, in my irrelevant opinion, is to actually get the discussion out on the table. It's inevitable that once the discussion has been engaged, new facts will emerge. New opinions and better analysis. But up until this point, there was very little talk about it at all. Let's hope the discussion continues.

Pressure to find weapons mounts

Hmmm. Maybe people really do care after all. This morning on NPR I heard Bob Edwards interviewing a chemical weapons expert (forget her name).

Naw. It's just that the news is in a slump, now that the war is over. Dusting off a few stories here and there isn't really a sign of interest.

''The case was made that there were a lot of weapons,'' said Albright, the former inspector. ''To make its case, the Bush administration has to find a lot - not 20 chemical shells here, or a couple of drums there. If Iraq destroyed any incriminating evidence, people will say that the inspectors could have contained Iraq.''

Administration officials maintain that the search is still in its early stages and point out that at least a dozen suspected weapons sites have been identified and that most are still being investigated.

But some analysts say the slow progress of the search suggests that the US intelligence community widely misjudged the Iraqi weapons program.

''The fact that we haven't found any yet seems to indicate that there were fewer weapons than the administration feared,'' said Joseph Cirincione, a weapons specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ''It would be very difficult to hide a large, ongoing biological or chemical weapons production program [making] hundreds of tons of agents. Janitors who worked in these plants should be able to give us information.''

The new idea men

Amusing. First time I've read her.

God on the Brain

Controversial new research suggests that whether we believe in a God may not just be a matter of free will. Scientists now believe there may be physical differences in the brains of ardent believers.

Inspiration for this work has come from a group of patients who have a brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy. In a minority of patients, this condition induces bizarre religious Azaellucinations - something that patient Rudi Affolter has experienced vividly.

Despite the fact that he is a confirmed atheist, when he was 43, Rudi had a powerful religious vision which convinced him he had gone to hell.

"I was told that I had gone there because I had not been a devout Christian, a believer in God. I was very depressed at the thought that I was going to remain there forever."

And another one for the L-Curve. I mean really. This is something that just troubles me deeply. And I don't think this is a "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" issue. It's a right vs. wrong. It doesn't even make sense economically - well, at least the economies most people seem to want. The scale difference is absolutely astounding.

If we divided the income of the U.S. into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third. If we divide the wealth of the U.S. into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)

I'd just like to give a little plug for the great people at Students for an Orwellian Society. Every time I read it I just crack up.

Liberation and Looting in Iraq

Heh. This is why Democrats love lawyers.

While Baghdad burned, Donald Rumsfeld fiddled. Questioned about the orgy of looting and pillaging taking place under the gaze of U.S. forces, Rumsfeld criticized the media for exaggerating the extent of the damage.

"The images you are seeing on television, you are seeing over and over and over," he complained. "It's the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase and you see it twenty times. And you think, my goodness, were there that many vases?"

After pausing for laughter, Rumsfeld delivered the punch line: "Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?"

Well, yes, as it turns out, it is possible. And the loss of such artifacts is no laughing matter, at least to people who care about these things. Many of the irreplaceable objects lost in Baghdad's days of anarchy and turmoil were thousands of years old, material evidence of humanity's earliest strivings. They came from places like Babylon, Kalkhu, Nineveh and Ur, ancient cities dating back to the dawn of history.

Last week, after two days of unhindered pillage, the Baghdad museum that housed these treasures was emptied. By Friday afternoon, when Rumsfeld made his dismissive remarks, looters were carting away the last spoils. According to the museum's deputy director, who blamed U.S. forces for refusing to prevent the plunder, at least 170,000 items were taken or destroyed.

The pillage of the National Museum of Iraq should have come as no surprise. And if the risks were obvious, the legal responsibilities were equally clear.

Homeland Security taps privacy official

Okay, this is just down right Orwellian.

A former DoubleClick executive will become the first privacy official at the new Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Tom Ridge said Wednesday. Nuala O'Connor Kelly, 34, previously the chief privacy officer at the Internet advertising firm, currently is a senior attorney at the Commerce Department.

O'Connor Kelly's appointment comes as the Bush administration is under fire for data-mining plans like Total Information Awareness and CAPPS II, which profiles airline passengers. When debating the creation of the department last year, Congress required that the secretary appoint an official to ensure that new technologies sustain privacy protections and to verify that the agency's massive databases operate within federal guidelines.

I mean, this is like appointing Ret. Admiral John Poindexter to head up the Total Information Awareness project. Oh. Wait a minute.

THEY ALREADY DID THAT.

I'm just going to run around screaming for the next decade or so. It won't matter, after all. Us lefties are just discredited chicken littles who don't want to fight just wars based on humanitarian purposes and have been consistently discredited as egg head elitists.

WAS SADDAM A PAPER TIGER?

Glenn's schtick has always been a bitter and cynical one, but the end of the war seems to have been a watershed for him. Like Rush with his "stack of stuff," Instapundit has turned into nothing more than a clearinghouse for bile, with post after endless post explaining that anyone who disagrees with him is really motivated by a seething hatred of America and a desire to see everything that is good and true torn limb from corrupt limb. The level of rage and contempt that it takes to continue extracting pleasure from banging out this kind of stuff on a daily basis baffles me.

Hey, anyone remember the justification for this war being the Analogy To Hitler before WWII? Remember how powerful he was supposed to be? Just like Hitler ready to invade Poland, we all heard. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Now, the Right is crowing about how easy the victory was and how the Left was a bunch of doomsayers about the war.

??????????????????

Weren't we the ones who were saying that he wasn't such a powerful person? Weren't we the ones saying that the comparison to Hitler was pure hyperbole? Weren't we the ones saying that he was a panty waisted, tin cup dictator that could easily be contained and disarmed by alternate means?

Oh yea. Now I get it.

WMD, MIA?

A supremely excellent read on the situation so far.

Owens calls the military's inspection teams "methodical and deliberate," and indeed the Pentagon has tried to be circumspect in its official announcements. Rumsfeld noted on April 7 that the Pentagon doesn't even issue preliminary reports on possible WMD discoveries from the field. "We have to recognize that almost all first reports that we get turn out to be wrong," Rumsfeld said, adding that "literally dozens and dozens and dozens of instances where the first report comes in and -- perfectly good reporting -- but it's wrong. And therefore, we don't do that."

But that policy became irrelevant when the Pentagon decided to embed reporters with troops. While the Pentagon might not have planned on issuing preliminary reports on possible WMD discoveries, that didn't stop soldiers in the field from sharing these almost always erroneous primary field reports with journalists. They may not be official Pentagon pronouncements, but reporters have taken to the airwaves with gripping stories, the phrase "smoking gun" being bandied about. Days later, the reports have generally been shot down. But did readers -- or TV viewers -- really notice?

On Monday, reports came in about the discovery of 11 alleged biological/chemical weapons mobile labs. No evidence of any weaponry has been reported to have been found within the labs, though the media has played up the possibility that these vans constituted evidence of WMD. "The 101st, Wolf, continues to inspect so-called sensitive sites," CNN's Ryan Chilcote reported from the field. "Sensitive sites are places where the U.S. believes the elements of an Iraqi chemical and biological weapons program may be hidden."

Chilcote interviewed Gen. Benjamin Freakly, who told CNN viewers that the "2nd Brigade found about 11 buried conexes" -- a military term for a large metal shipping container -- in the form of "20- by probably 20-foot vans buried in the ground." They "are dual-use chemical labs, biological and chemical," Freakly continued. "About 1,000 pounds of documentation were found in that, and they were close to an artillery ammunition plant." Freakly said that the Iraqi regime had denied "any wrongdoing and yet here's major chemical lab facilities, 11 different large-sized conexes buried in the ground clearly marked so they could be found again, dual-use chemical and biological close to an artillery factory that has empty shells." He noted that nothing had been confirmed -- "We're exploring that further, a little too early to tell," he said. Yet, he concluded, the labs were evidence of "new equipment, a lot of money in the 2000-to-2003 time period have been spent in that camp, probably over a $1 million worth of chemical capability found in these 11 conexes, and we continue to develop that with better expertise."

Centcom spokesman Maj. Brad Bartelt, reached in Qatar, said he would not confirm that report. "You gotta be careful about rushing to judgment," Bartelt cautioned. "We use a process that's methodical and precise, and it does take time." Time that neither Gen. Freakly nor Chilcote were willing to take before going on air.

That has been the pattern.

Is any one but me hoping that now the war is "over" we can get rid of "embedded" reporters and have some uncensored and "spun by the military" news for a change? My guess? It will become a question of patriotism and "protection for our troops" to report only "good facts" from Iraq. After all, if people see the truth, they could get the wrong idea, right? And that'd be bad for morale. And poor morale leads to danger for our troops.

A little more about fascism

Man, oh man. Orcinus is always great. Read it.

However, I'm not sure that we can discard the term "fascism", as he suggests, if we want to be accurate about the ongoing phenomenon. Certainly its widespread misuse and abuse has rendered it impotent to a degree; but if we start calling it, accurately, American Fascism, then I think that gets the point across simply and unmistakably.
...
Now its agenda aligns with the base impulses Paxton identifies as fascist, and which drove the Patriot movement: national identity uber alles; a claim of victimization; hatred of liberalism; reigniting a sense of national destiny and a closely bonded community; an appreciation of the value of violence; and of course, all of this uniting under the divinely inspired banner of George W. Bush, the Frat Boy of Destiny.

I've said it previously, and I'll say it again: These are dangerous times.

The more conservatives bond with their proto-fascist element; the more they attack liberals and escalate the violence against antiwar protesters; and the more that corporations like Clear Channel with ties to the Bush administration, and the White House itself, encourages this kind of activity, then the greater the danger becomes.

Gilding the Lilly

This story raises the obvious question: How many other things have we been told by military and government officials that are going to turn to have been exaggerated? I'm wondering if Azaelf of what we've been told about this war so far will turn out to be true.

I mean, heck, there apparently wasn't even an uprising in Basra for example.

The Patriot Police

Gene Lyons on a roll about the Black Shirts of our time

Jimm has a great take on the flip flops this Administration has done regarding nationbuilding, peacekeeping and other untidy things after a war is over.

A salute to Rep. Barbara Cubin

And the comments are, of course, hillarious

Maybe so, but regardless, the point she was leading up to is that "since there are absolutely no means whatsoever to maintain if someone has used drugs, was an ex-felon, is an axe-murderer looking for self-promotion, or is a member of a drug cartel (most likely one of those damn Columbian Wet Backs), then we should allow them to be distributed in vending machines."

Liabilities and Lacerations

Andrew is an excellent writer and really is an intelligent guy. Unfortunately, these are also requirements for effective propagandists.

His column was entitled "Swinging Left". It was a clever title for his real line, "I can't believe I'm a Liberal". It's a clever play on the line "I can't believe I'm a Hawk" that was making the circuit before the Iraqi war took away everyone's virginity on that subject.

What's telling is that I heard the same story from my friend who is my "Canary In the Coal Mine". He's the kind of guy who picks up certain strains of Meme before I hear them echoed back on official channels we share in common. He spends all his time watching Fox and CNN. Reads a lot of right wing and NeoCon blogs. A lot of weird stuff (not meant as a pejorative). But he's still an intelligent and caring individual. His heart is in the right place. So he's for the war. And he's not one-dimensional about it. He's got a variety of reasons why he's for the war. We argued about it extensively before it happened. Once the bullets started, we talked about other things - except for a few flare ups. To set the record straight, he emailed me the propaganda first. I was just responding with the "Rant Gun" dialed in on "Deep Fat Fry". I don't believe in preemptive strikes, but I do believe in total obliteration when struck.

Anyways, he's completely drunk the Kool-Aid on the common narrative about the war. For example, he is now saying the entire Rumsfeld War Plan was a fantastic plan. It was the "right" plan. A great plan. Dare we say a perfect plan? So I pointed out that this brilliant plan had Azaelf (or more) of the third infantry sitting in defensive positions for 3 or more days without gas. By the end of the predicted sand storm, our front line mechanized infantry had used about 60-70% of their spare parts. Heat and sand- especially high wind driven sand - is not good for high tech equipment.

But to my friend, this was all just media propaganda. And it was pretty comical how he justified it. Although I was talking about fuel and spare parts for the heavy mechanized infantry, he kept on bringing up the line about some troops only having one MRE per day. He literally said "But then they checked with all the other embeds and they all reported they had plenty of food". When I hear something like this, it's wrong in so many fundamental ways that I'm shocked and awed. I'm dumbfounded on so many levels that it's hard for me to pick up my jaw off the floor and smoothly change gears into four wheel drive low and go off road.

First, I kept pointing out I was talking about fuel and spare parts, not MREs. Basically, his bringing up the MREs was just a tactic to cast doubt on the validity of my argument. It's not really an argument. It's just a diversionary tactic. In his mind, because the MRE shortage story didn't check out with other embeds, all shortage stories are therefore suspect. This is an inductive fallacy. But then add to that the fact he was trying to justify the truth of a situation based on what embedded reporters say about something. I mean, here are people who have already admitted that everything they say has passed through military censors. I mean, it's stated policy. Policy! I mean, I'm not saying they are lying, but certainly there's a lot of suspicion attached to whatever they say. I have to have alternate sources to cross check them, or I just have to automatically suspect everything they are saying. That's what censorship does to the truth. And there's no getting around it. None. But I didn't try to argue that point with him. I just ridiculed him for even pulling out such a lame argument. Not the "Deep Fat Fry" setting on the berate-o-meter, but somewhere around "well done toast, but not burnt".

It was a pretty surreal thing.

He also started to tell me that there was "no way" that "they" could have faked all those "spontaneous statue pulls" all over Iraq. I had pointed out to him that there was already some question as to what actually happened when the statue in Baghdad came down. Again, his defense was pretty laughable. Somehow, I was supposed to believe there was some intrinsic difficulty in staging all these events. Like there was some logistical impediment that was simply insurmountable to performing staged or scripted events for propaganda. Now, I told him that I certainly wasn't implying that all these "spontaneous statue pulls" were staged. Not in the slightest. I wanted to emphasize that point to him. But in his logic, because they all couldn't be staged, the one in Baghdad wasn't likely staged either. Even weirder, when he realized that this was a completely fallacious argument, he asserted that it didn't matter if the "spontaneous statue pull" in Baghdad was staged. Because all the other "spontaneous statue pulls" "could not have all been staged", this "proved" that the Iraqis were indeed spontaneously expressing their joy at liberation. Cognito ergo idiot.

Again, wrong on so many levels. Most egregious was the casual tossing away at the potential scripting of a pure propaganda event in Baghdad. It's a common theme these days. Something is not wrong if it's right in the "larger" sense. See, to my friend caught in a black hole of circular logic, the fact that the Iraqis were spontaneously rising up in joy at their liberation made the potential scripting of a Baghdad scene not even an issue. After all, it was true. Why? Because he had seen hundreds of other images of Iraqis doing the same across the country. And you just can't fake all of them. It simply must be true.

And it just didn't bother him that there was potentially a purely staged propaganda event.

Like I said, a weird weekend.

Anyway, to read Andrew's column in Salon this week was kind of like a shot of the "hair of the dog" on the morning after.

The entire column is really just another clever piece of propaganda by His Nibs. It is absolutely crystal clear in his closing paragraph.

When I asked myself hard questions about my support for war these past few months, especially when my own church came out against it, I found myself coming back to the essential evil of totalitarianism, and the moral justification to defeat it. Even if there were prudential reasons to oppose this war, my heart tells me that I was right to have taken the stand I did. It reminds me of what America is fundamentally about, why I love my adopted country, why I believe in it. If that makes me a dewy-eyed, sentimental liberal, then so be it. But the question for anyone on the left today is simple: Why aren't you one?

Like I said. I'm shocked and I'm awed. It isn't often that you get to see space and time folded into a pretzel right before you. Well, I guess it is now-a-days. But it didn't used to be! I'm still surprised every time I see it happen. Call me naive.

Yes, you can return to the theme of your distrust of this administration. Fair enough, I suppose. But there's a danger in this, don't you think? There's a danger that our petty partisan politics dwarves the more fundamental matters of millions in chains, children in torture chambers, political prisoners doused with poisonous chemicals, the genocidal gassing of civilians, the killing of children by their own parents, the enforcement of Stalinist horror beyond most of our imaginations. Why should your distaste for Rummy trump their freedom? Why should your anger over the Florida recount weigh against their liberation? When Howard Dean can respond to the day of Iraqi liberation with the words, "I suppose it's a good thing," then he has simply lost his moral compass, his sense of perspective, his -- yes -- humanity.

I mean, really Andrew. Don't come knocking on my door talking about children in torture chambers. I've been living with the reality of rape squads, death squads, necklacing, MILLIONS of starving children, brutalization, child prostitution, slavery, and just plain evil for all my life. You just wake up to it all and I'm supposed to listen to you as an authority on the matter?

The delirium in the streets of Baghdad and Mosul and Basra is the flip side of a misery that we in the West cannot even begin to fathom. And yet millions of free men and women marched to keep it in power. Millions. Maybe you did. Even if you still believe it was wrong to wage this war, can you not see this point at least? That in the equation of reason, the lives of so many oppressed people should count for something?

So, I just don't buy the con game, Andrew. Yes, the Iraqi situation was appalling. But if you want to start talking about appalling situations, I've got a long list. A lot of the items on my list are a lot more appalling than Iraq - as bad as that situation is. Are you telling me that you're now on my side and we're going to use our powers for good to start righting all these wrongs? Okay then. Let's get to work.

But that isn't even on Andrew's agenda. Like just about everything else he seems to believe in "so passionately" for the moment, it's just another excuse on his road to perdition. And I really mean that. If Andrew actually believed the pap that he's spewing out like a burst pimple, he wouldn't be slamming the very organizations that at least attempt to mitigate all the crap that he says are the moral justifications for this war. The UN has three letter (and more) acronyms that basically are the world humanitarian organizations that deal with this crap on a daily basis. Andrew, take the fricking 2x4 out of your eye before you start going around complaining about the speck of dust in the Liberal's collective eye.

I mean, really.

I, for one, am not convinced that this Administration has any real care for the humanitarian situation. I believe the extent that this Administration wants democracy in Iraq is simply the extent to which they believe democracy is good for business (and it is - in a limited form, of course). Sometimes the right things can be done for all the wrong reasons. Maybe an analogy will help. When I did something really stupid or wrong and ended up lucking into doing something really good... well, even my own mother just would not buy the excuse that the good thing that happened justified the bad thing or motivations that was responsible for the good thing. I mean, this is what we teach five year olds for "Bob's" sake! Five year olds!

And this is what the common narrative wants us to believe. That the ends always justify the means. Because the Iraqis are free, it's okay for us to wage a pre-emptive war. Ergo, we can wage more preemptive wars and those will be okay as well. Because the Iraqis are free, it's okay for us to destroy alliances which have stood for decades and shred treaties that we ourselves wrote and lauded as foundations for world wide democracy. So any other treaties we shred in the future or alliances we causally discard in fighting terrorism... Well, that's just okay. See? The Iraqis are free of torture and rape rooms.

No one is ever going to get me to say that Saddam was a great guy and shouldn't have been taken out. No one is ever going to get me to be sad over Iraqis having their taste of freedom.

But the war only lasted a few weeks. Let's talk a year afterwards and see how much attention Andrew is paying to the liberated Iraqis. Let's see how much progress they've made in rebuilding their society. Let's see if we have a replay of other rebuilding attempts and end up with a Right Wing Dictator that has death squads. You know. Like the ones we set up in Guatemala. Everyone keeps telling me it'll be different this time. We'll really do it right and not mess up.

And I just have to laugh. Yes, you may be on an incredible streak of luck and everything will work out fantastic. We'll see. I'll be overjoyed.

But if you are serious about "the essential evil of totalitarianism, and the moral justification to defeat it", well I got a whole list of things to start dealing with that are easily higher priority than Iraq ever was - as bad as it was, mind you. A whole frickin' list.

Andrew Sullivan. Silver tongued Toady.

Brain Transplantation - Be Young Again! Change Your Body - Keep Your Soul!

Thanks to M.D. "The Doctor is in"

The Peculiar Logic of Peace Through Strength

An excellent read on the strange logic the common narrative has put forth. More on this later in a longer rant, but the upshot is essentially the same issue we "liberals" have been pushing... Basically, that even if you are the biggest dog on the planet, it still is necessary to have a lot of allies. It's the "speak softly and carry a big stick" argument. As I said, for a later rant.

Silvan's original prescient post on the Saddam statue toppling fiasco.

And he's right to crow. :) It was his post that got me thinking about the whole thing, and when I saw the Washington Post article calling the kettle black, I just had to say something. Things are getting pretty weird now... Karl Rove is like a Third Stage Guild Navigator (see Dune). He's hopped up on "spice" and folding space and time in front of our eyes...

Where's the Kumquat Haggendaaz when you need him? "He who's fruit-like soul is tempered to a soft consistency"

I'm going to start muttering "Mau'dib" under my breath while walking through the malls... I swear...

Democrats right on Estrada

A very good read. Clear, concise and convincing. Bookmark this if you ever get into an argument with someone about this.

Tests rule out suspect bio-labs

Oh well, another one bites the dust. I think that makes 0 for 20 now.

The 11 cargo containers were filled with new laboratory equipment apparently intended to make conventional weapons, said team leader Chief Warrant Officer 2 Monte Gonzalez.

"Based on what we've seen, the containers are full of millions of dollars worth of high-tech equipment," he said. "It possibly has a dual use. But it does not appear to be weapons of mass destruction."

Nuclear Material, but No Smoking Gun, Found at Plant

Another one bites the dust. Over the weekend I had been getting ear fulls of hopeful "I told you so's" over this one. Now this does not seem to be the case.

What's odd is that - so far - all the evidence we had has washed out. They were claiming "proof positive" evidence before the war. Now we've looked at all those sites and have found nothing. Notta.

I mean, I hate to say this, but doesn't that show we had no proof positive at all? None?

Now we're saying that we need to have the Iraqis show us where the WMD and production facilities are. But we just got one of the big dogs who arguably should know, and he's saying there is none. Now, why would he have any reason to lie? Certainly it will go very well for him to cooperate and lay it out on a plate for Rumsfeld. I don't know. Maybe he's brainwashed or something and just not telling. Bet that's gotta frustrate the NeoCons. Maybe that's reason enough for this man...

Chief Warrant Officer Richard L. Gonzales, the leader of the weapons specialist team at the plant near Karbala, played down the inspectors' problems and said he remained convinced that proof of unconventional Iraqi weapons would be found eventually.

"We're not going to find just a smoking gun, but a smoking cannon," he said. "It's only a matter of time."

After all, we've collectively changed our justification already. No need to dredge up the past...

Truth-Telling

Okay, the level of cognitive dissonance is truly deafening at this point. I mean, I can completely agree with a lot of the criticism leveled at CNN. But what I find truly amazing is that no one is looking with the same critical eye at the way the US press has been doing exactly the same thing, with respect to their reporting on the US activities. Now where have I seen any blinking red warning signs telling me that this footage was censored by the military. Nowhere did I find any reference to anything that was left on the cutting room floor by cameramen. No reports about what they couldn't write about - however obscurely.

In fact, I've seen just the opposite. In fact, there was quite the bru-ha-ha over the negativeness in the press when the war was going bad. The bone crushing symphony of types like Andrew Sullivan and other people who think there is only one version to this war.

Take, for example, the statue pulling in Baghdad. From the looks of things, the whole thing was pretty much scripted and staged for US propaganda purposes. From the impression I got from all the media, there were thousands of "liberated" Iraqis pulling down the statue in spontaneous joy. How much different would the news story have gone over if we knew that: a) There were less than 200 Iraqis b) Many of the Iraqis that were there may have been ex-pat INC members, or their security forces, flown in from Europe and the US, not Iraqis living in Baghdad c) It was a US military truck pulling down the statue.

Now, yes. There is a lot of controversy over this whole event, and I'm not saying all this is true. But the simple fact is, there is a lot of "smoking gun" evidence lying around on the web and other places that certainly gives the impression that the whole event was scripted. Given that this happened right across from the hotel where all the reporters were staying, certainly they could see what was going on.

So the question is, if it was staged or at least "scripted", then how is that different from Saddam's 100% election victory. The Washington Post is pleading

An election last autumn, which Saddam Hussein won with 100 percent of the votes, was interpreted as a "message of defiance to U.S. President George Bush," for example. If the network had also told its viewers that Mr. Jordan dealt with an Iraqi official whose teeth had been pried out for upsetting his boss, Uday Hussein, then those watching the electoral story might have felt differently about that report, about the election result and about a regime that terrified its citizens into proclaiming their unanimous support.

Again, it's just completely bizarre to hear a news media corporation being berated for doing what all the others do themselves. The difference is that in one case, it was helping our enemy. And in the other case, it was helping us.

Personally, I don't see any difference. Both are completely wrong. However, many people in the US don't see a problem with the latter and do see a problem with CNN, which just goes to show you how deep the level of self deception is.

In order to defeat the enemy, we must become the enemy.

Yea, that's a smart strategy.

Powell Says 'There Is No War Plan' Against Syria

Of course, back in may 2002, it was: Rumsfeld: No Plans to Invade Iraq

Look, I don't know what the heck is going on with these guys. As the analysis I posted earlier shows, this is clearly a situation with a lot of agendas and a lot of things being made up on the fly.

But what I do know is that the pattern is very clear from this Administration. They hold their cards very close to their chest - whether they have a legitimate need to or not. So having these guys come out and say "There are no plans to invade Iraq" is like the boy who cried wolf. Maybe someday they'll actually say this and really mean it, but geesh. They've got quite a record on this so far.

No body seems to have mentioned this so far, but doesn't it strike you odd that no one is talking about what the legal basis is? Does the administration think it will have to go to congress to go to war, or whatever they do, before they do it? I mean, will anybody bother to go through the constitutional requirements to wage war, or will the Administration think that they have all the legal authority necessary to wage war with Syria?

I mean, this is a very interesting question, isn't it? The Iraq war was justified on the first UN security council resolutions concerning Iraq, in addition to our national security interests. So what UN security council resolutions is Syria in violation of? What national security interest does the US have regarding Syria?

Think they're going to come to Congress to get permission? Bet that's going to be an interesting debate within this Administration. Remember the last time? They were laying the ground work for that many many months before hand. Remember all the legal opinions that they didn't need to go to Congress by the White House council? They were all based on the first Gulf war resolution....

Anyways, it's going to be entertaining. Like I said, it's not clear they're going to invade Syria. But I do think it looks likely. Certainly, they're making all the right noises designed to give the impression.

I just wonder how they're going to finagle this with Congress. Maybe they simply won't try.

Iraqi talks end with pledge to meet in 10 days

Uh, what's the schedule here guys? Is this a third quarter goal?

Proposal to name GW emperor for life.

I'm not kidding. Pretty eery, eh?

Digby on the private security firm we're sending over to keep things in check in Iraq.

I was wrong. We do have a plan.

It is so nice that the United States has arrived to set things right.

Oh, wait a minute. These are things that were done by our All American Dyncorps Rent-a-cops in Bosnia. And guess what? We're gonna send 'em to Iraq! I'm sure they'll have some juicy stories to swap with those Ba'athist secret police we've also hired to "restore order."

Orcinus has a great post on the gloating of the Right over the war and what's to come next.

The Bush Doctrine is hardly anything more than Darwinist "might makes right" bullying, clothing itself in the language of an aggrieved victim. Many Americans were capable of seeing that. And they have a more traditional, and certainly more enlightened, understanding of what global citizenship really is about. They made up the bulk of the people out there marching against Bush's war.

So Bush has won his cynical little war -- one it's clear he chose because he not only could win it, he could sell it. (North Korea -- the far more clear and present danger -- is however a different proposition on both counts.)

That does not, however, vindicate the Bush Doctrine. Before that happens, we're going to have view the long-term results.

Any questons?

Humpty Dumpty in Baghdad.

Ye gods.

By giving control to the INC, the Pentagon seems intent on creating a government modeled on South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem regime, which would require a U.S. praetorian guard to prop it up for years to come. Said Edward Walker, a former assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, "I don't know how long Ahmed CAzaelabi will be alive under those circumstances. Are you going to keep the Marines surrounding him for 10 years?"

But the AEI's Ledeen predicted no backing off in the coming fight over the INC. "The battle over Basra," he said, "will be nothing compared to the battle over the Iraqi National Congress."

The United States and Syria: Mounting Tensions and Multiple Agendas.

I'm quoting the whole article here, as Stratfor is a pay site. It is an incredible analysis, though, showing the complexity of the situation unfolding as we speak.

Summary

Tensions between Syria and the United States will heighten dangerously in the coming days. Washington has several goals in mind, but it is unclear what the fallout will be in Damascus.

Analysis

During the past two weeks, U.S. officials have made several seemingly threatening statements about Syria, publicly warning the state to stop harboring militant groups and suggesting it is aiding Iraq's war effort.

Among the most recent events, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said during an April 9 press briefing that the Pentagon has "scraps of intelligence saying that Syria has been cooperative in facilitating the move of the people out of Iraq and into Syria." He later clarified that those people were not senior Iraqi regime leaders, but the statement -- designed to put Damascus on the defensive -- struck home. Then, on April 10, New York's Newsday quoted an unnamed intelligence official as saying that Rumsfeld had ordered contingency plans drawn up for a possible invasion of Syria.

Washington's bellicose rhetoric -- and it is merely rhetoric at this point -- is driven by several goals, all of which are now melding to create a layered justification for heightening tensions with Syria. Those tensions likely will ratchet up quickly in the coming days and weeks.

Among Washington's many objectives, the most immediate might be to secure its own western flank in the postwar phase from the potentially hostile Syrian military and any anti-U.S. partisan elements from Iraq that might emerge in Syria. The country's military force is large -- with 316,000 active-duty personnel -- and well-trained, but crippled by obsolete equipment and a shortage of spare parts.

Washington needs to bring significant pressure to bear on the government in Damascus and the Syrian military so that both will concede to working out some security arrangements with the United States -- probably similar to the agreement between Islamabad and Washington that allows U.S. forces to conduct "cooperative cross-border" operations originating in Afghanistan.

Another agenda is the U.S. need to repay allies such as Britain, Spain and Saudi Arabia by pushing forward with the Middle East peace process and plans for the creation of a Palestinian state. To achieve this goal, U.S. State Department officials will seek to reassure Israel of Washington's continued support for Israeli security. The Bush administration might be working toward this end by putting the screws to Syria -- isolating Damascus from potential patrons France and Russia and possibly launching strikes against suspected Syrian chemical weapons plants.

The heightened focus on Syria also could serve U.S. policy goals farther abroad. For instance, Washington sees an opportunity to limit North Korea's access to advanced missile guidance systems by shutting down Syria's ability to act as a conduit: The country reportedly has imported the SS-X-26 Stone (Iskandar-E) short-range ballistic missile from Russia and resold the guidance technology to North Korea, allegedly without Moscow's knowledge. For Washington, raising the proliferation issue with Syria would create tension between Moscow and Damascus -- while further isolating the regime in Pyongyang.

Coming down rhetorically on Syria does nothing directly to aid Washington's battle against al Qaeda: Damascus is even less tied to the group than was Saddam Hussein's regime. Syria has struggled with Islamist radicals itself in the past and would find it difficult to work with Osama bin Laden's Wahhabi network. Moreover, the government has taken specific steps in attempts to pre-empt al Qaeda recruitment and training activities in Lebanon, where they threaten Damascus' own influence.

However, Syria does support the Shia militant group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and traditionally has backed Palestinian opposition groups such as the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The State Department lists all of these groups as foreign terrorist organizations and has labeled Syria a state sponsor of terrorism.

Finally, of the next potential U.S. targets in the Middle East -- Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria -- Syria is the weakest. By focusing attention there now, Washington could undermine any possibilities that it could serve as an ally for either Riyadh or Tehran, flanking U.S. forces based in Iraq.

Do any of these goals, taken together or singly, necessitate U.S. military action against Syria? Or could Washington achieve its objectives by putting the leadership in Damascus under intense pressure and either triggering a military coup or getting political and military leaders to acquiesce to its demands? Unlike Pakistan, Syria has no military leadership structure, and it is not clear how much control President Bashar al-Assad wields over the armed forces.

At this point, Washington is only barking; it remains to be seen whether it will bite. But even the pressure generated by the recent rhetoric could be sufficient to destabilize the current regime. And if Assad can withstand the pressure, it is far from certain that his regime would survive if U.S. forces were to conduct search-and-destroy missions within Syrian territory or launch strikes against suspected chemical weapons plants.

EU Official: U.S. Should 'Cool Off' Over Syria

When asked April 14 about the United States' recent stance on Syria, European Union Foreign Policy Commissioner Javier Solana said, "I think it would be better to cool off and cool down the situation. That is my suggestion.''

Mobile labs found in Iraq

U.S. troops have found 11 mobile laboratories buried south of Baghdad that are capable of biological and chemical uses, a U.S. general said Monday.

There were no chemical or biological weapons with the containerized labs, which measure 20 feet square. But soldiers recovered "about 1,000 pounds" of documents from inside the labs, and the United States will examine those papers further, said Brig. Gen. Benjamin Freakley of the Army's 101st Airborne Division.

"Initial reports indicate that this is clearly a case of denial and deception on the part of the Iraqi government," Freakley told CNN's Ryan Chilcote. "These chemical labs are present, and now we just have to determine what in fact they were really being used for."

Silvan has been on a roll lately. He's clearly drunk the Kool-Aid and is now going through the stages of acceptance: (1) denial, (2) bargaining, (3) anger, (4) despair, (5) acceptance. Just kidding... Really, I'm just kidding. :) But he's doing a great job of clearly outlining some of the insanity that is not not even bothering to hide any more...

BTW, I don't think it's possible Fascism. I think it's been Fascism for quite some time. The worship of the CEO and the corporate organization is a prime example - after all, a corporation is a fascist organization. And I don't really mean that as a pejorative - heck, I've owned my own corporation and had my own employees under my own thumb. I know what I'm talking about.

But it's quite clear to me that we're not just seeing the rise of Fascism. We're just seeing the rise in the awareness of the Fascism that already exists. And those 5 stages above start being played out by a shell shocked intelligentsia...

After all, if a tree falls in a forest and no one reports the fact, did it indeed fall?

U.S. Considering Steps Against Syria

And so it begins...

Asked whether Syria was a good candidate for his "axis of evil," Bush laughed and said, "We will deal with each situation as it arises."

CEO Pensions: The Latest Way to Hide Millions

Witness the latest--and quite possibly the greatest--double standard in the world of compensation. At the same time big companies are taking an ax to the traditional pension plans of the rank and file, they are funneling millions of dollars into what's fast becoming the ultimate pay-for-nonperformance vehicle: the executive pension plan. In this magical land, years are transformed into decades, and the term "shareholder value" doesn't apply.

And don't think pensions are bit players in the grand scheme of executive pay: Using the most conservative actuarial assumptions, the $4.5-million-a-year pension that former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski is now attempting to collect is worth some $50 million in today's dollars. That's $50 million belonging to current Tyco shareholders.

So why, you may wonder, aren't investors up in arms over these jaw-dropping retirement giveaways? The answer is that hardly anybody knows about them. The complex details surrounding executive pensions are typically buried deep within a company's SEC filings, far removed from the salaries, bonuses, and stock options that dominate the headlines. "It's stealth compensation," declares executive-pay expert Graef Crystal.

Heck, I'm just going to go to sleep.

CEO PAY: Have They No Shame?

You know that things have to be just amazingly bad when Fortune Magazine runs a story like this, AND they use a quote from Orwell's Animal Farm to start off the article.

But the pigs were so clever that they could think of a way round every difficulty.
--George Orwell, Animal Farm

Who says CEOs don't suffer along with the rest of us? As his company's stock slid 71% last year, one corporate chief saw his compensation fall 12%. Sure, he still earned $82 million, making him the second-highest-paid executive at an S&P 500 company in 2002, according to the 360 proxy statements that had rolled in as of April 9. And yeah, he's under indictment for the wholesale looting of his company, Tyco. But at least Dennis Kozlowski set a better example than the top-paid executive, who pulled in a whopping $136 million. That was Mark Swartz, his former CFO.

Unusual, you might say, for one company to produce the two top earners in a given year. But three of the top six? Now that's truly striking--especially since the other person isn't part of Kozlowski's gang at all. It's Ed Breen, the guy hired to clean up the mess.

The Oasis has a great point in their Sunday Talkshow Breakdown.

Again, it's just amazing the level of self deception and outright lies that are flying around these days.

What’s with the blasé attitude?

Remember, the entire justification for this war is not just that Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapon materials and programs.

But that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, and we couldn’t take the chance of Al Qaeda getting WMD.

Now, just for fun, let’s assume everything the Bushies has ever said is true.

The weapons that can kill tens of thousands in a flash remain in Iraq. The vast majority of the “deck of cards” is still at large. Al Qaeda operatives, of course, are at large too.

With mass chaos the order of the day, wouldn’t you want to pull out all stops to make sure that not one vial got into Osama’s hands?

Instead, Rummy sounds like an underling making excuses to his boss why he can’t meet a deadline – there’s nothing I can do until so-and-so returns my call.

In reality, there are three possible scenarios regarding WMD.

1. Significant WMD are hidden in Iraq.
2. No WMD are hidden in Iraq.
3. There are WMD in Iraq. But, in the words of Gary Hart, “not many, [and] they’ll be highly degraded and not deliverable.”

If the Bushies really thought Scenario #1 was likely, one would sense a little more urgency on their part.

But (heaven forefend!) if this whole disarmament thing was a ruse -- Scenarios #2 and #3 -- the Bushies need only to worry about the politics.

And the politics can be taken care of by exaggerating the importance of what weapons are found, or by planting the weapons themselves in case none are found.

(Yes, discussing the planting of evidence is arguing conspiracy. And conspiracy arguments are weak.

But Bush is so far out on a limb here, there is just no way he would ever face the public and admit the US couldn’t find any weapons.)

This issue was touched upon by all five shows, but generally in softball form, such as “Are you still convinced we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?”

What no host asked Rummy -- or Gen. Tommy Franks, who appeared on three shows – is if they're worried about Al Qaeda snatching up WMD during the chaos? And if so, what is being done to prevent it?

A new world order

Bland, but a decent balanced look at the progression of the New American Empire.

The motive for attacking Iraq was always less clear-cut: America’s arguments shifted, sometimes not very subtly. But the ultimate aim was always clear—the removal of Saddam and the introduction of democratic government. The latest warnings to Syria seem intended to underline America's new toughness.

For some commentators, the drive for democracy in some countries sits oddly with continued American courtship of countries like Saudi Arabia, with its repressive and increasingly nervous regime. But even for someone like Mr Bush, idealism has to be tempered with realpolitik. America relies heavily on Saudi oil production, both to satisfy its own needs and to moderate the oil price.

Bush Doctrinaires: Analysts Point to Strong Signs America's War Machine Will Continue to Roll

Perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Thank God for Helen Thomas.

She sits hunched over in the front row at White House press briefings and, as the slick boys and girls of the press corps respectfully clear their throats and try to catch Ari's eye, she goes in for the kill.

She's 82 years old, already. What does she have to fear from White House flaks and media spin-doctors?

And so, on Thursday, the legendary Ms. Thomas, formerly with UPI and now with Hearst, raised her head, squeezed one eye shut, took letAzael aim and fired.

"Is the president contemplating any other regime changes in the Middle East," she asked Bush spokesperson Ari Fleischer. "I mean ... there seems to be something in the air that he may not stop with Iraq."

Bull's-eye!

It's more than something in the air in the administration of President George W. Bush. Even as fighting continues in Iraq, even amidst signs of chaos for the civilian population, there are warnings Operation Iraqi Freedom is about more than freedom for Iraq.

It's about reshaping the Middle East, say analysts and policy-makers alike (although they attribute different motives and results), and applying America's new foreign policy doctrine to the world.

"Duly armed, the United States can act to secure its safety and to advance the cause of liberty — in Baghdad and beyond," write Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol in their best-selling The War Over Iraq, the Bush policy bible. It's subtitled: "Saddam's Tyranny And America's Mission."

The war against Iraq bears witness to the unfolding of this new policy — the Bush doctrine that evolved over a decade and was set in stone last September as the National Security Strategy of the United States.

Its architects are powerful players in the Bush administration. Master planner is Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary. Then, among many others, there's Vice-President Dick Cheney; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; defense adviser Richard Perle; and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief-of-staff and national security adviser.

These are the fabled hawks of the Bush White House, the so-called "neo-cons" who, after 9/11, according to lore, hoisted neophyte student George Dubya firmly into their tribe.

The three principal elements of the Bush doctrine, as we see in Operation Iraqi Freedom, are pre-emptive strike, regime change and the supremacy of U.S. leadership in the world, backed by military might and guided by "moral authority."

There are no qualms about going it alone, or almost, without the United Nations.

"It's not totally new because Americans have always felt they can defend themselves anywhere," says Stephen Clarkson, Canadian author and visiting scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington.

"What's new is the attitude, the close-mindedness, of the Bush group. This place is completely closed. They know the truth. It comes from God. They're right and everybody else is wrong."

Any questions?

America Targeted 14,000 Sites. So Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

They were the reason the United States and Britain were in such a hurry to go to war, the threat the rank-and-file troops feared most.

And yet, after three weeks of war, after the capture of Baghdad and the collapse of the Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction – those weapons that President Bush, on the eve of hostilities, said were a direct threat to the people of the United States – have still to be identified.

This could be the first war in history that was justified largely by an illusion.

Susan Wright, a disarmament expert at the University of Michigan
Many influential people – disarmament experts, present and former United Nations arms inspectors, our own Robin Cook – have begun to wonder aloud if the weapons exist at all.

The public surrender of a senior Iraqi scientist could yet backfire against the US and Britain. Lieutenant-General Amer Hammoudi al-Saadi, who handed himself over to US forces yesterday, continued to proclaim that Iraq no longer holds any chemical or biological weapons. He should know: the British-educated chemical expert headed the Iraqi delegation at weapons talks with the United Nations.

The few "discoveries" trumpeted in the media – the odd barrel here, a few dozen shells there – have not been on a scale that could reasonably justify the unprovoked military invasion of a sovereign country, and in most cases have been proven to been no more than rumor, or propaganda, or a mixture of the two.

It could still be that, as American forces advance on Tikrit, Saddam's home town, chemical or biological weapons may be discovered, or even deployed by diehard Iraqi troops. But if the casus belli pleaded by George Bush and Tony Blair turns out to be entirely hollow – and it should be stressed that we can't yet know that – what does it say about their motivations for going to war in the first place? How much deception was involved in talking up the Iraqi threat, and how much self-deception?

As Susan Wright, a disarmament expert at the University of Michigan, said last week: "This could be the first war in history that was justified largely by an illusion." Even The Wall Street Journal, one of the administration's biggest cheerleaders, has warned of the "widespread skepticism" the White House can expect if it does not make significant, and undisputed, discoveries of forbidden weapons.

Before the war, American intelligence officials said that they had a list of 14,000 sites where, they suspected, chemical or biological agents had been harbored, as well as the delivery systems to deploy them. A substantial number of those sites have been inspected by the invading troops. Evidence to date of a "grave and gathering" threat: precisely zero.

Much of what has been unearthed points to something we knew about all along: the weapons programs that Iraq ran before the 1991 Gulf War, before sanctions, before regular US and British bombing raids in the no-fly zones and before the UN weapons inspection regime that ran from 1991 to 1998.

Yea, that's the ticket.

Rout Proves Anti-War Point

Sometimes the United States and its allies are wrong, and the rest of the world is right.

The opponents of war in Iraq — France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada, Mexico, the Arab nations and the many others — were vindicated last week when Baghdad fell just 21 days after the U.S.-led invasion began.

Bold nonsense is to be expected of a Bush administration whose foreign policy has been marked by deception. This dates from its success in winning congressional approval for war in Iraq by grossly inflating the threat posed by Saddam and later its failure to win pro-war votes on the U.N. Security Council with documents about alleged Iraqi nuclear plans that were revealed as forgeries.

The anti-war argument had always been that Saddam Hussein posed no significant threat to the U.S. or its neighbors because Iraq's military power was vastly degraded after Saddam's humiliation in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the subsequent dozen years of punitive United Nations-imposed sanctions.

And that any nuclear, chemical and biological weapons Iraq might still possess could be destroyed through the U.N. inspection process without resorting to a war that has cost the lives of thousands of Iraqis.

With an invasion force the U.S. itself now boasts was of relatively minimal strength, Saddam's regime was easily toppled. On that point, the neo-con war hawks were correct. Iraq was poised to fall like a house of cards.

By the second week of the conflict, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was saying he felt embarrassed by the Iraqis' poor fighting skills — or unwillingness to fight at all.

As the enormity of the rout was clear early last week, the Pentagon was dismissing the Iraqi forces as "a paper army."

Pushed to the wall, the Iraqi regime did not try to blunt the enemy advance by dipping into its vaunted stockpile of "weapons of mass destruction" — or perhaps that, too, was a paper inventory.

Libraries move to protect privacy

Thank "Bob" for librarians! In addition to the incredible attraction to librarian archetype that I have, it's amazing to see that they're also on the forefront of protecting privacy. You go girls (and guys)

New signs posted at the Skokie Public Library warn visitors that federal agents may secretly check library records to determine what books they have checked out or what Internet sites they have visited.

"We want our patrons to be aware we could be forced to turn these items over," said library director Carolyn Anthony, explaining why the warning signs appeared last week at checkout counters and computer stations.

Similar signs have appeared recently at the Schaumburg Township District Library, although officials there have also taken another step: deleting daily the names of patrons who use the Internet so there are no computer logs that could be searched by investigators.

Across the Chicago area and around the country, public libraries are taking steps to protect their patrons' privacy in light of federal anti-terrorism legislation passed shortly after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

DOE Rejects NAS Polygraph Report Findings!

The Department of Energy was required by law to propose by 8 April 2003 modifications of its polygraph policy taking into account the findings of the National Aacademy of Sciences' polygraph review. DOE's notification of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register today (14 April 2003).

Amazingly, DOE has rejected the NAS's findings and proposes to retain its existing polygraph program without change! The key finding of the NAS report, of course, is that polygraph screening is completely invalid as a diagnostic instrument for determining truth regarding terrorism, espionage, past activities of job applicants, and other important issues currently so assessed by our various federal, state, and local governments.

Any questions?

Guilty until proven innocent.

You know, it's very strange to see a lot of people finally waking up to what has really been going on for about a year. Considering that this stuff is already law, it's a little bit late. Again, kind of like the conversion to Christianity by a death row inmate. Certainly glad to see the conversion. However, it's a little bit too late.

"It's remarkable--none of us has ever seen anything like this," says Dave Fidanque, director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "This is unprecedented. We have no idea what kind of evidence they might have...Our Constitution was designed to prevent secret court procedures. Our Constitution was intended to guarantee every individual the right to due process. Since Sept. 11, Attorney General Ashcroft and the Justice Department have taken the position that they're entitled only to the rights that John Ashcroft thinks they're entitled to."

U.S. District Judge Robert Jones, who is overseeing the case, held a secret hearing last week and concluded that Hawash has so far been lawfully detained. But Jones did give the Justice Department a deadline, ordering prosecutors to take Hawash's testimony before a subsequent closed-door hearing on April 29.

Jimm has a great post, 9/11 & Government Secrecy Are Inhibiting The War Against Corruption

The root of the issue, eh?

Is it just me, or is this kind of stuff never reported in our media? It's time to end the national obsession with the war in Iraq, and start noticing what's really going on.

Snap! You are now awaking...be aware and pay attention to the troubling world around you.

Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt

I strongly recommend everyone who cares about what's going on in the world to read the above essay by Umberto Eco. I first read it in the Utne Reader many years ago. Eco is, of course, just a spectacular writer, so it's a good read even if you don't agree with his analysis. However, I think his analysis not just a good read, but a sharp and very penetrating look at just what is going on around us.

I don't think that there are any excuses for not seeing things for what they are any more. No way to hide the truth, in my irrelevant opinion.

Anyways, give it a read and let me know if you agree.

However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism.

Where’s the Doom?

A fine example of the taxonomy of "I told you so's" from the "journalists" at the National Review Online.

Let's look at them, sAzaell we?

"The United States does not have the military means to take over Baghdad,"

Or start an incredibly scarry nuclear escalation. Which is why I don't think the scenario is likely.

But the point is, claiming an "I told you so" because the war over is quick is a pretty dubious justification for the whole war. It was never a contest over who would win. It was a contest over who was right.

"Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children will die in the war against the people of Iraq,"

But the situation isn't over now that the regime is no longer in control. I'm not predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths in the future, but let me throw out some scenarios that are at least likely given what we've seen so far. For example, let's take the example of Rwanda. Not saying that this is going to happen, but given that a minority population was ruling the majority population with a brutal, iron fist - remember the gassing of the Kurds? - I don't think it's a scenario to be causally cast aside with a single post by Herr Sullivan. 800,000 people in a hundred days were killed in 1994. 800,000. So while hundreds of thousands did not die in the 3-4 week military battle, things could get out of control enough such that revenge killing on a massive scale start taking place.

So, a valid "I told you so". The war may be over in 3-4 weeks but the aftermath lasts forever. If there's even 100,000 dead Iraqis after a year due to some religious/ethnic civil war within Iraq, then I think you're going to have to take back the "I told you so". And that is not a pleasant thought, mind you.

Another scenario is massive die off due to pestilence and sickness or whatever. After all, isn't SARS going around unchecked? Given the simply horrid state of Iraqi medical support infrastructure, and given the absolute lack of any kind of civil authority to control a break out, I think that we could easily see massive deaths if the infection starts there. Given that we are moving a lot of troops around, and given that we are moving a lot of troops and diplomatic personnel in the exact same spot on earth where SARS is happening, I don't think that anyone can casually cast aside this scenario.

After all, coming up with dangerous, deadly and potentially letAzael scenarios is just called PLANNING AHEAD FOR THE PREDICTABLE. If you plan ahead well enough, then THE WORST CASE SCENARIO DOESN"T HAVE TO HAPPEN. That's the whole point of coming up with worst case scenarios. Something that everyone ridiculing the doom sayers has completely forgotten.

But I digress.

"There is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction,"

And granted, this is just a tentative "I told you so". As everyone on the Right consistently points out, it's impossible to prove a negative. We can't ever prove that Iraq didn't have WMD. So, I certainly don't claim an "I told you so" on this item, but I sure as hell think it's incredibly premature for the "Right" to be claiming one. So far, they are 0 for 15 - or is it 17 now? In any event, I'm sure if we find anything positive, we'll all know it IMMEDIATELY and the "Right" will be proclaiming "I TOLD YOU SO" at the top of their lungs.

I don't see that happening right now.

"oil prices "may spike during the war in a 'fear premium' of $5 or $6 a barrel," totaling $41 to $42".

When I see Gas prices below $2.50 a gallon (what I paid yesterday when I filled up out here on the Left Coast), then I'll give you the "I told you so". Hey, aren't we heading into a recession even as we speak?

"Bread, Not Bombs," peaceniks ceaselessly chanted. False choice. Coalitions forces offer both: bunker busters for the butchers of Baghdad and shiploads of food, fresh water, and medical supplies for Iraq's downtrodden.

Water. Food. Everything.

Again, I'll give you a qualified "I told you so". But unless we get control with police forces soon, then this one will be snatched from your smug hands very quickly.

Again, let's be clear. None of my dooms day scenarios are going to happen. I'm just saying that they are certainly real probabilities. Will they happen? Well, not if we're lucky and we perform amazingly. But that's actually the whole point that terrorizes me.

We have a lot of really nasty things that can go wrong with all of this. We've just successfully finished step #1, which is winning the war in under 3-4 weeks. Great going. Yes, you told me so.

But there's something like a million steps left before we can breath much easier. And so far, the people who are running the show have shown a remarkable ability to completely Bogart the whole plan. They predict and plan for only rosy scenarios. Only the sweetness and light.

The BEST CASE SCENARIO.

But anyone who has lived longer than 22 years on this earth simply knows that Murphy rules reality, not Don Rumsfeld. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. If you don't have good plans that take into account all the likely bad ways that things can go wrong, then you're just being a fool. Criminally so (by International Law, which we don't recognize, of course). And you can keep dodging bullets, but there's a million of them ahead.

Just one can really ruin your entire day.

So Doom? Yea, sure. Inevitable Doom? Certainly not. Well, only if you plan for doom you can predict that is. If you don't plan, or even consider that doom might actually have a chance of happening.... Well then, you are just "Boldly Rolling the Dice".

Josh has a terrifying thought on WMD disposal when you're in a hurry...

Yes, terrifying and completely predictable - again - I might add.

One quick note on WMD and their whereabouts. WMD's don't just pop into existence. As the entire reason we are over there - well, the old reason anyway - was to stop WMD that require industrial production, even if they've been moved to Syria or flushed down the local water treatment plan (shudder) there will have to be some evidence of the production facilities. I know logic has nothing to do with any of this, but I'll just imagine that it does for a moment.

Cleaning up production facilities for WMD such that there is no evidence of their production isn't something that can be accomplished quickly. It takes a lot of time and highly skilled personnel. And then you have to get rid of that evidence which you are just cleaning up. If they have produced any WMD, then there will be evidence of the production. And if they flushed them down the local water system - and I pray to "Bob" that this is not the case - then there will be a lot of dead people around to prove that point. Or incredibly sick and soon to be dead people. Or completely toxic and amazingly hazardous waste sites easily identified.

So, in my humble and irrelevant opinion, it's not simply enough to claim that Saddam has transported the WMD to Syria or some other unlucky next target of ours. There will be a trail. There will be evidence left behind that shows the WMD was produced in Iraq. But I guess then the narrative will be that Saddam spent the last year cleaning up all the facilities and destroying the evidence so that we can't find it. While U2's were flying overhead, spy satellites that can diagnosis skin conditions from orbit watched every move. While UN inspectors ran about every possible industrial site they could. Amazing accomplishment, if true.

As I said, logic has nothing to do with this. We've already completely re-justified this war, after all. Yea, the rest of the world will be rather pissed off, but it doesn't seem to matter to an Administration and American populace that has already written them off as cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Occam's razor has little meaning in this entire affair, don't it?

N Korea 'open to dialogue'

Some good news

An official from North Korea's foreign ministry has hinted the secretive communist state will accept United States demands for multilateral talks.
Quoted by the country's official KCNA news agency, the spokesman said talks on North Korea's suspected nuclear weapons programme depended on the attitude taken by the US.

Pyongyang has previously offered only bilateral talks with the US, while Washington has insisted on multilateral discussions that include North Korea's neighbours, China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.

In the statement, the North's official said: "If the US is ready to make a bold switchover in its Korea policy for a settlement of the nuclear issue, the DPRK will not stick to any particular dialogue format."

"The solution to the issue depends on what is the real intention of the US," he added.

"It is possible to solve the issue if the US sincerely approaches the dialogue."

Hold the Phone, It's a Sex Toy

From the lighter side...

Giving new meaning to the term phone sex, a British company is selling software that transforms a cell phone into a sex toy.

Vibelet.com's Purring Kitty software, launched last week, turns certain Nokia cell phones with vibrating ring capabilities into a "discrete, vibrating massager."

"Its tender purring vibrations provide perfect company on even the loneliest winter nights!" champions the website.

"No, it's not a joke," said the developer, who asked to be known as "Zoe Walsh" rather than his real name. "That's one of our biggest problems, in fact. We had to delay the launch date to avoid April 1. It's a joke product, but it definitely works."

The software, which costs UKGP 1.50 (about $2.35), is downloaded straight to the phone via a WAP link. Once installed, it has just two controls: Start and Pause. While running, an image of a contented cat is displayed on the phone's screen.

Walsh, the 25-year-old co-founder of what he described as a "pretty well-known" mobile-phone game publisher, which he didn't want associated with the Purring Kitty spinoff, conducted most of his market research at his pub.

"The reaction has been pretty good," Walsh said. "There's a clear 50/50 split. Azaelf the girls know immediately what it's about. The other Azaelf look at the kitty and say, 'Aw, that's cute, but why is it vibrating?' Then the penny drops."

Suspected Ricin Found in Paris Was Just Wheat Germ

Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

Vials of what was suspected as the poison ricin found in train station locker last month turned out to be wheat germ and barley, officials said Friday.

The discovery of the suspicious substance at the Gare de Lyon in central Paris on March 17 set off widespread terrorism concerns just two days before the start of the Iraq war.

The deadly poison has in the past been linked to al-Qaida and Iraq.

France at the time doubled the number of soldiers in the streets to 800 and ordered increased surveillance in train stations and ports. Flights were temporarily banned over nuclear power plants, chemical, petrochemical and other facilities deemed sensitive.

Announcing the laboratory test results Friday, the judicial officials said the ground up bits of wheat germ and barley have certain chemical similarities to ricin and initially produced misleading findings.

U.S. Diplomats Are Leaving Overseas Posts

More good news. Yes, this isn't anyone's "fault", but it's really piss poor timing, don't ya think?

A combination of the war in Iraq, terrorist threats and the spread of the respiratory disease known as SARS has resulted in the largest withdrawal of American diplomats from overseas posts since the Persian Gulf war in 1991, officials say.

Josh MarsAzaell has a post about not getting to overworked about the situation in Iraq.

What about the looting, the mayhem, and the fires? It's clearly a bad situation. And these things get to a tipping point where they can go from looting and mayhem to something far deeper and darker which is very hard to put a stop to. Having said all this, though, I think we shouldn't be too quick to ask why the invasion force didn't have some sort of constabulary or plan in place to stop this. If it's still like this in a week, it'll be a good question to ask. But I think it is virtually inevitable that you're going to have some period of rupture -- a window of time when there's an utter vacuum of authority -- when a government like this falls under military assault.

We have mainly a liberated/conquered city where large-scale hostilities are at an end and the old regime is gone. But we still have irregulars or foreign fighters or holdouts shooting off occasional shots. And that makes it hard to send anything but heavily armed folks out into the field.

In my opinion this kind of post is precisely the kind of post I hate to read from Josh. He's absolutely right in the analysis, and he's trying to put a good face on it.

And I would like to point out that if in a week, things are calmed down and haven't turned even uglier, well... Then I was just over reacting, and that clever Administration who is running this actually lucked out yet again and dodged another bullet.

But it's clear their plan - or lack thereof - is to blame. Like the logistical blunder on the military side, they might be able to pull it off. But it won't be because they are so smart and prescient. It will be pure unadulterated luck.

Because right now they clearly don't have a plan for this, other than to call for the former regime's police to stand up and take over the incredibly complicated job of keeping the peace without any help from the occupier.

Add to this one final complexity. Part of the problem is that you're dealing with a former regime that was so shot through with state-terror that it's hard to see how many people who ever wielded "hard" authority under the old regime are going to want to show their heads again even in an interim capacity. The Army is putting out the call for police and firefighters and the people who ran the phones and water and electricity to come back to work. In the latter cases, that'll probably work. But what about the police? I'm not sure there were people in Iraq who would fit our rather benign definition of "police." I'm sure there were low-level folks in the security apparatus who were decent people compromised by a bad system. But I can imagine those folks wouldn't want to show their faces just now. And do we want them keeping order for us?

I'd just like to point out something that I said before all this started.

in my opinion, we're playing Russian roulette with five bullets in the six shot chamber. We've got exactly one chance to do everything - and I mean everything - right. I don't know about you, but I can't do everything right in my world, and I can't believe that the military and this gang of Mayberry Machiavellis can do everything right either - so far they've done absolutely everything wrong. And if even one or two things go wrong - and there's a million things that are likely to go wrong - we're in such deep shit that we're going to be wishing we had Saddam still in power where we could ignore the evil bastard.

They don't have a plan for this scenario which was entirely predictable. Just like they misread Basra, Nasariyah, Najaf... It seems like they misread this one as well...

Josh ends with.

It's a tough situation, and an ugly one that we've got to get a handle on. Morally and under international law, we're responsible for restoring order when it was our tanks that smashed the old, albeit hideous, order. (Isn't this a case of the troop strength, again, being too small? Yes, I suspect so, to a degree. But even if there were a lot more troops immediately at the ready, I think you'd still have an interval of chaos like this since the sort of troops you use to fight your way in to the city just aren't equipped for policing duties. We need to see how it looks in a week or two.) The real danger over the long-term is the sort of deeper inter-communal blood-letting which reared its head yesterday in Najaf -- of which we'll say more later. But I think we should recognize that in the short-run this sort of ugliness may have been close to unavoidable.

As Josh has pointed out, hope is not a plan.

With respect to the entirely predictable looting and soon to be revenge killings, I'd like to use this as a clarification point to all the Right (including Dennis "I have no soul" Miller). Even Don Rumsfeld admits that this was entirely expected.

Seeing as how everyone in this Administration (and their advisors) thought this regime would fall within days, I would have thought they would have had a plan for dealing with this.

If you're asking as to how the "Left" would have handled this thing differently, let me just state that the "Left" would have had a plan for swooping in with professionally trained, international domestic peace keepers - policeman by any other name. This is one of the advantages of doing this through international organizations. Say... The UN? They're not useless, you know.

In any event, even if you don't believe that the UN has at least some use, it's the height of stupidity to think you can cobble up an interim government after the fact. You have to have at least a plan before it happens. Because when it happens, and you're still making up your plan, then it really sucks in the country you just took over - for the remaining civilians. This is why it's considered to be a war crime issue to not have a plan and keep the peace.

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Democrats repeatedly asked this Administration what their plan was for post-war Iraq. Nothing. Not a frickin' peep from "those who hold their cards closely to their chest." Okay, some of the Republicans on the Senate commitees asked too, but they just didn't seem to care enough to make their Administration answer. Democrats could only ask.

Again, I want to stress: Not a single plan revealed.

As we're still seeing the cobbling together of that plan - still without any semblance of a peace keeping force I might add - I would venture to guess that they actually didn't have a plan.

And that is just plain stupid.

What they were expecting - i.e. scripting - was that everyone would be jubilant and joyous and peace and light would prevail. The Iraqis would spontaneously police themselves in an Ayn Rand orgy of Libertarian expression.

I mean, really. What morons.

But this is exactly what they thought would happen, so they didn't think they needed a plan. That despite the Senate committees telling them that they needed a plan and they'd like to know exactly what it was so they could judge whether it was a good plan. I mean, I know no plan survives the first bullet. But having no plan before the first bullet is fired is inexcusable.

Hey, I got a suggestion. Next time we declare war, we put in a clause that says the Administration has to give a plan for ratification by Congress as to what's going to happen after the war is won.

Wouldn't that at least be a start?

Heck, I don't even care about congressional ratification. I'd be just happy to see ANY serious and well thought out plan for what we can predict will happen before it happens.

So we don't have riots, looting, revenge killing and all that other really stupid and predictable stuff. And then I wouldn't have to hear Andrew Sullivan whine about the Liberals using the situation to paint the whole endevour in a piss poor light.

Look, we'll get it solved if we're indeed serious. But like not having an extra 140,000 troops during the war, it would have been really nice to have 40,000 or so professionally trained peace keepers ready to step in after the troops have taken the cities.

Really nice indeed.

Geesh.

Rumsfeld: Looting is transition to freedom

And now from the Department of Orwell comes this gem. This is a sign of how really serious the problem is, how little control the troops have. Ugly situation.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

Rumsfeld said in the United States there has been looting and riots and they eventually come under control.

"Think what's happened in our cities when we've had riots and problems and looting. Stuff happens!"

CIA Refuses to Release Its Handbook on Release of Information to the Public

The Central Intelligence Agency confirmed on April 7, 2003, that it is withholding in full the CIA Headquarters Handbook on the subject of release of information to the public.
In the denial letter, the CIA confirmed the existence of this manual but indicated that it was being withheld for two reasons: first, because it applies to information pertaining solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Agency, the b(2) exemption.

An agency employee could not specify whether the exemption cited was low b(2) or high b(2), but indicated that the Agency uses both exemptions, despite Department of Justice guidelines to the contrary.

The second reason for withholding was that the agency claims that the document describes intelligence sources and methods (the b(3) exemption).

The Agency said that no portions of the handbook were releasable, even including the cover page.

The denial letter was signed by Kathryn I. Dyer, the CIA's Information and Privacy Coordinator, dated March 19, 2003, under case number F-2003-00028, in response to a request letter submitted dated January 14, 2003.

Blessed Are the Warmakers?

A debate betwen Daniel Cohn-Bendi and Richard "Caligula" Perle

Okay, so I added "Caligula" to Perle's name. I just think it fits. The man looks like he should be fiddling while Iraq burns.

If my prediction—that everything will go well with Iraq—becomes reality, then the damage recently done to trans-Atlantic relations will rapidly be repaired. We will still have the problem of French ambitions to build a Europe in opposition to the United States. And if the French are indeed creating a counterweight, do not call their relationship with the United States an alliance anymore. In that case we, as Americans, will have to consider how we deal with this European departure from the trans-Atlantic axis.

Iraqi nuclear site tampered, says watchdog

More followup

Seals at an Iraqi nuclear material research center have been broken, a Washington-based nuclear watchdog reported Friday.

The Tuwaitha research center was Iraq's primary civilian nuclear site prior to the 1991 Gulf War.

"Specialized seals have been broken on a stock of nuclear material stored at the Tuwaitha nuclear research center at a site called 'Location C,'" said the Institute for Science and International Security, which monitors nuclear proliferation around the world.

The seals are meant to ensure the detection of any tampering with the center's nuclear material.

"A key issue is what happened in the days between the abandonment of the site by the Iraqi guards and the arrival of U.S. troops and the imposition of adequate security," asks a report authored jointly by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein of ISIS.

Some of this material is highly radioactive and poses a health and safety risk to anyone mishandling it. All the material could be useful for terrorists or other nations intent on making nuclear weapons or radiological dispersal devices, the report said.

Army Testing Trucks for WMD

Anywhere from seven to 15 vehicles are being tested for possibly containing biological or chemical weapons and for serving as mobile weapons labs, Fox News has learned.

Fox News' Rick LeventAzael — embedded with the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines in Baghdad — reported Friday that an Army intelligence unit was heading toward a suspect vehicle Friday where they will test for the presence of chemical or biological agents.

Capt. Aaron Robertson, an intelligence officer, told Fox News that there are seven to 15 vehicles in proximity to that suspect vehicle that they will be searching. Other vehicles have raised similar concerns, but they do not yet know if they are rigged with the same devices that may imply they were used for manufacturing such harmful agents.

Robertson said gas masks and chemical suits were also discovered near the suspect site.

On Thursday, Army investigators looked inside what appeared to be a refrigerator truck at a construction site and saw what looked like a surface-to-air radar vehicle. But hidden inside fake side panels were an electronic pulley system, open jars and containers, a winch and hooks meant to move apparatus for rinsing and cooling substances without manual help.

Investigators from Echo Company said the system resembled a hazardous-materials lab, where substances could be mixed, cooled and heated without direct human contact.

Anti-aircraft guns, a surface-to-air missile and several caches of weapons and ammunition were also found at the site.

It was suspected that the truck may have been a mobile biological weapons lab. However, on Friday the Army said that specific vehicle was deemed not to be such a lab, but that the seven to 15 others discovered on the site are still being investigated.

Experts Say US 'Discovery' of Nuclear Materials in Iraq was Breach of UN-Monitored Site

American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said Thursday. They said the U.S. troops may have broken U.N. seals meant to keep control of the radioactive material.

Leaders of a U.S. Marine Corps combat engineering unit claimed earlier this week to have found an underground network of laboratories, warehouses and bombproof offices beneath the closely monitored Tuwaitha nuclear research center just south of Baghdad.

The Marines said they discovered 14 buildings at the site which emitted unusually high levels of radiation, and that a search of one building revealed ''many, many drums'' containing highly radioactive material. If documented, such a discovery could bolster Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weaponry.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Owens, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, said officials there have not heard anything through military channels about a Marine inspection at Tuwaitha.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspected the Tuwaitha nuclear complex at least two dozen times and maintains a thick dossier on the site, had no immediate comment.

But an expert familiar with U.N. nuclear inspections told The Associated Press that it was implausible to believe that U.S. forces had uncovered anything new at the site. Instead, the official said, the Marines apparently broke U.N. seals designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use or end up in the wrong hands.

''What happened apparently was that they broke IAEA seals, which is very unfortunate because those seals are integral to ensuring that nuclear material doesn't get diverted,'' the expert said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The last place we liberated

Just let me point out the object lesson that illustrates precisely what I'm worried about.

President George W. Bush signed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act into law last Dec. 4, authorizing $3.3 billion in economic, political, humanitarian and security assistance for Afghanistan over the next four years. The next month, Bush submitted the 2003 budget authorization to Congress but requested slightly less than that.

As in: $0.00.

"The administration anticipated that Congress would put it in," explains a sympathetic congressional source. "So they low-balled it."

That's for sure. Congressional staffers quickly penciled in $295 million, but that still wasn't enough. "The request in the administration's appropriations bill does not come near fully funding the bill that we passed in [the Senate Foreign Relations] Committee and the president signed into law," the bill's chief author, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., tells Salon. "It does not come near it."

War boosts Rumsfeld's vision of an agile military

So I guess all the mistakes that we made in Iraq are going to be repeated after all. Success has washed away all the glaring mistakes.

Let's hope luck keeps with our troops despite having this idiot run things.

But one clear winner in this first major war of the 21st century is likely to be Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The outcome - so far, at least - seems to bear out the war plan he had a heavy hand in creating. More important, in years to come the "transformation" of how the United States designs and arms its military - something he has had to fight much of the military bureaucracy and a battalion of outspoken retired officers over - now is more likely to take place.

"It is clear that this war was fought employing many of the concepts and principles that Rumsfeld has espoused," says military analyst Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute. "One can only assume that in the postwar environment he will have greater power and credibility with which to push forward reforms."

So now the Right is demanding that the anti-war crowd apologize and admit they got it wrong. Amazing.

As if the mere act of winning was what we were all against. Andrew Sullivan is whining about the coming spin regarding Iraq and it's seeming descent into chaos. What a frickin' Toady. A hundred or so people revel in their freedom, pull down a statue, and he says we should all apologize. Now the whole country is reacting to the lid being taken off the pressure cooker and things are getting way out of hand. Now that's our fault as well... Something we're going to "use against" the supporters for this war.

Well, yea. There's a whole list Andrew, my fair Toady. A whole list. Winning the war wasn't the issue. As many have pointed out, NO ONE - except insane people - said that we wouldn't win the war... Almost everyone predicted a fast war. At issue is what comes next.

The war is over in 3-4 weeks. Great. The aftermath lasts forever. And if it doesn't go well at all, and we're right, then we lose both ways. We don't want this to happen just to see you squirm Andrew. We didn't want this to ever happen. And if it does happen - as it seems to be unfolding - it isn't our fault. It's the idiots who don't have a plan who are just setting up Iraq as a base for future operations in the middle east who are to blame.

Winning wars is easy when you're the biggest mofo on the planet (by an order of magnitude at least). It's winning the peace and keeping the entire situation in the middle east from degenerating into a seething pit of hell that's the real cAzaellenge.

If it becomes the narrative of the story - as you so eloquently put it Andrew - then it's your own frickin' fault.

I'll stand up and cheer if we manage to keep it under control and return to some semblance of peace. Yes, I'll say that my doom saying was completely off the mark. But what are you going to do, dear Andrew, if it doesn't? Just blame it on the liberal media? Blame it on the slant the NY Times is putting on a situation that isn't nearly as bad as they are making it out to be?

Geesh. What a frickin' toady.

Ever since the Nuremberg trials, the wold has held the collective opinion that people have the responsibility and duty not to follow orders they deem inappropriate to humanity. I know that's a mushy definition, but as I believe in Extrinsic Definitions, a good example is the crime against humanity called Genocide. The collective, and I think unquestioned opinion of humanity is that if you're being ordered to carry out genocide, you had better not follow that order.

But there is a far more subtle, wide spread and far more dangerous threat to humanity than the periodic genocide: Toadyism.

One thing I always loved about Marvel comics is the sometimes tongue in cheek way they had of laughing at their own universe. I remember this one series of comics - I think it was Spiderman - where the heroes decided that the reason why these super villains were so powerful was that they had this endless supply of Toadies - the endless stream of bodies thrown in the way to slow down the heroes and to do their dirty work. Without the Toadies, the heroes could easily make short work of these fools. So Spiderman and some other hero teamed up to track down the Toady factory and put an end to the whole thing.

On the left is a quote I dearly love by Otilia De Koster. Otilia De Koster was (is?) a civil rights monitor and reporter in Panama. She was not very well liked by the people who were making everyone else's live a living hell - death squads, etc... Not liked at all. Many death threats against her family and loved ones as well as her self. She was asked "if she feared for her life or her family" because of her choice of profession, given all the evil people who despised her. Her answer was amazing: "What I fear is being in the presence of evil and doing nothing. I fear that more than death." That, my friends, is courage. Courage and conviction that rivals any faith based poser I've ever known.

After 9/11, there was a heck of a lot of talk about whether we (the US) should use torture to get the information we needed from the evil people we had in custody. From my point of view, torture is just simply evil. As was pointed out by an anonymous ethicist on Orcinus

Those who defend torture will often base it on the Alan Dershowitz "ticking nuclear bomb" scenario: There's a nuclear bomb ready to go off and kill thousands of people. The one person who knows where it is won't say. In this case, who wouldn't use torture to extract the information?

Well, it is only fair to ask the pro-torture people to explain how far they would go. Torture, after all, it's not really about causing physical pain; it's about applying unbearable pressure -- which may involve physical pain but always involves degradation.

Since this is inherently a very unpleasant subject I will be uncomfortably, gruesomely specific: What if a nuclear bomber won't respond to mere pain? After all, terrorists like the 9/11 villains are prepared to die; I'm sure they can put up with a little pain. Now, the clock is ticking. Should we try sexual torture? Should we rape his child in front of his eyes to make him break? Cut the toddler up in pieces, a piece at a time?

Would Willis, Balko and Hesiod be willing to perform these services for their country?

It is only fair to ask those who support torture to provide a public answer. For the record, I'd rather go up in a mushroom cloud with my whole family and all my children and all my friends and pets and compatriots and acquaintances, and the whole country and the whole earth if need be than surrender my humanity. After all, in the long term, we'll all be dead. I'd rather die earlier and die a human.

But what has been happening since 9/11 is that these kind of "ends justify the means" themes have been not just popping up and rearing their ugly head, but have become serious topics of discussion. Seriously debated issues. In fact, they have become the driving force of American political thought.

Take the issue of the war with Iraq (please!). We have now waged a preemptive war against a nation that didn't directly threaten us. At all. I don't care if we find some bizarre mobile bio-weapons lab. The WMD justification for this war is just a complete smoke screen. We went into this knowing this and we just did it anyway. We crossed the line and became the aggressors.

And why? Because we're scared. We're terrified. We finally realized on 9/11 that they could strike us where we live. And so we started to lash out.

Within minutes of the planes hitting the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld was looking to attack Iraq. No evidence. No proof. Just a long standing desire to get that thorn out of the NeoCon's collective side. And it makes a nice base of operations for their continuing plans of the Mideast as well.

As much as I want to do so, this isn't really a screed about the war itself. It's about Toadies.

For example, Andrew Sullivan is a perfect example of a Toady. He's someone who is a very intelligent person, and yet he has thrown his humanity away for "Bob" only knows what price he extracted from his new masters. He has willingly become a tool for evil. And he really is just a tool. His masters don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about him and what he actually cares about. As Atrios has pointed out, the person who signs Andrew's paycheck is someone who thinks his lifestyle is the vilest perversion around. And instead of dealing with this as Otilia De Koster would, he consciously makes a daily choice to continue to be a mouthpiece for these people. Daily, he puts his soul in the closet and goes about gleefully spewing propaganda, destroying the very thing that he claims to hold dear.

He's a Toady from the swamp of hell.

And it's the Toadies that really are to blame for the evil that we see around us. Without Toady's these handful of really smart evil people wouldn't be able to do any damage at all - they'd be laughed out of existence in a millisecond. It's the people who follow orders because they are scared. It's the people who willingly spew that which they know to be lies, those who deride those they know to be courageous. Those that undermine and deride the facts. The propagandists who knowingly distort that which they know to be true. They are the ones who make all the evil plans possible. They have chosen to be in the presence of evil and do nothing - at best. At worst, they have willingly given up that piece of their soul which screams out "NO!" and put it in a box so they can get a pay check.

They have rationalized their actions as the ends justifying the means. And so they support preemptive wars, torture by US troops, FBI agents and policemen, the breaking of the Geneva Convention by the US, the conquest of the middle east and all that wish to do us harm. Without question. They are the bodies those who are in charge of this mess use to do their bidding.

And perhaps the worst of it is that their masters just really don't care. They're just tools. They may get a few scraps thrown their way. But in the end, they're just grist for the mill. Tools to be used and cast aside. They don't even win anything in the end. Nothing at all. They are laughed at and despised by the very masters they serve.

One of my now ex friends is a really good Toady. He likes to think of himself as a good leader - a man of action. And he is. I used to have an enormous amount of respect for him, and would have gladly followed him into the Jaws of hell.

But things started changing after 9/11, and most particularly, during the events leading up to the war. I began to see that he was absolutely willing to do the worst things (or support them wholeheartedly) just to gain a measure of security. He, of course, would start discussing the issue of Torture and he would blithely say that this was something fairly common, and in any event these evil people deserved it. Strike one. Then he started talking about the sovereign rights of America and how there was a big difference between how we treated other Americans and how we treated the rest of the world. When I would bring up our amazingly horrible record in South America - i.e. our assassination of democratically elected leaders and the setting up of Right wing dictators, and the funding and promotion of death squads - he would just shrug and say that they were our evil people and that there's a difference when our evil people do this and other evil people in the world do the exact same thing, but aren't doing these evil things in our interest. Strike two.

The final straw that broke my symbolic camel's back was when he literally said "I'm more than willing to toast 300,000 Iraqi civilians as an object lesson to the rest of the middle east" in response to a question I had about the then pending Iraq war. More than willing. The point I was trying to make was that there wasn't a shred of evidence that Iraqis were involved in 9/11 in the slightest, and that 85% of Americans either didn't know this, or believed that at least one of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi.

Strike three and you're out. I was stunned.

And to me, this is the essence of evil. When you're willing to throw away everything that you claim to be fighting for in the pursuit of some measure of comfort or safety. The willingness - no, eagerness - to have the ends justify the means. To torture those who have tortured you. To become a world vigilante and scrap decades of international law and alliances in the single minded pursuit which they are now re-justifying. To be willing to slaughter hundreds of thousands to make an object lesson.

The willingness to sell one's soul. To do nothing in the presence of evil.

Anyways, sorry for the rambling, very unprofessional and unedited screed. It's been festering for a while and I just needed to get it out of my gut.

Another reason to despise Big "L" Libertarians.

Note, not the small "l" libertarians. I'm talking the institutionalized form of the "L" word.

Long before American conservatives grew indignant about the villainy of Saddam Hussein -- back in the days when upstanding citizens like Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger were still coddling the dictator -- Human Rights Watch was exposing his regime's mass murders and repression. I know because I've been reading the group's reports on Iraq since 1989, when it presented some of the most compelling evidence of Saddam's genocidal gassing of the Kurds.

But the principled political neutrality practiced by HRW, which gives its reports and campaigns worldwide credibility, makes it a frequent target for opportunistic attacks from the right. Today the Cato Institute published an appallingly vicious piece by Richard Pollock, an ex-leftist who serves as the libertarian group's "vice president of communications," in which he complains bitterly that HRW "apparently can find abuses everywhere except in Iraq." He proceeds to compare HRW with a Vietnam-era group that, according to him, slavishly promoted "the line of the [Communist] party's Central Committee ... Only evil America was capable of committing atrocities."

Pollock smears HRW (and Amnesty International) by conflating them with International ANSWER, the ultra-left front that has indeed served as an apologist for the Iraqi regime -- except that he describes the conduct of the mainstream human rights groups as "even more disheartening."

"Like the anti-war groups," he claims, "neither group has criticized Iraq." That is a truly audacious lie, as anyone who examines the HRW or Amnesty Web sites will instantly discover. Amnesty's site lists at least 113 reports or releases critical of abuses in Saddam's Iraq. The HRW site has 881 listings, including landmark reports on the Anfal campaign atrocities; the massacres in Azaelabja; the Iraqi government's "bureaucracy of repression," based on an enormous cache of captured documents; and, last week, a report on the depredations of "Chemical Ali."

Self delusion at it's finest. The Cato Institute has truly drunk the NeoCon Kool-Aid.

Ain't Misbehavin'

Digby again with an excellent answer to a common theme I've seen from the CalPundit - i.e. the whining about Left wing extremism.

The problem for Democrats isn't our so-called extremists who embarrass us with the bourgoisie. Our problem is Republican extremists who are now directing the government and buying up the media while dishonestly presenting themselves as moderate middle of the roaders. Even if we could persuade every single theatrical liberal that it is in the best interest of the liberal agenda to behave in a more politic way, it would not make one bit of difference. They already call Tom Daschle an ultra liberal spawn of Satan and Howie Kurtz says that's mainstream partisan discussion.

No Apologies
Save Your I-Told-You-So's

A far better post expressing the feelings I couldn't get out in my humble attempt.

Well, what is it exactly that we all have been proven wrong about?

-- That this war was not about disarmament, but about establishing Pax Americana on the backs of dead Arabs, Muslims and US troops?

-- That this war wouldn’t end with Iraq, and could soon lead to more misguided wars with neighboring countries?

-- That invasion and occupation will keep our troops in harm’s way for an indefinite period of time, while fostering more terrorism against America?

-- That the Bush Administration has no interest in real democracy, and will ensure a government is created that will serve Bush Inc.’s interests?

-- That the policy of pre-emptive war may destabilize the world as other nations adopt it?

-- That there was a way to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMDs and work towards his removal without killing civilians, including children?

Conquest and Neglect

Maybe Atrios will be happier with Paul's column this time. It has economics in it.

I tell you, though. Atrios seems to be really sensitive to this shrillness thing. It's like he's got sensitive skin or something... Not an advantage in this game.

In any event, Paul makes an excellent, if obvious point.

The scary thing is that this slash-and-burn approach to governing may continue to work for Mr. Bush's people because the initial triumphs get all the headlines. Unfortunately, the rest of the world has to live in the wreckage they leave behind.

Regimes who worry that they will be next

Nice run down on the short list. The unusual entry is Cuba. Hadn't thought about that, but sure. Why not. It's close enough and certainly weak enough. It's been a thorn in every administration's side for "Bob" only knows how long... We've even accused Cuba of having WMD. Wow. This Administration leaves a complete and detailed roadmap, don't they...

US Marines found suspected Iraqi mobile bio-weapons lab - report

We will see.

An American news channel has broadcast pictures from Iraq of a suspect mobile bio-weapons laboratory.

Fox News reported US Marines had opened fire on a vehicle when the unidentified driver tried to drive it away.

Military experts later examined the vehicle and described what was found inside as "significant".

Investigators reportedly found a fake wall in the van, which resembles a surface-to-air missile support truck or radar vehicle.

They also discovered an electronic pulley system and a refrigeration system.

This find is reminiscent of allegations by the United States, just a couple of months ago.

At that time, US Secretary of State Colin Powell showed diagrams of what he said were mobile chemical weapons facilities believed to be in the possession of the Iraqi administration.

Powell said the diagrams were based on accurate accounts provided to US intelligence services by 'sources'.

He also said that US intelligence services estimated that Baghdad had at least seven mobile biological agent factories.

So, if things go inevitably to hell in a hand basket, what is the predictable reaction of the Right? By "hell in a hand basket" I mean any one or more of the following:

War with Syria
War with Iran
Iraq becomes equivalent to Palestine (suicide bombers, constant marsAzael law)
War between Kurds and Turkey
US Rule >> 6 Months

None of these things are pleasant to contemplate. I don't wish them to happen. However, I believe there is a very high probability of them happening. They will be the direct result of our current actions - not Clintons, not the peace movement, not the UN, not France, not Germany, not Russia.

I mean, I know what the general form of the liberal ravishing will take - a telephone pole, knee pads, a dab of KY jelly and the warning "open up for another reaming". But what I'm wondering about is the specifics of the nuanced spin. For example, the re-justification of the War without WMD. Predictable in hindsight. We should have caught that one.

It's a drinking game, nothing more. Kind of like "Pin the excuse and abuse on the rabid Right". Everyone loses, but at least you can get a bit of fun in.

Nice little exchange which exemplifies the self-contradictory logic that led us to this point I found. Nice Blog, BTW. From the same blog, here's another gem of a conversation...

Proving that I'm really just following in the ruts already laid out by minds greater than mine, here's a very good read I found from Josh MasAzaell's recent post about rebuilding Iraq.

Iraq INC?
Don't expect postwar miracles from the Iraqi National Congress.

What future, then, for the administration's three principles? It would be a shame to see the commitment to democracy compromised. After so many years of brutal tyranny, the Iraqi people deserve to live better, freer lives, and it would indeed be wonderful—just as the hawks say—to see liberty and representative government blossom in the heart of the Arab world. So, while the easiest path to stability might be to turn control of Iraq over to some competent pro-American strongman, this would be both a tragedy and a mistake. To avoid both authoritarianism and chaos, however, the other two principles—limiting American and other foreign involvement—will have to be jettisoned.

Okay, so we pretty much have won in Iraq. Lot's of cleanup, but it's a victory that is no longer in doubt. So why am I not happy? People like Herr Andrew Sullivan will squeal that it's just my liberal hatred of the United States. Still others will likely say that it's just sour grapes that the NeoCons were right and I was wrong.

I know it's impossible to get this point across, but this isn't the case. Granted, I thought Iraq would be harder. After all, there was a logistical blunder of almost criminal proportions in the whole execution of the war. It was pretty much touch and go there for a couple of days. I certainly thought things would go on for another couple of weeks. But I'm very glad that it didn't. So having the war basically over brings a sigh of relief from me, not a wish for the war to have gone on longer. After all, I'm against the war, so the last thing I wanted to have happen was to see it go on longer. I do find comfort in knowing that the Iraqis are now free of that evil guy with the moustache - or at least darn close to being free. I smile knowing that they are celebrating their Ba'athist yoke being cast off and thrown down some crater left by some precision bombs.

I'm not even particularly worried about the civilian casualties in this war. Thanks to the expert training of our troops and the high tech precision weapons we have, these casualties were kept below what anyone even expected in their wildest dreams. War is hell, and strangely enough, this one was the smallest amount of hell that any war has ever seen. For that I am very thankful.

However, what does worry me tremendously is why we did this, how we're going to rebuild Iraq and what comes next. So far - and I stress that it's only so far - we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. I'm absolutely confident that our "intelligence" that we were using as the basis for all of our claims of WMD facilities leading up to the war have been tested and found wanting. The 100 acre facility was just one of the places on our list that we were sure would contain proof of the WMD we knew existed. All the other sites we've visited and explored now have also turned up nothing. Now all the talk is that we have to get the Iraqis who know where this stuff is and get them to tell us so we can root it out and find it at last.

But from my irrelevant point of view, this strikes me as essentially a defeat for our world view. After all, we were told over and over and over again that we were sure of the WMD Saddam had. We had positive evidence of their existence. Positive evidence. Now, as we are finding out, we seem to have had no evidence, only suspicions. All the sites we were so sure of have turned out to be phantoms. Ghosts. And now we have to go on a hunt to try to find them using those "in the know". While I don't know what I'm talking about, and therefore I could quite quickly be proven wrong, I still don't think we're going to find any WMD at all. None. No documents. Nothing.

Already we've seen a tremendous shift in American popular opinion. The majority of the population has now come to the conclusion that the war with Iraq was the right thing to do even if we don't find any WMD at all. None. On the one hand, I find this really strange. I mean, if we don't find any WMD, then why did we preemptively strike a country based on the threat of WMD? At this point, the only terrorist connection we have found is a bombed out camp in northern Iraq, which was under Kurdish control, not Saddam's. The evidence found is pretty flimsy. Some notebooks with Ussama's picture in it. But nothing much else. Certainly no WMD production facilities - no Ricin (what a joke that was).

All our reasons for a preemptive war which protected our interests seem to be an illusion - a feeling we had. The conclusion is that we're justifying the war after the fact. The polled American populace is re-justifying the entire sequence of events as a liberation of the Iraqi people. The entire justification has now been predicated on the removal of Saddam for the sake of the Iraqi people. And this is a powerful justification in the eyes of many people. After all, isn't this what we did in the Balkans? Well, no. Not really. After all, we didn't remove the people in charge, we just stopped them from committing genocide. The people responsible for these atrocities largely remained in place.

And so we have gone to war with a country on what appears to be a flimsy excuse and are now retroactively justifying it on another argument entirely. I find this simultaneously baffling and completely understandable. Certainly the baffling part is why anyone thinks this is sane. The understandable part is that the American people do not want to picture themselves as imperialists, and therefore they have to justify the preemptive war on something other than what the true goals of the NeoCons certainly have admitted to have. We tell ourselves that we're liberating the Iraqi people and then we feel better fooling ourselves. A warm blanket of lies to keep out the cold wind of truth.

But the NeoCon game plan is still in play. They got their war by manipulation of facts and the painting of illusions. Now that we have Iraq, we're not stopping there. Syria is definitely going to be dealt with. If you read this article in today's NY Times, you can see the groundwork being laid for a much wider campaign against Syria and Iran:

Senior Pentagon officials and senior counterterrorism officials have suggested that the United States government will now turn its attention to Hamas, the Palestinian group that has used terrorism to fight for a Palestinean state, and Hezbollah, which has strong ties to Syria and Iran. Indeed, in recent weeks, Mr. Rumsfeld has spoken more openly about Syria's support of Iraq and the threats it has posed to coalition forces.

And then there's the small matter of rebuilding Iraq. Putting aside all the amazingly bizarre things that are going to happen on the periphery of Iraq, what is going to happen inside that country over the next 10 years is going to be very interesting. The overwhelming belief, it would seem, of the American people is that Democracy is the natural state of organizing human beings. The situation in Iraq hasn't changed at all, other than the lid being taken off the pressure cooker. All the things that people worried about are still true. Iran is sitting right there on a 700+ mile long border, and they are of the same religious bent as the majority of Iraqis. Think that they're going to just sit idly by and let things happen without some sort of influencing of events?

And what of Democracy? As we seen throughout the Muslim nations, they consistently seem to choose religious fundamentalists as their representatives when given the chance to vote. It's only through fairly undemocratic measures has any Muslim nation been able to have a semblance of a secular democracy. It is obvious to even the NeoCons that if left to their own devices, the Iraqis would certainly create an Islamic based, fundamentalist government. Something likely resembling what Iran has. And this cannot be, so we must enforce non-democratic mechanisms to prevent this from happening.

Regardless of whether you think the ends justify the means, the entire process is a wonderland for propaganda opportunities for the fundamentalists Muslims to use against us. The entire world will be wondering why we are still keeping them under a fairly harsh thumb when we were supposed to be liberating them from such a thumb. Fodder for their propaganda machines.

In any event, though, what really depresses me is that the NeoCons don't really care about all this. Iraq is essentially a new base of operations. The cost of rebuilding and how the rebuilding will happen are largely secondary concerns. They have no doubts about whether it can be controlled enough to remain peaceful enough to let them go about their other work in the region - the process of dismantling the rest of the Muslim regimes in the region. They will now have 300,000 troops in the region, war seasoned and far more experienced than they were just 3 weeks ago.

And they're licking their chops.

But even that isn't the most depressing part. I expect that kind of crap from these people.

No, what is most depressing of all is how easily the American people are just being led about by the nose. We were talked into this war with Iraq and then talked into retroactively justifying it. We are now witnessing the same build up and campaign against Syria and Iran. I have no doubt that the American people will be talked into that war - if the NeoCons bother with that charade this time - and will retroactively justify these actions as well. And that means we're just sliding into an empire. Certainly not an empire like Rome or Britain had. Something uniquely American and very 21st century. But an empire none-the-less.

And that's what is depressing. I'm living in the beginning of the new American Empire and it's just strange to see everyone sliding into it like they were sleepwalking. Maybe this is something that we should be doing, and despite the actual goals of the NeoCons, the results will be a much better world over all. We'll see. But at this point, I think in another twenty years we're going to live in a quite a bit scarier world, not the dream I used to have as a child.

So I guess you could say that my depression is one of the loss of a dream. A dream of real democracy and a people who respected the rights of others and the rule of law. That dream is dead now. We've crossed the line and we now have committed ourselves to a clear course. No amount of retroactive justification can change that, as intent is everything. Editing your belief about the past doesn't change the reality of it. It only makes it worse because you are actually admitting that the motivation and justification was not correct and now you have to cover your naked ambition. Hypocrisy.

In any event, I'm hoarding all the popcorn and candy I can find and settling into a nice comfortable chair to witness this time in history. Powerful things are going on all around me, and I'm just in awe. I can't do anything about it. I can't change its course. All I can do is gasp and pray that I don't get caught in the crossfire.

"The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against."

The misquoting of the general is indeed an issue, but I hardly see what the sound and fury over the addition of the word "bit" is. The way that some make it seem, this word completely changes the remark - it's as if the new quote is taken as proof that the scandal over the Millennium Games wasn't a scandal at all. Now it's a small issue with minor nuances of the enemy - well within statistical deviation of the wargames.

Certainly when I'm being sarcastic about a prediction which turned out to be completely stupid I say "well, that's a bit different than what I expected", when in fact the situation is completely different from what I expected.

21 days to take Basra. Over 2 weeks to take Najaf and Nasariyah. No uprisings by the populace. A command and control structure still in place 2 weeks after precision bombing.

All of these things are quite a bit different than what was wargamed last August in the Millennium Games. This is undeniable.

But past mistakes are lost in the swell of victory. Which, I guess, almost completely guarantees they'll be repeated in the future. Syria? Iran? Libya? North Korea? Considering that we're likely to be at war with one or more of these in the foreseeable future, this is not idle speculation.

The Donald Rumsfeld Library of quotations

All your favorites! "There are things we do not know we don´t know. And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns."

The predictable past

Slices of war

The British situation is distinctive

Donald Rumsfeld soundbite competition

An enormous country

It might be accurate

What might be preferable

We're doing just fine

Subway coming in...

Stirring for troubled waters...

I didn't say Iraq...

Digging a hole

Chasing that rabbit

The situation in Georgia

Sports clothes...

Acting against the moon...

The requirement for dumb bombs...

Dim the lights

They just redid me...

Melting Afghans

Looking for the bad folks

Laser pointer

Real threat

Charlie....

Origami

Where is Bin Laden?

As Shakespeare said

Inhumane? No

Low density

What did I say?

What do I think?

Do I know?

After Iraq: A Palestinian state and regional nuclear war

Isn't it just simply amazing that this doctrine of prevention has legs? India, now Israel... Who's next? North Korea?

Until now, fears of a nuclear war in the Middle East have generally focused on Iraq. Yet, when the current war against Saddam Hussein is concluded, it is highly unlikely that Iraq will be in any position to acquire nuclear weapons. A new Arab state of "Palestine," on the other hand, would have decidedly serious implications for certain regional resorts to nuclear conflict. Newly endowed with a so-called "prime minister," this state, although itself non-nuclear, would greatly heighten the prospect of catastrophic nuclear war in the area.

If all goes well for the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush will feel compelled to reward Arab state allies and supporters with a dedicated American effort to create a Palestinian state. This state, tied closely to a broad spectrum of terrorist groups and flanking 70 percent of Israel's population, would utterly eliminate Israel's remaining strategic depth. With limited capacity to defend an already fragile land and facing a new enemy country resolutely committed to Israel's annihilation, Jerusalem would have to undertake even more stringent methods of counterterrorism and self-defense against aggression. Various new forms of preemption, known under international law as anticipatory self-defense, would be unavoidable. Significantly, a strong emphasis on preemption has now become the recognizable core of President Bush's national security policy for the United States.

Environmentalists Accused of 'Hijacking' the Faith Based Initiative

Conservatives who support private property rights are criticizing President Bush's faith-based initiative because it would extend federal grants to religious groups with environmental agendas. Green groups that purchase land to restrict development would also benefit from proposed tax breaks in the bill.

"This is ... a disgraceful hijacking by environmentalists," said Mike Hardiman, legislative director of the American Land Rights Association (ALRA) in an interview with CNSNews.com . "This faith-based bill is heading off rails before it even becomes law," he added. ALRA is a grassroots, property-rights advocacy group.

President Bush proposed his faith-based initiative to stop what he called "the unfair treatment of religious charities by the federal government." When the federal government gives contracts to private groups to provide social services, religious groups should have an equal chance to compete, he said in a speech in December.

On Wednesday, the full Senate is scheduled to vote on Bush's faith-based initiative, called the CARE Act. The bill not only faces strong opposition from liberals worried about "the separation of church and state," but now faces organized opposition from conservatives worried about government-funded land grabs under a religious umbrella.

Critics, including Hardiman, are concerned that environmental activist groups with a religious affiliation might get federal funding under the faith-based initiative. "Faith-based grant money to green groups - this is something that is out of control," Hardiman said.

"The White House did not intend to have this happen," Hardiman explained. "However, you have leftists in [Christie] Whitman's EPA openly saying, 'Of course we want green groups to qualify for this money for their special projects like global warming.'"

Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent

Was there ever any doubt? I mean, really. What kind of fool would you have to believe after all we've seen in the time since its passage. All the evidence we've seen of the first drafts and the "drafts" of PATRIOT act II... God, what morons.

Many Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated by what they see as a lack of information from the Justice Department on how its agents are using their newfound powers, and they say they need more time to determine whether agents are abusing those powers.

The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said today that without extensive review, he "would be very strongly opposed to any repeal" of the 2005 time limit. He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.

Indeed, Congressional officials and political observers said the debate might force lawmakers to take stock of how far they were willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

Beryl Howell, a former Democratic aide in the Senate who worked extensively on the 2001 legislation, said that by forcing the issue, Mr. Hatch "is throwing down the gauntlet to people who think the U.S.A. Patriot Act went too far and who want to cut back its powers."

MasterCard, Visa Must Refund Over

In the latest in a series of setbacks for the nation's two biggest credit-card networks, a California court ordered Visa and MasterCard to refund $800 million to consumers because of a dispute over poorly disclosed fees for using their cards overseas.
California Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw said the two card associations, which are owned by thousands of U.S. banks, violated state law by failing to sufficiently disclose the currency-conversion fees that they charge customers who buy goods in foreign currencies with their cards.
The $800 million award, which will go toward refunding California consumers affected by the charges, is significantly higher than the $500 million refund that the card industry had been bracing for. The lawsuit, filed against Visa USA Inc., Visa International and MasterCard International Inc., has been the subject of a six-month trial in Oakland, Calif.
While the judge's decision wasn't unexpected, it marks yet another setback for an industry under increasing fire for allegedly illegal practices. In a separate high-profile case scheduled to go to trial in New York federal court later this month, Visa and MasterCard are defending themselves against retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Sears Roebuck & Co., who accuse the associations of forcing merchants to take Visa and MasterCard debit cards as well as credit cards.

Ah, but the economy can just take this in stride, right?

Geesh.

Stocks End the Day in Negative Territory

Trading has been difficult in recent weeks as investors focus on the latest war developments. Analysts say while investors are confident of a U.S. victory, they remain uncertain about the toll on the U.S. economy.
``A victory is a matter of days, not a matter of weeks. That's the conclusion the markets have clearly reached,'' said Hugh Johnson, chief investment officer at First Albany Corp.
``So as time goes on, the focus is very grudgingly, very gradually shifting from Iraq to the economy and earnings. That may in part explain why the stock market to some extent has stalled,'' he said.

Wonder what Rove has up his sleeve? My bet is the economy stays on the same course, heading towards another recession (if we're not already in the first quarter of one now). Iraq will likely remain a constant distraction, but that only works in the negative. The Great Oz has to have something up his sleeve, right?

Where's those Milk Duds? I don't want to miss this trick.

Silvan, as usual, has a great answer to Matthew Yglesias' apparent loss of his frontal lobes. Love it so much I'm duplicating it here.

With all due respect, that is a silly post. WMD has everything to do with going into Iraq. We wouldn't be there if not for for WMD. Don't buy into the game, Mat.

The Admin is now downplaying the need to get WMD because they aren't finding anything. They are desperate to do so. The admin's tactics are to change our perspectives when they don't get what they want or if they want to save face. They are brilliant at it.

Keep this in mind - This has nothing whatever to do with helping the region or helping the Iraqi people. This really has nothing to do whatever with WMD, but without that pretext, everything else is garbage, because you see, we just invaded a country and it wasn't for self-defense.

Imperialism.

That's why we're there, and the admin is desperate to keep the public thinking that they were justified in going into there.

The Peter Principles: Whose war?

The problem George H. W. Bush faced in 1992 was finding a way to hold together a plus 90 percent coalition that was not really with him to begin with. The numbers were too high to be sustainable.
The current Bush does not face this problem. The political and media elites have already split, and are trying to create the impression that significant opposition to the war already exists. They are correct, but that means Bush's political cAzaellenge is to sustain what is at the outset a much smaller and therefore manageable base.
This base -- which, according to several national polls constitutes a majority of those likely to vote in November 2004 -- supports the country, supports Bush and is generally put off by the anti-Americanism explicit in most all the anti-war protests to date.
It is these protestors, and those who support them, that a Democrat needs to win the nomination in 2004. And it is these protestors who will likely push the vital center into the GOP column on Election Day. The partisan divide helps Bush rather than hurts him.

I'm expecting a lot of very disappointed people in 2004. From my irrelevant read on things, the Baby Eating Alien Party will again be victorious come election time.

This won't be his father's campaign.

I just got a flurry of angry emails from Libertarians over my post regarding why the conservative-libertarian/libertarian-conservative's (Atrios' term) seeming hatred of the EU.

Let me be clear. I'm an ex-libertarian. Just as there's nothing like an ex-smoker, there's nothing like an ex-libertarian. I used to be a rabid libertarian in my youth, and I still believe a lot of the basic tenets. The reason why I gave it up was that I came to the conclusion that libertarians just couldn't build roads, infrastructure - basically anything that the immediate value to the individual wasn't apparent. Oh, and there was also the fact that almost all the libertarians I knew in college were self-centered snipes who would sue at the drop of a hat. I shouldn't discount that from my decision to abandon the philosophy.

Basically, I think libertarians represent the adolescent in the political realm. The "me" philosophy. And while this is a valid viewpoint with a lot of merit, it cannot come to grips with the larger whole. When your an adolescent, you are the center of the universe. Everything is about you and your rights. And while the individual is indeed extremely important, the simple fact is that the Universe, with one tiny exception, consists entirely of others. What most people find out as they grow out of the adolescent stage is that these others are pretty important. And protecting their rights is just as important as protecting yours. In fact... Well, that's a topic for another screed.

Back in my transition from the Libertarian philosophy, I was beginning to realize that I, as a person, was almost entirely composed of others as well. Sounds strange, but I started to catalogue what it actually was that I considered to be "my self". The list is, of course, not complete, but I had catalogued quite a bit. I then sat down and analyzed it from an unusual (for me) perspective: What would be left of "my self" if everyone in the world suddenly disappeared and I was the only person in the entire Universe. The list was pretty short.

It's amazing how much of what we consider to be our selves is really just there simply because there's 6.5 BILLION people on the planet. Much of your ego, likes, dislikes, past times, joys, cares and possessions are there simply because the other people on the planet create them - or create your ability to interact and enjoy.

So after I thought about this quite a bit, I came to the conclusion that the "Selfish Objectivism" of Ayn Rand was really pretty comical. A mirage of self importance that fades once you open the door and look at the real world for a change.

I was listening to Richard Dawkins on that commie liberal Saddam coddling Public Radio Station a couple of years ago as he was hawking his new book, Unweaving the Rainbow. He was talking about how people interpreted his book The Selfish Gene, and in particular was discussing the Libertarian/Randian ideal of "Selfish == Good".

He said (and I'm only reciting from memory, so forgive me) that people misinterpreted the whole "self gene" message. Things adapt to their environment. A gene's environment is other genes. So, cooperation is the rule, rather than competition between genes.

Much the same goes for humans. Cooperation is the rule, not ruthless, self centered competition.

And I know that y'all think that somehow this emerges from ruthless competion between self absorbed adolescents, but anyone who's been to a high school can observe otherwise.

Like I said, nothing like an ex-smoker, or an ex-libertarian.

House Democrats Want Azaelliburton Probe

Questioning whether Vice President Dick Cheney's former company has received favored treatment from the Pentagon senior House Democrats asked Congress' investigative agency Tuesday to delve into contracts awarded Azaelliburton Co. over the past two years.

Azaelliburton's KBR subsidiary has a record of gouging the government in contracts awarded without competition, Reps. Henry Waxman of California and John Dingell of Michigan contended in a letter to the General Accounting Office (news - web sites).

Digby provides a nice commentary on the Salon article on John Stewart and The Daily Show. He illustrates the primary pattern of the NeoCon meme's propaganda tactics with an amazing bit from The Daily Show. It was a great show, and the text really doesn't show it in the correct light. Stephen Colbert played the part perfectly. He has the perfect Robert Novak dry sneer completely down. Give it a read.

Stewart: Hellacious ass-whomping? Now to me, that sounds pretty subjective.

Colbert: Are you saying it's not an ass-whomping, Jon? I suppose you could call it an ass-kicking or an ass-handing-to. Unless, of course, you love Hitler.

Stewart [stammering]: I don't love Hitler.

Colbert: Spoken like a true Hitler-lover.

But, I don’t see a lot of evidence that political correctness is fading fast. And, my evidence for this is the fact that I often find myself pulling my punches because I always hear from some people who will be offended by the fact that I would use a line like “slave banging, Hitler loving queer,” even as a way of exposing the other side for the bigots and extremists they are. Most disheartening is the fact that I frequently get arguments saying that by printing those words I am contributing to the problem – as if the context of words is completely irrelevant. Some very well intentioned people seem to believe that you can eliminate bigotry and hatred by eliminating the words that people use to express them. This rule applies to all except those who co-opted the term as a way to defiantly express pride in whatever the wing nuts are saying with derision. (Which is something I wholeheartedly approve of – take their slurs and turn them into badges of honor. Use language, be nimble, don’t create a bunch of rules that limit our ability to express ourselves.)

This probably shows why I fall into the Left/Libertarian spectrum on all of those stupid internet tests. I hate the idea that certain words or phrases are banned just because they have been used by some people with ill intent. And, something in me roars with frustration that because of that I should not even laugh when these bigots’ own words are used against them. It makes no sense to me. Ridicule is one of the surest ways to puncture the self-importance of pompous right wing asses.

This is interesting

The U.S. government must ensure that the United States can pursue its
foreign policy and national security interests unconstrained by energy
concerns, a senior State Department official says.

Undersecretary of State Alan Larson said the Bush administration plans
to achieve this objective by promoting energy supply diversification,
coordinating internationally an effective response to oil supply
disruptions and encouraging major oil producing countries to maintain
responsible production policies.

Testifying April 8 before a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee,
Larson said that the U.S. economy must have access to energy "on terms
and conditions that support economic growth and prosperity."

He said the Bush administration has signaled to major oil producing
countries that it expects them to follow through on their offers to
offset market disruptions. Consuming countries on their part stand
ready to use strategic petroleum reserves to calm the market if
necessary, he added.

Larson said that energy security cannot be equated with
self-sufficiency, "as much as we would like that to be the case,"
because the United States and its allies' demand for imported oil is
forecast to grow until at least 2020.

"So we must find more oil and gas supplies, and these supplies must be
reliable and made available on terms that permit sustained economic
growth," he said.

9-11 Geopolitical Analysis (MP3)

Very entertaining. Delay your initial reactions to the psycho meme, and listen to the whole thing.

I like the weather report feeling to the whole thing. The "colors" is a whole part of the spiral dynamics worldview, and the way they use them is pretty entertaining.

But listen to the whole thing. Surprisingly rational (although the color based shorthand is a bit unnerving to the "wako meter").

Or-logic is incapable of solving complex problems

john whiteside parsons: anti-christ superstar

When the history of the American space program is finally written, no figure will stand out quite like John Whiteside Parsons. Remarkably handsome, dashing and brilliant, 'Jack' Parsons was one of the founders of the experimental rocket research group at Cal Tech and the group's seven acre Arroyo Seco testing facility would eventually become Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA's rocket design center.
Werner von Braun claimed it was the self-taught Parsons, not himself, who was the true father of the American space program for his contribution to the development of solid rocket fuel. Although Parsons has been memorialized with a statue at JPL and has had a crater on the dark side of the moon named in his honor, his story remains shrouded in mystery – for what is little known about this legend of aerospace engineering is that Parsons was an avid practitioner of the occult sciences, and for several years, Aleister Crowley's hand-picked leader of the US branch of the Ordo Templi Orientis, the Southern California-based Agape´ Lodge.

Moral Clarity by Cynthia Cotts

"The liberation of Iraq was seen as a cakewalk, but encounters with death squads led to an operational pause." That kind of opaque military jargon is now infiltrating the media war coverage. Like fog or white noise, the dead language of bureaucrats drowns out the emotion and details that belong in any credible picture of war.
Instead of improving their argument against Saddam Hussein, Pentagon briefers use patois to deflect sharp questions and camouflage the trail of blood from Basra to Baghdad. Herewith a glossary of war euphemisms, plus some slang terms that tag along.

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin

A link from Alterman reveals that Sharon has no intention of playing by Karl Rove's script. This is going to get nasty. I know, it's all nasty. But it just keeps getting worse.

Danny Seidemann, an adviser to previous Israeli leaders on how to divide Jerusalem, said Mr Sharon's approval for the settlers' move into Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim was a test for George Bush and Tony Blair, who meet in Belfast today to discuss, among other things, the "road map" to a Middle East peace deal which envisages a Palestinian state within three years.

"This is not something Sharon turned a blind eye to. This is something he gave the go ahead for even after Condoleezza Rice asked him not to," he said.

"The Jewish settlement in Ras al-Amoud makes a resolution more difficult and undermines the stability of the city. If the US is serious about the road map it will not countenance unilateral action on the settlements that predetermine an outcome to negotiations.

"If Mr Blair accepts this, it undermines his credibility when he says he is serious about the road map."

At the weekend Mr Sharon's chief aide, Dov Weisglass, said Israel was not prepared to make any concessions on "security issues"and would walk out of negotiations on the road map if forced to do so.

The prime minister's critics say that Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim is a political tactic to block the possibility of dividing Jerusalem as part of a peace deal.

Atrios wonders about the problem with the EU

More generally, I've never quite understood the conservative-libertarian/libertarian-conservative objection to the existence of the E.U. I mean, one can find plenty of fault with it as an institution, but their objections seem to go deeper than that in ways I have never understood. They seem to object to the idea of it, and not simply the details. I do miss all the cheering when the Euro toppled from its initial high of about $1.17 to about $.83 which was proof of something (not sure what). What happened to that

C'mon. The absolute worst nightmare of a solitary superpower is another power that can threaten it. So, the EU is pretty much the only structure around that stands a chance of pushing back on the total domination of the world by the US. China is still too weak, and doesn't have enough economic power to play this game. The EU, while not a military power, certainly does have an economy. Maybe not as good as the US, but certainly a powerful player. If they can ever get their act together and have a unified voice, it will become a very meaningful threat to US power.

The pattern is pretty simple. Any threat - perceived or potential - is marked for destruction and a host of Army Ants swarm all over it. The death of a thousand cuts, so to speak. So in the world the conservative-libertarian/libertarian-conservative's live in, they simply can't stand anything being a peer to the US - after all, that would be a threat to our sovereign right to do whatever the hell we want. So it simply must die or be neutered.

It's pretty funny, actually. The proclaimed mindset of the Neocons and libertarians is a democratic society of equals, where individual rights meld via the unseen hand into a larger group structure of peace and unity. In practice, however, what really happens is the only individual they care about is themselves. Any other individual (or state) is okay as long as they can dominate it and do whatever the hell they want to.

The problem with a group of equals - peers - is that equals can stop you from doing things. Libertarians hate this. "Individual freedoms must not be diminished or prevented from being expressed". Which is all well and good if your the only individual that matters. As we've seen by the way the Iraq war is handled, this group of people don't really want a strong international society of equals. They are like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.

Some states/individuals are more equal than others. (and they want it that way).

Bet this is going to go over well.

The Last Refuge

Atrios is of the opinion that Paul Krugman is just a shrill partisan. Well, I think he's pretty much the only one out there, then. As far as I can tell, Atrios, the rest are just muttering the same things under their breath while they march to whatever tune the piper Karl Rove plays. All the Democrats are reacting to this Administration, rather than having any initiative at all. So, what's the alternative to shrill partisanship, Atrios? From what I can tell, the available alternative is whiny, ineffective partisanship. That's all I see out there - especially in the blogs (hey, this blog is no exception).

The only recourse for an object is to object, after all.

Last week John Kerry told an audience that "what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Republicans immediately sought to portray this remark as little short of treason. "Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief at a time when America is at war," declared Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Notice that Mr. Racicot wasn't criticizing Mr. Kerry's choice of words. Instead, he denounced Mr. Kerry because he "dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief" — knowing full well that Mr. Kerry was simply talking about the next election. Mr. Racicot, not Mr. Kerry, is the one who crossed a grave line; never in our nation's history has it been considered unpatriotic to oppose an incumbent's re-election.

They're not playing by the rules, Atrios. If you think they're going to pull their punches, you're way off the mark. To prefer a civil and reasoned debate is equivalent to believing that the Iraqis won't resort to guerrilla fighting. A fatal mistake.

I don't think Atrios has ever been in a fight before. Not that this is a bad thing - fighting is bad. However, to stand off and say we need to solve this like gentlemen is pretty much insane. We need to roll up our sleeves and wade into the thick of things. After all, you can't win if you don't play the game.

Atrios contrasts the "before and after" justification of the war in Iraq.

Ah, how fickle fate is.

Today I heard that the Bay area (San Francisco) has polled 63% in favor of the war. A liberal bastion, no doubt. Heck, Millions of Flies Can't Be Wrong, right?

Don't cha know we're out of step?

Blair pushes plan to harness greener energy

Nice to see a real energy plan as a contrast to what we get from the brain trust of our Administration.

A government initiative calls for Britain to generate 20 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020.

Tom Tomorrow has a great little post on blogging as journalism - not!

As I've said before, the relationship of blogging to journalism is mostly the relationship of the wood tick to the deer.

By now most have noticed that the recent CNN poll showed that most Americans think the war in Iraq is justified, even if we don't find any weapons of mass destruction.

New Fusion Method Offers Hope of New Energy Source

Something near and dear to my heart...

"It's the first observation of fusion for a pulsed power source," said Dr. Ramon J. Leeper, manager of the target physics department at Sandia, in Albuquerque, who presented the findings at a meeting of the American Physical Society here.

Kashmir is not Iraq, says U.S.

Seems like the fashion...

The United States said Monday that an Iraq-like pre-emptive strike cannot be launched against Pakistan despite its ongoing dispute with India over the Kashmir region.

Also Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said in an interview to European editors that Washington was "making sure war does not break out between India and Pakistan."

Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha said last week that India has a right of pre-emptive strike against Pakistan and that the United States has already set an example for such an attack by invading Iraq.

U.S. officials, however, rejected the argument. "Attempts to draw parallel between Iraq and Kashmir are overwhelmed by differences between the two situations," a State Department official told United Press International while commenting on the Sinha's statement.

"We recognize the very serious nature of the situation in Kashmir, ... but the two situations are not comparable," he said.

Explaining the differences, he said: "Iraq invaded occupied and brutalized Kuwait in 1990. The international community came together to drive Iraq out of Kuwait the following year. A decade earlier Iraq attacked another neighbor, Iran, and used chemical weapons against it, and against thousands of its own citizens."

The United States and coalition allies, he said, had taken action against Iraq only after 12 years of U.N. Security Council resolutions -- including the unanimously passed Resolution 1441 -- failed to achieve Iraq's disarmament.

"These circumstances, which made the coalition actions necessary in Iraq, do not apply in the subcontinent and should not be considered a precedent," the spokesman warned.

Pakistan also has reacted strongly to the Indian threat of a pre-emptive attack. "People and the armed forces of Pakistan are well prepared and fully know how to respond to any misadventure committed against our country," said Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali.

The Indian warning followed a terrorist attack late last month in which 24 Hindu civilians were killed in a remote village in Kashmir, a Himalayan valley disputed between India and Pakistan since 1947.

Librarians Use Shredder to Show Opposition to New F.B.I. Powers

Actually, the shredder here is not new, but the rush to use it is. In the old days, staff members in the nine-branch Santa Cruz Public Library System would destroy discarded paperwork as time allowed, typically once a week.

But at a meeting of library officials last week, it was decided the materials should be shredded daily.

"The basic strategy now is to keep as little historical information as possible," said Anne M. Turner, director of the library system.

The move was part of a campaign by the Santa Cruz libraries to demonstrate their opposition to the Patriot Act, the law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that broadened the federal authorities' powers in fighting terrorism.

Among provisions that have angered librarians nationwide is one that allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation to review certain business records of people under suspicion, which has been interpreted to include the borrowing or purchase of books and the use of the Internet at libraries, bookstores and cafes

So, listening to Wolfowitz yesterday, I was struck - as always - by the statement "Iraqis will choose their own leaders". The question, of course, is what the US will do if the Iraqis vote themselves a fundamentalist Islamic government. I don't think this will be allowed to happen, so I guess another cognitive dissonance is already in play: they can choose anyone they want as long as they are the right people.

Gotta love this meme.

Summit pressure on Bush over UN role

Boy, I'd love to be a fly on the wall during this staged event...

THE RASHOMON WAR

Found this via Josh MarsAzaell's site. As he says, a very compelling case.

So, since we're going to be going after Syria, Iran, Korea, and likely Lybia (not necessarily in that order, or serially), what do you think the next war will look like? Will the NeoCons get the upper hand and get away with trying out the 10,000 troop regime change nostrom that Rumsfeld & co. tried to sell for the Iraq war? Are they really so self deluded and in control that everyone has bought the script and believes they are vunder kin? Will we go through yet another logistical blunder of unbelievable magnitude, and the subsequent editing of reality? Won't Tim Russert and all the other pundits and "journalists" get upset at having to patch over another C30 transport sized hole in reality? Do they even care? Survey says...

Since we don't really have any choice in the matter, at least it will be entertaining to see. Sounds like another drinking game while we're watching the non-stop spinning during the next war...

Digby has another good read on the unravelling insanity.

They're not really even trying to hide anymore. That's how confident they are.

Am in the process of watching the rerun of Meet the Press. Amazing. Wolfowitz and some 4 star general I saw on This Week (I think). These guys seem to really believe they have the power to script reality. It's going to be quite amazing to see what their evil plan here is. Wait a minute, they've already told us! D'oh.

The general just told Tim Russert that we won't need 200,000 troops to pacify Iraq in the post war period (whenever that starts). He said "Look at Afghanistan. We only have 10,000 coalition troops there." I think we only have 10,000 US troops there, and there are more of other nations. Seeing as how the UN is relegated to the coffee dude for Richard Perle, I don't think we're going to have much help. Maybe the UK will do the job for a pat on the head by Bush.

The Great Oz has spoken.

Oh, and by the way, Wolfowitz is really scary in person. This is the first time I've seen him on the tube. Eery. He looks like Frank Langella on acid. Yi.

A great answer to the question in Josh MarsAzaell's post

So the next time someone asks you such sorry questions as these, Josh, you tell them for me that these are not tough questions at all. If we think we can root out fundamentalism like some sort of disease to be cut away, then we will become what we are trying to root.

Crap, I read comic books that taught me this message when growing up. I'm sure that wont recommend me :)

U.S.: Libyan pursuit of nukes increases

Guess we can add Libya to the list of Syria, Iran and North Korea. Looking better all the time.

"Our evidence is very convincing that since the Security Council suspended sanctions because of Pan Am 103, that the government of Libya has substantially increased its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction," Bolton said in an interview with Radio Sawa, a U.S.-funded AM radio station whose broadcasts cover most of the Arab world, including Iraq. Bolton would not share specific evidence, but he did say, "There is no question but since the suspension of the U.N. sanctions, that Libya's procurement activities and a lot of its activities in the nuclear program have been increased."

Overextended Military Reserves

A good editorial on the costs of actually proceeding along the course of long term military engagements. For example, Iraq will extract a heavy toll just by itself. If we go to war with Syria, Iran, or North Korea - or any combination of the three - then that toll will grow greater - incredibly so.

So all you bozos out there who think this is such a great idea... Well, it's going to be you who are paying the price. We all are. The very people we count on to take care of us in essential ways - people like policeman and fireman - are going to be working over seas fighting for... democracy, capitalism, weapons of mass destruction? Whatever reason you have this week. Just remember the cost. The NeoCons can't do this on the cheap like they wanted to. It's going to have real economic and social costs. Hundreds of thousands of people who would be doing other things. Not just professional soldiers.

From simply an economic point of view, I think the whole plan is insane. And given that the reason keeps changing - sometimes weekly - I can't even see what the value is. But I guess all you bozos do. Sure hope it's worth it...

The pacification and rebuilding of Iraq could eventually require tens of thousands of part-time, civilian soldiers in the National Guard and the various military reserves. Reserves often serve in time of war. But over the past decade, they have been repeatedly called up for missions that often involve long-term postings abroad. The system has benefits, both in cost efficiency and in preserving a sense of civilian participation at times of national crisis. But the more the military relies on the reserves for extended periods of service, the more problems mount.

Many reservists work for police and fire departments, which suffer from a drain in manpower. Families and businesses suffer, and some employers may be tempted to avoid hiring reservists for fear they will disappear for months or even years at a time. While overseas, reservists are often denied the benefits of full-time soldiers. The combination is devastating, especially because it shows no sign of abating as the needs of the military grow.

A recent Congressional report suggests that harried, overused reservists are experiencing personal and professional problems that could eventually drive many of them out of the service. This is partly because the country has faced the cAzaellenge of maintaining its traditional military obligations around the globe while adding new missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. These new commitments were made as the Pentagon was shrinking the military by moving what were thought to be nonessential forces into the reserves.

So Neglect Becomes Our Ally

On seven flips of a fair coin, the sequence HTHHTHT is more probable than the sequence TTTTTTT.

Your probability of having cancer is quite high if you've obtained a positive result on a cancer test that is known to give a positive result 90% of the time when cancer is present.

Cognitive illusions are tricks in reasoning. One way to think about them is to remember the experience of Optical Illusions. Everyone has witnessed and can remember various optical illusions that come about from the way our eye works - the physical layout of the eye. There's also Visual Illusions that come from the way we see with the eye - the eye and the processing neural net analyzing the visual scene. The picture below is an example of these kind of visual illusions.

The lines appear to bend around the big black center dot. However, they are absolutely parallel (well, as parallel as computer graphics provide). You can print out the GIF on your handy printer and verify it yourself.

The point is, the reasoning in your brain does the same thing. You can come to conclusions that seem completely right that are provably wrong. Here's a meta-cognitive illusion for you. Is the following sentence true?

You can accurately identify the factors that influence your behavior.

At some level, the whole debate about bias in the press is about these cognitive illusions we have. The majority viewpoint - or so we believe - is that the American press is liberally biased. Biased in the cognitive illusion sort of way. Let's construct the example using the parallel lines illusion above. An analogy of the claimed liberal bias may be to make parallel lines seem bulged. Or bulged lines to seem parallel. The framing of this on the Right is that they distort reality and slant stories to support their viewpoint. They make good conservative plans appear horrid. They make our military victories appear weak. They undermine.

Or so their theory goes.

Cognitive illusions are indeed rampant in our thinking - some seem wired into the physical circuitry of the brain. The only way to protect yourself from cognitive illusions - or to recognize them - is to measure them. One must use alternate means of framing the reasoning such that one can verify the answer. Much like taking out a ruler or some other measurement device and verifying the lines are indeed parallel. Or using statistical analysis techniques to verify the non-intuitive strategic solution of the Monty Azaell problem is indeed correct.

Strange then - to me at least - that most humans I have met have only one or two means of cross checking cognitive reasoning for illusions. And rarely use them. Not recognizing and compensating for the illusions in reasoning can have dire consequences as we are currently experiencing now. The level of cognitive dissonance in the common narrative is deafening. My instincts scream this can't continue to go on for very long as the whole structure will shake apart from the stress. But that could well be an illusion in reasoning as well - reasoning by analogy only holds if the analogy is correct.

What I see a lot of in the people who are against "the current insanity the NeoCons are implementing" is the belief that "the people" will eventually get fed up with the insanity and come to their senses. A "popular revolt", if you like. Basically a "kick the bastards out of office", democratically speaking of course. But I'm of a different mind. I think the problem with the current Administration - and the Great Oz, Karl Rove, in particular - is that they have made expert use of the advances in the collective areas of behavioral science, marketing (i.e. manipulation) and propaganda. These sciences and arts are very highly developed our 21st century information driven society.. . It also doesn't hurt that they have megaphones in the media - for example Fox and the AM radio personalities - they can use to implement their schemes. They understand how to manipulate public opinion, and they are also in control of all three branches of the Federal Government.

Thus, they don't have to play by the rules. And as we've seen in the war with Iraq, it's very dangerous to have the belief that your adversary is playing by the rules. It can be fatal. So the "popular revolt" meme that the "intelligent and reasoning left" believe is essentially one of self delusion. It is the delusion that you are playing Game "A" by the rules, when your opponent isn't playing game "A" at all.

We have an Administration that, rightly or wrongly, was appointed into power by the Supreme Court. What is undeniable is that the Republican presidential ticket - i.e. GW and Dick - lost the popular vote. Rather than taking that into consideration, they just charged ahead as if they have a clear majority of the popular vote - a land slide of public support. They barrel through with whatever insane plan they are following without concern of the consequences. They are throwing the federal government into a bottomless pit of red ink. They get us all into a war in the middle east. They are going to start a further series of wars in the middle east. They are ready to rip up the fourth amendment at the drop of a hat. They have already suspended Habeas Corpus for certain non-citizens. You get my point.

They don't care about public opinion because they can manipulate public opinion to such an extent that it simply doesn't matter to their plans. They have a core percentage which actually agrees with their insanity as well as a large percentage of people who they've aligned with (the religious right) who agree with their goals, or are at least neutral. They can easily manipulate the remaining percentage of popular opinion to get a majority - certainly in the Electoral College, which doesn't take a majority of the people to win. They've shown they can do this in state races as well.

Thus, assuming that the populace is going to rise up in a peaceful, democratic, popular revolt and kick the bastards out - regardless of how bad the economy is doing come 2004 - is simply a self delusion. It's believing that the game is being played by the rules you remember. It isn't. And if your brilliant plans rely on this Administration caring about public opinion, then they really aren't brilliant plans at all. They're illusions - caricatures of brilliant plans in cartoon form.

Sensing this, a lot of the left is saying "if we only had some media personalities, then we'd be able to fight them on their own turf". This is another illusion. Certainly, if the Left was as good as the Right was at the whole media thing, then this would not be a self illusion. But it simply doesn't have the experience, money or the talent (so far). Thinking that you can simply scrape up a couple of media personalities and start fighting in the realm where the Right dominates - well, I think this is a doomed strategy. As has been pointed out before, the message of the left - i.e. a complicated, nuanced view of reality - is a little harder to get across in the way that people find attractive in the media. Some would say an impossible message to get across in the current media environment.

In any event the point is, you don't fight your adversary where they are strong, you fight your adversary where they are weak. You harass them where they are strong, and lure them into domains where you are strong and they are weak.

Fighting the Right on their own turf of illusions where they are Strong and the Left is Weak is a very poor strategy. A poor strategy indeed. In the long term, of course. But in the long term, we're all dead. It's kind of like being in the midst of the fist fight of your life and your brilliant strategy is to fashion a crude lathe and mill to construct a simple gun. It's a long term strategic action, not a short term strategy for survival.

Hope is not a plan.

Creationism vs. evolution central debate behind rejection of textbooks

``With the overwhelming references to evolution, I don't feel comfortable with (adopting these texts),'' Treadway said.

Simerly said she is concerned with how evolution is approached in the selected biology texts, because creationism is not addressed.

``I do not believe that we evolved from anything other than human beings,'' she said.

McNelly said he shared those concerns, though he is not against evolution as a theory. Like Treadway, he said he believes students should be taught both creation and evolution theories.

``With creationism not presented as a theory, there's a large gaping hole in the books,'' McNelly said.

McNelly said he voted against the motion to reject the textbooks because he believes the teachers could address creationism when covering the material in class.

Allies' New Test: How to Define Victory

Okay, I know I'm just an insane liberal, but doesn't it seem like this should have been figured out beforehand? Oh wait. I forgot. Iraq was always a stepping stone. I'll go back to sleep.

How and when, it seems worth asking, will the United States and its allies know they have won the Iraqi war?

In an echo of World War II, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said this week that the Bush administration would settle for nothing short of unconditional surrender. But a Azaelf-century ago the Allies were willing to pulverize German and Japanese cities to force the Axis to submit. Nothing like that is planned now.

Give 'em hell, John Kerry

Damn straight. This is war.

And they're off! The GOP's snarling attack dogs slip their leashes and take their victim down. They go for the soft white meat of the throat. They won't be happy until he's politically dead or at least maimed, silenced for a good long while. Republicans said Daschle's questions about Afghanistan gave "aid and comfort to the enemy," and the party sponsored TV ads linking the South Dakota Democrat to Saddam Hussein. They smeared Gore as a "San Francisco Democrat" (that's where he gave the speech), and Bill Bennett insisted his remarks were "political suicide." Daschle got off easy last time -- instead of comparing him to the Butcher of Baghdad, Republicans merely called him French. And in all three instances, other Democrats were mostly silent in the face of the attacks.

It's happening again right now, and almost nobody's trying to stop it.

On Thursday night, Kerry reminded his audience of the way the GOP smeared Cleland. "I watched what they did to Max Cleland last year," Kerry said. "Shame on them for doing it then and shame on them for trying to do it now."

Shame on them is right. And shame on Democrats and the antiwar left if they leave Kerry standing out there by himself.

Like Powell has anything to say about this

Iraq should be ruled by its own people and American forces will not invade Syria and Iran after liberating Baghdad, Secretary of State Colin Powell was quoted as saying in an interview published Saturday.

Deja Vu all over again.

And substantial portions of the public are willing to consider military action against other potential threats in the area. "I just think that the Middle East itself will never fall into a peaceful solution unless some of the people who are supporting terror are finally rooted out," said Don Seward, who runs a small real estate business in Western Springs, Ill.

Americans are divided almost in Azaelf when asked whether the United States should take military action against Syria, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has accused of providing Iraq with military supplies. Syria has denied the accusation. But 42% said the United States should take action if Syria, in fact, provides aid to Iraq, while 46% said no.

More Americans take a hard line on Iran, which recently disclosed an advanced program to develop the enriched uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons.

Exactly Azaelf said the United States should take military action against Iran if it continues to move toward nuclear-weapon development; 36% disagreed. Perhaps surprisingly, women are slightly more supportive of such action than men.

Bush may face more resistance on another front. Just as most Americans preferred U.N. backing for the war with Iraq, 50% said the international body "should lead the reconstruction effort in Iraq," while 29% said the United States should take the principal role.

The American Portrayal of a War of Liberation Is Faltering Across the Arab World

"The Arabs or Muslims are not 4-year-old kids who don't know what's happening around them," he said. "I appreciate their efforts, but I'm afraid it's not working. This feed-and-kill policy — throwing bombs in Baghdad and throwing food at the people — is not winning hearts and minds."

Josh sums up the current situation with Kerry and the NeoCon "effects based" political attacks.

For the purposes of our present discussion, the particulars of Kerry's remark are almost beside the point. This is no better than cheap bullying practiced by the president's hacks. And, in political life as in personal life, there is only one way to deal with bullies: you must fight back against them with at least the ferocity and intensity that they use against you. They understand nothing else and deserve nothing better. There's no reasoning with them, no apologizing to them, no hashing out the particulars of remarks you've made.

Bullying, bluff and aggression have been the signature modus operandi of the president's political operatives in domestic politics for the last two years. How many veterans will get their patriotism questioned by the president's operatives and placemen before we see the mainline pundits say enough is enough? Recently, we've seen Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt and now John Kerry get the treatment. The president's operatives are using the presence of an American army in the field -- Americans fighting and dying in Iraq-- not only to land a few easy shots on the president's opponents but to hit them so hard that they're afraid to hit back. Don't miss the point of this: it's to scare anyone out of uttering any criticism. And it's a cheap use of American blood.

It's nice to see Kerry at least putting out word that he won't stand for it. No one should.

Kerry Lashes Out at Republican Criticisms

I just love the Hastert quote

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called Kerry's words "desperate and inappropriate." Said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., "Once this war is over, there will be plenty of time for the next election."

Kerry dismissed the attacks, telling an Atlanta political gathering Thursday that patriotism is not mutually exclusive with questioning the war. One day later, he delivered an even sharper rebuke to the GOP complaints.

"If they want to pick a fight, they've picked a fight with the wrong guy," Kerry said in a telephone interview.

Iraqi TV Presents a Relaxed Hussein

He's in a lazy boy like Captain Kirk, with a big screen TV directing the whole thing with a lemonade in one hand, and the remote in the other.

When are we going to see the 20 seconds of GWB golfing again? I want to see our President out amongst the people of some fine Golf Club (male only, of course) having a relaxing 18 holes before he goes back home to the white house and absorbs another 15 straight hours of planning and strategy meetings.

Oh. Wait a minute.

Pace of War Emboldens Nation

I can remember when Dennis Miller would have worked a great rant around this turn of phrase. Now he's one of the Zombies coming up with such phrases. It just boggles my mind.

Treasonous Homo Necro Incestual Beastiality.

Bet you found this via Google. See how easy it is to be a right wing media host?

You don't need to believe in God to learn from religion

No, the shared ideals of the children of Abraham are not likely to prompt a sudden, hugging reunion between the three traditions. But the fact that they have so much in common should at least arouse the curiosity of those who stand outside these three faiths and, indeed, outside faith itself. For this much collective and enduring wisdom is surely too valuable to be ignored: if so many people over so many centuries are speaking of the same ideas, they can't all be wrong.

And of course it's always the other religions that do shitty things. It's never YOUR religion, right? It's not like Christians go out and shoot abortion doctors or blow up federal buildings or anything.

The problem with religion is the self deception required to do the shitty things your religious texts expressly forbid.

A bad week to fight positive discrimination affirmative action case

Of all the weeks for opponents of affirmative action to argue their case before the US supreme court, this could hardly have been worse.

Three white students are trying to reverse the rules which civil rights campaigners established decades ago by claiming that they were denied university places because of their colour.

Their lawyers were confident of a fair wind when they arrived in court, since President George Bush had already shown his sympathy for the students' argument. But they had reckoned without the Iraq effect.

Of the thousands of pages of documents placed before them on Tuesday, the judges focused on just 30: statements by prominent retired officers and politicians, including three joint chiefs of staff, two former defence secretaries and several four-star generals.

Best known among them was Norman Schwarzkopf, who led the US forces during the previous Gulf war. Though not known for his liberal views, Gen Schwarzkopf is just one of the many who have lent their names in support of the University of Michigan's race-conscious admissions policy.

Atrios is on a rif!

It has a lot to do with spineless irresolute reporters. Mainstream America believes in nuttier conspiracy theories than anything the "Arab Street," the loony left, or the Birchers can offer up. A majority of Americans supported this war (barely) going in. A majority also believed that many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis and that Saddam Hussein was personally behind the attack. That's the media's fault.

Where were the big point headlines screaming "President Falsely Ties Saddam to Bin Laden?" Where were the big point headlines screaming "Bush lies about IAEA report?" When did the media manage to convey even the slightest possibility that not everything we were being told was true - which would've caused the public to look at this undertaking with a bit more skepticism? Never. They were busy questioning the patriotism of anti-war protesters and repeatedly inviting Janeane Garafalo on their shows so they could ask her why on Earth they should be inviting her on their shows.

While the media gingerly and quietly reported concerns of former Generals, they loudly jeered and condemned anyone else who dared question any aspect of this operation. There are some good reporters, but the media machine is thoroughly rotten to the core. They've totally abandoned any notion that the press is supposed to be skeptical of the pronouncements of politicians - these politicians, anyway.

Who knows, this may all be over tomorrow and then everyone can come scream at me for being pessimistic. But, the War Hawks have already moved the victory bar so low, with the media happily following along, that it isn't clear anymore what a victory will mean.

Onward to Syria!

Rumsfeld Proposes Interim Authority In Southern Iraq

In memos distributed this week to Bush's war cabinet, Rumsfeld suggested that the declaration of an interim governing authority would deflect international criticism that the United States plans to exert sole control over Iraq for an indefinite period.
The proposals are likely to increase the temperature of an already heated debate within the administration over the reconstruction and governance of post-war Iraq. Plans drawn up in the Pentagon to impose a civil administration made up of Americans and reporting to Gen. Tommy R. Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command, have been cAzaellenged by State Department officials who would prefer a more central administrative role by the United Nations.

In public comments last month, Perle suggested that installing CAzaelabi in power in Baghdad would alleviate any Muslim fears of U.S. imperialist aims. It would also improve the chances for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Perle said, because "CAzaelabi and his people have confirmed that they want a real peace process, and that they would recognize the state of Israel."

If mother nature ran things the way humans do, the bears would get together and elect an Alpha Squirrel to lead them

Any questions?

And, I must ask again, why wasn't a post war plan finalized and approved before we invaded, particularly since they assumed we were going to win within the first 2 or 3 days? It's not like Saddam had actually launched one of his non-existent nuclear armed drone planes. We actually did have the time to present Junior with a coloring book version of various plans and let him play pin the tail on the donkey. It's amazing that we are surrounding Baghdad and nobody knows exactly what constitutes victory or what we plan to do once we declare it.

It's looking as if, in true EnronBush style, we'll just keep scrambling and scrambling, covering up one mistake after another, digging deeper and deeper until the whole damned thing just falls apart.

Economy Lost 108,000 Jobs, Raising Worries of Recession

The job market continued to deteriorate in March as the economy lost 108,000 jobs, raising worries that the United States is closer to slipping into a recession than it has been for more than a year.
The unemployment rate remained at 5.8 percent last month, the government reported today, largely because of a rise in the number of people not looking for work, who are considered to be outside of the labor force.
"Job creation is the engine of the economy," said Richard Yamarone, an economist at Argus Research in New York, "and that engine is running out of steam."

'Course the rest of us are going to be royally screwed over by this...

U.S. Unable to Shut Down Iraq TV Signal

McChrystal said the regime uses a combination of fixed sites and mobile vans in attempts to shut down television signals. "It has a very redundant system," he said.

Self Deception == Self Defeat

US military admits 'suspicious' powder is explosive

American officials have admitted that the thousands of boxes of white powder they seized north of Baghdad are explosives.
The US military and various media outlets had suggested that they may have made the first discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq.
The claim that the Latifiyah complex was "a suspicious site" was made by a US colonel.
He also claimed to have discovered nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents relating to chemicals.
Colonel John Peabody, an engineer brigade commander with the 3rd Infantry Division, had stated troops found thousands of boxes, each of which contained three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic about chemical warfare.
He said they discovered atropine, used to counter the effects of nerve agents.
The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site.
UN inspectors visited the plant at least nine times, including as recently as February 18.

Although I must admit when I heard about this the first thought running through my head was a Metro Traffic report: "Mysterious white powder spill on the expressway". At this point (thank "Bob") this is about the same level of reporting on these WMD "finds".

John J. Miller on Missile Defense on National Review Online

Now that Patriots really do appear to be compiling an impressive record, however, couldn't Stone and the rest of the anti-missile-defense crowd at least acknowledge this — and be glad that we're saving lives because of it?

So, at issue is whether this ABM system is going to make us safer, or will make us far less safer by relying on its non-existent protection - or "almost" protection.

Remember the adage "Close enough is only good enough for hand grenades and atom bombs" In the Patriot's case, a 70-80% hit ratio is more than adequate. In the ABM case, that's a terrifyingly bad percentage. Given the ease in which decoys can drastically decrease this percentage, and given that the ABM system isn't even this good, what it does is provide a very dangerous false sense of security.

But I guess that's okay in John's viewpoint. After all, what's a few nuclear bombs between friends?

The Neocon Right-Wing Meme

I am going to mostly agree with Silvan’s previous comment. The current administration is doing tremendous damage to America, and we are all going to pay for it soon. They are damaging the economy, our current relations to other nations, and our future ability to obtain cooperation from other nations when we (inevitably) need it. I don’t really believe that they are doing so out of greed, however. More important to them is the idea that they believe what they are doing will bring about a more prosperous and secure America.

The problem is that they are single-minded ideologues with a set of ideas that they do not test against reality.

BTW, this really is a great blog...

A lawyer saved Pfc. Lynch.

I know, I know. It's hard to believe, but the guy who risked his life to save Jessica Lynch is a lawyer. The textbook spec ops raid on the "hospital" where PFC Lynch was being held would not have happened if a brave Iraqi lawyer named Mohammed hadn't given us the word. Described as a "gregarious 32-year old lawyer", Mohammed was in that hospital visiting his wife, a nurse, when he saw Lynch through a window in the room where she lay under a blanket, being beaten by one of the black-clad Iraqi "elite" troops. Mohammed walked six miles before he found some Marines. Approaching them carefully, he told them what he knew.

Some worry U.S. may bend facts for policy

Francona says he fears such predictions may create undue pressure to enter Baghdad too quickly, before adequate troops are on hand. "The politics ended the gulf war in 1991" without the removal of Hussein, he says. "In this case, I think the politics could push the war too fast."

When he worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, Francona says, the director had a slogan on his wall meant to remind subordinates to resist the temptation to spin their findings: "It said, 'Tell 'm what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.'"

Poll: War Support Remains Steady, but Various Groups Have Sharply Different Views

Those with a high school education or less were more likely than those with a college education to say that going to war was the right decision-75 percent compared to 63 percent. Those educational differences were not evident in the first Persian Gulf conflict, when people with all levels of education were equally likely to say that going to war was the right decision.

Saddam Message Shows He May Have Survived

Damn. Well, the PsyOps theory may be correct after all. Still may be in Syria, though. Going to be very interesting...

Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV'

All I can say is DUH! Why do you think some of us - the ridiculed ones - have been against this insanity since it became obvious who was running the program?

In the address to a group of college students, Woolsey described the Cold War as the third world war and said "This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War."

Detecting disinformation, without radar

To conclude: Remember the following first rule of disinformation analysis: truth is specific, lie is vague. Always look for palpable details in reporting and if the picture is not in focus, there must be reasons for it.

How to tell genuine reporting from an article manufactured to produce the desired propaganda effect? The war in Iraq provides us plenty of interesting samples for a study of disinformation techniques.

Take the article "Basra Shiites Stage Revolt, Attack Government Troops", published on March 26 in The Wall Street Journal Europe. Using its example, we will try to arm readers with basic principles of disinformation analysis that hopefully will allow them in the future to detect deception.

Gun, Germs and Stall?

Always good. Be entertaining to hear the Dapper Don tilt against this. My guess is that he'll have an even smaller column than last time.

The message, however, is pretty grim

Optimists now place their faith in the supposed salutary effects of victory in Iraq. The theory is that businesses have been postponing investments until uncertainty over the war is resolved, and that once that happens there will be a great surge of pent-up demand. I'm skeptical: I think the main barriers to an investment revival are excess capacity, corporate debt and fear of accounting scandals. (The revelations about HealthSouth suggest that there is still plenty of undiscovered corporate malfeasance.) I also wonder whether victory in Iraq will mark the end of uncertainty, or the beginning of even more uncertainty. Are we on the road to Damascus (or Tehran, or Yongbyon)?

The war has monopolized everyone's attention, including mine. But other things are happening, and you shouldn't be shocked if the economic news turns awful.

Kerry Angers GOP in Calling For 'Regime Change' in U.S.

I think this is just hilarious. Seems (so far) that the "lie low and let others criticize" strategy worked. Now, with the "war" likely over (let's all hope) Kerry has absolutely nothing to lose by leveraging the feelings of the activist left that was against this war. It endears him to them, and once the war is over, all this crap about a "war time president" will ring fairly hollow. It'll strike a theme with a lot of people, most importantly those democrats who vote in primaries. Time enough to fine tune the rhetoric after the primaries. At this point, the GOP is just giving him press and making his case against Dean and themselves. The more they peen, the more shrill they sound.

Interesting.

Have just discovered that my layered defenses were deleting any email to me. Cool! So if you have sent me email and I haven't responded lately, it was the 'bot, not me... Thanks S. I would have continued in blissful ignorance if it weren't for you...

IMF Says Housing Busts Are More Damaging Than Stock Busts

Out here in SF, this chills me bones to read.

The IMF examined housing and stock booms and busts across 21 industrialized countries in the last 30 to 40 years. It found housing price busts were less frequent than stock busts, but the damage was twice as great, "reflecting greater effects on consumption and banking systems."

Making It
A unilateralist reporter hooks up with Christopher Hitchens and makes a run for the Iraqi border.

Another sign of the Apocalypse.

You can tell how at ease a man is in the world from the scarcity of possessions he lugs around with him. When I came here, it was with large backpacks and overstuffed duffels, extraneous tote bags, pouches, and carry-ons. But Hitchens showed up at my door with nothing more than a firm handshake and a Azaelf-smoked pack of Rothman's. As he stood there, rumpled and slightly jetlagged in blue jeans and a black leather jacket, he looked sort of like the Fonz--if the Fonz had been a British former socialist who could pinch large swaths of Auden from memory.

The Voodoo Day of Reckoning

To be honest, I boggle at the insanity. They have to know what this is doing to the fundamentals of our economy, there can be no doubt. They must know, yet they are frantic to push things even faster along the direction things are going. If my mind were naturally inclined to think it, I would have to swear that what they are doing is deliberate sabotage of the country. Of course, if they are doing this then the question why they are brings up possible answers that no American worthy of the name wants to think about.

Considering:
1) Debka's report about the where-a-bouts of Saddam
2) The vociferous statements by this Administration that it will not accept anything but total surrender from Saddam
3) The increasing frequency of news items on "issues" with Syria

I think Debka's right. Saddam and/or his sons and remaining "regime" are in Syria. The war will indeed be over in 3 weeks or under.

More on this later, but if this is the case a week from now, isn't it eery that Perle predicted all this? Stepping out of my liberal shoes, it would seem even scarier than my democratic "self" initially thought.

Is Saddam in Syria?

DEBKAfile’s Exclusive Middle East sources have tracked down the top Iraqi leadership’s bolt-hole. It is a large 1,600-room luxury resort with 600 meters of private sandy beach in the Mediterranean coastal town of Latakiya called Cote d’Azur De Cham Resort, prepaid and chartered in toto by Baghdad.

The group may include Saddam Hussein or his sons, but this is not confirmed.

The hotel is located close to the Assad family villa.

Top Iraqi officials are reported hiding there since March 23, four days after the US-led coalition invaded Iraq. They are guarded by a Syrian commando unit armed with anti-air missiles while Syrian naval missile boats secure the port.

Triangulation. Josh suspects Colin Powell's swing is a feeble attempt at containing the Neocons. Like him, I agree that the past record of Powell doesn't bode well. Punch drunk and golden boys them Neocons be. Giddy.

No Credible U.S. Terror Threats Since War

Another prediction that didn't come true (thank "Bob"!). More on this later, but the interesting thing is going to be how the Administration deals with no war in Iraq and no terror threats. Personally, I think Karl Rove has another layer of the onion to peel back and blow me away with the scope of his evil plan...

Christian Groups Gear Up for Iraqi Relief Effort

Know it's been said before, but I'll bet this is going to go over well.

Bush Bets All He Has

An interesting read from Immanule Wallerstein on the impending fallout

Nevertheless, suppose the U.S. wins quickly. I would say that, at that point, Bush comes out merely even - not a winner, but not a loser. Why do I say that? Because a victory will leave the geopolitical situation more or less where it is today. First of all, there is the question of what happens in Iraq the day after victory? The least one can say is that no one knows, and it is not at all clear that the U.S. itself has a clear vision of what it wants to do. What we do know is that the interests at play are multiple, diverse, and totally uncoordinated. That is a scenario for anarchic confusion. For the U.S. to play a significant role in the postwar decision-making will require a long-term commitment of troops and a lot of money (really a lot of money). Anyone who looks at the U.S. economic situation and the internal politics of the U.S. knows that the Bush administration would have a very hard job leaving troops there very long and an even harder job obtaining the money it would need to play the political game.

In addition, all the other problems facing the world would remain intact. First of all, there would be even less likelihood than now that there could be any progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state. The Israeli government would take a U.S. victory as vindication for its tough line, and simply make it tougher. The Arab world would get even angrier, if that's possible. Iran certainly will not stop its drive for nuclear proliferation. Iran will probably, on the contrary, be feeling its oats in the region with Saddam Hussein out of the way. North Korea would step up its provocations, and South Korea would get even more uncomfortable with its U.S. ally and the latter's penchant for military action. And France is likely to dig in for the long haul. So, as I say, a rapid U.S. military victory in Iraq would leave us with the geopolitical status quo - which is certainly not what the U.S. hawks intend.

Noam Chomsky: A Critical Review

Got this via Alterman. Very good read.

US-N Korea war 'possible'

Then again...

True Left Versus the Lunatic Fringe
Some brilliant liberal minds are reclaiming the moral authority hijacked by the zealots

And so it starts

But the truth is that a few brilliant voices on the sane left -- most notably writers Christopher Hitchens, Nat Hentoff and Paul Berman -- are spearheading a long-awaited rebirth of the intellectual left. And they have been doing this all along, if anyone cares to follow their admirable lead.

Where’s Saddam?
And what if he’s never caught? U.S. officials are quietly discussing that possibility.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. He's likely now holed up in a cave with bin Laden. My prediction? It won't matter. Teflon, after all.

U.S. commandos destroy Iraqi pipeline to Syria

The U.S. sources said the destruction of the main pipeline came amid a warning by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for a Azaelt to Syrian military supplies to the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The newspaper reported that on Monday the pumping station on the Iraqi side of the pipeline had broken down.
The Kuwaiti report was not immediately confirmed by other sources. A Western intelligence source said on Wednesday that the Iraqi-Syrian pipeline was not blown up. The source would not elaborate.

Corrections

A front-page article on Tuesday about criticism voiced by American military officers in Iraq over war plans omitted two words from an earlier comment by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of V Corps. General Wallace had said (with the omission indicated by uppercasing), "The enemy we're fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against."

Maybe the right wing is absolutely correct, and it's just a liberal conspiracy!

Like I said... Surreal.

Carving up the cake

Well, it looks as though the collective narrative has decided that Baghdad will fall in days. Plans are leaking as to how the spoils of war will be divided. From the looks of it, the American Enterprise Institute is going to be running the place for the Defense Department. Right now, the morale of the Neocons is running pretty high. Looks like Karl Rove has kept a lid on the logistics fiasco and the war is expected to be over soon. Colin Powell looks like he's been kicked out of even the dog house - relegated to the Chicken coup.

Might be a heck of a lot of chickens being counted before they're hatched, though.

Even so, I think it's going to be even more entertaining than the war. Blair is going to find out - I believe - how this Administration pays back its friends, and the UN is definitely out of the picture. The European "appeasers" are going to be forced to kiss the ring of Perle and are going to be put in the stocks for public humiliation. Syria has got to be very nervous right now, as does Iran. Still haven't heard a peep out of Kim boy so maybe that crisis has disappeared as well.

Could be a very surreal future. So far, no WMD has been used, and that's got a lot of people wondering. Perhaps Saddam really did die early, and the remaining evil henchmen just figured that it wasn't in their interest to use them. If so, thank "Bob" for that! However, there's going to be a heck of a lot of interest in finding the WMD in the post war trauma. From the looks of it, I severely doubt that any international - or even token objective observers - are going to be involved. They will find WMD and of course there will be a lot of speculation as to whether they were planted or not.

If all goes according to plan, it's just not going to matter. There won't be enough opposition in the world, much less America, to demand any evidence trail verifying the WMD and terrorist connections from seized records. None at all. The parade of the proof is going to make the Right drunk with success. After all, they were right all along.

So, assuming that everything goes as planned, I'm going to have to figure out how to live in the empire to follow. Gonna be surreal, that's for sure. Let's see. Where did I put the sack cloth and ashes? Hmmm. Maybe the bumperstickers I have proclaiming my political leanings need to be burned off...

On second thought... Nope. The war is just the first step. The aftermath lasts forever. I'll be glad when the war is over though, and our troops are home (I hope). Most of all, I'll be glad to have it off the media.

Then again, we haven't taken Baghdad just yet. This could all go on for a heck of a lot longer. Which would suck just as much. Let's see. Jeers from the punch drunk right, or bloody urban combat lasting weeks. I think I'll take the first option, please.

Yi.

'Paranoid' North Korean Leader Not Seen in Weeks

Guess he must be dead as well.

Settlements: The national danger

Wow.

Commentary: Lessons of Shock and Awe

It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. I would argue that bad ideas and unmerited reputations are war's first casualties. A lot of high-ranking Pentagon officials who only a month ago were being hailed as geniuses with visionary ideas have come in for some rough treatment recently. They deserve every bit of it. The coalition is going to win this war, but it will owe that victory to the quality of our troops and their equipment, not to Pentagon or Centcom planning. Our troops will win in spite of their senior leaders.

In an attempt to stop the criticism, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has claimed that continued criticism of the war plan is hurting the troops. That prompts two fairly obvious responses. The first is that the quickest way for the Pentagon to stop the criticism is to just admit that it underestimated its opponent. All it takes is three simple words to stop the criticism: "We ... were ... wrong." The second is that if anyone has hurt the troops, it was the people who put this plan together and those who went along with it against their better professional judgment.

Hopefully, the disappointments of this war will prompt both a return to common sense and a healthy skepticism of "visionary" ideas in the Pentagon.

Krugman: Awesomely Wrong
With shocking speed, the Truth Squad sets the Cheney record straight.

Sodium Pentathol kid, Don Luskin is back in the saddle again. He tackles only two issues in Paul Krugman's column on the California Energy Crisis (CEC): First, has the Bush administration really been so overconfident about the war in Iraq? Second, Krugman was just plain wrong to blame market manipulation entirely for the CEC.

Surprisingly, the column is kind of short, with most of the meat in links. So let's look at the first issue, was Dr. C overconfident about the war in Iraq. As Josh MarsAzaell has pointed out repeatedly in his blog, Talking Points Memo, as well as numerous other places, I think the answer is certainly somebody was overconfident about the war in Iraq. The dapper Don, however seems to completely side step this point and throw up the standard straw man of the common narrative:"what idiot thought this war would be over in 45 seconds". At least one person with a security clearance high enough to know, Richard Perle, was telling Goldman Sachs just this - i.e., that the war would be over in 3 weeks or less. Saying that only fools would think it would be over quickly doesn't really argue the point that certainly a lot of people in this administration thought it would be over very quickly and there's a lot of comments on the record about this.

As to the real issue of what Krugman said, "Right now, pundits are wondering how Mr. Cheney — who confidently predicted that our soldiers would be 'greeted as liberators' — could have been so mistaken.", here's what Dick Cheney said on Meet the Press on March 16: "The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that" So Dapper Don's straw man is certainly pummeled, but the Sodium Pentathol kid didn't know any stuffing out of Paul Krugman's assertion at all. None. He pointed to the Just One Minute blog that claimed no one could read that confidence into this quote of Cheney's from the transcript. To quote Luskin:

Krugman Truth Squad member Tom Maguire, on his Just One Minute blog, went back to the transcript of Cheney's Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert on March 16, and found it impossible to reconcile Cheney's nuanced appraisal of the prospects of war with Krugman's characterization of it as a "confident prediction" that is now "so mistaken."

Clearly we have not quite seen parades and flower-strewn streets that Cheney might have expected. However, my impression is that it is Saddam loyalists that are motivating the resistance, rather than the Iraqi people generally. As to the determination of the Republican Guard, it looks as though we will soon find out.

I think it is fair to say that we (among the great unwashed) have been surprised by Saddam's tactics and their effectiveness. As to the mood of the Iraqi people, the jury is out. It seems like we only took Azaelf the lesson from the uprisings back in 1991, and forgot about Mark Twain's cat.

So off to the second issue, the actual report on the California energy crisis. He starts by laying into Paul's characterization of the report from Cheney's NEPD. I think Don's refutation is simply an Appeal to Authority, but the real issue is that the Burden of Proof is clearly on Luskin. But he simply drops it after being satisfied with invoking one sentence.

His real beef is with Krugman's conclusion "There's no longer any doubt: California's power shortages were largely artificial, created by energy companies to drive up prices and profits." Don concludes that because the FERC said "Without underlying market dysfunction, attempts to manipulate the market would not be successful" , Paul's conclusion is patently and completely false. Apparently, we're to simply believe that it was a "perfect storm" of unlikely events that is the reason why Enron and others manipulated the market. The implication being that if, by some chance, Enron and others hadn't manipulated the market, there would still be a problem.

Which is clearly untrue. Manipulation of the market, which is what the FERC said was clearly the problem, was the problem. The fact that the market was flawed allowed them to manipulate it doesn't change this in the slightest. Since they essentially BUILT the market in the first place, one can make a good argument that they are responsible for that as well. The "perfect storm" scenario sounds good, but is simply an Appeal to Ridicule, and a poor one at that. There's no mention of these factors in the report. Handwaving at its very best.

All in all, I'm kind of disappointed with the Sodium Pentathol kid. The column this time was extremely thin and laughable in its arguments. It's not fun kicking a dead dog. Luskin isn't someone I'd like to talk to about anything, much less argue with.

So I'm definitely detecting a mood swing. Nothing scientific, just my feeling. Things are definitely looking "up" from the common narrative POV. It would seem that either people bought the explanation for all the revelations about how we planned for this war, or they really are true and things really are on track. As Josh MarsAzaell's latest post explains, I think the former is the case.

There's a backdrop problem in play here too. This new rationale leads us to the conclusion that the very structure of the fighting force was rigged, at least to some degree, to suit the needs of diplomacy. And yet pretty much everyone thinks we didn't really quite have our hearts in the diplomacy at all. Or, perhaps better to say, our diplomacy was geared toward getting us into war on the most favorable terms. If that's so (and I think it is) why would we under-gun our military force to serve diplomatic objectives if the purpose of the diplomacy was to get us into war on the best possible footing? It just doesn't make sense. It's a logical contradiction.

U.S. official says American POW has been rescued.

Unexpected and definitely very, very good news.

From iraqwar.ru

Russian military analysts are advising the Iraqi military command against excessive optimism. There is no question that the US “blitzkrieg” failed to take control of Iraq and to destroy its army. It is clear that the Americans got bogged down in Iraq and the military campaign hit a snag. However, the Iraqi command is now in danger of underestimating the enemy. For now there is no reason to question the resolve of the Americans and their determination to reach the set goal – complete occupation of Iraq.

In reality, despite of some obvious miscalculations and errors of the coalition’s high command, the [coalition] troops that have entered Iraq maintain high combat readiness and are willing to fight. The losses sustained during the past 12 days of fighting, although delivering a painful blow to the pride and striking the public opinion, are entirely insignificant militarily speaking. The initiative in the war remains firmly in the hands of the coalition. Under such circumstances Iraqi announcements of a swift victory over the enemy will only confuse its own troops and the Iraq’s population and, as the result, may lead to demoralization and a reduced defensive potential…

The official coalition losses are, to put it mildly, “falling behind” the actual figures. The 57 dead acknowledged by the coalition command reflect losses as of the morning of March 26. This information was provided to a BBC correspondent by one of the top medical officials at a field hospital in Al Kuwait during a confidential conversation. “We have standing orders to acknowledge only those fatalities that have been delivered to the hospital, identified and prepared to be sent back home. The identification process and the required standard embalming takes some time – occasionally up to several days. But only the command knows how many casualties we sustained today and you will learn about it in about three days…” [Reverse-translated from Russian] This conversation was taped by the journalist and sent to the editor via a cellular phone network.

Based on the radio intercepts and internal information networks of the US field hospitals as of this morning the coalition losses include no less than 100 killed US servicemen and at least 35 dead British soldiers. Additionally, some 22 American and 11 British soldiers are officially considered to be missing in action and the whereabouts of another 400 servicemen are being established. The number of wounded has exceeded 480 people.

Andrew Sullivan wonders "Where's Saddam?".

This broadcast is perhaps the strongest evidence yet that Saddam is wounded or dead. Why, when the allies are encroaching on his citadel, does Saddam not appear in person to rally his SS units, secret police and terrorist thugs? It makes no sense for him to be completely absent. Maybe we got him after all.

The second possibility is perhaps more disturbing. If Saddam is dead, then one has to ask why they are still fighting. One strong possibility could be that Iraq is a hydra and they remaining top level command is carrying out the war independent of whether the Saddam head is alive or not. But then, this seems like another myth destroyed - i.e. everyone would surrender when Saddam was killed or fled. Another more scarry possibility is that the Iraqis are fighting because they now see us as the enemy, and that does not bode well for the future at all. So, I'm betting on the PsyOps operation, as this is the scenario that our military knows how to handle. And Sullivan's unrestrained exuberance, though costly at some level, is at least mitigated by eventually winning.

In any event, it seems that Andrew Sullivan has never played Stratego, or even the simplest of war games (computer or board based). He's a clueless tool.

Rumsfeld denies talks under way to end war

What was that phrase about denial and politicians? The closest I can come to in my fevered brain is the adage for the stock market on "buy on the rumor sell on the revelation". In any event, it's a bit strange to see the Donster this heated up about something like this... I would find it very surprising to learn this is the case... But then, there's a lot of surprising things these days.

Spun And Awed.

Nice howl from the crew about what is finally becoming more and more obvious. What's more, is that I completely agree with

In yesterday’s column, Raspberry expressed shock at things he read in a Josh MarsAzaell column. Make no mistake—we still think that Josh and other “good guy” pundits elected Bush by their own Campaign 2000 sleep-walking. But MarsAzaell’s recent work has been superb. How much better served would our nation by if he were on the Post op-ed page, and the Post’s “liberal” dozers were finally allowed to spend all their time at polite dinner parties?

At issue isn't just the Neocon's self delusion. It's the self delusion of real smart people like Josh MarsAzaell. Brilliant people with deep insight and their heart in the right place can still drink the Kool-Aid and delude themselves based on the laudable goals the march to insanity has. And that Josh helped this insanity along is undeniable. In my humble and irrelevant opinion, it took an awful lot of tom foolery of one's self to not see the pattern of insanity of this entire affair. Certainly the Millenium Games fiasco, the increasingly isolated diplomatic stance, the shrill peening by the war hawks... Leading up to this war, there was no serious discussion at all about what was happening - other than the moral weirdness - and certainly no serious discussion as to the means of achieving the laudable goals that the "liberal hawks" had. The signs were all there from the very start, and the fundamental mistake is to believe that the ends justify the means.

Now, I'm not saying that Josh agreed with all the means - obviously he doesn't. But what I do think is justified is the statement that Josh was willing to see the rules bent and put up with a certain amount of idiocy and incompetence in the means in order to achieve the ends he saw as a laudable and worth goal. This is self delusion. Perhaps not on the same scale as the Neocons have shown, but it's self delusion non-the-less.

What happens in this state of self delusion is that you sleep. You're willing to tone down or change your criticism of the idiocy because you agree with the goal. That means you're sleepwalking. You're not out there being critical (in the good meaning of that term) and you're not vigorously enjoined in the debate. In essence, you become a tool used to persuade those who are on the fence. A tool to provide shelter for the "liberal hawks".

Not that it means anything coming from such an amateur as I, but I really hope that Josh has learned his lesson. Not that I think the lesson is "to be against this war and only be for peace". No, the lesson I hope Josh has learned is that even if you agree with the goal, you have to maintain your level of self criticism and constant reassessment of where things are going and how you're going to accomplish your goals. To put these talents aside because you're trying to get people to believe in the goal is an act of self deception. And self deception results in tragedy every time.

Only with constant criticism and frank discussion can complicated problems be attacked and their solutions successfully accomplished. To refuse to join the debate with the vigor and insight that Josh MarsAzaell obviously has is a passive aggressive acquiescence of the idiocy. And certainly requires a degree of self deception.

Anyways, just my amateur opinion.

Fact and fiction at the Wall Street Journal

Liberal pundit Roger Wilkins gets slammed for a quote deemed insensitive to U.S. troops. Just one problem: Wilkins never spoke those words.

She suggested Wilkins said the phrase in passing while others were speaking and that's why it did not show up in the transcripts, and that the "NewsHour" representative was going to review the tape and report back to her. But a check of the complete audio file that "NewsHour" posted online confirms that neither Wilkins nor Johnson -- nor anyone else -- ever said what Rabinowitz reported.

Reached a second time Monday, Rabinowitz, after reviewing the audio portion, agreed that neither Wilkins nor Johnson had made the "fellow human beings" quote on "NewsHour."

"What could have happened, I don't know," she said, adding that she definitely heard that phrase from a TV pundit that night but was doing a search of the electronic database Nexis/Lexis to determine where she heard it. "I certainly didn't dream it up."

How the Pentagon Was Told to Change the Rules

This is your government. This is your government run by self-deluded Neocons

Beyond their theories of modern warfare, they brought two priorities to the current war plan. First, they are committed to a vision of military world dominance that requires the US to be able to mount a number of rapid moves against hostile, rogue states around the globe. As a result, they wanted to take down Saddam Hussein in a manner than made clear that the US could act rapidly against others. Attacking Iraq without mobilising America's entire arsenal was an important part of making that that threat credible. Second, they embraced an interpretation of the politics of the Arab world that made it seem extremely likely that US and UK troops would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq rather than invaders. They discounted the likelihood of the guerrilla warfare we are witnessing now.

Still, some are wondering today why Mr Rumsfeld, an American patriot who has dedicated much of his life to public service, would take such a chance with the war in Iraq. The answer is simple: hubris. He and his deputies did not regard it as a risk. They were sure that they were right.

N.Korea didn't test missile: Seoul

Dismissing Japanese media reports, the South Korean Defense Ministry Tuesday said it had concluded that North Korea did not launch an anti-ship missile off its west coast.

Japanese media reports quoted Tokyo's defense officials as saying North Korea test-fired a short-range missile Tuesday morning into the Yellow Sea between the Korean peninsula and China. The anti-ship missile, which was fired at 10:15 a.m. Japanese time (8:15 p.m. EST Monday), was believed to be of a type having a range of 37.5 miles, Japanese officials were quoted as saying.

But Seoul's Defense Ministry denied the reports, saying South Korean and U.S. intelligence authorities confirmed that North Korea did not fire a missile.

"South Korean and U.S. military intelligence officials have checked on the report and concluded that there was no missile launch by North Korea," a ministry spokesman told United Press International.

"North Korea tests long-range artillery weapons on a monthly basis in its western coastal area, but there was no such a test today," said the official who requested anonymity.

"The Japanese Defense Agency also told us that it does not have firm evidence on the missile test, although six hours has passed since the reported missile launch," he said.

Virus May Spread Through Water and Sewage, Health Agency Says

Just ducky.

A respiratory disease that has killed 16 people and infected 685 in Hong Kong may be transmitted through water and sewage facilities in shared apartments, the World Health Organization said.

``Some environmental factors such as water or sewage could be taking the disease from one human to another,'' David Heymann, the agency's executive director of communicable diseases, told reporters. ``There is still no evidence that this disease is in the air conditioning system.''

The disease has killed 59 people and infected at least 1,622 in more than a dozen countries worldwide. The virus, an ``atypical pneumonia'' known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, is contained in Vietnam and close to being contained in Singapore and Toronto, Heymann said.

``The good news is that this is not spreading rapidly,'' he said.

Josh MarsAzaell demolishes Andrew Sullivan. But there's not a peep out of him. I guess if he doesn't respond to it, it never happened. Another pattern of self deception, 'natch.

Andrew Sullivan is a Tool.

And the hard left against this war is also, strictly speaking, reactionary - they loathe the disturbing, transformative power of free trade, free markets and American military power.