Obama rightly debased the rationale of the previous administration for many of the actions they took over the last 8 years, but he did so in a way that was not (to me at least) designed to inflame partisan passions. Rather, he presented this information as a way to cause us to reflect on what America is supposed to be, how it was designed by our framers, and how it can be so easily derailed by weak minded officials faced with problems too big for them to handle and hard nosed ideologues whose only goal is to exert unopposable power without regard to moral and legal right and wrong. Obama also spread the blame for the savage departure from American values and ideals of the last 8 years to all politicians left and right-for the truth of the matter is that we, the American people, were let down on all sides by cowardly politicians and even more cowardly bullies. For 8 years, our elected officials threw out their responsibilities of due diligence and oversight in favor of political posturing. The actions, and inactions, of those who held elective office during the Bush administration and helped create the national nightmare or did nothing to prevent the fall into the abyss, has caused this country great harm both domestically and abroad. The blame is shouldered equally, and recent partisan bickering only further cements this as fact, for those who protest to their own defense most loudly are likely also those whose actions may seem most detestable.

“Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.” (Obama-5-21-09)

Obama has a tough road ahead. Calls from the left scream for investigations and “truth” commissions. Calls from the right demand an “end to persecution.” This balance is hard to manage while retaining the desire to right the wrongs of American governance. But again, Obama takes the right path, for he is the president, not the judge and jury of this nation. While recognizing the wrongs committed in our names, he also understands that to rectify those wrongs requires a return to rationality and legal principals that this country was founded on. It is not for the president to declare guilt or innocence or to demand trials for grevious wrongs done in the name of “freedom.” That is why we have a Justice Department and a court system and a Congress with investigatory powers. By promoting direct legal action, Obama would be unnecessarily politicizing what is in effect a legal matter, albeit one that goes to the heart of what it means to be America.

“That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.” (Obama 5-21-09)

At the end of the day, it’s not just what he says that marks this president as a class above his predecessor, but the way he says it, and the way he understands his role in American government. Obama embodies the difference between being president and being presidential- a difference as marked as that between being the class leader and the class bully. Perhaps the juxtaposition of these two quotes is the best illustration of all.

“I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.” George W. Bush

“In our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers – especially when it comes to sensitive information.” – Barack Obama

It’s nice to have a real leader back at the helm.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Foiling Terror Plots Doesn’t Take An Army (August 10, 2006)

Law Enforcement Continuing To Succeed Where War Fails (October 4, 2006)

New Alleged Terror Plot Thwarted-Again Without Destroying A Foreign Country (June 2, 2007)

U.S. Should Rethink “War On Terrorism” Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida (July 29, 2008)

These articles, covering a span of about two years, are all saying the same thing: fighting terrorism is better done through law enforcement than through war. Interesting enough, the first three articles were written by me and posted at Bring It On. The final article was published yesterday by the Rand Corporation, a think tank developed by the US Air Force after WWII and today a major supplier of policy advice to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands and other defense agencies. Seems like the Rand Corporation is a little behind the “obvious curve.”

In it’s newly released report, the Rand Corporation says:

“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.” -Seth Jones, the study’s lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.

Hmmmmm….sounds an awful lot like this:

“There are terrorists who want to harm the west, specifically killing as many civilians as they can. If they are determined enough, some will succeed. But through the application of solid investigative work and application of the rule of law, many of these folks have been stopped before reaching their murderous intentions.” – Ken Grandlund, 8-10-06

And this:

“Law enforcement, including cooperation with intelligence agencies and other countries, is more effective in breaking up terror cells than going to war.” – Ken Grandlund, 6-2-07

I’m not trying to brag here. I’m just pointing out that for over two years, I’ve been saying publically what the Rand Corporation (and presumably the folks who rely on its reports to craft policy) is only now figuring out. I’m no genius, but then again, it doesn’t take a genius to state the obvious. Apparently it just takes waiting for an idiot president who has squandered untold billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, soiled the reputation of the United States of America and garnered the disgust of people everywhere to enter his final months in office for someone (in a position to be really heard) to finally stand up and state the obvious.

(Sarcastic) Kudos to the Rand Corporation and every other asshat politician, corporate executive, and neo-con ass-licker for finally facing the facts- namely that massive military action is a stupid way to deal with terrorists.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Remember those old X-Ray Vision goggles advertised in the back of your favorite comic books? The thrill of surreptitiously seeing through peoples clothes drove youthful imaginations into a frenzy of giggles and gasps. Of course, if you actually ponied up a few bucks and sent off for a pair, you were probably disappointed with the results-not only could you NOT see through people’s clothes, you couldn’t see much at all through the little red peephole centered amid those creepy hypnotic lens covers.

Seems as if a few pissed off kids grew up to make their frustrated childhood peepshows a reality, and now, in the name of SECURITY, real x-ray vision is being deployed across the United States at major airports.

The new scanners use a technology called millimeter wave scanning and can see through clothing, leaving no part of your anatomy unviewed. (Another similar scanner uses a process called backscatter radiation and offers similarly revealing results.)

The image above was produced by backscatter radiation scanning. The millimeter scan is even more revealing. But remember, it’s for YOUR OWN SAFETY that these devices are in use. Just like it was in YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST not to be able to take a bottle of water on a plane, or toothpaste.

The TSA, who is in charge of deploying these machines, says that the images shown have blurred out faces (like they can’t see your face when you walk in to the scanner) and that images can’t be printed, sent, or saved on the machines. But those charged with screening will still be able to know for certainty who has had a mastectomy or a penile implant, and of course, who is carrying a gun. (Oh wait, I thought metal detectors sniffed out guns.)

The question is this: how much privacy should we be forced to sacrifice in the name of SECURITY? Should we really have to expose our genitals to some low-paid airport screener just to go visit grandma in another state?

The machines have been in use at a few locations abroad for a little while, and testing of the devices has been occuring at Phoenix International Airport since October, 2007.

Next time you fly, you might as well just fly naked. Just remember that it’s all in the name of SECURITY. And it is FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.

(Cross psoted at Bring It On!)

“This is … one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration,” Gingrich said. “The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say, ‘Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.’ And it’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.” (Raw Story has the full video clip here.)

To begin with, I’ve yet to see or hear convincing evidence that the Bush Administration actually deserves credit for the lack of attacks by terrorists on US soil since 9-11-01. Where Gingrich credits the administrations illegal domestic wiretap programs for halting domestic terror attacks, I think the closer truth is that a combination of US action in Afghanistan, a shift of targeting by the terrorists towards Europe and the Middle East, and the historical patience of the terror gangs is why America hasn’t had another attack.

Conservatives publically lamenting the lack of terror attacks on America isn’t new with GIngrich. We’ve heard this before- in 2004 and 2006 and even more recently during this election cycle. In an effort to bolster support for Bush’s most unsavory anti-terror tactics, GOPers have verbalized their wish that some terror attacks would occur.

In 2005:

A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

The memo says such a reversal in the President’s fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

And again in 2007:

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Dennis Milligan, head of the Arkansas GOP said on June 3, 2007.

These people are undeniably crazy for power, it seems, if they truly wish for the death and destruction of their countrymen and women just to “validate” George W. Bush and his policies.

Remember this when you go to the polls-only one party actually wishes for terror attacks on America to justify their abuses of power at home and abroad.  The party that brought you the Iraq Debacle. The party that brought you Katrina. The party that brought you torture and spying on Americans. The party of massive deficits, distrust of science, and no capacity for true compassion, caring or common sense. That party is the GOP.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

In return for North Korea’s agreement to take further steps to eliminate that country’s nuclear program, the United States has indicated that it may remove North Korea from it’s official list of countries that sponsor terrorism, a sign that would surely also remove North Korea from the vaunted Axis of Evil club that President Bush created in 2001. If, as it appears likely, Kim Jong-Il follows the example set by Libya’s Moammar Qhaddafi and relinquishes his push for WMD programs, this would mark the second time a country has dropped out of the Axis Program. (The first would be Iraq, which did not leave the club voluntarily, but was bludgened out of it. Insiders in Iraq claim that many local populations say that there should have been a vote after the removal of Saddam on whether the remaining country wanted to discard their membership in the Axis Program or continue on with a new titular head. Unfortunately, at the time, the U.S. wasn’t accepting application into the program.)

Insiders at the White House and State Department say that in light of recent events in the North Korean negotiations, there is considerable concern that the Axis Program will fade away unless new members can be recruited. Of critical concern to the president is the possibility that a shrinking Axis of Evil Program may weaken his ability to lash out at his political detracators and that his pet project, The Global War On Terror (TM) would lose considerable backing among his own supporters without a full contingent of Axis partners.

Iran, the last active member of the original Axis of Evil, has reportedly responded to the Help Wanted Ad (seen above and printed in most of the world’s main newspapers) in a manner befitting their status as ranking Evil Nation. Iranian president Mahmoud Amedinejad was overheard saying that if he’s not consulted about potential new members that he would discontinue his hard-line rhetoric and consider withdrawing his country from the program altogether. Apparently, Amedinejad is concerned that future Axis Program members may be mere “shadows of great tyrants. There are too many despot-wannabe’s out there trying to claim a piece of the action. I want veto power over any new applicants or I will bring fire and death to the world. And then I’ll quit the club too. Praise Allah.”

President Bush is expected to announce that filling the vacant positions in the Axis Program is his new top priority. He has created a committee to provide him with a list of names of those tyrants best suited to the task. Vice-President Dick Cheney will lead that committee, in part because he has the experience in such matters. After all, he did a fantastic job in a similar situation when he compiled the short list of running mates for then-governor Bush, ultimately deciding upon himself as the best of the best. Insiders speculate that Cheney may decide on a repeat performance. An unidentified source in the VP’s office claims to have heard Cheney muttering something about needing a new job in a year or so.

This photo (again from ABC News) shows a proud schoolmaster and teaching staff as they send their apt pupils off with their new skills. One wonders if they dispense actual certificates or simply strap on the vests right then and there.

The photo (and others, as well as a videotape) was obtained from a Pakistani journalist who had been invited to the event to document the occasion. On the videotape, a Taliban military commander, Mansoor Dadullah, was shown introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.

“These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from
faraway places,” Dadullah says on the tape. “Why shouldn’t we go after them?”

Apparently this guy didn’t get the “we have to fight them over there so they don’t follow us home and fight with us here” memo the president sent out. Fortunately, there’s no possible way even one of these guys could make it into the US. After all, President Bush has personally done everything possible to make sure that our land borders are secure enough that we at least know who is coming in and going out, and he’s done everything a guy could do to make sure that airport security isn’t just a sham, and he’s even tried to keep an eye on all of our ports so that nothing bad could slip in through there. Yessiree, these Suicide Teams haven’t got a chance against the US.

Tell me again why we left the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight Saddam in Iraq?

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action
against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Lieberman
told Bob Schieffer. “And to me, that would include a strike into… over the
border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which
they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

If the U.S. does not act against Iran, “they’ll take that as a sign of
weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region
and ultimately right here at home,” Lieberman said.

He said that he has seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying
insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.

“We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there’s any hope of
the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for
instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,”
Lieberman said. “If they don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force,
and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what
they’re doing.”

And Joe wonders why he couldn’t keep the support of the Democratic party in his state. Here’s a clue Joe…America doesn’t want the war to expand. We want it to end. This whole business of attacking nations to stop gangs of terrorists really isn’t the best way to go. More cells and plots have been disrupted through police work Joe. And fewer civiliains die that way too. Oh, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.

And to think that if Al Gore had won (I mean been declared the winner) in the 2000 election, America’s Vice-President would still be Dick Cheney, albeit with a different name. If that little realization isn’t a wake-up call to what a complete farce this whole two-party system pretends to be, I don’t know what is. In American politics, there is only one party that rules the roost-the fund-raising party. And whomever gives the most money to help keep the politicians in office (i.e. – power) gets to mold the rules of the game. And make no mistake- the loss of over 3500 US service people is just a part of the game to them. Pieces on the board so to speak. An expected and acceptable cost of imperialism, I mean corporatocracy, I mean exporting democracy, I mean fighting terror.

Hawkish Joe. The People’s Man. The Independent.

It may well be that Iran (or elements within Iran) is training or supplying insurgents who then come across the border into Iraq to fight against American troops there. To pretend though that this is something that the US, nor any ‘civilized’ nation, would undertake to do is ludicrous. In fact, the US is doing just that right now. According to this New York Times article, America is now arming more and more Sunni Arab groups (who also are know to us as insurgents, sectarian rebels, or former Saddam Baathist bastards) to fight against suspected al-Qaeda terror cells in Iraq. Unfortunately, the vast majority of violence in Iraq, aside from the targeting of US troops from both sides of the sectarian clash, is Iraq Sunni fighting Iraq Shia. In that light, the odds of US arms being used against US troops is pretty good. That chance that they will be used by the Sunnis against the Shia (and remember-most of Iran is Shia) may serve to inflame Iranian concerns about this war at their back fence. Hell, by arming the Sunni groups, Iran may well have credible claim that the US ” has a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iran to kill our soldiers.”

Joe has determined that talking just isn’t going to work with the Iranians. After all, “if there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,” said Joe on CBS. Again, it’s conceivable that others around the world feel the same way about the American government under George W. Bush. Hell, it’s not only conceivable, it’s the fact Jack! Er, Joe. For all this talk about “living according to internation rule of law” give me about a minute and I can pull up hundreds of reminders of America’s own high standards of the past half decade. Do these words ring a bell? Torture. International kidnappings (arrests/detentions/disappearances) by covert US operatives on foreign sovereign land. Here’s a tip Senator. Don’t preach the talk if you can’t (and demonstrably haven’t) walked the walk. Especially you, Joe “My Ego Is More Important Than The Will Of The People” Lieberman. Especially from you.

But what’s scarier than hearing former Demcorat-turned faux-Independent Joe Lieberman call for the bombing of Iran? The certainty that Joe’s appearance this Sunday morning was not so much the rantings of a man who longs for face time and relevance but rather a carefully pre-planned event from the bowels of the Bush Administration to start spreading the lubricant for sliding into Iran. After at least a year of denial that the US would seek to engage Iran militarily, despite leaks about prepared war plans and increasingly hostile rhetoric between the two countries, Team Bush may finally be letting the cat out of the bag, via good old Joe Lieberman, a man who (if you are a neo-con or party loyalist republican) you can almost trust since he left the Democrats (who are a bunch of wimps), or (if you are a democrat or anti-war American) a man you most certainly despise for his glad-handing with Bush. In either case, the Bushite’s can simply remain silent on Joe’s performance, leaving the general public to mull over what may come next. And seeing how the American people aren’t too supportive of a military showdown with Iran, even over it’s nuclear activities, perhaps the only way Cheney’s former corporate boardroom buddies can get into Iran is by relying on less spectacular half truths and building inuendo to push war to the next level.

I’m not dovish on Iran as a matter of absolute principal. Under certain conditions, I could well see the US engaged in some kind of legitimate military actions in the Middle East. But those conditions do not include conflating situations already out of hand with those that need not become so.

We may not trust Iran enough to hold face to face talks at high levels. They surely don’t trust us. Neither party has given the other any reason to do so. But trust, and therefore a more amicable (or at least non-confrontational) relationship, isn’t likely to sprout out of a bombing campaign either. />
(cross posted at Bring It On!)

While liberation is sometimes synonymous with free, occupation is almost always associated with repression, especially by those who find themselves living in the occupied country. Having been told that that initial war was meant to bring freedom and democracy to their country, regular Iraqis can only sit in incredulity as they see the shambles their country has become. Indeed, if this is the path to freedom, many doubtlessly would have chosen to leave bad enough alone. But once ‘liberation’ has gone out the window and all you are left with is occupation forces, it becomes difficult to sit back and wait for the promise of self-determination to begin. After all, Iraq was promised a democratic government. So far, all they’ve gotten is more bloodshed and a paralyzed parliament.

Increasingly, the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil has led to factional divisions within Iraq itself, as our lack of effective provisional governance created a vacuum of power in Iraq that has been filled by a rash of sectarian rebel groups, terrorist organizations who moved in to fertile training grounds, and disaffected Iraqi citizens fighting for their daily existence. Our lack of planning, competence, and ability to engage Iraq and its neighbors in finding peace has exposed the emptiness of American colonialism sans intelligence and revealed an American system of capitalist-controlled corporate governance that shares no values with the people of America, let alone Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. Being exposed as such, the modern “Iraqi Street” has concluded that American democracy has only destroyed their once secular (albeit despotic) government and replaced it with a daily bloodbath where no one is safe, where you don’t know your enemy from your friend, and where each walk outside may be your last.

Our moment as liberators quickly transformed into an eternity as occupiers who have become little more than catalysts for chaos. And as yet, there seems to be no end in sight. President Bush has all but said that he’ll never leave Iraq while in office, meaning that more US troops will die needlessly, more Iraqi’s will die needlessly, and the flames of Mid-East tensions will continue to rise, fueled by arrogance and idiotic decisions from the Oval Office.

Unless…..

Unless the Iraqi’s have anything to say about it. In an under-reported story out of Iraq, the Iraqi parliament yesterday passed a binding resolution that will guarantee Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the UN mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. The bill would require any new extensions to be approved by the parliament instead of the Prime Minister, as is now the case. And Iraqi lawmakers have indicated that when given the chance, they’ll block any future extensions of the mandate that do not contain specific timelines for withdrawal, meaning that coalition (read: mostly US) troops would no longer have UN cover to remain in Iraq. Without that cover, any foreign troops in Iraq would legally be considered as an armed occupation force, not so unlike the Japanese when they conquered parts of China back in the 1930’s. In other words, the overwhelming impression by Iraqis that American troops are now an occupying force would become a matter of international law and not just an overwhelming national opinion.

Of course, with George W. Bush at the helm, I have no doubt that he will ignore any such actions from the Iraqis. After all, democracy is great to this president, so long as he’s the one calling the shots. Remember, he’s the decider guy. But if the Iraqi’s pass this bill, and if they refuse to extend any further UN mandates that do not contain specific timetables for ending this conflict, expect this war to grow larger as other Arab nations in the region reach out to their Iraqi neighbors against American insolence and intransigence. And expect America to lose more and more of her foreign support, perhaps becoming even more of a target than she is today.

Six years ago America was ruthlessly attacked by a group of religious zealots who got lucky and were able to take advantage of our laxity. That was a monumental tragedy and represented an internal failure on our part. In the six years since that day, America, under Geroge Bush and Dick Cheney, has done more harm to herself and to world peace than any Middle Eastern mullah could have hoped for. And in the process, they have guaranteed that “freedom and democracy” aren’t going to be embraced in the Middle East any time soon.

Nice job guys. Nice job.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

So we’re in the nation building game, and since we’re the ones who blew the hell out of the place, I suppose that we have some responsibility to at least get the place fixed up a bit before we go home. Or do we? I mean, if the nation we are helping build is supposed to be a democracy (of sorts) then it seems only right that our presence should be limited to the extent that the majority of that country’s citizens (or elected officials as the proxy of the citizens) wish us to remain. Once the balance tips from one side of the scale to the other, we need to acknowledge that decision, pack our bags, and promise to stay in touch.

Guess what? We’ve been asked, more or less, to start packing our bags. According to a story that isn’t getting any play in the American MSM, an Iraqi parliamentary vote on Tuesday had more than half of Iraq’s elected lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal. The non-binding petition will be presented to the speaker of parliament with the request for a vote on a formal binding resolution that adopts the petition’s demand for a withdrawal timetable.Hey- we asked for a democracy, and we’re getting one. Can’t cry foul when it doesn’t go your way.

Unless, of course, you are George Bush or Dick Cheney. The White House Wonder Twins seem to have an almost superhero ability to ignore reality. (And their ability to lie is almost as powerful, but that’s another story altogether.) See, the administration is taking a somewhat different approach than the Iraqi’s seem to want. Rather than prepare to disengage, they keep sending in more US troops. Instead of listening to what the Iraqi’s are saying, they are telling the Iraqi’s how it should be. I guess that 6 years of telling the American public what to do and how to feel, they think that everyone is as gullible. Sorry Dubya- the folks in Iraq live with the bombs of your nation building every day. They don’t seem too keen to wait for you to act anymore.

The Alternet article goes into some detail about the factional problems in Iraq and the barriers that are keeping them apart. Chief among them is the future of Iraq itself- specifically whether Iraq should remain as a strong single entity or as three separate and somewhat autonomous regions under nominal federal controls. Increasingly, Iraqi’s seem to be choosing the strong single entity model over the tripartite solution now favored by the US backed Iraqi government. One sticking point in that discussion has been the sharing of oil resources under each plan. Under the tripartite plan (favored by Team Bush remember), oil controls would be privatized and decentralized, leaving the door open for all sorts of great deals for Big Oil. Under the strong state model, the Iraqi oil fields become state property, meaning other nations will have to play nice to get access.

No matter how many times we go around the bend it always comes back to who gets the oil. With the oil comes the money. With the money comes the power. You know the drill.
The thing is, no matter how (or if) Iraqi lawmakers vote on demanding a timetable from the Bush Administration, they’re never going to get one. Not from Dubya at least. As far as he’s concerned, the U S of A ain’t going nowhere on his watch. And if the Iraqi’s have a problem with that, then they may just find themselves on a watchlist too. Iraq is a really dangerous place these days, despite what John McCain thinks. Dissidents of US desires may find themselves at risk, if you get my drift.

Even though many in Baghdad acknowledge that when US troops leave, the violence will likely get worse before it gets better, a majority of all ethnic groups want the US to get out. And the sad thing is that just about everybody knows it’s time to hand Iraqi’s the keys to their new house and let them get busy with the unpacking.

(Oh, and for those of you who decide to turn the comments section into a debate about “Yes there are terrorists in Iraq you idiot” I suggest you get a grip on reality. There are terrorists in America too but we haven’t bombed the hell out of our own towns. Anyone here think the Pocono’s need a good bombing? )

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq….

Bush’s plan was immediately rejected by a Democratically controlled Congress, a majority of the American public, a large contingent of world governments, former and current military commanders, most puppies and, of course, the baby Jesus. None the less, Bush stuck out his jaw and pressed forward. The surge was on, will of the people be damned.

In the 13 days that followed, Bush has made no indications that he is going to change his mind. Why should he? He is the Decider-in-Chief, after all. So, despite Congressional resolutions and pending legislation that would variously condemn, chastise, or curtail appropriations for new war outlay, Bush came forth in his State of the Union Address to reassert his administration’s plans for a broader Middle East conflict. Reiterating the themes he presented to the nation on January 10th, Bush told the assembled Congress and the American people that more troops were already being sent to Iraq…

“So we’re deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq.”

No more debate folks, they troops are on the way. Bring on the surge.

Americans have made it loud and clear to this president that they want American involvement in Iraq to come to an end. They have declared that ending the war in Iraq is at the top of their governmental “To Do” list. The president has told the American people to Shut The Fuck Up.

But the president didn’t stop with the war in Iraq in the SOTU adress. He also remembered to ratchet up the threats to Iran. In a thinly veiled attempt to deflect attention to his intentions, Bush reminded us all that his entry into Iraq was legal under a UN resolution…

“Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we’re not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations.”

And in the next breath he declared that:

“The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Taken together with the recent build up of American naval power in the Persian Gulf and the rhetoric of the January 10th speech, it becomes more clear every day that Bush will expand his Middle East initiatives at the first opportunity, all the while claiming to seek a diplomatic solution. Just like before Iraq. Yet it is hard to engage in diplomacy when you refuse to speak to your adversary.

Make no mistake. The surge is on. And it may well not stop in Baghdad.

Bush has finally and very overtly changed the game of American politics. He has unilaterally declared himself unstoppable. He has thrown off the constitutional shackles imposed upon the Executive Branch repeatedly over the years, but has managed to stay out ahead by obstinance and obfuscation. But now he has done something even more bold. He has denied the will of the people he professes to serve, he has ignored the masses who he purports to hold dear. He has donned the rosiest of all rose colored glasses. He is an island unto himself. And that, my friends, is not what the American president is supposed to be.

I support a surge of elected officials demanding investigations into this administration’s covert and extralegal shenanigans.

I support a surge in politicians jumping out of the president’s sinking lifeboat of a party and climbing onboard the USS Sanity.

I support a surge in honest, hard-working Americans protesting online and in the streets against this president and his attempts to embroil this country’s future generations in unending warfare based on fabricated evidence and historical mythology.

I support a surge in scientists condemning the president’s anti-science agenda’s and bringing forth widely accepted evidence to counteract the president’s hired pseudo-scientific spin doctors.

I support a surge in religious leaders condemning the very unChristian antics of this, the Born-Again, Evangelical President.

In short, I support an overwhelming surge against this president, his policies, and his administration hacks who perpetuate this assault on American integrity and security.

I’m supporting the surge. Just not the same one Bush is supporting. On second thought, maybe it’s a purge I should be supporting.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)