The Saturday Snapshot: Not If, But Rather When

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Election Reflections – David Hamilton

Many voters told exit polls that they didn’t even know the names of the Democrats they voted for. They just voted against whatever Republican was running as the nearest available Bush symbol to bash. We are entering the golden era of Bush bashing. I seriously question whether that prick can withstand the abuse he’s going to have to endure for the next two years.

The election was about Iraq and Bush leading us into it. Everything else was very secondary. Its meaning was that George W. Bush and his “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive, unilateral imperialist war to achieve American dominion has lost favor with the majority of those who pay for it with their savings and the lives of their children. Rumsfield’s immediate fall and the promotion of a James Baker appointee to Defense Secretary means they are going to do whatever Bush 41’s “realists” of the “Iraq Study Group” say to do about Iraq. The outlines of that are already clear. One, retreat. We will call it redeployment. They will only go back minimally; to Kuwait, Kurdistan and way out there somewhere in the Iraq desert. No more Baghdad or Fallujah unless the Iraqi “government” pleads for them to return with its dying gasp. Maybe not even then. Two, talk directly to the neighbors, specifically Iran and Syria. The US will perhaps call a big “peace” conference of the 6 bordering countries plus a few others (Britain, Egypt, etc). This will be to get their cooperation as cover so that the US can slink off in some face saving way.

There are several problems with this scenario, principally Israel and the extent of control the Israel lobby has on American foreign policy. What happens when Israel decides that the day the “peace conference” opens is a good day to lay waste to the Iranian nuclear facilities with its own nuclear bunker buster? Or at least blow up another Palestinian apartment house full of women and children? Although Arab governments have a reputation of only giving lip service to Palestinian interests, considering the horrendous situation existing now in Palestine, they could hardly attend such a conference without Israel/Palestine being high on the agenda. Also, such a conference couldn’t occur without dealing with the Iranian nuclear program and the US treat of sanctions. So, the US is still very stuck. There may be a way out, but its risks are great and heavy losses, especially in prestige, are certain. The Baker group will tell Bush to offer Iran a security agreement (non-aggression pact) as bait for the deal, which is pretty much all Iran has ever asked for from the US anyway.

Iran’s client militias in southern (Shiite) Iraq could cut US supply lines from Kuwait any time. That is to say, they have the US military in Iraq by the balls now. So you kind of have to ask them nicely to let go before you take off, lest we have a new meaning for “cut and run.” The Bush regime’s main problem is that they are not at all in control of “events on the ground” in Iraq, which are driving the equation both there and here. Twenty-five and counting more Americans have died there so far in November after 104 in October as insurgent tactics continually improve. Stacks of bodies any Aztec priest would admire turn up daily in Baghdad streets. This will not change regardless of the number of US soldiers and it will continue at least as long as those soldiers are there. Like now, they said Vietnam would end in a bloodbath if we left. It didn’t.

This is hard for W to wrap his limited brain around. He has always been an internal locus of control guy, having the power to change the world around him, in his case, another rich punk who grew up thinking only chumps let externals dictate their reality. Both R’s and D’s will soon talk a lot of smack about what they are going to do without the real ability to pull it off. The genie is out of the bottle and the furies have escaped. A lot of plans are really wishful thinking.

It is hard at this point not to see the results of this election as profound. It is true that sixth year elections are historically bad for two term presidents. Some say this one is not outside the standard deviation for such elections. I’m not buying that. I don’t know of another incidence in American history when the electorate pointedly rejected a war we were in the midst of fighting and doing so was their most serious concern in voting. Despite a concerted propaganda effort, the citizenry have rejected this war and those who led them into it. The neocons are in flight. Cheney is isolated. Imperialism itself is in retreat. Rejoice.

If the antiwar forces ever won an argument with a slam-dunk, it was this one. If you go back and review the prewar archives of commondreams, counterpunch, The Guardian or other left sources, the arguments we made against the war have virtually all been validated by events on the ground. We said sanctions killed more than Saddam. Correct. We said the inspections were working and there were likely no WMD’s. Correct. We said there was no connection between secular Baathist Saddam and fundamentalist Al Qaeda. Correct. We said it was about oil, which Bush overtly acknowledged in speeches made during his recent campaigning. (Not to mention Exxon/Mobil’s recent record profits.) We said Iraq posed no threat to the US unless we invaded it, in which case we would descend into a quagmire of blood resulting in the disintegration of Iraq as a country, with the loss of many American and many more Iraqi lives. Correct, correct, correct.

Now they have to make up a Plan B they never thought they would need while in a state of disarray and the ground slipping away under their feet. Most likely, they won’t be able to greatly limit the severe negative consequences for US power from what has rightly been called the greatest foreign policy debacle in American history. Or maybe I’m just being too much of an optimist again.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Kids and the Internet

Are More Laws Needed to Protect Kids Online?

(Nov. 10) – The Internet is a fixture in most kids’ lives, but there is broad disagreement over the best way to protect children from things they shouldn’t see online – and what role, if any, new laws should play.

A federal court this month is revisiting the Child Online Protection Act, which threatens criminal penalties for commercial Web site operators that allow children to access material that is “harmful to minors.” The law, passed by Congress eight years ago, has never gone into effect because of a legal challenge from free speech advocates. The Supreme Court has ruled the law is likely unconstitutional, and prevented the Justice Department from enforcing it until it is reviewed by a lower court.

The Justice Department and child safety groups say the law would stop pornography at its source by requiring sites to demand age verification, such as a credit card, before allowing access to explicit content. Opponents argue that the law is overly broad and poses a threat to free speech, since much of the material deemed inappropriate for children, such as news photographs or sexual health information, is legal for adults. One of the central disputes in the case is whether children can be adequately protected by Internet filtering software.

What is the best way to protect kids from inappropriate online content? The Wall Street Journal Online invited Richard Whidden of the National Law Center for Children and Families, a nonprofit group that has lobbied for COPA and similar measures, to debate the issue with John Morris, a First Amendment lawyer who argued the Supreme Court case that overturned COPA’s predecessor, the Communications Decency Act.Their email conversation is below.

Read it here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Words From the Other Side

It can be insightful to watch what your enemy/opponent does and says.

The Architect Speaks
BY MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON

After maintaining a relentless optimism in the face of ominous polls, Karl Rove tells TIME why Republicans wound up taking a bath on Election Night.

At the White House senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room at 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Chief of Staff Josh Bolten thanked Karl Rove for his hard work in the elections, and the group around the big table burst into spontaneous applause. It was a much-needed moment of cheer for Rove, the President’s chief strategist, after Republicans lost the House and were headed toward the same fate in the Senate in midterm congressional elections that turned into a blue rip tide of voter ire.

“The profile of corruption in the exit polls was bigger than I’d expected,” Rove tells TIME. “Abramoff, lobbying, Foley and Haggard [the disgraced evangelical leader] added to the general distaste that people have for all things Washington, and it just reached critical mass.”

Exit polls showed heavy discontent with the course of the war, and Bush announced the departure of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld the next day. But Rove took comfort in results of the Connecticut Senate race between the anti-war Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary over his support for the war. “Iraq mattered,” Rove says. “But it was more frustration than it was an explicit call for withdrawal. If this was a get-out-now call for withdrawal, then Lamont would not have been beaten by Lieberman. Iraq does play a role, but not the critical, central role.”

And he does not believe his data let him down. “My job is not to be a prognosticator,” he said. “My job is not to go out there and wring my hands and say, ‘We’re going to lose.’ I’m looking at the data and seeing if I can figure out, Where can we be? I told the President, ‘I don’t know where this is going to end up. But I see our way clear to Republican control.’ “

Rove, who is Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser to the President, had long been warning in speeches that Democrats suffered defeat in 1994 after ossified thinking and an entitlement mentality took over the party: “What I was trying to say was: What happened to them could happen to us,” he told TIME.

[snip]

The Republican National Committee has been pointing out that a small shift in votes would have made a big difference. A shift of 77,611 votes would have given Republicans control of the House, according to Bush’s political team. And a shift of 2,847 votes in Montana, or 7,217 votes in Virginia, or 41,537 votes in Missouri would have given a Republicans control of the Senate. In addition, the party has calculated that the winner received 51 percent or less in 35 contests, and that 23 races were decided by two percentage points or fewer, 18 races were decided by fewer than 5,000 votes, 15 races were decided by fewer than 4,000 votes, 10 races were decided by fewer than 3,000 votes, eight were decided by fewer than 2,000 votes and five races were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes.

Read the rest here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Not So Fond Remembrances

What Rumsfeld will be Remembered For

He’s accomplished a great deal during his short time in office.

These banal desk-murderers are just too boring to really remember for very long. He’s like a Rotary Club assistant treasurer or something.

But he’ll be remembered for this:

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.

We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Perspective

This comes from an Iraqi blogger, outside, looking in.

US Midterms and Rummy and Iraq

I wasn’t particularly jubilant earlier today! I didn’t even follow the election results as closely as I should have: Bush was adamant to ‘stay the course’, the Democrats did not have a clear policy on Iraq. Some of them were even advocating the break-up of the country – a recipe for disaster…

But less than an hour ago this evening, and for the first time in more than a year, I listened carefully to what George Bush, the de-facto President of Iraq, had to say! It brought an unfamiliar warmth to my old heart to see that man, who brought so much death and destruction to my country, broken. He couldn’t hide that. It was written all over him!

Another of the President’s Men going down? Rummy, who had the President’s full confidence? Arrogant, murderous, contemptuous Rummy?

I am not a Democrat. But those two items made my day.

Can an Iraqi hope now? Perhaps a little.
Time for accountability? Dare we hope? Perhaps too soon for that.
The beginning o the end of a mad era? Perhaps too soon for that too.

To Americans I say: to see the man who has done so much damage to your country in that position in that press conference… I only have one word: Congratulations!

Your democracy may have many illnesses; you have a long way yet to go… but tonight many of you have shown the rest of the world that It and you are not dead yet.

In parting, I would just like to quote an American friend who wrote to me earlier today: ” There’s hope at this juncture, for a sane approach to assisting you Iraqi’s with the hideous mess we created for you. We aren’t all crazy over here … There are huge numbers of intelligent (non-hawk-whack-jobs) who agonize over what we’ve done to you.”

No analysis this time! That is good enough for me… for now!

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

We Wonder Why …

After all, we all know that you lied from the outset. What’s the problem with just showing us the full Monty?

Iraq: the new cover-up
Martin Bright
Monday 13th November 2006

The government is withholding a secret draft of the Iraq WMD dossier that was never disclosed to the Hutton inquiry, the New Statesman can reveal. In a development that will stoke demands for a full parliamentary inquiry into the events that led up to the war, we can confirm that the draft was written not by the intelligence services, which had responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained in the dossier, but by a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office press officer, whose name has previously featured only on the fringes of the controversy over Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. It raises the possibility that the dossier originated with the government’s spin machine rather than the intelligence services. This secret draft may even turn out to be the foundation of the government’s ill-fated presentation of the threat from Saddam’s WMD, which Tony Blair used to persuade parliament of the case for war.

Read it here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Once Again, No Surprise Here

US was warned of Iraq chaos, says ex-diplomat
By Andy McSmith
Published: 09 November 2006

A former diplomat has revealed that the British mission to the United Nations opposed the policy of regime change in Iraq but was ordered by London to change its position in the lead-up to war.

The disclosure was made to MPs yesterday by Carne Ross, a member of the mission who resigned in protest at the Iraq war. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the US government was repeatedly warned by British diplomats that Iraq would fall apart if Saddam Hussein was toppled. But from mid-2002 instructions were received to change that view to fall in with the Bush administration.

Speaking in public for the first time since he left the diplomatic service two years ago, Mr Ross also confirmed suspicions that the Prime Minister made up his mind months before the Iraq invasion in March 2003 that the war was going to happen and British troops would take part. Mr Ross said when he was serving in the embassy in Afghanistan, as early as April 2002, British officials there knew troops were being held back in readiness for the Iraq invasion.

He claimed that when official documents from the Foreign Office are made public, they will prove that the view of British officials, repeatedly conveyed to the Americans, was that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would cause chaos.

Read it here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Zing !!

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Resistance Was Futile

This is an intriguing post from Eleutheros over at How Many Miles From Babylon.

Was?? Yes, was. You were assimilated long ago. In fact, likely as not, you are third or fourth generation Borg by now.

You are an artificial organism, although you mightn’t think it. You were made by machines.

You see, 100 years ago the world’s population was about 1.6 billion and unlikely to get much higher left to its own devices. Any number of things might limit human population, available water, arable land, amount of carbon available, amount of phosphorous available, etc. The thing that we ran up against about 100 years ago was available nitrogen. Although nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the atmosphere, it is doggedly reluctant to combine to form compounds. A little of it is fixed (combines with other elements, notably hydrogen to form ammonia) by lightening but for the past several hundred millions of years most nitrogen was fixed by bacteria.

[snip]

It might do well to note here that the idea behind mining fossil nitrates was not to make more human beings but rather to make hungry human beings into well fed ones. It didn’t work out that way, instead it made still more hungry human beings. This is a sad dance that has been going on for a century now. Every “advance” in agriculture intended to feed the hungry has resulted only in making a greater number of hungry.

We’d recommend reading all of his unconventional argument here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Throwing Stuff Over the White House Fence

Throwing Stuff Over the White House Fence
By David Swanson

On Wednesday, Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright, Lennox Yearwood, and about 50 other activists for peace met up on the sidewalk in front of the White House. I brought along a box containing 6,000-some pages of names and comments: about 80,000 names with cities and states, about half of them with comments beside them. These were the names of people who have signed the petition at www.DontAttackIran.org. The media gathered around, and Cindy read the petition out loud:

“Dear President Bush and Vice President Cheney,

“We write to you from all over the United States and all over the world to urge you to obey both international and U.S. law, which forbid aggressive attacks on other nations. We oppose your proposal to attack Iran. Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, just as Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons. If Iran had such weapons, that would not justify the use of force, any more than any other nation would be justified in launching a war against the world’s greatest possessor of nuclear arms, the United States. The most effective way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be to closely monitor its nuclear energy program, and to improve diplomatic relations — two tasks made much more difficult by threatening to bomb Iranian territory. We urge you to lead the way to peace, not war, and to begin by making clear that you will not commit the highest international crime by aggressively attacking Iran.”

We took the box of petition signatures over to the gate and asked the guard to accept it on behalf of the President. He asked Cindy to read the petition to him, which she did. Then he left and came back a few times, claiming that he was trying to find the proper person to accept it, but more likely waiting for more guards and Park Service police to show up.

Eventually we got tired of waiting. We handed a stack of pages to everyone in the crowd and asked them to stick them through the fence. Pages began piling up all over the White House driveway and front yard. Then a line of police officers stepped in the way and blocked the fence. So we began throwing pages, about 50 double-sided sheets at a time, over their heads and over the fence. This had the effect of scattering them more widely on the other side. I hope whoever had to pick up all those pieces of paper is aware whose administration destroyed the right to overtime pay, and I hope they read some of the comments. I read thousands of them. Many were angry. Many were polite. Most were passionate and pleading. Some were concise: “Iraq was our first mistake; don’t let Iran be our last.” Others went on for pages. People poured their souls out trying to educate and reform our President and Vice President. Instead they ended up decorating the White House lawn.

Here’s what the Associated Press had to say about this event:

“Activist Cindy Sheehan led about 50 protesters to a White House gate Wednesday to deliver anti-war petitions she said were signed by 80,000 Americans. The
California woman, whose son was killed in Iraq more than two years ago, joined the protesters in hailing the outcome of Tuesday’s elections and chanting ‘Stop the War’ outside the White House gate.

“‘They have to take (the petitions); it’s our First Amendment right,’ said Sheehan, who waited about 15 minutes at the gate with other protesters before tossing the petitions over the fence. ‘It was taking too long for them to decide whether to accept them or not, so we just delivered them.’…

“…Wednesday’s protest came as Republicans lost control of the House and the White House announced the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ‘He’s being offered as a sacrificial lamb,’ said Sheehan, adding that she would not stop protesting until American forces are out of Iraq…

“…Sheehan and other protesters said the outcome of Tuesday’s House race – and the gains in the Senate – indicated that Americans are questioning the costs of U.S. military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The petitions tossed over the White House fence were presented as an open letter to Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, opposing use of military force to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

‘Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, just as Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons,’ the petitions said. A U.S. Park Police spokesman said officers moved the protesters away from gates near Secret Service guard stations, but there were no arrests.”

If you have not yet signed the petition, you still can at www.dontattackiran.org.

You can also sign one addressed to Congress (which might even listen to you) at
www.peace-action.org/Iranpetition.html

Late Wednesday afternoon Cindy decided to lead a sit-in right in front of the White House, and then – finally — the Park Service arrested her. The Associated Press changed the lede to its article to read as follows:

“Activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Wednesday as she led about 50 protesters to a White House gate to deliver anti-war petitions.”

Not quite accurate. The petitions had been delivered several hours before the arrest. But what the heck, it probably got more editors to pick up the story. Thanks, again, Cindy!

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

It’s Just About Winning

Maybe that’s a serious failing of our society: the urge to switch sides if you’re losing, instead of having the courage of your convictions. It is singularly uninteresting that this man would consider scorning the Repugnicans because he lost.

Chafee Considers Leaving GOP
By MICHELLE R. SMITH, AP

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (Nov. 10) – Two days after losing a bid for a second term, Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he was unsure whether he would remain a Republican.

Chafee lost to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in a race seen as a referendum on President Bush and the GOP. On Thursday, he was asked whether he would stick with the Republican Party or become an independent or Democrat.

“I haven’t made any decisions. I just haven’t even thought about where my place is,” Chafee said at a news conference. When pressed on whether his comments indicated he might leave the GOP, he replied: “That’s fair.”

Chafee, 53, is a lifelong Republican who has represented Rhode Island for seven years. His father held the same seat for 23 years before that.

Read the rest of this drivel here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment