THIS is the World that George Bush has Created While the U.S. Media refuses to show us the fruits of our nation's foreign policy, the much maligned Al Jazeera has no such compunctions. Our networks have to seem patriotic -- well so does Al Jazeera. BUT, when there is WAR, it is important that those of us here see the images of war. There is ample reason to call the sadrists cowards for hiding in mosque, behind innocent people, particularly children and then firing on American soldiers. Because it is cowardly and wrong. But likewise, it is an impossible position that the arrogance of our Administration has put our soldiers in. This is because of the cavalier manner in which the Bush decided to go to war, and then the manner in which they conducted the occupation ALL OF WHICH WAS TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC TO LET THEM GO TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! They could have told us what the war would cost in terms of costs and what troop levels were believed to be necessary -- BUT they went with the ROSEY scenario the whole way. They committed and hoped for the best. It helped them win the Fall 2002 elections after all. And WE LET THEM DO IT. -- Saddam has WMD -- WRONG -- The Iraqi's will greet us as liberators, especially the Shiites -- WRONG -- Iraqs oil wealth will essentially pay for the cost of occupation and invasion -- WRONG -- We won't need that many troops to occupy Iraq -- WRONG They sold this war to you WRONGFULLY, if not outright deceitfully. Here is what this the combination of cowardliness, malevolence, willfulness, inflexibility and arrogance when combined with the exigencies of the moment will get you.

Meanwhile, the President Considers the Situation in Iraq Josh Marshall said it best today From the White House's advocates we hear logic puzzles about appeasement in which the fall-out from the president's screw ups become the prime argument for continuing to support them. At the critical moment the president has the toxic mix of the bulldog will of a Winston Churchill and the strategic insights and imagination of a Neville Chamberlain. He has no plan. And will without policy just equals death. The gap between the reality in Iraq and the White House's Potemkin village version of it is closing rapidly, like an upper and lower jaw about to shut tight. And the White House's penchant for denial is being squeezed between the two.

Perpetual War The rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq is something that our nominal allies in the Middle East are watching sadly saying "I told you so" along with fear that the ticking timebomb feared since Iranian Revolution of 1978 becoming uncontainable. Islamic fundementalism is becoming unbound, and our invasion of Iraq and the failure of the Bush Administration to adequately plan occupation is doing EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the PNAC crowds predictions -- rather than staunching the flames, it may be pouring gasoline on the fire. From Reuters: DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Reuters) - As U.S. forces battle on a new front in Iraq, Baghdad's Arab neighbors watch the escalating violence with alarm and a message that affords them only the grimmest satisfaction: "We told you so." Arab leaders had said loudly and repeatedly that a U.S. war against Saddam Hussein would unleash chaos in multi-ethnic Iraq and the region and open a Pandora's box of radicalism. With U.S.-led forces now battling Shi'ite Muslims in several cities, they now feel their ominous prophecy has come true. The leaders fear that clashes between Shi'ites loyal to firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and occupation forces could lead to civil war -- and spill over their borders. "This is what we've been warning about. We told the Americans Saddam Hussein was only five percent of the problem. The other 95 percent just wasn't visible to them," a Gulf Arab diplomat said. "It's a very dangerous situation. It's painful." "The developments in Iraq are alarming and we fear that we are facing a civil war in Iraq like Afghanistan and Lebanon," Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said. "We cannot leave Iraq in this state because this disease will spread and I believe the situation is out of control." .... "The Americans appear to be sinking into the Iraqi quagmire. I dread to think about the repercussions on the region in case Iraq disintegrates into wider chaos," said a Jordanian official who declined to be identified. ... Soli Ozel, an associate fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, said: "If Iraq falls apart, other states will start backing their own groups and will suck everyone in. "I believe the genie is out of the bottle," he added. ... Many analysts say that arresting Sadr would not halt Iraq's Shi'ite uprising, saying the cause of the revolt was not the cleric, but U.S. policy. "Moqtada al-Sadr's remarkable ability to mobilize opposition reflects the large scale frustration with this policy," said Egyptian analyst Mohamed al-Sayed Said. "We have a complete mess, a series of mistakes committed by the Americans." One of those, said Middle East expert Khairallah Khairallah, was the U.S. decision to demobilize thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police, leaving many armed youths jobless and free to join Sadr's militia. "The general situation in Iraq overall is jinxed. ... The question is how or will they (the Americans) be able to transfer power to Iraqis," said Kuwaiti academic Shamlan el-Issa. (Additional reporting by Dominic Evans in Riyadh, Ghaida Ghantous in Qatar, Tom Perry in Cairo, Suleiman al-Khalidi in Amman, Inal Ersan in Damascus and Noora Mahfouz in Kuwait) If we do not get a handle on this situation PRONTO the Iraqi failure will turn into the disposal of Jordan and Saudi Arabia and maybe more and the United States will be at perpetual and eventually hopeless war. It may not be World War Three, but it will be worse than Vietnam.

Oh, GOD no!! The BBC is reporting (no link yet) that U.S. forces attacked a Mosque in Fallujah killing an estimated 40 people. Iraq is such a powderkeg, this is the last thing our troops needed.

Alert Bill Frist Musharraf must be Trying to Sell a Book (....or maybe nuclear secrets...) From Hesiod comes the story of how Pakistani's President fully agrees with Richard Clarke's analysis on Iraq and its negative impact on the War on Terror. In an interview he it is reported: Asked if the US-led Iraq war has been a distraction from the battle against Al Qaeda and Taleban remnants by diverting resources from Afghanistan and Pakistan, Musharraf replied: “Yes indeed”.

Bad Timing Award for April 2004 Not an April Fool's joke, but the Coalition Provisional Authority does appear to be pulling one. Oy vay -- (note: that's a sign its bad -- when a Norwegian starts saying things in yiddish) Optimists Club Organizes Baghdad Chapter See the pathetic irony here

Events in History and their Irrelevance to Today During this week in 1722, Russian Emperor Peter I, aka "Peter the Great" lifted his edict upon men with beards, initiated years earlier in an effort to modernize Russia. It was one of many attempts, from the brilliant to the tragic, from the rational to the ridiculous Peter attempted to make Russia more like the Western Europe he so admired. Meanwhile, today Richard Gere's beard is really hot.

Let there be no doubt... First, Al-Sadr and his followers, especially his armed ones, are vile. Second, we (the American Voter) is being LIED TO by the Administration. Not, when they tell us that Al-Sadr is vile, that is certainly true enough. But when they say that he is a rare and isolated individual of no real danger with a limited following and that Iraqi resistance is minor they are most definitely lying. But, as Salam Pax states, they are not rare at all: Remember the days when every time you hear an Iraqi talk on TV you had to remember that they are talking with a Mukhabarat minder looking at them noting every word? We are back to that place. You have to be careful about what you say about al-Sadir. Their hands reach every where and you don't want to be on their shit list. Every body, even the GC is very careful how they formulate their sentences and how they describe Sadir's Militias. They are thugs, thugs thugs. There you have it. Oh, and when the Administration talks about how much the Iraqi's aspire to Democracy, that too is well...a lie. The same ABC poll in which 85 percent of Iraqis ranked the return of security as a top concern reported that a plurality of 47 percent think the country needs to be governed by a "single strong Iraqi leader" in the next year. (By contrast, just 28 percent opted for democracy.) Those figures are surely related: Handing over power to as-yet-undetermined leaders in three months is a blueprint for instability, and Iraqis know it. Look at the facts on the ground and then think back to history. No, not to Vietnam, but to Iraqi history. In 1919, the British occupied Iraq and were hailed as liberators. Within a few months the Sunni and the Shiia managed to unite for one of the few times in history and attacked the occupier. After thousands of deaths the British effectively withdrew from day-to-day control over Iraq. In 2004, while the Sunni Triangle was assaulted, Shiia in areas around Baghdad attacked American troops in support of the Sunni. Further, attacks raged in Southern (Shiia Iraq) including British occupied Basra. The uniting may have begun. UPDATE: Riverbend provides more evidence: This is crazy. This is supposed to be punishment for violence but it's only going to result in more bloodshed on both sides… people are outraged everywhere- Sunnis and Shi'a alike. This constant bombing is only going to make things worse for everyone. Why do Americans think that people in Baghdad or the south or north aren’t going care what happens in Falloojeh or Ramadi or Nassriyah or Najaf? Would Americans in New York disregard bombing and killing in California? ... Our foreign minister Hoshyar Zibari was being interviewed by some British journalist yesterday, making excuses for Tony Blair and commending him on the war. At one point someone asked him about the current situation in Iraq. He mumbled something about how there were 'problems' but it wasn't a big deal because Iraq was 'stable'… what Iraq is he living in? And as I blog this, all the mosques, Sunni and Shi’a alike, are calling for Jihad... Christ on a Cracker....I mean, Mohammad on a ... um... Melbatoast...this looks bad.

The Pundit Class is Turning Oh no, they are losing George Will: The transfer is to be to an institutional apparatus that is still unformed. This is approaching at a moment when U.S. forces in Iraq, never adequate for postwar responsibilities, are fewer than they were. U.S. forces in Iraq are insufficient for that mission; unless the civil war is quickly contained, no practicable U.S. deployment will suffice. U.S. forces worldwide cannot continue to cope with Iraq as it is, plus their other duties -- peacekeeping, deterrence, training -- without stresses that will manifest themselves in severe retention problems in the reserves and regular forces. Since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been told that they are at war. They have not been told what sacrifices, material and emotional, they must make to sustain multiple regime changes and nation-building projects. Telling such truths is part of the job description of a war president.

No Lie Too Small, Part II Amazing that Spanky McSpokesman would spin something not even comprising a "half-truth". From USA Today -- "born again liar free since February": WASHINGTON — Dealing with criticism that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wouldn't testify in public before the 10-member commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan complained last month that when she testified in private, "only five members showed up" to hear what she had to say. What McClellan didn't tell reporters was that on Nov. 21 — long before Rice met with the five commissioners in February — the White House counsel's office had sent the commission a letter saying no more than three commissioners could attend meetings with White House aides of Rice's rank. Given that demand, "we are a little surprised that the White House has repeatedly implied to the public that commissioners were uninterested in attending these meetings," commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said Tuesday. Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, who did not attend the interview with Rice on Feb. 7, said she finds it "infuriating" that the White House would insinuate commissioners shirked their duty and didn't have a right to press for more time with Rice. "That's hooey," she said. The suggestion from McClellan came during a press briefing March 9, before the White House reversed course and agreed to allow Rice to testify in public. McClellan told reporters that Rice, who is now scheduled to testify publicly Thursday, had spent ample time with commissioners in private. "Only five members actually showed up, despite the fact that it was scheduled for the entire commission," he said. What's more, he added, "you had another national security official under Dr. Rice who met with the commission, and I think only four showed up." He told the press corps, "I think you need to keep that in context for your reporting." Felzenberg said the commission never agreed to the terms in the November letter, which said that for a meeting with an assistant to the president, either the chairman or vice chairman of the commission must show up with no more than two other commissioners. But the commission did agree to meet with Rice at her convenience, and the date and time she chose — a Saturday afternoon — limited the number of commissioners who could attend because several live far from Washington. Tuesday, McClellan said all 10 commissioners were invited to meet with Rice on Feb. 7 and said the letter represented only "early guidelines" about meetings. Felzenberg said the commission was unaware of any such invitation.

The Bush Administration: Our PUBLIC Speeches are Super Top-Secret Continuing its "unprecedented cooperation" with the 9/11 Commission by the unique tactic of being uncooperative, the Bush Administration has launched a new offensive form of defense. WASHINGTON - The White House has refused to provide the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with a speech that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was to have delivered on the night of the attacks touting missile defense as a priority rather than al-Qaida, sources close to the commission said Tuesday. With Rice scheduled to publicly testify Thursday before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the commission submitted a last-minute request for Rice’s aborted Sept. 11 address, the sources told Reuters on condition of anonymity. But the White House has so far refused on the grounds that draft documents are confidential, the sources said. A spokesman for the commission would neither confirm nor deny the request, or the administration’s response. Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said only: “The White House is working with the commission to ensure that it has access to what it needs to do its job.” The Washington Post, citing former U.S. officials who have seen the Rice speech, reported last week that the speech was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy. It said the speech included no mention of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups. Another smooth move no doubt.

Signs that Even the Wingers See the End Coming InstaCracker has gone from poo pooing the trouble in Iraq to blaming the Powell led State Department for the severity of the uprising. Only a few days from having the wingnuts blame Air America for the problem since it debuted on the day of the Fallujah killings. Wait for it, you know some nutjob will be saying it.

Must they Deprive Me of Everything that gives my life Meaning? When they covered up the statute of justice with a curtain, I shrugged my shoulders. When they focused on curtailing free speech rights, I shook my head and stayed silent. When they attempted to expand the Patriot Act, I was sad. But now, the Justice Department is striking me too close to home. THEY ARE COMING AFTER PORN!!! Yes, we interrupt the War on Terror do go after the most dangerous threat to our nation's health. Masturbation! Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn. In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains. Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel. You will have to pry my hard drive from my cold dead hands!! And by the way, that PORN is for MEDICINAL PURPOSES!!

Some things are Certain, Death, Taxes, and the... Lethal combination of the Washington Times, Drudge, and InstaPundit. Today from the Trinity of Inanity comes the claim that Clarke is wrong in that the Clinton Administration did not mention Al Qaeda in its last report of December 2000, nor that it mentioned "O"same Bin Laden. In case we need any evidence of the amazing comprehension skills of the Triune Blowhards we suggest the following: 1. Try spelling it "U"sama Bin Ladin and you'll get five hits. 2. Try doing a count of the words Terrorism and you'll have 7 hits in the introduction, plus another 58 hits in the body. 3. As Kevin Drum notes, rather than being strictly a law and order matter, you'll find this rather large paragraph under the section entitled Military Activities: We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism. 4. Thanks to an old Bulletin Board Friend SousyHawk, their are other juicy disproving nuggets contained within the report as well. "We have also seen international engagement enhance our ability to address asymmetric threats to our security, such as acts of terrorism and the desired procurement and use of WMD by potential regional aggressors. International counterterrorism cooperation, for example, led to the pre-emptive arrest of individuals planning to terrorize Americans at home and abroad celebrating the Millennium. " ... Later on: When terrorism occurs, despite our best efforts, we can neither forget the crime nor ever give up on bringing its perpetrators to justice. We make no concessions to terrorists. Since 1993, a dozen terrorist fugitives have been apprehended overseas and rendered, formally or informally, to the United States to answer for their crimes. These include the perpetrators of the World Trade Center bombing, the attack outside CIA headquarters, and an attack on a Pan Am flight more than 18 years ago. In 1998, the U.S. Armed Forces carried out strikes against a chemical weapons target and an active terrorist base operated by Usama bin Ladin, whose terror network had carried out bombings of American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and planned still other attacks against Americans. We will likewise pursue the criminals responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. Whenever possible, we use law enforcement, diplomatic, and economic tools to wage the fight against terrorism. But there have been, and will be, times when those tools are not enough. As long as terrorists continue to target American citizens, we reserve the right to act in self-defense by striking at their bases and those who sponsor, assist, or actively support them, as we have done over the years in different countries. Fighting terrorism requires a substantial commitment of financial, human, and political resources. Since 1993, both the FBI's counterterrorism budget and the number of FBI agents assigned to counterterrorism have more than doubled. The President has also created and filled the post of National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism. Three presidential directives now coordinate the efforts of senior counterterrorism personnel from various government agencies in dealing with WMD and other threats at home. The FBI and the State Department, respectively, operate Rapid Deployment Teams and interagency Foreign Emergency Support Teams to deploy quickly to scenes of terrorist incidents worldwide. However, it is not only the response capabilities that need significant resources. It is our preventive efforts, such as active diplomatic and military engagement, political pressure, economic sanctions, and bolstering allies' political and security capabilities, that also require strong financial support in order to squeeze terrorists before they act. Providing political support and economic assistance to front line states and other allies impacted by this threat expands the circle of nations fighting against threats to the United States. These preventive measures are an important partner to our counterterrorism response efforts. We must continue to devote the necessary resources for America's strategy to combat terrorism, which integrates preventive and responsive measures and encompasses a graduated scale of enhanced law enforcement and intelligence gathering, vigorous diplomacy, and, where needed, military action. .... The Federal Government, in coordination with state and local authorities, will respond rapidly and decisively to any terrorist incident in the United States involving WMD. Increased preparedness at home is critical to defending against, and responding to, such unconventional threats. The Administration developed a Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan to address these issues. Established in 1998, a standing Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness Interagency Working Group, chaired by the National Coordinator, addresses current and future requirements of local, state, and federal authorities that are directly responsible for the WMD crisis and consequence management efforts. In coordinating the interagency process and cooperation between these three levels of government, several initiatives are now in place to better prepare the United States against a WMD incident. These initiatives include equipping and training first responders in the 157 largest metropolitan areas across the nation to prepare for, and defend against, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons of mass destruction attacks; renovating the public health surveillance system; and establishing civilian medical stockpiles of vaccines and antibiotics. ... Afghanistan remains a serious threat to U.S. worldwide interests because of the Taliban's continued sheltering of international terrorists and its increasing export of illicit drugs. Afghanistan remains the primary safehaven for terrorists threatening the United States, including Usama bin Ladin. The United Nations and the United States have levied sanctions against the Taliban for harboring Usama bin Ladin and other terrorists, and will continue to pressure the Taliban until it complies with international requests to bring bin Ladin to justice. The United States remains concerned about those countries, including Pakistan, that support the Taliban and allow it to continue to harbor such radical elements. We are engaged in energetic diplomatic efforts, including through the United Nations and with Russia and other concerned countries, to address these concerns on an urgent basis. I'll just sum it up with this. I doubt that more than ONE of them read the report, and I have my doubts about that one. That is the nicest thing I can scratch out.

Defending Robert Byrd The Right Wingnuts are trying to come down on Chris Dodd for praising Robert Byrd as a Senatorial Institution. Unless, I am mistaken he did not endorse Robert Byrd as a man who should have been President. Yes, Robert Byrd has a past association with the Klan. But that association is long past, he remains a bit of a relic and occasionally speaks like one. I notice that the Little Roy Cohn (Andrew Sullivan -- credit to Eric Alterman for the appropo nickname) is playing the Klan Card with Byrd today. Considering that Sully AT THIS MOMENT (not 50 plus years ago -- NOW) gets a considerable check from the Moonie Times to write Editorials, and the WT's owner is favorably disposed to a Homosexual Holocaust with nary a peep from Baby Cohn pretty much sums up his credibility on this kind of name calling. But I'm tired of apologizing for those whose past is already known. These wingnut points are simply more of the same vile sewage they throw up against John Dulileo, Paul O'Neil, and Richard Clarke. But I come here not to bury Byrd, but to Praise Him. I am PROUD to do so. I've said before that many were PROPHETS about Iraq and Byrd was one of those. But the problem with being a Prophet is that when your dark prophecy turns out to be true, you will get no credit for it, but even greater scorn. Let Robert Byrd wear their scorn with Pride. Here is his speech on March 19, 2003, again a PROPHET: "The Arrogance of Power" I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength. But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe. The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice. There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board. The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses. But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight. The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq. What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy? Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire? War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

Unfortunate Quote Tuesday "Now we have an all-liberal network. Just what we need. It isn't enough that conservative bloviators sling radio propaganda all day long."-- Bill O'Reilly, Conservative Radio Bloviator Apparently, the Op-Ed Page of the New York Daily News is a Spin Zone.

Out of the Loop Like a lot of people on the net apparently, I watched the interview with Senators Richard Lugar and Joseph Biden last night on "Newshour with Jim Lehrer". As a sidenote, I think I'm the 100th person to blog about this interview but the first to get the name right. Anyhow, it was shocking how both Lugar and Biden, old Senate Warhorses in the body since the 1970s, were making identical statements. Now Biden is hardly a fringe liberal, and Lugar is hardly a kool-aid drinking righty, but nonetheless they are in different parties in an election year. But, they are also GROWN UPS. A characteristic highly lacking in Washington. Two individuals more highly qualified to be President than many of the men who've been there during their tenures (and I'm sure they think that way too). Lugar is the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden its ranking minority member. In other words they are at the top of the heirarchy in the Senate. Both said it has been at least a year since the President consulted them on Iraq, both have been trying to get appointments (probably separately or jointly -- and certainly in all cases with both having knowledge of separate attempts). Neither has succeeded. Lugar is the far less dramatic of the two, Biden has a tendency for flowery language and dramatics, but one could not listen to even Lugar without thinking there is a considerable amount of concern and anger at the Bush Administration behind the facade. They both came across as statesman who have seen the abyss and who believe the President refuses to take off his blinders. When Dick Lugar thinks it's getting out of control, its time for some concern.

Hmmmm.... Well-known because of father, inherited legacy, relatively incompetent, intolerant of internal dissent, believes himself annointed by God, unreasonably stubborn, responsible for many deaths, apparently waiting for the rapture. Sounds vaguely familiar.* *I admit there are differences in levels of malevolence.

Strike up the Banjo Music Heaven forbid that I avoid making a cheap joke out of some events. Rush Limbaugh has found the ideal bride. I think I speak for many people that since these two kids share so much in common that their hooking up is inevitable. Police: Courtney Love admitted taking painkiller LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Rocker Courtney Love appeared intoxicated when arrested last October on suspicion of drug use and told police that she had taken the painkiller OxyContin, one of the officers testified Monday. The officer, who with a partner found Love outside her ex-boyfriend's home in the middle of the night last October, said during a pretrial hearing in the case that the 39-year-old singer also admitted breaking windows of the house. "She admitted to taking Hillbilly Heroin, the street name for OxyContin," Officer Scott Blackman, adding that Love had symptoms of intoxication that included "slow, slick, slurred speech and mucous around both nostrils." It makes sense in many ways. It would probably be good PR for Limbaugh to have a less ethnic buyer. Also, Rush has been married a few times and could probably use more stability, and nobody is more stable than Courtney Love. Finally you have the fact that Courtney was such a positive influence on her last husband... Sounds like it's all good to me.

Presidential Reality Mr. Bush appeared eager on Monday to dispel any thought that the new wave of attacks on American forces, in which Shiites as well as Sunnis have now joined, would shake his resolve. "If they think that we're not sincere about staying the course, many people will not continue to take a risk toward — take the risk toward freedom and democracy," he told reporters. His resolve is to make sure the U.S. turns over control on JUNE 30. I wonder why the some Iraqi's doubt our resolve.

The Difference between Bush and Rational Presidents This is the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. It was, in my opinion, the largest failure of the Clinton Presidency. But unlike our current occupant, Clinton shows the ability to say "I personally screwed up". He does so in a Washington Post editorial (the Times apparently couldn't fit him in needing room for David Brooks middling writing).

The Master of Understatement From the Atlanta-Journal Constitution via the L.A. Times: Republican senator says Iraqi mobile labs probably 'did not exist' Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee criticizes prewar U.S. intelligence By Bob Drogin WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday for the first time that Saddam Hussein's alleged mobile germ factories and labs probably "did not exist," and he sharply criticized prewar U.S. intelligence about Iraq's suspected weapons. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who typically is a strong supporter of the CIA and the Bush White House, said the administration's use of flawed intelligence regarding the alleged mobile bioweapons facilities is "embarrassing for everybody." I think the last line pretty much sums up my overall feelings about the entire Administration. Hard to believe, this guy would head an Administration with flawed intelligence.

How could it be Worse in the Middle East? Let's just start Armaggeddon now, before the November elections... Sharon Hints He Has Dropped Vow Not to Harm Arafat By JAMES BENNET JERUSALEM, April 5 — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has suggested that he no longer feels bound by a three-year-old commitment to President Bush not to harm Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader. Mr. Sharon's spokesman, Raanan Gissin, said that Israel had no immediate intention to act against Mr. Arafat. But the substance and timing of Mr. Sharon's threatening remarks, in an interview published here today, were significant. I only wish I was flexible enough to kiss my own ass goodbye (though the recognition exercise I've been going through of "your ass" versus a "hole in the ground" has been coming along nicely).

A Gift for the President I'd suggest going here and sending it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20500. Send it to "Mr. Preznit". Why? You ask. Go here and you'll understand (picture of Bush, second image under World News). The return of the Imperial Presidency.

Bob Graham lays the Lumber to the Bush Administration When Bob Graham tells you what happened on such and such a day, you know he is telling you what happened on such and such a day. This is a guy who puts everything AND I MEAN EVERYTHING into the Bob Graham diary and memory bank. In short, he's a hell of a Senator, but a damn scary blogger. Graham tells the chilling story that by FEBRUARY 2002, the Bush Administration was letting off on Al Queda, to move on to Iraq. Again FEBRUARY 2002!!! From economist academic Brad DeLong's site comes this: Senator Bob Graham is a really unhappy camper: CFR Publications: Senator Bob Graham Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations: BOB GRAHAM: Good morning and good afternoon and, Gerry, thank you very much for your kind introduction. I was saying I appreciate both your remembrance and your remarks. I'm going to start at the outset this afternoon by saying that I will make some comments today that will not be well-received in the White House. I have observed the White House's reaction to comments that it does not well receive, and so in a matter of pre-emptive defense, I have a confession to make. When I was four years old, I was enrolled in the Winkin', Blinkin', and Nod Nursery School in Tallahassee, Florida. On a day in the spring of my enrollment in 1941, I kicked in a house made of blocks by some of the other students at Winkin', Blinkin', and Nod Nursery School. The director of the school told me, "Robert, we cannot have that behavior by the children at Winkin', Blinkin', and Nod. I am calling your mother and asking that she come and take you home, and that she not ever bring you back." Now, that's on the record, you can make whatever you wish of that confession. Friends, this has been a painful week for our nation. The horrible tragedy of September 11 has been revisited, first in hearings by the [9/11] Commission and, second, by the revelations in the book ["Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened"] of the former White House counterterrorism director, Richard Clarke. More painful than the memories which these events have resurrected, I believe is the growing realization that our leaders did not do everything that they could have done and should have done to protect Americans from a terrorist attack. The 9/11 Commission, for example, has reported that they endorse the recommendations of the Joint Congressional Inquiry [into the 9/11 terrorist attacks], which I co-chaired with my friend and colleague and fellow Floridian, Porter Goss. We found that failures of intelligence collection and analysis, compounded by a lack of information-sharing within the intelligence community and between the intelligence community and the law enforcement community, cost us the chance to detect and disrupt the plot of the 19 hijackers. In short, September 11 could have--indeed, should have--been prevented. I share Richard Clarke's view that since September 11, President Bush and his key members of his administration have failed to keep their eye on the ball on the war on terrorism. Frankly, we had al Qaeda on the ropes in the spring of 2002. But rather than finishing the job and crushing the operational command structure of al Qaeda, we shifted our focus. Let me share a personal story. [U.S.] Central Command, which has responsibility for our military actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq, is headquartered in Tampa, Florida, at MacDill Air Force Base. It has been my practice to periodically visit the Central Command, to receive a briefing as to what they are doing. I did that in February of 2002. After the formal briefing with PowerPoint [presentations] and all that goes with a military briefing, I was asked by one of the senior commanders of Central Command to go into his office. We did, the door was closed, and he turned to me, and he said, "Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." This is February of 2002. "Senator, what we are engaged in now is a manhunt not a war, and we are not trained to conduct a manhunt." To draw a historical analogy, I think that what the Bush administration did, beginning as early as February of 2002, was to make a decision that we would fight a pre-emptive war against Mussolini and let Hitler run free. I agree with Richard Clarke, who concludes in his book that Iraq was a complete and unnecessary tangent. I have described [it] as a distraction. Now, I don't mean to suggest, and I do not believe Richard Clarke means to suggest, that Saddam Hussein is anything other than a bad, evil person who did bad and evil things to his own people and his neighbors and would hoped to have done it more broadly. But the question was not a singular question about Saddam Hussein. It was, rather, a comparative question. Of all the evils in that neighborhood of the Middle East and Central Asia, which evil deserved to have our primary military attention?... In the words of InstaCracker... Indeed.

GULP Because I simply cannot stop quoting him here is the next eminant shoe-drop in Iraq according to Juan Cole: Arrest Warrant for Muqtada al-Sadr Dan Senor in a briefing in Baghdad on Monday revealed that an arrest warrant had been issued months ago "by an Iraqi judge" and implied that it would now be served. US television cable news is doing its best to obscure the real issues here. 1. They keep asking where Muqtada is and calling him a "fugitive." Muqtada announced that he is in his father's mosque in Kufa, and there is no reason to doubt this. He hasn't fled and his whereabouts are well known. 2. Talking heads both from Iraq and from the ranks of the US retired officers keep attempting to maintain that Muqtada's movement is small and marginal. One speaker claimed that Muqtada has only 10,000 men. In fact that is the size of his formal militia. Muqtada's movement is like the layers of an onion. You have 10,000 militiamen. But then you have tens of thousands of cadres able to mobilize neighborhoods. Then you have hundreds of thousands of Sadrists, followers of Muqtada and other heirs of Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr. Then you have maybe 5 million Shiite theocrats who sympathize with Muqtada's goals and rhetoric, about a third of the Shiite community. The Sadrists will now try to shift everything so that the 5 million become followers, the hundreds of thousands become cadres, and the tens of thousands become militiamen. I'm going to try to do some comedy later. Been a tough day, I don't like the future of this thing. Oh, here's some comedy, the Preznit says we are still sticking to the June 30th day. Uh-Huh. Anybody want odds on that?

The Iraq Invasion Spurs Islamic Terrorism and the Spread of Bin Ladenism Richard Clarke stated this in his book, and reiterated it later on in his testimony. Now the Washington Post provides further supporting evidence [I'm going to pretend the last five days didn't happen for rebellion in Iraq]. Written by the usually reliable Walter Pincus (And yes, its on A13) Spread of Bin Laden Ideology Cited Iraq Invasion Said To Alter Dynamics Of Local Militants The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has accelerated the spread of Osama bin Laden's anti-Americanism among once local Islamic militant movements, increasing danger to the United States as the al Qaeda network is becoming less able to mount attacks, according to senior intelligence officials at the CIA and State Department. At the same time, the Sunni Triangle has become a training ground for foreign Islamic jihadists who are slipping into Iraq to join former Saddam Hussein loyalists to test themselves against U.S. and coalition forces, these officials say. Islamic militant organizations in places such as North Africa and Southeast Asia, which were previously focused on changing their local country leadership, "have been caught by bin Laden's vision, and poisoned by it . . . they will now look at the U.S., Israel and the Saudis as targets," a senior intelligence official said last week. "That is one manifestation of how bin Laden's views are expanding well beyond Iraq," he said **** "Flypaper, Bring 'em on, etc." Mission Accomplished Dubya. Good job.

Very Disturbing From Body and Soul I HOPE that this picture is photoshopped. Otherwise, this is awful, just awful.

Joe Wilson's Words Last September when Joe Wilson was interviewed during the opening salvos of the Plame Scandal and he was on the receiving end of the soon to be trademarked "Bush Smear Job" he gave an interview to Josh Marshall where he was asked what he foresaw for the United States in Iraq. His reply to the following question was simple and succint: So, setting aside why we're in Iraq, how we go there, whether we should have gone in in the first place, where are we now? Where do you see our position right now? WILSON: Well, I think we're fucked. I strongly suggest reading the rest of the article, because it becomes clear that last September, Joe Wilson was a prophet. Underlining Wilson's statement is this from perhaps the most solid American reporter in Iraq, John Burns of the NY Times: The insurrection, which spread across the Shiite heartland in a matter of hours, came five days after the ambush in the predominantly Sunni Muslim city of Falluja, outside Baghdad, in which a mob mutilated the bodies of four American security guards and hanged two of them from a bridge. Together, the events in Falluja and the other cities on Sunday appeared likely to shake the American hold on Iraq more than anything since the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein's government last April 9. In effect, the militia attacks confronted the American military command with what has been its worst nightmare as it has struggled to pacify Iraq: the spread of an insurgency that has stretched a force of 130,000 American troops from the minority Sunni population to the majority Shiites, who are believed to account for about 60 percent of Iraq's population of 25 million. Privately, senior American officers have said for months that American prospects here would plummet if the insurgency spread into the Shiite population, leaving American and allied troops with no safe havens anywhere except possibly in the Kurdish areas of the north. Until now, powerful Shiite clerics with large followings in Shiite centers like Sadr City, with its two million people, and Najaf and Karbala, sister holy cities about 80 miles south of Baghdad, each with a population of more than a million, have largely avoided pitting their private militias against the American-led occupation forces, preferring to challenge the Americans politically. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, considered Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, has urged followers to protest peacefully. In the coming days Al-Sadr is due to be arrested, or become a martyr I should think, and all hell will break loose at least for a time. But everyday the "liberation of Iraq" becomes more and more a Pandora's Box.

This Cannot be Read Enough From James Fallows' article in the January/February 2004 Atlantic Monthly: "This is an important point," he said, "because of this issue of What did we believe? ... The common line is, nobody planned for security because Ahmed Chalabi told us that everything was going to be swell." Chalabi, the exiled leader of the Iraqi National Congress, has often been blamed for making rosy predictions about the ease of governing postwar Iraq. "So we predicted that everything was going to be swell, and we didn't plan for things not being swell." Here Feith paused for a few seconds, raised his hands with both palms up, and put on a "Can you believe it?" expression. "I mean—one would really have to be a simpleton. And whatever people think of me, how can anybody think that Don Rumsfeld is that dumb? He's so evidently not that dumb, that how can people write things like that?" He sounded amazed rather than angry. ... "Guys like [General] Shinseki, who had been in Bosnia [where he supervised the NATO force], been in Kosovo, started running the numbers and said, 'Let's assume the world is linear.' For five million Bosnians we had two hundred thousand people to watch over them. Now we have twenty-five million Iraqis to worry about, spread out over a state the size of California. How many people is this going to take?" The heart of the Army's argument was that with too few soldiers, the United States would win the war only to be trapped in an untenable position during the occupation. .... Donald Rumsfeld viewed Shinseki as a symbol of uncooperative, old-style thinking, and had in the past gone out of his way to humiliate him. In the spring of 2002, fourteen months before the scheduled end of Shinseki's term, Rumsfeld announced who his successor would be; such an announcement, which converts the incumbent into a lame duck, usually comes at the last minute. The action was one of several calculated insults. .... The military-civilian difference finally turned on the question of which would be harder: winning the war or maintaining the peace. According to Thomas White and several others, OSD acted as if the war itself would pose the real challenge. As White put it, "The planning assumptions were that the people would realize they were liberated, they would be happy that we were there, so it would take a much smaller force to secure the peace than it did to win the war. The resistance would principally be the remnants of the Baath Party, but they would go away fairly rapidly. And, critically, if we didn't damage the infrastructure in our military operation, as we didn't, the restart of the country could be done fairly rapidly." The first assumption was clearly expressed by Cheney three days before the war began, in an exchange with Tim Russert on Meet the Press: RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties? CHENEY: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators ... The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. TIME TO SCREAM...ARRRRGGGGHHH!!!! ... By the end of the month the War College team had assembled a draft of its report, called "Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario." It was not classified, and can be found through the Army War College's Web site.... The second section of the report is an assessment of the specific problems likely to arise in Iraq, given its ethnic and regional tensions and the impact of decades of Baathist rule. Most Iraqis would welcome the end of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, it said. Nonetheless, Long-term gratitude is unlikely and suspicion of U.S. motives will increase as the occupation continues. A force initially viewed as liberators can rapidly be relegated to the status of invaders should an unwelcome occupation continue for a prolonged time. Occupation problems may be especially acute if the United States must implement the bulk of the occupation itself rather than turn these duties over to a postwar international force. OY.

TEN MORE!! Ten more American Soldiers killed today most in Baghdad. The shameful and empty rhetoric of the Bush Adventure in Iraq is getting more ridiculous and injurous by the day. Fifty-two were killed in March, and now the deaths are accelerating in April, with but eleven weeks left before the handover of the government to an appointed group of Iraqis. And of course the damage did not end with just the terrible deaths, other members of the Potempkin Coalition were also killed, including those from the departing or tenuous members Spain and El Salvador, at least another two dozen soldiers wounded. As usual even more Iraqi's died, the number more uncertain. The conflict occurred throughout the nation of Iraq, not just in isolated pockets. Worse, it happened not from the Sunni's in the so-called "traingle", but rather amongst the Shia -- all in the wake of Bremer's decision to close down the reactionary Shiia newspaper of fundamentalist Al-Sadr, who is competing with Al Sistani for the hearts and minds of the Shiia. It's bad enough that Sistani doesn't want to talk to American authorities like Bremer -- it gets worse when firebrands like Al Sadr encourage the Shiia to attack the coalition. These are very bad times -- thanks to mismanagement we are on the cusp of potential disaster. The drip, drip, drip, is become a running stream.

They Ain't Got Time to Bleed The Fallujah events were a tragedy, but within it is a disturbing sign, the large scale use of mercenaries by the Bush Administration to make up deficits in manpower. Now, what happened to the four individuals in Fallujah was tragic and deeply disturbing, but it still does not take away from the fact that turning to mercenaries to handle security matters in Iraq is both contrary to our traditions and morality (to the extent such individuals are not covered by the Geneva Accords to my knowledge). And now, via Atrios, the situation is understandably getting worse as the mercenaries seek to better arm themselves in the wake of Fallujah: Bodyguards in Iraq turn to 'massive firepower' after attack April 4, 2004 BY COLIN FREEMAN BAGHDAD -- American bodyguards in Iraq want to strengthen their weaponry with hand grenades and high-powered machineguns after four private security consultants were murdered in Fallujah last week. Only coalition soldiers are allowed to carry explosives under existing regulations, leaving up to 20,000 civilian contractors working as guards outgunned by insurgents with rocket-propelled grenades and belt-fed machineguns. The Coalition Provisional Authority is horrified by the contractors' plans to flout the rules, believing that such action could lead to a serious escalation in violence as the June deadline approaches for power to be transferred to the Iraqis. On Saturday, however, Malcolm Nance, a former adviser to the CIA and the U.S. National Security Agency who has spent 10 months in Iraq supervising security for businesses and charities, warned that firms would "go heavy" to prevent a repeat of last week's murders. The bodies of the four security consultants were mutilated by a cheering mob of Iraqis after their vehicles were hit by rocket-propelled grenades. Weapons such as hand grenades can be bought in the city's illegal weapons markets for as little as a dollar. Nance said his personnel would now be using "massive firepower." "People are going into battle now. In military terms, we describe a hand grenade as a "break contact" device used as a final option to stop any contact in an enemy attack. "Nobody I have employed out here uses them, but I would imagine that break contact devices will get used a lot more as a result of the incident in Fallujah. "Security escorts will continue to be discreet, but everybody here is waiting to get hit. My own escorts will be increasing their manpower in each vehicle." British security firms, which tend to adopt a lower-key approach, are alarmed by the prospect of American guards increasing their weaponry. "The last thing we need is loads of Americans running around grenading people," said one company manager. "But I fear that a few may end up carrying grenades, and God knows what other weapons, too." Most private guards in Iraq have relied on Kalashnikovs or MP5 machine pistols and sidearms, believing that their superior military training made them a match for attackers. Last week's deaths have forced them to review their tactics. "The guys in Fallujah were nearly all ex-Special Forces and from one of the best security companies going," Nance said. "People might be wearing body armor and carrying helmets and high-velocity weapons, but that won't protect you against a rocket-propelled grenade, which can just obliterate your car." via the Sunday Telegraph

From Sistani to Bremer -- Go "F" Yourself OK, that's a bit of a paraphrase. But here is a disturbing article demonstrating that things may be quite rapidly deteriorating politically in Iraq. Maybe Sistani is bluffing, but if he isn't this is most certainly not an encouraging sign: Iraq's top Shiite cleric refuses to meet Bremer A spokesman for the Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Sistani rejected any contact between the Ayatollah and American occupiers, UAE's al-Bayan newspaper said on its website Saturday, quoting Abdolmehdi Karbalaei, the Ayatollah's spokesman. Speaking to people gathered for Friday prayers, the spokesman noted that the Iraqi cleric refuses any meeting with the American governer, Paul Bremer, or any other American official. "Americans are not trustworthy, because they have occupied Iraq," he said.

Drip, Drip, Drip... In another example of the British press outdoing their American counterparts, from the Observer comes this Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001. According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after 11 September, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy. It was clear, Meyer says, 'that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions'. Elsewhere in his interview, Meyer says Blair always believed it was unlikely that Saddam would be removed from power or give up his weapons of mass destruction without a war. Faced with this prospect of a further war, he adds, Blair 'said nothing to demur'. Details of this extraordinary conversation will be published this week in a 25,000-word article on the path to war with Iraq in the May issue of the American magazine Vanity Fair. It provides new corroboration of the claims made last month in a book by Bush's former counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that Bush was 'obsessed' with Iraq as his principal target after 9/11. ... And then it gets worse, for both Bush and especially Blair Vanity Fair also discloses that on 13 January, at a lunch around the mahogany table in Rice's White House office, President Chirac's top adviser, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, and his Washington ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, made the US an offer it should have accepted. In the hope of avoiding an open breach between the two countries, they said that, if America was determined to go to war, it should not seek a second resolution, that the previous autumn's Resolution 1441 arguably provided sufficient legal cover, and that France would keep quiet if the administration went ahead. But Bush had already promised Blair he would seek a second resolution and Blair feared he might lose Parliament's support without it. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office legal department was telling him that without a second resolution war would be illegal, a view that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, seemed to share at that stage. When the White House sought Blair's opinion on the French overture, he balked. So, Woodward's book in Mid-April, Joe Wilson's book in Late April, and at the same time, the May Vanity Fair magazing comes out. ...and then in May...

Uh-Oh, Reliable Right-Wing Stooge, gets Unstoogified, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Wiseguy, eh? Some folks may remember Bruce Fein. Many may not wish too. He was one of the many right-wing Constitutional scholars that for a brief moment gave Ann Coulter her last shred of credibility during the insanity known as the Lewinski Affair. Of course, Coulter lost her credibility about as long ago as she had her last sandwich. Now we know Coulter as the shrillest harpy since Odysseus finally gave in to his mens' pleas and bought himself a compass. But, I digress. Fein should be considered a reliable Bush ally, who should trumpet how much progress we are making in Iraq. But he isn't, in an article that was published the day before the Fallujah massacres in of all things the Moonie Times (hence, why I missed it) Fein is to say the least, throwing crap into Bush's fan. V olcanic. That characterizes a heated symposium I attended in Ankara, Turkey, last week sponsored by the Foreign Policy Institute and Bilkent University to appraise "Iraq on the way to its new Constitution." The attendees included Iraqi participants in the March 8, 2004, interim constitution promulgated by the 25 member Iraqi Governing Council (IGC). Other attendees hailed from Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The symposium exposed numerous fault lines destined to fracture Iraq soon after the Coalition Provisional Authority and United States sovereignty dissolve on June 30, 2004: • An interim constitution and Iraqi Transitional Government devoid of legitimacy. • A legal system denuded of legal principles. • An irreconcilable conflict between the universal tenets of Islam and fundamental democratic freedoms. • Implacable embitterment of Kurds toward Arabs born of their wretched oppression and genocide under Saddam Hussein. • A demand by Turkmen to the same language and autonomy privileges enjoyed by Kurds. • And exchanges and monologues that smacked more of belligerence than of fraternity. ... The staggering blunders of the Bush administration in governing post-Saddam Iraq have left no satisfactory post-June 30 denouements. The least bad option is a managed partition into statelets for Kurds, Turkmen, Sunnis and Shi'ites to escape a reprise of Yugoslavia's blood-stained disintegration. Symposium participants challenged Iraqi representatives to defend the legitimacy of their constitutional handiwork, soporifically styled the "Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period." No member of the IGC was elected. All were appointed by the United States. None enjoy more than a crumb of popular support. A favorite of the Defense Department, Ahmed Chalabi, is more reviled than Saddam Hussein. The interim constitution was neither drafted nor debated in a public forum before its promulgation. The document turned precepts of self-government on their heads. The defenders fatuously retorted that the interim constitution and the IGC deserved legitimacy because both were superior to Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist tyranny. By that yardstick, a restoration of the King Feisel dynasty would be defensible. It was further urged that the IGC featured members from all of Iraq's major ethnic and religious groups. ... The United States should declare its post-Saddam nation-building enterprise a failure. It should begin immediately to arrange the partition of Iraq by regional self-determination plebiscites. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it would be the worst imaginable last chapter of Operation Enduring Freedom, except for all the plausible alternative scripts. And thus we have it again -- in a manner that in a fashion updates James Fallows brilliant and depressing articles in the Atlantic Monthly earlier this year. The Bush Administration has made a gigantic blunder going into Iraq, and now is in the midst of a gigantic blunder in governing Iraq. Fein's solution is frankly also damn scary (the Turks would not be happy about this proposal to say the least). But the fact is that the world that is going to be created out of Iraq stands a very fair chance of being worse then the world that existed during Saddam's time in power. THAT is a potential tragedy completely of the Bush Administration's making and history will curse them for it -- and in the rest of the world's eys ALL OF US for it.

Bob Woodward's Source, Feels Guilt From CNN: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said some of his testimony to the U.N. Security Council weeks before the start of the war in Iraq was apparently based on "flawed sources" and appeared not to be "solid." Powell's admission came in an off-camera discussion with reporters aboard his flight back to Washington from Brussels Friday evening. Powell's appearance before the Security Council on February 5, 2003, was a major event in the United States' effort to win international support for the Bush administration contention that war against Iraq was justified because of evidence that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. "Now it appears to be the case that it's not solid," Powell said. No shit! Of all the members of this administration, I consider Powell the most tragic. I really admired Powell, to an extent I still do. But he has been consistently outnumbered and outflanked in this administration by the Neo-Cons and their tragic and outrageously over-ambitious policy (to say the least, there are a few epithets I could add). Powell's testimony before the U.N. in early February 2003, was easily the most persuasive case the Bush Administration made in large part because even many liberals, like me, thought Powell was an honest man of great integrity. Well, that was an all around clusterf**k wasn't it? It is time for Powell to stop being the "good soldier" for Bush, and start being a good American that, unlike Robert McNamara, comes clean for his sins while they can still be somewhat assuaged, rather than having them seep deep down into the marrow where nothing can diminish the stain. In other words Colin, stop feebly leaking, and start outright speaking! UPDATE: The Guardian has more on the informant "CURVEBALL" who was the informant who gave that information about mobile chemical weapons labs, falsely, and was also Chalabi's stooge. The German's say they told us this before the war and before Powell's speech to the U.N.: "We gave a clear credibility assessment. On our side at least, there were no tricks before Colin Powell's presentation," one source told the newspaper. Great. How come the British Press is so thoroughly kicking the American Press's ass? This corporate press oligarchy not wanting to be too unfair to Bush in an election year is disgusting me. I'm getting closer to radical everyday -- and I'm too damn boring to be a radical.

Pelosi shows some spine Maybe, just maybe, the press will notice that the need for Bush and Cheney to appear TOGETHER before the 9/11 Commission is a reflection of the relative incompetence and weakness of the President, and that Cheney operates the levers of power far more than any Vice-President in history. Meanwhile, the Minority Leader of the House states the obvious. Pelosi yesterday: "I think it speaks to the lack of confidence that the administration has in the president going forth alone, period," Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday. "It's embarrassing to the president of the United States that they won't let him go in without holding the hand of the vice president of the United States." "I think it reinforces the idea that the president cannot go it alone," she said. "The president should stand tall, walk in the room himself and answer the questions." You think? Newsweek is expressing the opinion as well via Eleanor Clift. I'm sure though that Howard "Mr. Establishment Media Whore" Fineman will be there soon to reassure us this is just partisan bitterness -- the label he puts on Clarke while admitting everything Clarke says is true. We wouldn't want TRUTH to trump frickin' partisanship now would we Howard?

Disturbing, Foreshadowing Picture of the Day From the excellent blog, Body and Soul: Why the HELL, does Jerry Bremer require a private security guard even when visiting a military facility teaming with American Soldiers? As this Blog, referring to conservative blogger (and by that I mean a SANE blogger as opposed to IncompePundit) Tacitus with an interesting story on what the four mercenaries AND victims may have been up to. It isn't pretty, no matter how you cut it. Iraq is a pending disaster. Even if Kerry wins, the nation is going to have to pick up the pieces for a generation. But in any case, there's not much doubt as to who is primarily responsible.

Late Start on the Blogging I was up late, was far far too emotional after seeing Hellboy.

A Blog from Iraq Since the feeling of many Americans is the same as the Administration -- that the Fallujah Massacres must be avenged, I think its fair to point to a blog of someone actually there. My fear with Iraq, now that we are in the difficult position of being there, whether one opposed the war or not, is that we will appear to be essentially following the Israeli policy of reprisal tit-for-tat. Too many people, view life in a black & white motif. I've seen too many people say something along the lines of what Fox Pundithead Fred Barnes has said upon returning from Iraq, "the Iraqis are ingrates". Well, that is just self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it? It gets pretty close to the "we have to destroy the village, in order to save it" philosophy of Vietnam. Bluntly, this method of decision-making is far too comfortable to too many Americans and is symbolized by the actions of those responsible for starting this whole nightmare. The Commander-in-Chief. We criticize politicians who "flip-flop" as if that is ipso facto a bad thing -- what if it actually can reflect somebody who realizes nuances over time. Simple theories of life are fine if you are living a simple life. But when you are the leader of the most powerful nation in history, you need some ability to realize life's pallete comes in various shades, not black and white. Americans like the Simple person over the Complex, the "common man". It's been the approach of every political party since real democracy took root in the 1820s. That approach may have been fine when Andrew Jackson was President (actually it wasn't even then) but we are a sophisticated nation, we deserve sophisticated leadership and it is time for we, the voters, to realize it and frankly, grow the hell up. Many politicians from both parties ran as Common Men, without actually being common in the least. But our current executive? Undoubtedly the most average intellect since Harding. His rival for having a President in his bloodlines is not the prickly intellect of J. Quincy Adams, but the pedestrian mind of Benjamin Harrison. But anyway, what does an Iraqi think? It reflects this need for an appreciation of complexities, not blood lust. Granted this is only one person, and a person who is quite rare, Iraqi with a PC and the Internet. I would like to see Salaam Pax or Riverbend's thoughts, but they haven't posted since the attacks of 3/31. Nonetheless: "Raed in the Middle" says, hold off on the vengence, the cycle of violence must be stopped somewhere and the Fallujah attack, while inexcusable, is the product of several things, including some mistakes by the Americans that are being perpetuated.

Hey, One Month out of 24 308,000 New Jobs created in March -- The first time since the Bush Tax cuts that the Bush Administration actually met what they promised. Of course that means January, February and March are averaging the 150,000 a month you need to keep up with population growth. Of course, this is not all good news for the Bushies (though they will claim otherwise), the unemployment rate went up a tenth to 5.7% and the average work week also decreased. But there are so many folks who are out of the job market, I would guess you can see quite a spike in unemployment next month. Oh, and most of the jobs undoubtedly suck, I believe somewhere near 75,000 of these jobs were returning workers from a huge grocery store strike on the west coast, and its Spring so construction jobs and other seasonal labor are going to occur in increasing numbers. And, of course, the price of gas is ballooning which is not good for inflation or economic growth over time. Wow, I just completely rationalized this whole thing. I'm like a real economist -- I'm going to finish this post and head right off and balance that checkbook! But nonetheless, I congratulate our new waitresses, cashiers, and domestics all across our great land. This number should get Lawrence Kudlow of CNBC through another year or so of wildly over-optimistic predictions. Larry you'll always have March 2004.

Read Krugman today It is mandatory that at some point, I must refer blog readers to Paul Krugman. Therefore, I refer him today. Good comments on the Washington Slime Machine (was Gloria Estefan in that?).

If it's a Day that ends in "Y", it must be Nutjob Editorial Day at the Wall Street Journal Reading the comments section at Political Animal, I see that the Queen of the NeoCons Laurie Mylroie, has an editorial today where she goes after Richard Clarke. Mylorie, for those who don't know, has been the intellectual driving force of Saddam=All the Evils of the World for more than a decade. The fact that virtually every one of her preditions about Iraq both under Saddam and after it was wrong, should be noted. But it also should be noted, like all cult leaders, she refuses to let go of her theory. Cognative Dissonance. Amongst the statements (which you are supposed to pay for) are: Mr. Clarke singles me out for special criticism in his book, "Against All Enemies." This is not surprising. He believes that Islamic terrorism is the work of a few individual criminals, many of them relatives. I have for years gathered the evidence that shows that terrorism is something more than a mom-and-pop operation: that it is supported by powerful states, very much including Saddam Hussein's Iraq. She then goes on to rely upon four dubious assertions, I kid you not. Let's keep this short. Ms. Mylorie has ONE issue in her life she has managed to make into policy -- that issue has turned out (as EVEN the Bush Administration admits) to be false. All post event writings on this issue of hers are post-hoc, and most importantly, lame attempts at keeping her failed theories close to her, like a cocker spaniel keeps thinking that old stuffed animal it thrashes around is really alive. ...except the cocker spaniel is less slobbery about it. UPDATE: From Abu Aardvark comes this very, very trenchant point via a Newsweek article: "Clarke says his outspokenness earned the particular enmity of Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. Clarke is scathing about Wolfowitz, whom he depicts as obsessed with proving a conspiracy theory propounded by Laurie Mylroie, a controversial academic who contends that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was behind the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz commissioned former CIA director Jim Woolsey to fly to England to retrieve fingerprints of WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef, in order to show that Yousef was a "false double" inserted by Iraqi intelligence. The FBI objected to this wild-goose chase, but Wolfowitz insisted. As it turned out, the fingerprints disproved Mylroie's theory—they matched those of the Ramzi Yousef sitting in a U.S. federal prison. (When Clarke tried to tell this story in a draft of his book, it was excised by White House lawyers in a prepublication review for classified information.)" There is your evidence of the nutjob world of Ms. Mylroie.

Better get the "Score" ready... Because the "Frog March Follies" may be underway in the next few months. What is better than a bad graphic? Why, a bad graphic copied from someone else of course! The NY Times has a story up today which will, most assuredly, make Karl Rove's teenage son cry more than a busload of protestors. Here is the opening paragraph. Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say. Uh-Oh! But who am I, with my chincy Blogger provided, free background, to analyze such a story? I leave it to Josh Marshall, Ph.D (and Crate & Barrel Credit Card Holder) who explains

A One-Fingered Salute to InstaPundit I'm sure there are some sterling legal academics at the University of Tennessee. Really, I am. But the only evidence I have is not so strong. It is tres chic for liberal bloggers to mock Glenn Reynolds, but let's be honest -- it isn't hard. For the best example of the mockery lately go here. Included are a couple of comments from some person, obviously hyped up on the goofballs, who has a substantially less popular blog than Pandagon. However, not being one to self-analyze, InstaCracker manages to go out of his way to -- without basis -- turn the disaster in Fallujah into an attack on John Kerry. See the cryptic, barely lucid, blurb here. I do believe the right, as exemplified by Instacrumpet, is in the midst of a meltdown. Each and every day, Glenn Reynolds is becoming the William Westmoreland of the blogosphere. Now I must move on to something else. Surely, its about time for Sully to lurch back to writing the Bush Hagiographies. Oh, and Sully, Reverend Moon (that guy responsible for your Washington Times paycheck) called. The New Massiah wants to see you...in a box. Ouch.

I sense a restraining order in the future... Somebody really, and I mean really, likes Jenna Bush a bit too unhealthily.

Somebody else has the List, but I've got the neato Picture The Center for American Progress (i.e. John Podesta's Liberals with $) not only has received the Secret Department of Defense Talking Points from "Latte Daniel Ellsberg" but also has a comprehensive list of Bush's flip-flops. You can get it here: But forget those salaried do-gooders for a moment and admire me for googling up a relatively appropriate picture.

Hey, Hey, they're the Vulcans In the wake of the Iraqi nightmare, and the Clarke testimony comes the nickname that has become all the rage. Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, and Condoleezza Rice are known as "The Vulcans". Here we come, blowing up Tikrit, Get the funniest books from Laurie Mylroie Hey, Hey we're the Vulcans, And we're puttin' boots on the ground We're too busy spinnin' To take Usama Down I know, kinda lame (does Mylroie even rhyme with Tikrit?) but its better than the alternative. Discussing the Vulcans and Pan Phar. Cue Star Trek fighting music. Dah Dah Dah Duh Duh Duh Dah Duh Duh Duh Dah

Sadly, NOT an April Fool's Joke In the rumor that cannot be true because its so ungodly insane comes this from the the ruggedly handsome academic Juan Cole: Rumors are flying around official Washington that the new US ambassador in Iraq as of July 1 will be Paul Wolfowitz. Now it's a rumor. But Cole has been easily the most accurate American I know of on what is going on in Iraq and in his predictions. He is also well-placed to get these rumors. Even better than me (I know, hard to believe anything can be more accurate than my magic can of bad salmon, peyote, and a Ouija board -- but go figure). If this comes to be though -- what a freaking potential disaster. As Cole says: It would be proof positive to the insurgents in Iraq that the US intends to reshape the country in accordance with a Zionist agenda and make Iraqis the bitches of Ariel Sharon [Mind you, I think this conspiratorial way of thinking illegitimate, but it is already a theme in Iraqi popular political discourse]. It seems unlikely to me that Wolfowitz could get the cooperation of the Shiite clerics.

Obligatory, April Fool Joke

Terrorism Not a Main Concern -- Doo Dah Doo Dah Well, well, well. Now that the Bush Administration with the desperate assistance of its wingnut allies has tried their damnedest to take the eye off the substance of Richard Clarke's charges and tried to disparage him 80,000 ways, comes this. Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism Rice Speech Cited Missile Defense On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals. ... The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles... During the summer of 2001, as al Qaeda operatives were in flight training and finalizing plans for the attacks, the administration's public focus was on other matters. After his first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels in June 2001, Bush outlined the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy. And there it is. I guess the White House better go out and claim Clarke likes to wear women's panties or something. Karl get Wolfe Blitzer on the phone! The fact is the Bush Administration continues this foolish "missile defense" aka STAR WARS canard. They also continue to push, as evidenced by Iraq, the State-Sponsored Terrorism line. You'd think 9/11 would be good evidence that it is collections of individuals who can get weapons through cold hard cash or invention -- or as 9/11 showed EVEN LESS -- that can cause terrorist disasters. [John Belushi mode enabled] ....But noooooooooooooooooooo! They are unable to alter this Reagan era thinking into this century.

No Matter Too Small to Lie About Continuing their effort to bring grace, dignity and honor back to the White House, the Bush Administration, while taking a break from the War on Terror to Invade Iraq; Lie about Lying about Medicare; launching the War on Bejeweled Breasts; launching the War on Ba-Ba-Booey; Preserving the Sanctity of Las Vegas Marriages and Slandering Richard Clarke, has decided in their wisdom to launch an assault against the one man in America you REALLY don't want to get in a battle of wits with... David Letterman. Some folks might think Letterman isn't funny anymore, or displaying the ultimate lack of taste say Leno is better, I disagree on both counts. Kid, you yawn for all of us.