Verbosities

Neopartisan and Thoroughly Amateur



Attytood: This guy wrote a book called "Leadership"?
Now, after reading this interview he gave today to the New York Times, how could anyone ever mention "Churchill" and "Giuliani" in the same sentence again:

“Neither one of these two wars – the one in Afghanstan/Pakistan or the one in Iraq – was nearly at the level of the planning we had done for the two wars we would have to fight at once,” he said. “Both of them would be considered small wars in comparison to that. So it would seem to me that we should have organized ourselves so that we could accomplish in Iraq what we had to accomplish without taking anything away from accomplishing in Afghanistan and Pakistan what we had to accomplish.”

First of all...we fought a war in Pakistan?! How did I manage to miss that. Maybe it was the week that the Eagles were in the Super Bowl, since I don't remember reading about it in my newspaper. If Giuliani were president when he made an offhand comment like that, it could spark the proverbial "international incident."


To be fair, we've always been at war with Eastasia twisted righty logic dictates that we can be at war with whoever we want, so long as we clap our hands really loud and wish with all our hearts that it were so can find some incident of provocation in the past to hang our hat on. For example, the Iranians have been our enemy since taking hostages in 1979, except for all those years that they weren't, up to and including the aid they gave us for our post-9/11 incursions into Afghanistan, so technically we've been at war with them for nearly 30 years Giuliani can believe we've always been at war with Iran.

I'm having a little trouble finding the Pakistan incident, but I'm sure it's there somewhere. Perhaps they prevented KFC from expanding their franchise brand into Karachi, which certainly could be spun into an "agricultural embargo," which is in need of a military solution. I'm just speculating.

I can't believe people still take Giuliani seriously. The noise machine is having a difficult time coating their chosen ones with Teflon this time around, which might be a key reason Freddles hasn't thrown his jowls into the fray as of yet. Honestly, I can't believe Romney, Giuliani and Thompson are the best the right has to offer, but the party has painted themselves into a rhetorical corner on the war, and it's not as if any party-line Republican can be seen as a beacon of hope if they still support this war.



Powered by ScribeFire.


News From The Swamp: Bill To Outlaw "Fleeting" Swear Words Passes Senate Committee - Consumerist
Ars Technica says that a bill to give the FCC power over even"fleeting" swear words has passed a Senate committee and now moves on to the full Senate.

What's a "fleeting" swear word? Well, say Bono says, "Hey this is f*cking great!" on live TV, or a girl wears a shirt that says, "F*ck" a certain sports team and they show her on TV. A recent court decision said that the network could not be fined if they let it slip by accidentally.

Now this new bill is aimed at closing this "loophole."

The bill, called the "Protecting Children From Indecent Programming Act," seeks to assert that even "a single word or image may be considered indecent."


Powered by ScribeFire.






Via Cliff Schecter, who blames it on Left in Aboite

Powered by ScribeFire.

This isn't really political, but it's absolutely worth a look. In 1993, Sears had the most expansive and sophisticated mail-order business in the country. Fourteen years later, they're an afterthought. What happened? Here's a tease, click in to read more. It's short, but interesting - I promise.


The Record Industry's Decline | MetaFilter
You could pick anything from the (Sears) catalog, mail in your order with a check, and in a few days/weeks you'd get it. If you didn't like it, for any reason, Sears had a "satisfaction guaranteed" policy that you could return it at anytime for a full refund.

Now pay attention, because here's where it gets good.

In 1931, Sears starts an insurance company - Allstate. It buys financial investment firm Dean Witter and real estate broker Coldwell Banker in 1981. In 1984 it starts a joint venture with IBM called Prodigy, an online computer service, sort of a prototype AOL. In 1985, Sears launches a new major credit card, the Discover card. For the next eight years, the only credit card you can use at Sears is Discover.

At this time, the early 80's Sears is the largest retailer in the U.S...


Powered by ScribeFire.


Gingrich: Fear Islamic dictatorship -- themorningcall.com
Former House speaker and possible presidential contender Newt Gingrich, speaking Thursday night at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, conjured up images of an Islamic dictatorship in the United States as the consequence of failure in Iraq.

''It isn't about Israel. It isn't about us being in Iraq,'' Gingrich told about 500 people gathered at the Impact '07 leadership conference at Stabler Arena. ''They want to impose their dictatorship on us.''

In grim terms, Gingrich described the most severe consequences for women, who he said would not have been allowed to attend the Lehigh conference.

''If you want to be able to drive, to have a job, to have a checkbook; if you don't want to have to wear a veil; if you want to be able to appear in public without a man, you'd better hope our team wins,'' Gingrich said


He'd better hope by "our team," he means "America" and not "Republicans," although we all know the subtext. Seriously though, there is a zero percent chance that any of the regimes that exist in the Middle East, or threaten to come to power in that region, could conceivably generate enough of a foothold in North America to "impose their dictatorship on us." Frankly, I'd be more concerned about having another eight years of illegitimate Republican rule imposing their "for our own good" dictatorship on us.

Powered by ScribeFire.


The Next Hurrah: Oh, It Was Eric Edelman Lecturing Hillary??
You see, Edelman is kind of a poor man's Dougie Feith.


(Probably only funny to me, whattareyougonnado?)

Powered by ScribeFire.


FT.com / World - Berezovsky says UK police foiled plot
Mr Berezovsky, who is being tried in absentia in Moscow for theft because Britain has refused to extradite him to Russia to face trial, said he has had many death threats in recent years.

“All of these threats bear the hallmarks of Russian security service activity and of course President Putin changed the law last year to empower agents to commit murder overseas,” he said.

“So I am not surprised that they tried to kill me.”

Speaking to BBC television on Wednesday, the multi-millionaire said the warning from London police echoed a similar one from a source in Russia about three months ago.
Must be the same way that a millionaire is a multi-thousandaire? Myself, being a multi-hundredaire, I can relate, as this is obviously the best way to go about speaking in the clearest possible terms while remaining sensitive and mindful of oligarch self-esteem issues. Why be called a mere billionaire, when you can add a "multi" prefix and feel even wealthier?

Bonus Material--

Boris Berezovsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In recent years, Berezovsky has gone into business with Neil Bush, the younger brother of U.S. President George W. Bush. Berezovsky has been an investor in Bush's Ignite! Learning, an educational software corporation, since at least 2003. [1] In 2005, Neil Bush met with Berezovsky in Latvia, causing tension with Russia due to Berezovsky's fugitive status. [2] Neil Bush has also been seen in Berezovsky's box at the Emirates Stadium, the home of British soccer club Arsenal F.C., for a game. [3] There has been speculation in the English language Moscow Times that the relationship may cause tension in Russo-American bilateral relations, "especially since Putin has taken pains to build a personal relationship with the U.S. president."[4]

(Go to the wiki page if you wanna see those four citation links)


Utmost Intelligence


My Encounter with the TSA
He swabs the device and runs it through the calorimeter. Again, no residue.

I ask why it can't be taken on the plane and he said, "Because it looks like an IED." Now, I agree it looks suspicious, but the machine found no traces of explosives, and the device wasn't big enough to do any damage.

[h/t Make]

The Smell of Victory. Ripe.

DefenseLink News Article: U.S. General Sees Cause for Optimism in Anbar Province
“Our strategy of clear, hold and build, combined with an energized governmental and tribal engagement, is beginning to bear fruit,” Marine Maj. Gen. Walt Gaskin told reporters at the Pentagon via satellite.

Atlantic Free Press - Hard Truths for Hard Times
"The morgue receives an average of four or five bodies everyday," Nima Jima'a, a morgue official, told IPS. "Many more are dropped in rivers and farms -- or it is sometimes the case they are buried by their killers for other reasons. The number we record here is only a fraction of those killed."

Ambulances, now able to move again after weeks of restrictions, have been removing bodies of victims from the current fighting. But they have also found skulls and bones, evidence of other killings long ago.

Dealing with these remains is becoming difficult. Like the rest of the city, the morgue suffers from continuing lack of electricity. Over the last two weeks, two of its refrigerators have been shut down. The smell of decomposing bodies hits visitors 100 metres away.

"Beginning to bear"? Oh no, there's plenty of surge fruits--look at the rotting piles of it.

(and I'm not in the mood to debate "your material references two different provinces" bullshit. As though that somehow justifies our elective occupation and its Crusading Gloriousness)


Trouble for Little John, Trouble for Us All -- Hugh Hewitt
(Posted by Dean Barnett) The Republican portion of the Senate desperately needs someone to put the war into its proper strategic and intellectual context. Pardon me for being a cynic, but I don’t think Trent Lott is going to be the guy. And while John McCain has been heroically stalwart on the war, he still (publicly at least) clings to the outdated notion that we’re battling a numerically tiny band of Islamist nutjobs. This toxic piece of political correctness, born literally in the hours after 9/11, has hamstrung the war effort ever since.

Right now the painful fact is 2008 will be a very tough year for Republicans unless something seismic happens between now and November ‘08. Rather than trying to nibble away at the war effort, something that will be ruinous to the country and do nothing for their political prospects, Republican Senators would be much better served trying to make seismic things (like victory in Iraq and a decisive engagement with Iran) happen.


a) How is it "political correctness" to assert that al-Qaeda is "a numerically tiny band of Islamist nutjobs?" The population of Rhode Island is a "numerically tiny band" of America's total population, and when measured relative to whatever pertinent group or sub-group (Muslims, Middle Easterners, Middle Eastern Muslims, Sunnis, Middle Eastern Sunnis) you'd like, the enemy that attacked us on 9/11 is a "numerically tiny band of Islamist nutjobs." If we're not "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here," and if we're not "refereeing a civil war," what exactly does Dean Barnett suppose we're doing?

b) Tell me Dean Barnett didn't just say that Republicans should be focused on war with Iran to enhance the political prospects of the Republican Party in 2008. Am I missing something here? "(N)ibbl(ing) away at the war effort... (will) do nothing for (Republican) political prospects, (so) Republican Senators would be much better served trying to make... a decisive engagement with Iran (happen)."

Powered by ScribeFire.


Think Progress » Pentagon reaches out to conservative bloggers.
Stocked full of “administration cronies,” the Pentagon’s public affairs division under assistant secretary of defense for public affairs Dorrance Smith, has set up a rapid-response project that “seeks to bypass the traditional media and work directly with talk radio and bloggers, mostly those with a heavily conservative tilt.”


(Thanks HH)

Powered by ScribeFire.


Constitutional Hardball -- Balkinization
At this point in Bush's Presidency three things matter above all others. They motivate this final round of constitutional hardball: The first is keeping secret what the President and his advisers have done. The second is running out the clock to prevent any significant dismantling of his policies until his term ends. The third is doing whatever he can proactively to ensure that later governments do not hold him or his associates accountable for any acts of constitutional hardball or other illegalities practiced during his term in office.

If the NSA program and the Torture Memos were examples of the second round of constitutional hardball, the Libby commutation and Harriet Meiers' refusal to testify before Congress are examples of the third round. Although his Presidency now seems to be a failure, Bush's third round of constitutional hardball may be every bit as important as the first two. That is because if Bush is never held accountable for what he did in office, future presidents will be greatly tempted to adopt features of his practices. If they temper his innovations and his excesses only slightly, they will still seem quite admirable and restrained in comparison to Bush. As a result, if Congress and the public do not decisively reject Bush's policies and practices, some particularly unsavory features of his Presidency will survive in future Administrations.


Let me head off the "LOLIBRULZ IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE" argument with a real easy timeline for you to follow:

Nixon secretly authorizes illegal warrantless surveillance of American citizens, claiming "national security" authorization. (late 1960s - early 1970s)

--

Congress passes Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), making it a felony to engage in wiretapping of Americans without a warrant. (1978)

--

Bush DOJ issues opinion that Article II "Commander-In-Chief" plenary powers put the President in a "constitutionally superior position" to Congress in a time of perpetual war. (September 25, 2001 - John Yoo opinion)

--

Bush acknowledges NY Times report on his administration's warrantless wiretapping program is correct. (2005)

--

Federal appeals court determines that citizens may not challenge administration's admitted illegal activity, because such activity was declared a "state secret," preventing the citizens bringing the challenge from affirmatively proving they were harmed by the administration's admitted illegal activity. (July, 2007)

--

It is happening here. It's happening now. Our Congress made an executive action illegal, and the executive told Congress to shove it. If that's not a step in the direction of an unbridled executive dismantling checks and balances, I'm not sure what is.

The point is that so long as we allow our executive branch to assert their ability to break the law* and shroud their wrongdoing under "state secrets" or "executive privilege" without oversight or standing to challenge in the courts, the constitutional powers of the executive grow beyond constitutional intent when passed to the next guy.

Congress can recognize what's going on here, and - guess what CJ? - assertions of privilege and claims to Article II powers, let alone the felonious warrantless wiretapping program all add up to "high crimes," which are an impeachable offense.

You don't need a sting operation or a tearful witness taking the stand and spilling the beans to impeach. There NEED NOT BE AN ACTUAL CRIME COMMITTED. Enumerated high crimes are enough. Period.

The concern is fundamental. That a weakened constitution will continue to be weakened by subsequent administrations, and that our system will cease to resemble the system our founders intended if we continue to ignore these sorts of unconstitutional assertions.

Read Balkin's post in its entirety. He's far more eloquent on the topic than I.

*Make no mistake, warrantless wiretapping is illegal. There is no "loophole" the administration was taking advantage of. Their assertion of Article II plenary powers becomes their catch-all "loophole."

Powered by ScribeFire.


Leave the Muslim world alone | Salon.com
After we leave Iraq, as we inevitably will, we need to do three things to fight the "war on terror" effectively. First, we need to ratchet down our apocalyptic and moralistic rhetoric and recognize the jihadist enemy's true, relatively modest dimensions. This ain't no Soviet Union we're fighting here -- it's a bunch of guys in caves. Second, we need to use military force as a last resort. As Iraq has shown, occupation and war create more jihadis than they capture or kill. Instead, we need to use intelligence and police forces to break up jihadist terror networks. Finally, we need to address both the Arab/Muslim world's self-created pathologies and its legitimate grievances, both of which contribute to jihadism. War supporters make much of the pathologies, but have almost nothing to say about the grievances -- chief among them the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the greatest source of Arab/Muslim rage against America.


Wait, I thought they hated us because of Victoria's Secret catalogs and Three's Company reruns? Now I'm all confused.

Kamiya's premise in this article is that leaving Iraq allows the majority Iraqi Shiites to "deal with" the minority Sunni jihadists (i.e., our supposed real enemy), lets the "brutal logic of numbers" handle this conflict more efficiently. I'm not smart enough to say with confidence (and neither is anyone else reading this post) whether or not allowing this attrition - which isn't exactly "ethnic cleansing," but it's not exactly unlike it either - is a more or less sound strategy than what we're pursuing now, but I generally believe that the legitimate grievances of the Muslim world against America can be eased significantly through a combination of full withdrawal and diplomacy.

So long as we can get past the idea, that is, that "diplomacy" is some Neville Chamberlain non-starter that's tantamount to "appeasement," whatever that's supposed to mean. I believe it's a nearly indisputable fact that if the US were to withdraw all troops from Muslim lands and drop all support and aid to Israel, that the problem with jihadists would disappear overnight*. This isn't to say that this idea is sensible or that I'm advocating this as a solution, but it's a helpful thought exercise to understand what extremes would eliminate the problem, and what we might be able to do in a proactive fashion to go at least part of the way down that road.

*Well, and give due process to those in Guantanamo, and quit meddling in "regime change" through back channels, and knock it off with the inflammatory rhetoric against Middle Eastern nations through the press and at the UN. You know, just your garden variety laissez-faire North American approach to allowing Middle Eastern self-determination.

The release of portions of the latest NIE states that al-Qaeda remains a "persistent and evolving" terrorist threat, despite our administration's assertions just eight months ago that al-Qaeda "is on the run."

What could possibly explain how al-Qaeda has surged back to nearly full strength, despite our administration's militaristic efforts to fight someone... anyone... with a camel and a grudge? The longer we meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, and the more amplified our rhetoric (and inevitably, our actions) becomes against other nations in that region, the easier it's going to be to cultivate the next generation of jihadists.

Is there an easy answer here? Hell no. But diplomacy and an assessment of legitimate Islamic issues regarding America's foreign policy is clearly not the same thing as "capitulation," or whatever the neocons want to call it. More than ever, Americans are becoming aware that the actions of our nation are not gilded with pure righteousness, and more than ever we realize that having an administration who refuses to recognize the reality of our turbulent present now is going to leave the next generation and the one beyond with a serious problem that just might prove insoluble for America's future.

Is leaving them alone worth a shot? Is "sectarian civil war" in Iraq capable of bringing us closer to solving our problem with terrorism?

I'm not smart enough to answer those questions. Wish to god I were.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Let's see if this gets repeated ad nauseum in the press.

Not bloody likely.

Powered by ScribeFire.

So long as we're talking impeachment, Friday's edition of Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS featured a nearly hour-long roundtable discussion between Moyers, John Nichols of The Nation magazine, and former DOJ staffer under Reagan/articles of impeachment for Clinton author/former AEI scholar Bruce Fein.

I saw Fein and my eyes started to roll into the back of my head. "Here we go," I thought. Ultimately, though, I was pleasantly surprised. I have never on TV seen a pundit more capably and eloquently make the case for impeachment, and his passion for the righteousness of the cause was startling, to say the least. Mimikatz from The Next Hurrah sketches out the salient points covered in the discussion, with the following, in my opinion, the most important point to remember if (by some freak chance) our legislature starts down this road. Emphasis hers:


The Next Hurrah: Bill Moyers' Journal: Time for Impeachment
"Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis; it is the cure for a constitutional crisis." Both were very clear that Impeachment is Congress' duty under our system of government when things get to this point. It is Congress' job, and they are falling down on the job. They must initiate impeachment proceedings or we are in real danger of losing our form of government. This is not hyperbole. Towards the end of the program Fein notes that if just one Committee Chairman had spoken to Bush/Cheney in a stern, adult voice and said "You cannot do that. This is the United Stataes of America. You are violating the law and violating the Constitution. You were not elected King for four years; in our system no man is above the law" things might have been different. Instead we get John Conyers' mumbling and Patrick Leahy's earnest dismay. We get Nancy Pelosi's desire to end the war, but not to do what is needed to stop the Bsuh/Cheney juggernaut.


I fully anticipate this is where the media will get it wrong. You'll see analysis of how the Dems have lost political capital and discussion after discussion on the unknown dangers of impeachment in a "time of perpetual war," but in the search for the drama in all of this, what will get lost is that this move is the responsibility of a stonewalled Congress. It should be beyond argument in this political argument that the White House does not recognize the legitimacy of Congressional oversight, which should be good enough for a one-way ticket to impeachment.

If the Congress were willing to do its job, naturally.

Powered by ScribeFire.


When All they Understand Is Fear or Force -- Firedoglake.com
Republicans, as Krugman has observed, are a revolutionary power. They do not accept the legitimacy of the bipartisan non-parliamentary form of government that ruled the US for most of the post-war period. They do not accept that all three branches of government are co-equal. They do not believe that everyone has to obey the law. They are in Washington to get what they want, and if they can’t get it they will bring the entire machine to a shreeking halt.


What to do about...

An obstructionist opposition minority?

An administration that will not accept oversight?

A DOJ that will not enforce subpoenas?

The Agonist's Ian Welsh writes for Firedoglake that the Republicans are acting from a position of strength while in the minority, only because the weakness of the Democratic majority is enabling their behavior. What's the prescription? While the "nuclear option" of impeachment is certainly the first thing that pops into my head, Welsh has other ideas. It's a good read for your Monday morning rabble-rousing.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I had this vivid dream last night where I was on the team of a White House staffer, observing the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Just before the Senate came back to session to deliver the verdict, Bush gathered all his staffers together and wheeled in this huge cart of gifts while blasting "Here Comes Santa Claus" from a radio, totally oblivious to the historic ruling about to remove him from office.

It was a beautiful dream.

Powered by ScribeFire.



Powered by ScribeFire.


Search



XML
  • Alternate Feed URL


  • blog counter