So much news...

Let's see - The Second Battle of Fallujah occured right after the American election of 2004. American soldiers appeared to have won the battle, but months later, the city still wasn't safe. Now:

Falluja has resurfaced as a major stronghold of anti-U.S. resistance despite a massive U.S. assault that had almost turned the city of nearly 300,000 inhabitants into ruins.

Rebel attacks have intensified recently and the U.S. finds it increasingly difficult to subdue the city.

The Americans control all entrances to the city and have remote control digital cameras guarding volatile quarters.

But the rebels still find ways to infiltrate Falluja and mount suicide raids on U.S. convoys.

In other words, a Third Battle of Fallujah may be necessary because the job wasn't done right either the first OR the second time! Here's a possible reason why:

Yet, visible rebuilding is taking place. More than 140,000 of the city's original residents have returned. Groups of men hammer away at buildings, and shops and restaurants have reopened in some neighborhoods. American officials say more homes have running water now than before November.

Right after the siege, the Americans doled out $8 million to 20,000 people as an initial reconstruction payment. Iraqi engineering teams estimated that 32,000 homes needed repairs and that the total cost of reconstruction would be $500 million. The government of Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister, ordered a fifth of that to be paid out, and it was flown by helicopter to the main Marine base, called Camp Fallujah.

Problem: After an Iraqi sheik brought the continued failure to deliver the remainder of the needed money to the attention of the Americans, the Americans talked to him about the elections coming up in December 2005, suggesting they were using the reconstrction money as an incentive for Iraqi citizens to get out the vote. Obviously, if the city is exploding again, then the aid might not have ever arrived.
--------------------

In the competition between Americans and Iraqi insurgents, it's not clear who's making better use of technology.

This is a dangerous problem, because the insurgents are stitching together their own communications network. Using cellphones and e-mail accounts, these guerrillas rely on a loose web of connections rather than a top-down command structure. And they don’t fight in large groups that can be easily tracked by high-tech command posts. They have to be hunted down in dark neighborhoods, amid thousands of civilians, and taken out one by one.

----------

Then, suddenly, the lead tank lurches to a halt. Through roiling clouds of dust, illuminated by the tank’s headlights, Feldmayer sees a pile of concrete and earth. The lead tank’s fancy navigation system has just led them into a roadblock, too tall for the vehicles to climb. A dozen soldiers curse in unison.

--------

It’s at this point, just beyond the edge of the American network, where the guerrillas are best connected. Using disposable cellphones, anonymous e-mail addresses at public Internet cafés, and “lessons learned” Web sites that rival Cavnet, disparate guerrilla groups coordinate attacks, share tactics, hire bomb makers, and draw in fresh recruits. It’s an ad hoc, constantly changing web of connections, so it’s hard for U.S. spooks to know where to listen in next. It also lets the insurgents keep a loose command structure, without much hierarchy—just like the network-centric theorists call for. Even if their communications are compromised, only a small cell is exposed, not the entire insurgency. "They’re more effectively networked than we are," says Hammes, the guerrilla-war expert. “They have a worldwide, secure communications network. And all it cost them was two dinars.”

On the plus side for Americans, friendly fire incidens are way down. American soldiers are far less likely to be shot at by their own forces than before.

-------------

And hey! Good news! The Washington Post ombudsman has corrected an error! And it only took her since January to do so.

------------

The BBC reports a accident by an American "large cargo truck." Very disturbingly:

Hundreds of Afghans gathered after the accident, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Karzai".

They pelted the US military vehicles with stones before scattering when the shooting began.

--------------

As many as 2,000 protesters then headed for the city centre, towards the presidential palace and parliament, setting fire to police cars and police checkpoints.

Bursts of heavy gunfire could also be heard close to the US embassy, whose staff were moved to a secure location.

This doesn't sound to me like things are going well between the occupation forces in Aghanistan and the Afghanis. In fact, it sounds like the Afghanis are awfully hostile to the Americans in their midst.

------------------
And in the category of extremely positive news, the momentum the Bush Administration was trying to build up for military action against Iran seems to be dissipating.

In Iraq, our ability to dictate events and a direction for the country is diminishing with every passing day. New Prime Minister al-Maliki is still unable to get agreement among the parties on filling the Interior and Defense ministry positions. Nir Rosen’s essay yesterday in the Post shows that we are less and less of an influence in Iraq, while the militias now are the power center in the country, inciting fear and disorder. Bush has in effect made our military look impotent and criminal in the Islamic world, evidenced further by how we are losing control in Afghanistan, the job Bush never finished.

---------

Furthermore, Iran wants direct talks, its president and clerics are unified in this desire for the first time, and the Iranians seem to be either slowing down their enrichment program or running into technical difficulties. I have heard from a source that the Iranians are willing to compromise and trade off the work they have already done at one site if we would simply show them some respect and talk with them directly.

------------------

Our tough, rejectionist posture towards Iran was further undermined when the new al-Maliki government in Iraq came out in support of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and Iran signaled it was tired of waiting for the Bush Administration to talk with it about Iraq’s future, and decided to work with regional states to forge their own future.

Iran's president appears to have agreed to tone things down and to not play into the hands of the warmongers who wish to use him as a scare figure. The NY Times article linked to above cites Iranian economic problems as having been a significant moderating influence.

Oh good grief!

Gregg Easterbrook argues that:

Intelligent design is a sophisticated theory now being argued out in the nation's top universities.

Okay, let's get this straight. There are two theories as to how life evolved. There is the scientific theory, known as evolution and which was developed primarily by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859. It's been refined and incrementally improved upon, but it has not been essentially modified since the book was published. On the other hand, there a whole raft of other theories known as Biblical Literalism, Creationism and Intelligent Design. All three of them boil down to the book known as:

Genesis (Greek: Γένεσις, having the meanings of "birth", "creation", "cause", "beginning", "source" and "origin"), also called The First Book of Moses, is the first book of Torah (five books of Moses), and is the first book of the Tanakh, part of the Hebrew Bible; it is also the first book of the Christian Old Testament.

There is no essential difference between any of the three theories and there is no connection whatsoever to science. It is not possible to disprove the Book of Genesis, nor by the same token, is it possible to prove the Book of Genesis. You either believe it or you don't. You have faith or you do not.

There's nothing wrong with having faith and believing that the Book of Genesis is literally true, but there is something very deeply wrong with wasting class time by ignoring science and by going over matters best left to Sunday school or to the pulpit.

Bush sorta kinda expresses regrets about "Bring 'em on"

When John Paul Jones declared "I have no yet begun to fight!", he did so from the decks of the Bonhomme Richard, a ship that had taken heavy damage from the enemy to the point where the captain on the other side offered to allow the American ship to surrender. In glaring contrast, when Bush said "Bring 'em on," he did so from a comfortable TV studio, 7000 miles away from the fighting in Iraq. Bush owes veterans of the Iraq War vastly more than:

Last night, he answered: "Saying 'bring it on,' kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner -- you know, 'wanted dead or alive,' that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted, and so I learned from that."

In other words, Bush has regrets purely about how his language was "misinterpreted", not about in how it was properly and accurately understood, as the language of a chickenhawk, the language of someone who is in no danger. It's all very fine and well to talk like a tough guy when the shells are exploding around you and your ship seems to be on the verge of sinking. That's heroic and that deserves respect. Talking like a tough guy from halfway around the world is the action of a coward and deserves nothing but scorn.

The blog Crooks & Liars has a marvelous picture of Bush that beautifully sums up how our President feels about the whole press conference.

Excellent post from DailyKos on chickenhawks and on who really deserves to be honored on Memorial Day.

Answering Max Boot

On May 17th, Max Boot wrote a column in the LA Times defending the warrantless NSA spying program, asserting that "So far there has been no suggestion that the NSA has done anything with disreputable motives." Actually, there have been quite a few such suggestions based on the past history of the Bush Administration. The notion that the Bush people are somehow above suspicion is a quaint one with absolutely no basis in reality. He further says near the very end of his column that:

If it is later determined that an intelligence-gathering operation was not ordered for legitimate national security objectives — if, for instance, it was designed to gather dirt on political opponents — then the culprits would be punished with lengthy prison sentences.

That's a very nice thought, but of course it's kind of difficult to see how the "culprits would be punished" if there's no investigation and before he made this statement, he spent an enormous amount of time and energy denouncing those who are "civil liberties agitators, grandstanding politicians and self-righteous newspaper editorialists" and who are "hyperventilating worrywarts [who} fret that fascism has descended." Kind of difficult to see how Max's sensible statement concerning ensuring that the warrantless NSA spying program was legitimate can be anything but a careless afterthought tacked on to the end of his screed denouncing those who oppose the program.

Assorted critics, taking a break from castigating the Bush administration for doing too little to protect the homeland, are now castigating it for doing too much.

World O'Crap clobbers this talking point extremely well:

A lot of you idiots don’t seem to understand this very important point, so let’s try to illustrate it with an analogy: An elderly woman is walking home from the bank after cashing her Social Security check. A blond 15-year old male whizzes past on a Razor and snatches her purse. She reports the theft to a cop, who immediately walks over to a bus bench and starts beating a 65-year old black woman with his nightstick. The grandstanding victim complains that this isn’t helping to get her purse back. The moral of the story is: There’s just no pleasing you people.

As there have been no captured bad guys identified as being al Qaeda operatives for the past five years, it's difficult to see how the warrantless NSA spying program is accomplishing anything of any use to regular Americans. Why would the Bush Administration continue a blatantly illegal program that wasn't doing what Bush energetically insists its accomplishing? I refer you to the first quote about "gather[ing] dirt on political opponents." There has been no proof that Bush used the NSA to give his re-election team an improper advantage during the 2004 election, but then, there's been no investigation either.

The Black Commentator reminds us that:

[Bush] comes from a family that demonstrates a blatant disregard for the most basic moral norms. Prescott Bush was a traitor in war time and a grave desecrater. George W. stole his way into the presidency and is now prepared to risk confrontation with China, Russia and the rest of the world in order to use nuclear weapons against Iran.

There is simply no evidence that the US is dealing with an honorable person who wouldn't abuse the advantage that the NSA's illegal spying program would give him. Max suggests that FISA is obsolete:

This archaic law should be euthanized. Replace it with legislation that gives the president permission to order any surveillance deemed necessary.

In a passage well worth quoting at length:

But one aspect of the administration's decision to violate FISA that has received relatively little attention is just how extraordinary is the sudden claim that FISA, after governing eavesdropping in this country for 27 years, is unconstitutional.

It's not uncommon for a law to be passed and signed into law under a cloud of questionable constitutionality. Since McCain-Feingold was enacted, for instance, scores of people have claimed that McCain-Feingold entails unconstitutional abridgements of First Amendment liberties and litigation began almost immediately after it was signed into law. Indeed, on the very day the Senate approved it, many Senators expressed their view that the law was unconstitutional. That happens commonly with laws which are believed to be unconstitutional -- substantial public debate exists among politicians, law professors, lawyers, and others regarding the law's questionable constitutionality.

But nothing like that ever happened with FISA. It was enacted in 1978 by a vote of 95-1 in the Senate. It was amended six times since then, including under the Bush presidency. President Bush asked for amendments liberalizing its provisions, and never once suggested it was unconstitutional. Four different presidential administrations prior to this one -- two Republican and two Democratic -- complied with its provisions while engaging in surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, including during the height of our Cold War with the Soviet Union, and during all sorts of military actions, including the Persian Gulf War and military deployments in Latin America, Yugoslavia, and throughout the Middle East.

Until George Bush, no President had ever claimed that the requirements of FISA were unconstitutional. None ever claimed that their Article II powers were infringed because they had to obtain judicial warrants before eavesdropping on Americans, and none ever claimed that their ability to engage in intelligence gathering was impeded in any way by the warrant requirements of that law. There was never any debate in any prominent academic circles or among political pundits over the constitutionality of FISA. The Reagan Administration was filled with ideologues and advocates of strong executive power and yet, as it went to the FISA court every time it wanted to eavesdrop on Americans, it never once claimed that FISA was unconstitutional in any way. Nobody of any prominence did, because its constitutionality was never in doubt.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that FISA is in any way, shape or form a hindrance to catching bad guys within the borders of the United States. Max displays a lot of misdirected anger here. The people he denounces are trying to protect American citizens. We may not know exactly what the Bush Administration is up to, but that doesn't mean we citizens have nothing to worry about.

The Hillary and Bill story

On May 23rd, the NY Times published a somewhat lengthy (14 kilobytes or 2000 words) story on the marriage of Hillary and Bill Clinton that ran for perhaps 100-150 words on the front page, above the fold and with a photograph. The story was continued in the Metro section.
Personally, I've never particularly liked Hillary due to her having been in charge of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform back during the very beginning of Bill Clinton's first term and making such a complete mess of it that there hasn't been serious talk of comprehensive health care reform since.
The NY Times article was not written because there was any sort of "peg" to hang the story on or in fact, any genuine news within the article itself. The story was written by Patrick Healey, a reporter who has handled several anti-Democratic and pro-Republican stories (The story includes several useful links for yelling at the Times with.

Atrios goes over one of the most serious problems with "The return of Monica Madness"

And, finally, it puts on display the utter vapidity of the press corps we're dealing with. If Dean Broder, who has been covering Washington since 1820, can't sit through a 45 minute speech on energy policy, and the press on Air Force One would rather watch King Kong than the Hayden hearings, while they devote their time and resources to a long 50-source article about how often the Clintons are getting busy, then we have a problem, and it's not something we're going to clear up at a blogger ethics panel.

Yes, that's correct, the article concentrated on how often Hillary and Bill "did it" and yes, the author really interviewed 50 sources, he even counts the number of times the Clintons spent the night together over 17 months. Has America's press corps really sunk this low?!?! I mean, with the American occupation of Iraq rapidly collapsing and the dollar on the verge of meltdown, is the sex life of the Clinton's really a page-one story!?!?!? As firedoglake points out, there are magazines eminently qualified to do such stories. It's also obviously meant to put Democrats on notice that they will be relentlessly trivialized during the run up to the 2008 election.

Except for one thing: who the hell cares? I mean really, who cares? Except for the inside, gossip queens of the Beltway, how exactly does this put gas in someone’s tank, keep their kid safe on the battlefield, stop their job from being downsized, or help them pay the balloon payment on their already-ballooning mortgage? What in the hell are these people doing calling this crap "reporting?"

The press corps has made it clear that the Democrats will be lampooned and laughed at and made to look deranged because they just can't stomach a return to wonk-style politics, where politician actually care about people and issues. We progressives, liberals and leftists need to make a really loud stink about this, and it needs to commence right away!

Al From's thoughts

From Al From, who runs the Democratic Leadership Council:
"There's a group in our party that makes a lot of noise and I don't think they've ever won an election."

Let's look at how well the Democratic Party has done while under the influence of Al From's DLC , shall we?
(Source: Clerk of the House)

Year	Senators	Representatives	% Democrat
1992	56	258	59
1994	57	204	47
1996	48	206	47
1998	45	211	48
2000	45	212	49
2002	50	204	47

Democrats held a consistent numerical advantage over Republicans since 1956 and since 1984 had been slowly but steadily gaining seats.
The DLC basically ran Democratic Party political strategy from the time Bill Clinton assumed office until 2002. Democratic Senators and Representativess underwent a dramatic shrinkage in 1994, the first "mid-term" or "off-season" election cycle after Clinton took office, when Clinton should have been at his peak of political effectiveness. The last cycle here, the 2002 cycle, is especially troubling. During midterm elections when the Presidency is not at stake, the opposition party usually wins seats (Though usually not as dramatically as the Republicans did in the 1994 electios). The exceptions are few and far between. 2002 was a dramatic exception, with eight seats in the House being lost. Granted, in the Senate, Democrats saw a gain of five seats, but they quickly lost the majority they had as the result of the 2002 election.

In 2004, insurgents from what Howard Dean called "The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" made a strong, but unsuccessful attempt to seize control from the DLC. As our wing of the party has argued, Democrats have gained from the extra energy and enthusiasm that our wing has brought into the party.

A further thought from Al From:
"A very simple thing happened that changed Democratic politics dramatically, and that was that the [Iraq] war turned bad."

"Turned" bad?!?!?! The war "turned" bad?!?! Er, when exactly was it ever good?!?! The problem, obviously, was that the Iraq War didn't stop when US troops captured Baghdad. Instead, the war simply changed shape and metamorphosized into a guerrilla struggle. It took awhile, things were pretty quiet from about April 2003 until August/September 2003, though sniping and small ambushes never truly stopped. The US had a very narrow window of opportunity where a vigorous reconstruction project might have done a bit of good, but it's doubtful that the guerrilla war could have been avoided. By September, it was pretty clear that the war had begun again in earnest.

All that being said; yes, it's clear that the war in Iraq prevented a dash into Iran or Syria, prevented a victory parade down the main streets of Baghdad a month or two before the 2004 Presidential Election and made it possible for opponents of the war to make their case to the public that those who went along with the war were acting against the interests of the American people.

Al From is a perfectly good American, but an absolutely useless Democrat. The sooner the Democratic Party gives him and his group the boot, the better.

A few interesting comments from Lieberman defenders

The Wall St Journal (From their accessible, non-subscription OpinionJournal.) defends both Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. McCain is described as having "reacted with admirable restraint" in response to a student who declared in her speech:

"I am young and though I don't possess the wisdom that time affords us, I do know that preemptive war is dangerous. And I know that despite all the havoc that my country has wrought overseas in my name, Osama bin Laden still has not been found, nor have those weapons of mass destruction."

Yep, poor John McCain, having to respond to a "rude" student who points out the complete failures of his hero, Bush.

Poor, pitiful Joe Lieberman is described as facing "political extinction" because of "his pro-war views." Actually, as firedoglake points out by quoting Paul Krugman of the New York Times, the issue is very considerably more than just the war. Lieberman is a perfectly fine American Senator, he's just not a very good Democrat. He consistently puts his own political benefit above that of the Democratic Party as a whole.

But in any event, the WSJ then makes a wildly inaccurate statement:

"The left's larger goal is to turn the Democratic Party solidly against the war on terror, and especially against its Iraq and Iran fronts."

The War on Terror on the left side of the aisle is understood to apply strictly to al Qaeda and to various terrorist attacks around the world. The Iraq War and the upcoming Iran War are understood to be imperial grabs for natural resources, i.e. oil. The idea behind these two wars is not necessarily to get the natural resources for American use so much as it is to monopolize those resources and control access to them by the up-and-coming economic powers India and China. The political left has always understood that these two conquests had nothing to do with al Qaeda save in a purely talking-point, propagandistic context.

As with the student quoted above, the left has continued to point out that the Bush Administration, at best, allowed 9-11 to occur through a combination of negligence, incompetence and dereliction of duty. Why might the left be "enraged" and "rude"? Gee, let's review - the WOT is launched in response to an attack that could have been prevented had either the press or the Bush Administration kept their eyes on the ball, the emotional energy that was unleashed in response to the 9-11 attacks are diverted into an imperial grab for resources and there is considerable evidence that John Kerry actually won the last election. Golly, I can't imagine why the left might be angry!

Back to the WSJ:

"We doubt all of this will help Democrats with the larger electorate, which whatever its doubts about Iraq does not want a precipitous surrender."

Straw-man time again! The WSJ skips over the argument about whether or not it's wise to withdraw from Iraq and goes directly to the unsubstantiated accusation that the left wants a "precipitous surrender." The political left as a whole does not have a unifed position on when and how to pull out of Iraq. Generally, the left would like to have it be as soon as possible. The proposal made by Congressman Murtha to "Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize", i.e. to pull off to bases that are still within Iraq or the Gulf, but in any event outside of Iraq's population centers has aroused a good deal of support on the left despite not being a complete pull-out.

In other words, the left is quite willing to be reasonable and pragmatic about how the pull-out is done.

UPDATE #1: Yes, al Qaeda appears to be actively taking part in the Iraq War on the other side from American troops in Iraq, but the important question there is: Will al Qaeda reman in Iraq if and when US troops leave? Doubtful. Al Qaeda is in Iraq for the purpose of fighting American troops, both to cause damage to American military capabilities and perhaps more importantly, to get experience in fighting Americans and to learn how to better ambush and attack American troops. Once Americans leave, al Qaeda might have other reasons to stick around, but the major current reason for being in Iraq will have disappeared.

Iraqis currently have reason to cover for and assist al Qaeda because al Qaeda is assisiting Iraqis to throw American troops out of their country. Once Americans leave, it's difficult to see why Iraqis would want to keep al Qaeda around. As both Iraqis and al Qaeda currently use the same supply sources and hiding places and tactics, it's hard to see how al Qaeda could survivie a determined Iraqi attempt to expel them. As foreign jihadists and al Qaeda have never constituted more than 3% to 5% of the forces opposing US troops in Iraq, they'd quickly find themselves in a very uneven fight if they tried to stay.

So, is there currently reason to say there's a connection between Iraqi insurgents and al Qaeda? Yes.
Would that alliance survive a US departure from Iraq? Doubtful.

UPDATE #2: Rabbi Michael Lerner, prominent progressive Jewish activist and founder of Tikkun, has come out with a salute to a collection of articles on 9-11.in which he endorses concerns that the World Trade Center towers could not have fallen down merely due to being hit by airplanes and that activists should try to tell the story in a way that minimizes the evil people involved and instead stresses turning 9-11 from a theoretical concern into an activist project. In fact, Rabbi Lerner emphasizes that a truth-seeking alliance could heal wounds left by the destruction of that day.

Updates

Ned Lamont over-achieves goals in Connecticut primary!!! Joe Lieberman has been acting quite nervous the past few days over the campaign of Lamont to unseat him as one of Connecticut's senators. Turns out Joe was right to worry. Lamont only needed 15% of the vote:

Connecticut Bob called once again to give the final unofficial tally — Lieberman 1014, Lamont 497. That puts Ned at roughly 33%, WILDLY in excess of what they anticipated. The Lamont people are jumping around, hi-fiving each other, slapping each other on the back. Rape Gurney Joe’s people are wandering around in a daze, wondering what hit ‘em.

Three words: "a short ride."

Best aspect of this is that it's a great advertisement for the netroots, the folks who organize themselves around, and take their cues from, the liberal blogs. Lieberman has been an awful Democrat, straying from the party line and voting with the Republicans time and time again. Connecticut and the Democrats generally are bette off wthout him.

-----
Whoooo!! Seriously warped statements from a conservative blogger! Lemme put it this way - I would never leave my young neice in his care! The idea that the age of optimal attractiveness for women is between 15 and 20 is bad enough. That statement pegs him as a pervert all by itself. The really bad statement follows, that one where he asserts he can prove the first statement by noting how many females in that "optimal" age range get raped! Yup. Read it yourself. He really does say that. Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will, published in 1975, pretty much blew apart the theory that women get raped because men find themselves sexually attracted to them. Depressingly, this conservative blogger proves himself to be about thirty years behind the curve. In an update, his concern is not that his son has been fighting at school, but "Did he win?"

UPDATE: Pandagon quotes an earlier column wherein our conservative makes it clear that he doesn't want to look at Jennifer Aniston's breasts in GQ because at 36 years old, she's rather over the hill.

-----
Republicans try to initiate an anti-gay constitutional amendment in a session where the public had limited access. Senator Russ Feingold objects to it, Senator Arlen Specter acquiesces to it. Question: Where are all of the other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee!?!?!?! Why is Feingold acting all alone at a time and in a place where he could have used the support of his fellow Democrats?!?!?! Why is this guy constantly having to act by himself? Seriously, Democrats need to start supporting their fellow party members!!!

-----
A long time after the USA Today story ran about the other warrantless NSA spying program, AT&T appears to have been assisted by the Bush Administration reworking the laws allowing them to lie without legal consequences.
Funny, but for an Administration that claims it has the right to do all sorts of things, they don't appear eager to put anything to the test. Oh, and the confirmation hearing of General Hayden helps to reveal the utter crminality of the Bush Administration when it first supported the idea of warrantless NSA wiretapping, even when alteratives were available.

-----
Sigh! Happy happy, joy joy!!! Turns out "turning to the right" isn't working out too well!! Simply turning to the extremes isn't turning out to be a successful strategy after all! If y'all don't turn to the left, sadness follows!

The latest warrantless NSA spying scandal

Someone in our email group sent along an appeal from Act For Change to protest the latest warrantless NSA spyng scandal. In response, someone sent us the following message:

My first reaction to this is that the phone companies were complying with a government request after 9/11 and should not be held accountable for complying with that request.

There has to be a balance between what we want our government to do to protect us from terrrorist [sic] attacks and protecting our right to privacy.

Heartily agreeing with the claim that there "has to be a balance", I nevertheless disagreed with holding the telecommuncations companies blameless:

One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.

According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.

---------------
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them,"

The NSA obviously did not feel confident that its request was legal. Despite a poll taken long before American citizens could get a handle on what the issue was all about, a later poll showed Americans were quite upset over the decision and legal action could be very, very costly for the telecommunications companies, not that Constitutional rights should be dependent on polls in any event.

As to the idea of balance, our objector agreed with me in a later message that the Bush Administration had not engaged in any such thing. Major problem with the idea of balance is that the Administration never, at any point, sought any input from anyone outside their own little, tight circle of cronies and ideological soulmates. It's also become quite clear that there are simply no legal restraints on the program.

Worried about Dick Cheney listening in Sunday on your call to Mom? That ain't nothing. You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration. Five years ago, I discovered that ChoicePoint had already gathered 16 billion data files on Americans -- and I know they've expanded their ops at an explosive rate.

And no, the assertions that the government does not know your name, only your phone number and the calls you've made, was quickly scotched in the USA Today article:

With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information. [emphasis added]

The fact that the telecommunications companies did not turn over specific identifying information to the government means nothing. The government can easily get that information anyway. And make no mistake, Congress very clearly came out against the very similar Total Information Awareness program back in 2003. Hopefully, the whole issue will blow General Hayden's nomination to run the CIA completely out of the water, but ya never know.

Reaction to Stephen Colbert's comedy routine

First, after about a week of embarrassed silece, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote a dismissive article about Stephen Colbert's routine poking fun at Bush and his Administration. I responded with a letter, as did around 4000 others. Richard's subsequent weeping and whining and wailing caught the attention of the left blogosphere, who essentially agreed with DailyKos who said that if Cohen had a coherent point to make then why did he waste valuable time sniffling and sobbing and moaning about angry emails?

The DLC talks foreign policy

The LeftCoaster looks at some of the DLC's favored presidential candidates for 2008 and we see them offer the following advice:

Bayh accused the president of mishandling Iran and North Korea while weakening U.S. alliances and the nation's armed forces. He said the war in Iraq has been "tragically, tragically" mismanaged.

So the Iraq War was merely "mismanaged", eh? I wonder what Bayh would advise the President to do about manpower. Right now, the Army has been caught taking an autistic 18 year old. Obviously, they did so because the US has reached the limits of what persuasion can do.

Seriously, does anybody think the Bush Administration just plain forgot to have a national draft? It's been plainly obvious for over three years that a draft would energize the anti-war movement and would cause the war to come to a screeching halt. All of the sudden, the war would mean something to young people in a personal way instead of just being a faraway, "one of these days" possibility.

Sorry, but the "mismanaged" excuse doesn't fly.

Warner said the key for Democrats is to represent a muscular foreign policy that respects and supports U.S. troops; deploys diplomatic, economic, and when necessary, military assets against U.S. enemies; rises to the challenge of global competition; and unites friends and divides enemies — "not the reverse," which he complained Bush has done.

Yet, there seemed to be limits to how far Warner would go. He told reporters afterward that while he hopes the Iraq war is successful, he would consider pulling U.S. troops out if the country did not make progress in coming months on democracy and security.

Okay, but Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is actively competing with the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution for influence within the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance. Al-Sadr, as people might remember, is not very fond of the United States being in Iraq and he's very obviously a popular figure within that country. What exactly does Mark Warner plan to do about al-Sadr? What would his response be to an Iraqi demand for US troops to leave?

As the LeftCoaster puts it:

To Warner and Bayh, talking about Bush’s record and holding him accountable for his mistakes is nothing more than “lashing out in anger” and political retribution.

Accountability means nothing to these people. They've got a bunch of clever slogans with no clear thought behind them and they don't intend to hold Bush accountable for anything.

Yeah, okay guys. Great plan. Nice ideas. Way to go.

Yeesh.

Whatta buncha losers.

Fallout from Stephen Colbert

Stephen Colbert made a real splash at the Correspondnt's Dinner that is televised here. This provoked The Washington Post's Richard Cohen to write a column entitled "So not funny" (Pretty pathetic, in order to demonstate his credentials as a "funny guy", Cohen cites some of his elementary school teachers.) I wrote the following letter in response:

Dear Mr Cohen,
So now we're beginning to see the reaction from the press corps. After previously trying to ignore Colbert's performance (Which personally, I thought was hilarious), the "scandalized" and "outraged" press corps goes to bat for their "Dear Leader".
You remark that Bush couldn't respond because of the civility and decorum that the setting and the moment required. Pardon me, but didn't Cindy Sheehan bring up exactly the same point that Colbert and Helen Thomas did? Didn't Sheehan ask "What was the noble cause that my son died for"? As you might remember, Bush was completely unable to answer that question.
Bush's inability to respond to Colbert's ribbing (Bush could very easily have given an interview the next day wherein he referred to "some critics" and explained to the American people what the answer to Helen Thomas' question was.) shows, again, that he simply can't answer any serious questions about the Iraq War. There simply are no answers. THAT was the true point of Colbert's performance.
Did Colbert demonstrate a lack of true courage? Perhaps, but he showed far more courage than the press corps did a few years back, when Bush "couldn't find the WMD" underneath the tables and couches in the White House. For that routine, the press corps' response was to laugh uproariously and to congratulate Bush on his marvelous sense of humor.
The press corps is now demonstrating far more tender concern for the fragile ego of America's "Dear Leader" than they are for any kinds of standards.

New Iraqi Prime Minister

Word from Asia Times is that the new guy is pretty much the same as the old guy. Old wine in a new bottle; six of one, half-dozen of the other; distinction without a difference; etc.

Net Neutrality

Very strongly recommend checking out the many links on this site to learn about and take action on the issue of "Net Neutrality," a very important issue well worth your time.

Bush losing Noonan?

Wow! Even sweet little Peggy Noonan is beginning to show doubts! From Echidne

Even Peggy Noonan, bless her little heart, is beginning to gently wonder about Bush:

We all like a president who says "The buck stops here." Mr. Bush never ducks the buck. But he puts severe limits on the number and kind of people who can hand it to him. He picks them, receives their passionate and by definition limited recommendations, makes his decision, and sticks. All very Trumanesque, except Truman could tolerate argument and dissent. They didn't pass the buck to little Harry, they threw it at his head. Clark Clifford was in in the morning telling him he had to recognize Israel, and George Marshall was there in the afternoon telling him he'd step down as secretary of state if he did.

It was a mess. Messes aren't all bad.

If George is losing Noonan, whom is he still holding? Other than his god, I mean. Psst, George's god! Could you mention him that nuking Iran to stop it from getting nukes is a bad idea. Thanks.

For anyone who was concerned...

...that we'd turned out to be Specter fans, I give you the following statement from firedoglake:

Some of us remember the Nixon impeachment hearings well. Others of you have read about them in detail. I was one of the first people to ask where are the Howard Bakers of the Republican Party? So, I find it ironic that in Bernstein’s article Senator Arlen Specter is quoted as saying: "’We ought to get to the bottom of it so it can be evaluated, again, by the American people,’ said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on April 9. ‘[T]he President of the United States owes a specific explanation to the American people … about exactly what he did.’"

If Senator Specter really believed the president owes the American people an explanation, maybe he wouldn’t have scheduled Senator Russ Feingold’s hearing on censure on a Friday. That’s not exactly a day to get full attendance. To my personal disgust, many Democrats didn’t even bother to show up. Friday is get away day and Specter knew it. His disingenuousness runs just shy of the deep hypocrisy in his statement.

For the record, I and many other members of PRAWN were also quite disgusted at the inability of Democrats to show themselves on that day.

Conclusions about the Euston Manifesto

The Euston Manifesto is an attempt to say "We're liberals" while at the same time saying "All hail our Dear Leader GeeDubyaBush, who is honestly and sincerely trying to institute democracy in Iraq!" There are very serious problems with the idea that the US is attempting any such thing. First off, there is very good reason to doubt that democracy was ever the objective of the US invasion of that country. Early in the Bush Administration, Vice President Cheney convened an energy task force which, for some mysterious reason, was examining maps of Iraqi oil fields.
The Bush Administration has never attempted to explain this, in fact Cheney fought to keep the doings of the task force secret.

Current expenditures don't track with the "democratization" notion, either. The US has overseen the loss of some $20 billion from the oil money that rightfully belongs to the people of Iraq, yet it can't seem to afford a few tens of millions to fund democracy programs. Keep in mind, the US was estimated to have spent $700 billion as of August 2005 to keep the Iraq War going.
So, the idea that

We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.

is a rather hard to understand. If the Bush Administration is uninterested in building democracy in Iraq, and that appears to be the case, what on Earth are progressives supposed to be doing to get Iraq rebuilt as a democracy? If the obstacles to democratization consisted exclusively of the "gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance", then I would agree, there would be no reason not to support the Iraq War.

As to the notion that

We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently ‘understand’, reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.

That's a nice idea in the abstract. Oppose all tyranny? Sure, sign me up! Oppose all oppressive regimes? Why not? Let's go for it!
Problem: Democracy is NOT the automatic default condition of humanity. Simply removing the oppressor does not mean that the formerly oppressed people will automatically burst into song and dance and cheers and begin conducting town hall meetings in the style of New Englanders in the early 1800s.

We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare, and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just.

Again, this is a great idea in the abstract. Hamas and Hezbollah have both committed many acts that have for better or worse, been called terrorism. Yet, there's simply no question that they are the properly-elected representatives of their respective populations. It may be a great idea to unequivocally condemn terrorist acts, but it's hard to say that proper human beings are on one side and all terrorists are on the other.

Many people have called Moqtada al-Sadr a terrorist, but he openly and publicly supports the current properly-elected Prime Minister of Iraq (Who seems to still be unable to form a government.) and al-Jaafari appears to be okay with al-Sadr's support. Concerning the situation in Anbar Province, where the US is trying to get new elections going ASAP:

"If people who feel disenfranchised get to vote, then they're going to work together to make the insurgency unstable," Bishop said.

At least that's the hope. Previous attempts at building a government in Anbar haven't gone according to plan.

As Juan Cole points out "It has never worked before there, so why do they think it will work this time? If 80 percent of the local people are with the guerrilla movement, electoral politics itself inevitably gets distorted."

Am I thereby "observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi ‘insurgency’" ? I guess so, but as the insurgency legitimately represents real and deep opposition to the presence of US troops in Iraq, I find it difficult to spend a lot of time condemning them. I certainly don't consider them heroes or romantic characters, but that doesn't mean I consider their struggle pointlessly evil. Whether we in America consider their struggle to be just another form of terrorism, we all need to recognize that it exists for a reason and that reason must be taken into account when one is trying to reach a settlement.

BTW, the Euston authors expend a great deal of ink condemning "the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking." I quite honestly have no idea who they're talking about. However, this final thought makes the objective of the authors all too clear:

This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so bycertain left and liberal voice.

I don't regard comparisons between "Guantanamo with the Gulag" to be out of place at all. Certainly, the Gulag constructed by the late Soviet Union was a vastly larger affair involving many more people, by several orders of magnitude, but was the Gulag actually worse than Guantanamo? Were the prisoners of one treated with any more respect or dignity than the other? The War on Terror has most certainly seen an enormous degradation in human rights and values. Nothing justifies that.

I simply can't regard the Euston authors as having a serious case to make.

Meeting w/ Sen Specter's staff

Marlene Santoyo
This morning (Monday, April 10th) a large group- about 12 of us went to see Sen Arlen Specter's Chief of Staff who came down form DC to talk with us. We are still holding out for a town meeting with Specter. AS you will see the exchange of ideas was good BUT Specter is still going forward with funding the war because: “Regardless of how we got into the war, we need to ensure that we don’t leave a power vacuum in Iraq”

When some of us came out of the Federal Building after the exchange with Bill Reynolds, it was good to see and feel supported by Monique (PRAWN), Hal (Germantown Friends Meeting) Carol (WILPF) standng with a poster and Resister Sister's banner -
OUT OF IRAQ!


Notes from meeting with Bill Reynolds , Sen Specter's chief of Staff -
(Written by Karen Wisniewski, minor edits by Rich Gardner)
The agreed-upon procedure was that all of us would speak in turn and then Reynolds would answer and then we would have a more free-for-all discussion.

1. Larry Petkov, representing PRAWN, former public school teacher: requests that Specter introduce a resolution similar to James McGovern’s and to vote against appropriations for troops in Iraq.
2. Kaki Sjogren, social worker, alternatives to violence: wants a public debate that addresses private interests—oil—and the exploitation of the natural resources of the Iraqi people. What will Specter do to expose the private gains?
3. Matt Sullivan, college student/activist: asked Specter to take a stand now against the war (he cited 70% troops on the ground support for withdrawal in 6 months) and expressed serious concern about the possible use of nuclear weapons in Iran
4. Rich Gardner, Retired US Navy petty officer: What is Specter’s opinion of VP Cheney’s energy task force in 2001 examining maps of Iraqi oil fields? Iraqi people want US troops to go home. Does Specter respect the wishes of the Iraqi people?
5. Marge Van Cleef, teacher, musician, Bryn Mawr Peace Coalition: Will Specter support a floor debate about the war? Will the US leave or continue to occupy Iraq? What about the 14 new bases in Iraq? Will Specter take a stand about an invasion of Iran? Will he listen to US generals on the ground who are saying troops should be withdrawn?
6. Bernadette Cronin-Gellar, social worker for 44 years, with child welfare, now working in adult ed, St. Vincent’s Peace Committee, Brandywine Peace Community: How long will Specter support an immoral war?
7. Phyllis Gilbert, with Peace Action - Delaware Valley, property owner and landlady: Did Specter go to war based on solid information? Will he introduce a resolution in the Senate stronger than Murtha’s?
8. Marlene Santoyo, WILPF, NOW and Germantown Monthly Meeting (Quakers): Why do they hate us? What are US soldiers dying for? No war in Iran.
9. Ruth Balter, grandmother: What about the staggering debt and the next generations?
10. Karen Wisniewski, RN in free clinic in Kensington, Delaware Co. Pledge of Resistance, Philadelphia Buddhist Peace Fellowship: reminder of the poor in Kensington.
11. Bill Perry, Disabled Vets of America, VFW, Vietnam Vets for Peace, member of the building trades: It’s all about Specter’s legacy.

Responses from Bill Reynolds:
“The thought that we would use nuclear weapons in Iran is very, very, troubling…the senator will be asking some hard questions about this”
“The senator is not afraid to wag his finger in the president’s face”
“He bucked the president and the Republican Party with the additional appropriations of $7billion for labor, health and education” “His overall position on the war is different than Murtha’s, which is not to say that his position will not change”
“He is not in a position to enter a resolution like Murtha’s or McGovern ’s”
His justification :
“Keep up the grassroots activism” Reynolds said this at least four times
“Senator Specter has no problem poking a finger in the eyes of those who need poking” (said twice)
“Needs to be a workable plan for a pull out”
This is for want of a better word, “an imperial presidency”
“We do more than is required by senate rules” regarding reporting of interests, etc.
“We’re not in this to get rich; it’s a calling for me”
“Grassroots activism IS the force of change”
“I will present to him (Specter) what you’ve told me, look at the resolutions, including Kerry’s, and tell him that you still want to meet with him”
“I can’t tell you that he is or isn’t going to change his mind” on the war.
_________________________________

Iran's nuclear enrichment program - less than meets the eye

Juan Cole, noted Mideast expert, points out that in order to make a nuclear bomb, one needs "about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade." to achieve the necessary 80% enrichment. Iran possesses 180 centrifuges hooked up to cascade and can reach a purity of 3.5%. In other words, Iran can make glowing Mickey Mouse watches (Which the US used to do back in the 1950s).
Cole believes that Ahmadinejad and Bush are both using each other as boogeymen to frighten their countrymen because both groups of hardliners are low in popularity.

Hobson's choice

This is one of those stories where we have to decide whether "W" is a clueless idiot or an evil, vicious bastard. Nothing else can be the case, but it's hard to say which characterization is the true one. Apparently, Bush has no idea as to what the legal status of the many mercenaries/contractors is. This was a question that came up during the turnover of "authority" from Paul Bremer to Iyad Allawi. Obviously, if the question was ever answered, Bush either didn't get the memo or is trying to cynically hide the truth from US citizens.
I sincerely hope that Bush knows the answer and is trying to hide the answer behind a screen of apparent befuddlement. The idea that he truly may not know is an answer too horrifying to contemplate.
As to what the legal status of US mercenaries means, let's imagine that we're a group of Iraqi civilians and we've just witnessed an American soldier commit an atrocity. Say, an American soldier shoots an unarmed Iraqi soldier while the Iraqi soldier is in US custody. When a soldier commits an atrocity, the rank insignia on his or her sleeve and the soldier's nametag tells any witnesses who it was that committed the act. With mercenaries, is there any standard uniform? Is there anyone who will enforce such standards? Who does one complain to if a mercenary is seen abusing or shooting an unarmed Iraqi? To the private company half a world away in the US that employs the mercenary? To the local military commander, who may or may not even know about the nearby mercenary units? To the US President, who is apparently unaware of what their status is in the first place?
Yeah, they could always complain to the government of Ibriham Jaafari, but that presumes that his writ extends beyond the Green Zone. What if an atrocity occurs miles away from Baghdad? What do the Iraqi witnesses do then? The CBS News correspondent Lara Logan reported "If you had any idea of the number of Iraqis that come to us with stories of abuses of U.S. soldiers and you look at our coverage over the last -- my coverage over the last few weeks, or even over the last three years, there's been maybe two or three stories that have related to that." So, apparently, Iraqi civilians report problems with American soldiers to TV news reporters because they're the ones they can identify as being able to do something about the soldiers.
But clearly, not many such reports ever make it onto the air. There could be perfectly legitimate reasons why. Reporters are not equipped to go out and investigate and to confirm that these reports are accurate. They don't have subpoena power, they can't insist that soldiers talk.
Mercenaries are of course even less accountable than that.
And Bush doesn't know their legal status?
Brr. Horrors!

Foreign Service officers and "tethered goats" strategy

Under the pretense that Iraq is being pacified, the U.S. military is partially withdrawing from hostile towns in the countryside and parts of Baghdad. By reducing the numbers of soldiers the administration can claim its policy is working going into the midterm elections. But the jobs that the military will no longer perform are being sloughed off onto State Department "provincial reconstruction teams" led by Foreign Service officers. The stated rationale is that the teams will win Iraqi hearts and minds by organizing civil functions.

Wow! That's pretty amazing. A "provincial reconstruction team" sounds like a pretty good idea for the Iraqi situation of about...oh... three years ago. During the summer of 2003, they might not have even needed that much protection. If the Iraqis saw the teams as performing a useful function, they might have even attracted defenders from among the population. Now? With the chaos in Iraq these days? My first suspicion was that this had to be a plot by the Bush Administration to empty the State Department of Foreign Service officers. What evidence is there that the Bush Administration has any sort of grudge against these folks? Well,

State department officials in the field are reporting that Shia militias use training as cover to infiltrate key positions. Thus the strategy to create institutions of order and security is fuelling civil war.

Rather than being received as invaluable intelligence, the messages are discarded or, worse, considered signs of disloyalty. [emphasis added]

--------------
The state department's Intelligence and Research Bureau was correct in its scepticism before the war about Saddam Hussein's possession of WMDs, but was ignored. The department was correct in its assessment in its 17-volume Future of Iraq project about the immense effort required for reconstruction after the war, but it was disregarded. Now its reports from Iraq are correct, but their authors are being punished.

So, it appears my first suspicion was correct. Foreign Service officers are being offerred up as sacrifices because of their perceived disloyalty. But hold on! Condi Rice (Termed "Darling Condi" by various snarky liberals when describing her relations with the press corps) is responsible for the safety of State Department personnel. Wouldn't mass casualties among the Foreign Service officers cause her to lose face?

Amid this internal crisis of credibility, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has washed her hands of her department. Her management skills are minimal. Now she has left coercing people to fill the PRTs to her counsellor, Philip Zelikow, who, by doing the dirty work, is trying to keep her reputation clean.

So the answer is, yes it would, IF the slaughter of Foreign Service officers was seen as her fault.

The Pentagon has informed the State Department that it will not provide security for these officials and that State should hire mercenaries for protection instead.

Now, I don't pretend to know anything about the mercenaries available to the State Department these days, but mercenaries back during the days of Renaissance Italy had the reputation of being there until they were really needed. Mercenaries made for fine parade-ground soldiers, but when their paymasters were faced with a really threatening force, they made themselves scarce very quickly. Is this going to be a problem with the provincial reconstruction teams? The situation is not identical. When you're a small group defending a small group, it's probably easiest for everybody to stay together. But if you've got a team working with the villagers and the mercenaries are down the road and the bad guys attack from an unexpected direction, it might be easier for the mercenaries to just scatter, away from the fighting and the screaming and the bloodshed. If the provincial reconstruction team gets wiped out completely, who's going to contradict the story that the mercenaries tell? Someone from the team would have to survive for that to happen.

PRESS RELEASE : WAR PROTESTERS VISIT SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

CONTACT PERSONS:
Marlene Santoyo, Women's Int'l. League for Peace & Freedom, 215-247-4385, marlsan@cavtel.net
Marge Van Cleef, Delaware County Pledge of Resistance, 484-348-2487, mvc@igc.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 7, 2006
PRESS INVITED

DATE: Monday, April 10, at 12 o'clock noon
PLACE: Senator Specter's Philadelphia office in the Federal Building, 6th &
Market St., Rm 9400.

Senator Arlen Specter's chief of staff, Bill Reynolds, is coming from
Washington to meet with representatives from the Philadelphia anti-war
movement, including United for Peace and Justice-UFPJ/Philadelphia. This is
in response to a visit to the Senator's office on March 27th when the names
of U.S. and Iraqi war victims were read.

In the last few months there have been numerous protests near the Senator's home
and visits to his office opposing his support of President Bush's war policies in
Iraq. Monday's meeting with Bill Reynolds will include another request for a town
meeting where the Senator himself will hear from constituents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerned citizens will be protesting the war in Iraq at the Federal Building
at 6th & Market St, 12 o'clock noon on April 10th. JOIN US!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latest mess in Iraq

Cast of characters:

Ngô Đình Diệm Jean Baptiste ran South Vietnam for the Americans, assassinated in 1963 when he failed to fight the North Vietnamese/Vietcong in the manner that the Americans wished him to.

Ibrahim al-Jaafari is the current legitimately elected Prime Minister of Iraq

Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani was asked for assistance against Jaafari

Muqtada al-Sadr supports Jaafari

The headline on 27 March said: Iraq ruling Shi'ites demand control over security. The provocation was what the Iraqi government called " 'cold-blooded' killings by troops of unarmed people in a mosque." After waiting 24 hours, "US commanders mounted a media offensive to deny Shiite accounts". Obviously, the Bush Administration didn't take very kindly to the suggestion that US troops leave Iraq, because on 29 March, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran the following article:

A U.S. call for cleric's help
By Nancy A. Youssef and Warren P. Strobel / Inquirer Foreign Staff
U.S. officials sent a message this week to Iraq's senior Shiite cleric asking that
he help end the impasse over forming a government and strongly implying that the
prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, should withdraw his candidacy for reelection,
according to U.S. officials. ... reach out to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani
suggested how eager the Bush ...

And Sistani's answer?

Iraq cleric will not read Bush letter
An aide to Sistani said the Shiite was unhappy with what he saw as American meddling
in Iraqi politics.
By Qassim Abdul-Zahra
Associated Press

BAGHDAD - A hand-delivered letter from President Bush to Iraq's supreme Shiite spiritual
leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, sits unread and untranslated, a key
aide to Sistani said yesterday.

The aide - who has never allowed use of his name in news reports, citing Sistani's
refusal to make any public statements himself - said Sistani had laid the letter
aside and did not ask for a translation because of increasing "unhappiness"
over what senior Shiite leaders see as American meddling in Iraqi attempts to form
their first permanent post-invasion government.

-----

The messenger also was said to have explained that the letter reinforced the American
position that Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite, should not be given a
second term.

-------

The United States is believed to oppose Jaafari because of his close ties and strong
backing from radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has a thousands-strong heavily
armed militia that was responsible for much of the violence that hit the country
after the Feb. 22 bombing of an important Shiite shrine in Samarra, north of Baghdad.

A bit of background: Jafaari is serving a single one-year term. A second term for him would mean that he serves a full four years. Is he legitimately in office? Was he properly elected? Juan Cole says: "He maintains he was elected fair and square by his party. Hard to argue with."

So what are the options for the US? The US obviously doesn't want to repeat the mistake President Kennedy made with Ngô Đình Diệm. Diệm was not performing satisfactorily as South Vietnams' first President. Essential problem was "Hồ Chí Minh and his communist policies were popular, and Diệm was not." So when the US ambassador heard that South Vietnamese generals wanted to overthrow Diệm, no objection was made. The good news was that the US could now work with a more pliable government that did what it was told. The bad news was that the new government was no more popular than the old one was. So, it appears the US is trying to get his fellow Iraqis to push Jaafari out.

Iraq Shi’ites Call For Jaafari to Step Down

“I call on Jaafari to take a courageous step and set a fine example by stepping down," Kasim Daoud, a senior member of the independent group within the Alliance, told Reuters. Other senior Alliance officials, speaking anonymously, confirmed that four of seven main groups within the bloc wanted Jaafari to give up the nomination for a second term if, as is all but certain, he fails to persuade minority Sunni and Kurdish parties to drop their refusal to serve in a cabinet under him.

Slight problem with that idea, though:

Iraqis Rally Support for Jaafari

People rally in Baghdad in support of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Nearly one thousand people marched through the streets of the predominantly Shi'ite neighbourhood of Kadhimiya on Saturday (April 1) to show support for Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. The protest came in response to a public call for the first time by leaders of Iraq's ruling Shi'ite Alliance bloc for Jaafari to step down as prime minister to break weeks of deadlock over a national unity government. The protesters, mainly supporters of the radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr marched through the street chanting slogans in support of Jaafari. Sadr's support enabled al-Jaafari to win the nomination by a single vote in a Feb. 12 caucus of Shiites who won election to the new parliament December 15. The protesters carried two black coffins representing democracy and election.

And it appears that the US Ambassador is not popular enough to have any leverage:

US Ambassador Reportedly Shunned by Iraq Leaders

The al-Sistani aide said Shiite displeasure with U.S. involvement was so deep that dignitaries in the holy city of Najaf refused to meet Khalilzad on Wednesday during ceremonies commemorating the death of the Prophet Muhammad.

Of course it doesn't help when "At a time when we send Condi to Iraq to plead with them to uphold their commitments, the United States is abandoning our commitment to build hundreds of primary health care clinics in the country."

As of 5 April, "Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw pleaded with [Jaafari] and his rivals for an immediate agreement to prevent a slide to civil war - Ibrahim Jaafari insisted he would continue to carry out his duties." Is Jaafari now regretting his closeness to Muqtada al-Sadr? Not at all:

"It's a great success that the Sadrists are part of the political process. Can you imagine what would have happened after Samarra if the Sadrists were not part of it?" he asked. Indirectly attacking the Americans, he pointed out that three years ago he was already calling on Sadrists and Sunnis to be brought into the fold at a time when Washington was against it.

So it seems the US is stuck dealing with an Iraqi Prime Minister who doesn't have a whole lot of use for the US troops occupying his country.

Iraq ocupation

Britain's Guardian newspaper asks how it was that "after three years of occupation and billions of dollars of spending, hospitals are still short of basic supplies?" The paper identifies several culprits and Iraqis themselves remember with considerable bitterness how Saddam Hussein managed, under crushing sanctions and with far worse devestation to deal with, did a better job rebuilding the country in six months than the wealthy Americans have done in three years. As a health professional with 20 years of experience put it, "Everybody in Iraq was ready for three months' chaos," but "we've got until early August to show an improvement." No improvement ever occured. It appears to all concerned that the insurgency would have occurred anyway, but the loss of opportunity is keenly felt to this day.

NEXT SPECTER'S OFFICE MEETING

Friends of Monday, March 27th meeting - Via a phone call from Chris Bradish,"foreign policy advisor" in Specter's DC office, it was agreed that he and Bill Reynolds, Chief of Staff, would meet with us on Monday, April 10th at noon in Specter's Philadelphia office in the Federal Building, 6th & Market, Room 9400.

he needs to know numbers and names of people who will attend (names = numbers?) We suggest the active groups against the war send reps to the meeting.

In preparation for the meeting we will gather at the Bourse at 10:45 a.m., inside near the 5th St. entrance.

please read suggestions for manner of organizing the meeting.

We will need some press work done, so please volunteer if you like to do that.

Large numbers of people are encouraged to come down on the 10th and stand outside the building on Market St. holding signs and reading the names of Iraqi and Americans who have been killed in the war.

Thanks for doing this collective organizing via e-mail. Marlene and I agree to co- coordinate.
Marlene Santoyo 215-247-4385
Marge VC 484-384-2487

From Marlene - I would like to recommend that each of us outline the topic that we/you want to discuss- Make it succinct, share it via email & practice (Role play)
what you want to/need to say and then the next person goes - Share your emphasis so the next person can take up where the previous left off.

Kaki & All, Excellent! this is exactly what each of us can do. Decide on the subject that we want to address. Limit it to 3- 5 min max. You're on a roll.

Now, I need to say that since Marge asked, am glad to respond & assist. I can not be there on Mon at Specter's

I have an appt with two doctor's appointments that took me three months to schedule BUT I do feel we all are equal participants & will do what I can beforehand or after this date, including when we have a date set up to speak with Sen Specter, be it in Phila or DC.

In solidarity,
marlene

* * * * * * * * * *

From: Kaki Sjogren [mailto:njlkaki@verizon.net]
Subject: Re: Responding to All: : NEXT SPECTER'S OFFICE MEETING

What about candid discussion about the oil industry? permanent military bases? e.g. see
Crude Designs - The Rip-off of Iraq's Oil Wealth
This is the hidden dragon.

kaki

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlene Santoyo"
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:59 PM
Subject: Responding to All: : NEXT SPECTER'S OFFICE MEETING

Hello Dear Activists, Feminists, Peacemakers,

A while back a group of about 12 got to speak to Rep Chakkah Fattah. There were 10 of us.

It went very well. After talking with Marge, I'm going to share with you how we organized it.

We each one introduced ourselfves & our community & took 3 min to BRIEFLY outline one aspect of why the war policy is wrong.

The reasons "Why I/we oppose the war" they might include: for Ex-

1. As a grandmother, the legacy & debt I am leaving my children. WWII, Vietnam, Iraq- Post traumatic syndrome
2. The dead, the wounded- US & Iraq.- never to see their children grow.
3. As a veteran--
4. An unsafe world- Of course they hate us, I hate us ..
5. Vets return and there is more spousal abuse, drugs ..
6. LIES started the war and..
7. Poverty, funds cut from reasonable costing housing, healthcare, decent paying jobs

WE believe our gov must:

• stop US arms sales to the Middle East.
• The way of peace is through the US withdrawing its military presence from the Middle East, whereas the Bush administration is now actively transferring troops and weapons and expanding bases, obviously has no intention of leaving.
• The way of peace is through human development, and Iraq is a graphic example of how the US erodes and even destroys the possibility of human development by a foreign policy that intends to rule by economic and military domination. The deliberate targeting of Iraq's water systems for sanctioning is a disgrace that the US has not owned up to or repaired. Because of war devastation and sanctions, a society that was once marked by its high rate of literacy, the accomplishment of women, and widespread access to free and excellent health care is now in a state of de-development characterized by high levels of malnutrition and a sense of hopelessness.
• President Bush was given an okay from the Congress for war in Afghanistan, and now we look at an Afghanistan where many people have died with no end to war in sight. War is not the answer, and the war the US has waged against the people of Iraq since 1990 must finally be ended. US continued and new aggression on Iraq creates the very circumstances that make future attacks on the US not only more likely but inevitable. The only solutions for the crises in Iraq (and Palestine) are political, and they require the US to respect Iraqi sovereignty.
• Disarmament is a goal that can be pursued internationally only if the US intends to obey international laws. If the US flagrantly goes its own way, then there will no longer be any basis for international cooperation. Whatever laws are established, they must first and foremost apply the United States.
• In the war on terror the US wants its citizens to be safe, yet it pursues policies that make the US an enemy of the people of the world. As long as the US supports Israel and maintains the siege on Iraq, many people of the world will regard the US as their enemy, thus making attacks on the US more, not less, likely in the future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------

I would like to recommend that each of us outline the topic that we/you want to discuss- Make it succinct, share it via email & practice (Role play) what you want to/need to say and then the next person goes - Share your emphasis so the next person can take up where the previous left off.

________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________

They don't want more than 2 or 4 .The heck with it- don't compromise. last time we were 10 people- Go and sit in the outer office. They can bring a chair & sit with us there or in the corner office. Don't give him the upper hand.

Think about it- Is this the time to do CD??

* Then we LISTEN , without interruption and we emphasize that we are here and will not be going away until we talk with Arlen

When will that be. WE are determined to STOP the "collateral damage"

- DEATHS of Americans & Iraqis and we will speak with the journalists the TV audience. WE hold our Senator - Se Specter directly responsible - UNTIL such time as he stops funding the war & joins Mc Govern or initiates other legislation to Bring home our sons and daughters & keep them here with their husbands & wives and children.

-----------------------

OK- Friends- your turn,
We must be courteous & if we are to have a relationship it will be though the good relations we have with this person sitting in front of us. Don't get angry with him. We want him on our side.

Then one or two wraps it up & everyone leaves

It would be great if you can have a reporter(s) there, A press release would be excellent.

If lots of folks come , more than fit in the office- that can read the names of the dead out on Market St.

In peace with justice,
marlene

. Keep in mind what we are there for. It's not a time to chit-chat , that trivializes our mission.

WE could each time read again the names of the dead- Somber and shouldn't be the case.

- From: Marge VanCleef [mailto:margevc@verizon.net]
NEXT SPECTER'S OFFICE MEETING

Friends of Monday, March 27th meeting -
I just received a phone call from Chris Bradish in Specter's DC office. He is the "foreign policy advisor" in the office. He said that he and Bill Reynolds, Chief of Staff, would meet with us on Monday, April 10th at noon in Philadelphia office.

• Do you all agree that we should go ahead with this?
• he needs to know numbers and names of people who will attend (names = numbers?)
• We will need to prepare for the meeting, suggested last Monday that we gather again at the Bourse at 10:45 a.m.
• We will need some press work done, so please volunteer if you like to do that.

I will wait to hear back from you before I send this out to other lists. And I'm afraid they will try to limit our numbers, that was the tone. How do you want to handle that issue?

Thanks for doing this collective organizing via e-mail. I can continue to coordinate, and will add Marlene's phone number as the other coordinator.

Marlene Santoyo 215-247-4385
Marge VC 484-384-2487