The Sunday Eel Pout

Here in Minnesota, the ice is now too thin to risk one's life for a fish, and too thick to get a boat out, so it's fortunate that I can take one of my reserve eel pouts from the deep-freeze for this week's award. My wonderful revamped PC is still in a local shop, so I am using a borrowed laptop to briefly and hurriedly bestow a reconstituted eel pout on some hapless but deserving victim.

This week's candidates are as follows:

• Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina proved once again this week that the Republican leadership is completely and hopelessly clueless when it comes to Iraq. As he explained on Fox News regarding the battle over Basra, "Now we have a battle with militias who are operating outside the government. … We must win this fight. The militias that we are fighting are backed by Iran. So this is an effort by Iran to destabilize Iraq." Sen. Graham must not have read his scorecard. The facts are that the Iraqi government's biggest ally is the Badr Corps, the militia of the Supreme Islamic Council (ISCI), which is the most pro-Iranian of all of the militias in Iraq. The Sadrists are the least Iranian-influenced major Shia militia in Iraq. If the Iraqi government succeeds in crushing the Mahdi Army, it will be a major boost for Iranian interests in the country. Nearly everything that the Administration has done in Iraq, from removing the secular Hussein regime that was absolutely hostile to Iran, to pushing elections despite a Sunni boycott that resulted in an overwhelming Shia win, to failing at economic reconstruction that left Iranian religious charities as a lifeline for poor Iraqis, has only increased the profile of Iran within Iraq and within the region. Now Sen. Graham is essentially proposing, as ThinkProgress puts it, "we must defeat militias backed by Iran by siding with a militia backed by Iran". Such idiocy deserves a fresh eel pout.
  
  
• Karl Rove, in an interview on Fox News, with O'Reilly explains what's at stake in Iraq. Victory in Iraq "will rally the Muslim world to us. It will also create a huge influence in the Middle East. Think about the creation of the democracy in the historic center of the Middle East with the third-largest oil reserves in the world. If we have a functioning democracy in Iraq, that's an ally in the war on terror, a counterweight to mullahs Iran and to Assad in Syria, this will create a very hopeful center of reform and energy for reform throughout the Middle East." Oh Karl, stop. Democracy in the Middle East would be a terrible thing for our foreign policy, as sad as that may sound. I realise that the conventional wisdom is that democracy always creates pro-American governments, but that really is not the case, especially in the Middle East. The governments in the Middle East, whether monarchs or dictators, are far more sympathetic to our interests and far more pliable to our will than the people of those countries. Democracy in Iraq has created a pro-Iranian state in what once was Iran's greatest nemesis. Democracy in Iran, however limited it is, brought Ahmedinejad to power. The royalty in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are the lid on radical Islam, not the engine. Public opinion throughout the Arab and Persian world toward Israel is much more negative than the governments in those countries. What would really "rally the Muslim world to us" would be to stop shoveling $12 million each day into Israel, stop using them as our regional proxy, and stop defending everything they do.
  

• President Bush, who called the violent breakdown in Basra a "byproduct of the success" of the surge, and a "very positive moment". Al-Maliki's now-stalled effort in Basra also apparently "shows the progress the Iraqi security forces have made during the surge." That's why American special forces, along with the British, are helping on the ground and in the air: because the Iraqi Army has made so much progress that they still need our help. And as usual, any development only serves to confirm that we must maintain the surge. Iraqi government "standing up"? We have to maintain the surge to support them. Violence from the Basra conflict spreading to other areas of Iraq? We have to maintain the surge because security is so bad. Casualties up? Maintain the surge or things will get worse. Casualties down? Maintain the surge or the security gains will disappear. Notice also that the Administration isn't talking about Al-Qaeda anymore, which has been the big threat in Bush's mind for a year now. Before the surge, the militias were the big threat, and the surge would disarm them. When the surge failed at that, it was Al-Qaeda that was the big threat, and militias were benign. Now we're in Iraq to stop the militias, but only certain militias, because that's the problem like they said all along.

Ah, such idiocy. They all deserve eel pouts, at least. But there can be only one.
The winner of Minnesota's absolutely unwanted, utterly uncoveted, dismally appropriate, shudder-inspiring, and completely ignominious Sunday Eel Pout is... Karl Rove for his dimwitted claim that victory in Iraq will spread democracy, and that that would mean a pro-U.S. Middle East. If you think it's disgusting now, just wait until it thaws out. Perhaps the awarding of this eel pout can finally bring the Arab world together in agreement that Karl Rove is a jackass.

That's all for this Sunday's Eel Pout Award. Thanks to my neighbour for the laptop loan. I am fairly confident that my new machine will running in the week ahead, and this blog will be restored.

Stunning "progress" in Iraq

Just a quick take on the Iraqi situation before I have to return my neighbour's laptop.

Al-Maliki is becoming the Iraqi version of Bush. He threw his Army into Basra with almost no planning and no intelligence. Who could have predicted that armoured vehicles couldn't penetrate the narrow streets of Basra? Who knew that the Basra police would desert and mutiny when it's been clear for years that they are infiltrated by the militias? Who could have possibly anticipated that the conflict would spread to other cities, or that the Army's supply lines would be harried?

Months after announcing a "decisive" battle against a nebulously-defined enemy in the northern part of the country, nothing has taken place that is any different than the routine 'indecisive' efforts of the past. Days after personally overseeing the Basra operation and making a three-day ultimatum (without mentioning the ensuing consequences), Al-Maliki then withdrew far away from the fighting and announced an additional week before the ultimatum would expire and he would then...do what, exactly?

Far from proving the Iraqi Army's "readiness", the week's unfolding scenario only illustrates Al-Maliki's readiness to follow the Administration's orders. American troops have already begun participating, and we have been providing air support for the Basra operation nearly from the start. With discontent growing among the Sunni Sahwa ("Awakening") forces, some of the Sahwa forces are going on strike to protest not being paid. If the continuation of this conflict weakens the Iraqi government's hold on other areas, we could very see our "Awakening" buddies take advantage of the situation and reject the Shia government's control of predominantly Sunni districts. The Sahwa are in this to wipe out the rival gangs, not to bolster the Iraqi government, and the government has not only failed to pay them, but it has actively moved against Sunni interests. And the longer this expensive operation continues, the longer the government loses crucial oil revenue from Basra. This could turn out to be major financial setback on top of a potentially demoralising defeat for the Iraqi government.

How can this be considered any less than a civil war? The Shia government of Al-Maliki has as its strongest ally the (Iranian-inspired) Badr Corps, and the Iraqi Army (along with the Badr Corps) are taking out their primary domestic opposition. The potential ascendance of ISCI can only increase the profile of Iran within Iraq. Just as the removal of Saddam from power took away the strongest check on Iran's regional power, this action by the Iraqi government will, if successful, only reinforce Iran's influence in the region.

Baghdad is also coming apart, and the mortar attacks on the Green Zone are not only much more intense, but have also resulted in casualties. 31 districts within Baghdad are now seeing clashes with Sadrist forces.

The Iraqi minister of defense, Abdul Qadir Jasim, admitted in a news conference in Basra that the militiamen had taken the Iraqi security forces off guard. He added that the Iraqi government had expected this operation to be routine, but was surprised at the level of resistance, and was forced to change its plans and tactics.

Does the above sound familiar? All that we need now is for Al-Maliki to start using terms like "turning the corner" and we'll know for sure that Cheney left his script there. We now have Turkish troops in Kurdistan, the Diyala "pacification is stalled, as is the Anbar reconstruction, progress in Baghdad has been set back, and the Basra conflict has spread to four new cities; this is "good news" to the Decider.

McCain really intends to campaign on the "progress" in Iraq?

Drink up, lads! The GOP is coming to town!

Now that the St. Paul Police Dept. has stocked up on hundreds of new tasers in anticipation of the GOP National Convention here this summer, the next step is too loosen up the liquor laws. Now the Legislature is looking at 4 AM as the last call, and allowing liquor stores to stay open on Sunday, but only during the Convention.

Currently, selected bars are allowed to sell until 2 AM, and all liquor stores across the State are closed on Sunday. Extensive empirical research that I have conducted shows that both Republicans and Democrats have managed to get drunk just fine under the current law. Ironically, it is the Republican legislators that have always fought to restrict bar hours and liquor store sales. Now, the Party of family values needs to be able to drink until 4 AM and pick up a bottle on Sunday to keep that buzz going. That's what "sophisticated" people do, after all.

Perhaps Garrison Keillor was correct when he surmised that, "Republicans seem to need alcohol to maintain their beliefs".

The Twin Cities hosts hundreds of conventions each year, and one must think that these include 'sophisticated' people. Why does this particular convention need special liquor laws? And a ten mile radius from the convention is really quite broad. Are there really that many delegates that will need to drink between 2 and 4 AM that we need hundreds of places for them to do it in? Even all of the way out to Bloomington? And if so, don't the local Republicans deserve the same opportunity to be 'sophisticated' year-round? It should be interesting how many of the neighbourhood working-class bars that Republican delegates would be unlikely to frequent will take advantage of this temporary relaxation of the laws.


story from The Minnesota Monitor

Under an amendment proposed by Rep. Phyllis Kahn, bars in St. Paul and parts of Minneapolis and Bloomington would remain open until 4 a.m. between Aug. 29 and Sept. 8 to accommodate the Republican National Convention.
The amendment to a state appropriations bill would allow late night bar sales within a ten mile radius of the RNC, and would allow for liquor stores to stay open on Sunday throughout the period. Kahn says the amendment is offered to make Minneapolis-St. Paul more "sophisticated" while the Republicans, media and protesters are in town.
The bill would also provide local liquor licensing boards to reject the later bar hours and extended liquor store operations.
The bill was passed by the State Government Finance Division Committee on Wednesday.
A similar Senate bill was withdrawn shortly after being offered earlier this month.

disaster

It is with great frustration that I once again announce that this blog is still on hold, with a special shout out to Microsoft "support" this week. After struggling with the rebuild of my PC myself, then a clueless, incompetent local tech shop that moved at a glacial pace, my machine was actually up and running for a little more than a day on Friday. I was far too busy re-installing apps to blog, but a completely minor issue came up and I decided to take advantage of Microsoft technical support, since the previously mentioned tech shop was mysteriously closed for the holiday weekend.

Three hours later, the Microsoft bozo had managed to turn a minor irritant into a full-blown disaster, wiping out weeks of progress before abandoning me to my own devices. Microsoft's ever-dubious technical support has two priorities, by my experience. The first is to make absolutely sure that the person they are dealing with does not have a pirated copy of Windows. Since they cannot be absolutely sure of this over the phone, they are perpetually suspicious. A full 20 minutes was spent grilling me over the details of my installation in order to determine if I was trying to pull a "fast one" on them. None of these details were passed on the hapless bozo designated to "help" me. The second priority is to come with some kind of pretext to dismiss the support request altogether. I was required to list all of the applications I had installed, spelling out most of them, and each of these were completely unfamiliar to my support bozo. "Winamp?", the clown repeated again and again, as if the name somehow translated into "disaster" in his native tongue. Somehow, the implication is that, if you install anything else beyond the OS, then you are some kind of "wise guy". After uninstalling everything except Firefox, which mysteriously would not uninstall (but worked perfectly), and wiping out everything (including the OS) in a "repair" effort, I was told that my new hard drive (two weeks old, high-end, and the least likely thing to cause a problem) was trash. Until I replaced it, Microsoft technical support could not "help" me any further.

A mistaken attempt to modify a Windows component in a working, stable system had brought me into the clutches of Microsoft technical support, which had left me with a useless machine and a preposterous pretext.

So, I post this from a neighbour's machine. I will take my newly-rebuilt PC back to the clueless and glacially-slow shop, and they will restore it at a snail's pace. And Extemporaneous Discourse will once again rise from the digital ashes. Eel pouts will be awarded, Republican idiocy will be exposed, and all will be well again.

Down but not out

I still haven't managed to get my new PC up and running, so Extemporaneous Discourse will remain in stasis for several more days.

downtime

I am rebuilding/upgrading my PC this week, so there will be no new posts.

Violence up in Iraq

As Senate Republicans prepare to shill for the surge again, this doesn't come as good news: more Iraqis are getting killed.

Combined with the "setback" over provincial elections, it could get tougher for those eager to crow about "progress" in Iraq. The Iraqi occupation has actually made the terrorism threat worse.

On top of that, the surge cannot really be credited with any "improvement", as John Cole points out:

McCain argues that violence is down in 17 of 18 provinces. That argument itself suggests the irrelevancy of the US to Iraq. There are no US troops to speak of in the 3 northern Kurdish provinces, or in the southern 4 provinces from which the British have largely withdrawn. There are few US troops in most of the 8 provinces where Shiites predominate. There was no troop escalation or "surge" in the Sunni al-Anbar province. So if violence has declined in 17 of 18 provinces, US policy cannot possibly have anything to do with most of that. General Petraeus has had significant successes in Baghdad, though at the unfortunate (an unintentional) cost of further turning it into a Shiite city from which most Sunnis have been ethnically cleansed.

So the areas that are the most stable are the areas where we have no or very few troops, but an increase in troops is supposed to have produced a decline in violence. Baghdad is a walled city that has been ethnically cleansed, so secatrian conflict naturally has gone down. Fallujah has banned all motor vehicles in the city for over a year, so no car bombings. This is "progress"? It's like banning cars and then taking credit for safer driving habits by pointing to a decline in car accidents.

Of course, Turkey is currently in the process of invading Kurdistan, which is hardly a sign of a stable Iraq. Basra, too, is controlled by the militias, not the Iraqi government. But it's stable, so that supposedly is a mark in favour of the surge. How is that?

The American public thought that by now the surge would be over and we would be talking about withdrawal. Instead, the surge will likely continue for the remainder of Bush's term. The Republicans are setting themselves up by presenting a rosy picture in Iraq, especially since the tensions between the "Awakening" forces and the Iraqi government are building. It's a dangerous bid, and senators up for re-election will be forced into making supportive statements that could turn against them in the months approaching the election.

story from AFP

Iraq violence surges in February

by Salam Faraj Sat Mar 1, 4:55 AM ET

BAGHDAD (AFP) - The number of Iraqis killed in February rose by 33 percent over January, reversing a six-month trend of reduced violence, in a setback to the US military plan to curb the bloodshed ravaging the country.

The combined figures obtained by AFP from the interior, defence and health ministries showed that the total number of Iraqis killed in February was 721, including 636 civilians, compared with 541 dead in January.

It reverses the six-month trend of a steady fall in casualties across the country on the back of a massive US and Iraqi military assault, mainly targeting Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The February death toll is up after a steady fall in the preceding six months. The monthly tolls were 541 in January, 568 in December, 606 in November, 887 in October, 917 in September and 1,856 in August.

The number of people wounded in February was 847.

January's death toll reached a 23-month low, with US commanders saying that all types of attacks were down to levels not seen before the February 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in the town of Samarra that triggered a wave of violence.

The bloodshed that erupted after the shrine attack peaked in January 2007 with 1,992 deaths reported by the three ministries.

The jump in February's toll seems to have been caused by two major attacks during the month.

On February 1, at least 98 people were slaughtered when a female suicide bomber blew herself up amid a crowd of pet lovers in Baghdad's popular al-Ghazl animal market.

And in another brazen attack last Sunday, at least 48 people were killed when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd of pilgrims at a rest stop in the town of Iskandiriyah, south of Baghdad.

Coleman continues to slide in polls

Norm Coleman, the incumbent Republican Senator for Minnesota and extraordinary political chameleon, is again riding low in the polls. A little over four years ago, Coleman was at a 52% favourablity level. Since then, he's been struggling to keep his head above the crucial 50% mark. The latest poll puts him at 49%.

The results fall pretty much along partisan lines: 70% of those who feel terrorism is the top issue support Coleman, 69% of Republicans like him, 67% of evangelicals give him the thumbs-up, and he wins over 72% of those who call themselves conservative. Those would be nice numbers for a Republican primary, but for a general election it looks less sunny. Norm never won a majority in the 2002 election that brought him to power, only a plurality. He has weak support (44%) from Independents and those who call themselves moderates (46%).

At first the classic Bush Team crony, Coleman voted with the Administration 98% of the time in his first year. As the shine began to come off Bush later on, Coleman struck poses to show some space between himself and Bush. He voted against the surge, but has completely fallen into line with the GOP on every vote to change the policies on Iraq. Formerly a pot-smoking, anti-war liberal Democrat, Coleman changed his stripes and jumped ship in 1996. Since then, his positions have shifted with the political wind. He endorsed Giuliani and bought in to all of the crazy, hyper-fear, eternal war, Muslim-hating rhetoric of that campaign. Then the breeze shifted, and he was all about McCain. He is now irrevocably tied to the Bush agenda, and as McCain increasingly embraces Bush in order to manufacture some kind of GOP consensus, Coleman will be forced to return to his role as a Bush crony with all of the attendant unpopularity that such a designation brings. Norm isn't an idiot; he knows that the tide has turned against him. He now has no choice, however, but to make another shift into a diehard GOP stalwart.

Meanwhile, the more-recently (2006) elected Democratic Senator, Amy Klobuchar, enjoys a strong 61% approval rating. She has strong support from moderates (71%) and wins over 58% of Independents. She also has strong support in outstate Minnesota, while Norm has barely a majority there. The message to take away from this is that the senator who rejects the Bush agenda is considerably more popular than the senator that has bound himself, hand and foot, to that GOP agenda. So while Norm is not exactly reviled, he is pushing a weaker message than the Democrats.

As I said before, Coleman gets his strong support from Republicans and those that call themselves conservatives. However, Republicans are only 27% of the state and conservatives are only 26%. Evangelicals are only one-third of the state, and those who consider terrorism as the most important issue are only 7% of those polled. Coleman's strong support comes from the margins of the electorate. Any sane candidate in Coleman's position would make a sharp shift to the centre, but instead conditions have forced Coleman to move even farther to the right. This also does not bode well for this seat to remain in Reublican hands.