Through the Past, Darkly

Republicans have engaged in a revisionist history regarding Iraq for years now. It was supposed to be an easy fight, no longer than six months by Rumsfeld's assessment, and it would cost no more than $60 billion. Cocky Republicans predicted the success in Iraq would marginalise the Democratic Party for decades as Republicans essentially would say "I told you so" to the doubters of neocon wisdom. The only "bipartisan option" was, in the view of Republicans, to go along with Bush or face extinction. The arrogance was stunning back in those heady days in the build-up to war. The Bush Administration fired Lawrence Lindsey from his job in the White House for his 'pessimistic' estimate that the Iraq effort could cost as much as $200 billion. We are pretty close to a trillion dollars right now in costs.

While initially Iraq was supposed to have been quick, later on Republicans changed their tune. Of course it was difficult, they said, brushing aside the imaginary flowers and chocolates the Iraqi people had never showered on us. The "reasons" for our involvement in Iraq have been constantly shifting throughout the years, and each time a new one is set up for public consumption, Bush claims it's what they "planned all along". WMDs, fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here, we're there to bring democracy, Iraq is a strong ally in the GWOT, our credibility is at stake...and now, all we want is enough stability so that we can withdraw and let the Iraqis deal with the mess. Throughout the entire debacle outlined below, the Republicans will have portrayed opposition to the Iraqi occupation as treasonous, defeatist, anti-troop and pro-terrorist. Those military commanders who failed to toe the Bush line, such as Shinseki and Sanchez, were removed. Sanchez, remember, made the outrageous statement that our troops may be in Iraq past August of 2005. Shinseki said we had too few troops in Iraq, but this was before the Decider sent more troops, so he had to go.

As you read the stories from the past below, please recall how many times we have heard "the next six months will be crucial", and bear in mind how bitterly the Bush Administration has opposed anyone who has presented bad news or doubts about the Decider's vision for Iraq. Make a mental note of how many years Bush has been waiting for the Iraqi Army to "stand up", and how many years Bush has claimed 'enormous progress'.

USA TODAY 8/8/2003
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush claimed "good progress" in Iraq on Friday, 100 days after he had declared an end to major combat, but he also mourned American casualties and refused to say how long U.S. troops would stay.

"This administration will do what is necessary to win the war on terror," Bush said.

He would not say whether he agreed with Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, allied forces commander in Iraq, who said Thursday that U.S. forces will remain in Iraq at least two years.

NOTE: Bush doubts the 'pessimistic' assessment that we might be in Iraq until 8/2005.
--------------------------------------------------

USA Today 8/31/2003

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators from both parties demanded more specifics from the Bush administration Sunday on its plans for nursing Iraq back into a viable state. They promised, however, to provide what is necessary to do the job.

"Freedom isn't free. We know this is costly," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

Only Sen. Dick Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came up with a specific figure: $30 billion over five years.

"I think that is a period of time that will bring stability and give certainty of the Iraqis that we're not going to leave," the Indiana Republican said on "Fox News Sunday."

The Lugar formula, more than $115 million weekly, is in addition to military expenses currently running about $3.9 billion a month. Pentagon officials said last week that the administration might ask this month for additional billions to supplement $62.6 billion in emergency outlays Congress voted for in April. The administration has not said how much it will request for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

NOTE: Here in 2003, Lugar is going out a limb and saying Iraq could cost $30 billion over 5 years. In turns out that we go through twice that in the first year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Francisco Chronicle May 9, 2004
In late 2002, months before the Iraq war started, the Bush administration rebuked its own chief economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, for publicly estimating that a war in Iraq might cost $100 billion to $200 billion. In December 2002, Mitch Daniels, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the cost more likely would be $50 billion to $60 billion — which now looks like a fraction of the actual expenses.

The Pentagon says the war in Iraq cost $63 billion from its beginning in March 2003 through January 2004. That involves money actually spent, rather than costs incurred and payments to which it is committed, experts say. Kosiak said it also does not include ancillary costs, such as the buildup of bases in Kuwait and other areas in the region.

The Congressional Budget Office produced an analysis last year that estimated a continuing occupation of Iraq would cost somewhere between $85 billion and $200 billion over the next nine years, depending on how large an American force is needed and how long it remains

NOTE: Here in 2004, we are finding out that Bush's initial estimates of the costs were already blown in less than a year. In over 9 years, we're imagining it could be as high as $200 billion. Ha!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asia Times Feb. 25, 2005
The Budget Committee report estimates are higher than previous estimates for several reasons: the war is lasting longer and is more intense, and the cost to keep US troops in the theater of operations is proving to be greater, than anyone anticipated.

Those estimates are also far higher than anyone had predicted earlier, including Lawrence Lindsey, President George W Bush's former chief economic adviser. In 2002 he predicted that the cost of a war with Iraq could range between $100 billion and $200 billion at best. The administration dismissed the figure, and Lindsey was soon fired.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global "war on terrorism", after the newest supplement is exhausted, could total about $350 billion over the next 10 years (excluding interest payments on the debt), assuming an eventual phase-down of US activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

NOTE: In early 2005, we are just realising that Lindsey was guilty of grossly underestimating the costs, not over-estimating them. At this point, we were shocked that costs could reach a third of what they are now. The ten-year cost estimate would not last out that year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN May 2, 2003
The president said the United States and its allies fought to bring peace to the world.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001, and still goes on."

Bush said that in the 19 months since the attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, "nearly half of al Qaeda's senior operatives have been captured or killed."

Bush described al Qaeda as "wounded, but not destroyed" and said the United States would continue to hunt down members of the terrorist network.

NOTE: Back in 2003, Bush switched from the WMD pretext and moved to the destruction of Al-Qaeda as the reason we are in Iraq. Nearly five years ago, Al-Qaeda was half-destroyed, by Bush's reckoning - and this is AQ worldwide, not just in Iraq. Optimistic much?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington Post Nov. 7, 2003
Even as Bush asked for endurance in the Middle East for "decades to come," the Pentagon announced details of a troop-rotation plan that will reduce the U.S. force in Iraq to 105,000 in May from the current 132,000. And even as Bush spoke about a hunger in the Mideast for the American message of freedom, the State Department issued an advisory warning of "the continuing threat of anti-American violence" in the region.

Though Bush spoke of a "willingness to sacrifice," a CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll released yesterday showed that 54 percent of respondents disapproved of Bush's Iraq policies, up from 41 percent in August.

The speech came after some division within the administration about how best to cast the hostilities in Iraq. A Republican source said some of the more politically minded of Bush's advisers argued "that the whole issue must be framed only in terms of American security."

NOTE: Already in late 2003, half of the country is disapproving of Bush on Iraq. His glory has not even lasted nine months. Bush plans troop cuts while still clinging to the idea that Iraq is about fighting terrorists. Six months later, Bush will switch to his "it's all about democracy" pretext.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Age Sept 17, 2002
Polls released at the weekend by Newsweek and ABC News in America found that more than two-thirds of respondents favoured military action against Iraq, with significant movement towards Mr Bush's position since his speech to the UN. Perhaps coincidentally, Democrats have begun to sound more supportive of Mr Bush's Iraq policy.

NOTE: Ah, yes, the glory days. In a little over a year, half of the country would turn against him.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington Post Sept. 24 2003
At the annual gathering of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Bush received a polite but cool reception as he blended a gentle defense of his policies in Iraq with a request that "all nations of goodwill" lend help to the effort in Iraq and a call for the world body to move on to other issues.

Bush's remarks, which barely mentioned the U.S. need for additional funds and troops in Iraq, were an indication that the administration has reduced its hopes that a new U.N. Security Council resolution will bring it substantial relief.

NOTE: Here in late 2003, Bush's Iraq efforts have begun to stall. Before the invasion, Bush said we would go it alone in Iraq without the U.N's backing. Now Bush is realising that the UN is taking him at his word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salon.com Nov 2, 2002
Twenty-three senators and 133 congressmen voted against Bush's Iraq resolution in October, authorizing the president to strike against Saddam. And in not a single case, contrary to Washington's conventional wisdom, does it appear to be hurting any of their chances for reelection. It might actually be helping them.

How can that be? After all, the polls show that a majority of Americans are behind Bush's Iraq policy. A Pew Research Center survey released last week has 55 percent of the public supporting military action against Saddam Hussein. But while such polls roughly measure the drift of public sentiment, they don't measure its intensity. "Polls are a reflection of breadth," says Wes Boyd, president of MoveOn. "We've seen polls on the Iraq resolution and administration policy, and depending on how they're worded, you get a lot of different readings." For example, in the Pew poll, only 27 percent of respondents favor attacking Iraq without our allies' support, and only 48 percent believe the president has adequately explained his reasons for war. Such polls, says Boyd, "indicate to us that the support the administration hoped was there is paper-thin, that when you probe it a little bit, the view looks very different.

NOTE: In late 2002, we see that the support for Bush's Iraq effort is highly conditional and that the Democrats who opposed it are not suffering at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Virginian Pilot Oct. 17, 2002
Amid reports of unease among senior uniformed leaders about a possible war with Iraq, one of the Bush administration's top policy makers faced a roomful of generals, admirals, diplomats and military planners Wednesday to argue that the ouster of Saddam Hussein ``will be a defeat for terrorists globally.''

But while Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spent nearly an hour laying out the administration's case, there were signs aplenty that a corps of experienced military leaders remains skeptical about President Bush's plans to attack Iraq.

NOTE: Here we see the military expressing skepticism over Bush's invasion plans even before it took place. Surprisingly, removing Saddam had no adverse effect on "terrorists globally", but served as a fine recruiting tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

USA Today 10/7/2004
Faced with a harshly critical new report, President Bush conceded Thursday that Iraq did not have the stockpiles of banned weapons he had warned of before the invasion last year, but insisted that "we were right to take action" against Saddam Hussein.

Bush spoke one day after Charles Duelfer, the American weapons hunter in Iraq, presented to the Senate and the public a report that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs had deteriorated into only hopes and dreams by the time of the U.S.-led invasion last year. The decline was wrought by the first Gulf War and years of international sanctions, the chief U.S. weapons hunter found.

Iraq ultimately abandoned its biological weapons programs in 1995, largely out of fear they would be discovered and tougher enforcement imposed.

"Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level," according to a summary of Duelfer's 1,000-page report.

And Iraq also abandoned its nuclear program after the war, and there was no evidence it tried to reconstitute it.

Duelfer's findings contradict most of the assertions by the Bush administration and the U.S. intelligence community about Iraq's threat in 2002 and early 2003. The White House had argued that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles and production lines and had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

The United States led an invasion into Iraq in March 2003, taking the capital, Baghdad, within weeks. Since then, the United States and its allies have fought a dangerous insurgency of Iraqis as well as Islamic extremists who have come to Iraq to kill Americans.

Some 1,196 coalition personnel have been killed since the start of the war. Of those, 1,060 are American, 67 British and 69 are from other coalition countries. Unknown numbers of Iraqis have also died on both sides of the conflict.

NOTE: Late 2004, and America has found out that the WMD justification was unfounded and that, rather than being defeated globally, terrorists were flocking to Iraq. As the country wonders what we got ourselves into, Bush is already planning to turn this failure into his "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

San Francisco Chronicle May 26, 2004
Even the staunchest supporters of President Bush's Iraq enterprise were less than cheered by his speech to the nation Monday night outlining the path forward, some describing the administration as being in a state of panic.

In particular, the neoconservatives who provided the intellectual argument that an invasion of Iraq could provide a template for democracy in the Middle East are expressing open alarm that this effort is dangerously off course.

"There's no question the administration has been in total panic mode, and they don't need to be, because Iraq is salvageable," said Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign and defense studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank that has been a hotbed of support for the war. "But I think there is still so much indecision about what to do that it's going to be hard for them to do the right thing."

Many administration hawks were drawn from the neoconservative intellectual ranks, notably deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the chief architect of the idea that the United States could make Iraq a democratic beacon.

Their dismay comes as some Republicans in Congress fear that Bush's Iraq policy has become unhinged, given the relentless bad news coming out of Iraq: a multiheaded insurgency among Shiites and Sunnis, the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the steady rise in U.S. casualties.

Others on the political right, as distinct from their more interventionist neoconservative colleagues, have begun openly attacking the administration. Wall Street Journal contributing editor Mark Helprin called Abu Ghraib "a symbol of the inescapable fact that the war has been run incompetently, with an apparently deliberate contempt for history, strategy, and thought." He asked why the administration was trying to occupy Iraq with current troop levels, "even as one event cascading into another should make them recoil in piggy-eyed wonder at the lameness of their policy."

Some of Bush's supporters concede the administration has committed blunders over the past year. Many suggest a sharp change in course -- such as adding thousands of troops, or moving up elections or forcefully quashing insurgents -- which they contend Bush did not promise Monday.

"It was important for Bush to remind the American public of the cost of failure," said Michael Rubin, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute and another neoconservative war supporter. "Basically, Bush was letting us see the forest through the trees."

However, he said, "the devil's in the details, and with the stakes so high, we can't ignore the details."

Yet while criticizing the administration for failures of execution, few neoconservatives have abandoned their belief that the war was a good idea or that it is intimately linked, as Bush insisted Monday, with fighting terrorism.

NOTE: Early 2004, and the bottom has begun to fall out. The civil war is not yet called a civil war at this point. More than half of the country now see Iraq as a mistake. The glorious victory that was supposed to guarantee Republican dominance for decades is instead becoming a millstone around the Party's neck.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN May 14, 2004
Bush's overall job approval rating fell from 49 percent to 46 percent since the last CNN/Time poll on April 8, while his disapproval rating rose from 47 percent to 49 percent -- the first time that more people disapproved of Bush's job performance than approved.

More people than not believe that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do, but that number has declined 48 percent in this poll, compared to 53 percent in April. And 56 percent of those polled say the war is not worth U.S. lives and other costs.

On the question of the war, only 41 percent of those polled believe the United States is winning, although 60 percent said the country can win and 52 percent said the country will win.

NOTE: Public opposition to Bush and his occupation has reached the point of no return. Bush moves into his fantasy world of optimistic predictions and upbeat assessments, which will last until 11/05 when "Grim Bush" makes his appearance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USA Today 12/14/2004
President Bush awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to three prime architects of U.S. policy in Iraq on Tuesday as the White House brushed off Democrats' complaints that the honors were undeserved.

Bush gave the medals, the nation's highest civilian honor, to retired general Tommy Franks, who directed U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, former CIA director George Tenet and former Iraq administrator Paul Bremer.

Tenet, who retired in June, was strongly criticized last summer in reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The chief conclusions: The CIA didn't respond quickly enough to the threat posed by al-Qaeda and erred in alleging that Iraq had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, an assertion that became a central justification for the war. No stockpiles have been found.

Bremer created a stir in early October after giving a speech in which he said the administration did not have enough troops in Iraq immediately after the invasion, hampering the U.S.-led occupation and its efforts to halt looting and lawlessness. Democrats such as Levin and Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden argued even before the invasion for the administration to send a larger force but were rebuffed by the Pentagon.

NOTE: Bush gives a medal to the architects of his failed Iraq effort in late 2004. The Administration is still not using the words "civil war" at this point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

USA Today 9/17/2004
While a new intelligence estimate offers a gloomy assessment of Iraq's future, President Bush talks instead about brighter days ahead under a new prime minister and the promise of free elections. "Freedom is on the march," he told a campaign rally Thursday.

Iraq is a daily theme of Bush's campaign speeches, often a springboard for attacking Democratic rival John Kerry. But Bush does not speak about the more than 1,000 U.S. deaths, the highly publicized kidnappings, executions and beheadings, or the dark scenarios outlined in the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate that was presented to him in late July. The new report offers a sobering picture of Iraq's future in terms of political, economic and security conditions.

In a worst-case scenario, it envisions developments pointing to a civil war among Iraq's three major populations, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

At best, the experts said, Iraq will have a tenuous stability. A middle-ground estimate envisions increased extremism and fragmentation that impede efforts to build a central government and adversely affect efforts to democratize the country.

Graham, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, urged the White House to release the report so voters can decide if they want to continue with a president who has "gotten us into the quagmire of Iraq with no, either, plan for entry or exit." The White House said the report would not be released.

Kerry, in a speech to National Guard veterans, said Bush who was trying to persuade voters with "a fantasy world of spin" rather than telling the truth on Iraq.

"Two days ago, the president stood right here where I'm standing and didn't acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. He didn't tell you that with each passing day, we're seeing more chaos, more violence, indiscriminate killings," Kerry said.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett accused Democrats of unfounded pessimism. "President Bush gets his briefings from commanders on the ground. He has reason for his optimism because of the enormous amount of progress we have made," Bartlett said.

Iraq is a troublesome issue for Bush, with voters worried about the violence and deaths and doubting that Bush has a strategy to deal with the problems.

"In Iraq, there's ongoing acts of violence," Bush said. "This country is headed toward democracy. There's a strong prime minister in place. They have a national council. And national elections are scheduled for January. It wasn't all that long ago that Saddam Hussein was in power with his torture chambers and mass graves. And today, this country is headed towards elections. Freedom is on the march."

His comments were in line with the generally upbeat tone of his remarks on the campaign trail. "We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible," Bush told the Republican convention early this month. "And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned."

NOTE: In September of 2004, the Administration claims "enormous progress" and Bush says that "freedom is on the march". Intelligence agencies are already using the words "civil war". More than three years ago, Bush was counting on the Iraqi Army to stand up, while troop casualties were "only" 1000. National Iraqi elections will probably solve everything, won't they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Diego Union-Trbune 12/20/2004
In a sobering assessment of the Iraq war, President Bush acknowledged Monday that Americans' resolve has been shaken by grisly scenes of death and destruction and he pointedly criticized the performance of U.S.-trained Iraqi troops. "No question about it," he said. "The bombers are having an effect."

Bush spoke a day after the deadliest attacks in Iraq since July – killing at least 54 people in Najaf and at least 13 in Karbala – and six weeks before Iraqis vote for a transitional assembly that will choose a president and a government and draft a permanent constitution. American newspapers showed chilling pictures of rebels in the heart of Baghdad executing election workers in cold blood.

"And so the American people are taking a look at Iraq and wondering whether the Iraqis are eventually going to be able to fight off these bombers and killers," Bush said in perhaps his clearest expression of frustration with Iraqi forces. Bush's strategy calls for American troops to protect Iraq while local police and soldiers are trained to do the job themselves, eventually allowing the United States to withdraw.

"Now I would call the results mixed in terms of standing up Iraqi units who are willing to fight," Bush said in a candid assessment. "There have been some cases where, when the heat got on, they left the battlefield. That's unacceptable. Iraq will never secure itself if they have troops that, when the heat gets on, they leave the battlefield." What is needed, he said, is a better military command structure.

Polls show an erosion in Americans' confidence that a stable, democratic government will be established in Iraq. "Polls change. Polls go up, polls go down," Bush said.

He said he understands why Americans have doubts about Iraq's ability. "They're looking on your TV screen and seeing indiscriminate bombings, where thousands of innocent – or hundreds of innocent Iraqis are getting killed ..." But Bush said those pictures do not reflect that 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are relatively stable and that small businesses are starting up. "Life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein."

NOTE: 12/04, and we are still ostensibly backing up the Iraqi Army - that's the big plan, anyway. While "polls go up , polls go down", polls will never recover for Bush and his Iraq effort. Clouds have begun to darken Bush's fantasy world, as he realises that people actually have doubts over his 'vision'. A year later and his 'plan' will remain essentially unchanged and elections will not not have improved anything.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush's address 12/18/2005
"This work has been especially difficult in Iraq -- more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi security forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal -- unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.

Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose -- and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq."

"We have put in place a strategy to achieve this goal -- a strategy I have been discussing in detail over the last few weeks. This plan has three critical elements:

First, our coalition will remain on the offense -- finding and clearing out the enemy, transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units, and building up the Iraqi security forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy, more than 50 are taking the lead and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.

Second, we are helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq's peoples are included and represented. Here also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls -- including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January.

Iraqis of every background are recognizing that democracy is the future of the country they love -- and they want their voices heard. One Iraqi, after dipping his finger in the purple ink as he cast his ballot, stuck his finger in the air and said: "This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists." Another voter was asked, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" He responded, "I am Iraqi."

Third, after a number of setbacks, our coalition is moving forward with a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq's economy and infrastructure -- and to give Iraqis confidence that a free life will be a better life. Today in Iraq, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well -- and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead. Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic -- and that optimism is justified."

NOTE: This is the outline of the pre-surge plan: kill the bad guys, more democracy, and rebuild. In spite of his presentation of this plan as something new, it has already been in effect for well over a year at this point, only now elections have come and gone. In spite of two-thirds of Iraqis expecting improvement in another year, instead the situation will have collapsed into civil war and Bush will propose the surge.
Two years later, Bush will have abandoned the idea of crushing the insurgency, and will instead co-opt them in an "awakening" that bypasses the feeble Iraqi military...which still will not have 'stood up". Reconstruction will still be on hold, and those elections Bush bragged about in 12/05 will only have produced an impotent, fractious, and worthless government that the Bush Administration will instead blame for the lack of progress. 64% of Americans will oppose the surge a year after it was proposed, and more than half of the nation will continue to think going into Iraq was a mistake. Half of the country will strongly disapprove of Bush, with only 17% strongly approving. The British will have given up, and the Coalition in Iraq will have become a fiction two years after this speech in 12/05. Cholera will break out, food rations will be cut, and refugees will have been sent back to Iraq against their will in the intervening years.
More than two years after this 12/05 speech, the best estimates are that it will take another ten years before Iraq is stabilised.

Musharraf warns against action in tribal areas

Bush was warned before the Iraqi invasion that such an action held a grave risk to stability in the region. The ever-optimistic Decider, however, only saw a prosperous democracy, a grateful populace, and a whole lot of oil that could be swindled away from them. He threw in something about a "Central Front in the War On Terror" that jingoistic zombies would lap up, and proceeded to create a disaster that strengthened Iran, destabilised Turkey, flooded the region with weapons and refugees, bolstered the ranks of radical islamists, alienated us from virtually all of our allies, and of course brought about a civil war in "liberated" Iraq that continues today.

Now with Afghanistan at a standstill, Iraq sucking up several billion a week, and Pakistan coming apart at the seams, Bush has another plan: invade Pakistan. There is no situation so complex and dynamic that Bush cannot find a way to apply his trademark ultra-simplistic and aburdly optimistic strategies to "solving". Musharraf is now warning Bush that the situation in the tribal areas is more complicated and challenging than Bush sees it, and he further warns that Pakistan will not support any such action. Iraq and Afghanistan apparently have taught the world that the last thing you want is for Bush to try to sort out whatever difficult crisis you may have on your hands. Obviously such warnings will go unheeded, and it's equally obvious that Bush has created a culture of "yes men" in the military who will tell their glorious leader exactly what he wants to hear. One would think that Afghanistan has taught us that air power cannot quell an insurgency; we have been sending armed drones into the Pakistan tribal areas for almost a year now to no effect. Bush keeps on applying conventional war paradigms to an insurgency, and the media boldly follows through on their end with analyses of areas "taken" as if this were some kind of WW2-style conflict. Then we scratch our heads as to why areas that we've 'taken' keep falling back into "enemy" hands. It's an insurgency - there are no "front lines" and salients, no fortifications, no headquarters, no industrial base that can be crushed, no enemy armoured columns, and nobody on the "enemy" side wears a uniform. On top of that, mountain combat is far different. Tanks and trucks can't be brought in on non-existent roads, the air is thin and troops unaccustomed to the altitude get exhausted quickly, communication and supply are difficult, and the population will be against us. And we should not, by Musharraf's words, expect any co-operation from the Pakistani military, which will probably be snickering at our arrogance and unfounded optimism.

Bush has blundered into extremely complex situations where our "allies" have interests that run counter to our and where the "enemy" has interests that coincide with ours, yet everything is viewed through a "with us or against us" lens. A bombing run can, in Bush's mind, simplify things tremendously and make people like us. In a culture where the blood feud is the norm, the population somehow will shrug off the deaths of their relatives in "collateral damage" and be thankful that Bush is setting things right in their backward land.
In short, they will continue to greet us with flowers and chocolates.

story from Express India

America will regret entering Pakistan: Musharraf

Agencies

Posted online: Friday , January 11, 2008 at 05:42:15
Updated: Friday , January 11, 2008 at 05:57:12

Islamabad, January 11: President Pervez Musharraf warned that any unilateral action by US troops to enter Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan in the hunt for al-Qaida militants would be regarded as an invasion and asserted they would "regret" that day.
"The United States seems to think that what our army cannot do, they can do. This is a very wrong perception. I challenge anybody to come into our mountains. They would regret that day," Musharraf said in an interview to Straits Times of Singapore in what seems to be an open dare by him.
Asked if any unauthorised incursion by US forces in the mountainous tribal areas in the hunt for al-Qaida and Taliban militants would be considered an invasion, Musharraf replied, "Certainly. If they come without our permission, that's against the sovereignty of Pakistan."
Musharraf's sternest language yet with the US came in the backdrop of reports that Washington was considering granting the Pentagon and CIA new authority to conduct more aggressive covert operations in Pakistan's tribal areas where al-Qaida is believed to be gaining strength.
Musharraf, however, said when it comes to Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the "methodology of getting him will be discussed together and we'll attack the target together".
"Any action against him will be free, if we know where he is, if we have good intelligence," he said, adding US forces alone would fare no better than their Pakistani counterparts in the rugged terrain.
"Here it's a mountainous terrain. Minimal communications infrastructure. Every individual has a weapon and each tribe has its own armoury and they don't like intrusions into their privacy at all," he said, adding "it's better if they ask some military or intelligence commander of their own whether their army, their people, coming into our mountains will operate better than our army".
Musharraf also joined issue with US Democratic Presidential contender and Senator Hillary Clinton's proposal to place Pakistan's nuclear weapons under supervision by the US and the UK.
Her statement, the President said, was "an intrusion into our privacy, into our sensitivity. She doesn't seem to understand how well-guarded these assets are".
Musharraf also repeated his advice to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to negotiate with the Taliban.
Not all Taliban wanted to behave barbarously, he said, and military action could not, by itself, provide an ultimate solution. A solution would come by moving simultaneously on the socio-economic, political and military fronts.
The road would be long, and in Afghanistan, coalition forces - the US, NATA, Australia and others - would have to have the stamina to persist.
If US-led coalition forces depart without some stable government in place that is strong enough to defend itself, that would "affect the stability of the whole region and the world", he said.
Musharraf also spoke about his talks with the then US President Bill Clinton on the policy to be adopted towards Taliban when he visited Pakistan.
"We were criticised before Sept 11 because we were the only ones who had a relationship with the Taliban. When I came on the scene in 1999, I spoke to the Saudis, to the United Arab Emirates, they had also recognised the Taliban but had removed their embassies from Kabul. I told President Bill Clinton, who was visiting Islamabad, that we should accept the reality (of the Taliban in power in Kabul), have diplomatic relations with them and then change them from within. Had that happened, some things might have been different today."

Republican voter ID requirement is a bad idea

Republicans are always deeply concerned about electoral fraud, though it is Republicans who are responsible for virtually all of the dirty tricks used to prevent legitimate citizens from voting. In the recent past we have seen cases of Republicans removing voters from the rolls who happen to have the same name as convicted felons. Their new tactic is voter-caging, which most commonly consists of an extra (beyond the initial registration address confirmation) check on the validity of a registered voter's residence with a short period in which one must respond or be removed from the rolls. Most often this "catches" people on vacation or those who live in another state for part of the year. In other cases people simply ignore the "confirmation" because it's not sent by the government, but by "concerned citizens groups" who, it turns out, have sway with local voting officials. Oddly, the targets are mostly those registered as Democrats. Yes, they are concerned about fraud.

Now, however, Republicans are pushing for a voter ID requirement. In spite of voter impersonation being a non-existent problem, we are all supposed to be very scared that just anyone can claim to be anyone and actually vote. From NPR:

Royal Masset, a consultant who by his own estimate has been involved in some 5,000 Republican campaigns in Texas, agrees.
"My experience is that in-person voter fraud is nonexistent," he says. "It doesn't happen, and if you really analyze it, it makes no sense because who's going to take the risk of going to jail on something so blatant that maybe changes one vote?"

But, as Republicans in Indiana are arguing, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be terrified, because it could happen, and then people wouldn't trust the election process. Yes, the Party that brought you the hanging chad and got their man in the White House by a Supreme Court decision is worried that people might not trust the process due to a non-existent problem. So we need to make it harder to vote, but only on the poor and elderly; let's not go too far here.

The idea being put forward is that everyone has a current, valid, state-issued photo ID. We are told that people can't exist in today's society without one, so requiring one to vote is not a problem. Besides, this is a helpful incentive to get those tiny few without IDs to go out and get that essential item.

I drive, so I do have a current, valid, state-issued photo ID. But for decades I didn't drive and didn't need one. If I didn't drive now, I wouldn't need one. The last time I needed to show my ID was at the DMV to get a new one to replace the one that expired. I don't fly, I don't hang out in federal courthouses, my bank account was established more than ten years ago, and I haven't changed jobs in some time. People just simply aren't asking to see my ID, as much as that shocks Republicans. My two credit cards for several thousands were obtained by mail without anyone ever seeing an ID. Again, if I didn't drive, there would be no need whatsoever for me to travel (somehow) several miles to the County Office to keep my ID current, and I probably wouldn't. So this idea that a current, valid, state-issued photo ID is a neccessity is one spun from arrogance. It is the same kind of arrogance that propounds that "everyone" has a computer and online access, or that "everyone" has a phone. I have never needed to show an ID to vote, only to register to vote, and that was over ten years ago, so there would be no need for me to have a current ID now. Twenty years from now my registration will still be valid (under the current law, unless Republicans change it), as long as I don't move. I can comfortably conceive living the rest of my life without an ID, unless I change jobs, and even then I would see no need to keep it current. Apparently this isn't such a crazy concept. Again, from NPR:

But the Census Bureau and the Federal Highway Administration estimate that 11 percent of voting-age citizens, some 21 million Americans, lack any form of current government-issued photo ID. The ubiquitous driver's license doesn't exist for many city dwellers who use public transportation, or for those too poor to own a car, or for senior citizens who no longer drive.

So, and this is the important thing, under the Republican plan, the only time I would need an ID (this incredibly important document that apparently nobody can live without these days) is when I would turn up to vote every few years. This is important precisely because this is a condition that offers no other benefit to me other than being able to vote. Back in the days of the poll taxes, people paid a fee and got a worthless document that was good for nothing except proving their eligibility to vote. Sure an ID would let me enter federal courthouses, but I really don't need to do that. In fact, I served on jury duty this summer in the Hennepin County Government Center and nobody ever asked to see my ID, just the jury duty summons that was mailed to me. Oddly, nobody is concerned that I could have given that jury summons to anyone and they could have impersonated me at will. I'm sure that doesn't happen, but it could; shouldn't we be terrified? Sure, an ID would let me on to a plane, but I really don't do that, either. In commercial transactions, my bank card or credit card is all anyone ever asks to see. Other than driving, I don't need an ID at all to live my life.

We are already required to have a Social Security number and provided with a card. I had to get one when I was 16, but now you get one at birth. That proves citizenship (at least in theory, because they are widely forged), which is more than a current, valid, state-issued photo ID does. A state-issued photo ID also does not prove that you are a convicted felon, and thus ineligible to vote.

Aside from the fact that an state ID is not the absolute necessity the Republicans try to portray it as, there are high costs in getting one. In the case at hand in the Supreme Court, Indiana offers a free state ID for those willing to travel to a state office (which could be quite some distance away and difficult for someone who obviously doesn't drive to reach) and those with a certified birth certificate. Getting a birth certificate from another state can cost about $50, which is a lot of money for a lot of people, especially for something they really only need to show at election time. And it must be kept current, requiring more trips to the County Office. I guess nobody lives in rural areas where the County seat can be 20 or 30 miles away. Again, the only reason someone would have to go through this is to satisfy a poll judge every four years in order to address a problem that simply doesn't exist. But all of this can easily be dismissed by Republicans:

"There are burdens to register to vote; there are burdens in gas or shoe leather in going to the polls," Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita says. "That doesn't mean they were disenfranchised. They chose not to go through the parameters for voting in person on Election Day that are required in Indiana."

So why not require someone to dance the Tango before they can vote? Elections don't sneak up on people. They have plenty of time to learn the Tango, or Swahili, or master a Rubik's Cube. The answer is that these things would keep Republicans from voting, too. In my state, Minnesota, one can register at the polls, which are by nature close to people. It's a one-time thing, unless you move, in which case you can go to another neighbourhood polling place and register easily. You can use a utility bill in your name as ID; you don't need a current, valid, state-issued photo ID. Sure, anyone could have stolen that utility bill out your mailbox and tried to impersonate you, and then they could...vote? Oh, the horror!

Where does this stop? Couldn't someone who looks somewhat like you steal your ID and use it to vote? Heck, we can't let just anyone who looks like you vote; that's too scary. We need a DNA test or a retinal scan, comrade. Are we going to have people who grew a moustache or shaved off their beards since the ID photo was taken turned away because the picture doesn't match? Will people who wore contacts in their picture be refused the right to vote because they wore glasses that day? We can't be too careful, can we? Hmmm, this ID says you weigh 160 pounds, but I think you weigh 180. Sorry, buddy. Nice try, whoever you really are. You may think this is ridiculous and making a big deal out of nothing, but so is this false concern over people impersonating registered voters. Identity theft is a big problem. Getting a photo ID of someone else is not a big issue if you can obtain the proper documents and personal information, which apparently is easier than most of us would like. It could happen, and that is precisely the justification behind the Republican voter ID laws. Photo IDs prove nothing.

The sensible solution is to allow another registered voter to sign an affidavit that certifies you are who are say you are and live where you say you live. This requires no cost, which is why Republicans oppose it. The entire premise is to impose costs and travel on people who can't afford it and decide that voting isn't that important.

I had a poll observer certify me in one election. I had just moved into the neighbourhood a few weeks earlier and (gasp!) hadn't gone downtown to renew my ID. In fact, even if I had renewed my ID, it would not have arrived by election time and I would only have had the receipt for the ID without my photo. There was no way I could have predicted weeks before where I would have ended up living. I had no utility bill yet and my rent receipt didn't have an address on it. The poll observer walked the two blocks with me to my apartment and I opened the door and showed him my expired ID and Social Security card and he vouched for me at the polls. If I really was impersonating someone else, I sure would have been going to a lot of work just to cast a vote. Under the Republican voter rules, I would not have been allowed to vote that election. In fact, there was no way I could have voted at all other than voting falsely in my old precinct, since an ID would not have arrived in time for me to use it. Should we prohibit people from moving into a new place in November? No, let's just prohibit them from voting.

The affidavit option is reasonable. Political parties can easily provide someone to verify that you live at the address you claim, which is all that should be required. Again, a photo ID does not prove citizenship or lack of a felonious criminal record. Political parties cannot be expected, however, to come up with $50 for the documents for each person to get an ID or drive them long distances to obtain one. Who would turn down a neighbour's request to vouch for them at the polls? Sure, they could lie and put their name on record and risk going to jail, but is that really a credible risk?

Remember, voting is a right. Do we check someone's ID before we grant them the right of free speech? No, we don't. Do we let someone cross state lines without a photo ID? Yes, we do, and I've done it. Do we let someone serve on a jury without a photo ID? Yes, we do, and I've done it.

This voter ID requirement is nothing more than a barrier to keep people from voting who should be allowed to vote. I've shown an example where I would have been denied the right to vote through no fault of my own were these restrictions in place. This is not an merely an "inconvenience", it is placing an impossible and unreasonable barrier on citizens in certain circumstances. A photo ID does not prove that a person is eligible to vote, so these requirements do not restore faith in the voting process. Even if voter impersonation were prevalent, which it isn't, these new restrictions do nothing to solve the problem and may very well keep citizens from voting.

A Change in the Weather

I watched the Republican debate on ABC last night, and I was amazed at how far off the pundit class has been in their analysis. The major networks and most of the opinion columnists at the newspapers have been living in a dream world where the Republican Old Guard is dominant, relevant, and popular. A few months ago the 'conventional wisdom' was that we would be looking at a Thompson/Giuliani fight, and that the winner of this fight would crush the Democrats with a lethal combination of tax cuts, "victory" in Iraq, "send-the-Mexicans-packing", and the promise of saving the nation from socialised medicine.

How wrong they were.

In the debate, Thompson limited himself to a few snide remarks aimed at Ron Paul and some nebulously vague positions. This Hero of the punditry is now polling behind Ron Paul, who was dismissed as a nut. He rumbled and mumbled as if the whole discussion was a lot of "tomfoolery". And Giuliani, whose bold vision of war against the Islamic World was supposed to light the nation on fire with fear and hatred, is tanking and nearly broke. Somebody should tell the guy that 9/11 was six years ago, and will be seven years old by the time the election comes around. Besides, the Katrina response stands out much more vividly in people's minds as the way Republicans handle major disasters.

The major points:
- The GWOT as the pre-eminent challenge of the century. It simply isn't, and even if it were, military force cannot crush something as stateless as an idea. We cannot promote democracy and freedom in the Islamic world and simultaneously require draconian police-state suppression in those nations. Further, forcing puppet regimes to follow our dictates does not make us appear attractive or even powerful to the Islamic world; it makes appear as a foreign oppressor. We offer no hope or development to the common person beyond the freedom from radical jihadists, and that path is paved with repression and economic collapse. Immediately after 9/11 we had the support of the global community to do what needed to be done to marginalise the radical islamists. We blew it with arrogance and an invasion that had nothing to do with crushing radical Islam. We came out with a policy that said we are justified in invading any country that not only posed a threat to our security, but that had the potential to pose a threat. That covers pretty much the whole world, since any country that has a brewery can produce biological weapons, any country that has a laboratory on the level of the average high-school can produce a chemical weapon, and virtually any country can get their hands on enough radioactive material to create a dirty bomb. So we essentially told the world that if you don't play by our rules, you will get crushed.

- Private health insurance as the real solution. Yeah, this one's a winner. The way to solve the problem of so many people without health insurance and so many employers simply not offering it is to require people to buy it. We could also solve the problem of inadequate mass transit systems by requiring people to buy cars. The argument that we have the best health care in the world is like pointing to the number of Bentleys in a state and saying they have the best cars in the world. It's simply irrelevant. The number of shiny, high-tech devices in your city's hospital doesn't really matter if you can't afford the care. The vast majority of people don't need super-expensive, high-tech care, anyway. They need relatively low-tech testing, monitoring, and medication. An early diagnosis of diabetes, for example, is far better than dealing with an amputation down the road and facing catastrophic expenses and a super-high-tech artificial limb. The truth is that the private sector has dropped the ball by creating so many low-wage jobs without medical coverage, or only catastrophic coverage. For companies that do provide medical coverage, the biggest dis-incentive to hire new people is the cost of medical coverage. Universal single-payer health care would be the biggest single thing the government could do to increase employment. Medical savings accounts are also a joke. You put your own money into an account that can be used for medical expenses. Wow, why didn't we think of that before? It differs from putting your own money into a regular old savings account that can be used for anything because the MSA uses pre-tax dollars. Oooh, that makes a big difference. The more money you put in, the lower your taxable income. Or put differently, the more money you can afford to put in, the less taxes you pay. This is so out of touch with the average working family living paycheck to paycheck and drowning in debt that it is pathetic. If a family could afford to pay their own medical bills without insurance, they would not be facing bankruptcy due to catastrophic health care costs. The idea of "shopping around" is also particularly lame. Let's say you've had a sore throat for a week. It may be strep throat, but you don't know. So you spend a few hours shopping around for the cheapest office visit, mostly sitting on hold. Then you find out you need a throat culture. Start shopping around for the cheapest throat culture, and pay for another office visit that costs more than Dr. Cheapo where you went first. Then you find out that you do have strep throat, and you need penicillin. Shop around again, sitting on hold trying to quote various pharmacies. In the meantime, you've exposed your family and co-workers to strep throat over the past week. More expenses all around. The Republican idea that all of this "shopping around" could be done online is ludicrous, since you don't know what you will need beforehand, and since there are different prices at the same place for different situations.

- You are screaming for tax cuts. Nobody likes paying taxes, but people have learned that federal tax cuts just get pushed down the pipe into state and local taxes and fees. You end up paying the same either way. Even worse, you now have fragmented services and severe cuts in local budgets. The counties that have a higher tax base get good roads, the streets get plowed and cleaned on time, the schools get better teachers and facilities, the libraries are actually open, and so forth. The poorer counties get screwed. The fees for things like licence plates, building permits, birth certificates, etc. go way, way up. It's also harder to reach anyone, and the people you do reach are overwhelmed due to staff cutbacks. Besides, polls show that taxation is way down on the list of concerns for voters. Tax cuts have been great for the wealthy, but they have not done their part and invested their new money in jobs and growth. Instead, it's gone into off-shoring your job away and speculating on a real-estate bubble. Likewise, the Reagan tax cuts were squandered on forced leveraged buyouts that made companies weaker and produced mass layoffs. The rich take the money and run, and leave you to face the consequences. The Republicans try to counter this by stretching the definition of "rich". Those families making $250,000 or more are going to suffer, so you don't want the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Again, they are in their own little world on this. That's not the average person, and someone making a quarter million can afford another thousand in taxes over a year ($84 a month - gasp!). It's those making millions a year that will see big increases. Boo-hoo.

- Send the Mexicans home. Okay, we're going to round up 12 million illegal immigrants and send them home, or so Romney says. How do we know who they are? Look in the phone directory under "illegal immigrant"? First, we require a national ID card, comrade. Fingerprints, biometric scans, background checks, the works. That won't cost any money. And considering this is the government that couldn't handle the demand for passports for people going on their winter Caribbean vacation, I wonder how something on this massive a scale would work out. But let's not get bogged down in reality. Now we have to check everyone's papers to determine if they are illegal or not. House-to-house Gestapo searches? Pre-employment checks? Prospective employers are going to hold those without proper papers? Nobody works in the underground economy, do they? It's silly. But we also have to build a Berlin Wall on the Mexican border, which somehow also is extremely cheap, and we have to keep it manned and maintained. A huge new Border Patrol won't cost any money, either, I guess. With our lax port security, somehow no immigrants will come in cargo ships or in small boats, much like drug smugglers use. And nobody in our massive Immigration Gestapo will take bribes. Short of an incredibly expensive, completely unaccountable, and supremely intrusive police state, this cannot possibly work. What none of the Republican candidates addressed was that legal immigration has ridiculously huge barriers. For example, one must own a house. It's designed to allow only those people who don't have an overwhelming need to immigrate to come here legally. Opening up the legal route to immigration is what is needed, but this doesn't play well with the fear of brown-skinned people that Republicans prey on.

- "Victory" in Iraq. This is the stupidest yet. The American people are supposedly so impressed that the violence has now come down to levels that were intolerable before the surge that they will embrace the Republican vision of Eternal War as wise and essential. Most people bought in to Iraq as a quick, easy war. We replace Saddam, a new government takes over, and everyone lives happily ever after. Sure, Bush never specifically promised that, but that was how people thought it would go down. Five years in, the majority now think going into Iraq was a mistake, and only a slim majority think we can "win", whatever that means. Petraeus is saying ten more years before Iraq is what most people would consider to be "stable". The surge was supposed to wrap things up, at least in the public's mind. It didn't. The costs are huge, and we've borrowed our way into deep debt to pay for an occupation that really has nothing to do with the GWOT. Al-Qaeda didn't bite on the idea that all of the world's terrorists would flock to Iraq and wait in line for us to kill them. Instead we got into a civil war and increased Iran's influence over the country by eliminating their greatest foe. It's actually been a great recruiting tool for the jihadists. Even worse, it's stretched our military so thin that we can't effectively deal with new threats that really do involve radical jihadists. Afghanistan is stalled, and Pakistan is unravelling. The world is chuckling at us behind our backs, and our allies are backing away from us. China and Russia are getting bolder and stronger and richer. Foreign leaders that once backed Bush have been replaced, and commitments have been cut. Our currency is declining due to the massive debts from the occupation. The GWOT is not suitable for a military solution. It's really more of a law-enforcement scenario. But you don't get to shovel obscene amounts of money into defence contractors with a law-enforcement scenario, and you don't get to play the "Bring 'Em On!" tough guy with that kind of approach, either. But when you blow it, you look worse than you did before. This issue is only a winner with those people who would have voted for the Bush agenda already. It's a lateral move at best.

So these are the thoughts that went through my mind as I came across the post on the Daily Kos below. As the Republicans splinter and fight to the death over who will be the one to lose the election in November, the Democrats essentially only differ on style and image, not policy. The Republicans have not been rewarded with large campaign contributions by the fickle wealthy who cashed in on their agenda. The Christian fundamentalists no longer "know their place". Republican legislators have literally staked their careers on a Party running on bluff and fumes. Candidates that based their positions on loyalty to the Bush agenda are being given a run for their money from "nuts" like Ron Paul. In New Hampshire, Obama attracted an overflow crowd of well over 3000, while redstate.com brags about a "packed" crowd of 750 that comes to see Romney. Democrats turned out about 2 to 1 over Republicans for the primary in Iowa. Republican candidates are skipping whole states in order to preserve precious funds, and the Right is doing its best to put a brave face on it. Just as they staked the farm on Iraq, they have staked everything on Hillary being the Democratic nominee, and at this point she doesn't seem that "inevitable". Without Clinton-hatred, the Right would have little in their arsenal. The race card and the liberal epithet just don't play like they did 1994, which is the frame that the GOP (and the media pundits) seems to be permanently frozen into. And we still have a long time for Bush to say and do stupid things, with the Republicans forced to stand by him. Since the GOP candidates are essentially offering nothing more than the continuation of the Bush Agenda, it's relevant to note that Bush's low popularity numbers among Independents are remarkably close to those among Democrats. The GOP has, for all practical purposes, driven away the moderates from their Party in favour of an ideologically "pure" base, and they cannot afford any splintering of that base whatsoever.
We still have to see how Super Tuesday turns out before any solid trend can be discerned, and the South may hold some surprises, but for now the coments below seem very insightful:

from The Daily Kos:

We've seen from the polls that independents are tending D this time around. They care more about Dem issues and reflect the same anxieties about the economy and health care, as well as agree that we need to get out of the mistake known as Iraq (surge or no surge). And we know, only too well, in a way the press does not acknowledge, that the (34%) Republican base is far from a majority in this country. In fact, we know from these numbers that conservatism as a philosophy and the Republicans as a party, have failed. This came about because of the failure in the WH known as George W Bush, the most consistently unpopular President in post-WWII polling history. The country doesn't want lock-step politicians that support that guy. The voters are just holding their breath waiting for him to go away, and not a day too soon.

Bush dooms his allies with a fake war

This editorial from a former British Cabinet member perfectly sums up the fallacies in the "Global War on Terror".
It simply is not a war in the conventional sense, but an aspiration. Much like the War On Drugs, there are no military forces or headquarters of the Drug Army, there are no salients, no bunkers to be stormed, no enemy territory. Goverments can be "with us", yet still host the nefarious Drug Army within their borders.

But you don't sell such abstract concepts to the American public. You need to portray it as a real war, like WW2, that we can "win". There is some fixed number of bad guys who are easily identified by black hats and twirling moustaches, and if we can kill them off then we have ourselves a "victory". You are either "with us" or "against us". The trouble is that most of these governments that fall in the "with us" column are unpopular at home, and going along with Bush is a good way to get shown the door in most democracies. For example, Britain, Poland, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan, Turkey, Pakistan, etc.

It's a bogus vision with the only benefit being a pat on the head from the Decider, who is hardly popular. He's promised big things and made a whole lot of optimistic speeches, but he's got nothing to show for it. No NATO memberships or EU memberships for his buddies, no big foreign aid packages, no big development programmes, no quick successes - just big bills and piles of corpses and the promise of more of the same. Oh, and an expansion of the "War" to Iran, let's not forget.

Meanwhile, China and Russia sit this one out and get stronger, while Bush bets the farm on a fake "War" waged with unbridled arrogance that drives our allies away from us and bankrupts us. Hooray!


editorial from The Japan Times

Friday, Jan. 4, 2008

Global 'war' waged in vain

By DAVID HOWELL

LONDON — The tragic killing of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan has sent a raft of shock-wave messages round the world. Most of these have been carefully and lengthily noted and analyzed — such as the concern that Pakistan, labeled a frontline state in the fight against terrorism, could now collapse into chaos, or that Islamic fanatics could take over in the vacuum left by her death and take control of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, or the broader point — made with chilling candor by Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, a rival candidate in Pakistan's elections — that it is now "impossible to campaign."

But there is one deeper lesson so ugly, and so awkward, that it has scarcely been discussed at all, or even realized in some quarters: that Benazir Bhutto had become the candidate for election favored by the Washington administration and almost certainly became doomed the moment this became apparent.

This is another failure for the Bush presidency and for American diplomacy on a grand scale, and shows vividly how senior figures in Washington have simply not grasped how the world works.

Whereas once upon a time America was seen as an unquestionable force for good, and the blessing and backing of genial Uncle Sam was eagerly sought, today it is the opposite. Today, American backing is a liability for any political leader and America's once fine reputation lies in tatters.

If, in spite of this sad development, it was still possible for American firepower and sheer military and economic might to master events, deliver results and safeguard its proteges, then people would understandably just have to put up with American unpopularity while welcoming its secure embrace.

But asymmetric warfare has put paid to all that. The microchip, the communications revolution and the miniaturization of weaponry have leveled killing power in a terrifying way.

Having 13 carrier fleets and countless missiles and warheads no longer counts. Tiny gangs and groups, operating below the radar screen of normal warfare, can now sabotage or destroy with ease the most expensive and elaborate military hardware ever constructed; while determined bombers and suicide squads can penetrate the very heart of a society and paralyze it in a way that conventional weaponry can no longer do.

The American mistake goes back to the colossal erroneous assumption made after the 9/11 horror — namely that there was a "war" to be waged worldwide against terrorism and that various states would have to be either "for or against" this American-led crusade. Of course, there is no "war" in the conventional sense, and committing American backing to certain states as frontline allies merely guarantees that they will be destabilized.

The mistake is to believe that ideological Islamism, which has developed like a monstrous cancer out of the wise and balanced religious Islam of the past, can be beaten by Western power. It can't. As the late Benazir Bhutto shrewdly observed just before she died, fanatical and violent Islam "will have to play itself out."

What she probably meant was that the ideological and politicized versions of Islam being promoted by al-Qaida and others, and taught by ill-trained preachers in many mosques and cells in Western countries as well, will eventually show themselves as opposed to true Islamic values, and totally against the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet.

To bring that reversal about requires not declarations of war but the most subtle and patient respect for the true religion and its leaders. It is good news, for example, that Christian religious leaders in the Anglican and Catholic faiths are now meeting, on completely equal terms, with some of the most influential Muslim leaders. This is the way to the eventual marginalization of the fanatics. Patience is also needed to wait for the time when the inner groups of extremists turn against each other, as always happens in revolutionary movements.

Almost all leaders of al-Qaida will eventually meet violent deaths — probably at the hands not of the U.S. military but of rivals and former intimates. The central question of course is how long the world can wait for all this to happen.

In the 19th and 20th centuries there were agonizingly long periods of waiting while the worst and most lethal "isms" burned themselves out. Nazism lasted 15 years, other fascist doctrines longer, and hideous communism took 70 years to crumble into disaster.

In the faster-moving 21st century a guess would be that the crazed Islamic deviations now prevalent might blow themselves out in a decade. What is certain is that frontal American and Western attempts to wage "war" on the extremists, and to line up favorite leaders and states in this war, will actually prolong the struggle, weaken religious moderates and slow down the internal divisions in Islam.

That's one lesson Western strategists should learn out of respect for the brave lady who died in Rawalpindi so violently.
David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a member of the House of Lords (www.lordhowell.com).

Bush pretends to pressure Israel over 'negtiations'

Bush is starting to realise that Israel's settlement plans might be a problem. Pretty much all of the Arab world has been saying that for weeks now. Israel's position seems to be that the PA must do all of the heavy lifting first, and then Israel will live up to their side of the bargain. Their side of the bargain, however, comes with a strong dose of semantics. Illegal settlement will stop, if the PA follows through on their side, but Israel has simply re-defined much of the settlement activity as 'legal', since it involves Israel's "future territory".

In other words, the Palestinians must do everything Israel wants, and then Israel will do nothing that the Palestinians want, but they will promise to temporarily stop scheming to do more outrageous things in the future as long as the PA remains compliant and as long as it doesn't become attractive for Israel to break this promise.

This is not a sound basis for negotiations. But this has always been a sideline for Bush to push his obsession with bombing Iran. If the Arab world wants these 'negotiations' to continue, they had better come around to Bush's way of thinking about Iran, or the feeble pressure on Israel will cease.
This also is not a sound basis for negotiations. It's "lose-lose" for the Arabs. How could they refuse?

story from ha'aretz

Last update - 23:40 03/01/2008
Bush: Settlement expansion 'impediment' to peace
By Reuters

U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday called Israeli settlement expansion an "impediment" to the success of revived peace efforts and urged the Jerusalem to follow through on its pledge to dismantle unauthorized settler outposts.

Speaking less than a week before his first presidential visit to Israel and the West Bank, Bush voiced optimism at the prospects for securing an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal by the end of 2008, a goal set at last November's Annapolis conference that has been viewed with some skepticism.

Bush said he would use his trip to keep up pressure on both sides, including making clear to Israelis his concern about continued Jewish settlement activity.

"I will talk about Israeli settlement expansion, about how that is, that can be, you know, an impediment to success," in an interview at the White House with Reuters. "The unauthorized outposts for example need to be dismantled, like the Israelis said they would do."

Asked about Bush's comments, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev said, "Israel is committed to meeting all our obligations under the road map and if the Palestinian side moves similarly on its commitments, I believe there is a real chance for substantive progress in the coming months."

Bush's trip follows a U.S.-hosted conference last month in Annapolis, Maryland, where Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pledged to try to forge a peace deal by the end of 2008.

"I feel good about it," Bush said when asked about the prospects for a deal by the end of this year.

He said such a timeframe "may not be a comfortable calendar for the two parties that actually have to negotiate the deal." But he added, "Both leaders ... understand this is a great opportunity to define a state and the fact that I'll be leaving office 12 months from now serves as a backstop."

Asked whether he would hold three-way talks with Abbas and Olmert during his visit, Bush said, "I don't know. It's not on the calendar now. But there will definitely be substantial talks with the Israelis and the Palestinians."

Bush also acknowledged that part of the reason for his January 8-16 Middle East trip is "absolutely" about efforts to contain Iran's influence in the region.

Bush said that on his trip, which starts in Israel and will include stops in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, he expects questions about a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate last month that said Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

"I will clarify to them that the NIE means that Iran is still a danger," he said.

Shadows on a bright picture in Iraq

The big question here is how the Iraqi government is going to merge the Sunni "good terrorists" into the increasingly-irrelevant Iraqi Army.
The security gains, tenuous as they are, have not come from the activities of the Iraqi Army. Remember, Bush's plan for the surge was that the Iraqi Army would "stand up", and the 30,000 surge troops were merely supposed to be supportive of their effort. Instead, the occupation troops have done much of the heavy lifting, while the Iraqi Army is in perpetual training mode. The "Concerned Citizens", which I call the "good terrorists" since they are among those that the surge was supposed to disarm and wipe out, are not loyal to the Iraqi government. This "awakening" strategy was a short-term fix, and it has only made the foes of the impotent federal government far stronger. The Iraqi Army, which has long suffered from profound "loyalty issues" itself, is now supposed to incorporate several thousands more of these Sunnis who have profound loyalty issues of their own. Is a regular paycheck supposed to turn these loyalty issues around?

Aside from that, the suspension of violence from one of the most powerful Shia militias will end as soon as it becomes practical to do so.

What is missed here in Lynch's assessment is the "Basra effect", where the Shia militias and criminal gangs have all but taken over Basra and is not being dealt with by the occupation troops. Lynch can no longer push this off on Britian, since they are gone. Basra, in fact, may very well turn out to be post-surge model for Iraq - not a case of bombings and ethnic cleansing, but of militia rule and fearful chaos.

But this, as Lynch says "is really a government of Iraq issue". We could have said that four years ago, and the result would probably have ended up the same. The surge was supposed to have allowed the Iraqi government to take over control of all of the provinces by November. Now it's a "ready or not, here it comes" proposition, and the country is a shambles. The newly-promised cuts in rations surely won't help things, either. The surge was supposed to leave a stable Iraqi government in its wake. Instead, it will leave the same feeble government it had at its start, only with fewer bombings for the time being.

story from The Daily Star

US general in Iraq 'optimistic but realistic'

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, January 04, 2008

Recent security gains that have led to a significant fall in violence in the last six months are still tenuous and could be reversed if Iraqis become disillusioned or if extremists mount a major attack, a top US commander in Iraq said Thursday. The cautionary statement came as violence flared across the nation, following a string of New Year attacks.

Violence has fallen by 60 percent since June, according to US military figures, and the government has been sounding upbeat. The country is notably calmer than it was at the same time last year, when there were fears Iraq was heading to all-out civil war.

"I'm very optimistic, but at the same time I'm very realistic. We have a tenuous security situation right now," Major General Rick Lynch, the commander of US forces south of Baghdad, said.

Extremists still carry out dozens of attacks each week.

Car bombs, suicide bombings, mortar attacks and kidnappings kill civilians and security forces alike, and Al-Qaeda in Iraq is still dominant in certain areas.

"The enemy's still out there," Lynch said during a visit to Salman Pak, a town about 25 kilometers southeast of Baghdad in a region known as the "Triangle of Death" where Al-Qaeda is still active. "My concern is when people begin to use words like defeat. We haven't defeated the enemy; we clearly have the enemy on the run. The main focus right now is Al-Qaeda."

The reduction of violence has been attributed to a combination of 30,000 extra US troops, a six-month cease-fire declared in August by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the work of predominantly Sunni tribal groups backed by the US military. The groups - more than 70,000-strong and growing fast - began turning against Al-Qaeda in Iraq in mid-2007.

Attacks in Lynch's area have fallen from about 25 a day before the summer to about six each day now, he said.

"But it is tenuous at best," he said. "On any given day, the security situation could go backward by some catastrophic attack, or by the local population not seeing continuing forward progress. So we just have to be sensitive about that. We have to focus on governance."

One of the issues is what will happen to the armed US-backed Sunni groups, which the military has dubbed Concerned Local Citizens, once security is restored to a point where they are no longer needed. The government has said it will integrate about a third of them into the mostly Shiite security forces.

"The other two-thirds we have to find productive work for," Lynch said.

The US has said that Iraq is matching the $155 million it has set aside to create jobs and provide vocational training for the fighters.

"This is really a government of Iraq issue," Lynch said. "They've got to think about 'how do we take all these productive citizens and compensate them for the work that they're doing?'"

Failure to provide useful employment for the fighters could lead them straight back into the insurgency, he warned.

"If indeed a concerned citizen is getting paid today and he's not getting paid tomorrow, there's a tendency of going back to doing bad things," the general said. "And I don't want that to happen."

The Shiite-run government shares these concerns and while acknowledging the work of the groups, it has been reticent to fully legitimize them.

A number of people were killed in a series of attacks in Iraq Thursday.

One attack targeted a local member of the prime minister's party, police said.

There were also reports that six Iraqi Army soldiers were killed and two were wounded while conducting joint operations with US forces against Al-Qaeda in Iraq in the village of Abu Nakhal, about 80 kilometers north of Baghdad.

The US military said it was looking into the report.

In the other incidents, three people were killed and 11 injured when a bomb planted at the house of a local member of the Dawa Party detonated at dawn in a Shiite-dominated area of southeastern Baghdad, a police official said on condition of anonymity.

The party member, who police did not name, was not at home when the bomb exploded, but a 13-year-old boy and a woman who was in a house next door were among those killed.

Additionally, three Iraqi civilians were killed by US military fire in two incidents on Thursday in the province of Diyala, one of the most dangerous regions in the country, Iraqi security officials said.

Two people died in the town of Al-Ghalibiyah, just west of the provincial capital Baquba, when a US patrol shot up their vehicle as it entered the main street from a side road while the convoy was passing, Iraqi Major Ziad al-Ani told reporters.

"It was in coincidence. The passing US military convoy thought the car was a hostile target and opened fire," said Ani.

In the other incident, US forces killed a civilian near a gas factory in the center of Baquba, said police Captain Muhannad al-Bawi, without giving further details. The US military said it was investigating the reports. - Agencies

comment policy, again

It seems as if the Chaudhary post has inspired several hateful and bigoted individuals to submit comments on the post.

These comments have been deleted, and will continue to be deleted.

As I have said before, the content of any comment published here must be on-topic and civil. I do not censor comments based on whether one agrees with me or not. I will not allow this blog to become a platform for hate speech, so the only one that will be exposed to your comments is myself, and only for the brief few seconds it takes me to delete it.

Dumb is the new smart in politics

This New Year's Eve I attended a small gathering at a longtime friend's home and got to hang out with some old friends and meet their new puppy. I look forward to this party every year not only because my longtime friend and his wife are gracious and wonderful hosts, but because the perennial guests include (Minnesota) State Senator Satveer Chaudhary and his vivacious and highly personable wife, Dee.

ABOVE: A sleepy Satveer and his charming and outgoing wife, Dee, in the wee, small hours of 2005.

Satveer is a Democrat, and in 2006 he waged a re-election campaign against a Republican candidate Rae Hart Anderson. Since I am an acquaintance of his, I followed the campaign and was exposed to Anderson's toxic rhetoric, of which her Christian Fundamentalist faith appears to be her main qualification for office. At debates, she would pace back and forth, gesticulating like a preacher and making sweeping assertions that require virtually no rational thought whatsoever, alternating between outraged snarls and beatific smiles. Satveer would remain calm and casual, mildly amused and confident. I had the chance during that election to talk to one of Mr. Chaudhary's constituents, a co-worker, about the race. Already dismissing Chaudhary as a "liberal", he predicted Chaudhary would "lose big". When I asked him why he made such a prediction, he rolled his eyes and said with a straight face, "He's smart, that's why", mouthing the word "smart" with a disdainful expression. What followed was an 'insightful discussion' into what makes an ideal Republican candidate, which I will paraphrase mercifully.

I had expected the usual complaints against Satveer, mainly that he was a Hindu and thus unqualified for public service in a "Christian nation". That was to be a factor, but not the deal-breaker. Rather, it was his intelligence and competence that marked him as an unfit candidate. "People want someone like them in office there", it was explained to me, as if I was a small child innocent in the ways of the world. Chaudhary was "smart" (insert scowl here), while Anderson had "common sense", which is a term Republicans use that roughly translates to 'dumb' in the rest of the world. True, Anderson was not big on facts and policy specifics; it was instead her outlook that she was selling. This would be nice if serving as a legislator was not the equivalent of a management position in the business world, where one is expected to make decisions affecting millions of people and multiple milllions of dollars on a regular basis. Like a management position, a legislator also has to deal with people who disagree with them while maintaining a professional demeanor. Thus, an arrogant attitude and firm grasp of Biblical scripture hardly seems to fit the bill. Surprisingly, when I asked my co-worker whether he felt he was qualified to be a state legislator, the response was heartily in the affirmative. His total lack of knowledge of Robert's Rules of Order (the language of the job), was easily dismissed. "That stuff is liberal bullshit designed to keep things from gettin' done", I was told. Likewise, the ability to read and comprehend reports, balance competing interests, and make decisions on subjects outside of your core competencies was also part of some liberal agenda that drove 'common sense' out of the public sector. "Put the money where it's supposed to go, and do the right thing", was this putative expert's summary of the job description.

I mention this at length precisely because it illustrates the Republican culture of anti-intellectualism and loyalty over competence that has produced the Bush Administration. Any idiot can govern or administer an Agency if they have 'common sense'. This anti-intellectual bent was one of Karl Rove's greatest (?) contributions to American campaign strategy. Ignorance thus becomes an asset, because it makes you similar to the people you represent. Arrogance is likewise the natural response to "smart" people with their fancy facts, analyses, insights, studies, and liberal penchant for treating complex matters as if they were complicated or something.

Arrogance was something Rae Hart Anderson (Chaudhary's opponent) had in spades. Rather than a concession call to Chaudhary as she "lost big", she instead sent an email advising Chaudhary to abandon his Hindu faith in favour of asking Jesus into his life. Yes, as if Chaudhary had never actually contemplated his beliefs or pondered over ethical or moral issues, Anderson stood ready to inform Satveer of an option he apparently was completely unaware of: Salvation through Jesus Christ. Obviously Satveer, with his public-school secondary education, his shallow Law School degree and successful completion of the Bar Exam, had simply never heard of the guy called Jesus and the awesome benefits of joining his Team into Eternity, Amen. Who could possibly criticise Anderson for sharing this vital information with a fellow human being? Common sense dictates that anyone who actually knew about Jesus' standing offer of salvation would jump at the chance, rather than be condemned to Hell.

Arrogance is also something that Chaudhary and his wife are devoid of, based on my experience. While being an order of magnitude more educated, wealthy, influential, and respected than myself, neither of them has ever treated me nor anyone in my presence as anything other than an equal. They have seen me drunk, endured my obnoxious behaviour, and experienced rants from my mouth that push the limits of coherent thought into bold new territory, which surely shows their capacity to deal with the average Republican. What impresses me more, however, is that neither of them is phony enough to tell me that my rants are insightful and valuable or that my behaviour is charming and apropos. It's as if we are all just people or something, and we can maintain our dignity without placing ourselves above others. To me, 'common sense' dictates not that someone has to be like me to represent me, but rather that they see that our interests coincide.
I don't want 'me' in government; I want someone smarter and more competent than me in government looking out for me.

Would you take your car to a mechanic who tells you, "I don't know a drive train from a freight train, but if the Lord Jesus wants your car to run, it will run, in His Glory". Would you go to a doctor who says, " I hear a lot of fancy talk about hemo-this and osteo-that, and all kinds of Latin flim-flammery from the so-called medical professionals, but nothing cures you better than a good dose of Scripture"? How would you feel about availing yourself of an attorney who says, "Well, I could make some motions and do some discovery and all kinds of legal mumbo-jumbo, but wouldn't you rather just put your case in the Lord's hands and let His Will be done"? Sure, none of these guys are smarter than you, and they might reflect your values, but can they do the job you are paying them for? Likewise, why would you elect a legislator that sees ignorance as a virtue and religious piety as a substitute for competence to manage the affairs of government?

I see this phenomenon with increasing frequency in Republican public discourse. Complex foreign policy matters are distilled into 'good guys vs. bad guys'. The role of the citizen is reduced to cheering for Our Team. Every problem has a simple answer, and it begins and ends with 'common sense'. Anyone that tells you things are more complicated than that is just trying to sell you "liberal hogwash", and talk radio even helpfully points out scapegoats for you so that you don't have to engage in rational thought. The right-wing blogs are rife with disdain for education, since it makes you unable to comprehend the glowing brilliance and wisdom of the ignorant.
In the end, ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, but it certainly is nothing to brag about, either.