The myth of "some success" in Iraq

Republicans and Bush's ventrilioquist dummies in the military keep mentioning "signs of success" in Iraq, which are presumably due to the 'surge'. They keep it all very vague so that people who actually still look to these people as a credible source will not examine things too closely. The "signs of success" boil down to these two things:
- Anbar province, where tribal leaders have made statements that they will be taking action on their own against Al-Qaeda.
- A decline of death-squad killings ("sectarian killings" in Bush-speak) in Baghdad.

Before looking into each of these "signs", I would first point the significance underlying them.
Bush keeps hammering away at two points. These are that Iraq is not in a civil war, and that we are in Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda. When sectarian killings occur on a large scale, the White House speaks of Al-Qaeda and how we have to fight them "there" to keep from fighting them "here". When Al-Qaeda springs into the forefront, we hear about a decline of sectarian killings in a specific area. Back and forth it goes, so that we are always "winning" and it's always because of the 'surge'.
Okay, now about those "signs". The first one, involving Anbar, has nothing to do with the 'surge'. In fact, it proves the failure of the 'surge', the sham government, and the illusory Iraqi Army that is going to "stand up" so that we can "stand down". After four and a half years, the U.S. military and the Iraqi military has failed to make much of a dent in Al-Qaeda in Anbar. So now, an essentially vigilante force is taking action, or at least issuing press releases that they are taking action. And this is an improvement? How does this new 'tribal' force distinguish between Al-Qaeda and ordinary citizens? We have seen this before in Baghdad, where 'helpful' Iraqis hand over the names of romantic and business rivals (or merely people they disagree with) as "terrorists" to the authoritites. The prisons run by Iraqi Interior Ministry are, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than torture centres. The result is that the guy who is dating some 'helpful' Iraqi's ex-girlfriend gets thrown into prison and tortured into admitting he is a 'terrorist", and supporters of the war back here point to this as a sign of success against Al-Qaeda. But more importantly, what does this have to do with the 'surge'? Iraqis taking matters into their own hands, rather than letting the Iraqi or U.S. military handle it, is somehow due to an increase in troops? It sounds like it's more of an acknowledgement of failure of our efforts. Lastly, regardless of how many putative "terrorists" do get nabbed by this tribal effort, the fact remains that the government in Anbar is a virtual no-show, that the economic and security infrastructure is a disaster, and that getting rid of putative "al-Qaeda" won't solve these issues. A toilet free of Al-Qaeda is still a toilet.
The second "sign", the decline of sectarian killings, also has nothing to do with the 'surge'. Al-Sadr has simply told his Mahdi Army to stand down temporarliy while his party tries to gain with politics what it has failed to gain with its death squads. And things aren't working too well in that regard, as I've pointed out before. Just this past week we've seen groups of 200 or more carrying out killings with impunity. Bush has pinned his hopes on the weak al-Maliki as a counterbalance to the Sadrists, and even al-Maliki isn't the lapdog that Bush hoped he would be. Instead of breaking things down into phony "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys", we should instead be looking at things as "separatists" and "nationalists". The separatists are, ironically, the side that Bush backs. They want to split the country into three parts, and they also are eager to pass the Hydrocarbon Law so that they can start raking in the money. The Hydrocarbon law was written by the multinational oil companies and it gives them complete control over the Iraqi oil while handing out a cut to the Iraqis. Of course, the oil companies get to keep the books, so they determine how much the Iraqis actually get. And once a separate Kurdistan is declared, Turkey will invade and take the oil anyway. The nationalists are the ones who want to keep Iraq together, but they oppose the Hydrocarbon Law and don't like the foreign occupation. This is a classic civil war scenario: separatists and nationalists. However, if we openly admit this, then we will (rightly) be seen as referees in a civil war, rather than as fighting Al-Qaeda. All Al-Qaeda wants out of this is to stir up Sunnis into killing Shiites, and killing as many U.S. troops as they can. They aren't out for political control.

So, both of these "signs of success" are really false and have nothing to do with the 'surge'.
Oddly nobody in the Bush Administration sees the recent spread of 'sectarian killings' to Kurdistan, an area that's previously been mostly peaceful, as a bad sign. Again, as always, the Republican math is More Deaths=the 'surge' is working, and Less Deaths=the 'surge' is working. See, we just keep "winning". As things get worse, that's just seen as a sign that the proverbial "Bad Guys" are desperate and that we're "turning the corner". Haven't we heard that before?

Republicans take Mixon's remarks the wrong way

Republican bloggers, such as this one, see the recent remarks by Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. "Randy" Mixon that he needs more troops in Diyala as some kind of proof that the surge is working. These guys are really desperate for good news, so they have to spin it themselves. NBC reported on Mixon's remarks, in which he basically said he was being overrun. However, this key phrase was included in the report:

“Ironically, the recent surge into Baghdad drove insurgents and terrorist out of the capital and into Diyala province…”

Ok, there we have it, kids. Proof the surge is working. Yep, because the Bad Guys (whoever they are) are moving out of Baghdad and into another area where the heat isn't on, that means it's all worthwhile. This is pretty much what Petraeus himself has warned about: You apply pressure in one area, and the problem moves to another area (his "balloon" analogy). This is good news? It means that all we have to do is apply the 'surge' to the whole country and the "terrorists" will go someplace else. Where? Afghanistan, maybe? The U.S? Well, let's not use our critical thinking skills when we have a perfect opportunity to rail against "liberal media bias". It's taken us five months to scrape the troops up for this surge and we still don't even have all of them, but the blogger geniuses think we have 5 times more troops around that we can spare to duplicate this 'succcess' throughout Iraq. And let's not look at American troop casualties from the 'surge', either.
See, we just keep "winning". Of course, in the meantime Mixon is unhappy, with 61 casualties this year so far. And he's been asking for more troops since September, so if we have all of these extra troops around, why has he been waiting? Maybe Mixon is a traitor? Why else would he say things that 'embolden' the enemy? Why does this Major General hate America? Those are the kind of issues the Republicans want the media to explore, while showing lots of flags and eagles, too.
But let's look at the rest of Mixon's statement, rather than focussing on what NBC said:

"The level of violence began to increase before the surge," Mixon said, referring to the Baghdad buildup. "It has increased, of course, during the surge … [because] we are sure that there are elements, both Sunni extremist and Shia extremist, that have moved out of Baghdad."

Okay, so the situation was getting worse before the 'surge', he says. Now it's continuing to get worse. Mixon's casualties have tripled over last year's totals and we're not even halfway through the year yet. That sounds like success to Republicans. In fact, Diyala province is one of the major "success stories" pitched by neocon bloggers, like this one. Mixon also called the local government "non-functional" and the central government "ineffective", which is undoubtedly another mark of 'success" for Republicans. According to the LA Times, "Mixon was withering in his criticism of the Iraqi government, saying it was hamstrung by bureaucracy and compromised by corruption and sectarian discord, making it unable to assist U.S. forces in Diyala." Do those sound like problems that would be solved by more combat troops? Because that's all Bush has up his sleeve: more troops or less troops. Take your pick. This is what we get for $450 billion and counting.
The recent decline of sectarian violence has not come from the increase of U.S. troops, but rather from Al-Sadr making a political gesture to his foreign supporters (e.g. King Abdullah) to try to get a political resolution from the Iraqi Parliament. The Bush Administration, however, is putting al-Maliki on the spot to keep this kind of resolution from occurring, so once Al-Sadr gives up on his political options and turns the "violence faucet" back on, we'll see a flood of sectarian death. And this flood will probably come in the weeks before September when Bush will be making his pitch about "success" in Iraq. And the decline in sectarian death has been about the only bright spot in this "surge'. Bush's ill-considered gamble to force Iraqi politicians into doing his bidding will instead backfire into the collapse of the 'surge'. By then, too, thousands more Iraqis will have been through the torture centres that the Interior Ministry calls "prisons", and they won't come out whistling a happy tune, either.
The sad truth is that the surrounding countries are really trying quite hard to bring about a stabilisation in Iraq, but Bush's short-sighted agenda and penchant for throwing troops at every problem is seriously undermining their efforts. But we can always blame it on the "liberal media" and "surrenderists", can't we?

Norm Coleman looks to 11/08

Excerpt of AP story from Anne Flaherty:

Baghdad’s ability to sell members like Coleman, R-Minn., and Chambliss, R-Ga., on the war effort is critical if the Iraqi government wants U.S. troops to stay. Coleman in recent months has become deeply skeptical of the president’s decision to send additional troops to Iraq and says patience on the war in general is limited.

Coleman, Chambliss and Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., who met separately with Saleh, will be up for re-election next year — facing voters who have grown tired of a war in its fifth year and that has killed more than 3,380 troops. While Republicans have been reluctant to intervene, many say President Bush has until September to tell if the troop buildup in Iraq is working before they demand another approach.

Ah, Norm, the breeze is blowing and you're drifting right along with it, aren't you? It's odd how it took this long for you to become concerned, though. Up until just recently you were one of those ventriloquist dummies who said that leaving Iraq meant that the "terrorists" win.

When this report talks about "Baghdad's ability to sell" the 'surge' to fools like Norm Coleman, they really mean the Bush Administration's ability to keep marginally loyal Republicans from bolting. So (Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham) Saleh just decided to meet with a bunch of nervous Republican Congressdroids on his own, eh? The Deputy Prime Minister of a puppet Prime Minister who has virtually no power and whose paycheck and position ultimately is in the hands of the Bush Administration gets a crazy idea to travel to the U.S. and talk to politicians...but mostly Republican politicians. The minute Saleh stops doing the bidding of the Bush Administration is when Saleh loses his job or when his security "slips up" and he takes his place at the morgue. But... but.. he's Iraqi! It's just a coincidence that everything he says sounds like it was approved by Bush ahead of time. Wow, I'm certainly fooled.

Norm, face it: your master's only Iraq plan was to install Challabi as some kind of dictator in a sham election and have Challabi act as a U.S.-controlled puppet. And you went along with this because to think independently means you lose your spot on the winning team. So, Norm, if you are no longer taking marching orders from Cheney, then who is your new master? And if you still are Cheney's ventriloquist dummy, then what's up with the "nervous" act? Is something going to happen between now and September that suddenly makes Cheney less of a genius hero for you?
Norm Coleman had better figure out before September whether he's going to betray his masters in the White House or his constituency in Minnesota. This choreographed act with Saleh doesn't gain him any cover at all.
It's funny how his "patience" on the war is limited by impending election, though. It's almost as if he didn't have any confidence in his master at all, and is confused because they stopped sending him Talking Points or something.

Disaster in Iraq, disaster at home

The big buzz now is about September, when Republicans are allegedly going to be expected to show some progress in Iraq with the surge. However, the real story will be here at home by that time, and if the Republicans will be in any shape to spin the inevitable foreign disaster while dealing with the domestic disaster.
Nearly every week now, someone in the Administration is resigning or having new investigations launched into their activities. The pace will only increase, and presumed loyalists will begin to spill their guts now that they see that the Adminstration's chief strategy seems to be scapegoating their own minions. Yeah, Abu Gharaib was really just all about a few bad enlisted personnel; no officers and certainly no White House staff, thank you very much. The firings of US Attorneys General were all plotted by out-of-control staffers with no involvement by a merely bewildered Gonzalez. The faulty Iraq intelligence seems to have been created by anyone who ceases to pay lip service to the Bush Lie Doctrine. The Katrina response was all poor Mr. Brown's fault, and not the people who hired a marginal stable manager to handle national disaster co-ordination.
And, strangely, the generals who were wonderful, competent, and experienced when Bush placed them in charge of Iraqi operations somehow became pathetic, clueless traitors when they stopped saying what Bush wanted to hear. Even now, Republicans who swore by every word Tenet said a few years ago now curse his name and denounce him as the cause of the baseless WMD intelligence, or at least until the next scapegoat comes along.
And they honestly think that nobody notices this pattern, or that even those that actually believe the scapegoats are responsible blame the Administration for failing to oversee the situations properly. Yep, the Bush Adminstration is the victim of a conspiracy of incompetent, disloyal, and devious rascals that worked their treachery right under the noses of the higher-ups without their knowledge. They're just victims, I guess. Uh-huh.
Oh yes, and it's also about the hate. Don't forget about the hate. Democrats are so obsessed with hatred of Bush that they somehow mysteriously created the circumstances for these bad apples to work their sinister schemes. And we all know that Republicans are mild, reasonable people who don't get all crazy at the mention of the name "Clinton" or became absolutely unglued in their Quest for "Truth" when it came to the Decider's predecessor. They don't throw around the word "treason" lightly or question people's patriotism for merely disagreeing with the President. Certainly their fundamentalist Christian doctrines are founded only on love and they feel no hatred toward any non-Judeo-Christians or gays, etc. And if they do hate, well, then it's completely understandable and justified because... well, because then it's in their interests to hate. Nothin' wrong with that.
Anyway, in the next four months enough is going to blow about the Bush Adminstration that the surge will be a minor problem. By that time, Petraeus, the hero and darling of the Neo-Cons, will have lost favour by contradicting something the Commander Guy said, anyway. The scant political capital that the Republicans have left will have been squandered on a largely symbolic "I'm the Boss" showdown over Iraq Appropriations.
As I said before, by September the definition of "success" in Iraq will have been drained of any real meaning and will essentially be "success is whatever the Decider says is success" and it won't look pretty. Republicans will crow about "victory" as Iraq becomes even worse than it is now. All hail the new dictator Allawi! Okay, so we won't have brought democracy, stability, rainbows or puppy dogs to Iraq like we planned, and Iraq really isn't our ally in the War on Terror, and we didn't get the oil, either....but we won! The Decider said so! And since he's the President, he's infallible and any hint of disagreement with Him is treason. Besides, you want to win, right? Just don't ask any questions and cheer when you're supposed to cheer and we can all claim a great victory! Otherwise you have to admit we lost and that doesn't poll well.
The reason Bush and his fiends will continue on while their Administration collapses, their war collapses, their party's election hopes collapse, etc. is because they never plan for anything but the best possible outcome. They will go down in profound disgrace and haul all of their loyalists with them, still proudly confident that they will win the day. And there will be much rejoicing...but not by them.

Analysis of Bush's radio address - fear and lies

The Decider tells another scary story:

If radicals and terrorists emerge from this battle with control of Iraq, they would have control of a nation with massive oil reserves, which they could use to fund their dangerous ambitions and spread their influence. The al Qaeda terrorists who behead captives or order suicide bombings would not be satisfied to see America defeated and gone from Iraq. They would be emboldened by their victory, protected by their new sanctuary, eager to impose their hateful vision on surrounding countries, and eager to harm Americans.

The lack of logic here is staggering.

1) 'If we leave, Al-Qaeda will take over Iraq.' Okay, now who are we paying to produce the intelligence reports that support this? First off, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not the same Al-Qaeda that attacked us on September 11. It is a terrorist group, but has nothing to do with Osama. Zawahiri merely took the name as a "franchise" while remaining independent from Al-Qaeda. The Pentagon has already said this. Second, there are only about a thousand of these Iraqi Al-Qaeda 'franchisees' in Iraq. Again, this is the Pentagon's estimate. They have never expressed an aim to take over the country, and no sober assessment has ever indicated that this is their aim. Their aim is to foment chaos, and keep American troops in Iraq to kill them and make it appear to the Islamic world that we intend to make Iraq a colony. Even in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda never tried to take over the country. There are Al-Qaeda in dozens of countries, but we don't invade them or tell scary stories about them taking over there. In fact, we call these countries our allies.

2) 'Leaving while Al-Qaeda is in Iraq would be defeat'. Yeah, well why does Bush say that "victory" could be defined as merely a reduction of Al-Qaeda attacks then? Are we now seriously telling Americans that we plan on killing every single last member of Al-Qaeda, as if they wore some kind of uniform or something? When did Iraqis vote on making their country the place for foreigners to fight it out?

3) 'If we leave, Al-Qaeda will be eager to impose their hateful vision on other countries'. Well, in the eyes of the nearly all of the surrounding countries, we are the ones whose hateful vision they are worried about. They can handle Al-Qaeda just fine, but they are worried about the U.S. using Iraq as permanent military base to interfere with their agendas. In fact, there are lots and lots of Iraqi refugees in these countries to remind everyone there what a great 'service' the American occupation is to the region.

3) 'We can't let Al-Qaeda get control of Iraq's oil reserves'. Hey, didn't we hand over sovereignty of the country to Iraq? Al-Qaeda doesn't have any seats in the Iraqi Parliament, nor any significant electoral support to speak of. Actually, The Iraqi Oil Law that we are ramming down the Iraqis' throats pretty much guarantees that we will be ones geting the control of their oil and using the money for our own ends. Those ends have very little to do with making Iraqis happy.

4) 'The presence of our troops limits Al-Qaeda's influence'. Actually, it's the opposite. Al-Qaeda presents itself to the Sunnis of the world as the primary defenders of Iraqi Sunnis from the foreign infidels. While the Iraqi Sunnis may not be lapping that up, the Sunnis in other countries certainly are. And they are greatly helped by Bush's base spreading anti-Islamic propaganda. Designed to encourage non-Muslims to wipe out Islam, instead it pretty much 'emboldens' Muslims worldwide to take Al-Qaeda seriously when they say that America is out to destroy Islam and kill all Muslims. Al-Qaeda is Sunni group, of course, but Shia are offended by the presence of foreign infidels at their holy shrines. The longer we stay there, the better Al-Qaeda looks and the more pissed off Shia worldwide get.

5) 'This is a battle'. No, actually we declared the war over. Now it's an occupation. Look up the word. When we occupied Japan after WW2 we didn't refer to it as a battle. Same with Germany. This is an 'enemy' that doesn't control any territory, has no regular armed forces, no government directing them. They can leave whenever they want and we can do nothing. We don't even know most of their names, they wear no uniform and appear to be identical to the populace we are defending. They are not after control of the government and have little popular support among the populace. They like to kill our troops, though, so we oblige them by making them readlily available in large numbers.
-------------------------------------

We lost the moral high ground with Iraqis when Abu Gharaib came out. Iraqis are beaten, humiliated, lied to, or otherwise victimised by either our troops or our contractors all the time. These people don't just smile about it and shrug it off. That's not the cultural norm. At best we are seen as a necessary evil, with more and more Iraqis leaving the "necessary" part out as sectarian forces and Al-Qaeda work their magic on the populace. Even if we were saints, we are no longer seen as the good guys by the people there.

Here's a link to the entire radio address

You might also notice no mention of "democracy" in the speech.

The goal of the new strategy he is implementing is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists alongside the United States in the war on terror. This strategy is still in its early stages, and Congress needs to give General Petraeus’ plan a chance to work.

Ah, yes, Petraeus. Hey, it's not his plan. This is the plan that Bush handed him - a last resort strategy- and he agreed to give it a try. I really hope that Petraeus corrects this little error before he ends up like Tenet. Just because Congress confirmed him, doesn't mean that the guy has magical powers. He's been given a lousy plan, and he's the best guy to execute the lousy plan. If it wasn't him, Bush would have sent some craven toady that could care less about the troops under his command. Let's not let Bush blame Petraeus when this surge ultimately fails, nor let Bush invoke his name to silence those who rightly say the lousy plan is, indeed, lousy.
Notice that the goal is now "progress" toward noble ends, not the achievement of those ends. Also notice that Bush is not saying that we are any closer to making those goals reality.
How much time do we have to give "Petraeus'" plan to work? The Great Decider does not say. Twenty years? A thousand?
...And the Republican Presidential candidates all backed this vague plan that's based on lies, distortions, and fear-mongering. If the surge fails come October, these idiots have absolutely no wiggle room at all. And there will be months and months of tape with these idiots making lame excuses, empty threats, and bogus predictions. Treason. It's the last card they can play, and the one most likely to make them look crazy.

Republicans say "Give the Surge a Chance"

From Fox News, we have the latest (5/6) brave Republican rhetoric from John Boehner (House Republican Leader):

“We don’t even have all of the 30,000 additional troops in Iraq yet, so we’re supporting the president. We want this plan to have a chance of succeeding,” he said.

“Over the course of the next three to four months, we’ll have some idea how well the plan’s working. Early signs are indicating there is clearly some success on a number of fronts,” he said.

"A number of fronts", eh? Isn't zero a number?
So why aren't all of the additional troops in Iraq yet? It's been about four months now that Bush has been promising big things from this "surge". If this plan is so wonderful and foolproof, why the wait?

The answer is that the entire surge strategy is really nothing more than a political stall for domestic consumption, and that we don't actually have all of those troops to spare in the first place. Bush is calling on imaginary legions, and the neocons love it!
So now the new date is June 1 to "start the clock", which was originally supposed to be six weeks. That would be July 13. And this is giving Bush the five months prior to this that he was claiming the surge was in effect and producing success "on a number of fronts", but which is now "no fair" to include as "on the clock". Okay. But watch for Republicans to say they had their fingers crossed when they said "six weeks".
By the time the clock is actually started, we'll see Republicans and their ventriloquist dummies in the military say that six months of "surge" is what any sane and patriotic person knows they really meant. This pushes us into December.

Either that, or Bush's definition of "victory" will have been changed to mean "the ability of Iraq's Parliament to convene in the Green Zone". Watch Republicans say that "nobody can deny this is a great step forward", even though they've been doing that for years.
I'm not quite sure if it's sad or scary to realise that the majority of the Republicans' supporters believe that they will all be swept away in the Rapture before Bush leaves office anyway.

In any case, it looks like Boehner thinks the surge will last at least until early September, which is the date that Petraeus has been tossing around. This makes the surge an eight month operation, at best. That's sounding more like an escalation than a "surge". The "surge" was billed as a relatively short operation that would give the Iraqi government time to stabilise and deal with the civil war. Now it's become some kind of major escalation to wipe out Al-Qaeda once and for all, except that Bush is now saying that a certain level of Al-Qaeda violence is acceptable in his new definition of "victory". Okay, so now were stretching our military to its utter limits in an effort to reduce Al-Qaeda's impact in Iraq. If Bush tried sellling that plan back in January, I doubt that even Boehner would've bit.
We still have no hard date from any Republican or military spokesman telling us when we can definitely say the "surge" has failed. This is not a timetable that "our enemies" would have to wait out, since Bush clearly is going to keep the surge going until he leaves office. It's just a benchmark by which we say if Bush's plan failed or succeeded. The fact that the man can't even give us a straight answer on that score speaks volumes.
Faith and optimism do not negate reality. If I really, really believe that I can drive 100 miles on an empty gas tank, when my car is sitting on the roadside, my faith will not fill that tank back up. We've tried crossing our fingers. We've tried rabbit's feet. We've tried clicking our heels together. Now we're just simply waiting for a miracle and calling that leadership.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that in the same Fox news interview John Boehner said in no uncertain terms that there is no civil war in Iraq. It's just us fighting terrorists. So those sectarian forces that Bush and Petraeus have been bragging about defeating with the surge are really non-existent? These guys better get their lies straight.

Neocon spin

Looking at the neocon blogs is a mind-numbing experience. The hypocrisy and delusion is palpable.
Democrats are described by an assortment of hateful names, the 70% of the country that opposes the Iraq occupation are cowards, traitors, and 'surrenderists', and withdrawal fom Iraq is somehow equated with killing our soldiers. Sadly, the Republican zealots that still support the occupation are themselves the hateful ones.

Sources: Their sources of information are always in the pay of or under the command of the President. They quote the President himself as if he is some godlike expert. Yes, the fact the President supports his own policies is some kind of 'proof' in their minds. Bush is not big on facts, he's big on faith. So when a guy who's not big on facts makes assertions, you really have to take those assertions with a grain of salt. Military spokesmen are also a regular supplier of supportive quotes for the neocons. Just a reminder: the President is Commander-in-Chief and is the boss of these military spokesmen. And they are spokesmen, not experts. They just deliver the message they are told to. They don't provide analysis and their job is not to think independently of the President's agenda. Lastly, actively-serving generals or other active-duty officers round out the font of truth for Republicans. Again, if these guys say anything contrary to the party line, they will be severely punished and they most certainly know this.
Remember, we had the President, military spokesmen, and active-duty officers assuring us that Vietnam was either going great or that leaving would mean the end of the Free World up until we actually did withdraw. They are no more reliable a source than ventriloquist's dummies.

Motive: The Democrat's motive is always to destroy America, in their minds. They, in contrast, want to establish an Empire where the U.S. calls the shots, arranges everything for it's own benefit at the expense of other countries, and quashes any country that says what we don't want to hear. That is their definition of patriotism: we rule the world. We can only be 'safe' when we control everything. This is not practical or even attainable, even if we draft everyone under 40 and manage to rebuild our manufacturing sector and avoid bankruptcy. "My way or the highway" may have been temporarily feasible 50 years ago when we were the undisputed industrial leader and the rest of the planet was either very backward or in a postwar shambles. That's reality, not cowardice or treason. The Soviet Union was defeated primarily on an economic basis, and at a huge cost to us financially, mostly by an economic boycott and refusal to accept their currency. The huge cost would pay off in the long term by saving the money that went into the "war". However, we just found new wars and new enemies. Our industrial might has been outsourced nowadays and our major economic leverage comes by way of being the default currency. The euro is now looking like a better alternative to the dollar as the reserve currency, largely due to the enormous strings attached to the dollar. The more we try to intimidate other countries monetarily, the better the euro looks to them as a reserve currency.

Terror: Al-Qaeda is the ultimate bogeyman. If they say something that supports the President's view, then they are a sterling source, but if they say something that doesn't back the Republican scenario, then they are untrustworthy liars and schemers. Criticising the occupation 'emboldens' them, but having hatriots making public statements that say the U.S.' goal should be to wipe out Islam somehow puts Al-Qaeda in their place by showing them we "mean business". Ask yourself which scenario is more likely to push a young Muslim into the arms of radical Islamists:
1) "Here is a statement by an American who says that the occupation of Iraq should end."
2) "Here is a statement by an American who says they want to kill you simply for being a Muslim."
Yes, in the minds of Republicans, statement #2 is not only patriotic, but it will scare that young Muslim into bowing to the will of his/her American masters. Sheesh.

And of course, to the neocon, everything I've posted here is defeatist, treasonous garbage largely because it recognises that there are limits on American power.

The Decider, in his own words

A few excerpts from The Decider's speech 11-30-05
This was before 11-06 when Bush had a mysterious change of heart and began to use the lack of progress in Iraq as the new justification for our involvement. Back when he made this speech he was using the tremendous progress in Iraq to justify our involvement. The reason for the mysterious change of heart was the election results, no doubt.
So, when Bush sees his policies as working, that means we have to stay in Iraq. Likewise, when Bush's policies fail to work, we have to stay in Iraq. See a pattern here?

Bush: Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. Freedom's victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, and spread hope across a troubled region, and lift a terrible threat from the lives of our citizens. By strengthening Iraqi democracy, we will gain a partner in the cause of peace and moderation in the Muslim world, and an ally in the worldwide struggle against -- against the terrorists.

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

Yeah, I'm sure that people from 'Damascus to Teheran' are looking at Iraq and saying "Hey, wouldn't it be nice if we could be more like them". And the Shia majority in Iraq sees Iran as their ally, not the U.S. Also, you would have to be delusional to see Iraqi democracy as 'strengthening'. The Iraqi government is instead dominated by the two main parties involved in the civil war (which Bush says is not a civil war). It's an open secret that as soon as the U.S. does withdraw from Iraq, that Turkey will invade Kurdistan with the nice shiny military we have built up for them. How does this play out in the "ally" scenario? Will we defend our Iraqi ally against our Turkish ally? Or is all this 'ally' talk a load of crap that really means we install a government in Iraq who says what we tell them to say and does what we command?

Bush: As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will take more responsibility for their security, and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission. America will not abandon Iraq. We will not turn that country over to the terrorists and put the American people at risk. Iraq will be a free nation and a strong ally in the Middle East -- and this will add to the security of the American people.
------------------------------

Again, Iraq is not looking anything like an ally at this point. And now, in May '07, the old Decider Dude says that more troops are needed, not fewer. And those Iraqi troops that were supposed to "stand up" turned out to be more of the problem than the solution, because their primary loyalties were to the sectarian militias. And somehow, as the situation has deteriorated in Iraq since this speech, we haven't seen a corresponding increase in danger here in the U.S. - Are we supposed to continue this war until everyone in the world who doesn't like us is killed? Is that what Congress meant when they 'authorised' this war? Why does Bush get to decide what Congress intended by their authorisation?
The truth is that our strongest defence against a radical Iran was Saddam, as bad as he was. If we want to frame this in terms of U.S. security, then that would be the primary concern. A weak central Iraqi government, in a shattered nation with its own armed forces at war with itself, led by Shia who see Iran as their natural ally, is not a scenario painting Iraq as a bulwark against Iran and its aims.

Bush: And we should not fear the debate in Washington. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly -- even at times of war. Your service makes that freedom possible. And today, because of the men and women in our military, people are expressing their opinions freely in the streets of Baghdad, as well.
-----------------------------------------

Okay, so how is it that now anyone who disagrees with Bush is a traitor, and debate is the biggest fear of the Republicans? How is it that "the debate in Washington" is now not a sign of the freedom that those in the military have made possible, but seen as akin to aggression against the troops? Why are Republicans trying to undermine what their Great Decider has stated to be "one of the great strengths of our democracy"?
Will the Decider please decide which Decider is the Real Decider?
Of course, now Bush has simply defined "victory" as a decrease in sectarian violence, and doesn't really talk about the "strong ally" (or ally, period), or about the shining democracy that will make dictators across the Middle East tremble. Heck, we don't even care about car bombings, unemployment, a deadlocked Parliament, or refugees in the new picture of "success". Robert Gates has even gone so far as to suggest that Iraqis kicking us out would be considered "victory".
I wish that the Democrats would point out that Bush's "hang tough" act really consists of him lowering the bar for what is considered victory while stalling for his lowered standards to be acheived. And he can't even make that work.

Bush's foreign allies face record low poll numbers

Three countries are the major powers in this sham "War on Terror": U.S., Britain, and Israel.
Isn't it interesting that two of these countries' leaders are at all-time lows in the polls? Blair hit the lowest point in history for his party and Ohlmert is around 2 to 3 percent (!) - not even within the margin of error. Bush is now under 30 and not likely to go up with his current fist-shaking, bring-it-on battle with Congress. Remember, Clinton never dropped below 58 percent.
Is this an example of courageous statesmanship for these three leaders or is it proof that the electorate feels they were misled and had a war rammed down their throats?
I'm sure Republicans would say the former is true, but it certainly serves as a dire warning to any nation that may consider joining Bush's delusional efforts. Take the case of Japan's Abe, who visited recently and made supportive noises involving Bush's policies in the Middle East. His numbers are also low, around 40 percent. Still, Japan feels it must support Bush, much like Australia and South Korea. We are, after all, their main defence. Sadly, they don't see that Bush is on the way out and whoever takes over is not likely to see support for the insane war as a sign of a good ally, but rather a craven toady.
Bush will go down as the worst President in living memory (perhaps longer). Anyone with service in his adminstration on their resume will be marked as incompetent.
What is the Republican strategy for victory in '08? With 70% opposed to Bush and nobody in the Party talking him down much, I guess it will be to denounce the vast majority of Americans as weak cowards and traitors and condemn them to Hell as bad Christians. That'll bring 'em around. Endless War for Jesus.

neocon's flip-flop and look for a new Iraqi dictator

I just had to mention that I've been reading several neocon blogs lately, and I am surprised to see the new sinuous twist in the "reasoning". Apparently "everyone knows" that there is a civil war in Iraq, according to the neocon blogs. Wow. Bush hasn't permitted anyone in his pay to use the words 'civil war' in reference to Iraq. Petraeus hasn't said we are involved in a civil war. But somehow this is "obvious" and we should just stop talking about it because it doesn't have any bearing in the "war" against Al-Qaeda. They are in effect saying that even these neocons no longer believe what Bush says, yet we should pretend it's true so Bush won't get his feelings hurt.

Sectarian militias, or more properly, the politicians who command the sectarian militias, make up the Iraqi government. Remember, this is the government that is going to "stand up" so that we can "stand down". Al-Maliki would be removed from power (no confidence vote) if he were to effectively shut down the sectarian militias. The U.S. designed the government to be this screwed up in order to prevent another authoritarian leader from emerging. Yet Bush requires that any of his cronies who face the public continue the untenable illusion that we are merely waiting for the Iraqi government to tweak a few things, crack down and make the civil war go away. It would be more believable if there were ruby slippers and a witch involved in this fairy tale.
Also notice that there is very little bragging about the democracy we brought to Iraq lately among neocons. This is because they are beginning to realise that the solution to the Iraqi civil war is to let the constitutional government we installed go by the wayside and install a new Saddam. This 'new Saddam', however, will be completely in our pocket and will probably be used to wage a proxy war against Iran. Just what a shattered nation needs; a new war. Neocons will defend the 'new Saddam' vigourously against those who point out the brutal methods and non-democratic tactics this leader will use by saying that the alternative is going back to the "surge" and Bush's endless quagmire. Which they will, at that point, admit was a stupid mistake, but do so in a way that doesn't hurt Bush's feelings.
Neocons have pretty much degenerated into either those who just simply hate Islam or those who are making money from the war...or possibly both. They can no no longer be taken seriously as a relevant political force. Neocons shrill that if we withdraw from Iraq that Al-Qaeda will attack us, and they do this as if it were the most obvious thing in the world. Much like their "certainty" about the success of the invasion or the presence of WMDs in Iraq, we are somehow required to believe it because Bush says so and he is the President and if you don't believe everything he says then you are un-American. These pathetic stooges have still not realised that this weak reasoning does not impress the vast majority of Americans who did not drink the neocon Kool-Aid. Accusations of treason from dishonest, craven toadies inspires more of a chuckle of derision than serious consideration. The neocon wet dream, of course, is to line up these "traitors" and shoot them in the name of freedom, democracy, and America.
I'm beginning to wonder if Bushco will really step down when 1/09 comes around, or if he will manufacture a "crisis" that requires he declare martial law and hand over power to Cheney. Can't you just hear him already? He's sad that it's come to this, but he will not let America's enemies win, and stories of mass arrests and disappearances are just lies spread by those aforementioned enemies, but if we keep our mouths shut and do what he tells us to we'll all be just fine....

This doesn't count

Per recent news reports about how the casualties are counted. The bombing in Karbala today doesn't count as "violence". If this counted as violence, the "terrorists'" would win a "big victory".
I guess it's becoming clearer that, in Bush's mind, the "surge" hasn't actually started yet. However, Bush is taking credit for "progress" made by the "surge". Neocons are claiming that the "surge " is working. Bush has publically asked for time for the "surge" to work before giving up. If it hasn't started yet, then why not?


Regardless of whether or not these people were killed by "sectarian forces" or not, this type of thing does more to dispel confidence in the sham "government" than anything the "sectarian forces" could do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6603905.stm

excerpt:

Iraqi television images from Karbala showed a man running down a smoke-filled street holding a lifeless baby above his head.

Ambulances had rushed to the scene, in a crowded area full of shops and restaurants in the city, 100km (70 miles) south-west of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

Angry people gathered at the blast site, many of them searching frantically for missing relatives, The Associated Press reports.

Some began to throw stones at the police, accusing them of failing to protect the people.

Neocons keep squealing to us to 'listen to the boots on the ground'.
It seems to me that that is the least objective source, since the troops are, for all practical purposes, required to believe that victory can be acheived. They also are subject to swift retribution for failing to "toe the line".
That's why we've seen mostly retired officers criticise the Iraq war up until now.
Here is the view of an officer who served two tours in Iraq:

US officer condemns Iraq strategy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6600893.stm

You see, this is what happens when you manage a war politically. Neocons describe the recent appropriations bill as "micromanaging" the war. Well, this is exactly what Bush did. He chose generals who mouthed the words they were told to, and these generals knew that they could not conduct any policy of their own that was contrary to the "Bush Lie". For instance, that the Iraqi people would welcome us and we would not need to plan for an occupation, or only 3/5 of the troops the military required would be sent. Or that the cost would not exceed $100 billion. And so forth and so on. Now we have Petraeus, who remains in his position because he knows he has to say things that the White House wants to hear. Petraeus is, to my knowledge, a fine officer, but if he fails to "toe the line" he knows he will be replaced by another toady who will serve as merely a yes-man rather than the effective leader that his troops need.
If Bush had let the military handle the Iraq war the way the military saw fit, rather than as the White House's ridiculously optimistic agenda called for, then the troops would be home by now and Bush would probably be looking like a hero. But instead he had to micro-manage. That's how we got such a feeble Iraqi government, such a horribly slow 'reconstruction', and such a staggering bill for the whole mess.

And this is how we got into the war in the first place. Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al, went to the Pentagon and intelligence services and told them what evidence they wanted. Any evidence that contradicted their agenda was to be ignored or discarded. Iraqi exiles, many of whom hadn't been in Iraq for over a decade, were tapped as "expert sources". They were told what crazy allegation needed "confidential source testimony", and then given time to concoct "evidence" from 'experts' which was then presented as proof that what the White House claimed was, in fact, true. Intelligence reports which had been completely discredited were resurrected as authoritative, and when analysts questioned if the Administration's allegations were based on these discredited reports, the answer was always that this was NEW information.
And then they presented this "evidence" to Congress and the American people. When it turned out to be false, Congress and the American people were then, in effect, blamed for "falling for it". Notice how it's always someone else's fault? Notice how Bush takes "responsibility" for disasters, but never takes the blame?

The upside-down 'success' of the surge

I just came across this blog:
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/04/26/bushs-last-stand/

It seems like the "success" of the surge has come from sleight-of-hand in counting rather than any improvement on the ground in Iraq. It's "no fair" counting victims of car bombings or roadside bombs now that the surge has started -- only "death-squad" type killings are now being counted as casualties.
Apparently, according to the White House, counting victims of bombings is "handing a huge victory to the terrorists". Sheesh. Yes, let's not count anyone killed by, say, bullets, either. We don't want to encourage terrorists to use bullets, do we? And let's not count any of our troops killed while we're at it, because that would only hand the terrorists a victory.
So, except for the bad things, everything is great in Iraq.

Yes, this is what it's come to.

Another Day, Another Bush Threat

Yet again, as pretty much every day, Bush issued another threat to veto the appropriations bill. I guess this is supposed to scare somebody, because it sure doesn't make him look any more relevant or powerful. Of course, shrill Republicans remind us that the President has the right to veto any bill. Yeah, that's absolutely true. I had thought Republicans were all about the President ignoring the Constitution, however. That was one of the things Congress allegedly "meant" when they authorised the invasion of Iraq, wasn't it? You know, along with warrantless surveillance, secret prisons, torture, etc....and also eliminating audits as to where all this money was going in Iraq (secret!). Pretty much everything is secret now, including what Bush had for lunch.
Yep, he's a-gonna veto it. Of course, that's the bill that finances his ill-considered, fictionally-premised and hugely unpopular war. So if he vetoes it, the bill goes back to Congress, which isn't exactly fast or inclined to give him what he wants. He's just as likely to get another bill that he doesn't like as he is to get what he wants. And the longer he "hangs tough" the longer the troops go without the money. Who's playing politics here?
Polls show that the majority in the U.S. no longer believe that Iraq is the "central front in the War on Terror". Maybe if Bush says that it is a dozen more times, then people will change their minds. Nah, not bloody likely. So is the war in Iraq a war? We declared the war over in 2003, and Bush has been very clear that what is going on now is just us fighting "terrorists", not a civil war. So all of those reports about Shia and Sunni militias fighting for control are just a distraction from the REAL battle with the thousand or so Al-Qaeda (by the Pentagon's estimate) in Iraq. Now nobody seriously believes that Al-Qaeda is responsible for the death squads killing groups of Shia and Sunni, but Bush has taken the credit for the decline in death squad activity as part of the "surge". So are we fighting Al-Qaeda or refereeing a civil war?
Because if we really are just referees in a civil war, then how can we "lose" by withdrawing any more than an umpire "loses" a baseball game? How does a referee "surrender", anyway?
Of course, Bush constantly warns of dire consequences if we "lose" in Iraq:

The "terrorists" will bring the fight here. Okay, I fail to see how Shia and Sunni fighting for control of their own country are at all interested in coming over here and fighting us, so I guess we are back to those thousand or so Al-Qaeda that we are ostensibly 'fighting'. What is preventing these thousand or so Al-Qaeda from coming over here now? Somehow, these terrorists prefer to "fight" heavily-armed soldiers in a country that stopped functioning a long time ago than to attack soft civilian targets of unarmed people in the U.S. Has anyone told Al-Qaeda about this strange rule that it's no fair to attack the U.S. while it has troops in Iraq? What is preventing those thousand or so Al-Qaeda from coming over here after Iraq is "stabilised", assuming it ever is? Is Iraqi "stabilisation" somehow going to kill off Al-Qaeda like a vampire in sunlight? Or will they just be too ashamed to attack us at home after having "lost" in Iraq?
This fairy tale of fighting terror "over there" instead of "over here" polls well with Republicans who have a limited ability to think critically. By the way, when did the Iraqis agree to host a war against Al-Qaeda in their country?
And lastly, how do you "fight" a roadside bomb? Shoot the rubble?
When Bush warns of dire consequences should we withdraw from Iraq, he really means dire consequences for the Republican Party, not the U.S.

At least "we" get the oil

The new Iraqi Oil Law is quintessential Bush. Two-thirds of the reserves in Iraq with go to multinational oil companies, which is a feat that the oil companies could never have pulled off themselves without asking US taxpayers to fund a war. In fact, no other Middle Eastern government would ever go for such preposterous deal unless a gun was held to their heads. The oil companies "generously" give Iraq 20% of the profits back, however the oil companies get to keep the books. So they take a billion in oil out and tell the Iraqi government they only took a million and give Iraq a cut of that "million". I wouldn't be at all surprised if they take "development expenses" for pipelines, refineries, ports, etc. out of that 20% cut .
The remaining one-third of the oil is open to regional governments to sell off to the oil companies, but not on the open market. So they can let the multinational oil companies have it for free and take 20% of the action, or let it sit in the ground. See, this is what makes it "their" oil. They have a choice, after all.
Somehow, giving multinational oil companies a whole lot of oil for free helps the U.S. in some vague way. Oh yeah, they get to sell it back to the U.S. at huge profits, so I guess we all do win, after all. That makes the $400 billion (and counting) the U.S. spent on this war worth it. Or maybe it's the creation of another unstable Shiite state that we were supposed to be grateful for. I lose track of the imaginary reasons sometimes.
Another new twist on the "surge": Only half of the troops are there, so that's why we haven't seen any progress. So why aren't all of the troops there? Is it because we can't spare that many without our military collapsing or is it because the Bush Administration is playing sleight-of-hand with the numbers and those troops don't really exist? How many months are we supposed to wait for these 11, 000 combat troops to arrive before it's okay to start that "six-month clock"? If this is such a great idea that all of the generals support and which will allow us to withdraw, then where are the rest of the troops?

Bush surges into irrelevance

This week Bush admitted that the war was not going well. In early November we were still hearing wildly upbeat expectations mixed with scowling "you'll see" imprecations. Six months down the line, Bush has done a 180, though conditions are virtually the same as when he was confident that we were 'turning the corner".
All hopes have been pinned on this ill-defined "surge", which was initially supposed to be 21,000 troops. Then it became 21,000 combat troops with an equal number of support troops. It was supposed to six weeks, then six months. I think now we are hearing that the surge will basically last for the remainder of Bush's term in office. So, after strenuously denying for years that more troops were needed and watching as Iraq collapsed, now Republicans are equally strenuous in claiming that all Iraq needs is more troops (and the remainder of Bush's term) in order for "victory" to be achieved over the "terrorists".
The electricity is still only on for six hours a day in Baghdad. Virtually everyone with skills or money has fled the country to become a burden on the "terrorist" state of Syria. The hospitals are in the hands of a Shiite militia, who has no problem with denying care to Sunni patients. The central government, designed by Republican "visionaries" to be weak to prevent another Saddam from emerging, can barely hold a coalition together to give Al-Maliki enough authority to tie his own shoes without permission. The flood of 1000 people a day fleeing Iraq has slowed significantly, but this is because anyone who can leave already has, and this is virtually the only 'positive' development in the past six months.
Eight British soldiers killed this week, at a time when Britain was withdrawing because their strategy of hiding in bunkers had led to a "stabilisation". Britain really needs to get it's troops out so that they can move them to another Bush mess, Afghanistan. After the Taliban were routed, Bush put on his rose-tinted glasses and, not surprisingly, saw a bright future of democracy, human rights, and economic development. He then went to NATO and asked for troops to shepherd this fledgling democracy for a few years. NATO provided sufficient troops for that job, but the situation was not as Bush had sold it. The simple act of participating in an election had not magically transformed Afghanis into peaceful, saintly people eager to make Bush look good. In short, NATO was handed a steaming bag of crap and told that Afghanistan was their baby now.
So now Britain is stuck in horrendous quagmires in two countries in which their vital interests are not at stake. This came about because Tony Blair more or less handed over command of the entire British military to Bush. And Republicans are convinced that whatever allies we have left won't take this as an object lesson in what happens when you let the U.S. make you its bitch.
So as we stumble into a world that Bush warns is fraught with more danger than ever, we have virtually no allies, we pour our foreign aid into three countries (Israel, Egypt, and Colombia) that do absolutely nothing to enhance our security, and hyper-extend our exhausted military into pointless wars with the populace. And if we stop doing this, we'll "look bad".
Meanwhile, this week O'Reilly made a statement that essentially said that we must give Bush the rest of his term to make Iraq right (why? who knows) but that if he fails, he will go down as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history. It looks like the GOP are already planning on throwing Bush to the wolves, since they're done with him. What will this make of the loyal "Brownies" or the foreign politicians who supported him (Blair)?
So what will transpire is that, should Republicans hold on to the White House, they will blame the war on Bush, and then continue fighting it 'the right way' until the same thing happens to the next stooge they line up. The important thing is to keep the flow of money to the military contractors.
In short, everyone is now looking at Bush as a temporary obstacle or annoyance rather than as a factor in the resolution of these conflicts.

Rep. Goode lets the nation breathe a sigh of relief

Right-wing stupidity, thy name is Goode!
Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) felt it necessary to announce that he will not be sworn into office using the Koran.
The guy is a fifth-term Representative, so you would think that he would know that the oath of office is not taken on any holy book at all. But, just maybe, his constituents were afraid that he was a closet Muslim and he felt the need to dispel their fears with this announcement.
Nah, not bloody likely.

We should all look forward to future announcements by this half-wit telling us that Rep. Goode will NOT be celebrating Ramadan this year, nor will he complete the Haj or attend mosque.

Was there one single person is his district that was seriously worried Rep. Goode would be forced into taking his oath of office on the Koran? Did anyone really imagine that Rep. Goode was secretly a Muslim?
If not, then just what purpose does this kind of announcement serve? Rep. Goode says it has nothing to with bigotry, so what is the reason, then?

We keep hearing from Republicans about how they respect people's right to practice their religion, and that they really only oppose the jihadists. The reality seems to be that they have a deep problem with Islam in any form. Just like all other religions beside Christianity, they are fine as long you don't practise them or make your belief in them public. If you hide your belief in Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. and acknowledge your deep shame in rejecting Jesus, then Republicans will good-naturedly let you slide as merely 'inferior', rather than 'dangerous'. At least until now, that is.
Republicans are now so far out of the "Big Tent" that it's sad. Even moderate or nominal Muslims are now a 'threat', a sign of how our immigration policies have failed us. Except that letting in Christian Hipanics is also bad in their minds. Only white Christian evangelicals should be allowed in, or else those weird people who believe in other religions will be elected to office... but no fearmongering, no bigotry, no hatred here in the party of Lincoln. No, sir. It's just time that we "wake up", whatever that means. We keep hearing Republicans telling us to wake up or face some nebulous consequences. Anyone ever a gotten a straight answer as to what "waking up" really entails to these people? It sounds to me like "wake up" is Republican code for "start hating vehemently".

Rank hypocrisy on Venezuela

Across the board in American media (news, opinion, talk radio, etc.) the term "dictator" is used in reference to Chavez, and suddenly we have become very concerned about those people in Venezuela.
For 40 years, Venezuela has had American-approved presidents who do nothing for the poor, help the wealthy immensely, and clamp down on domestic opposition. But most importantly, these presidents have been in thrall to the oil companies and have guaranteed that Venezuela will let these companies extract oil for a pittance. And nobody cared about Venezuela, or South America at all, really (except for the Colombian civil war). Then Chavez gets elected. Now Venezuela is one of our "vital interests" and we deeply care about democracy there.
Prior to Chavez, we had a political system in Venezuela that was ruled by the Punto Fijo accords. America liked this arrangement, because it guaranteed stablilty (and cheap oil), but little else. The Punto Fijo accord let two parties essentially take turns running the government and everyone else was deemed "unworthy". Elections were not clean, but America didn't care. These two parties did nothing to help the poor, which make up the majority of the population. Rather than demand a larger share of the revenue from their own oil, these parties instead launched on a huge borrowing spree from the World Bank for projects that went to benefit the elite and make the oil industry more profitable for the oil companies, while leaving Venezuelans to pay the bill. And this allowed the U.S. to control the economy of Venezuela even more tightly.
Not surprisingly, U.S. control did nothing for the poor and made the rich richer.
When Chavez gets elected, he faces a political system designed for little else but to accommodate U.S. interests and make sure that nothing changes. The opposition screams fraud, but has no proof, even though they control the voting system. The system has been designed to accommodate fraud and to make it difficult to detect it, so as to make the fraud engaged in by the two "legitimate" parties for decades okay. It's funny that nobody questioned this before, isn't it?
When we talk about the "opposition" we are talking about a wealthy elite of white or light-skinned people who are profoundly racist and refer to the poor (dark-skinned) as "monkeys" and "marginals" It's as if we have taken the worst of the American South and the feudal European aristocracy and combined them into one. Everything has been handed to these people; "connections" make sure they have high-paying jobs, not merit. The legal system is overwhelmingly designed to make sure that the lower classes don't trouble them. Police make sure these people do not have to actually encounter or even see the poor. The media is geared toward them and constantly puts forward the notion that this class is "better" and that they achieved their status due to merit. The government taxes the poor to pay for these wealthy peoples' college education in the U.S. and upon graduation they slide into oil industry executive roles. And this minority has controlled the government for decades. We are not dealing with idealistic people struggling against oppression. Instead, it's a class of spoiled, stuck-up, racist brats who no longer have everything stacked in their favour. Boo-hoo.
These are the people we are sticking up for in Venezuela.
As I said, when the opposition lost to Chavez, they went into full denial mode. In spite of closely monitored elections in a newly cleaned-up system, they claimed that Chavez's repeated electoral victories were fraud. Instead of a 70/30 split in favour of Chavez, they saw a 70/30 split in their favour. The polls showed otherwise, but people were too 'afraid' to speak freely under Chavez, or so their reasoning went. Yeah, the majority of poor people really wanted this wealthy elite to continue to rule, but were just too scared to say so.
In this "repressive dictatorship", the wealthy elite still controls the television, radio, and newspapers. The television news is strongly biased against Chavez, and allows the elite to live in fantasy world where they really are still on top. Near-treason is common, with opposition leaders pleading for a U.S. backed coup to restore them to power.
Can you imagine if the Democrats here in the U.S. had taken the same approach after Kerry lost? If they claimed that Bush was not really the President and openly asked for foreign countries to invade us to set things right? Now consider the oil industry lockout in Venezuela, which was the opposition's greatest undoing. The largest union, long in the pocket of the two parties formerly in control, from the industry that generates most of the country' income, combines with the oil industry executives goes on "strike", demanding not wage and benefit increases, but that the government step down in favour of the old parties. What they can't win at the ballot box, they attempt to win by extortion. They shut down the oil industry, which is in no one's benefit. Long story short, they are replaced and lose their cushy jobs, Chavez stays in power, and the flow of oil is restored in about a year. These bitter people, once wealthy with everything stacked in their favour, now have to compete in a fair system, and they don't do well. Of course, this is all proof of Chavez's "dictatorship", not their own failed bid to usurp power.
So now we have invade Venezuela to put Muffy and Thurston back into their old jobs and restore their way of life. In return, they will restore the old arrangement whereby we are guaranteed cheap oil. And if democracy has to go by the wayside for a couple of decades, so be it. Yes, we're deeply concerned.

The Death of Bush

The Bush presidency has now gone into a coma. For the last year, we've seen him drop in the polls to the high 30's with only 60-70% support from his "base". Then we saw most Republicans up for election treat him like a leper. At the elections , I think most people just voted against him and the politicians associated with him rather than voting for the Democrats. But when the maps turned blue and the tallies were added up, I think the real sense of abandonment of Bush set in. Bush has set up a mindset of loving the winner, and he's not the winner anymore.
The Republican message has been that you're either "all in" or "all out". Congressdroids who may have been fiscal and defence hawks had to become part of the evangelical army or risk being marginalised in their own party. You had to unquestioningly support the war, the tax cuts, the Katrina response, and most of all, whatever dumb thing Dubya or Rummy said. This approach creates unity, but when you're way back in the polls it also creates a "circle the wagons" mentality. Much of the Bush "security" agenda relied on trust of Bush. Bush would never abuse his surveillance powers, he would never torture innocents, would never use his vast fiat powers to his own benefit...and so on. Now his credibility is gone, and people are waking up to how much power they have given a guy who, until a few weeks ago, was all thumbs up and smiley about the "progress" in Iraq.
The Christian Right has mostly sat back on their heels throughout the Bush presidency, satisfied with a few bones while waiting for real progress on their agenda after the mid-terms. Now it's over, and they are hosed. The Democrats will not support that agenda over the next few years, and as the door of the Bush crypt opens and an ugly assortment of truths begin to rise into the light of day, watch for that agenda to wither and die. The Christian Right is only about 25% of the population, but has wielded a disproportionate influence for far too long. There's no longer any compelling reason to cater to their wacky whim and they no longer hold a stick. Of course, Bush can claim he tried to advance the agenda over the next two years but was foiled by the Democrats. Still, the "what have you done for us lately" mood will hurt the Republicans in '08 as their "base" grows increasingly disillusioned. And you're either all in or all out, remember.
We haven't seen a massive leftward shift with this election, only an abrupt move to the centre. But the Democrats don't have to make America love them, they just have to let it become disgusted with Bush so that anytime a Republican harps on the old standard tunes they will be seen as ou-of-touch and "Bushy". By default they win. That's not a ringing endorsement by any means, but it does drive a stake into the heart of your adversary.
So in '08 we will probably be starting to pull out of Iraq, and it will not look anything like "victory". Revelations of corruption, abuses of power, staggering stupidity, and atrocities by the troops will have come to light. Former insiders will be spilling their guts and people will slowly realise that being patriotic deosn't neccesarily mean supporting the President or even war. Bush will probably be beating the drums for another invasion, perhaps Iran or Venezuela, based on "evidence" that most people will suspect as fixed. The staggering costs of the Iraq war will begin to sink in, and people will begin to wonder out loud what "vital interests" were exactly at stake there . The Bush definition of "victory" will have taken a few more sinuous twists, as Iraq begins to shape up as anything but an "ally". Soldiers coming home will find out just exactly how the Administration "supports the troops", as they face benefit cuts in the VA and find out their jobs are gone and their kids have grown up without them. The Supreme Court will have made some wacky rulings and people will wonder what the hell they've done giving these conservatives the store. And most importantly, people will no longer see dissent as unpatriotic or treasonous, and will resent the "security apparatus" spying on domestic political opposition rather than "terrorists". The trust will have evaporated, and it will all be about naked power, scapegoating, and fearmongering. The Republicans will be the party of Fear, Big Brother, and Big Business, or more exactly, will now be SEEN as that. This is their true nature, previously concealed by the flags and crucifixes they wrapped themselves in.
So who will the Republicans run in '08 to carry on the agenda? Most everyone with any stature has been deeply associated with Bush, and the Democrats can easily show voting records, sound bites, and pictures to make anyone in that Party look like a "Bush man", a craven toady who suckled from the Bush teat when he rode high and bit the hand that fed him when he took his tumble. The GOP candidate will have to become the "Anti-Bush", while still stealthily supporting the agenda that brought Bush to power. For a party of droids more used to parroting the party line than thinking for themselves, it will be a challenge to find anyone bright enough to pull that one off. Meanwhile, another crop of Congresspeople will be up for election. These will be the droids who got voted in by an electorate who went for someone who was part of the "TEAM", rather than someone who had merit on their own. Norm Coleman is one of those. And finally, redistricting will be taking place, and the ironclad districts in which the Republicans could run any idiot and win will be dissolved.
As this last remnant of the Bush regime gets swept out of Congress, and the Christian Right's support drops markedly, the Party will be in a post-Nixon state. Perhaps it will finally return to it's roots, which is not a pro-police state or religious tradition.

wi-fi phone options for Mpls in late '07

Minneapolis is set to start up a city wide wi-fi service November '07..
While the phone and cable companies here have already whined about the unfair competition for internet provider service, there's a few ramifications that haven't been covered by the local media.
It seemed obvious to me when I first heard about the contract that the wi-fi network would allow people to drop their phone service.
Wi-fi should cost $20/mo. for 1MB/sec
Gizmo/SIP offers service for $35/yr, plus 1 cent/min. on calls in the U.S.
For 1000 minutes/mo. that breaks down to $13/mo. and that's only if you use all 1000 minutes. You don't pay for any minutes you don't use. No peak periods, no overage charges, no charge per minute to receive calls. And if you call another SIP phone, it's free. So we have $33/mo. for phone and internet anywhere in the city. $23/mo if you don't place calls and just receive them or if you place calls to SIP phones.
F3000 clamshell phone looks like a mobile phone, but works on wi-fi and allegedly has a web browser. Okay, it's $200, but that's a one-time cost. It handles roaming between APs, so it could be used as a virtual cell phone anywhere in the city. Still, it looks hard to configure for SIP. Hopefully someone will come up with a Plug-n-Dial phone by the time the wi-fi network is ready.
Either way, the Nokia 770 Internet tablet is able to work with Gizmo, and I'd be surprised if Nokia didn't have a new model out by 11/07.
Now if you can roam on the AP network, you have internet radio in your car. Maybe I'm dreaming on this one.