Pitfalls of Polling

According to this WaPo piece, people polled believe Dick Cheney's assertion that criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq war policies is damaging to troop morale.

If you still believe anything that Cheney says about troop morale, you may be suffering from the notion that Cheney is an expert in military psychology. This is technically known as the logical fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam and is a staple of the advertising world.

People may perceive Cheney as an expert, but it is clear that his own 'military background'(?) never involved wearing the uniform. Remember, 5 deferments during the Vietnam conflict due to Mr. Cheney having "other priorities."

He did his salesman's job very well last week. This is via the WaPo piece:

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

Of course this begs the question: what about the GOP members in Congress who are now openly critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war effort?

Before I could even answer such a poll with anything but the 'don't know/not sure' response, I'd need data. Not from serial propagandist's like Dick Cheney. I would need data from some entities without a stake in continuing the war effort, and equally as important, from those that would like to see it end.

Our soldiers are professionals. This is the life that they have chosen for themselves. In the private sector, individuals themselves are often dressed down for errors in judgment. There is a distinct line drawn between opposing policy, and opposing the people carrying out the policy.

Dick Cheney has erased that line, and added nothing of value to the discourse.

If this comes across as being disparaging of the polled individuals critical thinking abilities, I assure you that is not the reason for this entry.

I am only critical of our Vice President. He may yet be right. But he is in no position to provide us with anything remotely resembling understanding on matters in which he has no expertise.

However, he did his job. He sold America an idea that may or may not have any basis in reality.

Welcome to 1984

Ethics? Never Had 'em, Never Will

In this shocker from Newsweek, they dare ask the question: Will Ethics Scandals Hurt GOP Bids in 2006?

Hasn't seemed to hurt anyone yet. But seriously, I think that this all hinges on which ethical matters are breached. Does the general public even know the names of some of these key players?

DeLay?(probably, but never 'misunderestimate' people's penchant for mental lapses during the holiday season)
Abramoff?
Ney?
Burns?
Doolittle?(no, not the good doctor)

And good old Grover Norquist.

Newsweek gives him a bit of exposure here:

[snip]...While most Republicans have stayed mum on Ney's problems, there was a notable exception last week. In a breakfast with reporters, Republican activist and key White House ally Grover Norquist, whose own dealings with Abramoff have come under scrutiny, suggested if Ney is facing a "serious legal problem," he "should step aside for the good of the team." While no Republican has publicly asked Ney to step down in '06, party officials privately admit worries over the investigation, which reportedly includes other lawmakers. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department is now probing Abramoff's dealings with DeLay, Rep. John Doolittle and Sen. Conrad Burns, all of whom are up for re-election in 2006. All have denied wrongdoing...[/snip]

Grover is a sweet man. Norquist himself, has received a subpoena from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for records related to his dealings with Abramoff.

Baseball bat to the forehead hyprocrisy? Or, am I missing something?

Are your friends, neighbors, your neighbor's cat, following the developments in this ever expanding scandal?

At this juncture, I'd have to say, NO. But of course they should.

Can your friends name all the Supreme Court Justices?(my pet question when someone even less informed than I am starts a political rant)

Yesterday was Reading Day.

Today is Educate Your Friends Day.

For your own primer on this scandal, wikipedia is a good bet. Lots of facts, little editorial.

A well informed electorate is something that all politicos fear.

Bush Trots Out Tired Turkey

In today's Presidential Radio Address Bush fed us the stuffing.

Bush:

Many members of our Armed Forces are observing this holiday in places far from home. They are serving with courage and skill in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to defend our freedom and extend the blessings of freedom to others. In the past year, these brave Americans have continued to fight terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. And they have helped the people of Iraq and Afghanistan hold historic and successful elections.

Elections are great.

However, the bombings in London, Madrid, and Bali, along with the fact that in excess of three military personnel are dying per day in Iraq alone..Not so good.

More Bush today:

We think especially this week of those military families who are mourning the loss of loved ones. Every person who dies in the line of duty commands the eternal gratitude of the American people. The military families who mourn the fallen can know that America will not forget their sacrifice, and they can know that we will honor that sacrifice by completing the noble mission for which their loved ones gave their lives.

I don't think that this last paragraph requires comment. It is all just very sad.

No Harm, No Foul?

File this one under: "Why do they hate us?"

Remember those US soldiers involved in 'psy-ops' that burned the bodies of two killed Taliban fighters in Afghanistan back in October? No?

Refresher:

[snip]...One soldier uses the smoking corpses to taunt local villagers, describing the Taliban as "cowardly dogs" and "lady boys".

"You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to come down and retrieve their bodies," a soldier named as Sgt Jim Baker is seen saying through a loudspeaker.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the allegations were very serious and, if true, very troubling...[snip]

Boy, that really pissed off the entire Islamic world. It didn't make me feel very happy either.

A bit more from then:

[snip]...The desecration appears calculated to cause maximum offence. Cremation is not part of Islamic tradition and the reference to "facing west" seems to be a mockery of the practice of facing Mecca - which lies west of Afghanistan - during daily prayers. "This is against Islam. Afghans will be shocked by this news. It is so humiliating," said Faiz Mohammed, an Afghan Muslim leader.

The film was shot three weeks ago by Stephen Dupont, a freelance cameraman embedded with American soldiers conducting "psychological operations" near the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar. The soldiers told him they burned the bodies for hygienic reasons but the taunts appeared to indicate that they really wanted to rile the Taliban, he told SBS.

"They used that as psychological warfare, I guess you'd call it," he said. "They deliberately wanted to incite that much anger from the Taliban so the Taliban could attack them ... That's the only way they can find them."...[/snip]

(much more at link)

That was then, this is now. WaPo via the AP is reporting that while no "criminal wrongdoing" occurred in the above incident, that the soldiers will face disciplinary action.

The goods:

[snip]...The U.S.-led coalition's operational commander, Maj. Gen. Jason Kamiya, said two junior officers who ordered the bodies to be burned would be officially reprimanded for showing a lack of cultural and religious understanding, but said the men were unaware that what they were doing was wrong.

Kamiya also said two noncommissioned officers would be reprimanded for using loudspeakers to taunt Taliban rebels who were believed to still be lingering in a nearby village after a clash with the troops. The men also would face non-judicial punishments, which could include a loss of pay or demotion in rank.

"Our investigation found there was no intent to desecrate the remains, but only to dispose of them for hygienic reasons," Kamiya said...[/snip]

(more at link)

It's a good thing that we only violated religious law, rather than criminal law. Oh wait, in the Islamic faith criminal(secular) and religious laws are often the very same.

Our loophole: Islamic Law(Shar'iah) only applies to Muslims.

Should you take my word that this is so? Heck no. I have no religious beliefs. I have studied comparative religion a bit as a layperson, but that hardly puts me in a league to make such a statement.

However, these guys have written a document that seems to cover all the major themes.

All of our people serving in any culture markedly different from our own should be taught at the very least, basic principles of said culture(s).

The most important weapon you bring to any confict is your brain.

Let's give our people the proper training that they need. Jebus, these guys were involved in psy-ops - if they're not getting cultural training, then who the heck is?

Saturday Morning Reading Assignments!

I found a couple(mebbe four?) of things worth a read this morning.

Some are a bit stale, but all are tasty.

Not to worry, it's not a long list.

First of all, if you're like me - and if that's the case, offer your parents another box of tissues while they continue to sob - you must be wondering just how is it than Ann Coulter continues to get work.

That's where we begin today's reads. We begin in the dark, shallow furrows of Ms. Coulter's grey(or is it brown?) matter. From that leading light of intellectual dialogue, World Net Daily comes the latest from the blonde (can't think of anything remotely balanced to say) pundit. If you can spot all the logical fallacies in this ode to the 750 word Op-ed, you're a more patient person than I am. And, oh yes, I am a patient man ;)

Moving right(pun noted) along, we offer the countervail to Coulter.

Bernard Weiner of The Crisis Papers offers up Extreme Bush: The good, bad & ugly. The way that the piece starts off is so blatantly histrionic that it has the all too familiar ring of baseless Right-wing diatribes. But Bernie settles down, and offers up something like well reasoned discourse. Again, there is a lot of preaching to the choir here. Yet, in the name of good sense, Mr. Weiner finishes the piece off with some helpful hints for disenfranchised lefties.

I know what you're most likely thinking: "Hey, where's the synopsis, man?" or perhaps, "What, no teaser?"

My answer to those questions are nope. You must read, and make up your own minds. If you've been following along, I would hope to come across as something akin to sane in a world too full of people less than sane(I know, GREAT sentence structure, and NOVEL word choice, Todd. But you get what you pay for) So you read! Or else!

Our next item is a good primer on the ever shifting sands of the US/Iraq war policy from the LA Times, onerous registration procedure may be required. Since it's the lead article in today's online version, reg. may not be necessary.

Okay, this time you get a teaser. The three key players quoted are Condi, Andrew Krepinevich( long time bureaucrat and top dog at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) and that real neo-con's neo-con, Gary Schmitt.

Condi says that the current number of troops in Iraq will probably not be needed much longer. "Fairly soon" were her words.(it's all about polls, and a couple of elections due in the US over then next few years)

Add'l: Bush to speak on Wednesday. Expect drawdown plans(well, maybe less of a plan than an incoherent ramble)

Krepinevich says that our military is too stretched and that 'potential long-term damage to the armed forces, not political pressure, could be the decisive factor for Bush and his advisors.'

Schmitt wants us to stay there forever. "A neo-con you can count on."<- Campaign slogan?

Read. The. Article. There's a lot more there. It's good.

So, you're saying that you will not register with the LA Times? Then read the tea leaves from just three days ago via the Boston Globe. It's not entirely relevant to the LA Times article, but that's what you get for not doing your assignment(s) ;)

All kidding aside, the Globe piece has a couple of quotes from NH's two Reps. and Bush apologists: Jeb Bradley, and Charles Bass. Both Repubs, and both typically party line 'toers.' Yes, I die a little inside every time I hear them speak, or read them quoted.

The Globe piece also adds more color to the whole Iraq war unraveling, and offers an easy segue to our last assignment.

Cindy Sheehan is back in Texas. No matter what anyone says about Sheehan, they must acknowledge that she is putting in a super-human effort.

It's really difficult to place Sheehan, and all her efforts into the pro-peace movement(take that turn of a phrase, you neo-con bastids!) But she kept the spirit alive during the long, hot summer. If and how she will be rembered shall prove interesting. Perhaps only to me, but I'm the one with the blog ;)

I think we can all take away from Cindy's efforts that one strong-willed person can do more for a cause than all the keyboard acivists combined. Something we all need to acknowledge.

Now, if your eyes haven't totally glazed over, you may note that this entry has a layered underlying bit of structure to legitimize its existence(too early for hifalutin French phrases like 'raison d'être' for instance)

If you can follow my line of reasoning for ordering these entries in such a way, please send $20USD in a self-addressed envelope to me. Then seek psychological counseling(but don't forget to send the Andy Jackson first)

If you're still reading, go give your parents a hug. They'll certainly need it(but first that 20 spot!)

807 words! I could be an editorial writer..If I could write *sigh*

Additional unrelated stuff:

1) The blog will be undergoing another template change very soon. It's back to three working columns, and I'm adding a lot of news sources and other avenues for alternative information.

2) I'm looking for guest bloggers with expertise in the field of politics. In exchange, I offer well, pretty much nothing. I am a gate process senior engineer, so if you need tech entries for your blog I'll happily exchange information.

3) Both my mother and a nephew have undergone surgery over the last two weeks. My mom had surgery for hepatic lymphoma, and my nephew for giant cell fibroblastoma. Mom's prognosis is excellent. My nephew is also doing well with the following caveat. I received a call from my sister yesterday, and apparently the surgeon found something 'that he didn't quite like.' So the jury is still kind of out. I only mention these items in case my blogging is interrupted for a time.

Thanks for reading.

Mike Kinsley(WaPo) Downs Dick

It's gotta be a pretty good living doing the 750 word Op-eds. I mean hey, I can blather on for a couple of hundred words or so, and say nothing of import.

However, in this well warranted diatribe against a sitting Dick, Michael Kinsley states what many persons of all political stripes must be feeling to some degree(VP Cheney's disapproval rating is in the 80% range)

Kinsley's take:

"One might also argue," Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday, "that untruthful charges against the commander in chief have an insidious effect on the war effort." That would certainly be an ugly and demagogic argument, were one to make it. After all, if untruthful charges against the president hurt the war effort (by undermining public support and soldiers' morale), then those charges will hurt the war effort even more if they happen to be true. So one would be saying in effect that any criticism of the president is essentially treason.

Lest one fear that he might be saying that, Cheney immediately added, "I'm unwilling to say that" -- "that" being what he had just said. He generously granted critics the right to criticize (as did the president this week). Then he resumed hurling adjectives like an ape hurling coconuts at unwanted visitors. "Dishonest." "Reprehensible." "Corrupt." "Shameless." President Bush and others joined in, all morally outraged that anyone would accuse the administration of misleading us into war by faking a belief that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear and/or chemical and biological weapons.

Interestingly, the administration no longer claims that Hussein actually had such weapons at the time Bush led the country into war in order to eliminate them. "The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight," Cheney said on Monday. So-called WMD (weapons of mass destruction) were not the only argument for the war, but the administration thought they were a crucial argument at the time. So the administration now concedes that the country went to war on a false premise. Doesn't that mean that the war was a mistake no matter where the false premise came from?

(much more at link)

Click on over. You'll be glad that you did. The hypocrisy is again amazing. I generally steer clear of overtly angry speech. But given the recent assault by Dick B., I think it's worth reflecting on just how hollow Mr. Cheney's arguments are.

I cannot improve on Kinsley's work. Anger can sometimes be a thing of sublime beauty.

Climate Change Kills The GOP, Too

The NYT is reporting that:

Shafts of ancient ice pulled from Antarctica's frozen depths show that for at least 650,000 years three important heat-trapping greenhouse gases never reached recent atmospheric levels caused by human activities, scientists are reporting today.

The measured gases were carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Concentrations have risen over the last several centuries at a pace far beyond that seen before humans began intensively clearing forests and burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels.

The sampling and analysis were done by the European Program for Ice Coring in Antarctica, and the results are being published today in the journal Science.

The evidence was found in air bubbles trapped in successively older ice samples extracted from a nearly two-mile-deep hole drilled in a remote spot in East Antarctica called Dome C.

(much more at link)

I used to propose to anyone that would listen that I wanted to approach the NAS and propose an experiment. My experiment was simple. I'd propose to dump millions and millions of tons of CO2, methane, and other gases into the atmosphere annually - at an ever increasing rate - just to see what happens. In the best tradition of science, you see.

Imagine the look of horror on the faces of the assembled climatologists as I was making this proposal?

It isn't difficult to see the collective horror on their faces as they had obviously witnessed a colleague gone entirely mad.

But this mad experiment is exactly the one that we are now performing on the earth. Of course in the real world, the rate of greenhouse gas level rise is being compounded by deforestation/desertification - the source of the second largest carbon sink on the planet.

I've been saying for two and a half decades that the way we treat the earth is by orders of magnitude greater than any other possible political issues that confront us. It is the only one that can lead to our extinction.

Everything else is temporal. Economies flow and ebb. The social pendulum swings left and right whilst throughout it all, we are slowly but inexorably making the planet uninhabitable. Particularly uninhabitable for a large bipedal mammal, and the sources of food on which it(we, really) depend.

Will the human race survive?

Perhaps. But the way in which are choosing to ignore this truly transcendent issue makes a good case for our supplantation by another species.

Get active! Decrease your own carbon footprint. Now.

Then go on and change the world.

My next entry will be less cheery, I promise ;)

A Birdday Message

If I Had Blogged..

..Over the plast few days, I'd have been on most of what Democracy Now! reported on yesterday. Lots of good stuff as always, from Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.

Highlights:

- Pentagon Docs: White Phosphorous Is A Chemical Weapon
- Iraqi Leaders Call for Troop Withdrawal Timetable
- Report: Bush Wanted to Bomb Al Jazeera Last Year
- General Motors To Eliminate 30,000 Jobs
- 40 Million Now Infected With HIV; 500,000 Die A Year
- 24 Ethiopian Opposition Leaders Remain In Jail
- Venezuela to Offer Discounted Oil to Mass. Residents

Go give the archived show a listen!

In addition, I subscribe to the NATIONAL JOURNAL where Murray Waas always seems to get the goods. This time another President's Daily Brief(PDB) of 21 Sept. 2001 allegedly stating that Iraq was in no way responsible, or linked to 9/11. A bombshell if accurate.

Lastly, Media Matters sends me more daily updates than I can possibly comment on - and they're typically so well researched that additional commentary is superfluous.

So, I'm adding their feed to the blog. It's easier that way. I'll need to go back to a three column format, unless I use a JS pop-up to display their wealth of material.

It'll look like this. Click it!

When It Rains...Sigh

...Sorry 'Bout the lack of update the last few days. My 12 y.o. nephew had surgery Monday, and what was supposed to be a four hour procedure, turned into an eight hour marathon.

He went in to have a tumor removed form the rear of his head(giant cell fibroblastoma, and it took longer than expected. As this is typically a recurrent tumor, his surgical team went in and removed all traces of the tumor.

He's conscious now, but feeling very sick - possibly due to the narcotics used as an analgesic - but is otherwise doing well.

If I do not make another post today, Happy Thanksgiving all.

I bid you peace,

todd

Meanwhile, In Iraq...

In today's installment of "Meanwhile.." Come three via The Independent.

In the interest of brevity, I'll just offer up the links, with a wee quote from each.

In our first story, we get some additional color on just how violent things are. That more allegations of torture, mutilations and death squads are being reported should come as no surprise.

[snip]...And there are others: the Shia Defenders of Khadamiya - set up under Hussein al-Sadr, a cousin of Muqtada, who is an ally of the former prime minister Iyad Allawi - and the government-backed Tiger and Scorpion brigades. They all have similar looks: balaclavas or wraparound sunglasses and headbands, black leather gloves with fingers cut off, and a variety of weapons. When not manning checkpoints, they hurtle through the streets in four-wheel drives, scattering the traffic by firing in the air. Out of sight they are accused of arbitrary arrests, intimidation and extrajudicial killings.

The US and Britain, which trained many of the forces involved, and which still have ultimate responsibility for them, are implicated. But the pattern of illegality is also the continuation of a process that began with the questionable justification for the invasion. American and British forces have played their own part, from the abuses of Abu Ghraib to deaths in British military custody, from the deployment of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon in the assault on Fallujah to the wild use of overwhelming American firepower, which some have called almost as indiscriminate as the killings caused by Sunni insurgents' car bombings...[/snip]

What seems a new development is that US and British troops are allegedly standing by as interrogations' are taking place. Of particular interest(and sickening) are the allegations of "spray and slay" operations(for a definition see the last paragraph under the heading: 'The Charge Sheet.')

Our second item regards the alleged killing of Iraqi prisoners with electric drills. Gruesome.

[snip]...John Reid, the Secretary of State for defense, admits that he knows of "alleged deaths in custody" and other "serious prisoner abuse" at al-Jamiyat police station, which was reopened by Britain after the war.

Militia-dominated police, who were recruited by Britain, are believed to have tortured at least two men to death in the station. Their bodies were later found with drill holes to their arms, legs and skulls.

The victims were suspected of collaborating with coalition forces, according to intelligence reports. Despite being pressed "very hard" by Britain, however, the Iraqi authorities in Basra are failing to even investigate incidents of torture and murder by police, ministers admit.

The disclosure drags Britain firmly into the growing scandal of officially condoned killings, torture and disappearances in Iraq. More than 170 starving and tortured prisoners were discovered last week in an Interior Ministry bunker in Baghdad.

American troops who uncovered the secret torture chamber are also said to have discovered mutilated corpses, several bearing drill marks...[/snip]

Hard to add much to that.

"They hate us because of our freedoms."

Maybe our tacit - and sometimes overt - disregard for international law plays a part. Who knows?

Last on our list for today is a good example as to why it is so difficult to get to the facts in time of war. Former US marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey has claimed in interviews that he and members of "his platoon killed unarmed civilians during the invasion of Iraq."

Mr. Massey has an autobiography out, titled, 'Kill, Kill, Kill,' and according to The Independent his basic story has never been challenged. But now that 'Kill, Kill, Kill' is being primed for publication in the US, its accounts are being questioned.

[snip]...Earlier this month Ron Harris wrote a series in his newspaper, the St Louis Post-Dispatch, under headlines that included, "Is Jimmy Massey Telling the Truth About Iraq?". The articles seized on minor discrepancies of detail and implied that, because Mr Massey suffers from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, he is less than reliable...[/snip]

[snip]...But when Mr Harris appeared on CNN to accuse Mr Massey of lying, claiming he had witnessed the incidents described by the marine, he in turn was challenged by another journalist. Jeff Schmerker, a reporter for The Mountaineer in North Carolina, said Mr Harris told him that he did not see the events with his own eyes. The St Louis Post-Dispatch man was assigned to a different company in the battalion from Mr Massey's.

The sergeant's main charge is not denied by the reporter or the Marine Corps. "Yes, marines killed civilians," said Mr Harris. "I even reported on the shooting and killing of a British TV crew while I was in Iraq." In December 2004, the Marine Corps spokesman at the Pentagon, Major Douglas Powell, told MSNBC: "We're not saying he's lying, but his perception of what the situation was in relation to the rules of engagement, and what was justified, is different than ours."...[/snip]

The Major was mighty tactful in his wording.

This Harris fellow seems less than entirely forthcoming. Where does the truth lie? I certainly do not know. But it seems plausible that if the USMC did not dispute Massey's accounts at an earlier time, then there may be little to refute. With allegations as severe as these, one must think that the military had at least an impromptu investigation at an earlier date.

As always, much more detail at provided links.

Bush Of The Day

This is just weird.

Which George Am I?

From Terence Hunt(an AP writer I like very much) comes this:

After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

The president also praised Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible.

Is this a testing of the waters?

More Bush:

"I heard somebody say, `Well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position.' I totally reject that thought," Bush said.

"This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic," he said. "It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

(more at link)

It's always been part of this White House's policy to welcome dissenting views, thoughtfully review them, and then demonstrating through word and deed that if they can track down the source of these heralded applications of the freedom of speech, honor the person(s) with individualized assistance from one of our more welcomed departments of government. The IRS and FBI being two of their cherished ambassadors of good-will.

Okay, I'm bck now.

Freakin' A?!?! Is W channeling Fred Rogers?

There has been a lot of cross-talk about a schism in the White House - and I'm not referring to W v W - although that's an ongoing concern.

Remember those halcyon days when any criticism of the Bush presidency could be reliably expected to bring a hail of fire and brimstone from the heavens Karl Rove, or maybe Ari Fleischer?

This latest development from that whacky White House must have some nefarious countervail.

Call Bush's newest attempt at faux diplomacy "The Peking Duck."

Be very afraid.

Russert 'Meets' Murtha

Tim had Rep. Murtha on MTP today. The exchange was pretty good. Transcript here.

Teaser here:

(Videotape, November 16, 2005)

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory or their backbone. But we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "Losing your memory or your backbone." What would you say to the vice president?

REP. MURTHA: Well, I tell you, Cheney's a friend of mine. We work very closely together. He was a good secretary of Defense, but he's wrong. They should have fired people. The president should be furious with this--the people that work for him giving him bad intelligence. We spend more on intelligence than any country in the world. We spend more on intelligence than the whole world spends together and our intelligence was wrong. There's no question we're going in the wrong direction and we're not winning. The incidents have increased and the economic indicators--oil, which was supposed to pay for all of this, is below prewar levels. There's nothing that's happening that shows any sign of success.

And the biggest problem is this illusion that--I remember going to Iraq a month or so after the invasion when they said it was all over. And one of the members said to Ambassador Bremer, "What do you think about this cleric named Sistani?" And he turned to his expert, and you know what she said? She said, "Oh, he's just a minor cleric." Now, two weeks later that guy had 100,000 people in the street. That's the kind of information they were acting on. They've been overly optimistic and illusionary about their policy. We got to--this is not a war of words, this is a real war where people are getting killed. Fifteen thousand people have been wounded, and half of them are desperately wounded, blinded, without their arms.

I mean, it breaks my heart when I go out there and see these kids. I see wives who can't look at their husbands because they've been so disfigured. I saw a young fella that was paralyzed from the neck down and his three children were standing there crying with his wife and his mother. So this is a real war, which--we have to find a solution. We--and since there's no progress, we've got to find a way to let the Iraqis take over.

I don't know what kind of resolution would be best for all concerned over the Iraq debacle. From all accounts, what we're doing is simply not working. Some change in strategy is obviously needed.

I'll admit that whilst I had thought Murtha had 'a set,' I thought he was ranting about matters of which he knew not. I no longer feel that way.

He may be wrong in calling for an immediate troop withdrawal to the periphery of the conflict, but he's certainly on target that something major needs to be done.

Dick Cheney is a sweet man. Glad to see he's in charge. Cough *chickenhawk* cough.

Fact Checking Fact Check

I de-linked Annenberg's FactCheck.org some time ago over an entry that was more editorial than fact.

In another case of error by omission, Fact Check drops the ball here: hxxp://www.factcheck.org/article358.html(again, no link)

The point Fact Check attempts to make is that there is evidence that both sides(Bush and DNC Chair Howard Dean) are both misrepresenting the facts about Iraq pre-war intel. Read the piece for more color.

It seems clear that Dean did indeed mis-speak when he said that Lawrence Wilkerson had claimed that Iraq possessed no WMD. In fact, while Wilkerson has penned many things that the White House must cringe at reading, this is a false statement as far as I can tell.(Google, Nexis - no dice)

I think a strong case can be made that an incomplete case that leads a country into war is a few magnitudes of order worse than a mis-statement about what some official said. I am however, aware that mis-statements of any kind are damaging to one's credibility. Dean should have known better.

Putting aside the as yet incomplete Robert's Senate Intelligence Committee report(Caution: Do not hold your breath waiting for part 2 of this report) on intelligence manipulation, there was plenty of information that a properly functioning, skeptical Congress should have questioned.

In the interim, you can sift through these two documents from former DIA intelligence officer, Patrick Lang and 27 year CIA veteran Ray McGovern(Caution: .pdf), and make up your own mind(s).

It is clear that unless the White House shared what both of the intelligence professionals provide the reader with - including timelines - of not only intelligence omissions, but also publicly available documents that demonstrate the Administration's plans for Iraq, that Bush and Co. committed the greater of the two errors.

McGovern and Lang provide compelling evidence that the Bush administration produced policy, and then adjusted statements to support their policy, did not gather current intelligence information, as well as engaged in a few other questionable practices that would have undermined their case for war.

But I'll leave that up to the reader to decide ;)

Meanwhile, In Iraq...

..The carnage continues. WaPo reports nearly 100 new deaths at the hands of suicide bombers in the second most secure area in Iraq.

But, always the cheerleader, GW Bush continues to make the dubious claim - as 48 more Iraqis are killed in suicide blasts - that "Iraq is making amazing progress from the days of being under the thumb of a brutal dictator."

Sure, it's great that Saddam is on trial, and no longer a threat, but Bush's assertion(s) that "amazing Progress" is being made must certainly be a transparently bogus claim with Iraqis under constant threat of instant death, high unemployment, lack of basic services, and rampant corruption.

Sorry about being two days behind, but I feel it's much more important to be accurate, than to be first.

Pull-out Fall-out

The House voted down a GOP proposal to immediately end the US occupation in Iraq In another late night session, the GOP hoped to put Democratic members of the House on recoed as not being for an immediate withdrawal.

The resolution was offered by Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, who said he intended it to fail. Interesting, no?

Now this, my friends is political grandstanding at its most absolute. The GOP is in real trouble. The Iraq war redux is already a loser in the court of US public opinion, and this attempt to get Dems. to vote for a non-binding resolution is a textbook example of what the White House is so versed in labeling "gotcha ploitics."

I do not know if this got any air-time whatever, but at this juncture, it seems clear that the momentum is against the war, and that the White House has the most difficult task of restoring credibility in the minds of the majority of Americans. A tough sell given ongoing investigations into a number of areas.

Rembember Bush's campaign pledge to restore "restore honor and dignity to the White House." How hollow those words now ring.

Budget Fight Quotes!

Since I can't yet seem to get the numbers - WaPo has a little chart up, but that was pre-passage - I give you fight quotes!

Below is a random, unsorted collection of quotes surrounding yesterday's Big Budget Battle! Beltway Brawl? Without further ado, and shame to me and my family:

"What we're trying to do is save the future generations from mountains upon mountains upon mountains of debt. The deception is saying that we should do nothing." - Rep. Patrick T. McHenry(R-NC)

"This is the cruelest lie of all: That the only way you can help people who have lost everything is by hurting somebody else." - Rep. Gene Taylor(D-MS)

[If the issue was] "in fact [about] cutting deficits, one could argue persuasively that we need to balance the budget. But it's not. It's about cutting spending here, and then cutting taxes." - Rep. Steny Hoyer(D-MD)

"We are having to try to balance the budget on the backs of people who can least afford it," he said. "I think what's happening is a lot of the things the Republicans have been doing are coming back to haunt them, and the nation." - Rep. Elijah E. Cummings(D-MD)

"I call this bill the 'Tax Increase Prevention Act.'" - Sen. Rick Santorum(R-PA)

"After the tax cuts are passed, there won't be a dime to pay for (hurricanes) Katrina or Rita." - Rep. John Spratt(D-SC)

"We made a serious effort to reduce the patterns of spending in this gigantic bill. Then we made the gigantic and controversial step of saying no to projects. The combination of that was too much for them to swallow." - Rep. Jerry Lewis(R-CA)

"It [this bill] betrays our nation's values and its future. "It is neither compassionate, conservative nor wise." - Rep. Steny Hoyer(D-MD)

"There's a message in this, and that's that the people of America are only going to accept so many cuts in healthcare, in Medicaid, in Medicare, in transportation, and other vital areas." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA)

I know that I quoted 6 Dems. and 3 Repubs. The media deemed Dems. had more interesting things to say, and a lot more of them were quoted.

Until I get some numbers, this will have to serve.

Gitmo Alumni Reunion

Former Guantanamo detainees reunite for conference on torture and secret detentions

[snip]...Human Rights Watch has said it has evidence indicating the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had transported suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan to Poland and Romania.

"I think that the European Commission should investigate these abuses," Amnesty International's Secretary-General Irene Kahn said at the opening of a three-day conference on prisoners and the U.S. war on terror.

Earlier this month, the European Commission -- the European Union's executive office -- promised to launch an informal probe, requesting answers from all 25 EU member states and candidate countries Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Turkey. Some members of the European Parliament, however, have asked for a formal investigation...[/snip]

'Informal probe' or 'formal investigation?' Could it be that some behind closed doors some arm twisting was done by some entity to push for the former? I honestly have no idea. But to discount the possibility out of hand isn't very intellectually honest. I suspect that we'll never know the full truth.

Continuing:

[snip]...Moazzam Begg, 37, who was held at Guantanamo for three years, said that prison and other detention facilities were fueling hatred against Britain and the United States.

"If this continues ... I can almost guarantee that violence and terrorism will only proliferate," said Begg, who lives in Birmingham, England.

He said the British government refused to recognize the connection between prisons and terrorist attacks, such as the attacks in which four suspected suicide bombers killed 52 people in London on July 7.

"Part of the denial that (Prime Minister) Tony Blair has taken since the July 7 bombings has to do with Guantanamo. He is not in tune with the political reality of how people feel about this issue," Begg said.

The London conference drew former Guantanamo detainees from Britain, Russia and Afghanistan...[/snip]

(more at link

While I am sure that Mr. Begg was giving his best assessment, there is no established link between the bombings and the detentions of which I am aware.

However, the link between increased Arab protesting and increased animosity towards all torturers is certainly an established one. I should make it clear that the protesting is not limited to US/British allegations of abuse, but abuse throughout the Arab world as well. For instance, the Egyptian protests against abuses by their own prison system coincided with the International day for Victims of Torture 2005.

Damned Budget!

Here's the AP's quick synopsis. Until I get further data, this'll have to suffice. *sigh*

To the article:

[snip]...The broader budget bill would slice almost $50 billion from the deficit by the end of the decade by curbing rapidly growing benefit programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies. Republicans said reining in such programs whose costs spiral upward each year automatically s the first step to restoring fiscal discipline.

"This unchecked spending is growing faster than our economy, faster than inflation, and far beyond our means to sustain it," said Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa...[/snip]

Oh I get it. Screw the poor to fund The War. How compassionately conservative.

[snip]...To win House approval, Hastert ordered modest concessions on plans to limit eligibility for food stamps and require the poorest Medicaid patients to pay more for their care. He ordered killed a provision to deny free school lunches to about 40,000 children whose parents would lose their food stamps.

Those changes and other promises won the votes of lawmakers who had earlier registered opposition to the bill, including James Walsh, R-N.Y., Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., and Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.

The biggest concession came Thursday evening when Walsh won language permitting food stamp recipients making the transition to work to continue to be able to receive non-cash benefits for child care, transportation and housing without losing their nutrition benefits...[/snip]

Bless Hastert's heart. Ya know, the GOP's all about family values.

It's good to see some spine from the moderate Rebubs. Kudos to Walsh, although his 'victory' seems like a pyrrhic one.

There is a lot more regarding the House Bill in the AP article, but I have conflicting reports about a number of things mentioned. Until I can get it sorted out, I prefer to let this entry stand as a beginning point.

I don't want to give out information, and then have it turn out to be ambiguous - or worse. *gulp*

Quickie Budget Update!

I'm trying to process data from three sources on how the numbers actually break down re: the budget that the House of misrepresentatives passed earlier this morning.

I have conflicting data. I don't want to mislead.

I have lots of quotes from Repubs - they seem very pleased

I have lots of quotes from Dems - they're pretty pissed off.

One safe quote via CNN/AP:

The bill, passed 217-215 after a 25-minute-long roll call, makes modest but politically painful cuts across an array of programs for the poor, students and farmers.

GOP fears of political fall-out. Lots of other quotable stuff, but no numbers that don't conflict in some way.

Sorry for this stunted, immature entry. But I'm dealing with an incomplete picture at the moment. ARGhhhhhh!

Two entries, Tidy

Two items from the 'most read' scripts at WaPo. No commentary, just simple reads.

The first is Congressman John Murtha's call for US troop withdrawal from Iraq. For extra credit: pay special attention to the GOP's responses.


Part two stricken from the record. I was entirely wrong. I linked to the wrong article, and in light of recent developments, this portion of the post has been rendered moot. Sorry for any mis-conceptions(hangs head in shame)

With that, I am off to moonlight.

Post-java update: My initial post was correct, but as noted, was thwarted whilst I was away teaching basic comp. skills. Major update today as data becomes available.Relinked for posterity

Digital Fish Wrap

One Wayne Simmons appeared on The O'Reilly Factor(no, must've missed it), and had some wholly unwarranted invective to spew forth about Evil Democrats(© Fox News)

He is on the record as saying: "If the Democrats come into power in the United States and re-employ their vision of defense for this country, we will have 9-1-1s unabated. That's not maybe. We know what took place in the past."

I wonder what past this fine fellow is referring to..It must be the past that the liberal elites quashed to make our history a bit tidier. Maybe? ;)

Media Matters has the transcript, a video to watch(ooh, fun!), and is a great place to get your daily dose of Right-wing agit-prop; typically quickly dispatched by nasty facts.

Simmons is ex-CIA, but he's no non-partisan. Unless partisanship to baseless accusations counts.

NewsHounds has a bit up about another Simmons appearance on - Another Fox program! Hannity and Colmes this time. This is from 8 Oct. 05:

Colmes brought up the recent news that there was a spy in the White House and of course Simmons mentioned that he started there with Al Gore adding that standards were loose in the Clinton White House telling Colmes, "Clinton made it so easy."

Colmes was very annoyed and brought up Rove and the expected indictments. Simmons defended Rove and blurted out the recent right wing myth that David Corn is the leaker and then went after Joe Wilson. Colmes was all over Simmons, " Joe Wilson had the balls to call them on the Niger yellowcake story.." ( never heard Colmes say "balls" on H&C) Then Colmes suggested that they call David Corn about being the leaker and he was really ready to do it. Simmons was forced to back down and the know it all persona that he parades on Fox News was seriously damaged.

The battle continued until Simmons shouted, "You hate that Bush is right!" and Colmes replied, "I hate that he's so wrong!"

I'd have loved to pull the entire exchange, but you get the flavor, and NewsHounds deserves a visit!

Simmons, from my limited exposure to his appearances on Fox, appears to use the non-sequitur as his logical fallacy of choice.

But I'm sure he's really a great guy off camera ;)

Come On, We Don't Torture THAT Much

I first posted a blurb on the Iraqis treating Iraqis badly on 4 Nov.(the link to the KR piece is what you seek)

Since then there have been lots of other stories purporting torture: Iraqi/Iraqi style.

Just moments ago, Iraqi's Interior Minister says that these reports have been exagerrated.

A snippet from the WaPo article:

Iraq's interior minister said Thursday that reports of prisoner mistreatment at a secret detention center in Baghdad have been exaggerated, and he denied that he condoned torture.

Allegations of widespread torture and executions at the underground prison are "untrue and inaccurate," Interior Minister Bayan Jabr told reporters at a news conference.

Disclosures about the detention center, which was seized by U.S. troops last weekend, have stirred anger among Sunni Muslims and drawn condemnation from human rights organizations. But Jabr, a member of the Shiite Muslim majority, denied that his ministry targeted Sunnis, who make up the bulk of Iraq's insurgency, and he said the detainees at the prison included Shiites.

Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari announced Tuesday that U.S. troops had found 173 detainees at the secret prison in the capital's Jadriyah district. He said some of them were malnourished and appeared to have been tortured.

In a strongly worded statement, the U.S. Embassy said Thursday that the abuses found at the prison and sectarian control of such facilities cannot be tolerated.

"We have made clear to the Iraqi government that there must not be militia or sectarian control of Iraqi security forces, facilities or ministries," the embassy said. "We do not tolerate any abuse of detainees in Iraq. . . . The Iraqi government must take measures to ensure this kind of thing does not happen again."

(much more at link)

I have no answers. Just a few questions.

How much torture did take place?

The torture was neither "widespread" nor accurately reported?

Well, that's all well and good, but what metrics does one use to determine these things?

A few simple observations:

I guess it's a good thing that both Sunnis and Shiites were housed in the 'secret detention center'...But unfortunately, both groups were ostensibly tortured during their 'stays.'(unless of course, only Sunnis were tortured, as has been previously reported - it's unclear what the Minister is trying to convey precisely)

Now, as far as the US having the moral authority to tell the Iraqis not to abuse "detainees in Iraq," well, that's something that you, the reader will have to determine if this is to be filed under irony, or hypocrisy.

It's a crazy world.

PATRIOT Act Renewal 'Compromise'

From g at illmethinks comes the salient points.

From all appearances, it looks like what's being compromised is a US citizen's civil rights. So ya know, they weren't really rights...More like privileges. Privileges to be taken without consideration to due process.

See WaPo for more color.

Note: I'll provide a link to the proposed 'compromise' when I can find the text. *sigh*

Does PNACer Rich Lowry support Torture?

I simply do not know.

However, the National Review editor, and PNAC member suggested as much in this Op-ed

He rejects the McCain Amendment - stating that it is: "Pure Political Grandstanding"

While there may be a kernel of truth to this, anything that gives the impression that the US is doing something to inhibit the abuses of our detainees the world over has at least some merit.

Lowry:

A distinction has to be made between wanton abuses like those in Abu Ghraib and tightly controlled interrogations of top-level al-Qaida captives. Yes, prisoners should be treated humanely, and it will be a permanent blot on the administration's record that it didn't better control how prisoners were being treated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there are cases when tough techniques are probably justified. When al-Qaida leader Abu Zubaida, a planner of 9/11, was caught in Pakistan, he had been shot in the groin. Painkillers were administered selectively as an interrogation tactic. He coughed up information that led to the capture of other al-Qaida members. At Guantanamo Bay, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved - then eventually revoked - 16 aggressive techniques for Mohammed al-Qahtani, the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 plot. They involved isolating him, making him stand for long periods and playing on his phobias. They might have helped pressure him into talking.

(much more at link)

Lowry doesn't address the point of whether or not torture works. He offers cases that may or may not stand up to close scrutiny. Lowry uses the qualifiers: "probably" and "might have."

McCain certainly knows.

For a well-balanced article on the effectiveness of torture, see this dispassionate piece by Anne Applebaum. Cited are first hand accounts by military personnel directly involved in harsh interrogation techniques.

Lowry does make a good point that without changes to the Army Field Manual that the amendment is merely an exercise in feel-good legislation. But, can anyone not foresee that this is the most likely outcome of some new legislation? Write the law, and then establish the rules.

I am not so blind as to not see that harsh interrogation tantamount to torture might have some applicability. But to leave the issue unaddressed at this critical juncture in the war on terror is to endanger our own captured troops - and other personnel - by not making any attempt to restore some sense of sanity in the court of world opinion.

Health In, Smoke Out!

Today is the 28th annual Great American Smokeout.

So, if you smoke, try and lay off the butts. If you don't please don't start.

[voiceover]
The preceeding message was a public health announcement paid for with bandwidth provided by Pyra Labs, a wholly owned subsidiary of Google, Inc.
[/voiceover]

When Dicks Attack!

While he's really under the gun over a great many things, our esteemed VP has time to level inflammatory criticism against the White House's Democratic critics over alleged pre-Iraq war intelligence manipultion(s)(well, they must be very personal to Dick, as this was really Dick's war)

This bit is particularly laughable in light of Cheney's current woes:

Vice President Dick Cheney added his voice on Wednesday to the chorus of Republican criticism of Democrats who have accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq, calling it "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein," Cheney said in remarks prepared for a GOP fundraiser.

(see the link)

Don't fret, Dick. If there is anything akin to genuine justice left in this country, your own foibles may trump the 'reprehensible charges' that questioning your almighty authority entails.

Meanwhile, here's a sobering reminder that Dick's efforts may backfire. Remember, there is a growing contingent of GOP Congressmen(Congresspersons?) that are critical of the administration's handling of nearly everything Iraq related. These people have their electoral futures to worry about.

Update on White Phosphorus Use in Fallujah

Via Reuters AlertNet. Go. Read.

Update: Another update via the SJ Mercury News. File this one under, "Why the British cannot use white phosphorus in the manner in which the US did."

Quick snippet:

Use of white phosphorous is not banned but is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons. The protocol prohibits use of the substance as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas.

Blair's spokesman pointed out that Britain is a signatory to the convention. The United States is not.

Britain's Liberal Democrat Party, which opposed the Iraq war, criticized U.S. forces for using the substance as an incendiary weapon.

"A vital part of the effort in Iraq is to win the battle for hearts and minds," said the party's foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell. "The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency."

The last paragraph is the essential point of my two entries on this subject.

Bob WTF? Woodward

Since everyone that has an opinion about Woodward's conduct re: Plame leak investigation, has probably already voiced it, I'll let this WaPo article speak for itself. It's a real talker.

Walter Pincus really puts the smackdown on Woody. Heh.

Okay...Three Woodward statements, and their absurdities exposed.

On Patrick Fitzgerald: "a junkyard-dog prosecutor" who turns over every rock looking for evidence.

And just exactly what is the proper role of a federal prosecutor, Bob?

On Larry King Live: "When the story comes out, I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter."

Exqueeze me? The outing of a national security asset with a long career - NOC in fact..Is regarded as gossip? Chatter?

On NPR: "When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great."

And how can Bob know this? No one can know the full fall-out from the leak. From damaging our intelligence efforts, to how deeply the rabbit hole goes regarding the investigation itself. To call this 'laughable' is to expose yourself for who you are. It's not pretty, Bob.

Bob Woodward is a book promoting White House whore. Okay, I'm done..Wait.

May you and Judy Miller take your perches on the neo-cons shoulders and continue to parrot any scraps they feed you. Now I am done.

I hope your book's a dud, too.

Willy Pete: Rumsfeld's Buddy?

The US military now freely admits to using white phosphorus AKA 'Willy Pete' on Iraq.

From The Guardian:

[snip]...US forces yesterday made their clearest admission yet that white phosphorus was used as a weapon against insurgents in Iraq. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC last night that it had been used as "an incendiary weapon" during the assault last year on Falluja in 2004.
Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable said the substance, which can be used to lay smokescreens but burns down to the bone in contact with skin, was not covered by international conventions on chemical weapons.

But Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford's Department of Peace Studies said the substance would probably fall into the category of chemical weapons if used directly against people...[snip]

Simply lovely. Why do they hate us?

Continuing further down:

[snip]..."White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal," he told the BBC. "We use them primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases. However, it is an incendiary weapon, and may be used against enemy combatants."

Asked if it was used as an offensive weapon during the siege of Falluja, he replied: "Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on, and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position: the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so you can kill them with high explosives."...[/snip]

White phosphorus was used in mortar rounds..Hardly a 'smart weapon.'

It's very likely that Iraqi civilians were killed, maimed, and otherwise traumatized by the mis-use of white phosphorus during the siege of Fallujah.

The now infamous quote via Field Artillery Magazine: "At the end of the fight we thought back on some of the things we were the proudest of. What jumped to the forefront was infantry and tank platoon sergeants ... telling us that the artillery and [white phosphorus] mortars were awesome. At the end of the day, that is what it is all about: our maneuver brethren recognizing why we are called the "King of Battle"'. — Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, and Sergeant William H. Hight in "The Fight for Fallujah."

More background on white phosphorus, and the US not signing Protocol III of the 'Convention on Conventional Weapons' - which "prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians," can be found at wikipedia.

Hey, it's okay..Ya know, 'cause we didn't sign the paper.

It's really a dark time in US history.

Deflating Mr. (housing) Bubble

There is more news on the weakening of the real estate market nationwide. The source is none other than the cheerleaders for capitalism, The Wall Street Journal

Caveat: I don't know whether or not the link will work unless you're a subcriber to CBS Marketwatch..In which case it will. I did sign out of MarketWatch, and was able to view the article.

Getting to the point, the one really strong pillar of the US economy has suffered for a couple of months now. I can't put my fingers on the data, but last month housing prices dropped an unexpectedly large amount - on the order of 5-6% if memory serves. Please do not rely on my memory for information. This article from The Boston Globe outlines what has been happening in most markets.

Getting back to the WSJ article:

[snip]...The pace of U.S. home sales is showing further signs of slowing, amid a widening gap between sellers' asking prices and the amount skittish buyers are prepared to offer, according to an industry survey, real-estate brokerage firms and housing economists.
Rising mortgage rates, higher energy costs, widespread talk about the risk of a "bubble" in housing and a surge in the number of homes on the market are among the factors behind the apparent slowdown. They have combined to make home shoppers more cautious, economists and real-estate brokers say. Buyers are taking their time to look for bargains, while many sellers have put unrealistically high price tags on their homes. That leads to a standoff, causing the number of sales to drop -- a classic ending to a period of unusually rapid house-price increases.

In a survey conducted last week, real-estate consulting firm Real Trends found that the number of home-purchase contracts signed last month dropped 8% from a year earlier at 48 of the nation's large real-estate brokerage firms. Those brokers responded to an email poll sent to 80 brokerage firms...[snip]

Is is a bubble or not? Trouble is, one can only ascertain that there was or was not a bubble after the fall-out - or lack thereof.

A bit more:

"There is a definite change" in supply and demand, says Jacelyn Botti, a senior vice president at Weichert Realtors, a big chain based in Morris Plains, N.J. Along much of the East Coast, she says, inventories of homes available for sale have bloated to a supply sufficient to last five to eight months at current sales rates, compared with three or four months a year ago.

With sales slowing, condominium developers in San Diego are appealing to buyers with an array of incentives, says Robert Griswold, owner of Griswold Real Estate Management. "The market has definitely turned," says Mr. Griswold, noting that fliers offering condo buyers a car were being handed out at a recent Rolling Stones concert. "When you see that kind of advertising and promotion, they are clearly getting desperate."

While many sellers of single-family homes are stubborn in resisting price cuts, some are starting to compromise. Ken Baris, president of Jordan Baris Inc., a real-estate brokerage in West Orange, N.J., says he received an email on Friday from a client suggesting that the firm reduce the price on his five-bedroom home to $829,900 from $849,900. The house has been sitting on the market for 90 days. "It was an unsolicited price adjustment," says Mr. Baris. "I haven't seen that in a very long time."

Until recently, unusually low interest rates and flexible lending standards were helping Americans keep paying more for houses, despite slow growth in personal income. But that's changing. The average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is about 6.5%, the highest level in more than two years, according to HSH Associates in Pompton Plains, N.J. That's up from about 5.2% in June 2003, which was the lowest in more than four decades.

(much more at link)

The immutable laws of supply and demand appear to have reached a critical juncture. Throw in the slow steady raising of interest rates by the Federal Reserve System AKA "The Fed," and there is certainly the possibility of further depression of the housing market in the offing.

If the housing market falters dramatically, there is a distinct possibility that Bush may oversee a recession per term.

Would this be unprecedented? I think that it would be.

Is there an economic historian in the house?

Google provided little help in my search for the answer to this seemingly simple question.

Lies, Lies, and Damned Lies!

WaPo reports that the tin-foil hatters are right again! Yes, you'd have to have been, oh I don't know, in the oval office for the past five years to have not strongly suspected that major oil interests were deeply involved in shaping Cheney's Energy Policy.

Via WaPo:

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.

The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.

(much more at link)

The WaPo article goes on to state that since the oil execs. were not under oath during their tastimony before Congress due to Commerce Chair, Ted Stevens(R-ALASKA Gee, no petro conflict of interest there) decision not to swear them in.

Delightful.

Now, what about allegations that a certain middle-eastern country's our 51st state's oil fields were displayed on maps and charts with names of possible foreign suitors?

That's the round of answers that I want. Cheney won the court battle, but there are others that know the truth. All it takes is one honest person with some chutzpah.

I will not be holding my breath.

Assault on Women's Rights Continues

The decision to offer the 'morning after' pill AKA 'Plan B,' a post-intercourse contraceptive, without a prescription has been scuttled by the FDA.

You can get a gun without a doctor's prescription, but not a medicine that the medical community has 'green-lighted' as safe enough for over-the counter distribution.

CBS Marketwatch has the goods:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The Food and Drug Administration didn't follow its usual review process in deciding to reject over-the-counter sales of a morning-after pill, according to a report released Monday by congressional investigators.

While the agency followed its general procedures for considering Barr Laboratories Inc.'s application to approve its "Plan B" pill for over-the-counter sales, aspects of its review process were "unusual," the Government Accountability Office, which serves as Congress' investigative arm, said in its report.

FDA's scientific advisors in 2003 overwhelmingly urged approval of the OTC application. The agency typically follows the recommendations of its advisory panel. But FDA in May 2004 rejected the application, citing worries about use of the pill by young teens without a doctor's supervision.

Most of the reports concerning the rejection of Barr's application carry the above information in one form or another. Where the business press outdoes the MSM is in the following analysis:

Congressional critics have charged that FDA abandoned scientific principles in rejecting the OTC application, bowing instead to political pressure.

"We are deeply opposed to this subversion of science," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and 17 other lawmakers wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt. The lawmakers, who requested the GAO audit, urged Leavitt to intervene in the reconsideration of the drug's status.

Some conservatives have asserted that Plan B, which helps block conception when taken within 72 hours of having unprotected sex, is akin to abortion. Others have asserted that allowing over-the-counter use would encourage risky sexual behavior among teens.

(more at link)

Another fine example of functional theocracy in action.

Can you imagine the outrage if erectile dysfunction drugs were outlawed? The same old white male farts that oppose 'Plan B' would be pounding the table to get their precious Viagra, Cialis, et al.

Light Escapes From Gitmo Black Hole

It's not real good for true democracy.

Another early AM WaPo piece. This time the Senate has apparently reached a deal allowing Guantanamo detainees some legal rights, but denying them of others.

McCain's torture and abuse amendment looks to be part of the deal struck yesterday. The Graham amendment would eliminate habeas corpus claims but will incorporate a proposal by Senator Levin that would allow appeals, or petition for appeal depending on the sentence(see Jeralyn Merritt's work linked to below)

Here's a bit of what WaPo is reporting:

A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise yesterday that would dramatically alter U.S. policy for treating captured terrorist suspects by granting them a final recourse to the federal courts but stripping them of some key legal rights.

The compromise links legislation written by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), which would deny detainees broad access to federal courts, with a new measure authored by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) that would grant detainees the right to appeal the verdict of a military tribunal to a federal appeals court. The deal will come to a vote today, and the authors say they are confident it will pass.

Graham and Levin indicated they would then demand that House and Senate negotiators link their measure with the effort by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to clearly ban torture and abuse of terrorism suspects being held in U.S. facilities.

"McCain's amendment needs to be part of the overall package, because it deals with standardizing interrogation techniques and will reestablish moral high ground for the United States," Graham said.

Such broad legislation would be Congress's first attempt to assert some control over the detention of suspected terrorists, which the Bush administration has closely guarded as its sole prerogative. By linking a provision to deny prisoners the right to challenge their detention in federal court with language restricting interrogation methods, senators hope to soften the administration's ardent opposition to McCain's anti-torture provision -- or possibly win its support.

(More at link)

For additional reading see: Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt's Excellent post at Huffington. Please follow the link back to Talk Left where she outlines the dangers of removing habeas corpus protections.

*sigh*

On Edit: More on habeas corpus via WaPo

We Used Lions Against Iraqis?

That's what WaPo is reporting this morning:

Two Iraqi men who were arrested in Iraq in 2003 but never charged with crimes say that U.S. troops put them in a cage with lions, pretended to execute them in a firing line and humiliated them during interrogations at multiple detention facilities.

Sherzad Khalid, 35, and Thahe Sabber, 37, say they were brutally beaten over several months at U.S. facilities such as Camp Bucca, Abu Ghraib prison and another detention facility at the Baghdad airport. They said the abuse occurred when they were unable to tell U.S. troops where Saddam Hussein was hiding and did not know about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Both are businessmen who were arrested in a July 17, 2003, raid in Baghdad while Khalid, of Kurdistan, was visiting friends. Both said they were supporters of the U.S. invasion.

The two men are plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top military commanders in Iraq. The suit contends that U.S. policies during the war allowed abuse and torture. Both men say that they were tortured and degraded for months before they were released.

"That was a terrifying period for me," Khalid said through an interpreter yesterday, slowly recounting being shoved into a lion's cage at one of the presidential palaces in Baghdad three times before soldiers lined him up for a mock execution. "I was wondering if it could be real that the American army would act this way."

(more at link)

I would have thought this beyond the scope of what the US would do during interrogations, but given the revelations of the past year and a half, I do not know what to believe. I don't think it is beyond imagination to accede that these types of - we dare not call it torture - interrogation techniques were used on these men. These men who were never charged with criminal activity.

One of the two men, Mr. Sabber, reportedly said this about their treatment: "They just wanted to humiliate us in any shape or form they could. I wish I knew why. I was sure, however, that their actions were not the same as the values and morals of the American people."

Most generous of him. If the story is true, I too want to know why these two men were treated in this manner.

Alito Proud To Be Against Women's Health?

Okay, that was a bit over the top. From ABC News comes this:

[snip]...As part of his application, Alito sent in a document saying his work in the solicitor general's office had included helping "to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly."

"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," he wrote.

That sentence provides one of the first clear-cut statements attributed to Alito about abortion, which will be one of the main topics of his January confirmation hearing as retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement.

Bush picked Alito after White House counsel Harriet Miers withdrew her Supreme Court nomination because of withering criticism by some conservatives.

"This may explain why the right wing expressed such enthusiastic support for Judge Alito after campaigning against Harriet Miers," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., one of several senators who will meet with Alito privately on Tuesday. "When he comes before the Senate, Judge Alito faces a heavy burden of demonstrating that he no longer holds these extremely troubling views and would bring an open mind and a real commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms."

(more at link)

I do have a personal view about the abortion debate. I simply do not believe that a panel of predominantly male justices should have any say in what I feel is a private matter between a woman's doctor, and maybe her family. The reason for the qualification is simple. Oft-times when a woman is raped, it is a family member responsible.

To be sure, the Constitution doesn't say a word about abortion. But if you're going to invoke god as the reason, it is surely no revelation(pardon the pun) that god performs the most abortions in the form of miscarriages, and fertilized eggs(blastocysts) that never become implanted in the uterine wall.

The Constitution also says nothing about a great many things that are part of the fabric of society today.

I'm neither for nor against 'selective' abortion. I do not believe that I, as a man, have any right to deny a woman of her right to privacy.

Unfortunately, in America the laws that are meant to protect the weak from the strong, are all too fluid.

It may be true that, "All Men are Created Equal," but if you happen to have a chromosomal pairing of XY, you have traditionally been able to make the rules for the half of the population that happen to be XX. If this is equality, please show me to the door.

Pat Roberts on Critical Thinking

Or, lack thereof..You decide. WaPo has this bit on Roberts' appearance on the holder of truth, Fox news.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said yesterday that one lesson of the faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq is that senators would take a hard look at intelligence before voting to go to war.

"I think a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action," Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) said on "Fox News Sunday."

Senators "don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore," said Pat Roberts, left, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee. Sen. Carl M. Levin said Iraq became a center of terrorism after its invasion in March 2003.

"We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore," he added. "We get into preemptive oversight and do digging in regards to our hard targets."

He said that agreement has been reached on the Phase 2 review that the intelligence panel is doing to look into whether the Bush administration exaggerated or misused prewar intelligence. The review may not be finished this year, he said.

(more at link)

The obvious question is, "Why did so many of you in Congress(both upper and lower houses) vote for the resolution to give the president the authority to go to war in the first place?"

The facts about pre-war intelligence were disputed at lots of points prior to the invasion. I know that National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has been trotting the assertion that "we all looked at the same intelligence." This is obviously a case of the 'good soldier' doing his soldiering, rather than giving an accurate portrayal of the facts to us, the American public. The White House had lots of additional information. Much of which would have severely weakened it's case for war.

Hell, I'm no weapons expert..I'm a silicon engineer, but when I saw Powell's dog and pony show for the UN Security Council's 'benefit', even I smelled the distinct odor of baking bull.

Slight digression: I find it morbidly humorous that the link to the WH's page on Powell's UN presentation is headlined: "Iraq - Denial and Deception." There was certainly denial and deception tasking place, but little of it seems to have originated in Iraq.

Hopefully, there are truly lessons learned here. Congress was the enabler. It as much their collective faults as it is the administration's. Sure, it would have been a politically unpopular move at the time. In hindsight - and maybe with a little closer examination of the disputed 'facts' - this ugly chapter in US history could have been avoided.

When the White House caught those patriots questioning the threat assessment from Iraq's WMD, they got the full-on smear treatment. From Scott Ritter to Joseph Wilson, telling the truth was a serious liability.

I'll give Roberts credit for not using the tattered, "We were all wrong" line. He knows that some people got it right. Rice and Powell even had it right - but somehow both lost their ways. See below.

Flashback: A video clip, and text of both Bush Sec.s of State(Powell and Rice) in 2001 on air stating unequivocally that Iraq is a neutered state without any real conventional military, and more importantly, no WMD capability.

More Rice, Less Concise

Again via Newsday:

Rice Condemns Iran for Israel Comment

By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer

November 13, 2005, 4:43 PM EST

JERUSALEM -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave her strongest rebuke yet on Sunday to the renewed hardline Islamic leadership of Iran, saying that "no civilized nation" can call for the annihilation of another.

Rice was referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remark last month that Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map." Her remarks drew applause from politicians, diplomats and others gathered for a U.S.-Israeli symposium.

"No civilized nation should have a leader who wishes or hopes or desires or considers it a matter of policy to express that ... some another country should be pushed into the sea," Rice said, speaking slowly and sternly. "It is unacceptable in the international system."

Speaking a day after part of her agenda for political openness in the Middle East ran into heavy weather, Rice also said the Bush administration is under no illusions about the difficulty of spreading democracy in the region.

"We are not naive about the pace, or difficulty, of democratic change," Rice said. "but we know that the longing for democratic change is deep and urgently felt."

(more at link..you know the drill)

Oddly enough, I agree with everything here.

However, like most things from the Bush administration, the goalposts seemed to have mysteriously moved.

Remember back in the old days...Say, oh circa 2003 when the whole middle-east deal was that the US was going to "shock and awe" the regimes of Syria and Iran into(and I can't find the specific quote, hence no quotation marks) toppling like dominoes?

I suspect that no one - save for the neo-cons, and their enablers - expected the 'greet us with roses' bit either. That's not what happens when you invade a sovereign country. It seems we(the US) only understand our own sense of nationalistic pride.

Yes, dear readers, it seems that even members of this administration, when confronted with baseball-bat-to-the-head evidence contrary to their ill-conceived ideas, can change their tune. It is noteworthy in this instance because their change in position wasn't forced by any investigation, or other untidiness.

Feral cat update: I've set the table(actually a paper plate with some kitty food on my back stoop), and hope to have a pic. of the critter later. She/he only comes by at night, or in the early morn.

The World vs. The Bully

Newsday seems to get it.. The piece starts off with Bush's recent nose-dive in the polls and gets interesting right about, oh...Here:

[snip]...In recent weeks, his administration has:

* Seen its proposal for a Western Hemisphere-wide free-trade pact torpedoed during Bush's trip to Latin America. Several other of his trade initiatives are in jeopardy, too.

* Failed to persuade the U.N. nuclear watchdog to refer Iran's suspect nuclear activities to the Security Council for possible penalties.

* Ran into more obstacles in six-country talks over North Korea's nuclear agenda.

* Clashed with major European allies which, for the first time, joined other countries in supporting a move to wrest administrative control over the Internet from the United States.

"Behind the scenes, there's a recognition that the United States is tied down somewhat in Iraq and preoccupied domestically, and that this is a tough time for the Bush administration," said Kurt Campell, who was deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific during the Clinton administration.

"It comes at a time when China's stock is extremely high in Asia as a whole. There's a growing recognition that China has taken enormous advantage of the challenges facing the Bush administration, in Iraq and elsewhere, to consolidate its gains in Asia," said Campell, now with the Center for International and Strategic Studies.

In Europe, Bush's principal Iraq war partner, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is reeling from political woes of his own...[/snip]

Continuing a bit further down:

[snip]...Now, allies might be even more emboldened in opposing positions staked out by the U.S. And antagonistic governments in North Korea, Iran and elsewhere might be less intimidated by Bush's threats, seeing how bogged down the U.S. is in Iraq.

"I think he is less scary to them," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy specialist at the Brookings Institution.

Iran and North Korea probably are less fearful than before that Bush might use pre-emptive military force against them to accomplish Iraq-style changes in rule, and so, too, are their neighbors, O'Hanlon suggested.

"South Korea, for example, might have worried before about a war with North Korea they did not want. And I think they're probably less worried about it now," he said.

The U.S. still wields enormous influence, of course, if only because it remains the sole military superpower and has the largest economy...[/snip]

I guess you have it right there at the end of my brazen copy-and-paste job. Imagine Bush at the helm is the US did not have it's military and economic might? Now that is freakin' scary!

The presidency is broken. We were - as a nation - the last to find out about it.(sorry for the grammatical train-wreck, it sounds more effective that way)

pbs personal post!

I'm hanging up my keyboard for a bit. I am engaging in a small roof repair. The cursing you hear will likely be me.

In other personal news, I appear to have a feral cat on the premises. He/she comes by each night for a free meal. I'm calling the vet in the AM to ask what course of action I should take. Having two cats already, I cannot care for a third.

I'd offer up a photo, but this is one shy little kitty. Cute as hell, though.