Monday, April 30, 2007
Saturday, April 28, 2007
They've been conned, and they don't want to admit it. Oh sure, some are true believers (smell the brimstone?), the Faux Newsies and such, but the vast majority have just been conned. They went assuming that the Bushies wanted to good things, get things done, etc, the usual 'workings' of govt. Being Repugs, they expected a certain amount of sludge and corruption.
But this (mis)administration was different. They weren't interested in anything but enriching their buddies, making the government bathtub-drownable, and frying Saddam's ass. And every action they've taken has been aimed at one of those objectives, or at HIDING their aim at one of those objectives.
And now it's all unraveling. About half of that is due to their inate hubris, and about half to the fact that for four of the six years of the Bush regnum they were completely unchecked and unexamined by Congress. And now, with some oversight from Congress, the wheels are starting to come off. And given the general level of competence amongst these people, the expectation that they could do anything and get away with it, and the anger of the opposition, the lid is coming off, loudly and fast.
And the MSM is still in denial. They COULD NOT have been so completely conned, that would shatter their self-images. But THEY WERE, and when they finally cross the bridge over denial, the backlash is going to make the current shouting from us in the blogosphere seem like the sussuration of a gentle spring breeze.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Americablog spouts off too :)
Thursday, April 26, 2007
If he IS incoherent enough to veto this AND blame the Dems for 'starving' the troops, this is what Congress should do: send him back a tougher bill. The first re-try should have a 9 month deadline (Mar was 12 months, when the bill started out); second, 6 months; third 3 months. And they must hammer home the point that they have fulfilled their duty.... they funded the troops; it's that loon in the Oval Office that's defunded them.
Yes. If a Republican is elected, they can "anticipate" terrorist attacks. You know, perhaps because staff members with their "hair on fire" are warning them of the high risk of terrorist attacks. Perhaps because staff members are trying to educate them in vain about a recent ongoing history of terrorist attacks. Perhaps because somebody practically staples a memo to the Republican President's forehead dramatically entitled, in a large and bolded font, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S." MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Yes, the recent history of Republican "anticipation" of terrorist attacks is certainly something I'd be pinning my ass to, if I were a Republican running for President.
I was pondering over this last night, as a matter of fact, so let's think about this for a minute. Under six years of President Bush, there have been major terrorist attacks on two American cities, public-safety-threatening electricity blackouts artificially created by major energy corporations in an effort to extort the recipients of that electricity, deficits that have reached crisis proportions, criminal indictments of Republican congressmen nationwide and even of Republican White House staffers, one of Americas "crown jewel" cities was in large part destroyed and its population turned into refugees battling a national government response that ranged from incompetent to absent, the defacto suspensions of habeas and other Constitutional rights, the international diplomatic isolation of America, and there have been two major wars, both ongoing.
So a Democratic administration could, in theory, see major terrorist attacks on two American cities, electrical blackouts and corporate criminal extortion of our electrical grids, further massive deficits, criminal indictments of Democratic congressmen nationwide and of White House staffers, the destruction of another major city, encroachments upon various Constitutional rights, the continued international isolation of the nation, and start one major war...
... and they'd still suck less than Bush.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Congressman Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican, was locked in a close re-election battle last fall when the local United States attorney, Paul Charlton, was investigating him for corruption. The investigation appears to have been slowed before Election Day, Mr. Renzi retained his seat, and Mr. Charlton ended up out of a job — one of eight prosecutors purged by the White House and the Justice Department.
The Arizona case adds a disturbing new chapter to that scandal. Congress needs to determine whether Mr. Charlton was fired for any reason other than threatening the Republican Party’s hold on a Congressional seat.
Mr. Renzi was fighting for his political life when the local press reported that he was facing indictment for a suspect land deal. According to The Wall Street Journal, federal investigators met unexpected resistance from the Justice Department in getting approval to proceed and, perhaps as a result, the investigation was pushed past the election.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
mcjoan at dKos has a good summation/obit.
In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat — a record matched by President Bush. [...]
We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. On second thought, maybe it's wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy.
And the money shot:
It is my firm belief that the Cheney-Bush team has committed offenses that are worse than those that drove Nixon, Vice President Spiro Agnew and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell from office after 1972.... Indeed, as their repeated violations of the Constitution and federal statutes, as well as their repudiation of international law, come under increased consideration, I expect to see Cheney and Bush forced to resign their offices before 2008 is over.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Update: Glenn Greenwald reminisces.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
jamess at dailyKos has a post today on MORA, H.R. Bill 109-3302. the Media Ownership Reform Act. Let your Reps and Senators know you support this bill. It doesn't go far enough for me (I'd go back to the old rules of one tv station/paper/radio station, and prevent existing entities from buying other ones in the same market... and limit cross ownership of broadcast, cable, and satellite interests), but it's probably as good as we're going to get till Rupert Murdoch actually transforms into the Jonathon Price version of Murdoch from the Bond flick "Die Another Day" and starts a war with China.
Oh yeah, bring back Judge Green and break up Ma Ball (now SBC) again! :)
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
TPM has great coverage, including the best line of the day:
From the buzz I'm hearing toay, if Alberto Gonzales were a stock, we'd be at that point when those automatic trading halts kicked in because so many people are trying to sell.
But he makes the key point in the same post:
But let's not get distracted by Alberto Gonzales. He's just a cog. In almost every case, what we're talking about here is Gonzales's willingness to take orders from the White House -- most importantly from Karl Rove and President Bush -- on firing US Attorneys for corrupt purposes and using the Justice Department to suppress Democratic turnout in swing states. Mr. Gonzales is a secondary issue. The real players are in the White House.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
What Kennedy is saying here is that if pro-lifers pass an abortion ban without any health exception, then women can successfully sue to have the ban overturned only in "as applied" cases. So a ban might not be illegal generally, but it still might be illegal in the case of Betty Smith of Memphis. But Betty Smith must to convince a court the ban "as applied" to women with her specific health circumstances is unconstitutional because it threatens her health.
Even if one lawsuit is successful in overturning the law "as applied" to the particular person who sued, the law could still apply to other women in other circumstances - meaning all those women would have to sue individually if they think the law is unconstitutionally being applied to them. The net effect could be to make it much harder for pro-choice activists to get Courts to consider whether or not new abortion-related laws are Constitutional.
2008's elections just became majorly important on another front.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
We cannot "shorthand" this issue with concepts such as the "democratization of the region" or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to "win," even as "victory" is not defined or is frequently redefined.
....We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan — and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board.
thanks to Kevin for noting this.
UPDATE: TPM has mega coverage on this.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
I don't know if this is a pivotal event in the Iraq sage, but it seems a pretty dismal moment, nonetheless. Inside the most secure area of the capital, the most secure of Iraqis, the ones we're most desperately protecting, are not secure. Thus, no one can truly be secure. It's just one more piece of evidence of the TOTAL incompetence of Bu$hCo and it's surviving military hack command (remember, they fired all the good generals, ie the ones that thought the surge was stupid.)
Countless e-mails to and from many key White House staffers have been deleted -- lost to history and placed out of reach of congressional subpoenas -- due to a brazen violation of internal White House policy that was allowed to continue for more than six years, the White House acknowledged yesterday.
The leading culprit appears to be President Bush's enormously influential political adviser Karl Rove, who reportedly used his Republican National Committee-provided Blackberry and e-mail accounts for most of his electronic communication.
Until 2004, all e-mail on RNC accounts was routinely deleted after 30 days. Since 2004, White House staffers using those accounts have been able to save their e-mail indefinitely -- but have also been able to delete whatever they felt like deleting. By comparison, the White House e-mail system preserves absolutely everything forever, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.
The White House yesterday said it has no idea how many e-mails have been lost.
In an afternoon conference call with reporters, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel spread the blame all around. "White House policy did not give clear enough guidance," he said. "The oversight of that wasn't aggressive enough." And individual White House staffers "did not do a good enough job of following existing preservation policy -- or seeking guidance."
Said Stanzel: "I guess the bottom line is that our policy at the White House was not clear enough for employees."
But when I asked Stanzel to read out loud the White House e-mail policy, it seemed clear enough to me: "Federal law requires the preservation of electronic communications sent or received by White House staff," says the handbook that all staffers are given and expected to read and comply with.
"As a result, personnel working on behalf of the EOP [Executive Office of the President] are expected to only use government-provided e-mail services for all official communication."
The handbook further explains: "The official EOP e-mail system is designed to automatically comply with records management requirements."
And if that wasn't clear enough, the handbook notes -- as was the case in the Clinton administration -- that "commercial or free e-mail sites and chat rooms are blocked from the EOP network to help staff members ensure compliance and to prevent the circumvention of the records management requirements."
Stanzel refused to publicly release the relevant portions of the White House staff manual and denied my request to make public the transcript of the call, which lasted more than an hour but which -- due to Stanzel's refusal or inability to provide straight answers on many issues -- raised more questions than it answered.
Stanzel said that "some people" may have used their non-government accounts for official business due to "an abundance of caution" in order to avoid violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of government e-mail for overtly political purposes, such as fundraising -- and due to "logistical convenience."
There's a lot more so go read it. Looks like they were skirting the document recording and security regs, got busted, dumped the offending messages, and got busted for that too. One can only presume that being busted for whatever's in the messages would be worse than being busted for dumping.
UPDATE: DailyKos says not only do have our 18 minute gap moment, we've got a BUNCH of em.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
He is interviewed by The Progressive this month and the interview is available online. Read it, then go out and buy all his albums and dvds. You'll thank me after your ribs heal.
All of this is precisely why it has been so frustrating to watch our national media scoff dismissively at this scandal. If journalists are not interested in allegations that federal prosecutions are being politically manipulated by the White House and DOJ -- with a desire to suppress votes for partisan reasons as one of the motives -- then what executive wrongdoing would they ever find worthy of attention?
I'm not sure I've ever seen a better sign -- though wrapped in a humorous package -- of why this president really can't be trusted to be in charge of anything and why the Republic is genuinely in peril as long as this pitiful goof remains in office. Bush wants to find a general to do his job for him. But he can't get anyone to agree to do it.
The only part I disagree with is the 'pitiful goof' part. He's certainly neither pitiful nor pitiable, merely contemptible. And he's not a goof, he's a war criminal.
Update: May not matter, looks like he can't find anyone stupid enough to be his warbuddy.
Q: If George W. Bush vetoes the legislation, do you think Congress should pass another version of the bill that provides funding for the war without any conditions for troop withdrawal, or should Congress refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal?
Easy, right..... fund the troops no matter what, right? Apparently, not so:
Fund the war without conditions: 43%
Withhold funding until Bush signs: 45%
Don't know: 12%
45 is bigger than 43, right?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
On the one hand, Bush extended an offer to meet with lawmakers Tuesday. On the other, the White House bluntly said it would not be a negotiating session.
The president said if lawmakers don't send him a bill he will sign — one that does not include timetables or money for pet projects in their home districts — it would be Congress, not the White House, that will have to answer to troops."The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," Bush said...
"With his threat to veto such a plan for change in Iraq, President Bush is ignoring the clear message of the American people: We must protect our troops, hold the Iraqi government accountable, rebuild our military, provide for our veterans and bring our troops home. The president is demanding that we renew his blank check for a war without end."
"What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept without any discussion the bill that he wants," Pelosi said at a news conference in San Francisco. "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people, and I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind."
Bush also opposes the bills because of what he calls pork-barrel spending on matters unrelated to the war.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't both Houses of Congress pass funding legislation (faster than the last Repug and with less pork) while Dumbfuck himself is threatening to veto it?
HE's the one not funding the troops.
Monday, April 09, 2007
.. split the [Southern Methodist University] faculty, feeding a debate that simmers beneath the serenity of the leafy campus. At an institution dedicated to scholarly achievement and academic freedom, many fear the work of the Bush Institute would forever associate SMU with a right-wing political agenda.
The vision of a Bush-backed think tank at a campus owned by the United Methodist Church has exposed emotional rifts within a church already divided over the war in Iraq. Bishops and other clergy critical of the pre-emptive war and the administration's treatment of enemy combatants are protesting what they view as a memorial to Bush, a Methodist whose policies they say are 'antithetical' to their teachings.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has virtually wiped his public schedule clean to bone up for his long-awaited April 17 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee—a session widely seen as a crucial test as to whether he will survive the U.S. attorney mess. But even his own closest advisers are nervous about whether he is up to the task. At a recent "prep" for a prospective Sunday talk-show interview, Gonzales's performance was so poor that top aides scrapped any live appearances. During the March 23 session in the A.G.'s conference room, Gonzales was grilled by a team of top aides and advisers—including former Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie and former White House lawyer Tim Flanigan—about what he knew about the plan to fire seven U.S. attorneys last fall. But Gonzales kept contradicting himself and "getting his timeline confused," said one participant who asked not to be identified talking about a private meeting.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Saturday, April 07, 2007
This is where Bush has led us. No one, except the 30% dead-enders, believe the CIA/USA did not torture him. God damn him!
And while we're on that subject, raise your hand if you agree with the conventional wisdom that this whole affair has been a PR coup for the Iranian government. I think that's a pretty short-sighted view. Even countries friendly to Iran appear to believe that this whole episode was a pointless and foolhardy provocation; it's shown up the Iranian government as weak, disorganized, and unable to keep control of its own military; the propaganda videos released during the crisis were so crude and staged they surely fooled no one; and finally, by comparison with Iran, the British and Americans ended up looking restrained and steady — countries that have no need to perform hollow circus acts in order to get international attention.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Jonathon Prince, Edwards' deputy campaign manager:
But we believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective. If there was any uncertainty as to Fox's objectivity, it was put to rest when they attacked Democratic candidates, Democratic constituency groups, and the Nevada Democratic party when their last proposed debate was cancelled for lack of support."
Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.
The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.
"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.
The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.
Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.
"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said.
But the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office -- and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war -- were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work.
Cheney's public statements before and after the war about the risks posed by Iraq have closely tracked the briefing Feith's office presented to the vice president's then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. That includes the briefing's depiction of an alleged 2001 meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence official and one of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers as one of eight "Known Iraq-Al Qaida Contacts."
The defense report states that at the time, "the intelligence community disagreed with the briefing's assessment that the alleged meeting constituted a 'known contact' " -- a circumstance that the report said was known to Feith's office. But his office had bluntly concluded in a July 2002 critique of a CIA report on Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda that the CIA's interpretation of the facts it cited "ought to be ignored."
When a senior intelligence analyst working for the government's counterterrorism task force obtained an early account of the conclusions by Feith's office -- titled "Iraq and al-Qaida: Making the Case" -- the analyst prepared a detailed rebuttal calling it of "no intelligence value" and taking issue with 15 of 26 key conclusions, the report states. The analyst's rebuttal was shared with intelligence officers on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but evidently not with others.
Edelman complained in his own account of the incident that a senior Joint Chiefs analyst -- in responding to a suggestion by the DIA analyst that the "Making the Case" account be widely circulated -- told its author that "putting it out there would be playing into the hands of people" such as then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and belittled the author for trying to support "some agenda of people in the building."
But the inspector general's report, in a footnote, commented that it is "noteworthy . . . that post-war debriefs of Sadaam Hussein, [former Iraqi foreign minister] Tariq Aziz, [former Iraqi intelligence minister Mani al-Rashid] al Tikriti, and [senior al-Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh] al-Libi, as well as document exploitation by DIA all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories" alleged by Feith's office.
Love it when a plan comes apart.....
Pity, the bf is Chinese..... oh well, I guess I can keep him a serf or something.....
When the White House suddenly and unexpectedly withdrew Sam Fox's nomination to be ambassador to Belgium last week -- just minutes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was set to vote against him -- it was seen as a sign that President Bush might be reconciling himself to the realities of sharing power with a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Democrats, who had denounced Fox for his 2004 donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, applauded the White House for its graceful concession.
But it turns out that conceding gracefully was the last thing President Bush had in mind. He was just sick of going through the motions.
Yesterday, with the Senate on a one-week Easter break, the White House bypassed those balky Democrats and granted Fox a "recess appointment." While depriving the multi-millionaire St. Louis businessman of a government salary, the appointment nevertheless lets him hold office for the rest of Bush's term.
Al Kamen writes in The Washington Post: "Since the nomination was not before the Senate, the White House said Fox, who is a wealthy developer in St. Louis, will serve without pay in his post, although some Democrats had suggested that may not be permissible.
"Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said yesterday that he will ask the Government Accountability Office for a ruling on the legality of the unusual appointment, which he called 'an abuse of executive authority.' . . .
Joel Havemann writes in the Los Angeles Times: "As director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget, Susan E. Dudley will have an opportunity to change or block all regulations proposed by government agencies. . . .
"Bush has used recess appointments more than 100 times, often to get around a recalcitrant Senate. In perhaps his most controversial such appointment, he named John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations in 2005. Bolton served until late last year, when the 109th Congress adjourned and he was constitutionally required to step down.
"Although Dudley's new job is more obscure than those to which Biggs and Fox were appointed, it also is potentially the most powerful. The budget office's regulatory shop acts as a funnel for all regulations emanating throughout the government."
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Anyway, MediaMatters has had enough, and Atrios echoed them. His post in it's entirety:
Make Some Noise
Tell CNN to get the facts right on Pelosi trip
For much of the past week, CNN and its White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux have offered a steady stream of inaccurate and incomplete coverage of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) trip to the Middle East and her April 3 meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.
Please join Media Matters for America in demanding that CNN and Malveaux stop misinforming viewers about Pelosi's trip and present all the facts. CNN's contact information can be found in our "Take Action!" sidebar on the right.
Since April 2, Malveaux has wrongly and repeatedly claimed that Pelosi had no "standing" and was not acting in an "official capacity," has attacked the trip as "political theater" and a "political stunt," and has parroted the Bush administration's attacks on Pelosi for going to Syria while ignoring the fact that a Republican-led delegation met with Assad on April 1. Most recently, Malveaux asked whether Pelosi's trip was a "big wet kiss to President Al-Assad."
Other CNN personalities have joined in as well. Lou Dobbs devoted an entire segment to "Pelosi's bad trip," while the April 3 edition of Anderson Cooper 360 featured a segment on Pelosi's trip titled "Talking to Terrorists."
After several days of inaccurate, one-sided coverage, it's time to tell CNN enough is enough. It's time to take action.
Use the contact information in our "Take Action!" sidebar to contact CNN, Malveaux, and Dobbs -- and be sure to tell your friends.
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.
UPDATE: Oh yeah, and Bill-O and Gerald-O almost came to blows.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
UPDATE: Daily Kos has a breakdown of Obama's online contributions... IMPRESSIVE
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has met with some of the 15 British military personnel held in Iranian custody for almost two weeks, shortly after pardoning the group and vowing to set them free.
"They will go through some brief formalities, and then they will go to the embassy," he said. "They can go on a British Airways flight to Heathrow, they can go through the UAE, it is up to the British Embassy in Tehran in coordination with the Foreign Office here."
No word as to whether they have yet been released, but this is good news. And a victory for the calmer path.
UPDATE: Kevin notes NRO whackjob Mario Loyola's reaction to this news and hits the right point:
The British managed to demonstrate that in this case patient diplomacy was a better idea than bluster and threats, and the hawks just can't stand it. The result is bizarre concoctions like this one.
Their cover story (number 3430? 53049?) about why they fired USA Iglesias in New Mexico is now blowing up in their faces as YET ANOTHER potential violation of law. The latest (stay tuned, tho) story is that Iglesias was terminated as he was often out of the office and was an 'absentee landlord.' Turns out the absences were due to his role as a US Navy Reserve officer, and discriminating against an employee due to Reserve activities is a federal crime. My God! It's Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest with their hands on the tiller of the ship of state.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
"A 'military victory' in the sense of total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population, is not possible," Kissinger told The Associated Press in Tokyo, where he received an honorary degree from Waseda University.
The faceless, ubiquitous nature of Iraq's insurgency, as well as the religious divide between Shiite and Sunni rivals, makes negotiating peace more complex, he said.
"It is a more complicated problem," Kissinger said. "The Vietnam War involved states, and you could negotiate with leaders who controlled a defined area."
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Andrew Sullivan weighs in too, here and here
Turn over a scandal in Washington these days and the chances are you’ll find Karl Rove. His tracks are everywhere: whether it’s helping to purge United States attorneys, coaching bureaucrats on how to spend taxpayers’ money to promote Republican candidates, hijacking the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for partisan politics, or helping to organize a hit on the character of one of the first people to publicly reveal the twisting of intelligence reports on Iraq.
The investigation of the firings of the United States attorneys seems to be closing in on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who should have been fired weeks ago. But Congress should bring equal scrutiny to the more powerful Mr. Rove. If it does, especially by forcing him to testify in public, it will find that he has been at the vortex of many of the biggest issues they are now investigating.