A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Sweet Little Lies

Fred Kaplan points out what should be obvious to absolutely everybody:

President Bush's TV address tonight was the worst speech he's ever given on the war in Iraq, and that's saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.

The biggest fiction was that because of the "success" of the surge, we can reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15 by next July. Gen. David Petraeus has recommended this step, and President George W. Bush will order it so.

Let's be clear one more time about this claim: The surge of five extra combat brigades (bringing the total from 15 to 20) started in January. Their 15-month tours of duty will begin to expire next April. The Army and Marines have no combat units ready to replace them. The service chiefs refuse to extend the tours any further. The president refuses to mobilize the reserves any further. And so, the surge will be over by next July. This has been understood from the outset. It is the result of simple arithmetic, not of anyone's decision, much less some putative success.

The emphasis is mine.  It's simple math.  130,000 + 30,000 - 30,000 = 130,000.  There will be no troop withdrawal, save in the pettiest technical sense.   It's nothing more than a bone to call off the dogs (which, by the way, is how your elected Chief Executive appears to think of you.)  Here's a hint to Congress, however; if you really want the folks back home to pay attention, draw down the one thing that Bush didn't mention at all, but matters to every one of us.  We're spending $2,000,000,000 a week in Iraq.  That has surged somewhat, but it won't go down in July of next year.  It's just gonna keep bleeding away.  Return on Success?  Bullshit. You are Congress, and have been given the fiscal reigns of the nation.  Demand a Return on Investment, or get the hell out.  Even "libertarians" might understand that  reasoning (though experience with the locals has taught me not to expect it.)

Who All 'Dat?!?

I said it, yeah, unhuh I did.  Larry Craig will not go gentle into that good night ... and he shouldn't.  He is that deeply in denial that he wishes to retain the power granted him, by the very folk who revile his needs, including himself.  Things are about to get a whole lot more fun ...

To Know A Man, Know His Motives

It's not often that I get a chance to make a prediction that will likely be prove4n wrong before I get it written.  So I just had to jump on this opportunity.

Matt has a source that claims that Senator Larry Craig (R-Closet) will be resigning today.  This news has enough election 2008 implications that the story is running at the Orange Website of Doom.  I've known Matt long enough to trust him on most things, but I get the feeling that he may be wrong this time.  I don't think Senator Craig will resign (at least not without one helluva fight).  As I see it, Larry Craig has two very good personal reasons *not* to step down.

1)  He doesn't owe anybody loyalty at this point.  As quick as most Democrats were to point out his hypocrisy, or just point and laugh, the Republicans (online, in person, within and without of Idaho) were even quicker to throw this guy under a bus.  Their vitriol has been far harsher and meaner than anything coming from Democrats.  It's already had a profound effect on his life.  He's been stripped of any real Senatorial power (other than filling a seat and voting), and Romney dropped him double-quick, like any other stance or person that might hurt his campaign. 

It's not any mystery why there is such a Republican backlash/outrage over this.   It's pure self and party interest.  They want the guy gone to 'help' (that being completely relative) their electoral chances in 2008.  Now, suppose you're Larry Craig, and all of your friends have just stabbed you in the back (castrated you is a more apt metaphor.)  What the hell do you think you owe them?  Nothing.  And all you have to do for payback is ... nothing.  Stay put.  Don't budge.    Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing any external incentive, here, for Craig to resign.

2)  If he resigns, he admits to being gay (at least tangentially.)  This is a gay guy who just gave a speech claiming to the high holy heavens that he's so not gay he doesn't even smile.  HE"S NOT GAY!  Don't you get it?  He's not ... the gay ... he doesn't have it!  This dude is so deeply in denial that he won't take even the first step towards his greatest nightmare, being found to be moderately happy.  That road leads only one place, my friend ... Gayville!

All jocularity aside, for Larry Craig to resign is for him to admit to personal demons he simply won't face.  Everything about this episode, so far, has been everybody else's fault.   He will hang onto that Senate seat , until and unless he can find a clear way to make this someone else's fault, and exonerate himself from the accusations of manlove.  I find that sad, but still a compelling reason to believe that no resignation will be forthcoming today.

I hope you take from this a few small things.  Never underestimate the  latent homophobia of much of the mountain  west.  It runs pretty deep here.  That's not something to fear or 'hate' or hurl your vile bile upon.  It's just the way things are, at this point in time.  It can be kind of tragic (see Craig, Larry, US Senate).  It can be kind of violent (see Sheppard, Mathew).  It's a mythological hold over belief from a time that probably didn't exist.  But we're working on it.  Maybe the whole affaire de toilette will help shake a few people loose from their fears ... I kinda doubt it, but I can hope.

Now, just for your mirth and entertainment, good reader, I'm going to post this.  I won't check to see if Matt is correct and I am horribly wrong first.  Singer has an awfully good track record, so I wouldn't bet against him.  But I guess we'll see.  Either way, enjoy the show.

UPDATE:  WOOHOO! I rock.  I rule.  No resignation today.  Okay, so maybe it's tomorrow.  But still, I rock, I rule.

(Really Larry.  Don't do it, man.  You can still be totally hetero, really still totally.  All you have to do is tell the NRC to piss off, and claim your throne.  Don't resign.  You got nothing to lose.  Stick to your guns!)

Stare At The Sky And You'll Swear It's Falling!

I really do appreciate the "outrage" posts on most blogs.  The thoughtful ones back up the fears with logic and facts ... a learning experience.  But then, there are the Daily Kos Diaries, many of which dive head first into screaming Chicken-Littleism.  It's amazing how you can put the breaks to the potential panic just by posting something obvious and reasonable.

I'll Be Appalled When I Stop Throwing Up

I was going to make a pithy quip about Multiple Choice Mitt Romney equating the service of our soldiers in Iraq to his sons' dire confinement in the Campaign Winnebego.  But, it's hard to lose sight of that elephant in the living room.  While Steve laughs and frolics gaily, seeing that the devil Beauchamp has been proven maybe sorta we're not real sure incorrect about skull caps and canine homicide, he does so while the truth remains a horror that Steve is blissfully unaware of.  TBogg's slant on the facts pretty well sums it up:

Just to be clear: the soldiers were frustrated so they took an innocent man out of his bed, tied him up, stuck him in a hole... and executed him, shooting him four times in the face.

I guess when they say that "freedom is on the march" in Iraq, the 'freedom' they are talking about is for the eight soldiers who took part in murdering a man. The 'march' is the short walk from a bed to a roadside grave.

Murder, for our brave fighting men, is now aggravated assault with time served.  Hell, boy, doncha know there's a war on!?!  These are soldiers and they get frustrated.  It's not like those damned law-breakers who cross a river to spread the gospel of burritos and take our money.  Besides, that court martial was a bunch of damned dirty liars.  'Had to be.  Don't you see that these are *SOLDIERS*?

So, I need to ask some questions here:  1)  How can we expect that the vast majority of the people serving in Iraq, who are honorable and committed, to remain so if the consequences for so doing are meaningless?  Don't we believe in the rule of law?  Isn't that the very foundation of the Democracy we claim we wish to spread?  And if there's bad apples in the bunch, shouldn't we calmly and politely respect those who might be pointing that out, instead of sweeping the crap under the rug (where the only people who admit to smelling it are the people who will then want to kill us in the future)?

As to that last one, if you're a lawyer from Missoula, I guess the answer'd be no.

 

UPDATE:  And just so that we lose no perspective on the Romney boys,

Maybe It Really Isn't About The Bullets

The SURGE is an unqualified success!  Or maybe not.

The White House's nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff told a Senate panel Tuesday that the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq was beginning to improve security, but the Iraqi central government was making little headway toward the political reconciliation that is key to stabilizing the country.

Adm. Michael G. Mullen, currently chief of naval operations, said that since the troop buildup began this year, security was "better — not great, but better." Yet, unless a political reconciliation can be worked out, he said, "no amount of troops and no amount of time will make a difference." (emphasis is mine - W)

Gosh, I just don't know what to believe.  Maybe, if only I just would read Michael Yon, then I wouldn't be so hard-hearted and pessimistic.  He has his boots on the ground, you know.

(To every person in the last several months who's told me that I need to read Michael Yon, just stop.  Shut up, right now, about it.  I *DO* read Michael Yon, enough to know to that he is an observer, an eyewitness.  That means he's an authority only on what he sees, and little or no more.  But I don't base my view of the country's future, our military effectiveness, or the 'success' of the Iraqi debacle on his observations.  One has to seriously question why any of you would ...)

Democracy Innaction

(With all due apologies to John Stewart and the Daily Show for swiping the title.)

This one goes out to those ones I love.  Ryan, who insists that the Iraqis have a Democracy that needs a little help to get on its feet.  The Big Swede, who thinks it's all Iran's fault.  And Andy Hammond, who just doesn't get the little picture, much less the big one.  Just keep telling yourself it's all about al Qeada, kids.

The Iraqi Parliament has taken a well needed rest from doing ... not very much.  Bully for them.  Meanwhile, Peance and Freance are spreading like the wildfires from truck bombs all over Iraq.  IN the wake of this hard news, the Iraqi's acted quickly to support Democracy.

The Iraqi Accordance Front's withdrawal from the Cabinet leaves only two Sunnis in the 40-member body, undermining Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's efforts to pull together rival factions and pass reconciliation laws the U.S. considers benchmarks that could lead to sectarian reconciliation.

But I'm certain that "the Surge"  (^TMBushco) is working.  That there al Keedia is definitely on the run.  We'll "win" in no time, if only we can win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis who only want FREEDOM!

Despite President Bush's recent insistence that al Qaida in Iraq is the principal cause of this country's violence, senior American military officers here say Shiite Muslim militias are a bigger problem, and one that will persist even if al Qaida is defeated.

I could quote much more, but you probably ought to read the whole thing.  The upshot is clear.  We need to stay in Iraq, and kill the Iraqis so that we can save them ... and make them free.

UPDATE:  Whoops.  I missed a shout-out to Montana's overlooked ridiculous Freance maker, Steve, who thinks current affairs in Iraq are just peachy.  Neglect the dead, they prolly deserved it anyway.  Moral is high, and we're going to win any day now! ... against who Steve hasn't the first fricking idea.

Point - Counter Point

Point.

Counter Point.

For the record, I tend to agree with Sam.  Exclusion is not a good political tactic, and it isn't good policy either.  Yet the MT GOP tends to be really good at exclusion.

Simply Because It Needs To Be In Your Face

From the previous discussion:

Andy Hammond: 

The government's job is to defend and protect us. That is what the military is for and I have no problem at with my taxes going towards our defense.

Andy Hammond (forced into being even remotely consistent): 

Government control of our military will drastically reduce the quality of our defense. Government is inefficient and wasteful.

Gosh, I couldn't agree with that sentiment more, Andy.

Save Me, Mommy!

There's been some bitchen' that the so called "John Doe" provision got 86'd from the recent homeland security appropriation legislation.  Boo Hoo.  Basically, what the provision/amendment would have allowed is that anyone could accuse anyone else of terrorist activity, and be free from the consequences of civil action.  For instance, if a bunch of swarthy men were on your flight, you could cost them a great deal of money by having them thrown off the plane, and then be all "Whoops?  Sucks to be you."

The whole point of tort law is that if one unjustly costs another material damage than that one is libel for paying recompense to the degree of loss, and possible punitive damage.  If someone slips on your sidewalk because you didn't shovel the snow, then it sucks to be you, cupcake.  You screwed up.  Acknowledge, take your lumps and move on.   According to the John Doe provision, you can accuse anyone of anything, and skate.  Don't like the fact that the angry looking guy is in the seat you want?  Send him to Gitmo.  Got a thing against black backpacks?  Report the asshole and let *him* sort it out.  You're just John Doe doing your Patridiotic duty.  Right?

Screw that.  Actions have consequence, sometimes legal.   I'd like to be shocked that the 'party of personal responsibility' is so in favor of releasing people from anything of the kind, but I'm not.   To those who support such tripe, quit being a bunch of frickin' wussies.  Reporting unattended backpacks will not get you sued.  Screwing with others just because you think you can ... will.  And there is no socialist obligation such that I need to protect your ass from being a frightened little wimp.  If you want to report the bad guys, do it.  If you want my help to protect you from you being an overly scared moron, no.  You're on your own.