There's a lot going on right now:

Seven weeks after a U.S. offensive on the guerrilla bastion of Falluja in a bid to quell the revolt before the Jan. 30 vote, there are signs the insurgency has recovered much of its vigor. . .

In the bloodiest of Tuesday's attacks before the Baghdad explosion, insurgents overran a police post near Saddam's home town of Tikrit, 110 miles north of Baghdad.

They hauled out 12 men and shot them dead, then blew up the police station in a dramatic show of force. . .

Where is the new plan to get this election going and defeat the insurgency?

Elsewhere. . .

Workers from Indonesia to India rushed to bury corpses to ward off disease Wednesday as cargo planes touched down with promised aid — from lentils to water purifiers — to help the region cope with its tsunami catastrophe. The death toll soared to 63,000.

But our president is leading out front on these issues from . . .

Q At the ranch?

MR. DUFFY: At the ranch, yes

Phil Carter and I have a lot in common.  We both are newly minted attorneys and we both write for blogs, and we both agree that the current statistics on American troops killed in action aren't reflecting the intensity of combat faced by our soldiers.

Early this month, the Iron Mouth featured a short analysis of Iraq causalities compared to those of other wars.  Our look at the numbers attempted to factor in the advances in medical science which allow soldiers who would have died in an earlier era to survive being wounded and even return to the battlefield.  When the effect of medical advances was factored in, American casualty rates were comparable to those in other wars.

Today Phil Carter and Owen West did their own analysis of the effects of medical advances on the casualty numbers in Slate, and came up with a similar result.  Phil also went into more depth on his unrivaled blog, Intel-Dump.

The Iron Mouth's analysis showed that without the effect of advances in medical technology and science, the number of killed in action for the entire Iraq war up to the end of November, 2004 would have been around 5593 soldiers killed in action.  Phil's analysis came up with similar numbers: 2,975 for 2004 alone.  

Now Phil and I aren't alike in every way--he works at a much larger firm than I do, and he also writes for Slate on top of his duties as a first-year associate.  But it is reassuring to see a writer of his caliber applying a similar analysis to the problem of the Iraq casualty numbers and coming up with a similar result.

Turns out America's Top CEO's miss the Big Dog:

No wonder.  The current idiot can't do anything right.

Holiday reading. (from the ever-useful Metafilter.)

The folks over at that paragon of reason Little Green Footballs are sure that Osama is dead. 

Well it didn't take too long to answer my question.  It seems the AP is reporting that the suicide bomber was wearing an Iraqi National Guard uniform.  I guess that relief expressed in the moments after the attack that at least the bombing came from a distance and not infiltration has all but been put to bed and we enter a whole new phase in this long running trainwreck called Iraq.

I have been looking at the write-ups on the bombing in Mosul and since no one has touched on it yet I thought I'd throw this question out there:

What if it turns out that the bomber was a member of the Iraqi National Guard?

I ask because early reports are so confusing that they inexplicably seemed to suggest that it was some random Iraqi who wandered onto base and somehow passed through several layers of security without raising suspicion.  Since this is a joint US-Iraqi military base and mess hall and we've heard untold numbers of reports on the unreliability of Iraqi National Guard and other security forces the probability it was ING rises significantly.  Now I'm perfectly willing to concede it might have just been a local who worked at the base but you'd think that someone reporting on this mess might actually raise the question.

Scandal, anyone?

Harsh interrogation methods of Iraqi prisoners went "beyond the bounds of standard FBI practice," the FBI's top official in Iraq said in a memo released Monday. . .

While the memo doesn't directly say who authorized the practices, two government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the methods were approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. . .

The memo includes several references to an "executive order" signed by President Bush. . . White House officials also said the memo's reference to an executive order from the president was a mistake.

"No such executive order exists or has ever existed," said Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

A June 25 memo from an FBI agent to Director Robert Mueller, which was also released Monday, said individuals "were engaged in a cover-up of abuses." The individuals' names were blacked out.

The agent included a report from an unnamed witness of "numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilians" including "strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings and unauthorized interrogations." . . .

Knight-Ridder continues to get the best scoops on the oozing blob of ethical problems that is the Bush Administration.  Expect more soon.  Gonzales isn't going to make it to Justice.

President Bush needs help in getting Sunnis to fully participate in elections scheduled in Iraq next month.  Who might help?  Saddam.  Turns out the former President of Iraq has a few things to say about the election:

"President Saddam Hussein urged the unity of his Iraqi people, regardless of their religious and ethnic creed, to confront U.S. plans to divide their country on sectarian grounds."

Saddam sent a plea to Iraq's men of religion from all persuasions to "shoulder a historic responsibility" in rallying people in Iraq's difficult times, the lawyers said.

This Philip K. Dickesque moment brought to you by President George W. Bush. 

Pilot Error Blamed in N.J. School Shooting.

Here's the key part:

the pilot never intended to strafe the Little Egg Harbor Township Intermediate School . . .

 "There's a nanny," said Tacopina. "I swear there's a nanny."

As longtime readers know, the Iron Mouth shuns linking to other sites' original content.  The few times we have, the points expressed on the linked blog have been so clear and so important that the Iron Mouth Editors felt compelled to link to the piece. 

Today, Josh Marshall has probably the most important piece you will read about Bush's reckless plan to privatize Social Security.  Josh lays out that the most important thing for Democrats to do is to stay completely united in their opposition to Social Security privatization:

One thing that Democrats must understand is that they cannot win this battle legislatively. At one level what I mean by that is simply the math we can all see. . .

There's no point in Democrats trying to improve legislation at the margins, because they won't be given any real opportunity to do so. The logic of the situation dictates coming up with an alternative plan not only to make the differences clear to voters now but to set the issue stage for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

There's important reasons why this will work, argues Josh:

Making the elimination of Social Security a strictly Republican gambit raises the political stakes dramatically. Many Republicans will be far more cautious without bipartisan cover. Democrats must deny them even the thinnest of fig leaves. Making it a strictly Republican affair will also provide valuable clarity in the coming election, rather than the muddled picture created by Democratic defections on the 2001 tax bill. . .

Still another important benefit is the boon it will give to Democratic morale and energy in opposition. . .

The question will be how to enforce discipline at the margins. And here Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook in 1994 (on health care) and 1998 (on impeachment).

I think Democrats should consider pulling together the major funders of the party, the official committees, the major organizations, basically the entire infrastructure of the Democratic party and making clear to individual members that if they sign on to the president's plan to phase out Social Security, those various institutions and individuals won't fund their campaigns. Not in 2006, not ever.

Similar commitments can come from voters, activists and volunteers.

Josh is right on here.  Slowly, in conversations with friends and colleagues, it has become absolutely clear to this writer that the privatization of Social Security will be the most important issue of the second Bush term, if not his entire Presidency.  The quicker we realize this fact, the better off we will be. 

The Iron Mouth urges its readers to be informed and vocal on this critical issue.  It is the bedrock upon which our party is based on and the the most tangible expression of what we stand for--a fair shake for the hardworking everyday people of this country.  It is a safety net made by us to support us.  It is no government handout, but our own money saved to provide the kind of emergency income that every man, woman and child should be able to fall back on in times of distress.

Yesterday's N.Y. Times reveals that most Republican proposals to save Social Security rely upon deep cuts to future beneficiaries to make up for anticipated shortfalls in the Social Security Trust Fund.  According to the piece:

Some of the Republican proposals would raise the age when people can start to receive benefits. Others would reduce payments to beneficiaries to account for longer life expectancies. Still others would reduce payments to married couples and scale back the annual increases that are made to keep pace with inflation.

But the biggest single idea is included in the plan the White House most often points to, abandoning the practice of setting benefits as a share of people's pre-retirement earnings.

Critics of the administration contend that Mr. Bush is using the tangible allure of personal accounts to mask a profound reduction in the government's main safety net for the elderly.

As usual, with this Administration you don't get all the facts.  Citizens should be aware that other options, such as raising the cap on payroll taxes, could go a long way towards narrowing the gap.  Stay on top of this story, stay in contact with your representatives and make sure that Social Security is not destroyed.

An article in today's N.Y. Times indicates that C.I.A. interrogators were ordered to stay away from interrogations where torture was being used:

A classified directive issued by the agency's headquarters on Aug. 8, 2003, to all its personnel in Iraq advised that "if the military employed any type of techniques beyond questions and answers, we should not participate and should not be present," according to an account provided by a senior intelligence official.

The Bush Administration's skirting of the line of providing sanction to the use of torture and physical abuse of suspects was more than immoral--it harmed the nation's prosecution of the War on Terror.  According to Willie J. Rowell, former, Army C.I.D. Agent, interviewed for Sy Hersh's stunning best-seller, Chain of Command, the use of force with prisoners is invariably counter-productive.  “They'll tell your what you want to hear, truth or no truth,”  said Rowell.  “You can flog me until I tell you what I know you want me to say . . . you don't get righteous information.” (p. 66.)

When the torture photos and memos finally came out, damage was done to the U.S. war effort.  Allies became especially wary of helping the U.S., who appeared to be engaged in a futile and morally bankrupt enterprise.  The torture did wonders for the insurgents, who scored a victory without firing a shot.

The first step in winning the fight both in Iraq and against terrorism is to win the hearts and minds of those who might be inclined to provided tacit support to insurgents in Iraq and terrorists everywhere.  We can't do that when our own government's actions are stained with immorality.  Step one will be a full accounting to both Iraqis and Americans.  Only then can we begin to rebuild the trust that will be needed for victory in Iraq and in the War on Terror as well.

From “Rumsfeld's Rules”

It is easier to get into something than to get out of it.

So true.  Wow, I never knew the man was so wise.