Friday, February 03, 2006

So it begins -- the "Long War."

You know this isn't going to end anytime soon. The Defense Department's just-published Quadrennial Defense Review Report (.pdf)uses the term "the long war" repeatedly to describe the varied conflicts we are in now. The opening chapter, "Fighting the Long War," has subsections titled "Afghanistan," Iraq" and "The Fight Beyond Afghanistan and Iraq."

And in case you missed it, Bush made this endorsement Tuesday night: "Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy -- a war that will be fought by presidents of both parties."

If you had to choose, what would you rather have: a Great War or a Long War?

EK
Saturday, February 04, 2006 4:36:42 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, February 01, 2006

The incomprable Josh Marshall alerts us to a paragraph at the end of a new update on the Libby prosecution:

Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy.

Really?  You don't say.

Update 2/1/06, (4:53 PM):  Raw Story has the letter.

RW
Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:47:05 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [5]  |  Trackback

The map above shows rings representing the distances and geography relevant to any analysis of the ability of Israel to strike Iranian nuclear reactors and enrichment facilities.  The combat radius of Israeli F-16I Sufa fighters is 2100 Km.  The combat radius of Israeli F-15I Ra'am fighters is 2225 Km.  Israeli aircraft would have to fly over Iraqi territory in order to strike Iran, as is shown by the map. 

These facts need to be analyzed in light of recent poll data in Iraq indicating that 65% of Iraqis now oppose the U.S. occupation of Iraq. (.pdf)  If we allow Israel to strike Iran via Iraq, we can expect hell on the ground in Iraq. 

RW
Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:47:35 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]  |  Trackback

The operative fact of this year is that if Bush allows Israeli strike aircraft to overfly and refuel over Iraq, our adventure there is over.

RW
Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:15:06 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, January 31, 2006

From a thread on Free Republic discussing kidnapped reporter Jill Caroll:

 
 
 
 
 
These people live in this country.
 
 
RW
Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:52:59 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [6]  |  Trackback
 Monday, January 30, 2006

Reading an account of the explosion, all I can say is Woodruff and Vogt are damn lucky they didn't join the ranks of the 61 journalists and 23 media support workers killed in Iraq since March 2003, numbers it took almost twenty years to reach in America's last major conflict, Vietnam.  The only recent conflict to take the lives of so many journalists in so short a time was an internal civil war in Algeria (58 deaths from 1993-96).  Reporters Without Borders provides a recent listing of those who've fallen.

RM
Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:46:27 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

ABC News co-anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt were seriously wounded in the middle of recording a report for ABC News when an insurgent IAD went off in the midst of their report:

Vogt was filming a stand-up report with Woodruff and both were standing in the open hatch of an Iraqi military vehicle when the bomb went off.

"Immediately after the explosion he turned to his producer and said 'Am I alive?' and 'Don't tell Lee,' and then he began to cry out in excruciating pain,"

Westin, speaking Monday on "Good Morning America," said the risks news personnel face are assessed every day in a country where there were 221 attacks by explosive devices last week alone. But it's important to cover the news, he said.

221!  In one week.  Our prayers go out to Woodruff, Vogt, and everyone over there.  Its a mess.  I've had several conversations recently with a friend who returned from Iraq after a year and a half on the ground there.  The news is not good.  He never once left a building without wearing a flack jacket.  My friend ran logisitics for a large NGO doing elections work.  Apparently the most indespensible item in Iraq is a machine for counting U.S. dollars.  Nothing gets done without tons of American cash.  Carrying millions of dollars on his person was not an unheard of event. 

My friend had seen and operated in almost every hot spot in the world in the last fifteen years.  A lover of the hard life of dealing with the fallout of organized violence, Iraq wore him out.  He's done travelling for some time. 

RW
Monday, January 30, 2006 10:23:56 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Friday, January 27, 2006

It was cold when we went to the zoo last Sunday. It was nice to meet all the animals again. They’ve been doing their thing for millions of years and they’re not planning to change.

 

I love animals. From my dog to a snake chillin’ the afternoon away in a fake tree to some giraffe eyeing a crowd of zoo onlookers as impassively as a supermodel would, they all seem to look upon us interested mainly in why we are interested in them.

 

Every species, I suppose for evolutionary reasons, is curious mostly about its own species. They seem to appreciate us, each according to its intellect, for we are their keepers. But cats want to know what’s happening with other cats, birds with fellow birds, etc.

 

I went with some fine people: my great new girlfriend, Jessie; her mom and sister, in for the weekend from Connecticut; and my dear old pal Rob (whom we call “D.C. Rob” or “Lawyer Rob,” to distinguish him from all the other Robs I associate with).

 

The gorillas that afternoon were interested in us. A smaller one took delight in sneaking up and punching the glass of the ape cage hard near the face of any blonde woman looking in the wrong direction. The human crowd would squeal. The huge silverback male leader gazed upon the event without emotion.

 

There are two activities at the zoo, though, that drive me crazy. The first is the pretend zoological expertise people profess. “That’s a ferret!” I overheard a man tell his girlfriend in the Small Mammal House. He was looking at a porcupine. Read the sign, man, read the sign.

 

But please don’t read FROM the sign. This happens a lot: “Kids, that’s a golden lion-headed tamarind. They’re native to southwestern Bali.” So knowledgeable! And then said reader starts smacking the glass and scaring the poor beast -- which is a sloth anyway.

 

Second, it’s the sexism at the zoo. Inevitably, different species have evolved different gender roles. Male lions are lazy. OK. “Just like all men,” I never fail to hear someone conspiratorially whisper nearby, in the kind of whisper you can’t avoid hearing.

 

Even so with the cuddly giant pandas, paragons of adorability. Mei Xiang, the mom, sat with her new baby, Butter Stick, knocking him away again and again when he tried to attach onto her, taking away the bamboo stick he gnawed on and eating it herself. Butter Stick’s dad sat far away in a corner, tossing a ball around by himself. Way to represent your sex, old man!

 

That night, we trod through the Mt. Pleasant cold to an Ecuadorian restaurant. A few young waitresses served us good food. Football -- both the U.S. and international kinds -- played on big screens. Men sat all over being served that Sunday, the day of rest. A huge man dressed in black and wearing a pinky ring the size and color of an Oscar award sat at the bar dipping his fingers into a plate of something red and gelatinous. He looked greasy but important, calling out commands to the line cooks and waitresses. Ah, I thought: the silverback male.

EK
Friday, January 27, 2006 11:31:27 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback

You know the world is upside-down when Pat Buchanan's The American Conservative says the country needs a new George McGovern:  Come Home, America.

RW
Friday, January 27, 2006 10:45:47 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

Josh gives us a rundown on why this statement by the President, is at best far-fetched.  On the other hand the man wasn't personally acquainted with Ken Lay after Enron collapsed, either.  Go figure?

RM
Friday, January 27, 2006 10:16:18 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Thursday, January 26, 2006

Josh alerts us to a company called Reflections Photography whose president just up and decided to delete all pictures they had of Jack Abramoff with President Bush.  Funny how that happens just when people at the White House worry that something like that might make it onto TV or something.  She claims the decision to delete was made because they weren't "relevant", to what she wouldn't say...Daily Delay says it might be because she's a Republican political donor hoping to help sweep this under the rug. 

Update (1/26/06): Oddly enough the President in his press conference yesterday used the words "not relevant to the investigation" when asked about any Abramoff pictures.  Don't know about you, but that sounds like an Administration talking point to me and something we're likely to hear more of.  Funny that the owner of a digital photography gallery who happens to be a Republican political donor and who just recently ordered the deletion of all pictures of the President with Mr. Abramoff would use practically the same words when defending her actions. 

Do you think maybe somebody called and asked her to get rid of some embarrassing pictures?  I think I do...

RM
Friday, January 27, 2006 2:32:46 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  |  Trackback

Please, somebody tell him that he doesn't get to choose who becomes Palestinian Prime Minister and maintaining Mr. Abbas in his current role would pretty much undermine a democratic Palestinian political process we've pledged to support.  

Then again we've said we will not deal with governing Islamic political parties who are anti-American, anti-Israel and maintain and deploy their own armed militias....the only exception would be if they're forming a new government in Iraq.

RM
Friday, January 27, 2006 12:17:44 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  |  Trackback

I think that Paul Glastis hits one out of the park with a post that basically says even if we accept the notion that the NSA wiretap program is legal and above board how do we know if it actually works or whether or not its even being competently managed?  Does it make sense to trust the government with such powers when only executive branch lawyers and officials beholden to this Administration are monitoring and approving what what's happening?  In fact, what results do we have so far, no noticeable uptick in arrests of terrorist suspects in the United States and a bunch of FBI agents bitching about being flooded with thousands of worthless tips? 

If you do agree that this program is essential to national security wouldn't you want to make sure its better managed than say the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina relief, Medicare D, the federal budget, or just about anything else the Bush people have royally screwed up over the past five years?  If you agree that this program is essential to national security, wouldn't you want more than an NSA shift supervisor or a lower level justice department political appointee making most of the decissions overseeing things?  What's so scary about having somebody outside the executive branch monitoring this, anyways?

RM
Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:30:36 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [5]  |  Trackback

A number of national news organizations are suddenly picking up the story of how the Bush Administration and its Justice Department refused to support Congressional legislation in 2002 that would loosen the parameters for obtaining FISA warrants; a fact which obviously flies in the face of most of their recent rationales for implementing their wiretapping program.  The DOJ official who went before Congress at the time was one James A. Baker and he told Senators a.) FISA worked fine and there were no impediments to getting warrants as needed and b.) certain aspects of the proposed change might actually be unconstitutional. 

Now, if this story gets wider scrutiny and suddenly appears on say CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the nightly news, I predict in addition to the McClellans, Mehlmans, Bartlett's and Gonzales' you'll probably see Mr. Baker, or one of his colleagues at the time, trotted out to refute the suggestion that what he said is actually what he said.  Doesn't matter if they have video of the proceedings, memos or any other evidence regarding this matter, somebody's gonna get up and lie about it, and not just lie but tell you you're crazy to think that their previously stated and recorded position was actually what they meant.  In fact they'll probably take it a step further and suddenly break into some sort of legalese revolving around various federal regulations or statutes and even rarely talked about passages in the Constitution until the anchors become too scared to ask anymore questions.  A picture of a fatigued George Orwell spinning around in his grave suddenly comes to mind.

Update (1/26/06):  The likelihood of the above scenario happening increases exponentially if the above named James Baker turns out to be this man, but I don't think it is.

RM
Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:49:28 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Okay, listen to this and then read this letter and see if you don't come to the conclusion that the President's personal lawyer/ long time legal advisor should never, ever be confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States of America!  This especially holds for a man whose fabled career is almost exclusively linked to the President's political sponsorship.

RM
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:06:02 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Except Pentagon planning.  Leaked details of the latest Quadrenial Defense Review suggest the Defense Department will spend the majority of its future budgets, planning and strategic posture preparing for war with China, not fighting Al-Qaeda.  The "War on Terror" evidently isn't such a big deal after all, although maybe the Pentagon has never truly left its "pre- 9/11 mindset" behind....or would that be a "post-World War II mindset"?   Hmmmm! 

Update (1/25/06): Forgot to mention that Iraq doesn't fit into the equation, either.

RM
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:43:40 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback

Can they tell the truth about anything?  Atrios brings us this Glenn Greenwald post that Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) offered legislation in 2002 that sought to lower the burden of proof for a FISA warrant to reasonable suspicion and the Bush administration not only refused to support it but called parts of the bill unconstitutional  all at the same time they were pursuing a program that purposely ignored FISA regulations and other legal restrictions on domestic wiretapping.  Why?  I have no clue other than maybe they thought their perverse attachment to secrecy and expanded executive power/privilege might be threatened by openly debating the issue, but regardless this information pretty much makes most of this Administration's excuses (or lies) to this point null and void.

Update (1/24/06): Alberto Gonzalez went on NPR and said that they were convinced by unnamed Congress people that they shouldn't encourage Congressional action because is would reveal details about the wiretapping program already underway.  Man do I feel safer with this crew running things!

RM
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:05:56 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
RM
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:24:45 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback

Josh Marshall brought this little ditty over at the Carpetbagger to my attention and while chuckling to myself I realized that Ralph Reed actually did get something out of his relationship with Jack Abramoff; enough money to pay people to come to his political events!

RM
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:00:48 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback