Imagine if you will a tiny family matter on a not so quiet street.  The teenage kid across the street is bad news.  He hates my neighbor and takes pleasure in petty vandalism and occasionally throwing rocks at his house, sometimes breaking a window.  The boy's family isn't totally stable and  has never effectively dealt with his bad behavior and sometimes the people next door, who also hate my neighbor, egg him on, much to the chagrin of my neighbor.  One night I stood by and watched as  my neighbor decided to burn down the garage of the people across the street to prove a point and get back at the boy.  I was amazed as he smashed the windows of their car for good measure.  Unfortunately, since the garage was attached to the house, the fire ended up killing a number of family members, including their grandmother and youngest child. 

The boy who was at the heart of this whole mess of course escaped serious harm and since my neighbor is an extremely "well-connected" man, what passes for the local police aren't interested in bringing him in.  What's the use in causing more trouble, that kid was bad news, after all?  Most of the people on our side of the street agreed it was a pity that his family's house and car were destroyed and a number of innocent family members had to die in the conflagration, but what are ya gonna do? 

We said they should have known this could happen and done more to rein in their teenage son's reckless behavior, right?  Besides, this isn't the first time those two families went at it over something this dumb.  Oddly enough, the boy's family is pissed off at him but beside itself with rage at my neighbor and the fact that the police won't do anything about the destruction of their home.  I tell them that my neighbor had to do something, even if it was a bit of overkill, and that they should try to make nice and maybe see about sending the boy away so he doesn't antagonize my neighbor anymore, but for some reason they're more concerned about the fact their home is a smoldering pile of rubble and four family members are dead.  Really, what's it take to get through to these people?

I'm inclined to give Bill Buckley the benefit of the doubt when he says the President isn't a true conservative, but anyone who has paid attention to how the arbiters of "true conservatism" define "true conservative" knows that they're a rather fickle lot who hail their charges when they are successful and unceremoniously dump them when they're not.  Rick Perlstein wrote a very timely piece about this phenomenon a few months ago.  He's concluded that it is based on a strong belief in the infallibility of Conservatism to the extent that when real world implementation of conservative principles leads to failure then its not a problem with the ideology but those implementing the ideas.    Remember that when Mr. Buckley and his ilk start calling the President a liberal and insist real conservatism has never been tried.  Trotsky would be proud...

Okay, this is getting a little silly.  How many more times will U.S. government officials make "surprise" visits to the Middle East and what exactly do they hope to accomplish?  Seriously, how constructive are diplomatic missions that continuously show up unannounced?  How much thought or preparation do you think goes into the subsequent meetings with officials in Beirut or Baghdad or anywhere?  Right, probably not a lot because their only real purposes are as PR stunts to suggest we know what to do when we really don't have a clue.  And finally, ask yourself how weak our "muscular" foreign policy and global war on terror must look when the President and his many cabinet officers continuously feel the need to basically sneak into places like Iraq, Afghanistan or now Lebanon unannounced?  I guess that strut only goes so far?

 I want, and every President must have, the best, unbiased, unvarnished assessment of America's intelligence professionals. Creating the position of the National Intelligence Director will require a substantial revision of the 1947 National Security Act. I look forward to working with the members of Congress to move ahead on this important reform.          

President Bush 8/2/2004

 

"Negroponte Blocks CIA Analysis of Iraq “Civil War”      

Harpers Magazine 7/21/06

All you need to know....

Conservative commentators have been on a tear lately over how the challenge to Joe Lieberman in Connecticutt is an example of how the Democratic Party has "lost its soul" and is no longer hospitable to moderates and conservatives in its ranks, so imagine my surprise when suddenly Rush Limbaugh starts calling for the ouster of moderate Republican Lincoln Chaffee.  Man, I thought only crazy hate-filled leftist bloggers engaged in this type of litmus testing?

The "Big Tent" meme canard is just that and I'm guessing you can find plenty other examples of this type of hypocrisy.  Then again the question most Democrats and progressives should ask themselves is why would you seek advice from pundits and commentators that actively disdain, if not hate, progressives politics and the Democratic Party to begin with? 

New meme:  If a right-wing commentator offers you advice about being a Democrat, think twice because I guarantee they aren't your friend and they sure as hell aren't looking to help you out!

Well, sorta--- after a failed U.S. policy of secretly supporting Somali warlords fighting Islamic militias, Ethiopia invaded Somalia today to prop up whatever semblance of a government it has.  Man, if there's a place that's seen more war and expansive regional conflict in the last forty years than the Middle East, its the Horn of Africa.  Evidently, if somebody has a territorial dispute, insurgent problem or just a score to settle, now seems to be the time to do something about it 'cause lord knows we're not gonna do or say anything about it.

Ana Marie Cox on U.S. Soldier's homemade Iraq videos:

In "The War Tapes," one soldier/auteur complains frequently about the risks he and his comrades take to protect the property of the Halliburton subsidiary subcontracted to feed the troops: "Why the f--- am I sitting out here guarding a truck full of cheesecake?" he laments. After another guardsman supplies a Bush Administration-approved justification for their presence (freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people, stability in the Middle East), the cameraman asks, "tell me how you really feel." Deadpan, he continues: "After that happens, maybe we can buy everybody in the world a puppy."

John at Americablog brings it to our attention that Turkey is considering invading northern Iraq in order to strike Kurdish insurgents operating from there. 

Tell me if this sounds familiar, but the Turkish government is under pressure to do something after an overall increase of insurgent violence in southeastern Turkey and the fact that Kurdish guerillas recently killed a number of Turkish soldiers and border guards in a cross border raid.  Bear with me, but it seems that neither the Iraqi government, nor the autonomous government of Kurdistan nor the American government have done anything to help reign in these insurgents crossing into Turkey despite Turkish protests so looks like they're gonna have to take things into their own hands. 

Now, I don't know if Turkey will do something or if they're just rattling sabres here, but its pretty clear that in Lebanon the U.S. government fully supports Israel's right to defend itself but somehow feels the need to push for restraint from Turkey in a similar situation.  We're prepared to sit back and hope the Lebanese government doesn't unravel due to the Israeli assault, but need to constrain Turkey because we fear a Turkish incursion, however justified, would severely weaken an Iraqi government that can't control Baghdad let alone its own borders.  You also can't tell me that the moral high ground claimed by advocates of preemptive war applies to one autonomous nation and not the other due to what extent it interferes with American foreign policy because frankly we set the standard and now we have to live with it.  A lot of things sound good in theory or as a cheap political soundbite but I think we're finding they also have real world implications that are far more messy than the "grown-ups" in charge are willing to admit. 

Garance Franke-Ruta at Tapped says her sources at the State Department suggest that the U.S. hasn't rushed to evacuate Americans from Lebanon because it would  a.) create the impression that American citizens are being threatened by the actions of a longtime U.S. ally, and b.) contradict our stated support for the Israeli assault and willingness to wait and let it continue.  This explanation is most likely, but its hard not to notice that a lot of other countries haven't had that dilemma, and the fact most have pulled their people out of the country very quickly suggests the situation is quite dangerous and uncertain.  It is my hope we don't see any American citizens accidentally killed for the sake of avoiding some potential public relations problem. 

 If you to have been shaking your head as to how most foreign governments have gotten most of their people out of Lebanon while we seem to dilly-dally, you're not alone.  However, the folks at TPM Muckrakers have unearthed one possible explanation as to why there is so much confusion:  the U.S. Embassy in Beirut is telling Americans in Lebanon to stay by their phones or go to the embassy website to receive updates on evacuation planning in a place where Israeli bombing of basic infrastructure has severely limited electricity and phone service in many parts of the country, especially Beirut and southern Lebanon.  Gotta hand it to the State Department, they think of everything!  The U.S. government is really outdoing itself on how shockingly bad it is at managing crises that might require rescuing or protecting American citizens at both home and abroad. 

Congressman Gil Gutknecht found the situation in Iraq more bleak than he anticipated during a weekend visit to the war zone, and said a partial withdrawal of some American troops might be wise.  Gutknecht, a strong supporter of the war since it began in March of 2003, told reporters in a telephone conference call Tuesday that American forces appear to have no operational control of much of Baghdad.  “The condition there is worse than I expected,” he said. “... I have to be perfectly candid: Baghdad is a serious problem.”

But then he asserts a quarter of a Friedman is critical in determining what Iraq is going to turn out to be:

But he said the next six weeks could be critical in determining whether stability can eventually come to the rest of the country, and he believes removing some American troops is necessary to send the Iraqi government a message that it can’t rely so heavily on the American military much longer.

While Gutknecht is still not in favor of setting deadlines for the withdrawal of all American troops, he said the situation in Iraq’s largest city has clearly deteriorated.  “Baghdad is worse today than it was three years ago,” he said.  Sending additional troops to Iraq would be “a terrible mistake,” Gutknecht said.  Gutknecht compared Iraq to a child learning to ride a bicycle and said America needs to be willing to let the country suffer some bruises as it attempts to take charge of its own affairs.  “I think it’s time to take off the training wheels of their bicycle,” he said.  Gutknecht was in Iraq from Saturday morning until late Sunday afternoon. His time in the country’s capital city was spent almost exclusively within the Green Zone, an area of central Baghdad that is heavily fortified and where all access is controlled by check-points.

So you're not getting the same mileage out of "The War on Terror" that you did four years ago and your party is worried about the upcoming mid-term elections, what do you do?  Yep, roll out a new marketing campaign and replace the phrase "War on Terror" with "World War III", and if anyone objects then demagogue the hell out of it.  Classic Gingrich but anyone see an actual workable foreign policy framework here? 

Nice thing about being an "idea man" like Gingrich is that you're applauded for proposing bold things, yet safe in the knowledge that you'll never have to actually implement any of them.  Unfortunately, this country is at a point where a truly honest debate about foreign policy and America's role in the world is long overdue and all we get is crap like this.

Ask yourself what kinda heartburn White House and personal lawyers for the Vice President are going through right now when they envision the media juxtaposition of their client, otherwise known as the most unpopular member of this administration (19% favorability), with Valerie Plame Wilson. 

On another note, although some are skeptical the courts will let this case go to a discovery phase that might be embarrassing to the President and his minnions, I only offer a recent example that might have bearing:  Read this overview of the Paula Jones case against President Clinton.  Can you find a more baseless suit?  Was there another civil case continuously dismissed that nonetheless kept coming back due to the actions of right-wing activists both inside and outside the judiciary that eventually caused significant political damage to a sitting President?  If there truly is any justice left in this country the Wilson's will have their day in court and let's not rue the implications of somebody like Mr. Bush being deposed... we've already passed over that bridge and under far less honorable circumstances to boot!

Americans Want Democrats In Power

The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.

Not surprisingly, 81 percent of self-described liberals said they would vote for the Democrat. Among moderates, though, 56 percent backed a Democrat in their district and almost a quarter of conservatives - 24 percent - said they will vote Democratic.

Democrats also held the advantage among persuadable voters - those who are undecided or wouldn't say whom they prefer. A total of 51 percent said they were leaning Democrat, while 41 percent were leaning Republican.

Looking at what's happening in Israel, Gaza and Lebanon its hard to figure out why things have spun out of control so quickly.  One of the more interesting theories offered as to whyHezbollah recently kidnapped a pair of Israeli soldiers (besides the fact that they've done so numerous time in the past to negotiate prisoner releases) is the possibility that  Iran is using its influence to strike Israel and mess up U.S. Middle East policy at a time when the Bush Administration is trying to put maximum pressure on Teheran.  That means what is being described as a local mess doesn't merely have "regional implications" but is actually a big regional mess.  Its hard to say to what extent that is true, and of course Mr. Bush quickly blamed Syria for the mess, but it did remind me of an interview with former CIA agent and Middle East hand Robert Baer for a Frontline special about Iran's support of terrorism.  The interview is interesting not merely because Baer explains Iran's relationship with Hezbollah and other groups, but also in the way he lays out a more nuanced (ie. complicated) picture of Hezbollah, Middle East politics and the continued inability of both the U.S. and Iran to come to terms with one another in any meaningful diplomatic way.  I don't know if it explains rockets falling on Haifa or Beirut International Airport being repeatedly bombed by Israeli jets, but it is a start.

I know that democracies settle their problems peacefully and never go to war against one another, but our oldest "Middle East success story" has invaded and is currently bombing the hell out of our most recent "Middle East success story".