Back to the good stuff: Ending the war in Iraq

In a comment on my previous post, I mentioned that Iraq was the line had to cross for people like me to really start losing their minds.

Like I said before, all of the "moves to the center" were less moves to the center as they were restating policies he had mearly attempted to cover up or hide in the closet during the primary. With the exception of the FISA vote, it was less of a move to the center, and more pulling back a little more of the curtain to where he'd been standing all along. He said so himself last week:

“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he said. “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.” To this, he adds, parenthetically: “And I must say some of this is my friends on the left” and those in the media.

However, after a non-controversy controversy where he appeared to be changing his position on a pullout, he has come back swinging - forcefully restating the need for us withdraw. He ends his OP-ED:

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender. It’s not going to work this time.

It’s time to end this war.

Well said. The end is particularly strong. And even though the rest of the op-ed annoys me at times, I'm thrilled that he felt the need to write it. He didn't seem to care too much about the perception that he'd moved to the center on other issues, but the fact that he got that upset enough to write a clarifying op-ed over the perception that he had moved to the center on Iraq is a great sign.

Profiles in Cowardice

Ladies and Gentleman, your Democratic congressional leadership, let by Maryland's own, Steny Hoyer: (via Glenn Greenwald)

George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress

CQ reports (sub. req.) that "a final deal has been reached" on FISA and telecom amnesty and "the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday." I've now just read a copy of the final "compromise" bill. It's even worse than expected. When you read it, it's actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program with the "Protect America Act," so it shouldn't be hard to believe at all.
...
So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words -- the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists -- and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.

That's the "compromise" Steny Hoyer negotiated and which he is now -- according to very credible reports -- pressuring every member of the Democratic caucus to support. It's full-scale, unconditional amnesty with no inquiry into whether anyone broke the law. In the U.S. now, thanks to the Democratic Congress, we'll have a new law based on the premise that the President has the power to order private actors to break the law, and when he issues such an order, the private actors will be protected from liability of any kind on the ground that the Leader told them to do it -- the very theory that the Nuremberg Trial rejected.

Warrentless wiretapping and immunity for the telecom companies that spied on american citizens! That's what we voted for in 2006! Oh wait, there's more!:

So a deal has been reached on no-strings-attached war funding well into the next President's first year, and all the Democrats get out of it is a GI Bill that isn't paid for (they had to drop the tax on millionaires), some appropriations for flooding in the Midwest and Gulf Coast and modified unemployment insurance for an additional 13 weeks. That's not nothing, but given that it's a signing of a death warrant for tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, it's perverse to even talk in terms of what you "get" out of the deal.

Wow, a blank check for war too! I guess if you're going to bend over for a president with an approval rating in the 20s, you might get it all done all at once right? And granted, it's not all the Democrats, but it's times like these when you find out who the real heroes are. Here's one of them, and one of my heroes, Russ Feingold on the bill:

“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”

What a fucking beast.

It seems like all that's left is the voting, but there is a chance to turn this one around. There's that guy, who won all those votes, and is the new leader of the party... what will he do? If Obama came out against this, there is a very good chance this bill gets stopped dead in it's tracks. He is the new leader of the democratic party and all, wouldn't it be nice for once to have someone - you know- LEAD?

I was going to also write a post about Obama's working group on national security, but this has been too much enraging news for one day. And besides, if he comes out against this bill, I'll pull out the Will Smith Neuralizer and forget about this. (Banging head against wall)

And on a unrelated history nerd and one day late note... Happy Juneteenth! Now an official holiday in 29 states... most recently in California thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger believe it or not!

UPDATE: John Cole at Balloon Juice add humor to the situation:

The Democratic Leadership as portrayed in a picture:

What part of Vassal State didn't you understand?

Some good news out of Iraq:

AMMAN, Jordan - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says talks with the United States on a longterm security agreement have reached a "dead end." Al-Maliki says the talks slumped because each side refused the other's demands.

He says the initial framework agreed upon was to have been an accord "between two completely sovereign states." But he says the U.S. proposals "do not take into consideration Iraq's sovereignty."

The prime minister said Friday "this is not acceptable." The American demands "violate Iraqi sovereignty. At the end, we reached a dead end."

Washington and Baghdad have been negotiating behind closed doors a deal that would give U.S. troops legal grounds for an extended stay in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31.

Fucking savages, thinking we'd let them have their own sovereign country! The nerve, after all that we've done for them.

Uhhh, Mr. President? This isn't a movie...

After 4 U.S. hired mercenaries were killed in Iraq, Bush apparently went into his best Braveheart impression during a meeting with his national security team. From a book by former General Ricardo Sanchez, via TPM:

During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk: "Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying.

"If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

A White House spokesman had no comment.

When one of the generals questioned him on how to deal with the "Vietnam mindset", he ordered them to report to his father's cabin for coke and booze until the war was over.

And nothing says a march to democracy like seeking people out and killing them!

His rambling speech would be a lot funnier if this wasn't what happened directly after words:

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
...
10,000 buildings were destroyed, with thousands more seriously damaged. At least 100,000 residents were permanently displaced, over 70 U.S. soldiers were killed, and the Iraqi death toll is unknown.

"Wipe them out", indeed.

Lies Lies LIES!

Nancy Pelosi: (Via Stoller)

''I almost wonder how anybody associated with this war, unless they were of completely different philosophy, would not come to the conclusion that this war is a grotesque mistake, that it was misrepresented from the start, not prepared for correctly,'' said Pelosi.

''This war is a big lie. It was a lie to begin with..and it continues to be a lie..at some point, maybe the lies just got to be too heavy for him to carry,'' she said of the former White House spokesman.

Great point Nancy, only if it wasn't coming from you. I wonder when the burden you're describing is gonna catch up with you for your own lies over the Iraq war. I mean, you didn't start this war, but you've had the power to end it since 2006, and have done nothing but lie to those who brought you into office on the promise of bringing that horrific war to a close. We all know why you don't want to use your power to end the war: you've decided it's better strategy to let more people die before 2009, because you think if you use your power to end it now, the republicans will call the democrats pussies during the next election cycle. And while that plan may win the election, it doesn't mean it isn't morally bankrupt. (And also, I have a funny feeling the republicans will call us pussies and commies no matter what we do, it's kind of their only card to play)

So as fun as say take a pot shot at Scott McClellan for being a liar with blood on his hands, just don't forget that what you're doing is that far off.

Different era, same shit.

Vietnam, 1880:

Following the colonial conquest, the French symbolically took over the Hà Nội Citadel, destroying what few buildings were left and replacing them with military barracks and depots. It has remained an army base ever since, though at the time of going to press some of its outer sections are being opened up to the public.

In order to make the colonists feel more at home and at the same time to reflect its vision of imperial grandeur, the French colonial government set about systematically rebuilding the major Vietnamese cities according to European specifications. Central to French urbanist plans was the segregation of these cities into quartiers, based primarily on the ethnicity of residents. In marked contrast to the relative squalor of their neighbours in the quartiers indigènes, the inhabitants of the European quarters of Hà Nội and Sài Gòn were given wide boulevards lined with spacious residential villas.

Prior to 1920 many important public buildings were constructed in Parisian neo-classical style; the latter is best illustrated in Hà Nội by the architecture of St Joseph's Cathedral (1891), the Governor General's Palace (1906), the Palace and Office of the French Resident (1906), the High Court (1906), the Opera House (1911) and the Directorate des archives et bibliothèques (1917, now the National Library of Việt Nam); and in Sài Gòn by the Town Hall (1873, now the People's Committee Building), Notre Dame Cathedral (1880), the High Court (1885), the Vice-Governor's Palace (1890), the Central Post Office (1891) and the Opera House (1900).

Iraq, 2008:

Picture, if you will, a tree-lined plaza in Baghdad's International Village, flanked by fashion boutiques, swanky cafes, and shiny glass office towers. Nearby a golf course nestles agreeably, where a chip over the water to the final green is but a prelude to cocktails in the club house and a soothing massage in a luxury hotel, which would not look out of place in Sydney harbour. Then, as twilight falls, a pre-prandial stroll, perhaps, amid the cool of the Tigris Riverfront Park, where the peace is broken only by the soulful cries of egrets fishing.

Improbable though it all may seem, this is how some imaginative types in the US military are envisaging the future of Baghdad's Green Zone, the much-pummelled redoubt of the Iraqi capital where a bunker shot has until now had very different connotations.A $5bn (£2.5bn) tourism and development scheme for the Green Zone being hatched by the Pentagon and an international investment consortium would give the heavily fortified area on the banks of the Tigris a "dream" makeover that will become a magnet for Iraqis, tourists, business people and investors. About half of the area is now occupied by coalition forces, the US state department or private foreign companies

....

One Los Angeles-based firm, C3, has said it wants to build an amusement park on the Green Zone's outskirts. As part of the first phase, a skateboard park is due to open this summer.

American officials stress that final decisions about reconstruction and development rest with the Iraqi government. Karnowski added that as well as the benefits of renovating and demilitarizing an important area of Baghdad, the blueprint would help to create a "zone of influence" around the massive new US Embassy compound being built on the eastern tip of the Green Zone. The $1bn project to move the embassy from Saddam's old presidential palace is planned for completion later this year."When you have $1bn hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbours are. You want to influence what happens in your neighbourhood over time," Karnowski told Associated Press.

For many Baghdad residents, the Green Zone has been a no-go area for years, first under Saddam and now under the occupation. "What do I care?" shrugged one, Ahmed Hussein. "I don't have electricity, I don't have fresh water and I don't have a job."

Call me a dork, but few things piss me off more than people using words like fascism, socialism, empire etc. without having any idea about what they actually mean.

We are an imperial power, and as we have shown in Iraq, we are an imperial nation where the colonial mentality is still very much alive in our words and actions. It's not a pleasant truth to look at ourselves in that light, but M.O.P. would say: "DEAL WITH IT MOTHER FUCKER!!!"

And while this isn't a new idea (Most recently the best case was made by Chalmers Johnson), it is important to keep in mind in order to not lose perspective of our actions in the world, and equally important, how we are seen by the rest of the world.

Mission Accomplished

Five Years ago today:

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world

....

The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.

...

The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.

Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war — after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history — you are homeward bound.

He was right about one thing, Americans want nothing more than for the troops to return home. Too bad there's still occupying and exploiting to be done. The idea that this man or any of the other cowards who lied us into war haven't been punished for their crimes is truly shocking. Something tells me history isn't going to look back on this era kindly. Whether pushing us to war or refusing to end it, there's plenty of blood for everybody's hands.

Five Years.

Five Years, 4000 U.S. Soldiers dead in Iraq. Chris Bowers:

Whenever one a terrible milestone is reach in Iraq for the number of American soldiers killed, such as 4,000 today, it is necessary to point out that the milestone being focused on was actually reached a long time ago. In addition to the 4,000 dead American soldiers, the following fatalities have also occurred in Iraq over the past five years:

• Journalists: 135 fatalities
• Non-American military coalition forces: 308 fatalities
• Non-military contractors: At least 1,001 fatalities as of June 30th, 2007
• Iraqi Security Forces: At least 8,057
• Iraqi military forces: During the invasion, between 15,000 and 45,000 Iraqi military personnel died.
• Civilians: Between 400,000 and 650,000 as of June 2006, and over 1,000,000 now.

We are way, way past 4,000 deaths in Iraq. The non-civilian death toll, including journalists, all coalition military forces, contractors and Iraqi security forces, currently stands at a minimum of 13,501, or about 15 every two days since the start of the war. The civilian death toll is actually the greatest humanitarian crisis since the Rwanda genocide, and possibly since even before then (I don't want to start ranking genocides). Somewhere between 4% and 5% of the Iraqi population has died what is termed an "excess death" since the start of the Iraq war. For the sake of comparison, Pennsylvania represents just under 4% of the population of the United States.
Also, keep in mind that these are just deaths, and damage has been done in many other ways. Nearly four million living Iraqis are now refugees, roughly 16% of the population, 40% of the middle class, and larger percentages of religious and ethnic minorities. Between 60% and 70% of Iraqi children suffer from psychological trauma. Tens of thousands of American soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, have been injured. And oh yeah, the war will cost more than two trillion dollars.
All of this needs to be pointed out because, whenever one of these milestones are reached, it implies that the only suffering taking place as a result of the Iraq war is to be found within the American military. Such a narrow focus ignores the wide swath of destruction that the Iraq war has wrought. As long as there is a narrow focus on the efforts of the United States military, the war appears to be an honorable, gracious effort on the part of America with costs that, while grave, are ultimately discrete and containable. However, when one considers that the war has either killed or displaced more than 20% of Iraq's pre-war population, that is has resulted in the European Union surpassing the United States as the world's leading economic power, and that it has both caused and revealed significant weakness in our military capacity, the true nature of the Iraq war becomes apparent.

This needs to end. Now.

Lies Lies LIES!!!

The Thompson Twins would be proud... and man is this a sweet video.


The center for Public Integrity just published a report that is definitely worth checking out. Even though the premise (Bush Administration lied us into war) isn't new information, it's important to remember how we got where we are today, especially since of much of the general election campaign will hinge on the Iraq war:

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
...
The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.
...
Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth" regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's Who of domestic agencies.
On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation's allies on their way to war.

The brain dead media may have decided in recent weeks that the economy has overtaken the Iraq war as far as election issues go, but I would hope that the American people are smarter than that. First off, the economy only became an issue in recent weeks because it started affecting the haves. Once it hits wall street, it's a crisis. The fact the have-nots have been getting screwed for last 20 years (and especially the last 7) will not, and has never been a "crisis" as far as they are concerned.

Similar things can be said about the Iraq war. American soldiers are still dying. Iraqi citizens are still dying at an unconscionable rate. The country is still in ruin, and the political process that the surge was supposed to allow is further from any progress than when it started. So while these story lines may not be as sexy as a tanking numbers on wall street, Iraq must remain THE major issue. If there were still a draft, and the toll of this war was actually being shared by all Americans, would any thing else be on people's minds? Of course not.

And although getting out is the issue now, remembering how we got into this mess is critically important, and must be pointed out throughout both the primary and general elections.

Where we go from here

What he said:

What strikes me at the moment is just how devoid of true, inspirational leaders the current party is. We've got nobody, at least not that is a household name. Kennedy? A longtime liberal and a fine speaker, but hasn't been able to accomplish a whole lot. Byrd made some fine speeches a few years ago, but between those speeches he's always been erratic at best. Reid seems like he's so miserable in the majority that he wants to just crawl under a rock, and I can't tell if Pelosi is being screwed by her subordinates, is screwing them, both, neither, is being screwed by the conservative Dems, or is suffering from something entirely different that I can't even grasp, but in her role as Democratic leader she is about as inspirational as a bowl of room temperature soup.

Hillary Clinton seems to studiously avoid even the shadow of a hint of a larger vision, and Edwards could not get the press to like him if he personally had sex with every one of them. Obama is indeed a fine speaker, but is at his best in well-crafted speeches in service to no particularly concrete or substantive goals -- and those goals he does most passionately espouse, like chastising fellow Democrats for not more emphatically embracing religion, are the stuff of uninspiring Broderesque conventionality. We have faced the most incompetent, corrupt, scandal prone, and indictment-laden administration in recent history, and yet we still must from all corners hear paeans to working together with the worst of the worst, and compromising with the bigoted, and bridging the gap between our moderate party and the one that has been purged of nearly all but the most single-minded of extremists.

Even if elected, it seems improbable that we could hope for more than moderate Dem caretaker status, in the presidency -- a partial rollback of Bush-era abuses, but not a full rollback, a healthcare plan cobbled together in some fashion as to make sure the insurance companies are well taken care of, and only moderate screwing of unions instead of full-bore screwing of unions. It will be a hell of a lot better than being shipped to Abu Ghraib in a duffle bag, but it is not really something to get giddy over.

The blogs are one of the few sources of fire in the entire party. We've got no political generals like the Republican Party's Rove/DeLay/Hastert axis of brutal enforcement and lacerating strategic competence, and we've got no agenda-setting ideologues like Norquist, Dobson, or the other increasingly far-right activists that can and do play the Republican party like a fiddle. The Republican Party has been remade in service to their most conservative, most bigoted, most aggressive, and most extreme members: we, on the other hand, have yet to figure out how to get the Democratic party to give the time of day to the vast majority of their supporters -- even though their supporters hold the majority positions, according to the polls, on nearly every one of the most important issues.

We've only got the blogs and other not-terribly-powerful activists. That is the only source of unapologetic ideology, of long-term vision, or of passion for a common good. We have no leaders except ourselves.

Read the whole thing if you have a chance, it's an articulation of the frustration felt by many (myself included) at recent events, and as well as a look at what the future holds. This isn't going to be a quick fix, and but the online progressive movement is going to be key in rebuilding the democratic party into a viable vehicle for any sort of meaningful change.

The Joe Buck Disgusting Act of the Week: Steny Hoyer

The Joe Buck Disgusting Act of the Week is awarded to whatever event/person best deserves Joe Buck's unnecessary and over the top outrage after a 2004 Randy Moss' touchdown celebration.

This week that award goes to Steny Hoyer:

House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.

"We have to get to a point where the American public more clearly perceives our policy position and is not confused by whether or not the Democrats intend to support the troops that we've sent to Iraq. I don't think there's an option on that," Hoyer said.

Lets have a look at this logic. The vast majority of the country wants to end the war, the democrats have the power to end the war, and instead doing something to... wait for it... end the war, they decide that it's more important to shield themselves against mean republicans calling them pussies. Rather than explain how amoral/cowardly/stupid this whole mess is, I'll defer to a great clip of Ben Affleck on Bill Maher explaining the stunning logic behind these decisions.

If all of that wasn't enough, the article ends with another gem, showing the complete and utter idiocy of the democratic leadership:

Hoyer struck a pragmatic tone, pushing for Congress to adjourn for the year by the end of next week. He suggested that Democrats need to divorce their goal of ending the war from the battle over funding.

Let me make sure I understand this. The democrats should put away the only tool they have to end the war... so that they can get to work on ending the war! Good one Steny! At least now that you've revealed your master plan it makes a little more sense how you've been so completely and utterly worthless at getting anything accomplished.

That was a disgusting act by Steny Hoyer and its unfortunate that we had it on our air live.

The Surge is working! And that means what exactly?

Recently, there have been quite a few articles and opinion pieces that have been touting the successes of the surge in Iraq.

Even though quite a few of these pieces have been brought to you by the same idiots who got us into this catastrophe, it has become enough of a talking point that we should let Juan Cole clear up a few of these misleading arguments.

First, let's give perspective to Iraq's shifting benchmarks:

The current "good news" campaign from the Bush administration regarding the troop surge is only the latest in a long history of whitewashing the war since the 2003 invasion. First, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denied that there was massive looting following the fall of Baghdad. Then he denied that there was a rising guerrilla war. Then, after the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani maneuvered an unwilling Bush administration into holding relatively free elections, the victory of Shiite fundamentalists close to Iran was obscured by the "purple thumb" good news campaign. That is, the administration focused on the democratic process and relative success of the voting, diverting attention from the bad news that the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq had taken over.

Later, it was good news when the Iraqi parliament produced a theocratic constitution with all the weaknesses of the U.S. Articles of Confederation, even though all three Sunni-majority provinces rejected it in the subsequent referendum. What was in the constitution was not important, only that it existed. The Bush administration has heralded any number of such "milestones" reached, but not whether they led to worthwhile results.

Obscured by these "milestones" is that the orgy of violence in Iraq has displaced 2 million persons abroad and another 2 million internally, and left tens of thousands dead. But now the "good news" is that the guerrillas appear not to have been able to keep up the pace of violence characteristic of 2006 and early 2007, even if the pace they maintain today is horrific.

Second, and most importantly: The original goal of the surge. The whole point of the surge was to allow "space"(Read: "an absence of constant violence") for the political process to advance. The reason you haven't heard much about that front is, well, there hasn't been any progress to report:

In recent days, parts of northern Iraq have been invaded by Turkey, an ally of the United States. In Baghdad, Sunni members of parliament staged a walkout to defend their leader, whose bodyguards were implicated in fashioning car bombs. Proposed legislation reducing sanctions against Sunni Arabs who once belonged to the Baath Party nearly produced a riot in parliament. Meanwhile, Britain and Australia, among Bush's few remaining allies with combat troops in Iraq, are planning to depart in 2008, raising questions about security in the key southern port city of Basra, the major route for the country's lucrative oil exports.

What the recent publicity about the "success" of the troop surge has ignored is this: The Bush administration has downplayed the collapsing political situation in Iraq by directing the public's attention to fluctuating numbers of civilians killed.

The greatest problem with the surge remains the classic question of war: What are we fighting for? If our increased presence is not to causing the political process to improve, then what on earth are we doing there?

Cole ends on an even more ominous note for Iraq's future:

Obviously, if the U.S. military wants to stop car bombings by banning vehicular traffic to certain markets, it can do so, especially using thousands of extra troops concentrated in specific areas. But although there has been a relative lull in violence in the U.S.-reinforced Baghdad, the U.S. military acknowledges that the Iraqi capital is still a very dangerous place. One question is whether the violence will explode again when U.S. forces inevitably withdraw. But the far more important question is this: How much longer can Iraq limp along as a failing state before it really begins to collapse?

The Colonial Congress: The Berlin Biden plan

Why limit the colonialism of our Iraq policy to just empty rhetoric, its about time for someone to step up and put some walk behind that talk. Enter Joe Biden and Sam Brownback:

"The clunkly named Biden-Brownback Iraq Federalism Bipartisan Amendment is the latest in a series of calls for a "soft partition" of Iraq into three semiautonomous regions -- split up according to ethnicity and sect -- that appear to be gaining currency in Washington."

In an article that finally points some of the fatal flaws of this plan, the writer Joshua Holland makes my day by pointing out an obvious but often ignored comparison:

"Proponents of the plan deserve credit for understanding that there's no military solution to be found in Iraq -- that a political conflict requires a political fix. This already puts them miles ahead of the administration and defenders of the status quo, and they should be commended for seeking a practical way out of the mess created by the U.S. invasion.
But Iraqis do not live in neat enclaves; 4 million have already been forced to flee their homes by sectarian and separatist militias, and thousands more have been killed in the process. Whatever the intentions of the proponents of the plan might be, calling for more of the same is profoundly immoral, and doing so from the remote confines of Washington conference rooms is reminiscent of earlier eras in which Western powers carved up distant lands by drawing new lines on the map."

Holland's whole article is worth reading, simply because this plan has been given a lot of support from a lot of different places, and its fundamental problems are rarely discussed. Besides the fact that this plan would likely lead to more violence and ethnic cleansing in Iraq, the larger colonial point is the one that the media has ignored. When did this become our decision? What better way to show the world the power of democratic rule than dividing their country into pieces for them. The logic of "These savages clearly don't know what their doing, so we'll have to do it for them" is so eerily similar to the justifications of the 1800s that it's frightening.
Just for the record, how does Joe Biden respond to the Iraqis themselves criticizing his plan?

"Other Iraqi politicians have said we have no right to tell the Iraqis [what to do]," Biden told reporters. "Let me tell you, we have a right. Three thousand and eight hundred dead. Twenty seven thousand wounded. Billions of dollars. Let me tell you as President of the United States, they'd have to understand full well that if they don't keep their commitment to implement their constitution then they're on their own. And so, ladies and gentlemen, the idea that al Maliki questions whether or not we have a right to express our opinion, he'd better get it straight real quick."

Damn right he better! If we decide to send our military into a country for absolutely no reason, and then kill 3800 of our own people, several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians, and waste billions of our own dollars all while destroying all aspects of their society, then they better damn well let us decide how to run their country! I mean that's what democracy is all about, right? The nerve! We're trying to do these savages a favor and bring them out of the stone-age; then they have the nerve to question our right to do so.

Ahhh... the logic of colonialism, as disgusting and immoral today as it was 500 years ago.

The Colonial Congress

Long before I had a blog, I wanted to write something about the increasingly colonial rhetoric that many of the democrats had adopted during the Iraq war debate. One of the most frustrating aspects of this rhetoric was that it was being used by people who I otherwise liked. (Jim Webb and Jon Tester are some of the first names that come to mind)

However, the most striking example of this came when I attended the Take Back America conference and Hillary Clinton addressed the crowd about the Iraq war, and placed the blame of that smoldering mess on the Iraqi people and government. After that speech, my aunt Helen and I were completely stunned. It could have been one of the more offensive speeches I had ever head, or at least live. She was boo-ed, but not nearly as much as it deserved. Not only would she not begin to accept responsibility for her foolish vote and war cheer-leading for years that followed, but she actually blamed the mess on the Iraqis themselves.

In my mind this seemed quite similar to the rhetoric of the colonial era, where it was the noble Europeans with their high minded idealism taming savages throughout the world. At one point around the time of Clinton's speech, some focus group must have shown this to be effective, because it seemed to really take off and become more widespread. Now, it is almost commonplace among most politicians, and it is something to keep an eye on, and be very concerned about as the situation in Iraq gets worse, and the political pressure to withdraw heightens.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this post, but I just wanted to get some of this out there before I wrote about it further. And sadly, I believe there is a strong undercurrent of racism that exists just below the surface of our culture and discourse, which means that there is a market for this type of talk out there. And if there is a market for this nonsense, someone will be there to take the bait.

Hillary Clinton is smarter than you

As far as being condescending goes... this just about takes the cake.

"Rolph was one of several hundred people who turned out in this small town in northern Iowa for Clinton's appearance. When she called on him for a question, he pulled out a piece of paper and read a question about Iran.
Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians."

Good question! When choosing our next president, it's probably a good idea to revisit the biggest judgment call that any of them has made, and see how they they feel about it now. The only possibly options for the democratic nominee should be:
1. They were right in 2002, allowing them to begin the first minute of each debates by flicking off all other candidates. (Obama, Kucinich)
2. They were wrong in 2002, but see it at the biggest mistake they ever made. Not nearly as good, but at least they admit their colossal error. (Edwards, Dodd, Richardson)
But thanks to the mind blowing stupidity of a certain front runner, we have a third option:
3. Does everything possible to deny the 2002 vote was a mistake, and then makes what many (like Mr. Rolph) see as the exact same mistake only on this time on the AIPAC written bill intended to provoke a confrontation with Iran.

Back to the exchange, so how does she respond to this VERY LEGITIMATE question?

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

Stupid person! How dare you read about the stupid stuff that I do and then ask me to explain why it's not stupid! Obviously a plant! What else could it be?

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

His OWN research? Just who the hell does he think he is? Come on Hillary! Take this fucker down a notch!

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said."

Three other questions? The Not-Getting-Us-Into-Another-Senseless-War lobby must have planned for weeks to pull this trick off! Bastards!

Or... maybe, just maybe, people around the country are tired being lied to at every turn, and want basic answers to important questions before they make you the most powerful person in the world.

This exchange is even more damning then the vote itself in my mind. It's beyond doing the wrong thing to begin with, and it's beyond not having learned anything from your mistakes. The contempt and condescension towards the average citizen seen in this exchange was truly shocking, even to someone who doesn't expect much from her like myself.
And speaking of Hillary, there will be more, much more on her chief campaign adviser Mark Penn in the next couple of days. Stay tuned...

Emanuel and myth get shut down on Real Time

Watching Rahm Emanuel getting taken to task by Michael Eric Dyson and Bill Maher was simply beautiful after hearing this nonsense parroted for weeks and weeks. Emanuel launches deep into a tearful speech about how the troops need armored humvees, they even (gasp!) live in his district, and how he just can't bear to send them home. And then something cool happens: The audience heckled him. They aren't buying it, and it's about damn time!

Here's the video, you can skip ahead to 5:30 if you want the part I'm talking about:

Badass! I figured out how to embed youtube clips! This discovery is going to come back and haunt everyone come NBA season...

Look, its taken some time, but I think the left is finally getting tired of being lied to by their own party. I've noticed both talking to friends and just seeing the reactions of people online, I think many have finally reached the breaking point. And just as a side note, the more this anger builds, I think the first people to feel it will be those running for president. Hillary Clinton, that means you'll get hit first... Obama, take this as your warning.

Senate: "Two wars not enough"

Taking a break between condemning a newspaper ad and doing nothing to end the disastrous war in Iraq, the senate decided on Wednesday to vote in favor escalating tensions with Iran. Even worse, the measure passed with that always lovely-reminiscent of the Iraq authorization bipartisanship.
Sen Webb:

"At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate"

He also adds:

"Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good."

Cut to Hillary Clinton voting...... Yes!!!

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a hawk - and one who doesn't learn at that. Whoever you 40 percent of democrats are, please wake the hell up!

The Innocent Bystander Fable

The innocent bystander fable was coined by David Sirota earlier this year to describe the behavior of democrats who don't have the courage to do what is necessary to end the Iraq war, so instead they rely on the myth that they are helpless to change any aspect of the policy. He recently wrote an update on this phenomenon which includes a youtube clip of it in action, here are his words on how this tactic is so misleading:

"And again folks, claiming Democrats have no power to stop the war or that they need any more than 41 Senate votes to stop the war is a lie - and a deliberate one coming from people who are "experts" and who thus know precisely how the Congress works."

Of all the recent speeches on the war, I expect this level of lying and dishonesty from Republicans, especially on the war, but it is much more infuriating when it comes from the party who is our only hope to end it.

Update: Wow, both Obama and Clinton repeat this myth while answering the first two questions of the debate tonight. Not a good sign of things to come.