Sunday’s News – Moon of Alabama

Back to Main

January 14, 2007

Sunday’s News

In today’s papers:

– The Pentagon is reading your(?) financial records and the Army allows itself to listen to your phone.

– Chalabi is still in business.

– The UK’s SAS and U.S. mercenaries are fighting in Somalia

Excerpts from the relevant articles are below the fold.

NYT: Military Is Expanding Its Intelligence Role in U.S.

The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.
…
[I]t was not previously known, even to some senior counterterrorism officials, that the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been using their own “noncompulsory” versions of the [national security] letters. Congress has rejected several attempts by the two agencies since 2001 for authority to issue mandatory letters, in part because of concerns about the dangers of expanding their role in domestic spying.
…
In the next year, they plan to incorporate the records into a database at the Counterintelligence Field Activity office at the Pentagon to track possible threats against the military, Pentagon officials said.
…
Congressional officials said members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had been briefed on the use of the letters by the military and the C.I.A.
…

—

NYT: Deletions in Army Manual Raise Wiretapping Concerns

Deep into an updated Army manual, the deletion of 10 words has left some national security experts wondering whether government lawyers are again asserting the executive branch’s right to wiretap Americans without a court warrant.

…
The original guidelines, from 1984, said the Army could seek to wiretap people inside the United States on an emergency basis by going to the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, or by obtaining certification from the attorney general “issued under the authority of section 102(a) of the Act.”

That last phrase is missing from the latest manual, which says simply that the Army can seek emergency wiretapping authority pursuant to an order issued by the FISA court “or upon attorney general authorization.” It makes no mention of the attorney general doing so under FISA.
…

—

WaPo: Officials: Pentagon Probed Finances

These efforts are overseen by the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Field Activity agency, or CIFA, which was established in September 2002 by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz.

CIFA is charged with coordinating policy and overseeing the domestic counterintelligence activities of Pentagon agencies and the armed forces. The agency’s size and budget are classified, but congressional sources have said that the agency spent more than $1 billion through October. One counterintelligence official recently estimated that CIFA has 400 full-time employees and 800 to 900 contractors working for it.

Bonus: Frank Rich’s liberated column: He’s in the Bunker Now

—

You thought this guy was gon? Think again:
WaPo: On Iraq, U.S. Turns to Onetime Dissenters

Finally, in 2005, the Shiites and Kurds agreed to reexamine the de-Baathification rules as part of a compromise to get Sunni political parties to support Iraq’s new constitution. The agreement called for a revised de-Baathification law to be enacted by parliament.

But that still hasn’t happened.

In an attempt to get the process moving, Bush used his televised address last week to call on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to embrace the reintegration of former Baathists. Maliki told Bush recently that he supports a revised de-Baathification law — but the issue isn’t in the prime minister’s hands. It’s still with Chalabi.

Chalabi is the chairman of the Supreme National Commission for De-Baathification, which continues to have ultimate authority to decide which ex-Baathists can return to work and which cannot. He has prepared draft legislation that calls for easing some elements of Bremer’s policy, but he said parliament has been unable to act on it because a majority of the members of the legislature’s de-Baathification committee belong to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s political party, which walked out in November to protest a meeting between Maliki and Bush.

Speaking by telephone from Baghdad, Chalabi said he expects progress "pretty soon."

But he said the law will not contain a key demand of the U.S. government: a sunset clause that would abolish the commission, effectively depriving Chalabi of political influence. He called it unconstitutional.

Chalabi said he heard Bush’s call for swift action on the de-Baathification law, but he emphasized that he and his fellow Iraqis, not U.S. officials, are in charge of the legislative timetable.

"We don’t feel any pressure," he said.

—Sunday Times: SAS hunts fleeing Al-Qaeda Africans

AN SAS team is hunting down Al-Qaeda terror suspects as they try to flee war-torn Somalia after the crushing defeat of the country’s Islamist forces last week.

The suspects are trapped between invading Ethiopian troops — assisted by US special forces and American mercenaries — and the Kenyan army and SAS troops who are acting as “training advisers” but have been leading operations along the border, providing a “screen” to trap terrorists.

…
The dramatic victory by Ethiopian troops was the culmination of months of preparation inside and outside Somalia by American and British special forces, and US-hired mercenaries.

“The brief was to enter Somali territory with the objective of studying the terrain, mapping and analysing landing sites and regrouping areas, and reporting on suitable ‘entry and exit points’,” one source said.

Posted by b on January 14, 2007 at 11:18 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Such bad news and it just keeps getting worse.

“The United States has long, historic interests in the Persian Gulf,” Rice
said at an appearance with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. “We have always-president after president after president-sought to have a force posture that makes clear we can defend those interests.” via tPM

When Americans hear these words, what do they imagine “these interests” are? 2 out of 3 now oppose the escalation and think Bush’s war of choice was a bad idea. They know oil is a factor in there lives and that much of it comes from the ME, but they also seem to regard “energy independence” as the right path. Do most Americans really think about Israel as a “vital interest” or just some place that they wish would solve its own problems? I despise Rise and I cannot stand to hear her pedantic condescending blather, but I would like someone to ask her what these interests have always been (before GWOT) that she espouses, just to see which audience she addresses, because I don’t think it sells anymore to the heartland. Maybe I’m wrong.
digby

A lot of folks don’t seem exercized that the government might be listening in on their phone calls without a warrant or reading their e-mails and letters with no oversight from anyone. But I have noticed for years that people would much rather tell you every detail of their sex lives than reveal their financial status.
…
We are building a well funded national police state apparatus at the same time that we are giving unlimited money and power to our military and foreign intelligence agencies to operate in the United States. This is incredibly dangerous and I can’t help but wonder why there is so little effort on the part of anyone in public life to educate the public on the inherant dangers of such powerful, unaccountable institutions. This is why we had a revolution to begin with. It’s why we fought two world wars in the last century. (Where is the Al Gore of civil liberties?)

This is just beyond depressing.
The Rich column really IS a bonus, b. Glad it’s here for all to read. It’s, once again, a brilliant indictment, but whose ears is it reaching? Not those rethugs meeting with the chimperor this weekend at Camp David.

Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 14 2007 13:16 utc | 1

“It is clear what we have to do. We have to tell the story
ourselves,” he said.
Thanks Rick @ 69 in OT 07-005. I needed that.

Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 14 2007 13:29 utc | 2

The Sunday Times (UK) has a detailed article about how the “surge” plan will work on the ground and how it looks through Iraqi eyes. Iraqis Get Grim Foretaste of Bush’s final Baghdad Gamble
~Snip

Baghdad is to be carved into nine sectors, including Sadr City, a slum of 2m people where the black-robed Mahdi army of Moqtadr al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric, holds sway. In a radical departure from previous sweeps of the city, there will be 27 mini-bases, known as joint security stations. American troops will sleep and eat there alongside Iraqi forces.
“They can’t be commuters,” said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow on defence policy at the Council on Foreign Relations who recently advised Bush on Iraq. “There is going to be a heavy emphasis on a high-density presence.”
In each sector of the city American troops will be joined by one Iraqi army brigade and the Iraqi police, giving a local face to the surge. The sectors will be “gated” — sealed off by checkpoints and roadblocks as well as existing barriers such as roads and rivers.
The aim is to force insurgents out of the secured zones, while residents will be issued with IDs and protected round the clock. The unemployed will be put to work in the hope of reducing the incentives for extremism as part of the third tier of the policy of “clear, hold and build”.

Reading it raised so many questions in my mind, to wit:
(1) How will the “security” forces tell “insurgents” from “civilians” in the “sweeps?
(2) The plan envisions very high levels of joint action between US and Iraqi troops. “Americans will sleep with Iraqi troops at 27 joint security stations…” How in the hell will everyone communicate? I keep thinking back to that story B posted a while back from The Nation, about how the vast majority of US soldiers regard Iraqis with complete distrust and have no clue how to communicate. So this… 27 “mini-green zones” (let’s see, should they be called “olive zones?” “chartreuse zones?” “green points?” “security dots??”) with joint patrols…. I keep trying to imagine how it will actually play out on the ground. “Utter insecurity zones” sounds more like it.
(3) Locking up an area does not guarantee that troublemakers will be locked out. As the article notes:

But when the Americans applied the same strategic hamlet model in South Vietnam, the insurgents were locked up with the local population and ended up recruiting them. The same may well prove to be true of Baghdad’s “gated” communities.

(4) Then I see this line, “residents will be issued with ID cards” and suddenly it hits me — this all sounds eerily reminiscent of… the West Bank. A residential area carved up into little smaller zones, residents of each one “locked in” and forced to show an ID to move anywhere… fragmentation and control…
(5) Not to mention of course the paragraph that says that while the Americans see this plan starting with mixed ethnic areas, an aide to PM Maliki asserts that it will start only in Sunni areas, because they are the main source of the problem…
How many ways can we spell “D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R”?

Posted by: Bea | Jan 14 2007 14:45 utc | 3

@bea – those 27 points are easy mortar targets …
Add to that the very bad idea of using Krdish troops: Plan would add Kurds to civil war mix

As part of President Bush’s new strategy for Iraq, 8,000 to 10,000 Iraqi troops will deploy to Baghdad in the coming weeks, American and Iraqi officials said, and as many as 3,600 could be Kurds. It would be the first time such a large number of Kurdish forces have been sent to the capital.
…
Most Kurdish troops are not acquainted with Baghdad, many speak neither Arabic nor English, and their participation could create an even deeper conflict between Kurds and Arabs, he said.
…
“I advise the Kurdish people to apply pressure on their leaders to prevent this step,” said Mohammed Daini, a lawmaker with a major Sunni bloc. Kurdish forces, he said, “will face firm resistance from both the Sunnis and the Shiites.”
…
The Iraqi government has planned for a 50% troop increase in Baghdad, adding the equivalent of an entire division. U.S. and Iraqi officials say two or three predominantly Kurdish brigades will participate.
A U.S. advisor to the Iraqi Defense Ministry acknowledged that language was a concern, but said the problem would be mitigated by the mix of Arab, Kurdish and American troops in Baghdad.

Oh yea, you mix people who only speak Kurdish and people who only speak Arabic and people who only speak English and the language problem will be “mitigated”. Great idea …

Posted by: b | Jan 14 2007 15:04 utc | 4

…Bea,
and each section could have its own local newspaper, or “Gaza-ette”…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jan 14 2007 15:05 utc | 5

LOL ralphieboy, that (#5) was a good one.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 14 2007 15:31 utc | 6

Chalabi said he heard Bush’s call for swift action on the de-Baathification law, but he emphasized that he and his fellow Iraqis, not U.S. officials, are in charge of the legislative timetable.
“We don’t feel any pressure,” he said.
if bush can override maliki and iraqi wishes oir their surge i’m sure pressure could be applied to end debaathification. no one from the baath party (a majority of which were shiites) were allowed to run in the ‘fair’ elections. all the top managers in industry and government in iraq were left out of the process which effectively divorces the cream of the crop of iraqi intellectuals from participating in iraq rebuilding. we all already know this, i’m just ranting. is it any wonder iraq can’t pull it togather w/people like chabali and his ilk in charge.

Posted by: annie | Jan 14 2007 16:17 utc | 7

Two good WaPo opeds:
Trapped by Hubris, Again

For a gray-haired journalist whose career included 18 months covering the Vietnam War for The Washington Post, it is a source of amazement to realize that my country has done this again. We twice took a huge risk in the hope that we could predict and dominate events in a nation whose history we did not know, whose language few of us spoke, whose rivalries we didn’t understand, whose expectations for life, politics and economics were all foreign to many Americans.
…
How did this happen again? After all, we’re Americans — practical, common-sense people who know how to get things done. Or so we’d like to think. In truth, we are ethnocentric to a fault, certain of our own superiority, convinced that others see us as we do, blithely indifferent to cultural, religious, political and historical realities far different from our own. These failings — more than any tactical or strategic errors — help explain the U.S. catastrophes in Vietnam and Iraq.

The Imperial Presidency

it has finally become clear that the goal of these efforts isn’t to win the war against terrorism; indeed, nothing about Padilla, Guantanamo Bay or signing statements moves the country an inch closer to eradicating terrorism. The object is a larger one: expanding executive power, for its own sake.
…
But Guantanamo Bay stays open for the same reason that Padilla stays on trial. Having claimed the right to label enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely without charges, the Bush administration cannot retreat from that position without ceding ground. The president is as much a prisoner of Guantanamo Bay as the detainees are. Having gone nose to nose with Congress over his authority to craft stripped-down courts, guaranteed to produce guilty verdicts, Bush cannot call off the trials. The endgame in the war against terrorism isn’t holding the line against terrorists. It’s holding the line on hard-fought claims to limitless presidential authority.
…
In a heartbreaking letter from Guantanamo Bay last week, published in the Los Angeles Times, inmate Jumah al-Dossari writes: “The purpose of Guantanamo is to destroy people, and I have been destroyed.” I fear he is wrong. The destruction of Dossari, Padilla, Zacarias Moussaoui, Yasser Esam Hamdi and some of our most basic civil liberties was never a purpose or a goal — it was a byproduct. The true purpose is more abstract and more tragic: to establish a clunky post-Watergate dream of an imperial presidency, whatever the human cost may be.

Posted by: b | Jan 14 2007 16:31 utc | 8

Bush has said he will go forward with his troop ejaculation (aka surge) no matter what congress says… Mentally adolescent masturbatory war porn addict that he is…
coming soon to a 60 Minutes program near you. anyway, Murtha wants to tie any congressional approval for the escalation (aka surge) with closing Gitmo. O’Really and other right wing fluffers have now framed the story as the democrats having a “stake in the U.S. losing in Iraq.” when O’Really is on The Colbert Report, I hope that Colbert, at least, can call the right wing on that one…because, what… republicans know that Iraq should be the 51st state? That the U.S. should never lose Iraq, but keep it…at least as long as there is oil in the ground?
I agree with a commenter at Raw Story that this “surge” crap is a trap to allow Bush to avoid responsibility for his and the neocon’s failure in foreign policy. Power politics. Bush is using the fear factor and the republicans are trying to make an association b/t a lack of terror attacks via al-q in the US with the illegal Iraq invasion. (assuming, for the sake of mainstream views, that al-q is not a subsidiary of BushCo.)
The only way for the U.S. to do the right thing now, and to insure the neocons don’t claim a false victory is for republicans to tell Bush to go to hell on this, and if he goes forward anyway, they need to be the ones who start impeachment proceedings. I know this idea pisses off a lot of ppl, but again, the analogy is Nixon and the republicans who got rid of him with a private vote of no confidence.
Whatever the case, this sort of death-march politics are repulsive…
Maybe congresspeople from the foreign relations committee could open discussions with the Iranians to get them to stand down as the neocons seek to provoke them in order to create “regime change” in the U.S…. just thinking…I don’t know what else will work to bring these bastards down and totally discredit them otherwise. But Americans, Iranians, and, in fact, the rest of the world that isn’t part of the oilgarchy has a stake in the failure of the neocons.
Kucinich said he- didn’t think immediate [impeachment] action was wise, due to fears that Bush might “accelerate the war even more,” [then] the congressman warned that “if Bush attacks Iran, all bets are off.”
If Bush goes forward, in other words, Pelosi’s claim that impeachment is “off the table” no longer applies. Bush, rather than congress, would force the issue.
If this “surge” does go forward, everyday americans could refuse to fight, en masse. Would they? Would enough ppl refuse so that the elite have to put their children on the line? Surely there are 20,000 children among the kids and grandkids of members of congress and the executive branch. I can think of two offhand…
I can moan all I want about the immorality of the U.S. govt, and the machinations that take place…What I want to know is how to stop these bastards cold. forever, or at least during my lifetime.
one thing I feel fairly confident in predicting, however, is that if this “surge” goes forward, the U.S. will soon enter a era of backlash against republicans and all their policies: military, financial, governmental.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 14 2007 17:38 utc | 9

Another piece of Sunday news: Yes, Baghdad’s Haifa Street is the new Falluja.

IAF calls for lifting siege off Haifa street
The Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF) on Sunday urged the government to lift the siege off Baghdad’s Haifa street and allow the entry of basic and medical supplies.
The IAF also demanded U.S. forces to allow the evacuation of the wounded and deny infiltrated security agencies access to the area.
“The area is witnessing bloody incidents as it came under warplanes’ pounding, causing damage and casualties,” said IAF member Abdul-Kareem al-Samaraie in a press conference he held on Sunday in the capital Baghdad.
“After the U.S. planes carpet-bombed the area, National Guard forces raided several houses and scores of locals were arrested on sectarian basis from the areas of Sheikh Ali and al-Souq al-Jadid (Karkh) and eight of them were executed after they were blindfolded,” added al-Samaraie.
He claimed that the executions were carried out by an Iraqi army officer in front of U.S. soldiers, noting “snipers were spread over rooftops and targeted civilians, of whom 11 were killed on Thursday including a woman and a girl child.”
“The area is under siege. There is no water or electricity and traffic is paralyzed while citizens can not venture outside their homes due to the presence of snipers everywhere,” he said.
…

Posted by: Alamet | Jan 14 2007 17:49 utc | 10

via TPM Michael Ledeen Is Dead

Posted by: b | Jan 14 2007 20:11 utc | 11

are you sure that’s not a spoof? –after Ledeen claimed Khatami was dead?
Jonathan Swift was the British satirist who wrote “A Modest Proposal,” that advocated eating poor children as humane social policy.
just wondering…

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 14 2007 20:49 utc | 12

Looks/sounds like a spoof to me, especially the comments. Could not find any other MSM report on this.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 14 2007 21:21 utc | 13

it’s a spoof, but i didn’t find that out until i spread it around a little. then i read it and started wondering, can this be for real? (i am sooo gulible) i think it was the part about invading france and germany that gave me pause (yes i had heard the leeden quote) but by the time i gotto the end i knew if was a spoof. the part about his daughter working for the cpa driving truckloads of money around sealed it. lol.
still, he does have cancer, and we all can find solice in the fact that each one of these dirty neocon warmonger bastards will be dead one day, not soon enough unfortunately

Posted by: annie | Jan 14 2007 21:33 utc | 14

When people talk of impeachment, they usually mean Bush only. The obvious problem with that idea is that it elevates Cheney to President (and once he’s made President, who is to say that he will proceed with his plan to exit public life after 2008 — my guess is he would run for reelection).
Some people, recognizing the problem, say that we should impeach Cheney at the same time. But that’s going to be nearly impossible to do. There is no clear way to make the case that a Vice-President should be held responsible for the high crimes of the President (despite the evident power of Cheney, this administration is the first one I can think of where the Vice-President has even been consulted about policy matters — usually they have no more control over, and no more reponsibility for, policy decisions than the White House janitorial crew). There is also no inkling that impeachment was ever intended to be a means to purge an entire administration.
Conclusion: impeaching Cheney is NOT going to happen, therefore impeaching Bush (which of course is also never going to happen in The Real World) would probably be even more disastrous than just hanging on for dear life until January 2009.

Posted by: Scott | Jan 14 2007 22:21 utc | 15

interesting article in the guardian on civil war. more evidence the withdrawal of american forces might not be a great idea.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 14 2007 22:56 utc | 16

slothrop-
All of your ideas are cranks, but your quaint humanitarian conceit that the Americans should continue with the policies that have killed 4% of the population, dislocated an additional 10%, wounded or imprisioned another 10% or more, and impovershed 95% — all but the irredeemably corrupt and traitous — I find positively Hitlerian.
If you find yourself so concerned with preventing the spilling of innocent blood in Iraq, perhaps you should go over to Iraq and help the Americans in their selfless pursuit. It would certainly save us from having to read your — usually unintelligible — fantasies of the master race (or, as you may term it, revolutionary vanguard).

Posted by: Bob M. | Jan 15 2007 0:15 utc | 17

bob m
you’re fucking stupid. but your full-steam hysteria is hilarious. thanks.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 0:43 utc | 18

the article i linked to is not an anomaly. nir rosen’s reporting, and his book, make clear the view among sunni and shia alike the u.s. presence delays an explosively genocidal war. it doesn’t require the reader of these stories to acknowledge these points of view, this certain reality, by cheering the occupation or the infinite virtue of george bush. the acknowledgment does not equal generous approval.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 1:01 utc | 19

@ Scott “There is no clear way to make the case that a Vice-President should be held responsible for the high crimes of the President (despite the evident power of Cheney, this administration is the first one I can think of where the Vice-President has even been consulted about policy matters — usually they have no more control over, and no more reponsibility for, policy decisions than the White House janitorial crew).”
well no, but the Vice President should be held responsible for his actions… we might see some action in the upcoming Libby trial… goodness knows Cheney has enough high crimes of his own, without borrowing any from Dubya…
some newly elected Dems are taking a cue from the Nixon fiasco and going after the underlings… you know, the sort of thing that happens when you go into the produce department of your local supermarket and instead of taking a piece off the top, you pull one from the bottom, and the whole pile comes tumbling down.

Posted by: Crone | Jan 15 2007 2:15 utc | 20

@17,
While I disagree with slothrop on the subject of withdrawal, I find your attacks on disagreement with the majority viewpoint here positively Stalinist. The article linked to is worthwhile reading, and the argument that American troops in Iraq are preventing further bloodshed worth considering without attacking anyone who dares step out of line.
Before you, or we, get too busy attacking that argument, perhaps it should be noticed that, compared to most commenters here, Billmon was late to the withdrawal party, only coming down on ‘our’ side a year or so ago.

Posted by: Rowan | Jan 15 2007 2:43 utc | 21

The whole idea of impeachment is a non-starter. There is no feasible way to coordinate the impeachment of Bush and Cheney together, and even if there were, Republicans would not support such a move, since it would place Nancy Pelosi in the White House. Actually, not even many Democrats would support such a move, since it would amount to a thinly disguised coup d’etat, and Americans (thankfully, in my view, as it would set a dangerous precedent) have no stomach for such a thing. Not to mention it’s already 2007 – with the primaries for the next election only a year away, there isn’t time to even start impeachment proceedings before the question of why not just wait for the election becomes a show-stopping objection.
There has never been a President or Vice-President more deserving of impeachment, not to mention harsher forms of retributive justice, than Bush and Cheney, but talking about impeachment at this point is just masturbatory fantasy.

Posted by: Scott | Jan 15 2007 3:19 utc | 22

NYT (Monday):
Opening a New Front in the War, Against Iranians in Iraq

Posted by: Bea | Jan 15 2007 3:39 utc | 23

(thankfully, in my view, as it would set a dangerous precedent) have no stomach for such a thing.
you aren’t speaking for me, thats for sure.
grow some cajones

Posted by: annie | Jan 15 2007 3:44 utc | 24

McClatchy: The Bush Administration is Less Than Honest in its Rationale for Surge
(h/t DailyKos)

Administration leaving out important details on Iraq
By MARK SEIBEL
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON – President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration’s statements about Iraq.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 15 2007 4:18 utc | 25

It’s so easy to get you to blow your top, little homunculus.
I’m not stupid: I can write coherent sentences with proper capitalization and punctuation — and, unlike you, one can actually understand what I am arguing. But, perhaps that is because I, unlike your slothship, am not an “English” major.
Just because a minor faction of the corporate media hews to views of jack-boot totalitarianism is little excuse for us to also enthusiastically jump on board. Every reliable poll that I have seen has up to 90% of Iraqis demanding our immediate exit from their country. Sadly, even the liberal Nir Rosens of the world demur from explicitly linking the violence in Iraq with the American admission of invoking and actively implementing the Negroponte directed “El Salvador option” in Iraq. At a time when the US propaganda line is so bent upon assigning blame for the violence in Iraq to native Iraqi intransigence, or lack of gratitude, or “orientalist” uncivility and “islamofascist” brutality, the fact that every government department in Iraq has US advisors at the helm, and the fact that there are over 100,000 (US sanctioned) above-the-law foreign mercenaries roaming the land seems to fall by the wayside.
It does begin to dawn upon even the dimmer bulbs in the chandelier that if we truly desired to prevent “civil war” we should begin by stopping the fomenting of said war. However asking an empire to renounce the tactic of “divide and conquer” is almost as hopeless as asking a balky old mule like slothrop to learn some manners.
Perhaps we should spend more time advocating for removal of western “foreign interests” before we advocate the imposition of western “sheriffs” to keep the law.
That is, unless we believe that we are some sort of appointed intellectual vanguard placed upon the surface of this planet to end the baneful “overaccumulation of capital.”

Posted by: Bob M. | Jan 15 2007 4:34 utc | 26

Bob M.
“If you find yourself so concerned with preventing the spilling of innocent blood in Iraq, perhaps you should go over to Iraq and help the Americans in their selfless pursuit. It would certainly save us from having to read your — usually unintelligible — fantasies of the master race (or, as you may term it, revolutionary vanguard).
“
Bob, I’m with you. I was starting to think I was the only one who finds slothrops fantasies crank & uninteligible.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jan 15 2007 4:52 utc | 27

scott @22, can’t disagree with you more. we have an executive operating in open defiance of the consitution and the will of the people. like rowan, i am hopeful that the soon to start libby trial will unearth enough to provide grounds for impeaching cheney as well. at this moment, we are looking down the barrel of a gun pointed at iran and syria in the hands of what appears to be a group of psychopaths. what other solution to getting rid of them do you propose? we have conducted ourselves with decorum, hoping for sense to take hold, and all that has happened is further inroads on civil liberties at home and more bloodshed in the middle east and now africa. the longer we wait, the more damage to our country and the world. lives are more precious to me than worrying about the appearance of a thinly-disguised coup. for that matter, i’d support a full frontal, absolutely no disguise necessary coup, if it meant putting a genuine leader with diplomatic skills in office rather than a genocidal, imperialistic, madman bent on proving himself right with the blood of others.

Posted by: conchita | Jan 15 2007 4:59 utc | 28

conchita – Wasn’t me, you might have been referring to annie. Although I’d love to see Bush and Cheney impeached, I have no faith in Congress, or the Libby trial, or any workings of our government to effect that.

Posted by: Rowan | Jan 15 2007 5:42 utc | 29

at this moment, we are looking down the barrel of a gun pointed at iran and syria in the hands of what appears to be a group of psychopaths.
Ah, yes. The “key person” theory of history — as advocated by America’s wingnut fundamentalists in the Harper’s article Uncle $cam linked to earlier today.
How many people on this blog think that Bush and Cheney would still be leading this country if the CEOs of the Fortune 500 thought the administration was a “group of psychopaths?”
Of course, I must concede that, in evolutionary terms, that entire group of Fortune 500 CEOs are psychopaths — but that is a different affair from simply removing Shrub from office.

Posted by: Bob M. | Jan 15 2007 5:57 utc | 30

Conchita & Annie: It’s not that I wouldn’t be delighted to see a dual impeachment (though I do have reservations about the wisdom of setting a precedent), it’s just that it’s completely unrealistic. How exactly can you have any hope that the Congress will coordinate two impeachment trials (which must be done in order to avoid elevating Cheney to the Presidency) and that a two-thirds majority in the Senate would vote to oust Bush and Cheney and make Nancy Pelosi the new president. It’s a ridiculous fantasy.
And I don’t think any American should support such a coup d’etat lightly (even granted that this “coup” would be a constitutional coup with full due process). Should such a drastic precedent be set, it would become much easier to, for example, oust a future administration because it is being too namby-pamby about rounding up domestic enemy combatants and is too concerned about all those old-fashioned human rights, in the wake of the next terrorist attack. If you want to establish the precedent of the mob (i.e., Congress) throwing out the elected executives, keep in mind that in the future the mob might not be acting to preserve the constitution and end military adventures — in fact, given human nature, they are far more likely to be trying to do the opposite.
At any rate, it’s a fantasy, plain and simple. Better to spend energy and creativity coming up with ways of trying to stop the madness that are not pure fantasy.

Posted by: Walter | Jan 15 2007 5:58 utc | 31

Walter @31
There is currently a large movement for impeachment and it is not being covered in the main stream media. This is not fantasy. This Bush/Cheney regime should be impeached. Our elected leaders would not be acting as a “mob” in performing such a task.

Posted by: Rick | Jan 15 2007 6:09 utc | 32

Rick, of course it’s a fantasy. The reason this “movement” is not being covered by the MSM is because it is in fact not large at all. And regardless of how “large” such a movement becomes, you haven’t addressed the issues I raised: (1) need to coordinate two separate impeachment trials (one of which, that of the Vice-President, will be presided over by…wait for it…the Vice-President); (2) need to convince a two-thirds majority of Senators to cast out of office the elected President and Vice-President so that (presumably, though even this is uncharted waters) Nancy Pelosi can become the new President; (3) the need to do all of this in the next 12 months or so, before the 2008 elections are in full swing (because, really, how much support do you expect there will be for going through this wrenching national trauma when we can just vote the bastards out the old-fashioned way in a few months).
If you think all of that is going to happen, well, I’m sorry, but I think you’re delusional. I’m open to hearing your arguments (not your happy wishes) on each of those three issues, however.

Posted by: Walter | Jan 15 2007 6:24 utc | 33

maybe the barkeep’s spiked the ayahuasca tonite & i’m just seeing things, or do we have some partyline trollers casting their bait in the bar tonite? show of hands for those who think there’s gonna be a presidential election in 2008. what was that remark the emporer made back in november about how lucky we were to actually have an election while at war?
oh and yea, curse of the golden flower is a treat for the eyes. the colors. the sets. the costumes. riding alone for thousands of miles was worthwhile too.
also, jony_b_cool, did you catch this article at asia times online last week? China smiles at Africa with two faces
the authors point out one bit of “persuasion” that china exerted on the recent presidential election there.

During the recent Zambian elections, a candidate reported to have expressed an opinion to the effect that Taiwan was ”a state” so incensed Chinese diplomats in the southern African country that, in an unusual breach of protocol, China threatened to cut ties with Zambia should the offending candidate be elected.

the candidate, michael sata, made part of his platform a call for booting china from zambia. that independence from britain didn’t really mean much if now it was china trying to move into the role. word is that sata is an opportunist & known, at least by the elders, as a corrupt character who can always be trusted to show up backing whatever seems popular at the moment. he did have appeal to the younger voters – his message had some truth to it – but not enough to win the election. of course, there were some cries of foul.
the authors of the article say that china’s quest for raw materials isn’t the whole story behind their activities in africa currently, that this “last virgin land of capitalism”[not their words, but anothers’ from an article posted earlier] is also a “an environment where less mature innovations may be tried, tested and honed.” not sure exactly what the authors have in mind here – they only refer to the example of so korea’s daewoo testing autos on the african market before going global. any ideas? the raw materials angle seems most plausible & primary to me.

Posted by: b real | Jan 15 2007 6:53 utc | 34

Walter,
Vote here and help make it a million!
http://www.impeachbush.org
I hope you will be Marching on March 17, 2007.

Posted by: Rick | Jan 15 2007 7:02 utc | 35

Walter, to respond to your point #1, why assume it is a matter of co-ordinating two simultaneous trials? For example, New Mexico State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino (D-Albuquerque), along with cosponsor John Grubesic (D-Santa Fe) will be introducing such an impeachment resolution when the 2007 session of the New Mexico Legislature convenes next week. The resolution text follows:

A JOINT RESOLUTION
PETITIONING CONGRESS TO COMMENCE THE INVESTIGATION OF AND IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEY.
WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and
WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the national security agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the foreign intelligence surveillance court of review, duly constituted by congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and
WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 113C, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva Conventions, which under Article VI of the United States constitution are part of the “supreme Law of the Land”; and
WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the president of a United States citizen as an “enemy combatant”, all in subversion of
law; and
WHEREAS, in all of this, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as president and vice president, subverting constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of New Mexico and of the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, petitions from the country at large may be presented by the speaker of the United States house of representatives, according to Clause 3 of House Rule XII; and
WHEREAS, Section 603 of Thomas Jefferson’s Manual on Parliamentary Practice and of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives states that impeachment may be set in motion by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the New Mexico congressional delegation be requested to cause to be instituted in the congress of the United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the activities of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, to the end that they may be impeached and removed from their offices; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the secretary of state be instructed to certify and transmit to the speaker of the United States house of representatives and the clerk of the United States house of representatives, under the great seal of the state of New Mexico, a copy of this resolution and its adoption by the legislature of the state of New Mexico. The copies shall be marked with the word “Petition” at the top of the document and contain the original authorizing signature of the secretary of state.

There are five other states where impeachment resolutions have been entered – Vermont, Chicago, California, and I am forgetting the other two. If each of these reaches the House of Representatives they are guaranteed at least an hour of debate. Chances are additional resolutions in other states will be introduced. The discussion generated by each can swing public opinion and develop pro-impeachment momentum. We are already today much further along than we were months ago when Vermont introduced its resolution. People are speaking seriously about impeachment who a month or even weeks ago scoffed at the idea. Who knows, maybe you will be next?
Re your point #2, first, I hardly think the goal of impeachment is to place Nancy Pelosi in office and I wonder why you make such an issue of that. Do I detect sexism or trollism? As for gaining a sufficient majority, at this moment it may be difficult to envision 16 or so Republican senators voting with the Democratic senators for impeachment, but my gut tells me that, after sufficient investigations dredging up sufficient evidence of wrong-doing which we already know exists, public opinion would overwhelmingly support impeachment and Republican senators would follow in line.
Re your point #3, like b real, I wonder how you feel assured that a presidential election will happen in 2008, and if it does that it will be conducted properly. After 2000 and 2004 I have very little confidence in the electoral system in this country. I also am more concerned about keeping our constitution intact by fighting for it now rather than leaving it up to a questionable election system. And finally, if, as my mother thinks, a Republican will win – she is from Massachusetts and thinks Romney is duplicitous and smart enough to carry it off – what message have we as citizens and the Dems, as constitiutional gate-keepers and the “opposition” party, sent to what could very well be another bunch of corrupt psychopaths in office? In my mind, it is a risk worth taking and I believe our constitution demands it – if only to counteract the signing statement mania. It has happened so many times now – well over 800 – that it is becoming dangerously like a norm. It was also a Republican senator, Susan Collins from Maine, who recently introduced a resolution opposing Bush’s recent signing statement about opening first class mail. Maybe today she might not vote for impeachment, but after listening to impeachment proceedings and all of the dirt they will uncover, chances are she will then.

Posted by: conchita | Jan 15 2007 8:03 utc | 36

If you think all of that is going to happen, well, I’m sorry, but I think you’re delusional. I’m open to hearing your arguments
f’ing trolls
walter/scott, go find another hole to shit in

Posted by: annie | Jan 15 2007 8:38 utc | 37

bea 25, that is an excellent article. i’ve noticed over the last month or so a push by the government trolls on several iraqi sites the push to formally establish in the publics mind the lie that the shiites started killing sunnis only after the sunnis instigated it. no one ever claimed responsibility to the mosque bombing in fact there were witnesses that gave much credence that it was a psyops campaign (da). pushing this explanation for the violence by the ptb only validates my suspicions.

Posted by: annie | Jan 15 2007 8:50 utc | 38

slothrop,
Exactly what in your linked article passes as further evidence that an american withdrawl is not such a good idea? Seems pretty clear to me that the U.S. presence has generated the sectarian strife, you know, all the divide and conquer stuff. If it was otherwise the U.S. would be working to connect the nationalistic movements of both the Sunni homegrown insurgency and the Sadrists — and re-nationalize state owned resources and industry. The fact that these elements could care less about american interests, is the reason we dont do that. We fight it tooth and nail, in fact.
i’d like to see one example of how the U.S. has prevented or contained the civil war in Iraq over the last year. After four years, was the U.S. able to prevent the eruption of civil war? Was the U.S. able to prevent the escalation of the civil war? Has the U.S. been able to stop ethnic cleansing in Baghdad. or the relocations, or flight of persons or capital from the country?
Do you think the comming escalation will do anything but pound the shit out of anybody that might challenge the occupation, and in the process alienate the remaining 12-15% of Iraqi’s that still want the U.S. to stay.
The problem is, is that the U.S. is INCAPABLE of doing anything — except make matters worse.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 15 2007 8:51 utc | 39

There is no feasible way to coordinate the impeachment of Bush and Cheney together, and even if there were,
Of course there is – depends on how impt. it is to those who matter. Just leak info on their role in 911.

Posted by: jj | Jan 15 2007 9:08 utc | 40

The arab press is beginning to see a new light on the ultimate American intentions in Iraq.
Via missing links.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 15 2007 9:22 utc | 41

If you think all of that is going to happen, well, I’m sorry, but I think you’re delusional. I’m open to hearing your arguments
f’ing trolls
walter/scott, go find another hole to shit in
It seems annie, too, has been eating, of late, from the Stalinist mushroom.
Having someone express the view that impeachment is unlikely, but being open to informed argument is now to be referred to as “shitting?”
Conchita has no problem arguing the case (quite powerfully — though I don’t completely agree) on its merits.
But annie — you soil your own rutting hole when you cut off polite, sincere, debate because you don’t know the fake names of the posters on an anonymous blog.
Perhaps you see this blog as your own personal club, where you alone are privileged to vet the members, and curse out the “interlopers” with a gutter mouth?
This place is sure fallling apart since Billmon retired.
P.S. So sorry to invade this private club with my thoughts and comments. It is clear new posters are not welcome here when the resident doyenne (faghag, whatever) sees fit to guttermouth any new attempts to join the dialogue. I, too, will leave this closed membership society for good. Happy echo chambers to you all!

Posted by: Bob M. | Jan 15 2007 14:58 utc | 42

bob m., please take a moment to reconsider. first, i want to say that i value your contributions here. i also value slothrop’s contributions, and your views often add a strong counterpoint to his/hers. at times the bickering between the two of you is over the top, but you offer this community much more than just an argument to refute slothrop. your insights are from a well-informed, analytical perspective and your writing is clear and pointedly nuanced. please, do not leave. i cannot speak fully for annie, but i would like to offer the following as a possible explanation of sorts. annie spends a fair amount of time on iraqi blogs where she consistently encounters psyops who are actively waging propaganda campaigns to sway the political process in iraq and which do not accurately reflect the point of view of all americans. she perceived walter and scott as trolls. to be honest, i wondered about walter possibly being a troll because of the way he phrased his remarks. government trolls can be quite clever – giving the impression they are on your side, but at the same time creating divisiveness with their remarks. some of us are better at recognizing them than others. if you leave, if walter is a troll, then he will have accomplished his goal of breaking down a community. so, if you are still reading, please reconsider. you bring a lot to the moon and i, for one, will miss your comments.

Posted by: conchita | Jan 15 2007 16:01 utc | 43

the resident doyenne – that is still me and unless I get really angry at you, you like everyone is welcome to discuss here …

Posted by: b | Jan 15 2007 16:03 utc | 44

Just because a minor faction of the corporate media hews to views of jack-boot totalitarianism is little excuse for us to also enthusiastically jump on board.
yup. that’s clearly what we do here.
white power! bob.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 16:39 utc | 45

is there even such a concept as benevolent totalitarianism? corporations are, by design, totalitarian in structure. their existence & operating logic cannot be separated from the worldview which permits, supports & protects them. as corporate media entities have, at minimum, a vested interest in the system that spawns them, does it really make sense to only focus on the most egregious of the lot at risk of a mis-diagnosis of the larger threat?

Posted by: b real | Jan 15 2007 17:18 utc | 46

to repeat in a language intelligible even to johnny b cool, no one denies the power of u.s. occupation is reproduced by the creation of crisis only “solved” by the very same occupation. how many times must this be said as a caveat to acknowledge the reality of iraq’s civil war? it’s true the u.s. has used the native infighting to sustain a need for the occupation. but, it is plainly silly to claim as some do here the u.s. “causes” such conflict. it is a long regression of “causes” that brings us to this moment in iraq, which “began” at a battle near karbala in 680.
in bob’s version of history, some edenic indigenism was spoiled by henry kissinger and loveboat reruns. oh! the outrage! and now, if the honkies would just go home, all the wrongs of history will be righted. there are the little matters of an end to saddam, kurdish autonomy, shia arab ascendency, and challenges to sunni monarchy and totalitarianism, which are possible positive outcomes of this disaster. but, no matter. “cranks” and “fantasies,” all.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 17:21 utc | 47

anna missed thanks for the missing link link

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 15 2007 17:22 utc | 48

btw…humunculi are by definition “little”

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 17:38 utc | 49

it is a long regression of “causes” that brings us to this moment in iraq, which “began” at a battle near karbala in 680. slothrop 47
you are quite wrong. the trouble in iraq has been ’caused’ by an illegal & immoral invasion of a sovereign nation by an empire in need to control essential resources in preparation of the long war & not incidentally domination
you seem, to eschew any responsibility to people, policies, nations & empires. this seems to me quite wrongheaded & that is a polite way of putting it
i find your analysis quite necessary but am in disagreement on some quite fundamental points. your internationalism in fact is a peculiar version of ‘america first’ & because you will never name the specificity of the animal – in your analysis – halliburton/bechtel are exactly the same as some investment banker in barcelona, that the crimes of fallujah, ramadi, baquba, tal afar, basra on & on – for you have no specificity – they are generalised in your argument – we are all to blame therefore we can all do nothing
the invasion of iraq, if you read your lenin, would make quite clear that this invasion is a logical consequence of imperialism’s need dor resources & that its military domination of them is also a logical consequence of a very specific – foreign policy elite – of which the neoconservatives – are just a small number
there are other posters here other than myself who have given you concrete evidence that the principal beneficiaries, 95-97% of them are american companies – tho a banker in milan might invest in them – it is the american company & its relationship with political power which permits it – which makes the decision to ravage, rape & exploit a sovereign nation
i am not going to get angry at you – i am going to suggest you read once more that you read pablo neruda’s magnificent poem on imperialism & its specific onjectives – ‘canto generale’

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 15 2007 17:44 utc | 50

bob m- I agree with you that issues need to be argued on their merits; therefore, I don’t understand why you find it necessary to engage in personal insults. Isn’t this action on your part the same problem for which you castigate others?
I also don’t think that annie should dismiss walter and others. however, she is none of the things you ascribed to her, and your attack on her, as with slothrop, was not productive.
what I do know, from my own experience, is that current frustrations about the workings of or lack of democracy in the U.S. has made many people extremely frustrated. I am an example of that frustration, and sometimes I have taken it out on people here who seemed to take what I’ve said in a way I didn’t intend, or who seemed to attack me for an opinion. I’ve tried to step back from that frustration and regard every person’s opinion as an entity in itself and to seek understanding where before I might have lashed out in anger. I think I learn more this way and find that my frustration can stay focused on its true object: the current powers that be.
As far as the place falling apart since billmon retired…have you been around here long? There have been fights here, as well as silliness, for as long as this blog has existed. Rather than falling apart, I think that b has evolved as a blogger in his own right who has fine analytical skills and an ability to see things outside of the U.S. filter.
Of course I miss billmon, but things change. I don’t appreciate the disses to him, either. But attempts to understand the workings of this current world are not a zero sum game, are they?
As far as Walter- there is a pragmatic sort of discourse that is part of what is now happening, and I think he’s speaking from that pov. However, I also think that we’ve seen that pragmatism is somewhat useless when the leaders of a nation do not care about facts or legal precedent or balance of powers or even basic human rights.
In other words, some of us think that BushCo is so dangerous, it cannot be left unopposed in the (seemingly) naive hope that the processes of democracy will still work. I hope that we’re wrong. However, the pressure brought to bear on Congress with the state impeachment movement is very important because this represents the will of a great many people.
At the same time, I also wonder about the politics of the current situation, as I’ve mentioned here before. Ultimately, I cannot, in good conscience, ignore the senseless deaths that are the defacto Bush policy, no matter what spit he uses to shine it.
Republicans did not hesitate for one minute to hound Clinton throughout his presidency (I recommend Joe Conason’s book on this subject…Ann Coulter’s work in this regard is interesting…as are the conflicts of interest in Starr’s office…). They were working for political power. They did not give a damn about the impact on this country.
Impeachment at this time stems from a real fear of the inability of the current govt to lead America in an extremely volatile time. Politics as usual doesn’t seem realistic to some. This has become a bi-partisan issue…and I think there are decent ppl on both sides of the aisle who can and will step up at this time of national crisis…because that’s what I see this as…a crisis in leadership that aims to inflame the entire world.
BushCo’s reaction to the real politik Iraq Study Group was hopefully a wake up call to all but the most dedicated Bushite.
Since Ralphieboy put MoA on the Kos site thing mentioned earlier, there will surely be others here who do not agree with everything someone else says. How can ppl come to different opinions without considering each others’ and analyzing motives behind statements, or facts previously hidden — not from posters themselves, but from the people who originally made them?

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 15 2007 17:46 utc | 51

If it was otherwise the U.S. would be working to connect the nationalistic movements of both the Sunni homegrown insurgency and the Sadrists
this is a good point, but the problem it sems to me is no political solution to what is now a tribal war–wildly factional confrontations obviating anything claiming to be a “national” struggle. just look at how disorganized sadr is, and how divided shia are–and sunnis as well. “iraq” is a fiction.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 17:51 utc | 52

Yes, things will get worse in Iraq when the US withdraws the troops. But as the US is formenting the civil war things will get worse as long as the troops stay too. The US troops is not a strong enough fraction to control Iraq, but is strong enough to stop anyone else from controlling it. When the troops leave there will be war and some fraction will eventually come out on top.
There was an opinion poll in 2004 were a majority of Iraqis believed that violence would get worse if there was an immediate troop withdraw, and a majority still wanted an immediate withdraw. I could not find that one, but here is a more recent one:

A large majority of Iraqis—71%—say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like U.S.-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] U.S.-led forces according to a one-year timeline.” Twenty percent favor a two-year timeline and just 9 percent favor “only reduc[ing] U.S.-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”
…
Support for a U.S. withdrawal appears to be derived from a widespread perception that the presence of U.S.-led forces is having a net negative effect on the situation in Iraq. Large numbers say that the United States’ military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.” This view is held by 78 percent overall, and by 82 percent of Shias and a near-unanimous 97 percent of Sunnis. The Kurds diverge, with 56 percent taking the opposing view that the United States’ military presence is “a stabilizing force.”

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year
slothrop, what do you see in the longterm if the US troops stys and what is your time-frame? I just see a gradually worse situation leading to eventual troop withdrawal (as the US presence is not sustainable) and then a civil war that will be worse for each passing week of divide-and-rule. Do you propose the US troops staying indefinetely?

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Jan 15 2007 18:21 utc | 53

Having someone express the view that impeachment is unlikely, but being open to informed argument is now to be referred to as “shitting?”
bob m, it is not the discussion of impeachment per se, not at all. it is new posters (not one but 2, what coincidence!)appearing introducing a subject setting up anyone who might disagree as ‘delusional’. making arguments against impeachment (when everyone knows damn well the rpublicans had no problem making a case over a blow job) using terms like “obvious problem”, “no clear way”, “impeaching Cheney is NOT going to happen”,” never going to happen in The Real World”, “set a dangerous precedent”
ideas like cheney running for re election (absurd)
whatever, the posts justy reek of disinfo designed to roust the thread into a debate does anyone really care to justify?
everyone here is in agreement we would love to have these assholes out of office and frankly just the idea of it, so what if it wouldn’t fly. whatever, this MO is so obvious, like bloggers claiming to be liberals while expounding rightwing positions or whatever. i would never respond to a regular poster here in such a manner but when a new poster shows up doesn’t it seem logical he/she would start by at least commenting OT?
i just don’t buy it not at all, as conchita mentioned i spend a good portion of my time online fighting disinformation w/these guys who continually insert disinfo talking pts to establish certain ideas as meme, when in fact they are not, usually identifying themselves as sympathizers to your cause.. ie.. ” delighted to see a dual impeachment (though I do have reservations about the wisdom of setting a precedent)“.. this is straight out of the 24/7 rapid responders manual. really.
At any rate, it’s a fantasy, plain and simple. Better to spend energy and creativity coming up with ways of trying to stop the madness that are not pure fantasy.
oh really? then why the hell are we introducing this topic ? wasting time. who around here was fanasizing about impeachment before scott and walter showed up?
anyway, i am perfectly willing to have somone prove me wrong. all it takes is some regular poster to come forward and say they postered as walter or scott to introduce this topic they felt was so controversial they couldn’t post in their own name, otherwise these bloggers came to moon specifically to introduce this topic only to then agrue that to discuss it is a waste of time, a fantasy, or delusional.
we hacve already taken up a fair amount of the thread discussing this non starter debate. here are some other ideas trollers like to discuss as obvious fact . that sunnis are responsible starting the violence, that AQ blew up the mosque, and after you hear the same tired arguments over and over oh goodness my president (or talking pudits) will be expounding it as fact!, the entire point is to introduce the idea that anyone thinking outside this box is way out of the mainstream. WITH OBVIOUSNESS.
somebody must be getting concerned about impeachment.
please don’t take it personally, i don’t feel that this is my private club but i also don’t feel that just because someone is polite is any reason to feel they are sincere. sorry if my language offends you. i can smell shit a mile away.
anyway, how generous of this new poster to call me delusional and then be ‘open’ to hearing my arguments to prove myself otherwise. i’ll bet.

Posted by: annie | Jan 15 2007 18:25 utc | 54

Interestingly, if you check the full version of the linked report a majority now believes that a US withdraw would decrease violence (58%) as well as increase “day-to-day security for ordinary iraqis” (61%).

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Jan 15 2007 18:27 utc | 55

all nations are fictions, of course. but the imagination of an iraq combining these factions in some semi-democratic coexistence, is a fantasy.
i’ve been taking the time to understand in my own way globalization. and this analysis honors the works of lenin as historically relevant but inadequate to understand what is now basically a kind of quasi-nationalistic imperialism.
and still, rgiap, if left to you, the m.e. would become a killing field, after which the french could make a few friends among the survivors by blaming the u.s. for everything. the old colonial game. i don’t much like my country made in the combined image of will rogers/ john wayne gacy/ jessica simpson but i know enough to say the old boundaries between good world/bad u.s.a. don’t work any more. chirac’s smug bullshit that “we have are 12,000 french soldiers in afghanistan, and this honors our commitment” is more despicable “policy” than the conquest of ideas pursued by our democracy boy.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 18:35 utc | 56

I personally think that it is in everyone’s interest to expand access to this site to those who might not share the same views, and to encourage open dialogue. I would rather see a community that differs respectfully on the merits of an argument rather than one in which any newcomer is immediately suspected of being malintentioned and then slammed for his or her views. I don’t think personal attacks by anyone on anyone have a place in an intellectual discussion forum.
Reaching a larger audience is a good thing, not a bad thing, in my view. Isn’t this what we are ultimately trying to achieve?
If newcomers arrive with clear intent to stir trouble, then I would defer to Bernhard to take care of that at a time and in a way in which he sees fit. He has shown many times in the past that he has excellent judgment in these instances.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 15 2007 18:42 utc | 57

skod
indeed, it is interesting to see how persistently the polling diverges from the ethnographies. polls are a positivist snapshot of prevailing opinions, nothing more. the interviews reveal something different. add to this the irrationality of responses, which are more easily exposed and disarmed by the interview.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 18:51 utc | 58

i’m convinced, slothrop, that your reading of lenin has been more casual than you think because his very thorough analysis of imperialism rests pertinant & is at countercurrent to what you say or infer
i’m also sure that your understanding of the middle east is paranthetic because when you refer to that part of the world you are always reffering to their people as ‘savage’, ‘wild’ – you infer no sense of the world that they clearly possess – you present your fragmentary knowledge of them as them being fragmentary & i know that the opposite is the truth
anybody would think that i worked out of an office at the elysee – the way you think i will defend in a breath french foreign & national policy
what are iraq, afghanistan, somalia & soon iran – except these killing fields you seem to ascribe to some future period that only arabs can have the luxury of committing against one another
i have asked you repeatedly, slothrop – why are the principal beneficiaries of the horror in iraq – american companies

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 15 2007 18:52 utc | 59

you present your fragmentary knowledge of them as them being fragmentary & i know that the opposite is the truth
this is, given what we know about iraq from reading all those books and talking to people who live there, completely wrong.
about the internationalization thing…i was thinking of whacking out another thing on this subject. maybe in the next couple of days.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 19:04 utc | 60

The Middle East is already a killing field, and this is something that Chirac, among others, clearly recognizes. His task is to minimize the role of the French in all this killing–not, I would argue, in order to colonize the ruins, but in order to maintain a level of stability in France and Western Europe. Though France can’t stop the United States, it can at least demonstrate to its own Maghrebine residents that their attachments to France and to their various homelands are a matter of concern to his government. This policy is a fact, it’s local, and it’s not acknowledged by the American press, so far as I can tell.
But how could this possibly be “a more despicable ‘policy’ than the conquest of ideas pursued by our democracy boy”? Only by virtue of the fact that it is a policy–at once a “foreign” and a “domestic” policy, aiming indeed for a level of stability at home and abroad. Can the recent activities by Bush be understood as a “policy” in this sense? Well, not according to Paul Krugman, whose column in today’s NYT gets it right in my view: for him, those actions are just an endgame by a bunch of irresponsible losers who are spending other people’s money to cash in on the gaming of a losing game– exactly the ones who discovered, during the S&L crisis of the ’80’s, that you can, and will, get away with that kind of maneuver.
In other words, slothrop, I find your analysis somewhat lacking in the kind of exactitude required to “understand globalization,” in your own way or in anyone else’s. And while I can hardly claim to understand it myself, I do feel fairly confident that I’ve described Chirac’s particular gesture in a pertinent way. Do you disagree?

Posted by: alabama | Jan 15 2007 19:18 utc | 61

My contributions to this blog have been negligible; I doubt I have posted here more than ten times — though I have read this blog on and off since its inception.
I am aware of who the proprietor is, b. And I am aware of how much work and love you put into this site. If you are willing to countenance annie acting as gatekeeper by cursing out those she disagrees with, that is your business. annie states “i would never respond to a regular poster here in such a manner.” Yet it is not the first time she has done this: she chased “debs is dead,” one of your best posters in my opinion, off the blog for several months by cursing him out. It is not my problem that annie is so busy “spend[ing] a good portion of my time online [on other websites] fighting disinformation” to lack the time to argue Walter or Scott’s points on the merits on this website. And slothrop has used the “f” word at people any number of times. The number of good posters he has chased off of this site with his/her/whatever invective is substantial. If b has dealt with this behavior already, then I have missed it.
Nor was Walter or Scott’s (Walter Scott?, “Yet Clare’s sharp questions must I shun,…”) opinions anything different from what one might read any day of the week on Daily KOS, a blog which numerous of your posters read, well…daily. While I personally am in favor of impeachment, I see nothing wrong with Walter arguing that after impeachment has been used, the process runs the risk of being appropriated by rich industrialists to further subvert any residual democratic practices left — in fact, I quite agree with this point.
In any event, my main point is that you can’t expect your blog to attract new posters when you allow longtime posters to curse out anyone that they don’t like or agree with, with impunity. You may say that I am welcome here (with the implied warning of you getting really angry at me), but I will never feel welcome, or feel it worth my time to think through and write longer posts when I am forced to deal with petty name-calling, four letter words, and the cursing out of other posters.
And so I bid you all a final adieu!
but, it is plainly silly to claim as some do here the u.s. “causes” such conflict.
slothrop’s gems
No, neither did the US “cause” the extermination of 98% of its native population. They just failed to get with the program.

Posted by: Bob M. | Jan 15 2007 19:25 utc | 62

well, france is in a bit of a tough spot, i’d say. they have to mollify europe’s biggest muslim electorate, while also containing the spread of religious radicalism and white xenophobia. on the other hand, chirac seems to me a vestige of an older europe guided by german/french/british primacy. and this is the chirac i dislike, because the forms of conflict insinuate extra-national class power and collective class interest(s) which no reversion to nation-state power can disable. this is a global crisis not solved by france’s self-acclaimed disinterest and detachment.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 19:44 utc | 63

tsk, tsk. awwwww.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 19:46 utc | 64

IP-address of “Scott”: 66.26.75.217
IP-address of “Walter”: 66.26.75.217
It’s a non-dynamic RoadRunner Midsouth cable IP address …
“wpurvis” is “Walter’s” typepad login. wpurvis@nc.rr.com belonging to William ‘Bill’ Purvis could fit that IP range and login-handle …
One “Walter Purvis” with the typepad login “wpurvis” had posted some crap at John’s Global Guerrillas
Probably not a government troll, but taking two personalities on one thread is deceiving and bad behaviour. So I don’t mind putting this public …

Posted by: b | Jan 15 2007 19:49 utc | 65

@Bob M. – see above, posted before reading your last one – on “Scott” and “Walter”
If b has dealt with this behavior already, then I have missed it.
You certainly have missed that – I have several times publicly warned sloth and banned him for a while – he has learned a bit since – more would be welcome. On annie – hey, that’s annie – tough fiercy small gal – and lovely …
You may say that I am welcome here (with the implied warning of you getting really angry at me), but I will never feel welcome, or feel it worth my time to think through and write longer posts when I am forced to deal with petty name-calling, four letter words, and the cursing out of other posters.
I get the point. But if I’d ban everyone here who uses four letter words and curses others, I could have shut this thing down two years ago. This blog didn’t make it through some 30 month because of tight rules. My best advice: if you don’t like a comment, ignore it – that’s what I’m trying to do.
I was NOT warning you – just wanted to make clear who does NOT hold the keys here.
You are very welcome and valued for commenting here. If you want to post a longer piece on the front page send it to my email-address (it’s on the About page).
Please stay.

Posted by: b | Jan 15 2007 20:03 utc | 66

what an interesting moment. thanks, b., for checking out walter scott (sir, you are no gentleman.) or, as Wallie said “O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” bobm, you should have finished the quote…
however, I do thing bobm’s idea is valid, if not the words that formed it.
So, I am hoping you’ll stay, bobm, because I’ve read your posts with interest. at the same time, I hope annie (who, btw, remarked after b real had also wondered about the trollishness or not or the walter/scott posts) will find the love and kindness that is in her being to deal with trollishness without initial harsh attacks…there are differences of opinion, and Bea put it nicely, I think.
On the other hand, yes, someone should be called out if they call people delusional on this most important issue of impeachment at this time. This can be done without harshness.
probably doesn’t matter, but it’s interesting that Walter Scott supported the Tories in an era that meant Tories supported a king’s right to govern, despite the objections of parliament…a unitary executive kinda guy for his time.
in addition, Tories at that time in GB were opposed to the “radicalism” of the American and French revolutions….maybe just a coincidence, but a synchronous one.
slothrop, if you do create another post, please don’t worry about capital letters, but a few paragraph breaks would be greatly appreciated. in addition, if the goal is to communicate, theory jargon tends to impede that for many.
as I’ve said here before, I was never much for jargon because it is meant to exclude. someone who finds meaning in Lenin and Marx would surely not want to use language that tends to “privilege” an elite. if jargon is the only means to transmit an idea, perhaps you can link to a source that explains your meaning, rather than another’s version.
fwiw, I find some recent discussions about the failure of Derrida, etc. to acknowledge the ecology of meaning and existence extremely resonant…ecology of meaning is jargon in its way, meant to express a more wholistic approach to communication and existence that doesn’t simply exist within the human realm, or within the realm of humans after the advent of readable “culture.”
now, on to other jargon, I also hate the use of the term metathread, but maybe it’s useful to talk about inclusion in all sorts of ways, and ways to deal with what seems to be trollishness without resorting to the name-calling that is a troll distraction/diminishment anyway.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 15 2007 20:48 utc | 67

also, fwiw-
On MLK day, PBS will begin a rebroadcast of the multi-part documentary series “Eyes on the Prize.” I remember when it was first broadcast. It’s a powerful piece with its archival footage.
Worth watching again, to me. And if you have kids, it should be required viewing for them to see the hatred toward citizens of this nation who were only expecting that they be treated as such, and see the courageous response to this hatred from students as well as leaders.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 15 2007 20:59 utc | 68

fauxreal 67, 68,
Many thanks for your words of wisdon. Pure gold.
Hamburger

Posted by: Hamburger | Jan 15 2007 21:18 utc | 69

banned? really? jeez. that was mean.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 15 2007 22:04 utc | 70

probably doesn’t matter, but it’s interesting that Walter Scott supported the Tories in an era that meant Tories supported a king’s right to govern, despite the objections of parliament…a unitary executive kinda guy for his time.
how interesting. that reminds me of another time i got pushed out of shape from a historical figure and didn’t pick up the pun.
it is not the first time she has done this: she chased “debs is dead,” one of your best posters in my opinion, off the blog for several months by cursing him out.
hmm. interesting. i do believe it was me who spent a better part of two long threads defending debs position regarding an accusation of sexism. i have also emailed him personally and ask him to come back here and that i miss his his contribution to moon. as i recall we parted ways over the ports deal (long time ago) as i was a little late to the party undersatnding the global elite and thanks to debs (precisely) taking the patience to clarify many aspects to me which i thanked him for online here. i hardly think it is i who am responsible, or ever been responsible for his departure now or in the past. your observations however are noted.
i’m not one to promote politeness in all circumstances and appreciate a healthy rant. bobm, your sensitivity surprises me a little w/the added threat of leaving altogether if i am not ‘reeled in’. anyone who has followed moon since it’s inception i would imagine has a sense of the personalities around here. to think any of us holds the reigns besides b seems odd indeed.
i am reminded of uncle’s link about the delphi technique
either way the next time i decide to rant or smell bs in a post after midnight when i may be impaired i will recall your comments bob m and consider i may be offending some worthy soul, rethink my rant until the next day when i am more composed as not to offend .
btw,what i say never comes close to the abuse i suffer from the gov trolls that most definitely do exist en mass. they have nicknamed me mossad annie and accuse me of being terrorist sympathizer and dripping in bloodlust on a daily basis, so please pardon my french/bluntness whatever.
sorry for offending you. please don’t go.
there now lets hope this can all be swept under the rug.
.

Posted by: annie | Jan 15 2007 22:20 utc | 71

Nice outreach there ‘B’…. BobM, accept the words as genuine and stick around. Hope you do.

Posted by: SoandSo | Jan 15 2007 22:45 utc | 72

bob m., interesting you should bring up debs is dead. i agree, he is one of the moon’s best posters. and when in hamburg, one of the first things raised by another visitor was something along the lines of – ” what do you think is up with debs, do you think he will be back? i really miss him.” i sincerely do not want to be having a similar conversation about you. while your posts may not be numerous, it is about the quality not the quantity. your contributions are well-crafted and written with depth and heart. it is your choice whether to stay, but clearly i will not be the only one to miss them.
about debs, i miss his contribution greatly. and, like annie, i have written to him twice asking him to return. sadly, i have not received a response to either email although i did see wellington on the sitemeter a week or so ago, which gave me hope that if he is still lurking. perhaps we will hear from him again(fingers crossed). on a personal level, i have recently lost a very important kiwi in my life and, debs, if you are out there it would do my heart good to read one of your colorful rants sprinkled with nz nomenclature.
bob m., i hope you will take fauxreal’s, bernhard’s, hamburger’s, and annie’s words to heart. i think we all on varying levels agree with your concerns and you have made a valid point. i thank you for that, and i will say it one more time. please stay.

Posted by: conchita | Jan 15 2007 22:56 utc | 73

Well, I didn’t intend to cause such a ruckus… A few points:
The Walter/Scott flip-flopping was just an artifact of a shared computer and cookies and logins and some other stuff I don’t exactly understand.
I did not just inject the subject of impeachment into this thread. Impeachment was discussed in post #9. Granted, it was discussed only in passing, but it spurred me to make a comment about the topic, and I don’t feel I was hijacking the thread or anything, because this thread was essentially an OT thread to begin with, seeing as how the post was just a random collection of article excerpts.
I thought I made it clear enough that I favor impeachment and even harsher punishments for Bush, Cheney, et al, and that I think it is important to try to stop their madness. My point, which I also thought I made clear, was that it is extremely unlikely that impeachment is going to be an effective instrument for stopping the madness, and therefore it is counterproductive to devote time and energy to it. Upon further reflection, however, I do believe that calls for impeachment, state legislature resolutions, etc., are probably an appropriate means of expressing just how disgusted we are with the current administration (i.e., so disgusted we’d like to run them out of town on rails and see them cool their heels in prison) — just so long as people understand that this is just symbolic and almost certainly is not going to lead to actual impeachment.
Also, upon further reflection, I believe my concern about precedent may be unwarranted. For one thing, the abortive impeachment of Clinton on fairly flimsy grounds has not (so I’ve been arguing) made it any more likely that we will impeach the current regime, despite the very strong grounds for doing so (as I said in an earlier post, no president or vice president has ever been more deserving of impeachment than these two).
To the poster (conchita?) who detected sexism/trollism in the way I kept harping on the terrible specter of Nancy Pelosi as President, I intended neither sexism nor trollism. I merely meant to present it the way I imagine most Republicans would think of it, i.e., as a terrible specter.
I don’t consider myself a newcomer to this blog, exactly, since I have been reading it religiously for quite a long time, but I am new to posting (perhaps not brand new — I think it’s possible I may have posted here once or twice before), and, quite frankly, I don’t really see myself investing any more time in posting when there is so much vitriol and so little discussion (conchita being a notable exception — thank you conchita for making reasonable arguments, you changed my mind on a point or two and made me start reconsidering a thing or two). So, you’ve succeeded in driving me back to the land of the lurkers. Well done.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 15 2007 23:34 utc | 74

arrgh. sometimes the internet is not the best vehicle for communication. i dunno. what do we do now folks?

Posted by: conchita | Jan 16 2007 0:01 utc | 75

sing?

Posted by: beq | Jan 16 2007 0:16 utc | 76

tralala, we could all do a rendition of come back baby.

Posted by: annie | Jan 16 2007 0:22 utc | 77

walter/scott – while I certainly understand your hurt feelings, you might also want to consider the impact of your words when you call someone delusional for wanting impeachment.
it is a bit disingenuous to write as though your words had no emotional content that others responded to.
nevertheless, I hope you, too, will post. you have to have some armor to post online sometimes. This forum is not as harsh as many out there, fwiw. but sometimes there is trial by fire. I wish this was not so.
on the issue of impeachment- the Clinton set up (Linda Tripp was a dirty trickster, along with buddy Lucianne Goldberg, btw…did you know that?) was a tit-for-tat re: Watergate in one way. In another, it was southern old boy shitstain politics gone national…sort of like now.
But it’s interesting, too, that the Republicans can use every dirty nasty political trick out there, while the Democrats are supposed to not “continue the debased atmosphere.” How conveeenient for the repukes.
Most people who want impeachment (and that includes state and local level politicians) do not see it as a symbolic move. (Now excuse me as I move into vulgarities…they are not intended for you…) The motherfuckers who are destroying this country (which is, yes, what so many now feel, not just “lefties,” cannot be allowed to continue.
the way around the “OhmygawdPelosi) is fairly simple. Go after the architects of torture and fascism (Yoo, Wurmser, etc.) to undercut Bush.
Indict Cheney for collusion with Halliburton, or a myriad of other laws he has broken, and remove him from office first. Then George Jr. can appoint McCain as vp, ala Gerald Ford.
I think McCain is positioning himself for just such a scenario, in fact.
Then impeach Bush.
Before this point, Congress could make a deal not to charge and try Bush on particular charges in return for a “no pardon” clause by McCain.
Of course, if the black op-ers have had it with this administration, they already have practice removing leaders here and elsewhere by other means…but I do not want that to happen.
The entire point of this issue, however, is that many, many people think it is more destablizing to this nation (and to the world) to allow Bush and Cheney to remain in office unchallenged. This has been said many times. If you think it’s delusional to want such a thing, or to work for such a thing, you can certainly state your opinion, but that doesn’t make it fact.
I cannot imagine that things will get any better with each day that Bush is allowed to shit on the Constitution and use it to wipe Cheney’s ass.
This is the problem, or disconnect between the beltway and the population of the U.S. The majority of Americans support impeachment. This was not the case with Clinton. The majority of Americans think Bush has totally screwed up with his Mess-o-potamia…yet he continues to repeat the same mistakes. It has taken a while for many in this nation to see or admit that Bush is a total fuck-up, but that time has come.
and so has the time to remove the neocons from the levers of power.
btw, only THREE republicans (McCain, the guy in Kentucky and Lieberman …oh wait, he’s a representative for the zionist party?… support Bush’s “surge.” It’s not just democrats that think Bush has lost his way.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 16 2007 0:23 utc | 78

oops
it’s all my fault

Posted by: annie | Jan 16 2007 0:23 utc | 79

oops, the sequel. that was me at #78. typepad disappeared my info, apparently.
b, typepad sorta sucks these days, huh?

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 16 2007 0:30 utc | 80

My associate, Chief Inspector Disarray,and I just arrived here on a packet boat from London, after a rough Atlantic crossing.
We are here to arrest the word/style criminal Slothrop, slothrup, variously named on the warrants. CI Disarray has two valises full of warrants. We will return said S for trial before the PMLA Word/Stylistic Court at its annual judicial session.
We depart tomorrow. We appreciate your help in this matter. Please deliver the accused to us.

Posted by: Superintendent Twain, PMLA | Jan 16 2007 0:51 utc | 81

Important clue that we live in an overmanaged universe – when someone thinks that another person should invest time to protect them from being insulted rather than deciding they should learn to ignore or otherwise deal w/it. Wwwaaaaa—johnnie threw sand at me… I’m gonna take my marbles & run home to mama…Yawnnnn…
How have you made it this far if you can’t even overlook anonymous people who say things you dislike?

Posted by: jj | Jan 16 2007 0:52 utc | 82

To: Bob M.
I too wish you to stay and continue posting here at Moon. I noticed that I was overly sarcastic to your comment in the previous open thread, and I also will attempt to blame it on my lack of sleep posting so late. Considering this is not the first time I am apologizing for being inconsiderate, I pledge to be more careful in the future.

Posted by: Rick | Jan 16 2007 0:59 utc | 83

@82:
This is business, not personal.
As far as the “Fuck Yous”. Well that was refreshing. Only words this perp said I ever did understand.
Please don’t get in the way of this arrest. We have chain guns loaded with polysyllabic depleted and abused latinate, and in a pinch we can call in Greek or aramaic.
Please stand away now and give us the charged.

Posted by: Superintendent Twain | Jan 16 2007 1:31 utc | 84

paul craig roberts say the criminal bush must go – impeachement

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 16 2007 1:31 utc | 85

We are here to arrest the word/style criminal Slothrop,
don’t forget luxor!!

Posted by: annie | Jan 16 2007 1:33 utc | 86

@r’giap
Thank you. That piece expressed my sentiments EXACTLY. I was literally just starting to write a post about how complacent everyone on here is about waiting two more years, when we are being taken to the direst of catastrophes RIGHT NOW, on so many, many levels. The solvency and military strength of the US is at risk; our entire political system as we know it is at risk (and well-nigh destroyed); and a region that is the cradle of civilization is about to be decimated. Our country is on the brink of — well, words fail me. I don’t know how to describe what our country is on the brink of. I think that nothing less than Bush/Cheney’s immediate removal from office and imprisonment will suffice to save us. I don’t give a damn who succeeds them; their project must be stopped.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 16 2007 1:45 utc | 87

what bea said.

Posted by: conchita | Jan 16 2007 1:48 utc | 88

from pcr:
The “surge” gives Congress, the media, and the foreign policy establishment something to debate and oppose, while Bush sets his plans in motion to orchestrate a war with Iran.
says it all.

Posted by: conchita | Jan 16 2007 1:49 utc | 89

r’giap #85,
Spy case puts Vice-President in the stand

Hey, maybe some excitement with Cheney in the hotseat!

Posted by: Rick | Jan 16 2007 1:51 utc | 90

and this one is dedicated to bob m. and walter/scott:

The only action that can stop Bush is for both the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate to call on the White House, tell Bush they know what he is up to and that they will not fall for it a second time. The congressional leadership must tell Bush that if he does not immediately desist, he will be impeached and convicted before the week is out. Can a congressional leadership that lives in fear of the Israel Lobby perform this task?
All the rest is penny-ante. Revoking the Iraqi War Resolution as Rep. Sam Farr has proposed or requiring Bush to obtain congressional authorization prior to any US attack on Iran simply lets Bush and his Federalist Society apologists for executive dictatorship claim he has commander-in-chief powers and proceed with his planned aggression. Cutting off funding is not itself enough as Bush can raid other budgets. Non-binding resolutions of disapproval are meaningless to a president who doesn’t care what anyone else thinks.
Nothing can stop the criminal Bush from instituting wider war in the Middle East that could become a catastrophic world war except an unequivocal statement from Congress that he will be impeached.

pcr presents a much better argument than i.

Posted by: conchita | Jan 16 2007 2:00 utc | 91

If ever there was a “Pentagon Papers redux” moment, this is it. How I wish that someone in the military would expose the plans for Iran in time to stop them.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 16 2007 2:05 utc | 92

Was it Monolycus who wrote “we want new blood here, unfortunately we are in the habit of drawing it from those who stop by” or something to that affect?
Kinda felt appropriate here.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Jan 16 2007 2:07 utc | 93

Nothing can stop the criminal Bush from instituting wider war in the Middle East that could become a catastrophic world war except an unequivocal statement from Congress that he will be impeached.
Alas, not even this would suffice… he has to BE stripped of his authority to give commands. In whatever fashion. He has clearly demonstrated that he does not believe he is answerable to Congress or the people.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 16 2007 2:08 utc | 94

Details of Plans on Attack Surface
US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07
Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah, Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times

KUWAIT CITY: Washington will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, say sources. The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add. Recent statements emanating from the United States indicate the Bush administration’s new strategy for Iraq doesn’t include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran. A reliable source said President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail.
According to the source, Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iran to not only Saudi Arabia but the whole region. “Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their country’s religious influence to support the aggressive regime’s ambition to expand,” the source quoted Dick Cheney as saying. Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing other countries in the region to any danger, the source said “they have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007.”
Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country in the region, he said “the US and its allies will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after effects.” “Already the US has started sending its warships to the Gulf and the build-up will continue until Washington has the required number by the end of this month,” the source said. “US forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot missile system.”
He went on to say “although US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on attacking Tehran without any negotiations based on the lesson they learnt in Iraq recently.” The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, he continued. The attack on Iran will weaken the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away, the source said.

I have no idea how reliable this source is; I found it in a random search. Thought it was worth sharing.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 16 2007 2:14 utc | 95

Is Wesley Clark getting the ball rolling?
Apologies for posting this piece in full but it seemed worth replicating. Again, I have no way to assess the reliability of the source — found it randomly.
Top Dem Wesley Clark Says ‘N.Y. Money People’ Pushing War With Iran
By Nathan Guttman

Washington – Retired general Wesley Clark drew harsh criticism this week after reportedly saying that “New York money people” are pushing America into a war against Iran.
By Tuesday, Clark, a past and likely future Democratic candidate for president, was working to assure Jewish groups that he was in no way attempting to advance an antisemitic conspiracy theory. But the controversy still had Jewish organizations bracing for a new wave of claims that they are the driving force behind any future military strikes against Tehran.
The flap comes as Israeli politicians in the government, as well as the opposition, have been lobbying more publicly for an international hard line against Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Until the middle of last year, Israel focused its efforts on more behind-the-scenes international diplomacy, making its intelligence information available to world powers in order to convince them that Iran is becoming a growing threat to the entire region. Lately, Israel decided to take the Iranian issue to the public arena, as well, making it the leading issue on the agenda in public speeches and press briefings.
Several Israeli sources have stressed that Jerusalem is still urging the international community to put diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran in order to force it to give up its nuclear ambitions.
American Jewish groups have also stepped up their advocacy efforts regarding Iran, though they generally press for aggressive diplomatic steps without pushing for military action. These groups have lavishly praised the Bush administration in recent days, after the U.S. Treasury Department banned an Iranian bank from doing business with American entities.
Bank Sepah, a state-owned bank, “is the financial linchpin of Iran’s missile-procurement network and has actively assisted Iran’s pursuit of missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction,” Stuart Levey, the department’s undersecretary for terrorism, said in a statement Tuesday, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Vice Premier Shimon Peres have recently made public remarks hinting at possible military retaliation against Iran if it attacks Israel. Both leaders have also gone further than their predecessors in confirming that Israel has a nuclear arsenal at its disposal.
Clark made his alleged remarks to liberal blogger Arianna Huffington in response to a United Press International column by Arnaud de Borchgrave. The column described the efforts of Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud — to compare Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, and the current geopolitical situation to pre-World War II Europe. The article quotes Netanyahu’s call to “immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons.”
Netanyahu has positioned himself in recent months as a leading voice outside Israel, calling the world’s attention to the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb. Though as leader of the opposition he does not speak for the government, Israeli sources have said in recent weeks that Netanyahu’s approach is in line with the strategy of the Olmert government.
Huffington quoted Clark as saying that the idea of bombing Iran before exhausting diplomatic avenues was “outrageous.” According to Huffington, she then asked Clark what made him so sure that the United States is headed in the direction of attacking Iran, and he replied: “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”
The phrase “New York money people” struck unpleasant chords with many pro-Israel activists. They interpreted it as referring to the Jewish community, which is known for its significant financial donations to political candidates.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, spoke to Clark shortly after the former general made his remarks. “He is a friend of Israel and is not an antisemite,” Foxman told the Forward, “but some of the things he said are very, very unfortunate.”
Foxman argued that while he does not accuse Clark of believing in conspiracy theories that paint the Jews and Israel as pushing the United States into war, the former general “fueled the flames and gave credibility to these theories.”
In his phone conversation with Foxman, Clark stressed that his remarks were not directed at the American Jews.
Last Tuesday, Clark sent Foxman a letter attempting to clarify his remarks. “I will not tolerate antisemitic conspiracy webs to permeate the honest debate Americans must have about how best to confront Iran,” Clark wrote. [GO Wesley Go! – Bea]
In the letter, he also emphasized the need to engage in dialogue with Iran before turning to military options. “It has been my experience,” Clark wrote, “that diplomacy has always been America’s most effective tool and that force should be used only as a last resort.”
The Republican Jewish Coalition described Clark’s alleged comments as “blatantly antisemitic” and claimed that they were part of a larger trend of antisemitism seeping into mainstream Democratic political discourse. “Wesley Clark owes American Jews an apology,” said the RJC’s executive director, Matthew Brooks.
Though Clark has yet to announce his intentions, he is considered one of the possible Democratic candidates for presidency. In the 2004 campaign, Clark dropped out of the race in the early stages. During the campaign, Clark made several references to his Jewish family background, noting that though he was not aware of it until adulthood, he was proud of his heritage. Clark’s biological father, Benjamin Kanne, who died when Clark was 4, was Jewish. Clark, a Baptist, grew up in Little Rock, Ark., with his Christian mother and adoptive father.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 16 2007 2:20 utc | 96

all i ever got from bob was ridicule and a response to my ideas collected from his vast annotations of the works of ward churchill. the “argument” bob supplied was: because the white man killed the indians. indisputably true, but not relevant in the least to anything i have offered here or elsewhere.
it’s a fact. go back to his previous posts and you’ll see.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 16 2007 2:23 utc | 97

Iran has become largest donor to Palestinians, surpassing even the European Union (uh oh, now we REALLY gotta nuke ’em).

An international [read: US-driven ] boycott of the Hamas-led authority imposed last year has given Iran an opportunity to increase its influence. Previously, Palestinians were closer to Sunni regimes such as Saudi Arabia.

Another example of our unmatched brilliance in regional diplomacy in the Middle East.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 16 2007 2:28 utc | 98

I’m pretty naive, but even I can see that there has been a bit of drama dregged up on this thread…
attacking Annie was uncalled for…
one thing I have noted about cyberspace is you never know to whom you are listening or with whom you are conversing… so easy to throw down a name, a handle… and sometimes folks wear two or three handles/names at one time…
I’ve looked at the thread and don’t see Walter or Scott commenting about being mistreated… but I do see Bob M. protesting that Walter/Scott has been mistreated and so he, Bob M. is leaving… but not before he makes a few comments about Annie and b. and —-
life is simple if you just stick with the issues and express your own opinions… without attacking folks who disagree…
it’s pretty obvious the objective was reached… the thread was disrupted and the new threads are silent…

Posted by: crone | Jan 16 2007 2:34 utc | 99

what b said. i read r’giap’s link the other day, thought it was here.
when pelosi first stated they weren’t going for impeachment it didn’t give me much pause because i have faith in conyers, who also states he is not going for impeachment. but, he is going to investigated for crimes that can lead only to.. impeachment.
b, thank you for the excellent link @65. they are awfully polite over there. i was very impressed to one of the respondents

Posted by: annie | Jan 16 2007 2:51 utc | 100

Back to Main