The crux of the biscuit

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What the fuck has happened...

To my Air Force?

It's hard...

For me to feel sympathy for a mercenary, though his arguments are all dead on.

Want ads

Bob Higgins:

If you are an American citizen with skills and expertise in any field relevant to the operation of the legislative, judicial or executive branches of the American government Uncle Sam wants you.

The People are currently seeking men and women with talent and competence in any area who are willing to work forty eight weeks a year at the People's business, keep their hands out of the cookie jar and themselves out of the beds of those who would corrupt the government to serve their own interests.

...

Great ad.

The Zarqawi Invitation

Today's recommended "must read". Greg Palast:

They got him -- the big, bad, beheading berserker in Iraq. But, something's gone unreported in all the glee over getting Zarqawi...who invited him into Iraq in the first place?

If you prefer your fairy tales unsoiled by facts, read no further. If you want the uncomfortable truth, begin with this: A phone call to Baghdad to Saddam's Palace on the night of April 21, 2003. It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a secure line from Washington to General Jay Garner.

The General had arrives in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation. The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome. Rummy told Garner, Don't unpack, Jack -- you're fired.

What had Garner done? The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful. Garner's job was to keep the peace and bring democracy.

Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word. But the general was wrong. "Peace" and "Democracy" were the slogans.

"My preference," Garner told me in his understated manner, "was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections."

But elections were not in The Plan.

The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we'd just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off "all [Iraq's] state assets" -- and Iraq, that's just about everything -- "especially," said The Plan, "the oil and supporting industries." Especially the oil.

General Garner, watching the insurgency unfold from the occupation authority's provocations, told me, in his understated manner, "I'm a believer that you don't want to end the day with more enemies than you started with."

But you can't have a war president without a war. And you can't have a war without enemies. "Bring 'em on," our Commander-in-Chief said. And Zarqawi answered the call.

Those quotes are the beginning and end of the article. Like a sandwich, the good stuff's in the middle. Please read.

Thanks, Old White Lady.

When Santorum hates ya...

You know you've sunk pretty low.

Yeah, what about it?

Atrios has a good idea. Think it'll happen before Election Day?

If I were a potential presidential candidate looking for a way to jump start my campaign, get a bit of news, and get a bit of blogger support what I would do is be the first big name to endorse Ned Lamont.

...

Yeah, me neither. It would take character.

Interview with Ned over at My Left Nutmeg.

It's us...

If you were wondering if we're making a difference here in Blogtopia (y!sctp!) and not just shouting into the wilderness, this should give you some peace of mind:

A surge in small, individual contributions is lifting Democratic campaigns this year and is helping close a Republican fundraising advantage that has existed for years in national politics, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Democratic House and Senate candidates and their two major campaign committees are enjoying stronger grass-roots support than at any time since the GOP took over both chambers of Congress in the 1994 elections, according to strategists from both parties who have reviewed the most recent FEC data released this spring.

...

What you're seeing are our cumulative voices being heard by the Average Joe or Jane who've been coming to us to get some truth, what they can't get from the 'MSM'.

Blogger Party

Since I was kidding around with Shakes the other day about my being King of the World, or at least just of the United States, and I got to thinking. What if I were President, elected from the 'Blogger Party'? How would I arrange my cabinet? I picked bloggers I read regularly (generally at least once a day) and I think would rise to the occasion, even if they aren't necessarily an expert in the subject.

Vice President - Pam Spaulding
Secretary of State - Michael J.W. Stickings
Secretary of the Treasury - Brad DeLong
Attorney General - Christy Hardin Smith
Secretary of the Interior - Gordon
Secretary of Agriculture - Radical Russ
Secretary of Commerce - Mrs. Fixer
Secretary of Labor - DBK (Froggy)
Secretary of Defense - Cdr. Jeff Huber
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - Scout Prime
Secretary of Transportation - 42
Secretary of Energy - Michael Hawkins
Secretary of Health and Human Services - Shakespeare's Sister
Secretary of Education - PZ Myers
Secretary of Veterans Affairs - Jo Fish
Secretary of Homeland Security - Larry C. Johnson
Press Secretary - Jane Hamsher
Ambassador to the U.N. - Roxanne

Advisers to the President:

For the Arts and Humanities - Mimus Pauly/Patrick
For High Technology - Badtux the Geeky Penguin
For International Relations - Eponymous/Juan Cole
For Womens Issues - Blondie (Blondsense Liz)/AOB
For Racial Issues - Steve Gilliard
For LGBT Issues - Genia Stevens
For Religious Issues - The Green Knight
On the Environment - Grannyinsanity

Now that's a progressive White House. Whatever you think, I'll betcha we do a better job than the bunch that's in there now.

The DeLay Principle

Paul Krugman on the estate tax, war, and politics.

So a more precise statement of the DeLay Principle would be that nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes for very, very wealthy people, like the tiny minority of Americans who are heirs to really big estates.

Americans from an earlier era might have been puzzled by the DeLay Principle. They still believed in the principle enunciated by Theodore Roosevelt, who called for an inheritance tax in 1906: "The man of great wealth," said T.R., "owes a peculiar obligation to the state."

But the DeLay Principle isn't really that hard to understand: it's just like the Roosevelt Principle, but the other way around. These days, the state - or rather, the political coalition that controls the state, and depends on campaign contributions to maintain that control - owes a peculiar obligation to men of great wealth. And nothing is more important than cutting these men's taxes, even in the face of a war.

Gotta take care of the Sugar Daddy so he'll keep takin' care of them, the whores.

A tip o' the Brain to Rozius.

More al-Z

I know I was a bit glib and cynical in my post about al-Zarqawi's deletion. Our good friend Lurch makes the point far better:

...

Interestingly enough, the alleged leader, A. M. al-Zarqawi was little known throughout the world until Bu$hCo suddenly proclaimed him the leader of a-Q in Iraq, which in fact had never been heard of before Bu$hCo and CENTCOM, imitating Col Tom Parker said, "C'mere, cat. Ah'm gonna make you a star" a la Bobby Bare. Needing to explain their inability to control Iraq after the short-sheet conquest, and bearing in mind that the next stop was Iran, it was necessary to introduce the concept of "foreign fighters" early and often.

Thus was born the legend of A. M. al-Zarqawi, the deadliest one-legged terrorist/assassin in the Middle East. We got to hear a lot about him for three years. Every audacious attack, each outrageous atrocity was blamed on him. Bombings, beheadings, exploding trucks at embassies, spoiled whipped cream at Carvels and Dairy Queens - all was chalked up to al-Zarqawi.

...

Al-Zarqawi was our creation, just as Osama bin-Forgotten was. My unit helped deliver weapons and advisers into Pakistan 20 years ago to support Osama and the Mujaheddin in their war against the Soviets in Afghanistan (I was only on one operation in that mission). At least I can understand our helping Osama at the time, though we should have killed the lot of them once the Russians left.

Al-Zarqawi, like Osama, was a product of his environment, created to fight a proxy war with an occupying army. Were it not for the Soviets in the '80s, Osama would be just another rich Saudi. Were it not for Bush and Cheney and their imperialistic misadventures, al-Zarqawi would be just another Jordanian. They are our Frankenstein's monsters.

That said, believing anything that comes out of Iraq or is related to the 'War on Terra' is difficult for me. There has been so much lying, disinformation, and ineptitude that taking anything at face value is naive and gullible. Not when everything about this war has been used (though not very successfully) to Bush's political advantage. Yeah, I'm cynical, but that isn't a slight of the troops who put their butts on the line to get this guy. The thing that really gets me is, they wouldn't be in the position in the first place were it not for the lies and deception perpetrated by this White House.

He gets my vote

If I could...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rep. John Murtha, an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, unexpectedly announced on Friday he will run for the No. 2 leadership post in the U.S. House of Representatives if Democrats regain control of that chamber in elections this fall.

"If we prevail as I hope and know we will and return to the majority this next Congress, I have decided to run for the open seat of the majority leader," Murtha, a Pennsylvanian, said in a letter sent to House Democrats.

...

Remember when I said we need leadership at the top? I would follow Murtha into Hell any day. Sorry, Nancy, but you're no John Murtha. Hate to say it though, but this talk might be a bit premature. The Rethugs might have this election all 'fixed up' already.

Why bother...

With a Congress anyway? Are they just there to give token opposition to the Preznit for a couple days before they cave in to the White House wishes? Arlen Specter is the worst of them because he talks a good line before rolling over. He gets out there and yells and screams and then turns around and gives the WH cover. Glenn Greenwald gets in depth:

...

The idea that the President's allies in Congress would enact legislation which expressly shields government officials, including the President, from criminal liability for past lawbreaking is so reprehensible that it is difficult to describe. To my knowledge, none of the other proposed bills -- including those from the most loyal Bush followers in the Senate -- contained this protective provision. And without knowing anywhere near as much as I would need to know in order to form a definitive opinion, the legality of this provision seems questionable at best. It's really the equivalent of a pardon, a power which the Constitutional preserves for the President. Can Congress act as a court and simply exonerate citizens from criminal conduct?

...

What makes this proposed amnesty so particularly indefensible is that Specter himself has spent the last two months loudly complaining about the fact that he -- along with the rest of the country -- has been denied any information about how this illegal, secret eavesdropping has been conducted. Has that power been abused? Has it been exercised for political, rather than national security, reasons? Before one even considers shielding those responsible for this lawbreaking from liability, wouldn't one have to at least know the answer to those questions? [my em]

...

I don't expect folks in Kansas (Pat Roberts is cut from the same cloth as Specter) to come to their senses anytime soon, but you folks in PA better wake up and get Arlen out of there.

Reminder

Just reminding folks about the survey in the left sidebar. If you haven't already, please take the time to complete it. Think of the children, dammit!

And I'd like to thank the bloggers who've helped me out in this endeavor. I really appreciate the space you've given to highlight this.

I know I'm harping but it's my blog, fer cryin' out loud. I'm not asking for money, just 5-7 minutes of your time.

Jawohl!

Germany - 4

Costa Rica - 2

Here.

So much for 'net neutrality'

Democracy Now

The House voted on legislation yesterday that could determine the future of the internet and public access television in this country. In a vote of 321 to 101, the House voted to pass the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, known as the COPE bill. This controversial telecommunications legislation would permit phone and cable companies to operate Internet and other digital communications service as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. The bill would effectively end what is known as "net neutrality" which is the concept that that everyone, everywhere, should have free, universal and non-discriminatory access to the Internet. The bill would also cut back the obligation of cable TV companies to devote channels to public access and fund the facilities to run them. And the COPE bill would replace local cable franchises with national franchises.

The Telecoms ain't makin' much money off of us, and we're a thorn in Congress' side, and since the Telecoms own Congress, and neither one of 'em likes us very much, they done fucked us over. It won't be the last time.

Enjoy the free Internets while they last, folks.

White Houseboy

Just go see!

Double-take

I saw this headline:

Security or coverup? How a murky case became precedent.

It's about an old national security case that's still screwing us, but I had to read it twice. The first time I saw it I swear I thought it read:

Security or coverup? How a monkey case became president.

Heh.

Quinoa

This is just FYI. All you New Age lefty hippies are probably way ahead of me on this, but I like the shit. You can find it a lot cheaper.

Officer says he ain't gonna go

Sarah Olson at Truthout

When 27-year-old US Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada announced his refusal to deploy to Iraq yesterday, he did so surrounded by veterans, military family members, and members of the religious and anti-war communities. News of Watada's intent to refuse his orders to deploy to Iraq has galvanized anti-war communities around the country, many of which are already calling for a series of demonstrations in support of Watada's actions. And others they hope will be inspired to refuse deployment to Iraq as well.

At a press conference in Tacoma, Washington, Watada announced his view that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal, and his intent was to refuse to deploy to fight that war. Watada said, "It is my duty as a commissioned officer of the United States Army to speak out against grave injustices. I stand before you today because it is my job to serve and protect soldiers, the American people and innocent Iraqis with no voice." Watada went on to say that his participation in the Iraq war would make him party to grave moral injustice and war crimes.

While Watada may face a court martial for his decision to refuse to deploy to Iraq, he has also received significant support from veterans' organizations. Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, the War Resisters League, and many chapters of Veterans for Peace have all come to Watada's defense.

Family and friends of Lieutenant Watada have launched a national campaign to support his actions and to encourage other military personnel to do the same. Anti-war activists are planning coordinated national actions set to begin at the end of June in support of Watada's anticipated refusal to deploy to Iraq. For more information, visit the web site: http://www.thankyoult.org.

I am not, repeat not, encouraging anyone to desert the armed forces or otherwise resist being sent to Iraq, other than through normal channels such as resigning or not re-enlisting. They joined, they go where they're sent, unless they can pull some kind of strings. I didn't support draft resisters going to Canada during Vietnam either, but I understood why they did it.

It's a personal decision. I don't blame anyone who doesn't want to go, for all the reasons Lt. Watada stated. It takes balls, and he'll pay the price. He knew that before he went public with it. He probably hasn't been in long enough to resign, so this was his only choice. Right, wrong, or indifferent, his decision will follow him for the rest of his life.

Quite a few enlisted men have split the scene rather than go to Iraq, but they have mostly just done it and been quiet about it. This is first I have heard in public of an officer doing it.

Bush's War is criminal and unnecessary, but it will take many, many more soldiers refusing to go to make a difference.