Not Iraq

We don't need to be worried about Iraq right now, because a desperate White House has its eyes on Iran. Col. Gardiner:

...

The USS John C. Stennis departed Bremerton, Washington last Saturday and sailed to San Diego to on load its air wing. That has been completed. It is to depart this morning (Saturday) for the Gulf.

...

The UK has filled in more details on its mine clearing ships that are going to the region. Their deployment is "to deal with the very real threat of Iran mining the Straits of Hormuz," according to Royal Navy officers. The two ships are the HMS Blyth and the HMS Ramsey.

...

Lurch and I have been discussing this over at his place, wondering if the Air Force F-117s from Holloman AFB now stationed at Kunsan AB, South Korea may play a part in an Iran operation. Personally, I think they're there to keep that insane midget who runs NK from getting any ideas while we're futzing around in the Gulf.

Stennis leaving homeport with her air wing aboard is most worrisome. I also don't think the Brits would increase their minesweeper force in the Gulf (there are a couple American carrier groups there, and the British have a big presence as well) if they weren't expecting trouble of some sort.

I doubt mines will be the big problem, more an annoyance compared to the suicide bombers in little boats packed with explosives who won't be picked up by the Phalanx Close In Weapons Systems aboard the men-o-war. If the Iranians (and I'll presume there are enough people there willing to die for the cause) manage to, if not sink, take a carrier or a few escorts out of the fight (remember the Cole), it would be a great victory for them.

The U.S. fleet also isn't immune to anti-ship missiles coming from shore, from the hundreds of little coves and inlets that our satellites and radar can't discern or an Iranian Air Force plane that somehow escapes our bomb and missile attack (remember the Stark).

You already know I think attacking Iran would be a disaster of biblical proportions and probably change our way of life. I think, as we get closer to the end of the Bush Presidency, closer to congressional investigations backing them into a corner and exposing all their corruption, (and the fact there are too many big guns packed into a relatively small area) the chance of a desperation move by the White House becomes ever greater.

...

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who took control of the committee this month, said that the administration was building a case against Tehran even as American intelligence agencies still know little about either Iran's internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East.

"To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again," Senator Rockefeller said during an interview in his office. "This whole concept of moving against Iran is bizarre."

...

I suggest we prepare for it.

Ooh! Dat be one col' black ass...

William Rivers Pitt writes on Congress' first 100 hours, their next 100 hours, and cutting funding for Bush's Occupation of Iraq:

The Pelosi promise to leave funding for the Iraq occupation unmolested, however, is troubling. People want the war stopped and the troops brought home, and the purse strings are the most effective way to accomplish this. Setting a firm date for the cessation of funds creates a hard line that cannot be crossed, and would require the administration to actively begin preparations for an end to our involvement in the conflict. Pelosi's promise removes that very large club from the arsenal.

There is more to this, of course, than simple political cowardice. Democrats who don't want to empower the "You don't support the troops!" demagoguery that is sure to come in the wake of any meddling with the war budget. "Stop funding the war" is easy to say, but the gritty details of a budget like this complicate matters. Killing the Iraq budget could also kill funding the rehabilitation of wounded veterans, health benefits and other vital programs embedded in the bill. Beyond the threat of political browbeating lives the actual threat of screwing the very soldiers the Democrats wish to help.

Deep in the bowels of the piece is my candidate for 'quote of the day':

Democratic Representative Charles Rangel nailed the problem in his usual blunt fashion. "If my black ass was in Korea during the war and people got fed up with it," said Rangel, "and they cut off the money so I couldn't get some snowshoes or underwear, well, goddamn, you are cutting the wrong people." (my em)

It comes down to this. If Pelosi and her people are unwilling to navigate the dangerous waters surrounding the Iraq budget, they had better be prepared for a loud roar of outrage from the base of the party. Further, if they have chosen to leave aside the most direct way to end the war, their main task now is to come up with an equally effective plan to terminate the occupation. If the Democrats merely shrink from this tough fight, they will have proven to be as cowardly and tone-deaf as the fellow bunkered down at 1600 Pennsylvania.

I don't think anyone's talking about cutting off funding to the troops, but we better talk about snatching the wallet (and, more importantly, the credit card) back from Bush.

Can we not ...

Call Fox a 'news' network anymore:

This morning, Fox News featured a segment highlighting a right-wing report that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attended an Islamic "madrassa" school as a 6-year-old child.

...

This is an outright lie.

Great thanks to BlogRevolution! for the link.

Hil's in!

As of this morning. Mrs. F is now conflicted and praying for a Clinton/Edwards (or vice versa) ticket. Don't ask me, I don't give a shit yet.

It's gonna get ugly ...

Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.

"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

...

"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.

...

These plans are probably firm by now, since we've been talking about them for eight months. All they need is the Chimp's order to go.

As I noted yesterday, the Russians and Chinese are helping the Iranians (and more will follow if we attack) and the Afghanis don't want anything to do with an operation launched from their territory. We don't have the ground troops to secure Iran (we can't do the job in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is) so we'll have to bomb them back to the Stone Age. I'm sure the warmongers in the Israeli Defense Forces are chomping at the bit to go along with us.

Personally I believe, as Bush sees the cards stacked against him (even a deaf, dumb, and blind kid can tell the Congressional investigations coming down the pike will cut the legs out from under the WH), the chances of his attacking Iran increase in the short-term. Congress better do something quickly before the fuck up in Iraq becomes the least of our problems.

As Mr. White said:

...

"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.

...

To put it in easy terms, a destabilized Middle East would mean $10/gal. gasoline. That would bring our economy, and this nation, to its knees. Once again, thank you Mr. Bush.

Link via memeorandum.

Early blogwhore ...

Chapter 15 of my novel The Captains is up at The Practical Press.

Why I don't watch ...

American Idol:

...

Is this what Americans want to watch? Has American popular culture regressed so much that the nation gets its jollies re-enacting an adolescent nightmare of social rejection in the high school cafeteria?

...

Now, I don't understand how some of the no-talent folks have gone through their entire lives thinking they're the next Elvis. I knew, when I was 9 years old, that I would never make my living singing, much as I enjoy it. You should hear me when I'm alone in the car. My mom would tell me "I'll give you $1 to stop singing". The dog howls when I sing around the house. I'm under no illusions I'll ever be Roger Daltrey.

That said, I wonder what is wrong with my fellow Americans when they get off seeing people ridiculed publicly. A lot of you must enjoy it because they get big ratings. What is it, your little chance to get back at the people who did it to you in school? A little self-gratification? Do you feel bigger seeing someone else go through it too? Personally, I think it's disgusting.

Still looking ...

I'm still looking to add a new member to the Brain team. Email me if you're interested.

McGoo Gai Pan

CNN

China last week successfully used a missile to destroy an orbiting satellite, U.S. government officials told CNN on Thursday, in a test that could undermine relations with the West and pose a threat to satellites important to the U.S. military.

Good shooting, if you ask me.

According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by ramming it.

Sounds like the Chinese drivers around here...

The United States logged a formal diplomatic protest.

Don't worry. The U.S. has already retaliated with something far worse than a mere missile, and our arsenal is far from empty.

The writing on the wall

Commander Huber:

...

It may be that the best way to stay Bush's hand will come from international pressure. Russia's recent delivery of TOR M-1 surface-to-air missiles to Iran sent a clear signal of Russia's position on any U.S. military action against Iran. China is thought to have made an agreement to develop Iran's Northern Pars natural gas field, and reportedly told the U.S. not to interfere in the venture. The timing of China's shoot-down of one of its own weather satellites can hardly be regarded as coincidental. Iraq's President Jalal Talabani has encouraged the U.S. to engage in direct diplomacy with Iran. Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar-Spanta has reportedly ruled out the possibility of America using his country as a base of operations for a military operation against Iran.

...

Let's hope the Chimp gets the message. You know Iran will get more help as the tension rises.

And I dropped this at HQ when Blogger's power went out.

"... way over the line."

Walter Mondale on Dick 'Dick' Cheney:

...

"If I had done as vice president what this vice president has done, Carter would have thrown me out of there," Mondale said. "I don't think he could have tolerated a vice president over there pressuring and pushing other agencies, ordering up different reports than they wanted to send us. I don't think he would have stood for it."

...

Great thanks to Holden for the link.

Yay!

Jane's feeling better:

As it happens, the first thing out of Jane's mouth when I saw her was "did they finish jury selection?" ...

The Constitution - down the rabbit hole

Houston Chronicle

Gonzales balks at providing details on wiretapping plans

Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., was taken aback when Gonzales wouldn't commit to turning over the FISA order spelling out the domestic wiretapping program.

"Are you saying that you might object to the court giving us a decision that you publicly announced," asked Leahy. "Are we in Alice in Wonderland here?"

Gonzales responded that release of the order was "not my decision to make." He added that "there is going to be information about operational details about how we're doing this that we want to keep confidential." The presiding judge of the FISA wrote Leahy that she had no problem giving the lawmakers the order if the administration signed off.

And from Robert Parry:

Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering.

"Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or invasion?"

Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

Whata buncha double-talkin' bullshit criminal-servin' lawyer-speak!

"You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense," Specter said.

While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don't exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.

Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights.

Gee, I ain't no stinkin' Bush-blowin' shyster, but it seems to me that if they can't take away certain rights, then we have those rights to begin with.

Gonzales's Jan. 18 statement suggests that he is still seeking reasons to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to President George W. Bush's executive powers that Bush's neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during "a time of war," even one as vaguely defined as the "war on terror" which may last forever.

There are a multitude of reasons to think that Bush and advisers will interpret every legal ambiguity in the new law in their favor, thus granting Bush the broadest possible powers over people he identifies as enemies.

As further evidence of that, the American people now know that Attorney General Gonzales doesn't even believe that the Constitution grants them habeas corpus rights to a fair trial.

There's that 'goddam piece of paper' again, specifically the 6th Amendment. Now we know exactly what the framers were protecting us from: Bush.

Yo, Alberto, take Bush's little pecker out once in a while so you can brush your teeth.

The neoconservative blunder of the century

Geezus, how would you pick one from so many? A blindfold and a pin? Better, an M-14 and a bayonet. Anyway, following up on Fixer's post, Paul Woodward picked one:

In terms of strategic blunders by the Bush administration, the invasion of Iraq would seem to be in a league of its own. Even so, it is quite possible that the administration's biggest error in judgment came soon after the invasion when under the stranglehold of neoconservative ideology, the White House passed up an opportunity to make a "grand bargain" with Iran.

In light of the Bush administration's current bellicose rhetoric directed at Iran, it's worth looking carefully at the golden opportunity that in 2003 Bush and Cheney tossed out.

At that time, the neocons seemed convinced that having secured an "easy victory" in Iraq, they would soon be able march on and topple the Islamic regime in Tehran. The Cheney gang was in no mood for reconciliation. Yet had they not become delirious with power, they might have recognized a diplomatic prize of unparalleled proportions. Indeed, it's conceivable that had a bargain then been struck, what has since unfolded as an Iraqi disaster might have turned out in a very different way. Not only that, but another war -- between Israel and Hezbollah -- would likely have been avoided.

Stories about what never happened are easy to ignore, but at a time when tensions between the United States and Iran are mounting dangerously, it is critically important that more Americans learn about what an Iranian government was capable of offering and what a priceless opportunity the White House foolishly squandered.

I understand the language, but Cheney never wanted what this "priceless opportunity" offered. He wanted, and still wants, to "conquer" Iran or bring it to its knees, albeit under the guise of "regime change", and hang the expense in lives lost and money thrown to his big biz bros.

Just one more reason to lock these bastards up.

Americans dislike Bush more than Cheney...

TPM Cafe

This has to be a milestone: A new poll has found that the American people dislike President Bush more than they dislike ... Dick Cheney. The poll - by Fox News, of all people - finds that President Bush's unfavorable rating is 58%, while Cheney's unpopularity rating is five points lower at 53%. Bush can, however, still take some small solace from the fact that his approval rating is one point higher than Cheney's; the President's is 38%, while the VP's is 37%.

Meanwhile, here are a couple of other numbers that are striking for a Fox poll: Only 39% of Americans view the GOP favorably, and 49% view them unfavorably. Meanwhile, a majority of respondents - 51% - have a favorable view of Dems, compared to only 35% who have an unfavorable view of what Fox likes to call the "Democrat Party."

I just took a poll right here and they all came out exactly equal. The favorability rating for Bush, Cheney, POX News, the Repuglicans and everybody who likes them, came up 0% - zip-point-zilch, nada, bupkis. Take your own.

Anti-McCain-Doctrine Legislation For Gordon

I have a lot of these "for Dummies" books. They had me in mind when they came up with the format. Here's one from Bob Geiger:

It gets hard to keep track of all this stuff, doesn't it?

When we have a President of the United States doing so many things wrong, for so long and we finally get a Democratic Congress that will actually take their oversight responsibilities seriously, well, the bills start flying faster than Dick Cheney can say "go f*** yourself" to Senator Patrick Leahy.

So let me clear up what's happening in the Senate where, at press time, we have three pieces of legislation that seek to neuter George W. Bush's ability to escalate the Iraq war.

Clear it up he does. Go read.

So, to wrap up: The Biden-Hagel-Levin resolution doesn't say enough and, with Congress speaking to a president who doesn't listen and doesn't care, it's more symbolic than anything that will truly make a difference. Senator Kennedy has shown commendable leadership on this issue, but his amendment relies on the more complex mechanism of cutting funding -- and it may not even stop the surge if Bush can get the money from somewhere else in the Defense Department budget.

I'll keep you posted on when any of these come up for a vote but I like the Dodd bill... It's forceful, simple, direct and doesn't involve questions of funding an escalation. It just says no more troops to Iraq - period.

And isn't that what the American people are saying?

Uh, yup.

The Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007

PDA

Joined by Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Maxine Waters (D-CA), Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today introduced the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007, sweeping legislation, which would establish a 6-month timeframe for withdrawal for all US military forces from Iraq, provide a framework for bringing stability back to Iraq, and fully fund the VA health care system. The proposal is a direct response to President Bush's challenge over the weekend for those who oppose his planed escalation to put forth a plan of their own. Woolsey introduced the bill during a press conference held this afternoon in the Capitol. Below are her remarks, as prepared for delivery:

I'll cut to the chase:

"Our plan will also...

1. Withdraw all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months from date of enactment.
2. Prohibit any further funding to deploy, or continue to deploy U.S. troops in Iraq. The bill does, however, allow for funding to be used, as needed, to ensure a safe withdrawal of all US military personnel and contractors, diplomatic consultations. Funding may also be used for the increased training and equipping of Iraqi and international security forces.
3. Accelerate, during the six month transition, training of a permanent Iraqi security force.
4. Authorize, if requested by the Iraqi government, U.S. support for an international stabilization force. Such a force would be funded for no longer than two years, and be combined with economic and humanitarian assistance.
5. Guarantee full health care funding, including mental health, for U.S. veterans of military operations in Iraq and other conflicts.
6. Rescind the Congressional Authorization for the War in Iraq.
7. Prohibit the construction of permanent US military bases in the country.
8. Finally, we believe that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis. Once the oil is in the international market, the U.S. will certainly have access to our share. That's why our bill ensures that the U.S. has no long-term control over Iraqi oil.

"Our plan, with the exception of Veterans' benefits, will cost the American people pennies on the dollar as compared to continuing the occupation for two more years. It will save lives, bodies, and minds, and it will give Iraq back to the Iraqis. It is an important step in regaining our credibility in the region and throughout the world, and provides the President, and this Congress, with a comprehensive way to respond to the majority of Americans who want our troops to come home."

This bill is co-sponsored by: Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Diane Watson (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Bob Filner (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Donald Payne (D-NJ) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX).

Sounds good to me. Let's see where it goes.

Quote of the Day

"Six years ago, we held off [saying anything negative about the administration]. But considering what's happened, I think we're owed an apology. Anyone with a rational mind and a sense of decency is being positioned as a lefty by the extreme right. I believe in the tenets of democracy, and when they get pushed, it pisses me off."

- Robert Redford, at the opening of the Sundance Film Festival on Thursday

via Perez Hilton

It's About Damn Time...

Pelosi seeks global warming committee


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) sought to create a special committee Thursday in an effort to jump-start long-delayed government efforts to deal with global warming and produce a bill by Independence Day.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said the committee would hold hearings and recommend legislation on how to reduce greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuels, that most scientists blame for a gradual warming of the earth's climate.

"I promise to do everything in my power to achieve energy independence ... and to stop global warming," Pelosi said.

Pelosi set a goal of the Fourth of July for finishing a global warming bill that would "truly declare our energy independence."

The committee will be led by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who shares Pelosi's goals, said a Democratic leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because Pelosi had yet to announce her choice.

Actual bill-drafting duties will be left to committees that have a say in the matter. That could be several because global climate change could affect virtually everything.

Pelosi's move increases the likelihood that Democrats will propose far tougher constraints on greenhouse gas pollution than the Bush administration wants. She also has outflanked for now — and angered — a few Democrats who head important House committees.

Idiots

Heh ... I love it when Michael Stickings gets mad. Off to work ...